1 Low Cost Safety Improvements: 1)Safety Corridors 2)Road Safety Assessments Charlie Nemmers...
-
Upload
bennett-robertson -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Low Cost Safety Improvements: 1)Safety Corridors 2)Road Safety Assessments Charlie Nemmers...
1
Low Cost Safety Improvements:
1)Safety Corridors 2)Road Safety Assessments
Charlie Nemmers
University of Missouri
2
Background: Safety Corridors Study
Need grew from a four State Safety Summit Funding from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri DOTs
and Midwest Transportation Consortium Goal: identify the most promising
practices and programs to share among the four states
States serve as a steering committee IADOT w/ Iowa State U. to do pilots
3
Approach: Safety Corridors Study
Identified 12 states w/ some sort of SC Not an engineering focus
Legal aspects Enforcement Community involvement
Selection Criteria /Measures of Effectiveness
Rural - 2 lane highway focus
4
The 12 States
AlaskaCaliforniaFloridaKentuckyMinnesotaNew JerseyOhioNew MexicoOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashington
5
Alaska
Full Program: “safety zones” like school or work zones 4Es; 2 lanes; rural; 10 miles long Road Safety Audits; incident response Signing; legislation; double fines Media campaigns; “light” on engineering
6
Alaska
Alaska’s criteria for designating a Safety Corridor are as follows: Roadway with 2000 ADT or more. 3-5 year fatal + major injury crash rate exceeding 110% of
statewide average The DOT must agree on a coordinated traffic control/patrol plan. Agreed that plan will be effective in reducing crashes. The local police define the amount of enforcement needed to
increase safe driving and to provide ongoing enforcement. No more than 10 safety zones at one time in Alaska. The Safety Corridor should be no shorter than five miles long The Safety Corridor is decommissioned when the fatal + major
injury crash rate falls below statewide average for three years.
7
California
Lead by the CHP w/Task Force: CalTrans, Planning groups, EMS,
legislative and citizen members < 50 miles long High 3 year crash/injury record Funding for six corridors per year Goal is a 10% reduction in crashes Must implement 2 solutions (enforcement &
education)
8
Florida
Community Traffic Safety Teams 60 statewide Facilitated by FDOT 20 local members each focusing on the driver behaviors and
pedestrians Statewide CTST Coalition to share
information
9
Kentucky
One Safety Corridor per District more than one county in that district. It must be of sufficient length for a corridor (> 50 miles). It must have a relatively high traffic volume. It must not be a full control of access highway. It must have a higher number of crashes (total and
injury/fatal). It must have a high crash rate (total and injury/fatal). It must be above a collector functional classification
Road Safety Audit Conducted (video taped) Low-cost engineering solutions and enforcement
strategies for locations along the SC.
10
Minnesota
Toward Zero Death (TZD) initiative 4E approach Corridor safety coalitions (like FL) low-cost alternatives to traditional
engineering solutions 27 counties w/$2M from MnDOT
11
New Jersey
13 Urban corridors / 10 miles in length Selection is a three step process
Scan for six or more fatal crashes is performed Roadways with six or more fatal crashes are
analyzed in 10 mile segments for 1,000 or more total crashes over the previous three years
Crash rate is calculated by roadway cross-sectional type
Conduct a Road Safety Audit Safety Corridors carry double fines
12
New Mexico
The six basics of the program are: 5 year crash history on a moving 5 mile stretch Crash investigation Review of the engineering and law enforcement
initiative so as not to overlap efforts Approval from the district engineer A public awareness campaign A review of the equipment and signage.
Safety Corridor eligible for doubled fines
13
Ohio
Most statistically rigorous MOE’s: analyze the most recent five-year crash data over two-mile sections of similar roadways using these four statewide statistics: Crash rate per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) Five-year average crash density per mile Fatal crash rate per 100 MVMT Five-year average fatal crash density per mile
Analyze countermeasure effectiveness simple before and after crash count comparison combined with an Empirical Bayesian approach
14
Oregon
Leader in Safety Corridors (since 1989) Corridor Citizen Advisory Commission ODOT S-C Program Manager
Headquarters: guidelines, approves plans Districts: engineering, local coordination
Intermediate step in more permanent safety infrastructure improvements
15
Oregon
To designate a Safety Corridor: 3 year avg. fatal + serious injury crash rate at or
above 110% of the latest statewide 3 year avg. for similar roads.
The state and/or local law enforcement will commit to making the corridor a patrol priority.
The initial designation team agrees that the length of roadway is manageable from an enforcement and education standpoint. Rural sections may be longer than urban sections.
16
Oregon
The decommissioning process is handled by the initial designation team and is considered if any one of the following criteria is met: 3 year average fatal plus serious injury crash rate is at or below
100% compared to the three year average for similar roadways. Any of the remaining designation criteria are not met. Minimum requirements within Safety Corridor program guidelines
are not being performed. A continued lack of activity or investment in the Safety Corridor.
However, a local stakeholder group may ‘adopt’ the Safety Corridor once it is decommissioned assuming that the group provides meaningful local investment into improving the safety of the roadway
17
Pennsylvania
Legislation for “double fines” 6 pilot locations speeding reduced by 2-14% Enforcement critical as “warning signs
do not change motorist behavior”
18
Virginia
Implemented for the Interstate System Selection criteria are as follows:
The crash rate must exceed 125% of the regional average The Equivalent Property Damage Only frequency must
exceed 150% of the regional avg.(PDO=1, injury=8, fatal=20).
The truck-involved crash rate exceeds overall regional rate.
The rate and EPDO frequency are then normalized by dividing by the maximum rate or EPDO in the region, and then the measures are added to rank / establish priorities
Speed & crash reduction are the MOEs
19
Washington
Established full program Statewide Champion for the Safety
Corridors is LTAP coordinator DOT and Gov. Hwy. Safety Office 402 funds set aside (enforcement/education)
Very active local Safety Corridor team Decommissioned after 2 years
20
Conclusions / Characteristics
Multi-disciplined most states also included Emergency
medical providers (the 4th E). Limited Number
limit the number of corridors pilot corridors should be developed first
Crash Data should be consistently used for selection
and evaluation
21
Conclusions / Characteristics
Champion key to the success of a program
Safety Action Plan use a multi-disciplined task force meets regularly for continual review of
the plan and strategies Legislation
establish corridor limits permits increased fines
22
Conclusions / Characteristics
Special Signage fines doubled, special speed limits, lights
on for safety Road Safety Audit
ensures a multi-disciplined effort Minimal Engineering
signage, center-line and edge-line rumble stripes/strips
23
Conclusions / Characteristics
Length not important homogenous characteristics throughout
Decommissioning is important
Selection Criteria and MOEs should be more statistically rigorous
24
Conclusions / Characteristics
After Data important, but ……
General Characteristics funding pedestrians other
“Safety Corridor” stamp a special program for the high schools motorcycle enforcement on urban safety corridors. include traffic court judges on the SC team bumper stickers on the back of large trucks
25
Next is Part 2
Pilot Projects in Iowa Tom McDonald w/ ISU Tom Welch w/ IaDOT
Road Safety Assessments
Road Safety Assessments (RSA) are proactive. They look at locations prior to the development of crash patterns to correct hazards before they happen.
Road Safety Assessment /Audit (RSA)
“A road safety audit is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team.”
Road safety reviews are performed by multi-disciplined team
http://www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org/
Focus of RSA
Uses a larger (5+person) interdisciplinary team. Members are usually independent of the project. The field review is a necessary component of the
safety assessment Use checklists and field reviews to examine design
features. Comprehensive and consider all factors that may
contribute to a crash. Consider the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, large
trucks as well as automobile drivers.
Low Cost Improvements
Mendocino County Signs Show the Way to Cost-
Effective Rural Safety Public Roads,
January/February 2005 · Vol. 68 · No. 4
19 roads in the program for the period from 1992 to 1998.
Total crashes had declined from 601 to 348
Fatalities down from 13 to 5 Injuries decreased 41.7 %
Improvements to size, color and location of road signs.
Steps to Conduct a RSA (FHWA)
Road Safety Assessment Team
April 10, 2008 site visit -- May 30, 2008 report Road Safety Assessment Team:
Brian Chandler Missouri Department of Transportation Jacob Ray Missouri Department of Transportation John Schaefer Missouri Department of Transportation Donald Neumann Federal Highway Administration Scott Sergent City of Columbia Police Department Charlie Oestrich Columbia Public Schools Board Diane Heckemeyer Linn State Technical College Britt E. Smith Jefferson City, Missouri Charles Nemmers University of Missouri Praveen Edara University of Missouri Ginger M. Rossy University of Missouri
St. Charles Road and Lake of the Woods Road
Minor arterial collectors Paved in place,
conforming to existing property lines
ADT St. Charles Rd
2,179 east of Lake of the Woods Rd. (2007)
Lake of the Woods Rd 4148 (2006)
Crash Data
Intersection of Lake of the Woods and St. Charles Roads Angle crashes Unable to see stop
sign Poor visibility in
intersection Intersection of Golf
Blvd. and St. Charles Road
Major Concerns
Poor visibility, stopping sight distance
Posted speed Confusing
intersections Narrow road Construction of new
High School on St. Charles Road
Lake of the Woods Road: intersections with minor rural roads and private entrances
Suggestions for improvement Install chevrons on curves Install ‘intersection ahead’ signs to warn drivers of
intersections with rural roads Relocate mailboxes further inside private properties Reduce the number of trees that are located close to the
pavement Provide pavement edge markings and shoulders Check for adequacy of signs with respect to MUTCD
standards and replace damaged ones Check for compliance with stopping sight distance
requirements (geometrical design) Improve drainage along the road.
St. Charles Rd
Suggestions for improvement Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance with
the MUTCD Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close
proximity to the pavement edges, especially near curves Install chevrons at curves Improve drainage ditches and consider building shoulders
or curb and gutter structures Provide edge lines for the entire route Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current sight
distance requirements and adjust the speed limit accordingly
Remove signs that are no longer necessary Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the new
High School.
St. Charles Rd
Suggestions for improvement Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance with
the MUTCD Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close
proximity to the pavement edges, especially near curves Install chevrons at curves Improve drainage ditches and consider building shoulders
or curb and gutter structures Provide edge lines for the entire route Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current sight
distance requirements and adjust the speed limit accordingly
Remove signs that are no longer necessary Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the new
High School.
Suggestions for Conducting RSAs
A. Background information: a. Detailed road maps and aerial maps b. Road construction plans / Sign and traffic control devices c. Accident reports d. Interviews with: city and county officials / agencies and
groups e. Future development plans
B. A multidisciplinary team provided alternative views on how to approach solutions for the safety issues encountered in the
site visit. City / County officials did NOT participate in the field review
Suggestions for Conducting RSAs
39
Suggestions for Conducting RSAs
C. Site visit: Provide a “strip” map to each team member with an appropriate scale for them to be able to write comments directly on it.
This way the team members could focus more on evaluating safety hazards than on drawing sketches or writing long verbal descriptions. It also provides future reference to the exact location of a feature that needs
corrections.
D. Interviews with road users: It could be beneficial to perform interviews with road users to collect information on situations that can occur on conditions other than those under which the site visit was performed (for example ice on the roads and night visibility).