Synthesis of Safety for Traffic Operations - Transports Canada

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis of Safety for Traffic Operations March 2003 examining a subset of the data using “similar block faces”. Similar block faces were a subset of two-way, two-lane streets that were matched on traffic, roadway, and land use characteristics. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 8.16, and they support the early findings. TABLE 8.16: Crash Rates for Curbside Parking in Nebraska Type of Parking Two-way, two-lane streets Nonintersection Parking Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes per MVM Painted Parking Parallel 1.41 1.41 Low-angle 3.88 + 2.91 High-angle 4.48 + 3.77 + Unpainted Parking Parallel 0.91 0.25 Angle 1.74 1.45 + Crashes per BVMHPS Painted Parking Parallel 5.00 5.00 Low-angle 8.96 + 8.44 High-angle 14.40 + 12.10 + Unpainted Parking Parallel 2.81 0.77 Angle 5.39 4.49 + *BVMHPS = Billion vehicle-miles-hours per stall + Significantly different from equivalent parallel parking at 5% level of significance Using parallel parking as the base condition, and crash rates calculated using exposure that is based on traffic volume and parking activity (i.e., crashes per BVMHPS), the CMFs for conversion to low-angle, and high-angle parking with painted stalls are 1.69 and 2.42, respectively. Page 103
Legislation and Enforcement One-way Streets Hocherman et al (1990) Hocherman et al (1990) undertook a cross-sectional study of streets in Jerusalem, Israel using three years of injury crash data. Streets were classified according to function (arterial, collector, local) and setting (central business district, and other). One-way arterial streets in the CBD were excluded from the analysis because of insufficient numbers. Collector and local streets in the CBD were grouped for analysis, for similar reasons. Intersections crashes were examined separately from midblock crashes. Intersections were defined as one-way, if at least one of the approaches was one-way; the class of the intersection was determined by the highest class/function of the approaches. Volume data were not available for intersections. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 8.17 to 8.19. These results indicate the one-way streets are likely providing a safety benefit in the CBD but are actually detrimental to safety in non-CBD areas. TABLE 8.17: Midblock Crashes for Non-arterial One-way and Two-way Streets in the CBD Treatment Crashes per MVK Pedestrian Vehicle All One-way 0.49 0.18 0.68 Two-way 0.62 0.15 0.77 CMF 0.79 1.20 0.88 TABLE 8.18: Midblock Crashes for Non-arterial One-way and Two-way Streets Outside the CBD Treatment Crashes per MVK Arterial Collector Local All Pedestrian One-way --- 0.61 0.73 0.73 Two-way 0.14 0.39 0.49 0.37 CMF --- 1.57 1.49 1.90 Vehicle One-way --- 0.38 0.47 0.45 Two-way 0.12 0.23 0.41 0.28 CMF --- 1.68 1.14 1.63 Page 104
Page 1 and 2:
Transport Canada Transports Canada
Page 4:
Synthesis Of Safety For Traffic Ope
Page 8 and 9:
DISCLAIMER The material presented h
Page 10 and 11:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic operation
Page 12 and 13:
Synthesis of Safety for Traffic Ope
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER REJET
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1: Crash Rat
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24:
Chapter 1: Chapter 1: Introductio I
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction Before proceeding, a f
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction Literature regarding t
Page 31 and 32:
Introduction The current science of
Page 33 and 34:
Introduction adequate size control
Page 35 and 36:
Introduction In concluding this sec
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42:
Chapter 3: Chapter 3: Intersectio I
Page 45 and 46:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.3: Cra
Page 47 and 48:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.5: CMF
Page 49 and 50:
Intersection Control Vancouver Regi
Page 51 and 52:
Intersection Control V m = the sum
Page 53 and 54:
Intersection Control where: X1 = 0
Page 55 and 56:
Intersection Control Region of Durh
Page 57 and 58:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.17: CM
Page 59 and 60:
Intersection Control The predictor
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Intersection Control program includ
Page 65 and 66:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.26: Me
Page 67 and 68:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.29: St
Page 69 and 70:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.32: Ni
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Intersection Control It is noted th
Page 75 and 76:
Intersection Control Sayed et al (1
Page 77 and 78:
Intersection Control Signal Clearan
Page 79 and 80:
Intersection Control The CMFs are 0
Page 81 and 82:
Intersection Control also examined
Page 83 and 84:
Intersection Control Shebeeb (1995)
Page 85 and 86:
Intersection Control approaches at
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Intersection Control TABLE 3.56: Sa
Page 92 and 93: Synthesis of Safety for Traffic Ope
Page 102: Chapter 5: Chapter 5: Pavement Pave
Page 105 and 106: Pavement Markings The study methodo
Page 107 and 108: Pavement Markings Hall (1987) Hall
Page 109 and 110: Pavement Markings TABLE 5.8: Safety
Page 111 and 112: Pavement Markings THIS PAGE IS INTE
Page 124: Chapter 7: Chapter 7: Bicycle Bicyc
Page 127 and 128: Bicycle Safety TABLE 7.1: Safety Im
Page 148: Chapter 9: Chapter 9: Turn Lanes Tu
Page 151 and 152: Turn Lanes TABLE 9.2: Safety Impact
Page 153 and 154: Turn Lanes Vogt determined that a l
Page 155 and 156: Turn Lanes 1998 one of their high c
Page 157 and 158: Turn Lanes Section TABLE 9.10: Safe
Page 159 and 160: Turn Lanes A T = ADT 0.91 L 0.852 e
Page 161 and 162: Turn Lanes CMF = 1 - 0.7 P lt/d 0.0
Page 163 and 164: Turn Lanes occurred within 250 feet
Page 168 and 169: TABLE 10.3: Speed Changes Resulting
Page 170 and 171: Sites Where Applied 1 URBAN Island
Page 172 and 173: Forbes and Gill (2000) undertook a
Page 174 and 175: Ideally, three years of before and
Page 176 and 177: Kermit and Hein (1962) looked into
Page 178 and 179: The effects of the transverse pavem
Page 180: Chapter 11: Chapter 11: Other Other
Page 183 and 184: Other Safety Issues collisions per
Page 185 and 186: Other Safety Issues THIS PAGE IS IN
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220:
References References
Page 223 and 224:
References Bloch SA (1998) “Compa
Page 225 and 226:
References Hamilton Associates (199
Page 227 and 228:
References Lee JT, Maleck TL, and T
Page 229 and 230:
References Polanis SF (1998) “Do
Page 231 and 232:
References Vancouver, City of (1999
Page 233 and 234:
References THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONAL
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242:
Appendix B: Critical R Appendix B:
Page 245 and 246:
Critical Reviews Worksheet for Eval
Page 247 and 248:
Critical Reviews 2. Are the expecte
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258:
Appendix D: Appendix D: How to Use
Page 261 and 262:
How to Use Safety Performance Funct
Page 263 and 264:
How to Use Safety Performance Funct
show all

Synthesis of Safety for Traffic Operations - Transports Canada

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?