data-driven safety analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
MPO-COG Conference
February 4-5, 2019
An FHWA Every Day Counts Innovation
2
1034
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
SC Traffic Deaths, 1938-2018
3
47%
44% 43%
35% 32%
27% 27%
22%
18% 15%
13%
9% 9%
6% 5% 2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
So what do you think
are causing the most
traffic crashes/deaths?
Top Crash Types, 2013-2017
Fatal and severe injury crashes
4
47%
44% 43%
35% 32%
27% 27%
22%
18% 15%
13%
9% 9%
6% 5% 2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%Top Crash Types, 2013-2017
Fatal and severe injury crashes
5
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
• Goal: Integrate safety performance into ALL transportation investment
decisions
Source: FHWA
6
Foundation • Highway Safety Manual
Source: AASHTO
• Highway Capacity Manual
Source: Transportation Research Board
7
Data-Driven Safety Analysis Defined
• The application of the latest evidence-based tools and approaches to
safety analysis
• Provides reliable estimates of an existing or proposed roadway’s
expected safety performance
• Helps agencies quantify the safety impacts of transportation
decisions, similar to the way agencies quantify:
• Traffic growth
• Environmental impacts
• Traffic operations
• Pavement life
• Construction costs Source: FHWA
8
Scenario:
City had identified six candidate intersections
for rehabilitation of pedestrian facilities;
however, the city needs to narrow the list to
only three of the sites. Expected
improvements include replacing/widening
sidewalks and installing/updating crosswalks.
Task:
Where can limited funding be most
effectively spent?
Data-Driven Safety Analysis Defined Simplified
9
What kind of information might you need
about the six intersections?
• Number of crashes (total & pedestrian)
• Traffic control
• AADT
• Presence of sidewalks/
crossings
• More?
Data-Driven Safety Analysis Defined Simplified
Intersection
Number
Number of Crashes
(Three Years)
Number of Crashes
(Average per Year)
F &SI
Pedestrian
Crashes
Total
Crashes
F &SI
Pedestrian
Crashes
Total
Crashes
1 12 144 4 48
2 6 141 2 47
3 12 99 4 33
4 18 99 6 33
5 9 150 3 50
6 12 96 4 32
Average 11.5 121.5 3.8 40.5
10
Data-Driven Safety Analysis Defined Simplified
Intersection
Number
F &SI Pedestrian
Crashes Total Crashes
Pedestrian
Proportion of
Total Crashes
Ranking by
Ped Crash
Frequency
1 4 48 0.08 2
2 2 47 0.04 6
3 4 33 0.12 2
4 6 33 0.18 1
5 3 50 0.06 5
6 4 32 0.13 2
Total 23 243 N/A N/A
11
Data-Driven Safety Analysis Defined Simplified
Intersection
Number
F &SI Pedestrian
Crashes Total Crashes
Pedestrian
Proportion of
Total Crashes
Ranking by
Ped Crash
Frequency
1 4 48 0.08 2
2 2 47 0.04 6
3 4 33 0.12 2
4 6 33 0.18 1
5 3 50 0.06 5
6 4 32 0.13 2
Total 23 243 N/A N/A
Threshold proportion 23/243=0.09; any pedestrian proportion of total crashes greater than
0.09 merit consideration, based on this performance measure.
12
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
What is this road’s
safety performance?
Top 3 Questions:
1. How many crashes?
2. Is that bad?
3. What can we do about it?
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
Crash Type Average
Crashes/Year
Total 48
Fatal & SI 15
Ped/Bike Related F & SI 2
Rearend 10
Right Angle 20
Top 3 Questions:
1. How many crashes?
Top 3 Questions:
1. How many crashes?
2. Is that bad?
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
Crash Type Average
Crashes/Year
Actual Predicted
Total Collisions 48 45
The number of crashes can be predicted using a Safety Performance Function (SPF) -> an equation; function of exposure and roadway or intersection characteristics (e.g. # of lanes, traffic control, AADT)
Top 3 Questions:
1. How many crashes?
2. Is that bad?
3. What can we do about it?
• Crash modification factors & alternatives analysis!!!
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
17
All three of these meet design standards…
17
45 fatal and injury crashes/year 110 fatal & injury crashes/year 65 fatal & injury crashes/year
Alt 2 Alt 1 No-Build
but DDSA tells us they would perform very differently
from a safety perspective.
Source: CH2MHILL
An illustration of DDSA
18
110 fatal & injury crashes/year
Example: TN DOT –
Communicating Alternatives TN Corridor Project
19
110 fatal & injury crashes/year
Example: TN DOT –
Communicating Alternatives TN Corridor Project
20
110 fatal & injury crashes/year
Example: TN DOT –
Communicating Alternatives TN Corridor Project
21
110 fatal & injury crashes/year
Example: TN DOT –
Communicating Alternatives TN Corridor Project
22
Where can DDSA be applied in the Project
Development Process?
Source: FHWA
23
How can DDSA be applied in the Planning Process?
DDSA tools can be applied to help identify which roadways aren’t
performing as they should and determine the scope and need of
potential projects.
1. System level planning – Network Screening
24
DDSA tools can be applied to help identify which roadways aren’t
performing as they should and determine the scope and need of
potential projects.
1. System level planning – Network Screening
2. Project level planning – Establish Scope
i. Assess the performance of the site
• Condition/status of pavement, structures, congestion, safety, etc.
ii. Propose improvements
iii. Determine necessary funding and schedule
How can DDSA be applied in the Planning Process?
25
Safety Score as part of the Project Prioritizations
• Historical safety performance at a potential project location
• Coordinate with HSIP screening results
• Expand to include high-level safety B/C ratio for project concepts
• Requires development of safety benefit factors (or planning level CMFs)
• Coordinate State-level CMF list(s) with preconstruction, traffic
engineering, and safety
Planning Opportunities
26
Project Feasibility Report
• Purpose and Need
• Develop guidelines for when (and when not) to and how to include safety in
project purpose and need
• Scale and Scope of Project
• Determine if safety features should be included in scope using historical
performance and crash patterns
• Historical safety performance + planning-level CMFs to determine return on
investment
Planning Opportunities
27
• Shift from Nominal to Substantive Safety
• Move toward use of SPFs/CMFs in design decisions
• Safety is not all or nothing (e.g., minimum ramp spacing)
• Help RPGs, MPOs, COGs develop better projects
• Share network screening list
• Engage during scoping (with planning)
Preconstruction Opportunities
28
• Share network screening list
• Planning (Purpose and Need)
• MPOs/COGs (assist decision making)
• Identify cost-effective countermeasures (systemic)
• Support safety analysis
• Planning-level CMFs
• Shortlist of CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse
• Calibrated SPFs for use in predictive analysis
• Tools to facilitate analysis (IHSDM, spreadsheets, etc.)
Safety Management Process
29
DDSA tools can predict the number and severity of crashes for each
project alternative, allowing safety performance to be considered along
with other project criteria
Integrating Safety into NEPA Process when:
1. Safety is included in the Purpose and Need
2. Projects that claim a safety benefit
3. Projects where there could be a substantial difference in safety for
the alternatives being considered
4. Projects with existing safety issues
Appling DDSA to Alternatives Analysis
30
• County maintained road
• Provides access to several commercial developments
• Located approx. 600 feet from the I-20 WB off ramp
• Access to Wall Street
McDonalds, Exxon
&Tigershop
Fatz Cafe
Comfort Inn & Suites
BP Gas
Mobil Gas
Waffle
House
Holiday Inn
Express
Alternative Analysis Example
31
Based on 5 years worth of recent crash data, there have been 36 crashes reported at this intersection, with 50 percent resulting in an injury to one or more occupants.
Alternative Analysis Example – Crash Statistics
32 32
RCUT Traffic Signal
Assumed Cost= $750,000 $750,000
B/C Ratio=
Net Annual
Benefit=
Alternative Analysis Example
33 33
RCUT – Restricted Crossing U-Turn
Source: Wisconsin DOT
34 34
RCUT Traffic Signal
Assumed Cost= $750,000 $750,000
B/C Ratio= 4.69 .35
Net Annual
Benefit=
Alternative Analysis Example
35 35
RCUT Traffic Signal
Assumed Cost= $750,000 $750,000
B/C Ratio= 4.69 .35
Net Annual
Benefit= $153,500 ($27,000)
Alternative Analysis Example
36 8-36
Example: AZ DOT Analysis of Design Criteria
Alternative Improvements Included:
• Widening to 5 ft shoulders
• Widening to 8 ft shoulders
(MP 441 to 466)
36
Credit: Arizona DOT
37
Plot of Geometric Features and Expected Crashes
Example – Arizona DOT
Credit: Arizona DOT
37
38
Crash Prediction Results
Example – Arizona DOT
• Safety Analysis:
• Model was un-calibrated as used (not necessary for comparative
alternatives analysis)
• Alternative B (8-ft shoulders) would reduce crashes by 4 percent more than
Alternative A (5-ft shoulders)
Credit: Arizona DOT
38
39
Example – Arizona DOT
• Economic analysis:
• Although Alternative B (8-ft shoulders) could provide the greater
benefit in reduction in fatal and injury crashes, Alternative A (5-ft
shoulders) would provide the greater return on investment and
was selected as the preferred alternative.
Credit: Arizona DOT
39
DDSA & Target Setting
41
Performance Targets National Goals
1. Safety
2. Infrastructure Condition
3. Congestion Reduction
4. System Reliability
5. Freight Mvmt & Economic Vitality
6. Environmental Sustainability
7. Reduced Project Delivery Delays
42
Performance Targets National Goals
1. Safety
2. Infrastructure Condition
3. Congestion Reduction
4. System Reliability
5. Freight Mvmt & Economic Vitality
6. Environmental Sustainability
7. Reduced Project Delivery Delays
Measures
Number and Rate of Traffic Fatalities
Number and Rate of Serious Injuries
Number of non-motorized user
fatalities and serious injuries
combined
43
Performance Targets National Goals
1. Safety
2. Infrastructure Condition
3. Congestion Reduction
4. System Reliability
5. Freight Mvmt & Economic Vitality
6. Environmental Sustainability
7. Reduced Project Delivery Delays
Measures
Number and Rate of Traffic Fatalities
Number and Rate of Serious Injuries
Number of non-motorized user
fatalities and serious injuries
combined
Measures common the
SCDPS/Highway Safety Office
44
Performance Targets Timeline
April 2018 – safety stakeholders
coordinate on setting 2015-2019
HSIP targets
May 2018 – MPO/COG meeting at
DOT; draft safety targets were
presented
DEADLINES
December 2019 – significant
progress determination on 2014-2018
targets
Deadlines
• State Highway Safety Offices report 3 identical HSIP targets in the HSP to NHTSA
July 1, 2018
• State DOT’s report 2015-2019 HSIP targets in the HSIP Annual Report to FHWA
August 31, 2018
• Last day for MPOs to establish 2015-2019 Target
February 27, 2019
45
Performance Measure
5-year Rolling Averages
2012-2016
Baseline
Performance
2014-2018
Target
2014-2018
Preliminary
Performance
Number of Fatalities 890 970 969
Fatality Rate 1.75 1.81 1.81
Number of Serious
Injuries 3194 3067 2952
Serious Injury Rate 6.3 5.71 5.54
Number of Non-motorized
Fatalities and Serious
Injuries
376 371 380
South Carolina
46
Performance Measure
5-year Rolling Averages
2013-2017
Baseline
Performance
2015-2019
Target
Number of Fatalities 915 988
Fatality Rate 1.75 1.79
Number of Serious Injuries 3088 2986
Serious Injury Rate 5.94 5.42
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities
and Serious Injuries 381 380
South Carolina
47
Performance Measure
5-year Rolling Averages
2012-2016
Baseline
Performance
2014-2018
Target
2013-2017
Baseline
Performance
2015-2019
Target
Number of Fatalities 890 970 915 988
Fatality Rate 1.75 1.81 1.75 1.79
Number of Serious
Injuries 3194 3067 3088 2986
Serious Injury Rate 6.3 5.71 5.94 5.42
Number of Non-motorized
Fatalities and Serious
Injuries
376 371 380 380
South Carolina
48
Performance Targets Timeline
• April 2019 – safety stakeholders
coordinate on setting 2016-2020
HSIP targets
• May 2019 – provide draft safety
targets to MPO/COG
• DEADLINES
• December 2019 – significant
progress determination on 2014-
2018 targets
Deadlines
• Last day for MPOs to establish 2015-2019 Target
February 27, 2019
• State Highway Safety Offices report 3 identical HSIP targets in the HSP to NHTSA
July 1, 2019
• State DOT’s report 2016-2020 HSIP targets in the HSIP Annual Report to FHWA
August 31, 2019
49
Current or Planned Projects
• Review crash data for possible countermeasures
• Identify scope items that are the most cost effective
• Calculate possible reductions in fatalities/serious injuries
• Set achievable, data-driven, targets
How can DDSA be applied to the Safety Target
Setting Process?
50
Performance Target Resources • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/
• http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
51
Target Achievement by State https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/state_safety_targets/
52
FHWA Consultation
• Review current process and any documentation
• Interviews with SCDOT
• Provide recommendations
Safety Matrix
Conduct or review safety analysis on new (and current) projects
What’s next?
54