low cost safety improvements
Post on 20-Mar-2016
39 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
11-1
LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Practitioner Workshop
The Tools – Appendices
& References
11-2
Appendices & References
NCHRP 440 – Accident Mitigation Guide for Rural Congested Hwys
NCHRP 491 – Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic Signals
NCHRP 486 – Systematic Impact of Safety and Traffic Operations Design Decisions
11-3
Appendices & References
NCHRP 500 – Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions
NCHRP 500 – Volume 3: A Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous Locations
NCHRP 500 – Volume 6: A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-The-Road Collisions
11-4
Appendices & References
TechBrief FHWA-RD-02-103 – Safety Effectiveness of Turn Lanes, 11- 02
FHWA/TX-03/4027-2 Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light-Running
NCHRP 470 and US DOT TWG Report – Guidance on TCD’s at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 12-3-02
11-5
Appendices & References
Numerical Methods of High Crash Location Identification
11-6
Appendices & References
Numerical Methods of High Crash Location Identification
11-7
Appendices & References
Numerical Methods of High Crash Location Identification
11-8
Appendices & References
On-Site Observational Report Form
11-9
Appendices & References
On-Site Observational Report – Page 1
11-10
Appendices & References
On-Site Observational Report – Page 2
11-11
Appendices & References
Road Safety Audit Check List
11-12
Appendices & References
Road Safety Audit Check List
11-13
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-14
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-15
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-16
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-17
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-18
Appendices & References
Potential Counter-measures Tables from NCHRP 440
11-19
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Table of Low Cost Safety Crash Reduction Factors 9/22/2004
Countermeasure Total Crashes Injury CrashesRight Angle
CrashesLeft Turn Crashes
Rear-End Crashes Reference
Roadside Hazards
Removal of Trees 66%
Increase in Distance to Obstacle -Trees
3 ft - 22%; 5 ft - 34%; 8 ft - 49%;
10 ft - 57%; 13 ft - 66%; 15 ft - 71%
NCHRP 440, Table 40 and NCHRP 500Volume 3 & 7
Increase in Distance to Obstacle -Mailboxes, Culverts, and HighwaySigns
3 ft - 14%; 5 ft - 23%; 8 ft - 34%;
10 ft - 40%; 13 ft - NF;
15 ft - NF%NCHRP 440, Table 40 and NCHRP 500Volume 3 & 7
Increase in Distance to Obstacle -Guardrail
3 ft - 36%; 5 ft - 53%; 8 ft - 70%; 10 ft - 78%; 13 ft - NF%;
15 ft - NFNCHRP 440, Table 40 and NCHRP 500Volume 3 & 7
Increase in Distance to Obstacle -Fences and Gates
3 ft - 20%; 5 ft - 30%; 8 ft - 44%;
10 ft - 52%; 13 ft - NF; 15 ft - NF
NCHRP 440, Table 40 and NCHRP 500Volume 3 & 7
Relocation of Utility Poles
11% - 77%; See Table 41, NCHRP
44032% Fatalities;
45% Injuries NCRHP 440, page 67
Flatten side slopes into ditch
6% - 15%; see table in Exhibit V-24, volume 6, NCHRP
500 NCHRP 500, volume 6, Exhibit V-24
Shoulder Edge Line RumbleStrips
20% 49% for 2 ln hwys; 15% - 70%
Interstate NCHRP 440
Rumble Stripes in edge of Lane
11-20
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Edge Rumble on shoulders ofRural 4-Lane Highways 24% 53%
McFadden, August 204 ITE AnnualMeeting
Safety Edge (Bevel of outsideedge of Asphalt mat)
Geometric FeaturesInstallation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to RuralIntersection - Three Approaches -Stop Sign 44% one approach
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to RuralIntersection - Three Approaches -Signal 15% one approach
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to RuralIntersection - Four Approaches -Stop sign
28% one approach; 48% two approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to RuralIntersection - Four Approaches -Signal
18% one approach; 33% two approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to UrbanIntersection - Three Approaches -Stop Sign 33% one approach
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to UrbanIntersection - Three Approaches -Signal 7% one approach
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to UrbanIntersection - Four Approaches -Stop sign
27% one approach; 47% two approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Left Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to UrbanIntersection - Four Approaches -Signal
10% one approach; 19% two approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
11-21
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Installation of Right Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to Ruraland Urban Intersections - FourApproaches - Stop Sign
14% one approach; 26% both approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Installation of Right Turn Lane onMajor Road Approaches to Ruraland Urban Intersections - FourApproaches - Signal
4% one approach; 8% both approaches
FHWA Tech Brief FHWA-RD-02-103 Nov2002
Shoulder Widening at RuralIntersections - per foot ofwidening 2.8% per foot NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.1 B10Increase sight distance to ISDvalue per intersection quadrant 5% NCHRP 440Decrease intersection Skew - 3approach intersection - non signalcontrol
AMF = exp(0.00040 skew) NCHRP 486
Decrease intersection Skew - 4approach intersection - non signalcontrol
AMF = exp(0.0054 skew) NCHRP 486
Painted Channelization separatingLeft Turn Lane from Thru Lane
50% rural; 30% suburban; 15% urban NCHRP 500 Strategy 3.1 B 8
Raised Channelization separatingLeft Turn Lane from Thru Lane
60% rural; 65% suburban; 70% urban NCHRP 500 Strategty 3.1 B9
Convert single lane urban stopcontrol intersection to Roundabout 61% 77%
Persaud et al.(2002) evaluated changesin motor-vehicle crashes followingconversion of 24 intersections fromSTOP-controlled or traffic signal-controlled to modern roundabouts in theUSA.
Convert single lane rural stopcontrolled intersection toRoundabout 58% 82%
Persaud et al.(2002) evaluated changesin motor-vehicle crashes followingconversion of 24 intersections fromSTOP-controlled or traffic signal-controlled to modern roundabouts in theUSA.
11-22
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Convert multi-lane Urban stopcontrolled intersection toRoundabout 15%
Persaud et al.(2002) evaluated changesin motor-vehicle crashes followingconversion of 24 intersections fromSTOP-controlled or traffic signal-controlled to modern roundabouts in theUSA.
Convert urban signalizedintersection to Roundabout 32% 68%
Persaud et al.(2002) evaluated changesin motor-vehicle crashes followingconversion of 24 intersections fromSTOP-controlled or traffic signal-controlled to modern roundabouts in theUSA.
All Conversions to Roundabout 39% 76%
Persaud et al.(2002) evaluated changesin motor-vehicle crashes followingconversion of 24 intersections fromSTOP-controlled or traffic signal-controlled to modern roundabouts in theUSA.
Warning Signs and Measures
Advance Warning Signs (General) 25% Missouri HAL Manual
Advance Curve Warning Signswith Advisory Speed Plaques 22%
Advance Curve Warning Signswithout Advisory Speed Plaques 18%
Chevron Alignment Warning Signs 33% - 49%NY DOT; Land Transport SafetyAuthority of New Zealand (1996)
Large Arrow Warning Signs fortight turns 43% NY DOT
Advance Intersection WarningSigns - Rural 40% Missouri HAL ManualAdvance Intersection WarningSigns - Urban 30% Missouri HAL Manual
Increase Size of Warning Sign 15%Signalized Intersection Guidebook, Table 106
11-23
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Double-Up of Warning Signs(Left+Right Sides of Road) 31% Stan Polaris, Winston Salem NC
Advance Signal Ahead WarningSign 44%
Bonneson, August 2002, EngineeringCountermeasures to Reduce Red LightRunning, Table 6-2, page 6-7.
Advance Signal Ahead WarningSign - rural 16% - 40%
Signalized Intersection Guidebook, Table 104
Advance Signal Ahead WarningSign - urban 16% - 35%
Signalized Intersection Guidebook, Table 104
Warning Flashers with WarningSign 25% - 28%
Missouri HAL Manual +BonnesonAugust 2002
Warning Flashers with Prepare toStop When Flashing tied to signalOperation 73% 35% - 67% NCHRP 440; Bonneson 2002
Advance Transverse RumbleStrips 25% - 35%
Lighting
Intersection LightingFHWA Signalized Intersections: AGuidebook, Table 61
Total Crashes (all hours) 30%FHWA Signalized Intersections: AGuidebook, Table 61
Nighttime Crashes 50% 17% Injury; 43% fatal FHWA Signalized Intersections: AGuidebook, Table 61
Regulatory Signs
Install YIELD Sign Control 45% Missouri HAL Manual
Install 2-Way STOP Control 35% Missouri HAL Manual
Improve visibility of Stop Sign -use Splitter Island 11% 36%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9; Signalized Intersection Guidebook,
Double-Up of STOP Signs(Left+Right Sides of Road) 30% Stan Polaris, Winston Salem NC
11-24
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Change 2-Way Stop to All-WayStop Control 47% - 53% 71% - 84%
NCHRP 500 Volume 5 Strategy 17.1 F2Recent studies (Harwood et al, 2000;and Jorgensen 1978 and Agent & Deen1975) have shown that safety benefitsfrom conversion from 2 to 4-way STOPsare materialized when they arewarranted; After studying urban interse
Overhead Mounted Stop Signs reduces crashes NCHRP 500 Volume 5 Strategy 17.1 E.8Add Stop Beacon to STOPControl (mounted on top of STOPsign) 30% Missouri HAL manual
Add Stop Beacon (MountedOverhead) 43% 45%
NCHRP 440 Effectiveness ofCountermeasures, pp90-94NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.1 E11 Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections
Lane Use Signing 15%2004 Signalized Intersections: aGuidebook, Table 106
Restrict Parking On IntersectionApproaches 8% - 90%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #1, 7, 11
Provide larger Street Name GuideSigns 15%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9; Signalized Intersection Guidebook,Table 106
MarkingsMark Centerline (on IntersectionApproaches) 36% NCHRP 440, Page 52Mark Edge Line (on IntersectionApproaches) 8% NCHRP 440, Page 52
Add Centerline and Move StopBar Forward to Extension of CurbLine 29% 24%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9
11-25
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Mark STOP Bar 10% - 25%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9
Install delineators 25% - 58%15% Fatalities;
6% InjuriesNY DOT; 1996 FHWA Annual Report onHighway Safety Program
Signals
Install New Traffic Signal - 3Approaches 7% 34% 20%
Increase Crashes by
75%Persaud et al (2002), Injury crashreduction is from NCHRP 491 Table 17
Install New Traffic Signal - 4Approaches
Increase total Crashes by 2% 67% 60%
Increase Crashes by
74%Persaud et al (2002), Injury crashreduction from NCHRP 491 Table 17
Upgrade Traffic Signal22% Injuries;38% Fatalities FHWA 1996
Upgrade Traffic Signal Controller 20% - 22%
Bonneson, 2002; ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,8, 11
Improve Visibility of Signal Heads -Change Post Mount with MastArm Signals 32% - 49% 44% 74% 41%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9; FHWA Signalized Intersections: aGuidebook, 2004
Replace 8" Lens with 12" Lens 24% 33% - 47%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9
Add Backplates to Existing Signal Heads 2% - 24% 7% - 93% 32%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9
Install Additional Signal Heads 10% - 15% 42%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #9; Signalized Intersections: A
Add Signal Head per Lane 22% 47% ICBC, Polanis, Winston-Salem, NC
Add Supplemental Signal Head 15% 47% - 48% Polanis, Winston-Salem NC
Use "2 Red Indication" SignalHeads 9% - 12% 36% 33%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Intersection Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #9; FHWA Signalized Intersections: aGuidebook, 2004, Table 98
Use Split Phases (Only OneApproach per Phase) 25%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #11
11-26
Appendices & ReferencesTable of Crash Reduction Factors
Add Left Turn Phase to anExisting Signal 23% - 48% 63% -70%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1, 6, 12
Add Protected/Permissive LeftTurn Phase to existing Signal 4% - 10% 40% - 64%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9
Provide Left Turn Lane+ Left TurnPhase to Existing Signal 35%; 46% - 69% 58%
NCHRP 500 Volume 12, Strategy 17.2A1; Neuman, 1985; FHWA/ITE Toolboxof Countermeasures, Briefing Sheet #8,Reference 12
Provide Left Turn Lane w/o LeftTurn Phase to Existing Signal 15% 46% - 54%
NCHRP 500 Volume 12, Strategy 17.2A1; Neuman, 1985;ITE/FHWA Toolboxof Countermeasures, Briefing Sheet #8,Reference #1
Provide Left Turn Lane + Signalizew/o Left Turn Phase to ExistingSignal 21% - 25% 46% - 54%
NCHRP 500 Volume 12, Strategy 17.2A1; Neuman, 1985;ITE/FHWA Toolboxof Countermeasures, Briefing Sheet #8,Reference #1
Provide Left Turn Lane + Signalize+ Left Turn Phase 25% - 36% 43% - 45%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox of Countermeasures,Briefing Sheet #8, Reference #1
Use Protected Only Left TurnPhase 3% 98%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9,10
Optimize Clearance Interval 4% -31% 1% - 30%
Bonneson, 2002; ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9,10
Add All-Red Clearance Interval 25% Bhesania, 1991
Improve Signal Timing (Optimize) 10% - 15%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9,10
Coordination of Signals 15% - 17%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #1,9,10
Change from Late Night FlashingOperation to normal signaloperation 29% 80%
ITE/FHWA Toolbox ofCountermeasures, 2004, Briefing Sheet#8, Ref #9
11-27
Appendices & References
Mn DOT Handbook
11-28
Appendices & References
Mn DOT Handbook
top related