Michigan Department of Transportation€¦ · 2011 STH 46 1,824 1,868 -2.4% -11.1% 2012 HRRR 14 168...

Michigan Department of Transportation: LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS SAFETY EVALUATION

FY 2011 and FY 2012March 2017

Michigan Department of TransportationState Transportation Building425 W. Ottawa St.P.O. Box 30050Lansing, MI 48909http://www.michigan.gov/mdot

ContentsExecutive Summary .........................1

1. Introduction .......................................3

2. Purpose ...............................................4

3. Methodology .....................................53.1. Post-Installation Study Methodology .................... 53.2. Economic Analysis Methodology ........................... 83.3. Data Collection ....................................................... 9

4. Post-Installation Safety Evaluation 114.1. Traditional Post-Installation Evaluation .............. 134.2. EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation ............. 15

5. Economic Analysis ...........................205.1. Economic Analysis of 2011 and 2012 HSIPs ......... 205.2. Top Performing Projects ....................................... 20

6. Summary ..........................................24

Appendices ................................... 25Appendix A: Project Post-Installation Traditional

Evaluation Results ................................................ 26Appendix B: Project Post-Installation EB-Method

Evaluation Results ............................................... 31Appendix C: EB Method Results ..................................... 36Appendix D: References ................................................. 41

AcronymsAASHTO American Association of Highway

Transportation Officials

BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio

CMF Crash Modification Factor

EB Empirical-Bayes

FI Fatal and Injusry

FY Fiscal Year

HRRR High Risk Rural Road

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

NSC National Safety Council

PDO Property Damage Only

SPF Safety Performance Function

STH Safety Hazard Elimination

TOR Time of Return

LAP HSIP/HRRR Safety Evaluation

FY 2011 & 2012


FY 2011 & 2012

1 | Version 1.0 | March 2017

Executive SummaryIn 2015, more than 3,400 people were killed or seriously injured in traffic crashes occurring on Michigan’s locally controlled roadways, which represents nearly 60 percent of the statewide total (1). Further, locally controlled roadways represent nearly 92 percent of the total roadway miles in Michigan, while only supporting 47 percent of the annual vehicle miles traveled (2). Because of the sheer size and distribution of this network, strategically applying funding is critical in realizing MDOT’s Toward Zero Death vision. Consistent with their data-driven approach towards safety, MDOT commissioned this study of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which incorporates both the Safety Hazard Elimination (STH) and High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) programs, for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

The primary objective of this assessment was to conduct a post-improvement evaluation study of the safety improvements implemented as a part of these programs, using both traditional and state-of-the-art Empirical Bayes (EB) methodology outlined in the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials' Highway Safety Manual (3). The EB-method provides several analytical advantages over the traditional approach, including the consideration of changing traffic volumes, potential regression to the mean bias, as well as other unobserved factors which may impact safety performance. Table 1 summarizes the number of projects evaluated from each program, the total number of traffic crashes occurring in the three years before and after installation, as well as overall program effectiveness as defined by traditional and EB-method techniques.

Table 1: Summary of Post-Installation Evaluation of 2011 and 2012 HSIP Programs

ProgramTotal Projects

EvaluatedPre-Installation

CrashesPost-Installation

CrashesTraditional

Crash Reduction

EB-Method Safety

Effectiveness2011 HRRR 13 159 112 29.6% -35.5%

2011 STH 46 1,824 1,868 -2.4% -11.1%

2012 HRRR 14 168 90 46.4% 2.0%

2012 STH 58 4,667 4,401 5.7% -35.2%

TOTAL 131 6,818 6,471 5.1% -26.7%

The highway locations treated as a part of the 2011 and 2012 HSIP programs experienced a reduction of 347 crashes during the three year analysis period. Further, a reduction from 26 to 11 fatalities was also observed at the study locations. While the results of the traditional post-installation evaluation indicate potentially improved safety performance, further study via the EB-method suggests more modest improvements (or in some cases a decline in safety performance) as exhibited by the safety effectiveness shown in Table 1. Further consideration of project-level results should be given to provide additional context as to the safety performance of each program (provided in the appendices).

In order to provide supplementary detail on the most cost-effective projects, an economic analysis was also conducted based upon the results of the EB-method post-installation evaluation. This included an assessment of the benefit-cost ratio for each project and the overall programs, along with an approximate time of return based upon the available data. Table 2 summarizes the economic analysis.


FY 2011 & 2012


Table 2: Economic Analysis – Benefit-Cost Ratio and Time of ReturnProgram Implementation Cost Annual Cost Annual Benefit B/C TOR

2011 HRRR $2,827,887 $266,900 $(184,733.72) -0.69 -15.31

2011 STH $12,378,222 $1,142,049 $(1,772,981.23) -1.55 -6.98

2012 HRRR $3,404,255 $302,447 $19,798.22 0.07 171.95

2012 STH $14,779,005 $1,676,769 $(7,713,243.56) -4.60 -1.92

TOTAL $33,389,369 $3,388,165 $(9,651,160.28) -2.85 -3.46

While the economic analysis results in Table 2 suggest an overall negative benefit associated with these programs, it is important to note that a total of 27 projects observed a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0. These findings were consistent with safety analysis results, where benefits are realized primarily through the 2012 HRRR program, which saw an overall reduction in crashes of all severities. Ultimately, the results of this study provide MDOT with more data-driven guidance as to the selection criteria for future HSIPs . Future work in this area should include additional post-installation evaluations of these programs as well as research to improve data-driven approaches to traffic safety.


FY 2011 & 2012


1. IntroductionMichigan’s local highway network represents 47 percent of its statewide roadways traveled annually. With 60 percent of statewide deaths or serious injuries resulting from traffic crashes on Michigan’s locally controlled roadways, reducing such serious injuries and fatalities on the local system is key towards the Michigan Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Toward Zero Death vision (2). In order to address this critical safety issue, MDOT administers the Local Safety Program, which distributes funding for highway safety improvements on the local roadway system as a part of the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP is a core federal-aid program established by federal legislation in 2005 and continued under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act in 2015 (4). The goal of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction of traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways and requires a data-driven, strategic approach that focuses on performance (4).

In order to implement this data-driven approach, MDOT commissioned this study of the HSIP for fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012, which incorporates both the Safety Hazard Elimination (STH) and (HRRR) programs. The primary objective of this assessment is to conduct a post-improvement evaluation study of the safety improvements implemented as a part of these programs, using both traditional and state-of-the-art Empirical Bayes (EB) methodology outlined in the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (3). This included the evaluation of each completed project, along with additional analyses to determine which countermeasures were most effective through quantified results.

Ultimately, the 2011 and 2012 local safety program included 131 distinct projects, with 104 receiving funding as a part of the STH program and 27 projects funded through the HRRR program. It should be noted that each project may incorporate multiple intersections and highway segments along a single corridor. Additionally, projects often involved implementation of more than one safety treatment or countermeasure. Projects evaluated as a part of this study are shown in Figure 1.

In order to provide further detail on the most cost-effective projects, an economic analysis was also conducted based upon the results of the post-installation evaluation. This included an assessment of the benefit-cost ratio for each project and the overall programs as well as an approximate time of return based upon the available data. The results of this study should assist MDOT in future safety planning efforts related to the local agency program.

Figure 1. Map of 2011 and 2012 HSIP Projects

Superior

North

Grand Bay

Southwest University

Metro

2011 HRRR

2011 STH

2012 HRRR

2012 STH


FY 2011 & 2012


2. PurposeIn order to assess the effectiveness of the FY 2011 and 2012 local agency programs, along with the specific safety treatments and countermeasures implemented as a part of these programs, it was necessary to perform a comprehensive post-installation study. The study was completed by examining the pre-installation existing conditions at each project location, along with the specific details regarding the safety treatments and countermeasures implemented in association with the relevant historical traffic crash and volume data. The impacts of each project, program, and specific countermeasures were assessed using two main analytical techniques:

• A traditional evaluation, which was performed by considering the before (pre-installation) and after (post-installation) crash counts. This process is similar to what MDOT uses for the Time of Return (TOR) form. For reference, the TOR form is included with potential project submissions in consideration for HSIP funding.

• A state-of-the-art evaluation using the Empirical-Bayes (EB)-method, which is outlined in the HSM. The main advantage of the EB-method is that unlike traditional safety evaluations, the EB-method considers changes in site conditions (such as traffic volumes) as well as potential regression-to-the-mean bias often present in such safety analyses (3).

In order to assess the effectiveness of specific safety treatments installed during the FY 2011 and 2012 programs, projects were also grouped by the category of safety treatment installed, including:

• Center Turn Lane Install• Centerline Rumble Strips• Clearzone• Curb and Gutter• Guardrail• Horizontal Alignment• Lane Widening• Midblock Crossing• Passing Flare• Pavement Crown Correction• Pavement Markings

Based upon both the traditional and EB-methods, an economic analysis was also performed to provide MDOT with additional detail on the impact of the programs. This analysis included evaluation at both the project and program levels, and was quantified by two key metrics

• Benefit-Cost Ratio – The road user benefit as defined by the reduction in traffic crashes determined by the EB-method analysis divided by the cost to implement the projects.

• Time-of-Return – The number of years until the road user benefit (as defined by the reduction in traffic crashes determined by the EB-method analysis) outweighed the installation as well as operations and maintenance costs.

• Pedestrian Related• Right Turn Lane Install• Shoulder Paving• Shoulder Widening• Sidewalk• Sight Distance Improvements• Sign Upgrades• Snowmobile Crossing• Traffic Signal Upgrade• Vertical Alignment


FY 2011 & 2012


3. MethodologyIn order to perform the comprehensive post-installation study, it was first necessary to identify the appropriate analytical methodology. This section describes the post-installation study methodology used to determine the safety benefits of the implemented projects as well as the methodology used within the economic analysis. Additionally, details are provided related to the data collection and aggregation completed to achieve the study objectives.

3.1. Post-Installation Study MethodologyInitially, it was determined in consultation with MDOT that three years of pre-installation (before period) and post-installation (after period) data would be used in the evaluation. This is consistent with the methodology recommended in the HSM, which specifies three to five years of data in each period when performing an EB-based assessment (3). It should be noted that the pre-installation and post-installation study periods vary based on the respective project installation years as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Pre-Installation and Post-Installation Study PeriodsPre-Installation Study Period Project Installation Year Post-Installation Study Period

2008-2010 2011 2012-2014

2009-2011 2012 2013-2015

3.1.1. Traditional Before and After AnalysisBefore applying the state-of-the-art EB-method, a comparison of the pre- and post-installation periods was performed using traditional analytical techniques. This involved calculating a percent reduction (or increase) in crashes after the implementation of safety treatments, according to Equation 1. The traditional analysis was performed for each project, program, and treatment group. Percent reductions are provided separately for fatal and injury crashes (or crashes resulting in a fatality or A-, B-, or C-level injury, referred to as FI) and property damage only (PDO) crashes.

Percent Reduction (%) = (Before Period Crash Total - After Period Crash Total) (1) (Before Period Crash Total)

3.1.2. EB–Method Before and After AnalysisWhile the traditional approach provides an important contextual understanding of each project’s overall impact, there are several limitations that reduce the usefulness of the results. Specifically, traffic volumes (along with other potentially unobserved factors) may change from pre- to post-installation periods, leading to a direct impact on the relative exposure effecting the likelihood for traffic crashes to occur. In addition, the predictive method outlined in the HSM provides several other notable advantages when compared to traditional analysis methods, including:

• Regression-to-the-mean bias is considered as a long-term expected average crash frequency and is utilized compared to short-term observed crash frequency;

• Reliance on the availability of limited crash data for one site is reduced as predicted relationships are incorporated based upon data from many similar sites;


FY 2011 & 2012


• The method considers the fundamentally non-linear relationship between crash frequency and traffic volume; and

• The predictive models used are based upon the negative binomial distribution, which is better suited to address the variability of crash data than traditional modelling techniques (3).

The EB-method combines a site’s observed crash frequency with a predicted crash frequency developed using a statistical model, referred to as a safety performance function (SPF), in order to estimate an expected average crash frequency (3). SPFs are regression equations developed to estimate a predicted average crash frequency for a specific site type based upon given conditions (3). More information related to the development and application of SPFs can be found in the HSM (3). The HSM also describes the process for estimating locally derived SPFs which may better fit crash data within a specific jurisdiction (3). This is particularly relevant, as MDOT has recently funded research to estimate SPFs for urban intersections and segments in Michigan (5, 6). For the purposes of this evaluation, the research team utilized these Michigan-specific SPFs in the EB-method for projects which occurred within a census-defined urban boundary. Also note, that the default SPFs from the HSM for rural facilities were used for projects located outside of a census-defined urban boundary. Local calibration factors were applied to the default HSM models for rural facilities based upon the Michigan Calibration Values for the Highway Safety Manual (7).

Crash modification factors (CMF) were used to further tailor SPF equations to a specific roadway based on geometric and other defining characteristics. CMFs are available for both segments and intersections, and are generally categorized based on area type, crash type, and crash severity. For purposes of this analysis, only CMFs from the HSM were considered. CMFs in the HSM are only included if they are considered high quality with no bias, a large sample size, small standard error, a diverse set of geography, and have a good experiment design (8).

In the context of an EB-method before and after evaluation study, the HSM recommends to compare a site’s observed after treatment crash frequency with the expected crash frequency without treatment to determine the safety effectiveness of implemented treatments and countermeasures (3). Figure 2 shows the before and after evaluation.


FY 2011 & 2012


Figure 1. Figure 2. Reduction in Crashes via EB-Method Before and After Evaluation (9)

The reduction in crashes due to the applied treatment can be represented as safety effectiveness or as a treatment crash modification factor, shown in Equations 2 and 3 respectively.

Safety Effectiveness (%) = 100% ×(1−

( Observed After Period Crashes ) ) (2) (Expected After Period Crashes without Treatment)

Treatment CMF = ( Observed After Period Crashes ) (3)

Expected After Period Crashes without Treatment

Ultimately, safety effectiveness was calculated for FI, PDO, and total crashes. It should be noted that where SPFs specific to estimating predicted FI and PDO crashes were unavailable, a distribution was applied to estimate the number in each severity group out of the total number of expected crashes. Distributions were calculated using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts during the overall study period (2008 to 2015) (1).

Finally, a test for significance was conducted based upon the techniques outlined in Chapter 9 of the HSM (3). This includes the calculation of variance with respect to each project, treatment, and program. This variance, combined with the safety effectiveness of each project, treatment, and program, is compared with a reference value in order to determine statistical significance. It also provides a means for calculating an unbiased safety effectiveness for each group. For the purposes of this evaluation, reference values were selected in order to test for significance at a 95 percent level of confidence.

P

O

E

Pre-Installation Period Post-Installation Period

P

O

EObserved Crashes Before Treatment

Expected Crashes Before Treatment

Predicted Crashes Before Treatment

Expected Crashes After Treatment

Observed Crashes After Treatment

Predicted Crashes After Treatment

Time

Traf

fic C

rash

es

EB-Method Change in Safety

Performance


FY 2011 & 2012


3.2. Economic Analysis MethodologyIn addition to the before and after evaluation, an economic analysis of each project and the overall program was performed. This was completed by examining the results of the EB-method as described in section 3.1.2. The equivalent uniform annual cost and equivalent uniform annual benefit were determined for each project and used to calculate a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and TOR, as shown in equations 4 and 5:

BCR = ( Annual Road User Benefit ) (4)

Annual Road User Cost

TOR = ( Project Implementation Cost ) (5) Annual Road User Benefit

3.2.1. Road User BenefitsRoad user benefits were determined by considering the EB-method evaluation results. Given the reduction (or increase) in observed crash frequency compared to the expected crash frequency, a net benefit in dollars was assigned based upon the National Safety Council (NSC) document entitled Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries (10). The economic costs detailed by the NSC were used in conjunction with a query from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts during the study period (2008-2015) in order to determine costs for FI and PDO crashes separately. These data are summarized in Table 4 and the calculations for individual crash costs are shown in Equations 6 and 7.

Table 4: Summary of FI and PDO Crashes

Severity Level NSC Crash Cost FrequencyDistribution of

All Severity LevelsDistribution ofFI Crashes Only

Fatal $1,512,000 6,873 0.3% 1.6%

A-Injury $88,500 36,882 1.6% 8.6%

B-Injury $25,600 105,539 4.5% 24.6%

C-Injury $11,300 279,754 12.0% 65.2%

PDO $11,300 1,902,785 81.6% 100.0%

TOTAL - 2,331,833 100.0% -

FI Crash Cost=(0.016×$15.212,000)+(0.086×$88,500)+(0.246×$25,600)+(0.652×$11,300)= $45,468.20 (6)

PDO Crash Cost=(1.000 × $11,300)=$11,300 (7)

An annual road user benefit for each site was calculated based upon the reduction in annual FI crashes and PDO crashes after treatments had been implemented based upon the results of the EB-method analysis. This is shown in equations 8 through 10.

EUABFI = Annual Average Reduction in FI Crashes at Site × $45,468.20 (8)

EUABPDO = Annual Average Reduction in PDO Crashes at Site × $11,300.00 (9)

EUABTOTAL = EUABFI + EUABPDO (10)


FY 2011 & 2012


3.2.2. Road User CostsRoad user costs were determined by the summation of initial implementation costs as provided by MDOT for each project. Annual operation and maintenance costs are excluded from this analysis as they are the responsibility of the Local Agency. Additionally, a typical life cycle of each treatment was also estimated in coordination with MDOT based upon recent experience with such treatments. Using this information, an equivalent uniform annual cost was estimated for each project.

3.3. Data CollectionIn order to perform the post-installation evaluation, it was necessary to collect and aggregate data from several sources towards developing a comprehensive database for analysis. This included collecting data related to each implemented project, existing conditions at the project locations, as well as historical traffic crash and volume data associated with each project location.

3.3.1. Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012 Project InformationDetails of the completed projects were provided by MDOT to the research team, including the following key information related to each project:

• The installation year (2011 or 2012);• The program the project was funded through (either the STH or HRRR programs);• The location and extents of the project; and• The specific safety treatments and countermeasures implemented.

Given this information, the research team began investigating each project in further detail. First, each project was disaggregated into the homogenous highway segments and intersections that were incorporated within the project bounds. While some projects were specific to a single intersection or highway segment, some projects incorporated locally controlled highway corridors that were made up of several intersections and/or highway segments. In order to appropriately analyze the safety impacts of the treatments installed as a part of these complex projects, it was necessary to identify the single homogenous highway elements (intersections or segments) that make up a single project. Figure 3 provides an example of a complex project completed in 2012 along 7 Mile Road in Detroit, which included safety upgrades to ten intersections along a nearly 6-mile long corridor.

Segment Treatments

Intersection Treatments

Figure 3. Example of a Single Complex HSIP Project Incorporating Multiple Intersections and Segments


FY 2011 & 2012


Several additional elements related to each unique highway element were also collected via historical satellite and street view imagery for the purposes of estimating CMFs, including:

• Geometric site conditions (such as lane width, intersection skew, etc.);• Presence of street lighting;• Access point density (driveways per mile);• Presence of centerline or shoulder rumble strips;• Passing lanes, parking lanes or exclusive turn lanes;• Roadside conditions (such as the presence of fixed objects, roadside hazard rating, or shoulder

characteristics); and• Traffic signal phasing and turning movement prohibitions (such as right-turn-on-red

prohibitions).

3.3.2. Historical Traffic Crash and Volume DataOnce the existing condition data was collected for each unique highway segment and intersection, the research team merged historical traffic crash and volume data related to each element. Historical traffic crash data was collected for each segment and intersection from the annual traffic crash databases maintained by the Michigan State Police. Each crash occurring from 2008 to 2015 was mapped in ArcGIS according to the X and Y coordinates associated with the crash ID number. Crashes were then identified as occurring in the pre- or post-installation period by year and joined spatially with project segments and intersections based upon the following criteria:

• Segments – Crashes were joined spatially with a deviation tolerance of 10 feet (used for coordinates that were not directly placed on roadway centerlines). Only mid-block crashes were applied to segments per HSM methodology. Intersections were identified along each corridor using the Michigan Geographic Framework, and crashes occurring within 300 feet of each intersection were excluded from the segment query.

• Intersections – Crashes were joined spatially using a 300 feet radius around the center point of each project intersection.

Historical traffic volume data were collected from the annual Highway Performance Monitoring System shapefiles provided by the Federal Highway Administration. These shapefiles were joined to project segments, and were used to estimate pre-installation and post-installation traffic volumes. Additionally, the Highway Performance Monitoring System shapefiles were also spatially associated with each project intersection, facilitating the development of entering volumes for each approach. An algorithm was developed to determine major and minor entering volumes for each intersection.


FY 2011 & 2012


4. Post-Installation Safety EvaluationFollowing data collection, the research team performed both traditional and EB-method post-installation safety evaluations. As stated previously, each treated highway segment and intersection were analyzed separately and ultimately aggregated by project. Separate evaluations were completed for each project, each program, and implemented treatment. A summary of the individual segments and intersections, as well as pre-installation and post-installation crash details are provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of HSIP Treated Highway Segments and Intersections Evaluated

ProgramTotal Projects

EvaluatedAnalyzed Segments

Analyzed Intersections

Pre-Installation Crashes

Post-Installation Crashes

2011 HRRR 13 13 2 159 112

2011 STH 46 38 36 1,824 1,868

2012 HRRR 14 17 3 168 90

2012 STH 58 73 93 4,667 4,401

TOTAL 131 141 134 6,818 6,471

In total, there were 131 projects evaluated as a part of this post-installation study, comprised of 275 unique highway elements (including 141 segments and 134 intersections). It should be noted that certain projects implemented as a part of the 2011 and 2012 HSIP were not considered due to the lack of available data. As can be observed from Table 5, there was a reduction in total observed traffic crashes during the study period, from 6,818 over the three pre-installation years to 6,471 during the three post-installation years, representing an approximate 5.1 percent reduction. Table 6 shows the amount of fatalities as well as A-, B-, and C-level injuries that were experienced during each study period for each program. Note that a single crash may have multiple injuries (3).

Table 6: Summary of Pre-installation and Post-Installation Fatalities and Injuries

ProgramPre-Installation Period Post Installation Period

Fatalities A-Inj. B-Inj. C-Inj. Fatalities A-Inj. B-Inj. C-Inj.2011 HRRR 5 1 6 10 0 1 5 122011 STH 5 38 80 253 2 24 112 342

2012 HRRR 4 4 11 23 1 2 5 32012 STH 12 70 208 817 8 56 225 747

TOTAL 26 113 305 1,103 11 83 347 1,104

Table 6 demonstrates notable reductions with respect to the number of fatalities and A-level injuries occurring at the analyzed locations, with B- and C-level injuries remaining in general agreement in the pre-installation and post-installation periods. While the reduction in fatalities (58 percent), incapacitating (27 percent) injuries, and traffic crashes (5 percent) occurring at project locations is encouraging, caution should be used since this does not consider the impact changes in traffic volume, site characteristics, or other unobserved factors may have on the frequency of traffic crashes. Specifically, changes in traffic volume are likely to have a significant impact on observed crash frequency and implicitly injury outcomes. Table 7 summarize the average traffic volumes during the pre- and post-installation periods for both segments (provided in AADTs along the study segments) and intersections (provided in daily entering vehicles at each intersection).


FY 2011 & 2012


Table 7: Summary of Study Segment and Intersection Traffic Volumes

Program

Average Segment Traffic Volume Average Intersection Entering Volumes

Pre-installation

AADT

Post-installation

AADTPercent Change

Pre-installation

Daily Entering Vehicles

Post-installation

Daily Entering Vehicles

Percent Change

2011 HRRR 1,101 1,161 5.4% 3,424 3,839 12.1%

2011 STH 5,716 5,931 3.8% 26,405 25,299 -4.2%

2012 HRRR 1,381 1,535 11.2% 5,422 4,432 -18.3%

2012 STH 3,869 3,291 -14.9% 23,012 21,204 -7.9%

TOTAL 3,916 3,668 -6.3% 23,237 21,670 -6.7%

As can be seen from Table 7, average traffic volumes across all programs decreased by greater than 6 percent for both the study segments and study intersections. While it should be noted there is considerable variance among individual projects (i.e. traffic volumes substantially increased or decreased at certain locations), these values are in general agreement with the approximate 5.1 percent reduction in total crashes. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the changes in traffic volume during the pre- and post-installation study periods as well as segment and intersection crash rates, which provide further context as to the performance of each program.

Table 8: Summary of Pre- and Post-Installation HSIP Segment Crash Rates

ProgramAnalyzed Segments

Vehicle Miles of TravelTotal Segment

CrashesSegment Crash Rate*

Before After Before After Before After2011 HRRR 13 29,617,920 31,228,058 156 112 526.71 358.65

2011 STH 38 336,007,582 333,052,817 523 396 155.65 118.90

2012 HRRR 17 24,663,823 27,416,260 126 73 510.87 266.27

2012 STH 73 639,969,792 573,292,395 805 772 125.79 134.66

TOTAL 141 1,030,259,116 964,989,531 1,610 1,353 156.27 140.21*Crash rate shown in segment crashes per 100,000,000 vehicle miles travelled

Table 9: Summary of Pre- and Post-Installation HSIP Intersection Crash Rates

ProgramAnalyzed

IntersectionsTotal Entering Vehicles Total Int. Crashes Int. Crash Rate*

Before After Before After Before After2011 HRRR 2 7,498,013 8,407,410 3 0 0.40 0.00

2011 STH 36 1,040,872,508 997,296,253 1,301 1,472 1.25 1.48

2012 HRRR 3 17,810,723 14,560,033 42 17 2.36 1.17

2012 STH 93 2,343,433,408 2,159,332,791 3,862 3,629 1.65 1.68

TOTAL 134 3,409,614,650 3,179,596,486 5,208 5,118 1.53 1.61*Crash rate shown in segment crashes per 1,000,000 entering vehicles.

As can be seen from Tables 8 and 9, both the overall segment and intersection crash rates increased from the pre-installation to post-installation periods when considering all four programs. However, the HRRR program demonstrated notable reductions, particularly with respect to segment crash rates after the implementation of safety treatments. While these aggregate results provide even further


FY 2011 & 2012


insight into the impact of the 2011 and 2012 safety programs, the results of the EB-method before and after analysis are necessary given that there are still several limitations related to the use of traditional crash rates alone (3).

4.1. Traditional Post-Installation EvaluationThe traditional post-installation evaluation results represent a comparison of the pre- and post-installation observed crash counts according to the methodology outlined in section 3.1.1. This section details the results of the program and treatment evaluations, while an evaluation of each project can be found in Appendix A.

4.1.1. Traditional Program EvaluationTable 10 shows the annual average number of observed crashes experienced in each study period by program as well as a crash reduction value for each.

Table 10: Traditional Post-Installation Analysis of 2011 and 2012 HSIP

ProgramPre-Installation Annual

Average CrashesPost-Installation Annual

Average CrashesCrash Reduction

FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL2011 HRRR 5.0 48.0 53.0 4.0 33.3 37.3 20.0% 30.6% 29.6%

2011 STH 124.3 483.7 608.0 119.7 503.0 622.7 3.8% -4.0% -2.4%

2012 HRRR 11.7 44.3 56.0 2.3 27.7 30.0 80.0% 37.6% 46.4%

2012 STH 348.3 1207.3 1555.7 323.7 1143.3 1467.0 7.1% 5.3% 5.7%

TOTAL 489.3 1783.3 2272.7 449.7 1707.3 2157.0 8.1% 4.3% 5.1%

Overall, the 2012 HRRR program performed best with an approximate 80 percent reduction in FI crashes and a 46 percent reduction in total crashes. The 2011 HRRR program also experienced success, with a nearly 30 percent reduction in overall crashes. The 2011 STH program experienced a net increase in observed annual crashes, while the 2012 STH program demonstrated modest reductions across all severity levels. It is worth noting that all four programs exhibited a reduction in FI crashes using traditional methods.

4.1.2. Traditional Treatment EvaluationA total of 16 safety treatments were considered in the analysis, including eight unique intersection-related safety treatments and eight unique segment-related safety treatments. It is important to note that only locations with one countermeasure implemented (or those which the additional countermeasure was a non-motorized focus treatment) were considered for further analysis. Tables 11 and 12 show each treatment considered, along with the number of sites, for both intersection- and segment-related treatments, respectively.


FY 2011 & 2012


Table 11: Traditional Post-Installation Evaluation of Intersection Treatments

Treatment Sites

Pre-Installation Annual Average Crashes

Post-Installation Annual Average

Crashes Crash ReductionFI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL

Realignment 4 3.0 15.7 18.7 3.3 10.0 13.3 -11.1% 36.2% 28.6%

Traffic Signal Upgrade

44 124.7 428.7 553.3 122.3 452.3 574.7 1.9% -5.5% -3.9%

Sight Distance Improvements

1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100.0% 100.0%

Flashing Beacon Install

10 12.7 32.3 45.0 10.3 19.7 30.0 18.4% 39.2% 33.3%

Traffic Signal Install

1 3.0 11.0 14.0 0.7 4.7 5.3 77.8% 57.6% 61.9%

Right Turn Lane Removal

1 2.0 4.3 6.3 0.7 2.3 3.0 66.7% 46.2% 52.6%

Center Turn Lane Install

1 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.0% 60.0% 50.0%

Dilemma Zone 20 128.0 463.0 591.0 139.0 548.7 687.7 -8.6% -18.5% -16.4%

Table 12: Traditional Post-Installation Evaluation of Segment Treatments

Treatment Sites

Pre-Installation Annual Average Crashes

Post-Installation Annual Average

Crashes Crash ReductionFI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL

Sign Upgrades 9 39.7 179.7 219.3 41.0 158.7 199.7 -3.4% 11.7% 9.0%

Pavement Markings

19 13.7 65.7 79.3 13.0 58.3 71.3 4.9% 11.2% 10.1%

Guardrail 38 6.7 28.3 35.0 4.7 26.3 31.0 30.0% 7.1% 11.4%


1 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 100.0% 0.0% 50.0%

Clearzone 4 1.3 12.7 14.0 2.0 16.0 18.0 -50.0% -26.3% -28.6%

Shoulder Widening

2 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.3 1.7 2.0 66.7% 58.3% 60.0%

Passing Flare 2 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 N/A 100.0% 75.0%

Vertical Alignment

5 0.7 1.7 2.3 0.00 2.0 2.0 100.0% -20.0% 14.3%

A traditional analysis of the implemented safety treatments reveals several potentially helpful findings related to these programs. First, the flashing bacon installations provided notable safety benefits among intersection treatments, with an 18.4 percent reduction in FI crashes and a 39.2 percent reduction in PDO crashes across ten sites. Meanwhile, the 20 intersections that received the dilemma zone treatments observed increased crash frequencies across all severity levels. The pavement marking, guardrail, and shoulder widening treatments all demonstrated a reduction in


FY 2011 & 2012


segment crashes across all severity levels compared to the pre-installation period. While these results provide insight into the impact of the implemented safety treatments, as discussed previously there are several limitations to the use of these traditional evaluation methods alone.

4.2. EB-Method Post-Installation EvaluationThe EB method, as stated in Section 3, uses a state-of-the-art statistical approach to account for changes in traffic volume, site characteristics, and other unobserved factors when assessing safety effectiveness. Similar to the traditional approach, the research team has evaluated the 2011 and 2012 HSIPs at a project, program, and treatment level. This section details the results of the EB-method evaluation for the programs and treatments considered in this study, while details on the EB-method results by project can be found in Appendix A.

4.2.1. EB-Method Program EvaluationTable 13 shows the expected annual average crashes expected without treatment (based upon the statistical techniques outlined in section 3.1.2) and the observed annual average crashes in the post-installation period for each program. Additionally, Table 13 also shows the unbiased safety effectiveness based on these results, as specified by Chapter 9 of the HSM (3).

Table 13: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Results

Program

Expected Annual Avg. Crashes

Post-Installation without Treatment

Observed Annual Avg. Crashes

Post-Installation with Treatment Safety Effectiveness

FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL2011 HRRR 1.9 25.3 27.2 4.0 33.3 37.3 -96.2% -30.7% -35.5%

2011 STH 90.0 465.6 560.1 119.7 503.0 622.7 -32.2% -7.9% -11.1%

2012 HRRR 2.8 27.4 30.2 2.3 27.7 30.0 20.5% -0.1% 2.0%

2012 STH 223.3 864.7 1084.4 323.7 1143.3 1467.0 -44.5% -32.1% -35.2%

TOTAL 318.0 1,382.9 1,701.9 449.7 1,707.3 2,157.0 -41.4% -23.5% -26.7%

Similar to the traditional evaluation, the results of the EB-method evaluation suggest an improvement in safety performance due to the implementation of the 2012 HRRR program. Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the EB-method results for all programs evaluated. Additional graphs for each program are provided in Appendix C.


FY 2011 & 2012


600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400O


P

O

E

Observed(2,272.7)

Expected(1,716.0)

Predicted(955.8)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es 455.1 Above

Expected

2011/2012 HSIP Program

P

E

Predicted(916.6)

Expected(1,701.9)

Observed(2,157.0)

Figure 4. 2011/2012 HSIP Program EB-Method Results

While the results for the other programs at the aggregate level indicate a potential decline in overall safety performance, it should be noted that several projects within each program demonstrated notable safety benefits. Further, it is critical to assess the statistical significance of each program, shown in Table 14. Using the HSM methodology, groups with a calculated significance test statistic greater than 2.0 are considered statistically significant at a 95 percent level of confidence.

Table 14: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Results – Test for Significance

ProgramSafety Effectiveness Test for Significance* Significant at 95%

FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL2011 HRRR -96.2% -30.7% -35.5% 0.87 1.18 1.32 No No No

2011 STH -32.2% -7.9% -11.1% 2.00 1.30 1.92 Yes No No

2012 HRRR 20.5% -0.1% 2.0% 0.37 0.00 0.09 No No No

2012 STH -44.5% -32.1% -35.2% 3.98 5.94 7.15 Yes Yes Yes*Greater than 2.0 indicates statistically significant result at 95% level of confidence

Despite the collective increase in unbiased safety performance across all crash severities, the small number of sites and traffic crashes in the sample limits the statistical significance of the results for the 2012 HRRR program at the Fatal and Injury level. Similarly, the results of the 2011 HRRR program were also not statistically significant at a 95 percent level of confidence for all measures. The increases in FI crashes at locations treated via 2011 and 2012 STH were statistically significant at the program level; however, results should be further evaluated at the treatment and project level to assess the true impacts of these programs.

4.2.2. EB-Method Treatment EvaluationA similar EB-method post-installation evaluation was conducted on the same 16 treatments identified in section 4.1.2. This includes the evaluation of eight intersection-related treatments as well as eight segment-related treatments.


FY 2011 & 2012


4.2.3. EB-Method Intersection Treatment EvaluationTable 15 shows each intersection-related treatment along with the number of sites, the expected number of crashes without treatment, the observed number of crashes with treatment, as well as the unbiased safety performance.

Table 15: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Intersection Treatment Results

Treatment Sites

Expected Annual Average Crashes


Observed Annual Average CrashesPost-Installation Safety Effectiveness

FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL

Realignment 4 1.6 10.7 12.3 3.3 10.0 13.3 -65.3% 11.0% -4.6%


44 131.5 483.8 623.0 122.3 452.3 574.7 7.2% 6.6% 7.8%


1 0.1 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


10 8.0 30.6 38.4 10.3 19.7 30.0 -22.5% 37.2% 23.1%

Traffic Signal Install

1 7.3 19.7 27.4 0.7 4.7 5.3 91.5% 76.6% 80.8%


1 1.4 3.3 4.8 0.7 2.3 3.0 65.3% 36.8% 42.5%


1 0.6 5.6 6.2 0.3 0.7 1.0 50.6% 88.2% 84.0%

Dilemma Zone 20 81.1 322.8 405.3 139.0 548.7 687.7 -69.9% -69.6% -69.4%

Table 16 provides several notable findings related to the evaluation of intersection treatments. First, the sight distance improvements, traffic signal installations, right-turn lane removal, and center-turn lane installations showed evidence of across-the-board safety improvement. Unlike the traditional results, the flashing bacon installation showed evidence of decreased performance with respect to FI crashes, but increased performance related to PDO crashes. The realignment, traffic signal upgrade, and dilemma zone improvements implemented showed evidence of an overall decline in safety performance. Table 16 shows the statistical significance of each intersection treatment.

Table 16: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Intersection Treatment Results – Test for Significance

Treatment SitesSafety Effectiveness

Test for Significance* Significant at 95%


Realignment 4 -65.3% 11.0% -4.6% 0.49 0.31 0.13 No No No

Traffic Signal Upgrade 44 7.2% 6.6% 7.8% 0.73 1.25 1.71 No No No

Sight Distance Improve-ments

1 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Flashing Beacon Install 10 -22.5% 37.2% 23.1% 0.45 2.17 1.36 No Yes No

Traffic Signal Install 1 91.5% 76.6% 80.8% 8.24 6.82 9.35 Yes Yes Yes


FY 2011 & 2012


Treatment SitesSafety Effectiveness

Test for Significance* Significant at 95%


Right Turn Lane Removal 1 65.3% 36.8% 42.5% 1.16 0.76 1.07 No No No

Center Turn Lane Install 1 50.6% 88.2% 84.0% 0.56 6.07 5.22 No Yes Yes

Dilemma Zone 20 -69.9% -69.6% -69.4% 3.30 6.50 7.41 Yes Yes Yes

*Greater than 2.0 indicates statistically significant result at 95% level of confidence

The inspection of Table 16 shows that the overall decline in safety performance related to dilemma zone treatments were statistically significant at the aggregate level. Conversely, the decline in safety performance related to realignment was not statistically significant. The traffic signal installation performed as a part of these programs provided statistically significant improvements to both FI and total crashes at that location. While consideration of the project-level results may provide further detail related to the impacts of these treatments, overall the intersection-related treatments were less effective as compared to the segment-related treatments considered as a part of this study.

4.2.4. EB-Method Segment Treatment EvaluationTable 17 shows each segment-related treatment along with the number of sites, the expected number of crashes without treatment, the observed number of crashes with treatment, as well as the unbiased safety performance.

Table 17: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Segment Treatment Results

Treatment Sites

Expected Annual Avg. Crashes


Observed Annual Avg. Crashes

Post-InstallationSafety Effectiveness


Sign Upgrades 9 20.5 189.7 210.7 41.0 158.7 199.7 -96.8% 16.5% 5.5%

Pavement Markings

19 17.1 60.4 71.6 13.0 58.3 71.3 26.2% 4.4% 1.3%

Guardrail 38 4.1 33.0 37.0 4.7 26.3 31.0 -11.2% 20.9% 17.4%


1 0.7 3.1 3.7 0.0 2.0 2.0 100.0% 44.3% 55.7%

Clearzone 4 3.3 31.5 34.8 2.0 16.0 18.0 40.1% 49.5% 48.6%

Shoulder Widening

2 0.4 3.6 4.0 0.3 1.7 2.0 42.8% 57.7% 56.4%

Passing Flare 2 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 -326.2% 100.0% 66.9%

Vertical Alignment

5 0.5 8.0 8.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 100.0% 75.2% 76.7%

Pavement markings retained the benefit shown by the traditional analysis with consistent reductions for all crash severities. Similar to intersections, treatments with a smaller sample size (center turn lane install, shoulder widening for example) provided reductions across all crash severities. Particularly


FY 2011 & 2012


interesting were the increases displayed by the passing flare treatment for FI crashes. Table 18 shows the significance testing results for each segment treatment.

Table 18: EB-Method Post-Installation Evaluation Segment Treatment Results – Test for Significance

Treatment SitesSafety Effectiveness Test for Significance* Significant at 95%

FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTALSign Upgrades 9 -99.8% 16.3% 5.2% 2.45 2.12 0.64 Yes Yes No

Pavement Markings

19 23.8% 3.5% 0.4% 1.05 0.28 0.08 No No No

Guardrail 38 -14.4% 20.1% 16.2% 0.20 1.20 0.96 No No No


1 100.0% 35.4% 46.7% N/A 0.91 1.36 N/A No No

Clearzone 4 39.4% 49.3% 48.3% 0.93 3.80 3.83 No Yes Yes

Shoulder Widening

2 24.9% 53.7% 50.6% 0.36 1.57 1.53 No No No

Passing Flare 2 -1700.4% 100.0% 46.8% 0.15 N/A 0.84 No N/A No

Vertical Alignment

5 100.0% 75.1% 76.5% N/A 4.26 4.61 N/A Yes Yes

The mixed performance related to sign upgrades was statistically significant over the nine sites evaluated. Further, the impacts of the pavement marking and passing flare safety treatments were not statistically significant at a 95 percent level of confidence. In general, these results provide an additional tool for MDOT to evaluate the impact of the specific treatments implemented as a part of these programs, but data across many more sites with diverse characteristics would be needed to draw further conclusions. It is recommended that the agency continue to rely on the CMFS published in the HSM or on the CMF Clearinghouse (8).


FY 2011 & 2012


5. Economic AnalysisIn order to quantify the economic benefit to road users derived via the 2011 and 2012 HSIPs, further analysis was conducted based upon the results of both the EB and traditional methods. The follow sections detail the results of the economic analysis at the program level using the BCR and TOR metrics identified in section 3.2 using the EB-method. Economic analysis findings using traditional results are found in Appendix. Additionally, best-performing projects are identified based upon BCR for each program. Details of the economic analysis at the project-level, including BCR and TOR results, can be found in Appendix C.

5.1. Economic Analysis of 2011 and 2012 HSIPsTable 19 shows the annual average reductions in FI and PDO crashes associated with each program from the results of the EB-method analysis as well as an estimated annual benefit for road users based upon the FI ($45,468) and PDO ($11,300) crash costs. Table 20 shows the total implementation and annual costs associated with each program, along with their relative benefit, BCR and TOR.

Table 19: Economic Analysis – Annual Road User Benefit

Program

Annual Average Reduction Road User Benefits

FI PDO FI Crash Cost PDO Crash Cost Annual Benefit2011 HRRR -2.1 -8.1 $45,468 $11,300 $(184,733.72)

2011 STH -29.7 -37.4 $45,468 $11,300 $(1,772,981.23)

2012 HRRR 0.5 -0.3 $45,468 $11,300 $19,798.22

2012 STH -100.4 -278.7 $45,468 $11,300 $(7,713,243.56)

TOTAL -131.6 -324.4 - - $(9,651,160.28)

Table 20: Economic Analysis – Benefit-Cost Ratio and Time of ReturnProgram Implementation Cost Annual Cost Annual Benefit B/C TOR

2011 HRRR $2,827,887 $266,900 $(184,733.72) -0.69 -15.3

2011 STH $12,378,222 $1,142,049 $(1,772,981.23) -1.55 -6.98

2012 HRRR $3,404,255 $302,447 $19,798.22 0.07 171.95

2012 STH $14,779,005 $1,676,769 $(7,713,243.56) -4.60 -1.92

TOTAL $33,389,369 $3,388,165 $(9,651,160.28) -2.85 -3.46

Consistent with safety analysis results, benefits are realized primarily through the 2012 HRRR program which saw an overall reduction in crashes of all severities. The negative annual benefit shown for the other three programs is a reflection of the decreased safety performance in the post-installation period. It is important to consider the results of specific projects within each program when considering these results (found in Appendix C).

5.2. Top Performing ProjectsThe preceding program-level results capture both high- and low-performing projects on an aggregate basis. Further review of the project-level results provides examples of high-performing projects that are a result of appropriate safety planning and can provide guidance into improving further selection criteria. It is worth noting that despite the program-level economic analysis results, 27 projects


FY 2011 & 2012


demonstrated BCRs of greater than 1.0, providing examples of successful safety projects conducted as a part of these programs. Table 21 shows the top ten performing projects overall for all programs based on their respective BCRs.

Table 21: Top Ten Overall Projects by BCR

Program Lead Agency Project Name Work PerformedImplemen-

tation Cost

Annual Benefit

B/C TOR

2012 STHWashtenaw County Rd. Commission

Carpenter Rd at Packard Rd

Sign Upgrades, Pavement Markings, Raised Concrete Median Install

$71,480 $625,697 72.8 0.1

2012 STH City of LivoniaChurchhill High School at Newbergh Rd

Pedestrian Related $28,750 $112,243 45.0 0.3

2012 STHClinton County Rd. Commission

Chandler at Coleman

Signal Installation $112,140 $175,508 18.0 0.6

2012 STHCity of Grand Rapids

Leonard St at Ball Ave

Signal Upgrade, Pedestrian Related

$99,000 $62,088 7.2 1.6

2012 STHGenesee County Rd. Commission

Calkins Rd at Beecher Rd


$112,740 $43,946 4.5 2.6

2012 STHHillsdale County Rd. Commission

Long Lake Rd and Montgomery Rd

Guardrail $261,005 $58,790 3.7 4.4

2011 STHBenzie County Rd. Commission

Joyfield Rd at Putney Rd


$34,485 $9,280 3.1 3.7

2012 HRRRMonroe County Rd. Commission

Summerfield Rd Sign Upgrades $10,080 $4,874 3.0 2.1


Clark Rd at Wood RdTraffic Signal Install, Pavement Markings

$296,120 $75,522 2.9 3.9


Whiteford Center Rd Clearzone $136,050 $33,994 2.9 4.0

The most cost-effective project as determined by BCR was the intersection upgrades installed at the Carpenter Road and Packard Road intersection in Washtenaw County. The sign upgrades, pavement markings, and raised concrete median treatments demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in FI crashes (75 percent) and PDO crashes (30 percent). The sign upgrades installed as part of the 2012 HRRR program in Monroe County also provided demonstrable benefits, with a BCR of 3.0 and a TOR of 2.1 years. It is also worth noting that the guardrail treatments in Hillsdale County also exhibited a BCR greater than 3.0, with 3.7. Further details related to each project can be found in Appendices A and B.


FY 2011 & 2012


5.2.1. Top Ten HRRR Projects by BCRThe top ten HRRR projects by BCR are shown in Table 22.

Table 22: Top Ten HRRR Projects by BCR

Program Lead Agency Project NameWork Performed

Implemen-tation Cost

Annual Benefit

B/C TOR


Summerfield Rd Sign Upgrades $10,080 $4,874 3.0 2.1


Whiteford Center Rd

Clearzone $136,050 $33,994 2.9 4.0

2011 HRRRLapeer County Rd. Commission

Hadly RdGuardrail, Clearzone

$78,250 $13,514 2.8 5.8

2011 HRRRWashtenaw County Rd. Commission

Arkona Rd Guardrail $34,505 $5,643 2.7 6.1

2012 HRRRBarry County Rd. Commission

Orchard Rd and Norris Rd

Guardrail $202,675 $32,212 2.6 6.3

2011 HRRRVan Buren County Rd. Commission

CR 681 at Butcher Rd

Clearzone, Sight Distance Improvements, Center Turn Lane Install

$216,098 $35,346 1.9 6.1

2012 HRRRBerrien County Rd. Commission

Hills Rd at Shawnee Rd

Intersection Realignment

$180,640 $17,578 0.8 10.3

2011 HRRRWexford County Rd. Commission

31 Rd at 8 Rd

Sight Distance Improvements, Realignment, Horizontal Alignment

$167,080 $11,228 0.8 14.9

2012 HRRRGenessee County Rd. Commission

N Mckinley Rd, Francis Rd

Shoulder Rumble Strips, Shoulder Paving

$372,580 $28,353 0.7 13.1

2012 HRRRMackinac County Rd. Commission

Poglese RdVertical Alignment, Clearzone

$279,195 $11,559 0.5 24.2

Additional notable projects implemented as a part of the HRRR program included the clearzone and guardrail treatments along Hadley Road in Lapeer County, which showed a statistically significant reduction of more than 57 percent in PDO crashes. The clearzone project in Monroe County demonstrated a 57 percent reduction for overall crashes and a 40 percent reduction in PDO crashes, which resulted in a BCR of 2.9 given an implementation cost of $136,050. Further details related to each project can be found in Appendices A and B.


FY 2011 & 2012


5.2.2. Best STH Projects by BCRSimilarly, the top ten STH projects by BCR are shown in Table 23.

Table 23: Top Ten STH Projects by BCR

Program Lead Agency Project NameWork Performed

Implemen-tation Cost

Annual Benefit

B/C TOR

2012 STHWashtenaw County Rd. Commission

Carpenter Rd at Packard Rd

Sign Upgrades, Pavement Markings, Raised Concrete Median Install

$71,480 $625,697 72.8 0.1

2012 STH City of LivoniaChurchhill High School at Newbergh Rd

Pedestrian Related

$28,750 $112,243 45.0 0.3


Chandler at Coleman

Signal Installation

$112,140 $175,508 18.0 0.6

2012 STHCity of Grand Rapids

Leonard St at Ball Ave

Signal Upgrade, Pedestrian Related

$99,000 $62,088 7.2 1.6


Calkins Rd at Beecher Rd


$112,740 $43,946 4.5 2.6

2012 STHHillsdale County Rd. Commission

Long Lake Rd and Montgomery Rd

Guardrail $261,005 $58,790 3.7 4.4

2011 STHBenzie County Rd. Commission

Joyfield Rd at Putney Rd

Sign Distance Improvements

$34,485 $9,280 3.1 3.7


Clark Rd at Wood Rd

Traffic Signal Install, Pavement Markings

$296,120 $75,522 2.9 3.9

2012 STHCity of Woodhaven

West Rd at Hall Rd


$304,870 $62,702 2.4 4.9


Various Intersections


$70,355 $34,670 2.2 2.0

A notable project implemented with funding from the STH program was the intersection improvement project in Washtenaw County, where numerous upgrades were performed. Further details related to each project can be found in Appendices A and B.


FY 2011 & 2012


6. SummaryThis study represents a comprehensive post-installation study of the 2011 and 2012 HSIPs, including safety funding distributed as a part of the STH and HRRR components. Existing site conditions, project costs, and details as well as historical traffic crash and volume data were collected for 131 total projects in order to assess the change in safety performance via traditional and HSM techniques. Table 24 demonstrates the safety effectiveness as determined by both traditional and EB-method evaluations at the aggregate program-level as well as whether or not the result of the EB-method was statistically significant.

Table 24: Traditional Post-Installation Analysis of 2011 and 2012 HSIP Programs

ProgramTraditional

Crash ReductionEB-Method

Safety EffectivenessStatistically Significant at

95%?FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL

2011 HRRR 20.0% 30.6% 29.6% -96.2% -30.7% -35.5% No No No

2011 STH 3.8% -4.0% -2.4% -32.2% -7.9% -11.1% Yes No No

2012 HRRR 80.0% 37.6% 46.4% 20.5% -0.1% 2.0% No No No

2012 STH 7.1% 5.3% 5.7% -44.5% -32.1% -35.2% Yes Yes Yes

While the results of the traditional post-installation evaluation indicate potentially improved safety performance, further study via the EB-method suggests more modest improvements (or in some cases a decline in safety performance). Further consideration of project-level results should be given (and are provided in the appendices) provide further context as to the safety performance of each program.

Additional analyses were completed in order to assess the change in safety performance due to specific treatments, described in sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 related to the traditional and EB-method evaluations, respectively. Further, an economic analysis was also provided in order to determine the BCR and TOR for each project and program. These results are shown in Table 25.

Table 25: Economic Analysis – Benefit-Cost Ratio and Time of ReturnProgram Implementation Cost Annual Cost Annual Benefit B/C TOR2011 HRRR $2,827,887 $266,900 $(184,733.72) -0.69 -15.31

2011 STH $12,378,222 $1,142,049 $(1,772,981.23) -1.55 -6.98

2012 HRRR $3,404,255 $302,447 $19,798.22 0.07 171.95

2012 STH $14,779,005 $1,676,769 $(7,713,243.56) -4.60 -1.92

TOTAL $33,389,369 $3,388,165 $(9,651,160.28) -2.85 -3.46

Consistent with safety analysis results, benefits are realized primarily through the 2012 HRRR program, which saw an overall reduction in crashes of all severities. The negative annual benefit shown for the other three programs is a reflection of the decreased safety performance in the post-installation period. It is important to consider the results of specific projects within each program when considering these results (found in the appendices).

Ultimately, the results of this study provide MDOT with more data-driven guidance as to the selection criteria for future HSIPs. Future work in this area should include additional post-installation evaluations of these programs as well as research to improve data-driven approaches to traffic safety. This includes ongoing research projects by MDOT, such as the current engineering safety programs research aimed to improve practices for both the trunkline and local agency programs as well as the state-specific rural safety performance functions being developed.


FY 2011 & 2012

25 | Version 1.0 | March 2017 25


FY 2011 & 2012


Appendices


FY 2011 & 2012


Appendix A: Project Post-Installation Traditional Evaluation ResultsProject Information Traditional Evaluation Empircal Bayes Evaluation

Pre-Installation Post-Installation Crash ReductionExp. w/o

TreatmentSafety

Effectiveness Sig. at 95%

Location Program County FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO TOTAL FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO

H-13 2012 STH Alger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

102nd Ave 2012 STH Allegan 1.0 6.3 7.3 1.3 7.0 8.3 -33% -11% -14% 0.4 4.0 -213% -66% No No

108th Ave 2012 HRRR Allegan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.1 0.3 100% 100% N/A N/A

57th St 2012 STH Allegan 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 N/A 50% 50% 0.1 0.9 100% 42% N/A No

Riverside Dr 2012 STH Allegan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.3 1.4 100% 100% N/A N/A

Long Rapids Rd 2011 STH Alpena 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

Aura Rd 2011 STH Baraga 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 67% 67% 0.0 0.1 100% -194% N/A No

Pequaming Rd 2011 STH Baraga 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% -219% N/A No

Orchard Rd 2012 HRRR Barry 1.7 5.7 7.3 0.0 4.0 4.0 100% 29% 45% 0.5 5.0 100% 24% N/A No

Joyfield Rd 2011 STH Benzie 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.1 0.6 100% 100% N/A N/A

N Marshall Rd 2011 STH Benzie 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 100% 0% 50% 0.0 0.3 100% 14% N/A No

E Glendora Rd 2011 HRRR Berrien 0.0 3.3 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.3 N/A 30% 0% 0.1 1.4 -782% -52% No No

Hills Road 2012 HRRR Berrien 1.3 5.7 7.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 100% 41% 52% 0.5 3.1 100% 5% N/A No

Airport Rd 2012 STH Clinton 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 N/A 0% -100% 0.0 0.1 -689% -35% No No

Chandler 2012 STH Clinton 3.0 11.0 14.0 0.7 4.7 5.3 78% 58% 62% 3.7 7.9 86% 45% Yes No

Clark Rd 2011 STH Clinton 2.7 2.7 5.3 0.0 2.7 2.7 100% 0% 50% 1.3 4.1 100% 45% N/A No

N Wright Rd 2011 STH Clinton 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.7 1.7 100% -150% -25% 0.1 0.5 100% -166% N/A No

W Gratiot Rd 2011 HRRR Clinton 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 0% 0% 0.0 0.2 100% 20% N/A No

Breitung Cut Off Rd at Lincoln St

2011 STH Dickinson 1.3 7.7 9.0 2.7 3.7 6.3 -100% 52% 30% 0.8 5.6 -99% 42% No No

Hoadley Ave 2012 STH Dickinson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

West Conway Rd 2011 STH Emmet 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 -100% 0% -20% 0.2 2.2 -106% 49% No No

Calkins Rd 2012 STH Genesee 2.0 4.3 6.3 0.7 2.3 3.0 67% 46% 53% 1.4 3.3 65% 37% No No

Davison Rd 2012 STH Genesee 6.7 20.0 26.7 6.0 14.0 20.0 10% 30% 25% 5.5 19.0 2% 29% No No

N McKinley Rd 2012 HRRR Genesee 0.7 1.7 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 100% 80% 86% 0.3 1.8 100% 84% N/A Yes

S. Saginaw Rd 2011 STH Genesee 14.0 38.0 52.0 11.3 41.7 53.0 19% -10% -2% 10.6 32.5 -2% -26% No No

Seymour Road 2012 HRRR Genesee 2.0 5.0 7.0 1.3 1.0 2.3 33% 80% 67% 0.3 2.4 -363% 58% No No

Silver Lake Rd 2011 STH Genesee 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.7 2.7 3.3 33% -33% -11% 0.9 1.9 64% 6% No No


FY 2011 & 2012


Project Information Traditional Evaluation Empircal Bayes Evaluation


TreatmentSafety



Silver Lake Rd (at Argentine Dam)

2011 STH Genesee 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.0 N/A -100% -200% 0.0 0.3 55% 32% No No

W Stanley Rd 2012 STH Genesee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

Potter Rd 2012 STHGrand

Traverse4.0 7.3 11.3 3.0 4.7 7.7 25% 36% 32% 2.1 8.0 -24% 47% No No

S Garfield Rd 2012 STHGrand

Traverse2.0 14.7 16.7 4.0 13.7 17.7 -100% 7% -6% 0.9 10.6 -247% -24% No No

Luce Rd 2011 STH Gratiot 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 0% 60% 50% 0.1 0.9 15% 49% No No

E Montgomery Rd

2012 STH Hillsdale 2.0 14.0 16.0 2.3 13.7 16.0 -17% 2% 0% 2.4 18.4 9% 27% No No

Willoughby Rd 2012 STH Ingham 1.3 8.7 10.0 2.3 4.3 6.7 -75% 50% 33% 1.5 4.6 0% 15% No No

Charlotte Hwy 2012 STH Ionia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.5 100% 100% N/A N/A

Charlotte Hwy 2012 STH Ionia 1.7 5.7 7.3 1.3 5.0 6.3 20% 12% 14% 0.7 5.8 -62% 18% No No

Johnson Rd 2011 STH Ionia 0.3 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0% 100% 75% 0.0 0.4 -449% 100% No N/A

Keefer Hwy 2011 HRRR Ionia 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 N/A 82% 82% 0.0 1.3 100% 55% N/A No

Kelsey Hwy 2011 STH Ionia 0.7 6.0 6.7 0.0 3.0 3.0 100% 50% 55% 0.4 4.4 100% 36% N/A No

Riverside Dr 2011 STH Ionia 4.7 24.0 28.7 2.3 13.7 16.0 50% 43% 44% 0.5 9.0 -352% -50% No No

Various Locations - Countywide

2012 STH Ionia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.2 100% 28% N/A No

Bissonette Rd 2011 HRRR Iosco 0.7 1.7 2.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 100% 40% 57% 0.0 0.3 100% -257% N/A No

Bridge St 2011 STH Iosco 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.7 1.7 N/A -400% -400% 0.1 0.4 100% -81% N/A No

Chain Lake Rd 2011 HRRR Iosco 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.7 2.3 -100% -150% -133% 0.1 0.6 -586% -125% No No

Curtis Rd 2011 STH Iosco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

River Rd 2011 STH Iosco 0.3 2.3 2.7 0.0 1.0 1.0 100% 57% 63% 0.1 1.5 100% 42% N/A No

County Road 424 2012 STH Iron 2.7 16.3 19.0 2.0 11.3 13.3 25% 31% 30% 0.3 4.6 -476% -144% No No

N Whiteville Rd 2012 STH Isabella 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

W Pickard Rd 2011 STH Isabella 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 100% 50% 67% 0.1 0.6 100% 62% N/A No

Springport Rd 2011 STH Jackson 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.7 3.0 3.7 -100% -125% -120% 0.2 1.1 13% -69% No No

Territorial Rd 2012 STH Jackson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A


2012 STH Jackson 8.7 44.7 53.3 7.7 43.7 51.3 12% 2% 4% 6.1 29.5 -23% -47% No No

W Trail St 2012 STH Jackson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A


FY 2011 & 2012




TreatmentSafety



Wooster Rd 2011 STH Jackson 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% N/A 100% 0.0 0.2 100% 100% N/A N/A

Douglas Ave 2012 STH Kalamazoo 1.0 1.3 2.3 0.3 1.3 1.7 67% 0% 29% 0.7 1.1 73% 24% No No

E V W Ave 2011 STH Kalamazoo 1.0 2.7 3.7 0.3 1.0 1.3 67% 63% 64% 0.4 2.6 36% 67% No No

Osterhout Rd 2012 STH Kalamazoo 0.3 2.3 2.7 0.7 1.7 2.3 -100% 29% 13% 0.2 2.0 -27% 38% No No

S. Sprinkle Rd 2011 STH Kalamazoo 0.3 4.7 5.0 2.0 3.3 5.3 -500% 29% -7% 0.3 3.4 -128% 18% No No

13 Mile Rd NE 2012 HRRR Kent 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 0% 0% 0.0 0.2 100% 29% N/A No

17 Mile Rd NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 N/A -100% -100% 0.0 0.2 100% -61% N/A No

84th Ave 2012 STH Kent 12.3 34.7 47.0 13.3 31.7 45.0 -8% 9% 4% 7.4 28.8 -67% -7% No No

Bailey Dr NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.2 100% 32% N/A No

Clyde Park Ave 2011 STH Kent 9.0 30.7 39.7 7.3 30.0 37.3 19% 2% 6% 6.1 22.9 -10% -27% No No

Leonard St 2012 STH Kent 5.7 16.0 21.7 3.3 12.3 15.7 41% 23% 28% 4.1 14.8 28% 21% No No

Lessiter Rd NE 2012 HRRR Kent 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 100% 0% 50% 0.0 0.4 100% -45% N/A No

Lincoln Lake Ave NE

2012 STH Kent 0.7 9.7 10.3 2.0 14.7 16.7 -200% -52% -61% 0.6 7.1 -187% -96% No No

Plymouth Ave SE 2011 STH Kent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.2 100% -17% N/A No

River St NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

Eagle Harbor Rd 2012 STH Keweenaw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

W 4 Mile Rd 2012 STH Lake 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.3 2.3 N/A -250% -250% 0.0 0.4 100% -440% N/A No

Hadley Rd 2011 HRRR Lapeer 0.3 12.3 12.7 0.3 5.3 5.7 0% 57% 55% 0.3 6.7 12% 23% No No

Pratt Rd 2012 STH Lapeer 3.7 32.0 35.7 2.0 23.7 25.7 45% 26% 28% 1.5 20.5 -27% -14% No No

W Grand River Ave

2011 STH Livingston 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 100% 0% 50% 0.7 3.1 100% 44% N/A No

N Gould City Rd 2011 STH Mackinac 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 N/A 75% 75% 0.1 0.7 100% 57% N/A No

Poglese Rd 2012 HRRR Mackinac 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.1 0.7 100% 100% N/A N/A

21 Mile Rd at Van Dyke Ave

2012 STH Macomb 62.3 197.7 260.0 55.3 197.7 253.0 11% 0% 3% 41.7 153.3 -30% -28% No Yes

9 Mile and Marmon

2012 STH Macomb 9.3 15.7 25.0 8.0 19.7 27.7 14% -26% -11% 7.3 12.8 0% -45% No No

9 Mile Rd at Mound Rd

2012 STH Macomb 65.7 265.3 331.0 83.7 351.0 434.7 -27% -32% -31% 34.9 169.5 -135% -106% Yes Yes


2011 STH Macomb 15.3 56.0 71.3 16.0 68.3 84.3 -4% -22% -18% 9.7 45.0 -57% -49% No No


FY 2011 & 2012




TreatmentSafety



9 Mile Rd 2012 STH Manistee 0.7 2.7 3.3 0.7 1.7 2.3 0% 38% 30% 0.1 1.4 -340% -11% No No

Buchanan Rd 2012 HRRR Mecosta 0.7 16.0 16.7 0.3 12.0 12.3 50% 25% 26% 0.1 5.1 -80% -128% No No


2012 STH Missaukee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.2 100% 100% N/A N/A

Grafton Rd 2012 STH Monroe 0.7 2.0 2.7 0.3 1.7 2.0 50% 17% 25% 0.5 2.1 63% 42% No No

Summerfield Rd 2012 HRRR Monroe 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 N/A 33% 33% 0.1 0.8 100% 39% N/A No

Swan Creek Rd 2012 STH Monroe 1.0 1.7 2.7 3.3 5.7 9.0 -233% -240% -238% 1.7 2.5 0% -47% No No

Whiteford Center Rd

2012 HRRR Monroe 0.7 1.7 2.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 100% 40% 57% 0.4 2.4 100% 64% N/A No

E Stanton Rd 2012 STH Montcalm 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 N/A 100% 75% 0.0 0.6 -326% 100% No N/A

N Dagget Rd 2012 STH Montcalm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

Peck Rd 2011 HRRR Montcalm 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 100% 50% 75% 0.0 0.4 100% 41% N/A No

Sidney Rd at College Dr

2011 STH Montcalm 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 N/A 100% 75% 0.2 1.4 33% 100% No N/A

Henry St 2012 STH Muskegon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

12 Mile rd 2011 STH Oakland 6.0 18.0 24.0 6.3 26.0 32.3 -6% -44% -35% 4.1 14.8 -34% -67% No No

14 Mile Rd 2011 STH Oakland 3.7 18.0 21.7 6.7 14.0 20.7 -82% 22% 5% 2.9 13.7 -85% 3% No No

Meadowbrook Rd

2012 STH Oakland 2.7 1.7 4.3 0.7 7.0 7.7 75% -320% -77% 1.7 1.4 71% -274% No No

Opdyke Rd 2011 STH Oakland 6.3 28.3 34.7 6.0 39.3 45.3 5% -39% -31% 8.3 19.0 37% -100% No Yes

Sylvan Rd 2012 HRRR Osceola 0.7 3.0 3.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 100% 44% 55% 0.1 1.0 100% -60% N/A No

Nowak Rd 2012 STH Otsego 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.0 0.5 100% 100% N/A N/A

Old M 76 2012 STH Roscommon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

S Roscommon Rd 2011 STH Roscommon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

Fashion Square Blvd

2011 STH Saginaw 1.0 4.0 5.0 0.7 4.0 4.7 33% 0% 7% 0.9 3.5 55% 4% No No

Ithaca Rd 2011 STH Saginaw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% -172% N/A No

W. Genesee Ave 2011 STH Saginaw 1.7 12.7 14.3 2.7 11.3 14.0 -60% 11% 2% 1.6 10.3 -15% -3% No No

CR 436 2011 STH Schoolcraft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 100% 100% N/A N/A

Deer St 2011 HRRR Schoolcraft 1.3 7.7 9.0 1.3 4.7 6.0 0% 39% 33% 0.3 4.1 -289% -9% No No

Gleason St 2011 STH Tuscola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 100% 100% N/A N/A

Ormes Rd 2012 HRRR Tuscola 3.0 3.0 6.0 0.7 2.7 3.3 78% 11% 44% 0.4 4.3 -32% 42% No No


FY 2011 & 2012




TreatmentSafety



S Kingston Rd 2011 HRRR Tuscola 1.0 11.3 12.3 0.3 13.7 14.0 67% -21% -14% 0.3 5.1 12% -160% No No

CR 681 at Butcher Rd

2011 HRRR Van Buren 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.4 1.5 100% 100% N/A N/A

Arkona Rd 2011 HRRR Washtenaw 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.0 0.4 100% 100% N/A N/A

Carpenter Rd 2012 STH Washtenaw 15.7 62.7 78.3 3.7 37.3 41.0 77% 40% 48% 13.6 52.6 75% 30% Yes Yes

Old US 12 2011 STH Washtenaw 34.3 148.3 182.7 32.0 130.0 162.0 7% 12% 11% 16.6 158.4 -90% 18% Yes Yes

Rawsonville Rd 2012 STH Washtenaw 2.7 8.3 11.0 2.0 8.3 10.3 25% 0% 6% 2.2 7.7 32% 2% No No

W Waters Rd 2011 STH Washtenaw 0.7 1.0 1.7 0.0 2.0 2.0 100% -100% -20% 0.7 1.1 100% 2% N/A No

Central St 2012 STH Wayne 8.3 32.0 40.3 8.7 26.0 34.7 -4% 19% 14% 5.6 27.1 -36% 7% No No

Churchhill High School

2012 STH Wayne 1.0 5.3 6.3 0.3 2.7 3.0 67% 50% 53% 2.5 4.1 92% 43% Yes No

Davison Rd 2012 STH Wayne 26.0 66.3 92.3 18.7 50.0 68.7 28% 25% 26% 12.6 46.2 -41% -7% No No

E 7 Mile Rd 2012 STH Wayne 21.7 66.3 88.0 24.3 49.3 73.7 -12% 26% 16% 19.7 57.5 -20% 15% No No

Farmington Rd 2011 STH Wayne 12.3 34.7 47.0 15.3 53.7 69.0 -24% -55% -47% 7.7 30.3 -84% -72% No No

Haggerty Rd 2011 STH Wayne 9.7 44.3 54.0 10.0 49.7 59.7 -3% -12% -10% 8.9 38.1 -3% -28% No No

Kercheval Ave 2011 STH Wayne 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 N/A -67% -67% 0.2 0.9 100% -60% N/A No

Merriman Rd (at 5 Mile)

2011 STH Wayne 4.0 20.7 24.7 4.0 20.7 24.7 0% 0% 0% 3.0 16.5 -8% -20% No No


2011 STH Wayne 5.0 13.7 18.7 5.3 17.7 23.0 -7% -29% -23% 2.0 13.0 -120% -28% No No

Schoolcraft 2012 STH Wayne 18.0 53.0 71.0 15.3 39.0 54.3 15% 26% 23% 11.5 36.2 -27% -6% No No

W Chicago St 2012 STH Wayne 23.0 59.0 82.0 19.0 41.3 60.3 17% 30% 26% 17.9 47.4 -3% 14% No No

W Vernor Hwy 2012 STH Wayne 4.0 30.7 34.7 6.0 17.7 23.7 -50% 42% 32% 3.4 20.3 -49% 15% No No

West Rd 2012 STH Wayne 6.0 21.0 27.0 3.7 14.7 18.3 39% 30% 32% 4.1 18.6 22% 24% No No

Wick Rd 2012 STH Wayne 5.0 8.7 13.7 1.7 4.7 6.3 67% 46% 54% 1.5 6.9 6% 39% No No

31 Rd 2011 HRRR Wexford 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 100% 100% 0.1 0.7 100% 100% N/A N/A

N 47 Rd 2012 STH Wexford 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 N/A -33% -33% 0.0 0.4 100% -188% N/A No

N Hodenpyle Dam Rd

2011 HRRR Wexford 0.7 4.7 5.3 0.3 3.3 3.7 50% 29% 31% 0.2 2.5 -31% -25% No No

W 13 Rd 2012 HRRR Wexford 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% 100% 0.0 0.2 100% 100% N/A N/A


FY 2011 & 2012


Appendix B: Project Post-Installation EB-Method Evaluation Results Project Information Annual Crash Reduction Economic Evaluation

Traditional EB-Method Annual Benefits ($) Project Costs ($)Traditional

MetricsEB-Method

Metrics

Location Program County FI PDO FI PDO Traditional EB-Method Implementation Annual B/C TOR B/C TOR

H-13 2012 STH Alger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $492 $19,350 $2,814.97 0.0 N/A 0.2 39.4

102nd Ave 2012 STH Allegan -0.3 -0.7 -1.0 -3.0 $(22,689) $(76,938) $575,025 $49,926.59 -0.5 -25.3 -1.5 -7.5

108th Ave 2012 HRRR Allegan 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 $- $5,824 $456,110 $39,601.78 0.0 N/A 0.1 78.3

57th St 2012 STH Allegan 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 $7,533 $5,643 $342,675 $35,461.36 0.2 45.5 0.2 60.7

Riverside Dr 2012 STH Allegan 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 $- $28,797 $304,225 $18,458.56 0.0 N/A 1.6 10.6

Long Rapids Rd 2011 STH Alpena 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $891 $153,085 $9,288.28 0.0 N/A 0.1 171.8

Aura Rd 2011 STH Baraga 0.0 0.7 0.0 -0.2 $7,533 $(2,520) $68,430 $5,941.44 1.3 9.1 -0.4 -27.2

Pequaming Rd 2011 STH Baraga 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 $(3,767) $(2,903) $275,150 $23,889.92 -0.2 -73.0 -0.1 -94.8

Orchard Rd 2012 HRRR Barry 1.7 1.7 0.5 1.0 $94,613 $32,212 $202,675 $12,297.11 7.7 2.1 2.6 6.3

Joyfield Rd 2011 STH Benzie 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.6 $11,300 $9,280 $34,485 $2,994.16 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.7

N Marshall Rd 2011 STH Benzie 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 $15,156 $1,598 $292,180 $17,727.74 0.9 19.3 0.1 182.9

E Glendora Rd 2011 HRRR Berrien -1.0 1.0 -0.9 -0.9 $(34,168) $(52,552) $444,400 $38,585.06 -0.9 -13.0 -1.4 -8.5

Hills Road 2012 HRRR Berrien 1.3 2.3 0.5 -0.3 $86,991 $17,578 $180,640 $21,720.40 4.0 2.1 0.8 10.3

Airport Rd 2012 STH Clinton -0.3 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 $(15,156) $(17,084) $237,390 $20,611.40 -0.7 -15.7 -0.8 -13.9

Chandler 2012 STH Clinton 2.3 6.3 3.1 3.2 $177,659 $175,508 $112,140 $9,736.56 18.2 0.6 18.0 0.6

Clark Rd 2011 STH Clinton 2.7 0.0 1.3 1.5 $121,248 $75,522 $296,120 $25,710.64 4.7 2.4 2.9 3.9

N Wright Rd 2011 STH Clinton 0.7 -1.0 0.1 -1.2 $19,012 $(10,743) $299,905 $26,039.27 0.7 15.8 -0.4 -27.9

W Gratiot Rd 2011 HRRR Clinton 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 $- $(684) $207,185 $24,912.21 0.0 N/A 0.0 -302.7

Breitung Cut Off Rd at Lincoln St

2011 STH Dickinson -1.3 4.0 -1.8 2.0 $(15,424) $(61,971) $428,615 $51,537.25 -0.3 -27.8 -1.2 -6.9

Hoadley Ave 2012 STH Dickinson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,265 $524,050 $54,230.76 0.0 N/A 0.0 414.2

West Conway Rd 2011 STH Emmet -0.3 0.0 -0.5 0.8 $(15,156) $(11,557) $42,370 $2,570.76 -5.9 -2.8 -4.5 -3.7

Calkins Rd 2012 STH Genesee 1.3 2.0 0.7 1.0 $83,224 $43,946 $112,740 $9,788.66 8.5 1.4 4.5 2.6

Davison Rd 2012 STH Genesee 0.7 6.0 -0.5 5.0 $98,112 $34,670 $70,355 $15,582.32 6.3 0.7 2.2 2.0

N McKinley Rd 2012 HRRR Genesee 0.7 1.3 0.3 1.4 $45,379 $28,353 $372,580 $38,556.05 1.2 8.2 0.7 13.1

S. Saginaw Rd 2011 STH Genesee 2.7 -3.7 -0.8 -9.2 $79,815 $(139,190) $149,126 $12,947.90 6.2 1.9 -10.8 -1.1

Seymour Road 2012 HRRR Genesee 0.7 4.0 -1.0 1.4 $75,512 $(32,230) $35,360 $7,831.58 9.6 0.5 -4.1 -1.1

Silver Lake Rd 2011 STH Genesee 0.3 -0.7 0.3 -0.7 $7,623 $3,520 $184,340 $19,076.23 0.4 24.2 0.2 52.4


FY 2011 & 2012


Project Information Annual Crash Reduction Economic Evaluation


MetricsEB-Method

Metrics


Silver Lake Rd (at Argentine Dam)

2011 STH Genesee -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 $(18,923) $(18,561) $29,155 $1,768.95 -10.7 -1.5 -10.5 -1.6

W Stanley Rd 2012 STH Genesee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,509 $82,660 $5,015.32 0.0 N/A 0.3 54.8

Potter Rd 2012 STH Grand Tra-verse

1.0 2.7 -0.9 3.4 $75,601 $(2,345) $73,805 $16,346.43 4.6 1.0 -0.1 -31.5

S Garfield Rd 2012 STH Grand Tra-verse

-2.0 1.0 -3.1 -3.0 $(79,636) $(175,150) $13,750 $2,248.74 -35.4 -0.2 -77.9 -0.1

Luce Rd 2011 STH Gratiot 0.0 1.0 -0.2 0.2 $11,300 $(7,790) $358,040 $43,051.22 0.3 31.7 -0.2 -46.0

E Montgomery Rd 2012 STH Hillsdale -0.3 0.3 0.1 4.8 $(11,389) $58,790 $261,005 $15,836.23 -0.7 -22.9 3.7 4.4

Willoughby Rd 2012 STH Ingham -1.0 4.3 -0.8 0.3 $3,499 $(34,040) $200,200 $17,382.38 0.2 57.2 -2.0 -5.9

Charlotte Hwy 2012 STH Ionia 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 $- $41,406 $150,318 $24,583.60 0.0 N/A 1.7 3.6

Charlotte Hwy 2012 STH Ionia 0.3 0.7 -0.6 0.8 $22,689 $(19,028) $28,961 $1,757.18 12.9 1.3 -10.8 -1.5

Johnson Rd 2011 STH Ionia 0.0 1.0 -0.3 0.4 $11,300 $(8,638) $765,425 $79,209.20 0.1 67.7 -0.1 -88.6

Keefer Hwy 2011 HRRR Ionia 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.7 $33,900 $9,585 $464,089 $40,294.58 0.8 13.7 0.2 48.4

Kelsey Hwy 2011 STH Ionia 0.7 3.0 0.4 1.4 $64,212 $32,775 $450,270 $27,319.70 2.4 7.0 1.2 13.7

Riverside Dr 2011 STH Ionia 2.3 10.3 -1.9 -4.7 $222,859 $(137,273) $219,930 $19,095.44 11.7 1.0 -7.2 -1.6


2012 STH Ionia 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 $(3,767) $651 $115,844 $7,028.72 -0.5 -30.8 0.1 178.0

Bissonette Rd 2011 HRRR Iosco 0.7 0.7 0.0 -0.7 $37,845 $(7,494) $250,380 $30,106.03 1.3 6.6 -0.2 -33.4

Bridge St 2011 STH Iosco 0.0 -1.3 0.1 -1.3 $(15,067) $(9,796) $100,060 $8,687.72 -1.7 -6.6 -1.1 -10.2

Chain Lake Rd 2011 HRRR Iosco -0.3 -1.0 -0.6 -1.0 $(26,456) $(38,307) $192,310 $23,123.62 -1.1 -7.3 -1.7 -5.0

Curtis Rd 2011 STH Iosco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $950 $76,465 $4,639.44 0.0 N/A 0.2 80.5

River Rd 2011 STH Iosco 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.5 $30,223 $11,744 $190,760 $22,937.24 1.3 6.3 0.5 16.2

County Road 424 2012 STH Iron 0.7 5.0 -1.7 -6.8 $86,812 $(152,319) $5,000 $817.72 106.2 0.1 -186.3 0.0

N Whiteville Rd 2012 STH Isabella 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 $3,767 $1,249 $160,120 $9,715.13 0.4 42.5 0.1 128.2

W Pickard Rd 2011 STH Isabella 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 $18,923 $5,228 $157,630 $9,564.05 2.0 8.3 0.5 30.1

Springport Rd 2011 STH Jackson -0.3 -1.7 -0.4 -1.9 $(33,989) $(41,885) $126,185 $15,172.66 -2.2 -3.7 -2.8 -3.0

Territorial Rd 2012 STH Jackson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $169 $135,655 $8,230.74 0.0 N/A 0.0 800.5


2012 STH Jackson 1.0 1.0 -1.6 -14.2 $56,768 $(232,371) $374,365 $387,467.78 0.1 6.6 -0.6 -1.6

W Trail St 2012 STH Jackson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,863 $105,115 $6,377.75 0.0 N/A 0.3 56.4


FY 2011 & 2012




MetricsEB-Method

Metrics


Wooster Rd 2011 STH Jackson 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 $30,312 $2,917 $358,740 $21,766.20 1.4 11.8 0.1 123.0

Douglas Ave 2012 STH Kalamazoo 0.7 0.0 0.3 -0.2 $30,312 $13,197 $112,923 $6,851.46 4.4 3.7 1.9 8.6

E V W Ave 2011 STH Kalamazoo 0.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 $49,145 $19,992 $435,025 $45,018.11 1.1 8.9 0.4 21.8

Osterhout Rd 2012 STH Kalamazoo -0.3 0.7 -0.5 0.3 $(7,623) $(18,123) $46,180 $4,009.58 -1.9 -6.1 -4.5 -2.5

S. Sprinkle Rd 2011 STH Kalamazoo -1.7 1.3 -1.7 0.1 $(60,713) $(75,877) $310,495 $37,334.34 -1.6 -5.1 -2.0 -4.1

13 Mile Rd NE 2012 HRRR Kent 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 $- $45 $293,585 $35,301.06 0.0 N/A 0.0 6569.1

17 Mile Rd NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.5 $(3,767) $(4,570) $216,085 $25,982.36 -0.1 -57.4 -0.2 -47.3

84th Ave 2012 STH Kent -1.0 3.0 -5.9 -2.8 $(11,568) $(302,399) $481,225 $41,782.39 -0.3 -41.6 -7.2 -1.6

Bailey Dr NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 $(3,767) $(32) $370,270 $44,521.77 -0.1 -98.3 0.0 -11600.7

Clyde Park Ave 2011 STH Kent 1.7 0.7 -1.2 -7.1 $83,313 $(133,837) $345,555 $30,002.84 2.8 4.1 -4.5 -2.6

Leonard St 2012 STH Kent 2.3 3.7 0.7 2.5 $147,525 $62,088 $99,000 $8,595.68 17.2 0.7 7.2 1.6

Lessiter Rd NE 2012 HRRR Kent 0.7 0.0 0.0 -0.3 $30,312 $(1,741) $89,240 $7,748.27 3.9 2.9 -0.2 -51.3

Lincoln Lake Ave NE 2012 STH Kent -1.3 -5.0 -1.4 -7.6 $(117,124) $(150,156) $83,320 $7,234.26 -16.2 -0.7 -20.8 -0.6

Plymouth Ave SE 2011 STH Kent 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.8 $(11,300) $(8,220) $48,730 $2,956.65 -3.8 -4.3 -2.8 -5.9

River St NE 2012 STH Kent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,347 $31,530 $1,913.05 0.0 N/A 0.7 23.4

Eagle Harbor Rd 2012 STH Keweenaw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $92 $80,645 $4,893.06 0.0 N/A 0.0 875.3

W 4 Mile Rd 2012 STH Lake 0.0 -1.7 0.0 -2.0 $(18,833) $(20,341) $258,580 $31,092.01 -0.6 -13.7 -0.7 -12.7

Hadley Rd 2011 HRRR Lapeer 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.3 $79,100 $13,514 $78,250 $4,747.74 16.7 1.0 2.8 5.8

Pratt Rd 2012 STH Lapeer 1.7 8.3 -0.5 -3.1 $169,947 $(59,269) $493,005 $29,912.60 5.7 2.9 -2.0 -8.3

W Grand River Ave 2011 STH Livingston 2.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 $90,936 $42,023 $474,175 $57,015.45 1.6 5.2 0.7 11.3

N Gould City Rd 2011 STH Mackinac 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 $11,300 $6,812 $417,030 $36,208.66 0.3 36.9 0.2 61.2

Poglese Rd 2012 HRRR Mackinac 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.7 $3,767 $11,559 $279,195 $24,241.13 0.2 74.1 0.5 24.2

21 Mile Rd at Van Dyke Ave

2012 STH Macomb 7.0 0.0 -13.7 -44.3 $318,276 $(1,121,693)

$506,650 $43,989.92 7.2 1.6 -25.5 -0.5

9 Mile and Marmon 2012 STH Macomb 1.3 -4.0 -0.7 -6.8 $15,424 $(109,010) $502,700 $43,646.96 0.4 32.6 -2.5 -4.6

9 Mile Rd at Mound Rd

2012 STH Macomb -18.0 -85.7 -48.8 -181.5 $(1,786,457)

$(4,268,683)

$500,360 $43,443.79 -41.1 -0.3 -98.3 -0.1


2011 STH Macomb -0.7 -12.3 -6.3 -23.3 $(169,679) $(549,559) $578,733 $50,248.57 -3.4 -3.4 -10.9 -1.1

9 Mile Rd 2012 STH Manistee 0.0 1.0 -0.5 -0.3 $11,300 $(27,571) $233,455 $14,164.66 0.8 20.7 -1.9 -8.5

Buchanan Rd 2012 HRRR Mecosta 0.3 4.0 -0.2 -6.9 $60,356 $(86,075) $392,985 $23,843.99 2.5 6.5 -3.6 -4.6


FY 2011 & 2012




MetricsEB-Method

Metrics



2012 STH Missaukee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 $- $3,024 $163,785 $9,937.50 0.0 N/A 0.3 54.2

Grafton Rd 2012 STH Monroe 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 $18,923 $12,647 $91,015 $14,885.00 1.3 4.8 0.8 7.2

Summerfield Rd 2012 HRRR Monroe 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 $3,767 $4,874 $10,080 $1,648.53 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.1

Swan Creek Rd 2012 STH Monroe -2.3 -4.0 -1.6 -3.2 $(151,292) $(111,174) $14,415 $2,357.49 -64.2 -0.1 -47.2 -0.1

Whiteford Center Rd 2012 HRRR Monroe 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.4 $37,845 $33,994 $136,050 $11,812.55 3.2 3.6 2.9 4.0

E Stanton Rd 2012 STH Montcalm -0.3 1.3 -0.3 0.6 $(89) $(7,339) $130,205 $15,656.03 0.0 -1457.5 -0.5 -17.7

N Dagget Rd 2012 STH Montcalm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $82 $42,025 $2,549.83 0.0 N/A 0.0 513.9

Peck Rd 2011 HRRR Montcalm 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 $34,079 $2,660 $209,990 $25,249.48 1.3 6.2 0.1 78.9

Sidney Rd at College Dr

2011 STH Montcalm -0.3 1.3 -0.1 1.4 $(89) $8,844 $73,183 $8,799.56 0.0 -819.2 1.0 8.3

Henry St 2012 STH Muskegon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,740 $33,365 $2,024.39 0.0 N/A 0.9 19.2

12 Mile rd 2011 STH Oakland -0.3 -8.0 -2.2 -11.2 $(105,556) $(228,967) $200,300 $17,391.06 -6.1 -1.9 -13.2 -0.9

14 Mile Rd 2011 STH Oakland -3.0 4.0 -3.8 -0.3 $(91,204) $(174,403) $107,670 $9,348.46 -9.8 -1.2 -18.7 -0.6

Meadowbrook Rd 2012 STH Oakland 2.0 -5.3 1.1 -5.6 $30,669 $(15,460) $186,080 $16,156.41 1.9 6.1 -1.0 -12.0

Opdyke Rd 2011 STH Oakland 0.3 -11.0 2.3 -20.3 $(109,144) $(125,680) $142,900 $12,407.30 -8.8 -1.3 -10.1 -1.1

Sylvan Rd 2012 HRRR Osceola 0.7 1.3 0.1 -0.7 $45,379 $(4,723) $225,120 $27,068.74 1.7 5.0 -0.2 -47.7

Nowak Rd 2012 STH Otsego 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 $11,300 $7,313 $315,175 $37,897.07 0.3 27.9 0.2 43.1

Old M 76 2012 STH Roscommon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $449 $22,215 $1,347.87 0.0 N/A 0.3 49.4

S Roscommon Rd 2011 STH Roscommon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,193 $47,760 $2,897.79 0.0 N/A 0.4 40.0

Fashion Square Blvd 2011 STH Saginaw 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.5 $15,156 $4,461 $363,905 $31,596.08 0.5 24.0 0.1 81.6

Ithaca Rd 2011 STH Saginaw 0.0 -0.7 0.0 -0.5 $(7,533) $(5,146) $336,005 $20,386.78 -0.4 -44.6 -0.3 -65.3

W. Genesee Ave 2011 STH Saginaw -1.0 1.3 -1.1 -1.1 $(30,401) $(60,793) $517,070 $44,894.64 -0.7 -17.0 -1.4 -8.5

CR 436 2011 STH Schoolcraft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $- $143 $93,015 $5,643.60 0.0 N/A 0.0 650.4

Deer St 2011 HRRR Schoolcraft 0.0 3.0 -1.0 -0.6 $33,900 $(53,391) $16,800 $1,458.66 23.2 0.5 -36.6 -0.3

Gleason St 2011 STH Tuscola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 $- $1,121 $180,250 $29,478.90 0.0 N/A 0.0 160.8

Ormes Rd 2012 HRRR Tuscola 2.3 0.3 -0.2 1.6 $109,859 $7,210 $484,170 $29,376.55 3.7 4.4 0.2 67.2

S Kingston Rd 2011 HRRR Tuscola 0.7 -2.3 0.0 -8.6 $3,945 $(96,202) $168,865 $10,245.72 0.4 42.8 -9.4 -1.8

CR 681 at Butcher Rd 2011 HRRR Van Buren 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.5 $3,767 $35,346 $216,098 $18,762.68 0.2 57.4 1.9 6.1

Arkona Rd 2011 HRRR Washtenaw 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 $7,533 $5,643 $34,505 $2,093.56 3.6 4.6 2.7 6.1

Carpenter Rd 2012 STH Washtenaw 12.0 25.3 10.0 15.3 $831,883 $625,697 $71,480 $8,594.85 96.8 0.1 72.8 0.1


FY 2011 & 2012




MetricsEB-Method

Metrics


Old US 12 2011 STH Washtenaw 2.3 18.3 -15.4 28.4 $313,259 $(378,354) $252,895 $41,359.58 7.6 0.8 -9.1 -0.7

Rawsonville Rd 2012 STH Washtenaw 0.7 0.0 0.2 -0.6 $30,312 $3,628 $413,090 $35,866.57 0.8 13.6 0.1 113.8

W Waters Rd 2011 STH Washtenaw 0.7 -1.0 0.7 -0.9 $19,012 $19,441 $398,690 $34,616.29 0.5 21.0 0.6 20.5

Central St 2012 STH Wayne -0.3 6.0 -3.1 1.1 $52,644 $(127,870) $806,090 $69,988.82 0.8 15.3 -1.8 -6.3

Churchhill High School

2012 STH Wayne 0.7 2.7 2.1 1.4 $60,445 $112,243 $28,750 $2,496.22 24.2 0.5 45.0 0.3

Davison Rd 2012 STH Wayne 7.3 16.3 -6.0 -3.8 $517,999 $(318,164) $500,200 $43,429.90 11.9 1.0 -7.3 -1.6

E 7 Mile Rd 2012 STH Wayne -2.7 17.0 -4.7 8.1 $70,852 $(120,436) $863,380 $74,963.03 0.9 12.2 -1.6 -7.2

Farmington Rd 2011 STH Wayne -3.0 -19.0 -7.7 -23.3 $(351,104) $(612,280) $377,750 $32,798.17 -10.7 -1.1 -18.7 -0.6

Haggerty Rd 2011 STH Wayne -0.3 -5.3 -1.1 -11.6 $(75,423) $(181,049) $252,275 $21,903.79 -3.4 -3.3 -8.3 -1.4

Kercheval Ave 2011 STH Wayne 0.0 -0.7 0.2 -0.8 $(7,533) $954 $169,905 $14,752.01 -0.5 -22.6 0.1 178.0


2011 STH Wayne 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -4.1 $- $(90,973) $696,690 $60,490.16 0.0 N/A -1.5 -7.7


2011 STH Wayne -0.3 -4.0 -3.3 -4.7 $(60,356) $(202,650) $501,750 $43,564.48 -1.4 -8.3 -4.7 -2.5

Schoolcraft 2012 STH Wayne 2.7 14.0 -3.8 -2.8 $279,448 $(205,029) $475,145 $41,254.50 6.8 1.7 -5.0 -2.3

W Chicago St 2012 STH Wayne 4.0 17.7 -1.1 6.1 $381,505 $20,217 $751,490 $65,248.17 5.8 2.0 0.3 37.2

W Vernor Hwy 2012 STH Wayne -2.0 13.0 -2.6 2.6 $55,964 $(88,774) $788,220 $68,437.26 0.8 14.1 -1.3 -8.9

West Rd 2012 STH Wayne 2.3 6.3 0.4 3.9 $177,659 $62,702 $304,870 $26,470.36 6.7 1.7 2.4 4.9

Wick Rd 2012 STH Wayne 3.3 4.0 -0.2 2.2 $196,760 $17,322 $281,180 $24,413.47 8.1 1.4 0.7 16.2

31 Rd 2011 HRRR Wexford 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.7 $7,533 $11,228 $167,080 $14,506.73 0.5 22.2 0.8 14.9

N 47 Rd 2012 STH Wexford 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -1.0 $(3,767) $(9,374) $476,155 $41,342.19 -0.1 -126.4 -0.2 -50.8

N Hodenpyle Dam Rd 2011 HRRR Wexford 0.3 1.3 -0.1 -0.8 $30,223 $(14,081) $377,935 $32,814.23 0.9 12.5 -0.4 -26.8

W 13 Rd 2012 HRRR Wexford 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 $18,923 $2,918 $246,465 $21,399.34 0.9 13.0 0.1 84.5


FY 2011 & 2012


Appendix C: EB Method ResultsFigure C1. EB Method - Program Level Results

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400O


P

O

E

Observed(2,272.7)

Expected(1,716.0)

Predicted(955.8)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es 455.1 Above

Expected

2011/2012 HSIP Program

P

E

Predicted(916.6)

Expected(1,701.9)

Observed(2,157.0)


FY 2011 & 2012


Figure C2. EB Method – 2011 HRRR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60O


P

O

E

Observed(53.0)

Expected(25.8)

Predicted(17.2)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es

10.1 Above

Expected

2011 HRRR

P

E

Predicted(18.3)

Expected(27.2)

Observed(37.3)


FY 2011 & 2012


Figure C3. EB Method – 2012 HRRR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60O


P

O

E

Observed(56.0)

Expected(30.0)

Predicted(21.8)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es

0.2 Below

Expected

2012 HRRR

P

E

Predicted(20.7)

Expected(30.2)

Observed(30.0)


FY 2011 & 2012


Figure C4. EB Method – 2011 STH

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

O


P

O

E

Observed(608.0)

Expected(496.1)

Predicted(283.5)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es

62.6 Above

Expected

2011 STH

P

E

Predicted(280.9)

Expected(560.1)

Observed(622.7)


FY 2011 & 2012


Figure C5. EB Method – 2012 STH

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600O


P

O

E

Observed(1,555.7)

Expected(1,164.2)

Predicted(633.4)

Time

Annu

al T

raff

ic C

rash

es

382.6 Above

Expected

2012 STH

P

E

Predicted(596.6)

Expected(1,084.84)

Observed(1,467.0)


FY 2011 & 2012


Appendix D: References1) Michigan, U. O. (n.d.). Michigan Traffic Crash Facts. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://

www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

2) TAMC Dashboard Home. (2017). Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx

3) Highway Safety Manual. (2010). Washington: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

4) Highway Safety Improvement Program. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

5) Savolainen, P. T., Gates, T. J., Lord, D., Geedipally, S., Rista, E., Barette, T., . . . Hamzeie, R. (n.d.). Michigan Urban Trunkline Intersections Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) Development and Support (Rep. No. OR 14-015). doi:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC1628_497550_7.pdf

6) Savolainen, P. T., Gates, T. J., Lord, D., Geedipally, S., Rista, E., Barette, T., . . . Thompson, I. (n.d.). Michigan Urban Trunkline Segments Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) Development and Support (Rep. No. RC-1639). doi:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPR-1639_539388_7.pdf

7) Michigan Calibration Values for the Highway Safety Manual. (2012). Michigan Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_hsm_mi_cal_val_spring_2012.pdf

8) CMF Clearinghouse. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/sqr.cfm

9) Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual - Safety | Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec6.cfm

10) National Safety Council, Statistics. (2016, March). Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2014 [Bulletin]. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/estimating-costs-unintentional-injuries-2016.pdf

https://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

https://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx

http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mitrp/Data/PaserDashboard.aspx

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC1628_497550_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC1628_497550_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPR-1639_539388_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPR-1639_539388_7.pdf

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_hsm_mi_cal_val_spring_2012.pdf

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/tands/Details_Web/mdot_hsm_mi_cal_val_spring_2012.pdf

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/sqr.cfm

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/sqr.cfm

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec6.cfm

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec6.cfm

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/estimating-costs-unintentional-injuries-2016.pdf

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/estimating-costs-unintentional-injuries-2016.pdf

Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times