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

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

What Is and Is Not High Friction Surfacing

Effectiveness of Median Cable Barriers and Rumble Strips

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

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

NCHRP : Traffic Control Device Guidelines for Curves

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

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

HSIP FUNDING APPLICATION

Attachment C: Benefit-Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

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

High Friction Surfaces In Missouri

HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT (HFST) I-57 and I-74 Interchange

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

NCUTCD Proposal for Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Using High Friction Surface Treatments to Improve Safety at Horizontal Curves

SCRIM Friction Testing in the USA. Edgar de León Izeppi, Research Scientist Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Nashville, October 13 th 2,016

Performance and Safety Enhancements using New Preservation Techniques

Bella Vista Bypass Benefit Cost Analysis

City of Pacific Grove

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

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

Correcting Low Asphalt Pavement Friction. Brian L. Schleppi OH DOT Office of Technical Services

Reducing Speed Limits to Support Lower Skid Resistance Investigatory Levels. Fergus Tate National Traffic and Safety Manager NZTA

Introduction and Background Study Purpose

Developing a Framework for Evaluating and Selecting Curve Safety Treatments. Srinivas R. Geedipally, Ph.D., P.E.

Median Barriers in North Carolina

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

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

Alberta Transportation Rumble Strips - C-TEP Lunch and Learn

Purpose and Need Report

Roundabout Feasibility Study SR 44 at Grand Avenue TABLE OF CONTENTS

1962: HRCS Circular 482 one-page document, specified vehicle mass, impact speed, and approach angle for crash tests.

Benefit Cost Analysis

High Friction Surface Treatment. CURVE SELECTION and INSTALLATION GUIDE

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

The Highway Safety Manual: Will you use your new safety powers for good or evil? April 4, 2011

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

Over-Dimensional Vehicle Restriction Study for US 129 in TN

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

EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT

Technology for Transportation s Future

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

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

US 377 Relief Route Appendix C: Benefit Cost Analysis

TOWARD SAFE AND RELIABLE ROADWAYS. Jill Ryan, MPH Eagle County Commissioner

Form DOT F (8-72) Technical Report Documentation Page. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

Traffic Safety Facts 2000

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

CATEGORY 500 PAVING SECTION 535 PAVEMENT SURFACE PROFILE

Safety Evaluation of Converting On-Street Parking from Parallel to Angle

Recent Transportation Projects

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

Quick Facts General Statistics. Fatality Rate per 100,000 Population Source: FARS/Census

Agenda. Puerto Rico s Highway System. An Overview of Puerto Rico

Chapter 4 COLLISION REDUCTION PROGRAM

Reduced Speed Limits or Curve Warning Signs? Northeast Traffic Safety Conference Cromwell, Connecticut October 24-25, 2017

Pavement Surface Properties Consortium Phase II (TPF-5[345])

F:\PROJ\ \dwg\Alt-bridge-alignments.dwg, 17-2, 11/12/ :22:17 PM, saamhu, Acrobat PDFWriter

HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH GROUP. Safety Analysis Tools Used for Coalitions and Districtwide Safety Investment Plans

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

AusRAP assessment of Peak Downs Highway 2013

SPECIFICATION FOR SKID RESISTANCE INVESTIGATION AND TREATMENT SELECTION

PARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25

City of Marina. Regional Roundabout Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation Section 4: Transportation Agency for Monterey County

PN /21/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS

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

s MEDIAN BARRIERS FOR TEXAS HIGHWAYS

Traffic Safety Facts 1996

Conventional Approach

APPENDIX G. Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Analysis

ANNUAL REPORT. April Working Together Toward Highway Safety... To Save More Lives. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN

Effects of Geometry and Pavement Friction on Horizontal Curve Crash Frequency

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection Concept, Case Studies, and Design Guide ITE Midwest Annual Meeting June 30, 2015 Branson, MO

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

High Risk Rural Road Program Road Safety Audit Report

In-service Performance Evaluation of Cable Median Barriers on Florida s Limited Access Facilities

Evaluation of the Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System Summary of Full Report Publication No. FHWA-15-CAI-012-A November 2015

Highway 18 BNSF Railroad Overpass Feasibility Study Craighead County. Executive Summary

Updated: March 2012 TXDOT ENGINEERING SOFTWARE SUPPORT INFORMATION. UT Curved Girder Analysis Tools (UTCGAT)

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007

Road Surface characteristics and traffic accident rates on New Zealand s state highway network

Figure 1 Map of intersection of SR 44 (Ravenna Rd) and Butternut Rd

Corridor Sketch Summary

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

INNOVATIVE APPROACH IN ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY MANAGEMENT AND ROAD SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Evaluating The Relevancy Of Current Crash Test Guidelines For Roadside Safety Barriers On High Speed Roads

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

DELINEATOR REFERENCE POINT 200' TYPICAL SPACING (YELLOW DELINEATORS) END OF MERGE LANE TAPER DELINEATOR REFERENCE POINT

Traffic Safety Facts 1995

IDENTIFICATION OF HOTSPOT LOCATIONS ALONG THE I-95 JFK MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. Fathy Elgendi, Master of Science, March 2015

SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION OF THE CABLE RAIL SYSTEMS IN TENNESSEE

TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCE. John A. Barton, P.E. Deputy Executive Director

FHWA Motorcycle Crash Causation Study

PARAPETS / RAILS / MEDIANS / SIDEWALKS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 25

METAL BEAM GUARDFENCE TRANSITION AND END TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

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

ESTIMATION OF COLLISION REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY. Jillian Grace DeMerchant

Benefit-Cost Analysis Technical Memo

Transcription:

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

B/C Analysis B/C analysis encouraged by TxDOT HSIP HSIP calls the ratio a Safety Improvement Index (SII) SII accounts for: increased traffic over projected life changes in maintenance costs amortization over long service lives SII only uses injury and fatal crashes (PDO crashes cost less anyway) Ratio greater than 1.0 is cost-effective HSIP Manual pg. 1-11

Calculate Value of Reduced Crashes (Benefit) Estimate number of reduced crashes over the life of the treatment Multiply by cost of crashes Most weight for crash costs comes from fatalities $9.4M for fatal crash (USDOT) $28,000 for crash with minor injuries Cost of an average crash on a curve: ~$190,000 A reduction of just a few crashes can be very cost-effective if the treatment is (relatively) inexpensive

TCDs on Curves

TCDs on Curves NCHRP study evaluating traditional devices (NCHRP 03-106; publication in progress) Cross-sectional study in 4 states (Florida, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee) 541 rural sites 271 isolated curves 270 curve series 3 years of data 1,623 site years (3 541) Generated CMFs from crash prediction models

Treatment Costs Survey results (averages) from 23 state DOTs Treatment (qty. per curve) Material Unit Cost Installation Total Cost Service Life (yrs) Advance Warning Signs (2) $136 $488 $760 11.9 Advisory Speed Plaques (2) $47 N/A $94 11.9 Chevrons (12, 6 per direction) $91 $1,368 $2,460 11.1 Large Arrow (2) $150 $335 $635 11.4 Delineators (8) $24 $317 $509 9.1 Does not include maintenance costs

Crash Reductions due to Curve TCDs Start with predicted crash frequency from HSM AADT R 10,000 N = annual predicted crash frequency at a curve, N = 2.67 L + 138 L R = AADT = = curve length (mi), curve radius (ft), and annual average daily traffic (veh/day), Apply crash reduction factor due to TCDs Reduced Crashes = N (1 CMF) 636 0.71 CMF Advanced Sign = e R 0.203 0.89 (AADT CMF Chev or Large Arrow = e 10,000 )

CMF CMFs (#1) CMF of chevrons / large arrows at isolated curves The TCDs are more effective with higher volume 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 AADT (vpd)

CMF CMFs (#2) CMF of advance warning signs at isolated curves 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Radius < 400ft 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Degree of Curve

Crash Reductions Dependent Upon: Curve Radius Curve Length ADT TCD treatment The present value of a treatment for a site can be estimated using the above variables, reasonable growth factors and discount rates, and an average service life

Present Value of Treatment Example of Present Value: Chevrons $750,000 $600,000 Chevrons $450,000 $300,000 $150,000 $0 Assumptions: ADT=6,000 vpd curve deflection = 90 Curve Radius (ft)

Present Value of Treatment Example of Present Value: Warning Sign $750,000 $600,000 Advance Warning Signs $450,000 $300,000 $150,000 $0 Assumptions: ADT=6,000 vpd curve deflection = 90 Curve Radius (ft)

Benefit-Cost Ratio B/C Ratios for Curve TCDs 800 600 400 Chevrons 200 0 Assumptions: ADT=6,000 vpd curve deflection = 90 Curve Radius (ft)

High-Friction Surface Treatments

High-Friction Surface Treatments Reduces horizontal curve road departures Polish resistant aggregate in polymer resin binder

Data Collection Contract and bidding documents Roadway geometry Traffic characteristics Crash statistics 5-yrs before HFST, and after HFST up to present Exclude crashes outside HFST limits Exclude crashes during construction KABCO coding Crash per million vehicles = Crashes year AADT 365 1,000,000

Data Analysis HFST Section Cost Normalized project cost Cost $ = Avg. Unit HFST Cost Benefit Calculation Total Crashes by KABCO (FDOT version) $ yd 2 Area yd 2 Cost Per Crash By Type (Thousands $) Cost Type K A B C O Lost Quality of Life $7,750 $919 $252 $108 $31.8 Economic $1,400 $82.0 $23.7 $19.5 $10.4 Societal Impact (Total Cost) $9,140 $1,001 $276 $128 $42.3 FDOT Societal Impact (Total Cost) $10,000 $819 $163 $100 $6.50 Total Crashes by average crash cost ($195,000) Wet Weather by average crash cost ($195,000) Benefit-Cost. Average per section type

Project Data 38 sections w/ data 16 tight curves 16 wide curves/tangents 6 intersections/ intersection approaches Mainline (Dev 333) Bridge deck (TSP 403)

Crash Rates (Total Crashes)

Crash Rates (Wet Weather Crashes)

Normalized HFST Project Cost

Benefit-Cost

Benefit-Cost

HFST Recommendations Continue promoting HFST for crash reduction around tight curves with a history of crashes. Reduce emphasis of safety benefits when considering HFST on wide curve/tangent sections that have no history of crashes. Evaluate benefit-cost of HFST as a maintenance treatment of concrete bridge decks. Evaluate in-detail the nature of crashes at intersection/ intersection approach sections and whether the crashes are related to the installation of HFST.

Thank You. Questions? Brad Brimley bbrimley@tamu.edu Bryan Wilson b-wilson@tti.tamu.edu