HSM

Tables, Case Studies,

and
Sample Problems

Table of Contents
Chapter 10 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Local Values (Michigan) ................................ 1
Chapter 11 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Local Values (Michigan) ................................ 5
Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available ................. 10
Sample Problem 3-1: .................................................................................................................. 17
Sample Problem 4-1: .................................................................................................................. 20
Case Study 7-1:............................................................................................................................ 28
Case Study 9-1:............................................................................................................................ 35
Case Study 10-1:.......................................................................................................................... 53
Case Study 11-1:.......................................................................................................................... 69
Chap 10 Sample Problem 1:...................................................................................................... 83
Chap 10 Sample Problem 2:...................................................................................................... 86
Chap 10 Sample Problem 3:...................................................................................................... 91
Chap 10 Sample Problem 4:...................................................................................................... 94
Chap 10 Sample Problem 5:...................................................................................................... 97
Chap 10 Sample Problem 6:...................................................................................................... 97
Chap 11 Sample Problem 1:...................................................................................................... 99
Chap 11 Sample Problem 2:.................................................................................................... 101
Chap 11 Sample Problem 3:.................................................................................................... 104
Chap 11 Sample Problem 4:.................................................................................................... 107
Chap 11 Sample Problem 5:.................................................................................................... 108
Chap 11 Sample Problem 6:.................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 10 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables ............................................................. 111
HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 5 .......................................................................... 115
HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 6 .......................................................................... 116
Chapter 11 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables ............................................................. 117
HSM Chapter 11 Sample Problem 4 .......................................................................... 120
HSM Chapter 11 Sample Problem 5 .......................................................................... 121
Chapter 12 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables ............................................................. 122
HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 5 .......................................................................... 126
HSM Chapter 12 Sample Problem 6 .......................................................................... 127
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets (Sample) ............................................................................... 128
HSM Chapter 10 Tables

Chapter 10 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Local Values (Michigan)

Table 10-3: Distribution for Crash Severity Level on Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments plus Michigan Derived Values
Percentage of total roadway segment crashes
Crash severity level HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Fatal 1.3 0.5
Incapacitating Injury 5.4 1.8
Non-incapacitating Injury 10.9 3.3
Possible Injury 14.5 5.3
Total Fatal Plus Injury 32.1 10.9
Property Damage Only 67.9 89.1
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
Note: HSM-provided crash severity data based on HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006). Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT).

Table 10-4: Default Distribution by Collision Type for Specific Crash Severity Levels on Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway
Segments plus Michigan Derived Values
Percentage of total roadway segment crashes by crash severity level
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
TOTAL (all Property
Total fatal Property Total fatal TOTAL
severity levels damage
and injury damage only and injury combined
Collision type combined) only
SINGLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Collision with animal 3.8 18.4 12.1 11.5 74.8 67.7
Collision with bicycle 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0
Collision with pedestrian 0.7 0.1 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.2
Overturned 3.7 1.5 2.5 15.5 2.5 4.0
Ran off road 54.5 50.5 52.1 26.7 11.2 12.9
Other single-vehicle crash 0.7 2.9 2.1 2.9 1.3 1.5
Total single-vehicle crashes 63.8 73.5 69.3 58.7 89.9 86.5
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Angle collision 10.0 7.2 8.5 6.1 1.2 1.7
Head-on collision 3.4 0.3 1.6 9.0 0.3 1.3
Rear-end collision 16.4 12.2 14.2 16.4 4.2 5.5
Sideswipe collision 3.8 3.8 3.7 5.7 2.4 2.8
Other multiple-vehicle collision 2.6 3.0 2.7 4.2 2.0 2.3
Total multiple-vehicle crashes 36.2 26.5 30.7 41.3 10.1 13.6
TOTAL CRASHES 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: HSM-provided values based on crash data for Washington (2002-2006); includes approximately 70 % opposite-direction sideswipe and 30% same-direction
sideswipe collisions. Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Table 10-5: Default Distribution for Crash Severity Level at Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Intersections Michigan Derived Values
Percentage of total crashes
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Collision type 3ST 4ST 4SG 3ST 4ST 4SG
Fatal 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.2
Incapacitating injury 4.0 4.3 2.1 2.8 4.0 2.5
Non-incapacitating injury 16.6 16.2 10.5 5.5 6.8 5.7
Possible injury 19.2 20.8 20.5 9.8 12.0 15.1
Total fatal plus injury 41.5 43.1 34.0 18.6 23.5 23.5
Property damage only 58.5 56.9 66.0 81.4 76.5 76.5
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Chapter 10 Tables

1
HSM Chapter 10 Tables

Table 10-6: Default Distribution for Collision Type and Manner of Collision at Rural Two-Way Intersections plus Michigan Derived
Values
Percentage of total crashes by collision type: HSM Default Values
Three-leg stop-controlled Four-leg stop-controlled
Four-leg signalized intersections
intersections intersections
Fatal Property Fatal Property Fatal Property
and damage Total and damage Total and damage Total
Collision type Injury only injury only injury only
SINGLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Collision with animal 0.8 2.6 1.9 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.2
Collision with bicycle 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Collision with pedestrian 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Overturned 2.2 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ran off road 24.0 24.7 24.4 9.4 14.4 12.2 3.2 8.1 6.4
Other single-vehicle crash 1.1 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.3 1.8 0.5
Total single-vehicle crashes 28.3 30.2 29.4 11.2 17.4 14.7 4.0 10.7 7.6
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Angle collision 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-end collision 26.0 29.2 27.8 21.0 26.6 24.2 40.3 43.8 42.6
Sideswipe collision 5.1 13.1 9.7 4.4 14.4 10.1 5.1 15.3 11.8
Other multiple-vehicle
5.0 3.3 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.9 9.0 2.0 5.2
collision
Total multiple-vehicle crashes 71.7 69.8 70.6 88.8 82.6 85.3 96.0 89.3 92.4
TOTAL CRASHES 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percentage of total crashes by collision type: Locally Derived Values (Michigan)

Three-leg stop-controlled Four-leg stop-controlled
Four-leg signalized intersections
intersections intersections
Property Fatal Property Fatal Property
Fatal and
damage Total and damage Total and damage Total
Injury
Collision type only injury only injury only
SINGLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Collision with animal 3.9 39.4 32.8 1.5 28.8 22.3 0.2 4.4 3.4
Collision with bicycle 1.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.4 1.9 0.3 0.6
Collision with pedestrian 1.5 0 0.3 1.5 0 0.4 4.7 0.1 1.2
Overturned 9.6 2.6 3.9 3.1 1.4 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ran off road 18.8 17.7 17.9 8.5 11.8 11 3.7 5.0 4.7
Other single-vehicle crash 2.9 2.5 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.7
Total single-vehicle crashes 37.7 62.3 57.8 17.3 43.8 37.5 11.9 10.7 10.9
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE CRASHES
Angle collision 16.7 7.7 9.4 41.6 18.1 23.8 33.0 21.2 24.0
Head-on collision 8.9 1.5 2.9 9.0 2.6 4.1 14.6 6.1 8.1
Rear-end collision 26.6 15.7 17.7 20.7 17.4 18.1 31.9 37.5 36.3
Sideswipe collision 4.5 6.9 6.4 4.7 8.3 7.4 2.7 11.5 9.4
Other multiple-vehicle collision 5.6 5.9 5.8 6.7 9.8 9.1 5.9 13.0 11.3
Total multiple-vehicle crashes 62.3 37.7 42.2 82.7 56.2 62.5 88.1 89.3 89.1
TOTAL CRASHES 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Chapter 10 Tables

2
HSM Chapter 10 Tables

Table 10-8: CMF for Lane Width on Roadway Segments (CMFra)

AADT (veh/day)
Lane Width (ft) < 400 400 to 2000 > 2000
9 1.05 1.50
9.5 1.04 1.40
10 1.02 1.30
10.5 1.02 1.18
11 1.01 1.05
11.5 1.01 1.03
12 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 10-9: CMF for Shoulder Width on Roadway Segments (CMFwra)

AADT (veh/day)
Shoulder Width (ft) < 400 400 to 2000 > 2000
0 1.10 1.50
1 1.09 1.40
2 1.07 1.30
3 1.05 1.23
4 1.02 1.15
5 1.01 1.08
6 1.00 1.00
7 0.99 0.94
8 0.98 0.87

Table 10-10: Crash Modification Factors for Shoulder Types and Shoulder Widths on Roadway Segments (CMFtra)
Shoulder Shoulder width (ft)
Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Paved 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Gravel 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
Composite 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06
Turf 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.11
Note: The values for composite shoulders in this exhibit represent a shoulder for which 50 percent of the shoulder width is paved and 50 percent of the shoulder
width is turf.

Table 10-11: Crash Modification Factors (CMF5r) for Grade of Roadway Segments
Approximate Grade (%)
Level Grade ( ≤ 3% ) Moderate Terrain ( 3% < grade ≤ 6% ) Steep Terrain ( >6% )
1.00 1.10 1.16

Table 10-12: Nighttime Crash Proportions for Unlighted Roadway Segments plus Michigan Derived Values
HSM Default Values Locally Derived Values (Michigan)
Proportion of total nighttime Proportion of crashes that Proportion of total nighttime crashes by Proportion of crashes that
Roadway crashes by severity level occur at night severity level occur at night
Type Fatal and Injury pinr PDO ppnr pnr Fatal and Injury pinr PDO ppnr pnr
2U 0.382 0.618 0.370 0.270 0.650 0.463
Note: HSM-provided values based on HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006). Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT).

Chapter 10 Tables

3
HSM Chapter 10 Tables

Table 10-13: CMF for Installation of Left-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches (CMF2i)
Number of approaches with left-turn lanes a
Intersection traffic control
Intersection type 1 2 3 4
Three-leg intersection Minor road stop control b 0.56 0.31 0.31 0.31
Minor road stop control b 0.72 0.52 0.52 0.52
Four-leg intersection
Traffic signal 0.82 0.67 0.55 0.45

Table 10-14: CMF for Installation of Right-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches (CMF3i)
Number of approaches with left-turn lanes a
Intersection type Intersection traffic control 1 2 3 4
Three-leg intersection Minor road stop control b 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.74
Minor road stop control b 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.74
Four-leg intersection
Traffic signal 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.85
a
Stop-controlled approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with left-turn lanes
b Stop signs present on minor road approaches only.

Table 10-15: Nighttime Crash Proportions for Unlighted Intersections

Proportion of crashes that occur at night, pni
Intersection Type HSM Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
3ST 0.260 0.248
4ST 0.244 0.208
4SG 0.286 0.188
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).
Notes for Tables 8 & 9 for AADT 400 – 2000 See HSM for determining values

Chapter 10 Tables

4
HSM Chapter 11 Tables

Chapter 11 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Local

Values (Michigan)
Table 11-4: Distribution of Crashes by Collision Type and Crash Severity Level for Undivided Roadway Segments
Proportion of crashes by collision type and crash severity level
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Fatal Fatal
Fatal and Fatal and
Total and PDO Total and PDO
injury injury
Collision type injury a injury a
Head-on 0.009 0.029 0.043 0.001 0.045 0.108 0.138 0.022
Sideswipe 0.098 0.048 0.044 0.120 0.155 0.062 0.061 0.189
Rear-end 0.246 0.305 0.217 0.220 0.205 0.266 0.188 0.184
Angle 0.356 0.352 0.348 0.358 0.149 0.180 0.184 0.138
Single 0.238 0.238 0.304 0.237 0.321 0.242 0.299 0.349
Other 0.053 0.028 0.044 0.064 0.125 0.143 0.130 0.188
SV run-off-rd, Head-on, Sideswipe 0.270
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Table 11-6: Distribution of Crashes by Collision Type and Crash Severity Level for Divided Roadway Segments
Proportion of crashes by collision type and crash severity level
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Fatal and Fatal and Fatal and Fatal and
Total PDO Total PDO
Collision type injury injury a injury injury a
Head-on 0.006 0.013 0.018 0.002 0.009 0.018 0.033 0.006
Sideswipe 0.043 0.027 0.022 0.053 0.120 0.059 0.055 0.139
Rear-end 0.116 0.163 0.114 0.088 0.136 0.195 0.143 0.118
Angle 0.043 0.048 0.045 0.041 0.046 0.086 0.143 0.034
Single 0.768 0.727 0.778 0.792 0.626 0.605 0.604 0.633
Other 0.024 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.063 0.036 0.022 0.072
SV run-off-rd, Head-on, Sideswipe 0.500
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Chapter 11 Tables

5
HSM Chapter 11 Tables

Table 11-9: Distribution of Intersection Crashes by Collision Type and Crash Severity
Proportion of crashes by collision type and crash severity level
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Fatal
Fatal and Fatal and Fatal and
Total PDO Total and PDO
injury injury a injury
Collision type injury a
Three-leg intersections with minor road stop control
Head-on 0.029 0.043 0.052 0.020 0.050 0.103 0.146 0.028
Sideswipe 0.133 0.058 0.057 0.179 0.096 0.049 0.051 0.115
Rear-end 0.289 0.247 0.142 0.315 0.293 0.299 0.198 0.291
Angle 0.263 0.369 0.381 0.198 0.161 0.194 0.206 0.147
Single 0.234 0.219 0.284 0.244 0.307 0.266 0.300 0.324
Other 0.052 0.064 0.084 0.044 0.093 0.089 0.099 0.095
SV run-off-rd, Head-on, Sideswipe 0.500
Four-leg intersections with minor road stop control
Head-on 0.016 0.018 0.023 0.015 0.056 0.094 0.120 0.038
Sideswipe 0.107 0.042 0.040 0.156 0.099 0.049 0.034 0.124
Rear-end 0.228 0.213 0.108 0.240 0.238 0.216 0.149 0.248
Angle 0.395 0.534 0.571 0.292 0.320 0.426 0.466 0.268
Single 0.202 0.148 0.199 0.243 0.180 0.124 0.128 0.207
Other 0.052 0.045 0.059 0.054 0.107 0.091 0.103 0.115
SV run-off-rd, Head-on, Sideswipe 0.500
Four-leg signalized intersections
Head-on 0.054 0.083 0.093 0.034 0.087 0.146 0.204 0.067
Sideswipe 0.106 0.047 0.039 0.147 0.101 0.029 0.018 0.125
Rear-end 0.492 0.472 0.314 0.505 0.380 0.318 0.159 0.403
Angle 0.256 0.315 0.407 0.215 0.250 0.333 0.404 0.222
Single 0.062 0.041 0.078 0.077 0.058 0.049 0.065 0.060
Other 0.030 0.042 0.069 0.022 0.124 0.125 0.150 0.123
SV run-off-rd, Head-on, Sideswipe 0.500
NOTE: a Using the KABCO scale, these include only KAB crashes. Crashes with severity level C (possible injury) are not included. Locally-Derived
Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Table 11-10: Summary of CMFs in Chapter 11 and the Corresponding SPFs

Applicable SPF CMF CMF Description CMF Equations and Exhibits
CMF1ru Lane Width on Undivided Segments Equation 11-12, Table 11-11 and Figure 11-8
CMF2ru Shoulder Width and Shoulder Type Equation 11-14, Figure 11-9, Tables 11-12 and 11-13
Undivided Roadway
CMF3ru Sideslopes Table 11-14
Segment SPF
CMF4ru Lighting Equation 11-15, Table 11-15
CMF5ru Automated Speed Enforcement See text
CMF1rd Lane Width on Divided Segments Equation 11-16, Table 11-16, Figure 11-10
CMF2rd Right Shoulder Width on Divided Roadway Segment Table 11-17
Divided Roadway
CMF3rd Median Width Table 11-18
Segment SPF
CMF4rd Lighting Equation 11-17, Table 11-19
CMF5rd Automated Speed Enforcement See text
CMF1i Intersection Angle Tables 11-20, 11-21
Three- and Four-Leg
CMF2i Left-Turn Lane on Major Road Tables 11-20, 11-21
Stop-Controlled
CMF3i Right-Turn Lane on Major Road Tables 11-20, 11-21
Intersection SPFs
CMF4i Lighting Tables 11-20, 11-21

Chapter 11 Tables

6
HSM Chapter 11 Tables

Table 11-11: CMF for Lane Width on Undivided Roadway Segments (CMFRA)
AADT (veh/day)
Lane Width (ft) < 400 400 to 2000 > 2000
9 1.04 1.38
9.5 1.03 1.31
10 1.02 1.23
10.5 1.02 1.14
11 1.01 1.04
11.5 1.01 1.02
12 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: The collision types related to lane width to which this CMF applies include run-off-the-road, head-on crashes, and sideswipes.

Table 11-12: CMF for Collision Types Related to Shoulder Width (CMFWRA)
AADT (veh/day)
Shoulder Width (ft) < 400 400 to 2000 > 2000
0 1.10 1.50
1 1.09 1.40
2 1.07 1.30
3 1.05 1.23
4 1.02 1.15
5 1.01 1.08
6 1.00 1.00 1.00
7 0.99 0.94
8 0.98 0.87
Note: The collision types related to shoulder width to which this CMF applies include single-vehicle run-off-the-road and multiple-vehicle head-
on, opposite-direction sideswipe, and same-direction sideswipe crashes.

Table 11-13: CMF for Collision Types Related to Shoulder Types and Shoulder Widths (CMFTRA)
Shoulder width (ft)
Shoulder Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Paved 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Gravel 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03
Composite 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.07
Turf 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.14

Table 11-14: CMF for Side Slope on Undivided Roadway Segments (CMF3ru)
1:2 or Steeper 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 or Flatter
1.18 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.05 1.00

Table 11-15: Night-time Crash Proportions for Unlighted Roadway Segments

HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes
crashes by severity level that occur at night crashes by severity level that occur at night
Roadway Type Fatal and injury, pinr PDO, ppnr pnr Fatal and injury, pinr PDO, ppnr pnr
4U 0.361 0.639 0.255 0.190 0.534 0.290
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Chapter 11 Tables

7
HSM Chapter 11 Tables

Table 11-16: CMF for Lane Width on Divided Roadway Segments (CMFRA)
AADT (veh/day)
Lane Width (ft) < 400 400 to 2000 > 2000
9 1.03 1.25
9.5 1.02 1.20
10 1.01 1.15
10.5 1.01 1.09
11 1.01 1.03
11.5 1.01 1.02
12 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: The collision types related to lane width to which this CMF applies include run-off-the-road, head-on crashes, and sideswipes.

Table 11-17: CMF for Right Shoulder Width on Divided Roadway Segments (CMF2rd)
Average Shoulder Width (ft) CMF
0 1.18
1 1.16
2 1.13
3 1.11
4 1.09
5 1.07
6 1.04
7 1.02
8 1.00
9 1.00
10 1.00

Table 11-18: CMF for Median Width on Divided Roadway Segments without a Median Barrier (CMF3rd)
Median Width (ft) CMF
10 1.04
20 1.02
30 1.00
40 0.99
50 0.97
60 0.96
70 0.96
80 0.95
90 0.94
100 0.94

Table 11-19: Night-time Crash Proportions for Unlighted Roadway Segments

HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes
crashes by severity level that occur at night crashes by severity level that occur at night
Roadway Type Fatal and injury, pinr PDO, ppnr pnr Fatal and injury, pinr PDO, ppnr pnr
4D 0.323 0.677 0.426 0.232 0.718 0.533
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Chapter 11 Tables

8
HSM Chapter 11 Tables

Table 11-22: Crash Modification Factors (CMF2i) for Installation of Left-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches
Number of Non-Stop-Controlled Approaches with Left-turn Lanesa
Intersection Type Crash Severity Level One Approach Two Approaches
Three-leg minor-road stop Total 0.56 -
controlb Fatal and Injury 0.45 -
Four-leg minor-road stop Total 0.72 0.52
controlb Fatal and Injury 0.65 0.42
a Stop-controlled approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with left-turn lanes
b Stop signs present on minor-road approaches only

Table 11-23: Crash Modification Factors (CMF3i) for Installation of Right-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches
Number of Non-Stop-Controlled Approaches with Right-turn
Lanesa
Intersection Type Crash Severity Level One Approach Two Approaches
Three-leg minor-road stop Total 0.86 -
controlb Fatal and Injury 0.77 -
Four-leg minor-road stop Total 0.86 0.74
controlb Fatal and Injury 0.77 0.59
a Stop-controlled approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with right-turn lanes
b Stop signs present on minor-road approaches only

Table 11-24: Night-time Crash Proportions for Unlighted Intersections

HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values (Michigan)
Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes Proportion of total night-time Proportion of crashes
crashes by severity level that occur at night crashes by severity level that occur at night
Roadway Type Fatal and injury, pini PDO, ppnr pni Fatal and injury, pinr PDO, ppnr pni
3ST 0.276 0.148
4ST 0.273 0.106
Note: Locally-Derived Values provided courtesy of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).

Notes for Tables 11-11, 11-12 and 11-16 for AADT 400 – 2000 see HSM.

Chapter 11 Tables

9
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan

Values Not Available
Table 12-3: SPF Coefficients for Multiple-Vehicle Non-driveway Collisions on Roadway Segments
Coefficients use in Eqn. 12-10
Overdispersion
Intercept AADT
parameter (k)
Road type (a) (b)
Total crashes
2U -15.22 1.68 0.84
3T -12.40 1.41 0.66
4U -11.63 1.33 1.01
4D -12.34 1.36 1.32
5T -9.70 1.17 0.81
Fatal-and-injury crashes
2U -16.22 1.66 0.65
3T -16.45 1.69 0.59
4U -12.08 1.25 0.99
4D -12.76 1.28 1.31
5T -10.47 1.12 0.62
Property-damage-only crashes
2U -15.62 1.69 0.87
3T -11.95 1.33 0.59
4U -12.53 1.38 1.08
4D -12.81 1.38 1.34
5T -9.97 1.17 0.88

Table 12-4: Distribution of Multiple-Vehicle Non-driveway Collisions for Roadway Segments by Manner of
Collision Type
Proportion of crashes by severity level for specific road types
HSM-Provided Values
2U 3T 4U 4D 5T
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Rear-end collision 0.730 0.778 0.845 0.842 0.511 0.506 0.832 0.662 0.846 0.651
Head-on collision 0.068 0.004 0.034 0.020 0.077 0.004 0.020 0.007 0.021 0.004
Angle collision 0.085 0.079 0.069 0.020 0.181 0.130 0.040 0.036 0.050 0.059
Sideswipe, same direction 0.015 0.031 0.001 0.078 0.093 0.249 0.050 0.223 0.061 0.248
Sideswipe, opposite direction 0.073 0.055 0.017 0.020 0.082 0.031 0.010 0.001 0.004 0.009
Other multiple-vehicle collision 0.029 0.053 0.034 0.020 0.056 0.080 0.048 0.071 0.018 0.029
Source: HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006)
Locally-Derived Values
2U 3T 4U 4D 5T
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Rear-end collision
Head-on collision
Angle collision
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, opposite direction
Other multiple-vehicle collision
Note: HSM-Provided values based on HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006)

Chapter 12 Tables

10
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-5: SPF Coefficients for Single-Vehicle Collisions on Roadway Segments

Coefficients use in Eqn. 12-11
Overdispersion
Intercept AADT
parameter (k)
Road type (a) (b)
Total crashes
2U -5.47 0.56 0.81
3T -5.74 0.54 1.37
4U -7.99 0.81 0.91
4D -5.05 0.47 0.86
5T -4.82 0.54 0.52
Fatal-and-injury crashes
2U -3.96 0.23 0.50
3T -6.37 0.47 1.06
4U -7.37 0.61 0.54
4D -8.71 0.66 0.28
5T -4.43 0.35 0.36
Property-damage-only crashes
2U -6.51 0.64 0.87
3T -6.29 0.56 1.93
4U -8.50 0.84 0.97
4D -5.04 0.45 1.06
5T -5.83 0.61 0.55

Table 12-6: Distribution of Single-Vehicle Collisions for Roadway Segments by Collision Type
Proportion of crashes by severity level for specific road types
HSM-Provided Values
2U 3T 4U 4D 5T
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Collision with animal 0.026 0.066 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.063 0.016 0.049
Collision with fixed object 0.723 0.759 0.688 0.963 0.612 0.809 0.500 0.813 0.398 0.768
Collision with other object 0.010 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.029 0.028 0.016 0.005 0.061
Other single-vehicle collision 0.241 0.162 0.310 0.035 0.367 0.161 0.471 0.108 0.581 0.122
Source: HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006)
Locally-Derived Values
2U 3T 4U 4D 5T
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Collision with animal
Collision with fixed object
Collision with other object
Other single-vehicle collision

Table 12-8: Pedestrian Crash Adjustment Factor for Roadway Segments

Pedestrian Crash Adjustment Factor (fpedr)
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values
Posted Speed 30 mph Posted Speed Greater than Posted Speed 30 mph Posted Speed Greater than
Road type or Lower 30 mph or Lower 30 mph
2U 0.036 0.005
3T 0.041 0.013
4U 0.022 0.009
4D 0.067 0.019
5T 0.030 0.023
Note: These factors apply to the methodology for predicting total crashes (all severity levels combined). All pedestrian collisions resulting from
this adjustment factor are treated as fatal-and-injury crashes and none as property-damage-only crashes. Source: HSIS data for Washington
(2002-2006)

Chapter 12 Tables

11
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-9: Bicycle Crash Adjustment Factor for Roadway Segments

Bicycle Crash Adjustment Factor (fbiker)
HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values
Posted Speed 30 mph Posted Speed Greater than Posted Speed 30 mph Posted Speed Greater than
Road type or Lower 30 mph or Lower 30 mph
2U 0.018 0.004
3T 0.027 0.007
4U 0.011 0.002
4D 0.013 0.005
5T 0.050 0.012
Note: These factors apply to the methodology for predicting total crashes (all severity levels combined). All pedestrian collisions resulting from
this adjustment factor are treated as fatal-and-injury crashes and none as property-damage-only crashes. Source: HSIS data for Washington
(2002-2006)

Table 12-10: SPF Coefficients for Multiple-Vehicle Collisions at Intersections

Coefficients use in Eqn. 12-21
Overdispersion
Intercept AADTmaj AADTmin
parameter (k)
Intersection type (a) (b) (c)
Total crashes
3ST -13.36 1.11 0.41 0.80
3SG -12.13 1.11 0.26 0.33
4ST -8.90 0.82 0.25 0.40
4SG -10.99 1.07 0.23 0.39
Fatal-and-injury crashes
3ST -14.01 1.16 0.30 0.69
3SG -11.58 1.02 0.17 0.30
4ST -11.13 0.93 0.28 0.48
4SG -13.14 1.18 0.22 0.33
Property-damage-only crashes
3ST -15.38 1.20 0.51 0.77
3SG -13.24 1.14 0.30 0.36
4ST -8.74 0.77 0.23 0.40
4SG -11.02 1.02 0.24 0.44

Table 12-11: Distribution of Multiple-Vehicle Collisions for Intersections by Collision Type

Proportion of crashes by severity level for specific intersection types
HSM-Provided Values
3ST 3SG 4ST 4SG
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Rear-end collision 0.421 0.440 0.549 0.546 0.338 0.374 0.450 0.483
Head-on collision 0.045 0.023 0.038 0.020 0.041 0.030 0.049 0.030
Angle collision 0.343 0.262 0.280 0.204 0.440 0.335 0.347 0.244
Sideswipe 0.126 0.040 0.076 0.032 0.121 0.044 0.099 0.032
Other multiple-vehicle
0.065 0.235 0.057 0.198 0.060 0.217 0.055 0.211
collision
Source: HSIS data for Washington (2002-2006)
Locally-Derived Values
3ST 3SG 4ST 4SG
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Rear-end collision
Head-on collision
Angle collision
Sideswipe
Other multiple-vehicle
collision
Note: HSM-Provided values based on HSIS data for California (2002-2006)

Chapter 12 Tables

12
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-12: SPF Coefficients for Single-Vehicle Crashes at Intersections

Coefficients use in Eqn. 12-24
Overdispersion
Intercept AADTmaj AADTmin
parameter (k)
Intersection type (a) (b) (c)
Total crashes
3ST -6.81 0.16 0.51 1.14
3SG -9.02 0.42 0.40 0.36
4ST -5.33 0.33 0.12 0.65
4SG -10.21 0.68 0.27 0.36
Fatal-and-injury crashes
3ST -- -- -- --
3SG -9.75 0.27 0.51 0.24
4ST -- -- -- --
4SG -9.25 0.43 0.29 0.09
Property-damage-only crashes
3ST -8.36 0.25 0.55 1.29
3SG -9.08 0.45 0.33 0.53
4ST -7.04 0.36 0.25 0.54
4SG -11.34 0.78 0.25 0.44
Note: Where no models are available, the equation used is Nbisv(FI) = Nbisv(TOTAL) x fbisv

Table 12-13: Distribution of Single-Vehicle Crashes for Intersections by Collision Type

Proportion of crashes by severity level for specific intersection types
HSM-Provided Values
3ST 3SG 4ST 4SG
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Collision with parked vehicle 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Collision with animal 0.003 0.018 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.026 0.002 0.002
Collision with fixed object 0.762 0.834 0.653 0.895 0.679 0.847 0.744 0.870
Collision with other object 0.090 0.092 0.091 0.069 0.089 0.070 0.072 0.070
Other single-vehicle collision 0.039 0.023 0.045 0.018 0.051 0.007 0.040 0.023
Noncollision 0.105 0.030 0.209 0.014 0.179 0.049 0.141 0.034
Source: HSM-Provided values base on HSIS data for California (2002-2006)
Locally-Derived Values
3ST 3SG 4ST 4SG
Collision type FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO FI PDO
Collision with parked vehicle
Collision with animal
Collision with fixed object
Collision with other object
Other single-vehicle collision
Noncollision

Table 12-14: SPF for Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions at Signalized Intersections

Coefficients use in Eqn. 12-29
Overdispersion
Intersection Intercept AADTtot AADTmin/AADTmaj PedVol nlanesx
parameter (k)
type (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Total crashes
3SG -6.60 0.05 0.24 0.41 0.09 0.52
4SG -9.53 0.40 0.26 0.45 0.04 0.24

Chapter 12 Tables

13
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-15: Estimates of Pedestrian Crossing Volumes Based on General Level of Pedestrian Activity
Estimate of PedVol (pedestrians/day) for Use in Equation 12-29
General Level of Pedestrian Activity 3SG Intersections 4SG Intersections
High 1,700 3200
Medium-high 750 1500
Medium 400 700
Medium-low 120 240
Low 20 50

Table 12-16: Pedestrian Crash Adjustment Factors for Stop-Controlled Intersections

Intersection Type Pedestrian Crash Adjustment Factor (fpedi)
3ST 0.021
4ST 0.022

Table 12-17: Bicycle Crash Adjustment Factors for Intersections

Intersection Type Bicycle Crash Adjustment Factor (fbikei)
3ST 0.016
3SG 0.011
4ST 0.018
4SG 0.015

Table 12-19: Values of fpk Used in Determining the CMF for On-Street Parking
Type of Parking and Land Use
Parallel Parking Angle Parking
Residential/ Commercial or Industrial/ Residential/ Commercial or Industrial/
Road Type Other Institutional Other Institutional
U 1.465 2.074 3.428 4.853
3T 1.465 2.074 3.428 4.853
4U 1.100 1.709 2.574 3.999
4D 1.100 1.709 2.574 3.999
5T 1.100 1.709 2.574 3.999
Note: These factors apply to the methodology for predicting total crashes (all severity levels combined). All bicycle collisions resulting from this
adjustment factor are treated as fatal-and-injury crashes and none as property-damage-only crashes. Source: HSIS data for Washington (2002-
2006)

Table 12-22: CMFs for Median Widths on Divided Roadway Segments without a Median Barrier (CMF3r)
Median Width (ft) CMF
10 1.01
15 1.00
20 0.99
30 0.98
40 0.97
50 0.96
60 0.95
70 0.94
80 0.93
90 0.93
100 0.92

Chapter 12 Tables

14
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-23: Nighttime Crash Proportions for Unlighted Roadway Segments

HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values
Proportion of Proportion of
Proportion of Total Nighttime Proportion of Total Nighttime
Crashes that Crashes that
Crashes by Severity Level Crashes by Severity Level
Occur at Night Occur at Night
Fatal and Injury
Fatal and Injury (pinr) PDO (ppnr) (pnr) PDO (ppnr) (pnr)
Road Type (pinr)
2U 0.424 0.576 0.316
3T 0.429 0.571 0.304
4U 0.517 0.483 0.365
4D 0.364 0.636 0.410
5T 0.432 0.568 0.274

Table 12-24: Crash Modification Factor (CMF1i) for Installation of Left-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches
Intersection Number of approaches with left-turn lanes a
Intersection traffic control
Type One approach Two approaches Three approaches Four approaches
3ST Minor-road STOP controlb 0.67 0.45 -- --
3SG Traffic signal 0.93 0.86 0.80 0.80
4ST Minor-road STOP controla 0.73 0.53 -- --
4SG Traffic signal 0.90 0.81 0.73 0.66
a STOP-controlled approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with left-turn lanes.
b Stop signs present on minor-road approaches only.

Table 12-25: Crash Modification Factor (CMF2i) for Type of Left-Turn Signal Phasing
Type of Left-Turn Signal Phasing CMF2i
Permissive 1.00
Protected/permissive or permissive/protective 0.99
Protected 0.94
Note: Use CMF2i = 1.00 for all un-signalized intersections. If several approaches to a signalized intersection left-turn phasing, the values of CMF2i
for each approach are multiplied together

Table 12-26: Crash Modification Factor (CMF3i) for Installation of Right-Turn Lanes on Intersection Approaches
Intersection Number of approaches with right-turn lanes a
Intersection traffic control
Type One approach Two approaches Three approaches Four approaches
3ST Minor-road STOP controlb 0.86 0.74 -- --
3SG Traffic signal 0.96 0.92 -- --
4ST Minor-road STOP controla 0.86 0.74 -- --
4SG Traffic signal 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.85
a STOP-controlled approaches are not considered in determining the number of approaches with left-turn lanes.
b Stop signs present on minor-road approaches only.

Table 12-27: Nighttime Crash Proportions for Unlighted Intersections

Proportion of crashes that occur at night, pni
Intersection Type HSM-Provided Values Locally-Derived Values
3ST 0.238 0.300
4ST 0.229 0.310
3SG 0.235 0.320
4SG 0.235 0.330

Chapter 12 Tables

15
HSM Chapter 12 Tables: HSM Default Tables – Michigan Values Not Available

Table 12-28: Crash Modification Factor (CMF1p) for the Presence of Bus Stops Near the Intersection
Number of Bus Stops within 1,000 ft. of the Intersection CMF1p
0 1.00
1 or 2 2.78
3 or more 4.15

Table 12-29: Crash Modification Factor (CMF2p) for the Presence of Schools Near the Intersection
Number of Schools within 1,000 ft. of the Intersection CMF2p
No school present 1.00
School present 1.35

Table 12-30: Crash Modification Factor (CMF3p) for the Number of Alcohol Sales Establishment near the
Intersection
Number of Alcohol Sales Establishments within 1,000 ft. of the Intersection CMF3p
0 1.00
1-8 1.12
9 or more 1.56

Chapter 12 Tables

16
HSM Module 3: Crash Modification Factors

Sample Problem 3-1:

Effectiveness of treatments on two-lane rural highway segment

Brief Description of the Project/Case

This analysis of a roadway segment involves County Road
63. The segment under review extends from CR 637 to CR
345. The roadway is a two-lane facility in a rural setting.
Currently, the roadway segment consists of 12’ lanes with 4’
paved shoulders. What will be the likely change in expected
run-off-the-road crashes and total crashes if the County
narrows the lane widths to 11’ and widens the shoulder
widths to 5’?

The 2008 traffic count indicates that the average annual

daily traffic (AADT) for the segment was 4,494 vehicles per
day.

Table 3-1 summarizes the crash history for the segment.

Table 3-1. Crash History for Segment

Year Run-off-the-road, head- Total segment
on, and sideswipe crashes
crashes
2006 10 26
2007 13 19
2008 10 17
Total 33 (11 .00 per year, 62 (20.67 per
53.2% of total crashes) year)

Step 1. Calculate the existing CMF for 12’ lanes Student Notes

Sample Problem 3-1

17
HSM Module 3: Crash Modification Factors

To adjust the lane width CMF for total crash assessment (based on proportion of For lane width CMFs - use
crashes), use HSM Equation 13-3, p. 13-18. Table 13-2, p. 13-4 of the
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & HSM. The percentage of
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes run-off-the-road, head-on,
CMF = 1.00 (per Table 13-2) CMF = (1.00 – 1.00) x 0.532 + 1.00 and sideswipe crashes is
(per Equation 13-3) 53.2% per Table 3-1 of this
CMF = 1.00 sample problem. (If local
crash type % values are
unknown, HSM Table 10-6
provides defaults.)
Step 2. Calculate the CMF for proposed 11’ lanes
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, &
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes
CMF = 1.05 (per Table 13-2) CMF = (1.05 – 1.00) x 0.532 + 1.00
(per Equation 13-3)
CMF = 1.027
𝐶𝑀𝐹11′𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒
Step 3. Calculate the treatment corresponding to the change in lane width for run- 𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐶𝑀𝐹12′𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒
off-the-road crashes and total crashes
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Where
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes CMFfor 11’ from Step 2
1.05 1.027 CMFfor 12’ from Step 1
𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = 1.05 𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = 1.027
1.00 1.00

Step 4. Apply the treatment CMF to the expected number of crashes

Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Use results from Step 3 and
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes Table 3-1

1.05 × 11.00 = 1.027 × 20.67 =

11.55 crashes/year 21.23 crashes/year

Step 5. Change in expected crashes due to proposed lane width changes

Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Use results from Step 4 and
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes Table 3-1
11.55 – 11.00 = 0.55 crashes/year 21.23 – 20.67 = 0.56 crashes/year
(So an increase of 0.55 crashes/year) (So an increase of 0.56 crashes/year)

Step 6. Calculate the existing CMF for 4’ paved shoulders

To adjust the paved shoulder width CMF for total crash assessment (based on
For paved shoulder width
proportion of crashes), use HSM Equation 13-3, p. 13-18.
CMFs - use Table 13-7, p.
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, &
Total Crashes 13-11 of the HSM. The
Sideswipe Crashes
percentage of run-off-the-
CMF = 1.15 (per Table 13-7) CMF = (1.15 – 1.00) x 0.532 + 1.00
road, head-on, and
(per Equation 13-3)
sideswipe crashes is 53.2%
CMF = 1.08
per Table 3-1.

Step 7. Calculate the CMF for proposed 5’ paved shoulders and 4,494 vpd

Sample Problem 3-1

18
HSM Module 3: Crash Modification Factors

Run-off-the-road, Head-on, &

Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes
CMF = 1.075 (per Table 13-7) CMF = (1.075 – 1.00) x 0.532 + 1.00
(per Equation 13-3)
CMF = 1.04

Step 8. Calculate the treatment corresponding to the change in shoulder width for
𝐶𝑀𝐹5′𝑠ℎ𝑙𝑑
run-off-the-road crashes and total crashes 𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
𝐶𝑀𝐹4′𝑠ℎ𝑙𝑑
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, &
Total Crashes Where
Sideswipe Crashes
CMFfor 5’ from Step 7
1.075 1.04 CMFfor 4’ from Step 6
𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = 0.935 𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = = 0.963
1.15 1.08

Step 9. Apply the treatment CMF to the expected number of crashes

Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Use results from Step 8 and
Total Crashes Table 3-1
Sideswipe Crashes

0.935 × 11.00 = 0.963 × 20.67 =

10.29 crashes/year 19.91 crashes/year

Step 10. Calculate the change in crashes due to proposed shoulder width changes.
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Use results from Step 9 and
Total Crashes
Sideswipe Crashes Table 3-1
10.29 – 11.00 = -0.71 crashes/year 19.91 – 20.67 = -0.76 crashes/year
(So a decrease of 0.71 crashes/year) (So a decrease of 0.76 crashes/year)

Step 11. Total change in expected crashes due to lane and shoulder width changes
Run-off-the-road, Head-on, & Use results from Step 5 and
Total Crashes Step 10
Sideswipe Crashes
∆ Crashes = 0.55 – 0.71 = -0.16 ∆ Crashes = 0.56 – 0.76 = -0.20
(So an overall decrease of 0.16 (So an overall decrease of 0.20
crashes/year) crashes/year )
11.00 – 0.16 = 10.84 expected crashes 20.67 - 0.20 = 20.47 expected crashes
following treatment following treatment

SUMMARY
The proposed changes will slightly decrease the run-off-the-road, head-on, and sideswipe crashes as well as total
crashes.

Sample Problem 3-1

19
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

Sample Problem 4-1:

Design Exception Case Study

Brief Description of the Project/Case Student Notes

The intersection of a four-lane undivided rural highway with minor road
(STOP-controlled) currently does not have turn lanes and the lane width
and shoulder width adhere to AASHTO policies.

As a possible way of improving safety at the intersection, an agency is

considering narrowing the paved lane and shoulder widths so that they can
maintain existing right-of-way widths and potentially add left and/or right
turn-lanes on the mainline approaches.

Using the predictive methodologies included in the HSM Vol. 2 (Part C)

Chapter 11: Multilane Rural Highways, evaluate the impact of the
proposed alternative designs on expected crash frequency for the year
2009.

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the facility

Existing Road (study segment length of 0.38 miles):

Mainline (major road)

AADT of 30,000 vpd in 2009 (assume does not change at intersection)

66’ cross-section (4 lanes + 2 shlds) [Lane Widths = 12’, Paved Shlds = 8’]
Design Speed = 50 mph
No lighting or automated speed enforcement
No turn lanes and no intersection skew
Roadside slope = 1:7
Intersecting Highway (minor road)

AADT of 5,000 vpd in 2009 (assume does not change at intersection)

Lane Widths = 11’, No Shoulders (graded or paved)
Design Speed = 50 mph
Proposed Design “A”:

Mainline (major road) changes

Lane Widths reduced from 12’ to 11’ (does not meet policy and so requires
an exception)
Shoulder widths reduced from 8’ to 6’ (does not meet policy and so requires
an exception)
Add left-turn lanes in each direction (10’ wide, 500’ in length)

Sample Problem 4-1

20
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

Proposed Design “B”:

Mainline (major road) changes

Lane Widths reduced from 12’ to 10’ (does not meet policy)
Shoulder widths reduced from 8’ to 3’ (does not meet policy)
Add left-turn lanes and right-turn-lanes in each direction (10’ wide, 500’ in
length)

Step 2 – Divide locations into homogeneous segments or

intersections
For this study, all alternatives apply to one intersection location so this can
be perceived as a single homogeneous segment site and a single
homogeneous intersection site.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

It is appropriate to compute the SPF values for segments and intersections
and then add them together. Since this location has modifications that
directly influence lane and shoulder widths (safety influences captured
during segment analysis), it is important to include this step.

𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑠𝑝𝑓 × (𝐶𝑀𝐹1𝑥 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹2𝑥 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹𝑦𝑥 ) × 𝐶𝑥

For all designs, the same SPF will be used but some of the CMF values will
change due to the various proposed designs. Since this location is
consistent for all candidate designs, the calibration factor will be the same
for all designs.

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 11-7, the segment SPF for base conditions can be
determined as follows:

𝑁 𝑠𝑝𝑓 = 𝑒 [𝑎+𝑏×ln(𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇)+ ln(𝐿)]

𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

Sample Problem 4-1

21
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

The variables are defined from Table 11-3 for the various severity levels:

𝑁 𝑠𝑝𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑒 [−9.653+1.176×ln(30,000)+ ln(0.38)] = 4.49

𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠

Predicted Intersection Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 11-11, the intersection SPF for base conditions can be
determined as follows:

𝑁𝑠𝑝𝑓 = 𝑒 [𝑎+𝑏×ln(𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑗 )+𝑐×ln(𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 )]

The variables are defined from Table 11-7 for the various severity levels:

𝑁 𝑠𝑝𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑒 [−10.008+0.848×ln(30,000)+0.448×ln(5,000)] = 12.80

𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠

Sample Problem 4-1

22
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Segment Base Conditions (Undivided Roadway):

Lane Width = 12’

Shoulder Width = 6’

Shoulder Type = Paved

Side Slopes = 1V:7H or flatter

No lighting or automated speed enforcement

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these base
conditions, so for the proposed designs the lane width and shoulder width
CMF values are required.

Lane Width CMF (applicable for run-off-road, head-on, & sideswipe):

So, LW=11’ has CMFRA=1.04, LW=10’ has CMFRA=1.23 (related crashes)

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟏𝒓𝒖 = (𝑪𝑴𝑭𝑹𝑨 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝒑𝑹𝑨 + 𝟏. 𝟎

For 11’ lanes:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟏𝒓𝒖 = (𝟏. 𝟎𝟒 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏. 𝟎 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟏𝟎𝟖

Sample Problem 4-1

23
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

For 10’ lanes:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟏𝒓𝒖 = (𝟏. 𝟐𝟑 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏. 𝟎 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟔𝟐𝟏

Shoulder Width CMF (applicable for run-off-road, head-on, & sideswipe):

So, SW=8’ has CMFWRA=0.87, LW=3’ has CMFWRA=1.225 (related crashes)

Since the shoulder is paved, this will have a CMFTRA value of 1.00 for all
cases.

Apply Shoulder CMF values for each segment scenario:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒓𝒖 = (𝑪𝑴𝑭𝑾𝑹𝑨 × 𝑪𝑴𝑭𝑻𝑹𝑨 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝒑𝑹𝑨 + 𝟏. 𝟎

For 8’ paved shoulders:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒓𝒖 = (𝟎. 𝟖𝟕 × 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏. 𝟎 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟔𝟒𝟗

For 6’ paved shoulders:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒓𝒖 = (𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 × 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏. 𝟎 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎

For 3’ paved shoulders:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒓𝒖 = (𝟏. 𝟐𝟐𝟓 × 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟎) × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟕 + 𝟏. 𝟎 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟔𝟎𝟖

Sample Problem 4-1

24
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

Existing Conditions (12’ lanes, 8’ shoulders):

𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑠𝑝𝑓 × (𝐶𝑀𝐹1𝑟𝑢 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹2𝑟𝑢 )

𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 4.49 × (1.0 × 0.9649) = 4.33

Proposed Design “A” (11’ lanes, 6’ shoulders):

𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 4.49 × (1.0108 × 1.00) = 4.54

Proposed Design “B” (10’ lanes, 3’ shoulders):

𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 4.49 × (1.0621 × 1.054) = 5.06

Intersection Base Conditions (4-Leg Minor STOP-controlled):

Intersection Skew Angle of 0-degrees

No left-turn or right-turn lanes (unless stop-controlled)

No lighting

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these
intersection base conditions, so for the proposed designs the addition of
turn lanes require CMF adjustments. CMF values of 1.0 will be used for the
skew and lighting CMF as these adhere to base conditions.

Sample Problem 4-1

25
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

Left-turn Lane CMF:

For left-turn lanes on two approaches (total crashes):

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒊 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟐

For no left-turn lanes:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟐𝒊 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎

Right-turn Lane CMF:

For right-turn lanes on two approaches (total crashes):

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟑𝒊 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟒

For no right-turn lanes:

𝑪𝑴𝑭𝟑𝒊 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎

Sample Problem 4-1

26
HSM Module 4: Predictive Method Process

To determine predicted crashes at intersections for each option:

Existing Conditions (12’ lanes, 8’ shoulders):

𝑁 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑠𝑝𝑓 × (𝐶𝑀𝐹1𝑖 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹2𝑖 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹3𝑖 × 𝐶𝑀𝐹4𝑖 )

𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑁 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 12.80 × (1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0) = 12.80

𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗

Proposed Design “A” (add left-turn lanes, no right-turn lanes):

𝑁 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 12.80 × (1.0 × 0.52 × 1.0 × 1.0) = 6.66

𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗

Proposed Design “B” (add left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes):

𝑁 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 12.80 × (1.0 × 0.52 × 0.74 × 1.0) = 4.93

𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑗

Combine Predicted Crashes for Segment and Intersections:

Scenario Segment Intersection Total Predicted
Crashes for Crashes for Crashes for
2009 2009 2009
Existing 4.33 12.80 17.13
A 4.54 6.66 11.20
B 5.06 4.93 9.99

Step 5 – Apply Local Calibration Factor

For site-specific comparisons, the calibration factor is the same for all
scenarios. If the goal is to simply determine which scenario would
generate the lowest number of crashes (by comparison), then the
calibration factor is not required here. If the goal is to more accurately the
actual number of crashes for each scenario, then multiply each value
obtained in Step 4 by the local calibration factor.

For the two alternative scenarios, Proposed Design “B” with the narrower
lanes and shoulders but left and right-turn lanes results in the fewest
expected crashes at this location (9.71 for the year 2009).

Acknowledgement: The original sample problem was developed by Michael

Dimaiuta, Larry Sutherland, and Karen Dixon.

Sample Problem 4-1

27
Module 7: Network Screening

Case Study 7-1:

Network Screening – Vol. 1 (Part B) Case Study

Brief Description of the Project/Case

The following case study provides sample data for ten intersections with five-years of crash data (2003-2007). A county is undertaking an
effort to improve safety on their highway network and is screening ten intersections to identify sites with potential for reducing crashes
depending on various criteria. The county will follow the HSM Roadway Safety Management Process beginning with Network Screening.
Your first objective is to perform a network screening analysis for the 10 candidate intersections using the crash rate ranking, EPDO ranking,
and expected crash frequency with EB adjustment network screening procedures.

Group Discussion Questions:

What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of each analysis procedure?
Do the individual procedures provide dramatically different results?
Which intersections should be the target for additional analysis?

Case Study 7-1

28
Module 7: Network Screening

Acquire data for the network screening of the selected intersections

Available Data: For performing the network screening process, you will need crash data (crash type and crash severity) as well as traffic volume
for the candidate intersections.

Table 7-1. Sample Intersections – Traffic Control and Entering Volumes

Location Area Type & Traffic
Major Route ADT Minor Route ADT
Intersection Major Route Minor Route Control
1 Morris Blvd Chicago Ave Signalized 33,300 13,200
2 1st Ave Golf Rd Signalized 34,800 17,500
3 Devon Ave Main St Signalized 27,800 18,600
4 3rd St Park Ave Signalized 29,200 1,100
5 Wilson Rd Lake St Signalized 16,600 16,100
6 Kennedy Blvd Main St Signalized 33,300 13,200
7 Roosevelt Rd Lake St Signalized 20,300 17,600
8 5th St Chicago Ave Signalized 30,800 18,500
9 Cicero Ave Banks Dr Signalized 37,500 17,400
10 Dawson Ave Howard St Signalized 13,100 12,700

Table 7-2. Sample Intersections – Crash Severity (2003 – 2007)

Location Crashes by Severity
Intersection Major Route Minor Route K A B C PDO
1 Morris Blvd Chicago Ave 0 11 35 17 194
2 1st Ave Golf Rd 0 10 33 37 242
3 Devon Ave Main St 0 3 7 9 100
4 3rd St Park Ave 0 4 6 10 60
5 Wilson Rd Lake St 0 0 1 5 48
6 Kennedy Blvd Main St 0 14 30 23 248
7 Roosevelt Rd Lake St 0 0 1 3 25
8 5th St Chicago Ave 0 16 21 29 381
9 Cicero Ave Banks Dr 0 14 15 20 165
10 Dawson Ave Howard St 0 0 1 9 40

Case Study 7-1

29
Module 7: Network Screening

Table 7-3. Sample Intersections – Crash Type (2003 – 2007)

Other Non-
Location Head-On Collision
and Rear End and Other
Opposite Fixed Object Angle and Same Pedestrian Object and
Minor
Intersection Major Route Direction and and Direction and Pedal- Parked Car
Route
Sideswipe Overturned Turning Sideswipe Animal cyclist & Train Total
1 Morris Blvd Chicago Ave 4 2 91 129 0 18 13 257
2 1st Ave Golf Rd 2 6 154 145 9 3 3 322
3 Devon Ave Main St 0 3 45 66 0 1 4 119
4 3rd St Park Ave 0 3 37 39 0 1 0 80
5 Wilson Rd Lake St 2 4 22 21 0 3 2 54
6 Kennedy Blvd Main St 0 5 140 162 4 0 4 315
7 Roosevelt Rd Lake St 0 0 10 16 0 0 3 29
8 5th St Chicago Ave 4 1 137 301 0 3 1 447
9 Cicero Ave Banks Dr 2 3 77 125 0 1 6 214
10 Dawson Ave Howard St 0 0 38 9 0 1 2 50

Table 7-4. Sample Intersections – Light Condition

Location Light Condition
Total Crashes
Minor Day/ Dawn/ Night/
Intersection Major Route Lighted Unknown
Route Daylight Dusk Dark
1 Morris Blvd Chicago Ave 147 10 47 50 3 257
2 1st Ave Golf Rd 200 30 46 45 1 322
3 Devon Ave Main St 86 4 25 1 3 119
4 3rd St Park Ave 67 3 8 2 0 80
5 Wilson Rd Lake St 44 4 4 2 0 54
6 Kennedy Blvd Main St 229 25 34 25 2 315
7 Roosevelt Rd Lake St 26 1 0 2 0 29
8 5th St Chicago Ave 319 16 66 42 4 447
9 Cicero Ave Banks Dr 151 18 24 16 5 214
10 Dawson Ave Howard St 37 6 2 5 0 50

Table 7-5. Sample Intersections – Surface Condition

Case Study 7-1

30
Module 7: Network Screening

Location Other/ Total Crashes

Dry Wet Ice/Snow/Slush
Unknown
Intersection Major Route Minor Route

1 Morris Blvd Chicago Ave 186 42 11 18 257

2 1st Ave Golf Rd 249 58 8 7 322
3 Devon Ave Main St 90 15 6 8 119
4 3rd St Park Ave 64 8 4 4 80
5 Wilson Rd Lake St 46 5 3 0 54
6 Kennedy Blvd Main St 260 45 6 4 315
7 Roosevelt Rd Lake St 23 4 1 1 29
8 5th St Chicago Ave 348 77 12 10 447
9 Cicero Ave Banks Dr 143 37 6 28 214
10 Dawson Ave Howard St 35 12 3 0 50

Next Step: Next, perform network screening using the (1) crash rate ranking, (2) EPDO ranking, and (3) expected crash frequency with EB
adjustment procedures.

Case Study 7-1

31
Module 7: Network Screening

Network Screening – Method 1:

Performance Measure 1: Crash Rate Ranking

Step 1: Calculate Million Entering Vehicles (MEV):

MEV = (TEV/1,000,000) x (n) x (365) Reference: Equation 4-2, p. 4-26 of HSM

Where: TEV = Total entering vehicles per day, n = Number of years of crash data

Step 2: Calculate Crash Rate:

Crash Rate (R ) = Nobserved i(total) / MEVi Reference: Equation 4-3, p. 4-27 of HSM

For Intersection 1:
MEV = ((33300 + 13200)/1,000,000) x 5 x 365 = 84.86
R = 257/84.86 = 3.03

Step 3: Rank Locations:

Intersection Total Crashes MEV Crash Rate (CR) Rank

1 257 84.86 3.03 4
2 322 95.45 3.37 3
3 119 84.68 1.41 7
4 80 55.30 1.45 6
5 54 59.68 0.90 9
6 315 84.86 3.71 2
7 29 69.17 0.42 10
8 447 89.97 4.97 1
9 214 100.19 2.14 5
10 50 47.09 1.06 8

Case Study 7-1

32
Module 7: Network Screening

Network Screening – Method 2:

Performance Measure 2: EPDO - Ranking

Step 1: Calculate EPDO Weights: fy = CCy/CCPDO Reference: Equation 4-4 (p.4-30

HSM)

(Every Injury Crash is equivalent to 11.16 PDO

EPDO Weight (Injury Crash) = $82,600/$7,400 = 11.16 Crash)
(Every Fatal Crash is equivalent to 541.74 PDO
EPDO Weight (Fatal Crash) = $4,008,900/$7,400 = 541.74 Crash)

Severity Comprehensive Cost (2001 Dollars) Equivalent Weights

(Refer to Table 4-7 on p.4-29)
Fatal (K) $4,008,900 541.74
Injury Crashes (A/B/C) $82,600 11.16
PDO $7,400 1

Step 2: Calculate EPDO Score:

Total EPDO Score = 541.74 (Total Fatal Crashes) + 11.16 (Total Injury Crashes) + 1 (Total PDO Crashes)

For Intersection 1 - EPDO Score = (541.74 x 0) + (11.16 x 63) + (1 x 194) = 897

Step 3: Rank Sites:

Intersection EPDO Score Rank
1 897 4
2 1135 1
3 312 6
4 283 7
5 115 9
6 996 3
7 70 10
8 1118 2
9 712 5
10 152 8

Case Study 7-1

33
Module 7: Network Screening

Network Screening – Method 3:

Performance Measure 3: Expected Crash Frequency with Empirical Bayesian (EB) Adjustment

Intersection Ranking with expected average crash frequency using EB adjustment

TOTAL crashes Fatal and Injury Crashes (KABC) PDO crashes (O)
Intersection 1 4 5 5
Intersection 2 2 1 2
Intersection 3 6 6 7
Intersection 4 7 8 9
Intersection 5 9 10 4
Intersection 6 3 3 3
Intersection 7 10 9 10
Intersection 8 1 2 1
Intersection 9 5 4 6
Intersection 10 8 7 8

Summary of Network Screen Assessment:

Based on the crash rate ranking, EPDO ranking, and the expected crash frequency with EB adjustment we see that Intersections 2, 6, and 8 are
all ranked as the top three locations where there is the most opportunity for crash reduction. Though the ranking between first and second
varies between Intersections 2 and 8, this network screen assessment can confirm that each of these three intersections merit additional
diagnosis and evaluation.

Acknowledgements: The original case study was developed by Darren Torbic and Ingrid Potts from MRI.

Case Study 7-1

34
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Case Study 9-1:

Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection – Vol. 1 (Part B) Case Study

Brief Description of the Project/Case

As introduced in Module #7, Case Study 7-1, one
continuous sample problem has been developed to
demonstrate the entire roadway safety management
process. Case Study 7-1 identified three candidate
intersection locations that require additional analysis An aerial photo of the intersection location is shown below:
to see if there are opportunities to reduce crashes at
these locations. One of the intersections that ranked
highly by all three of the demonstrated network
screening evaluations was Intersection 2 (1st Avenue
and Golf Road). In this portion of the case study, the
agency has now elected to focus on Intersection 2,
diagnose the intersection, and then identify candidate
countermeasures for this location. In addition to a site
visit and general review of the crash history at this
location, the analyst can calculate the predicted
average number of crashes at the intersection and then
evaluate two countermeasures that have been
recommended by their staff. The two candidate
countermeasures include (1) changing the intersection
to a roundabout, and keeping the intersection and
adding a protected left-turn traffic signal phase.

Case Study 9-1

35
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Predict crash frequency at the candidate intersection:

Available data: Information regarding intersection geometry along with necessary crash and operation data are needed to predict crash
frequency. The previous Module #7 Case Study 7-1 provided this information for the ten study intersections. Table 9-1 summarizes the specific
data associated with Intersection 2.

Table 9-1. General Information and Selected Intersection Facts (based on Worksheet 2A, p. 12-113, Vol. 2, HSM)

Site Information

Highway SH 123

Intersection Intersection 2 - 1st Ave and Golf Rd

Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA

Analysis Year 2005

Input Data

Intersection Type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) 4SG

ADTmajor (veh/day) 34,800

ADTminor (veh/day) 17,500

Intersection Lighting (present/not present) present

Calibration factor (Ci) 0.88

Data for unsignalized intersection only:

Number of major-road approaches with left-turn Lanes (0, 1, 2) NA

Case Study 9-1

36
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Number of major-road approaches with right-turn Lanes (0, 1, 2) NA

Data for signalized intersection only:

Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 4

Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 3

Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 4

Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 and #2 Protected/Permissive

Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 and #4 Permissive

Intersection red-light cameras (present/not present) Not present

Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) (from Table 12-15) 240

Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx) 6

Number of approaches with RTOR prohibited (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0

Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection 0

Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Present

Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of intersection 6

Case Study 9-1

37
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-2. Crash Modification Factors for Base Condition (based on Worksheet 2B, p. 12-114, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

CMF for Left- CMF for Left-Turn CMF for Right- CMF for Right-Turn-on- CMF for Red Light
Turn Lanes Signal Phasing Turn Lanes Red CMF for Lighting Cameras
Combined CMF
CMF 1i CMF 2i CMF 3i CMF 4i CMF 5i CMF 6i

from Table 12- from Equation from Equation

24 from Table 12-25 from Table 12-26 from Equation 12-35 12-36 12-37 (1)x(2)x(3)x(4)x(5)

0.66 0.98 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.52

Note: For Intersection 2 the proportion of night time crashes is assumed to be a combination of Dawn/Dusk crashes along with night/dark crashes.
If the proportion is not available, Table 12-23, p. 12-42, Vol. 2, HSM provides default values based on intersection type.

Case Study 9-1

38
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-3. Multiple-Vehicle Collisions by Collision Type (based on Worksheet 2D, p. 12-114, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Crashes per year by severity level

Fatal and injury Property damage only Total

Collision Type
Proportion of collision Proportion of collision
type Predicted (Nbimv)FI type Predicted (Nbimv)PDO Predicted Nbimv

from Table 12-11 (2)x(3)FI from Table 12-11 (4)x(5)PDO (3)+(5)

Total 1.000 1.826 1.000 3.470 5.296

Rear-end collision 0.450 0.822 0.483 1.676 2.498

Head-on collision 0.049 0.089 0.030 0.104 0.194

Angle collision 0.347 0.634 0.244 0.847 1.480

Sideswipe 0.099 0.181 0.032 0.111 0.292

Other multiple-vehicle
collision 0.055 0.100 0.211 0.732 0.833

Note: The Safety Performance Function (SPF) for multiple-vehicle collisions is from HSM Equation 12-21. Coefficients for the SPF are from HSM
Table 12-10. It is assumed that the proportion of collision type distribution is based on the total universe of 4-legged urban signalized intersections
in the database.

Case Study 9-1

39
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-4. Single-Vehicle Collisions by Collision Type (based on Worksheet 2F, p. 12-115, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Crashes per year by severity level

Fatal and injury Property damage only Total

Collision Type
Proportion of Proportion of
collision type Predicted (Nbisv)FI collision type Predicted (Nbisv)PDO Predicted (Nbisv)TOTAL

from Table 12-13 (2)x(3)FI from Table 12-13 (4)x(5)PDO (3)+(5)

Total 1.000 0.068 1.000 0.221 0.289

Collision with parked vehicle 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

Collision with animal 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

Collision with fixed object 0.744 0.051 0.870 0.192 0.243

Collision with other object 0.072 0.005 0.070 0.015 0.020

Other single-vehicle collision 0.040 0.004 0.023 0.005 0.008

Single-vehicle non-collision 0.141 0.010 0.034 0.008 0.017

Note: The Safety Performance Function (SPF) for single-vehicle collisions is from HSM Equation 12-24. Coefficients for the SPF are from HSM
Table 12-12. It is assumed that the proportion of collision type distribution is based on the total universe of 4-legged urban signalized intersections
in the database.

Case Study 9-1

40
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-5. Crash Modification Factors for Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions (based on Worksheet 2H, p. 12-116, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

CMF for Bus Stops CMF for Schools CMF for Alcohol Sales Establishments

CMF 1p CMF 2p CMF 3p Combined CMF

from Table 12-28 from Table 12-29 from Table 12-30 (1)x(2)x(3)

1.00 1.35 1.12 1.51

Case Study 9-1

41
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-6. Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions (based on Worksheet 2I, p. 12-116, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Coefficients (from Table 12-14) Initial Npedbase Combined CMFs Calibration Factor Predicted Npedi

Crash severity level a b c d e k from Equation 12-29 (8)x(9)x(10)

Total -9.53 0.40 0.26 0.45 0.04 0.24 0.070 1.51 0.88 0.093

Fatal and Injury -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.093

Property Damage Only -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0

Note: All vehicle-pedestrian collisions are assumed as fatal and injury crash.

Table 9-7. Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions (based on Worksheet 2J, p. 12-116, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Predicted Nbimv Predicted Nbisv Predicted Nbi fbikei Calibration Factor Predicted Nbikei

Crash severity level (2) + (3) from Table 12-17 (4)x(5)x(6)

Total 5.296 0.289 5.586 0.015 0.88 0.074

Fatal and Injury -- -- -- -- -- 0.074

Property Damage Only -- -- -- -- -- 0

Note: All vehicle-bicycle collisions are assumed as fatal and injury crash.

Case Study 9-1

42
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-8. Crash Summary (Base Condition) – Crash Severity Distribution (based on Worksheet 2K, p. 12-117, Vol. 2, HSM)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Crashes per year by severity level

Collision Type Fatal and injury Property damage only Total
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE COLLISIONS

Rear-end collision 0.822 1.676 2.498

Head-on collision 0.089 0.104 0.194
Angle collision 0.634 0.847 1.480
Sideswipe 0.181 0.111 0.292
Other multiple-vehicle collision 0.100 0.732 0.833
Subtotal 1.826 3.470 5.296
SINGLE-VEHICLE COLLISIONS
Collision with parked vehicle 0.000 0.000 0.000
Collision with animal 0.000 0.000 0.001
Collision with fix object 0.051 0.192 0.243
Collision with other object 0.005 0.015 0.020
Other single-vehicle collision 0.003 0.005 0.008
Single-vehicle non-collision 0.010 0.008 0.017
Collision with pedestrian 0.093 0.000 0.093
Collision with bicycle 0.074 0.000 0.074
Subtotal 0.235 0.221 0.456
TOTAL
Total 2.061 3.692 5.753

Case Study 9-1

43
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Countermeasure Analysis and Evaluation

Identify countermeasures and review predicted average crash frequency

Table 9-9. General Information and Input data

Site Information

Highway CR 123

Intersection Intersection 2 – 1st Avenue and Golf Rd.

Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA

Analysis Year 2005

Input Data

Data Intersection 2

Intersection control Urban Signalized Intersection

Major Road AADT 34,800

Minor Road AADT 17,500

Predominate Collision Types Angle & Rear-end

Case Study 9-1

44
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Crashes by Severity

Total Crashes in 5-Year Period 322

Fatal 0

Injury 80

PDO 242

Contributing Factors Increase in traffic volumes

Inadequate capacity during peak hour

Note: The current base conditions are a 4-leg signalized intersection with left-turn lanes on all approaches, right-turn lanes on 3 of
the 4 approaches, left-turn signal phasing on all 4 approaches. All candidate CMFs must adhere to this base condition.

Consider four possible countermeasures and evaluate possible HSM options (be sure they meet the intersection base conditions):

Roundabout – see page 12-48, Vol. 2, HSM

Protect-only Left-turn signal – see Table 14-23, page 14-35, Vol. 3, HSM

Case Study 9-1

45
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-10. Countermeasure Information

(2)
Install a Single-lane
Protected Left-turn
Roundabout
Countermeasure: Signal

Service Life 30 Years 10 Years

Annual Traffic Growth 2.0% 2.0%

Discount Rate 4.0% 4.0%

Project Cost $1,500,000 $100,000

CMF p. 12-48, Vol. 2, HSM Table 12-43, HSM

Total Crashes 0.52 0.94

Fatal and Injury Crashes 0.51* 0.92*

Note: * represents CMF values for Fatal and Injury Crashes for the respective countermeasures based on a local traffic study and these values
are used in the sample problem for demonstration purposes only. For locations where a CMF is not available for all crash severity levels, local
assessment is one way to address this limitation.

Case Study 9-1

46
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-11. Predicted Crash Frequency at Intersection #2 without Countermeasures (projected for a 30-year period)

Year in Calendar Year Major Road Minor Road

Npredicted (TOT) Npredicted (FI)
Service Life (Y) AADT AADT

0 2005 34,800 17,500 5.75* 2.06*

1 2006 35,496 17,850 5.90 2.12
2 2007 36,206 18,207 6.05 2.17
3 2008 36,930 18,571 6.20 2.23
4 2009 37,669 18,943 6.36 2.29
5 2010 38,422 19,321 6.52 2.35
6 2011 39,190 19,708 6.69 2.41
7 2012 39,974 20,102 6.86 2.48
8 2013 40,774 20,504 7.03 2.54
9 2014 41,589 20,914 7.21 2.61
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
29 2034 61,799 31,077 11.94 4.43
Total 254.53 92.95

Note: * depicts the expected crash frequency number from Table 9-8 and is demonstrating calculations for Year 1.

Case Study 9-1

47
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-12. Predicted Crash Frequency for Total Crashes and Fatal & Injury Crashes for the (1) Roundabout Countermeasure

Total Crashes Fatal and Injury Crashes

Predicted Fatal Predicted

Predicted Predicted Predicted CMF for
Predicted CMF for and Injury Reduction
Crashes with Reduction Fatal and Fatal and
Year in Total Total Crashes with in Fatal and
Countermeasure in Total Injury Injury
Service Calendar Crashes Crashes Countermeasure Injury
(Roundabout) Crashes Crashes Crashes
Life (Y) Year (Roundabout) Crashes

0 2005 5.753 0.52 2.991 2.761 2.061 0.51 1.051 1.010

1 2006 5.899 0.52 3.067 2.832 2.116 0.51 1.079 1.037
2 2007 6.049 0.52 3.145 2.904 2.172 0.51 1.108 1.064
3 2008 6.203 0.52 3.225 2.977 2.229 0.51 1.137 1.092
4 2009 6.361 0.52 3.308 3.053 2.289 0.51 1.167 1.121
5 2010 6.523 0.52 3.392 3.131 2.349 0.51 1.198 1.151
6 2011 6.689 0.52 3.478 3.211 2.412 0.51 1.230 1.182
7 2012 6.859 0.52 3.567 3.292 2.476 0.51 1.263 1.213
8 2013 7.034 0.52 3.657 3.376 2.542 0.51 1.296 1.246
9 2014 7.213 0.52 3.751 3.462 2.610 0.51 1.331 1.279
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : :
29 2034 11.945 0.52 6.211 5.733 4.431 0.51 2.2607 2.171
Total 132.358 122.177 47.405 45.546

Case Study 9-1

48
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Example Year 2005 Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

Predicted Total Crashes due to countermeasure: 5.753 x 0.52 = 2.991

Predicted Reduction in Total Crashes: 5.753 - 2.991 = 2.761

Predicted Fatal and Injury Crashes: 2.061 x 0.51 = 1.051

Predicted Reduction in Fatal and Injury Crashes: 2.061 - 1.051 = 1.010

Case Study 9-1

49
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-13. Predicted Crash Frequency for Total Crashes and Fatal & Injury Crashes for the (2) Protected Left-turn Signal

Total Crashes Fatal and Injury Crashes

Predicted Fatal
Predicted Predicted
Predicted Predicted CMF for and Injury
Predicted CMF for Crashes with Reduction
Reduction Fatal and Fatal and Crashes with
Year in Total Total Countermeasure in Fatal and
in Total Injury Injury Countermeasure
Service Calendar Crashes Crashes (Protected Left- Injury
Crashes Crashes Crashes (Protected Left-
Life (Y) Year turn Signal) Crashes
turn Signal)
0 2005 5.753 0.94 5.419 0.334 2.061 0.92 1.911 0.150
1 2006 5.899 0.94 5.556 0.343 2.116 0.92 1.962 0.154
2 2007 6.049 0.94 5.697 0.352 2.172 0.92 2.013 0.159
3 2008 6.203 0.94 5.842 0.361 2.229 0.92 2.066 0.163
4 2009 6.361 0.94 5.990 0.370 2.289 0.92 2.121 0.168
5 2010 6.523 0.94 6.143 0.380 2.349 0.92 2.177 0.173
6 2011 6.689 0.94 6.299 0.390 2.412 0.92 2.234 0.178
7 2012 6.859 0.94 6.459 0.400 2.476 0.92 2.293 0.183
8 2013 7.034 0.94 6.623 0.411 2.542 0.92 2.354 0.188
9 2014 7.213 0.94 6.791 0.421 2.610 0.92 2.416 0.194
: : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : :
29 2034 11.945 0.94 11.239 0.705 4.431 0.92 4.092 0.339
Total 239.604 14.930 85.971 6.980

Case Study 9-1

50
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Example Year 2005 Calculation for Protected Left-turn Signal Phase:

Predicted Total Crashes due to countermeasure: 5.753 x 0.94 = 5.419

Predicted Reduction in Total Crashes: 5.753 - 5.419 = 0.334

Predicted Fatal and Injury Crashes: 2.061 x 0.92 = 1.911

Predicted Reduction in Fatal and Injury Crashes: 2.061 - 1.911 = 0.150

Summary of Countermeasure Assessment:

For the two candidate countermeasures, the potential for a reduction in crashes is summarized in Table 9-16. At the 10-year period,
the total number of crash reductions varies for the remaining countermeasures; however, to appropriately select the most cost
effective countermeasure it is necessary to perform an economic assessment. Module 10 and Case Study 10-1 will continue this
evaluation.

Case Study 9-1

51
Module 9: Diagnosis and Countermeasure Selection

Table 9-16. Summary of Predicted 10-Year and 30-Year Crash Reductions Due to Candidate Countermeasures

(1) (2)

Install a Single-lane Protected Left-turn Signal

Roundabout

10-Year Total

Predicted Reduction in
Property Damage Only 19.603 2.052
Crashes

Predicted Reduction in
11.396 1.709
Fatal and Injury Crashes

Predicted Reduction in
30.999 3.761
Total Crashes

30-Year Total

Predicted Reduction in
Property Damage Only 76.631 7.950
Crashes

Predicted Reduction in
45.546 6.980
Fatal and Injury Crashes

Predicted Reduction in
122.177 14.930
Total Crashes

Case Study 9-1

52
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Case Study 10-1:

Economic Appraisal and Prioritization – Vol. 1 (Part B) Case Study

Brief Description of the Project/Case

As introduced in Module #7, Case Study 7-1 and continued in Module #9, Case Study 9-1, one continuous sample problem has
been developed to demonstrate the entire roadway safety management process. Case Study 7-1 identified three candidate
intersection locations that require additional analysis to see if there are opportunities to reduce crashes at these locations. Case
Study 9-1 narrowed down the candidate intersections to one location (1st Avenue and Golf Road) and then evaluated potential
countermeasures including a roundabout, and a protected left-turn traffic signal phase. The next step is then to perform an
economic appraisal and prioritization of the candidate countermeasures in an effort to determine the most cost effective and highest
priority countermeasure options.

This sample problem demonstrates the economic appraisal and prioritization process.

Case Study 10-1

53
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Economic Appraisal (HSM Chapter 7) Assessment of Countermeasures:

Available data: Information regarding intersection geometry, predicted crashes, and expected countermeasure performance have
been previously provided in Case Study 7-1 and Case Study 9-1. The next step in the safety performance analysis process is to
evaluate whether an investment in a specific countermeasure is economically strategic. Table 10-1 depicts the societal costs
estimated by crash severity.

Table 10-1. Societal Crash Costs by Severity (Source: FHWA-HRT-05-051 and included as Table 7-1, p. 7-5, Vol. 1, HSM)

Injury Severity Estimated Cost

Fatality $4,008,900

Cost of Crashes with Fatal and/or Injury $158,200

Disabling Injury (A - Injury) $216,000

Evident Injury (B - Injury) $79,000

Possible Injury (C - Injury) $44,900

PDO $7,400

Case Study 10-1

54
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Convert countermeasure benefit to monetary value for the economic analysis calculations:
Table 10-2. Annual Monetary Value of Predicted Crash Reduction for Roundabout Countermeasure

Year in FI Crash PDO Crash

Calendar Year ∆ NPred,CMF1(FI) AM y(FI) ∆ NPred,CMF1(PDO) AM y(PDO) AM y(TOT)
Service Life (Y) Cost Cost

0 2005 1.010 $158,200 $159,768 1.751 $7,400 $12,960 $172,728

1 2006 1.037 $158,200 $164,002 1.795 $7,400 $13,282 $177,284

2 2007 1.064 $158,200 $168,352 1.839 $7,400 $13,611 $181,963

3 2008 1.092 $158,200 $172,821 1.885 $7,400 $13,949 $186,769

4 2009 1.121 $158,200 $177,411 1.932 $7,400 $14,294 $191,706

5 2010 1.151 $158,200 $182,127 1.980 $7,400 $14,649 $196,776

6 2011 1.182 $158,200 $186,972 2.029 $7,400 $15,012 $201,984

7 2012 1.213 $158,200 $191,949 2.079 $7,400 $15,384 $207,334

8 2013 1.246 $158,200 $197,062 2.130 $7,400 $15,766 $212,828

9 2014 1.279 $158,200 $202,315 2.183 $7,400 $16,156 $218,472

: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :

29 2034 2.171 $158,200 $343,504 3.562 $7,400 $26,359 $369,863

Case Study 10-1

55
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Example Year 2005 Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

Per Case Study 9-1, Table 9-12: Predicted Reduction in Total Crashes = 2.761; Predicted Reduction in Fatal & Injury Crashes = 1.010

Per Table 10-1 (see previous page): FI Crash Costs = $158,200 and PDO Crash Costs = $7,400

Total Annual Monetary Value (AM1(TOT)) = (1.010 x $158,200) + ([2.761 – 1.010] x $7,400) = $172,728

Note: Calculated values shown in Table 10-2 have been determined with the use of a spreadsheet so predicted crash reductions (shown here to
3 decimal places) were included in the calculations to a substantially larger number of decimal places. As a result, manual calculations may vary
slightly from those determined with a spreadsheet. Ultimately, this difference in precision will not affect the results provided that all calculations
are consistently performed.

Case Study 10-1

56
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Table 10-3. Annual Monetary Value of Predicted Crash Reduction for Protected Left-Turn Signal Countermeasure

Year in Calendar FI Crash PDO Crash

∆ NPred,CMF2(FI) AM y(FI) ∆ NPred,CMF2(PDO) AM y(PDO) AM y(TOT)
Service Life (Y) Year Cost Cost

0 2005 0.150 $158,200 $23,680 0.184 $7,400 $1,362 $25,042

1 2006 0.154 $158,200 $24,371 0.188 $7,400 $1,395 $25,766

2 2007 0.159 $158,200 $25,081 0.193 $7,400 $1,428 $26,510

3 2008 0.163 $158,200 $25,811 0.198 $7,400 $1,462 $27,273

4 2009 0.168 $158,200 $26,560 0.202 $7,400 $1,497 $28,058

5 2010 0.173 $158,200 $27,330 0.207 $7,400 $1,533 $28,864

6 2011 0.178 $158,200 $28,121 0.212 $7,400 $1,570 $29,691

7 2012 0.183 $158,200 $28,934 0.217 $7,400 $1,608 $30,542

8 2013 0.188 $158,200 $29,769 0.222 $7,400 $1,646 $31,415

9 2014 0.194 $158,200 $30,626 0.228 $7,400 $1,686 $32,312

: : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : :

29 2034 0.339 $158,200 $53,678 0.366 $7,400 $2,708 $56,386

Case Study 10-1

57
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Calculate present value of benefits based on annual benefit for countermeasure (30 year service life)
Convert Non-Uniform Annual Benefit to Present Value:

(P/F,i,y) = (1+i)(-y) (Derived from Equation 7-2, page 7-6, Vol. 1, HSM)

Where; i = discount rate (0.04 for a 4% value as shown in Table 9-10)

y = year in the service life of the countermeasure

Case Study 10-1

58
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Table 10-4. Present Monetary Value of Benefits of Predicted Crash Reduction for Roundabout Countermeasure

AM y(TOT) Present Monetary Value

Year in
Calendar Year (P/F,i,y) of Benefits for Crash
Service Life (Y) (calculated in Table 10-2) Reduction

0 2005 $172,728 1.00 $172,728

1 2006 $177,284 0.96 $170,465
2 2007 $181,963 0.92 $168,235
3 2008 $186,769 0.89 $166,037
4 2009 $191,706 0.85 $163,871
5 2010 $196,776 0.82 $161,736
6 2011 $201,984 0.79 $159,631
7 2012 $207,334 0.76 $157,556
8 2013 $212,828 0.73 $155,511
9 2014 $218,472 0.70 $153,495
: : : : :
: : : : :
29 2034 $369,863 0.32 $118,597
Total: $4,316,570

Case Study 10-1

59
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Example Year 2006 Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

(P/F,i,y) = (1 + 0.04)(-1) = 0.96

Present Monetary Value of Crash Reduction Benefits = $177,284 x 0.96 = $170,465

Table 10-5. Present Monetary Value of Benefits of Predicted Crash Reduction for Protected Left-turn Signal Countermeasure

Present Monetary Value

Year in AM y(TOT)
Calendar Year (P/F,i,y) of Benefits for Crash
Service Life (Y) (calculated in Table 10-3)
Reduction
0 2005 $25,042 1.00 $25,042
1 2006 $25,766 0.96 $24,775
2 2007 $26,510 0.92 $24,510
3 2008 $27,273 0.89 $24,246
4 2009 $28,058 0.85 $23,984
5 2010 $28,864 0.82 $23,724
6 2011 $29,691 0.79 $23,466
7 2012 $30,542 0.76 $23,209
8 2013 $31,415 0.73 $22,955
9 2014 $32,312 0.70 $22,702
: : : : :
: : : : :
29 2034 $56,386 0.32 $18,080
Total: $642,734

Case Study 10-1

60
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Table 10-6. Present Value of Countermeasure Cost

Initial Construction Second 10-yr period Third 10-yr period

Total Present
Present
First 10- Present Value Second 10-year's Present Value Third 10- Value Cost
Value
year's Cost Cost Cost Cost year's Cost
Cost

Roundabout $1,500,000 $1,500,000 --- --- --- --- $1,500,000

Protected Left-turn Signal $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $67,556* $100,000 $45,639* $213,195

*Since the service life is 10 years for the protected left-turn signal (see Table 9-10, Case Study 9-1) an additional investment of approximately
$100,000 is assumed to occur at years 10 and 20.

Example Left-Turn Signal Calculation:

Year 10 Cost: (P/F,0.04,10) = (1.04)(-10) = 0.676 so Present Value Cost = $100,000 x 0.676 = $67,556

Year 20 Cost: (P/F,0.04,20) = (1.04)(-20) = 0.456 so Present Value Cost = $100,000 x 0.465 = $45,639

Total Present Value Cost = $100,000 + $67,556 + $45,639 = $213,195

Case Study 10-1

61
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Method 1: Net Present Value (Also, referred to as net present worth)

Net Present Value (NPV) is the difference between discounted costs and discounted benefits of an individual improvement project in
a single amount.

NPV = PVB – PVC (See Equation 7-3, page 7-9, Vol. 1, HSM)

Where; PVB = Present value of project benefits

PVC = Present value of project costs

If NPV >0, then the individual project is economically justified

Example Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

PVB = $4,316,570 (see Table 10-6)

PVC = $1,500,000 (see Table 10-10)

NPVRoundabout = $4,316,570 – $1,500,000 = $2,816,570

Case Study 10-1

62
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Method 2: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

BCR is the ratio of present value of benefits of a project to the implementation costs of the project.

BCR = PVB/ PVC (See Equation 7- 4, p.7-9, Vol. 1, HSM)

Where; PVB = Present value of project benefits

PVC = Present value of project costs

If NPV >1.0, then the individual project is economically justified

Example Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

PVB = $4,316,570 (see Table 10-6)

PVC = $1,500,000 (see Table 10-10)

BCRRoundabout = $4,316,570 /$1,500,000 = 2.88

Case Study 10-1

63
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Method 3: Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Cost effective analysis of a countermeasure is expressed as the annual cost per crash reduced.

Cost Effectiveness Index = PVC/ (Np,y – No,y) (See Equation 7-5, page 7-10, Vol. 1, HSM)

Where; PVC = Present value of project costs

Np,y = Predicted crash frequency for year y

No,y = Observed crash frequency for year y

Example Calculation for Roundabout Countermeasure:

PVC = $1,500,000 (see Table 10-10)

NP – No = 122.177 (see Table 9-12)

Cost Effectiveness Index Roundabout = $1,500,000/122.177 = $12,277

Case Study 10-1

64
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Table 10-7. Countermeasure Effectiveness Summary

Countermeasures Net Present Value Benefit-Cost Ratio Cost-Effectiveness

(NPV) (BCR) (Cost/Crash Reduced)

Roundabout $2,816,570 2.88 $12,277

Protected Left-turn Signal $429,539 3.01 $14,280

Case Study 10-1

65
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Ranking of Countermeasures under consideration at Intersection 2

Table 10-8. Countermeasure Ranking

Project Ranking - Net Present Value (NPV)

Countermeasures Net Present Value (NPV) Ranking

Roundabout $2,816,570 1

Protected Left-turn Signal $429,539 2

Project Ranking - Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

Countermeasures Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Ranking

Roundabout 2.88 2

Protected Left-turn Signal 3.01 1

Project Ranking - Cost Effectiveness

Countermeasures Cost-Effectiveness (Cost/Crash Reduced) Ranking

Roundabout $12,277 1

Protected Left-turn Signal $14,280 2

Case Study 10-1

66
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Summary of Economic Assessment Results

Caution must be used when evaluating effectiveness measures to rank alternative countermeasures as follows:

Net present value for the “Roundabout” countermeasure is significantly larger than for the left-turn signal, but the project costs are
also substantially greater. When using net present value for ranking, it is good to also consider initial investment levels. Direct
comparisons should ideally occur for countermeasures with the same initial costs.
The benefit-cost ratio shows the monetary return in safety benefits for each dollar of cost invested. Therefore the protected left-
turn signal is the most economically effective alternative (at $3.01 return for every $1.00 spent) followed closely by the roundabout
(at $2.88 return for every $1.00 spent).
The cost effectiveness measure is based on the number of crashes and does not reflect crash severity.

Project Prioritization (HSM Chapter 8) for Candidate Countermeasures at Multiple Locations

The process of project prioritization is used when comparing multiple project sites/locations for a applying a specific counter-measure after
evaluating the economic effectiveness of the selected countermeasure. All the previous steps shown for the assessment of Intersection 2 were
repeated for Intersection 1 and Intersection 10 (so that a prioritization process can be demonstrated for multiple locations). The three
intersection summary results are shown in Table 10-13.

Case Study 10-1

67
Module 10: Economic Appraisal and Prioritization

Table 10-9. Project Prioritizations

Intersection 1 Intersection 2 Intersection 10

Project Ranking - Net Present Value (NPV)

Net Present Value Net Present Value Net Present Value

Countermeasures Ranking Ranking Ranking
(NPV) (NPV) (NPV)

Roundabout $2,357,841 1 $2,816,570 1 -$81,381 2

Protected Left-turn Signal $356,681 2 $429,539 2 -$30,890 1

Project Ranking - Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

Benefit-cost Ratio Benefit-cost Ratio

Countermeasures Benefit-cost Ratio (BCR) Ranking Ranking Ranking
(BCR) (BCR)

Roundabout 2.57 2 2.88 2 0.95 1

Protected Left-turn Signal 2.67 1 3.01 1 0.86 2

Project Ranking - Cost Effectiveness

Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness

Countermeasures Ranking Ranking Ranking
(Cost/Crash Reduced) (Cost/Crash Reduced) (Cost/Crash Reduced)

Roundabout $13,728 1 $12,277 1 $36,081 1

Protected Left-turn Signal $16,010 2 $14,280 2 $43,916 2

Case Study 10-1

68
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Case Study 11-1:

Safety Effectiveness Evaluation – Vol. 1 (Part B) Case Study

Brief Description of the Project/Case

As introduced in Modules #7, 9, and 10, Case Study 7-1, Case Study 9-1, and Case Study 10-1 contribute to
one continuous sample problem has been developed to demonstrate the entire roadway safety management
process. Case Study 7-1 identified three candidate intersection locations that require additional analysis to
see if there are opportunities to reduce crashes at these locations. Case Study 9-1 narrowed down the
candidate intersections to one location (1st Avenue and Golf Road – Intersection 2) and then evaluated two
potential countermeasures including a roundabout, and a protected left-turn traffic signal phase. Case Study
10-1 then incorporated an economic assessment and priority evaluation (indicating that based on benefit-
cost analysis the addition of a protected left-turn signal would be effective (other ranking assessments
pointed to the more expensive roundabout option).

The next step is then to step through a project analysis for four candidate intersections located in close
proximity (Intersections 2, 15, 50, and 81). This procedure is based on the methods used in the HSM Vol. 2
(Part C) and includes weighting historic crash data with predicted number of crashes to expand the analysis
so that it no longer simply represents predicted crashes for a particular type of road and instead is
customized to the local conditions. This sample problem demonstrates this safety effectiveness evaluation.
Since many of the computations are redundant and best performed with a spreadsheet, this sample problem
will focus primarily on Intersection 2 and then project-level computations that represent all of the
intersections (please refer to the actual spreadsheet to see individual intersection calculations for
Intersections 15, 50, and 81).

Safety Effectiveness Evaluation for a Project Level (HSM Chapter 9 & HSM Vol. 2
(Part C)):
Available data: Information regarding Intersection 2 geometry, predicted crashes, and expected
countermeasure performance was previously presented in Case Studies 7-1, 9-1, and 10-1. Since a more
accurate site-specific estimate of crashes can be performed using a weighting of predicted crashes with historic
crashes and this assessment can be extended to a project level for subsequent intersections, this case study
presents this project-level application. Since calculations are similar for each intersection and can be easily
performed using a spreadsheet tool, this summary first reviews calculations for Intersection 2 and then extends
the analysis to the project level combination of data for multiple intersections in a before-after assessment. For
the purposes of this case study, it is assumed that an unknown treatment has been introduced in the year 2008
and so a before period of 2005 to 2007 will be contrasted to an after period of 2009 to 2011.

Case Study 11-1

69
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 1. Assemble Historic Crash Data:

Table 11-1. Summary of Historic Crash Data at Intersection 2

Before After

Crash Severity Type 2005 2006 2007 3-Year 2009 2010 2011 3-Year
Total Total

Multiple-Vehicle Collisions
Fatal (K) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incapacitating Injury (A) 1 1 1 3 0 2 1 3
Non-incapacitating Injury (B) 5 2 0 7 3 2 0 5
Possible Injury (C) 3 3 1 7 3 3 1 7
Total Fatal plus Injury (FI) 9 6 2 17 6 7 2 15
Property Damage Only (PDO) 37 44 29 110 14 12 14 40
Total Multiple-Vehicle 46 50 31 127 20 19 16 55
Collisions
Single-Vehicle Collisions
Fatal (K) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incapacitating Injury (A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-incapacitating Injury (B) 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1
Possible Injury (C) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Total Fatal plus Injury (FI) 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 1
Property Damage Only (PDO) 3 2 2 7 0 1 0 1
Total Single-Vehicle Collisions 4 2 4 10 0 2 0 2
Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions
Fatal (K) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incapacitating Injury (A) 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
Non-incapacitating Injury (B) 1 3 4 8 1 0 1 2
Possible Injury (C) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total Fatal plus Injury (FI) 2 5 4 11 1 0 1 2
Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions
Fatal (K) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Incapacitating Injury (A) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-incapacitating Injury (B) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Possible Injury (C) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total Fatal plus Injury (FI) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
Total all Crash Types 52 57 40 149 21 22 17 60

Case Study 11-1

70
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Table 11-2. Summary of Total Historic Crash Data at All Four Project Intersections

Observed Total Crashes, Observed Total Crashes,

N observed (crashes N observed

Collision type / Site type
for 3 year period) (crashes/year)

Before After Before After

Multiple-Vehicle Collisions
Intersection 2 127 55 42.33 18.33
Intersection 15 55 44 18.33 14.67

Intersection 50 51 51 17.00 17.00

Intersection 81 39 50 13.00 16.67

Single-Vehicle Collisions
Intersection 2 10 2 3.33 0.67
Intersection 15 2 1 0.67 0.33

Intersection 50 1 1 0.33 0.33

Intersection 81 0 0 0.00 0.00

Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions
Intersection 2 11 2 3.67 0.67
Intersection 15 1 1 0.33 0.33

Intersection 50 1 1 0.33 0.33

Intersection 81 1 1 0.33 0.33

Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions
Intersection 2 1 1 0.33 0.33
Intersection 15 1 2 0.33 0.67

Intersection 50 1 2 0.33 0.67

Intersection 81 0 0 0.00 0.00

Total 302 214 100.67 71.33

Note: Refer to Mod11_EB_Example.xls Tab “EB”, columns (4) and (5) for similar intersection-specific
crash history based on severity levels.

Case Study 11-1

71
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 2. Predict the Number of Crashes:

Using methods introduced in Vol. 2 (Part C) of the HSM as well as in Training Module 4 (Predictive
Methods), use the combination of results obtained from the SPF, the applicable CMFs, and the
Calibration factor to predict the number of crashes for the individual years of analysis. Table 11-3
demonstrates the results obtained for Intersection 2.

Table 11-3. Summary of Predicted Average Crash Frequency per Year for Intersection 2

Year Collision type / Site type Predicted average crash frequency (crashes/year)

N predicted (TOTAL) N predicted (FI) N predicted (PDO)

2005 Multiple-vehicle 5.296 1.826 3.470

Single-vehicle 0.289 0.068 0.221
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.093 0.093 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.074 0.074 0.000
2006 Multiple-vehicle 5.365 1.851 3.514
Single-vehicle 0.292 0.069 0.223
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.095 0.095 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.075 0.075 0.000
2007 Multiple-vehicle 5.435 1.877 3.558
Single-vehicle 0.295 0.069 0.226
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.096 0.096 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.076 0.076 0.000
2009 Multiple-vehicle 5.506 1.903 3.603
Single-vehicle 0.298 0.069 0.228
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.098 0.098 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.077 0.077 0.000
2010 Multiple-vehicle 5.578 1.930 3.648
Single-vehicle 0.300 0.070 0.230
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.100 0.100 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.078 0.078 0.000
2011 Multiple-vehicle 5.650 1.957 3.693
Single-vehicle 0.303 0.070 0.233
Vehicle-Pedestrian 0.102 0.102 0.000
Vehicle-Bicycle 0.079 0.079 0.000

Case Study 11-1

72
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 3. Calculate the Expected Number of “Before” Crashes:

Table 11-4. Calculate Expected Number of Before Crashes (Total Crashes)

(1) (2) (4) (6) (7) (8)

N predicted Observed Over- wiB Nexpected B

crashes dispersion
(crashes Parameter (weight for each Equation 9A.1-1
/3 years) N observed site)
Collision type / ((7) x (2) + (1 - (7) x
k
Site (crashes/ 3 Equation 9A.1-2 (4))
years)
(1 / (1 + (6) x
Before Before (2))

Multiple-vehicle

Intersection 2 16.097 127 0.390 0.137 111.761

Intersection 15 11.812 55 0.390 0.178 47.297
Intersection 50 13.201 51 0.390 0.163 44.852
Intersection 81 13.236 39 0.390 0.162 34.819
Single-vehicle
Intersection 2 0.876 10 0.360 0.760 2.713
Intersection 15 0.738 2 0.360 0.790 0.685
Intersection 50 0.755 1 0.360 0.786 0.486
Intersection 81 0.779 0 0.360 0.781 0.280
Vehicle-
pedestrian
Intersection 2 0.284 11 0.284
Intersection 15 0.800 1 0.800
Intersection 50 0.854 1 0.854
Intersection 81 0.886 1 0.886
Vehicle-bicyclist
Intersection 2 0.224 1 0.224
Intersection 15 0.166 1 0.166
Intersection 50 0.184 1 0.184
Intersection 81 0.185 0 0.185
COMBINED (sum 61.076 302 3.000 3.758 246.476
of column)

Case Study 11-1

73
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Example Calculation for Intersection 2:

Calculate the weighting factor using Equation 9A.1-2:

1 1
𝑤= = = 0.137
1 + (0.137 × 16.097)
1+k× all study Npredicted
years

Next, calculate the expected number of before-period crashes using Equation 9A.1-1:

𝑵𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅_𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 = 𝒘 × 𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 _𝐵 + (1 − 𝒘) × 𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 _𝐵

= (0.137 x 16.097) + [(1-0.137) x 127] = 111.761

Case Study 11-1

74
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 4. Calculate the Expected Number of “After” Crashes:

Table 11-5. Calculate Expected Number of After Crashes (Total Crashes)

(1) (2) (3) (8) (9) (10) (11)

N predicted Nexpected B Adjustment N expectediA ORi

Equation Factor ri (Equation (Equation
(crashes / 3 years) 9A.1-1 (7) x (Equation 9A.1-5
Collision type / Site
(2) + 9A.1-4)
type Before After 9A.1-3 (5)/(10)
[1 – ((7) x
(4)) (3)/(2)

Multiple-vehicle
Intersection 2 16.097 16.734 111.761 1.040 116.184 0.473
Intersection 15 11.812 12.279 47.297 1.040 49.168 0.895
Intersection 50 13.201 13.723 44.852 1.040 46.627 1.094
Intersection 81 13.236 13.760 34.819 1.040 36.197 1.381
Single-vehicle
Intersection 2 0.876 0.901 2.713 1.029 2.791 0.717
Intersection 15 0.738 0.759 0.685 1.029 0.705 1.418
Intersection 50 0.755 0.777 0.486 1.029 0.500 2.001
Intersection 81 0.779 0.801 0.280 1.029 0.289 0.000
Vehicle-pedestrian
Intersection 2 0.284 0.300 0.284 1.057 0.300 6.663
Intersection 15 0.800 0.810 0.800 1.012 0.810 1.235
Intersection 50 0.854 0.864 0.854 1.012 0.864 1.157
Intersection 81 0.886 0.896 0.886 1.012 0.896 1.116
Vehicle-bicyclist
Intersection 2 0.224 0.233 0.224 1.039 0.233 4.296
Intersection 15 0.166 0.172 0.166 1.039 0.172 11.621
Intersection 50 0.184 0.191 0.184 1.039 0.191 10.449
Intersection 81 0.185 0.192 0.185 1.039 0.192 0.000
COMBINED (sum of 256.119
61.076 63.394 246.476 16.522
column)

Case Study 11-1

75
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Example Calculation for Intersection 2:

Calculate the adjustment factor using Equation 9A.1-3:

𝐴 𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝐹𝑇𝐸𝑅 16.734

𝒓𝒊 = = 16.097 = 1.040
𝐵 𝑁 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐵𝐸𝐹𝑂𝑅𝐸

Next, calculate the expected number of “after” crashes using Equation 9A.1-4:

𝑵𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅_𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 = 𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ,𝐵 × 𝑟𝑖 = 111.761 × 1.040 = 116.184

Then, calculate the Odds Ratio using Equation 9A.1-5:

𝑁 55
𝑶𝑹𝒊 = 𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 ,𝐴
= 116.184 = 0.473
𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ,𝐴

Case Study 11-1

76
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 5. Calculate Site Specific Percent of Safety Effectiveness per Collision Type:

Table 11-6. Site Specific Safety Effectiveness

(1) (11) (12) (13)

ORi CRF: % change in CMFi

crashes
Collision type / Site (Equation 9A.1-5: (100-(12))/100
(Equation 9A.1-6:
(5)/(10) 100 x (1-(11))

Multiple-vehicle

Intersection 2 0.473 52.66 0.47

Intersection 15 0.895 10.51 0.89

Intersection 50 1.094 -9.38 1.09

Intersection 81 1.381 -38.13 1.38

Single-vehicle

Intersection 2 0.717 28.33 0.72

Intersection 15 1.418 -41.80 1.42

Intersection 50 2.001 -100.14 2.00

Intersection 81 0.000 100.00 0.00

Vehicle-pedestrian

Intersection 2 6.663 -566.33 6.66

Intersection 15 1.235 -23.52 1.24

Intersection 50 1.157 -15.68 1.16

Intersection 81 1.116 -11.57 1.12

Vehicle-bicyclist

Intersection 2 4.296 -329.59 4.30

Intersection 15 11.621 -1062.08 11.62

Intersection 50 10.449 -944.90 10.45

Intersection 81 0.000 100.00 0.00

Case Study 11-1

77
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Example Calculation for Intersection 2:

Calculate the crash reduction factor (CRF) using Equation 9A.1-6:

% 𝒔𝒂𝒇𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 = 100(1 − 𝑂𝑅𝑖 ) = 100(1 − 0.473) = 52.66

Calculate the CMF based on the CRF value calculated in the previous step:

CMF = 1 – (52.66/100) = 0.473

Case Study 11-1

78
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 6. Calculate Odds Ratio All Sites:

Table 11-7. Odds Ratio for All Sites

1) (10) (13a) (13b) (14) (15)

N expectediA CMFi OR' VARi OR

(Equation Equation 9A.1- (total
(100- 7: Nexpected A (Equation 9A.1-8:
Collision type / 9A.1-4) (12))/100 (11)/(1+(VAR(10)/(10)^
total(5)/(total(10 Equation
Site type 2)
)) 9A.1-9
VAR(TOTA
L (10)

Multiple-vehicle
Intersection 2 116.184 0.47 104.185
Intersection 15 49.168 0.89 41.997
Intersection 50 46.627 1.09 40.588
Intersection 81 36.197 1.38 31.522
Single-vehicle
Intersection 2 2.791 0.72 0.688
Intersection 15 0.705 1.42 0.152
Intersection 50 0.500 2.00 0.110
Intersection 81 0.289 0.00 0.065
Vehicle-
pedestrian
Intersection 2 0.300 6.66 0.317
Intersection 15 0.810 1.24 0.819
Intersection 50 0.864 1.16 0.875
Intersection 81 0.896 1.12 0.907
Vehicle-bicyclist
Intersection 2 0.233 4.30 0.242
Intersection 15 0.172 11.62 0.179
Intersection 50 0.191 10.45 0.199
Intersection 81 0.192 0.00 0.200
COMBINED (sum 256.119 0.836 223.046 0.833
of column)

Case Study 11-1

79
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Example Calculation for Intersection 2 and then the Combined Sites (Total):

Calculate the variance for each Intersection using Equation 9A.1-9:

𝑉𝐴𝑅 ( ∑ 𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑,𝐴 ) = ∑ [𝑟𝑖2 × 𝑁𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑,𝐵 × (1 − 𝑤𝑖,𝐵 )] =

𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠

∑ [ 1.040 × 111.761 × (1 − 0.137)] = 104.185

𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠

Next calculate the overall odds ratio using Equation 9A.1-8:

0.836
𝑂𝑅 = 1+𝑉𝐴𝑅
𝑂𝑅 ′
𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑁 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ,𝐴
= 1+223 .046 = 0.833
2 (256 .119 )2
𝑉𝐴𝑅 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑁 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ,𝐴

Case Study 11-1

80
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 7. Calculate Overall Effectiveness for All Sites:

Table 11-8. Effectiveness for All Sites

(1) (15) (16)

OR CRF

Equation 9A.1-8: Equation 9A.1-10:

Collision type / Site type (11)/(1+(VAR(10)/(10)^2 100*(1-(15)

COMBINED (sum of column) 0.833 16.728

Example Calculation for Overall Site Effectiveness:

Calculate the variance for each Intersection using Equation 9A.1-10:
% change in crash frequency = 100(1 − 𝑂𝑅) = 100 (1 − 0.833) = 16.728

Case Study 11-1

81
Module 11: Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

Step 8. Calculate Overall CMF for All Sites:

Table 11-9. CMF for All Sites

(1) (16) (17)

CRF CMF

Equation 9A.1-10:
Collision type / Site type 100*(1-(15)
(100-(16))/100

COMBINED (sum of column) 16.728 0.83272

CMF = 1 – (CRF/100) = 1 – (16.728/100) = 0.833

Additional analysis can be performed to evaluate standard error and confidence intervals to determine
quality of fit.

Case Study 11-1

82
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Chap 10 Sample Problem 1:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Rural two-lane tangent roadway segment

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the roadway segment for a
particular year?

Road Features:

1.5 mile length

Tangent roadway section
AADT = 10,000 veh/day
2% grade
6 driveways per mile
10’ lanes
4’ gravel shoulder
Roadside hazard rating = 4

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 10-4
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.10

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Road (study segment length of 1.5 miles):

Tangent roadway section
AADT = 10,000 veh/day
2% grade
6 driveways per mile
10’ lanes
4’ gravel shoulder
Roadside hazard rating = 4

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Segments

For this study conditions are for a single homogeneous segment.

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

83
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-6, the two-lane, two-way segment SPF for base
conditions can be determined as follows:

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Segment Base Conditions:

Tangent section
Level grade
5 drives per mile
12’ lanes
6’ paved shoulder
RHR = 3

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Lane Width CMF:

CMFra from table 10-8 for 10’ lane and 10,000 AADT = 1.30

pra = 0.574 - see discussion below

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

84
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

= 1.17
pra : is the proportion of total crashes constituted by related crashes. The
proportion of related crashes (i.e., single vehicle run-off-road, and
multiple vehicle head-on, opposite direction sideswipe, and same
direction sideswipe crashes) is estimated to be 0.574 based on the
default crash distribution in Table 10-4. The value pra may be updated
from local data as part of the calibration process.

Shoulder width and Type CMF:

Use values from Tables 10.4,10-9, and 10-10

For 4’ shoulders and AADT of 10,000, CMFwra = 1.15 Table 10-9

For 4’ gravel shoulders, CMF tra = 1.01 Table 10-10

pra = 0.574

= 1.09

Horizontal curve – tangent section CMF =1.00 (base condition)

Superelevation – tangent section CMF = 1.00

Grade – Table 10-11 for a 2% grade CMF=1.00

Driveway Density -

= 1.01

Centerline Rumble Strips - no rumble strips, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Passing Lanes - no passing lanes, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Two-way Left-Turn Lanes - no TWLT lanes, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

85
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Roadside Design - RHR= 4. CMF calculated by equation 10-20

CMF = 1.07

Lighting – no lighting, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Automated Speed Enforcement - no automated speed enforcement,

CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

CMF comb = 1.17 x 1.09 x 1.01 x 1.07 = 1.38

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 4.008 x 1.10 x (1.38) = 6.084 crashes per year

Chap 10 Sample Problem 2:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Rural two-lane curved roadway segment

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the roadway segment for a
particular year?

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

86
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Road Features:

0.1 mile length – horizontal curve

Curved roadway section
AADT = 8,000 veh/day
1% grade
0 driveways per mile Note: the solution here and
1200 ft horizontal curve radius in the spreadsheet for this
No spiral transition problem will differ from that
11’ lanes
presented in the HSM, page
2’ gravel shoulder
Roadside hazard rating = 5 10-42. In the given problem
0.04 superelevation rate the default distribution for
SVROR,HO,SSOP, and
Assumptions: SSsame is given as 0.78. The
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 10-4 problem is solved here and
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.10 in the spreadsheet using the
Design speed = 60 mph
default HSM crash
Max superelevation rate emax = 6 percent
distribution for SVROR,
HO,SSOP and SSsame of
0.574.

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Road (study segment length of 1.5 miles):

Curved roadway section
AADT = 8,000 veh/day
1% grade
0 driveways per mile
11’ lanes
2’ gravel shoulder
Roadside hazard rating = 5
Super 0.04

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Segments

For this study conditions are for a single homogeneous segment.

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

87
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-6, the two-lane, two-way segment SPF for base
conditions can be determined as follows:

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Segment Base Conditions:

Tangent section,
Level grade
5 drives per mile
12’ lanes
6’ paved shoulder
RHR = 3

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Lane Width CMF:

CMFra from table 10-8 for 11’ lane and 8,000 AADT = 1.05

pra = 0.574 - see discussion below

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

88
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

= 1.03

pra : is the proportion of total crashes constituted by related crashes. The

proportion of related crashes (i.e., single vehicle run-off-road, and
multiple vehicle head-on, opposite direction sideswipe, and same
direction sideswipe crashes) is estimated to be 0.574 based on the
default crash distribution in Table 10-4. The value pra may be updated
from local data as part of the calibration process.

Shoulder width and Type CMF:

Use values from Tables 10.4,10-9, and 10-10

For 2’ shoulders and AADT of 8,000, CMFwra = 1.30 Table 10-9

For 2’ gravel shoulders, CMF tra = 1.01 Table 10-10

pra = 0.574

= 1.18

Horizontal curve, length, radius CMF:

CMF = 1.43

Horizontal Curves Superelevation CMF:

CMF = 1.06 + 3 x (SV – 0.02)

CMF = 1.06 + 3 x ((0.06-0.04) – 0.2)

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

89
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

CMF = 1.06
Note: superelevation
variance (SV) = super max –
Grade – Table 10-11 for a 1 % grade CMF=1.00 actual super - example
(0.06-0.04=0.02)
Driveway Density - number of drives = 0 ≤ 5
See HSM page 10-28Formula
varies according to level of
SV
Centerline Rumble Strips - no rumble strips, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Passing Lanes - no passing lanes, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Two-way Left-Turn Lanes - no TWLT lanes, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Roadside Design - RHR= 5. CMF calculated by equation 10-20

CMF = 1.14

Lighting – no lighting, CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

Automated Speed Enforcement - no automated speed enforcement,

CMF = 1.00 (base condition)
Combined CMF

CMF comb = 1.03 x 1.18 x 1.43 x 1.06 x 1.14 = 2.10

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 0.214 x 1.10 x (2.10) = 0.494 crashes per year

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

90
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Chap 10 Sample Problem 3:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Three leg stop-controlled intersection located on a rural two-lane
roadway.

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the stop-controlled for a

particular year?

Road Features:

3 legs
Minor road stop control
No right turn lanes on major road
No left-turn lanes on major road
30-degree skew angle
AADT of major road = 8,000 veh/day
AADT of minor road = 1,000 veh/day
Intersection lighting present

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 10-6
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.50
The proportion of crashes that occur at night are not known, so the default
proportion for nighttime crashes is assumed.

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Intersection:
3 legs
Minor road stop control
No right turn lanes on major road
No left-turn lanes on major road
30-degree skew angle
AADT of major road = 8,000 veh/day
AADT of minor road = 1,000 veh/day
Intersection lighting present

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

91
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Intersections

For this study conditions are for a single intersection.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-6, the intersection SPF for base conditions can be
determined as follows:

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Intersection Base Conditions:

Skew angle 0 degrees
No intersection left turn lanes
No intersection right turn lanes
No lighting

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

92
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Intersection Skew Angle CMF:

CMF can be calculated from Equation 10-22

CMF = 1.13

Intersection Left-turn Lanes CMF: since no left-turn lanes in this problem

CMF = 1.00 – base condition

Intersection Right-turn Lanes CMF: since no right-turn lanes in this

problem CMF = 1.00 – base condition

Lighting CMF:

CMF can be calculated using Equation 10-24

CMF = 1 – 0.38 x pni

From table 10-15 for 3-leg stop controlled intersection pni default is:
0.26

CMF = 1 - 0.38 X 0.26 = 0.90

Combined CMF

CMF comb = 1.13 x 0.90 = 1.02

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

93
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

= 1.867 x 1.50 x (1.02) = 2.857 crashes per year

Chap 10 Sample Problem 4:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Four leg signalized-controlled intersection located on a rural two-lane
roadway.

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the signal-controlled for a

particular year?

Road Features:

4 legs
Signalized intersection
1 right turn lane on one approach
1 left-turn lanes on each of two approaches
90-degree angle
AADT of major road = 10,000 veh/day
AADT of minor road = 2,000 veh/day
No lighting present

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 10-6
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.30

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Intersection:
4 legs
Signalized intersection
1 right turn lane on one approach
1 left-turn lanes on each of two approaches
90-degree angle
AADT of major road = 10,000 veh/day
AADT of minor road = 2,000 veh/day
No lighting present

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

94
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Intersections

For this study conditions are for a single intersection.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-10, the intersection SPF for base conditions can be
determined as follows:

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Intersection Base Conditions:

Skew angle 0 degrees
No intersection left turn lanes
No intersection right turn lanes
No lighting

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

95
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Intersection Skew Angle CMF:

CMF for skew angle at four-leg signalized intersections is 1.00 for all
cases.

Intersection Left-turn Lanes CMF:

From Table 10-13 for a signalized intersection with a left-turn lanes on

two approaches the CMF = 0.67

Intersection Right-turn Lanes CMF:

From Table 10-14 for a signalized intersection with a right-turn lane on

one approach the CMF = 0.96

Lighthing CMF:

Since there is no intersection lighting present CMF = 1.00 - base

condition

Combined CMF

CMF comb = 0.67 x 0.96 = 0.64

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 6.796 x 1.30 x (0.64) = 5.654 crashes per year

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

96
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

Chap 10 Sample Problem 5:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case

The project consists of three sites: a rural two-lane tangent segment, a

rural two-lane curved segment, and a 3 leg intersection with minor leg
stop-control. This project combines Sample problems 1, 2, and 3.

What is the expected average crash frequency of the project for a particular year
incorporating both the predicted average crash frequencies from Sample
problems 1, 2, and 3 and the observed crash frequencies using the site-specific
EB method.

The Facts:

2 roadway segments, 1 tangent and 1 curved

1 intersection (3ST)
15 observed crashes: tangent segment 10 crashes; curved segment 2 crashes;
intersection 3 crashes

Outline of Solution:

To calculate the expected average crash frequency, site specific observed crash
frequencies are combined with the predicted average crash frequencies for the
project using the project using the site-specific EB Method (observed crashes are
assigned to specific segments or intersections).

See Spreadsheet results.

Chap 10 Sample Problem 6:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case

The project consists of three sites: a rural two-lane tangent segment, a

rural two-lane curved segment, and a 3 leg intersection with miner leg
stop-control. This project combines Sample problems 1, 2, and 3.

What is the expected average crash frequency of the project for a particular year
incorporating both the predicted average crash frequencies from Sample
problems 1, 2, and 3 and the observed crash frequencies using the project-level
EB method.

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

97
Chapter 10 Sample Problems

The Facts:

2 roadway segments, 1 tangent and 1 curved

1 intersection (3ST)
15 observed crashes: no information to assign crashes to specific sites

Outline of Solution:

Observed crash frequencies for the project as a whole are combined with
predicted average crash frequencies for the project as a whole using the project
level EB Method.

See Spreadsheet results.

Chapter 10 Sample Problems

98
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Chap 11 Sample Problem 1:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Rural four-lane divided roadway segment

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the roadway segment for a
particular year?

Road Features:

1.5 mile length

AADT = 10,000 veh/day
2% grade
20-ft traversable median
12’ lanes
6’ paved shoulder
No roadway lighting
No automated enforcement

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 11-6
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.10

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Road (study segment length of 1.5 miles):

1.5 mile length
AADT = 10,000 veh/day
2% grade
20-ft traversable median
12’ lanes
6’ paved shoulder
No roadway lighting
No automated enforcement

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

99
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Segments

For this study conditions are for a single homogeneous segment.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-9, the two-lane, two-way segment SPF for base
conditions can be determined as follows:

Coefficients in Table 11-5

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Divided Segment Base Conditions:

12’ lanes
Right shoulder width 8 feet
Median width
Lighting
Automated speed enforcement

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

100
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Lane Width CMF: CMF = 1.00 – base condition

Shoulder width and Type CMF:

From Table 11-17, for 6 ft paved shoulders, CMF = 1.04

Median Width CMF: From Table 11-18, for traversable median width of
20 ft, CMF = 1.02

Lighting CMF = 1.00 -base condition

Automated Speed Enforcement - no automated speed enforcement,

CMF = 1.00 (base condition)

CMF comb = 1.04 x 1.02 = 1.06

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 2.835 x 1.10 x (1.06) = 3.305 crashes per year

Chap 11 Sample Problem 2:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Rural four-lane undivided roadway segment

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the roadway segment for a
particular year?

Road Features:

0.1 mile length

AADT = 8,000 veh/day
11’ lanes
2’ gravel shoulder

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

101
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Sideslope of 1:6
Roadside lighting present
Automated enforcement present

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions have been adapted by local experience, SV ROR, MV
HO SSOP, SSD is 33 percent.
Proportion of night crashes not known – use default value
Calibration factor is 1.10

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Road (study segment length of 1.5 miles):

0.1 mile length
AADT = 8,000 veh/day
11’ lanes
2’ gravel shoulder
Sideslope of 1:6
Roadside lighting present
Automated enforcement present CMF=0.95

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Segments
For this study conditions are for a single homogeneous segment.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 10-6, the two-lane, two-way segment SPF for base
conditions can be determined as follows:

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

102
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Undivided Segment Base Conditions:

Level grade
5 drives per mile
12’ lanes
6’ paved shoulder
Sideslopes 1:7 or flatter
Lighting – none
Automated speed enforcement - none

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Lane Width CMF:

CMF can be calculated from Equation 11-13

CMF = (CMFWRA x CMFTRA) x pRA + 1.0

For 11-ft lanes and AADT of 8,000 from Table 11-11 CMF = 1.04

pra = 0.33 - see assumptions

= 1.01

Shoulder width and Type CMF:

From Table 11-14 CMF can be calculated:

CMF = (CMFWRA x CMFTRA) x pRA + 1.0

For 2-ft shoulders and AADT of 8,000 CMFWRA = 1.30 Table 11-12

For 2-ft gravel shoulders CMFTRA = 1.01 Table 11-13

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

103
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

pRA = 0.33 see assumptions

CMF = (1.30 x 1.01 – 1.0) x 0.33 + 1.0 = 1.1

Sideslopes CMF - from Table 11-14 CMF = 1.05

Lighting – can be calculated from Equation 11-15

CMF1 – [1 – 0.72 x pinr – 0.83 x pnr]

CMF = 1 – [(1 – 0.72 x 0.361 – 0.83 x 0.639) x 0.255] = 0.95

Automated Speed Enforcement CMF- CMF = 0.95 from manual

Combined CMF

CMF comb = 1.04 x 1.02 x 1.05 x 0.95 x 0.95 = 1.05

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 0.250 x 1.10 x (1.05) = 0.289 crashes per year

Chap 11 Sample Problem 3:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
Three leg stop-controlled intersection located on a rural four-lane
roadway.

What is the predicted average crash frequency of the stop-controlled for a

particular year?

Road Features:

3 legs
Minor road stop control
No right turn lanes on major road
1 left-turn lane on major road
30-degree skew angle
AADT of major road = 8,000 veh/day

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

104
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

AADT of minor road = 1,000 veh/day

Intersection lighting present

Assumptions:
Collision type distributions used are the default values from Table 11-9
The calibration factor is assumed to be 1.50

Step 1 – Identify data needs for the

facility
The following data are provided:

Existing Intersection:
3 legs
Minor road stop control
No right turn lanes on major road
1 left-turn lane on major road
30-degree skew angle
AADT of major road = 8,000 veh/day
AADT of minor road = 1,000 veh/day
Intersection lighting present

Step 2 – Divide Locations into

Homogeneous Intersections

For this study conditions are for a single intersection.

Step 3 – Apply the appropriate SPF

Predicted Segment Crashes for Base Conditions:

Using Equation 11-11, and Table 11-7 the intersection SPF for base
conditions can be determined as follows:

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

105
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Step 4 – Apply CMFs as needed

Intersection Base Conditions:

Skew angle 0 degrees
No intersection left turn lanes, 0 except on stop-controlled approaches
No intersection right turn lanes, 0 except on stop-controlled approach
Lighting - none

CMFs will be needed for any conditions that do not meet these segment
base conditions.

Intersection Skew Angle CMF:

CMF can be calculated from Equation 11-18

+ 1.0

+ 1.0 = 1.33

Intersection Left-turn Lanes CMF:

From Table 11-22 for a left turn lane on one non-stop-controlled
approach at a 3 leg stop-controlled intersection CMF = 0.56

Intersection Right-turn Lanes CMF: since no right-turn lanes in this

problem CMF = 1.00 – base condition

Lighting CMF:

CMF can be calculated using Equation 11-22

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

106
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

CMF = 1 – 0.38 x pni

From table 11-24 for 3-leg stop controlled intersection pni default is:
0.276

CMF = 1 - 0.38 X 0.276 = 0.90

Combined CMF

CMF comb = 1.33 x 0.56 x 0.90 = 0.67

Step 5 - Apply Local Calibration Factor

N predicted rs = Nspf rs x Cr x (CMF1 x CMF2 x … CMFn)

= 0.928 x 1.50 x (0.67) = 0.933 crashes per year

Chap 11 Sample Problem 4:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
The project consists of three sites: a rural four-lane divided highway
segment, a rural four-lane undivided segment, and a 3 leg with minor leg
stop-control. This project combines Sample problems 1, 2, and 3.

What is the expected average crash frequency of the project for a particular year
incorporating both the predicted average crash frequencies from Sample
problems 1, 2, and 3 and the observed crash frequencies using the site-specific
EB method?

The Facts:

2 roadway segments, 1 divided and 1 undivided

1 intersection (3ST)
9 observed crashes: divided segment 4 crashes; undivided segment 2 crashes;
intersection 3 crashes

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

107
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Outline of Solution:

To calculate the expected average crash frequency, site specific observed crash
frequencies are combined with the predicted average crash frequencies for the
project using the project using the site-specific EB Method (observed crashes are
assigned to specific segments or intersections).

See Spreadsheet results.

Expected average crash frequency for the project 5.7 crashes per year (rounded).

Chap 11 Sample Problem 5:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
The project consists of three sites: a rural four-lane divided highway
segment, a rural four-lane undivided highway segment, and a 3 leg with
minor leg stop-control. This project combines Sample problems 1, 2, and
3.

What is the expected average crash frequency of the project for a particular year
incorporating both the predicted average crash frequencies from Sample
problems 1, 2, and 3 and the observed crash frequencies using the project-level
EB method?

The Facts:

2 roadway segments 1 divided and 1 undivided

1 intersection (3ST)
9 observed crashes: no information to assign crashes to specific sites

Outline of Solution:

Observed crash frequencies for the project as a whole are combined with
predicted average crash frequencies for the project as a whole using the project
level EB Method.

See Spreadsheet results.

The expected average crash frequency for the project is 5.8 crashes per
year.

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

108
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Chap 11 Sample Problem 6:

Student Notes
Brief Description of the Project/Case
An existing rural two-lane roadway is proposed for widening to a four-lane
highway facility. One portion of the project is planned as a four-lane divided
highway, while another portion is planned as a four-lane undivided highway.
There is one 3 –leg stop-controlled intersection located within the project
limits.

What is the expected average crash frequency of the proposed rural four-lane highway
facility for a particular year, and what crash reduction is expected in comparison to the
existing rural two-lane highway facility?

The Facts:

Existing rural two-lane roadway facility with two roadway segments and one
intersection equivalent to the facilities in the Chapter 10 Sample Problems 1,2, and 3.

Proposed rural four-lane highway facility with two roadway segments and one
intersection equivalent to the facilities in Sample Problems 1, 2, and 3 in this set.

Outline of Solution:

Sample problem 6 applies the Project Estimation Method 1 – the expected average crash
frequency for existing conditions is compared to the predicted average crash frequency
of proposed conditions.

The expected average crash frequency for the existing rural two-lane roadway can be
represented by the results from applying the site-specific EB Method in Chapter 10
Sample Problem 5.

The predicted average crash frequency for the proposed four-lane facility can be
determined from the results of Sample Problems 1, 2, and 3 in this set.

In this case, Sample Problems 1 – 3 are considered to represent a proposed facility rather
than an existing facility; therefore, there is no observed crash frequency data, and the EB
Method is not applicable.

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

109
Chapter 11 Sample Problems

Summary of Results

Expected Average Predicted Average Predicted Crash

Site Crash Crash Reduction
Frequency for the Frequency for the From Project
Existing Proposed Implementation
Condition Condition (crashes/year)
(crashes/year)a (crashes/year)b
Segment 1 8.2 3.3 4.9
Segment 2 1.4 0.3 1.1
Intersection 1 2.9 0.8 2.1
Total 12.5 4.4 8.1

a
From Sample Problems 5 in Chapter 10
b
From Sample Problems 1 through 3 in Chapter 11
a
Chapter 10 Sample Problem 5, Column 8, Worksheet 3A Rural Two-lane Site Total,
Worksheet 3B column 2 – Total
b
Chapter 11, Column 2, Worksheet 3A – Rural Multi-lane Site Total, Worksheet 3B
column 2 – Total

Some comparisons between HSM results and worksheets differ slightly due to rounding.

Chapter 12 HSM Sample Problems – see

spreadsheets for solutions

Chapter 11 Sample Problems

110
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Chapter 10 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst Roadway SH 321
Agency or Company HSM Chap 10 SP1 Roadway Section MP 0.0 to MP 1.5
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 1.5
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 17,800 (veh/day) -- 10,000
Lane width (ft) 12 10
Shoulder width (ft) 6 Right Shld: 4 Left Shld: 4
Shoulder type Paved Right Shld: Gravel Left Shld: Gravel
Length of horizontal curve (mi) 0 0.0
Radius of curvature (ft) 0 0
Spiral transition curve (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Superelevation variance (ft/ft) < 0.01 0
Grade (%) 0 2
Driveway density (driveways/mile) 5 6
Centerline rumble strips (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Passing lanes [present (1 lane) /present (2 lane) / not present)] Not Present Not Present
Two-way left-turn lane (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Roadside hazard rating (1-7 scale) 3 4
Segment lighting (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Auto speed enforcement (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Calibration Factor, Cr 1 1.10

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

111
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst Roadway SH 321
Agency or Company HSM Chap 10 SP2 Roadway Section MP 3.5 to MP 3.6
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 0.1
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 17,800 (veh/day) -- 8,000
Lane width (ft) 12 11
Shoulder width (ft) 6 Right Shld: 2 Left Shld: 2
Shoulder type Paved Right Shld: Gravel Left Shld: Gravel
Length of horizontal curve (mi) 0 0.1
Radius of curvature (ft) 0 1200
Spiral transition curve (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Superelevation variance (ft/ft) < 0.01 0.02
Grade (%) 0 1
Driveway density (driveways/mile) 5 0
Centerline rumble strips (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Passing lanes [present (1 lane) /present (2 lane) / not present)] Not Present Not Present
Two-way left-turn lane (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Roadside hazard rating (1-7 scale) 3 5
Segment lighting (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Auto speed enforcement (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Calibration Factor, Cr 1 1.10

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

112
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst DRL Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Chap 10 SP3 Intersection Example
Date Performed 11/21/11 Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG) -- 3ST
AADTmajor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 19,500 (veh/day) -- 8,000
AADTminor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 4,300 (veh/day) -- 1,000
Intersection skew angle (degrees) [If 4ST, does skew differ for minor legs?] No 0 Skew for Leg 1 (All): 30 Skew for Leg 2 (4ST only): 0
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0 0
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0 0
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present Present
Calibration Factor, Ci 1.00 1.50

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

113
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst Roadway SH 321
Agency or Company HSM Chap 10 SP4 Intersection Main Street at 2nd Street
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG) -- 4SG
AADTmajor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 25,200 (veh/day) -- 10,000
AADTminor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 12,500 (veh/day) -- 2,000
Intersection skew angle (degrees) [If 4ST, does skew differ for minor legs?] No 0 Skew for Leg 1 (All): 0 Skew for Leg 2 (4ST only): 0
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0 2
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0 1
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Calibration Factor, Ci 1.00 1.30

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

114
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 5

Worksheet 3A -- Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Site-Specific EB Method

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Site type Observed Overdispersion Weighted Expected
Predicted average crash frequency crashes, Parameter, k adjustment, w average crash
(crashes/year) Nobserv ed frequency,
N predicted N predicted N predicted (crashes/year) Equation A-5 Equation A-4
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO) from Part C from Part C
Appendix Appendix
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1 6.106 1.960 4.146 10 0.157 0.510 8.0
Segment 2 0.495 0.159 0.336 2 2.360 0.461 1.3
Segment 3 1.000 0.0
Segment 4 1.000 0.0
Segment 5 1.000 0.0
Segment 6 1.000 0.0
Segment 7 1.000 0.0
Segment 8 1.000 0.0
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1 2.847 1.181 1.665 3 0.540 0.394 2.9
Intersection 2 1.000 0.0
Intersection 3 1.000 0.0
Intersection 4 1.000 0.0
Intersection 5 1.000 0.0
Intersection 6 1.000 0.0
Intersection 7 1.000 0.0
Intersection 8 1.000 0.0
COMBINED (sum of column) 9.448 3.300 6.147 15 -- -- 12.3

Worksheet 3B -- Site-Specific EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)

Crash severity level N predicted N expected
Total (2)COMB from Worksheet 3A (8)COMB from Worksheet 3A
9.448 12.3
Fatal and Injury (FI) (3)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL
3.300 4.3
Property Damage Only (PDO) (4)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL
6.147 8.0

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

115
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 10 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 6

Worksheet 4A -- Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Project-Level EB Method

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Site type Predicted average crash frequency Observed Overdispersion Nw0 Nw1 W0 N0 w1 N1 Np/comb
(crashes/year) crashes, Parameter, k
N predicted N predicted Nobserv ed Equation A-8 Equation A-9 Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation
(TOTAL) N predicted (FI) (PDO) (crashes/year) (6)*(2)2 sqrt((6)*(2)) A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1 6.106 1.960 0.336 -- 0.157 5.867 0.980 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 0.495 0.159 4.146 -- 2.360 0.578 1.081 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1 2.847 1.181 1.665 -- 0.540 4.376 1.240 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 2 -- 0.000 0.000 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
COMBINED 9.448 3.300 6.147 15 -- 10.820 3.300 0.466 12.412 0.741 10.885 11.648

Worksheet 4B -- Project-Level EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)

Crash severity level N predicted N expected
Total (2)COMB from Worksheet 4A (13)COMB from Worksheet 4A
9.448 11.6
Fatal and injury (FI) (3)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL
3.300 4.1
Property damage only (PDO) (4)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL
6.147 7.6

Chapter 10 Data Entry Tables

116
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 11 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Chapter 11 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Multilane Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Chap 11 Sample Prob 1 Roadway Section MP 0.0 to MP 1.5
Date Performed 03/25/10 Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Roadway type (divided / undivided) Undivided Divided
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 1.5
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 89,300 (veh/day) -- 10,000
Lane width (ft) 12 12
Shoulder width (ft) - right shoulder width for divided [if differ for directions of travel, use average width] 8 6
Shoulder type - right shoulder type for divided Paved Paved
Median width (ft) - for divided only 30 20
Side Slopes - for undivided only 1:7 or flatter Not Applicable
Lighting (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Auto speed enforcement (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Calibration Factor, Cr 1.00 1.10

Chapter 11 Data Entry Tables

117
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 11 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Multilane Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Chapter Sample Prob 2 Roadway Section MP 1.5 to MP 1.6
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Roadway type (divided / undivided) Undivided Undivided
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 0.1
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 33,200 (veh/day) -- 8,000
Lane width (ft) 12 11
Shoulder width (ft) - right shoulder width for divided 6 2
Shoulder type - right shoulder type for divided Paved Gravel
Median width (ft) - for divided only 30 Not Applicable
Side Slopes - for undivided only 1:7 or flatter 1:6
Lighting (present/not present) Not Present Present
Auto speed enforcement (present/not present) Not Present Present
Calibration Factor, Cr 1.00 1.10

Chapter 11 Data Entry Tables

118
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 11 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Rural Multilane Highway Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Chapter 11 Sample Prob 3 Intersection Intersection at MP 1.5
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG) -- 3ST
AADTmajor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 78,300 (veh/day) -- 8,000
AADTminor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 23,000 (veh/day) -- 1,000
Intersection skew angle (degrees) 0 30
Number of non-STOP-controlled approaches with left-turn lanes (0, 1, 2) 0 1
Number of non-STOP-controlled approaches with right-turn lanes (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) 0 0
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present Present
Calibration Factor, Ci 1.00 1.50

Chapter 11 Data Entry Tables

119
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 11 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 11 Sample Problem 4

Worksheet 3A -- Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Site-Specific EB Method

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Site type Observed Overdispersion Weighted Expected
Predicted average crash frequency crashes, Parameter, k adjustment, w average crash
(crashes/year) Nobserv ed frequency,
N predicted N predicted N predicted (crashes/year) Equation A-5 Equation A-4
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO) from Part C from Part C
Appendix Appendix
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1 (Divided) 3.308 1.727 1.581 4 0.142 0.681 3.529
Segment 2 (Undivided) 0.285 0.174 0.111 2 1.873 0.652 0.881
Segment 3 1.000 0.000
Segment 4 1.000 0.000
Segment 5 1.000 0.000
Segment 6 1.000 0.000
Segment 7 1.000 0.000
Segment 8 1.000 0.000
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1 0.755 0.286 0.470 3 0.460 0.742 1.334
Intersection 2 1.000 0.000
Intersection 3 1.000 0.000
Intersection 4 1.000 0.000
Intersection 5 1.000 0.000
Intersection 6 1.000 0.000
Intersection 7 1.000 0.000
Intersection 8 1.000 0.000
COMBINED (sum of column) 4.348 2.186 2.162 9 -- -- 5.744

Worksheet 3B -- Site-Specific EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)

Crash severity level N predicted N expected
Total (2)COMB from Worksheet 3A (8)COMB from Worksheet 3A
4.3 5.7
Fatal and injury (FI) (3)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL
2.2 2.9
Property damage only (PDO) (4)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL
2.2 2.9

Chapter 11 Data Entry Tables

120
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 11 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 11 Sample Problem 5

Worksheet 4A -- Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Project-Level EB Method

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Site type Predicted average crash frequency Observed Overdispersion Nw0 Nw1 W0 N0 w1 N1 Np/comb
(crashes/year) crashes, Parameter, k
N predicted N predicted N predicted Nobserv ed Equation A-8 Equation A-9 Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO) (crashes/year) (6)*(2)2 sqrt((6)*(2)) A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1 (Divided) 3.308 1.727 1.581 -- 0.142 1.550 0.685 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 (Undivided) 0.285 0.174 0.111 -- 1.873 0.152 0.730 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1 0.755 0.286 0.470 -- 0.460 0.262 0.589 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
COMBINED (sum of column) 4.348 2.186 2.162 9 -- 1.964 2.004 0.689 5.796 0.685 5.816 5.806

Worksheet 4B -- Project-Level EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)

Crash severity level N predicted N expected
Total (2)COMB from Worksheet 4A (13)COMB from Worksheet 4A
4.3 5.8
Fatal and injury (FI) (3)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL
2.2 2.9
Property damage only (PDO) (4)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL
2.2 2.9

Chapter 11 Data Entry Tables

121
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Chapter 12 Sample Problems - Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Sample Prob 1 Roadway Section MP 0.0 to MP 1.5
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Roadway type (2U, 3T, 4U, 4D, ST) -- 3T
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 1.5
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 32,900 (veh/day) -- 11,000
Type of on-street parking (none/parallel/angle) None Parallel (Comm/Ind)
Proportion of curb length with on-street parking -- 0.66
Median width (ft) - for divided only 15 Not Present
Lighting (present / not present) Not Present Present
Auto speed enforcement (present / not present) Not Present Not Present
Major commercial driveways (number) -- 0
Minor commercial driveways (number) -- 10
Major industrial / institutional driveways (number) -- 0
Minor industrial / institutional driveways (number) -- 3
Major residential driveways (number) -- 2
Minor residential driveways (number) -- 15
Other driveways (number) -- 0
Speed Category -- Posted Speed Greater than 30 mph
Roadside fixed object density (fixed objects / mi) 0 10
Offset to roadside fixed objects (ft) [If greater than 30 or Not Present, input 30] 30 6
Calibration Factor, Cr 1.00 1.00

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

122
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 1A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Sample Prob 2 Roadway Section MP 1.5 to MP 2.25
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Roadway type (2U, 3T, 4U, 4D, ST) -- 4D
Length of segment, L (mi) -- 0.75
AADT (veh/day) AADTMAX = 66,000 (veh/day) -- 23,000
Type of on-street parking (none/parallel/angle) None None
Proportion of curb length with on-street parking -- 0
Median width (ft) - for divided only 15 40
Lighting (present / not present) Not Present Present
Auto speed enforcement (present / not present) Not Present Not Present
Major commercial driveways (number) -- 1
Minor commercial driveways (number) -- 4
Major industrial / institutional driveways (number) -- 0
Minor industrial / institutional driveways (number) -- 1
Major residential driveways (number) -- 1
Minor residential driveways (number) -- 1
Other driveways (number) -- 0
Speed Category -- Posted Speed 30 mph or Lower
Roadside fixed object density (fixed objects / mi) 0 20
Offset to roadside fixed objects (ft) [If greater than 30 or Not Present, input 30] 30 12
Calibration Factor, Cr 1.00 1.00

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

123
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Sample Prob 3 Intersection Main St at 3rd Avenue
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -- 3ST
AADT major (veh/day) AADTMAX = 45,700 (veh/day) -- 14,000
AADT minor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 9,300 (veh/day) -- 4,000
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Calibration factor, Ci 1.00 1.00
Data for unsignalized intersections only: -- --
Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) 0 1
Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) 0 0
Data for signalized intersections only: -- --
Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 0
Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 0
Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] -- 0
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Permissive Not Applicable
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 -- Not Applicable
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 -- Not Applicable
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) -- Not Applicable
Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 0
Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only 10
Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx ) -- 0
Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection 0 0
Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection 0 0

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

124
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

Worksheet 2A -- General Information and Input Data for Urban and Suburban Arterial Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst HSM Roadway
Agency or Company HSM Sample Prob 4 Intersection Main St at 4th Avenue
Date Performed Jurisdiction Anywhere, USA
Analysis Year 2010
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 3SG, 4ST, 4SG) -- 4SG
AADT major (veh/day) AADTMAX = 67,700 (veh/day) -- 15,000
AADT minor (veh/day) AADTMAX = 33,400 (veh/day) -- 9,000
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present Present
Calibration factor, Ci 1.00 1.00
Data for unsignalized intersections only: -- --
Number of major-road approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2) 0 0
Number of major-road approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2) 0 0
Data for signalized intersections only: -- --
Number of approaches with left-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 2
Number of approaches with right-turn lanes (0,1,2,3,4) [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 2
Number of approaches with left-turn signal phasing [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] -- 2
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #1 Permissive Protected / Permissive
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #2 -- Protected / Permissive
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #3 -- Not Applicable
Type of left-turn signal phasing for Leg #4 (if applicable) -- Not Applicable
Number of approaches with right-turn-on-red prohibited [for 3SG, use maximum value of 3] 0 0
Intersection red light cameras (present/not present) Not Present Not Present
Sum of all pedestrian crossing volumes (PedVol) -- Signalized intersections only 1,500
Maximum number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian (nlanesx ) -- 4
Number of bus stops within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection 0 2
Schools within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection (present/not present) Not Present Present
Number of alcohol sales establishments within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the intersection 0 6

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

125
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 10 Sample Problem 5

Worksheet 3A -- Predicted Crashes by Severity and Site Type and Observed Crashes Using the Site-Specific EB Method for Urban and
Suburban Arterials
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Observed Overdispersion Weighted Expected
Predicted average crash frequency
crashes, Parameter, k adjustment, w average crash
(crashes/year)
Nobserv ed frequency,
Collision type / Site type
N predicted N predicted N predicted (crashes/year) Equation A-5 Equation A-4
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO) from Part C from Part C
Appendix Appendix
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Multiple-vehicle nondriveway
Segment 1 4.954 1.192 3.763 7 0.660 0.234 6.521
Segment 2 2.535 0.705 1.830 6 1.320 0.230 5.203
Segment 3 1.000 0.000
Segment 4 1.000 0.000
Single-vehicle
Segment 1 1.179 0.336 0.842 4 1.370 0.382 2.921
Segment 2 0.488 0.085 0.403 3 0.860 0.705 1.230
Segment 3 1.000 0.000
Segment 4 1.000 0.000
Multiple-vehicle driveway-related
Segment 1 0.731 0.178 0.554 2 1.100 0.554 1.297
Segment 2 0.149 0.042 0.107 1 1.390 0.828 0.296
Segment 3 1.000 0.000
Segment 4 1.000 0.000
INTERSECTIONS
Multiple-vehicle
Intersection 1 1.267 0.406 0.862 2 0.800 0.497 1.636
Intersection 2 2.656 0.844 1.812 6 0.390 0.491 4.358
Intersection 3 1.000 0.000
Intersection 4 1.000 0.000
Single-vehicle
Intersection 1 0.234 0.072 0.162 3 1.140 0.790 0.816
Intersection 2 0.196 0.056 0.140 0 0.360 0.934 0.183
Intersection 3 1.000 0.000
Intersection 4 1.000 0.000
COMBINED (sum of column) 14.391 3.916 10.475 34 -- -- 24.461

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

126
Highway Safety Manual Training – Chapter 12 Sample Problems
Data Entry Tables

HSM Chapter 12 Sample Problem 6

Worksheet 4A -- Predicted Crashes by Collision and Site Type and Observed Crashes Using the Project-Level EB Method for Urban and Suburban Arterials

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Observed Overdispersion Npredicted w0 Npredicted w1 W0 N0 w1 N1 Nexpected/comb
Predicted crashes crashes, Parameter, k
Collision type / Site type
N predicted N predicted N predicted Nobserv ed Equation A-8 Equation A-9 Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO) (crashes/year) (6)*(2)2 sqrt((6)*(2)) A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Multiple-vehicle nondriveway
Segment 1 4.954 1.192 3.763 -- 0.660 16.200 1.808 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 2.535 0.705 1.830 -- 1.320 8.484 1.829 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-vehicle
Segment 1 1.179 0.336 0.842 -- 1.370 1.903 1.271 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 0.488 0.085 0.403 -- 0.860 0.204 0.648 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Multiple-vehicle driveway-related
Segment 1 0.731 0.178 0.554 -- 1.100 0.589 0.897 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 0.149 0.042 0.107 -- 1.390 0.031 0.456 -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
INTERSECTIONS
Multiple-vehicle
Intersection 1 1.267 0.406 0.862 -- 0.800 1.285 1.007 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 2 2.656 0.844 1.812 -- 0.390 2.752 1.018 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Single-vehicle
Intersection 1 0.234 0.072 0.162 -- 1.140 0.062 0.516 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 2 0.196 0.056 0.140 -- 0.360 0.014 0.266 -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
COMBINED (sum of column) 14.391 3.916 10.475 34 -- 31.525 9.715 0.313 27.854 0.597 22.294 25.074

Chapter 12 Data Entry Tables

127
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets (Sample)

Worksheet 1A: General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
General Information Location Information
Analyst Roadway
Agency or Company Roadway Section
Date Performed Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Length of segment, L (mi) --
AADT (veh/day) --
Lane width (ft) 12
Shoulder width (ft) 6
Shoulder type Paved
Length of horizontal curve (mi) 0
Radius of curvature (ft) 0
Spiral transition curve (present/not present) Not Present
Superelevation variance (ft/ft) < 0.01
Grade (%) 0
Driveway density (driveways/mile) 5
Centerline rumble strips (present/not present) Not Present
Passing lanes (present(1 lane or 2 lane) / not present) Not Present
Two-way left-turn lane (present/not present) Not Present
Roadside hazard rating (1-7 scale) 3
Segment lighting (present/not present) Not Present
Auto speed enforcement (present/not present) Not Present
Calibration Factor, Cr 1

Worksheet 1B: Crash Modification Factors for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
CMF for Lane Width CMF for Shoulder CMF for CMF for Super- CMF for CMF for Driveway
Width and Type Horizontal Curves elevation Grades Density
CMF 1r CMF 2r CMF 3r CMF 4r CMR 5r CMF 6r
from Equation 10-11 from Equation 10-12 from Equation 10-13 from Equations 10- from Table from Equation 10-17
14, 10-15, or 10-16 10-11

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

CMF for Centerline CMF for CMF for Two-Way CMF for Roadside CMF for CMF for Automated Combined
Rumble Strips Passing Left-Turn Lane Design Lighting Speed Enforcement CMF
Lanes
CMF 7r CMF 8r CMF 9r CMF 10r CMF 11r CMF 12r CMF comb
from Section 10.7.1 from Section from Equation 10- from Equation 10- from from Section 10.7.1 (1)x(2)x …
10.7.1 18 & 10-19 20 Equation x(11)x(12)
10-21

Chapter 10 Worksheets

128
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

Worksheet 1C: Roadway Segment Crashes for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Predicted
Crash N spf rs by average crash
Overdispersion Combined Calibration
N spf rs Severity Severity frequency,
Parameter, k CMFs Factor, Cr
Distribution Distribution N predicted rs
(crashes/year)
from from Table (13) from
from Equation (2)TOTAL x
Crash Severity Equation 10-3 Worksheet (5)x(6)x(7)
10-7 (4)
Level 10-6 (proportion) 1B
Total
Fatal and Injury (FI)
Property Damage
Only (PDO)

Worksheet 1D: Crashes by Severity Level and Collision Type for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway
Segments
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Proportion N predicted rs N predicted rs
of Collision (TOTAL) Proportion of N predicted rs (FI) Proportion of (PDO)
Type(TOTAL) (crashes/year) Collision Type(FI) (crashes/year) Collision Type(PDO) (crashes/year)
from Table (8)TOTAL from (8)FI from (8)PDO from
Collision Type 10-4 Worksheet 1C from Table 10-4 Worksheet 1C from Table 10-4 Worksheet 1C
Total 1.000 1.000 1.000
(2)x(3)TOTAL (4)x(5)FI (6)x(7)PDO
SINGLE-VEHICLE
Collision with animal 0.121 0.038 0.184
Collision with bicycle 0.002 0.004 0.001
Collision with 0.003 0.007 0.001
pedestrian
Overturned 0.025 0.037 0.015
Ran off road 0.521 0.545 0.505
Other single-vehicle 0.021 0.007 0.029
collision
Total single-vehicle 0.693 0.638 0.735
crashes
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE
Angle collision 0.085 0.100 0.072
Head-on collision 0.016 0.034 0.003
Rear-end collision 0.142 0.164 0.122
Sideswipe collision 0.037 0.038 0.038
Other multiple- 0.027 0.026 0.030
vehicle collision
Total multiple-vehicle 0.307 0.362 0.265
crashes

Chapter 10 Worksheets

129
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

Worksheet 1E: Summary Results for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Segments
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Crash Severity Distribution Predicted average crash Crash rate
(proportion) frequency (crashes/year) Roadway segment (crashes/mi/year)
Crash severity level (4) from Worksheet 1C (8) from Worksheet 1C length (mi) (3)/(4)
Total
Fatal and Injury (FI)
Property Damage Only (PDO)

Worksheet 2A: General Information and Input Data for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Intersections
General Information Location Information
Analyst Roadway
Agency or Company Intersection
Date Performed Jurisdiction
Analysis Year
Input Data Base Conditions Site Conditions
Intersection type (3ST, 4ST, 4SG) --
AADTmajor (veh/day) --
AADTminor (veh/day) --
Intersection skew angle (degrees) 0
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a left-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0
Number of signalized or uncontrolled approaches with a right-turn lane (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) 0
Intersection lighting (present/not present) Not Present
Calibration Factor, Ci 1.00

Worksheet 2B: Crash Modification Factors for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Intersections
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
CMF for Intersection Skew Angle CMF for Left-Turn Lanes CMF for Right-Turn Lanes CMF for Lighting Combined CMF
CMF 1i CMF 2i CMF 3i CMF 4i CMF COMB
from Equations 10-22 or 10-23 from Table 10-13 from Table 10-14 from Equation 10-24 (1)*(2)*(3)*(4)

Worksheet 2C: Intersection Crashes for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadway Intersections
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
N spf 3ST, 4ST or Predicted
Crash
N spf 3ST, 4ST Overdispersion 4SG by Combined Calibration average crash
Severity
or 4SG Parameter, k Severity CMFs Factor, Ci frequency, N
Distribution
Distribution predicted int
from
Equations from (5) of
(2)TOTAL * (4) (5)*(6)*(7)
10-8, 10-9, from Section from Table Worksheet
Crash Severity Level or 10-10 10.6.2 10-5 2B
Total
Fatal and Injury (FI) -- --
Property Damage Only (PDO) -- --

Chapter 10 Worksheets

130
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

Worksheet 2D: Crashes by Severity Level and Collision Type for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Road
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Proportion N predicted int Proportion Proportion of
of Collision (TOTAL) of Collision N predicted int (FI) Collision N predicted int (PDO)
Type(TOTAL) (crashes/year) Type(FI) (crashes/year) Type(PDO) (crashes/year)
from Table (8)TOTAL from from Table (8)FI from (8)PDO from
from Table 10-6
Collision Type 10-6 Worksheet 2C 10-6 Worksheet 2C Worksheet 2C
Total 1.000 1.000 1.000
(2)x(3)TOTAL (4)x(5)FI (6)x(7)PDO
SINGLE-VEHICLE
Collision with animal
Collision with bicycle
Collision with pedestrian
Overturned
Ran off road
Other single-vehicle collision
Total single-vehicle crashes
MULTIPLE-VEHICLE
Angle collision
Head-on collision
Rear-end collision
Sideswipe collision
Other multiple-vehicle
collision
Total multiple-vehicle
crashes

Worksheet 2E: Summary Results for Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Road Intersections
(1) (2) (3)
Crash severity level Crash Severity Distribution (proportion) Predicted average crash frequency (crashes / year)
(4) from Worksheet 2C (8) from Worksheet 2C
Total
Fatal and Injury (FI)
Property Damage Only (PDO)

Chapter 10 Worksheets

131
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

Worksheet 3A: Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Site-Specific EB Method
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Expected
Predicted average crash frequency Weighted average crash
(crashes/year) Observed adjustment, w frequency,
Overdispersion
crashes, Nobserved Nexpected
Parameter, k
(crashes/year) Equation A-5 Equation A-4
N predicted N predicted N predicted
from Part C from Part C
(TOTAL) (FI) (PDO)
Site type Appendix Appendix
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Segment 6
Segment 7
Segment 8
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1
Intersection 2
Intersection 3
Intersection 4
Intersection 5
Intersection 6
Intersection 7
Intersection 8
COMBINED (sum of
column)

Worksheet 3B: Site-Specific EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)
Crash severity level N predicted N expected
(2)COMB from Worksheet 3A (8)COMB from Worksheet 3A
Total
(3)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL
Fatal and Injury (FI)
(4)COMB from Worksheet 3A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL
Property Damage Only (PDO)

Chapter 10 Worksheets

132
HSM Chapter 10 Worksheets: Rural Two-Lane Two-Way Roadways

Worksheets 4A: Lane Site Total

Worksheet 4A: Predicted and Observed Crashes by Severity and Site Type Using the Project-Level EB Method
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Predicted average crash
frequency (crashes/year) Observed crashes, Nw0 Nw1 W0 N0 w1 N1 Np/comb
Overdispersion
N N Nobserved
Parameter, k
N predicted predicted predicted (crashes/year) Equation Equation A-9 Equation Equation Equation Equation Equation
Site type (total) (FI) (PDO) A-8 (6)*(2)2 sqrt((6)*(2)) A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14
ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Segment 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
INTERSECTIONS
Intersection 1 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 2 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 4 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 5 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 6 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intersection 8 -- -- -- -- -- --
COMBINED --

Worksheet 4B: Project-Level EB Method Summary Results

(1) (2) (3)
Crash severity level N predicted N expected
Total (2)COMB from Worksheet 4A (13)COMB from Worksheet 4A

Fatal and injury (FI) (3)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)FI / (2) TOTAL

Property damage only (PDO) (4)COMB from Worksheet 4A (3)TOTAL * (2)PDO / (2) TOTAL

Chapter 10 Worksheets

133