1. 1 MnDOT County Roadway Safety Plans Review 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 2 6/21/2012

3. Project Approach – Phase IV 3 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 2012July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 Oct 2012 January 2013 Sept 2012 Review Mtg w/ Counties Kick-off Meeting Nov 2012 June 2012 6/21/2012

4. 4 Legend 10/yr (50 total) - Severe crashes on any jurisdiction 4/yr (20 total) - Severe crashes on CSAH/CR MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 Severe = 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 Areas 5 Emphasis Area Statewide Percentage ATP Metro* Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes8,3009541373963 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% (195)21%(290)15%(147) Safety awareness - ------ Unbelted vehicle occupants 25%22%(207)14%(199)13%(125) Special Users Pedestrians 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%(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 - ------ Management Information 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

6. Anoka/Ramsey Emphasis Areas 6 Anoka and Ramsey County Emphasis Areas Emphasis Area Statewide Percentage ATP Metro*Anoka and Ramsey County Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes8,3009541373963359446253 Drivers Young drivers (under 21)24%21%(198)26%(357)26%(248)23%(84)28%(127)25%(62) Unlicensed drivers8%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-related20%21%(204)15%(206)21%(203)19%(67)14%(64)22%(55) Drug and alcohol-related26%27%(255)18%(249)21%(205)27%(97)18%(79)26%(66) Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers20% (195)21%(290)15%(147)23%(83)24%(108)21%(54) Safety awareness- ------------ Unbelted vehicle occupants25%22%(207)14%(199)13%(125)23%(81)15%(66)15%(37) Special Users Pedestrians crashes8%9%(85)11%(153)19%(181)14%(52)14%(61)22%(56) Bicycle crashes4%2%(23)6%(86)10%(100)3%(9)6%(26)9%(22) Vehicles Motorcycles crashes16%14%(130)16%(223)17%(163)13%(45)17%(76)19%(47) Heavy vehicle crashes10%11%(105)7%(97)7%(65)8%(28)6%(27)6%(14) Safety enhancements- ------------ Highways Train-vehicle collisions0% (0)0%(1)0%(4)0%0 0 (1) Road departure crashes28%21%(200)13%(182)13%(129)20%(72)12%(52)13%(32) Consequences of leaving road- ------------ Intersection crashes42%45%(425)58%(793)51%(491)52%(185)62%(277)51%(129) Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes15%14%(131)17%(228)14%(138)12%(42)15%(68)15%(39) Work zone crashes2%4%(37)2%(22)1%(13)3%(12)1%(5)1%(2) EMSEnhancing Emergency Capabilities- ------------ Management Information 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 Areas 7 Carver and Scott County Emphasis Areas Emphasis Area Statewide Percentage ATP Metro*Carver and Scott County Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes8,30095413739638515946 Drivers Young drivers (under 21)24%21%(198)26%(357)26%(248)16%(14)32%(51)26%(12) Unlicensed drivers8%9%(86)7%(100)9%(86)9%(8)4%(7)13%(6) Older drivers (over 64)14%12%(113)12%(162)10%(101)13%(11)10%(16)2%(1) Aggressive driving and speeding-related20%21%(204)15%(206)21%(203)19%(16)22%(35)22%(10) Drug and alcohol-related26%27%(255)18%(249)21%(205)32%(27)19%(31)33%(15) Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers20% (195)21%(290)15%(147)16%(14)16%(25)9%(4) Safety awareness- ------------ Unbelted vehicle occupants25%22%(207)14%(199)13%(125)22%(19)25%(39)22%(10) Special Users Pedestrians crashes8%9%(85)11%(153)19%(181)5%(4)3%(4)11%(5) Bicycle crashes4%2%(23)6%(86)10%(100)2%(2)3%(5)0%0 Vehicles Motorcycles crashes16%14%(130)16%(223)17%(163)7%(6)21%(34)17%(8) Heavy vehicle crashes10%11%(105)7%(97)7%(65)13%(11)6%(9)11%(5) Safety enhancements- ------------ Highways Train-vehicle collisions0% (0)0%(1)0%(4)0%0 02%(1) Road departure crashes28%21%(200)13%(182)13%(129)22%(19)35%(55)30%(14) Consequences of leaving road- ------------ Intersection crashes42%45%(425)58%(793)51%(491)41%(35)50%(80)37%(17) Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes15%14%(131)17%(228)14%(138)19%(16)16%(25)11%(5) Work zone crashes2%4%(37)2%(22)1%(13)6%(5)1%(1)0%0 EMSEnhancing Emergency Capabilities- ------------ Management Information 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

8. Dakota/Washington Emphasis Areas 8 Dakota and Washington County Emphasis Areas Emphasis Area Statewide Percentage ATP Metro*Dakota and Washington County Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes8,3009541373963207266148 Drivers Young drivers (under 21)24%21%(198)26%(357)26%(248)23%(48)23%(62)31%(46) Unlicensed drivers8%9%(86)7%(100)9%(86)8%(17)5%(13)7%(11) Older drivers (over 64)14%12%(113)12%(162)10%(101)10%(21)14%(36)11%(17) Aggressive driving and speeding-related20%21%(204)15%(206)21%(203)19%(39)14%(37)24%(36) Drug and alcohol-related26%27%(255)18%(249)21%(205)23%(48)19%(50)28%(42) Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers20% (195)21%(290)15%(147)20%(42)19%(51)17%(25) Safety awareness- ------------ Unbelted vehicle occupants25%22%(207)14%(199)13%(125)19%(39)16%(43)16%(24) Special Users Pedestrians crashes8%9%(85)11%(153)19%(181)6%(13)4%(11)11%(16) Bicycle crashes4%2%(23)6%(86)10%(100)1%(3)6%(15)9%(13) Vehicles Motorcycles crashes16%14%(130)16%(223)17%(163)15%(32)18%(47)24%(36) Heavy vehicle crashes10%11%(105)7%(97)7%(65)15%(31)7%(19)4%(6) Safety enhancements- ------------ Highways Train-vehicle collisions0% (0)0%(1)0%(4)0%0 01%(1) Road departure crashes28%21%(200)13%(182)13%(129)20%(42)16%(43)23%(34) Consequences of leaving road- ------------ Intersection crashes42%45%(425)58%(793)51%(491)38%(78)54%(144)46%(68) Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes15%14%(131)17%(228)14%(138)16%(33)21%(56)11%(16) Work zone crashes2%4%(37)2%(22)1%(13)5%(10)2%(5)2%(3) EMSEnhancing Emergency Capabilities- ------------ Management Information 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

9. Emphasis Areas 9 Anoka/RamseyDakota/WashingtonCarver/Scott Young drivers (under 21) XXX Drug and alcohol-related XX Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers XX Unbelted vehicle occupants X Motorcycles crashes XX Road departure crashes X Intersection crashes XXX Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes X 6/21/2012

10. Metro* County Crash Data Overview 10 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 Severe 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 5 Year Crashes Metro ATP 210,586 2,876 State System 83,531 – 40% 877 – 31% State System 83,531 – 40% 877 – 31% CSAH/CR 65,672 – 31% 1,187 – 41% CSAH/CR 65,672 – 31% 1,187 – 41% Rural 2,692 – 4% 141 – 12% Rural 2,692 – 4% 141 – 12% Urban 62,926 – 96% 1,042 – 88% Urban 62,926 – 96% 1,042 – 88% All Way Stop 1,332 – 4% 19 – 4% All Way Stop 1,332 – 4% 19 – 4% Run off Road 689 – 62% 50 – 63% Run off Road 689 – 62% 50 – 63% On Curve 320 – 46% 30 – 60% On Curve 320 – 46% 30 – 60% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % 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%) 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-Stop 7,149 – 19% 138 – 28% Thru-Stop 7,149 – 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%) 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%) Signalized 22,807 – 62% 243 – 49% Signalized 22,807 – 62% 243 – 49% Inters-Related 874 – 40% 51 – 38% Inters-Related 874 – 40% 51 – 38% City, Twnshp, Other 61,383 – 29% 812 – 28% City, Twnshp, Other 61,383 – 29% 812 – 28% Inters-Related 37,058 – 61% 492 – 60% Inters-Related 37,058 – 61% 492 – 60% Not Inters-Related 15,084 – 25% 255 – 31% Not Inters-Related 15,084 – 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%) 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%) Animal 495 – 18% 6 – 4% Animal 495 – 18% 6 – 4% Not Inters-Related 1,118 – 51% 79 – 59% Not Inters-Related 1,118 – 51% 79 – 59% Head On, SS Opp 90 – 8% 14 – 18% Head On, SS Opp 90 – 8% 14 – 18% On Curve 32 – 36% 4 – 29% On Curve 32 – 36% 4 – 29% Unknown/Other 8,256 – 14% 76 – 9% Unknown/Other 8,256 – 14% 76 – 9% Unknown/Other 204 – 9% 5 – 4% Unknown/Other 204 – 9% 5 – 4% Other/Unknown 5,764 – 16% 92 – 19% Other/Unknown 5,764 – 16% 92 – 19% Right Angle – 177 (35%), 13 (43%) Head On/SS Opp – 50 (10%), 5 (17%) Run Off Road – 53 (10%), 4 (13%) Right Angle – 177 (35%), 13 (43%) Head On/SS Opp – 50 (10%), 5 (17%) Run Off Road – 53 (10%), 4 (13%) Thru-Stop 510 – 58% 30 – 59% Thru-Stop 510 – 58% 30 – 59% Run Off Road – 81 (34%), 5 (28%) Right Angle – 25 (10%), 3 (17%) Head On/SS Opp – 15 (6%), 2 (11%) Run Off Road – 81 (34%), 5 (28%) Right Angle – 25 (10%), 3 (17%) Head On/SS Opp – 15 (6%), 2 (11%) Other/Unknown 241 – 28% 18 – 35% Other/Unknown 241 – 28% 18 – 35% Not Animal 2,196 – 82% 135 – 96% Not Animal 2,196 – 82% 135 – 96% All Way Stop 38 – 4% 2 – 4% All Way Stop 38 – 4% 2 – 4% Signalized 85 – 10% 1 – 2% Signalized 85 – 10% 1 – 2% Ped/Bike 2,508 – 4% 219 – 21% Ped/Bike 2,508 – 4% 219 – 21% Non Ped/Bike 60,402 – 96% 823 – 79% Non Ped/Bike 60,402 – 96% 823 – 79% Ped 1,078 – 43% 139 – 63% Ped 1,078 – 43% 139 – 63% Bike 1,430 – 57% 80 – 37% Bike 1,430 – 57% 80 – 37% Int 781 – 72% 92 – 66% Int 781 – 72% 92 – 66% Signal 560 – 72% 53 – 58% Signal 560 – 72% 53 – 58% Int 1,124 – 79% 55 – 69% Int 1,124 – 79% 55 – 69% Signal 702 – 62% 32 – 58% Signal 702 – 62% 32 – 58%

11. Dakota/Washington County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 -- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes Dakota/Washington 35,427 574 5 Year Crashes Dakota/Washington 35,427 574 State System 14,674 – 41% 202 – 35% State System 14,674 – 41% 202 – 35% CSAH/CR 10,976 – 31% 234 – 41% CSAH/CR 10,976 – 31% 234 – 41% Rural 1,152 – 10% 43 – 18% Rural 1,152 – 10% 43 – 18% Urban 9,824 – 90% 191 – 82% Urban 9,824 – 90% 191 – 82% All Way Stop 397 – 6% 4 – 4% All Way Stop 397 – 6% 4 – 4% Run off Road 308 – 64% 12 – 57% Run off Road 308 – 64% 12 – 57% On Curve 115 – 37% 5 – 42% On Curve 115 – 37% 5 – 42% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 599 (39%), 20 (48%) “Other” – 117 (8%), 7 (17%) Rear End – 204 (13%), 3 (7%) Left Turn – 161 (10%), 3 (7%) Right Angle – 599 (39%), 20 (48%) “Other” – 117 (8%), 7 (17%) Rear End – 204 (13%), 3 (7%) Left Turn – 161 (10%), 3 (7%) Thru-Stop 1,547 – 24% 42 – 39% Thru-Stop 1,547 – 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%) 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%) Signalized 3,764 – 57% 43 – 40% Signalized 3,764 – 57% 43 – 40% Inters-Related 322 – 37% 18 – 45% Inters-Related 322 – 37% 18 – 45% City, Twnshp, Other 9,597 – 27% 138 – 24% City, Twnshp, Other 9,597 – 27% 138 – 24% Inters-Related 6,582 – 69% 108 – 65% Inters-Related 6,582 – 69% 108 – 65% Not Inters-Related 2,269 – 24% 50 – 30% Not Inters-Related 2,269 – 24% 50 – 30% Run Off Road – 419 (18%), 20 (40%) Rear End – 809 (36%), 11 (22%) Head On – 169 (7%), 10 (20%) Run Off Road – 419 (18%), 20 (40%) Rear End – 809 (36%), 11 (22%) Head On – 169 (7%), 10 (20%) Animal 282 – 24% 3 – 7% Animal 282 – 24% 3 – 7% Not Inters-Related 485 – 56% 21 – 53% Not Inters-Related 485 – 56% 21 – 53% Head On, SS Opp 42 – 9% 8 – 38% Head On, SS Opp 42 – 9% 8 – 38% On Curve 11 – 26% 1 – 13% On Curve 11 – 26% 1 – 13% Unknown/Other 739 – 8% 8 – 5% Unknown/Other 739 – 8% 8 – 5% Unknown/Other 63 – 7% 1 – 3% Unknown/Other 63 – 7% 1 – 3% Other/Unknown 873 – 13% 19 – 18% Other/Unknown 873 – 13% 19 – 18% Right Angle – 68 (%), 5 (%) Run Off Road – 17 (%), 2 (%) Right Angle – 68 (%), 5 (%) Run Off Road – 17 (%), 2 (%) Thru-Stop 199 – 62% 9 – 50% Thru-Stop 199 – 62% 9 – 50% Run Off Road – 32 (35%), 2 (22%) Rear End – 18 (20%), 1 (11%) Right Angle – 11 (12%), 1 (11%) Run Off Road – 32 (35%), 2 (22%) Rear End – 18 (20%), 1 (11%) Right Angle – 11 (12%), 1 (11%) Other/Unknown 91 – 28% 9 – 50% Other/Unknown 91 – 28% 9 – 50% Not Animal 870 – 76% 40 – 93% Not Animal 870 – 76% 40 – 93% All Way Stop 10 – 3% 0 – 0% All Way Stop 10 – 3% 0 – 0% Signalized 22 – 7% 0 – 0% Signalized 22 – 7% 0 – 0% Ped/Bike 232 – 82% 25 – 13% Ped/Bike 232 – 82% 25 – 13% Non Ped/Bike 9,590 – 98% 166 – 87% Non Ped/Bike 9,590 – 98% 166 – 87% Ped 55 – 24% 10 – 40% Ped 55 – 24% 10 – 40% Bike 177 – 76% 15 – 60% Bike 177 – 76% 15 – 60% Int 40 – 73% 9 – 90% Int 40 – 73% 9 – 90% Signal 24 – 60% 4 – 44% Signal 24 – 60% 4 – 44% Int 154 – 87% 7 – 47% Int 154 – 87% 7 – 47% Signal 90 – 58% 2 – 29% Signal 90 – 58% 2 – 29%

12. Anoka/Ramsey County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 -- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes Anoka/Ramsey 69,342 920 5 Year Crashes Anoka/Ramsey 69,342 920 State System 28,504 – 41% 310 – 34% State System 28,504 – 41% 310 – 34% CSAH/CR 24,056 – 35% 392 – 43% CSAH/CR 24,056 – 35% 392 – 43% Rural 207 – 1% 16 – 4% Rural 207 – 1% 16 – 4% Urban 23,795 – 99% 372 – 95% Urban 23,795 – 99% 372 – 95% All Way Stop 670 – 4% 12 – 7% All Way Stop 670 – 4% 12 – 7% Run off Road 43 – 41% 5 – 38% Run off Road 43 – 41% 5 – 38% On Curve 29 – 67% 4 – 80% On Curve 29 – 67% 4 – 80% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 1,250 (%), 20 (51%) Rear End – 679 (%), 6 (15%) Head On – 71 (%), 4 (10%) Run Off Road – 73 (%), 3 (8%) Right Angle – 1,250 (%), 20 (51%) Rear End – 679 (%), 6 (15%) Head On – 71 (%), 4 (10%) Run Off Road – 73 (%), 3 (8%) Thru-Stop 2,840 – 19% 39 – 21% Thru-Stop 2,840 – 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%) 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%) Signalized 9,330 – 61% 91 – 50% Signalized 9,330 – 61% 91 – 50% Inters-Related 68 –36% 3 – 19% Inters-Related 68 –36% 3 – 19% City, Twnshp, Other 16,782 – 24% 218 – 24% City, Twnshp, Other 16,782 – 24% 218 – 24% Inters-Related 15,330 – 67% 182 – 62% Inters-Related 15,330 – 67% 182 – 62% Not Inters-Related 6,075 – 26% 92 – 32% Not Inters-Related 6,075 – 26% 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%) 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%) Animal 18 – 9% 0 – 0% Animal 18 – 9% 0 – 0% Not Inters-Related 106 – 56% 13 – 81% Not Inters-Related 106 – 56% 13 – 81% Head On, SS Opp 11 – 10% 2 – 15% Head On, SS Opp 11 – 10% 2 – 15% On Curve 8 – 73% 1 – 50% On Curve 8 – 73% 1 – 50% Unknown/Other 1,541 – 7% 18 – 6% Unknown/Other 1,541 – 7% 18 – 6% Unknown/Other 15 – 8% 0 – 0% Unknown/Other 15 – 8% 0 – 0% Other/Unknown 2,488 – 16% 40 – 22% Other/Unknown 2,488 – 16% 40 – 22% Run Off Road – 5 (15%), 1 (100%) Right Angle – 12 (36%), 0 (0%) Rear End – 6 (18%), 0 (0%) Run Off Road – 5 (15%), 1 (100%) Right Angle – 12 (36%), 0 (0%) Rear End – 6 (18%), 0 (0%) Thru-Stop 33 – 49% 1 – 33% Thru-Stop 33 – 49% 1 – 33% Other/Unknown 21 – 31% 1 – 33% Other/Unknown 21 – 31% 1 – 33% Not Animal 189 – 91% 16 – 100% Not Animal 189 – 91% 16 – 100% All Way Stop 11 – 16% 1 – 33% All Way Stop 11 – 16% 1 – 33% Signalized 3 – 4% 0 – 0% Signalized 3 – 4% 0 – 0% Ped/Bike 842 – 4% 80 – 22% Ped/Bike 842 – 4% 80 – 22% Non Ped/Bike 22,948 – 96% 292 – 78% Non Ped/Bike 22,948 – 96% 292 – 78% Ped 390 – 46% 52 – 65% Ped 390 – 46% 52 – 65% Bike 452 – 54% 28 – 35% Bike 452 – 54% 28 – 35% Int 265 – 68% 30 – 58% Int 265 – 68% 30 – 58% Signal 172 – 65% 15 – 50% Signal 172 – 65% 15 – 50% Int 359 – 79% 22 – 79% Int 359 – 79% 22 – 79% Signal 216 – 60% 14 – 64% Signal 216 – 60% 14 – 64%

13. Carver/Scott County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 -- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2007-2011 -- Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes Scott/Carver 10,599 258 5 Year Crashes Scott/Carver 10,599 258 State System 4,917 – 46% 79 – 31% State System 4,917 – 46% 79 – 31% CSAH/CR 3,631 – 34% 141 – 55% CSAH/CR 3,631 – 34% 141 – 55% Rural 1,111 – 31% 75 – 53% Rural 1,111 – 31% 75 – 53% Urban 2,520 – 69% 66 – 47% Urban 2,520 – 69% 66 – 47% All Way Stop 58 – 4% 1 – 3% All Way Stop 58 – 4% 1 – 3% Run off Road 320 – 67% 31 – 74% Run off Road 320 – 67% 31 – 74% On Curve 170 – 53% 19 – 61% On Curve 170 – 53% 19 – 61% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 182 (41%), 11 (55%) Left Turn – 44 (10%), 3 (15%) Head On – 19 (4%), 2 (10%) Right Angle – 182 (41%), 11 (55%) Left Turn – 44 (10%), 3 (15%) Head On – 19 (4%), 2 (10%) Thru-Stop 443 – 29% 20 – 57% Thru-Stop 443 – 29% 20 – 57% Right Angle – 140 (18%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 374 (49%), 1 (17%) Head On – 37 (5%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 140 (18%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 374 (49%), 1 (17%) Head On – 37 (5%), 1 (17%) Signalized 757 – 49% 6 – 17% Signalized 757 – 49% 6 – 17% Inters-Related 350 – 37% 26 – 36% Inters-Related 350 – 37% 26 – 36% City, Twnshp, Other 2,051 – 19% 38 – 15% City, Twnshp, Other 2,051 – 19% 38 – 15% Inters-Related 1,548 – 63% 35 – 61% Inters-Related 1,548 – 63% 35 – 61% Not Inters-Related 748 – 30% 20 – 35% Not Inters-Related 748 – 30% 20 – 35% 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%) 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%) Animal 166 – 15% 3 – 4% Animal 166 – 15% 3 – 4% Not Inters-Related 477 – 51% 42 – 58% Not Inters-Related 477 – 51% 42 – 58% Head On, SS Opp 33 – 7% 4 – 10% Head On, SS Opp 33 – 7% 4 – 10% On Curve 12 – 36% 2 – 50% On Curve 12 – 36% 2 – 50% Unknown/Other 173 – 7% 2 – 4% Unknown/Other 173 – 7% 2 – 4% Unknown/Other 117 – 12% 4 – 6% Unknown/Other 117 – 12% 4 – 6% Other/Unknown 290 – 19% 8 – 23% Other/Unknown 290 – 19% 8 – 23% Right Angle – 72 (34%), 7 (39%) Head On/SS Opp – 22 (10%), 4 (22%) Right Angle – 72 (34%), 7 (39%) Head On/SS Opp – 22 (10%), 4 (22%) Thru-Stop 214 – 61% 18 – 69% Thru-Stop 214 – 61% 18 – 69% Run Off Road – 41 (40%), 3 (43%) Right Angle – 8 (8%), 2 (29%) Head On/SS Opp – 9 (9%), 1 (14%) Run Off Road – 41 (40%), 3 (43%) Right Angle – 8 (8%), 2 (29%) Head On/SS Opp – 9 (9%), 1 (14%) Other/Unknown 102 – 29% 7 – 27% Other/Unknown 102 – 29% 7 – 27% Not Animal 944 – 85% 72 – 96% Not Animal 944 – 85% 72 – 96% All Way Stop 10 – 3% 1 – 4% All Way Stop 10 – 3% 1 – 4% Signalized 24 – 7% 0 – 0% Signalized 24 – 7% 0 – 0% Ped/Bike 51 – 2% 9 – 14% Ped/Bike 51 – 2% 9 – 14% Non Ped/Bike 2,469 – 98% 57 – 86% Non Ped/Bike 2,469 – 98% 57 – 86% Ped 15 – 29% 5 – 56% Ped 15 – 29% 5 – 56% Bike 36 – 71% 4 – 44% Bike 36 – 71% 4 – 44% Int 12 – 80% 4 – 80% Int 12 – 80% 4 – 80% Signal 2 – 17% 1 – 25% Signal 2 – 17% 1 – 25% Int 33 – 92% 3 – 75% Int 33 – 92% 3 – 75% Signal 15 – 45% 2 – 67% Signal 15 – 45% 2 – 67%

14. Data Gathering Please respond to Ann’s request ASAP. 14 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. 15 Rural vs. Urban Segments 6/21/2012 Washington Co Dakota Co DRAFT Scott Co DRAFT Ramsey Co DRAFT Anoka Co Carver Co

16. Safety Workshop Schedule 16 County Engineer/Assistant County Engineer XX – Main Contact for County XX – Workshop Coordinator 6/21/2012 Metro Workshops CountyCounty EngineerConsultantJuly 30August 1August 9 Group A AnokaDoug Fischer/Jane RoseSRF X Ramsey County PW 1425 Paul Kirkwold Dr Arden Hills, MN 55112 RamseyJames Tolaas/Erin LabereeCH2MHill Group B Dakota Mark Kresbach/Kristi Sebastian/Suzanne Hanrahan SRF Dakota Lodge Facility Dakota County Thompson Park 1200 Stassen Lane West St. Paul, MN X Washington Wayne Sandberg/Joe Gustafson CH2MHill Group C CarverLyndon Robjent/Kate MinorSRF X MN Landscape Arboretum 3675 Arboretum Drive, Chaska MN 55318 Scott Mitch Rasmussen/Tony Winiecki CH2MHill

17. 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) cstueve@srfconsulting.com cstueve@srfconsulting.com Confirm Audio-visual availability for the workshop 6/21/2012

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-up 18 6/21/2012

19. 19 Safety Workshop Sample 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/RamseyDakota/WashingtonCarver/Scott Right Angle at Signals XXX Right Angle at Thru/STOP XXX Pedestrian/Bike Crashes XXX Rear Ends in Segments X Run Off Road Crashes XXX Head On XX 20 6/21/2012

21. EMS Strategies Screening - Initial Strategies 21 Enforcement Strategies Education Strategies Intersections 30 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 Belts 3 Strategies Rear End 7 Strategies Young Drivers 2 Strategies Alcohol/Drug 9 Strategies Ped/Bike 29 Strategies Motorcycle 6 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. 22 6/21/2012

23. List of Signalized Intersection Strategies 23 6/21/2012

24. List of Unsignalized Intersection Strategies 24 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for 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 LowTriedShort 17.1 A2 -- Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew HighProvenMedium 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 LowTriedShort 17.1 B2 -- Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment of approaches to provide more sight distance HighTriedLong 17.1 B3 -- Eliminate parking that restricts sight distanceLowTriedShort 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 ModerateExperimentalMedium 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 LowTriedShort 17.1 D2 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing lightingModerate to HighProvenMedium 17.1 D3 -- Install splitter islands on the minor-road approach to an intersection ModerateTriedMedium 17.1 D4 -- Provide a stop bar (or provide a wider stop bar) on minor-road approaches LowTriedShort 17.1 D5 -- Install larger regulatory and warning signs at intersectionsLowTriedShort 17.1 D6 -- Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD LowTriedShort 17.1 D7 -- Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersectionsLowTriedShort **17.1 D8 -- Add Dynamic Warning SignsModerateTriedShort 17.1 E -- Choose appropriate intersection traffic control to minimize crash frequency and severity 17.1 E1 -- Provide all-way stop control at appropriate intersectionsLowProvenShort 17.1 E2 -- Provide roundabouts at appropriate locationsHighProvenLong 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 violationsModerateTriedShort 17.1 F2 -- Provide targeted public information and education on safety problems at specific intersections LowTriedShort 17.1 G -- Enforce posted speeds on specific intersection approaches 17.1 G1 -- Provide targeted speed enforcementModerateProvenShort 17.1 G2 -- Post appropriate speed limit on intersection approachesLowTriedShort 6/21/2012

25. Example – Typical Intersection Strategies 25 Included Strategies: Change Intersection Type Directional Median Enhanced Signing and Delineation StreetLighting DynamicWarningSigns 6/21/2012

26. List of Rear End Crashes Strategies 26 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 17.1 A -- Improve management of access near unsignalized intersections 17.1 A1 -- Implement driveway closure/relocationsModerateTriedMedium 17.1 A2 -- Implement driveway turn restrictionsLowTriedShort 17.1 B -- Reduce the frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through geometric design improvements 17.1 B1 -- Provide left-turn lanesModerateProvenMedium 17.1 B2 -- Provide acceleration lanesModerateTriedMedium 17.1 B3 -- Provide right-turn lanesModerateProvenMedium **17.1 B4 -- 4-lane to TWLT conversionModerateProvenMedium **17.1 B5 -- Reduce speed along segment -- Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign LowTriedShort Source: NCHRP 500 Series **Added by Hennepin County Road Safety Plan project team Cost Timeframe 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 27 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 9.1 A -- Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to Vehicular Traffic 9.1 A1 -- Provide Sidewalks/Walkways and Curb RampsModerate to HighProvenLong 9.1 A2 -- Install or Upgrade Traffic and Pedestrian SignalsModerate to HighVariesMedium 9.1 A3 -- Construct Pedestrian Refuge Islands and Raised MediansModerate to HighProvenMedium 9.1 A4 -- Provide Full/Partial Diverters & Street ClosureModerate to HighProvenMedium 9.1 A5 -- Install Overpasses/UnderpassesModerate to HighProvenLong **9.1 A6 -- Install Countdown TimersLowTriedMedium **9.1 A7 -- Install Advance Walk IntervalLowTriedShort 9.1 B -- Improve Sight Distance and/or Visibility Between Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians 9.1 B1 -- Provide Crosswalk EnhancementsLowVariesShort 9.1 B2 -- Implement Lighting/Crosswalk Illumination MeasuresModerate to HighProvenMedium 9.1 B3 -- Eliminate Screening by Physical ObjectsLowTriedShort 9.1 B4 -- Signals to Alert Motorists That Pedestrians are crossing -- HAWK Signal ModerateTried/ExperimentalMedium **9.1 B5 -- Construct Curb ExtensionsModerateTriedMedium to Long 9.1 C -- Improve Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Awareness and Behavior 9.1 C1 -- Provide Education, Outreach and TrainingModerateProvenShort 9.1 C2 -- Implement Enforcement CampaignsModerateTriedShort Source: NCHRP 500 Series **Added by County Road Safety Plan project team CostTimeframe Low (<$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 28 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation A -- Reduce bicycle crashes at intersections A1 -- Improve visibility at intersectionsModerate / HighTriedLong A2 -- Improve signal timing and detectionLow / ModerateTriedShort A3 -- Improve signingLowTriedShort A4 -- Improve pavement markings at intersectionsLowTriedShort A5 -- Improve intersections geometryHighTriedLong A6 -- Restrict right turn on red (RTOR) movementsLowExperiimentalShort A7 -- Provide an overpass or underpassHighTriedLong A8 -- Addition of Bike BoxesLowTriedShort B -- Reduce bicycle crashes along roadways B1 -- Provide safe bicycle facilites for parallel travel -- On/Off Road Facilities, Shoulders, Dedicated HighTriedLong C -- Reduce motor vehicle speeds C1 -- Implement traffic calming techniquesHighProvenLong C2 -- Implement speed enforcementLowTriedShort D -- Improve safety awareness and behavior D1 -- Provide bicyclist skill educationModerateTriedMedium D2 -- Improve enforcement of bicycle-related lawsLowTriedShort E -- Increase use of bicycle safety equipment E1 -- Increase use of bicycle helmetsLow / ModerateProvenMedium E2 -- Increase rider and bicycle conspicuityLow / ModerateTriedMedium Source: NCHRP 500 Series **Added by County Road Safety Plan project team CostTimeframe 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 29 Curb Extensions and Medians Countdown Timers and Advanced Pedestrian Intervals 6/21/2012

30. List of Road Departure Strategies 30 ObjectivesStrategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness 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 LowTried / ProvenShort 15.1 A2 -- Provide enhanced pavement markings (Embedded Wet Reflective Markings) LowTriedShort 15.1 A3 -- Provide skid-resistance pavement surfacesModerateProvenMedium 15.1 A4 -- Apply shoulder treatments -- Eliminate shoulder drop-offs, Shoulder wedge, Widen and/or pave shoulders Low Experimental/ Proven Medium 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 ModerateProvenMedium 15.1 B2 -- Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locationsModerate to HighProvenMedium 15.1 C -- Reduce the severity of the crash 15.1 C1 -- Review design of roadside hardwareModerate to HighTriedMedium 15.1 C2 -- Upgrade design and application of barrier and attenuation systems Moderate to HighTriedMedium Source: NCHRP 500 Series CostTimeframe 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

31. Example – Typical Road Departure Strategies 31 6/21/2012

32. List of Young Driver Strategies 32 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*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 33 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact 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. ProvenMotorcycle DWI Detection Guide or Detection of DWI MotorcyclistsMedium 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 Experimental Publicizing 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. ProvenPass 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 34 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact 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 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 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 35 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact 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 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 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. Proven Utilize 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 36 ObjectivesStrategiesEffectiveness*Programs and Tactics*Impact *5.1 A-Eliminate Drinking and Driving 5.1 A2-Require Responsible Beverage Service Policies for Alcohol Servers and Retailers Proven Advocate for Server Training and strong management support Medium 5.1 A4-Employ Screening and Brief Interventions Tried These 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 Tried Safe 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 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. Low 5.1 C-Prosecute, Impose Sanctions on, and Treat DWI Offenders 5.1 C1-Suspend Driver's License Administratively Upon Arrest Proven Minnesota 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 ProvenGovernor proposed legislation in Jan 2010.High 5.1 D3—Monitor Convicted DWI Offenders Closely ProvenDWI courts or Intensive Supervision ProgramsLow Strategies from the NCHRP 500 * denotes revisions by MN Office of Traffic Safety 6/21/2012

37. Project Development Process - Example 37 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. 38 InfrastructureTotal Votes Red Light Confirmation Light23 HAWK Signals8 Street Lighting8 Provide safe bicycle facilities for parallel travel -- On/Off Road Facilities, Shoulders, Dedicated7 Provide left-turn lanes6 Driver BehaviorTotal Votes GDL Enforcement Campaigns17 Suspend Driver's License Administratively Upon Arrest15 Conduct high visibility enforcement for existing statutes to deter distracted and drowsy driving12 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 39 StrategyNumber of Locations Estimated Project Implementation Cost Signalized Intersections Red Light Confirmation Lights207 intersections$196,000 Countdown Timers/Advanced Walk146 intersections$1,460,000 Unsignalized Intersections Medians and Curb Extensions38 intersections$1,485,000 Segments Conversion to Two Way Left Turn Lanes19 corridors$740,500 6” Edge Lines15 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 30 th Carver/Scott – August 1 st Dakota/Washington – August 9 th 40 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, howard.preston@ch2m.com Nikki Farrington, CH2M HILL, 651.365.8536, nicole.farrington@ch2m.com Mike Marti, SRF Consulting Group, 763.249.6779, mmarti@srfconsulting.com Carla Stueve, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6797, cstueve@srfconsulting.com Renae Kuehl, SRF Consulting Group, 765.249.6783, rkuehl@srfconsulting.com Ann Johnson, P.E. Services, 612.275.8190, johns421@umn.edu 41 Questions? 6/21/2012