road assessment programs a new approach to highway safety management and communications l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 155

ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 304 Views
  • Uploaded on

ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications. Funded through the generosity of and its members. Problems. Unacceptably high socio-economic toll from traffic crashes Culture of complacency Under investment in safety

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

ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications


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
    1. ROAD ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS: A New Approach to Highway Safety Management and Communications

    2. Funded through the generosity of and its members

    3. Problems • Unacceptably high socio-economic toll from traffic crashes • Culture of complacency • Under investment in safety • Politics vs. evidence-based decisions

    4. Global Safety ComparisonsFatality Rate (2002 Data) – Deaths/1B kmVT • United Kingdom 7.6 • Sweden 8.3 • Norway 8.3 • Switzerland 8.4 • Finland 8.5 • Australia 9.0 • Denmark 9.2 • Canada 9.3 • USA 9.4 • Germany 11.1 10th (Source: IRTAD 2004)

    5. Why Success in Other Industrialized Nations ? “Safety Culture” • United Kingdom • Typical speeding, safety belt or cell phone traffic violation fine £ 1,000 = $1,893.00 • Automated speed enforcement is commonly employed • Sweden • “Vision Zero” National Goal is NO highway deaths • The lowest legal BAC level is (.02)

    6. Traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense the driver's income. “Jaako Rytsola, a 27-year-old Finnish Internet entrepreneur and newspaper columnist, was cruising in his BMW one recent evening. The officer pulled over Mr. Rytsola's car and issued him a speeding ticket for driving 43 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. The fine: $71,400.” Finland“When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor.”

    7. Change the Safety Culture “I would conclude that one of the failures in the United States is to get highway safety as a high priority for key decision makers.” -Brian O’Neill , President and CEO Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    8. More Problems • Data limitations in many agencies • Wide variation in analysis and evaluation tools • No single, agreed upon, systematic tool to assess road safety risks • Little transparency in most procedures

    9. What should be done? “The media, private interest groups, and insurance companies should work together to enhance public awareness of highway safety.” - S A M U E L C . T I G N O R, Eliminating the Annual Highway Safety Tragedy, TR NEWS 245 JULY–AUGUST 2006 “I would conclude that one of the failures in the United States is to get highway safety as a high priority for key decision makers.” -Brian O’Neill , President and CEO, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Change the Safety Culture!

    10. RAP – Road Assessment Programs • Started in Europe in 2001 • Inspired by EuroNCAP • almost 20 countries • AusRAP • RAP Objectives • Help cut death and serious injury rates through systematic risk assessment which identify major safety shortcomings amenable to practical remedy • Ensure that strategic decisions are linked to risk assessment • Forge partnerships among those responsible for a safe road system

    11. Initiated in 2004 • Pilot studies in Iowa & Michigan • First public release of findings in Spring 2006 • Expanded pilot studies about to begin • Research Team: • Midwest Research Institute • Iowa State University

    12. The Three RAP Protocols • Risk Mapping • maps of death and serious injury risk for road users • Road Protection Score • star rating based on inspecting road features that protect users from serious injury or death • Performance Tracking • comparisons of safety performance for roadway sections over time

    13. Risk Maps • Focus on rural road system • State primary routes • County primary roads • Homogeneous road segments • Segment length sufficient to provide meaningful results

    14. 8 Types of Risk Maps • Four from EuroRAP • Four new ones being evaluated

    15. Map 5: Loss Density– Preliminary USRAP/Iowa Categories 5 year Annualized Total Crash Loss per Mile (Iowa DOT values) 5 yrs of data Mason City Spencer Fort Dodge Sioux City Dubuque Waterloo Ames Marshalltown Cedar Rapids Clinton Iowa City Des Moines Quad Cities Council Bluffs Ottumwa

    16. Map 6: Loss Rate– Preliminary USRAP/Iowa Categories 5 year Annualized Total Crash Loss per Vehicle Mile (Iowa DOT values) 5 yrs of data Mason City Spencer Fort Dodge Sioux City Dubuque Waterloo Ames Marshalltown Cedar Rapids Clinton Iowa City Des Moines Quad Cities Council Bluffs Ottumwa

    17. Map 7: Intersection Rate – Preliminary USRAP/Iowa Categories 3 Year Average Crash Rate per 100MEV 3 yrs of data Note: does not include zero crash intersections

    18. Map 8: Intersection Frequency – v.2 Preliminary USRAP/Iowa Categories 3 Year Annualized Crashes 3 yrs of data

    19. 3 yrs of data 1 yr of data 10 yrs of data 5 yrs of data Duration of Study Period • 1-year too short • 10-year maps pose problems due to highway system changes • Both 3- and 5-year maps have been developed

    20. How to set the risk ranges?

    21. Applications for Risk Maps • Better public understanding of highway safety needs • Influence motorist route choice • Influence motorist behavior on higher risk routes

    22. Applications for Risk Maps • Assist highway agencies in implementing new SAFETEA-LU programs: • 5% criterion • high-risk rural roads program • statewide safety planning

    23. Star Ratings based on Road Protection Score • Identify differences in road design features related to crash protection features of the roadway • Provide star ratings based on inventories • More research needed to adapt EuroRAP tools to U.S. conditions

    24. Star Rating Maps -- Iowa RPS data collection: • Obtained as much data as possible from existing highway agency files • Obtained remaining data from videlog review

    25. RPS data collection

    26. Data Collection Issues • Cost of field data vs. video • Automated video data reduction (as in AusRAP) • Accuracy of roadside slope estimates

    27. usRAP Plans • Release pilot study results • Expand pilot studies into other states – Florida, New Jersey, Illinois • Additional work in MI & IA • Coordinate with international efforts – Costa Rica and Chile • Seek collaborators • Explore most appropriate communication strategies

    28. Questions? For more information … www.aaafoundation.org or Reg Souleyrette Iowa State University 515-294-5453 reg@iastate.edu

    29. GIS Challenges • Integrating disparate data sets • Defining “common” road types • Aggregating roadway sections • Identifying road location: urban v. rural • Crash assignment & changing cartography • Road protection scoring

    30. Integrating Disparate Data Sets • Iowa DOT GIMS roadway database • Linear • Annual spatial and attribute changes • Iowa DOT crash database • Point • Geocoded against GIMS “snapshot” • Iowa DNR corporate limits • Polygon • FHWA urban areas • Polygon Similar data also present in GIMS

    31. Access control No Access Control (not presently used) Interstate and Freeway Expressway Planned Access with through traffic given primary consideration Planned Access with through traffic and land services traffic given equal consideration City Corporate boundary Median type No barrier (< .152 meter curb) Hard surface without barrier (Raised Median) Grass surface without barrier Hard surface with barrier Grass surface with barrier Barrier (> .152 meters) Urban area Number of lanes Type of lanes (through, turning, etc.) Speed limit Defining Common Road Types Multilane Divided Multilane Undivided Freeway Two-lane

    32. Defining Common Road Types Do not fit a “common” road type

    33. Aggregating Sections • 27,900  3,100 • Homogeneous among several attributes, e.g. # lanes, shoulder type, traffic volumes, speed, etc. • 3,100  1,600 Part 1 • Same county, route number, road type • Equal speed limits or within 5 mph • Traffic volumes w/in 20% or 2,000 vpd Part 2 • Short sections w/in towns under 2,000 population… • Short sections outside of towns with speed limits… • Very short sections of different road types… • Very short rural sections with urban sections on both sides…

    34. Aggregating Sections • As a starting point, may require overlaying multiple event themes to generate “homogeneous” sections. Road Type Multilane Undivided Two-lane ADT 6,000 7,500 3,500 Speed Limit 45 mph 35 mph Event Overlay Two-lane 6,000 vpd 45 mph Two-lane 3,500 vpd 45 mph MLUD 6,000 vpd 45 mph MLUD 6,000 vpd 35 mph Multilane Undivided 7,500 vpd 35 mph

    35. Identifying Road Location Urban v. Rural Pop ~ 6,000 Pop ~ 8,000 Not defined as “urban area” but… completely within corporate limits Not defined as “urban area”

    36. Crash Assignment & Changing Cartography Crashes not within spatial tolerance (must combine tolerance and proximity) Crashes within spatial tolerance but… potentially inaccurately assigned

    37. Crash Assignment & Changing Cartography too many road segments identified Determination of entering traffic volumes (spatial tolerance required?) Potential inaccurate crash assignment and… how to distribute crashes among intersection legs?

    38. Crash Assignment 50m? Within Distance

    39. Crash Assignment Closest Proximity

    40. Crash Assignment • Section 1? • Section 2? • Section 3? • Sections 1 & 2? • Sections 1 & 3? • Distribute among all? • Higher functional class? Section 4 2000 ADT 20 Crashes Section 2 3500 ADT Section 1 2500 ADT Section 3 2000 ADT Example alternative Intersection Crash Assignment

    41. Road Protection Scoring Must track & record road protection elements for appropriate roadway segmentation, utilizing videolog & GIS-based mileage.

    42. usRAP Florida Risk Maps