FLORIDA STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN Vision Zero Workshop May 7, 2019
Welcome Back
How Do We Get to Zero?
Connecting Effective Strategies • Proven strategies • Collaborating on state-owned roads in cities • Context-sensitive designs/applications • Managing speed for safety, all roads • New ideas and actionable actions
Agenda • Today • Connecting Effective Strategies • Presentations • Table Discussions/Strategy Development • Next Steps • Lunch (on your own) • Long Range Visioning Session (1:00-5:00 PM)
Let’s Start Sharing • Works best from app/website – no registration required • Use www.pollev.com/VZLRV or the Poll Everywhere app to access the polling questions • Respond to each question using your mobile device or laptop
Id Identify fying New and In Innovative Strategies
Identifying New and Innovative Strategies • Three topics • Coordinating across city, regional, and state lines • Design context, design manuals, initiatives • Traffic operations and connected and automated vehicles • Format • Presentations • Table discussions/action plan development • Shared dialogue
Design Context, Design Manuals, In Initiatives Gevin McDaniel, State Roadway Engineer, FDOT
Vision Zero Roadway Design Initiatives Gevin McDaniel, P.E .E. Roadway Design Criteria Administrator Central Office, Roadway Design (850) 414-4 -4284 gevin.m .mcdaniel@dot.state.fl.us
Vision Zero State Road or Lo Local Road? Public expectation is s the sa same…
Vision Zero Vision Zero su supported by new FDOT Policies and Initiatives: • FDOT Desi sign Manual • Florida Greenbook • Restructuring of f Standard Plans (Old Desi sign Standards) • Safety Program Initiatives • Partnering with local agencies • Use se of f Technology • Reduced Congestion
Vision Zero Focus Areas: • Context-based design policy (C (Complete Streets) • La Lane Departure • Intersection Safety • Lig Lighting • Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety
Vision Zero Context-based Design Policies • Change the way we think about our facilities • Consideration for all modes of f transportation • Consideration for Human Factors
Vision Zero Context-based Design Policies: • FDOT Desi sign Manual (FDM) • Replaced the Plans Preparation Manual in 2018 • Reorganized and rewritten for Context-based Design • Provides more fl flexibility for designers • Florida Greenbook • Working toward Context xt-based Design • Includes Context Classification in 2018 Draft • Adjusted geometric criteria to provide more fl flexibility for local roads “The Right Facility in the Right Context”
Vision Zero La Lane Departure: • Keep vehicles in the lane • Pavement Markings • Curve Delineation • Surface Friction • Feedback when departing the lane • Audible Vibratory ry Treatments • Reduce consequences and se severity • Clear Zone • Wide Paved Shoulders • Recoverable Slopes • Barriers
Vision Zero Pavement Markings:
Vision Zero Enhancements for Curves: • Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs • Chevrons • Arrows • Advisory Speed Signs • High Friction Surface Treatments • Ramps • Tight radius curves • Internally Illuminated Raised Pavement Markers (IIRPMs) • Substandard horizontal alignment or super-elevation • Substandard lane widths • Substandard shoulder widths
Vision Zero Audible Vibratory ry Treatments (A (AVTs): Unique to Florida: Various levels of f AVT based on context
Vision Zero Intersections: • Intersection Control Evaluation (I (ICE) • Goal: Lim Limit the number of conflict points • Required for new intersections or modifications to existing intersections • Considers context and the needs of f all road use sers
Vision Zero Modern Roundabouts: • Reduced crash se severity • Reduced congestion • Geometry ry critical to su success • Change culture/Change experience • Ext xtensive statewide training • Required Central Office geometric review • Developed policy fr from review experience • In 2020: Part of f ICE process
Vision Zero Diverging Diamond Interchanges: • Reduces conflict points • Reduces congestion • 1 completed • 7 under construction • 29 planned • Provided Statewide Training • Organizing se second round of f Statewide training • Central Office resources
Vision Zero Lig Lighting: • 2016 converted fr from HPS to LED • Pedestrian Lig Lighting • Signalized In Intersections • Midblock Crossings • Coming so soon: Wildlife-sensitive Li Lighting
Vision Zero Pedestrian Li Lighting: Traditional midblock New design for midblock crosswalk lighting layout crosswalk lighting layout Recommended lighting level: 20 lux at 5’ above pavement
Vision Zero Pedestrian Li Lighting:
Vision Zero Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: • Buffered Bike La Lanes • Bulb-outs • Separated Bike La Lanes • Shared Use se Paths • Protected Bike La Lanes • Protected Intersections • Le Leading Pedestrian Intervals (L (LPI) • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (P (PHB/HAWKS) • IA: Bicycle Signal Face • IA: Green Colored Pavement Markings (Conflict Zones) • IA: Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
Vision Zero C3 Context Classification – 45 mph design speed
Vision Zero Partnership Alternative – Shared Use Path, no Bike Lane • Uses same width • Tighter road section helps speed management
Vision Zero EDC-5: Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP): Spectacular Seven Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements • Raised Crosswalks • Pedestrian Refuge Islands • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) • Road Diets • Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) •
Vision Zero Safe Transportation for Every ry Pedestrian (S (STEP): Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements
Vision Zero Curb ext xtensions (Bulb-outs): • Focused on reducing crossing distance • Better visi sibility between peds and motorists • Traffic calming
Vision Zero Speed vs. s. Crash Severity
Vision Zero Design Speed Categories – Very ry Lo Low Speed
Vision Zero C2T C3R C3C C4 C5 C6 C1 C2 50+ 35-55 30-45 30-35 25-30 50+ 25-45 35-55 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph
Vision Zero Speed Management – FDM 202
Vision Zero Questions? Gevin McDaniel, P.E .E. Roadway Design Criteria Administrator Central Office, Roadway Design (8 (850) 414-4284 gevin.m .mcdaniel@dot.state.fl.us
Traffic Operations and Connected and Automated Vehicles Raj Ponnaluri State Connected Vehicles and Arterial Management Engineer, Florida DOT
Vision Zero: Using Technology to Improve Safety Raj Ponnaluri, PE, PTOE, PhD, PMP State Connected Vehicle and Arterial Management Engineer , FDOT May 6, 2019
Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Mission and Vision Mission: The department will provide a safe transportation system that ensures the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic prosperity, and preserves the quality of our environment and communities. Vision: As one FDOT team, we serve the people of Florida by providing a transportation network that is well planned, supports economic growth, and has the goal of being congestion and fatality free . 206 https://www.fdot.gov/info/moredot/mvv.shtm
207
Why Use Technology for Safety? 94% of serious crashes are due to human error according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Despite traditional measures, safety gains are only partially obtained Unlike human drivers, technologies are not prone to: Distraction Fatigue Impaired driving When carefully integrated, technology can help motor vehicles detect and avoid vulnerable road users Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (March 2018) 208 United States Department of Transportation Automated Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for the Future of Transportation (October 4, 2018)
Creation of the CAV Business Plan 209
to FLORIDA CAV 210
CAV Focus Areas 1. Policies and Governance 2. Program Funding 3. Education and Outreach 4. Industry Outreach and Partnerships 5. Technical Standards and Specifications Development 6. Implementation Readiness 7. Deployment and Implementation 211
Safety Emphasis Areas and the Four E’s Emergency Engineering Education Enforcement Response Pedestrians & Impaired Driving Bicyclists Lane Departures Motorcyclists Occupant Protection Intersections Aging Road Users Speeding & Aggressive Driving Teen Drivers Work Zones Commercial Motor Distracted Driving Vehicles 212
Fatalities by the SHSP Emphasis Area Fatalities 2011-2015 Lane Departure Crashes 25 Impaired Driving Crashes Pedestrians and Bicyclists 20 20 Intersection Crashes Unrestrained Occupants 15 14 Percentages Motorcyclists 11 Aging Drivers 10 10 10 Speeding and Aggressive Driving Crashes 8 8 Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes 6 5 5 4 Teen Driver Crashes 3 Distracted Driving Crashes 1 0 Work Zone Crashes Emphasis Areas 213
Recommend
More recommend
