A Systemic Approach to Safety Management

1. A Systemic Approach to Safety Management NLTAPA Annual Conference July 30, 2012 Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD

2. Welcome and Introductions

3. Overview • Introduction to the systemic approach to safety • Explain how it can be applied in local jurisdictions • Illustrate how the systemic approach can be used through state and local case studies • Describe how to advance the systemic approach to safety in your state

4. What we mean by “systemic safety improvement” • An improvement that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular severe crash types. • The systemic approach is intended to complement the traditional site analysis approach (i.e. high crash locations) resulting in a comprehensive safety management program.

5. What we mean by “risk” The potential for a specific type of severe crash to occur at a specific location because of the location’s characteristics or features.

6. What we mean by “risk factor” A representation of risk in terms of the observed characteristics associated with the locations where the targeted crash types occurred • Volume • Alignment • Intersection control • Presence of shoulders

7. Potential Risk Factors • Roadway Features • Number of lanes • Lane width • Shoulder surface width/type • Median width/type • Horizontal curvature • Roadside or edge hazard rating • Driveway density • Presence of shoulder or centerline rumble strips • Presence of lighting • Presence of on-street parking • Intersection Features • Intersection skew angle • Intersection traffic control device • Number of signal heads vs. number of lanes • Presence of backplates • Presence of advanced warning signs • Intersection located in/near horizontal curve • Presence of left-turn or right-turn lanes • Left-turn phasing • Allowance of right-turn-on-red Pedestrian-related Features Crosswalk presence Crossing distance Signal head type Adjacent land uses Lighting

8. Limitations to the Site Analysis Approach • 57% of fatal crashes on rural roads • Substantial number of fatal crashes on local roads • Low density on rural and local roadways

10. Fatal crash types 2006 2005 2007 2008

11. Factors Influencing Approach • Data availability • Resources • Established priorities • State/local agency relationship Overview

12. Outcomes of Systemic Safety Planning • Candidate locations for safety investment are identified and prioritized using selected risk factors • Selected countermeasures for candidate locations are efficiently bundled into projects and design packages for contract letting • Effective, low cost countermeasures are applied at the candidate locations to reduce the potential for focus crash types to occur Overview

13. Comprehensive Safety Program • Hot spot safety planning focuses on locations with a history of high crash frequency • System-based safety planning: • Is a complementary analytical technique intended to supplement the high crash frequency technique to be more comprehensive and proactive • Begins with identifying a “problem” based on statewide (or agency-wide) data • Focuses on one or more low-cost strategies to address the underlying contributing circumstances • Identifies and prioritizes locations for implementation based on high risk features • Acknowledges crashes alone are not always sufficient to establish prioritization Overview

14. Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning • Proactive program to address fatalities and serious injuries that seemingly occurred at “random” locations • Greater knowledge regarding severe crashes, including contributing factors and location characteristics • Improve planning, design, and maintenance practices • Risk management for tort liability Overview

15. Challenges to the Systemic Approach • Overcoming institutional history • Safety funding • Training/retraining staff to use new methods and procedures • Accessing information to support identification of crash risk factors

16. Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool • Step-by-step process to conduct systemic safety analysis and planning • Method for balancing systemic safety improvements and spot safety improvements • Mechanism to quantify benefits of systemic safety improvements

17. Cyclical Planning Element 3 Process Element 1 Element 2

18. Identify Target CrashTypes & Risk Factors • Analyze system-wide crash data • Define crash characteristics at the system level • Identify potential risk factors from characteristics • Roadway and intersection features • Traffic volume • Other i.e. transit stops, land use • Select focus crash type(s) • Select focus facilities • Identify common characteristics

19. Screen & Prioritize Candidate Locations • Identify network elements analyzed • Verify selected risk factors • Conduct risk assessment • Prioritize roadway facilities • Segments • Horizontal curves • Intersections

20. Identifying Systemic Countermeasures • Initial list of strategies • Low cost • Significant crash reduction

21. Select Countermeasures • Assemble initial list • Low cost • Significant crash reduction • Evaluate & Screen • Effectiveness • Implementation costs • Policies/practices/experiences • Select a few countermeasures for each target crash type

22. FHWA Proven Countermeasures http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures

23. Prioritize Projects • Create a decision process • Provides consistency in project development process • Consider multiple locations for which countermeasures are appropriate and affordable • Develop safety projects • Apply decision process • Develop specific projects for each candidate site • Document decision process and results

24. Identify Funding & Implement Systemic Program • Guidance for a decision-making process • Not a prescriptive formula • Options to select funding levels for: • Systemic & site analysis • State system & local system • Segment & intersection projects

25. Perform Systemic Program Evaluation • Structured approach for tracking changes in crashes and defining benefits • Illustrations for presentations to elected/citizens • Economic for B/C calculations • Program evaluation; not location evaluations • Guidance for interpreting results • Identify if adjustments are needed

26. Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process

28. Review Past Funding Practices • What safety countermeasures were implemented and where – at what locations and on what system? • What crash types were targeted by these particular countermeasures? • Were these crash types and mitigation strategies identified as a priority in your Safety Plan?

29. Example: State Crash/Funding Comparison by Urban vs. Rural Crashes Projected Funding Actual Funding 5 Year Crashes - 6,677 Funding – $155,946,000 A. State vs. Local • The state system accounts for 58% of rashes, receives over 99% of the funding State System - 3,888 – 58% $82,652,000 $155,291,000 - >99% B. Urban vs. Rural • Rural state system is under funded; 77% of crashes, 63% of funding. Urban - 890 – 23% $19,010,000 $56,159,000 – 36% Rural - 2,998 – 77% $63,642,000 $98,418,000 – 63% Inters-Related - 346– 39% $7,414,000 $18,495,000 – 33% Not Inters-Related - 544 – 61% $11,596,100 $37,664,000 – 67% Inters-Related - 667 – 22% $14,001,240 $11,682,000 – 12% Not Inters-Related - 2,331 – 78% $49,640,760 $86,735,000 – 88% Signals – $10,913,000 – 59% Intersection ? – $5,177,000 – 28% Other – $2,404,000 – 13% Road Edge – $3,419,000 – 9% Barrier – $15,954,000 – 42% Other – $5,260,000 – 14% Segment Improve. – $12,955,00 – 34% Ped Features – $75,000 – >0% Signal – $3,580,000 – 31% Intersection ? – $1,531,000 – 13% Other – $6,571,000 – 56% Road Edge – $23,156,000 – 27% Barrier – $25,085,000 – 29% Other – $31,691,000 – 37% Segment Improve. – $6,802,000 – 8% 27% Funded – Run Off Road – 61% Crashes 29% Funded – Head On – 9% Crashes 37% Funded – Other – 22% Crashes 8% Funded – Rear End – 8% Crashes 9% Funded – Run Off Road – 40% Crashes 42% Funded – Head On – 12% Crashes 14% Funded – Other – 26% Crashes 34% Funded – Rear End – 11% Crashes >0% Funded – Pedestrian – 11% Crashes 31% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 54% 13% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Read End – 59% Crashes 56% Funded – Other – 41% Crashes 59% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 52% Crashes 28% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Rear End – 57% Crashes 13% Funded – Other – 43% Crashes C. Project Type vs. Crash Type • Signals and Head On are generally over funded. • Run Off Road are underfunded. Element 2: Review Past Funding Practices

30. Local Case Studies • Washington State • Kentucky • Indiana • Louisiana

31. Thurston County, WA • FHWA Pilot • Current Approach • Black Spots • Guardrail program • Shoulder widening program • Low Cost Safety Improvements • Sign Maintenance

32. Thurston County, WA • Using crash data • Non-Junction related • Run of the Road • Horizontal curves • Speed Limit • Shoulder width • AADT < 5,000 • Fixed Object Struck

33. Thurston County, WA • Horizontal Curve Risk Factors • Shoulder width • Radius • Speed differential • AADT • Roadside Hazard Rating • Crashes • Intersections

34. Kentucky • Focus Counties • 5 years of crash data • Select routes for RSA’s • The systemic approach would focus on our crash types  • Drop offs, edgelines, horizontal curve signage, tree removal, vegetation management and delineation for the entire route  • KYTC is working on a program to make HRRR funds available to Counties for horizontal alignment signage • 40% of crashes occur in curves • 20% of our fatalities occur in curves

35. Indiana • Sign replacement (HSIP funding) • Crash reduction factors • Replace all signs • Evaluation 7-16% reduction in crashes in one county • Past Intersection Focus State • Package treatments

36. Intersection Safety Implementation Plans (ISIP) • Began in 2006 as a component of the Focus State initiative • Focuses on systematic deployment of packages of low-cost countermeasures (e.g. signing, markings, etc.) across numerous locations

37. Example Unsignalized Treatment Package • Estimated Crash Reduction 30% • Average cost $6,000/site • Key to safety effectiveness is widespread deployment

38. Questions??? Hillary Isebrands, PE, PhD 720-963-3222 hillary.isebrands@dot.gov Karen Y. Scurry, P.E. 609-637-4207 karen.scurry@dot.gov http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov