Update mndot s county roadway safety plans
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans. CTS Transportation Research Conference May 23, 2012. CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services. Agenda. Project Overview - Goals, Objectives Crashes – A Data Driven Process Project Development The Case for a Systemic Approach

Download Presentation

Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Update mndot s county roadway safety plans

UpdateMnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans

CTS Transportation Research Conference

May 23, 2012

CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services


Agenda

Agenda

  • Project Overview - Goals, Objectives

  • Crashes – A Data Driven Process

  • Project Development

  • The Case for a Systemic Approach

  • Risk Rating Criteria

  • Results

  • Questions/Comments


County road safety plans

County Road Safety Plans

  • Sponsored by…

    • Funding provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation

    • Almost $3.5 million made available to prepare County Safety Plans for 87 counties over three years


Goals and objectives

Goals and Objectives

  • Development of County Safety Plans

    • Establish safety emphasis areas

    • High priority safety strategies

    • At-risk locations

    • 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

  • Foster safety culture among county stakeholders


Project approach phase iv

Project Approach – Phase IV

June 2012

April 2012

April 2012

July 2012

Develop Comprehensive List of Safety Strategies

Crash Analysis

Select Safety Emphasis Areas

Safety Workshop

June 2012

Kick-off Video Meeting

Review Mtg w/ Counties

Project Programming

Project Development

Implementation

Evaluation

Refinement & Update SHSP

Oct 2012

Identify Short List of Critical Strategies

Identify Safety Projects

Nov 2012

Sept 2012

January 2013

Safety Plan


Greater minnesota crash data overview

Greater Minnesota Crash Data Overview

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010

Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

5 Year Crashes

156,182

4,902

-ATP’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 – NO Metro

Example

All – %

Severe – %

CSAH/CR

36,716 – 24%

1,963 – 40%

State System

70,808 – 45%

2,000 – 41%

City, Twnshp, Other

48,658 – 31%

939 – 19%

Urban

14,086 – 38%

337 – 17%

Rural

22,630 – 62%

1,626 – 83%

Not Animal

18,616 – 82%

1,566 – 96%

Animal

4,009 – 18%

60 – 4%

Unknown/Other

1,577 – 11%

17 – 5%

Not Inters-Related

5,177 – 37%

175 – 52%

Inters-Related

7,332 – 52%

145 – 43%

Unknown/Other

1,276 – 7%

61 – 4%

Inters-Related

5,487 – 29%

463 – 30%

Not Inters-Related

11,849 – 64%

1,042 –66%

Run Off Road – 1,202 (23%), 69 (39%)

Head On – 366 (7%), 27 (15%)

“Other” – 540 (10%), 25 (14%)

Rear End – 1,336 (26%), 17 (10%)

Other/Unknown

2,600 – 47%

228 – 49%

Signalized

209 – 4%

4 – 1%

All Way Stop

164 – 3%

15 – 3%

Thru-Stop

2,511 – 46%

216 – 47%

Head On, SS Opp.

751 – 6%

132 – 13%

Run off Road

7,891 – 67%

675 – 65%

Signalized

2,308 – 31%

32 – 22%

All Way Stop

445 – 6%

5 – 3%

Thru-Stop

2,697 – 37%

65 – 45%

Other/Unknown

1,881 – 26%

43 – 30%

Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%)

Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%)

“Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%)

Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%)

On Curve

247 – 33%

46 – 35%

On Curve

3,222 – 40%

339 – 50%

Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%)

Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%)

Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%)

Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%)

Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%)

“Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%)

Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%)

Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%)

Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%)

“Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%)

Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%)

Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%)


Metro atp crash data overview

Metro ATP Crash Data Overview

5 Year Crashes Metro

214,139

3,157

Example

All – %

Severe – %

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010

-- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

CSAH/CR

68,322 – 32%

1,339 – 42%

State System

83,784 – 39%

924 – 29%

City, Twnshp, Other

62,033 – 29%

894 – 28%

Urban

65,433 – 96%

1,171 – 87%

Rural

2,848 – 4%

164 – 12%

Int

767 – 71%

93 – 64%

Signal

536 – 70%

51 – 55%

Ped

1,076 – 43%

145 – 64%

Bike

1,410 – 57%

80 – 36%

Int

1,101 – 78%

52 – 65%

Signal

683 – 62%

32 – 62%

Not Animal

2,364 – 83%

158 – 96%

Animal

483 – 17%

6 – 4%

Non Ped/Bike

62,923 – 96%

946 – 81%

Ped/Bike

2,486 – 4%

225 – 19%

Unknown/Other

264 – 11%

5 – 3%

Inters-Related

924 –39%

61 – 39%

Not Inters-Related

1,176 – 50%

92 – 58%

Unknown/Other

9,314 – 15%

87 – 9%

Not Inters-Related

15,560 – 25%

290 – 31%

Inters-Related

38,045 – 60%

569 – 60%

Other/Unknown

256 – 28%

24 – 39%

Signalized

82 – 9%

1 – 2%

All Way Stop

47 – 5%

2 – 3%

Thru-Stop

539 – 58%

34 – 56%

Run Off Road – 2,264 (15%), 77 (27%)

Rear End – 5,575 (36%), 62 (21%)

Head On – 1,097 (7%), 61 (21%)

“Other”– 1,262 (8%), 29 (10%)

Right Angle – 1,619 (10%), 24 (8%)

Right Angle – 199 (37%), 15 (44%)

Run Off Road – 50 (9%), 4 (12%)

Head On – 37 (7%), 4 (12%)

Signalized

23,077 – 61%

277 – 49%

All Way Stop

1,376 – 4%

23 – 4%

Thru-Stop

7,344 – 19%

156 – 27%

Other/Unknown

6,241 – 16%

113 – 20%

Head On, SS Opp

93 – 8%

16 – 17%

Run off Road

719 – 61%

56 – 61%

Run Off Road – 81 (32%), 6 (25%)

Head On/SS Opp – 19 (7%), 4 (17%)

Right Angle – 20 (8%), 3 (13%)

Right Angle – 6,372 (28%), 141 (51%)

Rear End – 8,514 (37%), 51 (18%)

Left Turn – 3,374 (15%), 29 (10%)

Head On – 807 (4%), 17 (6%)

Right Angle – 3,121 (42%), 80 (51%)

Rear End – 1,803 (25%), 15 (10%)

Left Turn – 757 (10%), 15 (10%)

Head On – 208 (3%), 11 (7%)

On Curve

34 – 37%

4 – 25%

On Curve

345 – 48%

33 – 59%


Project development

Project Development

  • Reactive Approach – Identifying Black Spot locations with crash rate above the critical crash rate and/or experienced multiple severe crashes in the 5-year study period.

  • The Systemic Approach – Applying high priority/low cost safety strategies at the at-risk locations across each county’s system of highways.

The key questions:

  • Is every element of the county system equally at risk?

  • Where to Start?

  • A new approach to safety planning

    Old Approach

    Crashes = Risk & No Crashes = No Risk

    New Approach

    No Crashes ≠ No Risk

    Use surrogates of crashes (roadway and traffic characteristics) to identify risk and prioritize – the 5  (or 6) Ranking System


Support for the systemic approach

Support for the SYSTEMIC Approach

68 Greater Minnesota Counties

  • Segments: 786 severe road departure crashes on 21,000 miles of rural paved county roads

    • Average Density = 0.01 severe road departure crashes/year

    • No segments average one severe road departure crash per year

  • Curves: 327 severe crashes on 15,000 curves

    • Average Density = 0.004 severe crashes/curve/year

    • 85% of curves had NO crashes (during 5-year study period)

    • 5 curves with 2 fatal crashes (0.03% of curves), 19 curves with 2 severe crashes (0.1% of curves)

    • No curve averaged one severe crash per year

  • Intersections: 640 severe crashes over 10,000 rural thru/STOP intersections

    • Average Density = 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year

    • No intersection averaged one severe crash per year

Target Crash Types

The most frequently occurring crashes which represent the greatest opportunity for reduction.

The target crash types are RARE.

No rural segment, curve or intersection qualifies as a High Crash Location – use the systemic approach to identify risk and prioritize candidate locations for safety investment.

Source: MnCMAT 2006-2010

Severe Crashes = Fatal + A Injury


Support for the systemic approach1

Support for the SYSTEMIC Approach

1 Metro County

Signalized Intersections: 919 signalized intersections

  • RIGHT ANGLE: 95 severe right angle crashes

    • Average Density = 0.02 severe right angle crashes/intersection/year

    • 90% of intersections had NO severe right angle crashes, 2% had TWO, and 8% had ONE

    • No signalized intersection averaged one severe right angle crash per year

  • PED/BIKE: 54 severe ped/bike crashes

    • Average Density = 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year

    • 94% of intersections had NO severe right angle crashes, 5% had ONE, 0.5% had TWO, 0.2% had THREE

    • No signalized intersection averaged one severe ped/bike crash per year

      Segments: 32 severe rear end crashes over 560 miles of county highway

    • Average Density = 0.01 severe rear end/mile/yea

    • 87% of corridors had NO severe right angle crashes, 10% had ONE, 2% had TWO, 1 corridor had THREE

    • No corridor averaged one severe rear end crash per year

Target Crash Types

The most frequently occurring crashes which represent the greatest opportunity for reduction.

The target crash types are RARE.

No intersection or segment qualifies as a High Crash Location – use the systemic approach to identify risk and prioritize candidate locations for safety investment.

Source: MnCMAT 2006-2010

Severe Crashes = Fatal + A Injury


Metro out state crash data overview

Metro/Out-State Crash Data Overview

5 Year Crashes State

382,452

8,285

Example

All – %

Severe – %

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010

-- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

CSAH/CR

108,173 – %

3,393 – %

State System

156,620 – %

2,962 – %

City, Twnshp, Other

116,408 – %

1,913 – %

Metro Urban

65,433 – 96%

1,171 – 87%

Out State Rural

22,630 – 62%

1,626 – 83%

Int

767 – 71%

93 – 64%

Signal

536 – 70%

51 – 55%

Ped

1,076 – 43%

145 – 64%

Bike

1,410 – 57%

80 – 36%

Int

1,101 – 78%

52 – 65%

Signal

683 – 62%

32 – 62%

Not Animal

18,616 – 82%

1,566 – 96%

Animal

4,009 – 18%

60 – 4%

Non Ped/Bike

62,923 – 96%

946 – 81%

Ped/Bike

2,486 – 4%

225 – 19%

Unknown/Other

1,276 – 7%

61 – 4%

Inters-Related

5,487 – 29%

463 – 30%

Not Inters-Related

11,849 – 64%

1,042 –66%

Unknown/Other

9,314 – 15%

87 – 9%

Not Inters-Related

15,560 – 25%

290 – 31%

Inters-Related

38,045 – 60%

569 – 60%

Run Off Road – 2,264 (15%), 77 (27%)

Rear End – 5,575 (36%), 62 (21%)

Head On – 1,097 (7%), 61 (21%)

“Other”– 1,262 (8%), 29 (10%)

Right Angle – 1,619 (10%), 24 (8%)

Other/Unknown

2,600 – 47%

228 – 49%

Signalized

209 – 4%

4 – 1%

All Way Stop

164 – 3%

15 – 3%

Thru-Stop

2,511 – 46%

216 – 47%

Head On, SS Opp.

751 – 6%

132 – 13%

Run off Road

7,891 – 67%

675 – 65%

Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%)

Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%)

“Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%)

Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%)

Signalized

23,077 – 61%

277 – 49%

All Way Stop

1,376 – 4%

23 – 4%

Thru-Stop

7,344 – 19%

156 – 27%

Other/Unknown

6,241 – 16%

113 – 20%

On Curve

247 – 33%

46 – 35%

On Curve

3,222 – 40%

339 – 50%

Right Angle – 6,372 (28%), 141 (51%)

Rear End – 8,514 (37%), 51 (18%)

Left Turn – 3,374 (15%), 29 (10%)

Head On – 807 (4%), 17 (6%)

Right Angle – 3,121 (42%), 80 (51%)

Rear End – 1,803 (25%), 15 (10%)

Left Turn – 757 (10%), 15 (10%)

Head On – 208 (3%), 11 (7%)

Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%)

“Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%)

Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%)

Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%)


Urban signalized intersection pedestrian crash risk rating criteria

Urban Signalized Intersection Pedestrian Crash Risk Rating Criteria

Characteristics (NOT causation!)

  • Traffic Signal

  • Speed Limit

  • Four Legged

  • Undivided Roadway

  • Bus Stop

  • Pedestrian Generator

Percent of Severe Pedestrian Crashes


Rural road segment risk rating criteria part 1

Rural Road Segment – Risk Rating Criteria (Part 1)

Characteristics

  • Traffic Volume

  • Access Density

  • Edge Risk Assessment

  • Curve Density

  • Crash Density

(786 crashes)


Edge risk assessment

Edge Risk Assessment

Rural Road Segment – Risk Rating Criteria (Part 2)

1

Usable Shoulder, Reasonable Clear Zone

2 -No Usable Shoulder but Reasonable Clear Zone

2– Usable Shoulder but Roadside with Fixed Obstacles

3

No Usable Shoulder,

Roadside with Fixed Obstacles


Rural horizontal curve risk rating criteria

Rural Horizontal Curve– Risk Rating Criteria

Characteristics

  • Curve Radius

  • Traffic Volume

  • Intersection

  • Visual Trap

  • Severe Crash


Rural thru stop intersection risk rating criteria

Rural Thru STOP Intersection Risk Rating Criteria

Characteristics

  • Geometry

    • Skewed minor leg approach

    • Intersection on/near horizontal curve

  • Volume

    • Minor ADT/Major ADT ratio

  • Proximity

    • Previous STOP sign

    • Railroad crossing

  • Intersection Related Crashes

  • Commercial Development in quadrants


Example rural county prioritization

Example Rural County Prioritization

Segments

Intersections

Curves

Is the County’s entire system at-risk?


Example urban county prioritization

Example Urban County Prioritization

Intersections – Right-Angle

Intersections - Pedestrians


Do the rating criteria really identify at risk locations

Do the Rating Criteria Really Identify At-Risk Locations?

Curve Risk Criteria

Phase I and II Curves – 3,990 curves included in analysis of each risk factor. Minimum of 1,500 curves and 76 severe crashes in each category

Phase I and II - 5,725 intersections included in analysis of each risk factor. Minimum of 150 intersections and 16 severe crashes in each category

Intersection Risk Criteria


Update mndot s county roadway safety plans

Project Development – Urban Signalized Intersections

  • 115/220 had 5 or 6 Stars

    • 24/115 are on Lake St

    • 9/115 are on Penn Ave

    • 9/115 are on Broadway Ave

    • 9/115 are on Cedar Ave

    • 8/115 are on Lyndale Ave

    • 7/115 are on Lowry Ave

    • 7/115 are on Franklin Ave

Risk Factor Ranking

Corridor Projects

Over 60% of the at-risk intersections occurred on only a few urban corridors


Project development urban signalized intersections

Project Development – Urban Signalized Intersections

Focus of Project Development is on adding Confirmation Lights because the density of severe right angle crashes does NOT appear to be related to the number of overhead indications.


Project development high priority curves

Project Development – High Priority Curves


Project development high priority rural intersections

Project Development – High Priority Rural Intersections


Example project summary sheets

Example Project Summary Sheets

Rural Intersection

Urban Intersection - Corridors


Example urban corridor project summary

Example Urban Corridor Project Summary


Rural county project summary

Rural County Project Summary

Segments

Curves

Intersections


Urban county project summary

Urban County Project Summary

Total Summary


More information

More Information

  • Mn/DOT State Aid website

    • www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid

  • Otter Tail County Safety Plan

    • http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sa_county_traffic_safety_plans.html

  • Contact Information

    • Howard Preston, CH2M HILL, 651.365.8514, [email protected]

    • Nikki Farrington, CH2M HILL, 651.365.8536, [email protected]

    • Mike Marti, SRF Consulting Group, 763.249.6779, [email protected]

    • Carla Stueve, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6797, [email protected]

    • Renae Kuehl, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6783, [email protected]

    • Ann Johnson, P.E. Services, 612.275.8190, [email protected]

Questions?


  • Login