Click for next page ( 56

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 55
56 APPENDIX G Additional Feedback on Schemas and UML Models Comments from the TransXML community were sought The safety schema should include these and other data on the UML models through August 30, 2005, and on the about the physical condition of the roadside and the evidence TransXML schemas through December 31, 2005. Comments of the crash dynamics. received beyond those dates could not be incorporated into The TransXML effort should develop draft schema additions schema and sample applications developed in the course of for these needs rather than just passing on the suggestion to this project. This additional feedback has been collected in NHTSA. this appendix so that it can be addressed in future TransXML development. Additional Comments from Reviewer #2 G.1 Safety Business Area The comments below refer to the UML models docu- mented in the section labeled "Highway Information Safety Additional Comments from Reviewer #1 Analysis Package" which can be found on pages 73 through The existing schema need to be supplemented in the area 100 of the UML Model Appendix to this report. of site information. There is little allowance for informa- tion that is needed for accident reconstruction and safety Page 83, 7.2.23: urbanRural (Area Type) could be expanded analysis. The length, location, and orientation of skid marks to include suburban are crucial to estimating the speed of a vehicle and the driver's actions at the time of the accident. The type of With respect to Intersections: any barrier that was struck is essential to studies aimed at evaluating the performance of those barriers. While acci- The actual geometry of an intersection cannot be dent reports may be available, a mechanism is needed to determined/reconstructed from the data elements in the sort to the ones that involve the specific barrier system of schema (e.g., skew is not represented). concern. The "Intersection" is a sub-element of "RoadLocation" There is still a lot to be studied in regard to acceptable widths of clear zones and clear areas. Accident data is key to and has two attributes named "locationReferenceMinor those studies. The schema needs to allow the lateral travel of Road" and the "minorRoadName." This implies that the errant vehicles to be documented, as well as the sideslopes road that is identified by "RoadLocation" is the major of the clear area. Quality of the clear areas is also an open road for all of its intersections, which is not necessarily question, as higher center of gravity vehicles are less likely true. The model cannot represent situations in which to perform well on sideslopes that have been considered the roadway under analysis is the minor road at an inter- acceptable for traditional personal vehicles. The schema section. This could be acceptable if an assumption is needs to allow recording of both sideslopes and vehicle added to the model that an intersection is counted as a rollover information. sub-element for a roadway only if the roadway is the The amount of damage to a barrier system is a key piece of major road. the accident record and also valuable to the maintenance "Corner" data are not in the model. effort to repair that guide rail. "Turn Speeds" are not in the model.

OCR for page 55
57 With respect to Roadway Segments: G.2 Survey/Design Business Area Additional Comments from Reviewer #1 The following elements used in IHSDM are not explicitly modeled: The comments below refer to the UML models docu- Roadside hazard rating; mented in the section labeled "Geometric Roadway Design, Ditches (defined implicitly via the cross-section 2nd Draft," which can be found on pages 172 through 254 of elements); the UML Model Appendix to this report. The page number Obstruction offset; references shown below refer to the numbering scheme used Shoulder width and slope; within that section of the appendix, not to the page numbers Curve widening; of the appendix itself. Bridge presence/width; Speeds: design and 85th percentile; and Intersections are not modeled (but intersections are cov- Percent RVs. ered in the "Highway Information Safety Analysis (HISA) "Average lane width" is provided (which includes the aux- Package"). iliary lane width), but the width of individual lanes cannot Page 38, "Line," "dir[0. .1]" attribute: How is the direction be defined. of the line defined (e.g., using N/S/E/W, azimuth, etc.)? Turn lanes are not explicitly defined, except for Page 41, "Spiral," "Recommendation," line 7: Should the TWLTLs. Under the Auxiliary Lane Type code list, there references to "begin length" and "end length" of a spiral are "accelerationLane" and "decelerationLane"--are these instead be to "begin radius" and "end radius?" meant to represent turn lanes? Page 55, Superelevation>Carriage Way>Lane: Lane width Driveway Density is provided, but the locations of indi- is entered indirectly via offsets, but there does not appear vidual drives cannot be specified (which might be needed to be a way to identify lane type (thru, turn, climbing, for future IHSDM/HSM models). passing, etc.). It is unclear whether more than one auxiliary lane can be Page 55, The proposed Superelevation model cannot model modeled per direction. Also the relative placement of a break in cross-slope within a lane. (Not sure if this is the auxiliary lane with respect to the thru lanes cannot be important.) modeled. Page 56, "Superelevation": For "standard AASHTO" tran- Only one shoulder type per direction can be modeled. sitions, it appears that the "beginStation" and "endStation" Also, the "Composite" shoulder type that is included in attributes are redundant with the Critical Transition sta- the schema was eliminated from the IHSDM roadway tions related to Transition Types "entryNormalCrown" model. and "exitNormalCrown." The "Bikeway" attribute for each direction of a Road Page 59, "Transition Type": The "specialTransition" attri- Segment seems to duplicate the "bicycleLane" attribute in bute is defined as "Any special transition location." It is "Auxiliary Lane Type." unclear whether the type (e.g., beginning of alignment) is to Curvature, superelevation, and grade data duplicate ele- be specified for the transition location, or just labeled as ments in the Geometric Roadway Design section. "special transition" regardless of type? Page 64, "CrossSect": What does the "name" of a cross section refer to? Additional Comments from Reviewer #3 Page 69, "DesignCrossSectSurf ": What does "typical width" The developed Safety Schema do not cover crash dynamics refer to? or roadside geometry concerns in any place close to the level Taper locations (e.g., begin/end of turn-lane taper) are not of detail that I was hoping for. My major motivation far par- explicitly modeled. However, they could be modeled using ticipating was to ensure that the developed schema adequately cross-sections, if the "critical" points are captured. addressed sideslopes, backslopes, guide rail types, terminal Shoulder width and slope are not modeled. Only one and attenuator types, etc. That did not happen. shoulder section can be modeled per side.