April Renard, P.E.

1
Changing the cultureHSM Implementation Status

• April Renard, P.E.
• LADOTD Highway Safety
• april.renard_at_la.gov

2
Background
Executive Committee
Implementation Team
Emphasis Area Teams
Infrastructure and Operations
Impaired Driving
Occupant Protection
Young Drivers
3
Infrastructure and operations Emphasis Area
Action plan

• Key Strategy Implementation of HSM
• Develop implementation plan
• Conduct HSM training
• Data needs assessment
• Implement analytical tools to assist in network
  screening and project identification

4
Why Implement HSM?

• Explicit consideration of safety in project
  development
• Improves decision making
• Promotes the use of effective countermeasures
• Enables decisions based on quantitative
  evaluations
• Instills confidence that safety funds are being
  applied most effectively

5
Challenges

• Data quality and availability
• Interpreting results and establishing standards
  for use
• Complexity of manual is intimidating to users
• Institutional resistance
• Relaying expectations to consultants
• Determining the appropriate performance measures
• Crossing boundaries between disciplines
• Development of calibration factors
• Project schedules and politics
• Resources to conduct additional analyses

6
Leadership Team

• Highway Safety
• Transportation Planning
• Environmental
• Traffic Engineering
• Road Design
• Pavement Preservation
• District Traffic Personnel
• FHWA
• LTAP

7
Levels of Implementation

• (I) System Planning
• (II) Project Planning
• (III) Project Design Construction
• (IV) Operations and Maintenance

8
(I) System Planning

• Current methodology
• Abnormal Listings
• Statewide Average Crash Rates
• Overrepresentation
• Proposed methodology
• HSM Calibration
• State-specific SPFs

9
Abnormal listing

• Segment
• Atleast 5 crashes per mile per year
• Twice the statewide average for its
  classification
• Intersection
• Atleast 5 crashes per year
• Twice the statewide average for its
  classification
• Spot
• Atleast 5 crashes per year
• Twice the statewide average for its classification

10
Statewide Average Tables
Highway Class Num Sections Num Crashes Per Yr Total Miles Total Mvm Per Yr Crashes Per Mile Per Yr Crashes Per Mvm Fatalities Per Yr Injuries Per Yr
2-Lane Rural 4486 10322.0 12090.34 9536.09 0.85 1.08 263.3 7043.3
4-Lane Rural 141 153.3 90.05 190.00 1.70 0.81 2.0 108.3
4-Lane Div Rural 304 1372.3 534.76 1975.05 2.57 0.69 30.0 987.7
Interstate Rural 174 3002.0 522.26 5194.40 5.75 0.58 68.0 1892.0
2-Lane Urban 1903 13808.7 2111.87 5900.03 6.54 2.34 112.0 7587.0
4-Lane Urban 476 5291.0 257.14 1529.30 20.58 3.46 12.7 2419.7
4-Lane Div Urban 834 16891.0 748.73 6062.44 22.56 2.79 72.0 7894.0
Interstate Urban 260 8752.0 335.39 6281.37 26.09 1.39 68.0 4271.0
Total 8578 59592.3 16690.54 36668.68 3.57 1.63 628.0 32203.0
11
Overrepresentation
Type of Collision Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification Highway Classification
Type of Collision Rural two-lane Rural four-lane Rural four-lane divided Rural interstate Urban two-lane Urban four-lane Urban four-lane divided Urban interstate
A Non-collision w/ MV 49.69 18.06 29.33 47.59 16.32 4.49 5.97 18.25
B Rear-end 18.01 23.61 28.60 27.13 40.78 37.71 45.81 48.88
C Head-on 2.06 1.25 1.17 0.72 1.66 0.98 0.81 0.56
D Right angle 8.51 13.47 13.39 1.95 14.40 17.61 15.09 2.40
E Left turn Angle 2.89 3.89 2.11 0.26 3.00 3.86 1.83 0.34
F Left turn Opp Dir 2.00 5.42 2.46 0.12 4.35 6.11 5.05 0.89
G Left turn Same Dir 1.24 2.78 1.76 0.12 1.93 2.04 1.82 0.34
H Right turn Angle 0.66 1.94 1.06 0.24 1.29 1.60 1.86 0.38
I Right turn Opp Dir 0.19 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.42 0.40 0.27 0.05
J Side swipe Same Dir 3.51 7.78 9.65 15.96 5.33 14.16 12.39 17.61
K Side swipe Opp Dir 3.43 1.53 0.66 0.56 2.28 0.90 0.75 0.36
U Unknown 7.81 20.00 9.55 5.34 8.24 10.14 8.36 9.95
Total crashes 39343 720 5728 9505 62669 35329 91103 35362
12
HSM Calibration

• Proposed research project
• 18 month timeline
• Will provide a calibration factor for predictive
  method applications
• Only for classifications included in the HSM

13
State-Specific SPFs

• Purchase Order issued March 2012
• 6 to 12 months timeline
• Will provide for all roadway classifications
  including those not covered in the HSM

14
State-Specific SPFs
15
(II) Project Planning

• Stage 0
• Feasibility Studies
• Stage 1
• Environmental Impact Statements
• Environmental Assessments
• Example

16
(III) Project Design Construction

• Stages 2 and 3 (Design)
• Evaluating design decisions (shoulder width,
  presence of median, left turn lanes, etc.)
• Design Exceptions
• Stage 5 (Construction)
• Temporary Traffic Control Plans

17
Stages 2 and 3 Examples

• 2 left shoulder plus 10 right shoulder versus a
  4 left shoulder plus a 8 right shoulder?
• 6 signalized intersections versus 4 signalized
  intersections in a 1 mile corridor?
• What are the safety implications of reduced
  shoulder width on a narrow bridge?
• Could we mitigate the safety impacts from a
  reduced shoulder width by installing shoulder
  rumble strips?

18
Stage 5 Examples

• What are safety benefits of enhancing delineation
  during nighttime restricted work?
• What are the safety implications of a temporary
  transition designed for 45 mph on the interstate?

19
(IV) Operations and Maintenance

• Stage 6
• Reassessing safety performance through network
  screening process
• If applicable, RSA in conjunction with overlay
  projects

20
Questions?
21
HSM Project Application
22
I-12 to Bush EIS

• Stage 1 - Environmental
• HSM Predictive Method using IHSDM
• Conducted by Highway Safety Section

23
Project Overview

• Alternative N-S corridor to I-12
• Louisiana Revised Statute 47820.2B(e)
• 4-lane arterial
• Limited access facility

24
I-12 to Bush Proposed Alternatives

• No Build
• Alternative B/O
• Alternative J
• Alternative P
• Alternative Q

25
Alternative Selection Criteria

• Land Use
• Water Resources
• Ecological Resources
• Land cover
• Wildlife
• Sensitive habitats
• TE species
• Wetlands
• Geology and Soils
• Air Quality
• Noise

• Recreational Resources
• Traffic and Transportation
• Access
• Operations
• Safety
• Utilities
• Socioeconomics
• Aesthetic and Visual Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Hazardous and Toxic Substances

26
Alternative Selection Criteria

• Land Use
• Water Resources
• Ecological Resources
• Land cover
• Wildlife
• Sensitive habitats
• TE species
• Wetlands
• Geology and Soils
• Air Quality
• Noise

• Recreational Resources
• Traffic and Transportation
• Access
• Operations
• Safety
• Utilities
• Socioeconomics
• Aesthetic and Visual Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Hazardous and Toxic Substances

27
Safety

• Goal Quantify the perceived safety benefits from
  constructing the project.
• Presumption Traffic diverted from existing
  roadways with lesser design standards to proposed
  alignment with higher design standards will
  result in a reduction in crashes.
• Methodology HSM Predictive Method (most
  reliable)

28
Area of Analysis

• Existing routes
• Proposed alignments

29
Studied Sections

• US 190
• US 190 Business
• LA 21
• LA 59
• LA 36
• LA 435
• LA 41
• LA 434
• US 11
• 4 Alternatives

30
Data Requirements

• Horizontal curvature
• Vertical curvature
• Cross sectional elements
• Number of lanes and lane width
• Shoulder width and type
• Cross slope
• Roadside foreslope
• Median width and type

• ADT
• Design Speed
• Driveway Density
• Roadside Hazard Ratings
• Intersections
• Traffic control
• Skew angle
• Turn lanes

31
DATA RESOURCES

• Highway Needs Database
• Surface Type Log File
• Data Collection/Management Systems
• Network Plans Room
• LandXML files
• Google Earth
• Planning models (Transcad, REMI)

32
IHSDM Software

• Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
• Developed in coordination with TRB, AASHTO and
  FHWA
• Decision-support tool evaluates safety and
  operational effects of geometric design decisions
  on highways
• Incorporated HSM Predictive Method in 2010

33
Predicted Number of Crashes

  Route Control Section No Build Alt B/O Alt J Alt P Alt Q
1a US 190 013-11 478.44 463.41 468.03 464.58 472.14
  US 190-X 013-10 27.54 26.17 26.33 26.25 26.84
  LA 21 030-01 88.49 97.14 67.84 46.16 70.52
      594.47 586.72 562.2 536.99 569.5
1b LA 59 281-03 84.7 70.77 80.64 76.07 80.66
  LA 36 280-01 16.37 15.76 15.44 15.2 15.28
  LA 59 852-09 17 11.84 14.32 12.76 11.68
  LA 21 030-01 75.72 58.52 37.26 22.7 38.77
      193.79 156.89 147.66 126.73 146.39
1c LA 59 281-03 84.7 70.77 80.64 76.07 80.66
  LA 435 281-04 29.31 26.29 28.86 41.24 30.57
  LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18
      142.99 121.68 112.72 120.29 114.41
2 US 11 018-04 28.69 27.89 25.72 27.42 27.63
  LA 41 058-01 91.38 81.12 36.64 61.64 50.74
  LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18
      149.05 133.63 65.58 92.04 81.55
3 LA 434 852-12 7.09 4.45 5.6 5.24 5.43
  LA 36 280-03 10.11 9.9 12.02 10.93 24.43
  LA 41 058-01 53.67 45.87 11.75 30.44 14.58
  LA 41 058-02 28.98 24.62 3.22 2.98 3.18
      99.85 84.84 32.59 49.59 47.62
4 Proposed Alternative   0 43.58 43.5 30.37 32.5
  TOTAL NETWORK CRASHES   1180.15 1127.34 964.25 956.01 991.97
34
Distribution of Crashes
Severity LA (all) LA (rural 2-lane) HSM (rural 2-lane)
Fatal 0.44 2.08 1.30
Severe 0.83 1.08 5.40
Moderate 6.15 10.59 10.90
Possible Injury 21.70 30.92 14.50
PDO 70.89 55.33 67.90
100.00 100 100.00
35
Cost of crashes
Severity Cost per Person Cost per Person (w/ Loss of Quality of Life)
Fatal 1,241,054 4,275,313
Severe 917,127 1,990,456
Moderate 160,602 299,823
Possible Injury 7,953 10,782
PDO 3,216 3,216
36
Overall Comparison

Rank Alternative Total Network Crashes Reduction in Crashes Total Cost of Crashes Reduction in Cost
1 P 956.01 224.14 25,693,587.03 6,023,954.35
2 J 964.25 215.9 25,915,044.08 5,802,497.30
3 Q 991.97 188.18 26,660,042.81 5,057,498.57
4 B/O 1127.34 52.81 30,298,227.43 1,419,313.95
5 No Build 1180.15 0 31,717,541.38 0.00
Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (do not include pain and suffering)

Rank Alternative Total Network Crashes Reduction in Crashes Total Cost of Crashes Reduction in Cost
1 P 956.01 224.14 55,592,679.06 13,033,904.54
2 J 964.25 215.9 56,071,841.07 12,554,742.53
3 Q 991.97 188.18 57,683,779.29 10,942,804.31
4 B/O 1127.34 52.81 65,555,643.57 3,070,940.03
5 No Build 1180.15 0 68,626,583.60 0.00
Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering) Louisiana crash distribution and cost estimates (includes pain and suffering)
37
QUESTIONS?

• April Renard, P.E.
• LADOTD Highway Safety
• april.renard_at_la.gov
• Questions?