Safety Analysis Tools Highway Safety Manual. Ashley Reinkemeyer, P.E. MoDOT October 17, 2012

Similar documents
Session 3 Highway Safety Manual General Overview. Joe Santos, PE, FDOT, State Safety Office November 6, 2013

AASHTO s Highway Safety Manual: Quantification of Highway Safety. Priscilla Tobias, PE Illinois Department of Transportation State Safety Engineer

Expected Roadway Project Crash Reductions for SMART SCALE Safety Factor Evaluation. September 2016

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No.

Diagnosis Process. Learning Outcomes. Roadway Safety Management Process Overview MODULE 9. DIAGNOSIS AND COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION

Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis of Safety Related Improvements on Roadways

PRACT Predicting Road ACcidents - a Transferable methodology across Europe APM/CMF review and Questionnaire

SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION

Developing CMFs. Study Types and Potential Biases. Frank Gross VHB

Highway Safety Improvement Program Procedures Manual

Final Technical Content. Investigation of Existing and Alternative Methods for Combining Multiple CMFs. Task A.9

Predicting Road ACcidents - a Transferable methodology across Europe

Establishing Crash Modification Factors and Their Use

NCHRP 17-72: Update of CMFs for the Highway Safety Manual. Frank Gross SCOHTS/SM Joint Meeting

2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference

Highway Safety Improvement Program

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRASH MODIFICATION FACTORS MODEL IN EUROPE

EVALUATING THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

Federal, State, and Local Funding and Assistance Programs. Iowa DOT Office of Local Systems

TECHNICAL NOTE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD (TRB) ANNUAL MEETING 2009 & 2010 CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Notice. Quality Assurance Statement

Georgia s Operational Improvement Program. Paul DeNard, P.E., PTOE State Traffic Operations Manager

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Short List WSDOT

Overview of Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Nicole Fox, Iowa DOT Office of Local Systems

County CHSP Project Solicitation 12/08/05

GAO HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States Top Safety Priorities

LRSP PROJECT SUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

Request for Statement of Interest (SOI) Traffic Engineering Services On-call Traffic Engineering Assistance

TDOT Project Planning RSAR Process

CONTENTS HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM (HBRRP) 6.1 INTRODUCTION

Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District

Improving Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Safety in Urban Area of Lagos State, Nigeria

Transportation Management Plan Overview

Module 2 Planning and Programming

Georgia DOT Local Maintenance Improvement Grant Program. Todd Long, P.E., Deputy Commissioner

SMART SCALE Application Guide

NLTAPA Region IV Meeting St. Augustine, FL May 13, 2014

VALUE ENGINEERING PROGRAM

Nevada Department of Transportation Traffic Operations Policy Memorandum Traffic Signal Warrant Approval Process

Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Project Call

Project Selection Policy Update. Philip Schaffner June 20, 2018

6. HIGHWAY FUNDING Introduction Local Funding Sources Property Tax Revenues valuation County Transportation Excise Tax

FFY Transportation Improvement Program

Cass County Rural Task Force Call for Projects Deadline: December 12, 2018

Legislative References. Navajo Partnering Meeting June 18, Flagstaff, Arizona. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

HIGH COUNTRY RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (RPO) 2015 STIP PROJECT SOLICITATION AND RANKING PROCESS

STATE DOT ADMINISTRATION

February 12, Request for Proposal Overview Pre-bid Conference

FY Transportation Improvement Program

Transportation Funding Terms and Acronyms Unraveling the Jargon

Florida s Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Application

FAIRFIELD AVENUE, EWING STREET, SUPERIOR STREET, AND WELLS STREET PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY

Guidance. Historical Studies Review Procedures

Amendments to FY Transportation Improvement Program of the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) October 2017

Request for Proposal Design- and Construction- Engineering Services

Federal-Aid LPA Design Process Overview. MoDOT St. Louis District Local Programs

Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) POLICY

STATE HIGHWAY (SH) 34 FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC MEETING

SMALL CITY PROGRAM. ocuments/forms/allitems.

Formal STIP Amendment

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. Uptown Main Street/US 25 Traffic Calming Analysis. Date Issued: June 5, 2018

UNESCAP. 1. Introduction 2. Target Road Safety Facility 3. Guideline/Manual for RSF 4. Survey Design and Application Plan 5. Discussion and Remark

Mark A. Doctor, PE CAREER PATH

Using Railroad-DOT Mitigation Strategies SHRP2 Case Study

NCHRP 17-72: Update of Crash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual. Raghavan Srinivasan UNC Highway Safety Research Center

I-15/Tropicana Interchange Feasibility Study in Clark County, NV. Comments are due October 16, 2015, 5 p.m.

exchange TECHNOLOGY Correct, Protect, and Warn Reducing the Toll of Roadway Departure Crashes VOL. 24, NO

RFP for Bicycle/Pedestrian Scoping Study Page 1

A DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Purpose. Funding. Eligible Projects

Support by State Departments of Transportation for Local Agency Safety Initiatives

Quality Management Guideline July, 2017

Transportation. Fiscal Research Division. March 24, Justification Review

Client: Boulder County Transportation Project: SH 119 Bus Rapid Transit & Bikeway Facility Design

Trails and Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Project Nomination Package

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PEER EXCHANGE

The Maryland Transportation Authority has. Staff Approve Resolution R to amend the FY TIP.

DEVELOPING A GOOD PURPOSE AND NEED. Patrick Lee TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division

I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Charge and Purpose

Overview. History. History cont d. Safety Circuit Riders: Where are they, what do they do? MINK /24/15

Kweku Tekyi Brown, PhD 171 Moultrie St, Charleston, SC Phone: (843) Cell: (860)

L e t t e r o f I n t e r e s t : S t r u c t u r e s D e s i g n ( B r i d g e ) - S t a t e w i d e

FAMPO RSTP AND CMAQ FUNDING PROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA METHODOLOGY

KEA AU (HIGHWAY 130) IMPROVEMENTS. Project No. STP-0130 (27) Public Informational Meeting Kea au au Community Center April 17, 2008

Implementation. Implementation through Programs and Services. Capital Improvements within Cambria County

Transportation Alternatives (TA) Northeast Minnesota Workshop

TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ST. CLAIR TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM POLICY

Smart Portal State of Good Repair Pavement and Bridge. November 8, 2017

Washington State Department of Transportation

South Fulton Comprehensive Transportation Plan of Fulton County Transportation Coordinating Committee August 08, 2014

APPENDIX B BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Amendments to FY Transportation Improvement Program of the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) August 2016

Tentative Project Schedule. Non-Discrimination i i Laws. Para Preguntas en español

Guidance for Locally Administered Projects. Funded Through the NJDOT/MPO Program Funds Exchange. August 27, Revised September 15, 2014

Request for Qualifications For

9. REVENUE SOURCES FEDERAL FUNDS

Appendix E Federal and State Funding Categories

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Transcription:

Safety Analysis Tools Highway Safety Manual Ashley Reinkemeyer, P.E. MoDOT October 17, 2012

Presentation Summary Module 1 Introduction and Overview Module 2 Providing MoDOT Better Information

MODULE 1 Introduction and Overview

Module 1 Summary 1 What is the HSM? 2 Why is the HSM needed? 3 What is covered by the HSM? 4 Who should use the HSM?

1. WHAT IS THE HSM?

WHAT IS THE HSM? Provide Best factual information Tools To facilitate explicit safety considerations for: Planning Design Operations Maintenance through Synthesis of validated highway research Adapted & integrated to practice Analytical tools for predicting impact on road safety

The HSM Contains Best Science & Research Synthesis of previous research New research commissioned by AASHTO and FHWA

The Vision of the HSM - A Document Akin To the HCM 1 Definitive; represents quantitative state-ofthe-art information 2 Widely accepted within professional practice of transportation engineering 3 Science-based; updated regularly to reflect research

WHAT THE HSM IS NOT vs The HSM does not set requirements or mandates The HSM is not a best practice document for design or operations. The HSM contains no warrants or standards and does not supersede other publications that do.

2. WHY IS THE HSM NEEDED?

Is This Road Safe or Unsafe?

Highway Safety Has Two Dimensions Nominal Safety Substantive Safety Examined in reference to compliance with standards, warrants, guidelines and sanctioned design procedures The expected or actual crash frequency and severity for a highway or roadway *Ezra Hauer, ITE Traffic Safety Toolbox Introduction, 1999

Substantive Safety May Vary When Nominal Safety Does Not Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

3. WHAT IS COVERED BY THE HSM?

Outline of the HSM Part A Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals Part B Roadway Safety Management Process Part C Predictive Method Part D Crash Modification Factors

PART A Introduction, Human Factors, & Fundamentals Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Introduction and Overview Human Factors Fundamentals

4 5 6 7 8 9 Part B Roadway Safety Management Process 4 5 6 7 8 9

Part C Predictive Method Two-Lane Rural Roads Urban/ Suburban Arterial Highways Rural Multilane Highways Special Part C Common Procedures Methodology Applications Safety issues not explicitly addressed by the methodology Example problems References Calibration Combining predicted with observed crashes

Part C - Predictive Method N predicted = N SPF x (CMF 1 x CMF 2 x CMF 3 ) x C x Where: N SPF = Expected number of crashes from SPF for base conditions (outlined in HSM per facility type) CMF 1x = Crash Modification Factors Adjust for non-base conditions Lane width, shoulder width, horizontal curves, etc. C x = Calibration factor Adjust for local (regional) conditions Climate, drivers, animal population, etc.

Part D Crash Modification Factors CHAPTER 13 Roadway Segments CHAPTER 14 Intersections CHAPTER 15 Interchanges CHAPTER 16 Special facilities and Geometric Situations CHAPTER 17 Road Networks

4. WHO SHOULD USE THE HSM?

Who Should Use the HSM? System Planning Project Planning Preliminary Design, Final Design, & Construction Operations & Maintenance

MODULE 2 Providing MoDOT Better Information

Module 2 Summary 1 How does MoDOT use the manual? 2 Example Application

1. How does MoDOT use the manual?

MoDOT decided to: Focus on Part C (predicted and/or excepted number of crashes) Start with safety-related Design Exceptions MoDOT also uses the HSM for: Design Alternatives Safety Projects Network Screening Project Evaluation

Design Exceptions Safety-related issues Lane width Shoulder width Shoulder type Rumble strips Turn lanes Horizontal alignment Grade Median width Sideslopes Lighting

Design Exceptions Quantify the effects The HSM won t provide a yes or no. Engineering judgment! Better information More informed decisions Solid documentation

Design Exception Policy EPG 131.1 If the design exception request involves any features that are safety related, then sufficient accident data and history is attached to the request to support the reasons for justification. A summary report of the accident information is acceptable if the volume of the data is excessive. Examples of safety related features are included in, but not limited to, the following list: lane width, shoulder width, shoulder type, rumble strips, turn lanes, bridge width, bridge approach rail, horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, grade, horizontal clearance, vertical clearance, guardrail, etc. Any other items that may be perceived as a safety concern will also follow these requirements. In addition, if the design exception request involves safety related features that are adequately addressed in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, then documentation of the exception should include a safety analysis as described in the manual. In general, this safety analysis should compare the expected number of crashes for the facility with the design exception to the expected number of crashes of the facility without the design exception. Currently, not all safety related features are explicitly addressed in the Highway Safety Manual. A list of features currently addressed by the manual include: lane width, shoulder width, shoulder type, center line rumble strips, horizontal alignment (length, radius), grade, roadside hazard rating, fixed objects, driveway density, median width, sideslope, lighting, intersection skew angle and turn lanes. Not all features in the manual are addressed for each facility type.

2. Example Application

Design Exception Example Resurfacing job on a 2-lane, rural road Existing Conditions: Major road 12 lanes, 2 paved shoulders No rumbles AADT = 2,500 veh/day Length = 8.9 miles Major road expectations 4 paved shoulders with rumble stripes

Design Exception Example Assume adding 4 paved shoulders requires extensive grading and possible ROW purchase. What would be the effect on crashes if a design exception was allowed for 2 paved shoulders with rumble stripes vs. the standard major road design of 4 paved shoulders with rumble stripes? Compare standard design to proposed design exception.

Design Exception Example Standard design: 4 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Base model prediction (SPF) N spf = AADT x L x 365 x 10-6 x e (-0.312) N spf = 2,500 x 8.9 x 365 x 10-6 x e (-0.312) N spf = 5.945 crashes per year

Design Exception Example Standard design: 4 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Determine CMF s Shoulder width Other CMF s are applicable, but shoulder width is the only variant between the standard design and the proposed design exception (both designs will have rumble stripes).

Design Exception Example CMF for shoulder width CMF = (CMF wra x CMF tra 1.0) x p ra + 1.0 p ra = 0.574 (default) CMF wra = 1.15 (from Table 10-9) CMF tra = 1.0 (paved) CMF = (1.15 x 1.0 1.0) x 0.574 + 1.0 CMF = 1.09

Design Exception Example Standard design: 4 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Apply CMF s Predicted crashes = 5.945 x 1.09 x 1.0 Predicted crashes = 6.5 crashes per year

Design Exception Example Proposed design exception: 2 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Base model prediction (SPF) N spf = AADT x L x 365 x 10-6 x e (-0.312) N spf = 2,500 x 8.9 x 365 x 10-6 x e (-0.312) N spf = 5.945 crashes per year

Design Exception Example Proposed design exception: 2 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Determine CMF s Shoulder width Other CMF s are applicable, but shoulder width is the only variant between the standard design and the proposed design exception (both designs will have rumble stripes).

Design Exception Example CMF for shoulder width CMF = (CMF wra x CMF tra 1.0) x p ra + 1.0 p ra = 0.574 (default) CMF wra = 1.30 (from Table 10-9) CMF tra = 1.0 (paved) CMF = (1.30 x 1.0 1.0) x 0.574 + 1.0 CMF = 1.17

Design Exception Example Proposed design exception: 2 paved shoulders with rumbles Predicted crashes = N spf x CMF s x C Apply CMF s Predicted crashes = 5.945 x 1.17 x 1.0 Predicted crashes = 7 crashes per year

Design Exception Example Standard design = 6.5 crashes/year Proposed design exception = 7 crashes/year Decision time for the designer/engineer. Do savings in ROW and construction justify one additional crash every two years?

Thank You. Ashley Reinkemeyer, P.E. ashley.reinkemeyer@modot.mo.gov