DISTRICT PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATION MAY 2, 2011 1 Highway Safety Manual Implementation

DISTRICT PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATIONMAY 2, 2011

1

Highway Safety Manual Implementation

Overview of the Highway Safety Manual Implementation Plan

Update of the Development of SPF Calibration Factors

Available SPFs and CMFs Sample Pilot Project Description and Analysis Request for Pilot Project Descriptions

2

Highway Safety Manual Implementation

Presentation Outline

3

4

5

6

CO & DISTRICT CHAMPIONS Assign Top-Level District Champions

Participate in Top-down management presentations with the Central Office champions (Bob Romig, Brian Blanchard and Marianne Trussell)

Actively promote, support and advocate the benefits of implementing the Highway Safety Manual

Monitor pilot projects and implementation progress Conduct recognition ceremonies for pilot project

participants

7

Submit District Champion counterparts from Transportation Development and Operations to Marianne Trussell, Chief Safety Officer by April 29, 2011.

CALIBRATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL TO FLORIDA CONDITIONS

9

OVERVIEW

Calibration factors for fatal and injury models only KAB and KABC

10

IDENTIFY FACILITY TYPES

FDOT Prioritized Segments Rural two-lane roads Rural multilane divided roads Urban multilane divided arterials

Additional segments Urban two-lane undivided arterials Urban two-lane with TWLTL Urban four-lane undivided arterials Urban four-lane with TWLTL

11

FDOT PRIORITY FACILITY TYPES

12

COMPUTE CALIBRATION FACTOR

sites all

sites all

crashes predicted

crashes observedC

13

RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS

N = AADT × L × 365 × 10-6 × e(-0.312)

CMFs with available data Lane width, shoulder width, shoulder type,

TWLTL, lighting CMFs values assumed

Grade, driveway density, roadside hazard rating

HSM default values used

14

RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS

Rural 2 Lane Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KAB1.352 1.375 1.244 1.220

1.363 1.235

KABC1.063 1.071 1.027 0.982

1.067 1.007

15

RURAL MULTILANE DIVIDED ROADS

N = exp[ a + b × ln(AADT) + ln(L) ]

CMFs with available data Lane width, right shoulder width, median

width, lighting CMFs with values assumed

None

Crash Severity Level a b

4-lane fatal and injury (KAB) -8.837 0.958

4-lane fatal and injury (KABC) -8.505 0.874

16

RURAL MULTILANE DIVIDED ROADS

Rural 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KAB0.777 0.760 0.746 0.695

0.768 0.721

KABC0.724 0.703 0.708 0.671

0.713 0.689

17

URBAN ARTERIALS

CMFs with available data Median width, on-street parking, lighting

CMFs with values assumed Roadside fixed objects

CMF assumed to be 1.0 Driveway density

CMF assumed to be 1.0

18

URBAN 2 LANE UNDIVIDED

Urban 2 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KABC

1.103 1.009 1.139 0.947

1.057 1.044

19

URBAN 2 LANE WITH TWLTL

Urban 2 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KABC

0.916 1.184 1.105 1.073

1.051 1.089

20

URBAN 4 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIALS

Urban 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KABC

1.758 1.637 1.681 1.609

1.697 1.646

21

URBAN 4 LANE UNDIVIDED

Urban 4 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KABC

0.627 0.743 0.777 0.697

0.685 0.738

22

URBAN 4 LANE WITH TWLTL

Urban 4 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor

  2005 2006 2007 2008

KABC

0.749 0.765 0.735 0.708

0.744 0.698

23

BIKE LANES – URBAN 4 LANE DIVIDED Without bike lane separation

With bike lanes

Without bike lanes

2007-2008 CALIBRATION SUMMARY

25

INTERSECTION DATA

Data Needs Rural and Urban

AADT, Crashes, skew, left-turn lanes, right-turn lanes, lighting,

Urban only pedestrian activity, left-turn signal phasing,

right-turn-on-red, red-light cameras, bus stops, schools, alcohol sales establishments

26

INTERSECTION DATA

Crash Analysis Reporting System Geometric characteristics? Lat, long coordinates?

FDOT Intersection Study Signalized: no geometry, no 2nd AADT Un-signalized: no AADT

27

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

SR 44 from Hill Avenue to West of CR 4139 is a rural 2-lane undivided roadway with curved roadway segments. Five curves exist within the project limits and one curve would require a design exception for super-elevation. Equation 10-6 (HSM-Part C) and the applicable CMFs (HSM-Part D) will be used to predict crashes for the roadway segment that includes Curve 1 and determine if a design exception is justified.

28

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

29

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

The following information is available:

1. Length of segment: 0.10 miles2. AADT: 17,300 in 2010 (opening year); 26,600 in 2030 (design year)3. Grade: 0.0%4. Radius of curve: 573’5. Driveways per mile: 26. Lane width: 12’7. Shoulder width: 4’8. Shoulder type: paved9. Roadside hazard rating: 2 (based on 18’ CZ with 1:4 front slopes)10. Curve length: 0.06 miles11. Existing e: 3.5% (eastbound) and 0.0% (westbound)12. Required e: 10.0%13. Calibration factor: 1.01

Apply the appropriate SPF

N = AADT × L × 365 × 10–6 × e (–0.312)

= 17,300 × 0.163 × 365 × 10–6 × e (–0.312) = 0.753 crashes/year

30

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Adjust the estimated crash frequency to the site specific geometric conditions

1. CMF1r = (CMFra – 1.0) x pra + 1.0 = = (1.0 – 1.0) x 0.40 + 1.0 = 1.0

2. CMF2r = (CMFwra x CMFtra – 1.0) x pra + 1.0 = = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x 0.70 + 1.0 = 1.11

3. CMF3r =

31

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

(1.55 x Lc) + (80.2 / R) – (0.012 x S)

(1.55 x Lc)=

(1.55 x 0.06) + (80.2 / 573) – (0.012 x 0)

(1.55 x 0.06)==

Note: CMF1r => lane width; CMF2r => shoulder width and type; CMF3r => horizontal curvature

2.51

4. CMF4r = 1.06 + 3(SV - 0.02) = = 1.06 + 3(0.10 - 0.02) = 1.30

5. CMF5r = 1.0 (grade < 3%)

6. CMF6r = 1.0 (less than 5 driveways / mile)

7. CMF7r = 1.0 (no rumble strips)

8. CMF8r = 1.0 (no passing lanes)

9. CMF9r = 1.0 (no TWLTL)

32

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Note: CMF4r => super-elevation variance

10. CMF10r =

33

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECTe(-0.6869 + 0.0668 x RHR)

e(-0.4865)=

e(-0.6869 + 0.0668 x 2)

e(-0.4865)= 0.94

11. CMF11r = 1.00 (no roadway lighting)

12. CMF12r = 1.00 (no automated speed enforcement)

CMFcomb = 1.11 x 2.51 x 1.30 x 0.94 = 3.41

Note: CMF10r => roadside hazard rating = 2 (based on 18’CZ with 1:4 front slopes).

Npredicted-rs = 0.753 x 3.41 x 1.01 = 2.59 crashes/year

Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (existing conditions)

Fatal = 0.013 x 2.59 x $6,380,000 = $214,815 Incap. = 0.054 x 2.59 x $521,768 = $72,974 Nonincap. = 0.109 x 2.59 x $104,052 = $29,375 Poss. Injury = 0.145 x 2.59 x $63,510 = $23,851

ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $341,015

34

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

Adjust the estimated crash frequency to the site specific geometric conditions (build)

1. CMF1r = (CMFra – 1.0) x pra + 1.0 = = (1.0 – 1.0) x 0.40 + 1.0 = 1.0

2. CMF2r = (CMFwra x CMFtra – 1.0) x pra + 1.0 = = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x 0.70 + 1.0 = 1.11

3. CMF3r =

35

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

(1.55 x Lc) + (80.2 / R) – (0.012 x S)

(1.55 x Lc)=

(1.55 x 0.08) + (80.2 / 750) – (0.012 x 0)

(1.55 x 0.08)==

Note: CMF1r => lane width; CMF2r => shoulder width and type; CMF3r => horizontal curvature

1.86

4. CMF4r = 1.06 + 3(SV - 0.02) = = 1.06 + 3(0.10 - 0.10) = 1.06

5. CMF5r = 1.0 (grade < 3%)

6. CMF6r = 1.0 (less than 5 driveways / mile)

7. CMF7r = 1.0 (no rumble strips)

8. CMF8r = 1.0 (no passing lanes)

9. CMF9r = 1.0 (no TWLTL)

36

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Note: CMF4r => super-elevation variance

10. CMF10r =

37

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECTe(-0.6869 + 0.0668 x RHR)

e(-0.4865)=

e(-0.6869 + 0.0668 x 2)

e(-0.4865)= 0.94

11. CMF11r = 1.00 (no roadway lighting)

12. CMF12r = 1.00 (no automated speed enforcement)

CMFcomb = 1.11 x 1.86 x 1.06 x 0.94 = 2.06

Note: CMF10r => roadside hazard rating = 2 (based on 18’CZ with 1:4 front slopes).

Npredicted-rs = 0.753 x 2.06 x 1.01 = 1.57 crashes/year

Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (build conditions) Fatal = 0.013 x 1.57 x $6,380,000 = $130,216 Incap. = 0.054 x 1.57 x $521,768 = $44,235 Nonincap. = 0.109 x 1.57 x $104,052 = $17,806 Poss. Injury = 0.145 x 1.57 x $63,510 = $14,458

ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $206,715

38

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

BENEFIT/COST RATIO

B/C =

39

SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

Annual Reduction in Crash Costs

Annual Increase in Construction Costs=

314,015 – 206,715 =

Note: Construction costs were annualized at 4% over 15 years.

0.08994 x 821,748

=73,908

107,3001.45: 1

DISTRICT ACTION Submit a description of a pilot project that can

be analyzed using the current Highway Safety Manual.

Submit: narrative that describes the project alternatives and the input values

Central Office will review the proposed analysis and provide feedback that may include resource information, discussion of appropriate methodology, etc.

Submit by Wednesday, May 11th. Information will be shared with District

Champions.40

41

THE NEW HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL OF 2010

Questions?