Midwest Research Institute Solutions through science and technology NCHRP Project 15-26 Passing...

Midwest Research InstituteSolutions through science

and technology

NCHRP Project 15-26

Passing Sight Distance Criteria

April 5, 2005

2

Project Objectives

• Evaluate the design and operational criteria for determining minimum PSD

• Modify the existing criteria or develop new criteria

3

Project Scope

PSD Criteria for Geometric Design

• AASHTO Green Book

PSD Criteria for Marking of Passing and No-Passing Zones

• MUTCD

4

Project Tasks• Task 1 – Review current PSD criteria and

models

COMPLETE

• Task 2 – Review literature and research in progress

COMPLETE

• Task 3 – Identify factors that potentially contribute to PSD requirements

COMPLETE

5

Project Tasks

• Task 4 – Critique PSD criteria and develop work plan

COMPLETE

• Task 5 – Prepare interim report

COMPLETE AFTER PANEL DISCUSSIONS

6

Project Tasks

• Task 6 – Execute approved work plan

WILL BEGIN WHEN AUTHORIZED

• Task 7 – Prepare new or modified PSD criteria

WILL FOLLOW TASK 6

7

Project Tasks

• Task 8 – Prepare final report

WILL FOLLOW TASKS 6 & 7

• Task 9 – Prepare and deliver final presentations

WLL FOLLOW TASK 8

8

Project Schedule

• Planned Start Date for Phase II:

2/1/05

• Actual Start Date for Phase II:

4/6/05 ?

• Approximately two months behind schedule

9

Project Schedule

• Submit Draft Final Report

2/28/06

• Submit Revised Final Report

5/31/06

10

Outline of Presentation

• Review of Current PSD Criteria

– Section 2 of interim report

• Assessment of Current PSD Criteria and Alternative Models

– Sections 3 and 4 of the interim report

11

Outline of Presentation

• Potential Work Plans for Execution in Phase II

– Section 5 of interim report

• Priorities and Budget Allocations for Phase II

– Section 6 of the interim report

12

PSD Design Criteria

• AASHTO Green Book

PSD = d1 + d2 + d3 + d4

d1 = P-R time plus initial acceleration

d2 = distance traveled in left lane

d3 = clearance distance

d4 = distance traveled by opposing vehicle = 2/3 d2

13

PSD Design Criteria

ASSUMPTIONS

• Passed vehicle travels at uniform speed

• Passing vehicle reduces speed and trails the passed vehicle as it enters the passing section (delayed pass)

14

PSD Design Criteria

• Passing driver requires a short period to perceive the passing section and begin to accelerate:– d1 maneuver time = 3.6 to 4.5 sec (older

field data)

– d1 acceleration rate = 1.38 to 1.51 mph/sec

(2 to 2.2 ft/sec2)

15

PSD Design Criteria

• Passing is accomplished under:

– delayed start

– hurried return in the face of opposing traffic

16

PSD Design Criteria

• Left-lane distance (d2)

– average speed of passing vehicle during left-lane occupancy exceeds speed of passed vehicle by 10 mph

• at low speeds, passing vehicle above design speed, passed vehicle below design speed

• at speeds of 55 mph or more, both vehicles below design speed

– left-lane occupancy time = 9.3 to 7.3 sec, depending on speed (older field data)

17

PSD Design Criteria

• Clearance distance (d3)

– 100 to 300 ft, depending upon speed

• Opposing vehicle distance (d4)

– d4 = d2 would allow for completion of passing maneuver without need to abort

– d4 = 2/3 d2 will require abort in some cases

18

PSD Design Criteria

CRITIQUE

• AASHTO model is extremely conservative:

– If model were d1+ d2+ d3+ d2, passing driver would know that no abort is required even before beginning to pass

– If model d1+ d2+ d3+ 2/3 d2, an abort is potentially required only very early in the maneuver

19

PSD Design Criteria

• Inclusion of P-R and initial acceleration distance (d1) is very conservative:

– passing maneuver could be aborted easily and safely if opposing vehicle appears during d1

– an opposing vehicle that appears during d1 is a long way from the passing vehicle

20

PSD Design Criteria

• Ending section of adequate PSD when PSD falls below d1+ d2+ d3+ 2/3 d2 is extremely conservative:– at the end of the section of adequate

PSD, a passing driver has almost enough sight distance to start a pass and complete it without the need to abort

– passes can be started safety beyond this point, if the passing driver can abort the maneuver, if an opposing vehicle appears

21

PSD Design Criteria

• Assumption of passed vehicle speed substantially less than design speed, particularly for design speeds of 55 mph or more, is not conservative

• Assumption of constant speed differential between passing and passed vehicles, independent of design speed is questionable

22

PSD Marking Criteria

MUTCD

• presents warrants for no-passing zones

• passing zones merely happen where no-passing zones are not warranted

• where the distance between successive no-passing zones is less than 400 ft, no-passing markings should connect the zones

23


• There is no quantitative model for the MUTCD criteria

• MUTCD criteria were first developed in a 1940 AASHO policy

24


MUTCD/1940 AASHO ASSUMPTIONS

• no P-R time needed for pass initiation because passing driver can abort the maneuver if an opposing vehicle appears

• speed of passing vehicle is equal to 85th percentile speed or posted or statutory speed limit

25


• speed differential between passing and passed vehicle ranges from 10 to 25 mph, with higher speed differentials at higher speeds

• speed of opposing is 5 to 15 mph less than speed of passing vehicle, with higher speed differentials at higher speeds

• compromise between PSD values for delayed and flying passes

26


CRITIQUE

• Speed of passing vehicle equal to 85th percentile speed or speed limit is conservative:

– many passing vehicles may travel faster

27


• Speed differential between passing and passed vehicles that increases with increasing speed is not conservative

– it seems more likely that speed differential would decrease as the speed of the passed vehicle increases

28


• Speed of opposing vehicle less than 85th percentile speed or speed limit seems unrealistic

• Consideration of flying passes is not conservative

• Minimum 400-ft passing zones are not compatible with delayed passes on high-speed highways

29

Comparison of PSD Criteria

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

30 40 50 60 70 80

Speed (mph)

Pa

ss

ing

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

(ft

)AASHTO Green Book MUTCD

30


Speed

(mph)

AASHTO

PSD (ft)

MUTCD

PSD (ft)

40 1,470 600

50 1,835 800

60 2,135 1,000

70 2,480 1,200

31


AASHTO Criteria

• Driver eye height =3.50 ft

• Target height =3.50 ft (reduced from 4.25 ft in 2001)

MUTCD Criteria

• Driver eye height = 3.50 ft

• Target height = 3.50 ft

32

International PSD Criteria

PSD Design Criteria @ 100 km/h• Australia (more than US at beginning of PSD, less

than US at end of PSD)

• Austria (about the same as the US)

• Britain (less than US at beginning of PSD, much less at end of PSD)

• Canada (about the same as the US)

• Germany (slightly less than the US)

• Greece (slightly less than the US)

• South Africa (about the same as the US)

33

International PSD Criteria

PSD Marking Criteria @ 100 km/h

• Australia (slightly less than the US)

• Britain (less than the US)

• Canada (more than the US)

• South Africa (about the same as the US)

34

Safety Performance for Passing Maneuvers

• HSIS study (1994) found that:

– passing-related accidents constitute 2% of total non-intersection accidents on rural two-lane highways

– passing-related accidents are more severe than non-passing related accidents

35


• Fatal and serious injury accidents:

– 13.9% of passing-related accidents

– 9.4% of total accidents

• Passing-related accidents are estimated to constitute 3% of total fatal and serious injury accidents on rural two-lane highways

36


• FARS 2003 data:– 13,000 fatal accidents/year at non-

intersection locations on rural two-lane highways

– if 3% are passing-related accidents, there are 390 fatal passing-related accident per year

• Not all passing-related accidents involve limited PSD

37


COLLISION TYPES FOR PASSING-RELATED ACCIDENTS

• Single-vehicle ROR 30%

• Sideswipe, same direction 25%

• Sideswipe, opp direction 7%

• Rear-end 17%

• Head-on 7%

• Other/unknown 15%

38


• Safety record of passing-related accidents is generally good

• It is unlikely that safety performance of rural two-lane highways can be modified significantly by changing PSD criteria

• Potential cost-effectiveness of changes to PSD criteria need be investigated

39

PSD Criteria in Relation to the Good Safety Record of Passing Maneuvers

• PSD design criteria are conservative

• PSD values used in marking criteria are more appropriate than they seem

• Short 400-ft passing zones may not be often used for high-speed passes

• Most drivers may be conservative in making passing judgments

• A buffer area is present downstream of every passing zone

40

d1 + 2d2 + d3

Critical Position

Position of the Passing Vehicle

Pass

ing S

ight

Dis

tance

Sight distance needed to abort

pass

Sight distance needed to complete

pass

d1 + d20

Conceptual Presentation of the Changes in Sight Distance Needed to Complete or Abort a Passing Maneuver as the Passing Maneuver Progresses

d1 + d2 + d3 + 2/3 d2

AASHTO

MUTCD

41

Critical Position in the Passing Maneuver

• Models based on the critical position assume that drivers may abort the passing maneuver until the critical position is reached

42


• Critical position concept– any passing driver who has not yet

reached the critical position must have sufficient PSD to abort the maneuver

– any passing driver who has passed the critical position must have sufficient PSD to complete the maneuver

– any passing driver at the critical position must have sufficient PSD to complete or abort the maneuver

43


• Two models based on the critical position provide PSD values similar to the MUTCD:

– Glennon (1988)

– Hassan et al. (1996)

44


• First recognized by VanValkenburg and Michael (1971)– they called it the point of no return

– they visually identified the critical position as occurring when the vehicles are approximately abreast (rear bumper of passed vehicle opposite middle of passing vehicle)

– field measurements of distance traveled by the passing vehicle from the abreast position to the completion of the pass

45


• Weaver and Glennon (1972)

– defined the critical position as the point at which the time required to complete the maneuver is equal to the time required to abort the maneuver

– proposed a PSD model that did not incorporate this definition

– stated that critical position occurs when vehicles are approximately abreast

46


• Harwood and Glennon (1976)

– defined the critical position as the point at which the sight distance required to complete the maneuver is equal to the sight distance required to abort the maneuver

– proposed a PSD model that did not incorporate this definition

47


• Lieberman (1982)

– used critical position concept in modeling PSD

– defined needed PSD as d7 + PSDc

– d7 is distance to from the start of the pass to the critical position

– formulated a model to determine the relative position of the passing and passed vehicles at the critical position (Δc)

– model for Δc appears incomplete

48


• Saito (1984)

– postulated that there are two possible locations of the critical position in a passing maneuver:

• head-to-tail position (head of passing vehicle opposite tail of passed vehicle)

• abreast position (passing vehicle alongside passed vehicle)

– model inputs are not fully stated

49


• Glennon (1988)

– formulated PSD model based on equivalent sight distance to complete and abort a passing maneuver from the critical position

– included an explicit model to calculate the relative positions of the passing and passed vehicles at the critical position (Δc)

50


• Glennon (1988)

– included terms for the lengths of the passing and passed vehicles

– incorporated speed differential between passing and passed vehicles that decreases as speed increases

– deceleration rate in abort maneuver = 8 ft/sec2 (as opposed to 11 ft/sec2 in SSD)

51


m

ΔL2.932VPSD cp

d

1/2

d

pid

d

pipc m)1.47d(2V

LL2.93m4V

m)1.47(2V

LL2.93m1.47mLΔ

52


• Harwood and Glennon (1989)

– used Glennon model with some changes in input data from Glennon (1988):

• passenger car length, 19 ft rather than 16 ft

• truck length 75 ft

• smaller speed differential for truck as the passing vehicle

• lower deceleration rate in aborting a pass, 5 ft/sec2 for a truck, as opposed to 8 ft/sec2 for a passenger car

53


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

30 40 50 60 70 80

Speed (mph)

Pa

ss

ing

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

(ft

)

MUTCD Glennon

54


• Rilett at al. (1989)

– recommended a minimum speed for passing abort maneuver: Vd – 2m

– inclusion of a minimum speed substantially lengthens PSD values

– Good et al. (1991) stated that it is unreasonable to expect that, in the face of an opposing vehicle, the passing driver would decelerated to Vd – 2m and then continue at constant speed

55


• Rilett at al. (1989)

– recommended headway after pass abort greater than the 1 sec used by Glennon

– 1 sec headway appears appropriate for passenger cars

– headway greater than 1 sec appears needed for trucks

56


• Hassan et al. (1996)

– recommended two modifications to the Glennon model

– recommended incorporation of P-R time for pass abort decision (but this may already be part of the Glennon model)

– recommended providing PSD for pass completion where critical position occurs with passing vehicle ahead of passed vehicle (positive value of Δc)

57


2h)(tV5.88

tdtpt a

d

aaaac

m)(2V1.47d

m)1.47h(2VLLV5.88hht

da

dipd2a

h)t(V93.2PSD cdc

58


5pc tm47.1h m) V(47.1L

59


m

Lhm) 1.47(Vt pd*

c

h) t(V 93. 2 PSD *cdc

60


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

30 40 50 60 70 80

Speed (mph)

Pa

ss

ing

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

(ft

)

MUTCD Hassan et al. Glennon

61

Buffer Area Downstream of Passing Zones

Beginning of passing

zone

End of passing

zone

Passing maneuvers in Dir

1 must legally end here

Passing maneuvers in Dir 1 can safely end

hered5

Buffer Zone

Dir 1

Dir 2

62

Buffer Area Downstream of Passing Zones

• Buffer area results from “short zone” marking concept:

– passes must legally be completed prior to end of zone

– drivers can complete passes safely even if in critical position at end of zone

– used in 46 of the 50 states

63


• HSIS study suggests no major safety problems associated with PSD marking criteria

• Glennon and Hassan et al. models suggest that MUTCD criteria may be about right, but for the wrong reason

• Differences between Glennon and Hassan et al. models need to be resolved

64


• Cost of changing PSD criteria would be substantial – remeasuring PSD for all two-lane roads with centerlines

• Cost-effectiveness of potential changes in marking criteria needs to be resolved

65

Potential Approach to PSD Marking Criteria

IF SUPPORTED BY PHASE II RESULTS

• Retain MUTCD criteria

• Offer a better engineering rationale for the MUTCD criteria based on the Glennon model, the Hassan et al. model, or some variation of these models

66

Potential Approach to PSD Marking Criteria

• Consider need to change 400-ft minimum passing zone length

67

Short Passing Zones

• Can’t accommodate delayed passes on high-speed highways

• May accommodate some flying passes

• May accommodate passing very slow-moving vehicles – “tractor on the road”

• May not contribute much to LOS

• Do drivers use short zones legally? safely?

68

Short Passing Zones

• Jones (1970)

– Texas roadways with 70-mph speed limits

– field studies at three passing zones with lengths of 400, 640, and 880 ft

– comparative data for passing zones with lengths of 1,640 and 2,600 ft

69

Short Passing Zones

• Jones (1970)

– defined passing opportunity as:

• trailing vehicle within 4 car lengths (80 ft)

• appeared to be awaiting a change to pass

• average of 125 passing opportunities observed per zone

70

Short Passing Zones

Length of Passing Zone (ft)

Passing Opportunities Accepted

Slightly

Forced

Return

Very Severe Return

400 9% 37% 26%

640 9% 45% 0%

880 9% 10% 0%

1,640 23%

2,600 40%

71

PSD Design Criteria

• What is the rationale for use of longer PSD values in design than in marking?

• Does the good safety record of passing maneuvers indicate that current marking criteria are sufficient for safety?

• Does the use of longer PSD values in design than in marking enhance safety?

• Should the design process explicitly consider the passing and no-passing zones that will be marked on the completed highway?

72

Potential Alternative Approaches to PSD Marking Criteria

• #1 – Retain current AASHTO Green Book criteria

• #2 – Use the same PSD criteria for design as for marking

• #3 – Use PSD criteria for design with a defined relationship to PSD criteria for marking:

PSD = X + PSDc

73

Potential Alternative Approaches to PSD Marking Criteria

• #4 - Use the same PSD criteria for design as for marking, but count only passing sections with specified minimum length

• #5 – Use longer value of PSD to define beginning of passing section and shorter PSD to define end of passing section

74

Other Issues

• Trucks

• Older drivers

75

PSD for Trucks

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

20 30 40 50 60 70

Design Speed (mph)

Pa

ss

ing

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

(ft

)AASHTO Green Book MUTCD

Passenger Car passing Passenger Car Passenger Car passing Truck

Truck passing Passenger Car Truck passing Truck

76

PSD for Trucks

Passing Scenario

PSD needed for design speed of 60

mph (ft)

PC passing PC 1,025

PC passing Truck 1,250

Truck passing PC 1,375

Truck passing Truck 1,575

77

PSD for Trucks

• Glennon model may need longer headway after abort for truck as passing vehicle

• Truck can pass PC on any vertical curve where PC can pass a truck – reevaluate in light of changed object heights

78

PSD for Trucks

• PC passing truck or truck passing PC may not be a logical design or marking scenario:– would eliminate some current passing zones

and shorten others

– would prohibit some passes of PCs that are safe and are currently legal

– would reduce LOS

– might encourage illegal passes

– no indication of safety benefits

79

Older Drivers

• Reduced P-R time

• Reduced visual acuity

• Reduced ability to judge distances and speeds

• Less likely to travel at high speeds

• Less likely to pass

• Less aggressive

• More likely to drive passed vehicle than passing vehicle

80

PSD for Older Drivers

• FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers recommended using Green Book PSDs instead of MUTCD PSDs

• NCHRP Project 20-7(118) recommended caution in implementing this Handbook recommendation

81

PSD for Older Drivers

• Use of longer PSD in marking would eliminate some current passing zones and shorten others

• Older drivers would still probably be more reluctant than younger drivers to pass

• Handbook recommendation did not consider the safety “cushion” provided by the buffer area

82

Key Considerations in Changing PSD Criteria

• Safety considerations (effect on accident frequency and severity)

• Traffic operational considerations (effect on level of service)

• Economic considerations (benefits to compensate for increased costs) on both existing and new highways

• Rationality and consistency of PSD criteria (understanding and acceptance by engineers)

83

Potential Phase II Work Plans

• A – Benefit-cost analysis

• B – Identify and analyze of passing-related accidents

• C – Review accident data for field sites

• D – Safety of passing maneuvers completed beyond the end of a passing zone

84


• E – Safety and operations of short passing zones

• F – Field data to quantify parameters of revised PSD models

• G – Application of PSD criteria to actual terrain

• H – Traffic operational effects of alternative PSD criteria

85


• I – Comparison of PSD and SSD criteria

• J – Guidance on determination of percentage of roadway length

with PSD

86

A – Benefit-Cost Analysis for Changing PSD Marking Criteria

• Objective:

– determine whether safety benefits could possibly justify cost of remeasuring PSD

– need to quantify:• cost per mile of remeasuring PSD

• number of miles of two-lane roads with marked centerlines

• number of accidents equivalent to cost of remeasuring

• number of accidents available for reduction

87

B—Identification and Analysis of Passing-Related Accidents

• Objective: Conduct further evaluation of passing-related accidents

• Identify passing-related accidents in manner similar to HSIS study

• Obtain more complete severity data

• Estimate available PSD at accident sites

• Determine portion of passing zone (or no-passing zone) where accidents occur

88

B—Identification and Analysis of Passing-Related Accidents

• Investigate involvement of trucks

• Investigate involvement of older drivers in passing, passed, and opposing vehicles

• Determine weather and pavement conditions under which passing-related accidents occur

89

C—Review of Accident Data for Field Sites

• Objective:

– Assure that field sites used in Work Plans D and F do not have adverse accident experience

– Determine accident experience for field sites in Work Plan E

90

D—Safety of Maneuvers Completed Beyond the End of a Passing Zone

• Objective: Determine the extent and consequences of pass completions beyond the end of a passing zone

• Sites to be used:– passing zone length: 1,000 to 2,500 ft

– frequent passing activity

– no-passing zone for at least 2,000 ft downstream of passing zone

91

D—Safety of Maneuvers Completed Beyond the End of a Passing Zone

• Data to be collected:– percent of maneuvers completed in marked

passing and no-passing zones

– relative positions of passing and passed vehicles at the end of the passing zone

– location of passing vehicle’s return to normal lane

– sight distance at return to normal lane

– traffic conflicts or severity of return maneuver

• Video recording and manual observation

92

E—Safety and Operations of Short Passing Zones

• Objectives: Determine whether short passing zones:– create safety problems

– contribute substantially to LOS

• Sites to be used:– passing zone length: 400 to 800 ft

• Data to be collected:– similar to Work Plan D

93

F—Quantify Parameters of Revised PSD Models

• Objective: Quantify parameters of alternative models– speed differential between passing

and passed vehicles

– distance traveled by the passing vehicle from the beginning of passing zone to the critical position

– deceleration rate use in aborting a passing maneuver

94

F—Quantify Parameters of Revised PSD Models

• Data collection approach:

– Video recording

– Manual observation

– Traffic classifiers or laser guns for speed measurement

95

G—Application of Revised PSD Criteria to Actual Terrain

• Objective: Investigate effects of changing PSD design and marking criteria

• Obtain plan and profile data for actual terrain:

– as-built plans

– Washington HSIS data

96


• How will revised PSD criteria change:– percentage of roadway length that meets

design PSD criteria

– percentage of roadway length in marked passing zones

– lengths of passing zones

– PSD available within passing zones

• Relative contributions of PSD criteria and terrain

97


• Interviews with experienced designers:

– choice of target percentage of roadway length that meets design PSD criteria

– application of design criteria

98

H—Traffic Operational Effects of Alternative PSD Criteria

• Objective: How will revised PSD design and marking criteria affect the level of service on two-lane highways?

• Tool: TWOPAS traffic operational computer simulation model

99

I– Comparison of PSD and SSD Criteria

• Compare PSD values used in design and marking to SSD values used in design

• Compare resulting vertical curve lengths in light of:

– sight distance criteria

– assumed driver eye height

– assumed object height

100

J– Guidance on Percentage of Roadway Length with Design PSD

• Provide guidance or recommendations on average frequency of passing opportunities that should be provided on two-lane highways– dependent on traffic volumes

– dependent on vehicle mix

– needs to implement desired LOS for functional class and terrain

101

J– Guidance on Percentage of Roadway Length with Design PSD

• Added passing lanes along the road may reduce the need for PSD to maintain LOS between passing lanes

102

Project Budget

Phase I $ 64,066

Phase II 235,934

TOTAL $300,000

103

Phase I Budget

• Budgeted expenditures:$64,066

• Actual expenditures (est.) 61,000

• Unexpended funds (est.) 3,066

104

Allocation of Phase II Budget

Task

Description

Original Budget

Revised Budget

6 Execute work plans $177,873 $180,939

7 Prepare new or modified PSD criteria

23,968 23,968

8 Prepare final report 25,890 25,890

9 Prepare and deliver final presentations

8,203 8,203

Total $235,934 $239,000

105

Cost Estimates for Task 7 Work Plans

• A – Benefit-cost analysis of PSD $ 10,000

marking revisions

• B – Identification and analysis of 100,000

passing-related accidents

• C – Review of accident data for 5,000

field study sites

• D – Safety of passing maneuvers 30,000

completed beyond the end

of the passing zone

106


• E – Safety and operations of $ 30,000

short passing zones

• F – Field data collection to quantify 50,000

PSD models

• G – Application of revised PSD 10,000

to actual terrain

• H – Traffic operational effects 15,000

of alternative PSD criteria

107


• I – Comparison of PSD and SSD $ 5,000 criteria

• J – Guidance on determining the 10,000

percentage of roadway length

with adequate PSD

• TOTAL $265,000

108


• Estimated cost for all 10 work plans = $265,000

• Available funds for Task 7

= $181,000

• Difference

= $84,000

109

Potential Modifications

• Eliminate Work Plan B entirely– saves $100,000

– frees up $16,000 for field work

• Scale back Work Plan B to $16,000– existing data bases only

– no videolog review

– no hard-copy accident report review

Midwest Research Institute Solutions through science and technology NCHRP Project 15-26 Passing...

Documents

Transcript of Midwest Research Institute Solutions through science and technology NCHRP Project 15-26 Passing...