Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Safety Investment Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon
Download
1 / 14

Organization of Literature Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 222 Views
  • Uploaded on

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Safety Investment Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon Literature Review Findings. Organization of Literature Review. ODOT Highway Safety Program Balancing Safety and Pavement Preservation Identification and Ranking Methodologies. ODOT Highway Safety Program.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Organization of Literature Review' - woods


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Safety Investment Program (SIP) Policies for OregonLiterature Review Findings


Organization of literature review
Organization of Literature Review Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • ODOT Highway Safety Program

  • Balancing Safety and Pavement Preservation

  • Identification and Ranking Methodologies


Odot highway safety program
ODOT Highway Safety Program Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

ODOT Project Safety Management System

  • Hazard Elimination Program (HEP)

  • Safety Priority Index System (SPIS)

  • Safety Investment Program (SIP)

  • Road Features Rating System (RFRS) -- Under development


Balancing safety and pavement preservation
Balancing Safety and Pavement Preservation Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Historic Pavement Preservation Policies

  • Resurfacing and Safety

  • Various State 3R Programs & Design Policies

  • Funding Allocation: System Optimization

  • Cost-Effective Assessment


Resurfacing and safety
Resurfacing and Safety Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

Cleveland (1987) – Rural Road Safety after Resurfacing

  • Immediate increase in overall crashes of 2%

  • Increase in overall crash severity of 10% (injuries & fatalities) [Noted increase in vehicle speeds as well]

  • Dry pavement crashes increased by 10% while wet pavement crashes similarly decreased


Resurfacing and safety1
Resurfacing and Safety Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

Cleveland (1987) – Resurfaced Urban Road Safety after Resurfacing

  • Average resurfacing life time crash reduction of 25% overall

  • Average resurfacing life time crash reduction of 25% for crash severity


Resurfacing and safety2
Resurfacing and Safety Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

Agent (2004) – Kentucky Resurfacing Study

  • Overall number of crashes did not decline after road resurfacing (though reduction during wet conditions did occur)

  • Observed vehicle speeds did not change dramatically following resurfacing


Resurfacing and safety3
Resurfacing and Safety Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

NCHRP (2001) – WA & MN Resurfacing Study

  • Effects of resurfacing varied between states

  • 18% reduction in WA number of crashes but 25% increase in MN

  • Safety consistently improved as the pavement aged


Resurfacing and safety4
Resurfacing and Safety Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

Hauer et al. (1994) – NY Resurfacing Study

  • Fast Track Projects (only resurfacing) vs. Reconditioning and Preservation (R&P) Projects

  • Safety initially declined in fast track projects, while it improved for the R&P projects

  • As pavement aged (6 to 7 years) safety improved


State 3r programs design policies overview
State 3R Programs & Design Policies -- Overview Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Geometric Design Standards / Guidelines for 3R-type projects (32 states)

  • Resurfacing Project Selection – most states do not include crash history

  • Process to Determine Safety needs for Resurfacing projects – site crash history, safety features condition, cost-effectiveness, design criteria, local demands, and skid testing


State 3r programs design policies overview cont
State 3R Programs & Design Policies – Overview (cont.) Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Established Procedures for Safety at Resurfacing Projects (5-year crash history, review of high crash sites, identification of countermeasures)

  • Policies & Procedures for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (design standards, ROADSIDE program, agency-specific procedures, & NCHRP Report 214 guidelines)

  • Other approaches: Resource allocation tools, individual state research, post-resurfacing evaluations


State 3r programs design policies research
State 3R Programs & Design Policies – Research Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Sanford et al. (1981) – IL assessment of 2-lane rural highways – concluded project cost exceed crash reduction savings

  • Mahoney et al. (2006) – multi-state scanning study (CO, WA, PA, NY, UT, & IA)– each state identifies rehabilitation projects based on pavement condition rather than safety


Cost effective assessment
Cost-Effective Assessment Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Crash-Based Method

  • Benefit-Cost Ratio

  • Benefit Assessment

  • Cost Assessment


Identification and ranking methods
Identification and Ranking Methods Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon

  • Crash Frequency Method

  • Crash Density Method

  • Crash/Accident Rate Method

  • Quality Control Method

  • Crash Severity or Severity Rate Method

  • Index Method

  • Other Methods


ad