Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xiaoduan Sun UL Lafayette February 19, 2013 2013 Louisiana Transportation Conference
Outline
Crash Countermeasures Converting urban undivided 4-lane roadway to five-lane roadway Edgeline on narrow rural 2-lane highways Raised pavement markers
Crash Countermeasures
Eliminating all crash contributing factors
Pre-Event
Human
Vehicle
Environment
Event
Post-Event
Haddon Matrix- a useful framework for thinking about the complexities of a crash
4%
24%
4% 4%
67%
Source: Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. K.W. Ogden. Ashgate
13 14 15 16
36 24 4 5
43 27 8 16
72 84 25 68
17
3 72
16 110
5 254
Outline
Crash Countermeasures Converting urban undivided 4-lane roadway to five-lane roadway Edgeline on narrow rural 2-lane highways Raised pavement markers
Urban undivided multilane highways consistently exhibit low safety performance in the U.S.
Representative Accident Rates by Location and Type of Road Injury Total Fatal Accidents Accidents Accidents Number per Number per Number per RURAL MVM MVM MVM 2 Lanes 0.07 0.94 2.39 4 or more lanes, divided subtotal 0.063 0.77 2.09 Freeway 0.025 0.27 0.79 URBAN 2 Lanes 0.045 1.51 4.94 4 or more lanes, undivided 0.04 2.12 6.65 4 or more lanes, divided 0.027 1.65 4.86 Freeway 0.012 0.4 1.43
9
1,530 miles of undivided multilane roadways under LADOTD system. 93% these roadways are in urban and suburban areas
10
Solutions?
Expensive solution: installing physical separation either by barrier or by green space (boulevard) has been the most recommended crash countermeasure for the problem
11
Solutions?
Inexpensive option: with sufficient pavement width, a four-lane undivided highway can also be easily changed to a five-lane roadway with the center lane for left-turns, which expectedly reduces rear-end collisions.
12
The five-lane design alternative including a center TWLTL in the median has, in the past 20 years, become a very common multilane design alternative for upgrading urban arterials. This design alternative has two through lanes of travel in each direction and a center TWLTL to provide for left-turn maneuvers at driveways and minor intersections. The total roadway width for a five-lane TWLTL section on an urban arterial ranges from 48 ft to 72 ft depending on the lane widths employed. From NCHRP 330, 1990
13
Five lane
Inexpensive with sufficient ROW Not recommended for new road in Louisiana
14
However
Under the current budgetary situation, the expensive option is not financially feasible Going with the inexpensive but not perfect solution to reduce the crashes has been one option for the situation Several roadway segments in various LADOTD districts have implemented this inexpensive crash countermeasure in the past
15
Estimated # of Driveways
45
Location Lafayette
LA 182
LA 28 LA 1138
D3
D8 D7
032-02
074-01 810-06
1
0.92 1.07
2007
2005 1999
50
45 50
Opelousas
Alexandria Lake Charles
16
Roadway Configuration
LA3025
17
18
LA182
19
20
LA1138
21
Summary of Crashes
(3 years before and after)
Before After Percentage Change Average Average Crash Crashes Crash Rate Rate 10.05 8.12 7.38 16.01 147 85 99 167 4.59 3.53 4.09 10.63
Crashes
Crashes
Crash Rate
22
Crash Frequency
Crash Frequency
100 80 60 40 20 0
LA3025
LA182
Before Total
After Total
He a Le d-On ft Tu Le rnft e T Le urnft Tu f r No n-g nC Re oll Rig ar-E ht nd T Rig urn ht -h Tu rn Sid Rt. -i A es w i ngl e p e Sid ( O es w i D) p( SD ) Bla nk Ot he r
He ad Le -On ft Tu Le rn-e ft Tu rn Le -f ft Tu rn No -g nC Re oll a Rig r-E n ht d Tu rn -h Sid Rt. A es ng w le Sid ipe ( OD es wi ) pe ( SD ) Bla nk Ot he r
23
LA182
Crash Frequency
Crash Frequency
120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Wet
Dry
Wet
LA28
250
LA1138
Crash Frequency
Crash Frequency
Wet
Dry
Wet
24
LA 182
Before Total After Total
Crash Frequency
Crash Frequency
12am6am
80 60 40 20 0
6pm12am
6am12pm
12pm6pm
6pm12am
12am6am
LA 28
120 160 Before Total After Total 140
LA 1138
100
Crash Frequency
Crash Frequency
12am6am
120 100 80 60 40
80
60
40
25
PDO
Injury Crashes Fatal
277
81 0
105
40 2
-62.10%
-50.60% increase
124
54 0
63
22 0
-49.20% 148
-59.30% 0% 58 0
76
23 0
-48.68% 172
-60.34% 0% 88 0
119
48 0
-30.81%
-45.45% 0%
26
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Benefitsaving from reduced crashes Cost striping LA 3025 LA 182 LA 28 Severity Reduction Reduction Reduction Level B/C=166! PDO 172 61 72
Injury 41 32 35
LA 1138 Reduction 53 40
CMF Results
Expected Crash Reduction LA3025 175 Standard Deviation 27.62 Estimated the CMF 0.45 Standard Deviation 0.051
LA182
110
20.53
0.43
0.062
LA28
111
21.28
0.47
0.062
LA1138
87
25.42
0.65
0.075
28
Probabilty Distribution
LA3025
Probability Distribution
Probability Distribution
29
Results Discussion
The crash reduction by the re-striping/lane conversion projects is striking and the estimated CMF is impressive (crash countermeasures, as listed in the first edition of the HSM, seldom yield CMF values smaller than 0.5) The estimated CMF and standard deviation on all roadway segments indicate a certainty that a re-striping project reduces crashes.
30
Results Discussion
Reductions are consistent cross crash category It is a very cost-effective crash countermeasure Demonstrating the need for flexibility in selecting the best safety improvement project under the existing constraints (financial or otherwise). If and when funds do become available and sufficient right-of-way (ROW) can be obtained, these two 5-lane roadway segments can be converted to a boulevard roadway type, a concept very much promoted today in urban and suburban areas in Louisiana
31
3 years after
100 50 0 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 Year 2006 2008
2009
2010
32
Hurricane Rita
33
CMF
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 10,000 15,000 20,000 AADT 25,000 30,000
34
Due to the huge success of the lane-conversion project, more segments from LADOTD District 3 have been recently re-striped:
35
Acknowledgement
Mr. Nick Fruge from District 3 Ms. Bridget Webster from District 8 Mr. Jason Roberson from District 4 Mr. Tyson Thevis from District 7
Outline
Project background Converting urban undivided 4-lane roadway to five-lane roadway Raised pavement markers Edgeline on narrow rural 2-lane highways
Ref: Bahar, G., C. Mollett, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, A. Smiley, T. Smahel, and H. McGee. National Cooperative Highway Research Report 518: Safety Evaluation of Permanent Raised Pavement Markers. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
Analysis
By setting (urban vs. rural) By time (nighttime vs. daytime)
Ratings
Three condition ratings:
Rating C as Construction
2002 Control Section Section Length 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
450-91
450-92 450-93 450-94 450-95 450-96
2.54
1.36 3.40 1.17 0.13 0.38
G
F F F F F
G
F F F F F
P
G G G G G
G
G G G G G
G
G G G G G
F
F F F F F
F
F F F F F
F
F F F F F
P
P P P P P
Summary
Freeway
GG Rural Urban Total 606 1,028 1,634 Number of Segments in Each Rating Group in Nine years GF 85 189 274 GP 171 280 451 FG 63 156 219 FF 110 214 324 FP 140 266 406 PG 75 141 216 PF 31 88 119 PP 285 734 1,019
23% increase
23% increase
FF
PP
Striping
Striping rating
RPM rating
RPM
0.165
0.168
Striping rating
RPM rating
df
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 0.003 0.051 -0.015 -0.051 -0.010 -0.056 -0.007 -0.052 -0.002 -0.024 -0.013
AADT 20,000 Rural Rural Rural Rural RPM RPM RPM+Striping RPM+Striping Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs -1.781 -1.101 -2.603 -2.591 -2.665 -3.249 -2.285 -2.840 -2.128 -2.573 -2.800 489 489 309 309 816 816 492 492 1339 1339 889 -0.033 -0.065 -0.063 -0.212 -0.038 -0.142 -0.047 -0.168 -0.025 -0.102 -0.045 0.018 0.059 0.024 0.082 0.014 0.044 0.020 0.059 0.012 0.040 0.016 -0.069 -0.181 -0.110 -0.373 -0.066 -0.228 -0.087 -0.284 -0.049 -0.180 -0.077
20,000AADT 60,000 Rural Rural Rural Rural AADT 60,000 Rural Rural Rural RPM RPM RPM+Striping RPM+Striping RPM RPM RPM+Striping Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs Night
Rural
RPM+Striping
24 Hrs
-3.504
889
-0.186
0.053
-0.289
-0.082
CMF Development
Feature
Rating
Mean
CMF
Good
291 200 291 200 225 86 225 86 436 382 436 382 329 165 329 165 745 596 745 596 606
0.139 0.172 0.635 0.7 0.138 0.201 0.644 0.856 0.141 0.179 0.596 0.738 0.148 0.195 0.602 0.77 0.153 0.178 0.655 0.757 0.155
Poor
Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor 20,000 AADT 60,000 Rural Rural Rural Rural RPM RPM RPM+Striping RPM+Striping Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs Good
Crash rate is used for the analysis Only Good ratings and Poor ratings are considered Nine years data is used for both ratings
Poor
Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor AADT 60,000 Rural Rural Rural Rural RPM RPM RPM+Striping RPM+Striping Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs Good Poor Good Poor Good
Poor
Good Poor
285
606 285
0.2
0.655 0.841
Results Discussion
RPM does offer safety benefit to the state rural freeways based on all analysis methods Because of combined effects of two ratings, it is hard, if not impossible, to accurately estimate CMF for RPM It is conservative to say CMF on RPM is about 0.90 No safety benefit of RPM is detected on urban freeways
Outline
Project background Converting urban undivided 4-lane roadway to five-lane roadway Raised pavement markers Edgeline on narrow rural 2-lane highways
Edgeline Requirement
Previous MUTCD (1994)
Road Width AADT No Requirement
No Requirement
No Requirement
Research Investigation
The 2007 study on 10 segments of narrow rural 2-lane highways proved that:
With the edge line, vehicles tend to move away from the road edge; thus, the risk of having a running-offroadway crash is likely to be reduced The implementation of edge lines is likely to reduce the head-on and sideswipe collisions at night because of the reduced number of vehicles crossing the centerline in the nighttime.
The impact of edge line on crashes is also investigated on the selected segments from all LaDOTD districts
after
before
Suggestion Mile post (Log Mile) Starting at milepost 4.0 for 3 miles (0.25 mile before the control section)
823-27
0087 0-1.89
389-01
after
before
Suggestion Milepost (Log Mile) Starting at milepost 27 for 6 miles (log-mile 2 for 6 miles)
389-01
0098 2.59-7.15
after
before
048-02
0169 4.72-8.29
Crash data analysis Three years before and three years after
2008
2009
2010 2011
After
Installation Year
Total Crashes
2005 DOTD District 2 3 4 5 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011
Total
23 86 12 84
Total
34 68 16 74
Total
24 67 8 85
Total
19 81 12 90
Total
8 85 5 99
Total
17 68 6 72
7
8 58 61
21
16 5 32
30
13 3 36
14
15 4 17
10
10 2 15
14
14 4 15
17
10 1 20
62
Total
85
345
103
346
83
295
71
290
62
299
63
263
Results
Before 3 Years- After 3 Years
Improved Prediction
Reduction in Crashes Index of Effectiveness
Reduction in Crashes
Index of Effectiveness
4 -13 13 -18 24 9 5 35 75
10 -17 18 1 14 13 2 44 108
Results
Before 3 Years- After 3 Years
Stdev.
CMF
Stdev.
48
0.81
0.041
Result Interpretation
0.701
0.868
1.0278
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Severity Type Fatal Injury PDO 2004-2007 (Before Years) 12 424 550 2009-2011 (After Years) 13 341 498 Change -1 83 52 Including Loss Safety of Benefit ($) Quality of Life 4,376,304 71,139 3,292 Total Benefit Cost ($0.15 per foot) Benefit 1,699,417 B-C Ratio 19.57 -4,376,304 5,904,537 171,184 1,699,417
86,835
Putting together
Our Analysis
0.81
Safety Trend for the Narrow Rural 2-lane Final Estimated CMF
-5.6%
0.87
HSM
CMF for Rural Two Lane
Results Discussion
Implementing edge line is most likely to reduce number of crashes based on our crash analysis The expected reduction is estimated 13%
Summary
A very effective short-term crash countermeasure for urban undivided 4-lane roadway