69
The Georgia Initiative GDOT/GUCC Clear Roadside Program

The Georgia Initiative

  • Upload
    fionn

  • View
    42

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The Georgia Initiative. GDOT/GUCC Clear Roadside Program. Clear Roadside. Tom Jackson Vice President. Purpose of Presentation. To Heighten the awareness of the importance of proper pole (and other utility structures) placements on or adjacent to public right-of-way. What more can be Done?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: The Georgia Initiative

The Georgia Initiative

GDOT/GUCC Clear Roadside Program

Page 2: The Georgia Initiative

Clear Roadside

• Tom Jackson• Vice President

Page 3: The Georgia Initiative

Purpose of Presentation

• To Heighten the awareness of the importance of proper pole (and other utility structures) placements on or adjacent to public right-of-way.

Page 4: The Georgia Initiative

What more can be Done?

• Over 40 fatal crashes in 1997– Where did these happen?– Why did these happen?

Page 5: The Georgia Initiative

Fatal crash review> Examine the crashes closer

> Determine actual pole location

> Estimate influencing factors

> Can these factors be changed?

Page 6: The Georgia Initiative

43 Fatal Crashes in 1997

• Sequence of events from:– GDOT Database information– Police report– Field Inspection– Pictures

Page 7: The Georgia Initiative

Utility Pole Fatal CrashesData Percentage

(%)Alcohol Involved(*potentially)

53(*84)

No Seatbelt 78

Male Driver 76

Page 8: The Georgia Initiative

Typical Utility Pole Crash

• Majority involve:– Alcohol/Drugs – Lack of SeatBelt Use– Male Drivers– 35-45 mph Roads – Metropolitan Areas

Page 9: The Georgia Initiative

Pole Locations Comparisons

• Curbed– 88% met 1.5’ dist.– 25% met CRC

• Non-curbed – 33% met

AASHTO

• Curbed– 83% met 1.5’ dist.– 42% met CRC

• Non-curbed – 52% met

AASHTO

Page 10: The Georgia Initiative

Crossover

Page 11: The Georgia Initiative

Pole Locations Comparisons

• Curbed-38% CO– 50% met CRC

• Non-curbed-56% CO – 59% met

AASHTO

• Curbed - 33% CO– 50% met CRC

• Non-curbed- 36% CO – 78% met

AASHTO

Page 12: The Georgia Initiative

Georgia Experience

• Curbed Roadways recognized• Effect over time (30 years)• Apparent benefits already realized

• …More Work to be Done!!

Page 13: The Georgia Initiative
Page 14: The Georgia Initiative
Page 15: The Georgia Initiative

GUCC Clear Roadside Committee (CRC)

• CRC Policy:

–guidelines for curbed roadways

–30 year relocation & mitigation plan

Page 16: The Georgia Initiative
Page 17: The Georgia Initiative

Curbed Roadways

• 12 ft desirable

• 6 ft minimum at 35 mph or less

• 8 ft minimum for >35 and <45 mph

Page 18: The Georgia Initiative

Relocation Plan

• Crash history– 3 year timeframe– 3 mile stretches of

road

• State & US Routes

Page 19: The Georgia Initiative

Give and Take

• Move certain number of poles each year

• Developed variance policy for joint-use situations

Page 20: The Georgia Initiative

Georgia Power Program

• Committed to relocate 179 poles per year. Total includes poles relocated on DOT projects that did not meet clear roadside.

• Continuation of program started in 1979

Page 21: The Georgia Initiative

Georgia Power Agreed to

• Goal is to have all poles meet clear roadside in 30 years.

• Relocate poles hit by a vehicle when possible. DOT to provide accident information.

Page 22: The Georgia Initiative

DOT Agreed

• Not require relocation of poles when only adding facilities or reconducting only.

• Allow for replacement of poles in same location for maintenance.

Page 23: The Georgia Initiative

3 42

54

9

8

8

42

Sections with Most Utility Pole Crashes - 1995 to 1997 data

Page 24: The Georgia Initiative

9

8

8

I-20

I-75

I-85

Page 25: The Georgia Initiative

Crash history

• Reduction in observed crashes

• More extensive before-after study needed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Page 26: The Georgia Initiative

Crash Rates

• Crash/AADT

• Observed Reduction in crash rate

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Page 27: The Georgia Initiative
Page 28: The Georgia Initiative

3

42

54

42

I-75

I-20

Page 29: The Georgia Initiative

Stewart Avenue/Metropolitan Parkway

Page 30: The Georgia Initiative

What can we do?

• Design jobs to meet clear roadside design

• Review accidents to see if we can avoid future occurrences

• Be aware of poles placed in apex of curves

Page 31: The Georgia Initiative

Review Jobs to Ensure

• Replacement of existing poles meet clear roadside where possible.

• Accidents involving fatalities are investigated to determine if pole can be relocated.

Page 32: The Georgia Initiative

New Program

Georgia DOT

Page 33: The Georgia Initiative

Clear Roadside Committee Mission Statement

A committee formed to develop a comprehensive clear roadside safety program that will improve the safe and efficient use of highway rights of way for the traveling public in the State of Georgia.  Once developed, the committee will communicate the benefits of the program to all utilities statewide and strive for participation by all utilities that occupy highway rights of way.

Page 34: The Georgia Initiative

What Are We Attempting to Achieve

• Guidelines for pole placement on rural and urban shoulders

• Reducing facilities and injuries by joint efforts between Utilities and GDOT

• Bring attention to site specific safety considerations

Page 35: The Georgia Initiative

What do the Feds think?

• FHA Program Guide: Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal-Aid Highway Projects, Sixth Edition, Section 645.209(k):

• The highway agency shall initiate corrective measures.

• The intent for each State to work with pole owners.• Systematically remove, relocate, or mitigate

hazardously located utility poles.

Page 36: The Georgia Initiative

Why is it Needed.

• Over 3 million utility poles statewide

• On average of 50 deaths and approx. 3400 injuries each year

Page 37: The Georgia Initiative

Pole Accident Rates 1995 - 2003Off-System Utility Poles: On-System Utility Poles: All-Routes Utility Poles:

Year # Accidents Total No. Injuries

Total No. Fatalities

TNF where MHE**=Pole

# Accidents Total No. Injuries

Total No. Fatalities

TNF where MHE**=Pole

# Accidents Total No. Injuries

Total No. Fatalities

TNF where MHE**=Pole

1995 2,629 1,572 41 34 1,255 822 22 19 3,884 2,394 63 531996 2,778 1,687 35 31 1,266 819 18 14 4,044 2,506 53 451997 2,821 1,589 32 25 1,268 721 21 21 4,089 2,310 53 461998* 1,901 1,015 42 31 804 472 30 24 2,705 1,487 72 551999* 2,190 1,216 31 29 1,005 547 24 19 3,195 1,763 55 482000 2,490 1,330 40 39 1,191 716 16 15 3,681 2,046 56 542001 2,447 1,255 31 26 1,150 624 12 11 3,597 1,879 43 372002 2,636 1,384 33 32 1,160 684 8 7 3,796 2,068 41 392003* 1,267 598 24 21 559 326 5 5 1826 924 29 26

Grand Totals: 21,159 11,646 309 268 9,658 5,731 156 135 30,817 17,377 465 403Average: 2,351 1,294 34 1,073 637 17 3,424 1,931 52

*Please note 1998 data is 77% complete, 1999 data is 87% complete, & 2003 data is 41% complete.**MHE=M ost Harmful E vent

Page 38: The Georgia Initiative

Why is it Needed.

• Over 3 million utility poles statewide

• On average of 50 deaths and approx. 3400 injuries each year

• Georgia ranks 13th in Pole Fatality Accidents

Page 39: The Georgia Initiative

Accidents

• Information will be sent to the pole owner for their review

Page 40: The Georgia Initiative

Permitting (New Facilities)• All new facilities (in rural areas) will follow the Roadside

Design Guide, current edition, published by AASHTO as a guide in determining current clear roadside requirements.

• Curb Section - Where there are curbed sections the utilities are to be located as far as practical behind the back of curb. The following is the minimum lateral clearances based on the respective posted speed limits:

• Minimum Lateral Clearance Posted Speed Limit (mph) • 12’ 45• 8’ 35 to 40• 6’ 0 to 30

• The lateral clearance is measured from the back of curb to the face of pole. However, in all of the above cases, the facility shall not encroach upon current ADA sidewalk clearances.

Page 41: The Georgia Initiative

Proactive Efforts

• The DOT would assist in funding for the relocations of poles

• $5,000,000 of safety funds

• 50% assistance

Page 42: The Georgia Initiative

•Accidents involving pole fatalities will be sent to the pole owner for his review. If the pole was the determining factor, the poles in the area in question will be addressed immediately.•Major rehab projects where 33% of poles are being replaced or added the pole owner will be required to relocate all the poles in the permit request to current clear roadside requirements. •Where accident data for a pole line shows an average of 1 accident per mile per year for the last 3 years (with none being a fatality), and where the pole location doesn’t meet clear roadside requirements; the pole owner will be required to relocate that section of line or use approved mitigation methods. •All new facilities will be required to meet current clear roadside requirements shown in the DOT Accommodation Manual. •Proactive effort by the participating utilities to address high accident location in their service area. The DOT would assist in funding relocations of poles based on accident when safety funds are available.

Page 43: The Georgia Initiative
Page 44: The Georgia Initiative

Current Schedule

• First Project - CSSTP-0007-00(072) has currently been identified

• GDOT working on Guidelines and Agreements

• Utilities working on cost estimates (starting October)

• Project set for January 2005

Page 45: The Georgia Initiative
Page 46: The Georgia Initiative
Page 47: The Georgia Initiative

Future Planning

• Try to always set back during maintenance activities

• Look at the type and number of poles utilized

• Location, Location, Location

Page 48: The Georgia Initiative
Page 49: The Georgia Initiative
Page 50: The Georgia Initiative
Page 51: The Georgia Initiative

Site Specific Safety Considerations

• Curves• “T” Intersections• Lane Drops or Deceleration Lanes• Intersecting Streets• Kinks in Alignment• Driveways or Alleys

Page 52: The Georgia Initiative

Curves

Page 53: The Georgia Initiative
Page 54: The Georgia Initiative

“T” Intersections

Page 55: The Georgia Initiative
Page 56: The Georgia Initiative

Lane Drops or

Page 57: The Georgia Initiative
Page 58: The Georgia Initiative

Deceleration Lanes

Page 59: The Georgia Initiative

Intersecting Streets

Page 60: The Georgia Initiative

Kinks in Alignment

Page 61: The Georgia Initiative
Page 62: The Georgia Initiative

Driveways or Alleys

Page 63: The Georgia Initiative

The pole usually wins

Page 64: The Georgia Initiative
Page 65: The Georgia Initiative
Page 66: The Georgia Initiative
Page 67: The Georgia Initiative
Page 68: The Georgia Initiative
Page 69: The Georgia Initiative

Questions?