Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (PFS) presented by Kim Eccles, P.E. Senior Engineer,...

Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (PFS)

presented by

Kim Eccles, P.E.Senior Engineer, VHB

Low Cost Safety Improvements PFS

Background

• AASHTO’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan• Leading to development of NCHRP

Report 500 Guidebooks– 22 are planned, 17 are published and

available– Guidebooks contain safety “strategies”

• 80% of strategies are ‘tried’ or ‘experimental’

• After lead states developed their safety plans, they were encouraged to implement the guidebook strategies


Purpose of Study

• Safety practitioners continuously voice the need for safety effectiveness data– Accident Modification Factors (AMFs)

• Study will perform rigorous before-after evaluations of strategies found in NCHRP Report 500 Guidebooks


Project Status

• Current committed participants (26): • AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD,

MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NY, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA

• Total state committed funds: $2,880,000• FHWA funding is $1.5 Million• Total anticipated project funds: $4,380,000• To date, there are 3 contracts initiated for this

project• NCHRP 17-35, Low Cost Safety Improvements

project


Completed Activities

• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met in March 2005 to develop a prioritized list of strategies to be evaluated– 60 Strategies from the following guidebooks:

• Aggressive Drivers• Unsignalized Intersections• Lane Departure (Run Off Road, Hazardous Located

Trees, Head On)

• From these strategies, installation data were collected from all states for the 30 highest priority strategies (based on TAC ranking)


• Scoping Study resulted in four strategies that had enough installation data to perform evaluations– Center two way left turn lanes on two lane

roadways (2 to 3 lane conversions)– Pavement markings with supplementary

message “STOP AHEAD”– Flashing beacons at stop controlled

intersections– Higher retro-reflectivity sheeting for stop signs

Completed Activities


Installation Databases

• It is crucial to collect installation data and before conditions to evaluate safety effectiveness



• Records of dates and locations of safety improvements difficult to locate– Records may not be kept or may be in

paper file– Local offices may maintain records– Information may be incomplete

• Developed a simple database for maintaining implementation records– Can be used directly or as a model


• Information entered separately based on type of strategy– Intersection– Segment – Spot

• Microsoft Excel or Access– Access form to facilitate data entry

• Logmile, GIS, or Link-Node System



• Location information– Jurisdiction, county, streets, milepost

(or similar)– Roadway or intersection type– Surrounding area (e.g. rural)

• Prior condition– Volume and year– General condition information

Information in Database


• Treatment information– Treatment (drop down list or write-in)– Description– Cost– Construction dates– Other changes

• Other information– User can add or modify database as

needed

Information in Database


• Read-Me File– Explains use of CD– Provides explanation of all variables

• PDF copies of 500 Series Volumes 1-6

• 2-page information sheet on study

Other Information on CD


• VHB mailed two CDs to each participating state– Will provide additional copies upon

request

• Available on project website

Copies of Information


Project Website

www.tfhrc.gov/safety/evaluations

• Update on current activities• Installation databases available for

download• Links to other ongoing studies • Will eventually house comprehensive list of

Accident Modification Factors


Current Activities

• Final data collection and evaluations

are ongoing for the four strategies in Phase I– What impact does the treatment have– Crash type considered– Various safety effects of treatments

• Draft results will be available at the beginning of 2007


Current Activities

• Kickoff of Phase II of evaluation at the second TAC meeting (June 1-2, 2006)– Older Drivers, Trucks, Pedestrians,

Horizontal Curves, and Utility Poles– States ranked strategies prior to

meeting, resulting in “Top 16”– Few states brought installation data on

top 5-10 strategies– Currently in search of data


Current Activities

• Strategies with high potential for evaluation during Phase II (based on the second TAC meeting, June 1-2, 2006)– Various lane width versus shoulder width

configurations (for a given roadway width) – Advance warning signs at intersections,

particularly effect on older drivers – Modifying sight distance on horizontal

curves (most likely through reconstruction)


Future Activities

• Contractor will complete the evaluations of the first four strategies (Phase I)– Draft results January 2007

• New contract just signed to continue with the next group of evaluations (Phase II)– Draft results early 2008


Project Roadmap


Project Contacts

Kerry Perrillo Childress

[email protected]

Kim Eccles (VHB)[email protected]

919-834-3972

Project Website:

www.tfhrc.gov/safety/evaluations

Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (PFS) presented by Kim Eccles, P.E. Senior Engineer,...

Documents

Transcript of Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (PFS) presented by Kim Eccles, P.E. Senior Engineer,...