THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROAD SAFETY AUDITS by Caryn Allyson Gunter
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, 2005
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
in the Graduate Academic Unit of Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Eric Hildebrand, P.Eng., PhD, Civil Engineering
Examining Board: Kerry MacQuarrie, P.Eng., PhD, Canadian Rivers Institute, Civil Engineering, Chair James S. Christie, P.Eng., PhD, Civil Engineering Ming Zhong, P.Eng., PhD, Civil Engineering Dirk Jaeger, PhD, Forestry and Environmental Management
This thesis is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK
April, 2007
© Caryn Gunter, 2007 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-49682-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-49682-4
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada Abstract
The Road Safety Audit (RSA) process is thought to be an efficient tooi to implement innovative road safety measures. It has been widely recognized that RSAs provide benefits and reduce the potential for collisions. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the comparison of increased costs versus benefits associated with projects that have been subjected to an RSA review. A better understanding of collision reduction/mitigation is necessary to allow an objective economic evaluation of the RSA process. This study focused on quantifying the benefits of RSAs. The project undertook a retrospective case study of the first major RSA that was conducted in Canada - the Fredericton-Moncton Highway project.
A comparison between the old Trans Canada Highway (from Fredericton to Moncton) and the new Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that completing the new facility contributed to an estimated net reduction in the collision rate of 0.259 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres (or 41 percent) and an estimated safety- related collision cost savings of over $25,500,000 per year.
In an attempt to isolate the impacts of RSAs, the Fredericton-Moncton Highway's safety performance was compared to five similar facilities and output of six collisions prediction models. A comparison of average collision rates for similar facilities and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction in the overall collision rate of 0.144 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres (or 42 percent) and a total collision cost savings of nearly $1,800,000 per year. Similarly, a comparison of the output of collision prediction models and the observed values from the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total reduction in collision rate of 0.084 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres (or 24 percent) and a total collision cost savings of over $3,000,000 per year. While the improved safety performance of the Fredericton-Moncton Highway may not be solely attributed to the inclusion of the RSA process, the results of this study would suggest it has made a substantial contribution.
ii Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to the following groups and individuals who provided me with support throughout the completion of my research: o Dr. Eric Hildebrand with the University of New Brunswick Transportation Group for his continuous advice and guidance as my supervisor, o Yuri Yevdokimov with the University of New Brunswick (Economics Department) for his assistance with benefit-cost analysis, o John Baldwin, Cathy O'Shea, and George Thompson with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation for their assistance regarding collision data, traffic volumes, and control sections for facilities in New Brunswick, o Joyce MacEacheron with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation for her assistance with benefit-cost analysis, o Todd Carr and Richard Scott with MRDC for their assistance regarding collision data, traffic volumes, and control sections for the new Fredericton- Moncton Highway project, o Karen Robichaud of Opus International for her assistance with collision data for the old Trans Canada Highway and benefit-cost analysis, o Greg Costello with the Maine Department of Transportation and Yusuf Mohamedshah with the Federal Highway Administration HSIS Lab for their assistance regarding crash data and collision rates for the Interstate 95 facility in Maine, o Ralph Hessian and Paul Smith with the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation for their assistance regarding collision data, traffic volumes, and control sections for facilities in Nova Scotia, o My husband, Mark Gunter, for his assistance and support, o My family and friends for providing me with encouragement.
iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements Hi List of Tables vii List of Figures . , x List of Acronyms xii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Need ....2 1.2 Goal and Objectives 2 1.3 Scope 3 1.4 Demographics of Study Area 3 2 Literature Review 6 2.1 Overview of Road Safety Audits 6 2.1.1 Audit Objectives 6 2.1.*2 Audit Stages 7 2.1.3 Parties Involved 7 2.1.4 Audit Process 7 2.1.5 Development of Practice 9 2.2 Previous Studies Quantifying the Benefits of RSAs 15 2.2.1 Surrey County Council Study 16 2.2.2 U.K. Highway Authorities Study ...19 2.2.3 Jordan Study 19 2.2.4 Denmark Study 20 2.2.5 Austroads Study 22 2.2.6 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Study 24 2.2.7 University of New Brunswick Study 26 2.2.8 National Cooperative Highway Research Program 31 2.2.9 Federal Highway Administration 32 2.2.10 European Transport Safety Council 33 2.3 Collision Prediction Models 33 2.3.1 Hadi.CPM 33 2.3.2 Persaud and Dzbik, CPM 34 2.3.3 Wang, CPM 35 2.3.4 Khorashadi, CPM 36 2.3.5 Bauer and Harwood, CPMs 39 2.3.6 MicroBENCOST, CPM 41
IV 2.4 Collision Costs Studies 43 2.4.1 Hickling Lewis Brod Inc 43 2.4.2 Transportation Association of Canada 44 2.4.3 Transport Canada 45 2.4.4 Federal Highway Administration 46 2.4.5 National Safety Council 47 2.4.6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 47 2.4.7 Australia Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics 48 2.4.8 World Road Association, PIARC 49 2.4.9 Computer Cost Estimation Methods 50 2.5 Literature Review Summary 51 3 Methodology 53 3.1 Collision Classification 53 3.2 Collision Rate Development 54 3.3 Comparison of Collision Rates 55 3.4 Equivalent Collision Frequency .55 3.5 Significance Testing 56 3.6 Benefit-Cost Analysis 58 3.6.1 Collision Cost Development 58 3.6.2 Annual Worth of Road Safety Audit Costs 62 4 Data Analysis 64 4.1 Collision Rates 64 4.2 Comparison of NBDOT and MRDC 70 4.2.1 Reporting Systems 70 4.2.2 Reported Collisions , ...71 4.2.3 Matching Records 73 4.2.4 Non-Matching Records 76 4.3 Comparison to Old Trans Canada Highway 78 4.4 Comparison to Similar Facilities 83 4.4.1 Highway 1, New Brunswick 83 4.4.2 Highway 15, New Brunswick 86 4.4.3 Highway 102, Nova Scotia 88 4.4.4 Highway 104, Nova Scotia 91 4.4.5 Interstate 95, Maine 93 4.4.6 Average Similar Facility Collision Rates 96 4.5 Comparison to Collision Prediction Models 98 4.5.1 Mainlane Collisions 98
V 4.5.2 Average Mainlane Collisions 101 4.5.3 Interchange Collisions 102 4.5.4 Average Interchange Collisions 104 4.6 Monetary Savings Associated with RSAs 106 4.6.1 Old Trans Canada Highway 107 4.6.2 Similar Facilities 107 4.6.3 Collision Prediction Models 110 4.7 Data Analysis Summary 112 5 Conclusions 113 5.1 Collision Rates 113 5.2 Monetary Collision Cost Savings 114 5.3 Benefit-Cost Ratios 115 6 Recommendations 116 6.1 Available Literature 116 6.2 Underreporting of Collisions 116 6.3 Quantifying RSA Benefits ....117 References 118 Bibliography 124 Appendix A - Collision Report Summaries 125 Appendix B - Interchange CPM Crash Frequency Development 140 Appendix C - MRDC and NBDOT Collision Report Forms 145 Appendix D - Significance Testing 150 Curriculum Vitae
vi List of Tables
Table 2-1: Survey Respondents 14 Table 2-2: Summary of Results for the Surrey County Council Study 16 Table 2-3: Sites Where Number of Collisions Increased 17 Table 2-4: Sites Where Number of Collisions Decreased .17 Table 2-5: Estimated Safety Audit Costs and Savings for Jordan Study 20 Table 2-6: TAC Risk Assessment Matrix 24 Table 2-7: ICBC Modified Risk Assessment Matrix 25 Table 2-8: Summary of Potential Safety Benefits 25 Table 2-9: Audit vs. Collision Findings 27 Table 2-10: Right-Hand-Side SVROR on F-M Highway 28 Table 2-11: Collision Rate Development 29 Table 2-12: Collision Rates for Other Facilities 30 Table 2-13: Severe Crash Rates.... 38 Table 2-14: Crash Adjustment Factor 40 Table 2-15: Freeway Segment Collisions .....42 Table 2-16 Interchange Collisions 42 Table 2-17: HLB Inc. Collision Costs 43 Table 2-18: TAC Collision Costs... 44 Table 2-19: Transport Canada Collision Costs 45 Table 2-20: Transport Canada Collision Costs 46 Table 2-21: FHWA Collision Costs 46 Table 2-22: NSC Collision Costs 47 Table 2-23: AASHTO Published Collision Costs 48 Table 2-24: Average Australian Collision Costs 49 Table 2-25: Average Cost of Great Britain Road Collisions 49 Table 2-26: Collision Costs 50 Table 2-27: HERS Collision Costs 51 Table 3-1: Student t-Test Critical Values 57 Table 3-2: Currency Conversion Ratios 59 Table 3-3: Canadian Consumer Price Index 60
vii Table 3-4: Summary of Collision Costs 60 Table 3-5: Collision Costs Estimates .....61 Table 3-6: Collision Costs Estimates for New Brunswick Highways 62 Table 4-1: Sections for ADT Analysis 66 Table 4-2: Collision Rate Development 66 Table 4-3: NBDOTand MRDC Collision Frequency 67 Table 4-4: NBDOTand MRDC Overall Collision Rates 67 Table 4-5: NBDOT and MRDC Collision Rates Based on Crash Severity 68 Table 4-6: Collision Rates Based on Crash Type 68 Table 4-7: Collision Distribution of All Reported Collisions 72 Table 4-8: Collision Distribution of Matching Collisions 74 Table 4-9: Severity Rating Comparison 74 Table 4-10: Collision Distribution of Non-Matching Collisions 76 Table 4-11: Old Trans Canada Highway 79 Table 4-12: Operations Sections of Old Trans Canada 80 Table 4-13: Old Trans Canada Highway and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway 81 Table 4-14: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 85 Table 4-15: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 87 Table 4-16: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 90 Table 4-17: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 92 Table 4-18: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 95 Table 4-19: Similar Facilities Average Collision Rate 96 Table 4-20: Similar Facilities and F-M Highway Collision Rate 97 Table 4-21: Comparison of Collision Rates for Mainlane Crashes 99 Table 4-22: Average Mainlane Collision Rates and F-M Highway 101 Table 4-23: Comparison of Collision Rates for Interchange Crashes 103 Table 4-24: Average Interchange Collision Rate Comparison 105 Table 4-25: Old Trans Canada and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Cost Savings 107 Table 4-26: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Cost Savings 108
viii Table 4-27: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Cost Savings 108 Table 4-28: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Cost Savings 108 Table 4-29: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Cost Savings 109 Table 4-30: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Cost Savings 109 Table 4-31: Similar Facility Average Cost Savings 109 Table 4-32: Mainlane CPM and F-M Highway Cost Savings 110 Table 4-33: Average Mainlane Cost Savings 110 Table 4-34: Interchange CPM and F-M Highway Cost Savings 111 Table 4-35: Average Interchange Cost Savings 111
ix List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Old and New Facilities 4 Figure 2-1: Six-Step Audit Approach 8 Figure 2-2: Basic Interchange Ramp Configurations 37 Figure 4-1: Map of Control Sections 65 Figure 4-2: Collision Rates Based on Crash Type 69 Figure 4-3: Distribution of Collision Records (2005) 71 Figure 4-4: Reported Collisions 72 Figure 4-5: Collision Distribution of All Reported Collisions 73 Figure 4-6: Matching Collisions 75 Figure 4-7: Collision Distribution of Matching Reported Collisions 75 Figure 4-8: Non-Matching Collisions 77 Figure 4-9: Collision Distribution of Non-Matching Reported Collisions 77 Figure 4-10: Old Trans Canada Highway, New Brunswick 79 Figure 4-11: Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada 80 Figure 4-12: Old Trans Canada and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Collision Rate 82 Figure 4-13: Highway 1, New Brunswick 84 Figure 4-14: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 85 Figure 4-15: Highway 15, New Brunswick 86 Figure 4-16: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 87 Figure 4-17: Highway 102, Nova Scotia... 89 Figure 4-18: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 90 Figure 4-19: Highway 104, Nova Scotia 91 Figure 4-20: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 93 Figure 4-21: Interstate 95, Maine 94 Figure 4-22: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 95 Figure 4-23: Similar Facility Average and F-M Collision Rate 97 Figure 4-24: Comparison of Collision Rates for Mainlane Crashes 100 Figure 4-25: Average Mainlane Collision Rate 102
x Figure 4-26: Comparison of Collision Rates for Interchange Crashes ....104 Figure 4-27: Average Interchange Collision Rate 105
xi List of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ARRB Australia Road Research Board CPM Collision Prediction Model DOT Department of Transportation ETSC European Transport Safety Council FHWA Federal Highway Administration F-M Fredericton-Moncton HERS Highways Economic Requirement Systems ICBC Insurance Cooperation of British Columbia IHT Institution of Highways and Transportation km kilometre MaineDOT Maine Department of Transportation ME Maine mi mile MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation MRDC Maritime Road Development Corporation mvkm million-vehicle-kilometres mvm million-vehicle-miles NCHRP National Cooperative Research Program NB New Brunswick NBDOT New Brunswick Department of Transportation NSC National Safety Council NS Nova Scotia NSDOT Nova Scotia Department of Transportation PDO Property Damage Only RSA Road Safety Audit RSAR Road Safety Audit Review SVROR Single Vehicle Run-Off-Road TAC Transportation Association of Canada TTI Texas Transportation Institute
xii 1 Introduction
In recent years, a number of countries have developed national road safety strategies aimed at preventing or reducing road casualties. Safety problems have traditionally been addressed through black spot analysis by ranking dangerous sites and treating only those considered high on the priority list. This method is reactive and can only be applied to existing road systems with an established history of collisions. A more proactive approach was sought after by transportation organizations to identify problems early in the design or construction stages. These newer techniques have taken the form of road safety audits (RSAs).
The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) defines an RSA as "a formal and independent safety performance review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of safety specialists, addressing the safety for all road users" (2001). Engineers are tasked with balancing cost, capacity requirements, physical limitations, geotechnical conditions, socio-economic impacts, environmental impacts, and safety for any given road project. The RSA process helps to ensure that all safety issues are addressed and given equal importance as other factors for a design project. RSAs identify problems that would improve the safety of the facility for existing systems. RSAs can be performed at one or more stages of a new roadway project: feasibility (planning), draft (preliminary/layout) design, detail design, pre-opening, and post-opening for new roadway projects. The RSA process is designed so that all improvement suggestions are consistent with the project's design stage.
The following section outlines the project need, goals, objectives, and scope of the study, and the general demographics of the study area.
1 1.1 Project Need The RSA process is thought to be an efficient tool to implement innovative road safety measures. It has been widely recognized that RSAs provide benefits and reduce the potential for collisions. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the comparison of increased costs versus benefits associated with projects that have been subjected to an RSA review. A better understanding of collision reduction/mitigation is necessary to allow an objective economic evaluation of the RSA process. Some benefits such as improved awareness of safe design practices and better facilities for vulnerable users are extremely difficult to quantify due to their subjective nature. The RSA process is also gaining widespread acceptance in North America without a full understanding of the net benefits. Therefore, this study focused on the quantitative benefits of RSAs.
1.2 Goal and Objectives The primary goal of this study was to quantify the safety impacts the RSA process and the subsequent recommendations have had on roadway projects. The project undertook a retrospective case study of the first major RSA that was conducted in Canada - the Fredericton-Moncton Highway project. This facility was subjected to the RSA process from the initial planning stage on through to post-opening.
The following specific objectives were undertaken in order to meet the goal of this study: • Classify all collisions on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway by type, configuration, and severity. • Develop empirical collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and compare to: i.collision rate on the old Trans Canada Highway (between Fredericton and Moncton), ii.other four-lane facilities of similar design and volume, and
2 iii.output of collision prediction models applied to the Fredericton- Moncton Highway project. • Estimate the net collision reductions attributed to the RSA process and contrast with all costs associated with implementing the RSA recommendations.
1.3 Scope The scope of this study focused on two main comparisons. First, the study included a comparison of collision rates. Collision rates for the Fredericton- Moncton Highway as a whole and for individual types of collisions were compared to other similar facilities and national rates. Secondly, the study included a comparison involving Collision Prediction Models (CPMs). CPMs for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were compared with observed collision rates. The audit process is not confined to only the highway. Other physical elements associated with a highway project (such as interchanges, intersections, and driveways) are also evaluated during the audit process. Therefore, the study included the Fredericton-Moncton Highway as well as interchanges and intersections along the route.
The study area focused on the recently completed Fredericton-Moncton Highway project. The new facility received full traffic availability on October 24, 2001. There were five years of operational experience and collision data which provided a valid review of the RSA impacts. To establish baseline collision rates for comparison, similar facilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Maine were reviewed.
1.4 Demographics of Study Area The Fredericton-Moncton Highway project was completed in 2001 and included the construction of a 196-kilometre four-lane divided, controlled access highway from Jewetts Cove (West of Fredericton) to Magnetic Hill (near Moncton). The
3 old Trans Canada Highway between Fredericton and Moncton is highlighted in green and the new Fredericton-Moncton Highway project is highlighted in red on Figure 1-1.
focGlvney
The Fredericton-Moncton Highway has the following characteristics: o design speed of 120 kilometres per hour with a posted speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour, o rumble strips on the right shoulders, o 137 kilometres of guiderail, o Energy Attenuation Guiderail Treatment (EAGRT) systems are present on every section of guiderail, o fully controlled access, o break-away sign posts and frangible base light standards and overhead sign structures, o clear recovery zone of ten metres on each side of the roadway, o 35 kilometres of wildlife fencing (on both sides), o left (or outside) partially paved shoulder 1.5 metres in width (paved portion 0.8 metres in width), o right (or inside) fully paved shoulder 3.0 metres in width, o 3.7 metres travel lane widths,
4 o five major structures across rivers, and o 16 interchanges. The average travel time from Fredericton to Moncton on the new road is one hour and 40 minutes in fair weather conditions.
A total of 24 audits were conducted between February 1998 and October 2001. The approximate engineering cost of conducting the audits was $142,000. During an audit process, the audit team determines and prioritizes improvement recommendations based on experience and capital expenditure available. As a result of the audits, 592 recommendations were made. The developer Maritime Road Development Corporation (MRDC) accepted 476 and rejected 56 of the 592 recommendations. The remaining 69 recommendations were resolved using other solutions. The estimated cost of implementing the accepted recommendations was $2,801,200. The total RSA cost associated with conducting the audit and implementing the recommendations was $2,943,200. The total construction cost of the Fredericton-Moncton Highway projects was $584,000,000.
5 2 Literature Review
An extensive literature review was conducted to gain an understanding of RSAs practice and the development of RSAs in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Australia, United Sates of America (U.S.), and Canada. The following literature review also identified ten previous studies conducted in an effort to quantify the benefits of RSAs as well as six collision prediction models developed to estimate crash frequency on rural four-lane divided highways. A section of the following literature review was devoted to identifying studies conducted to develop collision cost estimates based on severity. Nine different studies were reviewed from around the world to develop appropriate collision cost estimates for New Brunswick applications.
2.1 Overview of Road Safety Audits In recent years, a number of countries have developed national road safety strategies aimed at preventing or reducing road casualties. Safety problems were originally addressed through black spot analysis by ranking dangerous sites and treating only those considered high on the priority list. This method is highly dependent on collision records and can only be applied to existing road systems. A more proactive approach was sought after by transportation organizations around the world to identify problems or opportunities to improve safety early in the design or construction stages. These new techniques take the form of a road safety audit (RSA).
2.1.1 Audit Objectives According to TAC, the objectives of an RSA are to (TAC, 2001): • minimize the frequency and severity of preventable collisions, • consider the safety of all road users (including any vulnerable users), • ensure that collision mitigation measures aimed to eliminate or reduce the identified safety problems are considered fully, and
6 • minimize potential negative safety impacts beyond the project limits.
2.1.2 Audit Stages An RSA can be conducted on any type and size of project. Traditionally, RSAs have been undertaken during the following key stages of the project: • feasibility (planning), • draft (preliminary/layout) design, • detailed design, • pre-opening, and • post-opening (including any existing or in-service facilities).
2.1.3 Parties Involved There are typically three parties involved in the RSA process. The three parties include the project owner, design team, and audit teams. During the audit process the primary role of the project owner is to assess financial and budget constraints to determine the feasibility of implementing recommendations. The design team ultimately retains control of the project design and implements the recommendations that are agreed upon by the project owner. The primary role of the audit teams is to identify the potential safety problems. These three parties must then work together through the six-step audit process.
2.1.4 Audit Process In order to conduct an efficient audit a six-step approach is typically utilized. Figure 2-1 indicates the six-step approach and the parties involved in each approach (TAC, 2001).
7 Step 1: Start Up Meeting
Step 2: Site Visit
Step 3: Audit Analysis
Step 4: Audit Report
Step 5: Findings Meeting # ? •
Step 6: Response Report
Responsibility: lH Audit Team id-% Design Team H Project
Figure 2-1: Six-Step Audit Approach [Source: TAC, 2001]
8 2.1.5 Development of Practice
The PIARC Technical Committee conducted a survey about the practice of road safety audits in different countries. From the summary report, RSAs were known to be conducted in (PIARC Technical Committee, 2005): o Australia o Belgium, o Canada, o China, o Czech Republic, o Denmark, o Finland, o France, o Germany, o Greece, o Hungary, o Japan, o Netherlands, o New-Zealand, o Norway, o Portugal, o United Kingdom, and o United States of America.
The following sections provide an outline of the development of RSA practices in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, United Sates, and Canada.
United Kingdom The 1974 Road Traffic Act allocated the responsibility to local authorities of ensuring appropriate measures were undertaken on a road system to reduce or prevent the possibility of a collision. A direct result of this act was the development of the Accident Reduction and Prevention Guidelines (IHT, 1980) in 1980 by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT). This publication focused on two objectives: "the application of cost effective measures on existing roads for collision reduction and the application of safety principles in the provision, improvement, and maintenance of roads as a means of collision prevention" (IHT, 1996). The first objective was more easily attainable through
9 well established collision investigation procedures. The second objective was met through the development of RSAs.
The 1988 Road Traffic Act reinforced the 1974 Act and further identified the need and development of RSAs. In 1987, the Department of Transport developed policies in an attempt to reduce the number of road causalities by one-third by the year 2000. The IHT responded in 1990 with the development of Guidelines for The Safety Audit of Highways (IHT, 1990) and the Road Safety Code of Good Practice (Local Authorities Association, 1989). The following year, RSAs were made mandatory for all trunk roads and motorways (freeways) in the U.K. Initially, RSAs were only applied to existing roadways. Audits began to be applied to projects involving new designs as audit experience and understanding was gained.
Within the U.K., an RSA is defined as "a formal procedure for assessing collision potential and safety performance in the provision of new highway schemes, and schemes for the improvement and maintenance of existing roads" (IHT, 1996). The U.K. undertakes RSAs in up to four of the following stages: feasibility / initial design (Stage F), preliminary design / draft plans (Stage 1), detailed design (Stage 2), and pre-opening (Stage 3). To ensure that an objective approach is taken in the audit process, independent persons of the original design perform the RSAs. Two basic concepts create the foundation for all U.K. RSAs. The first underlying concept is "Prevention Is Better Than Cure" (IHT, 1996). This stipulates that safety audits must seek to minimize collision risks both on existing roads and in the future due to changes to the highways. The second underlying concept is "Drive, Ride, Walk in Safety" (IHT, 1996). This provides an emphasis on the most vulnerable users of the roadway. The Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways (IHT, 1996) also developed checklists to aid auditors in reviewing projects to ensure that all issues that can affect safety are addressed. Extensive checklists were developed for each audit stage of a project.
10 Australia and New Zealand Using the U.K. format as a template, Australia and New Zealand began to develop their own RSA policies in 1990. In 1993, the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities (Austroads) developed the Road Safety Audit Manual (Austroads, 1994). These guidelines were revised in 2002 in response to the significant increase in experience and understanding of RSAs. This publication focused on two objectives: "to identify potential safety problems for road users and others affected by an existing road or new road project, and to ensure that measures to eliminate or reduce the problems are considered fully" (Austroads, 2002b).
In 1992, the national roads and transport agency for New Zealand (Transit New Zealand) began conducting pilot projects. The following year, Transit New Zealand made RSAs mandatory for 20 percent of state highways projects and conducted a pilot project at the local government level. A similar approach was undertaken in Australia. In New South Wales, 20 construction projects per local authority and 20 percent of existing road systems were subjected to RSAs. In the State of Victoria all major new construction projects, 20 percent of other projects, and ten percent of maintenance operations were subjected to RSAs.
Within Australia, an RSA is defined as "a formal examination of a future road or traffic project, or an existing road, in which an independent, qualified team reports on the project's crash potential and safety performance" (Austroads, 2002b). For a new construction project, audits can be performed at the following one or more stages: feasibility (Stage 1), preliminary design (Stage 2), detailed design (Stage 3), and pre-opening (Stage 4). For existing roadway systems (Stage 5), audits are performed where there is evidence of deficiencies or hazards that could affect traffic safety and control. In an effort to aid the audit process, separate checklists are used to evaluate a number of elements and features for each audit stage.
11 United States In 1994, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored an international technology scanning review that focused on Japan, Australia, and New Zealand to "review the application of safety management systems" (FHWA, 1997). The review indicated that RSAs "were effective in improving highway safety in the countries where they are implemented" (FHWA, 1997). Two years later, the FHWA sponsored an international scanning tour that focused on Australia and New Zealand to "review and document international efforts to enhance highway safety through implementation of safety audit initiatives" (FHWA, 1997). The FHWA combined knowledge gained from the scanning tours and research of the processes, policies, and procedures developed and utilized by other countries, to develope a two part report entitled: FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits. In 1998, The FHWA set up a pilot program with Departments of Transportation (DOT) from 13 states to determine the feasibility of a nationally implemented RSA policy. Prior to the FHWA pilot projects, DOTs from Kansas and Pennsylvania performed RSAs within their respective states.
Within the U.S., an RSA is defined as "a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent audit team" (ITE, 2006). RSAs for new construction and existing systems are typically performed at one or more stages in a similar five stage technique as Australia.
Canada In the mid to late 1990's, RSAs began to be introduced into practice in Canada. The first pilot project was believed to have taken place in British Columbia in 1997. Since then RSAs have been documented in various forms in several other provinces. In an effort to aid safety professionals in the application of the audit process, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) developed the Road Safety Audit Guide (TAC, 2001).
12 Within Canada, an RSA is defined as "a formal and independent safety performance review of a road transportation project by an experienced team of safety specialists, addressing the safety for all road users" (TAC, 2001). RSAs for new construction and existing systems are typically performed at one or more stages in a similar five-stage technique as Australia. Instead of the traditional check-list, Canada has developed prompt lists. These are intended to be a prompt for experienced members of the audit team to ensure that all relevant areas are considered during reviews. Prompt lists are less prescriptive than checklists and identify broader areas for the audit team to examine. Similar to check-lists, it is recommended that an audit team develop a tailored prompt list to be specific to both the project and the stage of the audit being conducted. Separately, Canada has also adopted In-service Road Safety Reviews (TAC, 2004) to target problems associated with existing roads. The basis for the Road Safety Audit Reviews (RSARs) is aimed at studying in-service road to identify cost-effective countermeasures that would improve safety and operations for all users in both the short and long-term.
Current Practice in North America The Transportation Research Board (TRB) published a synthesis entitled: Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice (TRB, 2004). The purpose of the synthesis was to "describe Road Safety Audit and Road Safety Audit Review processes and to summarize their current usage" (TRB, 2004).
A survey was developed and sent to all state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the United States and provincial departments of transportation in Canada. 'The survey was designed to determine the extent to which safety audits were being used, identify advancements since 1997, determine if states that received training have implemented RSA or RSAR processes, and gather information on issues that were raised in the summary of the pilot programs" (TRB, 2004).
13 Survey responses were received from 38 state transportation agencies in the U.S. and six transportation agencies in Canada. A list of participating agencies is contained in Table2-1.
Table 2-1: Survey Respondents State DOT Survey Respondents Alabama Missouri Alaska Nebraska Arizona Nevada Arkansas New Hampshire Colorado New York Connecticut North Carolina Delaware North Dakota Hawaii Oregon Idaho Pennsylvania Illinois Rhode Island Indiana South Carolina Iowa South Dakota Kansas Tennessee Louisiana Texas Maine Vermont Maryland Virginia Michigan Washington Minnesota West Virginia Mississippi Wyoming Canadian DOT Survey Respondents Alberta Transportation Calgary New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Saskatchewan | Toronto [Source: TRB, 2004]
The synthesis identified the following current practices in the U.S. (TRB, 2004): o "Seven states indicated that both RSAs and RSARs were being conducted by their DOTs. o Ten states indicated that either RSAs or RSARs, but not both, were being used by their DOTs.
14 o A total of 22 states responded that neither safety tool was being used. Responses to the survey are discussed in the following sections and summarized according to the key issues, o Only 11 states indicated that RSAs were being used. Most of these states were in the initial stages of assessing the benefits and had conducted only a handful of audits, o Most indicated that fewer than six audits had been conducted by the time the survey was taken in the summer of 2003."
The synthesis identified the following current practices in Canada (TRB, 2004): o "Four Canadian provinces and two Canadian cities completed and returned survey questionnaires, o One city and two provinces have conducted RSAs, and two cities and two provinces have conducted RSARs."
2.2 Previous Studies Quantifying the Benefits of RSAs There are numerous sources in the literature that discuss the qualitative benefits of RSAs. Little research has been conducted to quantify the positive outcomes of RSAs. Seven significant studies have been completed in an effort to quantify the benefits of RSAs. The sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.7 summarize the following seven studies conducted: o Surrey County Council, o U.K. Highways Authority, o Jordan, o Denmark, o Austroads, o Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and o University of New Brunswick.
Three additional literature sources that revealed quantitative benefits of conducting RSAs included publications by:
15 o National Cooperative Highway Research Program, o Federal Highway Administration, and o European Transport Safety Council. These publications are summarized in sections 2.2.8 to 2.2.10.
2.2.1 Surrey County Council Study The Surrey County Council in England conducted a study to determine whether any casualty savings have been achieved as a result of RSAs (Surrey County Council, 1994). Before and after studies were compared for 19 audited and 19 non-audited traffic schemes having similar remedial treatments (such as junction improvements, pedestrian facilities, and right turn lanes). Crash statistics were compared for at least two years before and two years after construction operations. Comparisons were made between the casualty crash reductions achieved as a result of the projects and are summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Summary of Results for the Surrey County Council Study Average Average Average Casualties no. of no. of Time casualty per year crashes casualties Period saving per per site per year per year year per site per site Sites Not Before 1.314 1.98 2.60 0.26 Audited After 1.314 1.78 2.34 Sites Before 1.315 1.58 2.08 1.25 Audited After 1.315 0.63 0.83 [S«aurce : Surrey Count y Council, 1994 ]
The Surrey County Council Study also compared collisions rates for 12 sites where detailed drawings were available. The collision rates increased for six of the 12 sites. However, it was noted that "the majority of sites where the numbers of collisions increased after construction were those sites which had not been through an RSA" (Surrey County Council, 1994). Collision rates decreased for the remaining six sites. It was also noted for these sites that "the majority of sites where the numbers of collisions decreased after construction
16 were those sites which had been through an RSA" (Surrey County Council, 1994). The data in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 indicate the change in collision rate before and after construction improvements for sites where the number of collisions increased and for sites where the number of collisions decreased respectively.
Table 2-3: Sites Where Number of Collisions Increased Collision Rate Collision Rate Site No. Before After (collision/mvm) (collision/mvm) SA16 0.36 0.74 NSA1 0.89 0.92 NSA2 0.12 0.27 NSA6 0.07 0.24 NSA9 0.05 0.11 NSA16 0.37 0.62 [Source: Surrey Country Council, 1994]
Table 2-4: Sites Where Number of Collisions Decreased Collision Rate Collision Rate Site No. Before After (collision/mvm) (collision/mvm) SA1 N/A 0.52 SA4 0.41 0.14 SA15 1.05 0.38 SA17 0.52 0.38 SA18 0.90 0.00 NSA8 N/A 0.25 [Source: Surrey Country Council, 1994]
In addition to the already reported findings of the Surrey County Council Study, Austroads published the following benefits from the study (Austroads, 2002a): o non-audited sites had an average crash savings per year of 0.20 collisions, and o audited sites had an average crash savings per year of 0.95 collisions.
The Institute of Highways and Transportation published Guidelines for Road Safety Audits in November of 1996. Within this publication, the IHT made
17 reference to studies that quantified the benefits of RSAs and included the following information in regards to the Surrey County Council study (IHT, 1996): o average cost per casualty of $58,808 (£28,100), o average cost per injury collision of $116,276 (£55, 650). Applying these values to the causality savings in Table 2-2 provides the following monetary equivalents for casualty savings: o $15,290 for sites not audited, and o $73,510 for sites audited.
Overall, this study showed that a savings per year of 1.25 casualties was achieved through implementation of RSAs. This is almost five times the amount in casualty savings achieved in this study without applying RSAs. However, the definition of "casualty savings" is unclear. The author of the report does not define casualty savings in terms of fatal plus personal injury collision reductions or just fatal collision reductions. Austroads' publication of the study indicated that an average crash savings of nearly five times was achieved though the use of RSAs. IHT's publication of the study indicated the average cost per casualty and injury collisions. Applying the IHT values and causality savings contributed to a monetary equivalent of almost five times in causality savings per year for sites audited compared to sites not audited.
The study utilized a before and after approach for traffic schemes having similar remedial treatments (i.e. junction improvements, pedestrian facilities, and right turn lanes). None of the schemes in the study pertained to freeways. While the results of the Surrey study did indicate that implementing RSAs provide a potential reduction in collision rates, it should be noted that the magnitude of this reduction may not be as appropriate for quantifying the benefits of RSAs on freeways and highways.
18 2.2.2 U.K. Highway Authorities Study RSAs were made mandatory for all UK trunk roads in April of 1991. In 1993, the Transport Research Laboratory conducted a study for the U.K. Highways Authority to determine the benefits of RSAs which had been carried out on trunk roads. The study included 22 trunk road projects which had been audited at the design stage. A comparison was made between the costs of implementing safety recommendations made by the audit at the design stage and the costs of making changes after the project was constructed (Austroads, 2002a).
The following are excerpts from a literature review conducted by Austroads to determine the economic value of RSAs (Austroads, 2002a). The total cost of the audits was $88,708 (£45,785) and the total estimated cost of implementing works after project completion was $573,500 (£296,000), giving a total estimated savings of $484,792 (£250,215). The average savings from implementing changes at the design stage was found to be $22,035 (£11,373). These savings only reflect construction-related changes and do not reflect safety issues.
Overall, this study indicates the benefits of implementing safety recommendations made by the audit at the design stage compared to making changes after the project has been constructed. However, the study fails to indicate any savings in terms of reduction in collisions or crash severity.
2.2.3 Jordan Study RSAs have not been put into practice in Jordan. In 1998, Al Masaeid conducted a study to quantify the benefits of RSAs in an effort to convince authorities of the advantages of RSAs. The following excerpt was taken from a literature review conducted by Austroads to determine the economic value of RSAs (Austroads, 2002a):
19 The study included nine newly constructed sites that developed crash problems and were then improved geometrically. Crash data were available for before and after the improvements were made for each crash site. The data in Table 2-5 indicate the estimated total costs and benefits due to savings in crashes if RSAs had been undertaken at the design stage of construction. The study assumes that the geometric improvements that were made after construction would have been adopted initially if an RSA had been completed. The study found the first year rate of return to be approximately 120 percent.
Table 2-5: Estimated Safety Audit Costs and Savings for Jordan Study Saving in No. Estimated Audit Savings* per Type of Scheme crashes per Surveyed Costs year year $11,270 $105,455 Roundabouts 21 4 ($7,000 JOD) ($65,500 JOD) $ 125,580 $ 70,840 Interchanges 3 14 ($78,000 JOD) ($44,000 JOD) Rural Highway $ 80,500 $ 80,500 2 9 Sections ($50,000 JOD) ($50,000 JOD) $217,350 $256,795 All 44 9 ($135,000 JOD) ($159,500 JOD) *Based on unit crash costs for Jordan [Source: Austroads, 2002a]
The Jordan study only estimated collision savings for two rural highway sections. Improvements to these sections involved filling in open channels. Consequently, the estimated collision savings may not be as appropriate for quantifying the overall benefits of RSAs on freeways and highways.
2.2.4 Denmark Study In 1995, Adrian Schelling conducted a study for Denmark to quantify the benefits of RSAs. The study included cost-benefit analyses for 13 projects ranging from $0.4 million ($2 million DKK) to $82.9 million ($400 million DKK). Crash savings were estimated by means of a general prediction model typically used for
20 highway planning and collision black spot priority ranking. The benefits of RSAs were quantified in terms of savings in crashes that resulted for the implementation of audit recommendations. The study estimated a total collision reduction of 34.5 crashes per year and 21.3 casualties per year. The cost involved in auditing the 13 projects was determined to be $2.7 million ($13.5 million DKK). The recommended design changes were expected to provide a reduction in casualty costs of $4.1 million ($20 million DKK) per year. From the analysis, the total costs and estimated casualty savings revealed a first year rate of return of 146 percent. Rates of return varied considerably for the 13 audits, but in all cases the rate of return was above 105 percent (Austroads, 2002a and European Transport Safety Council, 1997).
In 2004, Elvik et al. published The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. A small section of the book was devoted to RSAs and elaborated on the study conducted by Schelling for Denmark. The following exert was taken from The Handbook of Road Safety Measures (Elvik et al., 2004): 'The Danish cost-benefit analysis of RSA calculated the benefit of 13 audits to be $4.1 million ($20 million DKK) in the form of reduced collision costs in the first year. The costs were estimated to be $2.7 million ($13.5 million DKK). Assuming that the measures produce a benefit lasting 25 years, the present value of the benefit can be estimated at $50.4 million (232 million DKK). This is considerably more than the cost of the measure and shows that RSAs are very cost- effective".
Due to limited available literature pertaining to this study, little is known about the characteristics of the 13 projects analyzed or the collision prediction method used to estimate the equivalent monetary crash savings.
21 2.2.5 Austroads Study In 2001, Australia Road Research Board (ARRB) Transport Research was commissioned by Austroads to undertake a study to determine the economic value of RSAs. The study also developed an appropriate methodology to estimate the benefits of RSAs for Australia. Finally, the study applied the methodology to a variety of detailed design stage audits and existing road audits to determine the benefits of RSAs in Australia.
A sample of 19 projects from the 1995/96 Transport Accident Commission Blackspot Program in Victoria was used to evaluate the economic benefits of RSAs. Economic benefits were measured in terms of a monetary value for risk reduction. The risk score is a function of the number of vehicles that are exposed to the hazard, road characteristics, assessment of hazard deficiency, assessment of other factors that may increase the level of risk, and the expected severity of a crash. The analysis involved using the Road Safety Risk Manager, developed by ARRB Transport Research, to calculate the expected risk reduction for each blackspot project. The Road Safety Risk Manager is a software program that provides a "practical and rational mechanism for prioritizing works and actions arising form RSAs that account for risks and severities, benefits and costs" (Austroads, 2002a). The program calculates the expected risk reduction as a function of exposure, characteristics of the facility, assessment of how hazardous the deficiency is, and probability of crash severity. Before and after crash statistics were compared to determine the crash savings that occurred as a result of a treatment. The risk assessment was then equated to monetary value to determine the benefits per unit of risk reduction. The study found that "adoption of a valuation between $15 and $45 of benefits per unit of risk reduction appears appropriate" (Austroads, 2002a). The analysis indicated a median value of $27 of benefits per unit of risk reduction. However, a more conservative value of $20 of benefits for each unit of risk reduction was determined through sensitivity analysis (Austroads, 2002a).
22 The ARRB Transport Research then developed a methodology to estimate the benefits of RSAs for Australia. For each audit recommendation, the reduction in risk was calculated using the Road Safety Risk Manager, and the benefit was estimated based on a value of $20 for each unit of risk reduction. The study then applied the methodology to nine detailed design stage audits and 73 existing road audits to determine the benefits of RSAs. Evaluation of the design stage audit recommendations resulted in the following findings of safety related benefits for the nine design stage audits assessed (Austroads, 2002a): o The benefit cost ratio of implementing the recommendations from individual audits ranged from 3:1 to 242:1. o Individual recommendations within the design audits exhibited benefit-cost ratios between 0.06:1 and 2,600:1. o Over 90 percent of all implemented recommendations had benefit-cost ratios greater than 1.0. o Approximately 75 percent of all implemented recommendations had benefit- cost ratios greater than 10. o The majority of design audit findings required only low-cost remedial work (65 percent of recommendations had a cost less than $1,000). When considering only the low-cost remedial work projects, 85 percent of the projects had benefit-cost ratios greater than 10.
The Austroads study included nine detailed design stage audits. While the most beneficial changes to a project are typically made during the design stage, the study fails to compare audits conducted at other stages of the project (i.e. draft design, pre-opening, or post-opening stages). The study is also not based on empirical evidence. Instead, risk reductions are developed based on the Road Safety Risk Manager software program. Quantification of risk reduction carries through to the subsequent steps of determining reductions in collisions and associated costs.
23 2.2.6 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Study
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) initiated a Municipal RSA Pilot Program in 2001 to "partner with British Columbia municipalities to pilot RSAs, with the long term goal of incorporating RSA as part of the process in the delivery of road transportation projects for municipalities in British Columbia" (Ho efa/.,2002).
A total of 19 projects from 14 municipalities were selected for the Pilot Program, with costs ranging between $25,000 and $15,000,000. In-service RSAs were excluded from the Pilot Program. Audit procedures from the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Canadian Transportation Audit Guide (TAC, 2001) were used for each project. From the study the average cost of an audit was found to be $5,000 (Ho ef a/., 2002).
Each audit suggestion was reviewed and assigned a collision frequency reduction value. The safety benefits were estimated using the TAC Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide (2001). The TAC guide outlines a risk assessment methodology that prioritizes road safety suggestions based on expected crash frequency and severity. The TAC risk assessment matrix outlined in the Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide (2001) is shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6: TAC Risk Assessment Matrix Collision Collision Frequency Severity > 1 per year > 1 per 5 years > 1 per 10 years Fatal High High High Injury High Medium Medium PDO Medium Low Low [Source: Ho et al., 2002]
ICBC then modified the TAC risk assessment matrix to identify the potential crash reduction due to an accepted audit suggestion. The modified risk assessment matrix, developed by ICBC, is shown in Table 2-7.
24 Table 2-7: ICBC Modified Risk Assessment Matrix Collision Collision Frequency Severity Fatal 1 per year 1 per 5 years 1 per 10 years Injury 1 per year 1 per 5 years 1 per 10 years PDO 1 per year 1 per 5 years 1 per 10 years [Source: Ho et a/., 2002]
At the time of the report, 13 out of the 19 pilot projects provided response reports. These reports were collected and evaluated to determine the benefits of RSAs. The data in Table 2-8 indicate the estimated collision reductions per year as a result of implementing RSAs.
Table 2-8: Summary of Potential Safety Benefits
Project Estimated Collision Reduction per Year injury Collision PDO Collision 1 1.4 1.6 2 1.0 0.2 3 0.4 0.2 4 1.1 1.2 5 0.7 1.2 6 0.7 0.2 7 0.5 0.6 8 0.4 0.5 9 0.5 0.1 10 0.8 1.2 11 0.1 0.2 12 0.5 0.3 13 0.6 0.7 Overall 8.7 8.2 [Source: Ho etal., 2002]
Two different collision cost estimates were developed by ICBC (2001) and Ministry of Transport (1997). The ICBC assigned collision costs of $4,500 for a PDO crash and $44,000 for an injury crash. The Ministry of Transport (MoT)
25 assigned collision costs of $6,000 for a PDO crash and $97,000 for an injury crash.
Overall the study revealed the following potential safety benefits for the Pilot projects (Ho etal., 2002): o estimated crash reduction of 8.2 PDO collisions per year and 8.7 injury collisions per year, o benefit-cost ratios using the ICBC collision cost estimates of 4.1:1 to 15.4:1 (for 2 to 10 years service life), and o benefit-cost ratios using the Ministry of Transport collision cost estimates of 19.6:1 to 32.9:1 (for 5 to 10 years service life).
The methodology of assigning the collision frequency to the risk assessment matrix is highly subjective. Since the risk assessment matrix requires the user to estimate collision frequency, its recommendations are often subjectively based. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict collision frequency and severity. The location within the risk assessment matrix is based solely on these two factors that are challenging to predict.
2.2.7 University of New Brunswick Study In 2004, Erica Gorman conducted a small undergraduate study for the University of New Brunswick to "evaluate the impact that safety audits and subsequent recommendations have had on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway project' (Gorman, 2004). The study conducted an impact assessment, analyzed audits with respect to collision frequency, examined right side runoffs, and provided a collision rate comparison of the new facility to other facilities. The study included a 24 month data period spanning from October 2001 to September 2003.
The impact assessment consisted of a comparison of the safety audits and corresponding recommendations to collision records for the facility. The RSA
26 reports and collision records were obtained from MRDC. The study highlighted the following safety features that were adopted due to RSAs: additional guiderail, energy attenuating guiderail end treatments (ET 2000s), installation of rumble strips, breakaway or frangible sign bases, and traversable slopes. The data in Table 2-9 indicate the number of collisions per year corresponding to each audit recommendation.
Table 2-9: Audit vs. Collision Findings Audit #of Severity Recommendation Collisions PDO Injury Fatal Guiderail 16 14 2 0 ET 2000 35 31 4 0 Rumble Strips 3 1 1 1 Frangible Bases 30 30 0 0 Traversable Slopes 13 10 1 2 [Source: Gorman, 2004]
From the above table it was concluded that (Gorman, 2004): o "had the guiderail not been in place, it is believed that the collisions would have been more severe, o if the end treatments had not been in place, it was expected that the severity of the collisions would have been greater, o it is difficult to tell where the rumble strips contributed" to the number of collisions, o had the breakaway sign post not been installed and the older style post had, it can be assumed that the collision results would have been more severe, and o although two deaths have occurred on the slopes, it is believed that many more injuries and deaths would have occurred if the slopes were not designed to be gentle" (i.e. transversable at 4:1 or better). The study highlighted the collision frequency of right-hand-side SVROR crashes on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway project. The data in Table 2-10 indicate the number of right-hand-side SVROR crashes based on crash type.
27 Table 2-10: Right-Hand-Side SVROR on F-M Highway #of Crash Type Collisions Fell asleep and had to be towed out 4 Fell asleep and rolled vehicle 1 Distracted and had to be towed out 2 Total 7 [Source: Gorman, 2004]
The values in Table 2-10 were compared with an FHWA study that developed a relationship between the number of drift-off crashes based on traffic volume for non-rumbled shoulders. From the FHWA graph, the Fredericton-Moncton Highway was predicted to experience between 6 and 9 right-hand-side SVROR crashes per 100 million-vehicle-miles. The Fredericton-Moncton Highway was observed to have 1.98 right-hand-side SVROR collisions per 100 million-vehicle- miles. 'Therefore, the presence of rumble strips is preventing between 4 and 7 collisions per year" (Gorman, 2004).
A comparison between the old and new facility was completed by comparing the crash data and corresponding collision rates. Collision data for the Fredericton- Moncton Highway was obtained from MRDC for the study period. Collision data for the old Trans Canada Highway was obtained from a preliminary study undertaken by the engineering consulting firm, GeoPlan, entitled Functional Planning Study for the Trans Canada Highway Fredericton to Moncton Background Report from 1988 to 1991. The old Trans Canada Highway was found to have a collision rate of 0.836 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. An overall collision rate was developed for the new facility based on the MRDC collision database. The data in Table 2-11 indicate the development of an overall collision rate for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway.
28 Table 2-11: Collision Rate Development Section Section Shadow Toll ADT ADT x km ADT x miles Length Length Locations (vehicles) (veh*km/day) (veh*mi/day) (km) (miles) Mazerolle 7,342 61 448,045 38 278,301 Settlement Bagdad 5,818 51 296,718 32 184,381 Road Canaan 5,364 33 174,330 20 108,329 River Homestead 12,388 52 637,982 32 396,442 Road Total 1,557,075 967,453 [Source: Gorman, 2004]
During the study period, the Fredericton to Moncton highway experienced a total of 300 collisions. The new Fredericton-Moncton Highway was found to have a collision rate of 0.275 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres (or 0.442 collisions per million-vehicle-miles). "Therefore, the old Trans Canada collision rate is greater than three times that of the Fredericton-Moncton Highway" (Gorman, 2004).
The study then progressed to compare the Fredericton-Moncton Highway with other facilities. "The other facilities represent a range of rates at which you would expect for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway had the safety audits not been conducted" (Gorman, 2004). The data in Table 2-12 indicate the collision rates identified in the study for other facilities.
29 Table 2-12: Collision Rates for Other Facilities Province / State Collision Rate Corresponding Collision / Year Highway (collision / mvmi) Fredericton-Moncton Highway Fredericton-Moncton 0.442 156* Illinois 0.557 197 British Columbia 0.640 226 Minnesota 0.665 235 Maine 0.892 315 Michigan 1.335 471 Ontario 1.521 537 * observed value [Source: Gorman, 2004]
From Table 2-12, the following conclusions were deduced: o the Fredericton-Moncton Highway experienced between 20.6 and 70.9 percent less collisions per million-vehicle-miles than the rates of other facilities, and o it was estimated that the Fredericton-Moncton Highway experienced 73 fewer collisions per year than similar facilities.
Overall, this study provided a sufficient comparison between the old and new facilities. However, a few methodological procedures have some cause for concern. Collision rates developed for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were based on crash data from MRDC. The FHWA graph was developed using state department records based on police reports. Under reporting may have occurred within the MRDC database which skew the comparisons. Similarly, collision rates developed for states or provinces in Table 2-12 would also be based on state/provincial police records. Under reporting in the MRDC database would again skew the comparisons. The data in Table 2-12 provide an overall average freeway collision rate for various state and provincial highways. The study does not take into account that an average freeway collision rate could be based on varying types of highway characteristics. A direct comparison should not be made between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and other facilities if they do not have similar characteristics.
30 2.2.8 National Cooperative Highway Research Program The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) published a review of the practice of RSA applications for state departments of transportation in the U.S., provincial transportation agencies in Canada, and international transportation agencies. The purpose of the synthesis was to describe the RSA and RSAR processes and to summarize their current usage. Included as part of the review, several sources revealed quantified benefits of RSAs.
Literature on international practices was obtained from presentations delivered at an international forum on RSAs sponsored by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) held in London, England, in October of 2003. The NCHRP published the following highlights from a presentation by Phillip Jordan of VicRoads in Australia (NCHRP, 2004): o "Typical costs of audits were estimated to range from $1,000 to $8,000 U.S. dollars, depending on the size of the project, o In other studies that presented the audit results in the form of a rate of return, figures such as a 120 percent rate of return in the first year were reported. Recognizing that these types of analysis are often questioned, a sensitivity analysis of input data was conducted. That analysis involved multiplying the input data by magnitudes of two and four. The following conclusions were given: With a sensitivity of input estimate of four, a seven percent positive benefit still occurred. When a factor of two was applied as a multiplier to the input estimates, the analysis resulted in a positive benefit of 37 percent".
The NCHRP summarized that "recent analytical studies have identified the benefit-cost ratio of RSA applications to be as low as 3:1 for some RSAs and to as high 240:1 for others" (NCHRP, 2004).
31 2.2.9 Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published current experiences for various states currently implementing RSA practices (FHWA, 2007). The majority of the experiences reported were qualitative and did not attempt to quantify the benefits of RSAs. Only two Departments of Transportation (New York and South Carolina) provided quantitative experiences from applying RSAs techniques.
The literature revealed that the New York State Department of Transportation has experienced the following benefits from conducting RSAs: o Crash reductions occurred at over 300 high crash locations treated with low cost improvements, and o Crash reductions ranged from 20 percent to 40 percent, depending on the type of improvement implemented.
The literature revealed that the South Carolina Department of Transportation RSA program has experienced the following benefits from conducting RSAs: o "One site, implementing 4 of the 8 suggested improvements saw total crashes decrease 12.5 percent, resulting in an economic savings of $40,000, o A second site had a 15.8 percent increase in crashes after only 2 of the 13 suggestions for improvements were incorporated, o A third site, implementing all 9 suggested improvements saw a reduction of 60 percent in fatalities, resulting in an economic savings of $3.66 million, and o Finally, a fourth location, implementing 25 of the 37 suggested safety improvements, had a 23.4 percent reduction in crashes, resulting in an economic savings of $147,000".
The preceding publications by the FHWA were based on studies completed for existing facilities only. The studies fail to evaluate the benefits of RSAs for new facilities.
32 2.2.10 European Transport Safety Council The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) published a Fact Sheet on RSAs in July of 2005. The following experiences with RSAs were included in the publication (ETSC, 2005): o The Lothian Regional Council, a former Scotland local highway authority, reported 3,000 injury collisions per year. It was estimated that "consistent application of RSAs would yield a one percent collision saving, and that such a saving would represent a cost-benefit ratio of about 14:1" (ETSC, 2005). In New Zealand a potential cost-benefit ratio of 20:1 has been estimated for the application of RSAs.
2.3 Collision Prediction Models Collision prediction models (CPMs), also known as safety performance functions (SPF), provide an estimate of the expected crash frequency based on the design characteristics of a typical highway segment. CPMs are developed using traffic volume and segment length variables along with other variables for specific roadway elements (such as shoulder width, number of interchanges, speed limit, median width, or lane width). Development of these estimates is a critical component in the consideration of safety in highway planning and design.
Four CPMs were used for this study to estimate collision frequencies for mainlane crashes on freeway segments. These models are outlined in sections 2.6.1 to 2.6.3. Three additional CPMs were used to estimate collision frequency at interchanges, acceleration speed-change lanes, and deceleration speed- change lanes. These models are outlined in sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5.
2.3.1 Hadi, CPM Hadi etal. developed CPMs to predict the frequency of freeway mid-junction collisions. A negative binomial regression analysis was used to calibrate a set of safety prediction models using data from Florida roadways. The models were
33 categorized by crash severity, area type (such as urban or rural), and number of through lanes. The model developed to estimate injury crash frequency for rural freeways with four or six lanes is presented by equation 1 (Bonneson et al., 2005 and Hadi et al., 1995).
C^ =0.25^r09599(lOOOZ)09107e(fi-) [1] Bw = -14.032 - 0.04070; + 0.2127JV, [2] where: CRF = frequency of mid-junction injury crashes on rural freeways (crashes/yr); ADT = average daily traffic (veh/d); L = freeway segment length (mi); W/s= inside shoulder width (ft); and
Nx = number of interchanges on freeway segment.
To obtain an estimate for severe crash frequency (fatal plus injury), the injury crash frequency model is inflated by five percent.
2.3.2 Persaud and Dzbik, CPM Persaud and Dzbik developed two prediction models using data for urban freeways in Ontario, Canada. Separate models were developed for total crashes and severe (fatal plus injury) crashes. The model for total crash frequency and severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency on a four lane urban freeway is presented by equation 3 and 4 respectively (Bonneson et al., 2005 and Persaud et al., 1993).
UFA { 1000 J ll
34 c^=e {-m-j L [41 where: = CUF,4 frequency of mid-junction crashes on rural freeways (crashes/yr); ADT = average daily traffic (veh/d); and L = freeway segment length (km);
2.3.3 Wang, CPM
Wang et al. developed a model for rural multilane divided highways using crash and geometry data from Minnesota (Wang, 1998). The database used to develop the model did not include data for freeways. The rural highway model had to be adjusted to effectively reflect freeway behavior. The Wang CPM was originally derived to predict total crashes (PDO plus injury and fatal). In order to convert the prediction into a severe crash frequency model, an adjustment multiplier was added to the equation. The adjustment multiplier took the form of: (1-0.01 PDO). To determine the frequency of severe (fatal plus injury) mid- junction crashes, an estimate of the percentage of PDO crashes is required for the model. In Minnesota, the percentage of PDO crashes for rural multilane divided highways was estimated to be 62.5. Severe (fatal plus injury) mid- junction crash frequency on rural multilane highways is presented by equation 5 (Bonneson et al., 2005).
C^ = 0.000233 ADT1 °73 Lhm eB«» (l - 0.01 PDO) [5]
Bm =-0.592 -0.094 FT,- 0.003 Wm [6]
35 where:
CRH = frequency of mid-junction severe crashes on rural multilane highways (crashes/yr); ADT = average daily traffic (veh/d); L = freeway segment length (mi);
Ws = outside shoulder width (ft);
Wm = inside shoulder width (ft); and PDO = percent property-damage-only crashes on rural multilane divided highways (default = 62.5).
2.3.4 Khorashadi, CPM Khorashadi developed a model for interchanges based on severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency at 13,325 interchanges in California. The database included information about ramp configuration, ramp volume, and crash frequency. Khorashadi computed severe (fatal plus injury) crash rates based on the ramp configuration. The crash rates for rural freeways are summarized in Table 2-13. Nine ramp configurations were considered for this study and are illustrated in Figure 2-2. The model for severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crash frequency is presented by equation 7 (Bonneson era/., 2005).
36 Non-free-Flow Loop Free-Flow Loop
•• •••-:....•-• •• -i I -„,;„•
Outer Semi-Efrect
Button Hook (to two-way
Figure 2-2: Basic Interchange Ramp Configurations [Source: Bonneson et al., 2005]
37 Table 2-13: Severe Crash Rates
Area Type: Rural Area Type: Urban Ramp Ramp Crash Rate* Ramp Ramp Crash Rate* Type Configuration (crashes/mv) Type Configuration (crashes/mv) Diagonal 0.183 Diagonal 0.467
Non-free-flow loop 0.887 Non-free-flow loop 0.387
Free-flow loop 0.239 Free-flow loop 0.318 Semi-direct Semi-direct 0.691 0.188 connection connection Exit Exit Direct connection 0.235 Direct connection 0.307
Button hook 1.670 Button hook 0.568
Scissor 0.553 Scissor 0.468
Slip not available Slip 0.356
Diagonal 0.186 Diagonal 0.186
Non-free-flow loop 0.228 Non-free-flow loop 0.317
Free-flow loop 0.150 Free-flow loop 0.196 Semi-direct Semi-direct 0.488 0.192 connection connection Entrance Entrance Direct connection 0.141 Direct connection 0.268
Button hook 0.254 Button hook 0.229
Scissor 0.077 Scissor 0.212
Slip not available Slip 0.225 * Crash rate is in units of severe (fatal plus injury) crashes per million ramp vehicles [Source: Bonneson etal., 2005]
C = 0.000365 CR ADTR [7] where: C = frequency of severe ramp-related crashes (crashes/year); CR = severe crash rate (from Table 2-13); and
ADTR = ramp average daily traffic (vehicles/day).
38 Examination of the crash rates in Table 2-13 indicates that the diagonal, semi- direct connection, and direct connection ramps tend to experience about the same low crash rate. The crash rate increases in ascending order for the scissor, slip, and non-free-flow ramp configurations. The data in Table 2-13 indicate that the button hook ramp configuration experiences the most crashes. A comparison between entrance and exit ramps indicates that exit ramps are associated with 55 to 65 percent more crashes than entrance ramps. It should also be noted that no apparent patterns exist between the crash rates in urban and rural environments (Bonneson etal., 2005).
2.3.5 Bauer and Harwood, CPMs The literature review for this study identified three relevant models developed by Bauer and Harwood. The first estimated the frequency of severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crashes while the other two models estimated the frequency of severe (fatal plus injury) crashes in acceleration and deceleration lanes (Bonneson et a/., 2005).
Frequency of Severe Ramp-Related Crashes Bauer and Harwood developed a model to predict the frequency of severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crashes based on data obtained from Washington State from 1993 to 1995. The model included data for 533 crashes at 551 interchange ramps. The Bauer and Harwood CPM for severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crash frequency is presented by equation 8 (Bonneson et al., 2005).
C = 0.0957 fi^lA [8] ** V 1000 J L J where: C = frequency of severe ramp-related crashes (crashes/yr);
ADTR = average daily traffic on ramp (veh/d); and ftype = cash adjustment factor.
39 The crash adjustment factor (ftype) is used to adapt the model for different combinations of area type, ramp type, and ramp configuration. Values for ftype vary from 0.34 to 2.77, depending on the combination of attributes associated with a specific ramp and are summarized in Table 2-14. The ramp configuration classification is similar to the Khorashadi CPM and is shown in Figure 2-2 (Bonneson eta/., 2005).
Table 2-14: Crash Adjustment Factor
Area type: rural Area type: urban
Ramp Type Ramp Configuration 'type Ramp Type Ramp Configuration 'type Diagonal 1.00 Diagonal 1.40 Non-free-flow loop 1.97 Non-free-flow loop 2.77 Exit Exit Free-flow low & direct* 0.59 Free-flow low & direct* 0.83 Outer Connection 1.30 Outer Connection 1.82 Diagonal 0.58 Diagonal 0.81 Non-free-flow loop 1.14 Non-free-flow loop 1.60 Entrance Entrance Free-flow low & direct* 0.34 Free-flow low & direct* 0.48 Outer Connection 0.75 Outer Connection 1.05 •Category includes free-flow loop, semi -direct connection, and direct connection ramps. [Source: Bonneson etal., 2005]
Frequency of Severe Speed-Change Lane Related Crashes The majority of conflicts between ramp traffic and mainlane traffic occur at speed-change lanes. Therefore, the design of the speed-change lane has a significant influence on the frequency of ramp-related crashes. Bauer and Harwood developed separate models to predict the frequency of total crashes (PDO plus injury and fatality) in acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes. An adjustment multiplier was added to each equation to convert the prediction into severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency and took the form of: (1-0.01 PDO). The adjustment multiplier requires an estimate of the percentage of PDO crashes which were estimated to be 52.2 and 52.6 percent for acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes respectively.
The Bauer and Harwood CPM for severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency in acceleration lanes is presented by equation 9 (Bonneson etal., 2005).
40 , \0.32 M_) JfiMi^-osu^) (i_o.01PDO.) [9] where: Caccei = frequency of severe crashes on acceleration lanes (crashes/yr);
ADTR = average daily traffic on ramp (veh/d);
ADTM = average daily traffic in adjacent freeway lane one-way (veh/d);
La = length of acceleration lane (mi); I rural = indicator for area type (1 if rural, 0 if urban); and
PDOa = percent property-damage-only crashes in acceleration lanes (default =52.2).
The Bauer and Harwood CPM for severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency in deceleration lanes is presented by equation 10 (Bonneson etal., 2005).
4 00 1 2 Cw =0.0261 (j^f)'" e' "--- - "-' (l-0.01H)O,,) [10]
where: Caccei = frequency of severe crashes on deceleration lanes (crashes/yr);
ADTR = average daily traffic on ramp (veh/d);
Ws = right shoulder width (ft); frural ~ indicator for area type (1 if rural, 0 if urban); and
PDOd = percent property-damage-only crashes in deceleration lanes (=52.6).
2.3.6 MicroBENCOST, CPM MicroBENCOST is a computer program developed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in 1993 for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to conduct benefit-cost analysis for highway improvements. MicroBENCOST is designed to analyze different types of highway improvement projects and evaluate the benefits of implementing those improvements. Benefit-cost analysis evaluates the benefits generated by a project and compares them to the cost incurred over a period of time. There are seven project types that MicroBENCOST can analyze: (1) added-capacity; (2) bypass;
41 (3) intersection/interchange; (4) pavement rehabilitation; (5) bridge; (6) safety; and (7) highway-railroad grade crossing.
The MicroBENCOST program makes use of several sets of default data. Default data sets relevant to this study include the unit cost of collisions and collision rates based on highway characteristics. Default freeway segment collision rates for the MicroBENCOST program were based on rates used in the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) which is a similar benefit-cost computer model. The data in Table 2-15 indicate the expected number of collisions for rural freeway segments based on crash severity (Hauer et al., 1997).
Table 2-15: Freeway Segment Collisions
Severity AADT Range 4,000 - 7,999 8,000 -15,999 Fatal 0.016 0.012 Injury 0.243 0.243 PDO 0.390 0.400 Total 0.649 0.655 Source: Hauer et al., 1997]
Default Interchange collision rates for the MicroBENCOST program were based on values developed for the TRIP computer program which is an interchange and grade separation cost-benefit analysis model. The data in Table 2-16 indicate the expected number of collisions at freeway interchanges based on crash severity. The collision rates are constant for all AADT ranges and all types of interchanges (Hauer et al., 1997).
Ta ble 2-16 Interchange Collisions ( per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles) Severity Area Type Fatal Injury PDO Total Urban 0.09 3.1 5.3 8.5 Rural 0.28 2.4 4.2 6.9 [Source: \Haue r et al., 1997 ]
42 2.4 Collision Costs Studies Collision costs refer to the economic value of damages (also called losses) caused by vehicle crashes. Collision costs are generally considered to have a direct and indirect cost component. Including collision costs in the economic evaluation of a highway project has become a widely accepted practice among transportation organizations. Few would agree on the exact combination of components that should be included for cost analysis techniques.
It is extremely difficult to place a monetary value on all cost components of a motor vehicle collision. Some costs are intangible and vary on an individual basis. International, national, and provincial agencies have developed collision cost estimates based on crash severity in an effort to quantify the overall costs and benefits of improvements to a transportation facility. The following section outlines several studies conducted that developed monetary values for collisions based on severity.
2.4.1 Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. (1998) developed collision costs based on a weighted national average of the cost components valued by different provinces and territories. Provincial and territorial population data were obtained from Statistics Canada and used to weight the cost by collision severity. The data in Table 2-17 indicate the estimated collision costs based on severity in 1997 Canadian dollars.
Table 2-17: HLB Inc. Collision Costs (1997 Canadian Dollars) Cost per Collision Severity Median Lower Upper Estimate Estimate Estimate Fatality $ 3,590,000 $1,500,000 $ 6,300,000 Injury $ 49,340 $ 13,400 $ 175,000 PDO $ 5,084 $ 2,700 $ 6,700 [Source: HLB Inc., 1998]
43 2.4.2 Transportation Association of Canada The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) is a national association that focuses on safe transportation services in Canada. Most Canadian transportation agencies use TAC publications as the guiding fundamental principles for highway design and maintenance.
1986 Manual of Design Standards for Canadian Roads The Manual of Design Standards for Canadian Roads was developed by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (which was renamed TAC in 1990). The Manual of Design Standards for Canadian Roads included monetary values for collision costs. The data in Table 2-18 indicate collision costs in 1986 Canadian dollars (RTAC, 1986). The severity index is a classification system for crashes based on the proportion of property damage only, injury, and fatal collisions.
Table 2-18 : TAC Collision Costs (1986i Canadian Dollars) Severity Collisions Total I Collision Index % PDO % Injury % Fatal Cost 0 100 0 0 $1,390 1 85 15 0 $4,170 2 70 30 0 $ 6,945 3 55 45 0 $9,720 4 40 59 1 $ 16,280 5 30 65 5 $ 33,250 6 20 68 12 $61,570 7 10 60 30 $131,500 8 0 40 60 $ 247,000 9 0 21 79 $ 318,000 10 0 5 95 $ 378,000 [Sc)urce : RTAC, 1986 ]
1999 Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads In 1999, TAC developed a new design guide entitled the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. The new manual took more of a design domain
44 concept by incorporating ranges of values for a particular design element combined with guidance on appropriate selection and policy definitions. With the change in manual approach, the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads no longer included monetary values for collision costs. The Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads indicates that "any method used for establishing the cost of collisions must take into account society's willingness to pay, which can vary greatly between different jurisdictions. Individual agencies make their own judgments in this regard in order to translate collision rate and severity into equivalent dollar costs" (TAC, 1999). Therefore, the responsibility of selecting collision cost estimates falls on the local transportation officials.
2.4.3 Transport Canada Transport Canada is a federal organization that develops and administers policies, regulations and services for the Canadian transportation system (including road, rail, air, and marine services).
In 1994 Transport Canada developed collision costs based on previous benefit- cost studies. The data in Table 2-19 indicate the estimated cost of fatalities, serious injuries, and minor injuries resulting from road vehicle collisions in 1986 Canadian dollars (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2002).
Table 2-19: Transport Canada Collision Costs (1986 Canadian Dollars) Severity Collision Cost Fatality $ 2,500,000 Serious Injury $ 66,000 Minor Injury $ 25,000 [Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2002]
Within the Transport Canada 1997 Annual Report, Transport Canada provided economic costs to society of transportation collision losses. The data in Table 2- 20 indicate the estimated average cost of fatalities, injuries, and PDO resulting
45 from road vehicle collisions in 1996 Canadian dollars. These values were developed using the department's Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis, and an earlier departmental paper produced by Lawson assessing cost methods entitled The Valuation of Transport Safety (Transport Canada, 1997).
Table 2-20: Transport Canada Collision Costs (199 6 Canadian Dollars) Compensation cost Severity Occurrences Economic cost per occurrence Fatality 3,294 $1,560,000 $5,100,000,000 Injury 230,885 $ 28,000 $ 6,500,000,000 PDO 670,000 $ 5,600 $ 3,800,000,000 [Source: Transport Canada, 1997]
2.4.4 Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a division within the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FHWA provides financial and technical support for the American Highway System. In 1994, the FHWA developed motor vehicle collision costs based on crash severity. The data in Table 2-21 indicate the economic costs of fatalities, injuries, and PDO resulting from road vehicle collisions for police reported crashes in 1994 US dollars (Dennis, 1994).
Table 2-21: FHWA Collision Costs (1994 U.S. Dollars) Collision Severity of Collision Cost K Fatality $ 2,600,000 A Incapacitating Injury $ 180,000 B Non-incapacitating Injury $ 36,000 C Possible Injury $19,000 PDO Property Damage Only $ 2,000 [Source: Dennis, 1994]
46 2.4.5 National Safety Council The National Safety Council (NSC) is a "nonprofit, non-governmental, international public service organization dedicated to protecting life and promoting health" (http://www.nsc.org/aboutus.htm). The NSC calculated collision costs as a measure of the dollars spent and income not received due to crashes, injuries, and fatalities. The data in Table 2-22 indicate the economic costs of fatalities, injuries, and PDO resulting from road vehicle collisions for police reported crashes in 2004 US dollars (NSC, 2004).
Table 2-22: NSC Collision Costs (2004 U.S. Dollars) Average Severity Economic Cost Fatality $1,130,000 Nonfatal Disabling Injury $ 49,700 Property Damage Crash (including non-disabling injuries) $ 7,400 [Source: NSC, 2004]
2.4.6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published a survey conducted by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) in February of 2005. The data in Table 2-23 indicate the collision values used by 16 different states in 2005 US dollars. Collision costs were provided for fatality, incapacitating injury (injury A), non-incapacitating injury (injury B), possible injury (injury C) and property damage only (PDO) crashes (AASHTO, 2005).
47 Table 2-23: AASHTO Published Collision Costs (2005 U.S. Dollars) Collision Cos State Fatal Injury A Injury B Injury C PDO Arizona $3,000,000 $210,000 $42,000 $22,000 $3,000 Illinois regional regional regional regional regional Iowa* $1,000,000 $150,000 $10,000 $2,500 $2,500 Louisiana $3,000,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $2,300 Maine* $2,600,000 $180,000 $36,000 $19,000 $2,000 Mississippi Standard Numbers FHWA issues Missouri N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montana* $3,000,000 $210,000 $42,000 $22,000 $4,500 Nebraska $3,770,000 $316,000 $66,900 $34,900 $6,200 New Jersey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New York Varies by region and roadway type North Dakota Standard Numbers NSC issues Ohio Varies by region and roadway type Oregon $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $55,000 $55,000 $13,000 Texas $854,000 $854,000 $41,500 $41,500 $1,400 Vermont $3,400,000 $260,000 $56,000 $27,000 $4,000 * Crash costs are per person, not per crash. [Source: MoDOT, 2005]
2.4.7 Australia Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics Australia is one of the leading counties for the development and use of RSAs. Therefore, it is appropriate to include collision cost estimates developed by Australian agencies for comparative purposes.
The total cost of road crashes in Australia in 1996 has been conservatively estimated at approximately $15 billion (in 1996 Australian dollars). This includes vehicle and other property damages, emergency services, traffic delays, medical costs, lost productivity due to disabilities and lost quality of life. The data in Table 2-24 indicate the average collision costs in 1996 Australian dollars.
48 Table 2-24: Average Australian Collision Costs (1996 Australian Dollars) Average Severity Collision Cost Fatality $1,700,000 Serious Injury $ 408,000 Minor Injury $ 14,000 PDO $ 6,000 [Source: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, 2000]
2.4.8 World Road Association, PIARC The U.K. is the founder of RSAs. Therefore, it is appropriate to only include collision cost estimates developed by Australian agencies for comparative purposes.
Baguley et al. published an example of costs by road category and collision severity for Great Britain in 2001 (Baguley et al., 2003). The data in Table 2-25 indicate the cost per casualty and collision based on collision type for motorways (or freeways).
Table 2-25: Average Cost of Great Br itain Road Collisions (2001 British Pound £) Collision Cost per Casualty Cost per Collision Type (All Roads) (Motorways) Fatal £1,194,240 £ 1,439,900 Serious Injury £ 134,190 £160,850 Slight Injury £10,350 £16,030 All Injury £ 38,050 £54,710 Damage Only N/A £1,420 [Baguley et al., 2003
Baguley et al. noted that "it can be seen that there are, very approximately, ten fold increases in costs between severity levels. That is, the cost of a slight injury collision is about ten times that of a damage-only collision, a serious collision is about ten times that of a slight collision, and a fatal collision is about ten times that of a serious collision" (Baguley et al., 2003).
49 2.4.9 Computer Cost Estimation Methods Computer programs have been developed to assist transport agencies with benefit-cost analysis for highway improvements. Two significant North American programs are MicroBENCOST and Highway Economic Requirement Systems (HERS).
MicroBENCOST Unit collision costs for the MicroBENCOST program were based on a report by McFarland and Rollins in 1983. McFarland and Rollins developed collision costs based on the severity of the crash (PDO, injury, or fatality) for highway segments, at railroad crossings, intersections, interchanges, and bridges. The unit collision costs, in 1990 U.S. dollars, from the MicroBENCOST User's Manual (TTI, 1993) are provided in Table 2-26 (Hauer etal., 1997).
Table 2-26: Collision Costs (1990 U.S. Dollars) Area Type Severity Fatal Injury PDO Highway Segment * $1,111,000 $24,900 $2,140 Rural Intersection / Interchange $1,059,000 $21,900 $1,980 Railroad Crossing $1,008,000 $25,200 $1,590 Bridge $1,111,000 $24,900 $2,140 Highway Segment $978,000 $14,300 $2,170 $932,000 $14,300 $1,350 Urban Intersection / Interchange Railroad Crossing $994,000 $13,300 $3,090 Bridge $978,000 $14,300 $1,270 Highway segment (not including intersection / interchange, railroad crossing, and bridge). [Source: Hauer et al., 1997]
Highway Economic Requirement Systems The Highway Economic Requirement Systems (HERS) program was developed by the US Department of Transportation in 1989. HERS was developed to perform a highway need analyses that reflected the current state of the highway systems and incorporated the estimated costs and benefits of potential improvements. The unit collision costs for a rural interstate segment, in 1988
50 US dollars, are provided in Table 2-27 (McElroy, R., 1992, and Hauer ef a/., 1997).
Table 2-27: HERS Collision Costs (1988 U.S. Dollars) Severity Collision Cost Fatality $ 2,000,000 '"jury $17,000 PDO $ 4,000 [Source: Jack Faucett Associates, 1991]
2.5 Literature Review Summary A literature review was conducted to gain an understanding of RSA practice and the development of RSAs in the United Kingdom (U.K.), Australia and New Zealand, United Sates of America (U.S.), and Canada. The literature identified the U.K. as the continued leader in implementing RSA techniques. RSAs are now mandatory in the U.K. for all trunk roads and freeways (for both new and existing facilities). Australia and New Zealand have put into practice policies and regulations ensuring that a percentage of projects receive RSAs. North America has not initiated the same level of practice as the U.K. or Australia and New Zealand. In 2004,11 states in the U.S. and two provinces in Canada indicated that RSAs were being conducted.
The literature review identified ten previous studies conducted in an effort to quantify the benefits of RSAs. From the literature, the following benefits of implementing RSA techniques were identified for varying project sizes: o crash savings ranging from 9 to 73 collisions per year, o monetary collision savings per year ranging from $40,000 to 147,000, o first year rate of return ranging from 120 percent to 146 percent, o benefit-cost ratios ranging from 3:1 to 242:1, and o percent reductions in collisions ranging from 12.5 percent to 70.9 percent.
51 Despite these benefits, there were numerous shortcomings noted. The most notable issues included the following: o studies were conducted for existing facilities and failed to evaluate the benefits of RSAs for the construction of new facilities, o estimation of reduction in collisions varied between studies (such as RSRM software, risk matrix, and prediction method), o discrepancies among sources of collision data and the possible occurrence of underreporting, o estimated collision savings may not be as appropriate for quantifying the overall benefits of RSAs since the RSA analyses were site specific (such as remedial work and filling in open channels), and o studies only included audits for the detailed design stage of a project and failed to quantify the benefits of RSAs for all audit stages.
The literature review identified six collision prediction models developed to estimate crash frequency on rural four-lane divided highways. Limited research in this area hindered the ability to compare the Fredericton-Moncton Highway with numerous CPMs. Much more extensive research has been completed to develop CPMs for two-lane undivided highways.
The final stage of the literature review was devoted to identifying studies conducted to develop collision cost estimates based on severity. Nine different studies were reviewed from around the world to develop appropriate collision cost estimates for New Brunswick applications. From the literature, the following range of collision costs were identified (normalized to 2006 Canadian Dollars): o $2,075 to $10,034 per PDO crash o $30,588 to $277,149 per injury crash, and o $564,179 to $7,611,524 per fatal crash.
52 3 Methodology
The following section outlines the methodology used to conduct the study and includes the following: classification of collisions, development of collision rates, comparison of collision rates (with the old Trans Canada Highway, similar facilities, and CPMs), statistical analysis, comparison of collision costs, and benefit-cost analysis.
3.1 Collision Classification For the purpose of this study, a motor vehicle collision was defined as an unintended event that results in property damage, personal injury, or a fatality. All other unintended events were referred to as incidents. Only collisions were considered for the purposes of this study. Each section of the Fredericton- Moncton Highway was analyzed according to a base km-marker system that the operators use. Collisions within a km-section at the highway's interchanges and intersections were also noted for further analysis.
The types of collisions involved within the study area were classified as: • single vehicle run-off-road (SVROR), • multiple vehicle, • pedestrian, • animal, and • impact with roadside object. Collisions occurring at interchanges or speed-change lanes were also noted for further analysis.
Severity of a collision within the study area was classified as: • property damage only, • personal injury, • fatality, or
53 • severe (fatal plus personal injury).
Collision records were obtained from MRDC and the New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT). MRDC data were coded to be consistent with the NBDOT records. MRDC reported 567 collisions between January of 2002 and May of 2006. NBDOT reported 750 collisions between January of 2002 and December of 2005. Collisions prior to January of 2002 were not considered for this study since the highway did not receive full traffic availability until October of 2001. The crash data were used to develop various collision rates for comparison purposes.
Collision records were also obtained from NBDOT for Highway 1 and Highway 15 in New Brunswick between January 2002 and December 2005. Collision records for Highway 102 and Highway 104 in Nova Scotia were obtained from the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation (NSDOT). Collision records for Interstate 95 in Maine were obtained from the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT).
3.2 Collision Rate Development In order to allow a comparison of collision experiences on the Fredericton- Moncton Highway, collision frequencies must be normalized for traffic exposure. The conventional means to achieve this is to develop collision rates on a per million-vehicle-kilometre (mvkm) or per million-vehicle-mile (mvm) basis. A collision rate is an annual frequency of crashes based on a vehicle's exposure for a section of roadway. Calculation of a collision rate is presented by equation 12.
'# of Crashes/ „ „ „ v /#of Years of Data Collision Rate = V~ f-7 ^-y [12rjtrn] (AADT * Section Length) * (365)
54 The collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were calculated using equation 12 for each type of collision based on the number of collisions, time period of the study, average annual daily traffic (AADT) values, and length of study sections. This provided collision rates for each type of crash as well as an average overall collision rate for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway.
3.3 Comparison of Collision Rates Collision rates for the old Trans Canada Highway were developed for comparison purposes. While the characteristics of the old Trans Canada Highway differ greatly from the new Fredericton-Moncton Highway, a comparison of collision rates was conducted to reveal the benefits of upgrading the previous facility.
Collision rates for five similar facilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Maine were also developed for comparison purposes. A premise of this study was that collision rates for facilities that were not exposed to RSAs would differ from those that received RSAs. A comparison of similar facilities and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway collision rates with respect to RSA exposure was conducted to highlight the benefits of RSAs.
Estimated collision frequency and subsequent collision rates were developed using CPMs for comparison purposes. Again, the study hypothesized that collision rates developed using CPMs would differ from those that receive RSAs. A comparison of CPMs and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway collision rates with respect to RSA exposure was conducted to highlight the benefits of RSAs.
3.4 Equivalent Collision Frequency Due to the differences in highway exposure, it was not possible to directly compare the collision frequencies observed on similar facilities with those on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. It was subsequently required that an equivalent
55 collision frequency be developed for each facility to allow for direct comparison. These equivalent collision frequencies were obtained simply by multiplying the observed collision rate for the facility by the exposure factor of the Fredericton- Moncton Highway.
For example, Highway 1 in New Brunswick has a total collision rate of 0.531 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres and experiences 219 total collisions per year. Multiplying the collision rate for Highway 1 by the Fredericton-Moncton Highway exposure factor of 541.4 million-vehicle-kilometres per year equals 287 equivalent collisions for Highway 1.
3.5 Significance Testing The premise of this study was that RSAs would result in fewer collisions being experienced on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway when compared to similar facilities that were not exposed to RSAs. A two-sample student t-test with unequal variances was used to evaluate the differences between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and similar facilities. This type of significance test determines whether the two samples are likely to have come from distributions with equal population means. The two-sample student t-test is applicable when there are distinct subjects in the two samples and assumes that the two data sets came from distributions with unequal variances. Calculation of a t-statistic value is presented by equation 13. Calculation of the degrees of freedom is presented by equation 14.
JO V m n
56 where: t' = t-statistic value x = variable 1 mean y = variable 2 mean sx = variable 1 standard deviation sy = variable 2 standard deviation m = variable 1 sample size n = variable 2 sample size
\2 <*l • + • df = m n [14] (sllmj ^InJ m-\ n-\ where: df = degrees of freedom sx = variable 1 standard deviation sy = variable 2 standard deviation m = variable 1 sample size n = variable 2 sample size
The two data sets are then compared with the critical t-value. The t-critical value can be obtained from standard student t-tables. A simplified t-table is provided in Table 3-1 below. Significance levels of 0.95 (a = 0.05) and 0.90 (a = 0.10) were used for this study. A two-tailed test is performed when variable 1 could be either greater or less than variable 2.
Table 3-1: Student t-Test Critical Values (two-tailed test) df a = 0.05 a = 0.10 1 12.706 6.314 2 4.303 2.920 3 3.182 2.353 4 2.776 2.132 5 2.571 2.015 00 1.960 1.645
The difference in means of the two data sets are considered to be statistically significant when the absolute value of t' is greater than t-critical. Conversely, the
57 difference in means are considered to be not statistically significant when the absolute value of t' is less than t-critical.
Significance testing was able to be performed on Highway 1 and Highway 15 in New Brunswick, as well as Highway 102 and Highway 104 in Nova Scotia. Statistically different means are italicized in the tables. Detailed statistical analysis for the similar facilities is provided in Appendix D. Interstate 95 was excluded from the significance testing since the data obtained was an average for a period of time and was not broken down by years.
3.6 Benefit-Cost Analysis An estimation of net collision reductions attributed to the RSA process was developed for (i) the old Trans Canada Highway, (ii) similar facilities, and (iii) CPMs. This estimation was then compared to all costs associated with implementing the RSA recommendations. Only safety benefits were quantified and subjected to the benefit-cost analysis for this study. Benefit-cost ratios were then developed to quantify the overall cost savings of upgrading the old Trans Canada Highway as well as to quantify the overall cost savings of implementing RSAs for similar facilities and CPMs.
3.6.1 Collision Cost Development Based on the information noted in the literature review section, a synthesis of collision costs was developed for the various transportation agencies. The values were normalized to a common year (2006) and currency to allow for a direct comparison.
Modifying Crash Cost Estimates to Canadian Currency The literature review identified collision costs for five U.S., one Australian, and one U.K. based agency. The data in Table 3-2 indicate the conversion of US
58 currency (USD) and Australian currency (AUD) to Canadian currency (CAD) for corresponding study years.
Table 3-2: Currency Conversion Ratios USD to CAD Ratio Year Ratio Study 1983 1.23 MicroBENCOST 1988 1.23 HERS 1994 1.21 FHWA 2004 1.30 NSC 2005 1.36 AASHTO AUD to CAD Ratio Year Ratio Study 1996 1.07 NSC GBP to CAD Ratio Year Ratio I Study 2001 2.24 PIRAC [Source: UBC, 2006]
Modifying Crash Cost Estimates for Specific Years Once collision cost estimates had been converted into Canadian dollars, the next step was to adjust these values to reflect 2006 costs. The recommended adjustment procedure is to multiply the costs provided in the tables by a ratio of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 2006 divided by the CPI for the year of interest.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is "a statistical time-series measure of a weighted average of prices of a specified set of goods and services purchased by consumers" (Wikipedia, 2006). The CPI is used as a general indicator of inflation (or deflation) in Canada. The data in Table 3-3 indicate the Canadian CPI for 1983 to 2006.
59 Table 3-3: Canadian Consumer Price Index Year CPI Year CPI 1983 69.1 1995 104.2 1984 72.1 1996 105.9 1985 75.0 1997 107.6 1986 87.1 1998 108.6 1987 81.5 1999 110.5 1988 84.8 2000 113.5 1989 89.0 2001 116.4 1990 93.3 2002 119.0 1991 98.5 2003 122.3 1992 100.0 2004 124.6 1993 101.8 2005 127.3 1994 102.0 2006 130.0* *September 2006 value [Source: Statistics Canada, 2006]
A summary of normalized collision costs developed by transportation agencies is provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Summary of Collision Costs (Normalized to 2006 Canadian Dollars) Estimated Collision Cost Source PDO Injury Fatality I.HLBInc. 6,142 59,611 4,337,361 2.TAC 2,075 various 564,179 3. Transport Canada N/A 45,500 3,731,343 4. Transport Canada 6,118 30,588 1,704,202 5. FHWA 3,084 55,518 4,009,608 6. NSC 10,034 67,410 1,532,665 7. AASHTO *6,003 various *3,390,942 8. Australia 7,881 "277,149 3,836,612 9. PIARC 3,552 ***171,042 3,415,621 10. MicroBENCOST 4,952 57,619 1,699,316 11. HERS 7,542 32,055 3,771,226 * Average costs provided in Table 2-12. ** Average of minor and serious injury costs provided in Table 2-13. *** All Injury cost provided in Table 2-14.
Collision Costs for New Brunswick Applications The collision cost estimates published by Transport Canada were widely used by several transport agencies in New Brunswick for benefit-costs analysis of
60 highway projects. Due to lack of updated published values has prompted transport agencies in New Brunswick to diverge from the Transport Canada estimates.
Most Canadian transportation agencies use the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (1999). The new manual specifies that the responsibility of selecting collision cost estimates is the responsibility of local transportation officials.
The collision cost estimates published by Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. are used by several transport agencies in New Brunswick for benefit-costs analysis of highway applications. For this reason, the median collision cost estimates developed by Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. were used for this study. The range of collision costs based on severity, adjusted to 2006 Canadian currency, is provided in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Collision Costs Estinnate s (Normalized to 2006 Canadian D ollars) Median Lower Upper Severity Estimate Estimate Estimate Fatality $ 4,337,361 $1,812,268 $7,611,524 Injury $ 59,612 $ 16,190 $211,431 PDO $6,142 $ 3,262 $ 8,095
A collision severity rating of severe (fatal plus injury) is often used as another means of representing the distribution of collisions. The total number of collisions is also an important value used to determine the overall collision rate for a section of roadway. In 2005, New Brunswick experienced 94 fatal, 2,781 personal injury and 5,952 PDO collisions (NBDOT). Expressed as percentages, this translates into 67 percent PDO, 32 percent, and one percent fatal collisions.
A total of 2,875 severe (fatal plus injury) collisions were reported in 2005. Expressed as percentages, this translates into three percent fatal and 97
61 percent personal injury collisions. Using these distributions, Table 3-4 was adjusted to represent the collision costs associated with severe and total collisions.
The data in Table 3-6 indicate the collision cost estimates per year developed for New Brunswick Highways based on severity.
Table 3-6: Collision Costs Estimates for New Brunswick Highways (Normalized to 2006 Canadian Dollars) Severity Cost Estimate/yr Total $69,112 Severe* $ 199,476 Fatality $ 4,337,361 '"jury $ 59,612 PDO $6,142 •Fatalities plus injuries.
3.6.2 Annual Worth of Road Safety Audit Costs The total cost associated with conducting the Fredericton-Moncton Highway RSA and implementing the recommendations was $2,943,200. Collision costs are calculated using Table 3-5 on an annual basis. The one time cost of RSAs needed to be annualized over the expected life of the project. The annual worth of a project is presented by equation 15. This allows the one time cost associated with RSAs to be converted into a uniform series of costs (Fraser et a/., 2006).
i(l + i)N AW^PW [15] (i+*r-i where: AW = annual worth PW = present worth i = discount rate N = number of time periods
62 MRDC currently owns (through a lease agreement with NBDOT) and operates the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Ownership will be transferred in 2031 to NBDOT. Therefore, a time period of 30 years was used in the annual worth analysis. Following consultations with local economists and consultants a discount rate of 5 percent was deemed appropriate for this study. The annual worth of the cost associated with the Fredericton-Moncton Highway was calculated using equation 13 to be $191,459 per year.
63 4 Data Analysis
This chapter outlines the analysis that was completed in an attempt to quantify the benefits that the RSA process provided for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Collision rates for this facility were developed based on historical collision records obtained from both MRDC and NBDOT. These collision rates were then contrasted with rates obtained from: (i) the old Trans Canada Highway, (ii) similar facilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Maine, and (iii) various mainlane and interchange CPMs. Finally, the benefits provided by the RSA process were estimated by assigning monetary values to any reduction in collisions observed on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway.
4.1 Collision Rates Traffic volume data were obtained from NBDOT and average AADT values were developed for the study section. The Fredericton-Moncton Highway was divided into seven sections for this study and included four permanent MRDC count stations and three temporary NBDOT count stations (see Figure 4-1). Section dividing lines were based on: NBDOT control sections, location of traffic counters, and major interchanges. The sections used for the AADT analysis are displayed in Table 4-1.
64 Station
NEW BRUNSWI C K (e) Durham Chipman Lower ^Bridge 11 Berry Millso^™^|--" ""- " aHainesville ' 15 n'" "~"'"lt04' .. Mjnt0*' Cumberland Moncton Bay 2 Mouth of Salisbury' " °Riverview Keswick a ^Ripples ^Haveloeh g. 'SI' ^Marysville Gtsnd 114 ri^B'i'iii uyfr^8^^ ;HJ - Prince . Fredericton Pettco .William Waterbaraugho ' " j£__ ^k* _../?'PeStcodiac Hillsborough" *to Maryland * J*% • - ^Sheffield ., .JKJ**"™^ '"/ Prosser TEu.f lEW*0"5!**amrnMflmgftii ' - ^jjar CodyS ^Brook .Elgin Gagetown, Mechanic Riverside-Albert, ^Sussex' Settlement ,- Harvey (3 /- Station Frederictofi Sussex Comer Cte function \ Queenstown ,-r, "waterford Fundy Ss -~ . *U». Waterside, Hamstead-. ^Bailey H4t Cape Enrac.
Figure 4-1: Map of Control Sections [Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips, 2005] Table 4-1: Sections for ADT Analysis Section Beginning End 1-2 CS21 + 2.639 (BMS) CS23 + 2.243 (Rt 8) 2-3 CS23 + 2.243 (Rt 8) CS24 + 3.481 (Rt 7) 3-4 CS24 + 3.481 (Rt 7) CS25 + 5.424 (Rt 7) 4-5 CS25 + 5.424 (Rt 7) CS27 +8.859 (Rt 105) 5-6 CS27 + 8.859 (Rt 105) CS30 +11.727 (Rt10) 6-7 CS30 + 11.727 (Rt10) CS37 +8.823 (Rt1) 7-8 CS37 + 8.823 (Rt1) CS39 +11.010 (EMS)
An average AADT was taken for the years 2002 to 2005. AADT values previous to 2002 were not included in the analysis since the highway did not receive full traffic availability until October, 2001. The data in Table 4-2 indicate the average AADT and length for each section, which were required to determine collision rates (using equation 12). A weighted AADT for the entire highway based on section length was calculated to be 7,583 vehicles per day.
Table 4-2: Collision Rate Development Avg AADT Section Section AADT x km AADT x mi Section (vehicles/ Length Length (veh*km/day) (veh*mi/day) day) (km) (mi) 1 7,510 24.2 181,742 15.0 112,929 2 3,948 15.2 60,002 9.4 37,284 3 17,130 9.7 166,161 6.0 103,248 4 5,813 28.3 164,494 17.6 102,212 5 6,203 31.4 194,759 19.5 121,017 6 5,365 58.1 311,707 36.1 193,685 7 14,090 28.7 404,383 17.8 251,272 Total 7,583 1,483,247 921,647
Four years of collision data were available from NBDOT for January 2002 to December 2005. Four years and five months of collision data were available from MRDC for January 2002 to May 2006. The data in Table 4-3 indicate the breakdown of collisions by source, severity and year.
66 Table 4-3: NBDOT and MRDC Collision Frequency Severity Source Year Total PDO Injury Fatality 2002 134 49 2 185 139 3 200 NBDOT 2003 58 2004 156 49 1 206 2005 110 45 4 159 2002 139 34 2 185 2003 94 24 2 120 MRDC 2004 106 18 1 125 2005 81 24 2 107 2006* 95 9 2 106 "Collision data for January to Wa y
An overall collision rate was developed for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway using equation 12. The data in Table 4-4 indicate the resulting overall collision rates for both NBDOT and MRDC collision data.
Table 4-4: NBDOT and MRDC Overall Collision Rates lision Rate Total # of Years of Overall Co Source Collisions Data collision / collision / mvkm mvm NBDOT 750 4.0000 0.346 0.557 MRDC 567 4.3333 0.242 0.389
Collision Rates Based on Severity Collision rates were developed using equation 12 based on crash severity (PDO, injury, and fatality). The data in Table 4-5 indicate the collision rates based on severity for both NBDOT and MRDC collision data.
67 Table 4-5: NBDOT and MRDC Collision Rates Based on Crash Severity
Collision Rate # of Collisions Source Severity per year collision / collision / mvkm mvm PDO 135 0.249 0.401 NBDOT Injury 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 3 0.005 0.007 PDO 104 0.192 0.308 MRDC Injury 25 0.046 0.075 Fatality 2 0.004 0.006
Collision Rates Based on Crash Type Collision rates were developed based on crash type (multiple vehicle collision, impact with roadside object, SVROR, impact with an animal or foreign object, and pedestrian collision) using equation 12. Collision rates were also developed for crashes occurring at interchanges and were noted for further analysis. The data in Table 4-6 indicate collision rates based on crash type for both NBDOT and MRDC collision data. Figure 4-2 depicts the distribution of reported collisions by crash type for NBDOT and MRDC collision data.
Table 4-6: Collision Rates Based on Crash Type
Collision Rate # of Collisions Source Type of Crash per year collision/ collision/ mvkm mvm Multiple Vehicle 32 0.058 0.094 Roadside Object 22 0.040 0.065 SVROR 81 0.149 0.240 NBDOT Animal 49 0.091 0.146 Foreign Object 4 0.007 0.012 Pedestrian 1 0.001 0.001 Interchange 3 0.005 0.007 Multiple Vehicle 18 0.034 0.055 Roadside Object 36 0.066 0.106 SVROR 65 0.120 0.194 MRDC Animal 10 0.018 0.029 Foreign Object 1 0.002 0.003 Pedestrian 0 0.001 0.001 Interchange 7 0.012 0.020
68 200 180 160 ,_ 140 CO >. 120 •NBDOT • MRDC
JD CD CD OH CO 73 "o c CD CD .2- 9 "(/> o E •c 73 "c !Q~ =S CD a: CO CD CD 2 > O > < 73 CD •eig n 0
Figure 4-2: Collision Rates Based on Crash Type
Overall, NBDOT reported an average of 57 more collisions per year than MRDC. This indicates a significant gap between the reporting systems of NBDOT and MRDC. The distribution of collisions based on crash type varied for NBDOT and MRDC. MRDC reported four more interchange collisions per year than NBDOT. Equal amounts of collisions per year were reported by both NBDOT and MRDC for pedestrian crashes. NBDOT reported three more foreign object collisions per year than MRDC. NBDOT reported a significant amount of animal crashes at 39 collisions per year more than MRDC. NBDOT reported 16 more SVROR collisions per year than MRDC. MRDC reported 14 more roadside object collisions than NBDOT. This was expected based on the different reporting systems used by NBDOT and MRDC. NBDOT reported 13 more multiple vehicle collisions per year than MRDC.
69 4.2 Comparison of NBDOT and MRDC A comparison between NBDOT and MRDC was conducted to determine the cause for differences noted in section 4.1. NBDOT crash data and collision rates were used for comparison to similar facilities and CPMs. This was decided upon for the sole reason that similar facilities and CPMs were developed using provincial collision records similar to NBDOT. A comparison of NBDOT and MRDC collision data provides an indication of areas with underreporting. Collisions occurring in 2005 were compared to identify possible reasons for the difference. Collision report summaries for NBDOT and MRDC are provided in Appendix A.
4.2.1 Reporting Systems NBDOT's collision data is complied through the use of standardized police reports. Collisions are only reported to local authorities in circumstances where damage is in excess of $1,000. The severity of a collision on the report can be altered up to 30 days after the crash. For instance, if a crash victim leaves the scene injured but then dies within 30 days as a direct result of the collision, then the severity on the report is upgraded to a fatality.
MRDC's collision data is compiled through the use of standardized forms that are filled out by employees responding to a crash or performing maintenance operations due to a crash. MRDC employees fill out collision forms regardless of damage value, as well as report any damage to infrastructure (even if the vehicle that caused the damage is no longer present). It was expected that MRDC would capture more property damage only collisions than NBDOT. Severity of a collision is determined by the state of a crash victim at the scene of the crash. An effort is made to follow the severity status of crash victims after a collision. No set period of time has been assigned and the severity status is not always upgraded (from injury to fatality, for example).
70 A copy of the report forms used by MRDC and NBDOT is provided in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Reported Collisions A large difference was observed between collisions reported by MRDC and NBDOT. In 2005, NBDOT reported 159 collisions and MRDC reported 108 collisions. Only 45 collision records coincided with both MRDC and NBDOT. The Venn diagram shown in Figure 4-3 illustrates the distribution of collision records for MRDC and NBDOT.
Figure 4-3: Distribution of Collision Records (2005)
A significant difference in collision severity was also noted between crashes reported by MRDC and NBDOT. The data in Table 4-7 indicate all collisions reported in 2005 by NBDOT and MRDC. This data is depicted graphically in Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5 depicts the distribution of collisions severity for all crashes reported by NBDOT and MRDC.
71 Table 4-7: Collision Distribution of All Reported Collisions NBDOT MRDC Severity #of Severity #of Severity Collisions Distribution Collisions Distribution PDO 110 69% 81 76% Injury 45 28% 24 22% Fatality 4 3% 2 2% Total 159 100% 108 100%
180
160
140
• NBDOT HMRDC
PDO Injury Fatality Total Severity
Figure 4-4: Reported Collisions
72 •••••••nH WU^Bffli 90% - (••••••••ffl nHBaaHHR ^•••••••H ••••••••ni 80% - ••••••UN •••••••••• ^H^^HH •••••••••• 70% - ••••••••ffi m •H^^^H ^^^^^^| 60% - ^^^^^H ^^^^^H ^^^^H ^^^^| • Fatality •••••••••••••••••••fl ••••••••••••••••••••l 50% - •^•^•^•^•^•^•^H •^•^•^•^•^•^•^•1 B Injury ^^^^H ^^^^H • PDO
^C\°/n -i ^^H ^^H ^^H ^^H in% - ^^H ^^H no/n _ ^^H .HH NBDOT MRDC
Figure 4-5: Collision Distribution of All Reported Collisions
Overall in 2005, NBDOT reported 51 more collisions than MRDC. NBDOT also reported one percent more fatal collisions and six percent more injury collisions than MRDC. Conversly, MRDC reported seven percent more PDO collisions than NBDOT. The following two sections summarize the matching and non- matching records in an effort to identify the discrepancies in collision data between NBDOT and MRDC.
4.2.3 Matching Records A comparison of the collision records in 2005 revealed that 45 collisions coincided with both NBDOT and MRDC records. The data in Table 4-8 indicate the distribution of collision severity for all matching collisions reported by NBDOT and MRDC. Further comparison of the 45 matching records revealed that eight collisions did not match in severity rating. The data in Table 4-9 indicate the date and severity rating for these six collisions. Figure 4-6 depicts the number of matching collisions reported by NBDOT and MRDC. Figure 4-7
73 depicts the distribution of collision severity for matching crashes reported by NBDOT and MRDC.
Table 4-8: Collision Distribution of Matching Collisions NBDOT MRDC Severity #of Severity #of Severity Collisions Distribution Collisions Distribution PDO 22 49 % 30 67% Injury 21 47% 14 31 % Fatality 2 4% 1 2% Total 45 100% 45 100%
Table 4-9: Severity Rating Comparison Date NBDOT MRDC January 1,2005 Injury PDO March 22, 2005 Injury PDO March 23, 2005 Fatality PDO June 16,2005 Injury PDO October 11, 2005 Injury PDO November 25, 2005 Injury PDO December 3, 2005 Injury PDO December 3, 2005 Injury PDO
74 50
45
40
<2 35
30 "5 o INBDOT 25 IMRDC Si 20 E 3 15 z 10
5
0 PDO Injury Fatality Total Severity
Figure 4-6: Matching Collisions
1000/, _ HHRMMI H^^^^^ffl 90% - ^^^^^^n ^^H^Hfi I^^^^^^H I^^^^HH 80% - I^^^^^^H HI^^^H f^H^^^H I^HfflH 70% - I^^^^^^H Mfl^^^l^l n^^^^^U ^^^^^^H 60% - f^^^^^HI ^^^^^^B i^^^H ^^^^1 • Fatality 50% - I^^^^^^^I^^^H ^^^^^^^^^^^^H • Injury ^^^^^^^^^^H ^^^^^^^^^^H • PDO 40% - ^^^^H ^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^fl 30% - ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H 20% - ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^fl ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H
0% - ^"^" ^^H t ^^H NBDOT MRDC
Figure 4-7: Collision Distribution of Matching Reported Collisions
75 NBDOT reported two percent more fatalities and 16 percent more injuries than MRDC. However, MRDC reported 19 percent more PDO collisions than NBDOT. These discrepancies are likely the result of the different reporting systems. This is especially evident in Table 4-9 where NBDOT classified collisions as either injury or fatality, while MRDC classified the same collisions as PDO.
4.2.4 Non-Matching Records In the comparison year of 2005, NBDOT reported 114 collisions that were not recorded by MRDC. Conversely, MRDC reported 63 collisions that were not recorded by NBDOT. The data in Table 4-10 indicate the distribution of collision severity for all non-matching reported collisions in 2005 by NBDOT and MRDC. Figure 4-8 depicts the number of non-matching collisions reported by NBDOT and MRDC. Figure 4-9 depicts the distribution of collision severity for non- matching crashes reported by NBDOT and MRDC.
Table 4-10: Collision Distribution of Non-Matching Collisions NEIDO T MRDC Severity #of Severity #of Severity Collisions Distribution Collisions Distribution PDO 88 77% 52 83% Injury 24 21 % 10 16% Fatality 2 2% 1 2% Total 114 100% 63 100%
76 Figure 4-8: Non-Matching Collisions
1fi(W 90% - ^^^M^HHB HUH!^^^^^^H!! 80% - ^l^^^^I^^^^^Hl ^^^^^^^^H 7fi% - ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^J 60% - ^^H ^^H ^^^^1 ^^^^1 • Fatality ^^^^^^^^^^^^a ^^^^^^^^^^^^| • Injury 50% - ^^^^^^^^^^^B ^^^^^^^^^^^| ^^^^H ^^^^H • PDO ^0% ^^H ^^H 20% - ^^^^^^^^^HH ^^^^^^^^^fHl 10% - ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H ^^^^^^H| ^^^^^^^^^^^^H| C\QL - NBDOT MRDC
Figure 4-9: Collision Distribution of Non-Matching Reported Collisions
77 The premise was that MRDC would capture the PDO and minor injury collisions that NBDOT underreported. Comparison of the two reporting systems indicated that MRDC reported 52 PDO collisions that were not reported by NBDOT. MRDC still failed to capture 88 PDO collisions that were reported by NBDOT. Similar differences were observed for injury and fatal collisions. MRDC only reported 11 (ten injury and one fatal) additional collisions that were not reported by NBDOT. MDRC failed to capture 26 (24 injury and two fatal) collisions that were reported by NBDOT. The comparison of non-matching records highlights the underreporting that exists in both reporting systems. Consequently, collision rates using either source would be lower than reality. Underreporting is not limited to New Brunswick and the same issues exist for other DOTs. This section allowed insight into underreporting that is endemic with provincial databases. Comparison between NBDOT based rates will be considered adequate for the purposes of this study.
4.3 Comparison to Old Trans Canada Highway The NBDOT observed collision rates on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and on portions of the old Trans Canada Highway still in operation were compared with the collision rates on the old Trans Canada Highway.
The old Trans Canada Highway consisted of a 224 km section of two lane, predominately undivided highway. The old Trans Canada Highway experienced an AADT of 7,842 vehicles. The section of highway used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-10.
78 '•"„ ' (K 'NtcOivney 'id? ^ NojfeDama '* Stanley^ 5 Cross Creek Station i»; 620 Certain Station^ Porte-au-ci*i Ca>> iC'fi llashwsak Bridge NEW BR N S W i C K 15 u 1M Durham Chipmwi taws- _ Bridge ^ ' »; ^Hainesvfc sir §snv taills/ ft! J-*w m Cum&erfand Mouth of B.liloa KeswIcK ,B«y "rote /T -HI ,„, «i*. m H»veteek I Sstefeury Marysville - North 0evor>( 5 « .112' "rMr-£.j«r Eederirton "MO / $ettas*s6 mgscfear ^»«(ti«w A preliminary study was conducted by the engineering consulting firm GeoPlan. Collision data for the old Trans Canada Highway was obtained from the Functional Planning Study for the Trans Canada Highway Fredericton to Moncton Background Report (GeoPlan, 1992). From the data, the number of collisions per year and collision rates were developed based on crash severity. The data in Table 4-11 indicate the number of collisions for the old Trans Canada Highway. Collision rates were developed using equation 12. Table 4-11: Old Trans Canada Highway Collisions Collision Rate Severity /yr collision collision / mvkm / mvm PDO 275 0.700 1.126 Injury 119 0.306 0.492 Fatality 9 0.024 0.039 Severe* 128 0.330 0.531 Total 402 0.896 1.442 *Fatalities plus injuries. A total of 190 kilometres of the old Trans Canada Highway are still in operation and should be included to allow for a more thorough comparison. The portions of the old Trans Canada Highway still in use are predominantly two-lane undivided sections and experience an average AADT of 4,696 vehicles 79 (predominately local users). The section of highway used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-11. The data in Table 4-12 indicate the number of collisions recorded by NBDOT from 2002 to 2005 for the operational sections of the old Trans Canada Highway. jfittr, |. Map "f] Satellite fl H^fond 1 ''kssV" <,i £ck>u LtKfiOW ^G"f tsa i • iwsimce . Haicsurt - fc'iMto DJ-.'W.I Stanley •ess PatiSh MpncUrn p-0(ri; C0U|flM fttfith „. _ • •! ShetfscI tf*M3*i' Parish , St MM*. 0u,!hQrri Monclon * Una tfings«<¥ Grand a HiltetHWoitgli Pallet KmasdeiH Maryland Q Otomoclo H3«AA,.rtfc UtICOh NcwMoiylBod 'Partial ' r« &mfi«K Wa&s.' Parish Fundy Elissvlle / Kingston >«' - we* s "XT .Q>'B|»ml«"' «» SlMtKlOTS J Bnmswtk _^ f'»,» P«|H| Rolrfesay.wa,, sI TI Nova i Maine Scotia «„„« »« i-m /I4l\ Smvowk F*,»»w w •«,--! ,' • --- oral™ , * •' sijnhj, St Jot" > , - ._^ Bnv-Wo.lli.kl- _.',' _ W0rOoO^.PI*(»«e2Wi^VTfia*-i?-E---.flit.^ -0>f,„,„ Figure 4-11: Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada [Source: Google Maps, 2006] Table 4-12: Operations Sections of Old Trans Canada Collisions Collision Rate Severity /yr collision / collision / mvkm mvm PDO 63 0.193 0.310 Injury 31 0.094 0.151 Fatality 1 0.004 0.006 Severe* 32 0.098 0.157 Total 95 0.290 0.467 'Fatalities plus injuries. 80 The data in Table 4-13 indicate both the number of collisions per year and collision rates for the old Trans Canada Highway as well as the Fredericton- Moncton Highway combined with the operational sections of the old Trans Canada Highway. A collision report summary for sections of the old Trans Canada Highway still in use is provided in Appendix A. Figure 4-12 provides a visual representation of the collision comparison. Table 4-13: Old Trans Canada Highway and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Fredericton-Moncton Highway I Old Trans Canada Highway + Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision /yr collision collision /yr /mvkm /mvm /mvkm /mvm PDO 275 0.700 1.126 198 0.442 0.711 Injury 119 0.306 0.492 81 0.187 0.300 Fatality 9 0.024 0.039 4 0.008 0.014 Severe* 128 0.330 0.531 85 0.195 0.314 Total 402 0.896 1.442 282 0.637 1.025 Natalities plus injuries. 81 E > E 7: o '55 o u a.re c o '55 "o o PDO Injury Fatality Severe* Total Severity Natalities plus injuries. Figure 4-12: Old Trans Canada and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Collision Rate The overall collision rate as well as all the collision rates based on severity for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were less than the collision rates observed on the old Trans Canada Highway in New Brunswick. The comparison of the Old Trans Canada Highway (between Fredericton and Moncton) to the Fredericton- Moncton Highway and portions of the old Trans Canada still in operation indicated that upgrading the facility contributed to an estimated reduction in collision rate of 0.259 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 41 percent reduction, making it comparable with values found during the literature review. 82 4.4 Comparison to Similar Facilities The NBDOT observed collision rates on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were then compared to those of other similar facilities. These facilities included two sections of highways in New Brunswick, two sections of highway in Nova Scotia, and one section of highway way in Maine. They were selected for having similar design standards and traffic volumes as the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. The facilities were also selected to have similar regional characteristics to normalize any other factors (such as weather, driver characteristics, and vehicle fleet mix). These facilities were also selected on the basis that no formal RSA techniques had been applied. A comparison of the Fredericton-Moncton Highway with other similar facilities that have not received RSAs should indicate the benefits of conducting RSAs. It was anticipated that by comparing collision rates on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway with those on similar facilities where RSAs had never been conducted, the benefits of the RSA process would be exposed. Collision report summaries are provided in Appendix A for: Highway 1 and 15 in New Brunswick, Highway 102 and 104 in Nova Scotia, and Interstate 95 in Maine. 4.4.1 Highway 1, New Brunswick Highway 1 in New Brunswick was built beginning in 1960, but portions of the highway were upgraded and twinned between 1987 and 2001. The section of Highway 1 used for comparison extended from the Fredericton-Moncton Highway (in River Glade) to Highway 790 (in Lepreau). The comparison section consisted of a 144 km section of a four lane controlled access divided highway with a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour and experiences an AADT of 7,842 vehicles. A section of Highway 1 that experienced high levels of commuter traffic in the Saint John region was excluded from the comparison. The section of Highway 1 used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4- 13. 83 | Map . I) Satellite |f* .Hflria,"*" j Moncton D1,pp, m Rivervww t? .Grind' -JSh 0; ^ r$3 EM S 0 Hampton ^ GJ Rothesay V^ Grand Bay-Westfleld St John *jL®^ jJC -~* NSW-. ®> r Bniostt i „^^ Wame~i-^- Scotia iicm @ ! s fioT K006o<»aie-iprdat;,#2M6.MAyi£a'"- w..j.t '-,, <«lk_59a The data in Table 4-14 indicate the number of collisions recorded by NBDOT from 2002 to 2005 for Highway 1 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Collision rates were developed using equation 12. Figure 4-14 provides a visual representation of the collision comparison between Highway 1 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. 84 Table 4-14: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Collision Rate Highway 1 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision collision collision /yr /yr /mvkm /mvm /mvkm / mvm PDO 149 0.361 0.585 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 67 0.163 0.264 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 3 0.006 0.010 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 70 0.169 0.274 53 0.097 0.157 Total 219 0.531 0.859 188 0.346 0.557 *Fatalities plus injuries. *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-14: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Collision Rate The overall collision rate as well as all the collision rates based on severity for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were less than the collision rates observed on Highway 1 in New Brunswick. The comparison of Highway 1 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to a reduction in collision rate of 0.185 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 53 percent reduction. 85 4.4.2 Highway 15, New Brunswick Highway 15 in New Brunswick was built beginning in 1920. Portions of the highway were twinned between 1990 and 1998. The section of Highway 15 used for comparison extended from the Highway 106 (in Dieppe) to Highway 140 (in Shediac). The comparison section consisted of a 27 km section of four lane divided access controlled highway with a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour and experiences an AADT of 8,720 vehicles. The section of highway used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-15. Cape Seott!i.;$e!tjsnv)nt 8 '•• m •%,,,j !y Satellite; If jHyb EMU. % : 0 ®- & ; B Sl-PMippt m • Gfeatttt Moitcten i''fy\ *»<*« Meadow Ukflbum Broak wnuunmj,^ 'K, •- ] aom. Q°°j? - Map (Ma ^qosiijAVTeQ'" - 'lsa>iSii.Ui W, Figure 4-15: Highway 15, New Brunswick [Source: Google Maps, 2006] The data in Table 4-15 indicate the number of collisions recorded by NBDOT from 2002 to 2005 for Highway 15 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Collision rates were developed using equation 12. Figure 4-16 provides a visual 86 representation of the collision comparison between Highway 15 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Table 4-15: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Collision Rate Highway 15 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision collision collision /yr /yr /mvkm / mvm /mvkm / mvm PDO 49 0.564 0.896 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 21 0.241 0.383 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 1 0.012 0.018 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 22 0.253 0.402 53 0.097 0.157 Total 70 0.817 1.298 188 0.346 0.557 *Fatalities plus injuries. 0.900 I Fredericton-Moncton 0.800 I Highway 15 PDO Injury Fatality Severe* Total Severity *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-16: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Collision Rate 87 The overall collision rate as well as all the collision rates based on severity for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were less than the collision rates observed on Highway 15 in New Brunswick. Overall, the comparison of Highway 15 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to a reduction in collision rate of 0.471 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 136 percent reduction. 4.4.3 Highway 102, Nova Scotia Highway 102 in Nova Scotia was built beginning in 1960. The section of Highway 102 used for comparison extended from Joseph Howe Drive (in Halifax) to Highway 104 (in Truro). The comparison section consisted of a 103 km section of a four lane full access control divided highway with a posted speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour and experiences an AADT of 27,076 vehicles. The section of Highway 102 used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-17. 88 m S3 Truro rtCV ZZH i 3 " &Utvmm»t Kttntvtfo WolMIe Slwbcnacacbc Nov/ Mmtii a ? /—\ WtntteOf / EnttoU •NQ3* 10 4) \ r Mi Km I Lower j iif, 65) Ha-irw.tcfe Be"Sford ^^ /TV Ptaim \ «•> i-i-1 a a 6«3) I Dartmouth A/mdale Halifax *, 5* Mn [) Madonc waswok* „ \ *V*" „ ,* " %& ***** ' L«£lf Wtopwater unenbuig -<' **S •<* ?„* s emtoni _ l20km I ?*£*ii u Mjunnahn Figure 4-17: Highway 102, Nova Scotia [Source: Google Maps, 2006] Collision and AADT data for Highway 102 was obtained from the Motor Vehicle Collision Rates for Numbered Highways and Sections (Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works, 2005) for 2000 to 2004. A similar reporting system as NBDOT is employed in Nova Scotia to collect and document collisions. From the data, the number of collisions per year and collision rates were developed based on crash severity. The data in Table 4-16 and Figure 4- 18 provide a comparison between Highway 102 in Nova Scotia and Fredericton- Moncton Highway in New Brunswick. 89 Table 4-16: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Collision Rate Highway 102 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision collision collision /yr /yr /mvkm /mvm /mvkm /mvm PDO 225 0.220 0.354 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 115 0.114 0.183 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 2 0.002 0.003 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 117 0.116 0.187 53 0.097 0.157 Total 341 0.336 0.541 188 0.346 0.557 *Fatalities plus injuries. 0.400 I > £ o !s "5 .o, 0) a: c o !J2 "o o PDO Injury Fatality Severe* Total Severity *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-18: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Collision Rate The overall collision rate was slightly higher for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway than Highway 102 in Nova Scotia. A comparison of collision rates between the two highways revealed a shift in injury collisions to PDO collisions for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. This indicates that RSAs conducted on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway may have reduced the number injury 90 collisions. This reduction in fatal and injury collisions may consequently lead to an increase in PDO collisions. 4.4.4 Highway 104, Nova Scotia Highway 104 in Nova Scotia was built beginning in 1970 and is part of the Trans-Canada Highway System. The section of Highway 104 used for comparison extended from the New Brunswick / Nova Scotia Border to Highway 348 (in New Glasgow). The comparison section consisted of a 166 km section of a four lane divided highway with full access control with a posted speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour and experiences an AADT of 11,122 vehicles. The section of Highway 104 used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-19. [ Map j| Satellite-]f". gffd"„P st&mngoticrw'Jlm "M^SP /yew Gfaigow s WestvSte ^Sta&taii -•-2118 •"^iii^ 1S7 ea UY New r 3ft«swidfl i w> &: tilt. m i^&fi d ."..: ",/WIRWK v .^^^^-Mop 91 Collision and AADT data for Highway 104 was obtained from the Motor Vehicle Collision Rates for Numbered Highways and Sections (Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works, 2005) for 2000 to 2004. A similar reporting system as NBDOT is employed in Nova Scotia to collect and document collisions. From the data, the number of collisions per year and collision rates were developed based on crash severity. The data in Table 4-17 and Figure 4- 20 provide a comparison between Highway 104 in Nova Scotia and Fredericton- Moncton Highway in New Brunswick. Table 4-17: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Collision Rate H ghway 104 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision collision collision /yr /yr /mvkm /mvm /mvkm /mvm PDO 138 0.206 0.331 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 76 0.112 0.289 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 3 0.005 0.008 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 79 0.117 0.297 53 0.097 0.157 Total 217 0.323 0.520 188 0.346 0.557 'Fatalities plus injuries. 92 *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-20: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Collision Rate The overall collision rate was slightly higher for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway than Highway 104 in Nova Scotia. A comparison of collision rates between the two highways revealed a shift in injury collisions to PDO collisions for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. This indicates that RSAs conducted on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway may have reduced the number injury collisions. This reduction in fatal and injury collisions may consequently lead to an increase in PDO collisions. 4.4.5 Interstate 95, Maine Interstate 95 in Maine was built beginning in 1957 and is part of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. The section of Interstate used for comparison extended from the New Brunswick / Maine Border (in Houlton) to Interstate 395 (in Bangor) consisted of a 190 km section of four lane full access control divided highway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (approximately 104 93 kilometres per hour) and experiences an AADT of 10,694 vehicles. The section of Interstate 95 used for comparison is highlighted in red on Figure 4-21. Map Hybrid tg. : ' Fredertcton fS% m%M* ^ .0"' Oromoclo •(&" CD "*^« J^ i v r- ^ .0 \ Sotmsifc QuMpantt* Qtwa } fi*y-Wtttfi*MV» iit.~ ^ { ittpwin ©*«-• V( ^, ^ , PasasmsifuwIJt Bay , August* St Itoys VTBS '' < Bay TNY 5~NH I,20""-, ,9wfar, * Penobscot* f^ Blue ^ t .i>£T>Hl"." -' Figure 4-21: Interstate 95, Maine [Source: Google Maps, 2006] Collision and AADT data for Interstate 95 was obtained from the Traffic Engineering Accident Records (Maine Department of Transportation, 2005) for 2003 to 2005. A similar reporting system as NBDOT is employed in Maine to collect and document collisions. From the data, the number of collisions per year and collision rates were developed based on crash severity. The data in Table 4-18 and Figure 4-22 provide a comparison between Interstate 95 in Maine and Fredericton-Moncton Highway in New Brunswick. 94 Table 4-18: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Collision Rate Interstate 95 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Collision Rate Collision Rate Collisions Collisions Severity collision collision collision collision /yr /yr /mvkm /mvm /mvkm /mvm PDO 201 0.431 0.694 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 97 0.208 0.335 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 1 0.003 0.005 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 98 0.211 0.340 53 0.097 0.157 Total 299 0.643 1.034 188 0.346 0.557 *Fatalities plus injuries. I > E "c o uo 2 £ o o o PDO Injury Fatality Severe Total Severity Figure 4-22: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Collision Rate The overall collision rate for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway was less than the overall collision rate observed on Interstate 95 in Maine. Similarly, the comparison also revealed that the PDO and injury collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were less than Interstate 95. The Fredericton- Moncton Highway had a slightly higher fatal collision rate than Interstate 95. 95 However, only three years of collision data were available for Interstate 95 and only four years of collision data were available for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Larger data sets may provide collision rates more consistent with what was observed with the PDO and injury collisions. Overall, the comparison of Interstate 95 and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to a reduction in collision rate of 0.297 collisions per million- vehicle-kilometres. This translates into an 86 percent reduction, making it slightly higher than the values found during the literature review. 4.4.6 Average Similar Facility Collision Rates A weighted average (by section length) was developed for the similar facilities based on the collision rates calculated in Tables 4-15 to 4-18. The data in Table 4-19 indicate the development of average collision rates for the similar facilities. The data in Table 4-20 and Figure 4-23 provides a comparison between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and average collision rate for similar facilities. Table 4-19: Similar Facilities Average Collision Rate NB NB NS NS ME Average Highway Highway Highway Highway Interstate Collision 1 15 102 104 95 Rate collision/ collision/ collision/ collision/ collision/ collision/ Severity mvkm mvkm mvkm mvkm mvkm mvkm PDO 0.361 0.564 0.220 0.206 0.431 0.327 Injury 0.163 0.241 0.114 0.112 0.208 0.159 Fatality 0.006 0.012 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.004 Severe* 0.169 0.253 0.116 0.117 0.211 0.163 Total 0.531 0.817 0.336 0.323 0.643 0.490 Length 144 km 27 km 103 km 166 km 190 km •Fatalities plus injuries. 96 Table 4-20: Similar Facilities and F-M Highway Collision Rate Similar Facilities Average Fredericton-Moncton collision / Equivalent collision / collision/ Severity mvkm collisions/year mvkm year PDO 0.327 177.1 0.249 134.8 Injury 0.159 85.9 0.093 50.3 Fatality 0.004 2.4 0.005 2.5 Severe* 0.163 88.2 0.097 52.8 1 Total 0.490 265.4 0.346 187.5 *Fatalities plus injuries. *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-23: Similar Facility Average and F-M Collision Rate Overall, the similar facilities yielded average collision rates greater than the Fredericton-Moncton Highway for four of the five severity ratings. The Fredericton-Moncton experiences slightly more fatal collisions than the calculated average for the similar facilities. Larger data sets may provide collision rates more consistent with what was observed with the PDO and injury collisions. Comparison of similar facilities average and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to a reduction in collision rate of 0.144 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 42 97 percent reduction, making it comparable with values found during the literature review. 4.5 Comparison to Collision Prediction Models Estimated collision frequency developed using CPMs were compared with observed collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. This allowed for another approach to contrast the Fredericton-Moncton Highway collision rates with comparable averages for similar facilities. Comparisons between CPMs and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were conducted for both mainlane and interchange crashes. 4.5.1 Mainlane Collisions Collision rates were developed based on estimated crash frequency of mainlane collisions. The Hadi CPM estimated injury crash frequency, using equation 1, to be 1236 collisions per year. To obtain an estimate for severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency (fatal plus injury), the injury crash frequency value is inflated by five percent. This resulted in an estimated severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency of 1298 collision per year or 62 fatal collisions per year. The Persaud and Dzbik CPM estimated total crash frequency, using equation 3, to be 286 collisions per year and estimated severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency, using equation 4, to be 109 collisions per year. The Wang CPM estimated severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency, using equation 5, to be 48 collisions per year. The default collision rates for MicroBENCOST estimated a total of 218 collisions per year, five fatal collisions per year, 87 severe (fatal plus injury) collisions per year, 82 injury collisions per year, and 131 PDO collisions per year. NBDOT observed 740 mainlane collisions between 2002 and 2005. NBDOT observed a total of 185 collisions per year, three fatal collisions per year, 52 severe (fatal plus injury) collisions per year, 49 injury collisions per year, and 98 133 PDO collisions per year. The data in Table 4-21 and Figure 4-24 provide a comparison of the collision rates for mainlane crashes developed using CPMs and collisions rates observed by NBDOT. Table 4-21: Comparison of Collision Rates for Mainlane Crashes Fredericton-Moncton CPM Estimates Highway Equation Model Severity Collision Collision Number Collisions Rate Collisions Rate /year (collision / /year (collision / mvkm) mvkm) 1 Injury 1236 2.283 49 0.091 Hadi N/A Fatal 62 0.115 3 0.005 N/A Severe* 1298 2.398 52 0.096 3 Total 185 0.342 Persaud and 286 0.528 Dzbik 4 Severe* 109 0.201 52 0.096 Wang 5 Severe* 48 0.089 52 0.096 N/A Severe* 87 0.161 52 0.096 N/A Fatal 5 0.010 3 0.005 MicroBENCOST N/A Injury 82 0.151 49 0.091 N/A PDO 131 0.242 133 0.246 N/A Total 218 0.403 185 0.342 *Fatalities plus injuries. 99 3.000 I Fredericton-Moncton I Collision Prediction Model -g- 2.500 > E 2.000 o u 1.500 CO DC 1.000 O O 0.500 0.000 o Q Fata l Tota l vere * vere * vere * Q_ 0) 'Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-24: Comparison of Collision Rates for Mainlane Crashes Collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were significantly better than those predicted using the mainlane Hadi CPM. The Hadi CPM estimated 1,244 severe (fatal plus injury) more mainlane collisions per year than NBDOT. The Persaud and Dzbik CPM estimated 101 more total mainlane collisions per year and 55 more severe (fatal plus injury) collisions per year than NBDOT. The Wang CPM was the only CPM model that estimated fewer severe (fatal plus injury) collisions per year than NBDOT. NBDOT reported 6 more severe (fatal plus injury) mainlane collisions per year than the Wand CPM. The MicroBENCOST default values estimated 35 more severe (fatal plus injury) mainlane collisions, three more fatal mainlane collisions, 32 more injury mainlane collisions, and 33 more total mainlane collisions than NBDOT. NBDOT reported two more PDO collisions per year than the MicroBENCOST estimates. 100 4.5.2 Average Mainlane Collisions An average collision rate based on severity was developed for the four different types of mainlane CPMs discussed in the previous sections. The data in Table 4-22 and Figure 4-25 provide a comparison of the average collision rates for mainlane crashes developed using CPMs and collisions rates observed by NBDOT. Table 4-22: Average Mainlane Collision Rates and F-M Highway Mainlane CPMs Fredericton-Moncton Average Collision Collision Severity Collisions / Rate Collisions / Rate year (collision / year (collision / mvkm) mvkm) PDO 0.242 131 0.246 133 Injury 0.151 82 0.091 49 Fatality 0.062 34 0.005 3 Severe* 0.712 386 0.096 52 Total** 0.399 216 0.342 185 *Fatalities plus injuries. **Average of all sources, except Hadi (growthed to total where necessary). 101 0.800 Fredericton-Moncton f 0.700 Mainlane CPM Average I 0.600 » 0.500 S 0.400 3 £ 0.300 c | 0.200 O 0.100 0.000 PDO Injury Fatality Severe* Total Severity *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-25: Average Mainlane Collision Rate Overall, the average mainlane CPMs generated average collision rates greater than the Fredericton-Moncton Highway for four of the five severity ratings. The Fredericton-Moncton experiences slightly more PDO collisions than the calculated average for the mainlane CPMs. This could indicate that a shift in fatal and injury collisions to PDO collisions occurred. Comparison of the mainlane CPM average and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total reduction in collision rate of 0.057 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 17 percent reduction. 4.5.3 Interchange Collisions Collision rates were also developed based on estimated crash frequency of interchange and speed-change lane collisions. Khorashadi CPM estimated severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crash frequency using equation 7 to be 102 five collisions per year. The Bauer and Harwood CPM estimated severe (fatal plus injury) ramp-related crash frequency using equation 8 to be four collisions per year. The Bauer and Harwood CPM estimated severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency in acceleration lanes using equation 9 to be one collision per year. The Bauer and Harwood CPM estimated severe (fatal plus injury) crash frequency in deceleration lanes using equation 10 to be one collision per year. A detailed development of crash frequency is provided in Appendix B. NBDOT observed 10 interchange collisions between 2002 and 2005. NBDOT observed a total of three collisions per year, zero fatal collisions per year, one severe (fatal plus injury) collision per year, one injury collision per year, and two PDO collisions per year. The data in Table 4-23 and Figure 4-26 provide a comparison of the collision rates for interchanges crashes developed using CPMs and collision rates observed by NBDOT. Table 4-23: Comparison of Collision Rates for Interchange Crashes Fredericton-Moncton CPM Estimates Highway Equation Location of Model Severity Collision Collision Number Collision Collisions Rate Collisions Rate /year (collision /year (collision / mvkm) /mvkm) Khorashadi 7 Interchange Severe* 5 0.008 0.002 8 Ramp Severe* 4 0.008 0.002 Bauer and Acceleration 9 Severe* 1 0.002 0.002 Harwood Lane Deceleration 10 Severe* 1 0.002 0.002 Lane N/A Interchange Severe* g 0.017 0.002 N/A Interchange Fatal 1 0.002 0 0.000 Micro- N/A Injury 8 0.015 1 0.002 BENCOST Interchange N/A Interchange PDO 14 0.026 2 0.003 N/A Interchange Total 23 0.043 3 0.005 'Fatalities plus injuries. 103 0.050- • Fredericton-Moncton ___ 0.045- • Collision Prediction Models •ij U.U4U i • f 0.035 - • o •m £ 0.030 - •^> 8. 0.025 - AMR • a> H i •BH | 0.020- •i™ •>H o 0.015 - I ^• . ,— CI) CO CO CD 1'? to ?> CO i- co O 3 > is (P D (Fa t CD O (To t Sev e Sev e terc h terc h terc h cele r celle r terc h terc h Sev e Sev e © ^^ c C d c c — *~ Q c ^-" Khorashadi Bauer and Harwood McroBBCOST *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-26: Comparison of Collision Rates for Interchange Crashes Collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were slightly better than those predicted using the interchange Khorashadi CPM and ramp Bauer and Harwood CPM. No difference was observed between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and the Bauer and Harwood CPMs for acceleration or deceleration lanes. The most significant difference was observed between the MicroBENCOST default estimates and the NBDOT reported collisions. The MicroBENCOST model predicted 23 interchange collisions per year, whereas NBDOT has only reported three interchange collisions per year. 4.5.4 Average Interchange Collisions An average collision rate based on severity was developed for the four different types of interchange CPMs. The data in Table 4-24 and Figure 4-27 provide a comparison of the average collision rates for interchange crashes developed using CPMs and collisions rates observed by NBDOT. 104 Table 4-24: Average Interchange Collision Rate Comparison Interchange CPMs Fredericton-Moncton Average Collision Collision Severity Collisions / Rate Collisions / Rate year (collision / year (collision / mvkm) mvkm) PDO 0.026 14 0.003 2 Injury 0.015 8 0.002 1 Fatality 0.002 1 0.000 0 Severe* 0.007 4 0.002 1 Total** 0.032 17 0.005 3 Tatalities plus injuries. * Average of all sources (growthed to total where necessary). 0.035 Fredericton-Moncton Interchange CPM Average iJj PDO Injury Fatality Severe Total Severity *Fatalities plus injuries. Figure 4-27: Average Interchange Collision Rate Overall, the average interchange CPMs generated average collision rates greater than the Fredericton-Moncton Highway for all five of the severity ratings. Comparison of the interchange CPM average and the Fredericton-Moncton 105 Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total reduction in collision rate of 0.027 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This translates into a 540 percent reduction, making it comparable with values found during the literature review. 4.6 Monetary Savings Associated with RSAs The net collision savings per year attributed to the RSA process were estimated using the reduction in collisions and the collision costs outlined in Table 3-6. The reduction in collision frequency for the old Trans Canada Highway was obtained by determining the difference between collision frequency on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and collision frequency on operational sections of the old Trans Canada Highway. Similarly, the reduction in collision frequency for similar facilities was obtained by determining the difference between collision frequency on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and equivalent collision frequency on the similar facilities. The reduction in collision frequency for CPMs was developed directly from the difference in collision frequency between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and CPMs. Collision cost estimates were developed based on the severity distribution of all crashes in New Brunswick in 2005. These estimates ranged from $6,142 for a PDO crash to $4,337,361 for a fatal crash. Estimates for total and severe crashes were developed by taking a weighted average of collision costs according to severity distribution, and found to be $69,112 and $199,476, respectively. The cost savings in Tables 4-25 to 4-35 are based on the collision cost estimates for the corresponding severity ratings. These estimated savings were then contrasted with all costs associated with implementing the RSA recommendations. 106 4.6.1 Old Trans Canada Highway The data in Table 4-25 compares the annual collision frequency on the new Fredericton-Moncton Highway and the old Trans Canada Highway. Table 4-25: Old Trans Canada and F-M Highway plus Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Cost Savings Fredericton-Moncton + Old Trans Canada Operational Sections of Difference Old Trans Canada Collision Collision Cost Rate Collisions / Rate Collisions Collisions Severity Savings (collision yr (collision /yr /yr /yr / mvkm) /mvkm) PDO 0.700 275 0.442 198 78 $476,005 Injury 0.306 119 0.187 81 38 $2,280,159 Fatality 0.024 9 0.008 4 5 $22,771,145 Severe* 0.330 128 0.195 85 44 $25,051,304 Total 0.896 402 0.637 282 120 $25,527,309 "Fatalities plus injuries. A comparison between the old Trans Canada Highway and the Fredericton- Moncton Highway indicated that the new facility contributed an estimated safety- related cost savings equal to $25,527,309 per year. It should be noted that this value does not include savings related to reductions in travel time, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. 4.6.2 Similar Facilities The data in the five following tables (Tables 4-26 to 4-30) provide an estimated cost savings for similar facilities (Highway 1 and 15 in New Brunswick, Highway 102 and 104 in Nova Scotia, and Interstate 95 in Maine) attributed to implementing RSAs. The data in Table 4-31 provide an average cost savings for similar facilities. 107 Table 4-26: Highway 1 and F-M Highway Cost Savings Highway 1 Fredericton-Moncton Difference Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions Collisions Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision /yr yr /yr /yr / mvkm) / mvkm) PDO 0.361 196 0.249 135 61 $374,409 Injury 0.163 88 0.093 50 38 $2,270,124 Fatality 0.006 3 0.005 3 1 $3,399,210 Severe* 0.169 92 0.097 53 39 $5,669,333 Total 0.531 287 0.346 188 100 $6,043,742 *Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-27: Highway 15 and F-M Highway Cost Savings Highway 15 Fredericton-Moncton Difference Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions Collisions Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision /yr yr /yr /yr / mvkm) / mvkm) PDO 0.564 306 0.249 135 171 $1,049,022 Injury 0.241 131 0.093 50 80 $4,797,143 Fatality 0.012 6 0.005 3 4 $16,481,507 Severe* 0.253 137 0.097 53 84 $21,278,650 Total 0.817 443 0.346 188 255 $22,327,671 •Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-28: Highway 102 and F-M Highway Cost Savings Highway 102 Fredericton-Moncton Difference Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions Collisions Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision /yr /yr / mvkm) yr / mvkm) /yr PDO 0.220 119 0.249 135 -16 -$96,093 Injury 0.114 62 0.093 50 11 $683,624 Fatality 0.002 1 0.005 3 -1 -$6,147,038 Severe* 0.116 63 0.097 53 10 -$5,463,413 Total 0.336 182 0.346 188 -6 -$5,559,507 *Fatalities plus injuries. 108 Table 4-29: Highway 104 and F-M Highway Cost Savings Highway 104 Fredericton-Moncton Difference | Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions / Collisions / Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision yr y /yr / mvkm) y / mvkm) PDO 0.206 112 0.249 135 -23 -$142,646 Injury 0.112 61 0.093 50 10 $619,078 Fatality 0.005 3 0.005 3 0.2 $683,626 Severe* 0.117 63 0.097 53 11 $1,302,705 Total 0.323 175 0.346 188 -13 $1,160,059 "Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-30: Interstate 95 and F-M Highway Cost Savings Interstate 95 Fredericton-Moncton Difference Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions Collisions Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision /yr /yr /yr / mvkm) yr / mvkm) PDO 0.431 234 0.249 135 99 $607,016 Injury 0.208 113 0.093 50 62 $3,724,133 Fatality 0.003 2 0.005 3 -1 -$4,122,855 Severe* 0.211 114 0.097 53 62 -$398,722 Total 0.643 348 0.346 188 160 $208,294 "Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-31: Similar Facility Average Cost Savings Similar Fac lity Average Fredericton-Moncton Difference Collision Collision Equivalent Cost Rate Rate Collisions / Collisions/ Severity Collisions / Savings (collision (collision yr yr yr / mvkm) / mvkm) /yr PDO 0.327 177.1 0.249 134.8 42.4 $260,309 Injury 0.159 85.9 0.093 50.3 35.6 $2,122,518 Fatality 0.004 2.4 0.005 2.5 -0.1 -$584,950 Severe* 0.163 88.2 0.097 52.8 35.5 $1,537,568 Total 0.490 265.4 0.346 187.5 77.9 $1,797,877 "Fatalities plus injuries. A comparison of the overall average for similar facilities to the Fredericton- Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $1,797,877 per year. The total RSA cost associated with conducting and implementing recommendations was $191,459 per year. 109 Implementation of RSAs when comparing similar facilities with the Fredericton Moncton Highway resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 9:1 (which is comparable with values found during the literature review). 4.6.3 Collision Prediction Models The data in the four following tables (Tables 4-32 to 4-35) provide an estimated cost savings attributed to implementing RSAs for mainlane and interchange CPMs respectively. Table 4-32: Mainlane CPM and F-M Highway Cost Savings Fredericton Mainlane Collision Prediction Model Difference -Moncton Collision Collision Collision Cost Model Severity /yr /yr /yr Savings / yr Injury 1236 49 1187 $70,744,541 Hadi Fatal 62 3 60 $258,072,980 Severe* 1298 52 1246 $248,596,708 Persaud and Total 286 185 101 $6,980,294 Dzbik Severe* 109 52 57 $11,419,989 Wang Severe* 48 52 -4 -$748,034 Severe* 87 52 35 $14,439,204 Fatal 5 3 3 $12,502,084 MicroBENCOST Injury 82 49 32 $1,937,120 PDO 131 133 -2 -$12,613 Total 218 185 33 $14,426,591 'Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-33: Average Mainlane Cost Savings Fredericton Mainlane CPM Difference Severity -Moncton Collision Collision Collision Cost /yr /yr /yr Savings / yr PDO 131 133 -2 -$12,613 Injury 82 49 32 $1,937,120 Fatality 34 3 31 $135,287,532 Severe* 386 52 334 $66,581,423 Total** 216 185 31 $2,142,466 *Fatalities plus injuries. "Average of all sources, except Hadi (growthed to total where necessary). 110 Table 4-34: Interchange CPM and F-M Highway Cost Savings Fredericton- Interchange Collision Prediction Model Difference Moncton Cost I Collision Collision Collision Model Location Severity Savings /yr /yr /yr /yr Khorashadi Interchange Severe* 5 1 4 $700,664 Ramp Severe* 4 1 3 $595,764 Bauer and Accel, lane Severe* 1 1 0 $0 Harwood Decel. lane Severe* 1 1 0 $0 Interchange Severe* 9 1 8 $4,507,133 Interchange Fatal 1 0 1 $4,085,460 Micro Interchange Injury 8 1 7 $421,673 BENCOST Interchange PDO 14 2 13 $77,566 Interchange Total 23 3 21 $4,584,700 *Fatalities plus injuries. Table 4-35: Average Interchange Cost Savings Interchange Fredericton Difference -Moncton Severity CPM Collision Collision Collision Cost /yr /yr /yr Savings / yr PDO 14 2 13 $77,566 Injury 8 1 7 $421,673 Fatality 1 0 1 $4,085,460 Severe* 4 1 3 $579,067 Total 17 3 15 $1,009,033 *Fatalities plus injuries. "Average of all sources (growthed to total where necessary). A comparison of the overall average for mainlane CPMs to the Fredericton- Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $2,142,466 per year. A comparison of the overall average for interchange CPMs to the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $1,009,033 per year. Therefore, the overall average total cost savings (total mainlane CPM cost savings plus total interchange CPM cost savings) for CPMs equals $3,151,469 per year. The total RSA cost associated with conducting and implementing recommendations was $191,459 per year. Implementation of RSAs when comparing CPMs with the Fredericton-Moncton Highway resulted in a benefit- cost ratio of 16:1 (which is comparable with values found during the literature review). 111 4.7 Data Analysis Summary The data analysis section of this study was broken into two main sections (analysis of collision rates and the equivalent monetary savings) in an attempt to quantify the benefits that the RSA process provided for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Collision rates for the Fredericton-Moncton Highway were developed based on historical collision records. These collision rates were then contrasted with rates obtained from: (i) the old Trans Canada Highway, (ii) similar facilities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Maine, and (iii) various mainlane and interchange CPMs. Finally, the benefits provided by the RSA process were estimated by assigning monetary values to any reduction in collisions observed on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. Collision rates on the new Fredericton-Moncton Highway were first combined with rates from operational sections of the old Trans Canada Highway (between Fredericton and Moncton) and contrasted with historical collision rates on the old Trans Canada Highway. It was determined that the new facility contributed to a collision reduction of 0.259 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres. This represents a 41 percent reduction and an estimated annual cost savings of $25,527,307. A comparison between collision rates on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and other similar facilities indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction in the overall collision rate of 0.144 collisions per million-vehicle- kilometres or 42 percent. The associated cost savings was $1,797,877 per year and the benefit-cost ratio was 9:1. Finally, a comparison between collision rates on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and mainlane plus interchange CPM average indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction in the overall collision rate of 0.084 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres or 24 percent. The associated cost savings was $3,151,469 per year and the benefit-cost ratio was 16:1. 112 5 Conclusions The primary goal of this study was to evaluate what impact the RSA process and the subsequent recommendations have had on roadway projects. The major findings of this study are summarized below. 5.1 Collision Rates The following conclusions were drawn from the various collision rate comparisons completed as part of this research: o The combined collision rate on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and the operational sections of the old Trans Canada was found to be 0.259 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres lower than the collision rate for the old Trans Canada Highway between Fredericton and Moncton. This represents a 41 percent reduction. o The Fredericton-Moncton Highway exhibited a collision rate that was 0.144 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres lower than the average rate obtained for similar facilities. From this reduction, it was inferred that applying RSAs contributed to a 42 percent reduction in the overall collision rate. Furthermore, a comparison of collision rates by severity indicated that applying RSAs contributed to a reduction in PDO and injury crashes of 0.078 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres and 0.066 per million-vehicle- kilometres, respectively. No statistical difference was noted for the rate of fatal collisions between the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and similar facilities. o A comparison between the mainlane collision prediction model (CPM) average and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total reduction in collision rate of 0.057 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres or 17 percent. When average collision rates were contrasted by severity, it was indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction in injury, fatal, and severe crashes by 0.060 113 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres, 0.058 collisions per million-vehicle- kilometres, and 0.617 per million-vehicle-kilometres, respectively. No substantial difference in collisions rates was noted for PDO crashes. o A comparison between the interchange CPM average and the Fredericton- Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total reduction in collision rate of 0.027 collisions per million-vehicle- kilometres or 540 percent. When average collision rates were contrasted by severity, it was indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction of 0.023 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres for PDO crashes, 0.013 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres for injury crashes, 0.002 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres for fatal crashes, and 0.005 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres for severe (injury plus fatal) crashes. o The combined collision rate from the mainlane and interchange CPMs was found to be 0.084 collisions per million-vehicle-kilometres higher than the rate on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway. This indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated reduction in collision rate of 24 percent. 5.2 Monetary Collision Cost Savings o When collision costs on the old Trans Canada Highway were contrasted with the combined collision costs on the Fredericton-Moncton Highway and operational sections of the old Trans Canada Highway, it was indicated that completing the new facility contributed to an estimated safety-related cost savings of $25,527,307 per year. o A comparison of the overall average collision cost for similar facilities and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $1,797,877 per year. When collision costs were contrasted by severity, it was found that applying RSAs provided cost savings of $260,309 and $2,122,518 for PDO and injury crashes, respectively. No statistical difference in collisions rates was noted for fatal collisions. Consequently, a total cost savings for fatal collisions is inappropriate to report. 114 o A contrast between the overall average collision cost for mainlane CPMs and the Fredericton-Moncton Highway indicated that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $2,142,466 per year. A similar comparison with the interchange CPMs indicted that applying RSAs contributed to an estimated total cost savings of $1,009,003 per year. Overall, the average total cost savings (total mainlane CPM cost savings plus total interchange CPM cost savings) for CPMs equals $3,151,469 per year. 5.3 Benefit-Cost Ratios o Implementation of RSAs when comparing similar facilities with the Fredericton-Moncton Highway contributed to a benefit-cost ratio of 9:1. o Implementation of RSAs when comparing CPMs with the Fredericton- Moncton Highway contributed to a benefit-cost ratio of 16:1. The similarity in values obtained from the average for similar facilities and CPMs indicates the credibility of both methods. 115 6 Recommendations The following is a list of recommendations for future research derived from the research conducted for this study. 6.1 Available Literature o The literature review identified ten previous studies conducted in an effort to quantify the benefits of RSAs. While the previous studies did indicate the potential benefits of applying RSAs, many of the studies were project-specific. There was limited relevant literature available for this study that directly quantified the benefits due to RSAs. Additional research and a better understanding of collision reduction/mitigation are necessary to allow an objective economic evaluation of the RSA process. o The literature review identified six collision prediction models developed to estimate crash frequency on rural four-lane divided highways. Limited research in this area hindered the ability to compare the Fredericton-Moncton Highway with numerous CPMs. Much more extensive research has been completed to develop CPM for two-lane undivided highways. Collision frequency estimates and variables included in the models (such as lane width, shoulder width, and traffic volume) varied between models. Additional research into this issue would allow for the development of new CPMs or adjustment of existing CPMS for rural four-lane divided highways. 6.2 Underreporting of Collisions o A comparison of the MRDC and NBDOT collision reporting systems provided insight into underreporting and discrepancies that exists with provincial databases. Additional research into this issue would highlight the sources of underreporting. 116 6.3 Quantifying RSA Benefits o Four of the ten previous studies were known to quantify the benefits of RSAs using before-after analysis. Additional before-after studies would increase awareness of the potential benefits of in-service RSAs. o Four of the ten previous studies were known to quantify the benefits of RSAs for new facilities. Additional studies would increase understanding of the potential benefits of RSAs for new facilities. o The majority of the previous studies quantified the benefits of RSAs upon completion of a project. None of the previous studies or this research evaluated the possible reductions in collisions due to recommendations throughout the various stages of an audit. Additional research that applies collision frequency reduction estimates for all recommendations made during each RSA stage would provide an estimate of the detailed account of collision frequency reductions directly stemming from the RSA process. 117 References AASHTO, 2005. AASHTO RAC member survey results, Traffic Safety Studies. [Internet]. [Updated: December 10, 2005], [Cited: October 26, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: Austroads, 1994. Road Safety Audit Manual. Austroads, Sydney, Australia Austroads, 2002. Evaluation of the proposed actions emanating from Road Safety Audits. Sydney, Australia Austroads, 2002. Road Safety Audit Manual (Revision). Austroads, Sydney, Australia Baguley, C, and Jacobs, G., 2003. Road Safety Manual. PIARC Technical Committee on Road Safety. QC, Canada Bonneson, J., Zimmerman, K., and Fitzpatrick, K., 2005. Roadway Design Synthesis. Texas Transportation Institute. College Station, Texas, U.S. Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, 2000. Road Crash Costs in Australia, Report 102. Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics. Canberra ACT, Australia 118 Dennis C J., 1994. Motor Vehicle Accident Costs. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. [Internet]. [October 31,1994], [Cited: October 13, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: Elvik, R. and Vaa, T., 2004 . The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, U.K. ETSC, 2005. Road Safety Audit Fact Sheet. Brussels, U.K. European Transport Safety Council, 1997. Road Safety Audit and Impact Assessment. Brussels, U.K. FHWA, 1997. FHWA Study Tour for Road Safety Audits. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, U.S. FHWA, 2007. Road Safety Audits, Benefits. [Internet]. [Updated: January 9, 2007], [Cited: January 9, 2007]. Available from World Wide Web: Fraser, N., Jewkes, E., Bernhardt, I., Tajima, M., 2006. Engineering Economics in Canada. Pearson Prentice Hill. Toronto, ON, Canada Go Currency, 2006. Historic Exchange Rates. [Internet]. [Updated: 2007], [Cited: October 2006 - January 2007]. Available from World Wide: GeoPlan, 1992. Functional Planning Study for the Trans Canada Highway Fredericton to Moncton Background Report. Fredericton, NB, Canada 119 Google Maps, 2006. [Internet]. [Cited: November 29,2006]. Available from World Wide Web: Hadi, M., Aruldhas, J., Chow, L, and Wattleworth, J., 1995. Estimating Effects of Cross-Section Design for Various Highway Types Using Negative Binomial Regression. Transportation Research Record No. 1500. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, U.S. Hauer, E„ and B. Persaud, 1997. Safety Analysis of Roadway Geometric and Ancillary Features. Transportation Association of Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada HLB Inc., 1998. Highway User Benefits Analysis of the National Highway System. Hickling Lewis Brod Inc. Ottawa, ON, Canada Ho, G. and Leur, P., 2002. RSA Municipal Pilot Program Summary Report. Road Improvement Program Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada IHT, 1980. Accident Reduction and Prevention Guidelines. Institution of Highways and Transportation, London, U.K. IHT, 1990. Guidelines for The Safety Audit of Highways. Institution of Highways and Transportation, London, U.K. IHT, 1996. Guidelines for The Safety Audit of Highways (Revision). Institution of Highways and Transportation, London, U.K. ITE, 2006. Road Safety Audits. [Internet]. [Cited: November 15, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: 120 Jack Faucett Associates, 1991. The Highway Econometric Requirements System, Technical Report. Submitted to the Highway Needs and Investment Branch, FHWA Local Authorities Association, 1989. Road Safety Code of Good Practice. Association of Country Councils, London, United Kingdom Maine Department of Transportation, 2006. Maine Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Records. Maine Department of Transportation. Augusta, ME, U.S. McFarland, W.F., and J.B. Rollins, 1983. Cost-Effective Techniques for Highway Safety, Volume III Accident Costs. Technical Report, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, USA McElroy, R., 1992. The Highway Economic Requirements System: an introduction to HERS, Public Roads Magazine. Federal Highway Administration Washington, DC, USA Microsoft Corporation, 2005. Microsoft Streets & Trips Software. Redmond, WA, U.S. MoDOT, 2005. Traffic Safety Studies Results. [Internet]. [February 8, 2005], [Cited: October 26, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: National Safety Council. Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2004 [Internet]. [Updated: December 22,2005], [Cited: October 26, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: 121 NCHRP, 2004. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 366. Washington, DC, U.S. Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works, 2005. Motor Vehicle Collision Rates for Numbered Highways and Sections. Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works. Halifax, NS, Canada Persaud, B., and Dzbik, L, 1993. Accident Prediction Models for Freeways. Transportation Research Record 1401. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, U. S. PI ARC Technical Committee, 2005. Survey on Road Safety Audit Summary. PIARC Technical Committee, France RTAC, 1986. Manual of geometric design standards for Canadian roads. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada Statistics Canada, 2006. Consumer price index, historical summary, by province or territory. [Internet]. [Updated: January 18, 2006], [Cited: October 27, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: Surrey Country Council, 1994. Road Safety Audit, An Investigation Into Causality Saving Discussion Report. Surrey Country Council Highways and Transportation Department. England, U.K. TAC, 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. Transportation Association of Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada TAC. 2001. The Canadian Road Safety Audit Guide. Transportation Association of Canada. Ontario, Canada 122 TAC, 2004. Canadian Guide to In-service Road Safety Reviews. Transportation Association of Canada, Ontario, Canada Transport Canada, 1997. Transportation in Canada 1997 Annual Report. Transport Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada TRB, 2004. Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, U.S. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2002. Benefit Cost Analysis Guide. [Internet]. [Updated: December 16,2002], [Cited: October 24, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: TTI, 1993. MicroBENCOST User's Manual. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, U.S. University of British Columbia (UBC), 2006. Pacific Exchange Rate Service. [Internet]. [Updated: 2006], [Cited: October 27, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: Wikipedia, 2006. Consumer Price Index. [Internet]. [Updated November, 2006], [Cited: November, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: 123 Bibliography Asian Development Bank, 2003. Road Safety Audit for Road Projects, An Operational Tool Kit. Manila, Philippines FHWA, 2006. FHWA Feature Program: Road Safety Audits. [Internet]. [Updated: September, 31 2006], [Cited: November 20, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: HSIS, 2006. [Internet]. [Cited: November 29, 2006]. Available from World Wide Web: ITE, 2004. Issue Brief 15, Road Safety Audits: An Emerging and Effective Tool for Improved Safety. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, DC, U.S. Khorashadi, A., 1998. Effect of Ramp Type and Geometry on Accidents. FHWA/CA/TE-98/13. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California, U.S. Wang, J., Hughes, W.E., and Stewart, R., 1998. Safety Effects of Cross-section Design for Rural, Four-Lane, Non-Freeway Highways. Report No. FHWA-RD- 98-071. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, U.S. 124 Appendix A - Collision Report Summaries 125 New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 - 2005 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Total Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / collisions / (2002 - 2005) per year mvkm mvm PDO 539 135 0.249 0.401 Injury 201 50 0.093 0.149 Fatality 10 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 211 53 0.097 0.157 Total 750 188 0.346 0.557 *fatalities plus injuries Mainlane Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / (2002 - 2005) per year collisions / mvkm mvm PDO 533 133 0.246 0.396 Injury 197 49 0.091 0.146 Fatality 10 3 0.005 0.007 Severe* 207 52 0.096 0.154 Total 740 185 0.342 0.550 •fatalities plus injuries Interchange Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / collisions / (2002-2005) per year mvkm mvm PDO 6 2 0.003 0.004 Injury 4 1 0.002 0.003 Fatality 0 0 0.000 0.000 Severe* 4 1 0.002 0.003 Total 10 3 0.005 0.007 'fatalities plus injuries 126 New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 - 2005 Fredericton-Moncton Highway (continued) Collision NBDOT Configuration Count Severity Type Rate 1 54 2 62 PDO 134 3 53 4 6 5 0 6 9 Animal 0.091 Injury 57 7 0 8 0 10 5 11 5 Fatality 5 12 2 Total 196 1 2 2 7 PDO 0 3 4 4 1 5 0 6 1 Foreign Object 0.007 Injury 16 7 0 8 1 10 0 11 0 Fatality 0 12 0 Total 16 1 35 2 40 PDO 92 3 34 4 6 5 0 Multiple 6 3 0.058 Injury 35 Vehicle 7 2 8 0 10 3 11 2 Fatality 0 12 1 Total 126 127 New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 - 2005 Fredericton-Moncton Highway (continued) Collision NBDOT Configuration Count Severity Type Rate 1 31 2 26 PDO 45 3 18 4 5 5 0 Roadside 6 3 0.040 Injury 41 Object 7 0 8 0 10 2 11 1 Fatality 1 12 1 Total 87 1 113 2 84 PDO 266 3 68 4 14 5 5 6 24 SVROR 0.149 Injury 53 7 0 8 0 10 5 11 9 Fatality 4 12 1 Total 323 Pedestrian Total 2 0.001 Fatality 2 1 5 2 1 PDO 6 3 2 4 0 5 0 6 0 Interchange 0.005 Injury 4 7 0 8 0 10 0 11 2 Fatality 0 12 0 Total ?0 Maritime Road Development Corporation (MRDC), 2002 - 2006 Fredericton-Moncton Highway Total Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / collisions / (2002 - 2006) per year mvkm mvm PDO 449 104 0.192 0.308 Injury 109 25 0.046 0.075 Fatality 9 2 0.004 0.006 Severe* 118 27 0.050 0.081 Total 567 131 0.242 0.389 *fatalities plus injuries Mainlane Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / collisions / (2002 - 2006) per year mvkm mvm PDO 425 98 0.181 0.292 Injury 104 24 0.044 0.071 Fatality 9 2 0.004 0.006 Severe* 113 26 0.048 0.078 Total 538 124 0.230 0.369 *fatalities plus injuries Interchange Collisions Collision Rate Collision Rate # of Collisions Collisions Severity collisions / (2002 - 2006) per year collisions / mvkm mvm PDO 24 6 0.010 0.016 Injury 5 1 0.002 0.003 Fatality 0 0 0.000 0.000 Severe* 5 1 0.002 0.003 Total 29 7 0.012 0.020 *fatalities plus injuries 129 Maritime Road Development Corporation (MRDC), 2002 - 2006 Fredericton-Moncton Highway (continued) Collision MRDC Configuration Count Severity Type Rate 1 9 2 14 PDO 30 3 3 4 1 Animal 6 14 0.018 Injury 12 7 1 10 1 11 0 Fatality 1 Total 43 1 0 2 5 PDO 4 3 0 4 0 Foreign Object 6 0 0.002 Injury 1 7 0 10 0 11 0 Fatality 0 Total 5 1 13 2 14 PDO 62 3 25 4 6 Multiple 0.034 Injury 16 Vehicle 6 19 7 0 10 1 11 1 Fatality 2 Total 79 1 0 2 144 PDO 112 3 10 4 0 Roadside 6 0 0.066 Injury 38 Object 7 0 10 0 11 0 Fatality 4 Total 154 130 Maritime Road Development Corporation (MRDC), 2002 - 2006 Fredericton-Moncton Highway (continued) Collision MRDC Configuration Count Severity Type Rate 1 27 2 71 PDO 240 3 153 4 12 SVROR 6 15 0.120 Injury 41 7 0 10 2 11 1 Fatality 2 Total 281 Pedestrian Total 2 0.001 Fatality 2 1 1 2 5 PDO 25 3 19 4 0 Interchange 6 2 0.012 Injury 3 7 0 10 1 11 1 Fatality 1 Total 29 131 New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT) 1988 -1991 Old Trans Canada Highway Length # Collisions Collision Rate Severity Distribution cs RS (km) / year (collision/mvkm) % Fatal % Injury % PDO 21 1b 11.68 27 0.98 3% 23% 75% 22 1 1.82 2 0.34 0% 0% 100% 22 2 6.18 16 0.66 6% 34% 60% 22 3 3.58 17 1.01 0% 24% 76% 23 1 1.39 5 0.71 0% 50% 50% 23 2a 1.48 2 0.58 0% 33% 67% 91 1a 1.48 4 1.07 0% 27% 73% 23 2b 4.77 5 0.42 7% 14% 79% 91 1b 4.77 3 0.24 0% 25% 75% 23 3 1.59 9 0.95 0% 37% 63% 24 1 2.71 10 1.5 0% 43% 57% 24 2 1.62 5 1.15 0% 21% 79% 25 1 17.38 30 0.93 1% 31% 68% 26 1 7.73 7 0.48 5% 33% 62% 26 2 4.59 4 0.6 17% 33% 50% 27 1 10.85 14 0.87 0% 44% 56% 27 2 1.58 6 2.49 0% 18% 82% 28 1 5.47 9 1.23 0% 41% 59% 28 2 9.35 21 1.71 5% 27% 69% 29 1 11.81 20 1.29 2% 28% 70% 30 1 11.37 14 0.87 5% 32% 63% 31 1 12.71 13 1.05 0% 33% 67% 32 1 7.34 7 0.95 0% 38% 62% 33 1a 4.33 6 1.16 0% 42% 58% 33 1b 8.07 7 0.72 0% 27% 73% 34 1a 4.75 8 0.66 0% 24% 76% 24 1b 12.09 28 0.86 0% 23% 77% 35 1 3.72 5 0.55 0% 13% 87% 35 2a 1.95 3 0.63 0% 22% 78% 35 2b 5.93 4 0.28 8% 25% 67% 35 3 1.68 3 0.77 11% 22% 67% 36 1 7.26 5 0.29 0% 29% 71% 36 2 1.46 2 0.62 0% 0% 100% 37 1 1.44 3 1.04 0% 20% 80% 37 2 6.21 10 0.61 7% 28% 66% 37 3 2.65 7 0.97 5% 23% 73% 38 1 16.23 39 0.86 2% 37% 62% 39 1 4.35 12 0.96 6% 23% 71% 39 2a 5.24 10 0.67 0% 33% 67% 224 402 132 CO CO CO CO CO CO t° CO CO CO CO CO to CO CO CO CO CO CO to to to ro to to ro to IO ro to CO to CO IO ro ro to to ro o CO CO 00 ^1 •>! ->l CD 0) en Ol Ol Ol 4k. 4k. CO CO ro o CO 00 00 ->l -si CD CD Ol 4k. 4k. CO "^ CO -^ CO CO to ro ro _* 0) IO _^ -A. to to -Jk -Jk. IO ro CO CO to - IO - CO - - - - to - ro - to - ro - CO CO - CO to - CO CO o- CO -* - ex CT 0) CT 3 O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "11 O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _x o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O Ol ^ 4k. 4*. o o o 00 to o o o o o o o o 4k. to 00 o o o o IO o o o o o ro o o o o 4k. o ro PI Colli s O 00 •*4 CO CO o o o Ol IO o o o o o o o o 4k. CD CD o o o IO 4k. CO o o o o CO o o o o o o CO » O o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Tjur y IO ro CO IO u IO o o _x o —& o -Jk _Jk _Jk 4k. CO ro CO 4k. en CO -Jk _& to ro CO o o ro ^k CO ro to o ro o NJ IO .A ro -J o o 00 CD ->l CO •>l CO Ol CO 00 CD £ •>l CD CD o it oo CO en 00 4k. 2 Ol CD Ol 00 CO en 4k. ro o ro 1iRat e "^ -^ 00 CO _^ 00 o 4k. CO o CO ro 00 00 4k. ->4 ^1 00 "* IO 4k. 00 CO 00 00 00 ro Ol ro o CO CO Ol ro 4k. o Ol o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _> o ro o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "0 O) Ol ->l 4*. 00 CD to Ol -Jk 4k. 4k. CD Ol Ol CD Ol ^1 Ol CO •A •>J o CO ro O) CO 00 Ol _^ CO -vl CO CO ->l CO ->l it 00 CO o o CO to o 00 CO •>l CD o IO -xl 00 o 4k. o 00 ro 4k. £ o CO CO o Ol CO 00 CO 00 00 Ol CD CO CO o CO IO CO 00 CO N> o CD CD 00 CO to to CD CO CO 4k. 00 CO o CD ro -si o 00 to CO Ol CO o ro —^ CO Ol 00 CD os Ol o Fata l CO o - - o - o o o o o o o o o o o o o - o -> o o o - o © o o o o o o o o o - o -A 4* o lision s / y Injur y 11 9 -A -J. .Jk -A -*. -^ co CO 4* IO CO - o -> - CD ro IO CO CO 4k. 4k. CD CD 4k. - CD - ro CO - 4k. CO - CO 4k. Ol o CD ea r PD O 27 5 -»l CO IO IO 4k. 4k. ro 4k. _Jk 00 4k. to 4k. CO ro 4k. Ol ->l ro ro CO ro ro CD Ol CO CO CO 4k. 4k. Ol Ol ro 4k. CD CD IO - CO CO o ro o o —X o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o HI 00 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o p Weigh t * CO ^ -A o> -A —A o o o o o o o 4k. -L ro ro CO Ol 4k. CD ->l CO .Jk 4k. .Jk ^ ->l o ^ o o o o o o —X ^ o Ol IO o> CD CO IO ~* ">J -«l 4k. CO CD -J Ol CO CD 4k. CD ro CO 4k. 00 o CO to N3 ^1 ro 00 00 ->l Ol CO -vl 4k. 4k. CD 00 CO y. 8 O 8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -n o =: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Pi CO (io n 0 N> 0> o ok o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o-X o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 4k. IO © CO -*• CO _x SL co o — "* "^ o o o "•* ro o o o o o o o ro o o o ro o o o o o o o o to o ro 5' o Injur y 3•» . o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 55 (0 =, 4k. CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o < CO AUl i O tO -A _i to IO .^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o —3k o o o o o o o o o o o o o o IO <» 00 4*. -*J CO 00 -*• o CO K) •«4 to ro ro Ol o 00 ro CO CD en o -* ^1 —^ 4k. ro Ol CO Ol CO to IO CO 4k. CO o ro 3 3 3 •Tl _i O o o o o o o © o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Tl sr _^ •>l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q o o o o o o n (I) IO O _A -A 4s. —A _». —Ik 4k. -Jk IO CO CO CO —Jk —k Ol •A -^ _^k -A CO o o o to o o .Jk ro ro o ro to o o o o o o o CD O TO 4k. CO 00 •>! CO Ol 00 •>! 4k. CD CD 00 •vl CO 4k. CD ^1 CO CD ^J 4k. ^J Ol 4k. CO •^1 00 CO en en -* o to o —*• o> ro o New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 to 2005 Operational Sections of Old Trans Canada Highway Collision Frequency Severity 2002 2003 2004 2005 PDO 58 55 77 61 Injury 28 31 26 37 Fatality 1 1 1 2 Severe* 29 32 27 39 Total 87 87 104 100 New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 to 2005 Highway 1 Severity Collision Frequency 2002 2003 2004 2005 PDO 130 153 173 140 Injury 54 77 72 66 Fatality 2 2 3 3 Severe* 56 79 75 69 Total 186 232 248 209 Injuries plus fatalities. New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT), 2002 to 2005 Highway 15 Severity Collision Frequency 2002 2003 2004 2005 PDO 38 52 62 42 Injury 29 18 21 15 Fatality 1 0 2 1 Severe* 30 18 23 16 Total 68 70 85 58 Injuries plus fatalities. 134 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i N) U H M M M M M IO M s tao teon i. i CO IO M IO z a> o> en CO to o= o §° o o o en o o o o en en o oi o en f < o fi) C/> •si O 00 O O 0.00 4 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o b b b b bob bob o o o o o o o o o o J«a o o o o o o o o o o poo o o o o o o o s -. = o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o IO < o (0 I* o P p p p p o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o *» b b b b bob o o o o o o o o o p £ § o o o p o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 O -A ° 2 888 oo en to eo eo en •»! S 1 to to K CO -J CD CO IO TO -vl IO -* o -J CO 00 o -si ,54 1 ota l J -« oooooooooooooooooooooo bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb OP-*-k|OtOIOIO-»-tO->.0-i-i->-0-'IOtOOOIO • coScoo*.coo->.coocooooocncocDcncnco-«i-»- © o CO CO •>* o CM O o CO CM O CO (0 •* CM o ® 9 CM CM CO CM CO ^ CM T- CM- 0> CM CO CO CO CO in CO CD d r-^ io d •* CO CO CO CM •* Tota l ? 5 5 CM £ •* CO q •* CM CM CD CO CO i>- P 'er e •* CO CO CM CO CO CM o q 00 o •* © CM V" w S d •«t CM CM •* CM •* CM IO 1^ CO iri in •°*° r*: T^ CM T-' T^ T* o (0 Q ,« 1-. CO IS » 2r CM 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 2 c « 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 2 0. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 .2 I ii Fatali l t § -i o •* cq q CM IO CM CO CO CM CM •* CO © CM q •«)• CO CO CM cq o Tf CO CD CM •*' CD •«* T T- CO o rr CM d CM CM ••* CM IO r*: IO ** 1^ " c\i *- T- I S Injur y ^ CO CM CO CO q CM "d; H >» CO •«• •* CO •* o O CM •<* •* CO •*• CO oq 00 CO CO 1^ CO CO l>^ CO CM •* l>^ IO o> CO d 0> o> CO CM 22 5 0 PD O CM CM o •* d I CM 1— w t- N. CM co co CO *- CO CO CM co o IO o 0> o O CO CM 8 CO co CO CM o co TT f- co h- CO •* o> o> 03 o •* T- CM T^ CO •^ CD CO CO CO •* T- t— O engt h CM IO IO CM CM E = ectio n I © IO co © co CO o§ ^ T" t: t» -J 10 o o o o O O CO a io n o v> O IO o in O o o to o O o CM co 1- 3 IO CO •- T- 5 © ^— ^ CM op T "? 10 > o Z 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - Sec t 2 2 o o ??? ?? g 1 o ?? to N> N) .A _A a «A _A >«i Cl 00 IO -A tO IS N) CO 00 0) Cl CO to o 8 © o o o © o o o -J CO O O O CI § ^ o o o o o o o o UO j o < 0) ectio n (km ) •A to 1engt h - CO in -» -» 00 -» *. 00 CO ^ CO CO 00 CI CO CI o co o 00 o o CO IO to o 2 Ko CO CI Ko b a b CO b 4* —» Ko CO CI bo Ko to CO feol CO CO to CO Jo ^1 IO io £ ->i CO o * CO s CI o ^1 h «• o o o o p o o o p o p p o p O o © © p p p o © o "B 5" to Ol La. Ko Ko Ko 1A CO 1A Ko 1A 1A Ko 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A Ko i. O ^*.i § co IO -NI o *. CO CO N> ^1 00 to co CO to to IO ^ o o CO 09 •^ CO 00 CO CO CO C*O. Ol ^*>1 00 C*.l O CO -g co ~l co Si CO to at ^ •o fi) © © O o o O p o o o p p o p o p o p p o p o o o 3jur y T Q "i5 Ko Ko b b 1A b '•* b IJL LA b 1A b b 1A b 1A 1A b 1A b Ko b O O •U ^i -A O) 00 co •>i Ol CI -0. 00 co O ->i O CI 00 oo CO OO = o 3 o CO o 00 CO ^i S2 CI -~l —X CO CO •C^O 00 0> © o o CO -i IO 8 IO © 3 Fatal i »i •*> o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o O o o o o o o o o u © b b b b b b b b b b b © © © b b b b b b © b © 3 73 o o o o o o o o © o IO o © o o to o it y o o o o o o §8 o o «A A o 8 CI CI o O) CO to 8 o to o |» o o o o © o o o o p o p o o o o o o o o o o o © H ^ bo en Ko CO GO CO Ko |b. CO 1A co Ko Ko 00 Ko Ko to Ko Ko co ^ bo 00 h CO CO ->l o> CO ~J CO -«i CO CO A CO CO o a CD ->i -*l 8 *C.I co co CO K CI o oo CO to to *- .^ 8 co Ol CO © 00 S x 3. O o o o o o O O o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o p33 1 •a p TJ Ko b b b b b b b b b b b b b © b b b b b b b b b NO -» © © © o o o o o o _k 8 o © o o o o o O 8 o> -0. *. 2 CI en ~* O IO C_O* CO *. *• o> CO 00 CO •vi oo 00 CO co CI co 0. 1 p o o o o © o o o p © o o p o o o o o © © p © o o 3 f seight e b b b b b b b b o b b b b b b o b b b o o 8 o o §8 o 8 o o o o 8 o o © o o 12. S col l -M» W to 2 N> ^i -«( Ol 2 CO 00 4^ CO o> CO Ol CI CO ^ ^ CO o 1 o co te d I oHi s sr isio n dCo l Fata l 5 0.0 0 11 P o o o o o o o o o o o © o © o o o o o o © o © o b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b © o o o o o o o o o o © o 8 o o o o o o o o o o o 1 3 OS •* "••"• SS Ol o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o o o o o o 8 = Is < ^ -^ ~* 5 3 I <3 £o 3 12 (0 3 o o n> 70 p o o o o o o o o p o o o o o o o o © o © © o p S? Q © II o L* § «* b b b b b b b b b b 8 b b b b b b b b 8 o I OS CD o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 09 £ -«-»l sIO to IO ->l ->l Ol K CO 00 to co CO CO o> 8 o A » iw 5 *. *. ^ "" *. 3 ,H o © -I p O p o o o © o o o o o o © o © o o o o o o o o o H o in o w b Q b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b o 5 o o o ro ->• to o o o to _i .A CO © o o a o .^ •&. ST 8 E 53 CI CO o> ^i 00 oo a> CI 00 ^i Cl 00 CO CO ^i Ol CO 00 o 8 CI CO Si I orO o o CM I CO co CO o t © CO •* CO dt atalit y o° m ** to » d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d odd "! £ o por t (co n CM t © CO •<* Tf •f CM o CO CO Tf CM CO o CO o o CO CO CO CM CM O 00 1 CO CO © CM •- CM i>^ CD CO CO 4 co '" CM T" id id CM co id 4 T- d 4 CM CM h- 10 4 ran s I CM • Lengt h ~ Sectio n rtm CM (0 a c o o O o o If) O o o ons O CM CO ir> CO t>- co 8 CM CM CM o 2 o o 14 0 16 0 o -W H -W H o CO P. §-« H 8 v- CM CM CM CM Q 4CM 4 s 4 4 (8 o o o o o o o Secti c cicici 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - 104 - i 104 - it *o* u 0) (0 > o Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), 2003 - 2005 Type of study: nodes and links Type of request: Collision input without link detail Study period: From month 01 year 2003 to month 12 year 2005 Input Comments Request: RTE I-95 Northbound from Bangor T/L to Canadian Border Town: Bangor - Houlton Link Length -116.2 miles Annual vehicles miles -1.44419 hmvm Severity # collisions per year K 1 A 16 B 76 C 55 PDO 281 Type of study: nodes and links Type of request: Collision input without link detail Study period: From month 01 year 2003 to month 12 year 2005 Input Comments Request: RTE I-95 Southbound from Bangor T/L to Canadian Border Town: Bangor - Houlton Link Length -115.70 miles Annual vehicles miles -1.45106 hmvm Severity # collisions per year K 3 A 14 B 77 C 52 PDO 321 139 Appendix B - Interchange CPM Crash Frequency Development 140 Ramp ADTr ADT, ADT, Interchange Exit Config Summar Non-Summer Adjusted Exit 258 (Rte 3), EB, Off ramp 1 1407 104 430 Exit 258 (Rte 3), EB, On ramp 2 1511 209 534 1 Exit 258 (Rte 3), WB, Off ramp 2 261 209 222 Exit 258 (Rte 3), WB, On ramp 4 157 104 118 Exit 271 (Mazerolle Settlement), EB, Off ramp 1 52 52 52 Exit 271 (Mazerolle Settlement), EB, On ramp 1 157 157 157 2 Exit 271 (Mazerolle Settlement), WB, Off ramp 1 157 157 157 Exit 271 (Mazerolle Settlement), WB, On ramp 1 52 52 52 Exit 285 (Rte 101), WB, Off ramp 4 140 105 114 Exit 285 (Rte 101), WB, On ramp 2 209 157 170 3 Exit 285 (Rte 101), EB, Off ramp 1 209 157 170 Exit 285 (Rte 101), EB, On ramp 1 209 157 170 Exit 297 (Nevers Rd.), EB, Off ramp 1 1350 1350 1350 Exit 297 (Nevers Rd.), EB, On ramp 1 1350 1350 1350 4 Exit 297 (Nevers Rd.), WB, Off ramp 4 1350 1350 1350 Exit 297 (Nevers Rd.), WB, On ramp 2 1350 1350 1350 Exit 301 (Wasis Rd), EB, Off ramp 2 2925 3082 3043 5 Exit 301 (Wasis Rd.), WB, On ramp 2 2925 3082 3043 Exit 303 (Miramichi Dr.), EB, Off ramp 2 888 627 692 Exit 303 (Miramichi Dr.), EB, On ramp 4 888 627 692 6 Exit 303 (Miramichi Dr.), WB, Off ramp 1 1388 1127 1192 Exit 303 (Miramichi Dr.), WB, On ramp 1 1388 1127 1192 Exit 306 (Rte 7 - Saint John HSC), EB, Off ramp 1 2142 1985 2024 7 Exit 306 (Rte 7 - Saint John HSC), EB, On ramp 1 52 52 52 Exit 306 (Rte 7 - Saint John HSC), WB, On ramp 5 2142 1985 2024 Exit 330 (Rte 102, Vlg. of Gagetown), EB, Off ramp 4 418 418 418 Exit 330 (Rte 102, Vlg. of Gagetown), EB, On ramp 2 157 104 118 8 Exit 330 (Rte 102, Vlg. of Gagetown), WB, Off ramp 2 157 104 118 Exit 330 (Rte 102, Vlg. of Gagetown), WB, On ramp 4 418 418 418 Exit 333 (Rte 105, Sheffield), WB, Off ramp 4 52 52 52 9 Exit 333 (Rte 105, Sheffield), EB, Off ramp 2 52 52 52 Exit 333 (Rte 105, Sheffield), EB, On ramp 2 52 52 52 Exit 339 (Jemseg), EB, Off ramp 2 157 104 118 Exit 339 (Jemseg), EB, On ramp 4 52 52 52 10 Exit 339 (Jemseg), WB, Off ramp 4 52 52 52 Exit 339 (Jemseg), WB, On ramp 2 157 104 118 Exit 347 (Mill Cove), EB, Off ramp 1 784 731 744 Exit 347 (Mill Cove), EB, On ramp 1 52 52 52 11 Exit 347 (Mill Cove), WB, Off ramp 1 52 52 52 Exit 347 (Mill Cove), WB, On ramp 1 784 731 744 Exit 365 (Rte 10, Coles Island), EB, Off ramp 1 575 679 653 Exit 365 (Rte 10, Coles Island), EB, On ramp 1 470 470 470 12 Exit 365 (Rte 10, Coles Island). WB, Off ramp 4 470 470 470 Exit 365 (Rte 10, Coles Island), WB, On ramp 1 575 679 653 Exit 414 (Rte 885, Havelock), EB, Off ramp 2 104 104 104 Exit 414 (Rte 885, Havelock), EB, On ramp 2 313 313 313 13 Exit 414 (Rte 885, Havelock), WB, Off ramp 1 313 313 313 Exit 414 (Rte 885, Havelock), WB, On ramp 1 104 104 104 Exit 433 (Rte 112, Salisbury), EB, Off ramp 1 1500 1400 1425 Exit 433 (Rte 112, Salisbury), EB, On ramp 1 1000 1000 1000 14 Exit 433 (Rte 112, Salisbury), WB, Off ramp 1 1000 1000 1000 Exit 433 (Rte 112, Salisbury), WB, On ramp 1 1500 1400 1425 Exit 446 (Rte 128, Berry Mills), EB, Off ramp 1 2246 2089 2129 1 679 575 601 15 Exit 446 (Rte 128. Berry Mills), EB. On ramp Exit 446 (Rte 128, Berry Mills), WB, Off ramp 4 679 575 601 Exit 446 (Rte 128, Berry Mills), WB, On ramp 2 2246 2089 2129 Exit 450 (Rte 126, Magnetic Hill), EB, Off ramp 2 888 784 810 Exit 450 (Rte 126, Magnetic Hill), EB, On ramp 2 313 313 313 16 Exit 450 (Rte 126, Magnetic Hill), WB, Off ramp 1 313 313 313 Exit 450 (Rte 126, Magnetic Hill), WB, On ramp 1 888 784 810 141 Bauer and Harwood Khorashadi 085 Interchange Exit c - 0.095 f,™, (Amy iooo) C = 0.000365 CRADTr ftvne C (severe crashes/yr) CR C (severe crashes/yr) Exit 258 EB, Off ramp 1 0.047 0.183 0.094 Exit 258 EB, On ramp 2 0.112 0.228 0.126 1 Exit 258 WB, Off ramp 2 0.053 0.887 0.085 Exit 258 WB, On ramp 4 0.062 0.186 0.011 Exit 271 EB, Off ramp 1 0.008 0.183 0.003 Exit 271 EB, On ramp 1 0.011 2 0.020 0.186 Exit 271 WB, Off ramp 1 0.020 0.183 0.010 Exit 271 WB, On ramp 1 0.008 0.186 0.004 Exit 285 WB, Off ramp 4 0.060 0.183 0.009 Exit 285 WB, On ramp 2 0.042 0.228 0.017 3 Exit 285 EB, Off ramp 1 0.021 0.183 0.014 Exit 285 EB, On ramp 1 0.021 0.186 0.014 Exit 297 EB, Off ramp 1 0.124 0.183 0.090 4 Exit 297 EB, On ramp 1 0.124 0.186 0.092 Exit 297 WB, Off ramp 4 0.494 0.183 0.090 Exit 297 WB, On ramp 2 0.247 0.228 0.112 Exit 301 EB, Off ramp 2 0.493 0.887 0.947 5 Exit 301 WB, On ramp 2 0.493 0.228 0.243 Exit 303 EB, Off ramp 2 0.140 0.887 0.288 Exit 303EB, On ramp 4 0.280 0.186 0.060 6 Exit 303 WB, Off ramp 1 0.111 0.183 0.093 Exit 303 WB, On ramp 1 0.111 0.186 0.094 Exit 306 EB, Off ramp 1 0.174 0.183 0.143 7 Exit 306 EB, On ramp 1 0.008 0.186 0.004 Exit 306 WB, On ramp 5 0.871 0.141 0.110 Exit 330 EB, Off ramp 4 0.182 0.183 0.028 8 Exit 330 EB, On ramp 2 0.031 0.228 0.013 Exit 330 WB, Off ramp 2 0.031 0.887 0.051 Exit 330 WB, On ramp 4 0.182 0.186 0.028 Exit 333 WB, Off ramp 4 0.031 0.183 0.003 9 Exit 333 EB, Off ramp 2 0.016 0.887 0.017 Exit 333 EB, On ramp 2 0.016 0.228 0.004 Exit 339 EB, Off ramp 2 0.031 0.887 0.051 Exit 339 EB, On ramp 4 0.031 0.186 0.004 10 Exit 339 WB, Off ramp 4 0.031 1.830 0.035 Exit 339 WB, On ramp 2 0.031 0.228 0.013 Exit 347 EB, Off ramp 1 0.074 0.183 0.052 Exit 347 EB, On ramp 1 0.008 0.186 0.004 11 Exit 347 WB, Off ramp 1 0.008 0.183 0.003 Exit 347 WB, On ramp 1 0.074 0.186 0.053 Exit 365 EB, Off ramp 1 0.067 0.183 0.038 Exit 365 EB, On ramp 1 0.050 0.186 0.032 12 Exit 365 WB, Off ramp 4 0.202 0.183 0.031 Exit 365 WB, On ramp 1 0.067 0.186 0.039 Exit 414 EB, Off ramp 2 0.028 0.887 0.034 Exit 414 EB, On ramp 2 0.071 0.228 0.026 13 Exit 414 WB, Off ramp 1 0.036 0.183 0.021 Exit 414WB, On ramp 1 0.014 0.186 0.007 Exit 433 EB, Off ramp 1 0.129 0.183 0.100 Exit 433 EB, On ramp 1 0.096 0.186 0.068 14 Exit 433 WB, Off ramp 1 0.096 0.183 0.067 Exit 433 WB, On ramp 1 0.129 0.186 0.102 Exit 446 EB, Off ramp 1 0.182 0.183 0.150 Exit 446 EB, On ramp 1 0.062 0.186 0.046 15 Exit 446 WB, Off ramp 4 0.248 0.183 0.045 Exit 446 WB, On ramp 2 0.364 0.228 0.187 Exit 450 EB, Off ramp 2 0.160 0.887 0.288 Exit 450 EB, On ramp 2 0.071 0.228 0.026 16 Exit 450 WB, Off ramp 1 0.036 0.183 0.021 Exit 450 WB, On ramp 1 0.080 0.186 0.060 142 Bauer and Harwood (Acceleration Lane) a98 032 (688U 059) Interchange Exit Caocol=( .00335556(ADTr/ 1000) (ADTM/ 1000) e - ADTM U(mi) C,ccei (severe crashes/yr) Exit 258 EB, Off ramp Exit 258 EB, On ramp 3755 0.211 0.007 | 1 Exit 258 WB, Off ramp Exit 258 WB, On ramp 3755 0.121 0.001 Exit 271 EB, Off ramp Exit 271 EB, On ramp 3755 0.121 0.001 2 Exit 271 WB, Off ramp Exit 271 WB, On ramp 3755 0.121 0.000 Exit 285 WB, Off ramp Exit 285 WB, On ramp 1974 0.211 3 0.002 ~~H Exit 285 EB, Off ramp Exit 285 EB, On ramp 1974 0.121' 0.001 mm\ Exit 297 EB, Off ramp Exit 297 EB, On ramp 0.121 """' 0.011 4 8565 Exit 297 WB, Off ramp Exit 297 WB, On ramp 8565 0.211 0.021 Exit 301 EB, Off ramp 5 Exit 301 WB, On ramp 8565 0.211 0.047 Exit 303 EB, Off ramp Exit 303EB, On ramp 8565 0.121 0.006 6 Exit 303 WB, Off ramp Exit 303 WB, On ramp 8565 0.121 0.010 Exit 306 EB, Off ramp 7 Exit 306 EB, On ramp 2907 0.121 0.000 Exit 306 WB, On ramp 2907 0.121 0.012 Exit 330 EB, Off ramp Exit 330 EB, On ramp 2907 0.211 0.001 8 Exit 330 WB, Off ramp Exit 330 WB, On ramp 2907 0.121 0.003 Exit 333 WB, Off ramp 3102 0.121 0.000 9 Exit 333 EB, Off ramp Exit 333 EB, On ramp 3102 0.211 0.001 Exit 339 EB, Off ramp Exit 339 EB, On ramp 3102 0.121 0.000 10 Exit 339 WB, Off ramp Exit 339 WB, On ramp 3102 0.211 0.001 Exit 347 EB, Off ramp Exit 347 EB, On ramp 3102 0.121 0.000 11 Exit 347 WB, Off ramp Exit 347 WB, On ramp 3102 0.121 0.005 Exit 365 EB, Off ramp Exit 365 EB, On ramp 2683 0.121 0,003 12 Exit 365 WB, Off ramp Exit 365 WB, On ramp 2683 0.121 0.004 Exit 414 EB, Off ramp Exit 414 EB, On ramp 2683 0.211 0.004 13 Exit 414 WB, Off ramp Exit 414 WB, On ramp 2683 0.121 0.001 Exit 433 EB, Off ramp Exit 433 EB, On ramp 7045 0.121 0.008 14 Exit 433 WB, Off ramp Exit 433 WB, On ramp^ 7045 0.121 0.011 Exit 446 EB, Off ramp Exit 446 EB, On ramp 7045 I 0.121 0.005 15 Exit 446 WB, Off ramp Exit 446 WB, On ramp 7045 0.211 0.031 Exit 450 EB, Off ramp Exit 450 EB, On ramp 7045 0.211 0.005 16 Exit 450 WB, Off ramp Exit 450 WB, On ramp 7045 0.121 0.007 143 Bauer and Harwood (Deceleration Lane) Interchange Exit CWd = 0.0123714 (APT,/1000)1 04 ^MW*-"<» Exit 258 EB, Off ramp Exit 258 EB, On ramp Exit 258 WB, Off ramp Exit 258 WB, On ramp Exit 271 EB, Off ramp Exit 271 EB, On ramp Exit 271 WB, Off ramp Exit 271 WB, On ramp Exit 285 WB, Off ramp Exit 285 WB, On ramp Exit 285 EB, Off ramp Exit 285 EB, On ramp Exit 297 EB, Off ramp Exit 297 EB, On ramp Exit 297 WB, Off ramp Exit 297 WB. On ramp Exit 301 EB, Off ramp Exit 301 WB. On rami Exit 303 EB, Off ramp Exit 303EB, On ramp Exit 303 WB, Off ramp Exit 303 WB, On ramp Exit 306 EB, Off ramp Exit 306 EB, On ramp Exit 306 WB. On ramp Exit 330 EB, Off ramp Exit 330 EB, On ramp Exit 330 WB, Off ramp Exit 330 WB, On ramp Exit 333 WB, Off ramp Exit 333 EB, Off ramp Exit 333 EB, On ramp Exit 339 EB, Off ramp Exit 339 EB, On ramp Exit 339 WB, Off ramp Exit 339 WB, On rami Exit 347 EB, Off ramp Exit 347 EB, On ramp Exit 347 WB, Off ramp Exit 347 WB, On ramp Exit 365 EB, Off ramp Exit 365 EB, On ramp Exit 365 WB, Off ramp Exit 365 WB. On ramp Exit 414 EB, Off ramp Exit 414 EB, On ramp Exit 414 WB, Off ramp Exit 414 WB, On ramp Exit 433 EB, Off ramp Exit 433 EB, On ramp Exit 433 WB, Off ramp Exit 433 WB. On ramp Exit 446 EB, Off ramp Exit 446 EB, On ramp Exit 446 WB, Off ramp Exit 446 WB. On ramp Exit 450 EB, Off ramp Exit 450 EB, On ramp Exit 450 WB, Off ramp Exit 450 WB, On ramp 144 Appendix C - MRDC and NBDOT Collision Report Forms 145 MRDC Collision Report Form mmmmmmmmffmm^mlWmK Acqlderft |~1 Op«*.WCoivofHM *§f!iiir i WRSBsmtmsomInciden t |"*1 pf MlQ; mm Q; Oate: Time: # Vehicles Involved: Posted Speed: ddftnonlWyr 24hrrims to^i EBL CD WBL D Travel Ur»n Passing Lanefl Km Marker Bt&.8Q Rtte.1 Q Rte.7f~| Shoulder Q i*ffl*asaS»tt; Interchange: ^ EBL Qonramp j""JQfframp WBL £] Onramp Qoframp llM.J.y^pP» Maintenance QMazserofle QOfomocfo Q&agdad f~|R|ver Glade Depots 'NCI Ntehtr"^ pawri/Dusie'n PavementTemperatura: Ortvec priver: Tel; £1 M. j» D.Q.B. (dd/rnm/yr): p.O.B. Jdd/mm/yr^_ i&dsfeess: Address: JVeHicte Type: _ MaK ...... JYear. lUeencePlate: fLfcer|cePlate:_ Insurance Company: mm Policy* •Address: NWiiMSS- ^sQ iMHf JJaW^««ae1IBy7 l¥esO Npr~l Estimated Cost; ? HiijticSSnQ BiM^^Piir^iarlaEMpr^ ¥isj **>No| •| Estimated Cost: ReytstoaQatttf 6 Feb 06 Raviston faa 2 Fom«jQCM-0O1 iPSfciSWMSZ 146 MRDC Collision Report Form (continued) MRDC Traffic Control Required: YeS T~} No Q Police Report* Emergency Vehicles: Yes Q No £jj Offfceifs.NSMnfi: • ,Vt'?-^v _ Shipping Firm: Amount Spied: _ Shipping Ooc**msnf No; i^y^iftiipa^ •Ajrpl soil • WaterfZ] Asphalt frH ig^li#| WRBCQ D.O.E. • Coast Guardr*) Other[~| DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT / CLEAN-UP ACTION: *&*fe3»Wfe^aas*^jjgsyfe^k^^^ (Employee's Signature: Supervisor's Signature: Revision Dafs:16 Feb 06 Revision No. 2 Form OCM-001 m$mm 147 NBDOT Collision Report Form New ft Brunswick HMUM^.^ •Q£PMT^6NT Of TBAtitSPQRTiMIQN 148 NBDOT Collision Report Form (continued) M /*« » « » * » ' '•'"„•; W p!V iW M u 0\ Oil ie di3 jfll 0rt M flfi vn oil ys i i t i I I - £ M 1 0 S 1 l f. i I (, I ! „i ,i ( I 149 Appendix D - Significance Testing 150 General Information F-M Highway, New Brunswick AADT Length (km) 7583 196 Seventy 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean PDO 134 139 156 110 135 Injury 49 58 49 45 50 Fatality 2 3 1 4 3 Severe* 51 61 50 49 53 Total 185 200 206 159 188 Highway 1, New Brunswick AADT Length (km) 7842 144 Severity 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean PDO 130 153 173 140 149 Injury 54 77 72 66 67 Fatality 2 2 3 3 3 Severe* 56 79 75 69 70 Total 186 232 248 209 219 Severity 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean PDO 171 201 227 184 196 Injury 71 101 95 87 88 Fatality 3 3 4 4 3 Severe* 74 104 99 91 92 Total 244 305 326 275 287 Highway 15, New Brunswick AADT Length (km) 8720 27 Severity 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean ~PDO 38 52 62 42 49 Injury 29 18 21 15 21 Fatality 1 0 2 1 1 Severe* 30 18 23 16 22 Total 68 70 85 58 70 Severity 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean PDO 239 328 391 265 306 Injury 183 113 132 95 131 Fatality 6 0 13 6 6 Severe* 189 113 145 101 137 Total 428 441 536 365 443 151 Highway 102, Nova Scotia AADT Length (km) 27076 103 Severity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean PDO 237 242 218 218 208 225 Injury 119 127 108 98 121 115 Fatality 3 2 2 2 1 2 Severe* 122 129 110 100 122 117 Total 359 371 328 318 330 341 Severity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean PDO 126 129 116 116 111 119 Injury 63 68 57 52 64 61 Fatality 2 1 1 1 1 1 Severe* 65 69 59 53 65 62 Total 191 197 174 169 176 ,, 181 Highway 104, Nova Scotia AADT Length (km) 11122 166 Severity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean PDO 141 135 157 119 146 140 Injury 82 64 73 80 82 76 Fatality 7 3 2 1 4 3 Severe* 89 67 75 81 86 80 Total 230 202 232 200 232 219 Severity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Mean PDO 113 108 126 96 117 112 Injury 66 51 59 64 66 61 Fatality 6 2 2 1 3 3 Severe* 72 54 60 65 69 64 Total 185 162 186 161 186 176 152 Highway 1, New Brunswick t-Test PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 134.750 195.714 Variance 360.917 594.664 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 6.000 tStat -3.944 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.004 t Critical one-tail 1.943 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.008 t Critical two-tail 2.447 Injury t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 50.250 88.334 Variance 30.250 169.514 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 4.000 tStat -5.389 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003 t Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006 t Critical two-tail 2.776 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances ct=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 2.500 3.284 Variance 1.667 0.575 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat •1.047 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.172 t Critical one-tail 2.015 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.343 t Critical two-tail 2.571 153 Highway 1, New Brunswick t-Test (continued) Severe t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 52.750 91.618 Variance 30.917 174.115 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 4.000 tStat -5.429 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003 t Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006 t Critical two-tail 2.776 t Critical two-tail 3.182 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 187.500 287.332 Variance 439.000 1264.523 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat -4.838 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002 t Critical one-tail 2.015 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.005 t Critical two-tail 2.571 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 1 Mean 2.500 3.284 Variance 1.667 0.575 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat -1.047 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.172 t Critical one-tail 1.476 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.343 t Critical two-tail 2.015 154 Highway 15, New Brunswick t-Test PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 134.750 305.553 Variance 360.917 4590.907 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat -4.854 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.008 t Critical one-tail 2.353 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.017 t Critical two-tail 3.182 Injury t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 50.250 130.726 Variance 30.250 1438.793 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat -4.199 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.012 t Critical one-tail 2.353 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.025 t Critical two-tail 3.182 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 2.500 6.300 Variance 1.667 26.461 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat •1.433 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.124 t Critical one-tail 2.353 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.247 t Critical two-tail 3.182 155 Highway 15, New Brunswick t-Test (continued) Severe t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 52.750 137.026 Variance 30.917 1544.635 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat -4.246 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.012 t Critical one-tail 2.353 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.024 t Critical two-tail 3.182 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances ct=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 187.500 442.580 Variance 439.000 4931.587 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 4.000 tStat -6.961 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001 t Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.002 t Critical two-tail 2.776 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 15 Mean 2.500 6.300 Variance 1.667 26.461 Observations 4.000 4.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat -1.433 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.124 t Critical one-tail 1.638 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.247 t Critical two-tail 2.353 156 Highway 102, Nova Scotia t-Test PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 134.750 119.457 Variance 360.917 57.935 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 4.000 tStat 1.516 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.102 t Critical one-tail 2.132 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.204 t Critical two-tail 2.776 Injury t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 50.250 60.952 Variance 30.250 37.708 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 t Stat -2.754 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.014 t Critical one-tail 1.895 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.028 t Critical two-tail 2.365 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances ct=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 2.500 1.064 Variance 1.667 0.141 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat 2.153 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.060 t Critical one-tail 2.353 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.120 t Critical two-tail 3.182 157 Highway 102, Nova Scotia t-Test (continued) Severe t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances GFO.05 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 52.750 62.016 Variance 30.917 37.567 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 tStat -2.373 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.025 t Critical one-tail 1.895 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.049 t Critical two-tail 2.365 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 158 Highway 102, Nova Scotia t-Test (continued) PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 134.750 119.457 Variance 360.917 57.935 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 4.000 tStat 1.516 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.102 t Critical one-tail 1.533 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.204 t Critical two-tail 2.132 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 2.500 1.064 Variance 1.667 0.141 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 3.000 tStat 2.153 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.060 t Critical one-tail 1.638 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.120 t Critical two-tail 2.353 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 102 Mean 187.500 181.473 Variance 439.000 144.469 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat 0.512 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.315 t Critical one-tail 1.476 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.631 t Critical two-tail 2.015 159 Highway 104, Nova Scotia t-Test PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 134.750 112.155 Variance 360.917 127.672 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat 2.100 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.045 t Critical one-tail 2.015 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.090 t Critical two-tail 2.571 Injury t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 50.250 61.219 Variance 30.250 38.857 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 tStat -2.801 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.013 t Critical one-tail 1.895 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.026 t Critical two-tail 2.365 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 2.500 2.732 Variance 1.667 3.421 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 tStat -0.221 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.416 t Critical one-tail 1.895 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.832 t Critical two-tail 2.365 160 Highway 104, Nova Scotia t-Test (continued) Severe t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 52.750 63.951 Variance 30.917 50.217 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 tStat -2.657 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.016 t Critical one-tail 1.895 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.033 t Critical two-tail 2.365 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.05 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 187.500 176.106 Variance 439.000 178.921 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat 0.944 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.194 t Critical one-tail 2.015 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.388 t Critical two-tail 2.571 161 Highway 104, Nova Scotia t-Test (continued) PDO t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 134.750 112.155 Variance 360.917 127.672 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat 2.100 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.045 t Critical one-tail 1.476 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.090 t Critical two-tail 2.015 Fatal t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Q=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 2.500 2.732 Variance 1.667 3.421 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 7.000 tStat -0.221 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.416 t Critical one-tail 1.415 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.832 t Critical two-tail 1.895 Total t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances a=0.10 F-M Highway Highway 104 Mean 187.500 176.106 Variance 439.000 178.921 Observations 4.000 5.000 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.000 df 5.000 tStat 0.944 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.194 t Critical one-tail 1.476 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.388 t Critical two-tail 2.015 162 Curriculum Vitae Candidate's full name: Caryn Allyson Gunter University attended: University of New Brunswick, Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, BScE 2005