District and County Safety Plans Brad Estochen State Traffic Safety Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation.

District and County Safety Plans

Brad Estochen

State Traffic Safety Engineer

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Outline• Safety, Crashes, MnDOT approach to Safety

• MnDOTs Risk Assessment Process• Intersections• Curves• Segments

• Summary of Projects typical projects developed through safety plans

Crashes• Crashes are the safety performance measure

• Historically safety focused on locations with lots of crashes• Black spots• High Crash Rates

• SAFETEA-LU (2005) signaled a new direction for traffic safety• Reducing fatal and serious injury crashes

Minnesota’s SHSP

• Funds available for local roads (HSIP, HRRR, …)

• Funding levels varied by ATP

• Application required to receive funding

• Priority on proactive (systemic) projects

10/27/2010 4

MnDOT TZD Initiative

• www.minnesota tzd.org

Safety Prioritization• Fatal and Serious Injury crashes – primary focus

• Reduction – try to reduce crashes in locations experiencing crashes• Prevention – prevent crashes from occurring

• TZD mission: To create a culture for which traffic fatalities and serious injuries are no longer acceptable through the integrated application of education, engineering, enforcement, and emergency medical and trauma services.

• Reducing other crashes – secondary focus

Traffic Fatalities

Strategic Highway Safety Plan• MnDOTs framework for evaluating and selecting safety

programs based on the ability to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes

• Leverages AASHTO emphasis areas• Drivers

• Licensed, aggressive, impaired, belted,

• Special Users• Pedestrians, bicyclists,

• Vehicles• Trucks, motorcycles, passenger car safety systems

• Roadways• Intersections, road/lane departure, safe work zones

Strategic Highway Safety Plan• Critical Emphasis Areas

• Seat Belt Use – 52% • Impaired Driving – 36% • Intersection crashes – 33%• Road Departure – 32%• Aggressive Driving – 28%• Young Drivers – 24%• Head-on Crashes – 20%

Roadway # Killed: 2009 % Killed # Rural % Rural

Trunk Highway 191 46% 140 48%

County Highways 169 40% 132 45%

City Streets 42 10% 5 2%

Other Roads 16 4% 16 5%

Greater Minnesota Crash Data Overview

11/2/2011

5 Year Crashes156,182

4,902

State System70,808 – 45%2,000 – 41%

CSAH/CR36,716 – 24%1,963 – 40%

Rural22,630 – 62%1,626 – 83%

Urban14,086 – 38%

337 – 17%

All Way Stop445 – 6%

5 – 3%

Run off Road7,891 – 67%675 – 65%

On Curve3,222 – 40%339 – 50%

ExampleAll – %

Severe – %

Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%)“Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%)Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%)Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%)

Thru-Stop2,697 – 37%

65 – 45%

Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%) Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%)Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%)Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%)

Signalized2,308 – 31%

32 – 22%

Inters-Related5,487 – 29%463 – 30%

Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A).

City, Twnshp, Other48,658 – 31%

939 – 19%

Inters-Related7,332 – 52%145 – 43%

Not Inters-Related5,177 – 37%175 – 52%

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%)

Animal4,009 – 18%

60 – 4%

Not Inters-Related11,849 – 64%1,042 –66%

Head On, SS Opp.751 – 6%

132 – 13%

On Curve247 – 33%46 – 35%

Unknown/Other1,577 – 11%

17 – 5%Unknown/Other

1,276 – 7%61 – 4%

Other/Unknown1,881 – 26%

43 – 30%

Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%) “Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%)Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%)Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%)

Thru-Stop2,511 – 46%216 – 47%

Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%) Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%)“Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%)Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%)

Other/Unknown2,600 – 47%228 – 49%

Not Animal18,616 – 82%1,566 – 96%

All Way Stop164 – 3%15 – 3%

Signalized209 – 4%

4 – 1%

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

Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes

• Challenge to determine where to focus safety funds

• Black spots are infrequent on local/low volume roads• Fatal and Severe injury crashes are random on

local/low volume roads

County Roads 2,089 Severe Crashes 45,000 miles of road 0.05 severe crashes per mile

Trunk Highway 2,168 Severe Crashes 12,000 miles of road 0.18 severe crashes per mile

Safety Plan Genesis• HSIP funds available to local agencies

• Projects solicited by ATP (District)

• Technical assistance needed to identify safety projects

• SHSP has some guidance at local level

• Safety Plans produce a mini SHSP at the local level• 87 counties, 8 MnDOT districts

A Systemic Approach• The average county in Minnesota includes:

• 500 miles of county highway• 400 horizontal curves• 180 controlled intersections

• The key questions:• Is every element of the county system equally at

risk?• Where to Start?• A new approach to safety planningOld ApproachCrashes = Risk & No Crashes = No RiskNew ApproachNo Crashes ≠ No RiskUse surrogates of crashes (roadway and traffic

characteristics) to identify risk and prioritize – the 5 (or 6) Ranking System

Systemic Approach to Safety• Severe Crashes are rare/random

• Usually not location specific• Investigated thousands of intersections, curves, miles of roads• No dead man’s curve• No killer corner

• Traditional approaches such as crash rates, densities, or severity ratios will not identify infrequent crashes that are spread throughout the network

Systemic Approach• Traditional approaches look for locations that have

crashes and investigate the root cause

• MnDOT is looking at the predominant type of crashes causing serious injuries or death and then gathering information on where they are occurring.

• Leverage AASHTO emphasis areas• Intersections, run off road crashes, unbelted, impaired

ATP 4 & 8 – Safety Emphasis Areas

Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 9,122

Young drivers (under 21) 26% 26% (65) 16% (36) 29% (27)

Unlicensed drivers 8% 6% (16) 7% (16) 9% (8)

Older drivers (over 64) 13% 24% (60) 15% (34) 10% (9)

Aggressive driving and speeding-related 21% 20% (50) 27% (62) 22% (21)

Drug and alcohol-related 26% 20% (51) 39% (89) 32% (30)

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers 20% 23% (58) 19% (43) 17% (16)

Safety aw areness - - - - - - - -

Unbelted vehicle occupants 26% 31% (78) 38% (87) 31% (29)

Pedestrians crashes 8% 4% (10) 3% (7) 7% (7)

Bicycle crashes 4% 0% (0) 2% (5) 6% (6)

Motorcycles crashes 15% 9% (23) 18% (41) 18% (17)

Heavy vehicle crashes 9% 19% (47) 7% (16) 2% (2)

Safety enhancements - - - - - - - -

Train-vehicle collisions 0% 1% (2) 0% (0) 6% (6)

Road departure crashes 27% 28% (69) 49% (113) 31% (29)

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

Intersection crashes 42% 34% (84) 36% (82) 37% (35)

Head-On and Sidesw ipe (opposite) crashes 15% 22% (54) 23% (54) 13% (12)

Work zone crashes 1% 1% (3) 1% (2) 0% (0)

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

Information and decision support systems - - - - - - - -

More effective processes - - - - - - - -

DPS Crash Data Records, 2005 to 2009

Top 5 Emphasis Areas by Jurisdiction

ATP 4

Interstate, US & TH CSAH & CR

City, Twnshp &

Other

94

Drivers

230

Special Users

Vehicles

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)

Statewide PercentageEmphasis Area

Management

Highw ays

249

27% (55) 30% (65) 25% (27)

5% (10) 6% (14) 5% (5)

21% (43) 16% (35) 11% (12)

11% (22) 24% (53) 20% (22)

20% (40) 33% (72) 25% (28)

18% (36) 16% (36) 14% (15)

- - - - - -

33% (67) 43% (95) 44% (48)

3% (7) 3% (6) 6% (7)

2% (4) 0% (0) 5% (5)

9% (19) 10% (22) 10% (11)

25% (50) 6% (14) 11% (12)

- - - - - -

0% (0) 0% (0) 2% (2)

24% (48) 51% (111) 32% (35)

- - - - - -

42% (85) 34% (74) 45% (50)

22% (45) 21% (45) 7% (8)

0% (1) 1% (3) 0% (0)

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

ATP 8

Interstate, US & TH CSAH & CR

City, Twnshp &

Other

110219202

Sample of Safety Emphasis Areas

Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 9,122

Young drivers (under 21) 26% 16% (36)

Unlicensed drivers 8% 7% (16)

Older drivers (over 64) 13% 15% (34)

Aggressive driving and speeding-related 21% 27% (62)

Drug and alcohol-related 26% 39% (89)

Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers 20% 19% (43)

Safety aw areness - - - -

Unbelted vehicle occupants 26% 38% (87)

Pedestrians crashes 8% 3% (7)

Bicycle crashes 4% 2% (5)

Motorcycles crashes 15% 18% (41)

Heavy vehicle crashes 9% 7% (16)

Safety enhancements - - - -

Train-vehicle collisions 0% 0% (0)

Road departure crashes 27% 49% (113)

Consequences of leaving road - - - -

Intersection crashes 42% 36% (82)

Head-On and Sidesw ipe (opposite) crashes

15% 23% (54)

Work zone crashes 1% 1% (2)

EMS Enhancing Emergency Capabilities - - - -

Information and decision support systems - - - -

More effective processes - - - -

DPS Crash Data Records, 2005 to 2009

Top 5 Critical Emphasis Areas by Jurisdiction

Note: Numbers are not additive, as one crash may involve a young driver at an intersection.

Special Users

Vehicles

Management

Highw ays

Emphasis Area CSAH & CR

ATP 4

Drivers

Statewide Percentage

230

30% (65) 26% (5) 43% (16) 9% (3) 18% (10) 30% (3)

6% (14) 5% (1) 8% (3) 9% (3) 7% (4) 0% (0)

16% (35) 26% (5) 14% (5) 9% (3) 13% (7) 10% (1)

24% (53) 11% (2) 24% (9) 37% (13) 29% (16) 30% (3)

33% (72) 37% (7) 24% (9) 43% (15) 39% (22) 60% (6)

16% (36) 21% (4) 11% (4) 17% (6) 16% (9) 50% (5)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

43% (95) 32% (6) 51% (19) 31% (11) 34% (19) 60% (6)

3% (6) 5% (1) 0% (0) 3% (1) 2% (1) 0% (0)

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)

10% (22) 0% (0) 5% (2) 14% (5) 18% (10) 10% (1)

6% (14) 11% (2) 8% (3) 3% (1) 7% (4) 0% (0)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)

51% (111) 37% (7) 38% (14) 46% (16) 57% (32) 80% (8)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

34% (74) 26% (5) 54% (20) 14% (5) 38% (21) 50% (5)

21% (45) 5% (1) 3% (1) 17% (6) 14% (8) 10% (1)

1% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

CSAH & CR CSAH & CR

Renville County

56 10

Otter Tail County Pope County

37

Becker County

35

CSAH & CR CSAH & CRCSAH & CRCSAH & CR

ATP 8

19

Lyon County

219

Rural Paved Segments

• 47 counties in ATP 3, 4, 6 & 8

• 13,813 rural paved miles• Rural Road Departure Crashes

• 21,611 total, 1,464 severe, 637 Severe RD

• Average Density of Sev RD Crashes= 0.009 crashes/mi/year

• Risk Rating Criteria• Density of Road Departure Crashes • Traffic Volume • Curve (Critical Radius) Density • Access Density • Edge Risk Assessment

ATP Segments MileageSevere RD Crashes

ATP 3 1404 5,486 284

ATP 4 747 3,434 99

ATP 6 626 1,731 159

ATP 8 671 3,162 95

Grand Total 3,448 13,813 637

Segment Traffic Volume

• 600-1,200 ADT was selected to receive a star in ATP 4, 400-1,000 in ATP 8

Access Density

• Previous Minnesota research shows a statistically significant relationship between Access Density and Crash Rates – the greater the number of access points the higher the crash rate on Trunk Highways.

• The County Roadway Safety Plans indicates a similar access effect is present along the County Highway system

Edge Risk Assessment

2 – Usable Shoulder, Roadside with Fixed Obstacles

2 – No Usable Shoulder, Reasonable Clear Zone

1 – Usable Shoulder, Reasonable Clear Zone

3 – No Usable Shoulder, Roadside with Fixed Obstacles

Edge Risk Assessment

Rural Segment Prioritization

High PriorityPhase I and II Segments – 13,290 miles, 589 severe RD crashes

Rural Curves

• 11,660 total curves in ATP 3, 4, 6 & 8• 9,592 (82%) curves with no crashes• Crashes

• 3,061 total, 326 severe crashes• 4 curves with multiple fatal crashes

(5 years)• 33 curves with multiple severe

crashes• 0.006 severe crashes/curve/year

ATP Curve CountSevere

CrashesTotal

CrashesChevrons Installed

ATP 3 4297 141 1267 597ATP 4 2494 51 501 1172ATP 6 3699 102 962 449

ATP 8 1170 32 331 472

Grand Total 11660 326 3061 2690

Curve-Related Roadway Departure

• Risk Rating Criteria:• ADT Range• Radius Range • Severe Crash on curve• Intersection on curve• Visual Trap on curve

ATP 4, 61% of roadway departure crashes are curve related (39% in ATP 8)

Are all curves equally at-risk? No

Curve Radius

• The majority of severe crashes occurred on curves with 500’-1,200’ radii.

Horizontal Curve Risk Rating Criteria

High Priority

Sample Curve Prioritization

Complete census of 490 curves

50 High Priority Curves (10%)

Rural Intersections

• 5,725 rural thru/stop (yield) intersections in ATP 3, 4, 6 & 8• 4,794 total crashes• 373 Severe Crashes

• 172 severe right angle

• Intersections with Multiple Severe Crashes: 28 (8 had 2 Fatals)

• 0.17 crashes/intersection/year• 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year

ATP IntersectionsSevere Right

Angle CrashesSevere

Crashes

ATP 3 1,293 63 121

ATP 4 1,912 28 71

ATP 6 1,033 36 90

ATP 8 1,487 45 91

Grand Total 5,725 172 373

Rural Thru STOP Risk Rating Criteria

• 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

Rural Thru STOP Risk Rating Criteria

• There was a higher severe crash density at intersections where risk factors are present.

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

Intersection Ranking

6 Intersections, 1 Severe Crash

Phase I and II intersections - 5,520 intersections, 359 severe crashes

Project Development – High Priority Segments

Project Development – High Priority Curves

Project Development High Priority Intersections

Proactive Project Summary

ATP Totals Intersections Segments Curves Total

ATP 3 $7,972,400 $16,106,107 $19,794,813 $43,873,320

ATP 4 $4,547,000 $9,802,628 $9,749,702 $24,099,330

ATP 6 $2,666,800 $10,196,428 $15,933,618 $28,796,846

ATP 8 $3,561,850 $8,088,124 $5,012,430 $16,662,404

Total $18,748,050 $44,193,287 $50,490,563 $113,431,900

Average Per County Intersections Segments Curves Total

ATP 3 $664,367 $1,342,176 $1,649,568 $3,656,110

ATP 4 $378,917 $816,886 $812,475 $2,008,278

ATP 6 $296,311 $1,132,936 $1,770,402 $3,199,650

ATP 8 $296,821 $674,010 $417,703 $1,388,534

Average $416,623 $982,073 $1,122,013 $2,520,709

Safety WorkshopObjective: Multidisciplinary discussion of a short list of safety strategies

•Date: December 13•Location: Otter Tail

Government Center•Agenda

• 8:30 – Coffee and Registration• 9AM – Introductions• Presentations – Law Enforcement and/or Local Safety

Advocates• Background Information/Desired Outcomes• Breakout Sessions – Prioritize Strategies• 12PM – 1PM - Lunch• Report Back/Final Presentation• 2:45 – 3PM - Wrap-up

10/27/2010 37

List of Unsignalized Intersection StrategiesObjectives Strategies

Relative Cost to Implement and

Operate

EffectivenessTypical

Timeframe for Implementation

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

17.1 A2 -- Implement driveway turn restrictions Low Tried Short

17.1 B12 -- Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median openings

Low Tried Short

17.1 B13 -- Close or relocate "high-risk" intersections High Tried Long17.1 B16 -- Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew

High Proven Medium

17.1 B17 -- Use indirect left-turn treatments to minimize conflicts at divided highway intersections

Moderate Tried Medium

17.1 C -- Improve sight distance at unsignalized intersections

17.1 C1 -- Clear sight triangle on approaches and in medians by clearing grub, eliminating parking, etc

Low Tried Short

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

17.1 D1 -- Provide an automated real-time system to inform drivers of crossing conflicts and the suitability of available gaps for making turning and crossing maneuvers

Low to Moderate* Experimental Medium

17.1 E1 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing and delineation (stop bar, larger regulatory signs, etc)

Low Tried Short

17.1 E2 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing lighting

Low to Moderate* Proven Medium

17.1 E3 -- Install splitter islands on the minor-road approach to an intersection

Low to Moderate* Tried Medium

17.1 E6 -- Call attention to the intersection by installing rumble strips on intersection approaches

Low Tried Short

17.1 F -- Choose appropriate intersection traffic control to minimize crash frequency and severity

17.1 F3 -- Provide roundabouts at appropriate locations High Proven Long

17.1 H1 -- Install dynamic speed feedback signs* Low Proven Short

17.1 H2 -- Provide traffic calming on intersection approaches through a combination of geometrics and traffic control devices

Moderate Proven Medium

Source: NCHRP 500 Series (2003)

Short (<1 year) Low (<$50,000/intersection) *Updated by CH2M HILLMedium (1-2 years) Moderate ($50,000-$500,000/intersection)

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

17.1 A -- Improve management of access near unsignalized intersections

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

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

improvements

17.1 H -- Reduce operating speeds on specific intersection approaches

Project Team• MnDOT OTST• MnDOT State Aid for Local Transportation• DPS Office of Traffic Safety• CH2M Hill• SRF• PE Services• URS

• $4 million ($45,000/county and district)• 3 year project

• Received the 2011 Partners for Roadway Safety Award

Highway Safety in Minnesota• On an average day:

• 201 total crashes• 1.1 deaths• 3.5 serious injuries• $4,097,549 estimated cost

• Questions?