Local Road Safety Plans

Transcription

1 An Introduction to Local Road Safety Plans June 21, 2018

2 Today s Presenter Jerry Roche, P.E. Safety Analysis Program Manager FHWA Office of Safety Ames, IA 2

3 NACE Do-It-Yourself LRSP Pilot Six states, 25 Counties Including Champaign, Delaware, Franklin, Holmes and Warren Counties from Ohio Blended Delivery

4 Agenda Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Overview Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) Developing a LRSP Washington s LRSP effort Thurston County, WA Case Study LRSP Examples and Resources 4

5 LRSP Overview 5

6 What is a Local Road Safety Plan? A document that identifies safety issues impacting local roads, and provides a framework to accomplish safety enhancements at the local level to reduce severe crashes Uses a data-driven, risk-based process to identify, analyze, and prioritize safety issues, and targets countermeasures and strategies to address severe crashes on local roads

7 Why Local Road Safety Plans? More than 75% of all roads are maintained by local agencies Approximately 40-60% of fatalities occur on locally owned roadways LRSPS are a proven safety countermeasure 7

8 Clackamas County, OR Video 8

9 Why would a local agency use a local road safety plan? To help define safety priorities To prioritize safety investments To serve as a communication tool To develop lasting partnerships To position an agency to obtain outside funding (e.g., grants) To create a sustainable safety effort To reduce severe crashes occurring in their community 10 9

10 Strategic Highway Safety Plans 10

11 What is an SHSP? A statewide coordinated plan that provides a framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads Identifies a State s key safety needs Management/HighwaySafety/SHSP/Pages/default.aspx Guides investment decisions towards strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries 11

12 Core Safety Plans and Programs State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Report submitted annually Infrastructure improvements FHWA approved Updated at least every five years Infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures SHSP process approved by FHWA Requirement of HSIP Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Highway Safety Plan (HSP) Plan submitted annually Behavioral programs NHTSA approved 12

13 Local Roads in Ohio s SHSP OH ( ) Moving forward, Ohio will be placing greater emphasis on providing funding and resources to local governments, which are responsible for improving safety on the majority of Ohio roads. Local roads also have the highest numbers of traffic deaths and serious injuries involving: Bicycles 87% Pedestrians 83% Intersections 70% Alcohol 66% Speed 63% Motorcycles 63% Young drivers (ages 15-25) 63%

14 Developing a LRSP 14

15 The LRSP Development Process Step 1: Establish Leadership Step 2: Analyze the Safety Data Step 3: Determine Emphasis Areas Step 4: Identify Strategies Step 5: Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies Step 6: Evaluate and Update the LRSP FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure LRSPs 15

16 16 16

17 LRSP Video 17

18 Step 1 Identify Stakeholders Cities Townships MPOs LTAP DOT Law Enforcement Public Health EMS Elected Officials Schools 18

19 Step 2 Use Safety Data & Risks Crash Roadway Traffic Volume Safety Data Enforcement Maintenance Logs Road Safety Audits 19

20 No Data? No Problem Anecdotal information Data from Existing Sources Traffic Violations Maintenance Logs Roadway Risk Factors Traffic volumes Lane Width Shoulder Width Roadside Slopes Curves Curve radii Driveways Presence of Lighting Traffic control Pedestrian and bicycle use & facilities Intersection skew Presence of turn lanes Pavement condition 20

21 Sources of Data Collision Reports & Roadway Attributes Maintenance History Citizen Requests Law Enforcement What if I do not have good local crash data? Strategic Highway Safety Plans Your state highway safety plan (SHSP) is always a good place to start. Although the SHSP may not be community specific it should provide statewide priorities which you can use to develop a emphasis areas for your community 21

22 Risks? 22

23 Analyze Data to Identify Focus/Priorities Basic crash details Primary crash type, junction relationship, fixed object struck Roadway conditions Weather, roadway surface condition, light condition Roadway details Roadway curvature, posted speed Driver details Contributing circumstances, vehicle type Pedestrian details Contributing circumstances, facility type used Cyclist details Contributing circumstances, facility type used 11 23

24 Example Crash Data Summary 24

25 Determine Emphasis Areas Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Impaired Driving Seat Belt Usage Driver Age 25

26 Ohio SHSP Emphasis Areas 26

27 Safety Data by Roadway Type 27

28 Example Crash Tree Diagram 28

29 Example Crash Tree Diagram Y Y Co. 29

30 Example Crash Tree Diagram Y 30

31 Plymouth County, Iowa Severe (Fatal & Serious Injury) Crash Locations: severe crashes over 5 years (approx. 1 per month) Analysis Source: 31

32 Systemic Safety Analysis Assessing the potential for a specific type of severe crash to occur at a specific location because of the location s characteristics or features (roadway factors). 32

33 The Systemic Approach Implements a system-wide screening of a roadway network based on the presence of roadway characteristics correlated with severe crash types Source: FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool 33

34 Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool 34

35 Systemic Safety Analysis 35

36 Risk Factors for Crash Types FHWA s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (page 20) 36

37 Ranking Sites by Risk Factors FHWA Systemic Tool Page 46 37

38 Qualitative Approach to Risk Use qualitative ratings when needed: Good, Fair, Not-So-Good (curve radius, roadside, etc.) High, Medium, Low (traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, crash frequency, etc.) It is important to include the risk factors that are key to your roadway network 38

39 Step 3 Choose Proven Solutions Focus on crash or facility priorities Lane Departure Intersections Vulnerable Users Consider Proven Countermeasures 39

40 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures 40

41 Enhanced Delineation and Friction for Horizontal Curves Enhanced Delineation Pavement Markings Post-mounted delineators Brighter/larger signs Dynamic curve warning signs Increased Pavement Friction Sharp Curves Wet Conditions Polished Surfaces Excessive Speeds 41

42 Systemic Application of Multiple Low-Cost Countermeasures at Stop Controlled Intersections (1) analyze systemwide data to identify a problem (2) look for similar risk factors present in severe crashes (3) deploy on a large scale low-cost countermeasures that address the risk factors contributing to crashes 42

43 Longitudinal Rumble Strips and Stripes Rumble strips and stripes are designed to address these crashes caused by distracted, drowsy, or otherwise inattentive drivers who drift from their lane. 43

44 Leading Pedestrian Interval Increased visibility of crossing pedestrians Reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians Enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection 44

45 NHTSA s Countermeasures that work DOT HS Impaired Driving 2. Seatbelts 3. Speed Limits 4. Distracted Driving 5. Motorcycles 6. Young Drivers 7. License Renewal 8. Education Campaigns 9. Bicycle Helmets 45

46 Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints Authorized in 38 States + DC Documented Crash Reduction All Crashes: 10-15% Alcohol-related crashes: 17% Alcohol-related fatal crashes: 9% Page 1-21, countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf 46

47 Short-Term High-Visibility Belt Law Enforcement Documented Belt Use Increase 16% increase Increased use in conjunction with public education/outreach and paid/donated media Page 2-17, countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf 47

48 Nighttime Enforcement Belt Use 18% lower at nighttime 64% of nighttime fatalities are unbelted (vs. 47% of daytime fatalities) DWI and Speed-related fatalities also higher at night Page 2-20, countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf 48

49 Step 4 Implement Solutions Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. - Theodore Roosevelt 49

50 Important Distinction Systematic Deploying countermeasures at ALL locations Systemic Deploying countermeasures at locations with the greatest potential for safety improvement Systemic Example: providing enhanced delineation on curves with radii between feet which were overrepresented in severe crashes 50

51 Activities and Strategies Education Enforcement Maintenance Capital Projects

52 Prioritized List of Roadway Sections 24 52

53 Rumble Strip/e Solution Decision Tree Example * Where regrading not required ** Not verified with video log *** After 6 miles/year of paving, enhanced edge line provided YES County Rumble preference? Grooves Allowed? NO YES ADT >200? NO Lane Width? Rumble StripE +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves** Rumble StripE >=12 feet <12 feet PROJECT: PROJECT: 2 ft. shoulder paving* (up to 6 miles/year***) + rumble stripe + safety edge +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves** PROJECT: Rumble Strip +Chevrons in Critical Radius curves** Rumble Strip Paved Shoulder? YES PROJECT: NO Rumble StripE +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves** Lane Width? PROJECT: 6 Epoxy Wet Reflective in longitudinal groove +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves >=12 feet <12 feet PROJECT: PROJECT: 6 Latex Edgeline +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves 2 ft. shoulder paving* (up to 6 miles/year***) + rumble strip + safety edge +Chevrons and Paving 2 inside shoulder in Critical Radius curves** 53

54 Step 5 Evaluate & Update Plan Evaluate and Update the LRSP Monitor Progress Plan Evaluation Living Document 54

55 55 LRSPs Come in All Shapes and Sizes 55

56 56

57 Washington State County Road Safety Plans 57

58 Washington State Safety Facts Counties maintain 47% of the road miles in Washington State 16% of the total vehicle miles traveled occur on County roads The fatal crash rate is two times higher on county roads than on state highways. 58

59 Washington State Safety Facts Zero goal state Data driven process City 40% State 30% 70% of HSIP funds to local agencies County 30% Percent Fatal & Serious Collisions $190 million awarded to local agencies since 2009 For more information on Washington State s HSIP Program, visit 59

60 2014 County Road Safety Program $28 Million Available Required data driven safety plan Focus on fatal & severe crashes Emphasized use of systemic safety Provided five months to complete safety plans For more information on Washington State s HSIP Program, visit 60

61 County Training Program Workshops Systemic safety training Technical assistance & support Provide summary level crash data For more information on Washington State s HSIP Program, visit 61

62 County Road Safety Program Results 80% of Washington State Counties have local road safety plans now Each local road safety plan was different All the plans were completed by county staff For more information on Washington State s HSIP Program, visit 62

63 Survey of County Staff Most counties reported 80 hours of effort to prepare their LRSP 75% of counties said the funding award commensurate with the effort required All counties said the LRSP was useful to identify safety priorities and would prepare one again For more information on Washington State s HSIP Program, visit 63

64 Thurston County WA Case Study 64

65 Where is Thurston County 65

66 Thurston County Safety Facts Thurston County maintains over 1000 miles of roads 131 severe crashes were reported from 2012 to % of the severe crashes are reported to be lane departures 66

67 Crash Data Challenges 67

68 Crash Information Provided by DOT First Step in process Easy to Use Can quickly ID priorities 68

69 Crash Information Identify Emphasis Area Collision Data Angle (left-turn) Intersection-Related Horizontal Curve Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes Only All roads 16% (2175) 33% (4557) 26% (3674) All Counties 13% (468) 22% (812) 39% (1419) Thurston County 9% (16) 19% (34) 45% (80) 69

70 Crash Information Focus your efforts 1. Began with: 5000 total crashes 3. 77% (425) 81% (65) 67% Over 1000 centerline miles 33% 23% (127) 19% (15) 2. Focusing on curves: Over 1500 crashes Over 1000 centerline miles Arterial & Collectors (356 miles) Local Roads (726 miles) Percent of Road Miles Percent Injury Crashes Percent Severe 70

71 Crash Information Focus your efforts 77% (425) 81% (65) 67% Focus area reduced to about 350 centerline 33% 23% (127) 19% (15) miles Arterial & Collectors (356 miles) Local Roads (726 miles) Percent of Road Miles Percent Injury Crashes Percent Severe 71

72 Identification of Risk Factors Visual Traps Intersections proximity Traffic Volume Road Classification Roadside Clearance Source: FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool,

73 Data Collection Road Inventory Systems Considerations Staffing Availability Time frame Do you have data Is data readily available Road Video, GIS & Google Street View Field Data Collection 73

74 Data Analysis 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Rural Minor Arterial (06) Rural Major Rural Minor Collector (07) Collector (08) Urban Principal Arterial (14) Urban Minor Urban Major Arterial (16) Collector (17) Spreadsheets & Pivot Tables Bar Graphs 74

75 Data Analysis Road Class 67% (289) 58% (209) 75% (49) Included as priority risk factor 15% Not Included as priority risk factor (54) 16% 17% 8% 9% 14% (34) (6) Rural Minor Arterial (06) Rural Major Collector (07) Rural Minor Collector (08) Urban Principal Arterial (14) Urban Minor Arterial (16) Road (356 miles) Injury (430) Fatal/Serious (65) Urban Major Collector (17) 75

76 Data Analysis Traffic Volume 30% 25% 20% 15% Included as priority risk factor 10% 5% 0% Percent Road Miles Percent Injury Crashes Percent Severe Crashes 76

77 Data Analysis Roadside Rating 17% (45) 24% (54) 22% (8) 64% (170) 45% (102) Included as priority risk factor 42% (15) 36% 19% (52) 31% (70) (13) Edge Clearance 1 Edge Clearance 2 Edge Clearance 1 Edge Clearance 2 Edge Clearance 3 Percent of Curve Inventory (267) Percent Injury (226) Percent Severe (36) Edge Clearance 3 77

78 Data Analysis - Intersection & Visual Traps 39% (103) 46% (104) 36% (13) 7% (18) 11% (24) 17% (6) Intersection Proximity Intersection Proxmity Visual Trap Percent of Curve Inventory (267) Percent Injury Crashes (226) Percent Severe Crashes (36) Visual Trap 78

79 Risk Factor Scoring (1 point) Major Rural Collectors Intersections Traffic Volume Shoulders Paved 4 feet Edge Clearance 80

80 Risk Factor Scoring (1/2 Point) Visual Traps Winding Roads Vertical Curves Speed Difference 81

81 Site Rankings Road Name 5 year Fatal or Serious crash rate Crash Scoring Hawks Prairie Rd 1.2 Yes 6 Johnson Point Rd 0.4 No 5.5 Waddell Creek Rd 10.3 Yes 5.5 Hawks Prairie Johnson Pt Waddle Creek 82

82 RISK SCORES Site Rankings Number of Curves by Risk Score NUMBER OF CURVES 83

83 Countermeasures Goals Proven Countermeasure Corridor Consistency Improved Roadside Low cost Wide Spread MUTCD compliance Enhanced Delineation Rumble Strips 84

84 Countermeasures Review TRAFFIC SIGNS Cost Permitting Right of Way Maintenance CMF Chevron Align or Large Arrow Low Low No Low 0.84 Florescent Yellow Signs Low Low No Low 0.82 Supplement Street Name Signs Low Low No Low 0.95 Increase advance curve/turn sign size Low Low No Low N/A Supplemental Curve/Turn Signs Low Low No Low N/A PAVEMENT MARKINGS Advance Curve Markings Low Low No Low N/A Enhanced Edge Lines (4 to 8 ) Low Low No Med 0.85 Dotted Extension Lines at intersections Low Low No Med 0.88 * Reflective Pavement Markers Low Low No Low 1 ROADWAY Widen Shoulder High High Yes Low 0.4 Reflective Barrier Delineation Low Low No Low N/A Shoulder Rumble Strips Low Low No Low 0.7 Traverse Rumble Strips Low Low No Low 0.94 ROADSIDE Object Removal Med Med No Low 0.62 Guardrail Med Med No Low 0.53 Flatten Side Slope High High Possible Low 0.82 OTHER (spot analysis improvements) Street Lighting Med Low No Med 0.5 High Friction Surface (wet road) Med Low No Med 0.5 Radar Speed Sign Med Low No Med 0.95 Roundabouts High High Yes Low 0.29 Intersection lane narrowing with rumble strips Med Low No Low 0.7 Roadway Safety Reviews Low Low No Low N/A *CMF s reviewed in 2012 so may not be consistent with current research 85

85 Countermeasures Selected Curve Signs (chevrons and arrows) Larger warning signs Enhanced Edge Lines Intersection extension lines Guardrail delineation Guardrail updates New guardrail Shoulder rumble strips Centerline rumble strips Raised reflective pavement markers (alternative) 86

86 Implementation 1500 Signs 28 miles 65 miles 35 intersections 75,000 lineal feet 30,000 RPM s 2 miles Note: Improvements were completed over several HSIP funding programs and also through local forces 88

87 Results Horizontal Curve Fatal and Serve Crashes 2006 to to % Reduction in curve crashes 89

88 Summary LSRP by County staff 270 Curves Ranked Used Proven Countermeasures 35% Reduction in severe curve crashes 90

89 91

90 LRSP Examples and Resources 92

91 93 LRSPs Come in All Shapes and Sizes 93

92 LRSP Template Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. Theodore Roosevelt 94

93 95 Example Plans Tribal Transportation Safety Example plans Washington State Local Road Safety Plan Webpage 68B8F89C6342/0/LocalRoadSafetyPlans.pdf North Dakota Local Road Safety Plan webpage

94 LRSP Resouces FHWA LRSP Video (New) FHWA LRSP Infographic unts/edc_4/ddsa_resources/lrsp.pdf FHWA Systemic Safety infographic unts/edc_4/ddsa_resources/ddsa_systemic_analy sis.pdf

95 Execute! A goal without a plan is just a wish - Antione de Saint-Exupery A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week. - General George Patton 97

96 Safe Roads Ahead 98

97 For more information Jerry Roche, P.E. FHWA - Headquarters Office of Safety Jerry.Roche@dot.gov 99