ATP 1 County Road Safety Plan 1 Brad Estochen MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oklahoma Strategic Highway Safety Plan – Vision, Mission and Goal presented to SHSP Leadership Group SHSP Working Group presented by Susan Herbel, Cambridge.
Advertisements

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Connecting South Dakota and the Nation Welcome.
Strategic Highway Safety Plan/Developing Local Road Safety Plans Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety.
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS.
All Roads Transportation Safety Roadway Departure Crash (Formerly Jurisdictionally Blind Safety)
Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
County Road Safety Plans Experiences with Development and Implementation Richard (Rick) West, PE Otter Tail County Public Works Director/County Engineer.
Jurisdictionally Blind Safety Roadway Departure Crash
GAMPO. Randy Clayton Operations Manager, Strategic Highway Safety Plan Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.
Hardin County Engineering Department September 12, 2006.
I-94 West Corridor Reference Map To Brainerd Lakes Region St. Cloud Urbanized Area 111, Census Twin Cities Urbanized Area 2.7 Million 2010 Census.
T.H. 23 / South Saratoga Street Reduced Conflict Intersection and Pedestrian Overpass Project Project hearing October 14, 2014 City Council Presenters.
High Risk Rural Roads 23 U.S.C. § 148 (a)(1) & (f) Leslie Wright Local/Tribal Road Safety Program Manager Office of Safety, FHWA Leslie Wright Local/Tribal.
Carver County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/15/ Year Crashes Carver.
Red-Light Running. 2 Traffic Signals Red-Light Running 3 Intersection Fatalities There were 8,657 intersection fatalities in 2007.
BIO Az DPS Assignments Masters from Northern Arizona University
DRAFT.  Its Mandated for funding › Strategy, activity or project  It is a Guide › How to  It is a story › History (where we were) › Possible look.
Federal Traffic Safety Program History HES (Hazard Elimination Set aside) TEA
Mandy Chu Office Chief Highway System Information and Performance Division of Research, Innovation and System Information Introduction to HPMS Highway.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Highway Safety Provisions Elizabeth Alicandri FHWA.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E. Traffic Investigations Engineer, ODOT February 26, 2015.
Developing Safety Plans Adam Larsen Safety Engineer Federal Highway Administration Tribal Transportation Program
. Efforts to Reduce Crashes on County Roads in Iowa.
1 MnDOT County Roadway Safety Plans Review Meeting 1 Metro June 21, 2012.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Ron Hall Tribal Technical Assistance Program Colorado State University
2-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.
A Systemic Approach to Safety Management NLTAPA Annual Conference July 30, 2012 Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD.
City of Henderson Citizens Traffic Advisory Board NDOT SAFETY UPDATE.
Working Together to Save Lives An Introduction to the FHWA Safety Program for FHWA’s Safety Partners.
1 Ramsey County Review Meeting 1 June 21, Metro* County Crash Data Overview 2 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury.
1 Washington County Review Meeting 1 June 21, 2012.
October 25, 2015 Funding Your Program October 20, 2008 ATSSA Sign Maintenance and Management Workshop Addison, Texas.
1 MnDOT County Roadway Safety Plans Review Meeting #1 - ATP 2 June 25, 2012.
Prepared for Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security Office of Grants and Research, Highway Safety Division Traffic Safety Forum Presented.
3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC
Greater Minnesota Transit. Greater MN Transit Service (2010) 59 transit agencies –6 Large Urban (more than 50,000 population) –13 Small Urban –40 Rural.
“People should have transportation options.” TRANSPORTATION MOVING PEOPLE AND COMMERCE WHERE THEY WANT AND NEED TO GO.
1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process.
T.H. 23 / SOUTH SARATOGA STREET REDUCED CONFLICT INTERSECTION AND PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS PROJECT PROJECT HEARING June 10, 2014 City Council Presenters Glenn.
1 September 28, 2011 Safety Strategies Workshop Brown County Faribault County Martin County Watonwan County.
MICHIGAN’s INITIATIVES FOR REDUCING HIGHWAY FATALITIES.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Doug Bish Traffic Services Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation November 2014.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Angela Kargel Region 2 Traffic Manager Oregon Department of Transportation January 2015.
University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research - Results of Crash Analysis University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research.
1 Update Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans CTS Transportation Research Conference May 23, 2012 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
The H-GAC Traffic Safety Program 2004 Status Report Report to the Technical Advisory Committee September 8, 2004 Ned Levine, PhD Houston-Galveston Area.
1 Watonwan County Review Meeting 1 August 31, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
June 23, 2006 Asset Management A Tool to Save Lives, Time, and $$$
Caltrans External Advisory Liaison Committee October 2015.
Jurisdictionally Blind Safety Doug Bish OTCDC March 8th.
Transportation Finance Advisory Committee May 18, 2012.
US 25 Corbin to London Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting December 2011.
Polk County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/1/ Year Crashes Polk.
1 Marshall County Review Meeting 1 June 25, 2012.
The Greater Metropolitan Houston Traffic Safety Program October 14, 2004 Ned Levine, PhD Houston-Galveston Area Council Houston, TX 2004 AMPO Annual Conference.
The Metropolitan Houston Traffic Safety Program Houston-Galveston Area Council Houston, TX.
1 Red Lake County Review Meeting 1 June 25, 2012.
South Dakota Transportation Safety Conference February 21-22, 2007 John G. Rohlf, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Pierre, South Dakota.
ATP 2 Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/1/ Year Crashes ATP 2 7,072.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Advancing Safety through SAFETEA-LU Michael Halladay FHWA Office of.
2011 National Association of County Engineers Conference Mn/DOT County Roadway Safety Plans April 20, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
Oregon’s All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Zahidul Siddique, Ph.D., PE, PTOE Oregon Department of Transportation October 26, st International.
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan Development & Implementation Status 2004 Traffic Records Forum David M. Smith Senior Transportation Specialist, Office.
Oregon Department of Transportation This program works with communities, law enforcement and internal ODOT partners regarding all aspects of transportation.
Rural Intersection Decision Support - Crash Analysis Rural Intersection Decision Support - Crash Analysis Presented at Pooled Fund Meeting April 19, 2004.
House Transportation Policy and Finance April 13, 2016 Tracy Hatch Deputy Commissioner Chief Financial Officer / Chief Operating Officer.
1 Faribault County Review Meeting 1 August 31, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
1 Polk County Review Meeting 1 June 25, ATP 2 County Crash Data Overview 06/25/2012 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious.
1 St. Louis County Review Meeting 1 August 29, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
Presentation transcript:

ATP 1 County Road Safety Plan 1 Brad Estochen MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology

Outline for Today Overview of Safety Planning efforts Crash Data discussions Breakout sessions Prioritization exercise 2

Safety Planning Process Preliminary Crash Analysis Identification of Safety Emphasis Areas Safety strategies identification Strategy prioritization Roadway Risk Assessment Project identification 3

Multidisciplinary Focus Driver behavior is a component of most crashes Planning should be broad based Young Driver Alcohol Belts Speeding Infrastructure Breakout session to discuss behavior and infrastructure strategies 4

Breakout Sessions Your input is vital NCHRP developed a listing of strategies Help us determine what items are high priority for ATP 1 Prioritization exercise by the entire group will focus our plan development 5

Who is doing safety plans? MnDOT Districts 6

Who is doing safety plans? Counties (by ATP) 7

Highway Safety Funding Highway Safety Improvement Program Federal Transportation Dollars Dedicated for Safety Investments must be data driven Fatal crashes Serious injury crashes Focus on projects/strategies that can be applied to multiple miles Annual funding Statewide - $20 million $12.5 million County Roads $7 million State Roads $768,000 ATP 1 Counties 8

Safety Funding Distribution 9 DistrictState HSIPLocal HSIP 1 – Duluth$785,000$768, Bemidji$318,000$450,000 3 – Brainerd/St. Cloud$1,120,000$1,870,000 4 – Detroit Lakes$485,000$600, Metro$2,347,000$6,106, Rochester$935,000$1,429, Mankato$441,000$724, Willmar$441,000$679,000 TOTAL$6,900,000$12,600,000

Safety Funding Distribution 10 DistrictState HSIPLocal HSIP 1 – Duluth$785,000$768, Bemidji$318,000$450,000 3 – Brainerd/St. Cloud$1,120,000$1,870,000 4 – Detroit Lakes$485,000$600, Metro$2,347,000$6,106, Rochester$935,000$1,429, Mankato$441,000$724, Willmar$441,000$679,000 TOTAL$6,900,000$12,600,000

Safety Funding Distribution 11 DistrictState HSIPLocal HSIP 1 – Duluth$785,000$768, Bemidji$318,000$450,000 3 – Brainerd/St. Cloud$1,120,000$1,870,000 4 – Detroit Lakes$485,000$600, Metro$2,347,000$6,106, Rochester$935,000$1,429, Mankato$441,000$724, Willmar$441,000$679,000 TOTAL$6,900,000$12,600,000 50%

07/19/2010 ATP 1 Crash Data Overview 5 Year Crashes ATP 1 27, Year Crashes ATP 1 27, State System 12,355 – 45% 384 – 48% State System 12,355 – 45% 384 – 48% CSAH/CR 5,766 – 21% 273 – 34% CSAH/CR 5,766 – 21% 273 – 34% Rural 3,019 – 52% 204 – 75% Rural 3,019 – 52% 204 – 75% Urban 2,747 – 48% 69 – 25% Urban 2,747 – 48% 69 – 25% All Way Stop 136 – 10% 1 – 4% All Way Stop 136 – 10% 1 – 4% Run off Road 1,154 – 64% 79 – 62% Run off Road 1,154 – 64% 79 – 62% On Curve 486 – 42% 37 – 47% On Curve 486 – 42% 37 – 47% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 246 (48%), 6 (55%) “Not Applicable” – 14 (3%), 2 (18%) SS. Opp – 21 (4%), 1 (9%) Left Turn – 43 (8%), 1 (9%) Right Angle – 246 (48%), 6 (55%) “Not Applicable” – 14 (3%), 2 (18%) SS. Opp – 21 (4%), 1 (9%) Left Turn – 43 (8%), 1 (9%) Thru-Stop 508 – 39% 11 – 44% Thru-Stop 508 – 39% 11 – 44% Left Turn – 52 (17%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 109 (36%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 68 (23%), 1 (17%) Head On – 20 (7%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 52 (17%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 109 (36%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 68 (23%), 1 (17%) Head On – 20 (7%), 0 (0%) Signalized 301 – 23% 6 – 24% Signalized 301 – 23% 6 – 24% Inters-Related 714 – 26% 53 – 28% Inters-Related 714 – 26% 53 – 28% City, Twnshp, Other 9,290 – 34% 149 – 18% City, Twnshp, Other 9,290 – 34% 149 – 18% Inters-Related 1,312 – 48% 25 – 36% Inters-Related 1,312 – 48% 25 – 36% Not Inters-Related 1,205 – 44% 41 – 60% Not Inters-Related 1,205 – 44% 41 – 60% Run Off Road – 294 (24%), 18 (44%) Head On – 90 (8%), 6 (15%) Rear End – 286 (24%), 4 (10%) Right Angle – 119 (10%), 3 (7%) Run Off Road – 294 (24%), 18 (44%) Head On – 90 (8%), 6 (15%) Rear End – 286 (24%), 4 (10%) Right Angle – 119 (10%), 3 (7%) Animal 301 – 10% 16 – 8% Animal 301 – 10% 16 – 8% Not Inters-Related 1,794 – 66% 127 – 68% Not Inters-Related 1,794 – 66% 127 – 68% Head On, SS Opp 130 – 7% 19 – 15% Head On, SS Opp 130 – 7% 19 – 15% On Curve 59 – 45% 5 – 26% On Curve 59 – 45% 5 – 26% Unknown/Other 230 – 8% 3 – 4% Unknown/Other 230 – 8% 3 – 4% Unknown/Other 208 – 8% 8 – 4% Unknown/Other 208 – 8% 8 – 4% Other/Unknown 367 – 28% 7 – 28% Other/Unknown 367 – 28% 7 – 28% Right Angle – 115 (38%), 10 (50%) “Other” – 58 (19%), 3 (15%) Run Off Road – 35 (12%), 2 (10%) Head On – 19 (6%), 2 (10%) Right Angle – 115 (38%), 10 (50%) “Other” – 58 (19%), 3 (15%) Run Off Road – 35 (12%), 2 (10%) Head On – 19 (6%), 2 (10%) Thru-Stop 303 – 42% 20 – 38% Thru-Stop 303 – 42% 20 – 38% Run Off Road – 128 (37%), 9 (31%) Left Turn – 25 (7%), 5 (17%) “Other” – 30 (9%), 5 (17%) Rear End – 56 (16%), 3 (10%) Run Off Road – 128 (37%), 9 (31%) Left Turn – 25 (7%), 5 (17%) “Other” – 30 (9%), 5 (17%) Rear End – 56 (16%), 3 (10%) Other/Unknown 344 – 48% 29 – 55% Other/Unknown 344 – 48% 29 – 55% Not Animal 2,717 – 90% 188 – 92% Not Animal 2,717 – 90% 188 – 92% All Way Stop 51 – 7% 4 – 8% All Way Stop 51 – 7% 4 – 8% Signalized 15 – 2% 0 – 0% Signalized 15 – 2% 0 – 0% Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). Includes Chisago County

07/19/2010 ATP 1 Crash Data Overview 5 Year Crashes ATP 1 27, Year Crashes ATP 1 27, State System 12,355 – 45% 384 – 48% State System 12,355 – 45% 384 – 48% CSAH/CR 5,766 – 21% 273 – 34% CSAH/CR 5,766 – 21% 273 – 34% Rural 3,019 – 52% 204 – 75% Rural 3,019 – 52% 204 – 75% Urban 2,747 – 48% 69 – 25% Urban 2,747 – 48% 69 – 25% All Way Stop 136 – 10% 1 – 4% All Way Stop 136 – 10% 1 – 4% Run off Road 1,154 – 64% 79 – 62% Run off Road 1,154 – 64% 79 – 62% On Curve 486 – 42% 37 – 47% On Curve 486 – 42% 37 – 47% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 246 (48%), 6 (55%) “Not Applicable” – 14 (3%), 2 (18%) SS. Opp – 21 (4%), 1 (9%) Left Turn – 43 (8%), 1 (9%) Right Angle – 246 (48%), 6 (55%) “Not Applicable” – 14 (3%), 2 (18%) SS. Opp – 21 (4%), 1 (9%) Left Turn – 43 (8%), 1 (9%) Thru-Stop 508 – 39% 11 – 44% Thru-Stop 508 – 39% 11 – 44% Left Turn – 52 (17%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 109 (36%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 68 (23%), 1 (17%) Head On – 20 (7%), 0 (0%) Left Turn – 52 (17%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 109 (36%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 68 (23%), 1 (17%) Head On – 20 (7%), 0 (0%) Signalized 301 – 23% 6 – 24% Signalized 301 – 23% 6 – 24% Inters-Related 714 – 26% 53 – 28% Inters-Related 714 – 26% 53 – 28% City, Twnshp, Other 9,290 – 34% 149 – 18% City, Twnshp, Other 9,290 – 34% 149 – 18% Inters-Related 1,312 – 48% 25 – 36% Inters-Related 1,312 – 48% 25 – 36% Not Inters-Related 1,205 – 44% 41 – 60% Not Inters-Related 1,205 – 44% 41 – 60% Run Off Road – 294 (24%), 18 (44%) Head On – 90 (8%), 6 (15%) Rear End – 286 (24%), 4 (10%) Right Angle – 119 (10%), 3 (7%) Run Off Road – 294 (24%), 18 (44%) Head On – 90 (8%), 6 (15%) Rear End – 286 (24%), 4 (10%) Right Angle – 119 (10%), 3 (7%) Animal 301 – 10% 16 – 8% Animal 301 – 10% 16 – 8% Not Inters-Related 1,794 – 66% 127 – 68% Not Inters-Related 1,794 – 66% 127 – 68% Head On, SS Opp 130 – 7% 19 – 15% Head On, SS Opp 130 – 7% 19 – 15% On Curve 59 – 45% 5 – 26% On Curve 59 – 45% 5 – 26% Unknown/Other 230 – 8% 3 – 4% Unknown/Other 230 – 8% 3 – 4% Unknown/Other 208 – 8% 8 – 4% Unknown/Other 208 – 8% 8 – 4% Other/Unknown 367 – 28% 7 – 28% Other/Unknown 367 – 28% 7 – 28% Right Angle – 115 (38%), 10 (50%) “Other” – 58 (19%), 3 (15%) Run Off Road – 35 (12%), 2 (10%) Head On – 19 (6%), 2 (10%) Right Angle – 115 (38%), 10 (50%) “Other” – 58 (19%), 3 (15%) Run Off Road – 35 (12%), 2 (10%) Head On – 19 (6%), 2 (10%) Thru-Stop 303 – 42% 20 – 38% Thru-Stop 303 – 42% 20 – 38% Run Off Road – 128 (37%), 9 (31%) Left Turn – 25 (7%), 5 (17%) “Other” – 30 (9%), 5 (17%) Rear End – 56 (16%), 3 (10%) Run Off Road – 128 (37%), 9 (31%) Left Turn – 25 (7%), 5 (17%) “Other” – 30 (9%), 5 (17%) Rear End – 56 (16%), 3 (10%) Other/Unknown 344 – 48% 29 – 55% Other/Unknown 344 – 48% 29 – 55% Not Animal 2,717 – 90% 188 – 92% Not Animal 2,717 – 90% 188 – 92% All Way Stop 51 – 7% 4 – 8% All Way Stop 51 – 7% 4 – 8% Signalized 15 – 2% 0 – 0% Signalized 15 – 2% 0 – 0% Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). Includes Chisago County

Crash Reporting is IMPORTANT Thank you for completing the reports It’s not just for insurance companies Today we are making decisions based on your reports $768,000, annually as of today Be objective, report what you find You are our eyes and ears on the road Video 14