1 / 34

Programming Safety Improvements on Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

Programming Safety Improvements on Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects. Cameron Grile February 18, 2004. Presentation Overview. Background Literature Review Resurfacing Safety Resource Allocation Program (RSRAP) Methodology Results Conclusions. Background.

lorie
Download Presentation

Programming Safety Improvements on Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Programming Safety Improvements on Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Projects Cameron Grile February 18, 2004

  2. Presentation Overview • Background • Literature Review • Resurfacing Safety Resource Allocation Program (RSRAP) • Methodology • Results • Conclusions

  3. Background • What are Preservation Projects • Funding Limitations • Effectiveness of Current Allocation • Need for an Optimum Allocation Process • Research Objectives

  4. Literature Review • Provided Background Information • Preservation Project Selection • Discussion of Estimating Safety Effects • Safety Improvement Selection

  5. RSRAP Procedure • Developed in NCHRP Report 486 • Assumptions • Sites represent all possible sites eligible for the input budget • Budget is the only source of funding • 9 Step Process

  6. RSRAP Procedure

  7. Methodology • Identify ODOT Projects • Gather Project Information • Project Partitions • Identify Safety Goals • Cost Data • Apply to RSRAP

  8. Identify ODOT Projects • Region 2 Preservation Projects from 04-07 STIP • Non-Freeway Locations • 33 Total Projects www.odot.state.or.us

  9. Data for Each Site: Highway Number Site Description Site Length Number of Lanes* Type of Roadway* Urban/Rural* ADT* Crash Data Average Travel Speed* Lane Width* Shoulder Width/Type* Gather Project Information * Data collected using GIS Layers

  10. Methods of Data Collection • GIS Layers • Crash Reports • Highway Inventories • Digital Video Log

  11. Methods of Data Collection ODOT Digital Video Log

  12. Project Partitions • RSRAP requires consistent cross sections • 33 Projects split into 101 sites • Based on: • Lane Number and Width • Shoulder Width and Type • ADT • Speed • Area type

  13. Identify Safety Goals • Improvement Types: • Lane Widening • Shoulder Widening • Shoulder Paving • Roadside Improvements • Horizontal Curve Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • User-Defined Improvements

  14. Identify Safety Goals • Lane Widening if lane width less than 12 ft. • Shoulder Widening if shoulder width less than 8 ft. • Retain Paved Shoulders • No User-Defined Alternatives

  15. Roadside Improvements • IHSDM used to determine expected number of crashes (rural only) • Roadside Hazard Rating: • 7 different ratings in 4 groups • Descriptions and example photos used as reference IHSDM = Interactive Highway Safety Design Module

  16. Roadside Improvements

  17. Roadside Improvements ODOT Digital Video Log

  18. Horizontal Curve Improvements • IHSDM used to determine expected number of crashes (rural only) • Not considered on Urban Sites • Curves with < 4 crashes/5 yrs • 1 site considered Curve Improvements • ODOT’s ITIS used to gather Curve Information • New curve length based on minimum design radius

  19. Turn Lane Improvements • IHSDM used to determine expected number of crashes (rural only) • 4 sites • 1 or 2 intersections per site • Digital Video Log used for determining existing number of Turn Lanes • Crash Report • TURN =Left Turn Lane • REAR END = Right Turn Lane

  20. Default Cost Data • Average from Various Highway Agencies

  21. Cost Data • Based on RS Means Cost Estimating Guides or • ODOT Average Prices

  22. Apply to RSRAP • Optimize Safety Improvements Only • Safety Only or Safety and Speed Benefits • Penalty for Resurfacing without Safety Improvements • Budgets • Region 2 Budget = $19,840,000 • Multiple Budgets tested to see effects on Project Selection

  23. Results • Challenges with RSRAP • Region 2 Results • Safety and Speed Benefits • Safety Benefits Only • ODOT Scheduled Projects

  24. RSRAP Challenges • Safety Improvements • Determination of Improvements • Roadside Hazard Ratings • Improvement Costs • User-Defined Improvements

  25. RSRAP Challenges • Optimization Procedure • Software Compatibility Problems • VB Code designed for Excel 97 • Multiple Alternatives Selected • Funding allocated to do same thing twice • Midwest Research Institute contacted

  26. Region 2 Results • 6 Different budgets tested in RSRAP • Safety and Speed Benefits • Region 2 Budget – 27 Sites improved • Shoulder Widening, Roadside, and Turn Lane improvements • Some Sites had a combination of improvements

  27. Safety and Speed Benefits

  28. Safety Benefits Only • 4 of 6 budgets returned same selections • 12 Sites received improvements

  29. ODOT Projects • 3 out of 33 Projects scheduled to receive Safety Money • Remaining 28 have some Safety Improvements • Widening Shoulders, adding Turn Lane

  30. ODOT Projects

  31. Region 2 Results Region 2 Safety Costs

  32. Conclusions • 25% of Safety funds • Data Collection Process • Number of Sites • Crash Expectation

  33. Recommendations • RSRAP could be used if: • Data Collection Methods Simplified • Further Research on Program • Effects of the Number of Sites • User-Defined Alternatives

  34. Questions

More Related