Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
35% 12
11.1 Length (~236,775 feet)
VMT
Severe Curve Crashes (18 total)
30% 29%
28% 28% 27% Crash Rate 10
27%
25%
25%
22% 8
20%
Percentage (%)
20%
17% 17% 6
15%
15%
3.8 11%
10% 4
10% 2.9
5% 6%
4% 1.5 4% 2
5% 1.1 3%
0.7 0.9
2%
1%
0%
0% 0
0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500
Radius
Figure 12 Mn/DOT District 7 curve crashes disaggregated by radius (Source: Mn/DOT District 7
Highway Safety Plan).
last STOP sign (along the minor legs), presence of planning, county highway departments have little or
a rail crossing (on the minor leg), occurrence of no experience with safety analysis, the safety plan-
intersection-related crashes, and commercial devel- ning process, the competitive funding process, or the
opment. The exercise resulted in the ranking of 26 development of safety projects. Mn/DOT found that
high-priority intersections (see Figure 15). even after it opened its safety program to the counties
and dedicated almost one-half of HSIP funds to local
system projects, many county engineers were reluc-
SAFETY EXPERIENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
tant to participate, and few of the projects submitted
The participating states identified an addi- by the counties were consistent with the priorities
tional challenge that could be the most difficult to established in the SHSP. In response to this challenge,
overcome--the lack of safety-related experience Mn/DOT has just begun a statewide project to develop
among the staff at the local road authorities. Due to a safety plan for each of Minnesota's 87 counties,
their historic lack of involvement in statewide safety including a list of safety emphasis areas, a prioritized
list of safety strategies, and a unique list of safety
projects (the application of the high-priority strategies
in the at-risk locations in each county) consistent with
the state's SHSP. However, after completion of the
county safety plans, it will still be the responsibility of
the county engineer to respond to the HSIP solicita-
tion, submit project descriptions and cost estimates to
compete for HSIP funding, and then, if successful, to
prepare the construction documents necessary to get
to implementation.
Iowa also identified county engineers' lack of
safety-related experience as an issue. Iowa's response
Figure 13 Visual trap at a horizontal curve. included establishing both a county safety liaison
23
OCR for page 24
Corridor Crashes Severe RoR Length Intersection
Corridor Segment Description Curve Weighted ADT K A B C PDO K A Radius Curve on Curve Chevrons Visual Trap Rank
7 CSAH 3 Mower Co - CSAH 6 1 295 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 800 1,250 Yes xxx
9 CSAH 4 CSAH 5 - CSAH 22 6 3,075 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1,150 1,875 Yes xxx
11 CSAH 8 CSAH 6 - CSAH 35 3 1,150 None 0 0 1,150 1,050 Yes Yes xxxx
18 CSAH 11 CSAH 36 - CSAH 2 2 1,500 None 0 0 900 725 Yes Yes xxxx
20 CSAH 2 36th Ave NE - TH 42 4 3,200 None 0 0 1,050 1,500 Yes Yes xxx
21 CR 133 55th St NW - CSAH 14 6 1,600 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 800 1,100 Yes xxx
22 CSAH 3 CSAH 14 - CSAH 13 9 1,200 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 800 500 xxx
24 CSAH 12 US 52 - US 63 2 3,650 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1,000 725 Yes xxx
Byron City Limits - Dodge 5 2,150 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,100 1,025 Yes xxx
26 CSAH 5
Co (CSAH 17) 6 2,150 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,150 325 Yes xxx
41 CSAH 34 US 14 - CSAH 3 3 2,100 None 0 0 1,850 800 Yes Yes xxx
5 1,000 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 850 1,350 Yes Yes xxxxx
42 CSAH 3 CSAH 6 - CSAH 4
6 1,150 None 0 0 850 1,250 Yes Yes xxxx
1 1,250 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 850 1,225 Yes Yes xxxx
44 CSAH 6 CSAH 3 - US 63
2 1,250 None 0 0 800 1,250 Yes Yes xxxx
52 CSAH 10 Chatfield City Limits - I-90 4 480 None 0 0 800 1,250 Yes Yes xxx
1 1,900 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1,050 975 Yes xxx
63 CSAH 25 CSAH 3 - CSAH 22
3 1,900 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,150 1,075 Yes Yes xxxx
4 295 None 0 0 800 1,250 Yes Yes xxx
64 CSAH 23 CSAH 19 - TH 42
5 295 None 0 0 800 1,200 Yes Yes xxx
65 CR 143 CSAH 11 - CSAH 19 3 350 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1,000 375 Yes xxx
71 CSAH 16 CSAH 1 - US 52 3 400 None 0 0 850 1,275 Yes Yes xxx
75 CSAH 18 CSAH 12 - Wabasha Co 4 1,200 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1,300 600 Yes Yes xxx
4 11 24 15 47 3 6
-MnCMAT crash data, 2003-2007
-Curve #'s are based on the West to East and South to North road direction. 101
Figure 14 High-priority curves (Source: Olmsted County, Minnesota, Highway Safety Plan, September 2009).
OCR for page 25
Skew Curve ADT Ratio STOP Sign RR Crossing Crash Development Crash Right Angle Cumulative
Rank Intersection 29% 30% 34% 19% 1% 67% 4% Totals Rate Crashes Crash Cost Cost
1 Hwy 19 & CSAH 86 0.2 - 150,000 0.6%
2 CSAH 8 & CSAH 23 (North) 0.6 - 111,000 1.0%
3 CSAH 68 & CR 91 1.0 6 2,097,000 9.3%
4 Hwy 13 & CSAH 2 1.4 13 1,369,000 14.7%
5 Hwy 19 & CSAH 11 1.0 - 222,000 15.6%
6 Hwy 13 & CSAH 10 0.2 1 220,000 16.4%
7 CSAH 8 & CSAH 23 (South) 0.3 - 133,000 17.0%
8 CSAH 46 & CR 62 0.3 1 87,000 17.3%
9 CSAH 1 & CR 51 - - - 17.3%
10 CSAH 2 & CSAH 46 1.2 6 2,373,000 26.7%
11 CSAH 2 & CSAH 91 0.9 5 1,246,000 31.6%
12 Hwy 13 & CSAH 8 0.6 5 1,232,000 36.4%
13 CSAH 8 & CR 91 0.6 3 893,000 39.9%
14 CSAH 12 & CSAH 17 0.2 2 523,000 42.0%
15 Hwy 19 & CSAH 3 0.7 3 489,000 43.9%
16 Hwy 21 & CSAH 2 0.7 5 147,000 44.5%
17 CSAH 10 & CR 79 0.8 - 133,000 45.0%
18 Hwy 19 & CSAH 5 0.2 - 121,000 45.5%
19 Hwy 13 & CR 56 0.1 - 121,000 46.0%
20 CSAH 8 & CSAH 27 0.3 - 111,000 46.4%
21 Hwy 21 & CSAH 8 0.3 1 99,000 46.8%
22 CSAH 2 & CSAH 27 0.3 - 99,000 47.2%
23 CSAH 1 & CSAH 6 0.5 1 75,000 47.5%
24 Hwy 19 & CSAH 7 0.5 - 36,000 47.6%
25 CSAH 59 & CR 66 - - - 47.6%
26 CR 62 & CR 87 - - - 47.6%
Figure 15 Scott County, Minnesota, systemwide rural intersection prioritization exercise (Source: Scott County
Highway Safety Plan, March 2010).
position at the Institute for Transportation at Iowa ning or extending HSIP funds to projects on the local
State University (which is also the LTAP Center system. This challenge is the lack of technical staff at
for Iowa) and the Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service local agencies. In Missouri, for example, almost 90%
(ITSDS). The ITSDS provides local highway agencies of the counties have no county engineer. As a result,
with technical support for their safety planning efforts even if Missouri decided to change its approach to
by filling the gap between what safety analysts can statewide safety planning by reaching out to local
gather for themselves and what they can obtain from road authorities with technical assistance and fund-
experts. ing, it is possible that the local authorities would not
This last point leads to one final thought relative have professional staff familiar with the process for
to states' efforts to engage local road authorities. Even guiding safety improvement projects from conception
with extraordinary effort on the part of the states to to completion. For insight on the issue of the presence,
involve local road authorities in the statewide safety or lack thereof, of county engineers, the National
planning process, expertise and effort are required of Association of County Engineers (NACE) was con-
local road authority staff to achieve the desired out- tacted. NACE indicated that whereas Iowa, Min-
come of high-priority safety strategies implemented nesota, and Washington have a county engineer in
at identified at-risk locations. However, a number of every county, the majority of states do not; at the local
states said that they face a challenge beyond deciding road authority level, most states are a mix of engi-
whether or not to provide local authorities with crash neers and road superintendents with little formal edu-
data and technical assistance related to safety plan- cation and no experience with safety planning.
25
