Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
10-14
Each SPF al so has an associated overdispersion parameter, k. The overdispersion parameter provides an indication of
lhe slalislical reliability of lhe SPE The closer lhe overdispersion parameler is lo zero, lhe more slalislically rehable
lhe SPE This pararneler is used in lhe EB Method discussed in Part C, Appendix A. The SPFs in Chapler lOare summarized in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2. Safely Performance Funclions included in Chapler lO
Chapter 10 SPFs for Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way Roads
Rural two-Iane, two-way roadway segments
SPF Equations
and Figures
S~Fsdenved fr,om.local conditions and crash experience. These models may be substituted for models presented in
lhls chapler. Cnlena for lhe developmenl of SPFs for use in the prediclive melhod are addressed in lhe calibralion
procedure presenled in Appendix A lo Part C.
10.6.1. Safety Performance Func1ions for Rural Two-Lane. Two-Way Roadway Segments
The predlcllve model for predicling average crash frequency for base condilions on a particular rural two-Iane
lWo-way roadway segmenl was presenled in Equalion 10-2. Tbe effecl oftraffic volume (AADT) on crash freuency
IS mcorporaled lhrough an SPF, whlle lhe effecls of geomelric design and lraffic conlrol fealures are incorporaled
lhrough lhe CMFs.
The base conditions for roadway segments on rural two-lane, two-way roads are:
.1
12 feel
6 feel
Shoulder type
Paved
.. -.-
-''!::-
i:
CHAPTER ,Q-PREDICTIVE
TWO.WAY
ROADS
lO.' S
Horizontal curvature
None
Vertical curvarure
None
None
Passing lanes
None
Nane
Lighting
None
None
Grade Level
A zero pereent grade is not allowed by most sta tes and presentS issues sueh as drainage. The SPF uses zero pereent
. as a numerieal base eondition that must always be modified based on the actual grade.
The SPF far predicted average crash frequency for rural two-Iane two-way roadway segments is shawn in Equation
10-6 and presented graphieally in Figure 10-3:
l
N
spfn
= AADT
x L x 365 x 10" x
e'-O.3I2)
(10-6)
Where:
predicted total erash frequeney for roadway segment base eonditions;
AADT
Guidanee on the estimation of traflie volumes for roadway segments for use in the SPFs is presented in Step 3 of
the predietive method deseribed in Seetion 10.4. The SPFs for roadway segments on rural two-lane highways are
appleable to the AADT range from zero to 17,800 vehicles per day. Applieation to sites with AADTs substantially
outside this range may not provide reliable results.
10-16
""
5
..!
~
~
"
c.
>.
u
s::
":.,.J
...
-'~
"
j
~
U
."
1,
'ti
t:
"
5,000
10,000
15,000
AAOT (veh/day)
Figure 10.3, Graphical Form ofSPF for Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway Segments (Equation 10-6)
"
"
The value of the overdispersion parameter associated with the SPF for rural twa-lane, twa-way roadway segments is
determined as a function of the roadway segment length using Equation 10-7. The closer the overdispersion parameter is to zero, the more statistically reliable the SPF. The value is detennined as:
~
k ~ 0.236
L
(10-7)
Where:
,~.
"
l, "
1:
overdispersion
parameter; and
length ofroadway
segment (miles).
Tables 10-3 and 10-4 provide the default proportions for crash severity and for collision type by crash severity level,
respectively. These tables may be used to separate the crash frequencies from Equation 10-6 into components by
crash severity level and collision type. Tables 10-3 and 10-4 are applied sequentially. First, Table 10-3 is used to
estimate crash frequencies by crash severity level, and then rabIe 10-4 is used to estmate crash frequencies by.collision type for a particular crash severity level. The default proportions for severity levels and collision types shown
in Tables 10-3 and 10-4 may be updated based on local data for a particular jurisdiction as part ofthe calibration
process described in Appendix A to Par! C.
... !
CHAPTER lG--PREDICTIVE
10-17
ROADS
Table 10-3. Default Distribu!on for Crasb Severity Level on Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway Segments
Percentage
ofTotal
Fatal
Incapacitating
5.4
Injury
Nonincapacitating
10.9
injury
14.5
Possible injury
32.1
67.9
100.0
Total
Note: Accident severity distributions are estimated far rural two-Iane roadway segments in Exhibt 10-4.
Based on H51S data far Washington
(2002-2006)
Table 10-4. Default Distribu!on by Collision Type for Speeifie Crasb Severity Levels on Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way
Roadway Segments
Percentage
Collision Type
SINGLE-VEHICLE
orTotal
Roadway Segment
Property
Crashes
Damage Only
CRASHES
3.8
18.4
12.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.3
3.7
1.5
2.5
Overtumed
54.5
50.5
52.1
Ran offroad
Other single.vehicle
crash
0.7
2.9
2.1
Total single.vehicle
crashes
63.8
73.5
69.3
Angle collision
10.0
7.2
8.5
Head.on collision
3.4
0.3
1.6
16.4
12.2
14.2
Rear-end collision
Sideswipe collisionb
3.8
3.8
3.7
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE
CRASHES
Other multiple.vehicle
collision
2.6
3.0
2.7
Total multiple.vehicle
crashes
36.2
26.5
30.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total Crashes
10-18
SPFs have bee~ developed for three types of intersections on rural two-lane, two-way road . The tbree types ofintersections
are:
,1
The SPFs for each ofthe intersection types listed above estimates lotal predicted average crash frequency for
intersection-related crashes within the limits of a particular intersectiorr and on the intersection legs. The distinction
between roadway segment and inlersection crashes is discussed in Section 10.5 and a detailed procedure for distinguishing between roadway-segment-related and inlersection-related crashes is presenled in Section A.2.3 in Appendix A to Par! C. These SPFs address interseclions lhal have only two lanes on bolb the major and minor road legs,
nol including turn lanes. The SPFs for each of lhe tbree inlersection types are presented below in Equations 10-8,
10-9, and 10-10. Guidance on the estimation of traffic volumes for lbe major and minor road legs for use in lbe SPFs
is presented in Seclion 10.4, Step 3.
.
1',,'
The base conditions which apply lo lhe SPFs in Equations 10-8, 10-9, and lO-lO are:
I
1,. I
1I
Lighting
Nane
I ~
1
Three-Leg
1;
Stop-Controlled
Interseclions
The SPF for tbree-Ieg stop-controlled intersections is shown in Equation 10-8 and presented graphically in Figure! 04.
N'P/JST
exp[-9.86
(10-8)
Where:
!1.
"
estimate o~ intersec:ion-related
controlled mtersectIons;
NSPfJST
,
1
'!I
J ,
'1" ,
AADTmPj
AADTm,.
The overdispersion parameter (k) for this SPF is 0.54. This SPF is applicable to an AADT . range from zero to
19,500 vehicles per day and AADT mi. range from zero to 4,300 vehicles per day. Applicati~P~to sites with AADTs
substanllally outslde lhese ranges may not provide reliable results.
.
I
,I
I'
:
)I
j
[
1'1
~i "
I,
I
CHAPTER 1o-PREDICTIVE
TWO.WAY
10.19
ROADS
10
9
8
AAOTrn1n=4,300
AADTmir\=4,000
7
AADTrnir\=3,000
~
c:
GI
"
C'
GI
.s:
~
AADTmin=2,OOO
5
AAOTmin=l,OOO
<-g
'1::
'6
GI
~
"-
3
2
o
5,000
10,000
AAOT m.Jo'
15,000
(veh/day)
Figure 10-4, Graphical Representalion ofthe SPF forThree-leg Slop-controlled (3ST) Inlersections (Equalion 10-8)
(10-9)
Where:
=
estimate ofintersection-related
predicted average crash frequency for base conditions for four-leg stop
controlled intersections;
The overdispersion pararneler (k) for.lhis SPF is 0,24, This SPF is applicable lO an AADT moj range from zero lo
14,700 vehicles pr day and AADT mi, range from zero lo 3,500 vehicles per day. Applicalion lo siles with AADTs
substantially outside these ranges r:naynot provide .accurate rsults.
10-20
10
9
AADTmin=3,500
AAOTmin=3,OOO
8
7
...'"<:
AAOTmin=2,OOO
::l
<T
.t:
'"~
AADTmin=l,OOO
"'C
1;;
'6
~
3
2
, I ~j'
Ji ,,'
5,000
10,000
15,000
AAOTm.jo, (veh/day)
'1; .'11'
l"k
,:Ir ,';1:-
"1', I!,
:ill _,';I!
l'
/,1',1
1
, ,:,
'1",:!j ..
' 'o
.1
:,,;,P,:
l.,.
',1
1'1
11,
11'1'1,1
1"
11"';
N,pf"G ~ exp[-5.I3
.,'
+ 0.20 x In(AADT",,)]
'(lO-lO)
Where,
'111i:!,:,~'
, ~';':,1' :.',:1.,'1
',: ,1
'I:~'
il:
,
+ 0.60 x In(AADTm,)
~l
'J'
AADTm'j
:=
=
"'1' ; '
ilii'
,/
'1
I
The overdispersion parameter (k) for this SPF is 0.11. This SPF is applieable to an AADT ,range from zero to
m'l
25,200 vehicles per day and AADT mi" range from zero to 12,500 vehicles per day. For .instanees when applieation is
made to sites
with AADT substantially outside these ranges, the reliability is unknown.
,
.
CHAPTER 1G-PREDICTIVE
TWO-WAY
10-21
ROADS
18
17
AADT
")In=
12, 500
AADTm;n=10,OOO
16
AADTm;,,=8.000
15
AADTrnin=5,OOO
14
13
AAOT,...,=3,OOO
12
.AADTm1n=2,OOO
11
"i!!
10
.<=
~
el>
C'
...
"t>
el>
~
u
'tiel>
AAOT"",,=4,OOO
AAOTmin=1.000
6
S
4
3
2
1
O
O
10,000
5,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
..
Tables 10-5 and 10-6 provide the default proportions for crash severity levels and collision types, respectively. These
tables may be used to separate the crash frequencies from Equations 10-8 through 10-10 into components by severity level and collision type. Tbe default proportions for severity levels and collision types shown in Tables lO-s and
10-6 may be updated based on local data for a particular jurisdiction as part ofthe calibration process described in
Appendix A to Part c..
Table 10-5. Default Distributian far Crash Severity Level at Rural Twa-Lane, Two-Way Intersections
Percentage ofTotal Crashes
Injury
Three-Leg
Stop-Controlled Intersections
1.7
1.8
0.9
4.0
4.3
2.1
16.2
10.5
Possible injury
19.2
20.8 .
20.5
41.5
43.1
34.0
58.5
56.9'
66.0
100.0
100.0
Total
100.0
Four-Leg
Signalized Intersections
16.6
~onincapacitating injury
"
Four-Leg
Stop-Controlled Intersections
~
,
10-22
Table 10-6. Default Distribution for Collision Type and Manner of Collision at Rural Two- Way Intersections
Percentage ofTotal Crashes by Collision Type
Fatal
and
Injuey
Collision Type
SINGLE-VEHICLE
Collision
Property
Damage
Ouly
Four-Leg Signalized
Intersections
Four-Leg Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Three-Leg Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Fatal
and
Total
Injury
1.9
0.6
Property
Damage
Ooly
Fatal
and
Property
Damage
Doly
Total
Total
Injury
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
CRASHES
0.8
with animal
2.6
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Collision
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.2
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
24.0
24.7
24.4
9.4
14.4
12.2
3.2
8.1
6.4
0.3
1.8
0.5
with pedestrian
Overturned
Ran offroad
1.1
2.0
1.6
0.4
1.0
0.8
28.3
30.2
29.4
11.2
17.4
14.7
4.0
10.7
7.6
27.5
21.0
23.7
53.2
35.4
43.1
33.6
24.2
27.4
Head-on collision
8.1
3.2
5.2
6.0
2.5
4.0
8.0
4.0
5.4
Rear-eRd collision
26.0
29.2
27.8
21.0
26.6
24.2
40.3
43.8
42.6
5.1
13.1
9.7
4.4
14.4
10.1
5.1
15.3
11.8
5.0
3.3
4.2
4.2
3.7
3.9
9.0
2.0
5.2
71.7
69.8
70.6
88.8
82.6
85.3
96.0
89.3
92.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Other single-vehicle
crash
Total single.vehiele
crashes
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE
CRASHES
Angle collision
Sideswipe
collision
Other muitiple-vehicle
Total multiple.vehicle
Total Crashes
collision
crashes
ri.
CHAPTER 10-PREDICTIVE
TWO-WAY
ROADS
::;~-----------------------------------------rabIe 10-7. Summary ofCrash Modification Factors (CMFs) in Chapter lO and the Corresponding
Performance Functions (SPFs)
facilityType
Rural Two-LaneTwo-Way
Roadway Segments
10-23
Safety
CMF
CMF Description
eMPI,
Lane Width
CMF1,
CMFJ,
TabIe 10-7
CMF4,
CMF,.
Grades
CMF <ir
Driveway Density
Table 10-11
CMF7,
See text
CMFII,
Passing Lanes
See text
CMF9r
CMF/Or
Roadside Design
Equation 10-20
CMFI/r
Lighting
CMF12r
See text
CMF/j
CMF1i
Table 10-13
CMFJ,
Table 10-14
CMF4/
Lighting
-, Table 10-11
"
"'1
,
J
10-24
,1
.1
.I
Table 10.8. CMF for Laoe Width
00
:'
LaneWidth
9 ft or less
1.05
1.05+2.81
x IO-4(AADT-100)
1.50
lO ft
1.02
1.30
11 ft
1.01
1.05
12 ft or more
LOO
LOO
LOO
l'
i.
> 2000
400 to 2000
<400
Note: The collision types related to lane width to whch this CMF applies nelude single-vehicle
opposite-direction
sideswipe, and same-direction 5ideswipe crashes.
run-offcthe-road
and multiple-vehkJe
head-on,
1.70
The factor applies to
single-vehicle run-off-the-road
and multiple-vehide
head.on,
opposite-direetion
sideswipe,
1.60
9.ft Lanes
1.30
10-ft lanes
1.05
11-ft lanes
1.00
12-ft lanes
1.50
(;
1::
c:.-
.,.-
1.40
.O
''O"
1.30
"
:;;
.t:
~
.-~
1.20
1,10
1.05
1.00
400
O
iJ
Figure
1,200
800
1,600
2,000
2,400
AADT (veh/day)
00
Roadway Segmeots
If the laoe widths for the two directioos of travel 00 a roadway segmeot differ, the CMF are determioed separately
for the laoe width in each direction oftravel aod the resultiog CMFs are ilieo be averaged.
The CMFs shown io Table 10-8 and Figure 10-7 apply only to the crash types that are most likely to be affected by
Jarre width: single-vehic1e run-otf-the-road and multiple-vehicle head-on, opposite'-direction sideswipe, and same-directian sideswipe crashes. These are the only crash types assumed to be affected by variation in larre width, and other
crash types are assumed to remain unchanged due to the larre width variation. The CMFs expressed on this basis are,
therefore, adjusted to total crashes within the predictive method. This i5 accomplished using Equation 10-11:
(10-11)
.,
CHAPTER lD-PREDICTIVE
1WO-WAY
10-25
ROADS
Where:
crash modification
erash modifieation factor for the effeet oflane width on related erashes (i.e., single-vehicle run-off-theroad and multiple-vehicle
head-on,
opposite-direction
sideswipe,
and same-directionJsideswipe
crashes),
sueh as the erash modifieation factor for lane width shown in Table 10-8; and
proportion of total erashes eonstituted by related erashes.
The proportion of related erashes, p , (i.e., single-vehicle run-off-the-road, and multiple-vehiele head-on, oppositedireetion sideswipe,and same-direetion sideswipes erashes) is estimated as 0.574 (i.e., 57.4 pereent) based on lhe
default distribution of erash types presented in Table 10-4. This default erash type distribution, and therefore the
value of p ro' may be updated from local data as part of lhe ealibration proeess.
CMF,,-Shoulder
Width and Type
The CMF for shoulders has a CMF for shoulder width (CMF .ro) and a CMF for shoulder type (CMF,ro)' The CMFs
for both shoulder width an'd shoulder type are based on the results of Zegeer et al. (16, 17). The base value of shoulder width and type is a 6-foot paved shoulder, whieh is assigned a CMF value of 1.00.
CMF ,'ro for shoulder width on two-Iane highway segments is determined from Table 10-9 based on the applieable
shoulder width and traffie volume range. The relationships shown in Table 10-9 are illustrated in Figure 10-8.
Shoulders over 8-ft wide are assigned a CMFwroequal to that for 8-ft shoulders. The CMFs shown in Table 10-9 and
Figure 10-8 apply only to single-vehicle run-offthe-road and multiple-vehicle head-on, opposite-direetion sideswipe,
and same-direction
sideswipe
crashes.
<400
400 to 2000
> 2000
1.t9
1.50
2ft
1.07
1.30
4ft
1.02
1.02+8.125
1.15
6ft
1.00
8 ft or more
0.98
Shoulder Width
Oft
x lO-~(AADT-400)
1.00
0.98 + 6.875 x
to-' (AADT
1.00
- 400)
Note: The cotlision types related to shoulder width to which this CMF applies nclude single-vehic1e run-off the-road
head-on, opposite-direction
sideswipe, and same-direction sjdeswipe crashes.
0.87
and multiple-vehic1e
;.,.,
10-26
1.60
1.50
().ft
Shoulden
1.50
1.40
1.30 2-ftSliouldets
<;
DO
t:
.,
u-
c:
.o
1.20
1.15
40ft
Shoulders
."O
1.10
~
.c:
~
1.10
1.00
C!
6-ft Shoulder5
0.87
8-ft Shoulders
0.98
1.00
0.90
0.80
200
400
800
600
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
AAOT (veh/day)
Figure 10-8. Crash Modification Factor for Shoulder Width on Roadway Segments
The base condition for shoulder type is paved. Table 10-10 presents values for CMF = which adjusts for the safety
effects of gravel, turf, and composite shoulders as a function of shoulder width.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Paved
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
Gravel
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.06
Composite
1.00
1.01
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.08
J.JI
Turf
Shoulder Type
a shoulder fer which SO percent of the shoulder width is paved and 50 percent
If the shoulder types aneVor widths for the two directions of a roadway segment differ, the CMF are determined
separately for the shoulder type and width in each directiori of travel and the resulting CMFs are then be aver~ged.
The CMFs for shoulder width and type shown in Table 9, Figure 8, and Table lO apply only to the collision types
that are most likely to be affected by shoulder width and type: single-vehicle run-offthe-road and multiple-vehicle
head-on, opposite-drection sdeswpe, and same-drecton sideswipe crashes. The CMFs expressed on this basis are,
therefore, adjusted to total crashes using Equation 10-12.
;r
11,
CHAPTER 10-PREDICTIVE
TWO-WAY
ROADS
10-27
(10-12)
Where:
crash modification factor for the e/fecl of shoulder widlh and type on lotal crashes; ,,
crash modification factor for related crashes (Le., single-vehicle run-off-the-road and multiple-vehicle
head-on, opposite-direction sideswipe, and same-direction sideswipe crashes), based on shoulder width
(from Table 10-9);
crash modification faclor for relaled crashes based on shoulder type (from Table 10-10); and
proportion of total crashes constituted by related eras hes.
The proportion of relaled crashes, Pro' (i.e., single-vehicle run-o/f-lhe-road, and multiple-vehicle head-on, oppositedireclion sideswipe, and same-direction sideswipes crashes) is estimaled as 0.574 (Le., 57.4 percenl) based on the
defaull distribulion of crash types presenled in Table 10-4. This default crash type dislribulion, and therefore lhe
value of pra, may be updated from local data by a highway agency as parl of lhe calibration process.
CMFJr-Horizontal
Curves: Length, Radius, aud Presence or Absence of Spiral Transitions
The base condition for horizontal alignment is a tangent roadway segmento A CMF has been developed to represent
lhe marmer in which crash experience on curved alignments di/fers from thal of tangenls. This CMF applies lO total
roadway segment crashes.
The CMF for horizonlal curves has been determined from !he regression model developed by Zegeer el al. (18).
The CMF for horizonlal curvature is in lhe form of an equalion and yields a factor similar lo the other CMFs in lhis
chapter. The CMF for length, radius, and presence or absence of spiral transitions on horizontal curves is determined
using Equalion 10-13.
_ (1.55 x Le)
ClvfF3r
(8~)-
(0.012 x S)
(10-13)
- -----~---~-------
(1.55
Le)
Where:
CMF"
L,
length ofhorizonlal
1 if spiral transition curve is present; O if spiral transition curve is not present; 0.5 if a spiral transition
curve is present at ane but not bath ends of the horizontal curve.
Sorne roadway segments being analyzed may include only a portian of a horizontal curve. In this case, L represents
the length of the entire horizontal curve, including portions of the horizontal curve that may lie outside the roadway
segrnent of interest.
In applying Equalion 10-13, iflhe radius ofcurvature (R) is less !han 100-ft, R is sel lo equal lo lOO ft. Iflhe length
ofthe horizontal curve (L) is less than 100 feel, L, is set to equal 100 ft.
CMF values are computed separately for each horizontal curve in a'horizontal curve set (a curve set consists of a
series of consecutive curve elements). For each individual curve, the value of L used in Equation 10-13 is the total
lenglh oflhe compound curve sel and lhe value ofR is the radius oflhe individ~al curve.
Ifthe value ofCMF"
HIGHWAY
10.28
SAFETY MANUAL
.!
CMF 4,-Horizontal Curves: Superelevation
The base condition for the CMF fer the superelevation of a horizontal curve is the amollnt of superelevation identified in A Policy on Geometric Design o/ Highways and Streets-also
called lhe AASHTO Green Book (1). The superelevation in the AASHTO Green Book is determined by taking into account the value of maximum superelevation
rate, emax' established by highway agency policies. Policies concerning maximum super~levation rates [OI horizontal
curves vary between highway agencies based on climate and other considerations.
The CMF for superelevation is based on the.superelevation variance ofa horizontal curve (i.e., the difference
between lhe actual superelevalion and lhe superelevation identified by AASHTO policy). When the actual superelevalion meels or exceeds thal in the AASHTO policy, lhe value ofthe superelevation CMF is 1.00. There is no effect
of superelevation variance on crash frequency until the superelevation variance exceeds 0.'01. The general functional
form of a CMF for superelevation variance is based on the work of Zegeer el al. (18, 19).
The following relationships present the CMF for superelevation variance:
CMF"
CMF"
(10-14)
(10-15)
(10-16)
crash modification factor for the effect of superelevation variance on total crashes; and
superelevation variance (ftlft), which represents the superelevation rate contained in the AASHTO
Green Book minus the actual superelevation of the curve.
SV
CMF" applies to lolal roadway segment erashes for roadway segmenls located on horizontal curves.
CMF ,,-Grades
The base condition for grade is a generally level roadway. Table 10-11 presents the CMF for gr~des based on an
analysis ofrural two-lane, two-way highway grades in Ulah conducted by Miaou (8). The CMFs in Table 10-11 are
applied to each individual grade segment on the roadway being evaluated without respect to the sign of the grade.
The sigo ofthe grade is irrelevant because each grade on a rural two-hme, two-way highway is an upgrade for one
direction of travel and a downgrade for the other. The grade factors are applied to the entire grade from one poiot of
vertical intersectioo (PVI) to the next (i.e., there is no special account taken ofvertical curves). The CMFs in Table
J 0-11 apply lO total roadway segment crashes.
>
rabie 10-11. Crash Modificalion Faclors (CMF ,) for Grade of Roadway Segmenls
Approximate Grade (%)
Level Grade
(:5 3%)
Moderate Terrain
(3%< grade :5 6%)
Steep Terrain
(> 6%)
1.00
1.10
1.16
CMF,-Driveway
Density
The base eondition for driveway density is five driveways per mile. As with the olher CMFs, the model for lhe base
condition was established for roadways with this driveway density. The CMF for driveway density is detennined
using Equation 10-17, derived from lhe work ofMuskaug (9).
CMF.
6,
(10'17)
TWO-WAY
10-29
ROADS
Where:
crash modification
AADT
average annual daily traffie volume ofthe roadway being evaluated (vehieles per day); and
DD
If driveway density is less than 5 driveways per mile, CMF" is l.00. Equation 10-17 can be applied to total
roadway erashes of all severity levels.
Driveways
serving
in determining
the driveway
density. AH driveways
that
are used by traffic on at least a daily basis for entering or leaving the highway are considered. Driveways that
receive only occasional use (less than daily), such as field entrances are not considered.
CMF ,,-Centerline
Rumble Strips
Centerline rumble strips are installed on undivided highways along the eenterline of the roadway whieh divides
opposing direetions of traftie flow. Centerline rumble strips are ineorporated in the roadway surfaee to alert
drivers who unintentionally crass, Dr begin to cross, the roadway centerline. The base condition for centerline
rumble strips is the absence of rumble strips.
The value of CMF 7~ for the effect of centerline rumble strips for total erashes on rural two-lane. two-way
highways is derived as 0.94 from the CMF value presented in Chapter 13 and erash type pereentages found in
Chapter 10. Details of this derivation are no! provided.
The CMF for eenterline rumble strips applies only to two-Iane undivided highways with no separation other than
a eenterline marking between the lanes in opposite direetions oftravel. Otherwise the value ofthis CMF is l.00.
,
l.
I
!
I
f
CMF ,,-Passing
Lanes
The base eondition for passing lanes is the absenee of a lane (i.e., the normal two-Iane eross seetion). The CMF
for a eonventional passing or elimbing lane added in one direetion oftravel on a rural two-Iane, two-way highway
is 0.75 for total erashes in both direetions of travel over the length ofthe passing lane from the upstream end of
the lane addition taper to the downstream end of the lane drop taper. This value assumes that the passing lane is
operationally warranted and that the length of the passing lane is appropriate for the operational eonditions on the
roadway. There may al so be sorne safety benefi! on the roadway downstream of a passing lane, but this effeet has
not been quantitied.
The CMF for short four-Iane seetions (i.e., side-by-side passing lanes provided in opposite direetions on the
same seetion ofroadway) is 0.65 for total erashes over the length ofthe short four-Iane seetion. This CMF
applies to any portion of roadway where the eross section has four lanes and where both added lanes have been
provided over a limited distance to inerease passing opportunities. This CMF does not apply to extended fourlane highway seetions.
The CMF for passing lanes is based primarily on the work of Harwood and St.John (6), with eonsideration also
given to the results ofRinde (11) and Nettelblad (10). The CMF for short four-Iane seetions is based on the
work ofHarwood and Sto John (6).
CMF,,-1\vo-Way
Left-Turn Lanes
The instal!ation of a eenter two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) on a rural two-Iane, two-way highway to ereate a
three.lane cross-section can reduce crashes related to turning maneuvers at driveways. The base condition for
two-way left-turn lanes is the absenee of a TWLTL. The CMF for installation of a TWLTL is:
'V
.,..'
,
1
\1
10-30
(10-18)
CMF"
~ crash modification factor for!he effect oftwo-way left-turn lanes on total crashes;
,
P dwy
PLTlD
.
Pdwy =
1.199
Dd2))
(10-19)
.'
Where:
Pdwy
DD
The value
ofPLTID
Equation 10-18 provides the best estimate of the CMF for TWLTL installation that can be made without data on
the left-turn volumes within the TWLTL. Realistically, such volumes are seldom available for use in such analyses
though Section A.I. of Appendix A to Part C describes how to appropriately calibrate this value. This CMF applies
to total roadway segment crashes.
The CMF for TWLTL installation is not applied unIess the driveway density is greater than or equal to five driveways
per mile. If the driveway density is less than five driveways per mile, the CMF for TWLTL installation is 1.00.
"1 '
CMFIO,-Roadside
Design
For purposes of the HSM predictive method, the level of roadside design is represented by the roadside hazard rating
(1-7 scale) developed by Zegeer et al. (16). The CMF for roadside. design was developed in research by Harwood et
al. (5). The base value ofroadside hazard rating for roadway segments is 3. The CMF is:
e(-o.6869 + 0.0668 xRHR)
e(-Q.4865)
:I
"i
(10-20)
Where:
CMFJ(k
RHR
This CMF applies to total roadway segment crashes. Photographic examples and quantitative definitions for each
roadside hazard rating (1-7) as a function of roadside design features such as sideslope and elear zone width are
presented in Chapter 13, Appendix 13A.
!,';
CMFIl,-Ligbting
The base condition for lighting is the absence of roadway segment lighting. The CMF for lighted roadway segments
is determined, based on the work ofElvik and Yaa (2), as:
CHAPTER 1Q-PREDICTIVE
CMFII,
TWO-WAY
10-31
ROADS
(10-21)
Where:
CMFII,
P
'"'
PP"'
p",
proportion of total nighttime crashes for unlighled roadway segments lhat involve a fatality or injury;
proportion oflotal nighttime crashes for unlighted roadway segmenls thal involve property damage only; and
~ proportion oftolal crashes for unlighted roadway segmenls lhat occur at night.
This CMF applies lo total roadway segmen! erashes. Table 10-12 presents default values for lhe nighttime erash proporlions PI", Pp", and p,,' HSM users are encouraged lO replace lhe estimates in Table 10-12 with loeally derived volues. If
lighling inslallation inereases the density ofroadside fixed objeets, lhe volue ofCMFiO, is adjusled aeeordingly.
PDOppn'
P"
0.382
0.618
0.370
2U
Note: Based on HSIS data for Washington
(2002-2006)
CMF"
(O.004~skew)
Where:
CMFIi
= crash modification factor for the effect ofintersection skew on total crashes; and
(10-22)
10-32
intersection skew angle (in degrees); the absolute vaJue ofthe difference between 90 degrees and the
actual intersection angle.
skew
(0.0054
J
Oil
skew)
1,
Where:
CMF"
crash modification factor for the effect of intersection skew o~ntotal crashes; and
skew
intersection skew anglo (in degrees); the absolute value ofthe difference between 90 degrees and the
actual intersection angle.
is
Three-leg Intersection
Four-leg Interseetion
OneAppmaeh
Two Appmaches
0.56
0.31
0.72
0.52
Traffie signa!
0.82
0.67
Three Appmaehes
Four Approaches
0.55
0.45
Stop~controlJed approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with left.turn lanes
Stop signs present on minor road approaches only.
CMF ,,-Intersection
Right- Turn Lanes
The base condition for intersection right-turn lanes is the absence of right-turn lanes on the intersection approaches.
The CMF for the presence ofright-turn lanes is based on researeh by Harwood et al. (5) and is consistent with the
CMFs in Chapter 14. These CMFs apply to installation ofright-turn Janes on any approach to a signalized intersec-
CHAPTER 1(}-PREDICTIVE
lWO-WAY
10-33
ROADS
tioo, but only on uncontrolled majar road approaches to stop-controlled intersections. The CMFs for installation of
right-tum lanes 00 multiple approaches to an intersection are equal to the corresponding CMF for installaon of a
right-turn lane 00 ene approach raised to a power egual to the nl;lmber of approaches with right-turn lanes. There
is no indieation of any safety effeet for providing a right-turn lane on an approaeh eontrolled by a stop sign, so the
presenee ofa right-turn lane on a stop-eontroIled approaeh is not eonsidered in applyingTable 10-14. The CMFs
in the table apply to total interseetion erashes. A CMF value of 1.00 is always be used when no fight-turn lanes are
presento This CMF applies only to right-turn lanes that are identified by marking or signing. The CMF is not applicable to long tapers, fiares, or paved shoulders that may be used informaIly by right-turn traffie.
Table 10.14. Crash Modifieation Faetors (CMF)
Two-Lane, Two-Way Highways
Two Approaches
Intersection Type
Three-Leg
0.86
0.74
0.86
0.74
Traffie signal
0.96
0.92
lntersection
Four-Leg Intersection
Stop-cantrolled
approaches
in determining
Three Approaches
Four Approaches
0.88
0.85
lanes.
only.
CMF ,,-Lighting
The base eondition for lighting is the absenee of interseetion lighting. The CMF for lighted interseetions is adapted
from the work of Elvik and Vaa (2), as:
CMF" = 1 - 0.38
(10-24)
p.;
Where:
CMF,;
p.,
This CMF applies to total interseelion crashes. Table 10-15 presents default values far the nighttime erash proportion
.. HSM users are eneouraged to replaee the estimates in Table 10-15 with laeally derived values .
.,
p.,
[ntersection Type
0.260
3ST
0.244
4ST
0.286
4SG
Note: Based on H51S data for California
(2002-2006)
10-34
experiencing a different number ofreported traffic crashes on rural two-lane, two-way roads than others. Calibration
factors are included in the melhodology to allow highway agencies to adjust the SPFs to match actual local conditions.
The calibration factors for roadway segments and intersections (defined as C, and Cj, respectively) will have values greater
than 1.0 for roadways lhat, on average, experience more crashes lhan lhe roadways used in lhepevelopment oflhe SPFs.
The calibration factors fo! roadways that experience fewer crashes on average than the roadways used in the development
oflhe SPFs will have values less than 1.0. The calibration procedures are presented in Appendix A to Part C.
Calibration factors provide one method of incorporating local data to improve estimated crash frequencies for individual agencies or locations. Several other default values used in the predictive melhod, such as.collision type distribution, can also be replaced with locally derived values. The derivation of values for these pararneters is addressed in
the calibration procedure in Appendix A to Par! C.
10.11.SUMMARY
The predictive method can be used to estimate the expected average crash frequency for a series of contiguous sites
(entire rural two-lane, two-way facility), or a single individual site. A rural two-lane, two-way facility is defined in Section 10.3, and consists of a two-lane, two-way undivided road wmch does not have access control and is outside of cities
or towns with a population greater lhan 5,000 persons. Two-lane, two-way undivided roads lhat have occasional added
lanes to provide additional passing opportunities can also be addressed with lhe Chapter 10 predictive melhod.
The predictive method for rural two-Iane, two-way roads is applied by following the 18 steps ofthe predictive
method presented in Section IDA. Predictive models, developed for rural two-lane, two-way facilities, are applied
in Steps 9, 10, and II of lhe method. These predictive models have been developed to estimate the predicted average crash frequency of an individual site which is an intersection or homogenous roadway segmento The facility is
divided into these individual sites in Step 5 of lhe predictive melhod.
E.ch predictive model in Chapter 10 consists of a safety performance function (SPF), crash modification factors (CMFs), and a calibration factor. The SPF is selected in Step 9 and is used to estimate the predicted average crash frequency for a site with base conditions. The estimate can be for either total crashes or organized by
crash-severity or collision-type distribution. In arder to account for differences between the base conditions and
the specific conditions ofthe site, CMFs are applied in Step 10, which adjust the prediction to account for the
CHAPTER lO-PREDICTIVE
TWO-WAY
10-35
ROAD5
geometric design and traffic control features of the site. Calibration factors are also used to adjust lhe prediction
to local conditions in the jurisdiction where the site is locate. The process for determinipg calibration factors for
the predictive models is described in Part C, Appendix A.l.
Section 10.12 presents six sample problems which detail lhe application of the predictive method. Appendix lOA
contains worksheets which can be used in the calculations for the predictive method steps.
Description
10-)5
Predicted
10-42
Problem No.
COi
fOi
10-49
Predicted
foc a three.leg
10-55
HHiO
Expected
observed
10-62
Expected
observed
stop-controlled
intersection
intersection
The Question
What is the predicted average crash frequency of lhe roadway segment for a particular year?
The Facts
1.5-mi length
10,000 vehlday
2% grade
6 driveways per mi
=4
10-36
Assumptions
Collision type distributions used are the default values presented in Table 10-4.
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.10.
Results
Using the predictive method steps as outlined below, the predicted average crash frequency for the roadway segment
in Sample Problem 1 is determined to be 6.1 crashes per year (rounded to one decimal place).
Steps
Step 1 Ihrough 8
To determine Ihe predicted average crash frequency ofthe roadway segment in Sample Problem 1, only Steps 9
through 11 are conducted. No other steps are necessary beca use only ane roadway segment is analyzed foc ane year,
and Ihe EB Method is not applied.
~
:
Step 9-For the selected site, determine and apply the appropriate safety performance
site's facility type and traffic control features.
The SPF for a single roadway segment can be calculated from Equation 10-6 as follows:
N
~:i
.I
sp,if
Nsprrf
= AADT
=
x L x 365 x lO- x
..(l.312)
= 4.008
crashes/year
Step 10-Multiply
the resull obtained in Step 9 by the appropriate CMFs to adjust the estimated crash
frequency for base conditions to the site-specific geometric design and traffic control features.
Each CMF used in the calculation ofthe predicled average crash frequency ofthe roadway segment is calculated below:
II
l'
I
,1'
'),'
CMF"
For a 10-ft lane width and AADT of 10,000, CMF ro = 1.30 (see Table 10-8).
r.:
'-1
, nI
The proportion ofrelated crashes, Pro' is 0.574 (see discussion below Equation 10-11).
CMF"
= (CMFwro
~ ,1
= (1.15
CHAPTER lD-PREDICTIVE
10-37
Sinee the roadway segment in Sample Problem 1 is a tangent, aiul, therefore, has no superelevation, CMF, .= 1.00.
Grade (CMF,.)
From Table 10-11, for a two pereent grade, CMF ,. ~ 1.00
Driveway Density (CMF.)
The driveway density, DO, is 6 driveways per mile. CMF,. ean be ealculaled u~ing Equalion 10-17 as follows:
CMF6, =
= 1.01
Centerline Rumble Strips (CMF,.J
. Sinee there are no eenterline rumble strips in Sample Problem 1, CMF"
is no centerline rumble strips).
.
1.00 (Le., the base eondition for CMF ,.
,.
CME:
__ e
(-o.6869+0.0668xRHR)
10, -
(-0.4865)
e( -0.6869 + 0.0668x 4)
e( -0.4865)
= 1.07
;'
Lightng (CMFII.J
Sinee lhere is no lighting in Sample Problem 1, CMFII
of roadway lighling).
1.09
1.01
1.07 ~ 1.38
.----------------
r
1
HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL
Step ll-Multiply
the resuIt obtained in Step 10 by the appropriate calibration factor.
It is assumed a calibration factor, e" of 1.10 has been determined for local conditions. See Par!
for further discussion on calibration of the predictive models.
e, Appendix
A.I
= 6.084
crashes/year
WORKSHEETS
The step-by-step' instructions above are provided to illustrate the predictive method for calculating the predicted
average crash frequency for a roadway segmento To apply the predictive method steps to multiple segments,' a series
offive worksheets are provided for determining predicted average crash frequency. The five worksheets include:
Roadway Segments
Roadway Segments
Details of these sample problem worksheets are provided below. Blank versions of corresponding worksheets are
provided in Chapler 10, Appendix lOA.
.
Worksheet SP1A-Generallnformation
and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane. Two-Way Roadway Segments
Worksheet SPIA is a summary of general information about the roadway segment, analysis, input data (i.e., "The
Facts"), and assumptions for Sample Problem 1.
ii
,.
I
I
.'
,1
1-,
j'