CENG433: Advanced Traffic

Engineering
Chapter 6: Traffic Safety
 Key Facts - WHO
As per February 2020
• Approximately 1.35 million people die each year as a result
of road traffic crashes.
• The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set an
ambitious target of halving the global number of deaths
and injuries from road traffic crashes by 2020.
• Road traffic crashes cost most countries 3% of their gross
domestic product.
• More than half of all road traffic deaths are among
vulnerable road users: pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorcyclists.
• 93% of the world's fatalities on the roads occur in low- and
middle-income countries, even though these countries
have approximately 60% of the world's vehicles.
• Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for
children and young adults aged 5-29 years.
Scope for Transportation Engineers
• Mission: Mobility for all
• Mandate: Safety
• Areas included:
1. Roadside clearance analysis,
2. Work zone safety,
3. Horizontal curve advisory speeds,
4. Road safety audits,
5. Conflict analysis,
6. Identification of hazardous locations,
7. Countermeasure deployment, and
8. Analysis of countermeasures
 Road Safety Audits
• “A safety analysis tool that provides a formal evaluation of a new or existing
roadway by an independent audit team”
• Used extensively in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the
United Kingdom
• Done along stretches of the road not for single sites and intersections
• Done by external evaluators
• Proactive rather reactive (road safety review)
• More useful for new sites
• Advantages: identification of potential driver errors and site problems
• Focus on the effects of following on road safety:
– Roadway capacity,
– Right of way,
– Environmental issues, and
– Political interest and constraints
 Identifying the sites
• Include existing or new sites in pre or
postconstruction phase
• Sites for preconstruction audits: complex road
designs, existing sites with known safety
problems, and high-profile projects
• Sites for postconstruction audits: sites with
notable collision problems following
construction, high-profile projects, or sites where
traffic characteristics are expected to change due
to construction or new developments in the area
 Team Selection
• From consulting agencies or administrative
agencies from other jurisdictions
• 3 – 10 members; 3 – 5 engineers and others may
include people from local law enforcement, fire
and rescue, and pedestrian and bicycle advocates
• Class Activity
– Name the organizations (public and private) from
which people can be included in RSA for Bahrain
– Note: There can be NGOs involved related to different
focus groups
 Kick-off Meeting
• Data to be provided by local jurisdiction,
including:
– Roadway drawings (if in the design process),
– Aerial imagery,
– Condition and collision diagrams, and
– Summarized collision data,
• Assign a photographer and secretary
• Larger maps and drawings can be taken to site for
note taking with additional people
• Field equipment: Safety vests, measuring wheel,
cameras (video and still), stopwatch and
clipboard and paper (or a tablet)
 Field Review
• All RSA committee members should drive
through the road multiple times in different
times and traffic conditions
• Driving by different drivers is better
• Photographer and secretary at the front and
other members in the same van
• If different modes are present, then members
should opt to travel through all of them
• It is better to prepare a prompt list before
field visits
 Analysis and Reporting
• Should be done as soon as possible
after the field visits
• Should be done in a workshop or
training environment with projectors
and whiteboards
• Starting point: information provided
before kick-off meeting
• Videos, photos, and field notes would
be visited
• Prioritization of issues should be done
according to severity and likelihood
• Report includes: all background
information related to the site(s), the
audit team members’ names,
backgrounds, and expertise; site visit
dates and times; an explanation of the
prioritization method used in the
analysis; and a list of the safety issues
and suggested mitigation to be
considered.
 Presenting Findings
• To the local agencies
• Supplemental details must be provided
• Local agencies may seek clarifications, show
concerns or address to recommendations
• Everything must be documented
 Preparing Formal Response and
Incorporating Findings
• In the form of Formal Response Letter from
local agency(ies) to the RSA team
• Includes short responses to each identified
issue, with possible action and its explanation
• Changes should be implemented ASAP for
proactivity
 Conflict Analysis
• The Manual of Transportation
Engineering Studies defines a
conflict as:
A potentially risky interaction between
two or more vehicles or road users when
one or more vehicles or road users take
evasive action, such as braking or
weaving, to avoid a collision. Conflicts
are used as surrogate measures for
actual crashes, which are rare.
• Can be used in absence of collision
data or in support of it for better
understanding
• Does not need much time or
resources
• 1 to 3 days at one location
(intersection) with trained observers
using pen and paper
 Conflict Analysis
• May be used for determining:
– the number and type of conflicts at an
intersection,
– the magnitude of a traffic safety problem at a
known location, or
– to evaluate the effectiveness of a safety-related
countermeasure that has been implemented and
needs studying
Types of Conflicts
• Mainly for
intersections
• Not well defined for
other segments
• Certain types may be
selected for
observation, based
upon preliminary data
or pilot observations
 Number and Types of Conflicts
• May be found to compare between different design alternatives, or
• As a preliminary study before detailed site investigations
• Three main classifications: Diverging, Merging and Crossing
• Diverging
– Less problematic
– Due to driver confusion
– Extremely dangerous
– Example: Driver accidentally exiting from a wrong approach of
roundabout
• Merging
– Prominent
– Resulting in side-swipe
– Related to poor understanding, poor design or lack of signage or
markings
• Crossing
– Extremely problematic
– Results in angle and left-turn opposing collisions
Comparison Between Four –Leg
Intersection and Roundabout
Only
vehicle to
vehicle
 Example 6.1
• Determine the number and type of conflicts
for a median U-turn intersection that removes
all direct left turns at the main intersection
and diverts to the downstream U-turn
opening. What are the expected safety
benefits compared to a standard 4-legged
intersection?
 Example 6.2
• For the T-intersection shown, how many
vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points are
present if pedestrians are only allowed to
cross the minor street?
 Field Evaluation
• Conflict studies are done faster than collision
studies at new sites without prior data
• Four methods: Before and After, Cross-sectional,
Reference group, Frequency method
• Before and After Study
– Less common since before data may not have been
collected
– May be done for safety or operational measures
– Shorter for safety measures due to expected results
 Field Evaluation
• Cross-Sectional Study
– Conducted when the time for before study had passed
– Conducted with intersections which are in similar state to
the subject site in the before condition
– Studied conflict types should be related to the type of
countermeasure
• Reference Group Study
– Similar to cross-section
– Comparison is made with known rates of similar spots and
segments
– Highly unlikely due to unavailability and unreliability of
data
• Data From
Kansas City
 Field Evaluation
• Frequency
– Very commonly used
– Applied where other methods cannot be applied
– Problem areas are identified through public input, political interest or media
• Two forms of data:
• (1) the number of observations of driver actions that involve a change in
direction and/or speed to avoid a collision and
• (2) a count of the number of vehicles moving through the intersection (or
some other surrogate to determine the rate of conflicts).
• Examples: Hard braking (including skidding) and abrupt lane changing are
counted as conflicts, normal braking for a vehicle ahead turning right is not
considered a conflict
• To calculate conflict rates; TMCs should be taken, at the time of study or the
latest available one
• Alternatives; time-based rates, such as per hour, per day or per cycle
• Counts should be taken for other modes as well, if their analysis is required.
The study would focus on risky behavior by other road users (pedestrians
and bicyclists)
 Example 6.3
• An existing diamond interchange is being retrofit with an innovative
interchange form, the diverging diamond interchange (DDI). The
primary reason for replacing the interchange is to improve
operations by reducing queues and delay to the traveling public.
Since replacing the interchange, the State Department of
Transportation (DOT) has received several phone calls from
motorists complaining about unsafe driving conditions around the
interchange ramp terminals. (Note: DDIs require drivers to
“crossover” and drive on the left side of the road between the
ramps, allowing free-flow left turns onto the freeway.) As the safety
analyst, you are asked to determine what safety problems may be
present at the intersection and recommend potential
countermeasures. Because this interchange treatment is new, you
decide to conduct a surrogate safety analysis using conflicts.
First Step – Conflict Diagram
Second Step – Conflict Study
Step 3 - Rate of Conflicts
 Conclusions and Recommendations
• The data in the graph indicate an obvious signal compliance
issue. This was most likely due to the long cycle lengths
present at the two-phase intersections. You recommend to
your boss that they consider half cycling the DDI.
• In addition, there appeared to be a merging problem for
right-turning vehicles onto the arterial. Drivers appeared to
be turning into oncoming traffic that came from a direction
they were not expecting (the opposite side of the road
through the crossover). You recommend looking at ways to
improve sight distance and angle.
• Last, lane changing in the crossover was somewhat
problematic at both crossovers. Looking at the aerial
diagrams, you tell your boss to consider improving
channelization by providing better alignment cues such as
curbing or pavement marking symbols at, and through, the
crossover.
 Collision Analysis
• Improved dramatically in recent years, due to the
focus by agencies on robust study methods and
the ease of analysis and data storage using
computers and spreadsheet tools
• Analysis of trends in crash types, time of day, and
weather conditions should be distinguished from
detailed crash causes
• When a significant causal factor is present in a
large proportion of crashes (e.g., distracted
driving, drowsiness, or elderly crash rates, to
name a few), engineers have an obligation to
make recommendations to policymakers that
could reduce their occurrence.
 Data Collection
• Done immediately after the accident by police
• On standard paper form or laptops/tablets
• Including:
– Specific information on the drivers and passengers, the
vehicles, the roadway,
– The conditions at the time of the collision,
– A narrative describing the event, and,
– In most cases, a sketch of the collision with vehicle paths
and objects that are struck.
• Available sources: The Highway Safety Information
System (HSIS), The Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS), The General Estimates System (GES), The Model
Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE),
SAFETYNET, Highway Safety Manual, Mobility and
Transport
Collision Types
 Injury Codes
• FABCO or KABCO
– K; killed or fatal
– A; The person experienced serious, incapacitating, nonfatal
injuries during the collision, for example, broken bones, massive
loss of blood, or even more serious injuries.
– B; The person experienced a visible but not serious or
incapacitating injury during the collision.
– C: The person complained of pain or momentary loss of
consciousness due to an injury during the collision, but no
visible sign of injury was evident to the investigator.
– O: No injury, which includes “PDO” or “property damage only”
collisions. These are often significantly underreported as they
are often handled between the driver(s) of the vehicles.
 Data Collection Errors and Issues
• Common errors in collision data are:
– Unreported collisions such as property damage only
(PDO),
– Incorrect or incomplete location,
– Severity changed after a report is filed (i.e., an
occupant dies four days later from injuries sustained
from the crash),
– The collision type is incorrect, or
– The roadway characteristics may be reported
incorrectly
• Three years of data is considered sufficient for
collision analysis provided that conditions have
not changed, such as; change in regulations or
roadway construction
 Planning/Prescreening Methods
• Programs and sections in the departments, focused on
safety, identify hazardous locations
• Limited funds
• Aim: reduce number of crashes
• Can be done for spots or segments
• Spots: short segments that identify problem location
“Points”, such as intersections, curves, and short bridges.
The highway cross section and other features at a spot
should be noticeably different from surrounding spots or
short segments, 0.2 to 0.3 miles
• Segments: longer, relatively homogeneous segments of
highway convenient for studying cross sections, pavement
surfaces, and other longitudinal features, 1 – 2 miles
 Planning/Prescreening Methods
They include:
• Collision Frequency
• Collision Rate
• Rate Quality Control
• Equivalent Property Damage Only
• Relative Severity Index
• Sites with Promise
 Collision Frequency
• Selection of site with
the highest number of
frequency of crashes
• Can be done with
specific type of
collision or severity
(for example;
pedestrian or fatal)
• Easy, convenient and
intuitive method
• Results in high
emphasis on busy
locations
 Collision Rate
• Rate calculated on the basis of volume of traffic
• Volume and collision time period should be same
• Biased towards low volume roads as few crashes
can increase the rate dramatically
• Used with collision frequency
• Example: comparing rates for sites which reach a
certain threshold of frequency

A = Reported collisions, T = number of years, V = AADT,

L = length of section
 Example
The State DOT has set aside
$2,300,000 this year for rural
spot safety funding. Four
divisions submitted proposals
for two intersections each,
along with the approximate
costs of countermeasures
and the expected reduction
in collisions following
treatment installation. The
eight rural intersections are
shown in the following table,
along with total collisions for
a three-year period. Which
sites would you recommend
to be funded?
 Rate Quality Control (RQC)
• Uses statistical test to find out if a site has unusually high crash
rates as compared to similar sites
• Only applied to crash rates
• Poisson distribution of accidents
• Hazardous site: Rspot or Rsegment > Rcritical
• Biased towards low volume sites
• Rcritical = critical crash rate for locations with similar characteristics
• Ra= mean crash rate for locations with similar characteristics
• M=the traffic volume during the analysis period (million entering
• vehicles, or million vehicle miles)
• K=constant corresponding to a level of confidence, commonly use
90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals for K, which correspond to
1.282, 1.645, and 2.327, respectively
 Example
• Analysts are examining a narrow bridge as a spot that
may be so hazardous that it needs some safety
treatment. A total of 14 collisions have been recorded
at the bridge in the past 4 years. The AADT at the
bridge has remained steady over the past 4 years at
1000 vehicles per day. A sample of other narrow
bridges in the highway district revealed a mean
collision rate of 0.60 collisions per million entering
vehicles. The analysts wish to use the rate quality
control method to make a decision about whether this
bridge is hazardous. Using that method, determine the
critical collision rate, above which the site would be
declared hazardous at the 95% confidence level.
 Example
• Roadway section C - D had 38 reported
collisions in 3 years, and the agency
responsible for the section estimated that
travel on the section was 20 million entering
vehicles (MEV) during that time. The mean
collision rate for all sections in the jurisdiction
similar to section CD was 120 per 100 MEV.
Should an analyst flag section CD as hazardous
with 90% confidence?
 Equivalent Property Damage Only
• Weighing Factors are used for EPDO rating
with number of each crash types
 • Bias towards fatal crashes
• Following factors and grouping is
recommended to avoid biasness
Kentucky Formula
Factors for Bahrain
 Example
• The Hobsock Police Department recorded the
collision data shown in the following table at
the intersection of North Creek Ave. and the I-
999 eastbound off-ramp during the period
1/1/2013 to 12/31/2015.
The ramp AADT during the period was
8600, while the AADT on North Creek Ave.
was 34,100 during that time. There were
no fatalities or A-injuries reported. The
mean collision rate at similar intersections
in Hobsock is 0.15 collisions per million
entering vehicles. Using the Kentucky
formula, what is the number of EPDO
collisions expected at this intersection?
 Example
• Washington State has provided the crash cost
estimates by severity (see following table).
 Part (a)
• Four intersections have been provided by four neighboring
districts requesting safety funding for improvements. Your
job is to determine which district should receive funding.
Given crash data from each of the four intersections over
the last 2 years, determine the weighting factors and EPDO
scores for the four signalized intersections. Based on EPDO
alone, which intersection should receive funding for
improvements?
 Part (b)
• Calculate the EPDO collision rate per million
entering vehicle miles. Based on the EPDO
crash rate, which intersection should receive
funding for improvements?
 Relative Severity Index (RSI)
• Comparing average cost of crashes among
sites
• Biased towards high cost crashes, can be
utilized with other methods
• Hazardous site: RSIn > RSIp
 Example
• Crash data on four problematic intersections
are provided in the following table. The
collision data covers a time period of 3 years.

(a) Find out RSI for each intersection

(b) Find out RSI for reference population
(c) Which intersections should be considered for further evaluation and countermeasures
 Sites with Promise
• Uses crash frequency, crash rates with 5
additional conditions to get rid of biasness of
previous methods
• Condition A: “Is there one or more
countermeasures we would like to consider
installing on a programmatic level?”
• Condition B: “Are there newly constructed or
reconstructed sites that seem to be having a
crash problem?”. Comparing frequency with
similar sites, if new sites do not have full year
data then multiplying factors can be used.
 Sites with Promise
• Condition C: “Are there sites that have recently seen a
significant increase in collision frequency?”
• Condition D: “Are there lower-volume sites that we
may be missing because the exposure is not accounted
for?”
• Condition E: “Are there newly constructed or
reconstructed sites that seem to be having a crash
problem but could be missed because they are low-
volume, low-collision sites?”. Used with crash rates,
rates must be brought to the same time period scale,
done separately for spot and segments
(𝑅𝑖 − 𝑅𝑚 )/𝜎𝑅
 Example
• The Bangerter public works department is conducting its
yearly spot safety problem. It has budgeted for $1,000,000
in safety-related countermeasures with a focus on
reducing more prominent collisions at signalized
intersections, namely angle, left-turn opposing, and rear-
end crashes. The department is open to investigating any
and all countermeasures to improve sites; however, two
particular focus areas this year will be
backplates/louvers/12-in LEDs (visibility of signal heads)
and proper intersection sight distance to allow drivers to
see conflicting traffic and traffic signal heads. Two newly
constructed sites include only a single year’s worth of data,
and the department wants to make sure there is not a
safety problem that needs addressing before more data are
available. Which of the 11 sites should the city consider for
further evaluation?
Solution
 Solution
• Condition A: sites 1 and 5 with highest crash types of angle,
left and read-end
• Condition B: Site 2, having crash statistic of more than 0
(3.2 times standard deviation)
• Condition C: Site 8, crash frequency doubled in 2013
• Condition D: collision rate at site 3 is much higher than any
other comparable site
• Condition E: site 2 has statistic more than 0
• Summary: sites 1 and 5 are promising for the program. Site
2 has a short-term problem, should be addressed
immediately. Site 5 deteriorated significantly in 2013, needs
further investigation to check if it was not just a sporadic
issue. Site 3 has highest crash rate, it needs further
investigation. Collision and condition diagrams should be
used at specific sites to determine the countermeasures
 Countermeasure Development
• Looking for cost-effective solutions, lowest
dollar spent per collision or injury saved
• Primary tools:
– Collision diagram
– Condition diagram
• Additional: Set of potential countermeasures
 Collision Diagram
• To show the location and/or involvement of movements
prevalent in the collisions
• Items included:
– Street names,
– Outlines of the edges of the pavement,
– Direction orientation
– Symbols for collisions and fixed objects
– table or supplementary diagrams for summarizing the collisions
by type, severity, light condition, or road condition
– Number of collisions, their location and patterns, time of day,
date, pavement condition, severity
• If diagram becomes crowded then analyst can use a symbol
to represent multiple collisions of same type, provided that
they happened under same conditions
 Condition Diagram
• To supplement collision diagram
• May be started as rough sketches in the field or
aerial photographs
• Focus on traffic design and operation
components
• Additional information: roadway debris from
crashes, skid marks, signal light functionality
(such as LEDs), and surrogate measures that take
place while making observations (such as
conflicts or erratic maneuvers).
Check List
 Countermeasure Selection
• Focus on roadway and human factors
• Cluster analysis is done to see the most predominant issues
• Start with the earliest known cause, which will be updated later on
based upon later causes
• Main sources: experience and judgement
• 4 Es: engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency
response
• If countermeasures cannot be identified then focus should be
shifted to other sites where they are more easily identifiable
• Countermeasures may be not actually be effective, Or may cause
some other issues.
• Therefore, post-implementation evaluation is important for an
extended period
 Countermeasure Selection
• Example 1: The analyst may be asked to install a traffic
signal or guardrail where a known collision problem exists;
however, these countermeasures can come with their own
inherent risk and should be used as a last resort
• Example 2: Updated signal timing at a standalone
intersection within a coordinated network may cause
problems at downstream intersections that have not also
been retimed
• When considering fixed objects, following hierarchy is
followed:
– Remove
– Move
– Make safer (breakaway supports)
– Shield (guardrails)
 Possible Countermeasures
• Important tool: Crash Modification Factors
(CMF) clearinghouse by FHWA:
• www.cmfclearinghouse.org
 Example
• A two-lane, rural highway in your jurisdiction has had two
run-off-the road crashes near the same spot within the past
3 months. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. After
investigation, you have determined that excessive speed
and slippery pavement are the most likely causal factors. All
but which of the following are possible countermeasures to
reduce future crashes at this spot?
• (A) Overlay with 1.5 in of new asphalt pavement.
• (B) Reduce the speed limit to 45 mph.
• (C) Install guardrail to redirect vehicles back onto the
shoulder.
• (D) Provide adequate drainage to ensure water does not
contribute to hydroplaning.
 Example
• Several rural 4-legged, two-way, stop-controlled
intersections across the state have been screened
as having crash problems. The State Department
of Transportation (DOT) is considering installation
of roundabouts at several of these crash-prone
locations. As the safety analyst for the DOT, you
have been asked to make recommendations for
treatments based on their likely effectiveness.
What information can you provide to your
supervisor that would aid in his/her decision to
install roundabouts versus another possible
treatment?
• Six studies are reported, with five of the six studies showing
positive collision reduction factors (CRFs), indicating increased
safety. Of those five, the minimum expected decrease in collisions
was 60%. Four of the six reports have 4 of out 5 stars, and each of
those higher-quality reports show reductions. The lowest reported
reduction was 68%. Taking crash severity into account (the focus of
this countermeasure evaluation), the second and fourth studies
show an 88% and 89% reduction in serious injury collisions.
 Fundamentals of Before and After
Study
• Four Common Issues:
A. Accounting for differences in time
B. Accounting for differences in exposure (volume)
C. Accounting for unexpected specific events
D. Accounting for regression to mean
 Time Correction
• Multiply after collisions with the ratio of time
period before and after
• For the above example; 45/15 = 3 months
 Exposure Correction
• Multiply collisions with the ratio of volume
before and after
• For the above example; 15000/16000 = 0.938
 Comparison with Similar Sites
• To account to unexpected events
• Sites should be similar in the before case
• Correction A and B is not required since time period is same
• Determines the collisions without the countermeasure on similar
sites
 RTM
• Regression to the mean (RTM) occurs when
locations with high collision counts during one
time period experience more normal counts
during the next time period, even if no
causative factor changes
• Countermeasure may be overestimated if RTM
is present and not considered
• Accounted by using reference sites to derive
safety performance functions (SPFs)
HSM Procedure for Predicting Crashes
• Decide which facilities and roads will be used in the
predictive process and for what period of time.
• Identify homogeneous sites and assemble geometric
conditions, crash data, and AADT data for the sites to
be used.
• Apply the appropriate SPF, any applicable crash
modification factors (CMFs), and a calibration factor if
available.
• Apply site or project-specific EB method if applicable.
• Repeat for all sites and years, sum, and compare
results.