Strategic Investment Decisions on Highway Improvement Projects

Mouyid Islam, Ph.D.ITS, Traffic Operation, and Safety ProgramCenter for Urban Transportation Research

"This work was supported by a grant from the Center for Transportation Equity, Decisions and Dollars (CTEDD) funded by U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology

Administration (OST-R) and housed at The University of Texas at Arlington"

Acknowledgement

Team Anurag Pande, Ph.D. (Co-PI)Rahul DeshmukhKezia Amanda Suwandhaputra

Learning Outcomes

Ability to understand the alignment of SHSP emphasis areas into benefit-cost analysis

Ability to understand the comparison of safety improvement methodology (application

of Crash Modification Factors)

Understanding of customization of future changes (other input) in the tool

Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and

the accuracy of the information presented.

Objectives of the Study

to develop an investment decision-making tool for the agency focusing on roadway improvements in Florida (focused on safety)

to set up the process of estimating the cost of project in highway improvements under specific strategies and the benefit of reductions in the severity of crashes by implementing particular strategies on specific Emphasis Areas in the Florida SHSP

Provides guidance to address systemwide safety problems in terms of fatalities and serious injuries by Emphasis Area in SHSP,

Provides a clear assessment of benefits in implementing safety projects on specific roadways to address safety issues by Emphasis Area against the cost of highway improvements, and

Helps to understand what countermeasures are cost-effective to address safety issues with fatalities and serious injuries by roadway class.

Importance of the Study

Major Focus Study Emphasis Areas (SHSP)

Functional class of roadways

State roadway systems

o 12,116 centerline miles

o 55% of total VMT

o 60% of total fatalities

CMF application methods

Future expansion*

Literature Review

GAO (2005) looked at BCA for highway and transit projects, in the context of understanding how Federal-aid funds are invested

Markow, M.J. (2012) provided additional detail on State-level practices and challenges in A study on Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investment from NCHRP (Synthesis 424).

FL Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2016) focused on the Florida emphasis areas (SHSP)

Preston et al. (2013) discussed the assessment of widely implemented improvements based on high risk roadway features specific crash types with systemic approach

HSM (2010) indicated that quantitative safety is a critical component of the project selections process at the planning phase

Harmon et al. (2018) discussed about FHWA crash cost and analysis process

Frustaci et al. (2017) discussed about HSM application in benefit-cost analysis. But, the study indicated initial cost, periodic rehabilitation and annual maintenance cost to be outside of tool.

Elvik (2009) discussed different method of safety impact (combined effect)

FDOT BCA Tool (2014) A tool to evaluate and compare the alternatives along with environmental

documentation with roadway facilities from design aspect (focused to safety) Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) were set by severity, land-use, time of day, crash types Recommended service life of project

FHWA BCA Tool (2018) A tool to allow the analysts have a broader perspective of benefits from safety, travel time,

reliability, vehicle operation, and emission benefits It accommodates and allows wide ranges of user input beased on the local conditions and

estimates

Hi-ImPct Tool (2019) Emphasis Areas (SHSP) Functional class of roadways (intersection types) Flexibility of deployment (priority) CMF and its application methods Future expansion* (countermeasures, CMF, traffic increase)

Literature Review (cont’d)

Data and Work Flow

Florida SHSP – identified and categorized crash data by Emphasis Area which could be the first step forimplementing a systemic approach to safety (a programmatic tool)

Florida crash data – organized by SHSP Emphasis Areas and roadway functional classification

Crash countermeasures and corresponding CMFs – organized by injury severity from FHWA’s CMFClearinghouse; only high-quality CMFs (Star Rating >=3)

Cost of crashes by injury severity and cost estimates for the countermeasures – for preliminary explorationwith the tool.

Organizing Crash Data by Emphasis

Area

Geocoding Crashes and

Organizing by Roadway

Functional Class

Summarizing Crashes by Injury

severity

Crash Countermeasures

and CMFs

Incorporating the Cost of Crashes

and Improvement Projects

Florida Strategic Highway

Safety Plan

Emphasis Areas Definitions

FL State Road Crash (2012 – 2016) andFDOT GIS Roadway

Layer

Spatial Crash Assignment

Frequency of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes of Major Emphasis Areas by year and by Functional

Class o Roads

Mileage of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes for Major Emphasis Areas by year and by Functional

Class of Roads

• Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors having star rating >= 3, Study Area = N.A, Crash Severity = Fatal & Serious Injury/All

• Cost of Fatal (K) & Serious Injury (A) Crash

• Cost of Countermeasure per unit mile or per unit number of intersections

• Allowances and contingencies cost (Source: FDOT, Caltrans, MnDOT)

Data Processing Work Steps towards Tool Development

Major Emphasis Area

Functional Class/ Intersection

Data and Work Flow (cont’d)

Tool Development and Analysis

Worksheet DescriptionHome Page Provides navigation menu.

Project InformationProvides space to enter project-related data and support documentation of contracts.

Crash DataSummarizes number of fatal and serious injury crashes and mileage or number of intersections after crash assignments.

CountermeasuresProvides wide list of countermeasures and their cost and crash types.

Analysis MethodProvides calculation methods to calculate and visualize annual reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes.

Crash BenefitsProvides benefit-cost ratios for wide range of countermeasures for each Emphasis Area and facility type or functional class.

VisualizationsProvides visual representation of benefit-cost ratios in form of bar charts.

Navigation of Tool Functionality

• Agency – name of transportation agency conducting benefit-cost analysis

• Project Title – title of project

• Date – date of analysis

• Analyst – name of analyst conducting benefit-cost analysis.

• Build Alternative Name – name of build alternative analyzed in benefit-cost analysis

• Analysis Period (years) – length of analysis period in years.

• Length of Construction Period (years) – expected duration of construction in years.

• Total Period – calculated total of analysis period + construction period

• Annual Discount Rate (Percent) – discount rate used to calculate benefits and costsover analysis period; default is 4%

Cell Type Color Coding DescriptionAnalyst-supplied Data Allows data input from analyst.Model Default Contains values assumed by model. No input required.Model Calculation Contains model-calculated parameters. No user input required.

Color Coding DescriptionBenefit-Cost Ratio – 1 ~ 5

Benefit-Cost Ratio – 6 ~ 10Benefit-Cost Ratio – 11 ~ 15Benefit-Cost Ratio – 16 ~ 20Benefit-Cost Ratio – 21 ~ 25Benefit-Cost Ratio – 26 ~ 30

Project Information

Crash Data

Crash Database(2012-16)

Processed by Definition of

Emphasis Areas of SHSP

Spatial Assignment of Crashes with Roadway layer

(GIS)

Summarizing the Crashes of Emphasis Areas by

Functional Class of Roadway (Intersection)

Example Crash Summary

Countermeasures

CMF Clearinghouse Database

Processed by Crash Types for Emphasis

Areas of SHSP (Road-Infrastructure)

Filtered by Star Rating (3+) for K and A (or all Severity)

Cost per mile (intersection)Source: FDOT,

Caltrans, MnDOT

Summarizing the Countermeasures

for Emphasis Areas

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall central line rumble strips Head On, SideswipeInstall edge line rumble strips Run-Off-RoadInstall cable median barrier OtherInstall high tension cable median barrier OtherInstall W-beam guardrail Run off Road, Other

Emphasis Area – Lane Departure

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall chevron on horizontal curves Non-IntersectionInstall central line rumble strips Head On, SideswipeInstall edge line rumble strips Run Off RoadInstall transverse rumble strips as traffic calming device AllImplement automated speed enforcement cameras AllInstall combination of chevron signs, curve warning signs, and/or sequential flashing beacons

All

Emphasis Area – Impaired Driving

Countermeasures (cont’d)

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall pedestrian signals AllConvert pelican crossing to puffin crossing AllInstall pedestrian hybrid beacon All

Emphasis Area – (Signalized) Pedestrians

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall lighting AllInstall raised median with or without marked crosswalk (uncontrolled) All

Emphasis Area – (Unsignalized) Pedestrians

Countermeasures (cont’d)

Countermeasure Crash TypeIncrease bike lane width Multi vehicleIncrease median width Vehicle/BicycleWiden shoulder width AllMedian treatment for pedestrian/bicycle safety AllInstall bicycle boulevard Vehicle/Bicycle

Emphasis Area – Bicycle

Countermeasure Crash TypeDynamic signal warning flasher AngleChange from permissive-only to flashing yellow arrow protected/permissive left turn

All

Improve signal-control visibility AllLeft-turn phase improvement All

Emphasis Area – Signalized Intersection-Related Crashes

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall traffic control AllInstall intersection conflict warning system AllIncrease retro reflectivity of stop signing AllImprove signal-control visibility All

Emphasis Area – Unsignalized Intersection-Related Crashes

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall lighting AllImprove pavement friction AllInstall chevron signs on horizontal curves Non-IntersectionInstall new fluorescent curve signs or upgrade existing signs to fluorescent

Non-Intersection

Widen shoulder width AllInstall safety edge treatment All

Emphasis Area – Motorcycle

Countermeasures (cont’d)

Countermeasure Crash TypeImplement mobile automated speed enforcement system AllInstall lighting AllInstall profile thermoplastic pavement markings AllUpgrade existing marking to wet-reflecting pavement marking AllInstall wider marking with resurfacing All

Emphasis Area – Older Driver

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall fixed-speed cameras AllImplement automated speed enforcement cameras AllInstall chevron signs on horizontal curves Non-IntersectionInstall combination of chevron signs, curve warning signs, and/or sequential flashing beacons

All

Install variable speed limit signs AllInstall transverse rumble strips as traffic calming device All

Emphasis Area – Speeding & Aggressiveness

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall central line rumble strip Head On, SideswipeInstall edge line rumble strip Run-Off-RoadInstall wider edge line, 4–6 in. Nighttime, Single VehicleInstall wider marking, both edge line and center line rumble strips with resurfacing

All

Install in-lane curve warning, pavement markings All

Emphasis Area – Truck

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall Central Line Rumble Strips Head On, SideswipeInstall Edge Line Rumble Strips Run Off RoadInstall Transverse Rumble Strips as Traffic calming Device All

Emphasis Area – Distracted Driving

Countermeasure Crash TypeInstall central line rumble strips Head On, SideswipeInstall edge line rumble strips Run-Off-RoadInstall cable median barrier OtherInstall cable median barrier–high tensile OtherImplement automated speed enforcement cameras AllImplement mobile automated speed enforcement system AllInstall profile thermoplastic pavement markings AllUpgrade existing marking to wet-reflecting pavement marking AllInstall W beam guardrail Run Off Road, Other

Emphasis Area – Young Driver

Countermeasure Crash TypeIncrease outside shoulder width inside work zone by 1 ft AllIncrease inside shoulder width inside work zone by 1 ft AllImplement mobile automated speed enforcement system AllNo active with no lane closure All

Emphasis Area – Work Zone-Related Crashes

Countermeasures (cont’d)

Analysis Method

Project Data Emphasis Area

Functional Class

Analysis Method Dominant Effect Additive Method Multiplicative Method Dominant Common

Residual Method

Summarizing the Estimated Annual

Crashes with or without Treatment for Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes

Estimated Annual Reduction with Treatment = Estimated Crashes without Treatment X CMF

Annual Reduction in Crashes = Estimated Annual Reduction with Treatment – Estimated Crashes without Treatment

Crash Benefits

Project Data Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Mileage for Fatal Mileage for Serious Injury Crash

User Input Deployment Length Service Life (Years) Traffic Growth

Tool OutputCrash Saving Benefits

Treatment CostsNet Present ValueBenefit/Cost Ratio

Emphasis Areas (SHSP)Countermeasures

(CMF Clearinghouse)

Resource Allocation(Funding, Revisiting)

Color Coded RangesSimple Visual

Countermeasures Cost FDOT Caltrans MnDOT

Countermeasures/ Treatment Costs

Unit Cost (per mile, per unit)Allowance and Contingencies

Total Cost of the Systems

Overall Process – Input to Output

Conclusion and Discussions

The intent of this research was to develop a programmatic tool with countermeasures to support decision-making at the agency level.

The MS-Excel based spreadsheet tool evaluating different countermeasures by emphasis areas and highway functional class can quantitatively estimate the benefits of highway improvement projects in reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

Benefit-cost ratios are estimated for each functional class (some functional class might bring more benefits relative to others),

Effect of multiple countermeasures and the different methodologies to incorporate their effects in the benefit-cost analysis can provide insights to the traffic safety practitioners, safety engineers and design engineers,

Flexibility to incorporate new countermeasures and their CMFs, and

Simple visualization that provides feedback on the relative priority setting for the different functional class of the roadway for more informed decision making.

The role and the standard process of benefit-cost tool is still evolving at the agency level

Benefit-cost results is considered an important factor in highway improvement project prioritization,

perhaps, not at the singularity in the decision-making process (mechanistic exercise to make informed-

decision for the decision makers)

Benefit-cost has a definite and important role in decision-making at any agency (e.g., FDOT, MPO)

(scoring-based project prioritization and economic impact analysis)

Challenges

More innovative countermeasures and more recent years of crash data covering state and local roadways can be incorporated into this tool as part of its extension.

Micro-level analysis can also be conducted at level of functional class of roadways.

A standard procedure (best practice) for benefit-cost estimation need to established at the highway agency level.

Future work

Emphasis Areas Lane Departure Impaired Driving Pedestrians (Signalized & Unsignalized) Bicyclists Intersections (Signalized & Unsignalized) Motorcyclist Older driver Speeding and Aggressiveness Trucks Young driver Distracted driving Work zone

Back

Functional Class of Roadways Principal Arterial – Interstate Principal Arterial – Expressway Principal Arterial – Other Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

Types of Intersection 4-leg Signalized Intersection 3-leg Signalized Intersection 4-leg Stop/Yield/Flashing Intersection 3-leg Stop/Yield/ Flashing Intersection

Back

Thank You!

mouyid@cutr.usf.edu

www.cutr.usf.edu

Questions! Comments!!

Suggestions!!!

26