1 / 24

Outline of Presentation

A Method for Prioritizing and Expanding Freeway Service Patrols Nagui M. Rouphail, ITRE, NC State University Asad Khattak, CTP, UNC-Chapel Hill Kai Monast, CTP, UNC-Chapel Hill Jason Havel, NC State University. Outline of Presentation. Project goals and objectives Literature review Methodology

kyne
Download Presentation

Outline of Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Method for Prioritizing and Expanding Freeway Service PatrolsNagui M. Rouphail, ITRE, NC State UniversityAsad Khattak, CTP, UNC-Chapel HillKai Monast, CTP, UNC-Chapel HillJason Havel, NC State University

  2. Outline of Presentation • Project goals and objectives • Literature review • Methodology • Data description and analysis • Application tool • Conclusions and recommendations

  3. Project Goal and Objectives • Develop data-driven criteria for FSP expansion in NC • Review FSP studies in other areas, synthesize findings, explore implications for North Carolina • Develop a decision-support tool to evaluate/rank current and future FSP projects

  4. Review • Nationwide B/C ratios range from 2:1 - 36:1 • Incident management can restore normal capacity— 20%+ incident duration reduction • Puget Sound region FSP experienced 50% decrease in response times • Maryland’s CHART saved $30.5 MM in delay and gasoline • Most studies focus on evaluating existing programs, not identifying high-impact locations

  5. Candidate FSP Sites • Input Data • Incident and crash profiles • Traffic profiles • FSP unit costs • FSP fleet size • Input Data • Crashes • GIS Files • ADT (5) (4) Planning Analysis Site-Rankings Operational Analysis (5) (4) • Models • Delay • Cost • Fleet size Visual Display Of Candidate Sites (GIS) (6) Decision Support Tool (7) Application to NC site Note: (.) indicates chapter number in the report Methodology

  6. Input Data • Planning Analysis (data-driven) • NC DOT GIS Shapefiles • NC DOT Crash Data • HSIS Crash and Roadway Data • Operational Analysis (data + models) • NC DOT Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) • FSP Sites’ Incident Data • FSP Cost Data • Delay vs incident characteristics (models)

  7. Expansion Criteria • Planning Analysis– initial screening • Crashes per Mile per Year (last 3 year data) • AADT per Lane • Crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles • Operational Analysis • Benefit / Cost ratio based on traveler delay savings with FSP vs. cost of FSP deployment

  8. Visual Displays- Density Map

  9. Input Data-Crash to Non-Crash Incidents Ratios • No central repository for incident data • Charlotte and Greensboro FSP data • Create incident distribution tree • Use known crash figures to estimate non-crash incidents • Ratio based on data7.2:1 • In the long-term, incident rates can be predicted using ADT, truck volume, length & weather

  10. Incident Distribution Tree All Incidents 2081 incidents 18 minute duration a Shoulder- 91% 1897 incidents 15 minute duration a 1 Lane Blocked- 8% 163 incidents 38 minute duration a 2+ Lanes Blocked- 1% 21 incidents 86 minute duration a Peak b - 29% 544 incidents 15 minute duration a Off-Peak- 71% 1353 incidents 15 minute duration a Peak b - 28% 46 incidents 31 minute duration a Off-Peak 72% 117 incidents 41 minute duration a Peak b - 19% 4 incidents 51 minute duration a Off-Peak 81% 17 incidents 94 minute duration a a Average Duration with Freeway Service Patrol b Peak periods are assumed to be Monday- Friday, 7 – 9 am and 4 - 6 pm

  11. Traffic Profile Data for Delay Analysis

  12. Delay Model development using FREEVAL • Model of HCM2000 Freeway Facilities • Allows for temp. capacity reductions • Modeled 2-5 lane, 10 mile sections; incident duration; incident severity; normal d/c; urban/rural segments • FREEVAL Veh-hours delay per VMT • Statistical models for delay estimation based on facility and incident features

  13. Statistical Model based on FREEVAL Results

  14. Quantify FSP Costs • Calculate FSP Unit Costs • Compiled by each NCDOT Division • Building costs not considered • Expressed either as per hour, per mile, per vehicle, per driver, etc • FSP Vehicle Fleet Size Estimation • Estimates required number of vehicles for expansion sites

  15. FSP Hourly Costs

  16. FSP Vehicle Fleet Size • FSP vehicles required for expansion sites • Based on current coverage level • Inputs: AADT ; Length

  17. Decision Support Tool • Java-based application • Data driven • Three Different Applications • Planning-level analysis • Detailed Single-Incident Delay analysis • Benefit / Cost --- aggregation of benefits/ costs

  18. Planning Analysis Screen Shot

  19. Single Incident Screen Shot

  20. B/C Screen Shot

  21. Application of Decision Support Tool Existing FSP Benefits/Costs

  22. Application of Decision Support Tool Candidate Site Modeling I-26 and I-40 Asheville • 4-lane facility • 15 miles in length • 64000 ADT • 303 crashes per year • 4 FSP vehicles (estimated) • B/C = 2.7 (Net worth $410K) • I-440 Raleigh • 6-lane facility • 12 miles in length • 82000 ADT • 712 crashes per year • 3 FSP vehicles (estimated) • B/C = 3.3 (Net worth= $420K)

  23. Conclusions • Methods and tools can be used to determine FSP expansion sites • Flexible approach based on data availability – planning & operational • Tool enables quick analysis; generic data needs allows application outside NC • Results confirm previous findings in literature • NC Statewide average 5.6:1 • Existing NC FSP sites confirmed eligible • Candidate Asheville and Raleigh are good expansion sites • B/C analysis confirm the initial GIS screening results

  24. Recommendations • Facility-optimal Vehicle Fleet Sizing based on incident data and site features • Incorporate un-quantified benefits / costs • Fuel and emissions • Economic impacts on businesses • Additional Incident Mitigation Measures • Interagency coordination • Traveler Information Systems • Decision-support tool should be expanded to other states and other ITS strategies

More Related