2016 master slides

5. HSM: Unlocking Funding for Safer Highways 2016 Design Summit Caroline Trueman – FHWA David Kuhn – NJDOT Jim Yeager – Michael Baker International Scott Diehl – Urban Engineers David Bizuga – NJDOT

6. HSM MEASURING NJ’S HIGHWAY SAFETY PERFORMANCE CarolineTrueman Safety Engineer

7. Crash Costs Congestion Costs $ City Size

8. Safety Operations Environment Right of Way

10. State Safety Focus Areas

11. Highway Safety Improvement Program Based on Fatalities & Serious Injuries SHSP All Public Roads Performance Based Annual Reporting

13. TRUE or FALSE: “My design meets or exceeds all minimum criteria. Therefore it’s safe.”

14. Compliance with standards, warrants, guidelines Predicted crashes frequency & severity

15. PredictedCrashes Crash History Roadway Features Traffic Volume

16. NJ Strategic Highway Safety Plan Dave Kuhn Assistant Commissioner NJDOT

19. 2.5%/year reduction goal

20. New Jersey’s SHSP Emphasis Areas

21. 63% 37% Fatal/Injury Crashes Local Roads State Roads

22. $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 FFY 2012 FFY 2013 FFY 2014 Actual 2015 2016 Goal HSIP (incl AC) Rail Highway Crossing HSIP Authorizations (millions) Delivering projects

23. Case Study Route 7 Belleville, NJ JimYeager Michael Baker Intl.

24. Safety Case Study: Route 7 Concept Development Belleville, NJ

25. Project Limits Map Existing Roadway Cross Section • Principal Arterial • Central Business District • Transit Corridor • Schools • Municipal Building • Washington Avenue and Belleville Turnpike • 2013 AADT = 15,381

26. • Identified as a HIGH pedestrian crash corridor (19 pedestrian and 8 bicycle) • Involvement began with a Pedestrian Road Safety Audit for NJDOT – Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs • A locally supported Road Diet Concept Recommended • Pavement Reconstruction Concept Development BACKGROUND

27. • Identified two Safety Management System (SMS) ranked intersections. (Rutgers Street and Joralemon Street) • Purpose and Need updated to address Safety during Concept Development. • And included safety improvements for all modes - Vehicles, Pedestrians, Bicycles and MORE! NETWORK SCREENING

28. Crashes by Milepost DATA DRIVEN SAFETY

29. CRASHES BY TYPE Same Dir-Rear 64 Same Dir-Side 60 Right Angle 33 Head-On 2 Parked Vehicle 23 Left Turn/U-Turn 60 Overturned 3 Fixed Object 9 Pedalcyclist 8 Pedestrian 19 Backing 11 Encroachment 4

30. CRASHES BY LOCATION

31. TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION ALTERNATIVES

32. Advanced the proposed traffic analysis early process. The analysis helped to guide the concept design. WILL A ROAD DIET CONCEPT WORK FROM AN OPERATIONAL STAND POINT?

33. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

34. Intersection Improvements Dedicated Left and Right Turn Lanes Updated Traffic Signals New Pedestrian Signals ADA Compliant Curb Ramps Segment Improvements Road Diet (4 Lane to 3 Lane) Two Way Left Turn Lane Bicycle Lanes IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Improvements Dedicated Left and Right Turn Lanes Updated Traffic Signals New Pedestrian Signals ADA Compliant Curb Ramps Curb Extensions Hi-Visibility Crosswalks Intersection Enhancements for Bicyclists

35. DESIGN STANDARDS Don’t be a Settler! Be a Safety Champion! Complete Streets which are safer for ALL users

36. HSM Predictive Method • Quantifies predicted crashes for sites o Individual Intersections o Homogeneous Segments • Safety Performance Function (SPF) o Predicts crash rate based on AADT, configuration o Linear regression models • Crash Modification Factor (CMF) o Index of how crash rate will change following a modification in design or traffic control Can We Justify Using HSIP Funds?

37. •Uses statistical models to estimate average crash frequency for given conditions •Overcome 3-year historical crash analysis flaws: •Natural variance in frequency •Regression-to-the-mean bias •Variations in site conditions HSM Predictive Method

38. Developing Concepts No Build Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 3Alternative 2

39. No Build Alternative Improvements: None Predicted: 56.1 Crashes/Year

40. Alternative 1 Improvements: Road Diet with Turn Lanes Upgraded Traffic Signals Predicted: 47.8 Crashes/Year

41. Alternative 2 Improvements: Road Diet with Turn Lanes Curb Extensions Pedestrian Signal Heads Bike Lanes Upgraded Traffic Signals Predicted: 44.7 Crashes/Year

42. Alternative 3 Improvements: Road Diet with Turn Lanes Curb Extensions Pedestrian Signal Heads Bike Lanes Upgraded Traffic Signals Raised Center Median Predicted: 31.5 Crashes/Year

43. Portion of Project Total Cost Interest Rate Capital Recovery Factor (A/P) Annual Cost Washington Ave Pavement Reconstruction and Road Diet $6,994,000 3% 0.0672 $470,107 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ANNUALIZED

44. Portion of Project Annual Benefit Annual Cost Benefit/Cost Ratio Washington Ave Pavement Reconstruction and Road Diet $933,011 $470,107 1.98 BENEFIT – COST RATIO

45. Case Study Rt. 206 Whitehorse Circle Scott Diehl Urban Engineers

46. US Route 206 Whitehorse Circle Circle to Roundabout Project

47. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Agenda Project Background and History • Project Location • Crash History • Traffic Operations • Previous Efforts Modern Roundabout HSM Analysis

48. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Project Location

51. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Crash History 161 crashes at or near the Circle (2006-2008) • 62 Angle • 68 Rear-End • 26% Injury

52. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Crash History

60. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Traffic Operations - Queuing

61. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Traffic Operations - Queuing

62. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Previous Efforts NJDOT Developed short-term mitigation measures • Improved signing & striping • Updated regulatory & warning signs Evaluated as part of an Annual Safety Report • No reduction in angle crashes, overall frequency or percent injury Problem Statement Completed • Recommended study to develop a “larger” solution

63. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project Modern Roundabout KEY POINTS • Addresses safety and operational issues • Has operational capacity for the long-term • Limited impacts to existing businesses • Provides for a transition from highway setting to a more urban/neighborhood setting • Provides for “gateway” into Hamilton

64. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project HSM Analysis • Over 10 year period a Roundabout is expected to have about 350 less crashes than existing. 425 75 Existing Roundabout

65. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project HSM Analysis • Over 10 year period a Roundabout is expected to have about 350 less crashes than existing. • Expected 0.63 Injury+Fatal (I+F) crashes per year. Averaging about 11 I+F crashes per year with the existing configuration. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Existing Roundabout I + F Crashes Per Year

66. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project HSM Analysis • Over 10 year period a Roundabout is expected to have about 350 less crashes than existing. • Expected 0.63 Injury+Fatal (I+F) crashes per year. Averaging about 11 I+F crashes per year with the existing configuration. • Signalized Intersection would be expected to have more than TWICE the number of I+F crashes.

67. May 18, 2016 Design Summit: Whitehorse Circle to Roundabout Project HSM Analysis • Over 10 year period a Roundabout is expected to have about 350 less crashes than existing. • Expected 0.63 Injury+Fatal (I+F) crashes per year. Averaging about 11 I+F crashes per year with the existing configuration. • Signalized Intersection would be expected to have more than TWICE the number of I+F crashes. • $14.7M present value of a modern roundabout based on a 10 year analysis. • Benefit/Cost ratio of 7.74.

68. Systemic Safety Projects Dave Bizuga Executive Manager NJDOT

70. CLRS across the Nation and in NJ  CLRS create noise & vibration inside your vehicle that alert you as you cross the center line.  11 state and one national study show that CLRS reduces crossover crashes 18 to 64%.  NJDOT had a systematic program for CLRS from 2014 thru 2015.  All paving projects currently include CLRS on two lane and multilane undivided highways.

71. Crash Data Three Roadway Departure (RwD) Emphasis Areas make up 75% of RwD crashes. CLRS helps reduce all of them:  Head-on crashes  Rollover  Trees

72. Criteria  Centerline rumble strips are constructed at the yellow centerline stripe, both passing & no passing zones.  Rural & urban 2-Lane roads & multilane undivided highways  Posted speed limits of 35 MPH or higher  10 foot minimum lane width (was 11 feet)  HMA pavement must be in good condition with a surface distress index (SDI) greater than 3

73. Criteria Centerline rumble strips shall not be constructed at the following locations:  Street intersections: Construct to the end of centerline stripe.  Along left turn slots and continuous two-way left- turn median lanes  Bridge decks or concrete bridge approach slabs.  Concrete pavement  200 feet before and after the approximate midpoint of Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) systems in the roadway

74. Fog seal surface treatment shall be applied after construction of the CLRS

75. Installation of CLRS only Asphalt Emulsion Fog Seal Polymerized Maltene Emulsion Fog Seal 1. Remove Traffic Stripes 2. Cut Rumble Strip 3. Apply Fog Seal 4. Apply Temp. Traffic Stripes 5. Apply Permanent Traffic Stripes 1. Cut Rumble Strip 2. Apply Permanent Traffic Stripes 3. Apply Fog Seal

78. 8. APPURTANCES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO RPM’S, MANHOLES, INLETS, VALVE MARKERS & MONUMENT BOXES. 9. DO NOT CONSTRUCT RUMBLE STRIPS 200’ BEFORE & AFTER THE APPROX. MIDPOINT OF W.I.M. SYSTEMS IN THE ROADWAY

81. CLRS Program Progress to Date  ~497 miles of CLRS installed systemically in Federal FY 2014.  ~270 miles of CLRS installed systemically in Federal FY 2015.  All paving projects currently include centerline rumble strips on two lane and multilane undivided highways.

82. 9 State & FHWA Rumble Strip Peer Exchange: 2/18/2016 What most often prevents implementation of CLRS on your 2-lane roads? (select the most prevalent)  Noise concerns 66.6% (6)  Pavement concerns 66.6% (6)  Maintenance concerns 22.2% (2)  Bicycle accommodation concerns 22.2% (2)  Other 11.1% (1)  No need 11.1% (1)

83. HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT (HFST) MADE EASY

84. What is a High Friction Surface Treatment? • High Friction Surface Treatments (HFST) are pavement surfacing overlay systems with:  exceptional skid-resistant properties that are not typically acquired by conventional materials  retains the higher friction property for a much longer time. • Commercially available resin-based products • Generally applied in short sections to improve safety in spot locations where friction demand is critical.

85. HFST USAGE BY STATE

86. HFST Binder Materials • Polymer binder systems • Epoxy-resin two-part systems • Polyester-resin three part systems • A laminate layer that allows for 75% aggregate embedment depth

87. HFST Aggregates • Recommended aggregate is calcined bauxite which is highly durable & provides the highest resistance to polishing. Calcined Bauxite

88. HFST typical surface profile

89. NCAT TESTING OF HFST AGGREGATES

90. Marquette Interchange Caution When it Rains! Milwaukee, Wisconsin

91. Marquette Interchange Wisconsin

92. TOTALS Before HFST (11/08 – 8/11) 2 years, 10 months – 219 crashes HFST Applied – 9/21/2011 After HFST (10/11 – 8/14) 2 years, 11 months – 9 crashes

93. Skid Numbers: Concrete: 54.1, 50.2, 50.9 HFST: 85.8, 85.8, 83.2 Stopping Distance @ 45 mph (ft.): Concrete: 99, 91, 101, 91* HFST: 76, 76, 79, 76* *Cars changed lanes Skid testing conducted at TTI proving grounds

94. Fatal Horizontal Curve Crashes 72% Tangent Curved

95. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2.21 6.7 Crashes/km Horizontal Curves and Safety Tangent Segments Curves and Transitions Average crash rates for horizontal curves is about 3 times that of tangent segments

96. 23% 16% 17% 10% 31% 3% Collectors Minor Arterials Principal Arterials Freeways or Expressways Local Roads or Streets Principal Arterial Interstate Principal Arterial -Other Horizontal Curve Fatal Crashes by Roadway Classification

97. Case Studies: PennDOT District 5 “Like a Miracle”

98. Pennsylvania Success Story

99. Pennsylvania Success Story

100. Traffic SR 2017 - 9,000 AADT SR 2024 - 4,600 AADT Crashes 3 yrs. prior to install - 26 Since installation - 1 Skid Number Before Install - 22 After Install - 75 Pennsylvania Project Summary Installed 10/27/12

101. OK DOT 2014 FULLY AUTOMATED APPLICATION

102. MO DOT I-44 Phelps County 2014

103. TYPICAL APPLICATION AND STAGING STAGING 1. CLEAN SURFACE 2. APPLY HFST 3. SWEEP 4. SWEEP AGAIN AFTER 36 HOURS 5. PAINT STRIPES Where doing 2 applications over bridge decks, do 1st application as shown above, then do 2nd application with steps 2 through 5.

104. Recommended Distance Upstream of the PC of Horizontal Curve Decel. Rate = 10 ft./s2 d = 1.075 (V2 / 10 ft./s2) V = MPH Solve for d for V1 (Posted Speed). Then solve for d for V2 (curve speed), Subtract V1 – V2 to get upstream distance, or use chart below: APPROACH SPEED (MPH) CURVE SPEED (MPH) 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 35 35 - - - - - - 40 76 41 - - - - - 45 122 86 46 - - - - 50 173 138 97 51 - - - 55 230 194 154 108 57 - - 60 292 257 216 170 119 62 - 65 359 324 284 238 186 130 68

2016 master slides

2016 master slides

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances(20)

En vedette

En vedette(12)

Similaire à 2016 master slides

Similaire à 2016 master slides(20)

Dernier

Dernier(20)

2016 master slides