Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans

1. UpdateMnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans CTS Transportation Research Conference May 23, 2012 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services

2. Agenda • Project Overview - Goals, Objectives • Crashes – A Data Driven Process • Project Development • The Case for a Systemic Approach • Risk Rating Criteria • Results • Questions/Comments

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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%)

7. 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%

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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%)

12. 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

13. Rural Road Segment – Risk Rating Criteria (Part 1) Characteristics • Traffic Volume • Access Density • Edge Risk Assessment • Curve Density • Crash Density (786 crashes)

14. 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

15. Rural Horizontal Curve– Risk Rating Criteria Characteristics • Curve Radius • Traffic Volume • Intersection • Visual Trap • Severe Crash

16. 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

17. Example Rural County Prioritization Segments Intersections Curves Is the County’s entire system at-risk?

18. Example Urban County Prioritization Intersections – Right-Angle Intersections - Pedestrians

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. Project Development – High Priority Curves

23. Project Development – High Priority Rural Intersections

24. Example Project Summary Sheets Rural Intersection Urban Intersection - Corridors

25. Example Urban Corridor Project Summary

26. Rural County Project Summary Segments Curves Intersections

27. Urban County Project Summary Total Summary

28. 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, howard.preston@ch2m.com • Nikki Farrington, CH2M HILL, 651.365.8536, nicole.farrington@ch2m.com • Mike Marti, SRF Consulting Group, 763.249.6779, mmarti@srfconsulting.com • Carla Stueve, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6797, cstueve@srfconsulting.com • Renae Kuehl, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6783, rkuehl@srfconsulting.com • Ann Johnson, P.E. Services, 612.275.8190, johns421@umn.edu Questions?