Date post: | 10-Dec-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | truongnguyet |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Meeting the Highway Safety Challenge through Innovation
Nebraska Highway Safety ConferenceMarch 21, 2017
Joe Werning
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration -- Nebraska Division
Federal Highway Administration
• Who We Are:
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation
• Our Mission:
• To support State and local governments in the design, construction and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system
• Our Vision:
• To ensure that America’s roads and highways continue to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world
Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP)
• Purpose of HSIP is to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries
• HSIP is implemented by NDOR in partnership with FHWA
• Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a requirement of the HSIP
• While the HSIP focuses on safety, all roadway construction projects are safety projects
Nebraska 2017-2021 SHSP
• FHWA’s program focus is primarily on the infrastructure critical emphasis areas (CEAs) of the SHSP
• Infrastructure CEAs
• Reducing Roadway Departure Crashes
• Reducing Intersection Crashes
• Using innovation to address the infrastructure CEAs
• During an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) briefing on March 1st, U.S. DOT Secretary Chao mentioned the importance of continuing the development of new technologies with potential safety benefits
Every Day Counts (EDC)
• In 2009, the FHWA launched the EDC initiative in cooperation with AASHTO
• The objective of EDC is to rapidly deploy proven but underutilized innovations to enhance roadway safety as well as other priorities
• Many of the innovations were developed through the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2)
• NDOR and FHWA, Nebraska have partnered in several EDC/SHRP 2 safety innovation initiatives
Adaptive Signal Control Technology
Sensors monitor traffic
Software compares
to baseline timing plan
Timing change if necessary
Process repeats
National Traffic Incident Management Responder Training Trained –SIP 17 Goal of 20% -As of
MA: 22.7%(12,079)
12.0%(20,777)
RI: 36.2%(4,080)
CT: 29.7%(3,120)
NJ: 28.3%(29,798)
MD: 19.4% (23,218)
DC: 32.2%(6,534)
27.9%(10,502)
34.5%
(11,394)
32.3%(3,770)
4.3%(10,627)
13.2%(54,500)36.3%
(37,126)15.8%(30,546)
19.0%(54,699)
36.0%(13,245)
20.8%(19,894)
3.3%(9,932)
42.3%(17,100)
16.4%(32,555)
25.9%(27,081)
24.8%(78,309)
27.6%(31,000)
40.0%(4,930)
28.3%(3,993)
24.5%(71,223)
4.4%(11,781)
15.0%(26,350)
40.8%(9,019)
21.3%(22,500)
17.8%(7,831)
25.2%(14,331)
14.6%(55,670)
15.7%(28,532)
34.4%(8,683)
30.1%
8.0%(54,443)
11.3%(7,510)
31.5%(18,177)
VT: 46.6%(2,796)
NH: 24.9%(7,175)
9.2%(4,797)
20.1%(3,270) 54.4%
(5,924)
10 - 19.9% Trained
5 - 9.9% Trained
0.1 - 4.9% Trained
20.3% Percent Trained
(1,178,022) Total Responders To Be Trained
29.2%(8,300)
(32,948)
2.1%(45,209)
6.9%(30,208)
8.2%(21,542)
DE: 7.7%(4,715)
20 - 29.9% Trained
30 - 39.9% Trained
40+% Trained
Data–Driven Safety Analysis
10
General Information
Project description:
Analyst: Date: Area type:
First year of analysis: 2013
Last year of analysis: 2015
Crash Data Description
Freeway segments Segment crash data available? Yes First year of crash data: 2005
Project-level crash data available? No Last year of crash data: 2007
Ramp segments Segment crash data available? Yes First year of crash data: 2005
Project-level crash data available? No Last year of crash data: 2007
Ramp terminals Segment crash data available? Yes First year of crash data: 2005
Project-level crash data available? No Last year of crash data: 2007
Estimated Crash Statistics
Crashes for Entire Facility Total K A B C PDO
Number of expected crashes during Study Period, crashes: 129.3 0.4 1.9 12.3 43.0 71.7
Expected average crash freq. during Study Period, crashes/yr: 43.1 0.1 0.6 4.1 14.3 23.9
Crashes by Facility Component Nbr. Sites Total K A B C PDO
Freeway segments, crashes: 4 33.4 0.2 0.6 3.6 7.0 21.9
Ramp segments, crashes: 6 4.8 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.1 2.9
Crossroad ramp terminals, crashes: 6 91.1 0.1 1.2 8.0 34.9 46.9
Crashes for Entire Facility by Year Year Total K A B C PDO
Number of expected crashes during 2005
the Study Period, crashes: 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 43.1 0.1 0.6 4.1 14.3 23.9
2014 43.1 0.1 0.6 4.1 14.3 23.9
2015 43.1 0.1 0.6 4.1 14.3 23.9
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Distribution of Crashes for Entire Facility
Total K A B C PDO
Multiple vehicle Head-on crashes: 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4
Right-angle crashes: 24.6 0.0 0.3 2.4 10.2 11.7
Rear-end crashes: 65.7 0.1 0.9 6.2 23.3 35.1
Sideswipe crashes: 13.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.0 10.8
Other multiple-vehicle crashes: 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.3
Total multiple-vehicle crashes: 106.8 0.2 1.4 9.5 36.4 59.3
Single vehicle Crashes with animal: 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Crashes with fixed object: 16.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 4.6 9.5
Crashes with other object: 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1
Crashes with parked vehicle: 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
Other single-vehicle crashes 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.6 1.4
Total single-vehicle crashes: 22.5 0.2 0.5 2.9 6.6 12.4
Total crashes: 129.3 0.4 1.9 12.3 43.0 71.7
Crash Type Crash Type Category
Output Summary
Sample Data
JAB 8/19/2011 Urban
Number of Expected Crashes During the Study Period
Fewer Fatalities &
Serious Injuries
Better Targeted
Investments
More Informed Decision Making
What’s Ahead?
• Continue Data-Driven Safety Analysis
• Using Data to Improve Traffic Incident Management
FHWA Safety Resources
• One-stop gateway to a wide variety of safety information on the FHWA web page at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/:
• Highway Safety Improvement Program
• Intersection Safety
• Roadway Departure Safety
• Roadway Safety Data and Analysis
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Local and Rural Road Safety