BETTER S BETTER S AFE THAN S AFE THAN S ORRY: ORRY: Navigating - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
better s better s afe than s afe than s orry orry
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

BETTER S BETTER S AFE THAN S AFE THAN S ORRY: ORRY: Navigating - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 21, 2022 270 likes •775 views

OHIO PLANNING CONFERENCE JULY 18, 2018 BETTER S BETTER S AFE THAN S AFE THAN S ORRY: ORRY: Navigating Data-Driven S Navigating Data-Driven S afety afety Analysis (DDS Analysis (DDS A) A) Derek Troyer, PE Kendra S chenk, PE,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

OHIO PLANNING CONFERENCE•

JULY 18, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

BETTER S AFE THAN S ORRY: Navigating Data-Driven S afety Analysis (DDS A) BETTER S AFE THAN S ORRY: Navigating Data-Driven S afety Analysis (DDS A)

Derek Troyer, PE Kendra S chenk, PE, PTOE

slide-3
SLIDE 3

AGENDA

  • What is DDS

A?

  • Why does it matter?
  • What are the Impacts?
  • Breaking Down the Charts
  • Interpreting Results
slide-4
SLIDE 4

S afety Analysis for All Proj ects

  • Process developed to right size the level
  • f safety analysis based on proj ect type

4

Fewer Fatalities & Serious Injuries

Better Targeted Investments

More Informed Decision Making

DATA DRIVEN S AFETY ANALYS IS

slide-5
SLIDE 5

WHY DOES IT MATTER

slide-6
SLIDE 6

CRAS H TRENDS

Ohio has experienced four years of rising traffic deaths.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

UNDERS TANDING EXIS TING S ITE PERFORMANCE

  • Review statewide or regional

priority list

  • Previous safety reviews of the

location or proj ect

  • Review of observed crash

trends

  • Use analysis procedures

included in the AAS HTO Highway S afety Manual

INCREAS ED COMPLEXITY

slide-8
SLIDE 8

US ES FOR DDS A

  • Evaluate safety performance to know how it

compares to peer sites or other alternatives being evaluated

  • Targeting investments where there is a

potential to reduce crashes

slide-9
SLIDE 9

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

LOCATION AND DES IGN MANUAL Added Crash Analysis requirement in 2016

Review state and regional priority list Research previous safety analysis Review observed crash data

  • Document Crash Patterns that exist
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Requires the Crash Analysis be completed prior to scoping the proj ect

  • Improved S

coping

  • Identify potential funding sources

Elements included in the Project Initiation Package (PIP)

PROJECT S COPE

slide-12
SLIDE 12

DEVELOPING PURPOS E AND NEED Purpose and Need statements are important

  • Only include safety considerations when

there is a documented crash pattern or site is performing worse than its peers

  • Additional analysis will be required if safety

is included in the P&N

slide-13
SLIDE 13

FEAS IBILITY S TUDY (ALTERNATIVES ANALYS IS ) Quantify your safety performance Mirroring the capacity analysis process

  • Analyze existing conditions
  • Analyze each build alternative
  • Compare results
slide-14
SLIDE 14

PROJECT DES IGN Use knowledge gained from the feasibility study Identify proj ect elements sensitive to crash frequency variation

  • Offsets to barrier
  • S

ignal operation

  • Lane width
slide-15
SLIDE 15

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Can apply same procedures on local proj ects

  • Alternatives evaluation
  • Potential for cost savings
  • Implement countermeasures as part of proj ect
slide-16
SLIDE 16

PDP PROJECTS

slide-17
SLIDE 17

BREAKING DOWN THE CHARTS

slide-18
SLIDE 18

BREAKING DOWN THE CHARTS

  • PDP Paths 1 and 2

(No Alternative Analysis)

Source: Montgomery, Ohio Source: Highland County, Ohio Source: Butler County, Ohio

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • PDP Paths 3, 4, & 5

(Alternatives Analysis)

  • PDP Paths 3, 4, & 5

(Alternatives Analysis)

BREAKING DOWN THE CHARTS

slide-20
SLIDE 20

MINIMAL S AFETY AS S ES S MENT

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DETERMINE IF LOCATION IS ON ODOT S IP MAP

slide-22
SLIDE 22

DETERMINE IF LOCATION IS ON ODOT S IP MAP

slide-23
SLIDE 23

MINIMAL S AFETY AS S ES S MENT

slide-24
SLIDE 24

DETERMINE RANKING ON S AFETY PRIORITY LIS TS

slide-25
SLIDE 25

DETERMINE RANKING ON S AFETY PRIORITY LIS TS

slide-26
SLIDE 26

DETERMINE RANKING ON S AFETY PRIORITY LIS TS

slide-27
SLIDE 27

DETERMINE RANKING ON S AFETY PRIORITY LIS TS

slide-28
SLIDE 28

MINIMAL S AFETY AS S ES S MENT

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Most Recent 3- Years of Crash Data

ANALYZE HIS TORICAL/ OBS ERVED CRAS H DATA

slide-30
SLIDE 30

ANALYZE HIS TORICAL/ OBS ERVED CRAS H DATA

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Sideswipe Crashes Angle Crashes (Including Left-Turn Crashes) Inj ury Rear End Crashes (Compared t o Inj ury % for Multi-Vehicle Crashes) Total Rear End Crashes Below S tatewide Average S tatewide Average Above Statewide Average

slide-31
SLIDE 31

MINIMAL S AFETY AS S ES S MENT

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • Very little analysis
  • “ If it ain’ t broke, don’ t fix

it”

  • Could mitigate lower-

ranking safety hot spots

PDP PATHS 1 & 2

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Use existing crash data in alternatives HSM analysis Do not use existing crash data in alternatives HSM analysis

PDP PATHS 3, 4, & 5 (NO S AFETY COMPONENT)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Use existing crash data in alternatives HSM analysis Perform HSM analysis to establish baseline conditions Do not use existing crash data in alternatives HSM analysis

PDP PATHS 3, 4, & 5 (S AFETY COMPONENT)

slide-35
SLIDE 35

INTERPRETING RES ULTS

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Alternative A Alternative B LOS D C Queue Length Reductions 10% 40% R/ W Impacts None 2 parcels Construction Costs $300,000 $750,000 Crash Reductions 2 crashes/ year 6 crashes/ year 1 inj ury crash/ year 0.5 inj ury crash/ year

INTERPRETING RES ULTS

slide-37
SLIDE 37

TO DOWNTOWN TO EASTON

NORTH

ALTERNATIVE 1

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-38
SLIDE 38

TO TO TO

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

X

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-39
SLIDE 39
  • No Build
  • 9 freeway segments
  • 3 ramp segments
  • 5.69 miles
  • Build
  • 14 freeway segments
  • 3 ramp segments
  • 8.00 miles

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-40
SLIDE 40

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-41
SLIDE 41

3.62 12.01 13.86 66.05 95.54 4.90 14.39 15.89 84.89 120.06 4.65 13.76 15.20 80.65 114.27 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 KA B C O TOTAL Predicted Crash Frequency per Y ear No Build Alt 2 Alt 3

+25% +20%

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-42
SLIDE 42

0.64 2.11 2.44 11.61 16.79 0.61 1.80 1.99 10.61 15.01 0.58 1.72 1.90 10.08 14.28 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 KA B C O TOTAL

Predicted Crash Frequency per Y ear per Mile

No Build Alt 2 Alt 3

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670/ I-270 INTERCHANGE ANALYS IS

slide-43
SLIDE 43

I-670 S MARTLANE

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670 S MARTLANE

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Initial HS M Analysis Results KA B C O Total No Build 6.5 22.0 23.2 137.1 188.9 Build 7.1 23.1 24.3 142.0 196.5 Difference +0.6 (8% ) +1.1 (5% ) +1.1 (5% ) +4.9 (4% ) +7.6 (4% )

*BASED ON WEIGHTED VOLUME ANALYSIS OF WHEN SMARTLANE IS OPERATIONAL AND WHEN IT IS CLOSED

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670 S MARTLANE

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Countermeasures to prevent fixed object crashes

RUMBLE STRIPS WIDER EDGE LINE

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670 S MARTLANE

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Final HS M Analysis Results (With Countermeasures) KA B C O Total No Build 6.5 22.0 23.2 137.1 188.9 Build 5.7 18.5 19.5 142.0 185.7 Difference

  • 0.8

(13% )

  • 3.5

(16% )

  • 3.7

(16% ) +4.9 (4% )

  • 3.2

(2% )

*BASED ON WEIGHTED VOLUME ANALYSIS OF WHEN SMARTLANE IS OPERATIONAL AND WHEN IT IS CLOSED

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670 S MARTLANE

slide-47
SLIDE 47
  • S

afety is j ust one metric to help make the best decision

  • More to the results than meets the

eye

INTERPRETING RES ULTS I-670 S MARTLANE

slide-48
SLIDE 48
  • S

afety should be incorporated into all proj ects – ODOT policy changes

  • Cost savings could be identified from

safety analysis

  • S

afety can be used as a qualitative metric to evaluate alternatives S UMMARY

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Derek Troyer, PE Ohio DOT 614.387.5164 Derek.Troyer@ dot.ohio.gov Kendra S chenk, PE, PTOE Burgess & Niple 614.459.2050

Kendra.S chenk@ BurgessNiple.com