Idaho Transportation Department Uses Interactive Web-based “Story Maps” to Support Robust Public Involvement

Background

Idaho is experiencing substantial growth in population. This, in turn, is placing new pressure on the State’s transportation systems, including infrastructure and safety. As the need for expanded transportation options increases, so does the potential impact of these projects on communities and stakeholders. Because of this, the need for public involvement in transportation operation, safety, and planning in Idaho is at an all-time high.

Virginia Uses SMART SCALE to Evaluate Safety Benefits of Proposed Projects

Background

To ensure the best use of limited transportation funds when selecting projects for the State’s long-range transportation plan, the Virginia Department of Transportation uses the SMART SCALE tool to help establish priorities. Transportation projects are scored on an outcome-based process that is transparent to the public and aids decision makers in making sound transportation investments.

NJDOT Launches Data Driven Interactive Tool (Safety Voyager) to Provide Quick and Visual Perspective of Crash Data in New Jersey

Background

A major focus of the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s (NJDOT) data driven interactive tool “Safety Voyager” is to provide a quick and visual perspective of crash data in New Jersey.

San Francisco Implements Vision Zero Policy that Focuses on Safe Streets, Safe People, and Safe Vehicles

Problem

In 2017 and 2018, San Francisco saw historic lows in traffic-related deaths on its streets. However, every year in San Francisco, approximately 30 people lose their lives and more than 500 are severely injured while traveling on city streets. San Francisco has resolved that even one death is unacceptable, and is committed to stopping further loss of life.

NYC Implements Vision Zero that incorporates Complete Streets Design, Outreach, Enforcement, Legislation, and Informational Campaigns

Problem

Walking and biking are two modes of travel that have rapidly gained in popularity in New York City (NYC)—in fact, NYC has seen bicycling activity quadruple over the last decade. Contributing to this rise is the “Citi Bike” program, NYC’s bikeshare system, which accounted for nearly 14 million bicycle trips in 2016. However, non-motorized transportation modes are not without risk. In 2013, the city experienced 178 pedestrian fatalities and 134 bicyclist fatalities. The following year, NYC adopted Vision Zero.

Blocked Crossings on Local Roadways in Jackson, MS and Kirkwood, MO

Describe the roadway safety situation or state before the new practice was implemented. What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

A main arterial road in Kirkwood, MO features an at-grade crossing where regularly scheduled freight and passenger trains block traffic. On average, 28 trains go through Kirkwood every day, and four of those are passenger trains causing extended closures while passengers embark and disembark. This blocked crossing causes traffic to back up quickly and form queues on the main road.

In Jackson, MS, a railroad crossing bisects an interstate off-ramp caused exiting traffic to back up onto the interstate when a train was present. Impatient drivers often tried to “beat the train,” causing damages to the gates from near misses. Because there is no turn-off or alternative route once a vehicle exits the interstate via the off-ramp, a proactive solution to re-route traffic while it was still on the interstate was necessary.

What were the key challenges that needed to be addressed before the new practice could be implemented?

Both Jackson and Kirkwood had very limited budgets and needed to find a low cost solution that would direct drivers to alternate routes around a blocked rail-highway crossing. Communicating blocked route information to drivers in a practical, economical way was the focus of the cities’ efforts.

Describe the new practice.

In Kirkwood, a sign was installed to direct drivers away from the blocked crossing. The existing sign is in the process of being upgraded with a project that will include actuated signals, new controllers, and actuated warning signs that use light-emitting diode technology and are compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

In Jackson, a static sign reading “expect train when flashing” is illuminated by flashing lights and activated by approaching trains to tell motorists to divert to the next exit.

What technical and/or institutional changes resulted from the new practice?

Installation of these train-actuated signs served to inform drivers in both cities to use the designated alternate route. Both are examples of an effective, low-cost solution for redirecting traffic when a crossing is blocked.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

In Kirkwood, the city engineer estimates that approximately 1,000 vehicles per day detour to the nearby overpass rather than risk being stopped at the blocked crossing.

In Jackson, MS, an estimated 95 percent of daily, local traffic is exposed to the warning message and has the option to divert to an alternative exit.

Contact

Kelly Morton
FHWA Office of Safety Programs
(602) 382-8976
Kelly.Morton@dot.gov

Tailoring Safety Audits for Rail-Highway Crossings

Describe the roadway safety situation or state before the new practice was implemented. What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

With more than 7,000 rail-highway grade crossings in the State, California needed an approach that would prioritize and treat the crossings in greatest need of safety improvements and leverage the common goals of California’s many rail safety partners.

What were the key challenges that needed to be addressed before the new practice could be implemented?

In California, the Section 130 program is a cooperative effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), railroad companies, and local agencies. It is the responsibility of CPUC to select crossings for inclusion in the statewide funding program based on their potential safety issues. To determine which crossings meet the requirements, CPUC staff must first analyze the available data on each crossing, including crash history, any safety concerns voiced by nearby residents or businesses, and near-miss data from railroads. Based on this data analysis process, crossings are then selected and scheduled for field reviews. Once complete, CPUC uses the results of the field reviews to identify and prioritize crossings for treatment under the Section 130 program.

Describe the new practice.

To ensure the crossings in need of treatment are prioritized properly and treated effectively, CPUC developed a two-phase process. The first phase uses a data-based analysis to identify and rank crossings with potential safety issues, and the second involves conducting a rail-highway diagnostic review to determine the specific safety needs of the highest ranked crossings.

Based on available data, a prioritized list that ranks locations is developed based on factors including accident history and trends, vehicle and train volumes, pedestrian issues, and geometry. Potential projects are selected based on their rank on the list. The second phase involves a Field Diagnostic Team—which consists of representatives from the railroad company(s), local agency(s), Caltrans, CPUC staff, and other rail safety partners as appropriate (for example, FHWA Division Office staff). The Field Diagnostic Team conducts a diagnostic review, where the crossing is observed and vehicle behaviors and potential issues, along with pedestrian safety concerns, are identified. The diagnostic team then develops a summary of their findings which includes options for improvement. The CPUC prioritizes the reviewed crossings and treats the highest ranked ones as funding allows.

What technical and/or institutional changes resulted from the new practice?

There is a lot of preparation work to support diagnostic reviews. A structured review begins with a group review of the data for each crossing. Then the field visit begins with a safety briefing and an overview of the process the team will use to review the site. The diagnostic team first reviews vehicle behaviors and potential issues, then turns their attention to pedestrian safety concerns.

At end of the review, the Field Diagnostic Team develops a summary of their findings, including any suggested safety options or improvements. Once all the diagnostic reviews for the year are completed, CPUC selects the highest ranked crossings for treatment based on the funding anticipated to be available. CPUC then develops individual project packages for Caltrans, including a scope of work, conceptual plans, project development report, project timeline, and a cost estimate. The project packages, along with a final priority list, are then submitted to Caltrans for programming, environmental clearance, right-of-way certification and, ultimately, funding.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

The California diagnostic review process is a success because CPUC and Caltrans have been able to install treatments at locations selected for improvement based on data analysis. As a result, California applied robust safety improvements that address a rail-highway crossing from a holistic safety perspective, eliminating lingering safety issues that would require additional reviews year after year.

Contact

Bree Arnett
California Public Utilities Commission
Bree.Arnett@cpuc.ca.gov

Overcoming Limited Data to Identify High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Projects

Describe the roadway safety situation or state before the new practice was implemented. What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

Kansas recognized a gap between the data needed to identify safety projects that qualified for High Risk Rural Road funding and the data available. The limited data they did have pointed to a need for a program that reduced roadway departures in order to decrease collisions with fixed objects, which is the most common rural fatality crash type in the State.

What were the key challenges that needed to be addressed before the new practice could be implemented?

Without detailed data, Kansas was having difficulty identifying projects that qualified for High Risk Rural Road project funding. Statewide data revealed crash problems, but a lack of site-specific rural road data, along with the randomness of crashes on county roads, restricted the agency’s ability to complete data-driven analysis for specific locations.

Describe the new practice.

Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) staff realized a systemic safety approach would enable them to use High Risk Rural Road funding to apply low-cost treatments systemically on county roads that shared common crash risk factors, effectively improving safety in those locations.

KDOT has funded widespread installation of low-cost countermeasures such as the SafetyEdgeSM, pavement markings, rumble strips, tree removal, enhanced signing, and improvements to roadside barriers such as culvert headwalls and guardrails.

What technical and/or institutional changes resulted from the new practice?

The new approach became the foundation for the way KDOT identifies and programs projects to be treated through High Risk Rural Road funding.

Institutionally, teamwork had to become a priority for this practice to succeed. The process of identifying sites for treatment includes input from and coordination with local agencies, the Local Technical Assistance Program, the FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer, a metropolitan planning organization, the Kansas association of counties, as well as county police and emergency response representatives.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

Focusing its high risk rural road funding through a systemic approach has allowed Kansas to invest in extensive low cost countermeasures since 2011.

KDOT considers the ever-increasing popularity of the program among the counties to be a sign that the program is successful. In addition, local agencies have expressed that this approach is adding value to their system by increasing safety.

Contact

Steven Buckley
Kansas State Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology
Steven.Buckley@ks.gov

Empowering the Community to Achieve Consensus

Describe the roadway safety situation or state before the new practice was implemented. What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

In Missouri, a rural corridor with 29 at-grade crossings experienced 62 incidents since 1975, including 14 fatalities and 19 injuries. Although the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) had previously suggested crossing closures as a means of increasing safety, many citizens who live in communities along the corridor use these crossings to access other sections of their towns and were initially resistant to crossing closures. MoDOT was struggling to reach consensus with local officials and communities on a solution.

What were the key challenges that needed to be addressed before the new practice could be implemented?

After unsuccessful attempts to reach a consensus, MoDOT realized it would need a new approach that would not only improve safety, but also fully address residents’ concerns.

Describe the new practice.

In January 2017, MoDOT commissioned a rail corridor safety study to:

• Evaluate all rail-highway crossings within the corridor.
• Provide streamlined solutions to increase safety.
• Deploy a public input process that would bring about community support for effective, collaborative consolidation and safety improvement recommendations.

To oversee the public input process, MoDOT hired a consultant to act as a neutral third party. The consultant’s approach was first to listen to the citizens’ perspectives, then present a series of alternative treatments MoDOT had identified for each crossing site. Each of the alternatives presented also included the results of a benefit-cost analysis. The consultant presented each option and let the communities vote on which to apply.

What technical and/or institutional changes resulted from the new practice?

As a result of this success, the MoDOT Rail Section is considering using this approach at another location along a similar length of railroad to engage the small rural communities along the corridor in building a consensus for safety improvements.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

As a result of gaining public approval to proceed with safety treatments, once complete, the five proposed closures along with the many upgrades and site improvements throughout the corridor will allow for 23 fewer crashes, with 1.41 fewer fatal crashes, 7 fewer injury crashes, and 15 fewer non-injury crashes over a 25-year period as compared with the baseline estimates.

Contact

Chris S. Brownell
Missouri DOT
Sidney.Brownell@modot.mo.gov

Ohio Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT) Supports Benefit-Cost Analysis

Publication Year: 2017

Background

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses a data-driven approach to identify, screen, and prioritize potential highway safety improvement projects. ODOT analyzes crash, roadway, and traffic data to identify sites with potential for safety improvement. Typically, ODOT studies up to 300 locations annually across the State. ODOT District offices and local agencies diagnose safety issues at these locations and develop targeted countermeasures to address the underlying crash contributing factors. The District offices develop funding applications for safety projects and submit the applications to the Central Office for further consideration. Multidisciplinary committees review and evaluate the project applications based on factors such as crash analysis; statewide, regional or local priority; matching funds; and benefit-cost analysis.

Each year, ODOT reviews approximately 70 applications for safety improvement projects. While ODOT spends more than $100 million annually on highway safety improvement projects, the funding requests total more than $150 million. As such, there is a need to prioritize those projects with the greatest potential for reducing crashes.

Solution

To support the highway safety project prioritization process, ODOT developed the Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT). ECAT supports analysts in estimating the safety performance of a given facility (existing or proposed), conducting alternatives analyses, and completing a benefit-cost analysis. This tool automates much of the analysis, simplifying the process and allowing people with various skill levels to use the tool and make better safety investments.

In developing ECAT, ODOT reviewed available spreadsheets such as those developed for the implementation of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). This provided the foundation for the underlying safety performance calculations. To simplify the process, ODOT combined multiple HSM-related spreadsheets into a single spreadsheet.

Using ECAT for benefit-cost analysis, the user selects the site type and enters basic project information such as costs and safety benefits. The user can specify various costs, including the initial construction cost, operating and maintenance costs, and salvage value. Analysts use other supporting modules in ECAT to estimate the safety benefits in terms of change in predicted and expected crashes. The tool provides default values for inputs such as the projected service life. Based on the user inputs for costs and benefits, the tool computes the present value costs and benefits based on a discount rate of 4.0 percent.

The following figures provide examples of outputs from the benefit-cost analysis module in the ECAT tool. Figure 1 shows an example of the economic analysis summary table from ECAT, which indicates the net present value of the project (i.e., present value cost), the net present value of safety benefits (i.e., present value benefit), net benefit (i.e., present value benefit minus present value cost), and benefit-cost ratio (i.e., present value benefit divided by present value cost). The summary table also indicates the expected annual crash adjustment in terms of the change in the number of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes, change in the number of all injury crashes, and the change in total crashes.

Figure 1. Sample economic analysis summary tables from ECAT.

Figure 2 shows an example of the economic analysis summary charts from ECAT. The upper left chart presents a summary of the combined projected cash flows by countermeasure by year. Negative cash flows represent an expenditure (greater investment than return) and positive cash flows represent a return on investment. The middle chart presents a summary of cash flows by year for project costs only. This example shows an initial project cost in year 0, and either maintenance or rehabilitation costs in years 5, 10, and 15. The bottom right chart shows the return on investment (i.e., cumulative annual benefits minus cumulative annual cost). Users can quickly identify the breakeven year as the first year with a positive return on investment. In this example, the breakeven year is year 8.

Figure 2. Sample economic analysis summary charts from ECAT.

Sources

Traffic Academy Safety Studies & Freeway Safety Study Guidelines
Ohio Department of Transportation, 2017

Highway Safety Manual
Ohio Department of Transportation
Division of Planning
Office of Systems Planning and Program Management, February 2017

Contact

Tim McDonald
Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Planning
Tim.Mcdonald@dot.ohio.gov
(614) 466-4019

Resources

ODOT requires the use of ECAT for all safety studies completed on the State highway system. To support users, ODOT posts examples and help files along with the tool on the ODOT Highway Safety Improvement Program website. ODOT posts enhancements and updates to the tool with release notes documenting changes.

The tool and supporting documentation are available from the Office of Systems Planning and Program Management, Highway Safety Manual Data Analysis Tools webpage. (This page is no longer available.)