Planning Process

1
Planning Process Design(Safety Conscious
Planning)

• Spring 2007

http//www.ite.org/pdf/SafetyConsciousPlanning.pdf

2
Background
The safety of the transportation system is a
growing interest for the public, politicians,
safety practitioners and transportation planners
and engineers. Agencies worldwide are
developing practices addressing a broad
spectrum of road safety considerations, including
vehicle, driver and road initiatives.
Within the road, or infrastructure category,
there is increasing consideration of how road
safety can be proactively incorporated in the
transportation planning process, with a view to
preventing unsafe situations from occurring
in the first place.
3
Background

• Opinions of what the safety planning
  initiatives should address vary
• between different agencies. The range of
  activities include
• Programming safety improvements to address
  roadway hotspotsor collision-prone locations.
• 2. Introducing multi-disciplinary programs (i.e.,
  integrating engineering, enforcement and
  education activities.)
• 3. Reflecting road safety considerations as a key
  decision-making parameter in evaluating projects
  and programming expenditures.
• 4. Establishing inherently safe transportation
  networksreferred to as Safety Conscious Planning
  (SCP).

4
Conceptual Framework
In conceptual terms, SCP complements
initiatives which are focused on improving
collision-prone locations (hotspots) -
Hotspot programs are directed towards
significantly improving road safety at localized
collision-prone locations. - SCP achieves
road safety improvements through smaller quantum
changes, but targeted at the whole network. To
have significant influence on changing the
overall safety of the transportation system, SCP
needs to ensure that - Safety is considered
an explicit priority in all land use and
multimodal transportation planning initiatives.
- Planning decisions are informed about road
safety impacts.
5
Conceptual Framework
The contrast between the two approaches is
summarized below
6
Why is it Necessary?
The life cycle characteristics of road safety
strategies, in terms of their ability to achieve
ongoing road safety improvements. Illustrations
of the potential impacts that planning decisions
can have in reducing collisions. The lack of
attention given to road safety in current land
use and transportation planning processes.
7
Why is it Necessary?
The effectiveness of a road safety strategy
portrays an S-shaped life cycle, reaches a level
of saturation at some time.
Due to the lag time before a new strategy becomes
effective, it is necessary for safety
practitioners to plan ahead, to ensure that the
next strategy can kick in before the current
strategy reaches saturation level.
8
Planning Decision
Land use and transportation planning influence
decisions at various levels. - Higher level
plans such as regional or city-wide plans
shape the major land use patterns and the primary
street network. - Lower level plans such as
re-zoning, subdivision plans or site plans
influence the physical layout of an area or a
particular site. - The decisions at each
level can have a significant impact on future
safety of the transportation network.
Regional
Municipal
Local
Site
9
Planning Decision
Two examples are presented to illustrate the
potential safety benefits that may be derived
from SCP considerations. The following approach
was used in developing these illustrations -
Reasonable order-of-magnitude traffic volumes
(hypothetical) were generated for the scenarios
being considered - In each scenario, there is
adequate capacity to accommodate the anticipated
traffic volumes - Crash prediction models,
developed by the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia (for BC conditions) were applied to
estimate the number of crashes in each scenario.
10
Planning Decision
Example 1 Site Specific
Alternative 1 provides a single access point
located on the street with less traffic.
Alternative 2 provides a single access point
which is located on the busier street, resulting
in fewer turning movements at the intersection,
leading to approximately 10 percent reduction in
crashes.
Alternative 3 provides two accessesone on the
each street. This potentially eliminates a
significant portion of development traffic from
the intersection resulting in a 13 percent
reduction in crashes (as compared with the base
case).
11
Planning Decision
Example 2 Area
Alternative 1 provides a network where the
connections to the major roadways are four-legged
intersections.
Alternative 2 provides a network where the
connections to the major roadways are
T-intersections and staggered with connections to
neighboring areas resulting in a 40 percent
reduction in crashes as compared with Alternative
1. In this illustration, it was assumed that the
volume of traffic crossing the major road,
between residential areas, was insignificant.
12
Some Thoughts
It is not the intent of these illustrations to
draw general conclusions about the merits of
these access configurations, but rather to
emphasize that different planning decisions can
have significantly different road safety
impacts. The conventional approach to planning
access points is generally to minimize the number
of intersections, while at the same time ensuring
that there is adequate capacity to serve the
predicted demand. It is assumed that safety will
be implicitly addressed in the design of the
intersections/access points. The potential
relationships between safety and overall access
configurations are seldom considered.
13
Some Thoughts
From first principle considerations, it is
apparent that other land use and transportation
planning decisions can also impact safety, e.g.,
Affecting the amount of travel and mode
selection Establishing functional road
networks Influencing the mix of modes on
a facility and, Establishing the basic
road form. As planning decisions can have a
significant impact on road safety, efforts are
needed to better understand these potential
impacts and ensure that safety becomes an
explicit planning consideration for land use and
transportation planners.
14
Who are the Players?
Land use planners, transportation planners and
engineers, road designers and safety
practitioners currently undertake several key
functions that affect planning decisions and
their safety impacts. However, none of these
disciplines are taking the responsibility for
seriously using planning as a lever to improve
road safety conditions. Land Use Planners
typically address broad policy, land use shape
and form, economic activity and social and
environmental issues. The potential impacts on
personal security may be considered as part of
most initiatives, but seldom road safety
implications. Transportation Planners and
Engineers generally address roadway, transit,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as
travel demand management programs. Although
several liveability factors influence decisions
in each area, road safety is seldom an explicit
consideration.
15
Who are the Players?
Highway Designers deal with situations in
which system features and traffic patterns are
generally fixed by previous planning activities.
They optimize safety within this framework,
through the application of minimum design
standards and safety audits. Safety
Practitioners are focused on spearhead
initiatives such as the hotspot programs and
behavioral programs. In addressing the road
infrastructure, these initiatives do not
proactively affect land use and transportation
decisions. (note not always true) As no
discipline is taking ownership of introducing SCP
practices, a fundamental question is who
should? In considering the current functions
performed by the related disciplines, it is
apparent that Transportation Planners influence
the majority of decisions that affect land use
and transportation plans. It is logical
therefore, that SCP becomes a significant
function for transportation planners.
16
Framework
SCP deals with network or system-wide
considerations, as well as elements of facility
planning.
SCD operates at the facility level, and includes
some of the initial facility planning
considerations.
17
Framework
Although SCP and SCD are identified as separate
initiatives, and would normally be undertaken by
different practitioners, it is recognized that
they are not mutually exclusive, but rather
supportive of one another, in terms of
establishing an inherently safe transportation
system. Essentially, another way of interpreting
the relationship between SCP and SCD is that SCP
provides a safer foundation upon which SCD can be
undertaken.
18
Scope
All Stages of the Planning Process
Land Use and All Modes of Transportation
All Levels of Planning
Transportation planning for all modes Road
form and access Road form and highway
classification Route and Speed Management
Plan Emergency Response
Existing and Base Conditions Diagnostics
Policy Decision Alternative Measures Plan
Implementation Strategy
Regional Municipal Local Site
19
Keys to Success
20
Analytical Framework
It has been emphasized that the SCP approach
in this regard is to Exploit the existing
knowledge base in influencing decisions which
are already being made and To conduct
research to develop initial knowledge where
informed decisions can be made, reflecting the
safety consequences of such decisions. An
important consideration relates to the
quantifying of safety. In ideal terms, the
availability of reliable collision prediction
models will facilitate The formulation of
optimal planning recommendations, in terms of
safety benefits from transportation decisions
and/or infrastructure investments The
ability to influence decision-makers, by
informing them of the potential safety
consequences of their decisions
21
Goals and Objectives
22
Safety Contributors
23
Safety Contributors
24
Areas to Address Safety Factors
An inherently safe transportation system is one
in which the following has been achieved A
safety conscious Policy Framework An
inherently safe Land Use Shape Safe and
convenient facilities for Alternative Modes
An inherently safe Road Network Inherently
safe and compatible Road Form Inherently
safe and compatible Intersections The
network is used as intended, through Route and
Speed Management Known as PLANFIR
25
Areas to Address Safety Factors
Policy Framework The directions for land use
and transportation systems are established
through plans and policies at the highest
levels Commitment to safety principles and
incorporate safety within all stages of the
transportation planning process Should include
a crash reduction target Land Use Provides
foundation for all travel patterns Safety
factors related to land use include efficient
land use shape, Mixed land use for multi-purpose
trips, and location of generators Need to
include safety as party of the planning priorities
26
Areas to Address Safety Factors
Alternative Modes Includes buses, commercial
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians Safety
factors include protecting vulnerable road users,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
appropriate land use to encourager alternative
modes of transportation Some issues include
friction between modes (speed differential) and
different sizes Road Network Functional
classification, roadway hierarchy, and spatial
layout of the network Provide direct routes
(minimize exposure) Separate trips by mode
27
Areas to Address Safety Factors
Road Form Safety factors include design
standards and incorporating different modes among
the same space Driver expectancy Usually
governed by transportation planners (highway
designers should have a say) Route Management
Safety factors include shortest route available
and prevent shortcuts through neighborhoods
Encourage or discourage certain road users for
using different routes (e.g., truck only routes,
etc.) Includes speed management alternatives
(i.e., traffic calming)
28
Areas to Address Safety Factors
Intersections Factors affecting safety include
location, driveways located near intersections,
frequency of intersections along segment, and
configuration and forms Influenced by traffic
and land use patterns Tied in to road form
29
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 1 Project Inputs
Stage 2 Diagnostics
Stage 3 Policy Formulation
Stage 4 Develop Alternatives
Stage 5 Compile Plan
Stage 6 Implementation
30
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 1 Project Inputs
31
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 2 Diagnostics
List and understand safety issues in the area
32
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 3 Policy Formulations
33
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 4 Develop Alternatives
34
Planning Process for SCP
Stage 5 Development Evaluate different
alternatives Determine safety trade-offs Stage
6 Implementation Ensure that commitments
towards safety are maintained at each stage
Should consider - Funding strategies -
Priorities - Piggy-back projects -
Maintaining momentum