trb webinar: transportation asset management: highlights...

TRB Webinar: Case Studies in Performance Based

Analysis of Geometric Design

June 17, 2015 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM ET

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=I1aYE7gDEToTfM&tbnid=qOFquxextblhUM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Feswutstorage.wix.com%2Fesw-ut%23!cdm-smith%2Fzoom%2Fc1etb%2Fimage20m9&ei=Bo37U73wNpezyASV-4LIAQ&bvm=bv.73612305,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHr30Qijk5PD5R3-fWLkPvKCM4r9A&ust=1409080958208829

Today’s Panelists and Moderator

• Mike Colety, Kimley Horn [email protected]

• Andy Wolpert, CH2M [email protected]

• April Renard, Louisiana DOTD [email protected]

• Howard Lubliner, Kansas DOT [email protected]

• Richard Porter, University of Utah [email protected]

2

mailto:[email protected]





DESIGN TO A BUDGET KANSAS DOT TRB Webinar – June 17, 2015

Introduction

Howard Lubliner, P.E., Ph.D. 15 years with Kansas DOT Research in application of the Highway Safety Manual

(HSM) Active in TRB, AASHTO, and NCHRP efforts to research

and promote HSM

Design to a Budget

What is “Design to a Budget”?

How we implemented performance based design to achieve project goals and maintain our budget (K-177 case study)

Lessons learned Kansas DOT implementation of quantitative safety analysis in performance based design

What is “Design to a Budget”?

T-Works is KDOT’s 10-year, $8 billion transportation program passed in 2010

Focused on preservation of existing infrastructure and local input to determine modernization needs

Local Input

Design to a Budget

Unlimited wants with a limited budget KDOT used $150 million to address 5 different

corridors using this methodology Understanding that available funds would not cover

bringing corridors up to full standards Performance based design was used to prioritize

improvements within the selected corridors

Design Methodology

Program Project

Estimate Cost

Design Solution

Purpose & Need

Traditional Method

Design Methodology

Program Project

Estimate Cost

Design Solution

Purpose & Need

Traditional Method Budget Capped

Design Solution

Purpose & Need

Budget Set

Project Programmed

K-177 Modernization

$25 Million Construction Budget 22.9 Mile Corridor

Narrow Shoulders, Steep Side Slopes, Rolling Geometrics

Develop Purpose & Need

Public Input Geometry Operations Safety

Design Solution

Improve Each Segment

Highest Benefit/ Cost

Geometry Meeting

Standards Advisory

Committee Input

Benefit / Cost Analysis

Used calibrated HSM Crash Prediction Model to quantify crash expectancy for each option Optimized solution had 13% crash reduction across

corridor 25% crash reduction in focus areas

Used TWOPAS model to evaluate operations Increased from 50% to 62% passing opportunity

Design Solution

Lessons Learned

Benefit/Cost safety analyses can augment the design process Especially beneficial for practical improvements /

performance based design Can be used across a wide variety of projects

HSM Crash Prediction Models are an imperfect but valuable tool Feel comfortable to utilize engineering judgement

More Information

FHWA Case Study (K-177) www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/pbpd/case_studies.cfm

Email [email protected]

20 Drive Safe Nevada Zero Fatalities

Zero Fatalities Drive Safe Nevada


HSM Implementation in Nevada NDOT Safety

› Ken Mammen, NDOT Chief Safety Engineer › Jaime Tuddao, NDOT Safety Engineer

Task Force of NDOT Divisions and MPOs Consultant Team – Kimley-Horn

› Mike Colety, Project Manager › Michael Mosley, Project Engineer - IHSDM


Nevada Implementation Schedule NV in fourth year of implementation State and regional staff participating on task force

to guide implementation HSM Practitioners and IHSDM Training taught by

FHWA in 2013 and 2014 HSM can be applied to all transportation projects,

although limitations on data Application of HSM to case studies by HSM

Implementation consultants Focusing on application of HSM to ongoing

projects by agency and staff other consultants


Applying the HSM in Project Development

Source: http:/safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/hsm_mgrsguide/sec3.cfm


Project Safety Process (PSP)


Nevada Case Studies Planning and Programming

› Project justification (roundabout) Pre-Design and Scoping

› Scoping (two-lane, two-way rural) Design and Construction

› Design exception (freeway)


Project Justification Case Study 5 legged intersection with high crashes based on

AADT Construct 5 legged roundabout to reduce crashes Expected crashes predicted over a 20 year

horizon


Project Justification - Crash Prediction

Alt. 1

Roundabout

Total 47.1 27.0

Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing Conditions

N/A 20.1

Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) N/A 43%

Existing Conditions

2013-2033 Expected Total Number of Crashes


Project Justification – Substantive Safety Summary BCR was above 1 until

external factors were considered – R/W, new bridges over canals

Safety funds could be spent since proven countermeasure, but alternatives being evaluated

Alt. 1

Roundabout

Total Alternative Cost $4,378,865

Total Annual Benefit including 2% Growth per year

$114,092

Total Annualized Cost $301,173

Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.37Average Annual Net Return ($192,081)


Scoping Case Study Two-lane, two-way rural road connecting Las

Vegas to Lake Mead National Recreation AADT approximately 1,000 vehicles per day 35 total crashes, include 6 fatal crashes in

previous five years (fatal crashes 17% of total) Expected crashes predicted over a 20 year

horizon


IHSDM Review


Scoping Case Study - Alternatives 1. Add a centerline rumble strip 2. RSA single curve at MP 9 3. Improve substandard superelevation 4. Add a climbing lane westbound from Pabco

Road to top of the hill (MP11.6 to 8.5) 5. Revise both curves at MP 9 6. Widen shoulder to 5’ with rumble strip and

improve roadside condition for entire project


IHSDM Review


Scoping - Crash Prediction

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6CL Rumble

StripRSA Curve

at MP 9Superelevation Improvements

Climbing Lane

New Reverse Curve at MP 9

Widen Shoulder to 5'

Total 90.17 84.76 85.59 89.11 75.93 84.38 65.43Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing Conditions

N/A 5.41 4.58 1.06 14.24 5.79 24.74

Crash Reduction Factor (CRF)

N/A 6% 5% 1% 16% 6% 27%

Existing Conditions

2013 - 2033 Expected Total Number of Crashes

*Alternatives developed independently in the model so that during evaluation they could be, somewhat, combined for decision makers.


Scoping – Crash Severity Project history of crash severity was significantly

different than the HSM default values


Scoping– Societal Crash Cost by Severity Benefit dollar amounts are calculated by

multiplying the societal cost of crashes saved. Nevada 2012 Societal Costs

› FATAL $5,339,711.00 › INJURY A $285,349.00 › INJURY B $104,302.00 › INJURY C $59,037.00 › PDO $9,638.00


Scoping – Cost Calculations

Each alternative cost was estimated using the NDOT Estimating Wizard

37

SECTION TOTAL

SECTION I - ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION $777,402

SECTION II - BRIDGES

SECTION III - WALLS

SECTION IV - TYPICAL INTERCHANGES

SECTION V - SIGNAL SYSTEMS AT INTERSECTIONS

SECTION VI - DEMOLITION $65,902

SECTION VII - ADDITIONAL ITEMS $843,490

SECTION VIII - STANDARD PERCENTAGE ADDERS $428,125

TOTAL PRESENT DAY CONSTRUCTION COST $1,271,615

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,309,763

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING $1,474,704

SECTION IX - RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) COSTS

SECTION X - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION COSTS

GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,474,704

CURRENT ESTIMATE LOW RANGE HIGH RANGE

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,309,763 $1,000,000 $2,000,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,474,704 $1,000,000 $2,000,000

Estimate prepared by: Michael MosleyDate of initial estimate: December 7, 2012Date of latest estimate revision: December 10, 2012Route name or number: SR 147 - MP 7.38 to MP 14.33Project Title: Revised RSA Curve at MP 9Project length (in miles): 6.95District price database used: District 1 1Predominant County: Clark 3

2013

ESCALATED TO YEAR

2013

2013

2013

Revised RSA Curve at MP 9PREPARED BY THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ESTIMATED PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST


Scoping – Benefit- Cost Ratio Calculation

38

BENEFIT-COST RATIO (BCR)(2012 DOLLAR FIGURES) 01/22/13

ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION NO. Not KnownPROJECT NO. 2028PROJECT LOCATION SR 147 - MP 7.4 to MP 14.3

ALTERNATIVE NO.COUNTERMEASURE

AADT - Segment or Main St & Cross St SEGMENT

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 2 LANE UNDIVIDED

DEMOGRAPHIC DESIGNATION RURAL ----------------------FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 3 OTHER PRINICPLE ARTERIAL

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $1,474,704.14ANNUAL MAINTENENCE COSTS $5,000.00CURRENT PRIME INTEREST RATE 3.25%PERCENTAGE OF GROWTH 2.00%ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE &NUMBER OF YEARS PREDICTED 20 YEAR(S)

5 YEAR(S)

CALCULATION OF REDUCTIONS USING IHSDMIHSDM (Interactive Highway Safety Design Model)http://www.ihsdm.org/

EXSITING CONDITION ALTERNATIVEPRESENT EXPECTED EXPECTED EXPECTED CRASHES SAVEDCRASHES CRASHES CRASHES CRF (%) ANNUALLY

2012 CRASH (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)COSTS

FATAL $5,339,711.00 6 15.5 14.7 5% 0.04INJURY A $285,349.00 4 10.3 9.8 5% 0.03INJURY B $104,302.00 6 15.5 14.7 5% 0.04INJURY C $59,037.00 6 15.5 14.7 5% 0.04PDO $9,638.00 13 33.5 31.8 5% 0.09

CALCULATION OF BENEFITS CRASHES SAVED SOCIETAL SOCIETALANNUALLY COST BENEFIT

(E) (F) (G)

FATAL 0.04 $5,339,711 $209,622INJURY A 0.03 $285,349 $7,468INJURY B 0.04 $104,302 $4,095INJURY C 0.04 $59,037 $2,318PDO 0.09 $9,638 $820

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Summation of Column E) $224,322TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Including Growth ) $228,808CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR 0.0688ANNUALIZED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $101,429TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $106,429AVERAGE ANNUAL NET RETURN $122,380BENEFIT/COST 2.15

PROJECT SAFETY PROCESS

Alt 2Revise single curve at MP 9 per RSA recommendation (1700-foot curve), includes roadside improvements at location.

NUMBER OF YEARS OF CRASH HISTORY DATA

PREDICTIVE METHOD

BCR = PVbenefits PVcosts

› PVbenefits = Present

value of project benefits

› PVcosts = Present value of project costs


Scoping - Substantive Safety Summary

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6CL Rumble

StripRSA Curve

at MP 9Superelevation Improvements

Climbing Lane

New Reverse Curve at MP 9

Widen Shoulder to 5'

Total Alternative Cost

$65,693 $1,474,704 $945,031 $5,696,473 $2,357,871 $12,113,656


$270,273 $228,808 $52,956 $711,404 $289,258 $960,195

Total Annualized Cost

$9,518 $106,429 $69,998 $396,797 $167,172 $838,164

Benefit-Cost Ratio

28.40 2.15 0.76 1.79 1.73 1.15

Average Annual Net Return

$260,755 $122,380 ($17,043) $314,607 $122,086 $122,031

$12,126,998

$1,235,964

$834,081

1.47

$396,883


Design Exception Case Study

Adding a climbing lane › AADT = 18,000 vpd › Facility type is Freeway › 10’ Shoulder standard not met with additional

lane



Proposed Exception is a 2 foot right shoulder at bridge pier


I-15 Logandale TI Design Exceptions– Pilot Project

42



Design Exception - Alternatives Alternative 1:

› Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge and piers outside the clear zone

Alternative 2: › Narrow the median and shift the lanes more to the

inside. This will cause the need for a 2000 foot long retaining wall to be constructed and a barrier to be added to the inside of the NB lanes in the median.

Alternative 3: › Narrow the right shoulder to 2 feet for 30 feet

using a taper from 10’ to 2’ of 176’


Design Exception - Variables

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

New Bridge Median Narrowing

Shoulder Narrowing

Left Shoulder Width 4' 4' 4' 4'

Right Shoulder Width 8' 10' 10'

2' for 30 feet and

176' taper

Median Traversable Traversable Non-Traversable Traversable

Median Width 28' 28' 20' 28'Median Barrier SB Only SB Only NB and SB SB Only

Outside Barrier Rt 16' Rt N/A 10'Rt 2' (Follows Shoulder)

12' Climbing Lane No Yes Yes Yes

Analysis Variables

Existing Conditions


Design Exception – Substantive Safety Summary

Results Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

New Bridge Median Narrowing

Shoulder Narrowing

Total 90.1 85.5 89.5 86.9Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing Conditions

N/A 4.6 0.6 3.1

Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) N/A 5.1% 0.7% 3.5%

Total Alternative Cost N/A $2,750,000 $1,500,000 $100,000


N/A $25,884 $3,406 $17,653

Total Annualized Cost N/A $199,142 $113,168 $16,878

Benefit-Cost Ratio N/A 0.13 0.03 1.05Average Annual Net Return N/A ($173,258) ($109,763) $775

2013-2033 Predicted Total Number of Crashes

Existing Conditions

QUANTIFYING THE SAFETY EFFECTS OF VARIOUS DESIGN ALTERNATIVES IN NEPA

April Renard, P.E. Highway Safety Manager Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development

PROJECT OVERVIEW Alternative N-S

corridor to I-12 Louisiana

Revised Statute 47:820.2B(e)

4-lane arterial Limited access

facility

I-12 TO BUSH PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES No Build Alternative B/O Alternative J Alternative P Alternative Q

ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA Land Use Water Resources Ecological Resources

Land cover Wildlife Sensitive habitats T&E species Wetlands

Geology and Soils Air Quality Noise

• Recreational Resources • Traffic and

Transportation – Access – Operations – Safety

• Utilities • Socioeconomics • Aesthetic and Visual

Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazardous and Toxic

Substances

SAFETY Goal: Quantify the perceived safety benefits from

constructing the project. Presumption: Traffic diverted from existing

roadways with lesser design standards to proposed alignment with higher design standards will result in a reduction in crashes.

Methodology: HSM Predictive Method using IHSDM

IHSDM SOFTWARE Interactive Highway Safety

Design Model Developed in coordination with

TRB, AASHTO and FHWA Decision-support tool;

evaluates safety and operational effects of geometric design decisions on highways

Incorporated HSM Predictive Method in 2010

AREA OF ANALYSIS

Existing routes Proposed

alignments

DATA REQUIREMENTS Horizontal curvature Vertical curvature Cross sectional elements

Number of lanes and lane width

Shoulder width and type

Cross slope Roadside foreslope Median width and

type

ADT Design Speed Driveway Density Roadside Hazard

Ratings Intersections

• Traffic control • Skew angle • Turn lanes

DATA RESOURCES Highway Needs Database Surface Type Log File Data Collection/Management Systems As-builts and Plans LandXML files* Google Earth Planning models (Transcad, REMI)

STUDIED SECTIONS

US 190 US 190 Business LA 21 LA 59 LA 36 LA 435 LA 41 LA 434 US 11 4 Alternatives

PREDICTED NUMBER OF CRASHES Route Control Section No Build Alt B/O Alt J Alt P Alt Q 1a US 190 013-11 478.44 463.41 468.03 464.58 472.14 US 190-X 013-10 27.54 26.17 26.33 26.25 26.84 LA 21 030-01 88.49 97.14 67.84 46.16 70.52 594.47 586.72 562.2 536.99 569.5 1b LA 59 281-03 84.7 70.77 80.64 76.07 80.66 LA 36 280-01 16.37 15.76 15.44 15.2 15.28 LA 59 852-09 17 11.84 14.32 12.76 11.68 LA 21 030-01 75.72 58.52 37.26 22.7 38.77 193.79 156.89 147.66 126.73 146.39 1c LA 59 281-03 84.7 70.77 80.64 76.07 80.66 LA 435 281-04 29.31 26.29 28.86 41.24 30.57 LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18 142.99 121.68 112.72 120.29 114.41 2 US 11 018-04 28.69 27.89 25.72 27.42 27.63 LA 41 058-01 91.38 81.12 36.64 61.64 50.74 LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18 149.05 133.63 65.58 92.04 81.55 3 LA 434 852-12 7.09 4.45 5.6 5.24 5.43 LA 36 280-03 10.11 9.9 12.02 10.93 24.43 LA 41 058-01 53.67 45.87 11.75 30.44 14.58 LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18 99.85 84.84 32.59 49.59 47.62 4 Proposed Alternative 0 43.58 43.5 30.37 32.5 TOTAL NETWORK CRASHES 1180.15 1127.34 964.25 956.01 991.97

DISTRIBUTION OF CRASHES

Severity LA (all) LA (rural 2-lane) HSM (rural 2-lane)

Fatal 0.44% 2.08% 1.30%

Severe 0.83% 1.08% 5.40%

Moderate 6.15% 10.59% 10.90%

Possible Injury 21.70% 30.92% 14.50%

PDO 70.89% 55.33% 67.90%

100.00% 100% 100.00%

COST OF CRASHES

Severity Cost per Person

Cost per Person (w/ Loss of

Quality of Life)

Fatal $1,241,054 $4,275,313

Severe $917,127 $1,990,456

Moderate $160,602 $299,823

Possible Injury $7,953 $10,782

PDO $3,216 $3,216

OVERALL COMPARISON

Rank Alternative Total Network

Crashes Reduction in

Crashes Total Cost of

Crashes* Reduction in Cost

1 P 956.01 224.14 $25,693,587.03 $6,023,954.35

2 J 964.25 215.9 $25,915,044.08 $5,802,497.30

3 Q 991.97 188.18 $26,660,042.81 $5,057,498.57

4 B/O 1127.34 52.81 $30,298,227.43 $1,419,313.95 5 No Build 1180.15 0 $31,717,541.38 $0.00

*Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering)

Rank Alternative Total Network

Crashes Reduction in

Crashes Total Cost of

Crashes* Reduction in Cost

1 P 956.01 224.14 $55,592,679.06 $13,033,904.54

2 J 964.25 215.9 $56,071,841.07 $12,554,742.53

3 Q 991.97 188.18 $57,683,779.29 $10,942,804.31

4 B/O 1127.34 52.81 $65,555,643.57 $3,070,940.03

5 No Build 1180.15 0 $68,626,583.60 $0.00

*Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering)

RECORD OF DECISION Alternative P

Safety Alternative Q

Environmental

Questions?

April Renard, P.E. LADOTD, Highway Safety

[email protected] (225)379-1919

http://www.ihsdm.org/


Crash Prediction for Freeways and Interchanges Using the Interchange Safety Analysis Tool – Enhanced (ISATe)

Copyright 2013 by CH2M HILL International, Ltd. • Company Confidential

We ought to understand the expected safety performance of a $250 million investment

Would you expect these three alternatives to experience the same number of crashes over a 30 year project life? If not, would it be helpful to understand the potential differences when selecting a preferred alternative?


High value ISATe applications to typical planning and design issues

Predict crashes before and after reconstruction of a corridor Evaluate effect of adding new interchange Evaluate effect of increasing capacity of an existing corridor

through widening Evaluate effect of increasing or decreasing weaving distance Compare performance of CD vs. mainline weaving vs ramp braid

solutions Predict and compare the safety performance of interchange

configuration alternatives Evaluate and refine preliminary geometry Evaluate and document design exceptions


Limitations

Site types not addressed – Facilities with HOV lanes – Freeways with managed lanes separated by a buffer – Ramp metering – Frontage roads – Speed change lanes at crossroads

Geometric elements not addressed – Vertical geometry – > 10-lane freeway segments – > 2-lane ramp segments – Differing barrier types (i.e. cable barrier vs. jersey barrier) – Single point diamond intersection configuration – Roundabout ramp terminal intersections – Diverging Diamond interchange (Double Cross-Over)


The ISATe Model and Tool

Excel Spreadsheet – Input

• Individual site – Freeway segment – Ramp or CD road segment – Crossroad ramp terminal

• Freeway facility • Segmentation is key!

– Output • Crashes for entire facility • Crashes by component • Distribution of crashes


Case Study: I-270/US 33: Dublin, OH

Interchange is unique Operates as a service interchange to the east as it approaches the Frantz

Road/Post Road intersection Operates as system interchange to the west

LOCAL ROADWAY

FREEWAY SYSTEM


Project Application – I-270/US 33 Interchange

Goals • Improve Safety • Address Traffic Congestion • Resolve Obsolete Geometric Designs • Fiscal responsibility o Develop phased plan to meet funding constraints

Three alternatives further studied and developed • Alternative 4 • Alternative 7 • Alternative 8


I-270/US 33 Improvements: Alternative 4

Directional turbine interchange



Parclo ‘A’ interchange


Crash Analysis, 2015-2035 Crash Predictions

ISATe for the I-270/US 33 Interchange – The model was uncalibrated as used – The results used for comparisons are relative – Focused on KAB type crashes from 2015-2035

• Most important crash types • Reliability of data is greater

– Safety was one of many criteria used to determine the preferred alternative


Results

Total KAB predicted crashes 2015-2035 – Existing: 308 crashes – Alt. 4: 323 crashes – Alt. 7: 360 crashes – Alt. 8: 320 crashes

Societal costs 2015-2035 – Existing: $97M – Alt. 4: $90M – Alt. 7: $102M – Alt. 8: $88M


Interpretation

Trade-off of reconfiguring interchanges with high speed ramp designs – Increases VMT

‘Higher quality’ design – Safety performance is better even though VMT is 30%

greater than existing


Alternative 8 – Preferred Alternative (Phase 2)

PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION (in 10-15 years)

REMOVE LOOP RAMP


Loop Ramp Crash Prediction

ISATe used to predict ramp KAB type crashes from 2015 to 2025 – Option 1 – Maintain existing ramp with a 230’ radius – Option 2 – Reconstruct ramp with a 200’ radius – Option 3 – Reconstruct ramp with a 185’ radius


Loop Ramp Crash Prediction

Per the HSM, comparing the predicted crashes is the appropriate approach for the analysis

Using an uncalibrated model is an accepted analysis method

From HSM work in Ohio, the KAB crashes are very close to model predictions


Summary

Model predicts that the KAB crashes for the options are anywhere from 9-10 crashes on the ramp proper over a 10 year period – Little difference between the options as far as crash

performance Because weaving movements are removed, the

main issue will be the speed entering the ramp curve – Speed will have a significant influence on safety

performance regardless of option


Summary

Existing ramp radius will be maintained for the project – Treatments will be implemented to slow traffic on the

approach – These countermeasures (or lack thereof) would be

expected to have a more appreciable influence on expected crash performance than the ramp radius

Questions and Discussion

trb webinar: transportation asset management: highlights...

Documents