Data Elements and Analytical Techniques for MPO Planning

International Traffic Records Forum- July 15, 2003 Steve Cook

Denver Regional Council of Governments

“Enhancing and protecting the quality of life in our region”

Federal Law (TEA-21):Federal Law (TEA-21):

Federal Loca

l Appro

val B

y

MPO

Urban Areas

MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization

MPO Area

Municipal Boundaries

Adams

Douglas

Boulder

ArapahoeClear Creek

Gilpin

DenverAurora

Arvada

Lakewood

Thornton

Boulder

Brighton

Parker

Castle Rock

Longmont

Commerce City

Littleton

WestminsterBroomfield

Golden

Erie

Lafayette

Wheat Ridge

Northglenn

Larkspur

Greenwood Village

Superior

Cherry HillsVillage

Morrison Sheridan

Bennett

Lyons

Foxfield

Black Hawk

Lone Tree

Nederland

Federal Heights

Ward

Georgetown

Edgewater

Idaho Springs

Bow Mar

Glendale

Jamestown

Empire

Louisville

Columbine Valley

Englewood

Deer Trail

Jefferson

Silver Plume

Central City

Always had transportation safety concerns

MPOs approach differently

MPO Safety Applications

1. Engineering & Design

2. Short-range project programming (TIP)– Most expenditures on “safety improvements”

not for safety motivated projects

3. Long-range planning (Regional

Transportation Plan)

4. Awareness & Education

DRCOG PlanRelationships

Metro Vision Plan (Core Elements)

6 Core Elements

Needed Metro Vision

Transportation System Transportation Core Element

Fiscally Constrained 2030 Regional

Transportation Plan Transportation Plan (RTP)

6-Year Program of 2005 - 2010

Funded Projects Transportation Improvement

(using federal funds) Program (TIP)

Project Implementation

Lower

Safety DataLevel of Detail

Higher

Engineering & Design

• Primarily role of project implementing agency

• Safety elements in ALL types of projects

• Limited MPO involvement– Verification of safety measures noted in TIP

• Data elements – location specific details

– Individual crash reports– Roadway characteristics

Short-Range Project Programming (Transportation Improvement Program)

• Selection of projects to receive federal $

• Safety criteria in project selection (~ 10%)

– Projects on existing roads/interchanges– Bicycle and pedestrian facility projects

• Data elements – (supplied by applicants)

– Crash rates (current situation)– Crash reduction potential (rate and raw #)– Need accurate crash data (type & location)– Consistency of data

Improvement Level - Estimated Number of Crashes Eliminated (3 years) / Mile **

Low Medium High Very HighCrash Rate Group Urban Arterial Urban Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Freeway 0-14 fewer 15-35 35-59 60+< State Avg.: 0.01 to 7.52 0.01 to 4.55 0.01 to 3.47 0.01 to 2.54 7% 20% 40% 60%1 - 2 x's State Avg.: 7.53 to 15.05 4.56 to 9.11 3.48 to 6.95 2.55 to 5.09 14% 35% 60% 75%2 - 3 x's State Avg.: 15.06 to 22.58 9.12 to 13.67 6.96 to 10.43 5.10 to 7.64 30% 55% 75% 85%> 3 x's State Avg.: 22.59 + 13.68 + 10.44 + 7.65 + 50% 72% 85% 100%

FORMULAS and NOTES:* - Rw = Aw / mil. VMT/yr, Aw = (12 x annual fatals)+(5 x annual injury)+(1 x annual PDOs), VMT = AWDT x length x 365 x .9277 (minimum length = 1.0 mile)** - Attach crash reduction calculations and assumptions.*** - "Low" crash reduction assumed for those project submittals without crash reduction data provided.

Roadway Crash Reduction Assessment

Roadway Type

Crash Reduction Ranges by Crash Level

Crash Ranges per Million Vehicle Miles of Travel by

Percent Crashes Eliminated by Crash Level by Crash Rate Group

Percentage Reduction Example RelaventImprovement Characteristics in Relevant Crashes Crash Types

(at applicable crash locations)INTERSECTIONS:

New traffic signal 20% right-angle, turnsUpgrade traffic signal (heads) 20% rear-end, red light runAdd new approach turn lanes 25% rear-end

Add accel/decel lane 25% rear-end, sideswipeConvert to roundabout 40% right-angle

Increase turn radii 15% turn crashes

RAILROADAutomatic Gate 75% vehicle-trainGrade separate 100% vehicle-train

ROADSIDE / BRIDGESGuard rail - install/upgrade 60% fatal, 40% injury run off road

Shoulder widening / addition 20% run off road, overtake ped./bikeBridge widening 40% bridge

Remove fixed objects 50% fatal, 15% injury fixed objectSeparated bicycle/pedestrian path 80% overtake ped., bicycle

ROADWAYSCurve reconstruction 50% run off road, head-onVertical re-alignment 45% head-on, limited sight

Median barriers 60% fatal, 10% injury head-onClimbing / Passing lane 15% passing, rear-end

Lane widening 20% sideswipe (multi-lane)Widen from 2-lane to 4-lane road 30% rear-end, head-on

Continuous center-left turn lane 30% rear-end

OTHERLighting improvement 90% night time crashes

Ramp modifications 25% rampClose median opening 30% turn crashes

Turn prohibitions 40% turn crashes

Notes:

3. Rates should be applied only to specific applicable sites within the project area.

4. Rates should only be applied to relevant crash types addressed by the improvement.

5. Do not double-count similar improvement types or eliminated crashes.

6. Crash reduction factors may be applied to improvement and crash types not shown on this table, however, applicant must provide justifying documentation.

Table 18DRCOG TIP Project Evaluation Safety CriteriaSample Suggested Crash Reduction Factors

2. The factors are not meant to imply precise predictions of eliminated crashes.

(road widening, operational, interchange reconstruction, and roadway reconstruction projects)

1. Crash reduction factors are for TIP project scoring guidance only.

Long-Range Planning (Regional Transportation Plans)

• Denver region’s Metro Vision Plan– Safety & Security / quality of life– Needed transportation system

• Regional Transportation Plan (2025)– Fiscally-constrained– Identification of major projects– Project “pools” established – projects ID in TIP

Long-Range Planning (Regional Transportation Plans) (cntd.)

• Identification of major projects– Project evaluation criteria– Safety- crash rate, weighted hazard index

• Data elements– Number of crashes by locations

• Fatal, injury, property damage only

– Details not needed– State database– Only state highway data geocoded

Awareness & Education

• Role varies among MPOs

• Can’t always take positions

• Audiences:– Decision-makers (MPO Boards)

• Staff provide information

• Select most beneficial projects

– General public• Personal behavior / planning decisions • Adults, children, bilingual

– Local government staff

Awareness & Education (cntd.)

• “Overview of Traffic Safety in the Denver Region”– Extent of problem / impacts

• E.g. 79,000 crashes, ~ 300 deaths

• Impacts on congestion

– Trends & Comparisons

– Human and design factors - causes

– Issues – not always clear answers

– Methods of response (4 Es)

– Resources and Partner agencies

Overview of Traffic Safety in the Denver Region

June 2003

Denver Regional Council of Governments 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800

Denver, Colorado 80246-1531

Awareness & Education (cntd.)

• Newsletters, brochures

• Competition for viewers eyes and ears– “Madison Avenue” (auto makers, movies, alcohol)

• Frustration regarding effectiveness– (e.g. Ken Caryl crash, NY)

Conclusions

• MPO approaches to safety and security vary

• Data needs vary (short vs. long range plans)

• Data improvements– Consistency– Availability– Locational accuracy (GPS)

• Awareness and education still important

• Security and MPO planning - evolving