1 / 52

Screening Needs for Roadway Lighting

Screening Needs for Roadway Lighting. April 15, 2003. Motivation. About 40,000 fatalities due to traffic crashes per year in the U.S. Night crash rate is three times higher than day crash rate

dayton
Download Presentation

Screening Needs for Roadway Lighting

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. Screening Needs for Roadway Lighting April 15, 2003

  2. Motivation • About 40,000 fatalities due to traffic crashes per year in the U.S. • Night crash rate is three times higher than day crash rate • About 15,000 lives could have been saved if nighttime crash rate could have been reduced to daytime crash rate in 1993 only

  3. Motivation (cont.) • Causes of higher nighttime crash rate • Low light level affecting visual capabilities • Increased alcohol usage • Fatigue • Over-representation of young drivers • Nighttime fatality rate three times day fatality rate Source: CIE (1992)

  4. Motivation (cont.) • Potential positive impacts of fixed roadway lighting • Reduction of nighttime accident rate • Increased safety for pedestrians • Facilitation of traffic flow • Inspiration of community growth • Aid to police protection • Promotion of business Source: AASHTO (1984)

  5. Motivation (cont.) • Potential negative impacts of fixed roadway lighting • Glare • Light pollution • Light reflected form roads causing sky to glow • Aesthetic effect caused by clutter • Energy waste Source: Shaflik (1997)

  6. Outline • Background • Methodology development • Overview of the screening method • Exposure assessment • Site-parameters assessment • Data analysis to support the screening method • Example • Summary of contributions

  7. Background

  8. Background • Fixed roadway lighting - Wilken et al. (2001), Kramer (1999, 2001), ANSI (2000), Cottrell (2000), Edwards (2000), IES (2000), Walton (2000), Watson (2000), Gransberg (1998), Sandhu (1992), APWA (1986), Janoff (1984, 1986). • Safety benefits of lighting - Dewar and Olson (2002), Griffith (1994), Box (1989, 1972), Trivedi (1988), Janoff (1984, 1986), and Marshall (1970)). • Support to site-parameters assessment - Dewar and Olson (2002), Donnell et al. (2001), Fitzpatrick et al. (2000), Garber (2000), Hatch (1999), Rumar (1998), Blower and Campbell (1998), Griffith (1994), FHWA (1993), Ohta et al. (1991), Glennon (1987), and NCHRP (1974).

  9. Background (cont.) • Roadway lighting design and engineering - Staplin et al. (2001), Khan et al. (2000), Garber (2000), Couret (1999), Crawford (1999), Shaflik (1997), Jefferson (1994), FHWA (1993), and Janoff and Zlotnick (1985). • Traffic engineering - Garber and Hoel (2002), Melcher et al. (2001), Garber (2000), Lyon and Nguyen (1999), Hauer (1996), Tarko, Kumares and Farooq (1996), Judycki (1994), Higle and Witkowski (1988), and Persaud, Turner and Colson (1988). • Risk assessment and management methods - Bedford and Cooke (2001), Koller (2000), Vose (2000), Haimes (1998), and Kumamoto and Henley (1996).

  10. Background (cont.) • Uncertainty propagation and fuzzy arithmetic - Kaufmann and Gupta (1991), and Morgan and Henrion (1990). • Multi-criteria decision analysis - Pomerol and Barba-Romero (2000), Gal, Stewart and Hanne (1999), Ballestero and Romero (1998), and Steur (1986). • Benefit-to-cost methods - IADOT (2001), NYMTC (2001), McFarland and Walton (2000), Janoff and McCunney (1979). • Existing screening methods - NCHRP (1974), and AASHTO (1984).

  11. Background (cont.) • Percentage reduction of nighttime crashes for before-and-after study of safety improvement via lighting Source: CIE (1990)

  12. Background (cont.)

  13. Background (cont.) AASHTO screening method for Complete Interchange Lighting (CIL) CIL-1 Traffic on crossroad • ADT > 10,000 urban conditions • ADT > 8,000 suburban conditions • ADT > 5,000 rural conditions CIL-2 When existing substantial commercial or industrial development, which are lighted at night, is located in immediate vicinity of the interchange Where the crossroad approach legs are lighted for ½ mile or more on each side of the interchange Source: AASHTO (1984)

  14. Background (cont.) • NCHRP warrants • Weighted score method • Burdensome level of detail • Diminished relevance since 1970’s Source: NCHRP (1974)

  15. Methodology Development Overview of screening method

  16. Overview of Screening Method • Context of the screening method • Full evaluation is costly • Selection of needs saves resources

  17. Methodology Development Exposure assessment

  18. Exposure Assessment

  19. Exposure Assessment (cont.)

  20. Exposure Assessment (cont.)

  21. Exposure Assessment (cont.)

  22. Exposure Assessment (cont.)

  23. Exposure Assessment (cont.)

  24. Methodology Development Site-parameters assessment

  25. Site Parameters Assessment • Demonstration that roadway lighting is the best safety enhancement available

  26. Site Parameters Assessment (cont.)

  27. Site Parameters Assessment (cont.)

  28. Site Parameters Assessment (cont.)

  29. Site Parameters Assessment (cont.) • Support to site-parameters assessment factors • Example curvature and grade • A. Overview - brief description of the factor • B. Technical explanation • The maximal curvature affects the anticipation of changes in road geometry • The grade of the road alters perception of speed • C. Empirical evidence • D. Specific countermeasures – evidence that fixed roadway lighting or any available technology be uniquely effective • Lighting on a curve can reduce the effect of glare from the headlamps of an oncoming car

  30. Methodology Development Exposure assessment Site-parameters assessment +

  31. Data Analysis to Support the Screening Method Unlighted nodes study

  32. Unlighted Nodes Study • Study of unlighted nodes in Richmond District • Nodes are landmarks, or milestones of the roadway • Input data: • All crashes from 1/1/1997 through 12/31/2001 • 122,126crashes (total) • 83,467 daylight • 38,659 nighttime • 12,163nighttime, unlighted Source: Rasmussen and Jones (2002)

  33. Unlighted Nodes Study (cont.)

  34. Unlighted Nodes Study (cont.) • Analysis of the 37 nodes with the highest number of crashes • Sample of data

  35. Unlighted Nodes Study (cont.) • Selection of 37 unlighted nodes with highest number of crashes

  36. Data Analysis to Support the Screening Method Unlighted two-mile sections study

  37. Unlighted Two-Mile Sections Study • Study of a selection of unlighted two-mile sections in Richmond, Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads districts • Night and day crashes on the 50 two-mile sections considered for a six years period from 01/01/96 to 12/31/01

  38. Unlighted Two-Mile Sections Study (cont.)

  39. Unlighted Two-Mile Sections Study (cont.) • Indirect night-to-day crash rate ratio estimation for all three regions

  40. Unlighted Two-Mile Sections Study (cont.)

  41. Data Analysis to Support the Screening Method Unlighted half-mile sections study

  42. Unlighted Half-mile Sections Study (cont.)

  43. Data Analysis (cont.) Summary of all unlighted nodes and unlighted two-mile sections

  44. Example

  45. Example • Intersection of Route 460 and Interstate 85 in Richmond District Source: Bridewell (2001)

  46. Example (cont.) Exposure assessment for Rt. 460 and I-85

  47. Example (cont.) Site-parameters assessment for Rt. 460 and I-85

  48. Example (cont.) • Outcome of the screening method is “Marginal” • Exposure assessment: “Marginal” • Site parameters : “Marginal” • 6 “Low” and 2 “Moderate” • NCHRP original score was 45.5 over a warranting threshold of 75.0 • Project was rejected by the NCHRP screening method

  49. Summary of Contributions

  50. Summary of Contributions • Exposure assessment • Application of benefit-cost analysis, specialization of exogenous parameters, and interval arithmetic • Site parameters assessment • Set of eight design and engineering factors based on literature, scenarios analysis, engineers and experts • Narratives support the eight factors • Extensive regional study of unlighted crashes • Indirect night-to-day crash rate estimation method • Stratification by ADT, posted speed and lane configuration

More Related