1 / 21

Minnesota CHSP Update - Model Screening Process

Minnesota CHSP Update - Model Screening Process. Howard Preston, PE January 3, 2007. Technical Overview - UPDATE. Model Process – Focus on District 3 Document District 3 Crash Characteristics Disaggregate by Critical Emphasis Area Disaggregate by State vs. Local Road System

thuong
Download Presentation

Minnesota CHSP Update - Model Screening Process

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota CHSP Update-Model Screening Process Howard Preston, PE January 3, 2007

  2. Technical Overview - UPDATE • Model Process – Focus on District 3 • Document District 3 Crash Characteristics • Disaggregate by Critical Emphasis Area • Disaggregate by State vs. Local Road System • Disaggregate by Counties With-in District 3 • Observations • Next Steps

  3. Statewide Fatalities (2001-2005) Emphasis Area Fatality Rank

  4. ATP 3 Fatalities (2001-2005)

  5. … Highest Priority Strategies ATP 1 ATP 8 State - - Local - - State - - Local - - Model Process Universes of Possible Safety Strategies Strategic Planning Process - Data & Partner Driven - Prioritization Supplemental Implementation Analysis Document Primary Contributing Factors Mapping Exercise State System Local System Driver Behavior - Seat Belts - Impaired - Young Drivers - Aggressive Drivers Infrastructure - Lane Departure - Intersections • Enforcement • Education • Engineering • EMS • Data Systems

  6. Detailed Model Process (1 of 2) Universes of Possible Safety Strategies Strategic Planning Process - Data & Partner - Driven Prioritization December 31, 2004

  7. … Highest Priority Strategies ATP 1 ATP 8 State - - Local - - State - - Local - - DetailedModel Process (2 of 2) Primary Contributing Factors Driver Behavior - Seat Belts - Impaired - Young Drivers - Aggressive Drivers Infrastructure - Lane Departure - Intersections Factors Mapping Exercise Road Categories - Freeway - Expressway - Conventional - Volume Strategies ATP 1 State System ATP 2 Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes ATP 3 Intersection Control - Signal - Stop ATP 4 ATP M Local System ATP 6 ATP 7 Location - Rural - Urban ATP 8 July, 2007 October, 2006

  8. Model Surveying Process – ATP 3PRIORITY STRATEGIES See Handout

  9. Priority Facility Types State System - ATP 3

  10. Priority Facility Types State System - ATP 3 Number of Severe Crashes Crash Rates Crash Density Crash Type

  11. Priority Strategies by Facility Type State System – ATP 3 See Handout

  12. Local System Priorities by County -ATP 3 See Handout

  13. Local System Priorities by County – ATP 3 Number and Rate of Severe Crashes

  14. Priority Strategies by County Local System – ATP 3

  15. The crash data supports the previous selection of Critical Emphasis Areas Impaired Driving Safety Belt Usage Young Drivers Aggressive Drivers Lane Departures Intersections Driver Safety Awareness Data Information Systems Observations

  16. In ATP 3 Distribution of fatalities among the CEAs is generally similar to statewide averages with the following exceptions Unbelted drivers Alcohol-related Young drivers Head-on crashes For each Emphasis Area, the number of fatalities on the local system exceeds the number on the state system, with one exception – head-on & sideswipe 48% of fatalities occur on the STH system and 52% on the local system. Observations

  17. Observations • Approximately 60% of the factors contributing to fatal crashes are related to driver behavior. • ATP 3 has the highest number of fatal crashes where total EMS response time exceeded 1 hour. • These facts suggest the need for a balanced approach to safety – investing in the Other E’s (especially on the local system).

  18. Observations • Severe crashes are far overrepresented on rural facilities. • Severe crashes are overrepresented on 2-lane roads (both state and local) in ATP 3. However, there is no obvious priority based on volume categories. • There are fewer severe crashes on multi-lane roads, however, the 10 fatal head-on crashes on the freeway system and 10 fatal road departure crashes on the expressway system are the highest of any ATP in the state.

  19. Observations • The analysis of the factors contributing to severe crashes in ATP 3 suggest the following high-priority infrastructure based improvements: • Rural Freeways & Expressways: Median Barriers • Rural Expressways: Street lights, Indirect turn treatments in median cross-overs, Edgeline rumblestrips • Rural 2-Lane State Highways: Street lights, Centerline rumblestrips, Edgeline rumblestrips, Shoulder edge treatments • Rural Local Highways: Street lights, Enhanced pavement markings, Edgeline rumblestrips, Shoulder edge treatments • These types of strategies would be most effectively deployed using a proactive (as opposed to reactive) approach.

  20. Next Steps • Receive comments and revise the process as necessary. • Apply the revised process to the other ATP’s. • Prepare a short list of the highest priority strategies for each ATP.

More Related