road safety auditevents.kittelson.com/system/datas/6/original/mt... · presentation...

Mt. Hood Highway (Hwy. 26)Camp Creek Campground to Timberline Road

(Mile Post 47.19 to 54.23)

January 13, 2011

Presented by: Hermanus Steyn, Pr.Eng., P.E.Sue D’Agnese (ODOT Region 1 Traffic Manager)

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Transportation Education SeriesPortland, Oregon

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

What is a Road Safety Audit (RSA)?Overview of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) RSA ProcessMt. Hood Highway RSA

– Review of Crash Data

– Overview of RSA Findings, Suggestions and Identified ODOT projects

ODOT and RSAs

What is a Road Safety Audit?What is a Road Safety Audit?

A road safety audit is aformal safety performance examination

of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team.


Formal: Procedures and documentation

Safety performance: Focus on safety

Independent: Auditors detached from project team

Audit team: General experience and specialists

A road safety audit also…A road safety audit also…

Considers the safety of all road users

Examines the interaction of project elementsConsiders interactions at the borders or limits of the projectProactively considers mitigation measures

A road safety audit is NOT….A road safety audit is NOT….

… a standards check, examining adherence to design guidelines.

… a backdoor to redesign the project.


A road safety audit seeks to identify opportunities to improve safety

When do we conduct RSAs?When do we conduct RSAs?

Why do we need RSAs?Why do we need RSAs?

Relatively few road-related safety issues are identified in collision reports.

Road designs need to anticipate and accommodate common driver errors.

Easier to design and build safer roads than to modify some entrenched driver behaviors.

9

Why do we need RSAs?Why do we need RSAs?

There are many competing interests in the planning and design process:– Cost, Environment, Capacity, Safety

Compromises are a reality

RSAs identify safety implications and ensure that safety is an explicit consideration, and that safety does not “fall through the cracks”.

10

FHWA RSA ProcessFHWA RSA Process

RSA Process – Pre-Audit MeetingRSA Process – Pre-Audit Meeting

Pre-Audit Meeting: Review InformationPre-Audit Meeting: Review Information

Drawings

Background reports

Design criteria

Collision history

Traffic volumes

Aerial photographs

Pre-Audit MeetingPre-Audit Meeting

Project objectives (owner)– Why is RSA being conducted?

Project design elements/constraints (owner)

RSA process (audit team)

RSA Process – Field ReviewRSA Process – Field Review

Field ReviewField Review

Observe road user characteristics

Observe surrounding land uses

Observe link points to the adjacent transportation network

Look for:– driveway issues– roadside hazards– sight distance obstructions


Consider all users

Consider driver behavior

Drive the site

Drive all approaches

Make all turns

Walk/bike the project area

Take notes/photos


Observe conditions during:peak and off-peak traffic periodsdry and wet weather conditionsday and night conditions

RSA Process – RSA AnalysisRSA Process – RSA Analysis

RSA Analysis: Conducting the RSARSA Analysis: Conducting the RSA

Workshop setting

Review background reports, crash data, and design criteria

Systematically review design drawings and/or other information

Identify, prioritize, and mitigate safety issues

Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis

For each issue:– What potential exists for crashes?

– What is the likelihood of crashes?

– How severe are the crashes likely to be?

Crash potential? – What exposure exists

Likelihood of a crash?– What probability exists

How severe? – What consequences?

Risk = f (Exposure, Probability, Consequences)

RSA Process – Presentation of FindingsRSA Process – Presentation of Findings

Presentation of Findings: RSA ReportPresentation of Findings: RSA Report

Documents the results of the RSA

Identifies and prioritizes safety issues

May include suggestions for improvements

Mt. Hood Highway RSA Team MembersMt. Hood Highway RSA Team Members

Jack Freeman, P.E., PTOE – Team LeaderHermanus Steyn, Pr.Eng.; P.E., – Asst. Team Leader Carl Deaton, P.E. – Senior Roadway Designer, ODOT Region 2Robert Tolman – TMM, ODOT Region 5

Team Resources– Jim McNamee – TMM, ODOT Region 1, District 2C,

– Sue D’Agnese – ODOT Region 1 Traffic Manager

– Jerry Sabel – Hwy 26 Safety Corridor Citizen Advisory Commission

– Mike Reel – Oregon State Police

Mt. Hood Highway RSA Segment (MP 47.19 to 54.23) Mt. Hood Highway RSA Segment (MP 47.19 to 54.23)

2000 – 2008 Crashes2000 – 2008 Crashes

Crashes by Year 2000 - 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

Total Crashes = 280

Crashes by Injury SeverityCrashes by Injury Severity

FATAL – Fatality; INJ A – Injury A; INJ B – Injury B; INJ C – Injury C; PDO – Property Damage Only

55% of all crashes are non-injury (PDO) crashes

Crashes by Injury Severity2000 - 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

FATAL INJ A INJ B INJ C PDO

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

Crashes by Collision TypeCrashes by Collision Type

Crashes by Collision Type2000 - 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ANGL HEAD REAR SS-M SS-O TURN PARK NCOL BACK PED FIX OTH

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

ANGL – Angle; HEAD – Head-On; REAR – Rear-End; SS-M – Sideswipe-meeting; SS-O – Sideswipe-overtaking; TURN – Turning Movement; PARK – Parking Maneuver; NCOL – Non-collision; BACK – Backing; PED – Pedestrian; FIX – Fixed/Other Object; OTH - Other

Crashes primarily fixed-object or rear-end crashes

Crashes by Day of the WeekCrashes by Day of the Week

Crashes by Day of the Week

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

Crashes occur primarily during the weekends

Crashes by Time of DayCrashes by Time of Day

Crashes by Time of Day2000 - 2008

01020304050607080

12 A

M - 3 AM

3 AM - 6

AM

6 AM - 9

AM9 A

M - 12 P

M12

PM - 3

PM3 P

M - 6 PM

6 PM - 9

PM9 P

M - 12 A

M

UNKNOWN

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

Crashes occur primarily during daylight hoursPeak during late evening likely night skiing related

Crashes/ADT by MonthCrashes/ADT by Month

Crashes /Average Daily Traffic (ADT) by Month (MP 47.00 to 54.49) 2000 - 2008

0102030405060708090

100

Janu

aryFeb

ruar

yMarc

h

April

May

June July

Augus

tSep

tembe

rOcto

ber

Novembe

rDece

mber

Month

Cra

shes

-1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,000

2007

AD

T by

Mon

th

Crashes Monthly ADT

Crashes occur primarily during the winter months

Crashes by Surface ConditionCrashes by Surface Condition

Crashes by Surface Condition2000 - 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

DRY ICE WET SNO UNK

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

SNO – Snow; UNK – Unknown

Approximately 70% of crashes occur in the presence of ice and snow

Concentrated Crash Locations by MilepostConcentrated Crash Locations by Milepost

Crashes by Milepost/Roadway2000 - 2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1847

.00

47.1

6

47.5

9

48.1

5

48.8

8

49.6

0

50.0

0

50.5

8

51.0

0

51.4

5

51.8

8

52.0

4

52.5

3

52.8

1

52.8

9

53.0

2

53.4

9

53.8

5

53.9

7

54.0

2

54.1

3

54.2

3

Num

ber o

f Cra

shes

1

2

3

Map Curve

Ski Bowl East

MultorporOverpass

Mirror Lake Curve

Govt. Camp Loop East.

SPIS locations: 1. MP 49.91 – 50.092. MP 52.78 – 52.953. MP 53.45 – 53.59

Corridor Issues – Western Section:Camp Creek to Ski Bowl WestCorridor Issues – Western Section:Camp Creek to Ski Bowl WestMountain Highway

– 55 mph – speed is an issue- OSP Education

– Minimum access– Curves– Chains on/off areas– WB passing areas

Potential considerations– Variable Speed Limits (VSL) for poor

roadway conditions- Consider photo speed enforcement – only

when VSL is used – Signs for curves; possible barrier separation– More Chain on/off areas

- Electronic signs to inform public– More/longer WB passing areas

- Improve signageProposed solutions have been identified

Crash Analysis: Camp Creek Entrance MP 47.0 – 47.3Crash Analysis: Camp Creek Entrance MP 47.0 – 47.3

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 12Fatalities/Injuries: 1 / 8Predominant Crash Types1. Fixed object (6)2. Rear-end (2)

Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (5)2. Dry (5)3. Wet (2)

Directional crash notes:– Both rear-end crashes occurred in the

westbound direction– Fixed-object crashes occurred in varied

directions

RSA Analysis: Camp Creek Entrance MP 47.0 – 47.3RSA Analysis: Camp Creek Entrance MP 47.0 – 47.3

Problem:– Drivers misjudge the curve because of restricted visibility, lose control

and hit trees

Proposed Solution:– Increase size of “Curve Ahead” sign

– Trim back trees inside curve

– Widen graveled westbound shoulder

– Add guardrail to eastbound shoulder

Anticipated Benefits:– Improves recovery area

– Improves sight distance approaching curve westbound

Crash Analysis: MP 47.6 – 48.8 (Mt. Hood Hwy.)Crash Analysis: MP 47.6 – 48.8 (Mt. Hood Hwy.)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 15Fatalities/Injuries: 0 / 7Predominant Crash Types

– Fixed object (9)

– Side-swipe (4)

Predominant Road Conditions:– 1. Snow/Ice (10)

– 2. Wet (3)

– 3. Head-On (3)

Directional crash notes:– 10 crashes westbound (6 of

these fixed-object)

RSA Analysis: MP 47.6 – 48.8 (Mt. Hood Hwy.)RSA Analysis: MP 47.6 – 48.8 (Mt. Hood Hwy.)

Problem:– Lack of safe westbound passing opportunities throughout

corridor– Lack of safe chain on/off areas throughout corridor

Proposed Solution:– Within the existing tree line:

- Add a westbound passing lane- Add a safe chain on/off area

– Provide a VMS to inform drivers of chain requirements and designated chain on/off area

Anticipated Benefits:– Reduces unsafe passing throughout corridor– Reduces speeding through mountain communities– Reduces pedestrian and rear-end crashes associated with unsafe

chaining activities

Crash Analysis: MP 49.4 – 50.1 (Map Curve)Crash Analysis: MP 49.4 – 50.1 (Map Curve)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 23SPIS Top 15%Fatalities/Injuries: 0 / 15Predominant Crash Types

1. Fixed object (11)2. Rear-end (4)3. Head-on (4)

Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (14)2. Dry (5)3. Wet (4)

Directional crash notes: – 18 of the 23 crashes occurred in the

westbound direction– 7 cross over crashes

RSA Analysis: MP 49.4 – 50.1 (Map Curve)RSA Analysis: MP 49.4 – 50.1 (Map Curve)

Problem:– Rocks on roadway

– Cross-over crashes as a result of missing the curve and unsafe westbound passing

Proposed Solution:– Cut back rock face and provide

catchment to keep rocks off roadway (requires some tree removal)

– Widen to install aesthetic concrete median barrierAnticipated Benefits:

– Improves recognition of the curve

– Prevents hitting rocks in road and the rock slope

– Eliminates cross-over crashes

– Reduces speeds

– Improves sight distance approaching the curve

Crash Analysis: MP 51.3 – 51.6 (between Map Curve & Mirror Lake)Crash Analysis: MP 51.3 – 51.6 (between Map Curve & Mirror Lake)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 10(non-SPIS)Fatalities/Injuries: 2 / 5Predominant Crash Types1. Fixed object (5)2. Head-on (2)

Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (6)2. Wet (2)3. Dry (2)

Directional crash notes:– 7 crashes WB (4 of these fixed-object)– 4 crashes between WB & EB vehicles

RSA Analysis: MP 51.3 – 51.6 (between Map Curve & Mirror Lake)RSA Analysis: MP 51.3 – 51.6 (between Map Curve & Mirror Lake)

Problem:– Unsafe westbound passing

– Speeding

– Cross-over crashes

Proposed Solution:– Widen to install aesthetic

concrete median barrierAnticipated Benefits:

– Reduces speeds

– Eliminates unsafe passing


Crash Analysis: MP 51.6 – 52.2 (Mirror Lake Curve)Crash Analysis: MP 51.6 – 52.2 (Mirror Lake Curve)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 33Fatalities/Injuries: 1 / 12Predominant Crash Types

– Uniform mix of head-on, side-swipe, fixed object, and rear-end crashes

Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (27)2. Wet (5)3. Dry (1)

Directional crash notes:– Uniform distribution of eastbound and

westbound crashes (no north- or southbound crashes)

RSA Analysis: MP 51.6 – 52.2 (Mirror Lake Curve)RSA Analysis: MP 51.6 – 52.2 (Mirror Lake Curve)

Problem:– Crashes caused by driving too fast for weather conditions

– Westbound passing lane is too short

– Changing lanes in curves is difficult to maneuver

Proposed Solution:– Extend both eastbound and westbound passing lanes into straight

sections of road– Widen to install aesthetic concrete median barrier

Anticipated Benefits:– Reduces passing speeds in the curves


– Improves curve recognition

Corridor Issues – Eastern Section –Ski Bowl West to TimberlineCorridor Issues – Eastern Section –Ski Bowl West to Timberline

Government Camp Summit Section– 55 mph

– Increased access – more intersection crashes- Limited LT lanes, Skew angles, Some intersections

lighted

– Transitioning land uses- Development occurring/planned- Demand to increase snow park areas

Potential considerations– Rework intersections

– Change roadway character- Consider speed limit

reduction to 45 mph- Consider roadway

lighting

No specific projects have been identified yet!

Crash Analysis: Ski Bowl West Entrance at MP 52.4 – 52.6Crash Analysis: Ski Bowl West Entrance at MP 52.4 – 52.6

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 9Fatalities/Injuries: 1 / 1Predominant Crash Types1. Fixed object (3)

2. Rear-end (3)

3. Mix of turning (1), side-swipe (1), and head on (1)

Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (7)

Directional crash notes:– Even split EB and WB

– No northbound crashes

RSA Analysis Overview: Ski Bowl West Entrance at MP 52.4 – 52.6RSA Analysis Overview: Ski Bowl West Entrance at MP 52.4 – 52.6

Existing intersection is on skew with minor road oppositeNo WB LT lane into Ski Bowl WestPotential considerations

– Shift intersection to east to become “T”

– Locate at crest of vertical curve

– Provide LT lane

SPIS Crashes: MP 52.78 – 52.95 (Ski Bowl East/Govt. Camp Loop)SPIS Crashes: MP 52.78 – 52.95 (Ski Bowl East/Govt. Camp Loop)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 49SPIS Top 10%Fatalities/Injuries: 0 / 16Predominant Crash Types1. Fixed object (14)2. Rear-end (13)3. Turning (8)Predominant Road Conditions:1. Snow/Ice (33)2. Dry (12)3. Wet/Unknown (2/2)Directional crash notes:– Half rear-end crashes occurred north to

south at “Y”– Fixed object and turning crashes were

evenly split EB and WB

RSA Analysis Overview: MP 52.78 – 52.95 (Ski Bowl East/Govt. Camp Loop)RSA Analysis Overview: MP 52.78 – 52.95 (Ski Bowl East/Govt. Camp Loop)

Skewed intersection with multiple accessesShort LT lanesHas roadway lightingPotential considerations

– Close skewed intersection to become 2 “T” intersections

- Realign Ski Bowl East to be west of current location

- Use existing full intersection at Tyrolean Drive for Government Camp Loop west access

- Provide WB left to Tyrolean Drive

– Provide adequate separation between intersections for back-to-back LT lane storage

Crash Analysis: MP 53.45 – 53.59 (Multorpor Overpass)Crash Analysis: MP 53.45 – 53.59 (Multorpor Overpass)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 6SPIS Top 25%Fatalities/Injuries: 0 / 3Predominant Crash Types

1. Sideswipe (3)2. Head-on/Fixed/Angle (1/1/1)


Directional crash notes:– 3 crashes were between EB and WB

vehicles– 1 crash NB with EB– 1 crash WB with WB– 1 fixed object crash EB

RSA Analysis Overview: MP 53.45 – 53.59 (Multorpor Overpass)RSA Analysis Overview: MP 53.45 – 53.59 (Multorpor Overpass)

Straight section with EB grade up to summitWB traffic able to pass with Yield

– Anticipate to get more difficult with traffic increasingPotential considerations

– Eliminate WB ability to pass- Needs passing lane improvements to west

– Consider WB additional lane – environmental issues

Crash Analysis: MP 53.9 - 54.3 (Gov’t Camp East to Timberline)Crash Analysis: MP 53.9 - 54.3 (Gov’t Camp East to Timberline)

Years 2000 - 2008Total Crashes: 50Fatalities/Injuries: 0 / 18Predominant Crash Types1. Rear-end (15)

2. Turning (14)

3. Fixed object (9)


2. Dry (10)

Directional crash notes:– Even directional split through segment

(no pattern detected)

RSA Analysis Overview: MP 53.9 - 54.3 (Gov’t Camp East to Timberline)RSA Analysis Overview: MP 53.9 - 54.3 (Gov’t Camp East to Timberline)

High crashes and high volumesRest area @ Gov’t Camp Loop eastGov’t Camp Loop may meet signal warrantsLT and RT lanes provided at both intersectionsPotential considerations

– Extend Gov’t Camp Loop WB RT over the crest

– Provide WB acceleration lane from Timberline

– Consider WB auxiliary lane between intersections

ODOT and RSAsODOT and RSAs

Mt. Hood RSA outcome:– Identified near, medium, and long-term projects

– ODOT commenced installation of the near-term projects totaling $150,000.

– Design projects have commenced for many medium to long-term safety improvements, and construction is set for 2013 for a total of $9 million.

ODOT completed the following RSAs:– US 97: Modoc Point to Shady Pine RSA (ODOT completed in-house)

– Mt. Hood Highway RSA (ODOT-consultant RSA team)

– US 26 at Dover Lane RSA (ODOT-consultant RSA team)

Where could ODOT implement future RSAs?– SPIS Locations or other high crash locations

– Safety Corridors

– Proposed Safety or Modernization Projects

Thank You – Any Questions?Thank You – Any Questions?