Research Spotlight: Calibration and Development of Safety Performance Functions for New Jersey

In 2019, a team of researchers from New York University and Rutgers University examined ways to calibrate and develop Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) to be utilized specifically to address conditions on New Jersey roadways. SPFs are crash prediction models or mathematical functions informed by data on road design. These data include, but are not limited to, lane and shoulder widths, the radius of the curves, and the presence of traffic control devices and turn lanes. With these data, SPFs help those tasked with road design and improvement to build roads and implement upgrades that maximize safety.

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) presents SPFs developed using historic crash data collected from several states over several years at sites of the same facility type. These SPFs data cannot be transferred to other locations because of expected differences in environment and geographic characteristics, crash reporting policies and even local road regulations. To help SPFs better reflect local conditions and observed data, one of two strategies is usually undertaken to fine-tune SPFs:  calibrating the SPFs provided in the HSM so as to fully leverage these data or developing location-specific SPFs regardless of the predictive modeling framework included in the HSM.

The research team, led by Dr. Kaan Ozbay (of NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering), chose to pursue both of these strategies. The research report, Calibration/Development of Safety Performance Functions for New Jersey, can be found here. A webinar highlighting the research and findings can be found here.  A monograph, supported by the NJDOT funded study and partially by C2SMART, a Tier 1 UTC led by NYU and funded by the USDOT, was also recently published and can be found here.

C2SMART Webinar highlighted the research methods, findings, challenges and technology transfer efforts of the NYU-Rutgers team for this NJDOT funded research project.

SPFs can be utilized at several levels. At the network level, researchers and engineers use SPFs to identify locations with promise for improvement. SPFs can be used to predict how safety treatments will affect the likelihood of crashes based on traffic volume and facility type. SPFs can be used to influence project level design by showing the average predicted crash frequency for an existing road design, for alternate designs, and for brand-new roads.

SPFs also can be used to evaluate different engineering treatments. In this case, engineers and researchers return to a site where a safety countermeasure has been installed to collect and analyze data to see how the change has affected crash frequency. They examine before and after conditions and measure if the prediction made using the SPF was accurate or needs improvement (Srinivasan & Bauer, 2013). In the end, SPFs are only as good as the data used in their development.

NJDOT and the NYU-Rutgers team set out to calibrate SPFs using New Jersey’s roadway features, traffic volumes and crash data, and if necessary, to create new SPFs that reflect conditions in the state. The facility types considered for this research project included segments and intersections of rural two-lane two-way, rural multilane, and urban and suburban roads. In examining these datasets, the researchers identified areas where data processing improvements could be made to enhance the quality or efficiency in use of the data in addition to pursuing the stated goal of developing New Jersey-specific SPFs.

For example, utilizing the data provided by NJDOT, the research team developed methods for processing a Roadway Features Database of different kinds of road facilities. The researchers utilized the Straight Line Diagrams (SLD) database, which offers extensive information about the tens of thousands of miles of roadways in New Jersey, but observed issues and errors in the SLD database that required corrections. For example, the research team utilized Google Maps and Google Street View to conduct a manual data extraction process to verify information in the SLD database (e.g., confirm whether an intersection was an overpass, number of lanes, directionality) and extract missing variables, such as the number of left and right turn lanes at intersections, lighting conditions, and signalization needed for the analysis.

The research team using Google Street View to identify missing data points.

The research team also needed to develop programming code to correctly identify the type and location of intersections and effectively work with available data. The team developed a novel “clustering-based approach” to address the absence of horizontal curvature data using GIS centerline maps.

Utilizing Google Maps (Left) and the state’s Straight Line Database (Right), researchers were able to identify missing paths in the database that contributed to inconsistent data.

Police reports of crashes often have missing geographic identifiers which complicates analytical work such as whether crashes were intersection-related. In NJ, police are equipped with GPS devices to record crash coordinates but this crash information is somewhat low in the raw crash databases before post-processing by NJDOT. The researchers employed corrective methods and drew upon other NJ GIS maps to provide missing locations (e.g., Standard Route Identification or milepost).

The processing challenges for roadway features, traffic volumes and crashes encountered by the research team suggest the types of steps that can be taken to standardize and streamline data collection and processing to secure better inputs for future SPF updates. Novel data extraction methods will be needed to minimize labor time and improve accuracy of data; accurate crash data is integral to employing these methods.

The research team modified the spreadsheets developed by the HSM and used by the NJDOT staff. The calculated calibration factors and the developed SPFs are embedded in these spreadsheets. The users can now select whether to use the HSM SPFs with the calculated calibration factors or the New Jersey-specific SPF in their analyses

The researchers’ data processing and calibration efforts sought to ensure that the predictive models reflect New Jersey road conditions that are not directly reflected in the Highway Safety Manual. The adoption of this data-driven approach can make it possible to capture information about localized conditions but significant expertise is required to carry out calibration and development analyses. With more research—and improved data collection processes over time —the calibration and development of SPFs holds promise for helping New Jersey improve road safety.


Resources

Bartin, B., Ozbay, K., & Xu, C. (2022). Safety Performance Functions for Two-Lane Urban Arterial Segments. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4175945

C2SMART. (2020, September 23). Webinar: Bekir Bartin, Calibration and Development of Safety Performance Functions for New Jersey . Retrieved from YouTube: https://youtu.be/IRalyvjDaFM

Ozbay, K., Nassif, H., Bartin, B., Xu, C., & Bhattacharyya, A. (2019). Calibration/Development of Safety Performance Functions for New Jersey [Final Report]. New Jersey Department of Transportation Bureau of Research. Retrieved from https://www.njdottechtransfer.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FHWA-NJ-2019-007.pdf

Ozbay, K., Nassif, H., Bartin, B., Xu, C., & Bhattacharyya, A. (2019). Calibration/Development of Safety Performance Functions for New Jersey [Tech Brief]. Rutgers University. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering; New York University. Tandon School of Engineering. Retrieved from https://www.njdottechtransfer.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FHWA-NJ-2019-007-TB.pdf

Srinivasan, R., & Bauer, K. M. (2013). Safety Performance Function Development Guide: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific SPFs. The University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49505

Data-Driven Safety Analysis: New Jersey Case Study

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), in partnership with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and Burlington County officials, used predictive safety analysis tools to help secure funding for a modern roundabout at a rural intersection.  The intersection of county road 528 and county road 660 in Chesterfield Township had experienced severe crashes and had been identified for improvement in a prior study conducted by the DVRPC. However, state or county construction funding was not available. The team decided to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. However, HSIP requires a thorough safety analysis of projects before funding approval to ensure the chosen design provides the best benefit/cost ratio.

The analytical effort was recognized by the Federal Highway Administration in both a case study with links to several useful resources and the below video.

FHWA highlighted the data-driven safety analysis used by NJDOT and partners to select a roundabout.

Local Safety Peer Exchanges: Summary Report

NJDOT, FHWA and NJDOT held a series of three Local Safety Peer Exchange events for municipal and county representatives to share best practices in addressing traffic safety.  These full-day events brought together representatives of NJDOT, FHWA, counties, municipalities, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to discuss project prioritization, substantive safety, implementation of FHWA safety countermeasures, and use of a systemic safety approach.

The Local Safety Peer Exchanges Summary Report provides an overview of the event proceedings, including the presentations, workshop activities and key observations from the Local Safety Peer Exchanges held in December 2017, June 2018, and March 2019.

The Local Safety Peer Exchanges were funded, in part, though the use of a State Transportation Incentive Funding (STIC) grant.  The Local Safety Peer Exchange events are well-aligned with the FHWA Technology Innovation Deployment Program (TIDP) goal: “Develop and deploy new tools and techniques and practices to accelerate the adoption of innovation in all aspects of highway transportation.”  The focus of the Local Safety Peer Exchanges is also consistent with two of the FHWA's Every Day Counts (EDC-4) Innovative Initiatives: Safe Transportation for Every Person (STEP) which supports the use of cost-effective countermeasures with known safety benefits to address locations of fatal pedestrian crashes; and Data-Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA) that uses crash and roadway data to reliably determine the safety performance of projects.

 

 

On December 6, 2017 municipal and county representatives gathered to discuss best practices to address traffic safety. Topics discussed included NJ safety performance targets, use of Safety Voyager, substantive vs. nominal approaches to design, systemic vs. hot spot approaches to safety, and discussion of FHWA safety countermeasures.

The summary report provides documentation of the agenda, presentations, highlighted tools and model practices, and workshop activities for each of the Local Safety Peer Exchange events, including the December 2017 event.

Local Peer Safety Exchange – 3rd Event

FHWA and NJDOT held a series of three Local Safety Peer Exchanges for municipal and county representatives to discuss local initiatives that demonstrate best practice in addressing traffic safety. The third of these peer exchanges was held on March 26, 2019. Topics discussed included NJ safety performance targets, use of Safety Voyager, substantive vs. nominal approaches to design, systemic vs. hot spot approaches to safety, and discussion of FHWA safety countermeasures, among others.

Make Your Mark

Safety Voyager

Project Screening

Data-Driven Safety Analysis

Pavement Friction Surface Treatments

A Municipal Perspective

Proven Safety Countermeasures

New Jersey To Expand Data-Driven Approach to Highway Safety Management

NJDOT is investigating a powerful set of tools to more effectively manage New Jersey’s roads and highways. The agency has been piloting a study of Safety Analyst, a software package used by state and local highway agencies to identify highway safety improvement needs and projects for funding. The New Jersey State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) applied Federal Highway Administration’s STIC Incentive Program funding to purchase the Safety Analyst license and service units from AASHTOWare. Following the kickoff and first year, NJDOT has continued to fund the project through FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

According to AASHTOWare, Safety Analyst helps agencies “proactively determine which sites have the highest potential for safety improvement, as opposed to reactive safety assessment done conventionally” (SafetyAnalyst.org). The software automates procedures and assists agencies to implement the six main steps of the highway safety management (HSM) process—network screening, diagnosis, countermeasure selection, economic appraisal, priority ranking, and countermeasure evaluation. Safety Analyst features four tool modules to perform the six HSM steps:

  • Module one utilizes the network screening tool and identifies sites with potential for safety improvement
  • Module two provides the diagnosis and countermeasure selection tool, which establishes the nature of accident patterns at specific sites
  • Module three includes the economic appraisal and priority ranking tool, which evaluates cost considerations of countermeasures for a specific site
  • Module four provides the countermeasure evaluation tool, which allows users to conduct before and after evaluations of implemented safety improvements

A detailed explanation of the benefits and capabilities of these four modules can be found in a series of white papers available from AASHTOWare.

NJDOT’s plans for using Safety Analyst

After receiving funds for Safety Analyst, NJDOT began a pilot study in Burlington County using the software. The objective of this study is to determine a methodology for meeting statewide goals. Items under review include implementation methodology (i.e., the manner and locations of data collection) and the resource requirements (i.e., the time, effort, and cost of implementing the software). NJDOT plans to use the software to more efficiently allocate its resources, time, and funds to improve the state’s roadways. Previously, NJDOT screened roads by identifying equivalent property damage, based on average frequency and severity of crashes and, depending on the project list, other factors such as annual average daily traffic and bicycle/pedestrian generators. Using Safety Analyst, NJDOT anticipates identifying needed road improvement more comprehensively using additional variables, such as roadway volume and characteristics, driveway density, and lane widths.

According to NJDOT Bureau of Transportation Data and Support’s Peter Brzostowski, who is working with the Bureau of Data and Safety, the agency is exploring other innovative ways to gather data for Safety Analyst. Leading ideas include:

  • Encouraging collaboration among several NJDOT Bureaus for data collection, including Traffic Engineering, Mobility and Systems Engineering, and Access Management
  • Employing monitoring systems to capture data, e.g., using existing/new cameras and radar monitoring
  • Utilizing Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) (i.e., the FHWA Roadway Safety Data Program’s recommended list of roadway and traffic elements critical to safety management)
  • Developing official NJDOT policy for data collection standards
Who’s using Safety Analyst?

Motor traffic on Garden State Parkway, New Jersey, photographed in the evening. Most of the cars are southbound, moving from New York to the suburban homes in New Jersey.

State transportation departments and partner educational institutions can use Safety Analyst. At least eleven U.S. states have Safety Analyst licenses—Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington, as well as Ontario, Canada. Some examples of its use include:

  • Ohio DOT employed their Safety Analyst model to develop the Access Ohio 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, which utilized crash data from the statewide AASHTOWare Safety Analyst model to predict the future safety impacts of alternative networks.
  • Michigan DOT is using Safety Analyst and GIS tools to develop a work-order-based maintenance management system and is exploring how to integrate new data collection tools, such as Light Detection and Ranging, or LIDAR, into its use of the software. See this MDOT case study for more information.
  • At least eight universities, including United Arab Emirates University, have educational licenses to use Safety Analyst.

The Safety Analyst software tool requires access to a minimum set of data elements including roadway segment characteristics, intersection characteristics, ramp characteristics, and crash data. Agencies or institutions that do not have the ability to collect the minimum data will not be able to utilize Safety Analyst.

According to AASTHOWare’s project manager, Vicki Schofield, the states that have been part of the Highway Safety Improvement System, a multi-state database that contains crash, roadway inventory, and traffic volume, typically have sufficient data resources to utilize the Safety Analyst software. She noted, however, that “all states should be using Safety Analyst or something as robust and researched.” She offered that Safety Analyst is an ideal tool to begin to evaluate the data, even if a state has not completely collected the system data.

How states can begin implementing SafetyAnalyst

Ms. Schofield explained that to implement Safety Analyst effectively, states should work in partnership with other state and federal agencies to assign roles and responsibilities and leverage expertise and capacity. For example, the state transportation planning office can be used to collect roadway and attribute data; the state enforcement office (i.e., Division of Highway Traffic Safety in New Jersey) to compile crash data; the state IT office to manage secure access to databases; and the FHWA division office to connect the state agencies with other resources.

With the Safety Analyst tool, a state will be able to efficiently perform highway safety management—a data-intensive and statistically complex process—to better predict long-term levels of safety at various locations. The tool supports more effective decision-making and provides justification for expenditures of Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, resulting in greater benefits for New Jersey residents and drivers from every dollar invested.

According to Ms. Schofield, the cost for purchasing the software is relatively minor and the primary barrier to implementing Safety Analyst is the time it takes to ready the data-intensive tool for use. Regional or local universities may be able to help expedite implementation by performing tasks that a transportation agency cannot and to help ensure integrity of the tool.

The NJDOT Bureau of Transportation and Support reports that work on the Safety Analyst Pilot Study is almost complete.  The Pilot Study is expected to provide information on areas that need to be addressed when developing a full scale contract for the implementation and development of Safety Analyst on a statewide level.  The goal will be to maximize the benefit of Safety Analyst to NJDOT and to provide the necessary structure for a sustainable future for the program.

Sources

AASHTOWare. 2010. SafetyAnalyst: Software Tools for Safety Management of Specific Highway Sites:

Brzostowski, P. 2017. AASHTOWare Safety Analyst. Presentation to the New Jersey State Transportation Innovation Council. Winter Meeting.

Harwood, D. W., Torbic, D. J., Richard, K. R., & Meyer, M. M. 2010. SafetyAnalystTM: Software Tools for Safety Management of Specific Highway Sites. FHWA-HRT-10-063. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.

LiSanti, D., and C. Trueman. 2018. CIA Safety Team. Presentation to New Jersey State Transportation Innovation Council. Summer Meeting.

LiSanti, D., and K. Skilton. 2018. CIA Safety Team. Presentation to New Jersey State Transportation Innovation Council. Fall Meeting.

Local Safety Peer Exchange – 2nd Event

FHWA and NJDOT are holding a series of three Local Safety Peer Exchanges for municipal and county representatives to discuss local initiatives that demonstrate best practice in addressing traffic safety. The second of these peer exchanges was held on June 13, 2018. Topics discussed included NJ safety performance targets, use of Safety Voyager, substantive vs. nominal approaches to design, systemic vs. hot spot approaches to safety, and discussion of FHWA safety countermeasures, among others. The third event will be held in Fall 2018.

Make Your Mark

Data-Driven Safety Analysis

Proven Safety Countermeasures

A Municipal Perspective

Systemic Safety Improvements

Project Screening

Safety Voyager

custom writings

Local Safety Peer Exchange – 1st Event

FHWA and NJDOT are holding a series of three Local Safety Peer Exchanges for municipal and county representatives to discuss local initiatives that demonstrate best practice in addressing traffic safety. The first peer exchange was held on December 6, 2017. Topics discussed included NJ safety performance targets, use of Safety Voyager, substantive vs. nominal approaches to design, systemic vs. hot spot approaches to safety, and discussion of FHWA safety countermeasures, among others. Two more events will be held in 2018.

Local Peer Exchange, December 6, 2017

Data-Driven Safety Analysis: Nominal vs. Substantive Safety

FHWA’s 2017 Update of the Proven Safety Countermeasures

Local Safety Peer Exchange

Pavement Friction Surface Treatments

Project Screening: Using Data-Based Analysis

Safety Voyager