The Road Safety and Signage

Audit

Proactive Roadway Safety in the 21st Century

By: Joshua H. Pack, P.E.

joshua.pack@co.nevada.ca.us

Distribution of the webinar materials outside of your site is prohibited. Reproduction of the materials and pictures without a written permission of the 
copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law.

Meet Your Instructor

 BS Degree from the University of California - Davis

 Registered Civil and Traffic Engineer in California

 Principal Civil Engineer and County Traffic Engineer

at the County of Nevada (CA)

 Other courses taught through ASCE:

 “Prevent Accidents and Traffic Delays: The Art of Delivering and Maintaining
Successful Signal Timing Improvements”
 “Developing, Implementing, and Managing a Comprehensive (Citywide)
Traffic Signal Coordination System”

1
 Course Goal

 Discuss reactive versus proactive roadway safety improvements

 Limits of proactive safety improvements

 Introduction to the Roadway Safety and Signage Audit (RSSA)

 The use of 21st century methods to improve the RSSA

 Discuss the necessary steps to deliver a RSSA

 Other lessons learned in the RSSA process

Course Description

 Discussion on reactive versus proactive roadway safety projects

 The search for low cost systemic roadway safety projects

 Award of federal funding for a RSSA project

 The Request for Qualification process and consultant selection

 Innovative data collection used during the process

 Criteria used in the RSSA

 RSSA recommendations and conclusions

 Environmental documentation

2
 Course Description

 The development of a PS&E package and project delivery

 Lessons learned

 Questions

Safety Statistics - 2013

 32,719 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2013

 Fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled down from 3.35 in 1975 to 1.09 in
2013 (67%)
 Alcohol impaired driving was involved in 31% of fatalities
 9,613 speeding related fatalities
 Almost half of passenger vehicle occupants killed in the US were unrestrained
 41% of motorcycle deaths in the US were unhelmeted

 What tools do we typically use to improve safety

 Education
 Enforcement
 ENGINEERING

3
Reactive Road Safety

 Historic Collision Data

 Resident Complaints and Concerns

 Direction from elected officials and management

 Engineering judgment

 Investigation

 Solution

Concerns with Reactive Road Safety

 Difficult for low volume or rural locations

 May not accurately correlate to roadway deficiencies

 Politically or socially motivated improvements

 Isolated improvement with no significant impact on systemic safety

4
Highway Safety Improvement Program – Cycle 6

 Successfully funded systemic projects in prior cycles

 For HSIP Cycle 6, county investigated projects with a systemic impact

 Roadway signing deficiencies an easy, cost effective target to quantify,

analyze and correct

 Neighboring county received similar funding in previous cycle

 Caltrans worked with us to develop a defensible approach to our HSIP

application. We assumed 1/3 of crashes would be addressed by
signing.

 In the 48 mile corridor, we “touched” 223 crashes (including 1 fatal).

Our Benefit/Cost ratio was 48

 Awarded HSIP grant in late 2013. Receive authorization in early 2014

Request for Proposals – February 2014

 RFP included analysis of nearly 50 miles of road

 Identified critical secondary access routes with high collision history

 Scope included:
 Field reviews and inventory of roadway signage
 Determine if signage was in compliance with MUTCD
 Data geocoded or digitized for inclusion in GIS
 Develop document that outlines finding from study
 Prioritize findings based on deficiencies
 Develop cost estimates on proposed improvements
 Document in a format to easily transfer into construction bid documents

10

5
Request for Proposals – February 2014

 Received 4 proposals

 Short listed and interviewed 3 consultant teams

 County ultimately selected a Kimley-Horn and Mark Thomas team as

preferred consultants

12

6
Project Team Approach

 Mobile LiDAR and 360-degree field of view photos

 Curve Advisory Reporting System (CARS)

 Advanced Mobile Asset Collection (AMAC) – retroreflectivity***

13

Mobile LiDAR / Street Level Imagery

 Accuracy within 2 inches

 Myriad of useful data

 Sign Type and Classification
 Size
 GPS coordinates
 Location in relation to adjacent roadway
 Post type
 Sign height
 Sign condition
 Sign visibility
 Photo at any angle of the roadway

 Data collected every 26 feet (8 meters)

14

7
Mobile LiDAR

 Mounted in bed of pickup truck

 Truck can travel at or near posted speed limits

 Reduces time of field staff on roadways

 Improves safety during data collection

 Decreases inconveniences to traffic

 Provides significant data that can be used for other purposes

 Pavement conditions
 Lane widths
 Cross slope
 Utility locations
 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities

15

Curve Advisory Reporting System (CARS)

 Rieker Inc.

 Electric, integrated ball bank indicator system

 Requires only two passes (one in each direction) at prevailing speeds

 GPS enabled to correlate data with mobile LiDAR

 Improves safety during data collection

 Decreases inconveniences to traffic

16

8
Curve Advisory Reporting System (CARS)

17

Advanced Mobile Asset Collection (AMAC)

 Dbi Services

 Collection and evaluation of sign retroreflectivity

 Background and legend for all colors of signage

 Sign luminance

 Contrast ratio for regulatory signs (legend/background)

 Predicts retroreflectivity and sign replacement needs

 Provides a way to develop sign budget forecasts

 Rich data source for future uses

18

9
Advanced Mobile Asset Collection (AMAC)

19

Data Collection

 County provided external hard drive for all data collected

 Almost 1 TB of data collected!!!!

 Data can be used for a myriad of other projects!

20

10
Data Collection and Evaluation Process

 Pickup truck data collection

 Site observations by registered engineers

 Evaluation of collected data by engineers

 Preparation of Draft RSSA Project Report

 Final RSSA Project Report

 Preparation of PS&E Package

 Environmental Clearance

21

Data Collection and Evaluation Process

Results
 Reviewed 4 corridors

 898 existing signs (20 signs per mile!)

 348 (39%) required no changes
 221 (25%) needed replacement (reflectivity, wrong
advisory speed)
 11 (1%) needed to be relocated
 318 (35%) needed to be removed

 403 new signs to be installed (over 60% were new

chevron signs, 27% were new curve advisory signs)

 Estimated cost - $300,000

11
 Deliverables

List of existing signs

Maps of existing and

List of proposed new proposed signs
signs

23

Replace sign. Reflectivity.

24

12
 SPEED
LIMIT

30

Replace sign. Reflectivity.

Remove sign. Advisory

speed too low.

13
 Plenty of
visibility

Remove sign. Advisory

speed to low.
27

Remove and replace with a

single right curve closer to
the actual curve.

14
Remove and replace with a
single right curve closer to
the actual curve.

Add chevrons.

15
Add chevrons.

Remove sign. Advisory

speed too low.

16
 Remove sign. Advisory
speed to low.

Project Report Takeaways

 In addition to improved signing and safety, we got an

electronic sign inventory

 Conformance to MUTCD requirements

 Liability – does identifying inadequate signs create a

liability?

 From HSIP award to report completion – 1 year

 Caltrans modified project scope to include full

construction funding

 PS&E packaging process

17
Environmental Clearance

 CEQA process simple – categorically exempt

 NEPA had no similar exemption

 Caltrans had no past practice for NEPA clearance

 NEPA clearance took 15 months

Environmental Clearance

 Howto you scope a 50-mile long project with 10 road

segments and nearly 1,000 signs?

 Phase I required no new posts – no impact assumed

 Phase II (409 signs) required construction activity

18
Environmental Clearance

 Biological Resources

 Cultural Resources

 Hazardous Waste
 Aerially deposited lead (ADL)
 Naturally occurring asbestos

Environmental Clearance – Phase II

 Work with our consultant and Caltrans

 Utilized existing information

 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
 California Native Plant Society (NCPS)
 California and National Register Property Information
 Nevada County Master Environmental Health Inventory

 Overlaidsign GPS data with existing information to

confirm resource probability levels

 Phase II analysis for ADL – agree upon intervals and

locations

19
Preliminary Screening Report

 Supported NEPA Categorical Exclusion

 Included 4 biology, 1 hazardous waste, and 1 cultural
resources mitigation measures

 NEPA Clearance on October 6, 2015

Next Steps

 Completion of PS&E package (November 2015)

 Submit to Caltrans - Construction Authorization (early

2016)

 Advertise and award construction (March 2016)

 Construct project (spring 2016)

 AdditionalRSSA Application for 200 road miles in

Cycle 7 HSIP

6 agencies applied for RSSA funding in Cycle 7 in CA

 All 6 expected to receive funding

20
Final Thoughts and Conclusions

 RSSA is a promising approach to systemic and proactive road safety

and reduce liability

 Robust 21st century data collection provides a myriad of benefits

 Environmental clearance a significant hurdle in the process

 Different approaches for PS&E preparation

 Construction – agency oversight

 OWNERSHIP!

41

End of Presentation

Joshua H. Pack, P.E.

Principal Civil Engineer / County Traffic Engineer

County of Nevada – Department of Public Works

(530) 265-7059

joshua.pack@co.nevada.ca.us

42

21