  |
   |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Safety Research > Evaluations of Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study > Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Funds Study Powerpoint Presentation
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (PFS)presented by The following is a transcript of a Power Point presentation. Slide 1: Title page Slide 2 Background of the project: – AASHTO developed the highway safety plan–which lead to the development of the NCHRP report 500 guidebooks. Current status of guidebooks is listed above. The guidebooks contain safety strategies for each area...but 80% of the strategies are considered tried or experimental–not proven. States have been asked to develop safety plans and also to implement the strategies (as lead states)–but in order to do this states would like to know the strategies effectiveness.
Slide 3: Purpose of Study–This project was developed because of the need to move more strategies into the "proven" category..the study will perform rigorous evaluations on strategies in the guidebooks to determine AMFs that can be applicable nationwide.
Slide 4: Project Status – An update on the status of the project–26 states are part of the pooled fund study. Update on finances and the contracts. There is a similar project, nchrp 17-35, that has the same objectives/intent but that is being conducted through NCHRP. It has $750k worth of funding.
Slide 5: Completed Activities – The first phase looked at the first six guidebooks and the strategies within them. These strategies were listed, and the technical advisory committee ( which consists of one representative from each participating state and one rep from FHWA) "ranked" them. Then, the top 30 strategies were more closely looked at –in the "scoping study" to see what installation data were available. Installation data are crucial, and as we learned, not a lot of states have good records on when they have installed the improvements and the before conditions.
Slide 6: Completed Activities (continued) – Out of the top 30 strategies from the scoping study that were scrutinized for installation data, only four strategies had enough data to continue with evaluations for their effectiveness. Those four stratgies are listed below.
Slide 7: Installation Databases – One HUGE lesson learned: the need to have the installation data. We were coming across states that couldn't even pinpoint which YEAR the strategies were installed, therefore making it impossible to do evaluations on these strategies. So to help alleviate this problem, the project developed a database (which can be downloaded from the projects website, which is given later). The databases will be discussed further in the next slide, but Note the importance of gathering the installation information (before conditions, where it was put down, when, how much, etc) in order to perform evaluations. This info is needed for thorough evaluations!
Slide 8: Installation Databases So the installation databases are available on CD or else through the website. They have the databases in two formats: microsoft excel and also access (with pull down menus in both). The databases will collect the information in either GIS, Link-node or segment modes–whichever your state uses. There is also a user file to help guide you through the databases, although they are rather self explanatory.
Slide 9: Project Website – Please note the importance of visiting the project website, not only now, but in the future, as we'd eventually like this to be a repository of all AMFs that are thoroughly evaluated. www.tfhrc.gov/safety/evaluations
Slide 10: Current Activities – For the first wave of evaluations (strategies 1-4), the contractors are doing the final data collection and conducting the evaluations. At this time they have preliminary results for some of the strategies. The plan is to wrap up of the first wave of evaluations with draft results at the end of this calendar year (2006) and final technical memos/reports due in spring of 2007.
Slide 11: Current Activities (continued) The technical advisory committee (TAC) met in DC in June 2006 to discuss the project's previous years progress and future events. The meeting kicked off the second phase of evaluations (again, on flowchart) by looking at guidebooks on: older drivers, trucks, pedestrians, and horizontal curves and utility poles. Prior to the meeting the TAC ranked the strategies, so that they coulud come to the meeting with their installation data, to help speed the process along. From the data that they brought, there are at least four areas that are promising for evaluations. One area that is not in the guidebooks but that was brought up at both TAC meetings and has potential for evaluations is the tradeoff (on rural two lane roadways) between shoulder and lane width. There are enough data for this, and they will probably begin evaluating in the near future.
Slide 12: Current Activities (continued 2) The technical advisory committee (TAC) met in DC in June 2006 to discuss the project's previous years progress and future events. The meeting kicked off the second phase of evaluations (again, on flowchart) by looking at guidebooks on: older drivers, trucks, pedestrians, and horizontal curves and utility poles. Prior to the meeting the TAC ranked the strategies, so that they could come to the meeting with their installation data, to help speed the process along. From the data that they brought, there are at least four areas that are promising for evaluations. One area that is not in the guidebooks but that was brought up at both TAC meetings and has potential for evaluations is the tradeoff (on rural two lane roadways) between shoulder and lane width. There are enough data for this, and they will probably begin evaluating in the near future.
Slide 13: Future Activities This (June meeting) is the segway between the first wave and the second wave of evaluations. In june states discussed the first wave of evaluations (draft results) and began providing info so that the second wave of evaluations can be performed.
Slide 14: Project Roadmap This is the project's "roadmap"---note that soon we are going to be looking at strategies that can be evaluated in the simulator at fhwa's turner fairbanks highway research center–these are strategies (ie horizontal curve strategies) where there is not enough installation data to evaluate, but they are conducive to being evaluated in a simulator.
This slide is a flowchart that describes the evaluation process for the entire pooled fund study project. The flow chart begins with a box identified as "Input from States," meaning that all aspects of the project are guided by the participating states (Technical Advisory Committee) input; each phase of evaluations involves the states giving their input as to which strategies they would like to see evaluated, and later implemented. The flow chart contains four "bands" of color–each for a phase of evaluations, Phases I through IV. Phase I evaluations are soon to be completed in January 2007. Phase II evaluations are currently ongoing and will be completed in early 2008. Phase II and IV are future phases of evaluations, their start and completion dates are to be determined at a later time. The Phase I band begins with a box labeled, "Strategies for: Lane Departures, Unsignalized Intersections, Aggressive Drivers." These mentioned guidebooks were used to select strategies for evaluations. The next box reads "Priority?" and is labeled above it "March 8, 2005, PFS Meeting." On March 8, 2005 the states met at the Pooled Fund Study (PFS) meeting to determine which strategies were priorities through a ranking process. There is a line from this box that is labeled "No" that goes to a box that is linked to the first two phases that reads, "No Action at this Time." There is also a line reading "Yes" from the box labeled "Priority?" that leads to a box that reads, "Top 6 Measures." These are the top 6 strategies that were promising–they were ranked highly and also had preliminary implementation data that looked promising for evaluations. The next box reads, "Data Available?" There are two lines from this box. The line labeled "No" leads to a box that lies in the Phase III shaded area that reads, "List of Priority Safety Measures with Insufficient Data for B/A (Before/After) Evaluation." The "Yes" line that leads from the "Data Available" box leads to a box that reads, "Top 4 Measures/Contractor Initiates Studies." The top six measures were reduced to four as more data were collected (it was determined that only four strategies could be evaluated due to limitations on availability of implementation data). Finally there is an arrow from that box to a box that reads, "Draft Reports (Early 2007)," which marks the completion of Phase I. Phase II begins with a box labeled: "Strategies for: Horizontal Curves, Utility Poles, Pedestrians, Heavy Trucks." These mentioned guidebooks were used to consider strategies for evaluations. The next box reads "Priority?" and is labeled below it "April 21, 2006, Email Ballot." The states ranked the strategies by the April 21, 2006 deadline before they met for the annual PFS meeting. There is a line from this box that is labeled "No" that goes to a box (that was mentioned in Phase I) that is linked to several phases that reads, "No Action at this Time." There is also a line labeled "Yes" from the box labeled "Priority?" that leads to a box that reads, "Phase II Top 16 Countermeasures." These are the top 16 strategies that were ranked highly by the states. The next box reads, "States Bring/Have Available Data" with text underneath that labels the box "June 1-2, 2006 PFS Meeting." States were tasked with bringing the implementation data for the 16 strategies to the annual PFS meeting in June 2006. This box has two lines leaving it; one line is labeled "Yes" and leads to a box reading "Accepted for Phase II Evaluation," followed by a box that reads "Top Measures/Contractor Initiates Studies." The other line reads "Maybe" and leads to a box that reads, "Contractor Follows Up with States on Available Data." This leads to a box that says, "Data Available?" This box leads via a line labeled "No" to the shared box in Phase III that says "List of Priority Safety Measures with Insufficient Data for B/A Evaluation." The line labeled "Yes" that began at the data available box leads to the already mentioned Phase II box labeled "Top Measures/Contractor Initiates Studies." From this box is an arrow that leads to a box reading, "Draft Reports, Early 2008." The draft evaluations are expected to be completed at this time. Phase III of the project begins with the already mentioned box that reads, "List of Priority Safety Measures with Insufficient Data for B/A Evaluation." This phase of the evaluations deals with strategies that do not have enough existing implementation data to be evaluated at this time. The purpose of Phase III is to have states implant strategies that do not have enough implementation data available to evaluate at this time, have the states capture the implementation before conditions, and then the contractor will complete future evaluations. It leads to a box that states, "States Agree to Build and Evaluate." The last mentioned box has a line labeled "Yes" that leads to a box that reads, "Contractor Prepares Installation and Data Collection Plan." It has been agreed upon that the contractor will help to establish an implementation plan so that all of the implementation will be in line with what is needed for the evaluation. This leads to a box that reads, "States Agree to Build," which has two arrows coming from it. The first arrow leads to the "Installation Database," box which implies that the installation databases that were created as a product from this project will be used to capture the installation data. The second arrow is labeled "Yes" and leads to a box that says, "State Construction/Contractor Studies." This box is also linked by an arrow going towards it from a box that reads, "SAFETEA-LU Core Safety Program ($)" implying that SAFETEA-LU will be the financial source for installation these strategies. Finally, there is a box that is the end result of Phase III that reads "Draft Reports." There is no timeframe for this, as this phase of evaluations has not yet begun and is dependent on the states installing the strategies. The fourth phase of the project is based on simulation evaluations. The primary box is linked from Phase III's "States Agree to Build and Evaluate" box with an arrow that leads to the box labeled, "Simulation Consideration." This box has two arrows; the first is labeled "No" and leads to a box that reads, "No Additional Action at this Time." The second arrow is labeled "Yes" and leads to a box that reads, "FHWA Conducts Simulations to Focus Countermeasures." These simulations will be conducted at the Turner Fairbanks Highway Research Center part of the Federal Highway Administration. The results of these evaluations will be used to encourage states to implement the strategies with promising results so that additional field studies (mentioned in Phase III) can be performed. The next box reads, "States Agree to Build and Evaluate." The "Yes" arrow leads to Phase III's box that reads "Contractor Prepares Installation and Data Collection Plan" and then the path would continue as described in Phase III. The line (from the "States Agree to Build and Evaluate") that is labeled "No" leads to a box that says, "No Additional Action." Slide 15: Project Contacts Kerry Perrillo Childress Kim Eccles (VHB) Project Website:
|
|
|
|
What's New | About TFHRC | Our Products | Our Research | Support Services |
|
 |
TFHRC Home | FHWA Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration |