Total road improvement program

We anticipate at least to children over the next four or five years as they build out Westlake, before a new school is built inside of Westlake.

Myerson added that COVID has added to the problem due to parents not wanting their child to take the bus and parents not carpooling as much. He noted that traffic is stacking south of the school for the first time by parents who do not want to wait on Okeechobee. Myerson said he is working with School Board Member Marcia Andrews and the school district to find a solution.

Argue noted that the school district is not responsible for ITID roads, of which nd Drive is a part. Argue said the school district is more concerned with new construction than providing funding for improvements to existing schools. Supervisor Michael Johnson asked if the road improvements meet the criteria of the R3 road improvement program, which calls for improvements around public property, including schools, and Hanson said it does. Martin said such a program should get the support of the school district, the county and other involved parties before ITID commits to such a project.

Argue made a motion to give direction to ITID staff to amend the R3 program to include the nd Drive North project, which carried with Jordano and Martin opposed. Argue, who has served as president for the past several years, passed the gavel to nominate Johnson as president and herself as vice president, Martin as treasurer, Jordano as assistant secretary and ITID Attorney Mary Viator as secretary. Her motion carried Sign in. Motorcycles and large displacement vehicles e.

In both cases, crashes involving these vehicles tend to be more severe. Trucks, on the other hand, have far less maneuverability, but provide a high degree of protection. Crashes between a passenger vehicle and a large truck tend to result in injury to the passenger vehicle occupants rather than the truck driver. Environmental crash factors are usually weather-related and typically contribute to crashes through interactions with vehicle or driver-related factors, but sometimes these factors are responsible for crash occurrence.

The following environmental factors contribute to crashes. Crash patterns should be identified through an analysis of the crash data for specific locations. The crash patterns can be identified using a collision diagram, collision summary, field reviews, input from other disciplines, and other information. When conducting a crash analysis, it is useful to create a summary table of the crashes that occurred during the study period.

The table could include a summary of the pavement conditions, crash type, lighting conditions, number of injuries or fatalities, and any other relevant information, such as driver-related facts i. The summary table can provide insight for identifying crash patterns. An example collision summary is shown in Table 3. Table 3. This summary can help identify any dominant crash types or prevailing conditions.

It may also be beneficial to summarize driver-related information such as age, gender, restraint use, level of impairment, etc. As shown in Table 3. In addition, it is sometimes helpful to compare site specific crash summaries to statewide averages to identify trends or overrepresentation. In this case, there were no apparent trends in crashes occurring at night 27 percent or on wet pavement conditions 13 percent.

Although a crash summary provides some insight on potential issues, the next step is to develop a collision diagram to better understand what is occurring on a study roadway segment or intersection. Transportation professionals prepare collision diagrams to demonstrate the flow and direction of travel to further illuminate the circumstances surrounding crashes. The collision diagram provides a visual representation of the crash data and can help identify crash patterns.

The diagram shows the location of each crash, as well as the crash type. The crashes are numbered in sequential order, starting with the most recent. As shown in Figure 3. The collision diagram identifies the majority of the crashes are rear end collisions or left turn collisions with vehicles entering the driveways. The collision diagram helps with identifying patterns, but it may not provide enough information to identify the contributing factors.

The next step is to conduct a field investigation to determine what might be causing these crashes. The purpose of this review is to confirm the previous analysis as well as to identify additional conditions which may have contributed to the crash and to begin the process of identifying countermeasures.

The site is visited during the time of day representative of the safety problem to gather information. At this stage, additional partners may be involved, such as law enforcement, local offic ials and citizens, etc. The data gathered during the site visit includes, but is not limited to:.

Viewing aerial photography prior to the site visit also can help assess the field conditions. In some cases, it may help identify a recent change in land use conditions or a potential issue to investigate further in the field. Road safety audits RSA can be used to supplement the engineering study and provide a broader and more complete picture of the crash problem.

They are performed by a team of at least three people who represent different areas of expertise, such as engineering e. Interdisciplinary groups provide a more comprehensive view of road safety while the perspectives of individual disciplines may be more limited. Once the crash experience and site conditions have been characterized, the next step is to identify potential countermeasures.

This is accomplished by identifying factors among the roadway, roadside, and operational features that are contributing to the crashes identified on the collision diagram. However, the process of identifying countermeasures is more complex and often involves engineering judgment.

For each type of crash identified, you should ask these three questions:. The words countermeasure or intervention are largely synonymous for a device, engineering improvement, program e. While diagnosing the problem and identifying countermeasures is a skill developed through experience, there are several resources available to assist in identifying appropriate countermeasures.

The Resources section of this manual Appendix E outlines several of these resources and some of the documented best practices. New knowledge is continuously generated relative to the effectiveness of countermeasure approaches; hence, it is important to keep abreast of the available resources and tools. Countermeasures may be identified during a field study, an RSA, a search of the literature on effective countermeasures, by agency policy, etc.

It may prove fruitful to engage safety stakeholders and other partners when selecting potential solutions as they may provide unique perspectives. Involving local officials and citizens, as well as the safety partners will result in more comprehensive and potentially more effective multidisciplinary solutions as well as more practical and cost-effective approaches.

For example, one study found a multimillion dollar engineering fix could be replaced with a few thousand dollars of law enforcement overtime and community education and achieve the same result. The committees use their findings to offer recommendations for traffic safety improvements. Another tool that may support the countermeasure identification process is the Haddon Matrix. The Haddon Matrix is a two-dimensional model that applies basic principles of public health to motor vehicle-related injuries.

It is widely used by the public health community and by some in the road safety community. Each cell of the matrix represents a different area in which countermeasures can be implemented to improve traffic safety. Those that apply to the pre-crash phase are designed to reduce the number of crashes, while on the other hand countermeasures that apply to the crash phase would not stop the crash, but could reduce the number or severity of injuries that occur as a result.

Countermeasures focusing on the post-crash phase optimize the outcome for people with injuries, and prevent secondary events. See Appendix C for more information on the Haddon Matrix. Countermeasure selection involves setting priorities. Step 4 of the engineering study process assesses the effectiveness of individual and groups of countermeasures. Once a set of countermeasures or potential solutions are identified, the list must be prioritized and pared to meet existing resources.

These terms are different methods for expressing the expected effectiveness of various countermeasures. A CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site, while a CRF is the percentage crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure.

The CMF is the difference between 1. CMFs are developed based on research studies and program evaluations e. They can be used to compare safety conditions with or without a particular treatment, or they can be used to compare the safety outcomes of alternative countermeasures or treatments.

Generally, a CMF is determined by the ratio of the expected number of crashes with a countermeasure to the expected number of crashes under identical conditions without a countermeasure. In a simple before-after study, the conditions before the treatment are used.

This comparison with and without a treatment is traditionally conducted at one location and then aggregated across several locations to obtain a CMF estimate. The ratio involves expected values not counts. One method for developing CMFs uses Empirical Bayes EB analysis which determines the expected number of crashes which would have occurred at the site with no treatment.

CMFs start with a 1. In many cases, more than one treatment is implemented at the same time. It is possible to overestimate the combined effect of multiple treatments, especially when more than one treatment is expected reduce the same crash type e. The following example demonstrates how to use CMFs to estimate the expected crash reduction associated with implementing two countermeasures:.

Several states and local jurisdictions use CMFs, but the value of the CMF used for a particular countermeasure may vary by agency. In many cases, multiple CMFs exist for the same countermeasure, which may provide varying levels of effectiveness in improving safety.

Multiple resources are available from which widely accepted CMFs can be obtained to provide safety practitioners with an estimate of countermeasure effectiveness resources are presented later in this section. Even when using published CMFs, practitioners should make every effort to use a CMF applicable to their state and local roadway conditions.

Agencies can incorporate CMFs into safety tools to estimate the safety benefits associated with various countermeasures and to identify which countermeasure will provide the greatest return on the investment. Several of the underlying problems with the reliability of CMFs can be attributed to the following issues Harkey et al.

Variability — CMFs may be dependent on a variety of factors such as traffic volumes, crash experience, and site characteristics which may limit the applicability of a single CMF value. Crash Migration and Spillover Effects — Some countermeasures may cause crashes to migrate to adjacent locations. For instance, converting a two-way stop-controlled intersection to all-way stop may increase crash frequency at nearby two-way stop-controlled intersections due to driver confusion and expectation.

This phenomenon is rarely accounted for in existing CMFs. While many of these strategies are focused on improving traffic flow, they also may benefit traffic safety. For example, improving traffic signal coordination on a corridor may not only improve traffic flow, it also might reduce the number of rear end collisions.

Combination of Improvements — When a facility is rebuilt, multiple improvements are typically implemented; yet CMFs were developed for individual improvements. It is important to recognize the potential limitations and vulnerabilities associated with CMFs. Engineering judgment should always be applied when using CMFs. Despite the potential weaknesses, valid CMFs are a key component of existing safety tools and resources used to prioritize safety programs.

Staying current on effective countermeasures requires research, continuing education, and peer networking. The research and literature are constantly changing as policies, procedures, engineering judgment, conventional wisdom, etc. The CMF Clearinghouse is an example of an available tool to assist transportation professionals with assessing countermeasure effectiveness. It is a web site that contains a searchable database of CMFs. Users can search by countermeasure, crash type and severity, and other variables.

Transportation professionals also can submit their own CMF studies to the Clearinghouse. The four steps of the engineering study process analyze the data, assess site conditions, identify potential countermeasures and assess countermeasure effectiveness are demonstrated using a case study in the next section.

This example case study is presented to provide a more thorough understanding of steps involved in an engineering study. In this case study, a particular intersection already has been identified as having a greater than normal crash experience, compared to intersections on similar roadways in the state.

To identify any potential safety problems, as well as potential countermeasures, the first step is further analysis of the intersection crash data. Two years of crash reports were obtained from local law enforcement for the intersection. The major route in this study is State Road ; however, this roadway is referenced locally as Center Street.

Both roadway names and any variations should be used in the crash records search. During the two-year study period a total of 17 crashes occurred at the intersection which is summarized in Table 3. In this case, no apparent trends in crashes occurred at night 24 percent or on wet pavement 12 percent ; however, further analysis of this crash data reveals the majority of these collisions occur during the evening peak period.

To better understand the crash experience at this intersection, the next step is to develop a collision diagram.

In most cases, the crash reports will provide sufficient information to develop the collision diagram; however, if the engineer is unfamiliar with the area or if the intersection is complex, a preliminary field visit may be required to determine the layout of the intersection.

The collision diagram for the study intersection is shown in Figure 3. The diagram shows the location of each crash, as well as the crash type the crash numbers on the diagram correspond to the crash number in Table 3. The collision diagram identifies the majority of angle collisions occur in median of this intersection, but based on the data, it is unclear why so many collisions are occurring in the median. The study intersection is unsignalized and located in a suburban area.

The intersection is at the connection of a shopping center with Center Street State Road , which is an east-west four-lane divided roadway with a striped median. The shopping center driveway connects on the south side of Center Street State Road and has a two-lane approach — one left turn lane and one right turn lane. A major signalized intersection is located approximately feet east of the study intersection. Since the majority of the crashes occurred during the p.

The field observations revealed significant vehicle queues resulting from the major signalized intersection located to the east. The queues extended almost a mile beyond the intersection. Several drivers were observed using the striped median as a travel lane to bypass the queue and enter the left-turn lane at the adjacent intersection.

The site visit also revealed several near-misses between vehicles exiting the shopping center driveway to turn left and vehicles driving in the median. No sight distance issues were identified based on the roadway alignment at the intersection, but the vehicle queues limit the sight distance of the vehicles turning left out of the shopping center driveway.

The limited sight distance, in combination with illegal use of the median as a travel lane, were identified as factors contributing to crashes occurring at the intersection.

Now that the problem has been identified, the next step is to identify countermeasures to address the safety issue. A number of countermeasures could be selected to improve safety at this intersection. Some options include:.