1

September 28, 2011

Safety Strategies WorkshopBrown CountyFaribault CountyMartin CountyWatonwan County

29/28/2011

Agenda

Safety Planning (Goals and Objectives) Safety Planning Process Data Overview

State & ATP Level County level

Safety Emphasis Areas Safety Strategies Safety Strategies Workshop

Breakout Groups Voting Exercise

39/28/2011

Goals and Objectives Data driven

The new National Safety Performance measure = SEVERE crashes 4 E’s

Foster safety culture among county stakeholders

Development of County Safety Plans Unique safety plan Establish safety emphasis areas

High priority safety strategies Safety investment options

Identify high priority safety projects, both proactive and reactive.

Position counties to Compete for Safety Funds Highway Safety Improvement Program High Risk Rural Roads Program Minnesota Central Safety Funds

4

Project Approach – Phase III

9/28/2011

Crash Analysis

Select Safety Emphasis

Areas

Identify Short List of Critical Strategies

Identify Safety

Projects

Safety Workshop

Develop Comprehensive List of Safety

Strategies

Project Programming Project Development Implementation Evaluation Refinement &

Update SHSP

Safety Plan

Jun 2011 Sept 2011Aug 2011Jul 2011

Dec 2011

Feb 2012

Nov 2011

Review Mtg w/ Counties

Kick-off Video Meeting

Jan 2012

Aug 2011

9/28/2011 5

Legend

10/yr (50 total) - Severe crashes on any jurisdiction

4/yr (20 total) - Severe crashes on CSAH/CR

MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010Severe = K (fatal) + A (life-changing injury)

ATP 7 County Severe Crash Numbers

Note: Steele county does not have a large enough crash dataset to be analyzed separately. Steele crashes are 62% rural, while other ATP 7 counties are on average 77% rural. Therefore Steele will be included in ATP 7 analysis.

No county in ATP 7 has a high number of severe crashes on their highway system.

No county has enough severe crashes to support the development of a safety plan through a data driven process.

ATP 7 does have enough severe crashes – the ATP totals will be used to identify safety emphasis areas for all of the counties.

10/yr (49)

3/yr (17)

7/yr (34) 3/yr (15)

12/yr (60)

7/yr (35)7/yr (37)

3/yr (14)

16/yr (79)

5/yr (23)

9/yr (47)

5/yr (25)

22/yr (122)

10/yr (48)

4/yr (22)

3/yr (15)

5/yr (23)

1/yr (4)

7/yr (34)

2/yr (12)

10/yr (49)

4/yr (20)

9/yr (47)

3/yr (16)

11/yr (55)

3/yr (14)

5/yr (23)

1/yr (7)

6

ATP 7 County Crash Data Overview

9/23/2011

5 Year Crashes ATP 7 23,521

671

State System10,038 – 43%

265 – 39%

CSAH/CR5,379 – 23%265 – 40%

Rural3,408 – 63%221 – 83%

Urban1,971 – 37%

44 – 17%

All Way Stop73 – 7%1 – 3%

Run off Road1,165 – 67%

98 – 68%

On Curve419 – 24%45 – 31%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 219 (50%), 5 (36%)“Other” – 50 (11%), 3 (21%)Left Turn – 34 (8%), 3 (21%)Ran Off Road – 15 (3%), 2 (14%)

Thru-Stop440 – 45%14 – 48%

Right Angle – 95 (38%), 4 (50%) Head On – 11 (4%), 2 (25%)Rear End – 64 (25%), 1 (13%)“Not Applicable” – 4 (2%), 1 (12%)

Signalized252 – 26%

8 – 28%

Inters-Related774 – 29%62 – 28%

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).Includes Steele County

City, Twnshp, Other8,104 – 34%141 – 21%

Inters-Related985 – 50%29 – 66%

Not Inters-Related684 – 35%14 – 32%

Run Off Road – 113 (17%), 4 (29%) “Other” – 88 (13%), 4 (29%)Head On – 54 (8%), 4 (29%)Rear End – 157 (23%), 1 (7%)

Animal761 – 22%

3 – 1%

Not Inters-Related1,734 – 66%

145 –67%

Head On, SS Opp.86 – 5%16 – 11%

On Curve16 – 19%4 – 25%

Unknown/Other302 – 15%

1 – 2%Unknown/Other

136 – 5%11 – 5%

Other/Unknown220 – 22%

6 – 21%

Right Angle – 111 (31%), 18 (60%) Run Off Road – 61 (17%), 6 (20%)SS Opp – 14 (4%), 2 (7%)Head On – 14 (4%), 2 (7%)

Thru-Stop360 – 47%30 – 48%

Run Off Road – 145 (38%), 12 (38%) “Other” – 57 (15%), 6 (19%)Right Angle – 45 (12%), 5 (16%)Head On – 21 (6%), 4 (13%)

Other/Unknown381 – 49%32 – 52%

Not Animal2,645 – 78%218 – 99%

All Way Stop19 – 2%0 – 0%

Signalized13 – 2%0 – 0%

79/28/2011

Workshop Group 7B Crash Data Overview5 Year Crashes Group 7B

4,644137

State System1,947 – 42%

50 – 37%

CSAH/CR977 – 21%58 – 42%

Rural623 – 64%49 – 84%

Run off Road227 – 65%18 – 58%

On Curve62 – 27%5 – 28%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Inters-Related151 – 29%15 – 33%

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

City, Twnshp, Other1,720 – 37%

29 – 21%

Not Inters-Related351 – 68%31 – 67%

Right Angle – 23 (36%), 4 (67%)

Thru-Stop64 – 42%6 – 40%

Not Animal516 – 83%46 – 94%

Brown, Faribault, Martin, & Watonwan

In Brown, Faribault, Martin & Watonwan Counties: 37% of severe crashes are on the state system 42% of severe crashes are on county roadways 84% of the severe crashes on the county

roadways are RURAL 67% of rural severe crashes are non-

intersection related and 33% occur at intersections

58% of severe non-intersection related crashes are road departure, with 28% of these occurring on a curve

40% of severe intersection related crashes are at Thru-Stop (2-way Stop) intersections and 67% of those are right angle crashes

89/28/2011

Workshop Group 7B Emphasis Areas

The idea behind Safety Emphasis Areas is to assist the safety planning process by providing a uniform set of crash types and characteristics that encourages establishing safety priorities – identifying the types of crashes that result in the greatest number of fatalities and severe injuries.

County roadways in ATP 7, the Top 5 Safety Emphasis Areas include: Young Drivers, Impaired Drivers, Unbelted Occupants, Road Departure and Intersections

In individual counties, the actual number of crashes in each Emphasis Area and the rank order varies slightly, however, because of the low number of severe crashes in each county the differences are no statistically significant.

Workshop Group 7B Emphasis Areas

Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 8,300

Young drivers (under 21) 24% 25% (62) 24% (12) 21% (3) 33% (4) 13% (1) 27% (4)

Unlicensed drivers 8% 8% (19) 2% (1) 7% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Older drivers (over 64) 14% 12% (31) 24% (12) 36% (5) 17% (2) 13% (1) 27% (4)

Aggressive driving and speeding-related 20% 17% (42) 4% (2) 0% (0) 8% (1) 0% (0) 7% (1)

Drug and alcohol-related 26% 32% (79) 24% (12) 14% (2) 25% (3) 50% (4) 20% (3)

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers 20% 20% (49) 22% (11) 43% (6) 8% (1) 13% (1) 20% (3)

Safety awareness - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unbelted vehicle occupants 25% 32% (81) 29% (14) 21% (3) 42% (5) 25% (2) 27% (4)

Pedestrians crashes 8% 6% (14) 8% (4) 14% (2) 0% (0) 13% (1) 7% (1)

Bicycle crashes 4% 0% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Motorcycles crashes 16% 17% (43) 14% (7) 14% (2) 25% (3) 25% (2) 0% (0)

Heavy vehicle crashes 10% 13% (32) 20% (10) 36% (5) 17% (2) 13% (1) 13% (2)

Safety enhancements - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Train-vehicle collisions 0% 1% (3) 4% (2) 7% (1) 8% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Road departure crashes 28% 47% (117) 37% (18) 14% (2) 33% (4) 38% (3) 60% (9)

Consequences of leaving road - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Intersection crashes 42% 33% (83) 29% (14) 43% (6) 8% (1) 25% (2) 33% (5)

Head-On and Sidesw ipe (opposite)

crashes15% 21% (52) 16% (8) 14% (2) 25% (3) 13% (1) 20% (3)

Work zone crashes 2% 2% (4) 2% (1) 0% (0) 8% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)

EMS Enhancing Emergency Capabilities - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Information and decision support systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More effective processes - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DPS Crash Data Records, 2006 to 2010

Top 5 Critical Emphasis Areas by Jurisdiction

Note: Numbers are not additive, as one crash may involve a young driver at an intersection.

The numbers represent severe crashes (Fatal and A-type Injury crashes)

CSAH & CR

Faribault County

15

Watonwan County

12

Martin County

8

CSAH & CR CSAH & CR

Vehicles

Management

Highways

Emphasis Area CSAH & CRCSAH & CR CSAH & CR

Group 7BATP 7

49 14

Drivers

Brown CountyStatewide

Percentage250

Special Users

99/28/2011

Screening - Initial Strategies

Enforcement StrategiesEducation Strategies

Engineering Strategies

Critical Strategies

AASHTO’s SHSP, NCHRP Report 500 Implementation Guidelines, and input from Safety Partners.

The strategies will be screened using: - Crash data, - Effectiveness, - Cost, and - Input from Safety Workshop.

The Critical Strategies should have the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic fatalities.

Emergency Services Strategies

Intersections77 StrategiesRoad Departure

13 Strategies

Seat Belts4 Strategies

Speeding2 Strategies

Young Drivers2 StrategiesAlcohol/Drug15 Strategies

Head On7 Strategies

109/28/2011

Safety Strategies Overview NCHRP Report 500

A series of guides to assist state and local agencies in reducing injuries and fatalities in targeted emphasis areas

The guides correspond to the emphasis areas outlined in the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Each guide includes a brief introduction, a general description of the problem, the strategies/ countermeasures to address the problem, and a model implementation process.

119/28/2011

15+ High PriorityReduce the Frequency

through Geometric Design

Optimize signal operation

Use indirect left-turn treatments

Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections

Enhanced signing and delineation

Choose appropriate intersection traffic control

Roundabouts

70+ Initial StrategiesReduce the Frequency

through Geometric Design

Optimize signal operation

Indirect Left Turn intersection

Right & Left Turn Lanes

Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections

Enhanced signing and delineation

Supplementary stop signs

Choose appropriate intersection traffic control

RoundaboutsImprove access

management near intersections

Restrict access to properties using driveway closures

5+ Top Voted Reduce the Frequency

through Geometric Design

Use indirect left-turn treatments

Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections

Enhanced signing and delineation

Choose appropriate intersection traffic control

Roundabouts

2+ Critical StrategiesReduce the Frequency

through Geometric Design Use indirect left-turn

treatments Improve Driver Awareness

of Intersections Enhanced signing and

delineation

…

…

…

Small group discussion and prioritization.

Large group discussion and voting.

Selection by County Staff.

Example: Intersection Strategy Prioritization

129/28/2011

Example – Typical Intersection Strategies

Included Strategies:

Change Intersection Type

ImproveSight

Distance

EnhancedSigning andDelineation

StreetLighting

DynamicWarning

Signs

139/28/2011

Example – Typical Run-Off Road Strategies

149/28/2011

List of Road Departure StrategiesList of Road Departure Strategies

ObjectivesStrategies

Relative Cost to Implement and

Operate

EffectivenessTypical

Timeframe for Implementation

15.1 A1 -- Install shoulder rumble strips Low Proven* Short

15.1 A2 -- Install enhanced pavement markings, edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders

LowExperimental/

TriedShort

15.1 A3 -- Install centerline rumble strips Low Proven* Short

15.1 A4 -- Provide enhanced shoulder or delineation and marking for sharp curves

Low Tried / Proven Short

15.1 A5 -- Provide improved highway geometry for horizontal curves

High* Proven Long

15.1 A8 -- Apply shoulder treatments *Eliminate shoulder drop-offs *Shoulder edge *Widen and/or pave shoulders

Moderate* Experimental/Proven

Medium

15.1 B1 -- Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers

Moderate to High* Proven Medium

15.1 B2 -- Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locations

Moderate to High Proven Medium

Source: NCHRP 500 Series (2003)

Short (<1 year) Low (<$10,000/mile) *Updated by CH2M HILLMedium (1-2 years) Moderate ($10,000-$100,000/mile)Long (>2 years) High (>$100,000/mile)

15.1 B -- Minimize the likelihood of crashing into an object or overturning if the vehicle travels off the shoulder

15.1 A -- Keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside

159/28/2011

Phase I & II Safety Planning Process

Identify Short List of Critical Strategies

Identify Safety

Projects

Safety Workshop

Safety Plan

Top Infrastructure Voted Strategies Edgeline Rumble Strips/StripEs Street Lights Enhanced Shoulder or Delineation on Curve

$114M worth of safety projects 5,400 miles of edge treatment ($41M) 7,600 curves delineation ($52M) 2,100 intersection improvements ($20M)

Introduction Initial Crash Analysis Safety Emphasis Areas

Safety Strategies Detailed Crash Analysis Safety Projects

12 Workshops Over 500 attendees

169/28/2011

Today’s Objective Break into 2 groups (11:30am – 2:30pm)

Infrastructure & Driver Behavior Discuss & Prioritize the Short List of Strategies

Wrap Up (2:30pm – 3:00pm) Review Breakout Discussions Voting Exercise Adjourn

For updates on the progress of the Statewide County Road Safety Plans: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sa_county_traffic_safety_plans.html