Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study PFS presented by Kim Eccles, P'E' Senior Engineer, VH

1
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study
(PFS)presented byKim Eccles, P.E.Senior
Engineer, VHB
2
Background

• AASHTOs Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Leading to development of NCHRP Report 500
  Guidebooks
• 22 are planned, 17 are published and available
• Guidebooks contain safety strategies
• 80 of strategies are tried or experimental
• After lead states developed their safety plans,
  they were encouraged to implement the guidebook
  strategies

3
Purpose of Study

• Safety practitioners continuously voice the need
  for safety effectiveness data
• Accident Modification Factors (AMFs)
• Study will perform rigorous before-after
  evaluations of strategies found in NCHRP Report
  500 Guidebooks

4
Project Status

• Current committed participants (26)
• AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD,
  MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NY, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX,
  UT, VA
• Total state committed funds 2,880,000
• FHWA funding is 1.5 Million
• Total anticipated project funds 4,380,000
• To date, there are 3 contracts initiated for this
  project
• NCHRP 17-35, Low Cost Safety Improvements project

5
Completed Activities

• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met in March
  2005 to develop a prioritized list of strategies
  to be evaluated
• 60 Strategies from the following guidebooks
• Aggressive Drivers
• Unsignalized Intersections
• Lane Departure (Run Off Road, Hazardous Located
  Trees, Head On)
• From these strategies, installation data were
  collected from all states for the 30 highest
  priority strategies (based on TAC ranking)

6
Completed Activities

• Scoping Study resulted in four strategies that
  had enough installation data to perform
  evaluations
• Center two way left turn lanes on two lane
  roadways (2 to 3 lane conversions)
• Pavement markings with supplementary message
  STOP AHEAD
• Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections
• Higher retro-reflectivity sheeting for stop signs

7
Installation Databases

• It is crucial to collect installation data and
  before conditions to evaluate safety
  effectiveness

8
Installation Databases

• Records of dates and locations of safety
  improvements difficult to locate
• Records may not be kept or may be in paper file
• Local offices may maintain records
• Information may be incomplete
• Developed a simple database for maintaining
  implementation records
• Can be used directly or as a model

9
Installation Databases

• Information entered separately based on type of
  strategy
• Intersection
• Segment
• Spot
• Microsoft Excel or Access
• Access form to facilitate data entry
• Logmile, GIS, or Link-Node System

10
Information in Database

• Location information
• Jurisdiction, county, streets, milepost (or
  similar)
• Roadway or intersection type
• Surrounding area (e.g. rural)
• Prior condition
• Volume and year
• General condition information

11
Information in Database

• Treatment information
• Treatment (drop down list or write-in)
• Description
• Cost
• Construction dates
• Other changes
• Other information
• User can add or modify database as needed

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Other Information on CD

• Read-Me File
• Explains use of CD
• Provides explanation of all variables
• PDF copies of 500 Series Volumes 1-6
• 2-page information sheet on study

16
Copies of Information

• VHB mailed two CDs to each participating state
• Will provide additional copies upon request
• Available on project website

17
Project Website

• www.tfhrc.gov/safety/evaluations
• Update on current activities
• Installation databases available for download
• Links to other ongoing studies
• Will eventually house comprehensive list of
  Accident Modification Factors

18
Current Activities

• Final data collection and evaluations are
  ongoing for the four strategies in Phase I
• What impact does the treatment have
• Crash type considered
• Various safety effects of treatments
• Draft results will be available at the beginning
  of 2007

19
Current Activities

• Kickoff of Phase II of evaluation at the second
  TAC meeting (June 1-2, 2006)
• Older Drivers, Trucks, Pedestrians, Horizontal
  Curves, and Utility Poles
• States ranked strategies prior to meeting,
  resulting in Top 16
• Few states brought installation data on top 5-10
  strategies
• Currently in search of data

20
Current Activities

• Strategies with high potential for evaluation
  during Phase II (based on the second TAC meeting,
  June 1-2, 2006)
• Various lane width versus shoulder width
  configurations (for a given roadway width)
• Advance warning signs at intersections,
  particularly effect on older drivers
• Modifying sight distance on horizontal curves
  (most likely through reconstruction)

21
Future Activities

• Contractor will complete the evaluations of the
  first four strategies (Phase I)
• Draft results January 2007
• New contract just signed to continue with the
  next group of evaluations (Phase II)
• Draft results early 2008

22
Project Roadmap
23
Project Contacts

• Kerry Perrillo Childress
• Kerry.Childress_at_fhwa.dot.gov
• Kim Eccles (VHB)
• Keccles_at_VHB.com
• 919-834-3972
• Project Website
• www.tfhrc.gov/safety/evaluations