1 mndot county roadway safety plans review meeting 1 metro june 21, 2012

1

MnDOT County Roadway Safety PlansReview Meeting 1

Metro

June 21, 2012

2

Agenda Introductions Safety Planning Process Data Overview

Counties Combined

Safety Emphasis Areas Safety Strategies Workshop

Logistics Date, location

Sample agenda, invitation, invite list

Safety Strategies Overview of Safety Project Development Process

6/21/2012

3

Project Approach – Phase IV

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

April 2012 July 2012June 2012April 2012

Oct 2012

January 2013

Sept 2012

Review Mtg w/ Counties

Kick-off Meeting

Nov 2012

June 2012

6/21/2012

4

Legend

10/yr (50 total) - Severe crashes on any jurisdiction

4/yr (20 total) - Severe crashes on CSAH/CR

MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011Severe = K (fatal) + A (life-changing injury)

* Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties

Metro* County Severe Crash Numbers

22/yr (108)

10/yr (51)

78/yr (390)

36/yr (182)

32/yr (161)19/yr (94)

105/yr (527)42/yr (209)

39/yr (197)12/yr (60)

80/yr (402)37/yr (184)

Anoka

Washington

Ramsey

DakotaScott

Carver

6/21/2012

5

Metro* – Safety Emphasis AreasEmphasis Area

Statewide Percentage

ATP Metro*

Interstate, US & TH CSAH & CR

City, Twnshp & Other

Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 8,300 954 1373 963

Drivers

Young drivers (under 21) 24% 21%(198) 26%(357) 26%(248)

Unlicensed drivers 8% 9%(86) 7%(100) 9%(86)

Older drivers (over 64) 14% 12%(113) 12%(162) 10%(101)

Aggressive driving and speeding-related 20% 21%(204) 15%(206) 21%(203)

Drug and alcohol-related 26% 27%(255) 18%(249) 21%(205)

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers 20% 20%(195) 21%(290) 15%(147)

Safety awareness - - -- -- --

Unbelted vehicle occupants 25% 22%(207) 14%(199) 13%(125)

Special UsersPedestrians crashes 8% 9%(85) 11%(153) 19%(181)

Bicycle crashes 4% 2%(23) 6%(86) 10%(100)

Vehicles

Motorcycles crashes 16% 14%(130) 16%(223) 17%(163)

Heavy vehicle crashes 10% 11%(105) 7%(97) 7%(65)

Safety enhancements - - -- -- --

Highways

Train-vehicle collisions 0% 0%(0) 0%(1) 0%(4)

Road departure crashes 28% 21%(200) 13%(182) 13%(129)

Consequences of leaving road - - -- -- --

Intersection crashes 42% 45%(425) 58%(793) 51%(491)

Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes 15% 14%(131) 17%(228) 14%(138)

Work zone crashes 2% 4%(37) 2%(22) 1%(13)

EMS Enhancing Emergency Capabilities - - -- -- --

ManagementInformation and decision support systems - - -- -- --

More effective processes - - -- -- --* Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington CountiesDPS Crash Data Records, 2006 to 2010

Top Emphasis Areas by JurisdictionNote: 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)6/21/2012

6

Anoka/Ramsey Emphasis AreasAnoka and Ramsey County Emphasis Areas

Emphasis AreaStatewide

Percentage

ATP Metro* Anoka and Ramsey County





Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 8,300 954 1373 963 359 446 253

Drivers

Young drivers (under 21) 24% 21%(198) 26%(357) 26%(248) 23%(84) 28%(127) 25%(62)

Unlicensed drivers 8% 9%(86) 7%(100) 9%(86) 10%(35) 7%(29) 8%(19)

Older drivers (over 64) 14% 12%(113) 12%(162) 10%(101) 11%(38) 13%(59) 9%(22)

Aggressive driving and speeding-related 20% 21%(204) 15%(206) 21%(203) 19%(67) 14%(64) 22%(55)

Drug and alcohol-related 26% 27%(255) 18%(249) 21%(205) 27%(97) 18%(79) 26%(66)

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers 20% 20%(195) 21%(290) 15%(147) 23%(83) 24%(108) 21%(54)

Safety awareness - - -- -- -- -- -- --

Unbelted vehicle occupants 25% 22%(207) 14%(199) 13%(125) 23%(81) 15%(66) 15%(37)

Special UsersPedestrians crashes 8% 9%(85) 11%(153) 19%(181) 14%(52) 14%(61) 22%(56)

Bicycle crashes 4% 2%(23) 6%(86) 10%(100) 3%(9) 6%(26) 9%(22)

Vehicles

Motorcycles crashes 16% 14%(130) 16%(223) 17%(163) 13%(45) 17%(76) 19%(47)

Heavy vehicle crashes 10% 11%(105) 7%(97) 7%(65) 8%(28) 6%(27) 6%(14)

Safety enhancements - - -- -- -- -- -- --

Highways

Train-vehicle collisions 0% 0%(0) 0%(1) 0%(4) 0%0 0%0 0%(1)

Road departure crashes 28% 21%(200) 13%(182) 13%(129) 20%(72) 12%(52) 13%(32)

Consequences of leaving road - - -- -- -- -- -- --

Intersection crashes 42% 45%(425) 58%(793) 51%(491) 52%(185) 62%(277) 51%(129)

Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes 15% 14%(131) 17%(228) 14%(138) 12%(42) 15%(68) 15%(39)

Work zone crashes 2% 4%(37) 2%(22) 1%(13) 3%(12) 1%(5) 1%(2)

EMS Enhancing Emergency Capabilities - - -- -- -- -- -- --

ManagementInformation and decision support systems - - -- -- -- -- -- --

More effective processes - - -- -- -- -- -- --

* Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties

DPS Crash Data Records, 2006 to 2010

Top 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)

6/21/2012

7

Carver/Scott Emphasis AreasCarver and Scott County Emphasis Areas


Percentage

ATP Metro* Carver and Scott County






Drivers










Bicycle crashes 4% 2%(23) 6%(86) 10%(100) 2%(2) 3%(5) 0%0

Vehicles




Highways






Work zone crashes 2% 4%(37) 2%(22) 1%(13) 6%(5) 1%(1) 0%0



More effective processes - - -- -- -- -- -- --•Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties





6/21/2012

8

Dakota/Washington Emphasis AreasDakota and Washington County Emphasis Areas


Percentage

ATP Metro* Dakota and Washington County






Drivers










Bicycle crashes 4% 2%(23) 6%(86) 10%(100) 1%(3) 6%(15) 9%(13)

Vehicles




Highways






Work zone crashes 2% 4%(37) 2%(22) 1%(13) 5%(10) 2%(5) 2%(3)



More effective processes - - -- -- -- -- -- --* Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties





6/21/2012

9

Emphasis Areas

Anoka/Ramsey Dakota/Washington Carver/Scott

Young drivers (under 21) X X X

Drug and alcohol-related X X

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers X X

Unbelted vehicle occupants X

Motorcycles crashes X X

Road departure crashes X

Intersection crashes X X XHead-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes X

6/21/2012

10

Metro* County Crash Data OverviewSource: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).*Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties

6/21/2012 6/18/2012

5 Year Crashes Metro ATP 210,586

2,876

State System83,531 – 40%

877 – 31%

CSAH/CR65,672 – 31%1,187 – 41%

Rural2,692 – 4%141 – 12%

Urban62,926 – 96%1,042 – 88%

All Way Stop1,332 – 4%

19 – 4%Run off Road

689 – 62%50 – 63%

On Curve320 – 46%30 – 60%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 3,033 (42%), 76 (55%)Rear End – 1,689 (24%), 11 (8%) Head On – 206 (3%), 11 (8%)Left Turn – 735 (10%), 9 (7%)

Thru-Stop7,149 – 19%138 – 28%

Right Angle – 6,332 (28%), 126 (52%) Rear End – 8,472 (37%), 42 (17%)Left Turn – 3,122 (14%), 21 (9%)Head On – 810 (4%), 17 (7%)

Signalized22,807 – 62%

243 – 49%

Inters-Related874 – 40%51 – 38%

City, Twnshp, Other61,383 – 29%

812 – 28%

Inters-Related37,058 – 61%

492 – 60%

Not Inters-Related15,084 – 25%

255 – 31%

Run Off Road – 2,184 (15%), 76 (30%)Rear End – 5,407 (36%), 53 (21%)Head On – 1,054 (7%), 51 (20%)Right Angle – 1,521 (10%), 19 (7%)

Animal495 – 18%

6 – 4%


79 – 59%

Head On, SS Opp90 – 8%

14 – 18%

On Curve32 – 36%4 – 29%

Unknown/Other8,256 – 14%

76 – 9%

Unknown/Other204 – 9%

5 – 4%

Other/Unknown5,764 – 16%

92 – 19%

Right Angle – 177 (35%), 13 (43%) Head On/SS Opp – 50 (10%), 5 (17%)Run Off Road – 53 (10%), 4 (13%)

Thru-Stop510 – 58%30 – 59%

Run Off Road – 81 (34%), 5 (28%) Right Angle – 25 (10%), 3 (17%)Head On/SS Opp – 15 (6%), 2 (11%)

Other/Unknown241 – 28%18 – 35%

Not Animal2,196 – 82%135 – 96%

All Way Stop38 – 4%2 – 4%

Signalized85 – 10%

1 – 2%

Ped/Bike2,508 – 4%219 – 21%

Non Ped/Bike60,402 – 96%

823 – 79%

Ped1,078 – 43%139 – 63%

Bike1,430 – 57%

80 – 37%

Int781 – 72%92 – 66%

Signal560 – 72%53 – 58%

Int1,124 – 79%

55 – 69%

Signal702 – 62%32 – 58%

Dakota/Washington County Crash Data OverviewSource: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011-- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

5 Year Crashes Dakota/Washington 35,427

574


202 – 35%

CSAH/CR10,976 – 31%

234 – 41%

Rural1,152 – 10%

43 – 18%

Urban9,824 – 90%191 – 82%

All Way Stop397 – 6%

4 – 4%Run off Road

308 – 64%12 – 57%

On Curve115 – 37%5 – 42%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 599 (39%), 20 (48%) “Other” – 117 (8%), 7 (17%)Rear End – 204 (13%), 3 (7%) Left Turn – 161 (10%), 3 (7%)

Thru-Stop1,547 – 24%

42 – 39%

Right Angle – 781 (21%), 23 (53%) Rear End – 1,822 (48%), 9 (21%)Left Turn – 392 (10%), 4 (9%)Head On – 109 (3%), 4 (9%)


43 – 40%


City, Twnshp, Other9,597 – 27%138 – 24%

Inters-Related6,582 – 69%108 – 65%


50 – 30%

Run Off Road – 419 (18%), 20 (40%)Rear End – 809 (36%), 11 (22%)Head On – 169 (7%), 10 (20%)

Animal282 – 24%

3 – 7%

Not Inters-Related485 – 56%21 – 53%

Head On, SS Opp42 – 9%8 – 38%

On Curve11 – 26%1 – 13%


8 – 5%

Unknown/Other63 – 7%1 – 3%


Right Angle – 68 (%), 5 (%)Run Off Road – 17 (%), 2 (%)

Thru-Stop199 – 62%

9 – 50%

Run Off Road – 32 (35%), 2 (22%) Rear End – 18 (20%), 1 (11%)Right Angle – 11 (12%), 1 (11%)


Not Animal870 – 76%40 – 93%


Signalized22 – 7%0 – 0%

Ped/Bike232 – 82%25 – 13%

Non Ped/Bike9,590 – 98%166 – 87%

Ped55 – 24%10 – 40%

Bike177 – 76%15 – 60%

Int40 – 73%9 – 90%

Signal24 – 60%4 – 44%

Int154 – 87%

7 – 47%

Signal90 – 58%2 – 29%

Anoka/Ramsey County Crash Data OverviewSource: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011-- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

5 Year Crashes Anoka/Ramsey 69,342

920


310 – 34%

CSAH/CR24,056 – 35%

392 – 43%

Rural207 – 1%16 – 4%

Urban23,795 – 99%

372 – 95%

All Way Stop670 – 4%12 – 7%

Run off Road43 – 41%5 – 38%

On Curve29 – 67%4 – 80%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 1,250 (%), 20 (51%)Rear End – 679 (%), 6 (15%) Head On – 71 (%), 4 (10%)Run Off Road – 73 (%), 3 (8%)

Thru-Stop2,840 – 19%

39 – 21%

Right Angle – 2,647 (28%), 47 (52%) Rear End – 3,200 (34%), 18 (20%)Left Turn – 1,641 (18%), 11 (12%)Head On – 314 (3%), 5 (5%)


91 – 50%

Inters-Related68 –36%3 – 19%


218 – 24%


182 – 62%


92 – 32%

Run Off Road – 785 (13%), 24 (26%)Rear End – 2,163 (36%), 20 (22%)Head On – 404 (7%), 16 (17%)Right Angle – 715 (12%), 10 (11%)Left Turn – 242 (4%), 9 (10%)

Animal18 – 9%0 – 0%


Head On, SS Opp11 – 10%2 – 15%

On Curve8 – 73%1 – 50%

Unknown/Other1,541 – 7%

18 – 6%

Unknown/Other15 – 8%0 – 0%

Other/Unknown2,488 – 16%

40 – 22%

Run Off Road – 5 (15%), 1 (100%)Right Angle – 12 (36%), 0 (0%)Rear End – 6 (18%), 0 (0%)

Thru-Stop33 – 49%1 – 33%


Not Animal189 – 91%16 – 100%

All Way Stop11 – 16%1 – 33%


Ped/Bike842 – 4%80 – 22%


292 – 78%

Ped390 – 46%52 – 65%

Bike452 – 54%28 – 35%

Int265 – 68%30 – 58%

Signal172 – 65%15 – 50%

Int359 – 79%22 – 79%

Signal216 – 60%14 – 64%

Carver/Scott County Crash Data OverviewSource: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011-- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

5 Year Crashes Scott/Carver 10,599

258


79 – 31%

CSAH/CR3,631 – 34%141 – 55%

Rural1,111 – 31%

75 – 53%

Urban2,520 – 69%

66 – 47%


Run off Road320 – 67%31 – 74%

On Curve170 – 53%19 – 61%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 182 (41%), 11 (55%)Left Turn – 44 (10%), 3 (15%)Head On – 19 (4%), 2 (10%)

Thru-Stop443 – 29%20 – 57%

Right Angle – 140 (18%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 374 (49%), 1 (17%)Head On – 37 (5%), 1 (17%)

Signalized757 – 49%

6 – 17%



38 – 15%


35 – 61%


Run Off Road – 181 (24%), 9 (45%) Head On – 61 (8%), 4 (20%)Rear End – 238 (32%), 3 (15%)Right Angle – 59 (8%), 3 (15%)

Animal166 – 15%

3 – 4%


Head On, SS Opp33 – 7%4 – 10%

On Curve12 – 36%2 – 50%


2 – 4%


4 – 6%

Other/Unknown290 – 19%

8 – 23%

Right Angle – 72 (34%), 7 (39%)Head On/SS Opp – 22 (10%), 4 (22%)

Thru-Stop214 – 61%18 – 69%

Run Off Road – 41 (40%), 3 (43%) Right Angle – 8 (8%), 2 (29%)Head On/SS Opp – 9 (9%), 1 (14%)

Other/Unknown102 – 29%

7 – 27%

Not Animal944 – 85%72 – 96%



Ped/Bike51 – 2%9 – 14%


57 – 86%

Ped15 – 29%5 – 56%

Bike36 – 71%4 – 44%

Int12 – 80%4 – 80%

Signal2 – 17%1 – 25%

Int33 – 92%3 – 75%

Signal15 – 45%2 – 67%

14

Data Gathering

Please respond to Ann’s request ASAP.

Information as of 6/15/2012

6/21/2012

Metro Received Feedback on Segments and Intersections

Anoka Commented on Rural/Urban Map

Carver Commented on Rural/Urban Map

Dakota

Ramsey Intersections Only

Scott Intersections Only

Washington Commented on Rural/Urban Map

15

Rural vs. Urban Segments

6/21/2012

Washington Co

Dakota Co

DRAFT

Scott Co

DRAFTRamsey Co

DRAFT

Anoka Co

Carver Co

16

Safety Workshop Schedule

County Engineer/Assistant County EngineerXX – Main Contact for CountyXX – Workshop Coordinator

6/21/2012

Metro Workshops

County County Engineer Consultant July 30 August 1 August 9

Group A

Anoka Doug Fischer/Jane Rose SRF

XRamsey County PW

1425 Paul Kirkwold Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112Ramsey James Tolaas/Erin Laberee CH2MHill

Group B

Dakota Mark Kresbach/Kristi Sebastian/Suzanne Hanrahan SRF Dakota Lodge Facility

Dakota County Thompson Park1200 Stassen LaneWest St. Paul, MN

X

Washington Wayne Sandberg/Joe Gustafson CH2MHill

Group C

Carver Lyndon Robjent/Kate Minor SRF

X

MN Landscape Arboretum

3675 Arboretum Drive, Chaska MN

55318Scott Mitch Rasmussen/Tony

Winiecki CH2MHill

17

Safety Workshop – County Assignments June

Group Coordinator - Secure Location and Caterer 50-100 people $12/person (“all in” including delivery, tax and tip)

Send invites (example will be provided)

July Group Coordinator - Confirm final headcount (10 days prior to

workshop)

Group Coordinator - Email Carla Stueve (SRF) [email protected]

Confirm Audio-visual availability for the workshop

6/21/2012

mailto:[email protected]

18

Safety Workshop

Objective: Multidisciplinary discussion of a short list of safety strategies (Note: there is no discussion of specific locations.)

Date/Time: Various Location: Various Agenda

8:30 – Coffee and Registration 9:00 – Introductions 9:10 – County Safety Reviews 9:30 – Law Enforcement 9:50 – Local Safety Advocate 10:00 – Background Information/Desired Outcomes 10:30 – Breakout Sessions – Prioritize Strategies 12PM – 1PM - Lunch 2:15 – Report Back/Final Presentation 2:45 – 3PM - Wrap-up6/21/2012

19

Safety WorkshopSample List of Attendees:

Law Enforcement State patrol, sheriffs and police chiefs

EMS Providers Ambulance, first responders and emergency room staff

Politicians County board members, city council members, state

representatives Local Agency Staff

County engineers, city engineers, county health representatives

Tribal Representatives Safe Communities Folks Judges and Attorneys Advocacy Groups

MADD, AARP, Bicycle, Safe Routes to School MnDOT Staff

6/21/2012

20

Target Crash Types

Anoka/Ramsey Dakota/Washington Carver/Scott

Right Angle at Signals

X X XRight Angle at Thru/STOP

X X XPedestrian/Bike Crashes

X X XRear Ends in Segments

XRun Off Road Crashes

X X XHead On X X

6/21/2012

21

EMS Strategies

Screening - Initial Strategies

Enforcement Strategies

Education Strategies

Intersections30 Strategies

Engineering Strategies

Workshop’s 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 selected Critical Strategies should have the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic fatalities in your County.

Seat Belts3 Strategies

Rear End7 Strategies

Young Drivers2 Strategies

Alcohol/Drug9 Strategies

Ped/Bike29 Strategies

Motorcycle6 Strategies

Road Departure

8 Strategies

Distracted

2 Strategies

6/21/2012

22

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.

6/21/2012

23

List of Signalized Intersection Strategies

Objectives StrategiesRelative Cost to Implement and

OperateEffectiveness

Typical Timeframe for

Implementation

17.2 A1 -- Optimize signal operation (phasing/timing, etc)

Low Tried / Proven Short

17.2 A2 -- Optimize clearance intervals Low Proven Short

17.2 A4 -- Employ signal coordination along a corridor or route

Low* Proven Medium

17.2 A6 -- Improve operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities at signalized intersections


17.2 A7 -- Remove unwarranted/unnecessary signal Low Proven Short

17.2 D -- Improve driver awareness of intersections and signal control

17.2 D2 -- Improve visibility of signals and signs at intersections

Low Tried Short

17.2 E -- Improve driver compliance with traffic control devices

17.2 E2 -- Supplement conventional enforcement of red-light running with confirmation lights

Low Tried Short

17.2 F1 -- Restrict access to properties using driveway closures or turn restrictions

Low Tried Short

17.2 F2 -- Restrict cross-median access near intersections

Low Tried Short

17.2 G -- Improve safety through other infrastructure treatments

17.2 G5 -- Restrict or eliminate parking on intersection approaches

Low Proven Short

Source: NCHRP 500 Series (2004)

Short (<1 year) Low (<$100,000/intersection) *Updated by CH2M HILLMedium (1-2 years) Moderate ($100,000-$500,000/intersection)Long (>2 years) High (>$500,000/intersection)

17.2 F -- Improve access management near signalized intersections

17.2 A -- Reduce frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through traffic control and operational improvements

6/21/2012

24

List of Unsignalized Intersection Strategies




Implementation

17.1 A -- Reduce the frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through geometric design improvements

17.1 A1 -- Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median openings

Low Tried Short

17.1 A2 -- Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew

High Proven Medium

17.1 B -- Improve sight distance at unsignalized intersections

17.1 B1 -- Clear sight triangle on stop- or yield-controlled approaches to intersections and/or medians of divided highways

Low Tried Short

17.1 B2 -- Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment of approaches to provide more sight distance

High Tried Long

17.1 B3 -- Eliminate parking that restricts sight distance Low Tried Short

17.1 C -- Improve availability of gaps in traffic and assist drivers in judging gap sizes at unsignalized intersections

17.1 C1 -- Provide an automated real-time system to inform drivers of suitability of available gaps for making turning and crossing maneuvers

Moderate Experimental Medium

17.1 D -- Improve driver awareness of intersections as viewed from the intersection approach

17.1 D1 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing and delineation

Low Tried Short

17.1 D2 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing lighting Moderate to High Proven Medium

17.1 D3 -- Install splitter islands on the minor-road approach to an intersection

Moderate Tried Medium

17.1 D4 -- Provide a stop bar (or provide a wider stop bar) on minor-road approaches

Low Tried Short

17.1 D5 -- Install larger regulatory and warning signs at intersections Low Tried Short

17.1 D6 -- Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD

Low Tried Short

17.1 D7 -- Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections Low Tried Short

**17.1 D8 -- Add Dynamic Warning Signs Moderate Tried Short17.1 E -- Choose appropriate intersection traffic control to minimize crash frequency and severity

17.1 E1 -- Provide all-way stop control at appropriate intersections Low Proven Short

17.1 E2 -- Provide roundabouts at appropriate locations High Proven Long

17.1 F -- Improve driver compliance with traffic control devices and traffic laws at intersections

17.1 F1 -- Provide targeted enforcement to reduce stop sign violations Moderate Tried Short

17.1 F2 -- Provide targeted public information and education on safety problems at specific intersections

Low Tried Short

17.1 G -- Enforce posted speeds on specific intersection approaches

17.1 G1 -- Provide targeted speed enforcement Moderate Proven Short

17.1 G2 -- Post appropriate speed limit on intersection approaches Low Tried Short

6/21/2012

25

Example – Typical Intersection Strategies

Included Strategies:

Change Intersection Type

Directional Median

EnhancedSigning andDelineation

StreetLighting

DynamicWarning

Signs

6/21/2012

26

List of Rear End Crashes Strategies




Implementation

17.1 A -- Improve management of access near unsignalized intersections

17.1 A1 -- Implement driveway closure/relocations Moderate Tried Medium

17.1 A2 -- Implement driveway turn restrictions Low Tried Short

17.1 B -- Reduce the frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through geometric design improvements

17.1 B1 -- Provide left-turn lanes Moderate Proven Medium

17.1 B2 -- Provide acceleration lanes Moderate Tried Medium

17.1 B3 -- Provide right-turn lanes Moderate Proven Medium

**17.1 B4 -- 4-lane to TWLT conversion Moderate Proven Medium

**17.1 B5 -- Reduce speed along segment -- Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign

Low Tried Short

Source: NCHRP 500 Series

**Added by Hennepin County Road Safety Plan project team

CostTimeframe

Low (<$50,000/intersection) Short (<1 year)

Moderate ($50,000-$500,000/intersection) Medium (1-2 years)

High (>$500,000/intersection) Long (>2 years)

6/21/2012

27

List of Pedestrian Strategies




Implementation

9.1 A -- Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicular Traffic

9.1 A1 -- Provide Sidewalks/Walkways and Curb Ramps Moderate to High Proven Long

9.1 A2 -- Install or Upgrade Traffic and Pedestrian Signals Moderate to High Varies Medium

9.1 A3 -- Construct Pedestrian Refuge Islands and Raised Medians Moderate to High Proven Medium

9.1 A4 -- Provide Full/Partial Diverters & Street Closure Moderate to High Proven Medium

9.1 A5 -- Install Overpasses/Underpasses Moderate to High Proven Long

**9.1 A6 -- Install Countdown Timers Low Tried Medium

**9.1 A7 -- Install Advance Walk Interval Low Tried Short

9.1 B -- Improve Sight Distance and/or Visibility Between Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians

9.1 B1 -- Provide Crosswalk Enhancements Low Varies Short

9.1 B2 -- Implement Lighting/Crosswalk Illumination Measures Moderate to High Proven Medium

9.1 B3 -- Eliminate Screening by Physical Objects Low Tried Short

9.1 B4 -- Signals to Alert Motorists That Pedestrians are crossing -- HAWK Signal

Moderate Tried/Experimental Medium

**9.1 B5 -- Construct Curb Extensions Moderate Tried Medium to Long

9.1 C -- Improve Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Awareness and Behavior

9.1 C1 -- Provide Education, Outreach and Training Moderate Proven Short

9.1 C2 -- Implement Enforcement Campaigns Moderate Tried Short


**Added by County Road Safety Plan project teamCost TimeframeLow (<$10,000) Short (<1 year)

Moderate ($10,000-$50,000) Medium (1-2 year)

High (>$50,000) Long (>2 years)

6/21/2012

28

List of Bicycle Strategies



Typical Timeframe for Implementation

A -- Reduce bicycle crashes at intersections

A1 -- Improve visibility at intersections Moderate / High Tried Long

A2 -- Improve signal timing and detection Low / Moderate Tried Short

A3 -- Improve signing Low Tried Short

A4 -- Improve pavement markings at intersections Low Tried Short

A5 -- Improve intersections geometry High Tried Long

A6 -- Restrict right turn on red (RTOR) movements Low Experiimental Short

A7 -- Provide an overpass or underpass High Tried Long

A8 -- Addition of Bike Boxes Low Tried Short

B -- Reduce bicycle crashes along roadwaysB1 -- Provide safe bicycle facilites for parallel travel -- On/Off Road Facilities, Shoulders, Dedicated

High Tried Long

C -- Reduce motor vehicle speedsC1 -- Implement traffic calming techniques High Proven Long

C2 -- Implement speed enforcement Low Tried Short

D -- Improve safety awareness and behaviorD1 -- Provide bicyclist skill education Moderate Tried Medium

D2 -- Improve enforcement of bicycle-related laws Low Tried Short

E -- Increase use of bicycle safety equipmentE1 -- Increase use of bicycle helmets Low / Moderate Proven Medium

E2 -- Increase rider and bicycle conspicuity Low / Moderate Tried Medium


**Added by County Road Safety Plan project team

Cost Timeframe

Low (<$10,000) Short (<1 year)

Moderate ($10,000-$50,000) Medium (1-2 year)

High (>$50,000) Long (>2 years)

6/21/2012

29

Example – Pedestrian/Bicycle Strategies

Curb Extensions and Medians

Countdown Timers and Advanced Pedestrian Intervals

6/21/2012

30

List of Road Departure Strategies



Typical Timeframe for Implementation

15.1 A -- Keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside

15.1 A1 -- Provide enhanced shoulder or delineation and marking for sharp curves


15.1 A2 -- Provide enhanced pavement markings (Embedded Wet Reflective Markings)

Low Tried Short

15.1 A3 -- Provide skid-resistance pavement surfaces Moderate Proven Medium

15.1 A4 -- Apply shoulder treatments -- Eliminate shoulder drop-offs, Shoulder wedge, Widen and/or pave shoulders

LowExperimental/

ProvenMedium

15.1 B -- Minimize the likelihood of crashing into an object or overturning if the vehicle travels off the shoulder

15.1 B1 -- Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers

Moderate Proven Medium

15.1 B2 -- Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locations Moderate to High Proven Medium

15.1 C -- Reduce the severity of the crash

15.1 C1 -- Review design of roadside hardware Moderate to High Tried Medium

15.1 C2 -- Upgrade design and application of barrier and attenuation systems

Moderate to High Tried Medium


Cost Timeframe

Low (<$10,000/mile) Short (<1 year)

Moderate ($10,000-$100,000/mile) Medium (1-2 years)

High (>$100,000/mile) Long (>2 years)

6/21/2012

Example – Typical Road Departure Strategies

316/21/2012

32

List of Young Driver Strategies

Objectives Strategies Effectiveness *Programs and Tactics *Impact

1.1B Publicize, enforce, and adjudicate laws pertaining to young drivers

1B -- Publicize and conduct a high visibility enforcement GDL restrictions, underage drinking and driving and seatbelt laws

Proven

Publicizing is best done through community events for the local media and a public education campaign in the community about the enforcement.

High visibility enforcement is when multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple squads are out at the same time patrolling in brightly colored vests and signage about the enforcement.

High

1.1C Assist parents in managing their teens' driving

1C.1-- Engage parents through outreach programs designed to educate parents about driving tips for their teens, facilitate parental supervision and management of young drivers, encourage selection of safety vehicles for young drivers.

Tried Medium

6/21/2012

33

List of Motorcycle Strategies


11.1 B Reduce the number of motorcycle crashes due to rider impairment

*Publicize and conduct a high visibility enforcement of all laws pertaining to motorcycle riding.

Proven

Publicizing is best done through community events for the local media and a public education campaign in the community about the enforcement. High visibility enforcement is when multiple jurisdictions and/or multiple squads are out at the same time patrolling in brightly colored vests and signage about the enforcement. Methods for night time enforcement include having multi-agency and multiple squad cars in well lit areas where slow moving vehicles are passing and conducting for a limited time slot.

High

*11.1 B3-Target law enforcement to specific motorcycle rider impairment behaviors that have been shown to contribute to crashes.

Proven Motorcycle DWI Detection Guide or Detection of DWI Motorcyclists Medium

11.1 C Reduce the number of motorcycle crashes due to unlicensed or untrained motorcycle riders

11.1 C2 Ensure that licensing and rider training programs adequately teach and measure skills and behaviors required for crash avoidance.

Tried*Training courses provided around the state at Motorcycle Safety Center training sites.

Low

11.1 C3 Identify and remove barriers to obtaining a motorcycle endorsement.

Tried*Licensing laws: Motorcycle Skills Testing Program- From our own survey of participants, we found that approximately 1/3 would not have bothered to obtain their endorsement if it wasn’t for this program.

Medium

11.1 D Increase visibility of riders

11.1 D1 Increase the awareness of the benefit of high-visibility clothing *Rider conspicuity: NHTSA’s guidelines for motorcycle safety programs recommend that states educate riders on how to be more conspicuous to other drivers, and we have good resources via www.highviz.org

ExperimentalPublicizing is best done through the local media and a public education campaign in the community.

Low

11.1 E Reduce the severity of motorcycle crashes

11.1 E1 Increase the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets.

Proven Pass statewide legislation requiring helmets for all riders. High

Taken from Countermeasures that Work by NHTSA

* denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety

6/21/2012

34

List of Unbelted Vehicle Occupant Strategies


8.1 A- Maximize use of occupant restraints by all vehicle occupants

*8.1 A1- Conduct highly publicized enforcement campaigns to maximize restraint use. Specifically, night time belt enforcement saturation.

Proven



Methods for night time enforcement include having multi-agency and multiple squad cars in well lit areas where slow moving vehicles are passing and conducting for a limited time slot.

High

8.1 B- Insure that restraints, especially child and infant restraints, are properly used

8.1 B2- Conduct high-profile “child restraint inspection” events at multiple community locations.

Proven Low

8.1 B3- Train advocates to check for proper child restraint use.

Tried Low

Strategies from the NCHRP 500* denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety

6/21/2012

35

List of Distracted Driving


Objective 6.1 C—Increase driver awareness of the risks of drowsy and distracted driving and promote driver focus

*6.1 C2—Conduct high visibility enforcement for existing statutes to deter distracted and drowsy driving

Experimental



High

Objective 6.1 D--Implement programs that target populations at increased risk of drowsy and distracted driving crashes

6.1 D3—Encourage employers to 1) offer fatigue management programs to employees working nighttime or rotating shifts and to 2) enact traffic safety policies with clear consequences for failure to comply.

ProvenUtilize materials and policy statements designed for employers by Network of Employers for Traffic Safety

Medium

Strategies from the NCHRP 500

* denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety

6/21/2012

36

List of Impaired Driving Strategies


*5.1 A-Eliminate Drinking and Driving

5.1 A2-Require Responsible Beverage Service Policies for Alcohol Servers and Retailers

ProvenAdvocate for Server Training and strong management support

Medium

5.1 A4-Employ Screening and Brief Interventions

TriedThese do not need to be in health care settings. A screening and brief intervention could be very effective after a DWI arrest (traumatic event)

Medium

*5.1 A5- Support Community Programs for Alternative Transportation

TriedSafe Cab is a partnership between beer distributors, bar owners and community program in Isanti County.

Medium

5.1 B-Enforce DWI Laws

*5.1 B1-Conduct Regular Well-Publicized DWI Saturations

Proven

A Saturation is a multi-agency, multi-squad car enforcement effort. These agencies and cars enforce the same community or roadway with the number of squad cars proportionate to the community size.

High

*5.1 B3-Conduct education and awareness campaign of the targeted enforcement of Zero Tolerance Laws for Drivers Under Age 21

Proven



Low

5.1 C-Prosecute, Impose Sanctions on, and Treat DWI Offenders

5.1 C1-Suspend Driver's License Administratively Upon Arrest

ProvenMinnesota revokes driving privileges 7 days after alcohol test failure of 0.08 or above or test refusal.

High

5.1 C3—Eliminate Diversion Programs and Plea Bargains

Tried High

5.1 D—Control High-BAC and Repeat Offenders

5.1 D2—Require Ignition Interlocks as a Condition for License Reinstatement

Proven Governor proposed legislation in Jan 2010. High

5.1 D3—Monitor Convicted DWI Offenders Closely

Proven DWI courts or Intensive Supervision Programs Low

Strategies from the NCHRP 500* denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety

6/21/2012

37

Project Development Process - Example

Target Crash Types

Workshop Strategy Voting Results

Suggested Projects

Right-Angle Crashes

at Signals

207 signalized intersections

identified for Red-Light Confirmation

Lights

Highest Voting Results

for Red-Light Confirmation

Lights

6/21/2012

38

Infrastructure Total Votes

Red Light Confirmation Light 23

HAWK Signals 8

Street Lighting 8

Provide safe bicycle facilities for parallel travel -- On/Off Road Facilities, Shoulders, Dedicated 7

Provide left-turn lanes 6

Driver Behavior Total Votes

GDL Enforcement Campaigns 17

Suspend Driver's License Administratively Upon Arrest 15

Conduct high visibility enforcement for existing statutes to deter distracted and drowsy driving 12

Conduct highly publicized enforcement campaigns to maximize restraint use. Specifically, night time belt enforcement saturation. 10

Voting Results

Urban County- Workshop

6/21/2012

39

Urban County Project Summary

Strategy Number of Locations

Estimated Project Implementation

Cost

Signalized Intersections

Red Light Confirmation Lights 207 intersections $196,000

Countdown Timers/Advanced Walk 146 intersections $1,460,000

Unsignalized Intersections Medians and Curb Extensions 38 intersections $1,485,000

SegmentsConversion to Two Way Left Turn Lanes 19 corridors $740,500

6” Edge Lines 15 corridors $63,990$3,945,490

6/21/2012

40

What’s Next

Counties Review, edit/concur with segment and intersection descriptions.

Continue assembling information about previous deployment of safety strategies;

shoulder rumble strips, 6” edgelines, street lights, chevrons, etc.

Review, Edit/Concur with Emphasis Areas, Target Crash Types and Safety Strategies

Secure Location for Workshops

Secure Caterer

Finalize Invitation and Invite List

Decide/Secure Local Safety Advocate – Presenter

Workshops Anoka/Ramsey – July 30th

Carver/Scott – August 1st

Dakota/Washington – August 9th

6/21/2012

41

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?6/21/2012

1 mndot county roadway safety plans review meeting 1 metro june 21, 2012

Documents

safety awareness

severe crashes fatal

total severe crashes

us thcsah crcity

twnshp othertotal fatal

serious injury crashes8

driversyoung drivers

older drivers