Texas Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (ISIP): Project Overview & Preliminary Findings. April 15, 2016

Transcription

1 Texas Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (ISIP): Project Overview & Preliminary Findings April 15, 2016

2 2 Introductions North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas Fort Worth area) Capital Area MPO (Austin area) El Paso MPO (El Paso area) Alamo Area MPO (San Antonio area) Houston-Galveston Area Council (Houston area)

3 3 Today s talking points Introductions Project overview Summary of preliminary findings Concurrence on focus intersections Next steps

4 Introduction to Texas ISIP Project

5 5 Texas Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Mission to reduce the human and societal costs of motor vehicle traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries by Implementing effective highway safety countermeasures Changing the current driving culture in Texas to a Traffic Safety Culture, one that emphasizes safety, economy, and civility

6 6 Texas SHSP (cont.) 2013: 16,468 severe-injury (KA) crashes statewide 1 of every 3 (5,624) was intersection-related 3 of every 4 intersection crashes occurred in urban areas Countermeasures Engineering (e.g., signal re-timing, enhanced warning devices) Enforcement (e.g., red light cameras by municipalities) Education (e.g., changes to driver education curriculum) EMS (e.g., emergency vehicle signal preemption)

7 7 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Supports Texas s vision to reduce motor vehicle fatalities and serious injuries by making roads safer through a data-driven, systemic approach and considering the 4Es of safety Views intersection safety as a key focus area Developed ISIP process to create an implementation plan and guide activities related to intersection safety improvements Overall aim: focus less on high-dollar, major improvements at a relatively few intersections and focus more on deploying lower-cost, cost-effective countermeasures at many intersections

8 8 Overarching goals of Texas ISIP Project 1. Prioritize intersection locations and countermeasures for nearterm implementation 2. Strengthen partnerships between TxDOT, MPOs, local governments, and FHWA 3. Identify opportunities for strengthening Texas s data systems to allow for more robust systemic analyses in the future

9 Overview of ISIP Process

10 10 Overview of ISIP Process Preliminary Findings Inventory of Existing Conditions List of Potential Countermeasures Straw Man Outline ISIP Workshop Draft, Final ISIP

11 11 1 Preliminary Findings Purpose: Present high-level data summary Recommend/select intersection types with best potential to be enhanced by systemic-type measures Establish concurrence on recommended intersection focus

12 12 2a Inventory of Existing Conditions Purpose: Review conditions of random intersection sample (2 or more KAs) across all MPOs 100 intersections total will be selected across the 5 regions Potential info collected: Control Signing Approaches Skew angle Median Crosswalks Transit PCS Speed limit Signal heads LT arrangement Backplates RT arrangement Lighting Deployment levels and characteristics will be derived for all intersections based on this sample

13 13 2b List of Potential Countermeasures Purpose: Work with TxDOT to develop list of countermeasure options that will be considered for ISIP locations Sources include SHSP, TxDOT HSIP, NCTCOG ISIP, HSM & CMF Clearinghouse Considerations: Current deployment from 2a (e.g., widespread, limited, none) Comments Design effort (e.g., low, medium, high)

14 14 3 Straw Man Outline Purpose: Develop planning-level B/C estimate for various countermeasures Will be developed through collaboration with TxDOT Potential details: Traditional vs. systemic Deployment CMF Target crash type(s) Typical crash threshold Approx. no. of ints. w/in threshold Est. no. of installations Construction cost estimate Est. no. of prevented KAs Est. crash benefit in $$ Approx. B/C

15 15 4 ISIP Workshop Purpose: Assemble MPO reps and parties responsible for intersection safety to present Straw Man Outline for their consideration, discussion, and ultimate support Facilitated by FHWA and VHB, with support from TxDOT on agenda and logistics General program: Background Data Analyses & Straw Man Strategic Implementation

16 16 5 Draft & Final ISIP Purpose: Develop ISIP document based on the output of steps 1 4 Draft will be developed after workshop and submitted to TxDOT, MPO reps, FHWA for review Final document will be prepared in response to comments

17 17 Questions on ISIP Process? Preliminary Findings Inventory of Existing Conditions List of Potential Countermeasures Straw Man Outline ISIP Workshop Draft, Final ISIP

18 Preliminary Findings of Analyses of 5 MPOs Combined

19 19 Basics Analysis period: January 2010 December 2014 Focused on Texas s 5 largest MPOs: AAMPO CAMPO El Paso MPO H-GAC NCTCOG

20 20 Intersection crashes by severity and year Year Fatal A B C PDO Unknown Total KA %KA ,672 12,760 24,774 69,033 1, ,490 3, % ,609 12,275 24,661 65,753 1, ,664 2, % ,906 13,359 26,086 67,878 1, ,117 3, % ,133 14,757 27,676 79,813 2, ,901 3, % ,240 15,502 29,856 91,812 2, ,256 3, % Subtotal 1,917 14,560 68, , ,289 9, ,428 16, % For 5 MPOs combined

21 21 Estimated economic impacts Injury severity No. of crashes Est. 5 yr cost % of total cost K 1,917 $9.64B 32.6% A 14,560 $4.25B 14.4% B 68,653 $5.82B 19.7% C 133,053 $6.35B 21.5% PDO 374,289 $3.50B 11.8% Total 592,472 $29.56B 100% Unknown 9,956 * NOTE: Crashes of unknown severity are disregarded in this estimate. Applies NSC s Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2013 Based on actual injuries (not crashes) Est. total cost for 5 yrs: $29.6B Est. annual cost for 5 yrs: $5.9B KA crashes comprise less than 3% of crashes but 47% of the costs

22 22 Intersection crashes by owner, control, area type STATE Area Type Total # of Crashes Fatal A B C PDO Unknown Signalized Rural 8, ,454 5, Signalized Urban 131, ,396 15,649 29,749 81, Unsignalized Rural 14, ,160 2,556 8, Unsignalized Urban 84, ,009 9,059 17,520 54,620 1,016 Unknown Rural 1, ,001 7 Unknown Urban 15, ,136 2,624 10, Subtotal 255,354 1,065 6,745 29,107 54, ,040 2,269 LOCAL Signalized Rural 1, Signalized Urban 137, ,102 16,670 34,459 81,486 1,049 Unsignalized Rural 6, ,023 4, Unsignalized Urban 176, ,983 19,664 38, ,761 5,942 Unknown Rural Unknown Urban 19, ,542 3,979 13, Subtotal 341, ,677 38,857 77, ,045 7,614 OTHER Signalized Rural Signalized Urban 2, , Unsignalized Rural Unsignalized Urban 2, , Unknown Rural Unknown Urban Subtotal 5, ,131 3, ,428 intersectionrelated crashes 16,477 intersectionrelated KA crashes 18 categories defined

23 23 Intersection crashes by owner, control, area type From the previous table 98.6% of all intersection crashes and KA intersection crashes can be captured in the following 9 categories: 1) Local Urban Unsignalized 2) State Urban Unsignalized 3) Local Urban Signalized 4) State Urban Signalized 5) State Rural Unsignalized 6) Local Urban Unknown 7) Local Rural Unsignalized 8) State Urban Unknown 9) State Rural Signalized Therefore, the other 9 categories will be eliminated from further consideration

24 24 Location Type Common attributes among KA crashes No. of KA Crashes Percent KA Crashes Total No. of Intersections Percent Intersections Urban 14, % 95, % Rural 1, % 8, % Subtotal 16, % 104,594* 100% Ownership Type State 7, % 25, % Local 8, % 83, % Other % 1, % Subtotal 16, % 109,531* 100% Traffic Control Type Signalized 7, % 25, % Unsignalized 8, % 97, % Unknown % 2, % Subtotal 16, % 125,720* 100% 90% of KA crashes are in urban areas Nearly 50/50 split between State & Local intersections Signalized intersections significantly overrepresented in terms of KA crashes vs. proportion of intersections * NOTE: Because data were derived from multiple sources (e.g., CRIS, ESRI), the intersection characteristics correlate to crashes instead of intersections. This led to duplicate intersections within the database, which resulted in different subtotals among the various categories.

25 Distribution of intersections and KA intersection crashes by area type and traffic control 25 Most significant overrepresentation * *

26 26 Summary & recommendation for TX ISIP KA crashes comprise less than 3% of crashes but 47% of the costs 90% of KA crashes are in urban areas Nearly 50/50 split of KA crashes between State & Local intersections Focus on State & Local Urban Signalized intersections Signalized intersections are significantly overrepresented in terms of proportion of KA crashes vs. proportion of intersections

27 27 Potential crash thresholds for systemic treatments Crash Threshold 1 or more KA crash 2 or more KA crashes KA Crashes Intersections Avg. Per Intersection Funding (assuming $45M funding) Number Percent Number Percent 7, % 4, % $9,397 3, % 1, % $32,751 3 or more KA crashes 2, % % $92,593 4 or more KA crashes % % $214,286 For example, more than one quarter of the KA intersection crashes could be addressed by targeting just 10% of the KA intersection crash locations

28 28 Do we have concurrence? Recommended ISIP focus: State & Local Urban Signalized Crash threshold to be determined

29 ISIP Next Steps

30 30 Next Steps Use Google Street View to inventory existing features Work with TxDOT to finalize countermeasure list Work with TxDOT, FHWA to plan ISIP workshop Work with TxDOT to develop details for Straw Man (i.e., B/C analyses) Progress will be communicated through updates 1) Present preliminary findings & intersection focus recommendations 2a) Conduct inventory of existing conditions at random intersections 2b) Develop list of intersection countermeasures 3) Develop Straw Man Outline 4) Convene MPOs, TxDOT, and FHWA for ISIP workshop 5) Develop draft and final ISIP document

31 Questions? 31

32 Key ISIP Project Contacts Darren McDaniel, TxDOT Safety Engineer Jeff Shaw, FHWA Office of Safety Intersections Program Mgr. Jonathan Soika, VHB (FHWA Consultant)