The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 52-80

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 52... ... 45 Summary of Agency Site Visits The research team visited seven state departments of transportation and three local/county agencies to learn about their experiences implementing systemic safety management approaches. In addition, the research team conducted a teleconference with one State DOT. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... 46 one or the other, certain locations types handled by one or the other, two totally separate programs, systemic safety program is experimental, etc.)  Does your agency have a systemic safety champion? Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 47  Are your systemic safety improvement projects done in isolation or in combination with other scheduled maintenance or planned safety improvements?  How has your systemic safety program and/or process evolved over time? Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... 48 roadways. Driving fatal and serious injuries down would yield a significant return on investment and would expand to other programs. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 49  At the local level, look at the system to identify needs. At the state level, start with a proven countermeasure, and then focus on crash types, and prioritize sites. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... 50 Evaluation WSDOT measures the systemic safety program on an annual basis with many parameters including review of trends by roadway ownership, growth of the program overall, and crash trends. For the State system, targeted crashes by region and facility type are reviewed. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 51 FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, which identifies target crash and facility types as well as prioritizes candidate projects. The county has identified roadway departure crashes as a key focus of their efforts, in line with the state SHSP. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... 52 rumble strips. A notable benefit of such programming comes in economies of scale which can help with the bidding process, where projects are bundled by treatment instead of location. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 53  Major reductions in crashes on target facilities has been seen.  Few crashes make evaluation challenging, so the focus is on aggregate level before/after evaluations. Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... 54 analysis. It prioritized locations based on total crash frequencies above a crash threshold. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 55  Recently ARTS funded about $83 million (5 years) on 268 systemic safety improvement projects at an average of $310,000 per project; 50 percent going toward roadway departure, 35 percent toward intersections, and 15 percent toward pedestrian/bicycle. Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... 56 steering committee is currently being set up as a think tank for additional ideas and district participation. Additional information:  HSIP funds are for 100 percent safety use. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 57 largest MPOs with varying funding needs. Median barriers projects were installed on 500 mi of divided highway at a cost of $80,000 per mi and $8,000 per-mi-per-year for maintenance. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... 58 Methodology KYTC initially used critical crash rate to prioritize projects. With the publication of the HSM, Kentucky moved away from this method and developed agency-specific SPFs (2012) Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... 59 improvements per project/site is estimated to be about $250,000. This figure has a large potential variance and could range from $0 to $750,000 (or more) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... 60 2014 to set up a project management group that would deliver projects more efficiently. As a result, the Rhodeworks Program was developed (10-year plan) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 61  Internal staff are being trained on systemic safety analysis by listening to FHWA webinars on the systemic safety management approach.  RIDOT is developing an internal tool to conduct systemic safety analysis. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... 62 RIDOT has developed a GIS tool that will have a public interface to show what projects are planned for the future. This will help coordinate with other projects and strive to work with project management and implementation. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... 63 MaineDOT uses a three-stage approach that starts with crash data analysis:  Defining general concerning crash trends (usually those with disproportionate fatal and serious injuries) and HSM-based screening for intersections. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... 64 Internal education training courses include:  Systemic 101 – Welcome to the concept of cable median barrier.  Systemic 201 – Let's get analytical (Head on) Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... 65  A systemic safety management approach has been applied statewide but has fully been embraced by the local system.  Operators of the local system have found great value in using systemic safety management approach to receive HSIP projects. Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... 66 implemented on the local system, 70 percent were projects using a proactive approach, and 30 percent were based on a more reactive approach. Many counties would not be investing in safety if the DOT had not created the program to support the counties and the systemic safety management approach. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... 67  Central office staff will recommend projects to the regional staff if they have not identified their own.  Central office analyzes selected projects to determine HSIP eligibility and B/C ratio. Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... 68 alternative to the Safety Analyst software. UDOT began using the usRAP approach in 2013, and soon after hired a consultant to become an expert in using ViDA to perform safety evaluations and in developing benefit-cost ratios for projects using several approaches. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... 69 Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Kentucky Transportation Council Primary Contact: Michael Vaughn Culture change to focus more on implementation of low-cost safety improvements; makes sense to develop a safety improvement program with multiple strategies (i.e., hot-spot and systemic) Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) Read the entire page →

From page 52...

... 45 Summary of Agency Site Visits The research team visited seven state departments of transportation and three local/county agencies to learn about their experiences implementing systemic safety management approaches. In addition, the research team conducted a teleconference with one State DOT.