1 / 22

Dr. Frank Gross, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc Dr. Paul P. Jovanis, Penn State University

Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Funds Study Safety of Lane/Shoulder Width Combinations on Two-Lane Rural Roads. Dr. Frank Gross, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc Dr. Paul P. Jovanis, Penn State University. Overview. Introduction Objective Study Design Methodology Data Collection

steven-short
Download Presentation

Dr. Frank Gross, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc Dr. Paul P. Jovanis, Penn State University

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. Low Cost Safety ImprovementsPooled Funds StudySafety of Lane/Shoulder WidthCombinations on Two-Lane Rural Roads Dr. Frank Gross, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc Dr. Paul P. Jovanis, Penn State University

  2. Overview • Introduction • Objective • Study Design • Methodology • Data Collection • Preliminary Results • Conclusions • Future Research

  3. Background on Strategy • Shoulder Paving/Widening • Proven strategy • Pavement Width • What lane/shoulder width produces lowest crash odds? • Identified at Technical Advisory Committee June 2006 • Target crashes • Head-on • Run-off-road • Sideswipe • Potential Difficulties • Confounding Variables • Key to Success • Flexible modeling approach

  4. Literature Review • Crash Modification Factors in Highway Safety Manual • Key studies: Zegeer et al. (1981); Zegeer et al. (1988); Griffin and Mak (1987) Recommended CMF for Shoulder Width (Harwood et al., 2000)

  5. Literature Review • Few Studies Address Allocation of Total Width • “Road diets” change total number of lanes • Burden and Lagerwey (2001); Welch (1999) • Reallocation of width on urban freeways • Add lane by reducing lane and shoulder width • McCasland (1978); Urbanik and Bonilla (1987) • Evaluate Re-allocation Without Other Changes

  6. Objective • Estimate Safety Effectiveness • For a given pavement width, what allocation of lane/shoulder width produces the lowest crash odds? • Secondary Questions of Interest • Do effects vary by: • Traffic volume? • Speed limit? • For a given lane width, do effects vary as shoulder width increases? • Is the treatment economically feasible?

  7. Methodology • Case-Control Methodology • Cases: crash-involved segments for a given year • Controls: non-crash-involved segments for a given year • Matching Variables • ADT and Segment Length • Additional Covariates • Speed, District, Unpaved Shoulder, Curvature, and Grade

  8. Methodology SW means shoulder width and LW means lane width

  9. Methodology • Case-Control Methodology • Allows answer to primary and secondary questions • Regression-to-the-mean not an issue • Accounts for confounding variables • Matched design • Model covariates

  10. Study Design • Required Sample Size • Minimum: 15,094 segment-years • Detect 10 percent reduction in total crashes with 90 percent confidence • Desirable: 57,576 segment-years • Detect 5 percent reduction in total crashes with 90 percent confidence • Assumption • 50 percent discordant pairs • How Does Assumption Hold? • PA discordant pairs: 70 percent (LW) and 80 percent (SW) • WA discordant pairs: 66 percent (LW) and 84 percent (SW)

  11. Data Collection-1

  12. Data Collection-2 • Crash Data • 5 years of PA data • 6 years of WA data • Roadway Data (PA and WA) • Number of Lanes • Area Type • AADT • Segment Length • Speed Limit • Surface Width • Paved Shoulder Width (WA only) • Horizontal Curvature • Vertical Curvature (PA only) • Unpaved Shoulder Width • District

  13. Data Collection-3

  14. Data Collection -4

  15. 2.0 34' PW 1.8 1.6 1.4 30' PW 1.2 28' PW 26' PW Crash Risk 1.0 32' PW 0.8 36' PW 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 10 11 12 Lane Width Category (ft) Evaluation Results (PA Total Crashes)

  16. 2.0 1.8 34' PW 1.6 1.4 1.2 30' PW 28' PW 1.0 Crash Risk 26' PW 0.8 32' PW 0.6 0.4 36' PW 0.2 0.0 10 11 12 Lane Width Category (ft) Evaluation Results (PA Target Crashes)

  17. 2.0 30' PW 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 26' PW Crash Risk 1.0 28' PW 0.8 32' PW 0.6 36' PW 0.4 0.2 34' PW 0.0 10 11 12 Lane Width Category (ft) Evaluation Results (WA Total Crashes)

  18. 2.0 1.8 1.6 26' PW 1.4 1.2 32' PW Crash Risk 1.0 30' PW 0.8 0.6 28' PW 0.4 36' PW 0.2 34' PW 0.0 10 11 12 Lane Width Category (ft) Evaluation Results (WA Target Crashes)

  19. Example Odds Ratio

  20. Conclusions • Within Pavement Width • PA: Not many significant changes • Particularly for total crashes • WA: General decrease in crashes for narrow lane and wide shoulder • Target crashes in particular • Be aware of small samples • Within Lane Width • General decrease in crashes as shoulder increases • Supports model results (consistent with prior studies) • Preliminary Results! • Need to explore outliers • Answer secondary questions

  21. Future Research • Field-verify sites in PA • Preliminary data verification using PA video logs • Evaluate Anomalies • Met with PennDOT to discuss results • Review PennDOT and WSDOT design guides • Secondary Questions • Do effects vary by: • Traffic volumes? • Speed limit? • Economic analysis

  22. QUESTIONS or COMMENTS

More Related