Transcript No Slide Title

Results and Status of State
Crash Analyses
IDS - Pool Fund
Presented to
IDS Pool Fund Partners
January 18, 2005
2
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crash Analysis - Preferred Process
Wisconsin Process and Results
North Carolina Process and Results
Iowa Process and Results
Comparison of States
Update on Michigan, New Hampshire,
Georgia, and Nevada
• Conclusions
3
Crash Analysis Process
Census of All Rural
Thru-STOP
Intersections
Very Efficient
(i.e., MN & IA)
Separate
by facility
type.
4-Legged;
Two-Lane
Roadways
Candidate
Intersections,
Two-Lane
Determine Efficiency
of State’s Crash
Records System
Less Efficient
(i.e., WI, NC, & MI)
4-Legged;
Expressways
Identify
intersections
over the
critical crash
rate.
Candidate
Intersections,
Expressways
Sample of Rural
Intersections - State
Technical Liaison
Screens to No More
Than 75 Intersections
State DOT
Selection of
Test Intersection
Detailed
review
of crash
conditions.
Identify intersections with high
crash frequency, severity, and
number of crossing path crashes.
Top 3-6
Candidates
4
Wisconsin Process
• Limitations of Wisconsin Crash System
– Unable to automatically identify intersection locations
– No ability to link traffic control and intersection geometry
• State DOT Selected Corridor With Known Crash Problem
– US 53 from Rice Lake to Superior (~ 70 miles)
– Mainline volumes range from 4,700 to 11,000 vpd
– 74 intersections had at least one crash in 6.5 year period (Jan. 1,
1999 to June 30, 2004)
– 6 intersections were identified as candidates for deployment based
on crash history
5
US 53 Study Corridor
6
Typical Candidate Intersection
Typical Median Design
(CTH B, Douglas County)
Typical Approach Design
(EB Approach at CTH V, Barron County)
7
Vertical and Horizontal Curves
Horizontal Curve at STH 77, Washburn County
Crest Vertical Curve to North of CTH V, Barron County
Horizontal Curve and Independent Vertical Alignment
South of CTH B, Douglas County
8
Unique Features
Median Design at STH 77, Washburn County
Example Offset Right Turn Lane
(CTH E and US 63, Washburn County)
9
Wisconsin Crash Summary
Performance
Measure
CTH V
Barron County
CTH B
Washburn County
CTH E
Washburn County
US 63 (N. Jct.)
Washburn County
STH 77
Washburn County
CTH B
Douglas County
23
22
30
19
30
20
4 (17%)
15 (65%)
4 (17%)
3 (14%)
13 (59%)
6 (27%)
0 (0%)
18 (60%)
12 (40%)
3 (16%)
6 (32%)
10 (53%)
5 (17%)
15 (50%)
10 (33%)
3 (15%)
10 (50%)
7 (35%)
10,570
10,720
9,000
10,400
6,800
7,700
Crash Rate
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.9
1.1
Expected Rate
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Critical Crash Rate
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
Correctable Crash
Types
22 (96%)
19 (86%)
20 (67%)
11 (58%)
22 (73%)
15 (75%)
Fat
Inj
PD
4 (18%)
15 (68%)
3 (14%)
3 (16%)
12 (63%)
4 (21%)
0 (0%)
14 (70%)
6 (30%)
3 (27%)
3 (27%)
5 (45%)
5 (23%)
11 (50%)
6 (27%)
3 (20%)
8 (53%)
4 (27%)
< 21
21 – 64
> 64
1 (5%)
12 (55%)
9 (41%)
2 (11%)
13 (68%)
4 (21%)
3 (16%)
8 (42%)
8 (42%)
3 (27%)
5 (45%)
3 (27%)
1 (5%)
9 (43%)
11 (52%)
8 (53%)
6 (40%)
1 (7%)
Crash Location
Farside
Nearside
16 (73%)
6 (27%)
15 (79%)
4 (21%)
7 (35%)
13 (65%)
3 (27%)
8 (73%)
12 (55%)
10 (45%)
13 (87%)
2 (13%)
Contributing Factors
Int Recg
Gap Recg
Unknown
1 (5%)
20 (91%)
1 (5%)
0 (0%)
19 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
17 (85%)
3 (15%)
3 (27%)
7 (64%)
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
17 (77%)
5 (23%)
0 (0%)
15 (100%)
0 (0%)
Crash Frequency
Crash Severity
Fat
Inj
PD
Daily Entering ADT
Crash Severity
At-Fault Driver
1)
2)
3)
Crash Data includes January 1, 1998 to June 30, 2004.
“Expected Rate” is the average intersection crash rate for the 74 intersections identified within the corridor.
“Correctable Crash Types” include straight crossing path, right turn into path, and left turn into path, and left turn
across path – lateral direction.
10
Wisconsin Crash Summary
Crash Severity of Crossing Path Crashes
Age of At Fault Drivers in Crossing Path Crashes
70.0%
80.0%
68%
Barron Cnty, CTH V
Washburn Cnty, CTH B
Washburn Cnty, CTH E
Washburn Cnty, US 63
Washburn Cnty, STH 77
Douglas Cnty, CTH B
60.0%
53%
55%
Barron Cnty, CTH V
Washburn Cnty, CTH B
Washburn Cnty, CTH E
Washburn Cnty, US 63
Washburn Cnty, STH 77
Douglas Cnty, CTH B
70%
68%
70.0%
63%
52%
60.0%
50.0%
53%
45%
42%
50%
43%
41%
45%
40.0%
Percentage
Percentage
40%
50.0%
42%
30.0%
27%
40.0%
27%
30%
30.0%
27%
21%
27% 27%
27%
23%
20.0%
20.0%
16%
21%
20%
18%
16%
14%
11%
10.0%
10.0%
7%
5%
5%
0%
0.0%
0.0%
< 21
21 - 64
Fatal
> 64
Injury
Property Damage
Crash Severity
Age of At-Fault Driver
Crash Location of Crossing Path Crashes
Contributing Factors for Crossing Path Crashes
100%
100.0%
90.0%
87%
79%
80.0%
73%
85%
80.0%
65%
64%
60.0%
55%
50.0%
Percentage
Percentage
77%
70.0%
60.0%
30.0%
Barron Cnty, CTH V
Washburn Cnty, CTH B
Washburn Cnty, CTH E
Washburn Cnty, US 63
Washburn Cnty, STH 77
Douglas Cnty, CTH B
91%
90.0%
73%
70.0%
40.0%
100%
100.0%
Barron Cnty, CTH V
Washburn Cnty, CTH B
Washburn Cnty, CTH E
Washburn Cnty, US 63
Washburn Cnty, STH 77
Douglas Cnty, CTH B
45%
50.0%
40.0%
35%
27%
30.0%
27%
27%
23%
21%
20.0%
20.0%
15%
13%
10.0%
9%
10.0%
5%
5%
0%
0.0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.0%
Farside
Nearside
Crash Location
Intersection Recognition
Gap Recognition
Driver Recognition Failure
Unknown
11
North Carolina Process
• Limitations of North Carolina Crash System
– Unable to automatically query intersection locations based on traffic
control and intersection geometry - creates difficulties in computing an
expected rate for subsets
• State DOT Selected Intersections from HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program)
– The intent of HSIP is to “identify locations that exceed minimum
warranting criteria developed by safety engineers for particular crash
types and patterns for further analysis and investigation”
– HSIP criteria used were I-1 (minimum number of frontal impact
crashes) and I-5 (chronic crash pattern)
– Intersections were also thru-STOP, and the major roadway was a fourlane divided highway with a speed limit > 55 mph
– 59 of the top 300 HSIP intersections met the criteria, but only 12 had
no safety improvement projects recently implemented
12
North Carolina Candidate Intersections
1) US 74 and SR 2210
6
2) US 74 and SR 1574
3) NC 87 and SR 1150
4) NC 87 and SR 1700
5) US 74 and SR 1152
6) US 19 and SR 1390
3
5
1
2
4
13
North Carolina Crash Summary
Performance
Measure
US 74 and
SR 2210 (111)
US 74 and
SR 1574 (122)
NC 87 and
SR 1150 (123)
NC 87 and
SR 1700 (131)
US 74 and
SR 1152 (143)
US 19 and
SR 1390 (159)
20
21
19
25
28
8
Crash Severity Fat
“A” Inj
“B” Inj
“C” Inj
PD
2 (10%)
0 (0%)
7 (35%)
5 (25%)
6 (30%)
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
7 (33%)
6 (29%)
6 (29%)
3 (16%)
0 (0%)
6 (32%)
6 (32%)
4 (21%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
8 (32%)
12 (48%)
4 (16%)
1 (4%)
2 (7%)
10 (36%)
7 (25%)
8 (29%)
0 (0%)
1 (12%)
3 (38%)
2 (25%)
2 (25%)
Daily Entering ADT
11,150
10,400
10,000
8,000
18,800
6,700
1.6
1.8
1.7
2.9
1.4
1.1
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
Critical Crash Rate
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
Correctable Crash
Type
19 (95%)
18 (86%)
18 (95%)
22 (88%)
22 (79%)
6 (75%)
Crash Severity Fat
“A” Inj
“B” Inj
“C” Inj
PD
2 (11%)
0 (0%)
7 (37%)
4 (21%)
6 (32%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
6 (33%)
6 (33%)
4 (22%)
3 (17%)
0 (0%)
6 (33%)
6 (33%)
3 (17%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
8 (36%)
11 (50%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
9 (41%)
6 (27%)
5 (23%)
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
3 (50%)
2 (33%)
0 (0%)
< 21
21 – 64
> 64
3 (16%)
15 (79%)
1 (5%)
1 (6%)
15 (83%)
2 (11%)
5 (28%)
8 (44%)
5 (28%)
4 (18%)
13 (59%)
5 (23%)
3 (14%)
13 (59%)
4 (18%)
2 (33%)
2 (33%)
2 (33%)
Crash Location
Farside
Nearside
19 (100%)
0 (0%)
15 (83%)
3 (17%)
15 (83%)
3 (17%)
18 (82%)
4 (18%)
19 (86%)
3 (14%)
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
Contributing Factors
Int Recg
Gap Recg
Unknown
2 (11%)
13 (68%)
4 (21%)
1 (6%)
14 (78%)
3 (17%)
0 (0%)
18 (100%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
19 (86%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
21 (95%)
1 (5%)
0 (0%)
4 (67%)
2 (33%)
Crash Frequency
Crash Rate
Expected Rate
At-Fault Driver
1)
2)
3)
Crash Data includes January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003.
“Expected Rate” is the average intersection crash rate for similar Minnesota intersections.
“Correctable Crash Types” include straight crossing path, right turn into path, and left turn into path, and left turn
across path – lateral direction.
14
North Carolina Crash Summary
Age of At Fault Drivers in Crossing Path Crashes
Crash Severity of Crossing Path Crashes
100%
90%
100%
Robeson Cnty, US 74 & SR 2210
83%
Columbus Cnty, US 74 & SR 1574
79%
80%
Robeson Cnty, US 74 & SR 2210
91%
Columbus Cnty, US 74 & SR 1574
90%
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1150
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1150
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1700
Scotland Cnty, US 74 & SR 1152
70%
Scotland Cnty, US 74 & SR 1152
Cherokee Cnty, US 19 & SR 1390
73%
70%
59% 59%
60%
Percentage
50%
44%
40%
33%
30%
33%
58%
50%
40%
33%
28%
Cherokee Cnty, US 19 & SR 1390
67%
60%
Percentage
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1700
78%
80%
32%
28%
30%
23%
20%
22%
18%
18%
16%
20%
11%
11%
10%
6%
9%
10%
5%
5%
0%
21 - 64
0%
0%
0%
0%
< 21
0%
Fatal
> 64
Injury
Property Damage
Crash Severity
Age of At-Fault Driver
Crash Location of Crossing Path Crashes
Contributing Factors for Crossing Path Crashes
100%
100%
100%
100%
Robeson Cnty, US 74 & SR 2210
Robeson Cnty, US 74 & SR 2210
Columbus Cnty, US 74 & SR 1574
90%
83%
83%
90%
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1700
82%
95%
Columbus Cnty, US 74 & SR 1574
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1150
86%
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1150
86%
Bladen Cnty, NC 87 & SR 1700
Scotland Cnty, US 74 & SR 1152
80%
80%
Cherokee Cnty, US 19 & SR 1390
Scotland Cnty, US 74 & SR 1152
78%
Cherokee Cnty, US 19 & SR 1390
70%
68%
70%
60%
67%
60%
50%
50%
50%
Percentage
Percentage
23%
17%
17%
14%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
33%
21%
20%
17%
17%
18%
20%
17%
14%
11%
10%
10%
9%
6%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Farside
Nearside
Crash Location
Intersection Recognition
Gap Recognition
Driver Recognition Failure
Unknown
15
Iowa Process
• Census of all rural, expressway intersections
• Selected the 20 intersections with the greatest
difference between the actual crash severity index
rate and the expected crash severity index rate
• From list of 20, screened down to the 6
intersections with the most failure to yield crashes
16
Iowa Crash Summary
US 61 & Hershey
Rd (Muscatine
County)
US 18 & US 71
(Clay County)
US 151 & County
X-20 (Linn County)
13
15
11
Crash Severity Fat
“A” Inj
“B” Inj
“C” Inj
PD
2 (15%)
2 (15%)
2 (15%)
2 (15%)
5 (39%)
1 (7%)
0 (0%)
3 (20%)
4 (27%)
7 (47%)
Daily Entering ADT
13,310
IA 163 & NE 70
Street (Polk
County)
th
US 218 & County
G-36 (Washington
County)
US 218 & County
C-57 (Black Hawk
County)
14
13
15
0 (0%)
2 (18%)
0 (0%)
4 (36%)
5 (45%)
1 (7%)
0 (0%)
7 (50%)
3 (21%)
3 (21%)
0 (0%)
2 (15%)
2 (15%)
4 (31%)
5 (39%)
1 (7%)
4 (27%)
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
7 (47%)
11,710
8,830
16,050
13,670
20,060
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
0.4 (MN)
Critical Crash Rate
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
Failure to Yield from
Minor Approach
8 (62%)
13 (87%)
8 (73%)
9 (64%)
8 (62%)
11 (73%)
Performance
Measure
Crash Frequency
Crash Rate
Expected Rate
1)
2)
Crash Data includes January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003.
“Expected Rate” is the average intersection crash rate for similar Minnesota intersections.
17
More Updates
•
Michigan
– Completed initial overview of crash data and working to identify a corridor OR a
subset of intersections for analysis
•
Georgia
– Discussions with Technical Liaison continuing
•
Nevada
– Discussions with Technical Liaison continuing
– Indicated preference to focus analysis on rural two-lane roadways
•
New Hampshire
– Discussions with Technical Liaison continuing
– Indicated preference to focus analysis on rural two-lane roadways
18
State Comparison
Performance
Measure
Intersection #1
Intersection #2
Intersection #3
Intersection #4
Intersection #5
Intersections #6
US 52 & CSAH 9
US 10 & CR 43
MN 65 & 17 Ave.
Crash Frequency
20
18
21
Crash Rate
1.0
0.9
0.7
Gap Recognition
12 (92%)
8 (73%)
8 (100%)
Farside
12 (92%)
8 (73%)
5 (63%)
Older Drivers (>64)
5 (33%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
US 53 & STH 77
US 53 & CTH V
US 53 & CTH B
US 53 & CTH E
US 53 & US 63
US 53 & CTH B
Crash Frequency
30
23
22
30
19
20
Crash Rate
1.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.8
1.1
Gap Recognition
17 (77%)
20 (91%)
19 (100%)
17 (85%)
7 (64%)
15 (100%)
Farside
12 (55%)
16 (73%)
15 (79%)
7 (35%)
3 (27%)
13 (87%)
Older Drivers (>64)
11 (52%)
9 (41%)
4 (21%)
8 (42%)
3 (27%)
1 (7%)
US 74 & SR 2210
US 74 & SR 1574
NC 87 & SR 1150
NC 87 & SR 1700
US 74 & SR 1152
US 19 & SR 1390
Crash Frequency
20
21
19
25
28
8
Crash Rate
1.6
1.8
1.7
2.9
1.4
1.1
Gap Recognition
13 (68%)
14 (78%)
18 (100%)
19 (86%)
21 (95%)
4 (67%)
Farside
19 (100%)
15 (83%)
15 (83%)
18 (82%)
19 (86%)
3 (50%)
1 (5%)
2 (11%)
5 (28%)
5 (23%)
4 (18%)
2 (33%)
US 61 &
Hershey Rd.
US 18 & US 71
US 151 & X-20
IA 163 & NE 70 St.
US 218 & G-36
US 218 & C-57
Crash Frequency
13
15
11
14
13
15
Crash Rate
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.7
Minnesota
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Older Drivers (>64)
Iowa
th
th
19
Conclusions
• Similar crash patterns have been found in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Iowa
– Similar crash rates, high severity, straight crossing path, farside
location, gap related predominate
– Many intersections have a high involvement of older and/or
younger drivers
– Weather and light conditions play minimal role in intersection
safety problems