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 34
Relationship between ATL Crashes and Total ATL Length
Exhibit 4-7 compares sideswipe crashes (combined over all analysis years in
the dataset, unlike the preceding exhibits) at each site to total ATL length (sum of
upstream ATL length, intersection width, and downstream ATL length not
including tapers). While it may be hypothesized that longer ATLs allow for safer
merging, it is also possible that more exposure to merging areas would lead to
more frequent sideswipe crashes. Based on the direction of the linear relationship
shown in Exhibit 4-7 (again the best-fit line), it appears that the probability of
sideswipe crashes increases as the length of the ATL increases.
Exhibit 4-7
y= 0.0043x - 0.0532 20062008 Rear-End Sideswipe
R2 = 0.3744 Crashes/Year versus ATL Total
14 Length
12
Sideswipe Collisions
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Upstream + Downstream ATL Length (ft)
In summary, the analysis of the data from the 16 study sites showed some
relationships between rear-end crashes and congestion, between rear-end crashes
and flow rates in the ATLs, and between sideswipe crashes and ATL length.
However, the relationships are weak and causation is unclear in all cases, so
practitioners should not over-interpret the findings. In the future, perhaps
calibrated crash prediction models for ATLs will be available to provide firmer
guidance to practitioners considering ATLs.
SAFETY EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS
The following guidance is recommended for conducting a safety evaluation
of an existing ATL:
· Collect crash data for the ATL approach and remove non-ATL-related
crashes.
· Closely examine rear-end and sideswipe crashes along the approach with
the ATL, including the tapers.
· Collect crash data over as long a time as possible given that important
safety-related conditions remained unchanged.
Page 35
OCR for page 35
· Exercise caution in observing when the ATL was constructed and not
include data from prior to the ATL opening.
· Use a method similar to the safety analysis of conventional intersections
as described in the HSM (4) to evaluate the crash data.
· Review the crash data from the 16 sites examined in this chapter to
understand how typical ATLs perform.
Evaluating the safety implications of ATL proposals or designs is currently
difficult given the lack of crash prediction models or CMFs. Until those tools are
available, practitioners should be confident that, based on the data presented in
this chapter, well-designed ATLs are not likely to cause safety problems. An
SSAM analysis could also be used when a practitioner wishes to examine the
potential safety effects of building an ATL or altering an ATL's design or
operational elements. As Appendix A describes, an SSAM analysis requires a
calibrated microsimulation model of the intersection that exhibits an appropriate
estimate of the flow in the ATL. Ten or more simulation runs should be used to
populate the sample size. During SSAM analysis of the trajectory files, only rear-
end and lane-change conflicts should be examined, and a time-to-crash (TTC)
threshold of 1.5 seconds is preferred to yield a larger sample size. The
practitioner should then look for the relative change in conflict frequency when a
design element (e.g., downstream length) or operational element (e. g., XT) is
altered to draw conclusions about the safety effects of the ATL design.
Page 36
