You are on page 1of 68

Safety Impacts of Various Crash Countermeasures

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

Road Environment Factors (28%)


Keep in mind that everything we do must accommodate humans needs and match vehicles' capability

Human Factors (95%)

4%

24%
4% 4%

67%

Vehicle Factors (8%)


Based on Interactive Highway Safety Design Model: by Harry Lum and Jerry A. Reagan

Eliminating crash contributing factors with crash countermeasures


Crash is not an accident, it is preventable. Crash reduction can not happen by chance

Source: Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. K.W. Ogden. Ashgate

CMF from HSM


Chapter in HSM Part D
Content # of Crash # of CMFs Countermeasures Proven to be with Known Safety effective Effect

# of Crash Countermeasures with Unknown Safety Effect

13 14 15 16

Roadway Segments Intersections Interchange Special Facilities and Geometric Situations

36 24 4 5

43 27 8 16

72 84 25 68

17

Road Network Total

3 72

16 110

5 254

Developing CMF for Louisiana


While the majority of crash countermeasures would be the same as the once used by other states, a few countermeasures will be unique in Louisiana Introducing few CMFs tailed to the unique situation in the state is the objective of this presentation

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

Pros and Cons of Two Options


Physical barrier
Better traffic (motorized or non-motorized) management Expensive

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

Four segments selected for the analysis


District LA 3025 D3 Control Section 828-23 Installation Length (mi) Year 1.228 2003

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

LA 3025 (from 2012 Google Earth)

18

LA182

19

LA182 (from 2012 Google Earth)

20

LA1138

(from 2012 Google Earth)


LA28

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

LA3025 LA182 LA28 LA1138

358 178 206 260

-59% -52% -52% -36%

-54% -51% -45% -34%

22

Crash Frequency

Crash Frequency

250 200 150 100 50 0

100 80 60 40 20 0

LA3025

LA182

Before Total

After Total

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

Changes by Crash Type

23

Changes by Pavement Surface Condition


LA3025
300 250 Before Total After Total 180 160 140 Before Total After Total

LA182

Crash Frequency

200 150 100 50 0 Dry

Crash Frequency

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Wet

Dry

Wet

Pavement Surface Condition

Pavement Surface Condition

LA28
250

LA1138

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Dry

Crash Frequency

Crash Frequency

Before Total After Total

Before Total After Total

200 150 100 50 0

Wet

Dry

Wet

Pavement Surface Condition

Pavement Surface Condition

24

Changes by Time of the Day


LA 3025
200 120 Before Total After Total 100

LA 182
Before Total After Total

Crash Frequency

Crash Frequency
12am6am

160 120 80 40 0 6am12pm 12pm6pm

80 60 40 20 0

6pm12am

6am12pm

12pm6pm

6pm12am

12am6am

LA 28
120 160 Before Total After Total 140

LA 1138

100

Before Total After Total

Crash Frequency

Crash Frequency
12am6am

120 100 80 60 40

80

60

40

20 20 0 6am12pm 12pm6pm 6pm12am 0 6am12pm 12pm6pm 6pm12am 12am6am

25

Changes by Crash Severity


LA3025 LA182 LA28 LA1138 Crashes by % % % % Before After Before After Before After Before After Severity Change Change Change Change Total 358 147 -58.90% 178 85 -52.30% 206 99 -51.94% 260 167 -35.77%

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

Segment LA 3025 LA 182 LA 28 LA 1138

Total Benefits ($) 2,753,868 1,913,808 2,110,212 2,317,488

Total Cost ($) 14,100 11,500 10,600 12,300

B/C Ratio 195 166 199 188


27

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

What does the result mean? A certainty in crash reduction


Roadway
LA3025 LA182 LA28 LA1138

Estimated CMF 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.65

Standard Deviation 0.051 0.062 0.062 0.075


LA1138

CMF+ 3*Standard Deviation 0.60 0.62 0.66 0.88


Probability Distribution

Probabilty Distribution

LA3025

0.9989 0.65 CMF Value 0.88 0.45 CMF Value

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

Sustainable crash reduction


LA3025
3 years before
Crash Frequency
150

3 years after
100 50 0 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 Year 2006 2008

3 years after after

2009

2010

32

3 years before 3 years after

3 years after after

Hurricane Rita

3 years before 3 years after

3 years after after

33

CMF as a function of AADT


AADT vs. Estimated CMF
0.9 0.8 0.7 y = 3E-09x 2 - 0.0001x + 1.8028 R2 = 0.996

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:

LA 14-Bypass in Abbeville LA 14 in Abbeville US 190 in Eunice LA 93 in Sunset LA 14 in New Iberia

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

Raised pavement markers (delineation purpose)

The need to have Louisiana CMF on Raised Pavement Markers (RPM)


CMF from the HSM

Setting (Road Type)

Traffic Volume (AADT) 20,000 Rural 20,001-60,000 (Four-lane Freeways) >60,000

Crash Type (Severity) Nightime All Types (All Severities)

CMF Std. Error 1.13 0.2 0.94 0.3 0.67 0.3

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.

Should the state continue the practice?

Developing CMF for RPM


Data
Annual RPM and striping ratings Crash

Analysis
By setting (urban vs. rural) By time (nighttime vs. daytime)

Ratings
Three condition ratings:

G as Good P as Poor F as Fair

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

Average Crash Rate by Combined Ratings on Rural freeways


Rural and 24 hours
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 GG FF PP 0.760 0.666 0.817 0.25 0.2 0.159 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 GG FF PP

Rural and night hours


0.196 0.163

Avg. Crash Rate

Striping and RPM rating

Avg. Crash Rate

Striping and RPM rating

23% increase

23% increase

Average Crash Rate by Combined Ratings on Urban freeways

Urban and 24 hours


2.5 2.113 2.005 2.077 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 GG FF PP 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 GG 0.384

Urban and Night hours


0.406 0.369

Avg. Crash Rate

Avg. Crash Rate

FF

PP

Striping and RPM rating

Striping and RPM rating

Average crash rate by single rating on rural freeways


Rural and 24 hours
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.675 0.724 0.760 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 G F P G F P 0.658 0.692 0.706

Rural and 24 hours

Striping

Avg. Crash Rate

Avg. Crash Rate

Striping rating

RPM rating

RPM

Rural and night hours


0.25 0.2 0.180 0.161 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 G F P 0.178 0.25 0.2

Rural and night hours

Avg. Crash Rate

Avg. Crash Rate

0.152 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 G

0.165

0.168

Striping rating

RPM rating

Results of Statistical Test


(Average Crash Rate between Good and Poor)
t-test for Equality of Means Roadway Type Feature Crash Rate at

df

Mean Difference

Std. Error 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

Highway Type AADT 20,000 Rural Rural Rural Rural

Feature

Crash Hour Night 24 Hrs Night 24 Hrs

Rating

Mean

CMF

RPM RPM RPM+Striping RPM+Striping

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

0.81 0.91 0.69 0.75

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

0.79 0.81 0.76 0.78

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

0.86 0.87 0.78 0.78

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

Updated MUTCD (2000)1


20-ft or Wider Greater than 3,000

Current LaDOTD Policy (1994)2 22-ft or Wider

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

Control Section (District 3)

Highway Number Log from and to

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

Control Section (D3)

Highway Number Log from and to

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

Control Section (D4)

Highway Number Log from and to

Suggestion Milepost (Log Mile)

048-02

0169 4.72-8.29

Starting at milepost 22 for 5 miles (log mile 4.5 for 5 miles)

Crash data analysis Three years before and three years after

2005 2006 2007


Before

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

Nave B-A Method 2


DOTD District (No. of CSECT)

Improved Prediction
Reduction in Crashes Index of Effectiveness

Reduction in Crashes

Index of Effectiveness

2 (1) 3 (9) 4 (2) 5 (4) 7 (2) 8 (2) 58 (1) 61 (3) 62 (4)

4 -13 13 -18 24 9 5 35 75

0.58 1.05 0.62 1.07 0.62 0.77 0.54 0.58 0.72

10 -17 18 1 14 13 2 44 108

0.38 1.07 0.54 0.99 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.52 0.64

Results
Before 3 Years- After 3 Years

Improved Prediction Method


Estimated Expected Reduction 194

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

All Control Sections

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

Source: Highway Safety Manual (1st Edition), Vol. 3, 2010

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

Reducing crashes on rural freeway

Results in lower crash rate

Thank You and Questions?

You might also like