1 September 28, 2011 Safety Strategies Workshop Brown County Faribault County Martin County Watonwan...
-
Upload
sydney-wiggins -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 September 28, 2011 Safety Strategies Workshop Brown County Faribault County Martin County Watonwan...
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