SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH T TO S SAF AFET ETY May 23, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
systemic appr approach t to s saf afet ety
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH T TO S SAF AFET ETY May 23, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 28, 2024 318 likes •570 views

SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH T TO S SAF AFET ETY May 23, 2018 INTRODUCT DUCTION CHAD D POLK, PE Project Manager/Safety Engineer Chad.Polk@Jacobs.com 813.281.7912 2 If y you al always d do, what y you uve a always d done

slide-1
SLIDE 1

SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH T TO S SAF AFET ETY

May 23, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

INTRODUCT DUCTION

CHAD D POLK, PE

Project Manager/Safety Engineer Chad.Polk@Jacobs.com 813.281.7912

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

If y you al always d do, what y you’ u’ve a always d done ne, you w wil ill al always get, what y at you a always g s got. t.

Henry Ford

“ ”

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

CHAL CHALLEN ENGE PROBLEM  Too m man any c cras ashes/lane ane mil iles es t to ad addres ess  No Not e enou

  • ugh $

$$$

SOLUTIO TION

System emic c Approach

  • Ability t

y to ident ntify a y at-risk l locations b bas ased o

  • n the p

presence of char aracteris istic ics af affil ilia iated with h severe c crashe hes

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

WHA HAT IS S THE HE SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH? ? A systemic a c appr pproach ch t to safety i involves w wide dely impl plemented d impr provements based o d on h high gh-ris isk road adway f feat eatur ures es c correl elat ated wit ith spec ecif ific sever ere e cras ash types

  • es. T

The ap approac ach p provid ides es a a more e compreh ehens ensiv ive m e method for s saf afety p planning anning and and im implement ntat atio ion n that at suppl pplements a and d compli pliments tradi ditional s l site a analysis. Dat ata-dr driven pr proce cess that identifies safety performance candidates based on risk

“ ”

Source | https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/ 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

UNI UNIQUE BE BENEF NEFITS S TO O THI HIS APPR APPROACH

6

  • Defensible l

list o

  • f pr

project cts

  • Pro

roactive ve

  • Inc

Increas eased ed s suc ucces ess in in ap applying ing for HSIP IP fundi ding g

slide-7
SLIDE 7

HI HIGHWAY SAF AFETY IMPR PROVE VEMENT PR PROGRAM AM (HSI HSIP) FUND UNDING NG

Cos

  • st of
  • f systemic ap

approa

  • ach freque

uently y “pays for

  • r itself” thr

hrou

  • ugh inc

ncreased success in n HSIP ap application

  • ns!

Source | FDOT 2016 Strategic Highway Safety Plan p. 7 - http://www.fdot.gov/safety/SHSP2016/FDOT_2016SHSP_Final.pdf

  • Work w

with a agenci encies t to cr crea eate co compliant HS HSIP IP a app pplications

  • Develo

lop H HSI SIP a appli lication

  • ns f

for

  • r all

ll proj

  • jects
  • n

n prioritized ed l lists

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

WHE HERE RE CAN AN SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH BE BE APPL APPLIED?

8

State Cou

  • unty

Cit City Veh ehicl cles es

(Rural, urban, etc.)

Pedes estrians/ Bicycl cles es Railr lroa

  • ad

Cr Crossi ssings

slide-9
SLIDE 9

STAKE AKEHO HOLDER ENG NGAGEMENT

  • Focu

cus o

  • n

n 4 4 E’ E’s

  • 1 day w

wor

  • rkshop
  • p
  • Stakeholder

er i input a and nd buy buy-in in

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

DATA A DRI DRIVEN PR PROCE CESS SS Systemic A c Appr pproach ch

Deploy countermeasures at locations with greatest risk

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

RI RISK EX SK EXAM AMPL PLE | Infrastructure

  • 2-lan

ane u undivided

CURV CURVE #1 #1

Radius = 500’ Superelevation (e) = 8.0%

CURV CURVE #2 #2

Radius = 550’ Superelevation (e) = 8.5%

Design Criteria -> Radius = 716’ Superelevation (e) = 10%

  • Rural

al t typ ypical s section

  • Des

Design spee eed = 50

  • 5-Year Crash History
  • 0 fatalities
  • 1 incapacitating
  • 5-Year Crash History
  • 3 fatalities
  • 2 incapacitating
slide-12
SLIDE 12

RURA URAL INTERSE SECTIONS S | Ri Risk Factors An Analyzed

 Adjacent Curve  Adjacent Development  Alignment Skew  Area Type  Bike Facility  Context Zone  Design Type  Flashers  Flashing Yellow Arrow  Intersection Type  Left Turn Phasing Maj  Minor1 ADT  Minor1 Lane Config  Minor2 ADT  Minor2 Lane Config  Minor3 ADT  Minor3 Lane Config  Volume Cross Product  Minor Division Configuration  Minor Speed Limit  Minor Surface Type  Overhead Signal

12

 Left Turn Phasing Min  Leg Configuration  Lighting Present  Major1 ADT  Major1 Lane Config  Major2 ADT  Major2 Lane Config  Major Division Configuration  Major Speed Limit  Major Surface Type  Max Lanes Cross  Ped Indicator  PedBike Other1  PedBike Other2  Previous Stop  Railroad Crossing  Refuge Island  Right Turn On Red  School Crosswalk  Sidewalk  Transit Adjacent  School Crosswalk  Crash History

INTER INTERSEC ECTIO IONS NS

slide-13
SLIDE 13

RURA URAL INTERSE SECTIONS S | Ri Risk Factors An Analyzed

 Adjacent C Curve ve  Adjac acen ent D Dev evel elopmen ent  Alignment S Skew  Area Type  Bike Facility  Context Zone  Design Type  Flashers  Flashing Yellow Arrow  Intersection Type  Left Turn Phasing Maj  Minor1 ADT  Minor1 Lane Config  Minor2 ADT  Minor2 Lane Config  Minor3 ADT  Minor3 Lane Config  Volume C Cross P Product  Minor Division Configuration  Minor Speed Limit  Minor Surface Type  Overhead Signal

13

 Left Turn Phasing Min  Leg Configuration  Lighting Present  Major1 ADT  Major1 Lane Config  Major2 ADT  Major2 Lane Config  Major Division Configuration  Major Speed Limit  Major Surface Type  Max Lanes Cross  Ped Indicator  PedBike Other1  PedBike Other2  Pre revious St Stop  Railroad Crossing  Refuge Island  Right Turn On Red  School Crosswalk  Sidewalk  Transit Adjacent  School Crosswalk  Crash H sh History

INTER INTERSEC ECTIO IONS NS

slide-14
SLIDE 14

IMPLEMENT NTATION N PRIORI RITY LIST

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

IMPLEMENT NTATION N PRIORI RITY LIST

Risk Factors

# Length [miles] Surface Type BIS Functional Classification ADT Range Shoulder Width Access Density Total Crash History Total Stars 1 8.1       2 1.5       3 10.4     

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

DE DEVE VELOP P CO COUN UNTERMEASU SURES ES

  • Predomin

minantly y low-co cost co count unter ermeasures es t that ca can be n be applied ed t to the e at-risk syst system

  • Incl

nclude e co cost and nd ef effect ectiven enes ess t to inf nform d deci ecision-ma makin ing

  • Pr

Provides es o

  • pportunity t

to proa

  • actively a

addres ess s sever ere cr e crashes es Adopt dopted Safety ty Strategies/ s/Counterme rmeasu sure res, s, Crash sh Reducti ction Factors, s, and Typica cal Cost t Esti tima mates

Rural Segments STRAT ATEGY CRAS ASH R REDUCTION F FACTOR TYPICAL I INS NSTALLATION CO N COSTS

Centerline rumble strip Shoulder/Edgeline rumble strip Raised pavement markers Enhanced edgeline (6” & 8”) Shoulder paving (2’, 4’, 6’) 40% head-on/sideswipe crashes 20% run off road crashes 10% to 45% all rural serious crashes (6”) 20% to 30% run-off-the-road crashes (with shoulder rumble) (2’ only) $3,600 per mile $5, 850 per mile $1, 980 per mile $54,000 per mile, plus $5, 850 per mile (for edge rumble)

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

0.17 0.23 0.33 0.51 0.57 0.77 2.30

0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.40

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

     

Crash Density [Crashes per Intersection per Year]

VAL ALIDATION EXAM AMPL PLE #1 #1 | Ri Risk Rat Rating – Ru Rural 2 2-lane I Intersections

’s = # of Risk Factors Present at Site

6 6  locatio ions 10x more li likel ely t to hav have crashes t than 1 han 1 

17

Total Crash Density Severe Crash Density

6 6  locatio ions 40x m more l lik ikel ely t to hav have seve vere c crashes t than han 1 1 

slide-18
SLIDE 18

VAL ALIDATION EXAM AMPL PLE #2 #2 | Int ntersection Distribu bution Vs

  • Vs. Co

Combi bine ned Ri Risk Ra Rating

3 or

  • r m

mor

  • re

65% of

  • f seve

vere r right ang angle c cras ashes and and 55% o

  • f se

severe re crash shes s occur a r at

  • nl
  • nly 26% of
  • f i

int ntersections Look

  • ok f

for

  • r ove
  • verrepresentations whe

where a a maj ajority of

  • f the

he c crashes oc

  • ccur on
  • n a

a minor nority

  • f
  • f the

he r roa

  • ad ne

network

Ru Rural 2 2-Lane e Inter

ersec ectio ions

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011* 2012 2013 2014

RE RESUL SULTS OF OF CO COUNT UNTY ROAD AD SAF AFET ETY PL PLAN ANS

26% 26% re redu duction in in fatality y rate! e!

19

County State Interstate

Fatality Rate [Crashes Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles] Begin Widespread Deployment of Safety Strategies Along County System

slide-20
SLIDE 20

JACO COBS BS PI PIONEE EERED THE HE PR PROCE CESS SS

20

  • Have anal

analyzed ed m more e ne networks t than an an any other er c cons nsultant ant

– 65,000+ center

erline m e miles es of r roadw dway

– 29,000+ inter

ersections

– 27

27,000+ horizontal curves es

– $720M in counter

erme measures es sugges ested

  • Develope

ped F d FHWA Systemic T c Toolb lbox

  • Developed

ed C Cas ase S Stud udy for FH FHWA on n Ped/Bik ike S e System emic

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DE DELIVERAB ABLES/ S/BENEFITS S FROM SY SYSTEMIC APPR APPROACH PL PLANN ANNING

  • Defensibl

ble Project L List

  • Inc

Increas eased ed suc ucces ess in in ap applying ing f for H HSIP IP f fund unding ing

  • Agency

cy s spe pecific c safety pl plans

  • Lo

Locat atio ion p n prio iorit itiz izat atio ion n and and count nter ermeas easure r e rec ecommend ndat atio ions ns

  • Stak

akeh eholder er engagem engagement ent

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Fail ailur ure is e is no not f fat atal al, but ut f fail ailur ure e to c change m ange migh ight be. e.

John Wooden

“ ”

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

QUESTIONS? S?

23