Transcript A Systemic Approach to Safety

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
centerline rumble stripsPedestrian-related
Allowance
of right-turn-on-red
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
1-10
Factors Influencing Approach
•
•
•
•
Data availability
Resources
Established priorities
State/local agency relationship
Overview
11
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
Overview
12
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
Overview
13
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
Overview
14
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
Process
Element 1
17
Identify Target Crash
Types & Risk Factors
• Analyze system-wide crash data
• Define crash characteristics at the system level
Select focus
crash type(s)
Select focus
facilities
Identify
common
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
Actual Funding
5 Year Crashes - 6,677
Funding – $155,946,000
State System - 3,888 – 58%
$82,652,000
$155,291,000 - >99%
A. State vs. Local
-The state system accounts for 58% of rashes, receives
over 99% of the funding
B. Urban vs. Rural
-Rural state system is under funded; 77% of crashes, 63% of funding.
Urban - 890 – 23%
$19,010,000
$56,159,000 – 36%
Inters-Related - 346– 39%
$7,414,000
$18,495,000 – 33%
Signals – $10,913,000 – 59%
Intersection ? – $5,177,000 – 28%
Other – $2,404,000 – 13%
Rural - 2,998 – 77%
$63,642,000
$98,418,000 – 63%
Not Inters-Related - 544 – 61%
$11,596,100
$37,664,000 – 67%
Road Edge – $3,419,000 – 9%
Barrier – $15,954,000 – 42%
Other – $5,260,000 – 14%
Segment Improve. – $12,955,00 – 34%
Ped Features – $75,000 – >0%
9% Funded – Run Off Road – 40% Crashes
42% Funded – Head On – 12% Crashes
14% Funded – Other – 26% Crashes
34% Funded – Rear End – 11% Crashes
>0% Funded – Pedestrian – 11% Crashes
59% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 52% Crashes
28% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Rear End – 57% Crashes
13% Funded – Other – 43% Crashes
Inters-Related - 667 – 22%
$14,001,240
$11,682,000 – 12%
Not Inters-Related - 2,331 – 78%
$49,640,760
$86,735,000 – 88%
Signal – $3,580,000 – 31%
Intersection ? – $1,531,000 – 13%
Other – $6,571,000 – 56%
Road Edge – $23,156,000 – 27%
Barrier – $25,085,000 – 29%
Other – $31,691,000 – 37%
Segment Improve. – $6,802,000 – 8%
27% Funded – Run Off Road – 61% Crashes
29% Funded – Head On – 9% Crashes
37% Funded – Other – 22% Crashes
8% Funded – Rear End – 8% Crashes
31% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 54%
13% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Read End – 59% Crashes
56% Funded – Other – 41% Crashes
C. Project Type vs. Crash Type
-Signals and Head On are generally over funded.
-Run Off Road are underfunded.
Element 2: Review Past Funding Practices
29
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 lowcost 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
[email protected]
Karen Y. Scurry, P.E.
609-637-4207
[email protected]
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
38