safety and highway safety manual implementation … •show how nevada is advancing safety on it’s...
TRANSCRIPT
Safety and Highway Safety Manual
Implementation in Nevada
MAY 21, 2016
ITE INTERMOUNTAIN SECTION
JACOB FARNSWORTH, P.E.
Outline
• Objectives
• Background Information
• NDOT’s Safety Projects• Road Safety Assessments
• Traffic Safety Engineering Design
• Safety Management Plans
• Conclusion
Objectives
• Show how Nevada is advancing safety on it’s roadways through it’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and implementation of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).
• Provide an overview of specific approaches currently being used on safety related projects
• To get you thinking “Safety”
Nevada SHSP Integrating safety
Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
• Purpose:• Improves decision making
based on safety performance
• Science-based
• Provides information and tools
Project Development Process
Operations, Maintenance & Construction
SAFETY
Project Safety Process
• A guide for incorporating HSM processes into the Project Development Process in Nevada
• Establish a consistent process of quantifying safety impacts to the extent practicable
Project Safety Process
• CMF
• Predictive Method
• Benefit Cost Ratio
Safety Projects
• Road Safety Assessments
• Safety Management Plans
• Traffic Safety Engineering Design
RSA
SMPTSED
Road Safety Assessments (RSA)
• Formal safety evaluation by an independent multidisciplinary team
• Provides safety improvement suggestions
• Includes:• Crash reduction analysis
• Preliminary cost analysis
• Typically leads into Project Scoping, Safety Management Plans, and/or Traffic Safety Design Projects
Safety Management Plan (SMP)
• Purpose:• Safety focused corridor study
• Includes all road users
• Collaboration with stakeholders and public
• Develop short and long range projects
• Intent• Provide NDOT and local agencies with a list of
projects that should be considered
• Planning for future funding
• Leads into Traffic Safety Engineering Design
SMP – A RSA on STERIODS
• Includes:• Crash Analysis
• Existing Conditions Analysis and Maps
• Road User Analysis
• Capacity Analysis
• Review of Policies, Plans, and Studies
• Land Use and Economic Development Analysis
• Crash Predictions
• Benefit Cost Analysis
• Recommendations
SMP - Example
• 3.6 Mile Corridor
• 46 Intersections• 14 Signalized
• North Section• 4 Lanes
• 13,000-17,500 AADT
• South Section• 6 Lanes
• 20,000-40,000 AADT
15
Vicinity Map
NDOT Safety Management Plan - Eastern AveData Source:
NDOT 12/01/**-12/01/**
Legend
Signalized Intersection
Non-Signalized Intersection
Median
4 Lanes, No Median
4 Lanes, Raised Median
6 Lanes, Raised Median
Major Roads
City Boundaries
95
LAS V
EGAS BLV
D
LAKE MEAD BLVD
OWENS AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
BONANZA RD
BR
UC
E S
T
PEC
OS
RD
EVANS AVE
CHEYENNE AVE
CAREY AVE
STEWART AVE0 0.5 10.25
Miles
HARRIS AVE
CEDAR AVE
SEA RLES AVE
TONOPAH AVE
CARTIER AVE
BROOKS AVE
NORTH
LAS VEGAS
LAS VEGAS
CIV
IC C
ENT
ER
DR
EAST
ER
N A
VE
CONSTITUTION WAY
Crash Analysis
• Crash Rate• Corridor - 7.72 crashes per MVMT
Crash Severity Overall Pedestrian Bicycle Bus
Fatal 2 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Injury A 34 2.8% 6 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 5.9%
Injury B 92 7.5% 6 33.3% 4 36.4% 2 11.8%
Injury C 410 33.4% 5 27.8% 6 54.5% 2 11.8%
PDO 687 56.1% 1 5.6% 1 9.1% 12 70.6%
Total (5 Years) 1,225 (100%) 18 (1.5%) 11 (0.9%) 17 (1.4%)
Crash Analysis
Existing Conditions
Policies, Plans, and Studies
• 22 Document Reviewed• Las Vegas
• North Las Vegas
• Regional Transportation Commission
• NDOT
Crash Issues and Risk Factor• Crash rates
• Access Management• Driveways
• Median Openings
• Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
• No Shoulder
• Speeding
• Lighting
• ADA
• Sidewalk Obstruction
• Capacity
Proposed Improvements
What can be done within the Right-of-Way?
• Short-Term Low-Cost
• Mid-Term• Alternative #1
• Alternative #2
• Alternative #3
• Long-Term
Short-Term Improvements
• Midblock Crossing w/ Ped Flashing Beacon
• Crosswalk Improvements w/ Ped Flashing Beacon
• Pedestrian Barrier
• Street Lighting Improvements
• Intersection Curb Modifications
• S-Island Medians
Mid-Term Alternative #1
• Lane Narrowing
• Corridor Improvements• Access Management (Medians)
• Traffic Control Devices
• Lighting Upgrades
• Roadway Improvements
• Landscape
• Bike Lane
Mid-Term Alternative #1
• Lane Narrowing
• Corridor Improvements• Access Management (Medians)
• Traffic Control Devices
• Lighting Upgrades
• Roadway Improvements
• Landscape
• Bike Lane
Mid-Term Alternative #2
• Lane Narrowing
• Corridor Improvements• Access Management (Medians and Driveways)
• Additional Lighting
• Wider Sidewalks
• Buffered Bike Lane
• Lane Removal
• Bus Turnouts
Mid-Term Alternative #2
Mid-Term Alternative #3
• Lane Narrowing
• Corridor Improvements
• Buffered Bike Lane
• Lane Removal
• Bus Turnouts
• Roundabouts• 3 Intersections
Long-Term Improvements
• Reconstruction of Interchange
• One-way Circulator Road
• Relocation of Corridor Utilities
• Construction of New Interchange on US 95
HSM Crash Prediction
Analysis Tools• IHSDM – 4 lane divided
• HSM Spreadsheet (NCHRP 17-58) – 6 lane divided
Prediction Scenarios• Existing Conditions – 20 Years
• Alternative #1 – 20 Years
• Alternative #2 – 20 Years
• Alternative #3 – 20 Years
Crash Prediction Results
Existing Conditions
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3
Total Predicted Crashes (20 Years)*
3933 3093 2738 2724
Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing Conditions*
N/A 840 1195 1209
Crash Reduction Factor N/A 21.4% 30.4% 30.7%
Total Predicted Crashes/Year*
197 155 137 136
Benefit Cost Analysis
Alternative #1 Alternative #2
Total Annual Benefit $2,234,803 $3,178,209
Total Annualized Cost $754,531 $1,577,634
Benefit Cost Ratio 2.96 2.01
Average Annual Net Return $1,480,272 $1,600,575
• Short-Term Improvements
• Mid-Term • Alternative #1 - $10,226,924
• Alternative #2 - $21,383,276
Public Involvement
• Total Attendance – 22 People
• Potential Additional Short-Term Projects• Driveway Closure at Shopping Center
• Restriping and Improved Stripping at Specific Locations
• Additional Bus Turnouts
Recommendations1st Priority
• Short-Term Improvements
2nd Priority
• Mid-Term Improvements• Alternative #2 North of Washington Ave,
Alternative #1 South of Washington Ave
3rd Priority
• Long-Term Improvements
Traffic Safety Engineering Design
• Traffic Safety Design Projects
• Alternatives Development• Crash Modification Factors
• HSM Crash Prediction
• Benefit Cost Ratios
• 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% Design Plans
Conclusion
• Nevada is advancing safety on it’s roadways through it’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and implementation of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).
• All stages of the Project Development Process
• Variety of safety related projects
• How can you incorporate safety?
