1 / 17

270

I-6 Traffic Response Program Arterial Service Patrol Mobility Strategy Evaluation Tom Ryan, HDR Carlos Sun, MU. 64. 70. 44. 55. 370. 270. 270. 170. 180. D. 67. 366. N. 30. Legend. Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4. 21. 340. 100. 141. 364. Two-Year Full Roadway Closure Evaluation.

charis
Download Presentation

270

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. I-6 Traffic Response ProgramArterial Service PatrolMobility StrategyEvaluationTom Ryan, HDRCarlos Sun, MU

  2. 64 70 44 55 370 270 270 170 180 D 67 366 N 30 Legend Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 21 340 100 141 364 Two-Year Full Roadway Closure Evaluation • Areas of Study • Tier 1 • Tier 2 • Tier 3 • Tier 4 Missouri River Ashby Hanley Kingshighway Mississippi River Ladue Forest Park Clayton Brentwood Hampton Meramec River

  3. Arterial Service Patrol Assessment Factors • Reduction in traffic delay • Reduction in fuel and emission • Reduction in secondary crashes • Reduction in response staff (emergency and operations) • Improved public support

  4. Arterial Service Patrol Public Support

  5. Arterial Service Patrol Traffic Delay and Emission

  6. Arterial Service Patrol Secondary Crash • 2004 St. Louis Study By MU • 5% Secondary Crash Factor • Spatial and Temporal Thresholds • 2007 Crash Data – Draft Report • National Safety Council - Average Comprehensive Cost

  7. Arterial Service Patrol Response Staff Savings

  8. Arterial Service Patrol Results

  9. Arterial Service Patrol Results

  10. Where Do We Go From Here?Current Research and Challenges

  11. Assessment of Safety: Crash Analysis • Challenges with attributing safety benefits • How do we know which crashes were secondary? • MUAR 16. Traffic Conditions? • wrt Primary Incidents?

  12. Secondary wrt Primary: Zone of Influence • 2004

  13. Distribution of Crash Severity

  14. Traffic Incident Management/ITS • Everyone has a role: police, fire, EMS, HAZMAT, towing, MA/traffic response, TMC, media, the public • What is the baseline in an evaluation? • How do we establish that baseline? • Benefits in: detection, verification, traffic control, clearance? • Do benefits come from non-independent sources?

  15. Data Issues • Self-selected samples, reliability • MA survey letters vs. randomized sample • Resolution compatible with detail required • ITS: real-time, dynamic, fine resolution • I think the data is there, but alas!

  16. Include Us (Evaluators) Early, Please • ITS evaluations are intensely data driven • Include the evaluators ahead of time • to get baseline data • to ascertain if data currently being collected is adequate • to make recommendations on what data to archive

More Related