Transcript Safety Corridors a Synthesis

Low Cost Safety Improvements:
1)Safety Corridors
2)Road Safety Assessments
Charlie Nemmers
University of Missouri
1
Background:
Safety Corridors Study





Need grew from a four State Safety Summit
Funding from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri DOTs
and Midwest Transportation Consortium
Goal: identify the most promising
practices and programs to share
among the four states
States serve as a steering committee
IADOT w/ Iowa State U. to do pilots
2
Approach:
Safety Corridors Study




Identified 12 states w/ some sort of SC
Not an engineering focus
 Legal aspects
 Enforcement
 Community involvement
Selection Criteria /Measures of
Effectiveness
Rural - 2 lane highway focus
3
The 12 States
Alaska
California
Florida
Kentucky
Minnesota
New Jersey
Ohio
New Mexico
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington
4
Alaska

Full Program:





“safety zones” like school or work zones
4Es; 2 lanes; rural; 10 miles long
Road Safety Audits; incident response
Signing; legislation; double fines
Media campaigns; “light” on engineering
5
Alaska

Alaska’s criteria for designating a Safety
Corridor are as follows:








Roadway with 2000 ADT or more.
3-5 year fatal + major injury crash rate exceeding 110% of
statewide average
The DOT must agree on a coordinated traffic control/patrol plan.
Agreed that plan will be effective in reducing crashes.
The local police define the amount of enforcement needed to
increase safe driving and to provide ongoing enforcement.
No more than 10 safety zones at one time in Alaska.
The Safety Corridor should be no shorter than five miles long
The Safety Corridor is decommissioned when the fatal + major
injury crash rate falls below statewide average for three years.
6
California

Lead by the CHP






w/Task Force: CalTrans, Planning groups, EMS,
legislative and citizen members
< 50 miles long
High 3 year crash/injury record
Funding for six corridors per year
Goal is a 10% reduction in crashes
Must implement 2 solutions (enforcement &
education)
7
Florida

Community Traffic Safety Teams





60 statewide
Facilitated by FDOT
20 local members each
focusing on the driver behaviors and
pedestrians
Statewide CTST Coalition to share
information
8
Kentucky

One Safety Corridor per District









more than one county in that district.
It must be of sufficient length for a corridor (> 50 miles).
It must have a relatively high traffic volume.
It must not be a full control of access highway.
It must have a higher number of crashes (total and
injury/fatal).
It must have a high crash rate (total and injury/fatal).
It must be above a collector functional classification
Road Safety Audit Conducted (video taped)
Low-cost engineering solutions and enforcement
strategies for locations along the SC.
9
Minnesota

Toward Zero Death (TZD) initiative




4E approach
Corridor safety coalitions (like FL)
low-cost alternatives to traditional
engineering solutions
27 counties w/$2M from MnDOT
10
New Jersey


13 Urban corridors / 10 miles in length
Selection is a three step process





Scan for six or more fatal crashes is performed
Roadways with six or more fatal crashes are
analyzed in 10 mile segments for 1,000 or more
total crashes over the previous three years
Crash rate is calculated by roadway crosssectional type
Conduct a Road Safety Audit
Safety Corridors carry double fines
11
New Mexico

The six basics of the program are:







5 year crash history on a moving 5 mile stretch
Crash investigation
Review of the engineering and law enforcement
initiative so as not to overlap efforts
Approval from the district engineer
A public awareness campaign
A review of the equipment and signage.
Safety Corridor eligible for doubled fines
12
Ohio

Most statistically rigorous MOE’s: analyze the
most recent five-year crash data over two-mile sections of similar
roadways using these four statewide statistics:

Crash rate per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT)

Five-year average crash density per mile

Fatal crash rate per 100 MVMT

Five-year average fatal crash density per mile

Analyze countermeasure effectiveness


simple before and after crash count comparison
combined with an Empirical Bayesian approach
13
Oregon



Leader in Safety Corridors (since 1989)
Corridor Citizen Advisory Commission
ODOT S-C Program Manager



Headquarters: guidelines, approves plans
Districts: engineering, local coordination
Intermediate step in more permanent
safety infrastructure improvements
14
Oregon

To designate a Safety Corridor:



3 year avg. fatal + serious injury crash rate at or
above 110% of the latest statewide 3 year avg.
for similar roads.
The state and/or local law enforcement will
commit to making the corridor a patrol priority.
The initial designation team agrees that the
length of roadway is manageable from an
enforcement and education standpoint. Rural
sections may be longer than urban sections.
15
Oregon

The decommissioning process is handled by the
initial designation team and is considered if any
one of the following criteria is met:





3 year average fatal plus serious injury crash rate is at or below
100% compared to the three year average for similar roadways.
Any of the remaining designation criteria are not met.
Minimum requirements within Safety Corridor program guidelines
are not being performed.
A continued lack of activity or investment in the Safety Corridor.
However, a local stakeholder group may ‘adopt’ the
Safety Corridor once it is decommissioned
assuming that the group provides meaningful local
investment into improving the safety of the roadway
16
Pennsylvania




Legislation for “double fines”
6 pilot locations
speeding reduced by 2-14%
Enforcement critical as “warning signs
do not change motorist behavior”
17
Virginia


Implemented for the Interstate System
Selection criteria are as follows:





The crash rate must exceed 125% of the regional average
The Equivalent Property Damage Only frequency must
exceed 150% of the regional avg.(PDO=1, injury=8,
fatal=20).
The truck-involved crash rate exceeds overall regional
rate.
The rate and EPDO frequency are then normalized by
dividing by the maximum rate or EPDO in the region, and
then the measures are added to rank / establish priorities
Speed & crash reduction are the MOEs
18
Washington






Established full program
Statewide Champion for the Safety
Corridors is LTAP coordinator
DOT and Gov. Hwy. Safety Office
402 funds set aside (enforcement/education)
Very active local Safety Corridor team
Decommissioned after 2 years
19
Conclusions / Characteristics

Multi-disciplined


Limited Number



most states also included Emergency
medical providers (the 4th E).
limit the number of corridors
pilot corridors should be developed first
Crash Data

should be consistently used for selection
and evaluation
20
Conclusions / Characteristics

Champion


key to the success of a program
Safety Action Plan


use a multi-disciplined task force
meets regularly for continual review of
the plan and strategies
Legislation



establish corridor limits
permits increased fines
21
Conclusions / Characteristics

Special Signage


Road Safety Audit


fines doubled, special speed limits, lights
on for safety
ensures a multi-disciplined effort
Minimal Engineering

signage, center-line and edge-line
rumble stripes/strips
22
Conclusions / Characteristics

Length



Decommissioning


not important
homogenous characteristics throughout
is important
Selection Criteria and MOEs

should be more statistically rigorous
23
Conclusions / Characteristics

After Data


important, but ……
General Characteristics



funding
pedestrians
other





“Safety Corridor” stamp
a special program for the high schools
motorcycle enforcement on urban safety corridors.
include traffic court judges on the SC team
bumper stickers on the back of large trucks
24
Next is Part 2

Pilot Projects in Iowa


Tom McDonald w/ ISU
Tom Welch w/ IaDOT
25
Road Safety Assessments

Road Safety Assessments (RSA) are
proactive. They look at locations prior
to the development of crash patterns
to correct hazards before they happen.
Road Safety Assessment
/Audit (RSA)



“A road safety audit is a formal safety
performance examination of an
existing or future road or intersection
by an independent audit team.”
Road safety reviews are performed by
multi-disciplined team
http://www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org/
Focus of RSA






Uses a larger (5+person) interdisciplinary team.
Members are usually independent of the project.
The field review is a necessary component of the
safety assessment
Use checklists and field reviews to examine design
features.
Comprehensive and consider all factors that may
contribute to a crash.
Consider the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, large
trucks as well as automobile drivers.
Low Cost Improvements

Mendocino County






Signs Show the Way to
Cost-Effective Rural Safety
Public Roads,
January/February 2005 · Vol.
68 · No. 4
19 roads in the program for
the period from 1992 to
1998.
Total crashes had declined
from 601 to 348
Fatalities down from 13 to 5
Injuries decreased 41.7 %
Improvements to size, color and
location of road signs.
Steps to Conduct a RSA (FHWA)
Road Safety Assessment Team


April 10, 2008 site visit -- May 30, 2008 report
Road Safety Assessment Team:











Brian Chandler Missouri Department of Transportation
Jacob Ray
Missouri Department of Transportation
John Schaefer Missouri Department of Transportation
Donald Neumann
Federal Highway Administration
Scott Sergent
City of Columbia Police Department
Charlie Oestrich
Columbia Public Schools Board
Diane Heckemeyer
Linn State Technical College
Britt E. Smith
Jefferson City, Missouri
Charles Nemmers
University of Missouri
Praveen Edara
University of Missouri
Ginger M. Rossy
University of Missouri
St. Charles Road and
Lake of the Woods Road



Minor arterial collectors
Paved in place,
conforming to existing
property lines
ADT

St. Charles Rd


2,179 east of Lake of the
Woods Rd. (2007)
Lake of the Woods Rd

4148 (2006)
Crash Data

Intersection of Lake
of the Woods and St.
Charles Roads




Angle crashes
Unable to see stop
sign
Poor visibility in
intersection
Intersection of Golf
Blvd. and St. Charles
Road
Major Concerns





Poor visibility,
stopping sight
distance
Posted speed
Confusing
intersections
Narrow road
Construction of new
High School on St.
Charles Road
Lake of the Woods Road: intersections with
minor rural roads and private entrances

Suggestions for improvement








Install chevrons on curves
Install ‘intersection ahead’ signs to warn drivers of
intersections with rural roads
Relocate mailboxes further inside private properties
Reduce the number of trees that are located close to the
pavement
Provide pavement edge markings and shoulders
Check for adequacy of signs with respect to MUTCD
standards and replace damaged ones
Check for compliance with stopping sight distance
requirements (geometrical design)
Improve drainage along the road.
St. Charles Rd

Suggestions for improvement








Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance
with the MUTCD
Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close
proximity to the pavement edges, especially near
curves
Install chevrons at curves
Improve drainage ditches and consider building
shoulders or curb and gutter structures
Provide edge lines for the entire route
Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current
sight distance requirements and adjust the speed limit
accordingly
Remove signs that are no longer necessary
Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the
new High School.
St. Charles Rd

Suggestions for improvement








Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance
with the MUTCD
Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close
proximity to the pavement edges, especially near
curves
Install chevrons at curves
Improve drainage ditches and consider building
shoulders or curb and gutter structures
Provide edge lines for the entire route
Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current
sight distance requirements and adjust the speed limit
accordingly
Remove signs that are no longer necessary
Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the
new High School.
Suggestions for Conducting RSAs

A. Background information:
a. Detailed road maps and aerial maps
b. Road construction plans / Sign and traffic control
devices
c. Accident reports
d. Interviews with: city and county officials / agencies and
groups
e. Future development plans

B. A multidisciplinary team provided alternative views on how
to
approach solutions for the safety issues encountered in the
site visit.
City / County officials did NOT participate in the field
review
Suggestions for Conducting RSAs
39
Suggestions for Conducting
RSAs



C. Site visit: Provide a “strip” map to each team member with
an appropriate scale for them to be able to write comments
directly on it.
This way the team members could focus more on evaluating
safety hazards than on drawing sketches or writing long verbal
descriptions. It also provides future reference to the exact
location of a feature that needs
corrections.
D. Interviews with road users: It could be beneficial to perform
interviews with road users to collect information on situations
that can occur on conditions other than those under which the
site visit was performed (for example ice on the roads and
night visibility).