PPT

Report
Minnesota CHSP Update
Application of the
Screening Process in ATP 7
Howard Preston, PE
March 30, 2007
1
2
Technical Overview - UPDATE

Model Process – Focus on ATP 7
 Document ATP
7 Crash Characteristics
 Disaggregate by Critical Emphasis Area
 Disaggregate by State vs. Local Road System
 Disaggregate by Counties With-in ATP 7
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 7 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%)
ATP 7 Total
205
86
(50%)
57
(28%)
43
(21%)
46
(22%)
62
(30%)
75
(37%)
37
(18%)
State Trunk
Highway
112
(55%)
43
(43%)
24
(21%)
23
(21%)
20
(18%)
20
(18%)
38
(34%)
31
(28%)
Local
Roads
93
(45%)
43
(60%)
33
(35%)
20
(22%)
26
(28%)
42
(45%)
37
(40%)
6
(6%)
611
(20%)
5
Out State ATPs (2001-2005
Fatalities)
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%)
ATP Total
2,063
968
(55%)
744
(36%)
546
(26%)
487
(24%)
741
(36%)
658
(32%)
424
(21%)
State Trunk
Highway
1,089
(53%)
476
(49%)
284
(26%)
262
(24%)
224
(21%)
282
(26%)
360
(33%)
295
(27%)
Local
Roads
974
(47%)
492
(63%)
460
(47%)
284
(29%)
263
(27%)
459
(47%)
298
(31%)
129
(13%)
6
Metro ATP (2001-2005 Fatalities)
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%)
ATP Metro
Total
945
303
(45%)
324
(34%)
304
(32%)
231
(24%)
224
(24%)
347
(37%)
188
(20%)
State Trunk
Highway
465
162
(45%)
167
(36%)
145
(31%)
103
(22%)
108
(23%)
126
(27%)
Local
Roads
480
141
(45%)
157
(33%)
159
(33%)
128
(27%)
116
(24%)
221
(46%)
112
(24%)
76
(16%)
7
Detailed Model Process (1 of 2)
Universes of
Possible Safety
Strategies
Strategic Planning Process
- Data & Partner
- Driven Prioritization
December 31, 2004
8
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
9
Model Prioritization Process – ATP 7
Priority Strategies
To
Address
ATP 7 (2001-2005)
Serious
Injuries
Fatalities
Minnesota CHSP:
Critical Emphasis Area
57
169
Reducing Impaired Driving
86
221
Increasing Seat Belt Use
46
213
Critical
Strategy
1
6&7
10
11
1
2
6&7
11
4
6&7
1
3
6&7
10
11
3
6&7
6&7
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Addressing Young Drivers Over Involvement
12
Driver
Behavior
43
152
75
276
Curbing Aggressive Driving
Improving the Design and Operation of Highway
Intersections
Reducing Head-On and Across-median
Crashes; Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway and
Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the
Road
37
82
57
86
46
169
221
213
Reducing Impaired Driving
Increasing Seat Belt Use
Addressing Young Drivers Over Involvement
43
152
Curbing Aggressive Driving
75
276
Improving the Design and Operation of Highway
Intersections
Countermeasure
Provide adequate resources to perform related enforcement.
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Work with courts to prevent the reduction or dismissal of traffic citations.
Conduct highly publicized sobriety saturation to deter impaired drivers.
Provide adequate resources to perform related enforcement.
Encourage enactment of a statewide primary seat belt law.
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Conduct highly publicized targeted enforcement to increase seat belt use.
Stronger graduated licensing system.
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Require parental involvement.
Implement uniform curriculum.
Provide instructor quality control.
Provide enhanced behind-the-wheel and classroom instruction.
Improve driver training and licensing material with the addition of traffic safety statistics, stories, and testimonials.
Provide adequate resources to perform related enforcement.
Implement automated enforcement to deter speeding.
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Work with courts to prevent the reduction or dismissal of traffic citations.
Conduct highly publicized targeted enforcement to deter aggressive driving.
Implement automated enforcement to deter red-light running.
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
7
7
7
3
7
3
7
8
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Implement automated enforcement to deter speeding.
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Implement automated enforcement to deter red-light running.
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Add offset and/or longer turn lanes.
Add acceleration lanes.
Utilize indirect left-turn treatments.
Clear sight triangles.
Eliminate parking near intersections.
Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD.
Add double yellow centerline at intersections and at median openings.
Provide lighting to increase intersection visibility.
Construct median barriers for narrow-width medians on multilane roads.
Utilize centerline rumble strips on undivided, two-way roads.
Enhance delineation of sharp curves and unexpected changes in horizontal alignment.
5
Enhance pavement markings.
37
82
Reducing Head-On and Across-median Crashes
Eliminate shoulder drop-offs.
Infrastructure
Improvement
7
9
13
5
62
203
Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway and
Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the
Road
Enhance pavement markings.
Eliminate shoulder drop-offs.
7
9
13
Delineate roadside objects.
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Improving roadside hardware.
Removing and relocating objects in hazardous locations.
Winter storm maintenance (pre-treating and increasing number of snow plows)
Maintain gravel shoulders.
Keep roadways free of loose debris in construction zones.
Maintain pavement marking lines.
Perform road safety audits.
STH
Local








See
Handout




Provide advance signing, pavement markings or pavement messages.
Provide chevrons or post mounted delineators.
Utilize brighter or wider lane markings (see Enhance Pavement Markings).
Provide lighting along curve.
Use durable epoxy pavement markings.
Use wet reflective pavement markings.
Use 6" or 8" wide lane markings.
Use RPMs.
Maintain gravel shoulders.
Pave shoulders.
Add safety wedge (45 degree beveled to edge of pavement).
At the ATP, establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.
Winter storm maintenance (pre-treating and increasing number of snow plows)
Maintain gravel shoulders.
Keep roadways free of loose debris in construction zones.
Maintain pavement marking lines.
Perform road safety audits.
Utilize shoulder or mid-lane rumble strips (or edgeline rumble stripes).
Enhance delineation of sharp curves and unexpected changes in horizontal alignment.
Priorities in ATP 7
Provide advance signing, pavement markings or pavement messages.
Provide chevrons or post mounted delineators.
Utilize brighter or wider lane markings (see Enhance Pavement Markings).
Provide lighting along curve.
Use durable epoxy pavement markings.
Use wet reflective pavement markings.
Use 6" or 8" wide lane markings.
Use RPMs.
Maintain gravel shoulders.
Pave shoulders.
Add safety wedge (45 degree beveled to edge of pavement).













Prioritization for the
State TH System
10
11
STEP 1: Identify Priority Facility Types
Priority Facility Types
for the State System - ATP 7
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
146
6
5
85
7
3
7
0
0
4
0
1
325
3
3
560
14
28
74
7
3
25
2
1
1,227 39
44
0
0
0
8
0
3
9
1
3
7
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
1
1
43
0
3
12
1
2
8
0
1
98
6
13
Crash
Rate
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
Severity
Rate
0.8
1.1
0.6
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.1
Fatal
Rate
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.3
Crash
Density
1.8
3.6
0.5
2.8
0.3
0.8
1.6
2.5
0.0
1.8
2.8
2.6
3.6
2.7
1.7
2.6
2.0
2.8
0.0
2.4
4.1
3.6
5.1
3.3
3.2
3.7
2.9
4.1
0.0
0.0
1.1
3.4
0.0
8.1
15.1
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
10.7
13.5
11.6
13.8
11.3
0.6
3.0
4.5
9.7
Priority




Source: Mn/DOT crash records, 2004-2005


87% of fatal crashes and 77% of serious injury crashes
were rural facilities.
All priority facility types are rural.
12
STEP 1: Identify Priority Facility Types
Priority Facility Types
for the State System - ATP 7
Priority Types
Facility Type
Crash Data Filter
Number
Freeway

4-Lane Expressway

Rate

4-Lane Undivided
4-Lane Divided (Conventional)
Rural
2-Lane
ADT < 1,500
1,500 < ADT < 5,000

5,000 < ADT < 8,000

ADT > 8,000
Freeway
4-Lane Expressway
4-Lane Undivided
4-Lane Divided (Conventional)
Urban
3-Lane
5-Lane
2-Lane
ADT < 1,500
1,500 < ADT < 5,000
5,000 < ADT < 8,000
ADT > 8,000
Density

13
Crash Summary by
Facility Types – Out State Districts
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
2 -L a n e
R u ra l
F a c ility T yp e
A D T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < A D T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < A D T < 8 ,0 0 0
A D T > 8 ,0 0 0
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
T h re e -L a n e
F iv e -L a n e
2 -L a n e
U rb a n
S u b T o ta l
A D T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < A D T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < A D T < 8 ,0 0 0
A D T > 8 ,0 0 0
S u b T o ta l
C ra s h e s
M ile s F a ta l S e rio u s In ju ry
702
54
77
712
49
94
27
0
4
123
11
24
3 ,7 7 4
48
74
3 ,9 1 6
110
185
583
45
52
198
24
35
1 0 ,0 3 4
341
545
21
41
43
66
30
12
81
238
111
75
2
4
1
8
0
2
1
0
10
5
7
19
20
45
10
4
4
22
19
19
718
33
169
C ra s h
R a te
S e v e rity
R a te
F a ta l
R a te
C ra s h
D e n s ity
0 .6
0 .8
0 .9
1 .2
0 .8
0 .7
0 .9
0 .9
0 .8
1 .2
1 .4
1 .9
1 .4
1 .2
1 .4
1 .4
0 .6
0 .8
0 .0
1 .2
1 .9
1 .4
1 .7
1 .5
3 .7
3 .5
2 .5
4 .4
0 .3
0 .7
2 .0
3 .5
1 .4
2 .4
3 .9
3 .3
2 .8
2 .8
1 .9
2 .1
2 .0
2 .6
1 .9
3 .5
5 .6
5 .1
3 .8
3 .9
3 .0
3 .0
2 .8
3 .7
0 .3
0 .9
0 .3
1 .2
0 .0
1 .6
1 .8
0 .0
1 .9
0 .8
2 1 .3
1 2 .6
1 6 .9
1 7 .6
1 0 .1
1 3 .7
0 .7
2 .4
4 .6
1 0 .5
P rio rity






Source: Mn/DOT crash records, 2004-2005

91% of fatal crashes and 76% of serious injury crashes
were rural.
 All priority facility types are rural.
14
Crash Summary by
Facility Types – Metro District
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
2 -L a n e
R u ra l
F a c ility T yp e
AD T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < AD T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < AD T < 8 ,0 0 0
S u b T o ta l
571
69
150
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
T h re e -L a n e
F iv e -L a n e
267
124
20
21
9
2
1
9
26
54
43
17
2
3
0
0
0
0
2
6
128
81
25
19
2
3
0
0
2
20
533
73
280
2 -L a n e
U rb a n
AD T > 8 ,0 0 0
C ra s h e s
M ile s F a ta l S e rio u s In ju ry
122
22
24
111
17
65
0
0
0
1
0
0
13
0
2
89
5
8
98
8
18
137
17
33
AD T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < AD T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < AD T < 8 ,0 0 0
AD T > 8 ,0 0 0
S u b T o ta l
C ra s h
R a te
S e v e rity
R a te
F a ta l
R a te
C ra s h
D e n s ity
0 .6
1 .0
2 .5
1 .3
0 .0
1 .0
1 .2
1 .3
0 .9
1 .5
3 .1
2 .0
0 .0
1 .5
2 .0
2 .0
0 .5
0 .7
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
2 .0
1 .8
1 .2
1 1 .1
1 0 .3
1 4 .8
9 .2
0 .5
1 .3
2 .7
6 .9


1 .2
1 .9
5 .8
5 .0
3 .1
5 .6
4 .0
2 .8
2 .3
3 .0
1 .6
2 .7
7 .8
6 .8
4 .3
8 .8
6 .3
3 .9
3 .3
4 .2
0 .2
0 .5
0 .7
0 .9
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
1 .6
1 .1
4 1 .7
2 3 .9
4 1 .3
3 8 .6
1 6 .8
5 2 .4
2 .1
3 .7
5 .5
1 5 .6




P rio rity



Source: Mn/DOT crash records, 2004-2005


49% of fatal crashes and 35% of serious injury crashes
were rural.
Priority facility types are almost equally split
between rural and urban roadways.
15
Crash Summary by
Facility Types - Statewide
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
2 -L a n e
R u ra l
F a c ility T yp e
A D T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < A D T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < A D T < 8 ,0 0 0
A D T > 8 ,0 0 0
F re e w a y
4 -la n e E x p re s s w a y
4 -L a n e U n d iv id e d
4 -L a n e D iv id e d C o n v e n tio n a l (N o n e x p re s s w a y)
T h re e -L a n e
F iv e -L a n e
2 -L a n e
U rb a n
S u b T o ta l
A D T < 1 ,5 0 0
1 ,5 0 0 < A D T < 5 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0 < A D T < 8 ,0 0 0
A D T > 8 ,0 0 0
S u b T o ta l
C ra s h e s
M ile s F a ta l S e rio u s In ju ry
824
76
101
823
66
159
27
0
4
124
11
24
3 ,7 8 7
48
76
4 ,0 0 5
115
193
681
53
70
334
41
68
1 0 ,6 0 6
410
695
288
165
62
87
39
14
82
246
138
129
45
21
3
11
0
2
1
0
12
11
135
100
45
64
12
7
4
22
21
39
1 ,2 5 1
106
449
C ra s h
R a te
S e v e rity
R a te
F a ta l
R a te
C ra s h
D e n s ity
0 .6
0 .9
0 .9
1 .2
0 .8
0 .7
0 .9
1 .1
0 .8
1 .3
1 .4
1 .9
1 .4
1 .2
1 .5
1 .7
0 .6
0 .8
0 .0
1 .2
1 .9
1 .4
1 .7
1 .4
4 .8
4 .4
2 .7
4 .4
0 .3
0 .8
2 .1
4 .9


1 .2
1 .9
4 .7
3 .9
2 .9
3 .4
2 .0
2 .1
2 .0
2 .7
1 .6
2 .8
6 .5
5 .7
4 .0
5 .0
3 .1
3 .1
2 .9
3 .9
0 .2
0 .6
0 .5
1 .1
0 .0
1 .3
1 .7
0 .0
1 .8
0 .9
4 0 .2
2 1 .1
2 4 .6
2 2 .7
1 1 .6
1 8 .9
0 .7
2 .4
4 .8
1 2 .6


P rio rity





Source: Mn/DOT crash records, 2004-2005


79% of fatal crashes and 61% of serious injury crashes
were rural.
Most priority facility type are rural roadways.
16
Priority Facility Types – State System Summary
ATP District
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
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
2-Lane
Urban
Rural
Facility Type
(1-31-07)
(2-23-07)
(1-3-07)
1
 (6)
 (9)
2
3
 (16)
 (24)
 (15)
 (14)
 (4)
 (1)
 (7)
 (15)
 (1)





(5)
(8)
(23)
(12)
(18)
 (0)
4
 (8)
6
 (18)
 (6)
(3-30-07)
(2-16-07)
7
 (5)
 (3)
8
 (2)
 (6)
 (12)
 (6)
 (6)
 (7)
 (1)
 (6)
 (3)
 (28)




(4)
(6)
(19)
(4)
M
 (22)
 (17)






(8)
(17)
(43)
(17)
(2)
(3)
 (7)
 (6)
 indicates priority facility types for each District, (#) indicates total number of fatal crashes
Source: Mn/DOT crash records, 2004-2005





In the outstate Districts, 91% of the fatal crashes occur on segments classified as rural.
In the outstate Districts, 86% of all fatal crashes occur on the priority facility type.
Over the 2-year period, 374 fatal crashes (72%) occurred in the outstate Districts vs. 142 fatal
crashes (28%) in the Metro.
In the outstate Districts, the greatest number of severe crashes occurs on 2-lane rural roads (573
of 1,088).
In Metro, the greatest number of severe crashes occurs on Freeways (217 of 572).
17
STEP 2: Summarize Data & Rank Facility Types
Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Summary for
Priority Facility Types – ATP 7
Fatal Crashes
AlcoholRelated
Unbelted
Veh.
Occupant
Under the
Age of 21
Freeway
4-Lane Expressway
Multi-Lane Subtotal
1
3
4
4
4
8
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
9
11
1
3
4
6
1
7
2-Lane Conventional: 1,500 < ADT < 5,000
2-Lane Conventional: 5,000 < ADT < 8,000
2-Lane Conventional Subtotal
1
2
3
st
13 (1 )
6
19
10
1
11
9
3
12
11
3
14
12
4
16
7
2
9
Rural Subtotal
7
27
15
17
25
20
16
TOTAL
7
27
15
17
25
20
16
AlcoholRelated
Unbelted
Veh.
Occupant
Priority Facility Type
SpeedingRelated
Head-on
and
Sideswipe
Intersection
Single
Vehicle
ROR
Rural
Fatal + Serious Injury Crashes
Priority Facility Type
Under the
Age of 21
SpeedingRelated
Intersection
Head-on
and
Sideswipe
Single
Vehicle
ROR
Rural
Freeway
4-Lane Expressway
Multi-Lane Subtotal
3
5
8


7
7
14


6
4
10


8
4
12

2-Lane Conventional: 1,500 < ADT < 5,000
2-Lane Conventional: 5,000 < ADT < 8,000
2-Lane Conventional Subtotal
19
5
24


38
11
49


30
3
33

22
6
28


Rural Subtotal
4
16
20
43
10
53



6
4
10

15
4
19


27
7
34


30
4
34


32
63
43
40
73
44
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
63
43
40
73
44
53
Urban
Urban Subtotal
TOTAL
18
STEP 2: Summarize Data & Rank Facility Types
State TH Ranking
Process
1)
2)
3)
4)
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).





19
STEP 3: Apply Rankings to Strategies
Priority Strategies by Facility
Type for the State System – ATP 7
State Trunk Highway
Minnesota CHSP:
Critical Emphasis Area
Countermeasure
Rural
Freeway
Rural
Expressway
Rural 2-Lane
1,500 < ADT < 5,000
5,000 < ADT < 8,000
Reducing Impaired Driving
Conduct highly publicized sobriety saturation to deter impaired drivers.




Increasing Seat Belt Use
Conduct highly publicized targeted enforcement to increase seat belt use.




Addressing Young Drivers Over Involvement
Create a communications/marketing task force to raise awareness or establish a traffic safety panel to coordinate agencies.



Curbing Aggressive Driving
Conduct highly publicized targeted enforcement to deter aggressive driving.

Improving the Design and Operation of Highway
Intersections







Utilize indirect left-turn treatments.
Provide lighting to increase intersection visibility.
Construct median barriers for narrow-width medians on multilane roads.

Reducing Head-On and Across-median Crashes
Utilize centerline rumble strips on undivided, two-way roads.
Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway and
Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the
Road
Utilize shoulder or mid-lane rumble strips (or edgeline rumble stripes).




Enhance warning of sharp curves.








Utilize brighter or wider lane markings (see Enhance Pavement Markings).
Pave shoulders.
Eliminate shoulder drop-offs.
Add safety wedge (45 degree beveled to edge of pavement).
Prioritization for the
Local Road System
20
21
STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties
Two-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
1)
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
 




22
STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties
Local System Priorities
by County -ATP 7
FATALITIES
Total
Fatalities
#
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Statewide
3,008
2,429
276,072,182,210
718
24%
0.3
850
28%
0.3
1,068
36%
0.4
1,271
52%
0.5
965
32%
0.3
1,004
33%
0.4
611
20%
0.2
Statewide
ATP 7 Total
Local Road System
Blue Earth
Brown
Cottonwood
Faribault
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin
Nicollet
Nobles
Rock
Sibley
Waseca
Watowan
205
93
171
72
46
26
22%
28%
0.3
0.3
43
20
21%
22%
0.2
0.3
57
33
28%
35%
0.3
0.4
86
43
50%
60%
0.5
0.6
62
42
30%
45%
0.4
0.6
75
37
37%
40%
0.4
0.5
37
6
18%
6%
0.2
0.1
16
6
3
6
9
18
11
3
5
2
1
7
6
10
5
3
5
9
14
8
2
5
0
0
7
4
17,441,070,042
7439374162
1,503,877,166
670,821,272
361,153,584
431,894,650
407,683,716
596,663,760
716,493,184
568,946,906
624,420,786
340,107,108
426,129,968
432,639,658
358,542,404
5
1
2
1
2
4
4
1
3
0
0
2
1
31%
17%
67%
17%
22%
22%
36%
33%
60%
0%
0%
29%
17%
3
4
0
1
0
6
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
19%
67%
0%
17%
0%
33%
36%
0%
20%
0%
0%
14%
0%
7
3
0
4
0
8
4
1
1
1
0
3
1
44%
50%
0%
67%
0%
44%
36%
33%
20%
50%
0%
43%
17%
5
4
3
4
4
10
5
2
1
0
0
4
1
50%
80%
100%
80%
44%
71%
63%
100%
20%
57%
25%
6
4
1
5
0
8
5
1
4
1
0
4
3
38%
67%
33%
83%
0%
44%
45%
33%
80%
50%
0%
57%
50%
8
0
3
1
7
5
6
0
2
0
1
3
1
50%
0%
100%
17%
78%
28%
55%
0%
40%
0%
100%
43%
17%
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
6%
9%
33%
0%
0%
100%
0%
17%
ATP 7 Total
Local Road System
Blue Earth
Brown
Cottonwood
Faribault
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin
Nicollet
Nobles
Rock
Sibley
Waseca
Watowan
Total
Fatalities +
Serious
Injuries
#
Vehicle
Occupant
Fatalities +
Serious
Injuries
#
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Statewide
15,174
9456
276,072,182,210
4343
29%
1.6
3511
23%
1.3
3573
24%
1.3
4,351
46%
1.6
3845
25%
1.4
6896
45%
2.5
2216
15%
0.8
Statewide
ATP 7 Total
Local Road System
Blue Earth
Brown
Cottonwood
Faribault
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin
Nicollet
Nobles
Rock
Sibley
Waseca
Watowan
869
535
701
420
17,441,070,042
7439374162
259
181
30%
34%
1.5
2.4
195
141
22%
26%
1.1
1.9
226
156
26%
29%
1.3
2.1
307
202
44%
48%
1.8
2.7
265
193
30%
36%
1.5
2.6
351
211
40%
39%
2.0
2.8
119
46
14%
9%
0.7
0.6
145
32
19
33
32
68
43
29
33
23
29
34
15
111
24
18
26
31
55
31
19
26
15
24
29
11
1,503,877,166
670,821,272
361,153,584
431,894,650
407,683,716
596,663,760
716,493,184
568,946,906
624,420,786
340,107,108
426,129,968
432,639,658
358,542,404
48
12
7
7
3
28
19
9
19
7
6
11
5
33%
38%
37%
21%
9%
41%
44%
31%
58%
30%
21%
32%
33%

25
11
1
8
15
21
11
11
8
7
9
8
6
17%
34%
5%
24%
47%
31%
26%
38%
24%
30%
31%
24%
40%


35
13
7
17
12
25
8
6
4
6
10
10
3
24%
41%
37%
52%
38%
37%
19%
21%
12%
26%
34%
29%
20%






37
10
12
20
12
32
18
8
12
11
7
18
5
33%
42%
67%
77%
39%
58%
58%
42%
46%
73%
29%
62%
45%

34
13
5
19
21
25
13
13
12
4
10
17
7
23%
41%
26%
58%
66%
37%
30%
45%
36%
17%
34%
50%
47%


72
12
9
9
10
20
21
7
15
8
10
15
3
50%
38%
47%
27%
31%
29%
49%
24%
45%
35%
34%
44%
20%

14
2
0
2
0
11
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
10%
6%
0%
6%
0%
16%
7%
10%
9%
9%
10%
6%
7%


ATP 7 Total
Local Road System
Blue Earth
Brown
Cottonwood
Faribault
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin
Nicollet
Nobles
Rock
Sibley
Waseca
Watowan
Under the Age of 21
#
%
Rate
Speeding-Related
#
%
Rate
#
TOTALS
Alcohol-Related
%
Rate
Unbelted Vehicle
Occupant
%
Rate
#
Single Vehicle ROR
#
%
Rate
#
Intersection
%
Rate
Head-on and Sideswipe
#
%
Rate
FATALITIES + SERIOUS INJURIES ("A" Crashes Only)
Under the Age of 21
#
%
Rate




Speeding-Related
#
%
Rate




#
Alcohol-Related
%
Rate
= Beetween 5 and 10 percentage points above ATP average
= More than 10 percentage points above ATP average
X
Unbelted Vehicle
Occupant
%
Rate
#







Single Vehicle ROR
#
%
Rate






#
Intersection
%
Rate



X

Head-on and Sideswipe
#
%
Rate






See Handout
TOTALS
Vehicle
Occupant
Fatalities
#
23
STEP 1: Summarize Data & Rank Counties
Local System Priorities
by County – ATP 7
County
Blue Earth
Crash Data
Filter
Emphasis Area
Under 21
Speed
Alcohol
Unbelted
ROR
Intersection
Head-On









Brown
Cottonwood

Faribault
Jackson
Le Sueur
Martin

Nobles























Rock
Sibley
X

X

Waseca
Watowan




Nicollet






24
Local System Priorities Across
State
Statewide Total
Local Road System Total
ATP 1 Total
ATP 2 Total
ATP 3 Total
ATP 4 Total
ATP 6 Total
ATP 7 Total
ATP 8 Total
ATP Metro Total
ATP 1
Local Road System
ATP 2
Local Road System
ATP 3
Local Road System
ATP 4
Local Road System
ATP 6
Local Road System
ATP 7
Local Road System
ATP 8
Local Road System
ATP Metro Local Road System
FATALITIES
Vehicle
Occupant
Fatalities
#
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
3008
1454
2429
1094
276,072,182,210
112,031,156,842
718
391
24%
27%
0.3
0.3
850
443
28%
30%
0.3
0.4
1068
617
36%
42%
0.4
0.6
1271
633
52%
58%
0.5
0.6
965
575
32%
40%
0.3
0.5
1005
519
33%
36%
0.4
0.5
612
205
20%
14%
0.2
0.2
310
174
581
218
368
205
207
945
253
148
497
191
311
171
188
670
66
30
144
57
89
46
55
231
21%
17%
25%
26%
24%
22%
27%
24%
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
77
33
146
72
124
43
51
304
25%
19%
25%
33%
34%
21%
25%
32%
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
117
72
232
98
108
57
60
324
38%
41%
40%
45%
29%
28%
29%
34%
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.2
145
95
265
105
168
86
104
303
57%
64%
53%
55%
54%
50%
55%
45%
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.2
121
64
191
94
142
62
67
224
39%
37%
33%
43%
39%
30%
32%
24%
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
81
65
182
70
99
75
86
347
26%
37%
31%
32%
27%
37%
42%
37%
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.3
56
27
135
40
78
37
51
188
18%
16%
23%
18%
21%
18%
25%
20%
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
134
96
301
100
151
93
99
480
104
76
247
78
119
72
86
312
21,940,803,324
9,812,213,686
37,293,889,842
15,712,509,054
27,314,644,632
17,441,070,042
12,489,973,298
134,067,078,332
8,595,781,788
4,635,600,464
14,219,887,352
6,160,005,522
9,991,158,034
7,439,374,162
5,648,880,732
55,340,468,788
36
15
85
24
49
26
28
128
27%
16%
28%
24%
32%
28%
28%
27%
37
17
83
35
62
20
30
159
28%
18%
28%
35%
41%
22%
30%
33%
64
47
145
55
70
33
46
157
48%
49%
48%
55%
46%
35%
46%
33%
65
52
141
49
81
43
61
141
63%
68%
57%
63%
68%
60%
71%
45%
64
49
120
60
74
42
50
116
48%
51%
40%
60%
49%
45%
51%
24%
34
29
94
29
33
37
42
221
25%
30%
31%
29%
22%
40%
42%
46%
16
5
56
12
28
6
6
76
12%
5%
19%
12%
19%
6%
6%
16%
Total
Fatalities
#
Vehicle
Occupant
Fatalities
#
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
15166
9972
11876
7511
276,072,182,210
112,031,156,842
4342
3041
29%
30%
1.6
2.7
3509
2312
23%
23%
1.3
2.1
3570
2390
24%
24%
1.3
2.1
4345
2748
37%
37%
1.6
2.5
3708
2531
24%
25%
1.3
2.3
6895
4775
45%
48%
2.5
4.3
2217
1276
15%
13%
0.8
1.1
1138
599
2243
922
1741
869
919
6735
919
485
1838
763
1400
701
796
4974
284
154
671
305
511
259
309
1849
25%
26%
30%
33%
29%
30%
34%
27%
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.5
2.5
1.4
307
136
554
234
462
195
209
1412
27%
23%
25%
25%
27%
22%
23%
21%
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.7
1.1
333
231
616
265
340
226
215
1344
29%
39%
27%
29%
20%
26%
23%
20%
1.5
2.4
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.0
389
256
795
338
529
307
338
1393
42%
53%
43%
44%
38%
44%
42%
28%
1.8
2.6
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.8
2.7
1.0
409
220
661
336
540
265
278
999
36%
37%
29%
36%
31%
30%
30%
15%
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.5
2.2
0.7
343
204
932
338
693
351
412
3622
30%
34%
42%
37%
40%
40%
45%
54%
1.6
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.0
3.3
2.7
163
64
329
151
256
119
164
971
14%
11%
15%
16%
15%
14%
18%
14%
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.3
0.7
603
342
1412
561
1068
535
544
4907
463
274
1125
447
828
420
455
3499
21,940,803,324
9,812,213,686
37,293,889,842
15,712,509,054
27,314,644,632
17,441,070,042
12,489,973,298
134,067,078,332
8,595,781,788
4,635,600,464
14,219,887,352
6,160,005,522
9,991,158,034
7,439,374,162
5,648,880,732
55,340,468,788
171
91
454
193
366
181
188
1397
28%
27%
32%
34%
34%
34%
35%
25%
170
87
373
150
302
141
133
956
28%
25%
26%
27%
28%
26%
24%
25%
200
150
434
176
239
156
153
882
33%
44%
31%
31%
22%
29%
28%
25%
212
146
494
212
329
202
212
941
46%
53%
44%
47%
40%
48%
47%
31%
239
160
476
244
366
193
202
651
40%
47%
34%
43%
34%
36%
37%
19%
167
94
568
190
432
211
242
2871
28%
27%
40%
34%
40%
39%
44%
41%
66
19
177
88
133
46
54
693
11%
6%
13%
16%
12%
9%
10%
15%
Under the Age of 21
#
%
Rate
Speeding-Related
#
%
Rate
#
TOTALS
Statewide Total
Local Road System Total
ATP 1 Total
ATP 2 Total
ATP 3 Total
ATP 4 Total
ATP 6 Total
ATP 7 Total
ATP 8 Total
ATP Metro Total
ATP 1
Local Road System
ATP 2
Local Road System
ATP 3
Local Road System
ATP 4
Local Road System
ATP 6
Local Road System
ATP 7
Local Road System
ATP 8
Local Road System
ATP Metro Local Road System
Alcohol-Related
%
Rate
Unbelted Vehicle
Occupant
%
Rate
#
Single Vehicle ROR
#
%
Rate
#
Intersection
%
Rate
Head-on and Sideswipe
#
%
Rate
Statewide Total
Local Road System Total
ATP 1 Total
ATP 2 Total
ATP 3 Total
ATP 4 Total
ATP 6 Total
ATP 7 Total
ATP 8 Total
ATP Metro Total
ATP 1
Local Road System
ATP 2
Local Road System
ATP 3
Local Road System
ATP 4
Local Road System
ATP 6
Local Road System
ATP 7
Local Road System
ATP 8
Local Road System
ATP Metro
Local Road System
FATALITIES + SERIOUS INJURIES ("A" Crashes Only)
Under the Age of 21
#
%
Rate
Speeding-Related
#
%
Rate
#
Alcohol-Related
%
Rate
= Beetween 5 and 10 percentage points above Statewide average
= More than 10 percentage points above Statewide average
Unbelted Vehicle
Occupant
%
Rate
#
Single Vehicle ROR
#
%
Rate
#
Intersection
%
Rate
Head-on and Sideswipe
#
%
Rate
Statewide Total
Local Road System Total
ATP 1 Total
ATP 2 Total
ATP 3 Total
ATP 4 Total
ATP 6 Total
ATP 7 Total
ATP 8 Total
ATP Metro Total
ATP 1
Local Road System
ATP 2
Local Road System
ATP 3
Local Road System
ATP 4
Local Road System
ATP 6
Local Road System
ATP 7
Local Road System
ATP 8
Local Road System
ATP Metro
Local Road System
See Handout
TOTALS
Total
Fatalities
#
STEP 2: Apply Rankings to Strategies
Priority Strategies by County
for the Local System – ATP 7
25
26
Overview of Mapping Process to
High Priority Strategies
Priority Highway
Facility Types
Key Contributing Factors
High Priority Strategies
27
Observations
Priority Highway Facility Types
Rural 4-Lane Expressway
Rural 2-Lane State Highway
Rural Local Highway
Key Contributing Factors
Intersections
Single Vehicle Road
Departure
Head-On
28
Observations
Key Contributing Factors
Intersections
Single Vehicle Road
Departure
Head-On
High Priority Strategies
• Street lights
• Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes
• Centerline Rumble Strips
• Indirect Turn Treatments
• Shoulder Edge Treatments
• Cable Median Barriers
29
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%
30
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
31
Observations

In ATP 7
 Distribution
of fatalities among the CEAs is generally
similar to statewide averages with the following
exceptions



Intersection-related (+ 4% points)
Alcohol-related (- 8% points)
Speeding-related (- 7% points)
 For
each Emphasis Area, the number of fatalities and
severe injuries on the local system exceeds the
number on the state system, with one exceptionhead-on and sideswipe.
 55% of fatalities occur on the STH system and 45%
on the local system.
32
Observations
Approximately 60% of the factors
contributing to fatal crashes are related to
driver behavior.
 ATP 7 has the lowest number of fatal
crashes (16) and next to lowest
percentage of fatal crashes (15%) where
total EMS response time exceeded 1 hour.
 The facts suggest the need for a balanced
approach to safety – investing in the Other
E’s (especially on the local system).

33
Observations

Fatal crashes on the State’s system are
far overrepresented on rural facilities
(87%).

Severe crashes on the State’s rural
system are overrepresented on 2-lane
rural roads in ATP 7 (73%). However, there
is no obvious priority based on volume
categories.
34
Observations

The analysis of the factors contributing to severe
crashes in ATP 7 suggest the following high-priority
infrastructure based improvements:




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.
35
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.
36
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