1

Low Cost Safety Improvements:

1)Safety Corridors 2)Road Safety Assessments

Charlie Nemmers

University of Missouri

2

Background: Safety Corridors Study

Need grew from a four State Safety Summit Funding from Iowa, Kansas, Missouri DOTs

and Midwest Transportation Consortium Goal: identify the most promising

practices and programs to share among the four states

States serve as a steering committee IADOT w/ Iowa State U. to do pilots

3

Approach: Safety Corridors Study

Identified 12 states w/ some sort of SC Not an engineering focus

Legal aspects Enforcement Community involvement

Selection Criteria /Measures of Effectiveness

Rural - 2 lane highway focus

4

The 12 States

AlaskaCaliforniaFloridaKentuckyMinnesotaNew JerseyOhioNew MexicoOregonPennsylvaniaVirginiaWashington

5

Alaska

Full Program: “safety zones” like school or work zones 4Es; 2 lanes; rural; 10 miles long Road Safety Audits; incident response Signing; legislation; double fines Media campaigns; “light” on engineering

6

Alaska

Alaska’s criteria for designating a Safety Corridor are as follows: Roadway with 2000 ADT or more. 3-5 year fatal + major injury crash rate exceeding 110% of

statewide average The DOT must agree on a coordinated traffic control/patrol plan. Agreed that plan will be effective in reducing crashes. The local police define the amount of enforcement needed to

increase safe driving and to provide ongoing enforcement. No more than 10 safety zones at one time in Alaska. The Safety Corridor should be no shorter than five miles long The Safety Corridor is decommissioned when the fatal + major

injury crash rate falls below statewide average for three years.

7

California

Lead by the CHP w/Task Force: CalTrans, Planning groups, EMS,

legislative and citizen members < 50 miles long High 3 year crash/injury record Funding for six corridors per year Goal is a 10% reduction in crashes Must implement 2 solutions (enforcement &

education)

8

Florida

Community Traffic Safety Teams 60 statewide Facilitated by FDOT 20 local members each focusing on the driver behaviors and

pedestrians Statewide CTST Coalition to share

information

9

Kentucky

One Safety Corridor per District more than one county in that district. It must be of sufficient length for a corridor (> 50 miles). It must have a relatively high traffic volume. It must not be a full control of access highway. It must have a higher number of crashes (total and

injury/fatal). It must have a high crash rate (total and injury/fatal). It must be above a collector functional classification

Road Safety Audit Conducted (video taped) Low-cost engineering solutions and enforcement

strategies for locations along the SC.

10

Minnesota

Toward Zero Death (TZD) initiative 4E approach Corridor safety coalitions (like FL) low-cost alternatives to traditional

engineering solutions 27 counties w/$2M from MnDOT

11

New Jersey

13 Urban corridors / 10 miles in length Selection is a three step process

Scan for six or more fatal crashes is performed Roadways with six or more fatal crashes are

analyzed in 10 mile segments for 1,000 or more total crashes over the previous three years

Crash rate is calculated by roadway cross-sectional type

Conduct a Road Safety Audit Safety Corridors carry double fines

12

New Mexico

The six basics of the program are: 5 year crash history on a moving 5 mile stretch Crash investigation Review of the engineering and law enforcement

initiative so as not to overlap efforts Approval from the district engineer A public awareness campaign A review of the equipment and signage.

Safety Corridor eligible for doubled fines

13

Ohio

Most statistically rigorous MOE’s: analyze the most recent five-year crash data over two-mile sections of similar roadways using these four statewide statistics: Crash rate per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) Five-year average crash density per mile Fatal crash rate per 100 MVMT Five-year average fatal crash density per mile

Analyze countermeasure effectiveness simple before and after crash count comparison combined with an Empirical Bayesian approach

14

Oregon

Leader in Safety Corridors (since 1989) Corridor Citizen Advisory Commission ODOT S-C Program Manager

Headquarters: guidelines, approves plans Districts: engineering, local coordination

Intermediate step in more permanent safety infrastructure improvements

15

Oregon

To designate a Safety Corridor: 3 year avg. fatal + serious injury crash rate at or

above 110% of the latest statewide 3 year avg. for similar roads.

The state and/or local law enforcement will commit to making the corridor a patrol priority.

The initial designation team agrees that the length of roadway is manageable from an enforcement and education standpoint. Rural sections may be longer than urban sections.

16

Oregon

The decommissioning process is handled by the initial designation team and is considered if any one of the following criteria is met: 3 year average fatal plus serious injury crash rate is at or below

100% compared to the three year average for similar roadways. Any of the remaining designation criteria are not met. Minimum requirements within Safety Corridor program guidelines

are not being performed. A continued lack of activity or investment in the Safety Corridor.

However, a local stakeholder group may ‘adopt’ the Safety Corridor once it is decommissioned assuming that the group provides meaningful local investment into improving the safety of the roadway

17

Pennsylvania

Legislation for “double fines” 6 pilot locations speeding reduced by 2-14% Enforcement critical as “warning signs

do not change motorist behavior”

18

Virginia

Implemented for the Interstate System Selection criteria are as follows:

The crash rate must exceed 125% of the regional average The Equivalent Property Damage Only frequency must

exceed 150% of the regional avg.(PDO=1, injury=8, fatal=20).

The truck-involved crash rate exceeds overall regional rate.

The rate and EPDO frequency are then normalized by dividing by the maximum rate or EPDO in the region, and then the measures are added to rank / establish priorities

Speed & crash reduction are the MOEs

19

Washington

Established full program Statewide Champion for the Safety

Corridors is LTAP coordinator DOT and Gov. Hwy. Safety Office 402 funds set aside (enforcement/education)

Very active local Safety Corridor team Decommissioned after 2 years

20

Conclusions / Characteristics

Multi-disciplined most states also included Emergency

medical providers (the 4th E). Limited Number

limit the number of corridors pilot corridors should be developed first

Crash Data should be consistently used for selection

and evaluation

21

Conclusions / Characteristics

Champion key to the success of a program

Safety Action Plan use a multi-disciplined task force meets regularly for continual review of

the plan and strategies Legislation

establish corridor limits permits increased fines

22

Conclusions / Characteristics

Special Signage fines doubled, special speed limits, lights

on for safety Road Safety Audit

ensures a multi-disciplined effort Minimal Engineering

signage, center-line and edge-line rumble stripes/strips

23

Conclusions / Characteristics

Length not important homogenous characteristics throughout

Decommissioning is important

Selection Criteria and MOEs should be more statistically rigorous

24

Conclusions / Characteristics

After Data important, but ……

General Characteristics funding pedestrians other

“Safety Corridor” stamp a special program for the high schools motorcycle enforcement on urban safety corridors. include traffic court judges on the SC team bumper stickers on the back of large trucks

25

Next is Part 2

Pilot Projects in Iowa Tom McDonald w/ ISU Tom Welch w/ IaDOT

Road Safety Assessments

Road Safety Assessments (RSA) are proactive. They look at locations prior to the development of crash patterns to correct hazards before they happen.

Road Safety Assessment /Audit (RSA)

“A road safety audit is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team.”

Road safety reviews are performed by multi-disciplined team

http://www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org/

Focus of RSA

Uses a larger (5+person) interdisciplinary team. Members are usually independent of the project. The field review is a necessary component of the

safety assessment Use checklists and field reviews to examine design

features.  Comprehensive and consider all factors that may

contribute to a crash. Consider the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, large

trucks as well as automobile drivers. 

Low Cost Improvements

Mendocino County Signs Show the Way to Cost-

Effective Rural Safety Public Roads,

January/February 2005 · Vol. 68 · No. 4

19 roads in the program for the period from 1992 to 1998.

Total crashes had declined from 601 to 348

Fatalities down from 13 to 5 Injuries decreased 41.7 %

Improvements to size, color and location of road signs.

Steps to Conduct a RSA (FHWA)

Road Safety Assessment Team

April 10, 2008 site visit -- May 30, 2008 report Road Safety Assessment Team:

Brian Chandler Missouri Department of Transportation Jacob Ray Missouri Department of Transportation John Schaefer Missouri Department of Transportation Donald Neumann Federal Highway Administration Scott Sergent City of Columbia Police Department Charlie Oestrich Columbia Public Schools Board Diane Heckemeyer Linn State Technical College Britt E. Smith Jefferson City, Missouri Charles Nemmers University of Missouri Praveen Edara University of Missouri Ginger M. Rossy University of Missouri

St. Charles Road and Lake of the Woods Road

Minor arterial collectors Paved in place,

conforming to existing property lines

ADT St. Charles Rd

2,179 east of Lake of the Woods Rd. (2007)

Lake of the Woods Rd 4148 (2006)

Crash Data

Intersection of Lake of the Woods and St. Charles Roads Angle crashes Unable to see stop

sign Poor visibility in

intersection Intersection of Golf

Blvd. and St. Charles Road

Major Concerns

Poor visibility, stopping sight distance

Posted speed Confusing

intersections Narrow road Construction of new

High School on St. Charles Road

Lake of the Woods Road: intersections with minor rural roads and private entrances

Suggestions for improvement Install chevrons on curves Install ‘intersection ahead’ signs to warn drivers of

intersections with rural roads Relocate mailboxes further inside private properties Reduce the number of trees that are located close to the

pavement Provide pavement edge markings and shoulders Check for adequacy of signs with respect to MUTCD

standards and replace damaged ones Check for compliance with stopping sight distance

requirements (geometrical design) Improve drainage along the road.

St. Charles Rd

Suggestions for improvement Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance with

the MUTCD Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close

proximity to the pavement edges, especially near curves Install chevrons at curves Improve drainage ditches and consider building shoulders

or curb and gutter structures Provide edge lines for the entire route Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current sight

distance requirements and adjust the speed limit accordingly

Remove signs that are no longer necessary Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the new

High School.

St. Charles Rd

Suggestions for improvement Replace most of the signs and verify for compliance with

the MUTCD Reduce the amount of bushes and trees within close

proximity to the pavement edges, especially near curves Install chevrons at curves Improve drainage ditches and consider building shoulders

or curb and gutter structures Provide edge lines for the entire route Revise compliance of posted speed limit with current sight

distance requirements and adjust the speed limit accordingly

Remove signs that are no longer necessary Sidewalks will be required after the completion of the new

High School.

Suggestions for Conducting RSAs

A. Background information: a. Detailed road maps and aerial maps b. Road construction plans / Sign and traffic control devices c. Accident reports d. Interviews with: city and county officials / agencies and

groups e. Future development plans

B. A multidisciplinary team provided alternative views on how to approach solutions for the safety issues encountered in the

site visit. City / County officials did NOT participate in the field review

Suggestions for Conducting RSAs

39

Suggestions for Conducting RSAs

C. Site visit: Provide a “strip” map to each team member with an appropriate scale for them to be able to write comments directly on it.

This way the team members could focus more on evaluating safety hazards than on drawing sketches or writing long verbal descriptions. It also provides future reference to the exact location of a feature that needs

corrections.

D. Interviews with road users: It could be beneficial to perform interviews with road users to collect information on situations that can occur on conditions other than those under which the site visit was performed (for example ice on the roads and night visibility).