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

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

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

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

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 /20/20115

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

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.

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Greater Minnesota Crash Data Overview 4/20/20118 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 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

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 Minnesota Data) 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% % % %9669 Keeping Drivers Alert 681 fatal crashes 24%656819%843117%938616% Increasing Driver Safety Awareness Improving Information and Decision Support Systems Source: Crash Records; not including fatalities due to the I-35W Bridge collapse : 2,797 fatal crashes; 3,126 fatalities; 2,572 vehicle occupant fatalities : 2,701 fatal crashes; 3,008 fatalities; 2,429 vehicle occupant fatalities : 2,358 fatal crashes; 2,573 fatalities; 1,983 vehicle occupant fatalities : 2,209 fatal crashes; 2,427 fatalities; 1,824 vehicle occupant fatalities

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS ATP 4 & ATP 8 – Safety Emphasis Areas 4/20/ 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, 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)

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

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

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

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: crashes/mi/year −Paved Roads: 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/ Gravel Roads Note: Some counties removed gravel roads from segments lists

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= 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= 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/ Rural Paved Segments ATP 4SegmentsMileage Severe RD Crashes Becker Big Stone Clay Douglas Grant Mahnomen Otter Tail 193 1,00432 Pope Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Subtotal 747 3,43499 ATP 8Segments Mileage Severe RD Crashes Chippewa Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Lincoln Lyon McLeod Meeker Murray Pipestone Redwood Renville Yellow Medicine Subtotal 671 3,16295 Grand Total 1,418 6,596194

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/ Segment Traffic Volume  

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/ Access Density

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

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/ Kandiyohi’s County Segment Prioritization Totals #%Mileage%  23%7.42%  45%17.94%  1621%75.319%  2836% %  2026% % -79%41.410% 77100% % RankCorridorRoute#StartEndLengthADT ADT Range RD Density Access Density Curve Critical Radius Density Edge Risk Totals Tiebreakers Edge Risk RD Density CNTY89 CSAH  CSAH40 NEW LONDON CORP LIMCSAH  CNTY89 CSAH-30MNTH  CSAH9 CR-90, WILLMAR CORP LIMCSAH  CSAH5 150TH AVE NW CSAH- 29CSAH  CSAH31 NEW LONDON CORP LIMMNTH  CSAH8 RENVILLE COUNTY LINE LAKE LILLIAN CORP LIM  CSAH4 CSAH-8CSAH  CSAH2 CSAH-10MNTH  CSAH4 CR-98CSAH  CSAH38 CSAH-40CSAH  CNTY89 CSAH  CSAH42 CSAH-7COUNTY LINE  CSAH9 CSAH-10 CSAH-40, REDWOOD ST 4.9 1,800  CSAH25 CSAH-5USTH ,315  ………… …… … ……………………… ………… …… … ……………………… CSAH1 MNTH-23PENNOCK CORP LIM  CNTY89 CSAH-3MNTH  CSAH2 ATWATER CORP LIMCSAH ,018  CSAH28 CSAH-2COUNTY LINE  Total Stars % That Gets Star --36%46%47%46%31%

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

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Segments Project Summary 4/20/ ATP 4 2' Shoulder Pave+RS+Safety WedgeRumble Strip Rumble StripE 6 inch edgelines Ground In Wet- Reflective MarkingsTotal Project Value Becker $1,245,602 Big Stone $263,345 Clay $550,732 Douglas $1,056,540 Grant $218,970 Mahnomen $499,730 Otter Tail $2,086,679 Pope $732,930 Stevens $552,396 Swift $218,480 Traverse $171,111 Wilkin $408, $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 $352,348 Kandiyohi $373,046 Lac Qui Parle $319,525 Lincoln $889,585 Lyon $910,510 McLeod $582,698 Meeker $720,732 Murray $965,664 Pipestone $573,980 Redwood $506,996 Renville $1,070,517 Yellow Medicine $361, $7,627,036

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 (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/ ATP 4 Curve Count Severe Crashes Total Crashes Chevrons Installed Becker Big Stone Clay Douglas Grant Mahnomen90382 Otter Tail Pope Stevens Swift Traverse21129 Wilkin Subtotal ATP 8 Curve Count Severe Crashes Total Crashes Chevrons Installed Chippewa Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Lincoln Lyon McLeod Meeker Murray Pipestone1603 Redwood Renville Yellow Medicine Subtotal Grand Total

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 4/20/ 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

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/ Curve Radius

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  2001B1.01CSAH  3001C1.01CSAH  4001D1.01CSAH  5001E1.01CSAH  6001F1.01CSAH  7001G1.01CSAH  8001H1.01CSAH  9001I1.01CSAH  10001J1.01CSAH  11001K1.01CSAH  12001L1.01CSAH Yes-  Installed 13001M1.01CSAH ,  14001N1.01CSAH Yes--  15001O1.01CSAH Yes--  16002A2.02CSAH  Yes 17002B2.02CSAH Yes--  -Yes 18002C2.02CSAH Yes--  -Yes 19002D2.02CSAH  Yes 20002E2.02CSAH ,  Yes 21002F2.02CSAH ,  Yes 22002G2.02CSAH  -Yes 23002H2.02CSAH ,  Yes ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… ………… … … … … … … … … ………………………… ZH249.01CR Yes--  ZI249.01CR  Yes ZJ249.01CR  Yes 4/20/ 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% %51% %143%

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

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

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS 1,912 rural intersections in ATP 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: crashes/intersection/year 0.01 severe crashes/intersection/year 4/20/ Rural Intersections ATP 4Intersections Severe Right Angle Crashes Severe Crashes Becker Big Stone Clay Douglas Grant Mahnomen Otter Tail Pope Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Subtotal 1, ATP 8Intersections Severe Right Angle Crashes Severe Crashes Chippewa Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Lincoln Lyon McLeod Meeker Murray Pipestone Redwood Renville Yellow Medicine Subtotal 1, Grand Total 3,

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/ Rural Thru STOP Proactive Risk Rating Criteria    

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/ Winona County Rural Intersection Prioritization #%  00%  00%  00%  811%  2130%  3346%  913% -00% 71100% Considered for projects

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

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/ Kandiyohi County Intersections

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

M N /DOT C OUNTY R OADWAY S AFETY P LANS Proactive Project Summary 4/20/ 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

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