TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION Using Highway and the Model I...A safety analysis has been performed on...

TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION

Using the

Highway Safety Manual

and the

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

I‐15 Dry Lakes Design Exception

Prepared for:

Nevada Department of Transportation

Safety Engineering

Prepared by:

Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.

March 2014

I‐15 Dry Lakes Design Exception Safety Evaluation March 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SAFETY EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Analysis Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Predictive Crash Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Benefit-Cost Ratio Economic Analysis .......................................................................................... 4

1.4 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Base Conditions for the Intersection Analysis ................................................................................ 3

Table 2. Expected Crash Totals 2013-2033 ................................................................................................. 4

Table 3. Annual Benefits, Annual Costs and B/C Ratio ............................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Blow Up of Interchange ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Aerial View of the Interchange ...................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – IHSDM Predictive Method Results per Alternative

APPENDIX B – Request for Design Exception and Design Figures

APPENDIX C – Benefit Cost Analysis

I‐15 Dry Lakes Design Exception Safety Evaluation March 2014 1

I-15 Dry Lakes Design Exception - Safety Evaluation

SAFETY EVALUATION

1.1 Analysis Overview

A safety analysis has been performed on the rural interchange of Interstate (I) 15 and State Route (SR) 169

near Logandale in Clark County. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is proposing a truck

climbing lane that will go through the Logandale/Overton interchange. The pier spacing supporting the

existing structure for the interchange is too narrow to accommodate the additional lane and standard

shoulders. The design speed for the area is 70 mph and this section of roadway has a 2011 AADT of

18,000 vpd. Although crash data does not indicate this area is problematic, the truck lane itself will provide

a safety benefit by improving the operations of the interstate and allowing better passing opportunities for

vehicles travelling at high speed differentials. Improvements are only happening on the north side of I-15.

For the purposes of this evaluation three different alternatives were analyzed; Alternative1 - New Bridge,

Alternative 2 - Median Narrowing and Alternative 3 - Shoulder Narrowing. These Alternatives have been

analyzed for crashes separately and compared to existing conditions and a Benefit-Cost (B/C) analysis was

performed.

The proposed alternatives consist of measures to meet the 10 foot shoulder requirement except for Alterna-

tive 3, the design exception. Geometry is considered in this analysis and no reflective taping or shoulder

narrowing signs are accounted for. The three alternatives are stated below:

Alternative 1 – Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge and piers outside the clear zone.

Alternative 2 – Narrow the median and shift the lanes more to the inside. This will cause the need

for a 2000 foot long retaining wall to be constructed and barrier to be added to the inside of the NB

lanes in the median.

Alternative 3 – Narrow the right shoulder to 2 feet for a distance of 30 feet with a taper length of

176 feet narrowing from the existing 10 feet.

Using the American Association of State & Highway Transportation Officials Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

Predictive Method, expected crash totals were estimated using the Interactive Highway Safety Design

Model (IHSDM) to evaluate safety improvement for the freeway alternatives. The effect on traffic safety was

analyzed to determine the safety benefit of constructing a new bridge, median narrowing or shoulder

narrowing. To accommodate the proposed truck climbing lane. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are vicinity maps

and an aerial of the study area.


Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Blow Up of Interchange

Figure 2. Aerial View of the Interchange


1.2 Predictive Crash Analysis

Using the IHSDM to complete the HSM Predictive Method, the safety improvements of the alternative was

quantified and compared to the existing condition of the interchange for the 20-year evaluation period. The

Safety Performance Function for a Rural Four Lane Freeway base condition requires the following data for

predictive analysis:

Complete horizontal alignment and tangent potion of the vertical alignment

General; annual average daily traffic, area type and functional classification

Cross-section; through lane width, auxiliary lanes, shoulders, median and ramps

Roadside; clear zone

Other; median barrier, outside barrier, shoulder rumble strip, high volume sections and type B

weaving sections

Table 1 is the summary of the geometric variations of the three alternatives and the existing condition. All

other data is assumed to remain constant. The geometric variations are shown in the table.

Table 1. Base Conditions for the Segment Analysis

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

New Bridge Median Narrowing

Shoulder Narrowing

Left Shoulder Width 4' 4' 4' 4'

Right Shoulder Width 8' 10' 10'

2' for 30 feet and

176' taper

Median Traversable Traversable Non-Traversable Traversable

Median Width 28' 28' 20' 28'Median Barrier SB Only SB Only NB and SB SB Only

Outside Barrier Rt 16' Rt N/A 10'Rt 2' (Follows Shoulder)

12' Climbing Lane No Yes Yes Yes

Analysis Variables

Existing Conditions


I-15 is considered a freeway facility for the analysis. HSM Freeway Segment chapters were used to

predict crashes over a 20 year horizon period. No observed crashes were used in the analysis. Complete

results from the IHSDM Predictive Method can be found in Appendix A. The crashes prediction results

from the analysis found in Table 2.

Table 2. Expected Crash Totals 2013-2033

1.3 Benefit-Cost Ratio Economic Analysis

The following B/C Ratios found in Table 3 were calculated using the HSM severity distribution for crashes,

as shown in Table 10-3 of the HSM. Construction costs were estimated by NDOT and are found in the letter

to Federal Highway Administration in Appendix B. Complete results from the B/C analysis can be found in

Appendix C.

Table 3. Annual Benefits, Annual Costs and B/C Ratio


1.4 Results

Since the section of roadway for Alternative 3 is so short, the impact over the section of analysis is reduced.

The cost of implementing the new barrier and shoulder are estimated at $100K. At this rate the shoulder

improvement is considered to be a cost effective design solution and has a safety B/C Ratio of 1.05.

Median narrowing in Alternative 2 will reduce crashes by an insignificant amount and has a poor B/C Ratio

of 0.03 which is not a cost effective safety improvement and does not meet the general minimum B/C Ratio

of 1.0. The safest alternative is to build a new bridge with no impact to the clear zone, but the B/C Ratio is

0.13 is not cost effective due to the high cost of the bridge. See Appendix B for a break out of project cost

and preliminary design.

1.5 Considerations

Other considerations not contained in the HSM Predictive Method or B/C Ratio analysis should be taken into

account by decision makers in order to proceed with design and construction of this alternative such as op-

erational improvements, environmental constraints and funding.

1.6 Conclusions

The predictive method and B/C Ratios are effective tools to evaluate the future effects of roadway

improvements with respect to safety for the I-15 interchange near Logandale. Implementing a new barrier

and shoulder would be a cost effective safety improvement for the addition of a truck climbing lane. The

safest alternative is to build a new bridge but this would not be a cost effective safety improvement. NDOT

should use results contained within this report, other monetary/non-monetary considerations, and project

funding/budget to determine how to proceed and improve the intersection.

I-15 Dry Lakes Design ExceptionSafety EvaluationMarch 2014

APPENDIX A

IHSDM Predictive Method Results per Alternative


Crash Prediction Evaluation Report

February 3, 2014

Disclaimer

The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use

thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this

software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.

Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies

This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the

implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions

contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and

error-free.

Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other

incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been

advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.

Notice

The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees

that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal

Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software,

including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government

harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any

entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any

entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section 1 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

List of Tables

Table Evaluation Freeway - Homogeneous Segments (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table Expected Freeway Crash Rates and Frequencies (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table Expected Freeway Speed Change Crash Rates and Frequencies (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Freeway Segment (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Horizontal Design Element (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table Expected Crash Type Distribution (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

List of Figures

Figure Crash Prediction Summary (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report List of Figures

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model iii

#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

List of Figures Crash Prediction Evaluation Report

iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 4:05 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 07:42:27 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Highway Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 06:43:16 PDT 2013 Highway Version: 3 Evaluation Title: Existing Condition Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 07:41:39 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1416+37.000 Maximum Station: 1486+06.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section 1 Evaluation

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

Section 1 Evaluation Section: Section 1 Evaluation Start Location: 1416+37.000 Evaluation End Location: 1486+06.000 Functional Class: Freeway Type of Alignment: Divided, Multilane Model Category: Freeway Segment Calibration Factor: FI_MV=1.0; FI_SV=1.0; PDO_MV=1.0; PDO_SV=1.0;

Figure 1. Crash Prediction Summary (Section 1)

Section 1 Evaluation Crash Prediction Evaluation Report

2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

Table 1. Evaluation Freeway - Homogeneous Segments (Section 1)

Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)

1 4F Rural 1416+37.000 1486+06.000 6,969.00 1.3199 2013-2033: 18,000 28.00 Traversable Median 36.00

Table 2. Expected Freeway Crash Rates and Frequencies (Section 1)

First Year of Analysis 2013

Last Year of Analysis 2033

Evaluated Length (mi) 1.3199

Average Future Road AADT (vpd) 18,000

Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 90.05

Fatal and Injury Crashes 31.51

Property-Damage-Only Crashes 58.54

Percent of Total Expected Crashes

Percent Fatal and Injury Crashes (%) 35

Percent Property-Damage-Only Crashes (%) 65

Expected Crash Rate

Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) 3.2488

Fatal and Injury Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) 1.1369

Property-Damage-Only Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) 2.1119

Expected Travel Crash Rate

Total Travel (million veh-mi) 182.10

Travel Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi) 0.49

Travel Fatal and Injury Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi) 0.17

Travel Property-Damage-Only Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi) 0.32



Table 3. Expected Freeway Speed Change Crash Rates and Frequencies (Section 1)




Average Future Road AADT (vpd) Total Crashes

Fatal and Injury Crashes Property-Damage-Only Crashes


Percent Fatal and Injury Crashes (%)Percent Property-

Damage-Only Crashes(%)

Expected Crash Rate

Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Fatal and Injury CrashRate (crashes/mi/yr)

Property-Damage-Only Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Total Travel (millionveh-mi)

0.00 Travel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh-mi)

Travel Fatal and Injury Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi)

Travel Property-Damage-Only CrashRate (crashes/million

veh-mi)

Table 4. Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Freeway Segment (Section 1)

Start Location End Location Length (mi) Expected No. Crashesfor Evaluation Period

Crash Rate(crashes/mi/yr)

Travel CrashRate

(crashes/million veh-mi)

1416+37.000 1486+06.000 1.3199 90.050 3.2488 0.49 Table 5. Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Horizontal Design Element (Section 1)

Title Start Location End Location Length(mi)

Expected No.Crashes for

Evaluation Period

Crash Rate(crashes/mi/y

r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1416+37.000 1442+93.000 0.5030 34.320 3.2488 0.49

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 55.730 3.2488 0.49



Table 6. Expected Crash Type Distribution (Section 1)

Element Type Crash TypeFatal and Injury Property Damage Only Total

Crashes Crashes(%) Crashes Crashes

(%) Crashes Crashes(%)

Highway Segment Collision with Animal 0.26 0.3 3.22 3.8 3.48 4.0

Highway Segment Collision with Fixed Object 14.45 16.8 31.01 36.1 45.46 52.9

Highway Segment Collision with Other Object 0.79 0.9 6.20 7.2 6.99 8.1

Highway Segment Other Single-vehicle Collision 9.38 10.9 8.04 9.4 17.42 20.3

Highway Segment Collision with Parked Vehicle 0.61 0.7 1.14 1.3 1.75 2.0

Highway Segment Single Vehicle Crashes 25.49 29.7 49.62 57.7 75.11 87.4

Highway Segment Right-Angle Collision 0.34 0.4 0.27 0.3 0.60 0.7

Highway Segment Head-on Collision 0.11 0.1 0.04 0.0 0.14 0.2

Highway Segment Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.36 0.4 0.70 0.8 1.05 1.2

Highway Segment Rear-end Collision 3.79 4.4 0.45 0.5 4.25 4.9

Highway Segment Sideswipe, Same Direction Collision 1.43 1.7 3.39 3.9 4.82 5.6

Highway Segment Multiple Vehicle Crashes 6.02 7.0 4.84 5.6 10.86 12.6

Highway Segment Total Highway Segment Crashes 31.51 36.7 54.46 63.3 85.97 100.0

Total Crashes 31.51 36.7 54.46 63.3 85.97 100.0 Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the

distribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.





February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 4:07 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 14:26:28 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Highway Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 06:43:16 PDT 2013 Highway Version: 3 Evaluation Title: Apples Median Narrowing Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 14:25:49 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1441+50.000 Maximum Station: 1461+50.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)







Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 29.60






Expected Crash Rate




















Expected Crash Rate






veh-mi)




Travel CrashRate





Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1441+50.000 1442+93.000 0.0271 2.116 3.7214 0.57

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 27.486 1.6023 0.24





February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 4:06 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 14:00:32 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Highway Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 06:43:16 PDT 2013 Highway Version: 3 Evaluation Title: Apples Narrow Shoulder Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 13:59:34 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1454+94.000 Maximum Station: 1457+50.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)

1 4F Rural 1454+94.000 1457+50.000 256.00 0.0485 2013-2033: 18,000 28.00 Traversable Median 36.00






Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 4.01






Expected Crash Rate




















Expected Crash Rate






veh-mi)




Travel CrashRate



Title Start Location End Location Length (mi)Expected No.Crashes for

Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Curve 1 1454+94.000 1486+06.000 0.5894 4.009 0.3239 0.05





February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 4:10 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 14:23:24 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI New Bridge w Climb L Highway Comment: Copied from I-15 at Logandale TI (v3) Highway Version: 2 Evaluation Title: Apples Median Narrowing Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 14:22:47 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1441+50.000 Maximum Station: 1461+50.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)







Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 27.58






Expected Crash Rate




















Expected Crash Rate






veh-mi)




Travel CrashRate





Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1441+50.000 1442+93.000 0.0271 1.972 3.4669 0.53

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 25.606 1.4927 0.23





February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 4:09 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 09:55:42 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI New Bridge w Climb L Highway Comment: Copied from I-15 at Logandale TI (v3) Highway Version: 2 Evaluation Title: Evaluation 5 Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 09:55:13 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1416+37.000 Maximum Station: 1486+06.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)







Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 85.47






Expected Crash Rate




















Expected Crash Rate






veh-mi)




Travel CrashRate





Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1416+37.000 1442+93.000 0.5030 32.575 3.0837 0.47

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 52.897 3.0837 0.47





February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 6:05 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 14:36:15 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Narrow Median w Climb L Highway Comment: Copied from I-15 at Logandale TI New Bridge w Climb L (v1) Highway Version: 1 Evaluation Title: Apples Median Narrowing Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 14:35:43 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1441+50.000 Maximum Station: 1461+50.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

Type Start Location End Location Length (ft) Length(mi) AADT MedianWidth (ft) Type Effective Median

Width (ft)

1 4F Rural 1441+50.000 1446+00.000 450.00 0.0852 2013-2033: 18,000 26.50 Non-Traversable Median 34.50

2 4F Rural 1446+00.000 1460+30.000 1,430.00 0.2708 2013-2033: 18,000 20.23 Non-Traversable Median 28.23

3 4F Rural 1460+30.000 1461+50.000 120.00 0.0227 2013-2033: 18,000 26.50 Non-Traversable Median 34.50








Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 31.54






Expected Crash Rate


















Percent Fatal and Injury Crashes (%) Percent Property-Damage-OnlyCrashes (%)

Expected Crash Rate

Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Fatal and Injury Crash Rate(crashes/mi/yr)

Property-Damage-Only Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Total Travel (million veh-mi)


Travel Fatal and Injury Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi)Travel Property-Damage-Only

Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi)






Travel CrashRate


1441+50.000 1446+00.000 0.0852 6.698 3.7422 0.57

1446+00.000 1460+30.000 0.2708 23.117 4.0645 0.62




Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1441+50.000 1442+93.000 0.0271 2.128 3.7422 0.57

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 29.409 1.7144 0.26
























February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 6:06 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 14:35:06 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Narrow Median w Climb L Highway Comment: Copied from I-15 at Logandale TI New Bridge w Climb L (v1) Highway Version: 1 Evaluation Title: Full Length Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 14:34:43 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1416+37.000 Maximum Station: 1486+06.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

Type Start Location End Location Length (ft) Length(mi) AADT MedianWidth (ft) Type Effective Median

Width (ft)











Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 89.90






Expected Crash Rate


















Percent Fatal and Injury Crashes (%) Percent Property-Damage-OnlyCrashes (%)

Expected Crash Rate

Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Fatal and Injury Crash Rate(crashes/mi/yr)

Property-Damage-Only Crash Rate (crashes/mi/yr) Total Travel (million veh-mi)


Travel Fatal and Injury Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi)Travel Property-Damage-Only

Crash Rate (crashes/million veh-mi)






Travel CrashRate


1416+37.000 1446+00.000 0.5612 33.356 2.8305 0.43

1446+00.000 1460+30.000 0.2708 23.117 4.0645 0.62




Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1416+37.000 1442+93.000 0.5030 29.900 2.8305 0.43

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 60.003 3.4979 0.53
























February 3, 2014

Disclaimer










error-free.




Notice








Table of Contents

Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


List of Tables







List of Figures




#_sec1

#_sec2

#_tbl1

#_tbl2

#_tbl3

#_tbl4

#_tbl5

#_tbl6

#_fig1

Report Overview Report Generated: Feb 3, 2014 6:04 PM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Oct 15, 2013 11:19 AM) Evaluation Date: Fri Oct 18 10:17:51 PDT 2013 IHSDM Version: v9.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) Crash Prediction Module: v4.0.0 (Sep 30, 2013) User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Phone: E-Mail: Project Title: I-15 Dry Lake Project Comment: Created Wed Oct 16 19:19:08 PDT 2013 Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: I-15 at Logandale TI Narrow Shoulder and Climb L Highway Comment: Copied from I-15 at Logandale TI New Bridge w Climb L (v1) Highway Version: 1 Evaluation Title: Evaluation 4 Evaluation Comment: Created Fri Oct 18 10:17:27 PDT 2013 Minimum Station: 1416+37.000 Maximum Station: 1486+06.000 Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: None First Year of Analysis: 2013 Last Year of Analysis: 2033




Seg. No. Type Area

TypeStart

LocationEnd

LocationLength

(ft)Length(

mi) AADTMedianWidth

(ft)Type

EffectiveMedian

Width (ft)





















Expected Crashes

Total Crashes 69.22






Expected Crash Rate




















Expected Crash Rate






veh-mi)






Travel CrashRate


1416+37.000 1455+07.000 0.7330 27.358 1.7774 0.27

1455+07.000 1455+14.000 0.0013 0.115 4.1162 0.63

1455+14.000 1455+27.000 0.0025 0.216 4.1849 0.64

1455+27.000 1455+34.000 0.0013 0.118 4.2550 0.65

1455+34.000 1455+57.000 0.0044 0.399 4.3627 0.66

1455+57.000 1455+77.000 0.0038 0.360 4.5226 0.69

1455+77.000 1455+97.000 0.0038 0.372 4.6775 0.71

1455+97.000 1456+17.000 0.0038 0.385 4.8385 0.74

1456+17.000 1456+24.000 0.0013 0.138 4.9507 0.75

1456+24.000 1456+37.000 0.0025 0.260 5.0358 0.77

1456+37.000 1456+44.000 0.0013 0.143 5.1225 0.78

1456+44.000 1456+67.000 0.0044 0.481 5.2558 0.80

1456+67.000 1457+50.000 0.0157 1.923 5.8246 0.89

1457+50.000 1457+57.000 0.0013 0.100 3.6045 0.55




Evaluation Period


r)

Travel CrashRate


Tangent 1416+37.000 1442+93.000 0.5030 18.776 1.7774 0.27

Curve 1 1442+93.000 1486+06.000 0.8169 50.440 2.9404 0.45




APPENDIX B

Request for Design Exception and Design Figures


APPENDIX C

Benefit Cost Analysis

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISACCIDENT REDUCTION BENEFITS

(2012 DOLLAR FIGURES) 02/03/14ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION NO. Not KnownPROJECT NO. Not KnownPROJECT LOCATION I-15 Dry Lakes at Logandale TI

ALTERNATIVE NO.COUNTERMEASURE

AADT - Segment or Main St & Cross StROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS 2 LANE UNDIVIDED

DEMOGRAPHIC DESIGNATION RURAL

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 3 OTHER PRINICPLE ARTERIAL

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $2,750,000.00ANNUAL MAINTENENCE COSTS $10,000.00CURRENT PRIME INTEREST RATE 3.25%PERCENTAGE OF GROWTH 2.00%ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE &NUMBER OF YEARS PREDICTED 20 YEAR(S)

0 YEAR(S)

CALCULATION OF REDUCTIONS USING IHSDMIHSDM (Interactive Highway Safety Design Model)http://www.ihsdm.org/

EXSITING CONDITION ALTERNATIVEEXPECTED EXPECTED EXPECTED CRASHES SAVED

CRASHES CRASHES CRASHES CRF (%) ANNUALLY2012 CRASH (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

COSTSFATAL $5,339,711.00 1.3 1.2 1.1 5% 0.00INJURY A $285,349.00 5.4 4.9 4.6 5% 0.01INJURY B $104,302.00 10.9 9.8 9.3 5% 0.02INJURY C $59,037.00 14.5 13.1 12.4 5% 0.03PDO $9,638.00 67.9 61.1 58.0 5% 0.15

CALCULATION OF BENEFITS CRASHES SAVED SOCIETAL SOCIETALANNUALLY COST BENEFIT

(E) (F) (G)

FATAL 0.00 $5,339,711 $15,827INJURY A 0.01 $285,349 $3,513INJURY B 0.02 $104,302 $2,592INJURY C 0.03 $59,037 $1,952PDO 0.15 $9,638 $1,492

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Summation of Column E) $25,376TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Including Growth ) $25,884CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR 0.0688ANNUALIZED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $189,142TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $199,142AVERAGE ANNUAL NET RETURN ($173,258)BENEFIT/COST 0.13

New BridgeAlt 1

NUMBER OF YEARS OF CRASHHISTORY DATA

HSM DISTR.OF

http://www.ihsdm.org/







IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $1,500,000.00ANNUAL MAINTENENCE COSTS $10,000.00CURRENT PRIME INTEREST RATE 3.25%PERCENTAGE OF GROWTH 2.00%ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE &NUMBER OF YEARS PREDICTED 20 YEAR(S)

0 YEAR(S)






(E) (F) (G)

FATAL 0.00 $5,339,711 $2,082INJURY A 0.00 $285,349 $462INJURY B 0.00 $104,302 $341INJURY C 0.00 $59,037 $257PDO 0.02 $9,638 $196

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Summation of Column E) $3,339TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Including Growth ) $3,406CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR 0.0688ANNUALIZED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $103,168TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $113,168AVERAGE ANNUAL NET RETURN ($109,763)BENEFIT/COST 0.03

HSM DISTR.OF

Alt 12Narrow Median









IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $100,000.00ANNUAL MAINTENENCE COSTS $10,000.00CURRENT PRIME INTEREST RATE 3.25%PERCENTAGE OF GROWTH 2.00%ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE &NUMBER OF YEARS PREDICTED 20 YEAR(S)

0 YEAR(S)






(E) (F) (G)

FATAL 0.00 $5,339,711 $10,794INJURY A 0.01 $285,349 $2,396INJURY B 0.02 $104,302 $1,768INJURY C 0.02 $59,037 $1,331PDO 0.11 $9,638 $1,018

TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Summation of Column E) $17,307TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS (Including Growth ) $17,653CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR 0.0688ANNUALIZED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $6,878TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $16,878AVERAGE ANNUAL NET RETURN $775BENEFIT/COST 1.05

HSM DISTR.OF

Alt 3Narrow Shoulder at Pier



TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION Using Highway and the Model I...A safety analysis has been performed on...

Documents

Transcript of TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION Using Highway and the Model I...A safety analysis has been performed on...