SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH T TO S SAF AFET ETY May 23, 2018
INTRODUCT DUCTION CHAD D POLK, PE Project Manager/Safety Engineer Chad.Polk@Jacobs.com 813.281.7912 2
“ If y you al always d do, what y you’ u’ve a always d done ne, you w wil ill al always get, what y at you a always g s got. t. ” Henry Ford 3
CHAL CHALLEN ENGE PROBLEM Too m man any c cras ashes/lane ane mil iles es t to ad addres ess No Not e enou ough $ $$$ SOLUTIO TION System emic c Approach • Ability t y to ident ntify a y at-risk l locations b bas ased o on the p presence of char aracteris istic ics af affil ilia iated with h severe c crashe hes 4
WHA HAT IS S THE HE SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH? ? “ A systemic a c appr pproach ch t to safety i involves w wide dely impl plemented d impr provements based o d on h high gh-ris isk road adway f feat eatur ures es c correl elat ated wit ith spec ecif ific sever ere e cras ash types es. T The ap approac ach p provid ides es a a more e compreh ehens ensiv ive m e method for s saf afety p planning anning and and im implement ntat atio ion n that at ” suppl pplements a and d compli pliments tradi ditional s l site a analysis. Dat ata-dr driven pr proce cess that identifies safety performance candidates based on risk 5 Source | https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/
UNIQUE BE UNI BENEF NEFITS S TO O THI HIS APPR APPROACH • Defensible l list o of pr project cts • Pro roactive ve • Inc Increas eased ed s suc ucces ess in in ap applying ing for HSIP IP fundi ding g 6
HIGHWAY SAF HI AFETY IMPR PROVE VEMENT PR PROGRAM AM (HSI HSIP) FUND UNDING NG • Work w with a agenci encies t to cr crea eate co compliant HSIP HS IP a app pplications • Develo lop H HSI SIP a appli lication ons f for or all ll proj ojects on n prioritized ed l lists Cos ost of of systemic ap approa oach freque uently y “pays for or itself” thr hrou ough inc ncreased success in n HSIP ap application ons! 7 Source | FDOT 2016 Strategic Highway Safety Plan p. 7 - http://www.fdot.gov/safety/SHSP2016/FDOT_2016SHSP_Final.pdf
WHE HERE RE CAN AN SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH BE BE APPL APPLIED? Veh ehicl cles es Pedes estrians/ Railr lroa oad (Rural, urban, etc.) Bicycl cles es Crossi Cr ssings State Cou ounty City Cit 8
STAKE AKEHO HOLDER ENG NGAGEMENT • Focu cus o on n 4 4 E’ E’s • 1 day w wor orkshop op • Stakeholder er i input a and nd buy buy-in in 9
DATA A DRI DRIVEN PR PROCE CESS SS Systemic A c Appr pproach ch Deploy countermeasures at locations with greatest risk 10
RI RISK EX SK EXAM AMPL PLE | Infrastructure • 2-lan ane u undivided • Des Design spee eed = 50 • Rural al t typ ypical s section Design Criteria -> Radius = 716’ Superelevation (e) = 10% CURVE #1 CURV #1 CURVE #2 CURV #2 Radius = 500’ Radius = 550’ Superelevation (e) = 8.0% Superelevation (e) = 8.5% • 5-Year Crash History • 5-Year Crash History • 0 fatalities • 3 fatalities • 1 incapacitating • 2 incapacitating 11
RURA URAL INTERSE SECTIONS S | Ri Risk Factors An Analyzed Adjacent Curve Left Turn Phasing Min Minor1 ADT Ped Indicator Adjacent Development Leg Configuration Minor1 Lane Config PedBike Other1 Alignment Skew Minor2 ADT Lighting Present PedBike Other2 Area Type Minor2 Lane Config Major1 ADT Previous Stop Bike Facility Minor3 ADT Major1 Lane Config Railroad Crossing Context Zone Major2 ADT Minor3 Lane Config Refuge Island Design Type Major2 Lane Config Volume Cross Product Right Turn On Red Flashers Minor Division Major Division Configuration School Crosswalk Flashing Yellow Arrow Configuration Major Speed Limit Sidewalk Intersection Type Minor Speed Limit Major Surface Type Transit Adjacent Left Turn Phasing Maj Max Lanes Cross Minor Surface Type School Crosswalk Overhead Signal Crash History INTER INTERSEC ECTIO IONS NS 12
RURA URAL INTERSE SECTIONS S | Ri Risk Factors An Analyzed Adjacent C Curve ve Left Turn Phasing Min Minor1 ADT Ped Indicator Adjac acen ent D Dev evel elopmen ent Leg Configuration Minor1 Lane Config PedBike Other1 Alignment S Skew Minor2 ADT Lighting Present PedBike Other2 Area Type Minor2 Lane Config Major1 ADT Pre revious St Stop Bike Facility Minor3 ADT Major1 Lane Config Railroad Crossing Context Zone Major2 ADT Minor3 Lane Config Refuge Island Design Type Major2 Lane Config Volume C Cross P Product Right Turn On Red Flashers Minor Division Major Division Configuration School Crosswalk Flashing Yellow Arrow Configuration Major Speed Limit Sidewalk Intersection Type Minor Speed Limit Major Surface Type Transit Adjacent Left Turn Phasing Maj Max Lanes Cross Minor Surface Type School Crosswalk Overhead Signal Crash H sh History INTER INTERSEC ECTIO IONS NS 13
IMPLEMENT NTATION N PRIORI RITY LIST 14
IMPLEMENT NTATION N PRIORI RITY LIST Risk Factors Total Length Surface BIS Functional ADT Shoulder Access Crash Total # [miles] Type Classification Range Width Density History Stars 1 8.1 2 1.5 3 10.4 15
DE DEVE VELOP P CO COUN UNTERMEASU SURES ES • Predomin minantly y low-co cost co count unter ermeasures es t that ca can be n be applied ed t to the e at-risk syst system • Incl nclude e co cost and nd ef effect ectiven enes ess t to inf nform d deci ecision-ma makin ing • Pr Provides es o opportunity t to proa oactively a addres ess s sever ere cr e crashes es Adopt dopted Safety ty Strategies/ s/Counterme rmeasu sure res, s, Crash sh Reducti ction Factors, s, and Typica cal Cost t Esti tima mates Rural Segments STRAT ATEGY CRAS ASH R REDUCTION F FACTOR TYPICAL I INS NSTALLATION CO N COSTS Centerline rumble strip 40% head-on/sideswipe crashes $3,600 per mile Shoulder/Edgeline rumble strip 20% run off road crashes $5, 850 per mile Raised pavement markers Enhanced edgeline (6” & 8”) 10% to 45% all rural serious crashes (6”) $1, 980 per mile Shoulder paving (2’, 4’, 6’) 20% to 30% run-off-the-road crashes $54,000 per mile, plus $5, 850 per mile (with shoulder rumble) (2’ only) (for edge rumble) 16
VAL ALIDATION EXAM AMPL PLE #1 #1 | Ri Risk Rat Rating – Ru Rural 2 2-lane I Intersections 2.50 2.30 6 6 locatio ions 10x more li likel ely t to Crash Density [Crashes per Intersection per Year] 2.00 hav have crashes t than 1 han 1 6 locatio 6 ions 40x m more l lik ikel ely t to 1.50 have seve hav vere c crashes t than han 1 1 1.00 0.77 0.57 0.51 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.23 0.17 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Total Crash Density Severe Crash Density ’s = # of Risk Factors Present at Site 17
VAL ALIDATION EXAM AMPL PLE #2 #2 | Int ntersection Distribu bution Vs Vs. Co Combi bine ned Ri Risk Ra Rating Look ook f for or ove overrepresentations whe where a a e Inter ersec ectio ions Ru Rural 2 2-Lane maj ajority of of the he c crashes oc occur on on a a minor nority of of the he r roa oad ne network 3 or or m mor ore 65% of of seve vere r right ang angle c cras ashes and and 55% o of se severe re crash shes s occur a r at only 26% of onl of i int ntersections 18
RE RESUL SULTS OF OF CO COUNT UNTY ROAD AD SAF AFET ETY PL PLAN ANS 2.00 Begin Widespread Deployment of County Safety Strategies Along County System 1.80 1.60 [Crashes Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles] 26% 26% 1.40 re redu duction in in fatality y rate! e! 1.20 Fatality Rate State 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 Interstate 0.20 0.00 2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011* 2012 2013 2014 19
JACO COBS BS PI PIONEE EERED THE HE PR PROCE CESS SS • Have anal analyzed ed m more e ne networks t than an an any other er c cons nsultant ant – 65 , 000+ center erline m e miles es of r roadw dway – 29 , 000+ inter ersections – 27 27 , 000+ horizontal curves es – $720M in counter erme measures es sugges ested • Develope ped F d FHWA Systemic T c Toolb lbox • Developed ed C Cas ase S Stud udy for FH FHWA on n Ped/Bik ike S e System emic 20
DE DELIVERAB ABLES/ S/BENEFITS S FROM SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH PL PLANN ANNING • Defensibl ble Project L List • Inc Increas eased ed suc ucces ess in in ap applying ing f for H HSIP IP f fund unding ing • Agency cy s spe pecific c safety pl plans • Lo Locat atio ion p n prio iorit itiz izat atio ion n and and count nter ermeas easure r e rec ecommend ndat atio ions ns • Stak akeh eholder er engagem engagement ent 21
Recommend
More recommend
