1. 2011 National Association of County Engineers Conference Mn/DOT County Roadway Safety Plans April 20, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services

2. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Agenda Introductions & Opening Remarks Project Overview −Goals, Objectives −Team, Schedule, Process −County Participation and Opportunities Data Needs Safety Emphasis Areas Safety Strategies Safety Workshop Safety Projects Next Steps Questions/Comments 4/20/20112

3. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS County Road Safety Plans Sponsored by… −Funding provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation −Almost $3.5 million made available to prepare County Safety Plans for 87 counties over three years 4/20/20113

4. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Goals and Objectives Development of County Safety Plans −Establish safety emphasis areas −High priority safety strategies −At-risk locations −Safety investment options Identify high priority safety projects, both proactive and reactive Position counties to compete for safety funds −Highway Safety Improvement Program −High Risk Rural Roads Program −Minnesota Central Safety Funds Foster safety culture among county stakeholders 4/20/20114

5. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Schedule of Delivery Phase I – November 2009 to August 2010 Phase II – August 2010 to May 2011 Phase III – May 2011 to February 2012 Phase IV – February 2012 to October 2012 4/20/20115

6. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Project Approach – Phase II 4/20/20116 Crash Data 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 Review Mtg w/ Counties Kick-off Meeting

7. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS The key questions: Is every element of the county system equally at risk? Where to Start? A new approach to safety planning Old Approach Crashes = Risk & No Crashes = No Risk New Approach No Crashes ≠ No Risk Use surrogates of crashes (roadway and traffic characteristics) to identify risk and prioritize – the 5  (or 6) Ranking System 4/20/20117 Project Development Reactive Approach – Identifying Black Spot locations with crash rate above the critical crash rate and/or experienced multiple severe crashes in the 5-year study period. — In ATP 3 & ATP 6, a total of 9 Black Spots were identified. The Systemic Approach – Applying high priority/low cost safety strategies at the at- risk locations across each county’s system of highways.

8. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Greater Minnesota Crash Data Overview 4/20/20118 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2004-2008 Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes 165,739 5,770 State System 76,992 – 46% 2,362 – 41% CSAH/CR 39,073 – 24% 2,242 – 39% Rural 24,474 – 63% 1,860 – 83% Urban 14,599 – 37% 382 – 17% All Way Stop 438 – 6% 6 – 4% Run Off Road 8,367 – 66% 790 – 67% On Curve 3,550 – 42% 399 – 51% Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 1,359 (48%), 41 (59%) Head On – 70 (3%), 7 (10%) Left Turn – 283 (10%), 4 (6%) Rear End – 368 (13%), 4 (6%) Thru-Stop 2,810 – 38% 70 – 44% Right Angle – 651 (30%), 20 (56%) Rear End – 753 (34%), 5 (14%) Left Turn – 361 (17%), 4 (11%) Head On – 70 (3%), 2 (6%) Signalized 2,189 – 29% 36 – 22% Inters-Related 5,938 – 30% 535 – 30% City, Twnshp, Other 49,674 – 30% 1,166 – 20% Inters-Related 7,448 – 51% 160 – 42% Not Inters-Related 5,271 – 36% 199 – 52% Run Off Road – 1,283 (24%), 74 (37%) Head On – 361 (7%), 27 (14%) Rear End – 1,315 (25%), 21 (11%) Right Angle – 529 (10%), 18 (9%) Animal 4,407 – 18% 74 – 4% Not Inters-Related 12,627 – 63% 1,185 – 66% Head On, SS Opp 821 – 7% 129 – 11% On Curve 284 – 35% 47 – 36% Unknown/Other 1,880 – 13% 23 – 6% Unknown/Other 1,502 – 7% 66 – 4% Other/Unknown 2,011 – 27% 48 – 30% Right Angle – 968 (35%), 145 (55%) Run Off Road – 360 (13%), 23 (9%) Left Turn – 183 (7%), 11 (4%) Rear End – 287 (11%), 8 (3%) Thru-Stop 2,735 – 46% 263 – 49% Run Off Road – 1,047 (38%), 93 (38%) Right Angle – 297 (11%), 50 (20%) Head On – 119 (4%), 26 (11%) Left Turn – 186 (7%), 20 (8%) Other/Unknown 2,755 – 47% 248 – 46% Not Animal 20,067 – 82% 1,786 – 96% All Way Stop 199 – 3% 19 – 4% Signalized 249 – 4% 5 – 1% -ATP’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 – NO Metro

9. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Minnesota’s Safety Emphasis Areas 4/20/20119 CEAs in the SHSP Top 10 Emphasis Areas (Based on 2005-2009 Minnesota Data) 1998-20022001-20052004-20082005-20092009 Related Fatal Crashes or FatalitiesRank Related FatalitiesRank Related FatalitiesRank Related FatalitiesRank Related FatalitiesRank Increasing Seat Belt Usage and Improving Airbag Effectiveness 1,351 fatalities 53%11,27152%199950%189149%11313 Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections 1,013 fatal crashes 36%31,00433%392936%287336%21571 Reducing Impaired Driving 1,020 fatal crashes 36%21,06836%287834%384135%31412 Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway (combined with Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road) 959 fatal crashes 34%496532%480531%475131%41174 Curbing Aggressive Driving 675 fatal crashes 24%785028%570427%563826%5866 Reducing Head-On and Across- Median Crashes 505 fatal crashes 18%961120%755627%753222%6935 Instituting Graduated Licensing for Young Drivers 705 fatal crashes 25%571824%656927%649520%7778 Sustaining Proficiency in Older Drivers 594 fatal crashes 21%853318%948819%846119%8847 Making Truck Travel Safer 379 fatal crashes 14%1044715%1041416%1039716%9669 Keeping Drivers Alert 681 fatal crashes 24%656819%843117%938616%106310 Increasing Driver Safety Awareness Improving Information and Decision Support Systems Source: Crash Records; not including fatalities due to the I-35W Bridge collapse. 1998-2002: 2,797 fatal crashes; 3,126 fatalities; 2,572 vehicle occupant fatalities 2001-2005: 2,701 fatal crashes; 3,008 fatalities; 2,429 vehicle occupant fatalities 2004-2008: 2,358 fatal crashes; 2,573 fatalities; 1,983 vehicle occupant fatalities 2005-2009: 2,209 fatal crashes; 2,427 fatalities; 1,824 vehicle occupant fatalities

10. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS ATP 4 & ATP 8 – Safety Emphasis Areas 4/20/201110 Emphasis Area Statewide Percentage ATP 4ATP 8 Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Interstate, US & THCSAH & CR City, Twnshp & Other Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes10,172274240101214231125 Drivers Young drivers (under 21)23%24%(65)15%(36)27%(27)26%(55)28%(65)22%(27) Unlicensed drivers7%6%(16)7%(16)8%(8)5%(10)6%(14)4%(5) Older drivers (over 64)12%22%(60)14%(34)9%(9)20%(43)15%(35)10%(12) Aggressive driving and speeding-related19%18%(50)26%(62)21%(21)10%(22)23%(53)18%(22) Drug and alcohol-related23%19%(51)37%(89)30%(30)19%(40)31%(72)22%(28) Inattentive, distracted, asleep drivers18%21%(58)18%(43)16%(16)17%(36)16%(36)12%(15) Safety awareness- ------------ Unbelted vehicle occupants23%28%(78)36%(87)29%(29)31%(67)41%(95)38%(48) Special Users Pedestrians crashes7%4%(10)3%(7)7%(7)3%(7)3%(6)6%(7) Bicycle crashes3%0%(0)2%(5)6%(6)2%(4)0%(0)4%(5) Vehicles Motorcycles crashes13%8%(23)17%(41)17%(17)9%(19)10%(22)9%(11) Heavy vehicle crashes8%17%(47)7%(16)2%(2)23%(50)6%(14)10%(12) Safety enhancements- ------------ Highways Train-vehicle collisions0%1%(2)0%(0)6%(6)0%(0)0%(0)2%(2) Road departure crashes25% (69)47%(113)29%(29)22%(48)48%(111)28%(35) Consequences of leaving road- ------------ Intersection crashes38%31%(84)34%(82)35%(35)40%(85)32%(74)40%(50) Head-On and Sideswipe (opposite) crashes13%20%(54)23%(54)12%(12)21%(45)19%(45)6%(8) Work zone crashes1% (3)1%(2)0%(0)0%(1)1%(3)0%(0) EMSEnhancing Emergency Capabilities- ------------ Management Information and decision support systems- ------------ More effective processes- ------------ DPS Crash Data Records, 2005 to 2009 Top 5 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)

11. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Safety Strategies Overview NCHRP Report 500 4/20/201111 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.

12. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Example – Typical Run-Off Road Strategies 4/20/201112

13. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Example – Typical Intersection Strategies 4/20/201113 Included Strategies: Change Intersection Type Improve Sight Distance Enhanced Signing and Delineation Street Lighting Dynamic Warning Signs Indirect Turns

14. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Gravel roads make up approximately 44% of Minnesota’s 45,000 mile County Highway system. Almost one-half of Minnesota’s counties have NO fatal crash on their gravel roads and only ONE county averages one fatal crash per year. Severe RD Crash Density −Gravel Roads: 0.001 crashes/mi/year −Paved Roads: 0.006 crashes/mi/year Statewide, 94% of crashes and 88% of severe crashes occur on the 56% of the county system that is paved. Gravel roads have been removed from further detailed analysis 4/20/201114 Gravel Roads Note: Some counties removed gravel roads from segments lists

15. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 12 counties in ATP 4 3,434 rural paved miles Rural Road Departure Crashes −2,872 total, 199 severe, 99 Severe RD −Average Density of Sev RD Crashes= 0.006 crashes/mi/year 12 counties in ATP 8 3,162 rural paved miles Rural Road Departure Crashes −2,556 total, 212 severe, 95 Severe RD −Average Density of Sev RD Crashes= 0.006 crashes/mi/year Risk Rating Criteria Density of Road Departure Crashes (based on County data) Traffic Volume (based on ATP data) Curve (Critical Radius) Density (based on County data) Access Density (based on County data) Edge Risk Assessment (based on County data) 4/20/201115 Rural Paved Segments ATP 4SegmentsMileage Severe RD Crashes Becker 111 43519 Big Stone 46 1581 Clay 82 2566 Douglas 87 35115 Grant 34 1492 Mahnomen 27 1343 Otter Tail 193 1,00432 Pope 50 2437 Stevens 31 1630 Swift 29 21811 Traverse 20 1240 Wilkin 37 1983 Subtotal 747 3,43499 ATP 8Segments Mileage Severe RD Crashes Chippewa 40 1692 Kandiyohi 74 40714 Lac Qui Parle 44 2157 Lincoln 53 2154 Lyon 90 3046 McLeod 62 26415 Meeker 46 23912 Murray 61 2567 Pipestone 47 1622 Redwood 53 32012 Renville 62 38710 Yellow Medicine 39 2264 Subtotal 671 3,16295 Grand Total 1,418 6,596194

16. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 600-1,200 ADT was selected to receive a star in ATP 4, 400-1,000 in ATP 8 4/20/201116 Segment Traffic Volume  

17. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Previous research has demonstrated that on State Highways in Minnesota, there is a statistically significant relationship between Access Density and Crash Rates – the greater the number of access points the higher the crash rate. Phase II of the County Roadway Safety Plans has produced information that proves that the same access effect is present along the County Highway system – as the access density increases, the crash and severity rates also increase. 4/20/201117 Access Density

18. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Edge Risk Assessment 4/20/201118 2 – Good Shoulder, No Clear Zone 2 – No Shoulder, Good Clear Zone 1 – Good Shoulder, Good Clear Zone 3 – No Shoulder, No Clear Zone   

19. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Is Kandiyohi County’s entire system at-risk? No – about 25% of their system is High Priority 4/20/201119 Kandiyohi’s County Segment Prioritization Totals #%Mileage%  23%7.42%  45%17.94%  1621%75.319%  2836%150.638%  2026%108.027% -79%41.410% 77100%400.6100% RankCorridorRoute#StartEndLengthADT ADT Range RD Density Access Density Curve Critical Radius Density Edge Risk Totals Tiebreakers Edge Risk RD Density 1144.01CNTY89 CSAH-30 1.4 480  30.28 240.04CSAH40 NEW LONDON CORP LIMCSAH-2 5.9 450  20.17 3131.01CNTY89 CSAH-30MNTH-23 0.7 145  20.29 49.02CSAH9 CR-90, WILLMAR CORP LIMCSAH-10 5.6 940  10.14 55.06CSAH5 150TH AVE NW CSAH- 29CSAH-1 10.1 628  10.14 631.02CSAH31 NEW LONDON CORP LIMMNTH-23 1.6 920  10.13 78.01CSAH8 RENVILLE COUNTY LINE LAKE LILLIAN CORP LIM 3.6 750  20.33 84.01CSAH4 CSAH-8CSAH-20 6.7 320  20.09 92.05CSAH2 CSAH-10MNTH-23 9.8 385  20.04 104.04CSAH4 CR-98CSAH-40 2.4 290  20.00 1138.01CSAH38 CSAH-40CSAH-48 2.1 130  20.00 12132.01CNTY89 CSAH-8 2.2 190  20.00 1342.01CSAH42 CSAH-7COUNTY LINE 0.5 120  20.00 149.03CSAH9 CSAH-10 CSAH-40, REDWOOD ST 4.9 1,800  10.45 1525.01CSAH25 CSAH-5USTH-71 3.2 1,315  10.25 ………… …… … ……………………… ………… …… … ……………………… 741.03CSAH1 MNTH-23PENNOCK CORP LIM 7.0 333  10.03 75116.02CNTY89 CSAH-3MNTH-40 7.0 98  10.03 762.04CSAH2 ATWATER CORP LIMCSAH-10 6.7 1,018  10.00 7728.02CSAH28 CSAH-2COUNTY LINE 2.0 315  10.00 Total Stars --2633343322 % That Gets Star --36%46%47%46%31%

20. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Project Development – High Priority Segments 4/20/201120

21. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Segments Project Summary 4/20/201121 ATP 4 2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety WedgeRumble Strip Rumble StripE 6 inch edgelines Ground In Wet- Reflective MarkingsTotal Project Value Becker 1591081226$1,245,602 Big Stone 3-3249-$263,345 Clay 862355$550,732 Douglas 2136294-$1,056,540 Grant 0056211$218,970 Mahnomen 873902$499,730 Otter Tail 18131552989$2,086,679 Pope 131528158$732,930 Stevens 50561319$552,396 Swift --56360$218,480 Traverse 0045220$171,111 Wilkin 6347--$408,900 97145653207150$8,005,415 ATP 8 2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety WedgeRumble Strip Rumble StripE 6 inch edgelines Ground In Wet- Reflective MarkingsTotal Project Value Chippewa 04257210$352,348 Kandiyohi -3549511$373,046 Lac Qui Parle 0579361$319,525 Lincoln 18031 4$889,585 Lyon 15-75135$910,510 McLeod 55103120$582,698 Meeker 9365314$720,732 Murray 19151371$965,664 Pipestone 11231270$573,980 Redwood --96-20$506,996 Renville 1334502231$1,070,517 Yellow Medicine -11017-$361,435 9012778821287$7,627,036

22. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Rural Curves 2,494 total curves in ATP 4 2,118 (85%) curves with no crashes Crashes −501 total, 51 severe crashes −2 curves with multiple fatal crashes (5 years) −3 curves with multiple severe crashes −0.004 severe crashes/curve/year 3,664 total curves in ATP 8 930 (25%) curves with no crashes Crashes −832 total, 83 severe crashes −0 curves with multiple fatal crashes (5 years) −1 curve with multiple severe crashes −0.005 severe crashes/curve/year Severe crashes are overrepresented in curves with radii between 500 and 1,200 feet. 4/20/201122 ATP 4 Curve Count Severe Crashes Total Crashes Chevrons Installed Becker4621272462 Big Stone1790438 Clay4721618 Douglas51811137144 Grant6911127 Mahnomen90382 Otter Tail70710194281 Pope14642228 Stevens420726 Swift175520113 Traverse21129 Wilkin382824 Subtotal2494515011172 ATP 8 Curve Count Severe Crashes Total Crashes Chevrons Installed Chippewa551413 Kandiyohi31756667 Lac Qui Parle542815 Lincoln6331763 Lyon8242432 McLeod15649276 Meeker16865414 Murray7821548 Pipestone1603 Redwood5622253 Renville7321454 Yellow Medicine5211221 Subtotal117032331472 Grand Total3664838321644

23. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 4/20/201123 Curve-Related Roadway Departure Risk Rating Criteria −ADT Range −Radius Range −Severe Crash on curve −Intersection on curve −Visual Trap on curve In ATP 4, 61% of roadway departure crashes are curve related (39% in ATP 8) Are all curves equally at-risk? −No

24. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS The majority of severe crashes occurred on curves with 500’-1,200’ radii. 4/20/201124 Curve Radius

25. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Crashes Severe RoR Curve Count IDCorridorSegmentTotalSevereKABCPDOKA Radius (ft) Length Curve (ft) ADT Intersection on Curve Chevrons Visual Trap RankProximity Chevron Candidate 1001A1.01CSAH 1 1 - - - - - 1 - -9212550---  2001B1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -55742250---  3001C1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -82349350---  4001D1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -37935950---  5001E1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -66945650---  6001F1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -27043150---  7001G1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -31432450---  8001H1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -54523950---  9001I1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -45922550---  10001J1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -36827450---  11001K1.01CSAH 1 1 - - - - - 1 - -31839050---  12001L1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -26739950-Yes-  Installed 13001M1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -1,47534550---  14001N1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -763578130Yes--  15001O1.01CSAH 1 - - - - - - - - -859353210Yes--  16002A2.02CSAH 2 1 - - - 1 - - - -583752930---  Yes 17002B2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -584635930Yes--  -Yes 18002C2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -799665930Yes--  -Yes 19002D2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -963626930---  Yes 20002E2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -1,234584930---  Yes 21002F2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -1,188719930---  Yes 22002G2.02CSAH 2 1 1 - 1 - - - - 1938556930---  -Yes 23002H2.02CSAH 2 - - - - - - - - -1,199402930---  Yes ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… 502249ZH249.01CR 249 - - - - - - - - -432301275Yes--  503249ZI249.01CR 249 - - - - - - - - -814344275---  Yes 504249ZJ249.01CR 249 - - - - - - - - -800685275---  Yes 4/20/201125 Houston County Curve Prioritization Complete census of 504 curves 32 High Priority Curves (6%) ―138 Curves in Proximity Chevrons in Place Stars#%#%  00%0  71%20%  255%41%  10821%10%  25050%20% -11423%51% 504100%143%

26. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Project Development – High Priority Curves 4/20/201126

27. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Curve Project Summary 4/20/201127

28. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 1,912 rural intersections in ATP 4 954 total crashes 71 Severe Crashes −28 severe right angle Intersections with Multiple Severe Crashes: 3 (all had 2 Fatals) 0.10 crashes/intersection/year 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year 1,487 rural intersections in ATP 8 1,085 total crashes 91 Severe Crashes −45 severe right angle Intersections with Multiple Severe Crashes: 5 Intersections with Multiple Fatal Crashes: 0 0.12 crashes/intersection/year 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year 4/20/201128 Rural Intersections ATP 4Intersections Severe Right Angle Crashes Severe Crashes Becker 178 310 Big Stone 138 24 Clay 238 612 Douglas 170 513 Grant 181 -1 Mahnomen 93 -4 Otter Tail 249 410 Pope 101 38 Stevens 69 44 Swift 146 -1 Traverse 181 -2 Wilkin 168 12 Subtotal 1,912 2871 ATP 8Intersections Severe Right Angle Crashes Severe Crashes Chippewa 61 24 Kandiyohi 230 1321 Lac Qui Parle 82 13 Lincoln 118 12 Lyon 128 511 McLeod 143 716 Meeker 74 13 Murray 115 25 Pipestone 57 14 Redwood 133 24 Renville 188 713 Yellow Medicine 158 35 Subtotal 1,487 4591 Grand Total 3,399 73162

29. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 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 4/20/201129 Rural Thru STOP Proactive Risk Rating Criteria    

30. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Is Winona County’s entire system at-risk? −No – about 1/3 of their system 4/20/201130 Winona County Rural Intersection Prioritization #%  00%  00%  00%  811%  2130%  3346%  913% -00% 71100% Considered for projects

31. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Project Development – High Priority Rural Intersections 4/20/201131

32. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS CSAH 4 and USTH 12 Project Form ―Intersection Data – ADT, TCD, Street Lights, etc ―CrashData ―Deficiencies – Risk Ranking ―Strategies ―Selected Strategy 4/20/201132 Kandiyohi County Intersections

33. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 4/20/201133 Intersection Project Summary

34. M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Proactive Project Summary 4/20/201134 ATP TotalsIntersectionsSegmentsCurvesTotal ATP 3$7,972,400$16,106,107$19,794,813$43,873,320 ATP 4$5,347,150$7,718,028$11,163,025$24,228,203 ATP 6$2,666,800$10,196,428$15,933,618$28,796,846 ATP 8$4,213,100$7,627,036$5,992,789$17,832,925 Total$20,199,450$41,647,599$52,884,245$114,731,293 Average Per CountyIntersectionsSegmentsCurvesTotal ATP 3$664,367$1,342,176$1,649,568$3,656,110 ATP 4$445,596$643,169$930,252$2,019,017 ATP 6$296,311$1,132,936$1,770,402$3,199,650 ATP 8$351,092$635,586$499,399$1,486,077 Average$448,877$925,502$1,175,205$2,549,584

35. 2011 National Association of County Engineers Conference Mn/DOT County Roadway Safety Plans April 20, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services