A Systemic Approach to Safety

Document Sample
A Systemic Approach to Safety Powered By Docstoc
					A Systemic Approach to Safety
        Management
    NLTAPA Annual Conference
          July 30, 2012

    Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD 
Welcome and Introductions




                            2
                 Overview
• Introduction to the systemic approach to 
  safety
• Explain how it can be applied in local 
  jurisdictions
• Illustrate how the systemic approach can be 
  used through state and local case studies
• Describe how to advance the systemic 
  approach to safety in your state

                                                 3
    What we mean by “systemic
      safety improvement”
•  An improvement that is widely implemented 
based on high-risk roadway features that are 
correlated with particular severe crash types. 
•  The systemic approach is intended to 
complement the traditional site analysis 
approach (i.e. high crash locations) resulting in a 
comprehensive safety management program.
                                                   4
      What we mean by “risk”

The potential for a specific type of severe 
crash to occur at a specific location 
because of the location’s characteristics or 
features. 




                                            5
  What we mean by “risk factor”
A representation of risk in terms of the observed 
characteristics associated with the locations 
where the targeted crash types occurred 
  • Volume
  • Alignment
  • Intersection control
  • Presence of shoulders


                                                 6
              Potential Risk Factors
Roadway Features                       Intersection Features
Number of lanes                        Intersection skew angle
Lane width                             Intersection traffic control device
Shoulder surface width/type            Number of signal heads vs. number of lanes
Median width/type                      Presence of backplates
Horizontal curvature                   Presence of advanced warning signs
Roadside or edge hazard rating         Intersection located in/near horizontal curve
Driveway density                       Presence of left-turn or right-turn lanes
Presence of shoulder or                Left-turn phasing
                                       Allowance of right-turn-on-red
centerline rumble stripsPedestrian-related Features
Presence of lighting    Crosswalk presence
Presence of on-street parking
                        Crossing distance
                       Signal head type
                       Adjacent land uses
                       Lighting
Limitations to the Site Analysis Approach
• 57% of fatal crashes on 
  rural roads
• Substantial number of 
  fatal crashes on local 
  roads
• Low density on rural 
  and local roadways


                                        8
       Fatal crash types
2005   2006       2007     2008




                                  10
           Factors Influencing Approach
   •   Data availability
   •   Resources
   •   Established priorities
   •   State/local agency relationship




                                          11
Overview
           Outcomes of Systemic Safety
                   Planning
   • Candidate locations for safety investment are 
     identified and prioritized using selected risk factors

   • Selected countermeasures for candidate locations are 
     efficiently bundled into projects and design packages 
     for contract letting

   • Effective, low cost countermeasures are  applied at the 
     candidate locations to reduce the potential for focus 
     crash types to occur



                                                              12
Overview
       Comprehensive Safety Program
       • Hot spot safety planning focuses on locations with a history of 
         high crash frequency
       • System-based safety planning: 
          – Is a complementary analytical technique intended to 
            supplement the high crash frequency technique to be more 
            comprehensive and proactive
           – Begins with identifying a “problem” based on statewide (or 
             agency-wide) data
           – Focuses on one or more low-cost strategies to address the 
             underlying contributing circumstances 
           – Identifies and prioritizes locations for implementation 
             based on high risk features
           – Acknowledges crashes alone are not always sufficient to 
             establish prioritization

                                                                           13
Overview
     Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning
   • Proactive program to address fatalities and 
     serious injuries that seemingly occurred at 
     “random” locations
   • Greater knowledge regarding severe crashes, 
     including contributing factors and location 
     characteristics
       – Improve planning, design, and maintenance 
         practices
       – Risk management for tort liability

                                                      14
Overview
 Challenges to the Systemic Approach
• Overcoming institutional history
• Safety funding
• Training/retraining staff to use new methods 
  and procedures
• Accessing information to support 
  identification of crash risk factors



                                                  15
Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool
• Step-by-step process to conduct systemic safety 
  analysis and planning
• Method for balancing systemic safety improvements 
  and spot safety improvements
• Mechanism to quantify benefits of systemic safety 
  improvements




                                                   16
Cyclical
 Planning


                 t 3
              en
             m
  Process
            Ele




                       Element 1
               2
            nt
             me
               Ele




                         17
             Identify Target Crash
             Types & Risk Factors
• Analyze system-wide crash data 
• Define crash characteristics at the system level
                                                 Identify 
       Select focus           Select focus 
                                                common 
       crash type(s)            facilities
                                              characteristics


• Identify potential risk factors from characteristics
   – Roadway and intersection features
   – Traffic volume
   – Other i.e. transit stops, land use 


                                                                18
Screen & Prioritize Candidate Locations
•   Identify network elements analyzed
•   Verify selected risk factors
•   Conduct risk assessment
•   Prioritize roadway facilities
    – Segments 
    – Horizontal curves
    – Intersections



                                         19
Identifying Systemic Countermeasures
• Initial list of strategies
   – Low cost
   – Significant crash reduction




                                   20
        Select Countermeasures
• Assemble initial list
   – Low cost
   – Significant crash reduction
• Evaluate & Screen
   – Effectiveness
   – Implementation costs
   – Policies/practices/
     experiences
 • Select a few countermeasures for 
   each target crash type
                                       21
FHWA Proven Countermeasures




 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures 
            Prioritize Projects
• Create a decision process 
  – Provides consistency in project development 
    process
  – Consider multiple locations for which 
    countermeasures are appropriate and affordable
• Develop safety projects
  – Apply decision process
  – Develop specific projects for each candidate site
  – Document decision process and results


                                                        23
     Identify Funding & Implement
           Systemic Program
• Guidance for a decision-making process
  – Not a prescriptive formula
• Options to select funding levels for:
  – Systemic & site analysis
  – State system & local system
  – Segment & intersection projects



                                           24
Perform Systemic Program Evaluation
• Structured approach for tracking changes in 
  crashes and defining benefits
  – Illustrations for presentations to elected/citizens
  – Economic for B/C calculations
• Program evaluation; not location evaluations
• Guidance for interpreting results
  – Identify if adjustments are needed


                                                          25
   Element 1: 4-Step
Project Selection Process




                            26
27
     Review Past Funding Practices
• What safety countermeasures were implemented and 
  where – at what locations and on what system?
• What crash types were targeted by these particular 
  countermeasures?
• Were these crash types and mitigation strategies 
  identified as a priority in your Safety Plan?




                                                        28
         Example: State Crash/Funding Comparison by Urban vs. Rural
       Crashes
  Projected Funding                                               5 Year Crashes - 6,677         A. State vs. Local
   Actual Funding                                                 Funding – $155,946,000         -The state system accounts for 58% of rashes, receives
                                                                                                 over 99% of the funding
                             State System - 3,888 – 58%
                                                                              B. Urban vs. Rural
                                     $82,652,000
                                $155,291,000 - >99%                           -Rural state system is under funded; 77% of crashes, 63% of funding.

               Urban - 890 – 23%                                                                                          Rural - 2,998 – 77%
                  $19,010,000                                                                                                $63,642,000
               $56,159,000 – 36%                                                                                          $98,418,000 – 63%


Inters-Related - 346– 39%            Not Inters-Related - 544 – 61%                   Inters-Related - 667 – 22%             Not Inters-Related - 2,331 – 78%
        $7,414,000                            $11,596,100                                     $14,001,240                               $49,640,760
    $18,495,000 – 33%                      $37,664,000 – 67%                              $11,682,000 – 12%                         $86,735,000 – 88%

   Signals – $10,913,000 – 59%          Road Edge – $3,419,000 – 9%                 Signal – $3,580,000 – 31%             Road Edge – $23,156,000 – 27%
Intersection ? – $5,177,000 – 28%        Barrier – $15,954,000 – 42%            Intersection ? – $1,531,000 – 13%          Barrier – $25,085,000 – 29%
    Other – $2,404,000 – 13%              Other – $5,260,000 – 14%                  Other – $6,571,000 – 56%                Other – $31,691,000 – 37%
                                     Segment Improve. – $12,955,00 – 34%                                                Segment Improve. – $6,802,000 – 8%
                                        Ped Features – $75,000 – >0%
                                                                                                                    27% Funded – Run Off Road – 61% Crashes
                                    9% Funded – Run Off Road – 40% Crashes                                            29% Funded – Head On – 9% Crashes
                                      42% Funded – Head On – 12% Crashes                                               37% Funded – Other – 22% Crashes
                                       14% Funded – Other – 26% Crashes                                               8% Funded – Rear End – 8% Crashes
                                     34% Funded – Rear End – 11% Crashes
                                     >0% Funded – Pedestrian – 11% Crashes             31% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 54%
                                                                                13% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Read End – 59% Crashes
    59% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 52% Crashes                                         56% Funded – Other – 41% Crashes
28% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Rear End – 57% Crashes
        13% Funded – Other – 43% Crashes
                                                                  C. Project Type vs. Crash Type
                                                                  -Signals and Head On are generally over funded.
                                                                  -Run Off Road are underfunded.

                                                                                                                                                    29
Element 2: Review Past Funding Practices
            Local Case Studies
•   Washington State
•   Kentucky
•   Indiana
•   Louisiana




                                 30
         Thurston County, WA
• FHWA Pilot 
• Current Approach
  – Black Spots
  – Guardrail program
  – Shoulder widening program
  – Low Cost Safety Improvements
  – Sign Maintenance


                                   31
            Thurston County, WA
• Using crash data
• Non-Junction related
  – Run of the Road
     • Horizontal curves
        –   Speed Limit
        –   Shoulder width
        –   AADT < 5,000
        –   Fixed Object Struck




                                  32
         Thurston County, WA
• Horizontal Curve Risk Factors
  – Shoulder width
  – Radius
  – Speed differential
  – AADT
  – Roadside Hazard Rating
  – Crashes
  – Intersections

                                  33
                       Kentucky
• Focus Counties
  – 5 years of crash data
  – Select routes for RSA’s
• The systemic approach would focus on our crash 
  types  
  – Drop offs, edgelines, horizontal curve signage, tree 
    removal, vegetation management and delineation for 
    the entire route  
  – KYTC is working on a program to make HRRR funds 
    available to Counties for horizontal alignment signage
     • 40% of crashes occur in curves
     • 20% of our fatalities occur in curves

                                                         34
                      Indiana
• Sign replacement (HSIP funding)
  – Crash reduction factors
  – Replace all signs
     • Evaluation 7-16% reduction in crashes in one county
• Past Intersection Focus State
  – Package treatments




                                                             35
Intersection Safety Implementation Plans
(ISIP)
• Began in 2006 as a component 
  of the Focus State initiative
• Focuses on systematic 
  deployment of packages of low-
  cost countermeasures (e.g. 
  signing, markings, etc.) across 
  numerous locations




                         36
Example Unsignalized Treatment Package
                         • Estimated Crash 
                           Reduction 30%
                         • Average cost 
                           $6,000/site
                         • Key to safety 
                           effectiveness is 
                           widespread 
                           deployment




                   37
Questions???
       Hillary Isebrands, PE, PhD
              720-963-3222
       hillary.isebrands@dot.gov


           Karen Y. Scurry, P.E.
              609-637-4207
          karen.scurry@dot.gov

          http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov 

                                        38

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:9/11/2013
language:English
pages:38