road safety audit presentation
TRANSCRIPT
1
Road Safety Audit (RSA) –Methodology and Best Practices
in the Southeast
Sreekanth (Sunny) Nandagiri, P.E, PMP
and
Ryan Eckenrode, P.E., PTOE
PART Presentation ‐ February 22, 20111
Presentation Overview
FHWA‐National Highway Institute (NHI)‐Road Safety Audit Training
Road Safety Audit Methodology
An Example Study Using the Methodology
22
NHI Road Safety Audit Training
May 6 & 7‐2010‐Nashville, TN
2 day intense training (office and field) followed by a test and a presentation
Field visits case studies and presentationsField visits, case studies, and presentations
16 AECOM engineers participated
Required for TDOT and other DOTs
33
2
Typical Safety Review
Reactive in nature
Not performed by a diverse group
Concentrate on motorized traffic
D t id h f tDoes not consider human factors
Does not include a formal report
Does not include formal response
44
Road Safety Audit Methodology
Road safety audit (RSA) is defined as a “formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multi‐disciplinary RSA team”
30 States recognize RSAs as a tool to help achieve strategic safety goals
Wisconsin DOT uses RSAs during the design phase of the project
55
Missouri DOT Viewpoint
"I believe that road safety audits are an excellent tool for evaluating and improving the safety of our highway system. In the projects we've done, we've seen the most benefit in doing an audit during conceptual anddoing an audit during conceptual and preliminary design, when any improvements can be incorporated into our project estimates and final design."– Beth WrightDistrict EngineerMissouri DOT
66
3
Road Safety Audit Methodology‐Eight Steps
1. Identify the project
2. Select RSA team
3. Conduct a start‐up meeting3. Conduct a start up meeting
4. Perform field reviews
5. Conduct RSA analysis
77
Road Safety Audit Methodology‐Eight Steps
6. Present preliminary findings
7. Prepare a formal response
8. Incorporate findings into the8. Incorporate findings into the project
88
Step 1: Identify the ProjectDesign stage or in‐service (existing road)– Design stage (high profile or complex design)– In‐service (high crash rates or changed traffic characteristics)
Owner is responsible– Scope– Schedule for completion– Team requirements– Audit tasks– Formal audit report contents and format– Response report expectations
99
4
Step 2: Select a RSA TeamIndependent, qualified, and multidisciplinary –selected by owner– Pre‐construction – roadway design engineer– Detailed Design – traffic operations engineer– Construction Phase – expert in human factors/positive p /pguidance and maintenance
– Post Construction – crash investigator and state or local enforcement officer
Specific RSA Needs‐ Ped and Bike, transit, ITS, bridges, tunnels, roundabouts, traffic calming and others
1010
Step 3: Start‐up Meeting
Bring together owner, design team, and audit team
Provide relative information to audit team
Review scope and objectives of the RSAp j
Delegate responsibilities
Agree upon a schedule
Set up lines of communications
Communicate important details to audit team
1111
Step 4: Conduct Reviews
Review design drawings and other project information before field review
Field review performed on every RSA no matter what stage of projectmatter what stage of project
Conduct a safety meeting prior to visit
Independently or as a group?
Consider every approach and take
photos / videos
1212
5
RSA‐Methodology‐Step 4
Geometry—Curve, gradient, cross section, clearance, sight distance, and clear zone
Operations—Congestion, signal operation, speed management, queuing, turning movements
Road Users—Motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and other users
Environment—Weather, lighting, and road conditions
1313
Step 5: RSA Analysis / Report
Write a concise report– Introduction (scope, project stage, project limits)
– Background (audit team, information from owner observations from site visit)owner, observations from site visit)
– Findings and Suggestions (describe each safety issue, risk, solutions)
– Formal statement (form signed by RSA team indicated agreed or reached consensus on findings)
1414
RSA‐Methodology‐Step 5
frequent
occasional
sh Frequ
ency
15
negligible low med high
rareCras
Crash Severity
A lowest risk level C moderate risk level E high risk level
B low risk level D significant risk level F highest risk level
6
Step 6: Present Initial Findings
Present findings to Owner and Design Team
Present positives first!
Use pictures and video to illustrate points
D t l t O di t t th t t iDo not let Owner dictate the contents in RSA final report
1616
Step 7: Formal Response
Owner and design team respond to safety audit suggestion in letter report– Is the report within scope?
– Does the safety suggestion address issue?Does the safety suggestion address issue?
– Will suggestion lead to other problems?
– What is the cost? Are there other alternatives?
– Agree, disagree, or do nothing
1717
Step 8: Incorporate Findings
Project Owner and Design Team – Carryout formal response in timely manner
– Learning Opportunity for future projects
– Refine the RSA Processe e t e S ocess• Correct Stage?
• Enough data?
• Time?
• Satisfy requirements?
• Evidence of improved safety?
1818
7
Example RSA Study
19
Rosa Park Blvd at James Robertson ParkwayNashville, TN
Example RSA Study
Resources– Intersection aerial photo and site visit
– Crash data (18 crashes in 3 years)
Site visit(s)Site visit(s)– May 7, 2010 – 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM
– Weather sunny and light traffic
– Four member multi‐disciplinary team
2020
Example RSA Study
Local Information‐Police Department
2121
8
Safety Successes
Pavement marking and geometrics satisfactory
22
Safety Successes
Signal Operation and free flow right‐turns
23
RSA‐Methodology‐Step 5
frequent
occasional
sh Frequ
ency
negligible low med high
rareCras
Crash Severity
A lowest risk level C moderate risk level E high risk level
B low risk level D significant risk level F highest risk level
24
9
EXPECTED FREQUENCY EXPECTED SEVERITY RISK RATING
CRare Medium Moderate
Safety Issue: Westbound Merge Ramp from Charlotte to James Robertson
Expected crashes: Sideswipe
Aggravating factors: Short merge area and weave, lack of advance warning signs and pavement markings, sight distance for the merging traffic
Short Term Suggestions: Advanced ggyield ahead signs and pavement markings; Left only markings, traffic merging ahead sign.Long Term Suggestions: Add a through lane through the intersection to eliminate the merge area and improve the weaving distance.
25
EXPECTED FREQUENCY EXPECTED SEVERITY RISK RATING
BRare Low Low
Safety Issue: Southbound Free Flow Right Turn‐Pavement Markings
Expected crashes: Sideswipe and Angle
Aggravating factors: Inadequate pavement markings for the right turn traffic and bus stop in the right turn lane.
Short Term Suggestions: Carry th l li t ththe lane lines to the intersection of Gay Street and 10th Circle North. Remove existing abandoned poles and parking curb stops. Relocate existing bus stop.Long Term Suggestions: None
26
EXPECTED FREQUENCY EXPECTED SEVERITY RISK RATING
DRare High Significant
Safety Issue: Pedestrian and Bike Issues
Expected crashes: Pedestrian and or bike crashes
Aggravating factors: No bike lanes, no push buttons, insufficient time to cross the intersection and non‐ADA compliance
Short Term Suggestions: Increase the lk tiwalk time.
Long Term Suggestions: Install push buttons, install countdown pedestrian heads, sidewalk needs to be upgraded to multi‐use path and truncated domes need to be installed
27
10
Summary
"The road safety audit process looks at the roadway from a purely technical safety viewpoint without outside influences. It is a valuable process that gives an unbiased view of f h f fsafety issues with support from safety experts.
These recommendations are helpful when working with others, such as political leaders.“– Ricky MayDistrict EngineerMississippi DOT
2828
Questions
29
Sreekanth (Sunny) Nandagiri, P.E, PMP and Ryan Eckenrode, P.E., PTOE919‐854‐6200
FHWA RSA website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/
Road Safety Audit (RSA) –Methodology and Best Practices
in the Southeast
Sreekanth (Sunny) Nandagiri, P.E, PMP
and
Ryan Eckenrode, P.E., PTOE
PART Presentation ‐ February 22, 201130
11
SCDOT Safety Project
31
SCDOT Safety Project
Low Cost Safety Improvements‐On‐Call Project (Round 2 and 3)
SCDOT identified high crash rate intersectionsintersections
341 intersections‐signalized and unsignalized
Districts 4 (94 intersections)
District 5 (247 intersections)
32
SCDOT‐Study Area
341 Total94‐District 4247‐District 5
33
12
Districts 4 and 5 Counties
District 4
Cherokee (15)
Chester (8)
Chesterfield (2)
District 5
Darlington (24)
Dillon (12)
Florence (83)Chesterfield (2)
Fairfield (2)
Lancaster (22)
Union (3)
York (42)
Georgetown (27)
Horry (82)
Marion (5)
Marlboro (7)
Williamsburg (7)34
SCDOT‐UnsignalizedIntersections
Quantities for crosswalks, stops bars, yield lines, and skip lines
Record and recommend pavement striping
Relocation of destination signsRelocation of destination signs
Stop Ahead, Yield, and Stop signs 48”
Signs in the median 30”
Intersection warning signs 36” with street names
35
SCDOT‐Signalized Intersections
Quantities include– Span wire, signal cable, pedestrian cable– Overhead signs (NTOR, left‐turn on green ball, etc.)– Signal heads, pedestrian equipment, pedestals, curb ramps
Add near side head for speed limits greater than or equal 50 mphSignal ahead signs must have street namesAll Pedestrians heads should be count downIf pedestrians heads are present, propose cross walks
36
13
SCDOT‐General Notes
500 feet on each approach
No updates on non state‐maintained roads
Speed limits and street name signs not part of projectof project
Freeflow interchanges, roundabouts, and under construction – not analyzed
No upgrades to existing ramps at crosswalks
37
Procedure
1. Drive each leg of intersection and take pictures
2. Physically sketch intersection and identify areas for signs and pavement markingsareas for signs and pavement markings
3. Quantify pavement markings, signs, and signal equipment
4. Review checklist (G.O.R.E) for intersection improvements
38
E. Cheves St.& E. Palmetto St.
Source: Google Maps
39
14
Eastbound Approach 40
40
Westbound Approach
41
Northeast Approach
42
15
Northwest Angle
43
Storage Problem
44
Geometry
Operations
Quantity Sheet / Checklist
p
Road Users
Environment
45
16
Recommendations
46
Pamplico Hwy. & Claussen Rd.
Source: Google Maps
47
Eastbound Approach
48
17
Westbound Approach
49
Northbound Approach
50
Southbound Approach
51
18
Relocating Signage
52
Recommendations
53
Intersection Warning Signs
54
19
Yield Sign
55
Stop and Stop Ahead Signs
56
Signal Ahead Signs
57
20
Yellow Reflective Back Plates
58
SCDOT Viewpoint
“We view the RSAs as a proactive low‐cost approach to improve safety. The RSAs helped our engineering team develop a number of solutions incorporating measures that were not originally included in the projects. The verynot originally included in the projects. The very first audit conducted saved SCDOT thousands of dollars by correcting a design problem.“– Terecia WilsonDirector of SafetySouth Carolina Department of Transportation
59
Douglas County DOT
Located 20 miles west of Atlanta– 40% increase in population since 2000
– County crash rates exceeded state average
Existing RoadsExisting Roads– Good pavement conditions and pavement markings
– Poor alignment, narrow right‐of‐way, improper sight distance at intersections, no shoulders, insufficient clear zones, and sharp curves.
60
21
Douglas County DOT Goals
Make safety highest priority
$ ‐ Prevent crashes and reducing severity ‐ $
Focus on low cost / high benefit solutions
T i d d t t ff t h fTrain and educate staff to have an eye for safety and encourage a safety attitude internally
61
State Action Plans (SAP)
Action Plan 1 ($1.2 million)– Vegetation and Tree Removal – 42 miles– Improving Shoulder – 77 miles– Guardrail Installations – 3 milesRaise Pavement Marker Installations 47 miles– Raise Pavement Marker Installations – 47 miles
Action Plan 2 ($0.5 million)– Study and provide treatment for sharp curves
Action Plan 3 & 4 ($0.5 million) – in progress– More guardrail and raised pavement markings –145 miles
62
Vegetation and Tree Removal
63
Source: “Strategy to Improve Safety on Local Road” Local Road Safety Webinar for FHWA 2011
22
Improving Shoulders
64
Source: “Strategy to Improve Safety on Local Road” Local Road Safety Webinar for FHWA 2011
Guardrail Installation
65
Source: “Strategy to Improve Safety on Local Road” Local Road Safety Webinar for FHWA 2011
Curve Treatment
66
Source: “Strategy to Improve Safety on Local Road” Local Road Safety Webinar for FHWA 2011
23
Other SAP Projects
Signal timing improvements (corridors and isolated intersections)
Lighting improvements at intersections along corridorsalong corridors
Shoulder building for drop offs
Access management improvements
67
Florida‐Safety Programs
Innovative Safety Treatments ‐‐ a few examples– High‐friction surface treatments – loop ramps
– Temporary rumble strips – Construction Zones
– Dynamic curve speed advisory systems – Horizontal curves
– Detection control systems – rural signalized intersections
– Queue detection and motorist warning systems
– “Blue lights” on top of signals to catch red light runners
68
LADOTD‐RSAs
First portion of the Strategic Highway Safety Program‐100 intersections improvement task (Screened 1000 intersections)Improvements include:– Replacement striping – Signal backplates – Increased signage– Dual advance warning signs‐stop and stop ahead signs
– Oversized signs (stop and stop ahead)69
24
LADOTD‐RSAsFY2012 and beyond: Pavement Preservation Projects (overlays of 1.5” or more) as starting pointProjects with high crash rates (intersection and roadway segments) and over ‐represented crash types are targeted for RSAs to be conducted at the district level – AECOM Reviewed 66 pavement preservation projects‐recommended 20 for RSAs
– AECOM to facilitate the RSA meetings‐RSA staff‐DOT and others
RSAs in Louisiana are called Assessments and not Audits – friendlier nomenclature Up next – tackling local road (non‐state highway) roadway departures using low cost measures
70
TDOT‐RSAs
9 RSARs from 2008‐2009—Seven on State Routes and all were multi‐mile corridorsRecommendations included:– New signage– Removal of vegetation– Rumble stripes (not strips)– Pavement and object markers– Guardrail– Pavement markings
71
TDOT‐RSAsCurrently conducting RSARs at spot locations– Interchange, urban intersection and interchange ramp queue studies
– Rural segmentsRecommendations may include:– Improving queuing at the ramps under study– Modified signage and striping– Pavement markers– Drainage improvements– Modified channelization– Signalization
72
25
TDOT‐RSAs
Consultants to prepare no‐plans contracts:– Goal to implement recommendations in one year
– No‐plans contracts include aerial drawings with detailed recommendations illustrated
– Includes materials, traffic control, basis of payment and special notes, quantities tabulated using TDOT item numbers and excel sheet for cost estimates
73
TDOT‐RSAs‐Sample
74
TDOT‐RSAs
75
26
NCDOT‐RSAs
NCDOT refers it as a safety review15 RSRs completed in the last 2‐3 yearsNCDOT staff from other Division conducts RSAs for a given Division‐Fresh and unbiased perspectiveMostly focused on 2 lane rural roads with high crash ratesProgram managed by Terry Hopkins and Brian Mayhew
76
Additional Resources
FHWA Road Safety Audit– http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/
Addressing Safety on Locally Owned and Maintained Roads – 2 part Webinar SeriesMaintained Roads 2 part Webinar Series– Feb 8th (Illinois, Minnesota, and Georgia)
– Feb 24‐1 PM to 2:30 PM(Alabama, Michigan, and New Jersey)
• To join the meeting
• http://fhwa.adobeconnect.com/localsafety/
77
Questions
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/Sreekanth (Sunny) Nandagiri, P.E, PMP and Ryan Eckenrode, P.E., PTOE
919‐854‐6200
78