1

A Systemic Approach to

Highway Safety:

An Introduction

National Summit on Rural Road Safety

December 5, 2018

Agenda

• Overview

• Systemic Safety Analysis

– 4‐Step Process

• Case Studies

• Conclusion

https://www.mkd.mk/makedonija/poradi

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 2
2

Course Objectives

• Gain high‐level understanding

of systemic approach.

• Understand and apply 4‐step

systemic planning process.

• Understand related resources.

• Develop desire and

determination to start or

enhance systemic safety

approach within your agency.

3

http://goldenchamber.org/uncategorized/what-are-the-key-elements-imust-put-in-place-to-reach-my-goals/attachment/goals/ 

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Overview of

Systemic Approach to Safety

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 4
3

Systemic Safety: Definition

The term "systemic safety improvement" means an

improvement that is widely implemented based on

high‐risk roadway features that are correlated with

particular crash types, rather than crash frequency.

‐‐ 23 USC 148 (a)(12) Systemic safety improvement

5

Systemic Safety: Definition

“A proactive safety approach that focuses on

evaluating an entire roadway network using a

defined set of criteria.” ‐‐CALTRANS

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 6
4

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_4/ddsa_resources/ddsa_systemic_analysis.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 7

Reasons for Systemic Approach

Minnesota

• Rural paved secondary

– 22,000 miles

– 13,000 intersections

– 19,000 curves

– 0 locations > 1.0

severe crash/year Cleveland, Minnesota

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009-0805-MNDoddRoad.jpg 

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Note: 60% of Minnesota’s severe crashes

(fatal + serious injury) occurred on local

system (with half on county owned roads)

8
5

Reasons for Systemic Approach

Opportunity for crash‐based projects

Opportunity for systemic projects

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 9

Example: Fatal Crash Locations

Source: NHTSA (https://cdan.nhtsa/gov/stsi.htm#)

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 10

201456
6

Crash Type

2012 2013 2014 2015

#%#%#%#%

Roadway Departure 243 60% 247 62% 252 59% 290 56%

Pedestrian/Bicycle 87 22% 60 15% 84 20% 100 19%

Intersection 98 24% 110 27% 131 31% 160 31%

TOTAL 403 401 429 516

Example: Major Fatal Crash Types in

Washington by FHWA Focus Area

Source: FHWA ‐ https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/Dashboard/Default.aspx

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 11

Systemic Approach

• Complementary approach to site‐specific

– Proactively identify safety improvements

– Does not replace reactionary approach

• Primary approach for rural and local roads

– Can be applicable to urban roads

12 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Source: FHWA ‐ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/

other_topics/corridor/cam_tech/sa15005.pdf

Source: FHWA ‐ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/

countermeasures/horicurves/fhwasa15084/
7

Systemic Approach

• Crashes alone do not establish prioritization

• Sometimes prioritization is obvious from

data (inferred prioritization)

13

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/sspst.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Systemic Safety

Planning

https://safety.fhwa

.dot.gov/systemic/f

hwasa13019/sspst.

pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 14

HSIP
8

Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning

• Proactive program to address severe crashes

– Seemingly occur at “random” locations

• Greater knowledge of severe crashes

– Contributing factors and location characteristics

– Improve planning, design, and maintenance practices

– Risk management for tort liability

• Magnitude of crash reductions

– Case by case (more later)

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 15

Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning

South Carolina Example

• Systemic intersection improvement program

– Signing

– Pavement Marking

– Signal Enhancements

• Signalized

– Benefit Cost Ratio – 4.1

• Stop‐Controlled

– Benefit‐Cost Ratio – 12.4 http://www.jbcharleston.jb.mil/News/Article/235728/stop‐signs‐

know‐who‐has‐the‐right‐of‐way/

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 16
9

Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning

South Carolina

Example

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 17

Site‐Specific vs. Systemic (Total crashes)

Budget = $3M

• Site‐specific

– 3 roundabouts @ $1M/intersection

– 40% reduction/intersection

– 10‐20 crashes/year before treatment

– Benefit = reduce 12 – 24 crashes/year

• Systemic

– 500 intersections @ $6000/intersection

– 5% reduction/intersection

– 3 crashes/year before treatment

– Benefit = reduce 75 crashes/year

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 18
10

Benefits of Systemic Projects:

Site‐Specific Improvements

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 19

Countermeasure Coverage1 Project

Costs

Net Safety

Benefits

Benefit

Cost Ratio

Add Left Turn Lanes 14 intersections $9,884,000 $62,386,011 6.3

High Friction Surface

Treatment 100 sites $10,000,000 $498,263,771 49.8

Reconfigure Intersection 12 intersections $9,864,000 $134,293,525 13.6

Reduce Intersection Skew

and Add Left Turn Lanes 9 intersections $9,954,000 $83,931,637 8.4

Road Diet Without

Resurfacing 100 miles $10,000,000 $631,888,312 63.2

Road Diet Including Resurfacing

and Reconstruction Costs 10 miles $10,000,000 $63,188,831 6.3

Roundabout 13 intersections $9,607,000 $111,682,769 11.6

Average 37 sites $9,901,286 $226,519,265 23.0

1. Assumes one mile, one curve, and one intersection are equivalent to a single site.

Benefits of Systemic Projects:

Systemic Improvements

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 20

Countermeasure Coverage1 Project

Costs

Net Safety

Benefits

Benefit

Cost Ratio

Cable Median Barrier 51 miles $9,996,000 $58,006,096 5.8

Centerline and Shoulder

Rumble Strips 2,000 miles $10,000,000 $126,771,305 12.7

Ramp Curve Signage 1,000 curves $10,000,000 $2,928,925,502 292.9

Curve Warning Signage

(Chevrons) 6,250 curves $10,000,000 $640,014,079 64.0

Low Cost Intersection

Improvements‐ Signal 1,428 intersections $9,996,000 $279,526,340 28.0

Low Cost Intersection

Improvements‐ Stop 1,666 intersections $9,996,000 $168,073,055 16.8

Average 2,066 sites $9,998,000 $700,219,396 70.0

1. Assumes one mile, one curve, and one intersection are equivalent to a single site.
11

Benefits of Systemic Projects:

Comparison

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 21

Economic Measure Site‐Specific Systemic

Total Cost $9,901,286 $9,998,000

Total Benefit $226,519,265 $700,219,396

Overall Benefit‐Cost Ratio 23.0 70.0

Systemic Safety Project Selection

1. Systemic Process

2. Balance Funds

3. Evaluate Effectiveness

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/sspst.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 22

FHWA’s Systemic Safety Tool
12

A systemic illustration...

Photo Source: Iowa DOT

• You could select cable median barrier

locations on fatal crash data alone...

but considering other roadway 

characteristics would likely lead to 

a better risk-based solution.

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 23

Illinois cable median barrier

median width

traffic volume

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 24
13

Other possible risk factors

interchange location/spacing

horizontal alignment

weather/climate

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 25

A systemic illustration...

Photo Source: CH2M HILL 

• You could select High-Friction Surface 

Treatment locations on fatal crash 

data alone... but considering other roadway 

characteristics would likely lead to 

a better risk-based solution.

• Curve Radius

• Traffic Volume

• Wet‐Weather

Crashes

• Friction Data

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 26
14

Element 1

Systemic Safety Planning Process

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 27

Systemic Safety Planning Process

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

28
15

Step 1: Identify Focus Crash Types,

Facility Types, and Risk Factors

29 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

What we mean by “focus crash type”

The crash type that represents the greatest

number of severe crashes across the roadway

system being analyzed and provides the greatest

potential to reduce fatalities and severe injuries.

• Roadway Departure

• Intersection

• Pedestrian

• Speeding

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 30
16

Task 1: Select Focus Crash Types

• Systemwide analysis

• Strategic Safety Plans

– Strategic Highway Safety Plans

• Emphasis areas

– Safety Implementation Plans

• Examples: IL, KY, LA, MN, MO, NE,

OH, NY, Thurston County, WA.

• Regional and jurisdictional

analyses

– May differ from statewide needs

31

https://www.maxpixel.net/Accident‐Broken‐Auto‐Damage‐Vehicle‐Total‐Damage‐1409006

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Task 1: Select Focus Crash Types

Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2007‐2011)

Percent by Jurisdiction

Emphasis Area Statewide

114,592 mi

State

15,486 mi

County

19,938 mi

City, Town, Village

76,735 mi

Total Fatal/Serious Injury 100% 63,443 31% 19,819 10% 6,572 45% 28,597

Pedestrian 19% 11,786 9% 1,860 6% 421 28% 8,122

Bicycle 5% 3,390 3% 518 3% 187 8% 2,414

Heavy Vehicle 5% 3,123 6% 1,266 4% 234 4% 1,051

Road Departure 26% 16,668 30% 5,985 44% 2,892 18% 5,128

Intersection 41% 25,791 25% 5,033 30% 1,957 64% 18,270

Head‐on and Sideswipe 5% 3,071 7% 1,439 7% 490 3% 887

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 32
17

Helpful Hints

• Local focus crash types can differ from statewide

focus crash types

• Focus crash types can include causal factors from

the 4 E’s

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 33

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

What we mean by “focus facility”

The facility type on which the focus crash type

most frequently occurs.

• Rural, Two‐Lane Highways

• Urban, Signalized Intersections

• Horizontal Curves

• Rural, Thru‐STOP Intersections

34
18

Task 2: Select Focus Facilities

35

5 years, Severe

Roadway Departure

State System

4,400 crashes

Urban

1,900 crashes

Undivided

1,102

Divided

798

2 Lanes

897

3 Lanes

28

4 Lanes

170

5‐6 Lanes

7

< = 25 mph

2

30‐35 mph

195

40‐50 mph

363

55+ mph

336

Unknown

1

< = 25 mph

7

Rural

2,512 crashes

Undivided

2,165

Divided

375

1 Lane

1

2 Lanes

2,090

3 Lanes

35

4 Lanes

39

30‐35 mph

163

40‐50 mph

281

55+ mph

1,637

Unknown

2

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Rural

2,500 crashes

Urban

1,900 crashes

Crash Tree Combinations

Primary

• State / local

• Rural / urban

• Segment / intersection

• Segment type

– Freeway, multilane, two‐ lane, one‐way

• Intersection control

– Signalized

– Unsignalized

– Uncontrolled

Secondary

• Tangent / curve

• High‐speed / low‐speed

• Street lighting

• District or regions

• Traffic volume

• Lane width

• Shoulder type/width

• Alignment

• Land use

36 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
19

Helpful Hints

• Crash trees can include all severe crashes or just severe crashes

for one focus crash type

– Narrow crash types to target countermeasures

– Narrow facility types to identify candidate sites

• Examine total and severe crash categories

– May reveal different patterns

• Experience suggests 100+ crashes for identifying patterns

– Increase sample size by:

• Increasing number of years

• Increasing geographic area (region instead of county)

• Include minor injuries

– Note: For smaller or rural jurisdictions, less crash data can be utilized

for analysis.

37 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

What we mean by “risk factor”

A representation of risk in terms of the observed

characteristics associated with the locations

where the targeted crash types occurred.

• Volume

• Alignment

• Intersection Control

• Presence of Shoulders

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 38
20

Task 3: Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors

• Identify potential risk factors

– Roadway and intersection features

– Traffic volume

– Transit stops, land use, etc.

• Evaluate risk factors

• Select final risk factors

39

http://www.creative‐commons‐images.com/highway‐

signs/r/risk.html

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Potential Risk Factors

Roadway features:

• Number of lanes

• Lane width

• Shoulder width / type

• Median width / type

• Horizontal curvature

– Superelevation

– Delineation

– Advance warning

– Speed differential

– Visual trap

• Pavement condition /

friction

• Roadside features

– Sideslope design

– Clear zone

• Driveway density

• Other features

– Rumble strips

– Lighting

– On‐street parking

40
21

Potential Risk Factors

Intersection features:

• Traffic control device

• Left‐turn or right‐turn lanes

• Skew angle

• Advance warning signs

• Located in or near horizontal curve

• Type of development (e.g., commercial)

• Signals

– Left‐turn phasing

– Number of signal heads vs. number of

lanes

– Backplates

– Right‐turn‐on‐red

– Overhead versus pedestal mounted

41 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Potential Risk Factors

Pedestrian‐related features:

• Type of intersection control

• Crosswalk presence

• Crossing distance

• Pedestrian signal / type

• Sidewalk presence

• Adjacent land uses

• Lighting

42
22

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Potential Risk Factors

Other general features:

• Traffic volume

• Speed

– Posted, operating

• Railroad crossing

• Automated enforcement

• Adjacent land use type

– Schools, commercial, or alcohol‐sales establishments)

• Bus stops (presence and location)

43

Source: Seattle DOT

Evaluate Potential Risk Factors

• What is future crash potential

– Descriptive statistics

– Published research

44 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
23

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

45

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Percent

Curve Radius(ft)

Horizontal Curve Radius

Percent of Severe Crashes Percent of Severe Lane Departure Crashes Percent of Curves

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

46

23% 25%

8%

44%

85%

38%

20%

5%

12%

88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NarrowClearzone Passing Lane Street Lighting Paved Shoulder NarrowShoulder

(< 3 feet)

Percent

Presence of Potential Risk Factor

Potential Risk Factorsfor Rural Lane Departure Crashes

Percent of SystemWith Potential Risk Factor

Percent of Severe Lane Departure Crashes Where Potential Risk Factoris Present
24

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

47

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Percent

Vehicles Per Day

Daily Traffic Volume

Percent of Severe Run Off Road Crashes Percent of Severe Across Centerline Crashes

Percent of Miles

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

48

Curves

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/sspst.pdf

Curve‐Related Roadway Departure Crashes

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
25

Published Research

49 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Select Risk Factors

• Relationship to future crash potential

• Relationship to focus crash and facility types

50 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
26

Helpful Hints

• Minimum of 2 to 3 risk factors is suggested to

differentiate between sites

• Many counties use more

– For example, counties in Washington State used on

average 6‐7 risk factors

• Combining risk factors may be appropriate

– Can indicate if a particular crash type is

overrepresented

– Look to literature

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 51

Data to Identify Focus Crash/Facility Types

• Crash type

• Crash severity

• Crash location

• Crashes by system

– State

– Local

• Crashes by facility type

– Rural, 2‐lane roads (all, segments, curves)

– Urban, 2‐way stop‐controlled intersection

52 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
27

Data to Identify Risk Factors

• AADT

• Corridor Geometrics

• Crash Types

• Speed

53 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Data Sources

• Crash data

– Law enforcement

– State or local database

– FARS

• Roadway data

– State or local database

– Video logs

– Online aerial imagery

– Windshield surveys

• Exposure data (AADT)

– State or local database

– Traffic counts

54

Where do these data come

from in your jurisdiction?

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
28

Example: Select Focus Crash Type, Focus

Facility Type, and Potential Risk Factors

You work for a State DOT and are leading the development of a new systemic

program for the state highway system. There is a summary table of severe crashes

by emphasis area by jurisdiction.  There is also a crash tree for severe crashes on

the state system.

Topics of Discussion:

• Identify focus crash type and facility type for new state program

– How would selection change if you were instead focused on county roads?

• Identify potential risk factors

– What factors would you evaluate if you had robust roadway data linked with

crash records?

– What potential risk factors would ideally still be in the database if you had

limited variables, and why?

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 55

Example: Select Focus Crash Type

Emphasis Area

State

(All Roads) State Highways County Roads City Streets

Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No.

Drivers

Young drivers (under 21) 17% 1,105 15% 580 21% 375 17% 150

Older drivers (over 64) 12% 765 14% 535 7% 125 12% 105

Aggressive driving and speeding‐related 16% 1,040 13% 515 21% 375 17% 150

Drug‐ and alcohol‐related 35% 2,300 37% 1,425 35% 625 29% 250

Distracted Drivers 3% 195 4% 150 2% 30 2% 15

Unbelted vehicle occupants 40% 2,650 30% 1,150 75% 1,350 17% 150

Special

Users

Pedestrian crashes 5% 360 5% 200 2% 40 14% 120

Bicycle crashes 1% 55 1% 20 1% 15 2% 20

Vehicles Motorcycles crashes 7% 440 6% 220 8% 135 10% 85

Heavy vehicle crashes 11% 690 15% 565 4% 75 6% 50

Highways

Run Off Road Crashes 50% 3,275 46% 1,775 66% 1,190 35% 310

Across Centerline or Across Median Crashes 11% 720 11% 425 10% 180 13% 115

Intersection crashes 26% 1,730 30% 1,150 14% 255 37% 325

Work zone crashes 2% 120 2% 95 1% 15 1% 10

Total Severe (Fatal and Life‐Changing Injury) Crashes 6,565 3,890 1,800 875

1

2

3

What focus crash type should be selected for the state roads?

How would the crash type change if focusing on county roads?

1

2

3

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 56
29

Example: Select Focus Facility Type

Statewide

6,565

State System

3,890 – 59%

County

1,800 – 27%

Rural

3,000 – 77%

Urban

890 – 23%

Multi-Lane 

100 – 7%

Unsignalized

270 – 49%

Signalized

280 – 51%

Inters-Related

600 – 22%

City

875 – 13%

Inters-Related

550– 61%

Not Inters-Related

340 – 39%

Run Off Road – 210 (62%)

Other – 70 (21%)

Across CL – 60 (17%)

Not Inters-Related

2,400 – 78%

Freeway

500 – 37%

Lane Departure

On Curve

585 – 41%

Right Angle – 375 (83%) 

Run Off Road – 45 (10%)

Left Turn Across Traffic – 30 (7%)

Right Angle – 85 (57%)

Left Turn Across Traffic – 35 (23%)

Rear End – 15 (10%)

Pedestrian – 15 (10%)

Unsignalized

450 – 75%

Signalized

150 – 25%

Right Angle – 115 (43%) 

Left Turn Across Traffic – 85 (31%)

Pedestrian – 70 (26%)

Left Turn Across Traffic – 120 (43%)

Pedestrian – 115 (41%) 

Right Angle – 45 (16%)

Two-Lane

1,560 – 56%

Run Off Road – 220 (44%)

Across Median – 175 (35%)

Other – 90 (21%)

Run Off Road – 40 (40%)

Across Median – 30 (30%)

Other – 30 (30%)

Run Off Road – 1,260 (81%)

Across CL – 160 (10%)

Other – 140 (9%)

What focus facility type should be selected?

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 57

Example: ID Potential Risk Factors

Based on your selection, brainstorm to identify potential risk

factors you would evaluate if the state maintained a robust data

system that is linked with crash records.

If the statewide database contains a limited number of

variables, what potential risk factors would ideally still be

in the database, and why?

Shoulder width/type, lane width, roadside rating

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

How would you evaluate risk factors and why?

58
30

Activity 1

Select Focus Crash Type

Select Focus Facility Type

Identify Potential Risk Factors

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 59

Step 2: Screen and Prioritize Candidate

Locations

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 60
31

Task 1: Identify Network Elements

• Spot‐based (curves, intersections)

• Segments

• Verify selected risk factors

61 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/3/long-and-winding-road-drivingmauis-famed-highway-/ 

Example: Identify Network Element

62 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
32

Task 2:  Conduct Risk Assessment

• Document crash history and patterns

• Document physical and traffic characteristics

• Conduct evaluation of network elements

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 63

Data Driven: Quantitative vs. Qualitative

64 OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
33

Risk Factor Assessment

65

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Percent

Vehicles Per Day

Daily Traffic Volume

Percent of Severe Crashes Percent of Severe Lane Departure Crashes Percent of Curves

Risk Factor Assessment

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 66
34

Task 3: Prioritize Focus Facility Elements

• Total the number of risk factors present

– Assign equal or relative weights

– Set threshold for high‐priority candidates

Example Criteria for Relative Weight of Risk Factors

Category Higher

Confidence

Lower

Confidence

Factor overrepresented by X

percentage points > 10% ≤ 10%

Factor present in X% of severe

crashes ≥ 30% < 30%

Weight 1 point 1⁄2 point

* Served as a guide, not a standard

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 67

Use of Risk Assessment Results to Set

Thresholds for Candidate Selection

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 68
35

Helpful Hints

• Assess risk factors

– Do selected characteristics represent increased risk?

– Data‐driven (descriptive statistics and CMFs)

• Prioritize locations for further consideration

– What level of risk deserves treatment?

• Collect additional data as needed

– Is there sufficient data to conduct risk assessment?

– Document characteristics of crash locations

69

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Step 3: Select Countermeasures

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 70
36

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Task 1: Assemble Comprehensive List of

Countermeasures

71

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures

Graphic

Statistics

Description

Body

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 72
37

Potential Countermeasures

Approaches to Assemble Countermeasures:

• Review Literature

• Convene Stakeholder Group

Engineering

Enforcement Education

• Field Visit

• Engineering Standards

• Design/Operations

• Public Awareness

• Forums/Classes

• Countermeasure

Education

• Traffic regulations

and laws

• Law enforcement

visibility

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 73

References for Countermeasures

• FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures

• CMF Clearinghouse

• Highway Safety Manual

• NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work

• Strategic Highway Safety Plan

• Intersection Safety Plans

• Roadway Departure Safety Plans

• Human Factors Guidelines

• FHWA Desktop Reference for CRF’s

• National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP) Report 500

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 74
38

Roadway Departure Countermeasures

Chevron and Large

Arrows

Rumble

Strips

Barrier

Delineation

Larger Signs

Extension

Lines

Source: Scott Davis, Thurston County, WA OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 75

Intersection Countermeasures

Improve Sight Distance

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Enhance Signing and Delineation

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersecti

on/other_topics/fhwasa08008/inter_

guide_key.pdf

76
39

Pedestrian Countermeasures

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Countdown Timers and Leading

Pedestrian Intervals

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersecti

on/other_topics/fhwasa08008/inter_

guide_key.pdf

77

• Authorized in 38 States + DC

• Documented Crash Reduction

– All Crashes: 10‐15%

– Alcohol‐related crashes: 17%

– Alcohol‐related fatal crashes: 9%

Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints

Page 1‐21,

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents

/812202‐countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 78
40

• Documented Belt Use Increase

– 16% increase

• Increased use in conjunction with public education/outreach

and paid/donated media

Short‐Term High‐Visibility Belt Checks

Page 2‐17,

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents

/812202‐countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 79

Task 2: Evaluate and Screen Countermeasures

• Documented effectiveness

• Implementation and maintenance costs

• Consistency with agency polices, practices, and

experiences

Source: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 80
41

CMF Clearinghouse & CMF Evaluation

Existing Crashes

Proposed CMF

Applicable Crashes

Crash Reduction

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Convert permissive to permissive/protected

CMF 0.86

Crash Type Left Turn

Crash Severity All

Area Type Urban

Geometry 4‐leg

Star Quality Rating

Crashes WITH Treatment =

CMF * Crashes WITHOUT Treatment

81

Task 3: Select Countermeasures

• Represent highest priorities

– Most cost‐effective countermeasures addressing

targeted crash types

• Provide a range of options for flexibility

• Consistent with agency practices and policies

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumble_strip1.jpg

82
42

Helpful Hints

• Seek input from stakeholders during screening process

• Remove initial countermeasures that are not feasible

• There is no optimum number of countermeasures

– Provide at least one alternative

• Determine appropriate number of locations for initial list

– Goals and funding amounts

– Identify locations for on‐the‐shelf projects

– Implement with typical construction and maintenance projects

• Consider bundling low cost improvements.

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 83

Step 4: Prioritize Projects

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 84
43

Task 1: Create Decision Process

• Decision process: set of criteria to identify

appropriate countermeasure.

– Provides consistency in project development

– Considers multiple locations for which

countermeasures are appropriate and affordable

– E.g., traffic volume, environment, adjacent land use, or

cross‐section

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Centerline_Rumble_Strip.jpg 

85

Example Decision Process

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 86
44

Task 2: Develop Safety Projects

• Apply decision process

• Identify specific countermeasures for each candidate site

• Document decision process and results

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/uslimits2/

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 87

Example Documentation for Safety Project  

2005‐2009 MnCMAT Crash Data 5 years

Total Road Dept K+A

Crashes 15 11 1

Density (per mile per year) 0.38 0.28 0.03

Rate (per MVM) 1.82 1.19 0.11

Value Critical Risk Ranking

ADT Range 634 800 to 1200 *

RD Density 0.28 0.08 *

Access Density 8.88 4.30 *

Curve Critical Radius Density 0.75 0.59 *

Edge Risk 2 2 or 3 *

*****

Crash Data

Ranking Criteria

Description Type Cost per mi Mileage Cost

2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety Edge Proactive $40,000 0.0 $0

Rumble Strip Proactive $3,000 0.0 $0

Rumble StripE Proactive $3,500 6.0 $21,000

6" Edge Lines Proactive $650 0.0 $0

Ground In Wet‐Reflective Markings Proactive $8,500 2.0 $17,000

Federal Funds $34,200

Local Match (10% of Total project cost) $3,800

Total Project Cost $38,000 Rank: 1

Segment ID: 26.01

Date: 2/12/2011

Short List of Strategies Considered

Notes ‐ Noise sensitive

area adjacent to Big Lake.

Implementation Cost

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 88
45

Benefit‐Cost Analysis

1. Determine if project is sound investment

2. Compare with alternative projects

Typical Measures:

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

• Crashes

• Fuel Use

• Travel Time

• Operating Costs

89

FHWA Highway Safety Benefit‐Cost

Analysis Guide and Tool

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/fhwasa18001.pdf

90
46

Systemic Benefit‐Cost Example

• Curve treatments at multiple locations

– Focus crash type = fatal and serious injury

– Focus facility type = rural two‐lane curves

– Small curve radius is primary risk indicator

• BCA can support project prioritization

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 91

Summary of Potential Curves

Curve

AADT

(vehicles per day)

Length of Curve

(miles)

Radius of Curve

(feet)

1 6,500 0.070 350

2 7,500 0.100 500

3 5,000 0.060 450

4 7,000 0.110 500

5 5,500 0.060 250

6 7,500 0.190 450

7 10,000 0.230 500

8 6,000 0.070 250

9 8,500 0.170 400

10 9,500 0.210 500

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 92
47

Summary of Safety Performance

Curve AADT Length Radius HSM Base SPF

(Total Crashes) CMF

With Curve

(Total Crashes)

1 6,500 0.070 350 0.1216 3.11 0.3784

2 7,500 0.100 500 0.2004 2.03 0.4078

3 5,000 0.060 450 0.0802 2.92 0.2339

4 7,000 0.110 500 0.2057 1.94 0.3992

5 5,500 0.060 250 0.0882 4.45 0.3924

6 7,500 0.190 450 0.3807 1.61 0.6111

7 10,000 0.230 500 0.6145 1.45 0.8910

8 6,000 0.070 250 0.1122 3.96 0.4439

9 8,500 0.170 400 0.3861 1.76 0.6799

10 9,500 0.210 500 0.5330 1.49 0.7957

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 93

Systemic Curve Program: BCA Results

Curve Safety Travel Time Fuel Use Emissions Total Present

Value Benefit

Benefit‐Cost

Ratio

1 $53,692 $132 $9 $4 $53,836 53.84

2 $60,689 $143 $9 $4 $60,845 60.85

3 $34,502 $82 $5 $2 $34,591 34.59

4 $60, 075 $140 $9 $4 $60,227 60.23

5 $59,850 $138 $9 $4 $60,001 60.00

6 $88,177 $213 $14 $6 $88,410 88.41

7 $130,835 $311 $20 $9 $131,176 131.18

8 $67,912 $156 $10 $4 $68,082 68.08

9 $97,414 $237 $16 $7 $97,673 97.67

10 $114,698 $277 $18 $8 $115,002 115.00

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 94
48

Task 3: Prioritize Safety Projects

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

• Education

• Enforcement

• Maintenance

95

EXERCISE: Select Risk Factors, Countermeasure, and the

High Priority System

You’re developing a systemic safety program:

• Focus crash type: severe lane departure crashes

• Focus facility type: rural paved horizontal curves

• 7 potential risk factors

Topics of Discussion:

• Review potential risk factors

• Which are actual risk factors for further risk assessment?

• Discuss potential systemic countermeasures

• What are 2‐3 targeted systemic countermeasures?

• Discuss potential decision process (i.e., triggers)

• Where/when to deploy each countermeasure?

• Discuss 4th chart (summary of risk assessment)

• What portion of the system you will deploy your countermeasures?

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 96
49

EXAMPLE: Select Risk Factors

Risk Factor 1

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 97

EXAMPLE: Select Risk Factors

Risk Factor 2

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 98
50

23%

33%

26%

44%

85%

38%

52%

28%

56%

88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Intersection Visual Trap Street Lighting No Chevrons Gravel Shoulders

Percent (%)

Presence of Risk Factors

Potential Risk Factorsfor Horizontal Curves

Percent of System with Potential Risk Factor Percent of Severe Lane Departure Crashes Where Risk Factor is Present

EXAMPLE: Select Risk Factors

Risk Factor 3‐7

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 99

Topics of Discussion:

• Select up to 3 targeted countermeasures for systemic implementation.  

• Discuss the decision process (i.e., triggers) for where to deploy each

countermeasure.

Appropriate countermeasures may include:

• Installing chevrons

• Installing edge line extensions through intersections

• Paving shoulders

• Installing centerline or edge rumble strips

EXAMPLE: Select Countermeasures

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 100
51

Example: Select Portion of System to

Apply Countermeasures

Maybe

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 101

Activity 2

Select Risk Factors

Identify Potential Countermeasures

Create Decision Tree

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 102
52

Systemic Variations in Practice

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa16041.pdf

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 103

Benefit‐Cost Threshold Example

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa16041.pdf

• Roadway

– Rural

– 2 Lane Undivided

• Prioritized Sites

– > 5,000 vehicles per day

– > 0.01 head‐on crashes/mile

• Funding

– B/C Ratio 2.0

– $2,500 per mile

– CMF 0.70

– $400,000 per crash

• Results

– Final B/C Ratio 4.0

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zaheerm/5256064985

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 104
53

Hybrid Systemic/Crash‐Based Example

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa16041.pdf

• Focus Crash Type

– Roadway Departure

• Performance Measure

– Excess expected RwD crashes

• Common Characteristics

– Horizontal curvature

– Lack of advance warning

– Lack of in‐curve warning

• Countermeasure Package

– Advance warning

– In‐curve warning https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_W1‐2L.svg

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 105

Additional Considerations

• Element 2

• Element 3

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 106
54

Decision Support Framework

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 107

Example of Balancing Programs

Site‐Specific

Systemic

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 108
55

Example of Balancing Programs

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 109

Three‐Level Systemic Program Evaluation

1. Output / activity level

– Are projects implemented?

2. Observed trends in crash

frequency and severity for

focus crash type

– Are trends decreasing?

3. Countermeasure

performance

– What is actual effectiveness?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/71195909@N03/28955874330

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 110
56

Case Studies

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 111

Using Systemic Safety to Address

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 112
57

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

Severe Bicyclist Crashes

(2008 – 2012)

286 severe crashes

4% of all severe crashes

85% occurred in urban areas

85% occurred on local roads

67% occurred at intersections

Severe Pedestrian Crashes

(2008 – 2012)

649 severe crashes

9% of all severe crashes

16% of all pedestrian

crashes were severe

78% occurred in urban areas

74% occurred on local roads

51% occurred at intersections

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 113

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

Minnesota’s Focus Crash Types Source: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/

Why?

 Determine the categories of severe

crashes with the greatest opportunity

for reduction

How?

 MnDOT used results of a statewide

crash data analysis performed for

Minnesota’s 2014 SHSP update to

identify focus crash types

Identify Focus Crash Types

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 114
58

Source: Adapted from CH2M, 2014.

Select Focus Facility Types

Why?

 Identify where crash types most

frequently occur

How?

 MnDOT used a crash tree analysis

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 115

Source: Adapted from CH2M, 2016.

Select Focus Facility Types

Why?

 Identify where crash types

most frequently occur

How?

 MnDOT compared the

proportion of roadway mileage

to the proportion of crashes

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 116
59

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

Identify Risk Factors

Why?

 Identify roadway

characteristics and network

elements to use as an initial

set of potential risk factors to

be further evaluated for use

in systemic network

screening

How?

 MnDOT analyzed data to

identify an initial list of

recurring roadway and traffic

characteristics at crash

locations

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 117

4 Common Intersection

Characteristics

• Traffic Signal Control.  >60% of severe pedestrian

and bicycle crashes occurred at intersections;

nearly 60% of these intersections had traffic signal

control

• Speed Limit.  Nearly 60% of severe pedestrian

and bicycle crash locations had a 30 MPH speed

limit

• Surrounding Land Use.  ~75% of severe

pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred at

intersections where a pedestrian generator (retail

or institutional land use) was present

• Volume.  Nearly 60% of severe pedestrian and

bicycle crashes occurred at intersections where the

major road entering volume was greater than

17,500 vehicles per day

Evaluate Risk Factors

How?

 MnDOT used the identified risk factors during a

systemic analysis to identify recurring roadway

characteristics at crash locations

Why?

 Establish recurring roadway characteristics at

crash locations

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 118
60

Prioritize Focus Facility Elements

How?

 Used aerial photography and video‐logs to screen the focus facilities to document risk factors present at

1,979 signalized intersections

 Prioritized intersections as candidates for safety investments based on the number of risk factors present

 When the number of risk factors present was equal across a number of intersections, the ranking was then

based on the designated crash cost

Why?

 Evaluate the risk factors of the systems and locations selected for analysis using roadway and traffic

characteristics in order to rank/prioritize at‐risk locations

Source: CH2M, 2016.

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 119

Select Countermeasures

How?

 Assembled

comprehensive list of

countermeasures

 Evaluated and screened

initial list to identify

feasible

countermeasures

 Identified short list based

on evaluation and

agency priorities,

practices, and policies

Why?

 Identify feasible countermeasures that are proven to reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 120
61

Project Development

How?

 MnDOT developed a project

development decision tree

Why?

 Identify and prioritize at‐risk

candidate intersections for safety

projects

Source: CH2M, 2016.

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 121

Minnesota: Ped Bike Safety Case Study

• Summary

– Systemic process assisted in the identification of focus

crash and facility types

– Adoption of a set of risk factors

– Screening and prioritizing of the systems

– Development of a short‐list of safety countermeasures

– Identification of more than $13 million worth of

pedestrian and bicycle focused safety projects at

designated high risk candidate locations

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 122
62

Applying Systemic

Safety on Local Roads

Thurston County, Washington

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 123

Thurston County, Washington

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 124
63

Thurston County, Washington

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 125

Thurston County, Washington

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 126
64

Thurston County, Washington

Focus Crash

Type

• Roadway Departures in

Horizontal Curves

Focus

Facility Type

• Arterial and

Collector

Roadways

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 127

Thurston County, Washington

Presence of

Intersection Traffic Volume

Roadway Class

of Major Rural

Collector

Edge Clearance

Rating

Width of Paved

Shoulder

Presence of

Vertical Curve

Consecutive

Horizontal

Curves

Speed

Differential Visual Trap

9 Risk Factors

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 128
65

Thurston County, Washington

Source: Thurston County Public Works

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 129

Thurston County, Washington

• Chevron and large arrow signs

• Larger signs

• Rumble strips

• Barrier delineation

• Extension lines

Note: In addition to the 5 proven countermeasures

provided, Thurston County use low‐cost and corridor consistency countermeasures.

$

Applied for

HSIP

Funding

5

Proven

Counter‐

measures

Selected

270

Signed

Curves

Prioritized

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 130
66

Thurston County, Washington

35%

Reduction in

Target

Crashes

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Source:

http://www.countyengineer

s.org/assets/docs/LRSP%20

Pilot_Webinar%203.pdf

131

Applying Systemic Safety at

Intersections and Curves

Ohio: Intersection and Curve Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 132
67

Ohio

DOT

Ohio

LTAP

Systemic Signage

Intersection and

Curve Upgrade

Program for

Targeted Ohio

Townships

Ohio: Intersection and Curve Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 133

BEFORE

AFTER

Source: Ohio DOT/LTAP

Ohio: Intersection and Curve Case Study

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 134
68

Conclusion

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 135

Workshop Goals • Familiarity with systemic

safety planning concept

• High‐level understanding

of the systemic approach

• Knowledge of the

resources required to apply

the systemic approach

• Desire and determination

to start or continue

systemic safety planning

http://goldenchamber.org/uncategorized/what-are-the-key-elements-i-must-put-in-place-toreach-my-goals/attachment/goals/ 

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 136
69

Learning Objectives

• Understand and apply the 4‐step systemic safety

planning process

• Access and apply available resources for applying

the systemic approach

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 137

Key Takeaways

• Develop a Systemic Safety Planning Approach

– Identify data needs and potential risk factors

– Implement systemic projects

• Promote Systemic Approach

– Share success stories

• Other Possible Action Items?

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 138
70

Factors Influencing Approach

• Data availability

• Resources

• Established priorities

• State/local agency relationship

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 139

Systemic Safety Resources

• State

– Strategic Highway Safety Plans

– Safety Implementation Plans

• FHWA

– Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

– Crash Tree Maker and User Guide

– CMF Clearinghouse

– Reliability of Safety Management Series

– Highway Safety Benefit‐Cost Analysis

Guide and Tool

• AASHTO

– Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

– NCHRP Report 500 Series

– AASHTOWare Safety Analyst

• Roadway Safety Foundation

– US Road Assessment Program (usRAP)

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION

Roadway Safety Data Program

(RSDP) Toolbox

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/

140
71

Systemic Approach to Safety

Using Risk to Drive Action

Source: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/

OVERVIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION 141