HIGHWAY- RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROJECT SELECTION

Transcription

1 HIGHWAY- RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROJECT SELECTION Maureen Jensen P.E. Assistant Director Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations October 4, 2017 mndot.gov

2 Outline Grade Crossing Safety Background Development of Risk Factor Method Future Project Selection Process Discussion 10/4/2017 2

3 Minnesota Railroad Safety Facts In the state of Minnesota there are approximately 4,000 at-grade public crossings Of the 4,000 public crossings over a third have active warning devices (Gates, Flashers). Over 85% of trips (AADT) and 60% of trains cross at active crossings

4 Grade Crossing Safety Program Goals Eliminate fatalities and injuries at grade crossings (TZD) Maintain warning devices in a state of good repair Funding: Section 130: $6.5M State: $1 M 10/4/2017 4

5 Minnesota Grade Crossing fatalities Crossbucks Stop Sign Flashers Gates Total Did not stop Stopped on crossing Stopped then proceeded 2 2 Suicide 1 1 Went around gates 9 9 Went thru gate 1 1 Unknown Grand Total Percent of fatalities % AADT

6 MAP-21 PUW Process Update Candidate crossings were selected by each ATP, based on input from OFCVO, Local Road Authorities and railroads. OFCVO used the federal accident prediction (AP) model for screening - train and vehicle exposure, crash history. Didn t always result in the highest risk crossings (Federal Guideline) Local Road Authorities were unable to provide match funds in some cases ATP targets difficult to establish Could take 6 years to get a project programmed Most states taking a statewide approach STATEWIDE PROGRAM, NO MATCH 6

7 Development of Risk Factors for Screening (2015) Accident Prediction Equation wasn t aligning with the risks seen by MnDOT or road authorities Minnesota s 10-year crash history analysis 91% of public grade crossings had NO crashes. 96% had NO crashes resulting in injuries. 99% had NO fatal crashes. 1 crossing had TWO fatal crashes. More than 50% of crossings with a injury crash had NO prior crashes. Presence of a single crash at a crossing suggests that a second crash (in the next 10 years) is unlikely. 7

8 RISK FACTOR DETERMINATION 38% of Fatal Crashes vs. 24% of Crossings 42% of Fatal Crashes vs. 23% of Crossings 8

9 SELECTED RISK FACTORS Volumes Risk Factors Active Passive Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Roadway AADT 2500 Unlimited 150 Unlimited Total Trains per Day 10 Unlimited 4 Unlimited Volume Cross Product 20,000 Unlimited 750 Unlimited Speeds Roadway Speed Limit 45 Unlimited Maximum Timetable Speed 31 Unlimited 36 Unlimited Design Number of Mainline Tracks 2 Unlimited Skew Surroundings Distance to Nearby Intersection 1 foot 99 feet 40 feet 160 feet Distance to Nearest Crossing 0.5 mile 1 mile 0.5 mile 1 mile Clearing Sight Distance Any Quadrant Fails Any Quadrant Fails Approaching Sight Distance Any Quadrant Fails 9

10 Safety Improvement Strategies Warning Devices New signals and gates Signs and Pavement Markings Replacement of antiquated/upgrades Ped gates, mazes Medians Elimination of Hazards Improve geometrics Eliminate at-grade crossings (Consolidation, closure) Improve sight lines Grade separation (roadway, pedestrian) 10

11 District 8 ATP Projects FY The most successful safety strategies are not realistic for every at-risk crossing. Signals + Gates + Medians has the best safety performance but the highest implementation costs ($500k- $700k). Must be replaced every years. This results in a 300 year backlog. Need lower cost (and effective) alternative strategies. Location 2017 CSAH 6, 190 th St NE, Township of Roseville, Kandiyohi County- install gates 2017 M1, Dike Rd, Granite Falls, Yellow Medicine County - install gates 2017 CSAH 7, Stewart, McLeod County - upgrade system 2018 CSAH 4, 150th St SE, Atwater, Kandiyohi County - upgrade system 2018 CSAH 9, Darwin, Meeker County - upgrade system 2019 T 170, 45 th Ave SW, Township of Willmar, Kandiyohi County 2019 US 12, Willmar, Kandiyohi County - upgrade system Corridor approach (such as the Crude by Rail Corridor) and County Safety Plans are an opportunity to partner with local agencies to accomplish closures + upgrades 11

12 2017 New Project Selection Requirements FHWA 100% waiver for 130 ended must be Legislature: MnDOT needs to improve transparency on how projects are selected. Transparent Clear to the public Involvement of stakeholders Scoring formula Risk Factors are used to identify candidate pool, but are not the only factors for selecting safety projects and determining the best solution 10/4/2017 Optional Tagline Goes Here mndot.gov/ 12

13 Develop Project Selection Process Develop a Programming Update Workgroup Sub-committee to develop recommendations Include members from ATP, MPO, LRA, FHWA, MnDOT, State Aid Committee to review and recommend: Program Goals Statewide, APT approach Eligibility/Focus Areas/Investment Goals Selection/Scoring Criteria Process and Documentation (Solicitation, etc) Complete by May of 2018 for PUW, TPIC approval Begin Using for /4/2017 Optional Tagline Goes Here mndot.gov/ 13

14 Discussion and Questions 14

15 Thank you! Maureen Jensen /4/2017 Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations mndot.gov 15