PPT

Report
Minnesota CHSP Update
Model Screening Process
Howard Preston, PE
January 3, 2007
1
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)
Total Fatalities
3,008
Total Vehicle Occupant Fatalities
2,429
Driver Behavior Based Emphasis Areas
Unbelted (Based on Veh. Occ. Fatalities)
1,271 (52%)
1
Alcohol-Related
1,068 (36%)
2
850 (28%)
5
Speeding-Related
Involved Drivers Under 21
718 (24%)
6
965 (32%)
4
1,004 (33%)
3
611 (20%)
7
Infrastructure Based Emphasis Areas
Single Vehicle ROR
Intersection
Head-On and Sideswipe
Emphasis
Area
Fatality
Rank
4
ATP 3 Fatalities (2001-2005)
Driver Behavior Based
Emphasis Areas
Infrastructure Based
Emphasis Areas
Total
Fatalities
Unbelted
AlcoholRelated
Speeding
-Related
Young
Driver
Involved
Single
Vehicle
ROR
Intersection
Head-on &
Sideswipe
Statewide
3,008
1,271
(52%)
1,068
(36%)
850
(28%)
718
(24%)
965
(32%)
1,004
(33%)
611
(20%)
District 3
Total
581
265
(53%)
232
(40%)
146
(25%)
144
(25%)
221
(38%)
182
(31%)
166
(29%)
State Trunk
Highway
280
124
(50%)
87
(31%)
63
(23%)
59
(21%)
82
(29%)
88
(31%)
101
(36%)
Local
Roads
301
141
(57%)
145
(48%)
83
(28%)
85
(28%)
139
(46%)
94
(31%)
65
(22%)
5
Universes of
Possible Safety
Strategies
Model Process
ATP 1
State Local
-
Supplemental
Implementation
Analysis
ATP 8
State Local
-
Document Primary
Contributing Factors
State
System
• Enforcement
• Engineering
• Education
• EMS
• Data Systems
…
Highest Priority Strategies
Strategic Planning Process
- Data & Partner Driven
- Prioritization
Driver Behavior
- Seat Belts
- Impaired
- Young Drivers
- Aggressive Drivers
Local
System
Infrastructure
- Lane Departure
- Intersections
Mapping
Exercise
6
Detailed Model Process (1 of 2)
Universes of
Possible Safety
Strategies
Strategic Planning Process
- Data & Partner
- Driven Prioritization
December 31, 2004
7
Detailed
Model Process (2 of 2)
Primary Contributing Factors
Driver Behavior
- Seat Belts
- Impaired
- Young Drivers
- Aggressive Drivers
Infrastructure
- Lane Departure
- Intersections
Factors
ATP 1
ATP 2
ATP 3
ATP 4
ATP M
ATP 6
ATP 7
ATP 8
State System
Fatal &
Serious
Injury
Crashes
October, 2006
Local System
Road Categories
- Freeway
- Expressway
- Conventional
- Volume
Intersection Control
- Signal
- Stop
Location
- Rural
- Urban
Mapping
Exercise
Strategies
…
Highest Priority Strategies
ATP 1
State Local
-
ATP 8
State Local
-
July, 2007
8
Model Surveying Process – ATP 3
PRIORITY STRATEGIES
See Handout
9
Priority Facility Types State System
- ATP 3
2-Lane
Freeway
4-lane Expressway
4-Lane Undivided
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway)
ADT < 1,500
1,500 < ADT < 5,000
5,000 < ADT < 8,000
ADT > 8,000
Sub Total
Freeway
4-lane Expressway
4-Lane Undivided
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway)
Three-Lane
Five-Lane
ADT < 1,500
1,500 < ADT < 5,000
5,000 < ADT < 8,000
ADT > 8,000
Sub Total
2-Lane
Urban
Rural
Facility Type
Crashes
Miles Fatal Serious Injury
123
16
18
175
24
29
10
0
2
36
5
2
296
8
9
555
23
28
170
12
20
136
18
28
1,501 106
136
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
15
0
31
13
0
4
3
1
1
7
0
1
28
0
6
12
1
1
16
0
6
99
2
51
Crash
Rate
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
Severity
Rate
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.4
Fatal
Rate
0.6
1.1
0.0
1.3
3.3
2.0
1.5
1.5
Crash
Density
4.6
5.0
3.3
5.5
0.4
0.8
2.2
3.7
0.0
2.6
2.8
4.6
3.2
4.6
0.9
2.2
2.6
3.7
0.0
3.3
3.8
7.3
4.3
6.4
1.9
3.5
3.5
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
16.7
3.9
39.6
13.4
22.4
0.3
2.5
5.8
14.9
Priority








10
Priority Facility Types State System
- ATP 3
Priority Types
Facility Type
Crash Data Filter
Number
Rate
Density
Freeway


Expressway


4-Lane Undivided

4-Lane Conventional
Rural
2-Lane
ADT < 1,500

1,500 < ADT < 5,000

5,000 < ADT < 8,000

ADT > 8,000




Freeway
Expressway
4-Lane Undivided
4-Lane Conventional
Urban
3-Lane
5-Lane
2-Lane
ADT < 1,500
1,500 < ADT < 5,000
5,000 < ADT < 8,000
ADT > 8,000



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
Emphasis Area
County
Benton
Crash Data
Filter
Under 21
Speed
Alcohol
Unbelted
ROR





Crow Wing




Isanti



Mille Lacs









Morrison





Todd


Wadena


Wright


Sherburne
Stearns
Head-On

Cass
Kanabec
Intersection






14
Priority Strategies by County Local
System – ATP 3
15
Fatal Crashes where the Total EMS Response Time was at Least One Hour
50
40%
47
Frequency
Precent
20% of fatal crashes in Minnesota
had a total EMS response times
of at least one hour.
(FARS, 2001-2005)
45
40
32%
32%
37
28%
28%
26%
24%
28
27
26
22%
20%
25
20%
22
20
16%
15%
16
15
12%
10
8%
8%
5
4%
0
0%
D1
D2
D3
D4
Metro
D6
D7
D8
Percentage
30
Frequency
35
28%
35
36%
16
Observations

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
17
Observations

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.
18
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).

19
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.
20
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.
21
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.


similar documents