1 / 27

Minnesota CHSP Update - Application of the Screening Process in ATP 1

Minnesota CHSP Update - Application of the Screening Process in ATP 1. Howard Preston, PE January 31, 2007. Technical Overview. Model Process – Focus on ATP 1 Document ATP 1 Crash Characteristics Disaggregate by Critical Emphasis Area Disaggregate by State vs. Local Road System

zachary-dixon
Download Presentation

Minnesota CHSP Update - Application of the Screening Process in ATP 1

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-Application of theScreening Process in ATP 1 Howard Preston, PE January 31, 2007

  2. Technical Overview • Model Process – Focus on ATP 1 • Document ATP 1 Crash Characteristics • Disaggregate by Critical Emphasis Area • Disaggregate by State vs. Local Road System • Disaggregate by Counties With-in ATP 1 • Observations • Next Steps

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

  4. ATP 1 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 ATP = Area Transportation Partners

  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 Prioritization Process – ATP 1Priority Strategies See Handout

  9. Prioritization for the State TH System

  10. STEP 1: Identify Priority Facility Types Priority Facility Types for the State System - ATP 1 Source: Minnesota crash records, 2004-2005

  11. STEP 1:Identify Priority Facility Types Priority Facility Types for the State System - ATP 1 Number of Severe Crashes Crash Rates Crash Density Crash Type

  12. STEP 2: Summarize Data & Rank Facility Types State TH Ranking Process • Facility type with most K+A receives . • Facility type with second most K+A receives . • Facility type with third most K+A receives . • Facility type with greatest number of K’s across districts receives additional  (not to exceed 3).         

  13. STEP 2: Summarize Data & Rank Facility Types Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Summary for Priority Facility Types – ATP 1

  14. STEP 3: Apply Rankings to Strategies Priority Strategies by FacilityType for the State System – ATP 1

  15. Prioritization for the Local Road System

  16. STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties 2 Part County Ranking Process Part 1: Across Counties Within an ATP • County with most K+A receives . • County with second most K+A receives . • County with third most K+A receives . • Any county where percentage of K+A is at least 10 points above ATP average receive additional  (not to exceed 3). • County with most fatalities receives additional  (not to exceed 3). • County with highest percentage of fatalities receives additional  (not to exceed 3). Part 2: Within Each County • If a county receives no s in the across county analysis, the county will have their greatest opportunity to reduce severe crashes identified with an X. Driver Behavior and Infrastructure emphasis areas will be handled separately. X          

  17. STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties Local System Prioritiesby County -ATP 1 See Handout

  18. STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties Local System Prioritiesby County – ATP 1 Number and Rate of Severe Crashes

  19. STEP 2: Apply Rankings to Strategies Priority Strategies by Countyfor the Local System – ATP 1

  20. 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

  21. In ATP 1 Distribution of fatalities among the CEAs is generally similar to statewide averages with the following exceptions Unbelted drivers (+ 5% points) Single Vehicle ROR (+ 7% points) For alcohol related, young driver involved, and single vehicle ROR, the number of fatalities on the local system exceeds the number on the state system, 57% of fatalities occur on the STH system and 43% on the local system. Observations

  22. Observations • Approximately 60% of the factors contributing to fatal crashes are related to driver behavior. • ATP 1 has the second highest number (37) and percentage (28%) 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).

  23. Observations • Fatal crashes on the State’s system are far overrepresented on rural facilities (94%). • Of the rural & severe crashes on the State’s system, 2-lane rural roads in ATP 1 represent 61%. However, there is no obvious priority based on volume categories.

  24. Observations • The analysis of the factors contributing to severe crashes in ATP 1 suggest the following high-priority infrastructure based improvements: • Rural Freeways and/or Expressways: Street lights, Indirect turn treatments in median cross-overs, Median Barriers, Edgeline rumblestrips, Shoulder edge treatments • Rural 2-Lane State Highways: Street lights, Centerline rumblestrips, Edgeline rumblestrips, Shoulder edge treatments • Rural Local Highways: Street lights, Enhanced pavement markings, Edgeline or centerline rumblestrips, Shoulder edge treatments • These types of strategies would be most effectively deployed using a proactive (as opposed to reactive) approach.

  25. Notes on the Ranking System • More s suggest better opportunities to reduce number of fatalities and serious injuries. • s can help distinguish between similar projects that have similar forecast crash reduction factors. • A  does NOT guarantee selection of a specific project for safety funding. • Lack of a  does NOT suggest that a county or facility type would be ineligible for safety funding.

  26. 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