Effectiveness of Median Cable Barriers and Rumble Strips

Similar documents
March 2, 2017 Integrating Transportation Planning, Project Development, and Project Programming

Median Barriers in North Carolina

Limited Use Document This presentation is provided in the interest of the free exchange of ideas but may not represent the final or complete results

Development of Crash Modification Factors for Rumble Strips Treatment for Freeway Applications: Phase I Development of Safety Performance Functions

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Curve Safety Treatments. Bryan Wilson, Brad Brimley Texas A&M Transportation Institute

Highway Safety in Pennsylvania

New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis. Kansas City, Missouri

Chapter 4 COLLISION REDUCTION PROGRAM

Bella Vista Bypass Benefit Cost Analysis

State Highway 32 East TIGER Discretionary Grant Application APPENDIX C - BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS REPORT

Guardrail/Bridgerail Recommendations for Very Low Volume Local Roads in Kansas

TTI TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCE. John A. Barton, P.E.

Median Barriers in North Carolina -- Long Term Evaluation. Safety Evaluation Group Traffic Safety Systems Management Section

Session 123 Rumble Stripes: Opportunity to Improve Safety and Retroreflectivity

Understanding and Identifying Crashes on Curves for Safety Improvement Potential in Illinois

Kentucky Highway District 6

HSIP FUNDING APPLICATION

Benefit Cost Analysis

The major roadways in the study area are State Route 166 and State Route 33, which are shown on Figure 1-1 and described below:

Site DNL Calculator. Guidelines:

North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study

Transportation accomplishments

Guidance on the application of cable median barrier: tradeoffs between crash frequency, crash severity, and agency costs

Alberta Transportation Rumble Strips - C-TEP Lunch and Learn

Speed Limit and Safety Nexus Studies for Automated Enforcement Locations in the District of Columbia 3rd Street Tunnel at Massachusetts Avenue Exit

Review of Milled Rumble Strips on Alberta Roads

AusRAP assessment of Peak Downs Highway 2013

USE RESTRICTED 23 USC 409

I-95 Corridor-wide safety data analysis and identification of existing successful safety programs. Traffic Injury Research Foundation April 22, 2010

MEMORANDUM FPN: State Road: 91 County: Osceola (92)

US 70 Corridor Planning for the Future

Community of Practice W e b Site for Rumble Strips

Safety Assessment. Intersection of Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and Ashwood Blvd (Route 1670). Albemarle County

Testing Transit Bus Automated Collision Avoidance Warning Systems in Revenue Operations Active Safety Collision Warning Pilot in Washington State

s Contact the Area Construction Engineer at for RAP sample location. Page 2 of 10

Geometric Design Elements to Reduce Wrong-Way (WW) Entry at Freeway Interchanges Hugo Zhou, Ph.D., P.E.

DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. (15-01) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MANUAL: Road Design English Manual

Overview. Prioritization of Safety Strategies Development of the Minnesota Sinusoidal Rumble Strip Implementation and Public Relations Considerations

Purpose and Need Report

Accommodation of Bicyclists and Nearby Residents in Rumble Strips/Stripes Policies

City of Pacific Grove

Attachment C: Benefit-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

Predictive Analytics for TDOT HELP. AASHTO STSMO Meeting September 14, 2017 Rapid City, South Dakota

SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE PAVEMENT PROJECTS 2015 TxAPA Annual Meeting September 23, 2015 Austin District Mike Arellano, P.E. Date

High Tension Cable Barrier

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

Analyzing the Impacts of Vehicle Assist and Automation Systems on BRT

2016 Congestion Report

Engineering Report: Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Shasta McCloud Management Unit. Analysis of. National Forest System Road 37N79

Highway 23 New London Access & Safety Assessment. Public Open House #2 October 3, :00 to 7:00 PM

CDOT SPF Development and 10 Years of Application. A Practical Approach...

1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CUBES SELF-STORAGE MILL CREEK TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Expert System on Guidance for the Application of Shoulder & Centerline Rumble Strips/ Stripes

Introduction and Background Study Purpose

USE RESTRICTED 23 USC 409

Pierce Transit: Extending the Washington State Bus Transit Experience

a. A written request for speed humps must be submitted by residents living along the applicable street(s) to the Public Works Department.

Dynamic Hard Shoulder Running

Kentucky Highway District 1

2018 NACE Conference Wisconsin Dells, WI. Joseph Cheung P.E. FHWA Office of Safety

Speed Limit Study: Traffic Engineering Report

TOLL TRUCKWAYS: Increasing Productivity and Safety in Goods Movement. By Robert W. Poole, Jr., and Peter Samuel

Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report

Page 1 of KA

U.S. 81 Realignment Around Chickasha, Oklahoma Benefit-Cost Analysis Narrative

SC Highway 41 Existing Conditions

Public Meeting. SD Highway 28 From US81 W 11 miles through Lake Norden Hamlin County PH 0028(37)329 PCN 04JY

Secondary Low Volume Rural Road Safety: Segmentation, Crash Prediction, and Identification of High Crash Locations

Final Report Safety Impact of Street Lighting at Isolated Rural Intersections

Crash Reconstruction Crash Report and assessment Road Safety Reviews Road Safety Assessment Case Studies/Evaluation

Safety Audits in Iowa

STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH REPORT. Safety Analysis for the Prioritized Three Safety Improvement Locations on I-495

Railroad Impact Study

Speed Limit and Safety Nexus Studies for Automated Enforcement Locations in the District of Columbia 400 Block 14th Street SW

Cable Median Barrier Program in Washington State

US Experience with Centerline Rumble Strips on Two- Lane Roads: Pattern Research and North American Usage

Guide Rail Safety Symposium

UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AXLE VERSUS LENGTH CLASSIFICATION ON AXLE FACTORS AND THE EFFECT ON AADT TO ENSURE RELIABLE TRAFFIC DATA

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting

Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Memo

60 70 Guidelines. Managing Speeds. Work Zones

Corridor Sketch Summary

Enhancing a Vehicle Re-Identification Methodology based on WIM Data to Minimize the Need for Ground Truth Data

Safety Evaluation of Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT or J-Turn) Projects in Louisiana

Effectiveness of Continuous Shoulder Rumble Strips in Reducing Single- Vehicle Ran-Off-Roadway Crashes in Nevada

Florida s Turnpike Enterprise High Tension Median Cable Barrier Pilot Project. William H. Cook, P.E. Florida s Turnpike Assistant Roadway Engineer

Study Area and Location District PSA Ward ANC Phase Description C Existing 100 Block Michigan Avenue Northeast Westbound

Wrong Way Driving - Statewide Initiative

Target Zero: Underutilized Strategies in Traffic Safety That Work

2 Min. Min. Edge of. Edgeline See Note 3 PLAN VIEW. See Note 3. This distance may vary

Factors Affecting Highway Safety in Louisiana

USE RESTRICTED 23 USC 409

Testing Automated Collision Avoidance Systems for Transit Buses

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report

Reliability Guide for the HCM Concepts & Content

Roadside Safety MASH

Florida Strategic Highway Safety Planning Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update and Performance Overview

Developing an Effective Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips/Stripes Policy to Accommodate All Roadway Users

Transcription:

Effectiveness of Median Cable Barriers and Rumble Strips Chris Poole, Iowa Department of Transportation Peter Savolainen, Iowa State University Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium August 16, 2017 1

Project Objectives Median Cable Barrier Examine impacts of median cable barrier in Iowa Estimate cost-effectiveness Develop guidelines for subsequent installations Rumble Strips Assess impacts of installing rumble strips on narrow pavements Develop guidance for installation of centerline and/or shoulder rumble strips 2

Introduction Cable Barrier Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO) recommends median barriers to mitigate cross-median crashes Cable barrier benefits: Lower installation cost Forgiving in a crash Less snow drift Iowa installation program Began in 2003 Currently 320 miles of cable installed Estimated 340 miles by end of 2018 3

Fatality Trend 4

Data Collection Roadway Information Cable barrier installation locations Annual average daily traffic (AADT) Median width Shoulder width Barrier offset 5

Crash Data Review: Crash Codes vs. Narratives Identification of median-related crashes by two methods: Crash code logic Crash report narrative Dataset Severity Level Min Max Mean K (Fatal) 0 2 0.013 A (Incapacitating) 0 2 0.031 Identified by B (Non-incapacitating) 0 3 0.093 Crash Codes C (Possible Injury) 0 4 0.114 O (No Injury) 0 11 0.636 Total 0 13 0.886 Identified by Crash Narratives K (Fatal) 0 2 0.016 A (Incapacitating) 0 2 0.036 B (Non-incapacitating) 0 3 0.105 C (Possible Injury) 0 4 0.132 O (No Injury) 0 12 0.720 Total Crashes 0 15 1.009 6

Impacts on Crashes by Injury Severity Level K-injury crashes per mile per year 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (veh/day) A-injury crashes per mile per year 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (veh/day) B-injury crashes per mile per year 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (veh/day) Before After Before After Before After C-injury crashes per mile per year 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (veh/day) Before After O-injury crashes per mile per year 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (veh/day) Before After Crash Severity Average Change K (Fatal) -56.0% A (Incapacitating) -25.9% B (Non-incapacitating) -18.9% C (Possible Injury) +15.0% O (No injury) +141.1% 7

Benefit/Cost Analysis Economic Factors Installation costs Maintenance costs Crash costs Discount rate Design life 8

Maintenance/Repair Costs Installation costs $49,594 per mile Maintenance costs Average $1.2M per year $1750 per reported crash Mobilization as Percent of Total Cost 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year 9

Crash Cost Savings Pre-Barrier Crashes per 100MVMT Post-Barrier Crashes per 100MVMT Crashes Saved Per Year Crash Type Fatal 0.321 0.141 5.52 Incapacitating 0.649 0.481 5.16 Non-Incapacitating 1.693 1.373 9.83 Possible Injury 2.028 2.332-9.34 Property Damage Only 8.813 21.248-381.94 Crash Type Iowa DOT Cost per Injury Iowa DOT Cost per Crash Fatal $ 4,500,000 $ 5,382,353 Incapacitating $ 325,000 $ 402,511 Non-Incapacitating $ 65,000 $ 86,141 Possible Injury $ 35,000 $ 43,476 Property Damage Only $ 7,400* $ 18,558 *Cost per crash 10

Sensitivity Analysis Factors Considered Crash costs Economic vs. comprehensive Iowa DOT vs. NSC Maintenance costs $500 $2000 (Avg. cost of $1750 per reported crash) Discount rate 3% 6% (Iowa DOT = 4%) Design life 15 30 years (Iowa DOT = 20 yrs) 11

B/C Analysis Results 25.0 23.8 20.0 18.4 18.5 Benefit/Cost Ratio 15.0 10.0 5.0 12.9 14.7 16.3 17.7 15.3 14.7 14.2 13.6 4.0 14.7 15.1 12.8 0.0 15 20 25 30 3 4 5 6 NSC Econ. Iowa DOT NSC Comp. 500 1000 1500 2000 Design Life (years) Discount Rate (%) Crash Cost Cost per Repair ($) 12

Implementation Median Cable Planning to continue with new installations High B/C ratios Favorable CMFs Improved public opinion Working with ISU to identify high/med/low priority corridors for expansion Apply methodology to expressways 13

Introduction Rumble Strips Iowa DOT Design Manual, Section 3C-5 Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) Two-lane primary roads with > 3,000 ADT, 11-ft lanes, and 2-ft shoulders Shoulder Rumble Strips (SRS) Normally not placed on paved shoulders < 4 ft 14

Field Studies of Driver Behavior Trailer-mounted data collection units HD video cameras Radar sensor Solar panel 15

Encroachment Rates by Rumble Strip Installation Type Edgeline encroachment rate per 1000 vehicles 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Lane width (ft) Centerline and shoulder Shoulder Only Edgeline Only No rumble strips Centerline encroachment rate per 1000 vehicles 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 Lane width (ft) Centerline and shoulder Edgeline No rumble strips 16

Analysis of Rumble Strip Impacts on the Primary Network 17

Iowa Impacts on Cross-Centerline Crashes 0.25 Crashes Per Mile Per Year 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 CRF = 33.2% 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Without Centerline Rumble Strips With Centerline Rumble Strips 18

Iowa Impacts on Cross-Edgeline Crashes 0.25 Crashes Per Mile Per Year 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 CRF = 16.1% 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Without Edgeline Rumble Strips With Edgeline Rumble Strips 19

Crash-Based Guidance for Centerline Rumble Strip Installation 20

Crash-Based Guidance for Edgeline/ Shoulder Rumble Strip Installation 21

Economic Analysis Installation costs obtained from Bid Express (Iowa DOT) Crash costs from Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2010) Installation Rumble Strip Types Cost (per mile) Shoulder Rumble Strips (both sides) $4,551.36 Centerline Rumble Strips $2,095.63 Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips $6,646.99 Injury Severity Comprehensive Level Crash Cost Fatality (K) $4,008,900 Disabling Injury (A) $216,000 Evident Injury (B) $79,000 Possible Injury (C) $44,900 PDO (O) $7,400 22

Benefit/Cost Ratio 300 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Annual Average Daily Traffic Shoulder Centerline Centerline and Shoulder Benefit/Cost Ratio for Wide Lanes/Shoulders Benefit/Cost Ratio 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Annual Average Daily Traffic Shoulder Centerline Centerline and Shoulder Benefit/Cost Ratio for Narrow Lanes/Shoulders 23

Implementation Rumble Strips Statewide CLRS retrofit project Seek changes in DOT policy/guidance: CLRS on all routes, regardless of volume ELRS even where shoulder is not paved County safety funding program stipulations: CLRS and SRS where paved top 26 ft or greater CLRS or SRS where paved top less than 26 ft 24

Comments or Questions? Chris Poole, P.E. Safety Programs Engineer Iowa Department of Transportation Phone: (515) 239-1267 E-mail: Chris.Poole@iowadot.us Peter Savolainen, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Iowa State University Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Phone: (515) 294-3381 E-mail: pts@iastate.edu 25