Olmsted County Highway Safety Plan

TB072009008MKE Olmsted County Highway Safety Plan September 2009 Submitted to:

Table of Contents 1. Introduction...1-1 2. Comprehensive Crash Analysis...2-1 3. Safety Emphasis Areas...3-1 4. Safety Strategies...4-1 5. Detailed Crash Analysis...5-1 6. Safety Projects...6-1 7. Safety Policies...7-1

Section 1 Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1 Background Olmsted County prepared this Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the number of fatal and life changing injury crashes that occur on the County s system of highways. Other elements of this comprehensive approach include working with the Southeast Minnesota Towards Zero Death organization, participating in a fatal crash review committee along with members of law enforcement and emergency medical service providers and coordinating with the Sheriff s Department in order to identify opportunities for targeted enforcement campaigns. The traffic safety priorities identified in this SHSP are the results of a data driven analysis of the approximately 12,000 crashes that occurred in Olmsted County over the five year period between 2003 and 2007. This analytical process was consistent with the guidelines developed by the Federal Highway Administration in response to the safety initiatives contained in SAFETEA-LU (the most recent Federal Highway legislation) and with the process that produced Minnesota s SHSP. The primary objective of this Plan is to identify a specific set of safety oriented projects (the implementation of specific strategies at specific locations) and to have these projects directly linked to the causation factors associated with the most severe crashes on the County s system of highways. The basic steps in the process to link crash causation to mitigating strategy to location on the County highway system include (Figure 1.1): conducting a comprehensive crash analysis in order to disaggregate all crashes in Olmsted County by system (State vs. local), severity (in order to focus on fatal plus A type injury), location (urban vs. rural), intersection related vs. road departure and crash type (Chapter 2) identifying Olmsted County s Safety Emphasis Area s a subset of twentytwo categories of crash causation dealing with driver behavior, infrastructure and emergency medical services (Chapter 3) identifying a short list of high priority safety strategies that have been identified as being effective at reducing specific types of crashes (Chapter 4) identifying locations (segments, horizontal curves and intersections) on the County s highway system that are most at-risk based on a variety of system wide factors, including; severe crashes, design features, traffic volume and land use (Chapter 5) identifying safety improvement projects (specific strategies at specific locations) that would be eligible for funding from the State s Highway Safety Improvement Program HSIP (Chapter 6) INTRODUCTION 1-1

Select Critical Emphasis Areas Adopt Mission, Vision & Goal Develop Comprehensiv e List of Effectiveness & Implementatio Shortlist of Strategies Safety Strategies Workshop Critical Strategie s Develop High Priority Safety Detailed Crash Analysis Develop Safety Investment Identify Safety Related Policies Figure 1.1 Olmsted County Safety Plan Process This process is basically a multi-step prioritization exercise the causes of the most frequent type of severe crashes in Olmsted County were identified, this resulted in identifying a short list of high priority safety emphasis areas, this generated a short list of safety strategies which were then applied to Olmsted County s system of highways in order to identify specific safety improvement projects at the locations that were identified as being most at-risk. 1.2 Traffic Safety is an Important National Issue Fatal and life-changing traffic crashes are a public health epidemic in the United States, with 42,642 people killed in traffic crashes in the U.S. in 2006 an average of nearly 117 people killed every day (see Figure 1.2). In the same year, approximately 2.5 million people were injured. Over the past 15 years, the number of fatalities has slowly but steadily increased while the traffic fatality rate has remained at approximately 1.45 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles of travel (HMVMT) (see Figure 1.3). INTRODUCTION 1-2

Persons Killed in Traffic Crashes 60,000 1,200 National 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 1,060 875 52,627 1,024 44,525 777 980 51,093 558 42,589 47,087 42,642 42,013 39,250 615 650 644 655 538 568 494 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 Minnesota 20,000 400 15,000 10,000 National Minnesota 300 200 5,000 100 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Figure 1.2 Trend in Traffic Fatalities in Minnesota and Across the Nation All of this has occurred after significant and steady decreases in traffic fatalities and fatality rate through the 1970s and 1980s. It was in reaction to this trend that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recognized a need for a new approach to traffic safety. The response has been a renewed focus on addressing the most severe crashes, including fatal and life changing crashes, using a data driven process, encouraging the Four Es Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to work in coordinated efforts, and setting new goals to measure progress. Currently, the FHWA and the AASHTO set a goal to reduce the number of traffic fatalities by 1,000 each year for the next twenty years. The FHWA has determined that achieving this goal will only be accomplished if they partner with the individual States in order to be more successful at implementing projects and programs that target the factors contributing to the greatest number of fatal and severe crashes. In a similar fashion, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) recognized that it must engage the local agencies in strategic safety planning efforts because a review of the crash data reveals that approximately one-half of statewide traffic fatalities occur on the local road system and rural local roads are likely the most at-risk part of the system. 1.3 Minnesota s Plan to Improve Traffic Safety Similar to what happened at the National level; there were significant reductions in the number of traffic fatalities in Minnesota with corresponding decreases in the fatal crash rate from a peak in the 1970s. Between 1980 and 2000 there was a slightly increasing trend in 0 INTRODUCTION 1-3

Trends in Traffic Fatality Rate 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.2 5.0 4.74 National Minnesota 4.4 Fatality Rate (100MVM) 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.1 3.35 3.5 3.35 3.0 3.0 2.76 1.98 2.51 1.91 1.64 1.0 1.51 1.27 1.07 1.42 0.99 0.87 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Figure 1.3 Trend in Traffic Fatality Rate in Minnesota and Across the Nation Figure 1.4 Review of Traffic Fatalities by CEA for District 6 and Olmsted County Driver Behavior Emphasis Areas Infrastructure Emphasis Areas Total Fatalities Unbelted* Alcohol- Related Speeding- Related Young Driver Involved Single Vehicle Run-Off Road Intersection Headon Statewide 3,008 1,271 (52%) 1,068 (36%) 850 (28%) 718 (24%) 965 (32%) 1,004 (33%) 611 (20%) Total 368 168 (54%) 108 (29%) 124 (34%) 89 (24%) 142 (39%) 99 (27%) 78 (21%) District 6 State Highway 217 (59%) 87 (45%) 38 (18%) 62 (29%) 40 (18%) 68 (31%) 66 (30%) 50 (23%) Local Roads 151 (41%) 81 (68%) 70 (46%) 62 (41%) 49 (32%) 74 (49%) 33 (22%) 29 (19%) * Percentage for unbelted fatalities determined using vehicle occupant fatalities instead of all fatalities. Note: Shaded cells indicate the District or Olmsted County was five percentage points above the state average. Source: 2007 Minnesota SHSP using 2001-2005 crash data. the number of traffic fatalities while the fatal crash rate flattened, primarily due to increasing levels of vehicle miles traveled (the denominator in the crash rate equation). However, since 2000, both the number of traffic fatalities and the fatal crash rate have dropped by approximately 20%. The Minnesota Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety developed the Minnesota Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in December 2004. This Plan set forth a unified approach to address traffic fatalities in INTRODUCTION 1-4

Minnesota, created a Statewide goal for reducing traffic fatalities, identified key crash types to target (known as Critical Emphasis Areas) and identified high priority strategies that formed the focus of future programs and projects (known as Critical Strategies). The 2004 CHSP was updated to the 2007 Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) so that the Minnesota Plan complies with requirements in the most recent Federal legislation SAFETEA-LU. The 2007 Minnesota SHSP updated the statewide traffic safety goal, analyzed crash data in each Mn/DOT District and county, and also included outreach to the Mn/DOT districts and counties to provide education about the key findings in the 2007 Minnesota SHSP. The 2007 Minnesota SHSP established a new traffic safety goal reduce the number of traffic fatalities to 400 or fewer by 2010. And in setting a new goal, the 2007 Minnesota SHSP recognized the importance of reducing fatalities and life changing injuries in rural areas and on the local system. Without addressing these two important parts of Minnesota s transportation system, it is unlikely that Minnesota will achieve its new traffic safety goal. However, fatal and life changing crashes on rural and/or local are spread across a large system (more than 50,000 miles of roads), resulting in low density of severe crashes. As a result, the Minnesota SHSP called for adoption of proactive and system-wide deployment of low-cost strategies that can be cost-effectively deployed across many miles of roadways. 1.3.1 Priorities Identified in the 2007 Minnesota SHSP for District 6 and Olmsted County The update of the Minnesota s safety plan included a review of fatal and life changing crashes in each Critical Emphasis Area (CEA) for each District and on the local roads for each county. For District 6 (see Figure 1.4) the Mn/DOT District that includes Olmsted County the SHSP highlighted that unbelted drivers, alcohol-related, speeding and young drivers and single vehicle road departure crashes were over represented. For the entire system of local roads in District 6, the priorities are the same crashes involving driver behavior and single vehicle run-off-the-road (SVROR) crashes. The analysis in the SHSP of the local roads in each of the counties that makes up District 6 revealed that Olmsted County has the highest number of both total crashes and severe crashes in comparison to the eleven counties in District 6. Olmsted County was listed as a high priority in District 6 for the following CEA s: Reducing Impaired Driving, Speeding Related and all of the infrastructure related categories Single Vehicle Road Departure, Intersections and Head-On crashes. This analysis provided the initial insight relative to priorities for Olmsted County s infrastructure improvements the focus of this Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The Minnesota SHSP review of Olmsted County s local road crashes in the infrastructure CEA s shows that SVROR accounted for 38% of the fatalities and 19% of fatalities were intersection-related. In addition, of the severe (fatal plus A type injury) in Olmsted County, lane departure crashes (SVROR plus head-on crashes) accounted for 33% and intersection related crashes accounted for 54%. This supports an initial focus on lane departure and intersection related crashes as priorities in Olmsted County. INTRODUCTION 1-5

Section 2 Comprehensive Crash Analysis

2. Comprehensive Crash Analysis 2.1 County Wide Crash Overview The analysis of crashes in Olmsted County was conducted using the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). MnCMAT is a map-based computer application that provides a crash data base for every county in Minnesota. In MnCMAT individual crashes are spatially located by reference point along all roadways in each county and over 70 pieces of information are provided for each crash, including; route, reference point, day/date/time, severity, crash causation, road characteristics and driver condition. For Olmsted County, a data set consisting of five years of crash records was assembled; this data set includes a total of 11,151 crashes. In safety analysis, it is recommended to include more than one year of data in order to reduce the possibility of looking at a year that is unusual, to include as many years as necessary to produce a data set that will provide statistically reliable results, but to be careful going too far back in history because of a concern that conditions might have changed (for example, roads could have been reconstructed, STOP signs added, speed limits changed, etc.). For Olmsted County, it was concluded that a data set covering five years with over 11,000 crash records would be sufficient to provide the desired level of statistical reliability. The data set indicates that Olmsted County averages approximately 2,230 crashes per year on all systems of roads. Of these, 13 involve fatalities (0.6%), 54 involve severe injuries (2.4%) and 1,462 are property damage only (65%). Disaggregating these crashes by highway system results in the following (Figure 2.1): 52% of fatal crashes on the local system (County, municipal and township) 70% of severe injury crashes on the local system 59% of all crashes on the local system COMPREHENSIVE CRASH ANALYSIS 2-1

5 Year Crashes Olmsted County 11,151 334 Example All % Severe % State System 4,596 41% 111 33% Local System 6,555 59% 223 67% Interstate 259 5% 9 8% Expressway 4,207 92% 95 86% 2-Lane 130 3% 7 6% Urban 5,416 83% 120 54% Rural 1,139 17% 103 46% Unsignalized 1,220 23% 34 28% Other 2,625 48% 59 49% Signalized 1,571 29% 27 23% Road Departure 447 39% 47 46% Intersection 425 37% 31 30% All Way Stop 141 12% 1 3% Thru-Stop 1,044 83% 33 97% On Curve 171 38% 19 40% Other 276 62% 28 60% Right Angle 619 (59%), 19 (58%) Rear End 116 (11%), 4 (12%) Left Turn 109 (10%), 2 (6%) Sideswipe (Same) 42 (4%), 0 (0%) Right Angle 566 (36%), 11 (41%) Rear End 516 (33%), 7 (26%) Left Turn 207 (13%), 5 (19%) Sideswipe (Opp.) 84 (5%), 0 (0%) Figure 2.1 Olmsted County Crash Disaggregation Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. Severe is fatal plus serious injury crashes Right Angle 149 (35%), 16 (52%) Left Turn 42 (10%), 4 (13%) Rear End 76 (18%), 2 (6%) Ran Off Road 66 (16%), 2 (6%) This distribution reinforces the importance of Olmsted County s efforts to implement a safety improvement program the majority of crashes in Olmsted County are on the local system, not on the State s system of highways which have previously been the focus of deployment of safety improvement projects. The next level of analysis focuses solely on the approximately 1,300 crashes per year on the local system (MnDOT does their own analysis of the State s system and develops their own highway safety projects). Of these 1,300 crashes, approximately 1,083 (83%) occur in urban areas and 228 (17%) occur in rural areas. However, when only severe crashes are considered, there is almost an even split with 24 crashes (54%) in urban areas and 21 crashes (46%) in rural areas. In urban areas, 244 crashes (23%) occur at STOP sign controlled intersections, 314 crashes (29%) occur at traffic signals and the remainder of the urban crashes (48%) is not intersection related. The primary crash type at these urban intersections is a right angle, 59% at the STOP controlled and 36% at the traffic signals. It should be noted that these fractions of angle crashes are more than double the expected values for similar intersections across Minnesota. In rural areas, crashes are almost evenly distributed between the 89 road departure crashes (39%) and the 85 intersection crashes (37%). Key factors associated with these crashes include; 38% of the road departure crashes occurred in horizontal curves and 35% of the intersection crashes were right angle. Both of these statistics are much greater than expected, the fraction of curve related road departure crashes is about four times higher than the fraction of rural mileage that is on a horizontal curve and the fraction of angle crashes is about twice the value at similar rural STOP controlled intersections in Minnesota. COMPREHENSIVE CRASH ANALYSIS 2-2

Section 3 Safety Emphasis Areas

3. Safety Emphasis Areas In the late 1990 s The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted an evaluation of national efforts to reduce the number of traffic related fatalities through the on-going Highway Safety Improvement Program. Both AASTO and FHWA concluded that the state s efforts had not been sufficiently effective to lower the number of fatal crashes and two key factors were identified; the states efforts were not focused on the primary factors causing the fatal crashes so that too many of the safety projects that were being implemented were not the result of a data driven mapping process that directly linked crash causation to effective mitigative strategies. In response, AASHTO and FHWA developed a recommended safety program development process that included disaggregating system wide crash data into twenty-two categories (emphasis areas) dealing with Drivers, Special Users, Vehicles, Highways, Emergency Services and Management. The objective of this first step is to help agencies identify the safety priorities for their system using the specific crash data for their system. In addition, the identification of safety emphasis areas will also assist in subsequent steps in the process by helping reduce the universe of possible safety strategies to the short list associated with specific safety emphasis areas. This process was first conducted in Minnesota during the preparation of the State s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and resulted in the identification of the following State wide safety emphasis areas: Driver Behaviors Young drivers, Aggressive driving, Impaired driving and Seat belt usage Highways Road departure and Intersections An identical process was followed in Olmsted County that resulted in the distribution of severe crashes among AASHTO s twenty-two emphasis areas illustrated in Figure 3.1. This exercise indicates the categories where crashes are either over represented based on a comparison to State wide averages or where there is large enough number of crashes to represent an opportunity for a substantial crash reduction. As a result of this exercise, Olmsted County has adopted the following emphasis areas as the highest priority for safety on the local system of highways. Driver Behavior Young drivers, Aggressive driving, Impaired driving and Seat belt usage Special Users - Bicyclists Highways Road Departure (County Highways) and Intersections (County Highways and City Streets) SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 3-1

Drivers Special Users Vehicles Highways EMS Management Emphasis Area Young drivers Unlicensed drivers Older drivers Aggressive driving Impaired driving Alert drivers Safety awareness Seat belt usage Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcycles Heavy vehicles Safety enhancements Train collisions Road departure Consequence of leaving road Intersections Head-On Safer work zones Enhancing Emergency Capabilities Information and decision support systems More effective processes Statewide Percentage (2007 SHSP) 24% 11% 18% 28% 36% 19% -- 52% 8% 1% 9% 15% -- 1% 32% Varies 33% 20% 2% Varies -- -- Percentage of Severe Crashes 34%* -- 22% 25%* 15%* 14% -- 30%* 3% 4% 19% 7% -- 0% 47% Varies 48% 8% -- -- -- -- Olmsted County CEAs Figure 3.1 Olmsted County Emphasis Areas Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. Asterisk- MN SHSP. Olmsted Co. % = Severe crashes on CSAH or CR divided by Severe Crashes The key conclusion is that a focus on these safety emphasis areas represents the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of severe crashes in Olmsted County. SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 3-2

Section 4 Safety Strategies

4. Safety Strategies 4.1 Background Following the identification of the Safety Emphasis Areas, a short list of potential safety improvement strategies was assembled and a prioritization exercise was conducted at a Safety Workshop, in order to produce a list of Olmsted County s highest priority safety strategies. The culmination of the safety planning process occurs with the development of highway safety projects that involve the application of the highest priority strategies at specific locations on Olmsted County s highway system that were identified as being at-risk based on a combination of crash, traffic volume and roadway characteristics. The source of the initial list of potential safety strategies is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 500 Series Reports Guidance for Implementation of AASHTO s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This series of guides was developed to assist state and local highway agencies reduce the number of crashes in targeted safety emphasis areas. The guides basically correspond to the emphasis areas outlined in AASHTO s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and each guide contains a best practices list of strategies with value added information including; relative implementation costs and the expected safety effectiveness Proven (widely deployed and subject to a rigorous statistical testing), Tried (widely deployed but either lacking the statistical testing or with inconclusive results) and Experimental (too narrowly deployed to provide statistically significant results). The following sections document the development of Olmsted County s short list of high priority safety strategies that was assembled for each of the County s identified safety emphasis areas. The strategies are assigned to two basic categories Infrastructure and Driver Behavior. The development process began with a review of the NCHRP 500 series reports, followed with a an initial screening of the strategies performed by County staff and culminated with a prioritization exercise with the County s Safety Partners at a Safety Strategies Workshop. 4.2 Infrastructure Based Strategies 4.2.1 Road Departure Crashes From 2002 through 2006, there was an average of 89 road departure crashes per year on Olmsted County s system of rural highways. These road departure crashes accounted for nearly 44% of all fatal crashes on the County s system and 21% of severe crashes (fatal + A-injury crashes) in rural areas during the five year period. The majority of these fatal road departure crashes occurred during good weather conditions (93%) and on dry pavements (75%). Other characteristics of these fatal crashes that are worth noting include: Crashes on weekends are over represented (43% actual vs. 28% expected). Crashes during periods of darkness are over represented (64% actual vs. 11% expected) and 35% of the crashes occurred between midnight and 3 AM. SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-1

70% of the involved drivers were male and 67% of these were under 30 years of age. One final characteristic stands out 38% of all road departure crashes occur in horizontal curves, even though curves only account for around 10% of the mileage of the County s highway system. The initial list of strategies for reducing road departure crashes was based on information contained in Volume 6 of the NCHRP 500 series reports and contains thirteen items that are focused on achieving three primary objectives: Keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside 8 strategies involving improvements to the road edge. The guidance suggests that these (generally) low cost signs, markings and design features should be the highest priority for deployment because if you keep vehicles on the road, whatever is beyond the edge becomes a secondary issue. Minimize the likelihood of crashing into an object or overturning if the vehicle travels off the shoulder 3 strategies that improve the clear zone that area that extends from the road edge to the edge of the right-of-way. The guidance suggests that these (generally) higher cost efforts to remove obstacles and make slopes and ditches more traversable should be a lower priority because of the greater challenges associated with implementation, including; the much higher construction costs, possible need for acquiring new right-of-way and the potential need for environmental clearances and/or permits. Reduce the severity of crashes 2 strategies that address upgrading highway hardware. Upgrading guardrails and impact attenuators is considered to be a relatively low priority activity because it involves having to invest a moderate amount of money at a few locations that are only rarely struck during road departure crashes (at the national level striking a guardrail is involved in 3% of the road departure crashes and there were no instances of hitting a guardrail noted in the data set for Olmsted County). This initial list of strategies was then reviewed by County staff and five were eliminated from further consideration because they were considered to be either too expensive (regrading slopes and ditches could cost several hundred thousand dollars per mile and require the acquisition of additional right-of-way) or involved experimental strategies that had no history of application in Minnesota (mid-lane rumble stripes and delineating roadside objects with reflective tape). This screening effort resulted in the list of eight high priority road departure strategies identified in Figure 4.1. SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-2

Objectives 15.1 A -- Keep vehicles from encroaching on the roadside 15.1 B -- Minimize the likelihood of crashing into an object or overturning if the vehicle travels off the shoulder 15.1 C -- Reduce the severity of the crash Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Typical Timeframe for Implementation Strategies Effectiveness 15.1 A1 -- Install shoulder rumble strips Low Tried Short 15.1 A2 -- Install edgelines "profile marking", edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders Low Experimental Short 15.1 A3 -- Install centerline rumble strips Low Experimental Short 15.1 A4 -- Provide enhanced shoulder or Tried / Proven / Low Short delineation and marking for sharp curves Experimental Figure 4.1 Road Departure Safety Strategies Source: NCHRP 500 Series 15.1 A6 -- Provide enhanced pavement markings Low Tried Short 15.1 A8 -- Apply shoulder treatments *Eliminate shoulder drop-offs *Shoulder wedge *Widen and/or pave shoulders 15.1 B2 -- Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locations 15.1 C1 -- Improve design of roadside hardware Low Moderate to High Moderate to High Experimental/ Proven Proven Tried Medium Medium Medium 4.2.2 Intersections Almost 50% of the crashes on Olmsted County s system are intersection related, approximately 640 crashes per year. These intersection related crashes account for about 30% of fatalities on the County system and 40% of severe crashes. The majority of these crashes occur during good weather (91%) and on dry pavements (85%). Key characteristics associated with severe intersection crashes include: 67% of the crashes occur in urban areas and these are evenly distributed between signalized and unsignalized intersections. The remaining 33% of the intersection crashes occur at rural, STOP controlled intersections. The predominant crash type at intersections is a right angle crash 59% at urban unsignalized, 36% at urban signalized and 35% at rural unsignalized locations. Crashes on week days are over represented. Crashes during the afternoon hours are over represented. Approximately 60% of the involved drivers are male and both very young and middle aged drivers are over represented. The initial list of 28 strategies for reducing crashes at signalized intersections and 49 strategies for unsignalized intersections was based on information contained in Volume 12 and Volume 5, respectively, of the NCHRP 500 series reports. These strategies address SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-3

signal operations and visibility, intersection geometry, enhancing enforcement, managing access in the vicinity of the intersection, improved signs and markings, street lighting and the application of new technologies. This initial list was reviewed with County staff and approximately one-half of the strategies were eliminated from further consideration. Examples of the strategies that were not carried forward include: Strategies that were not associated with reducing the predominant crash type - auxiliary turn lanes were not carried forward because they are intended to reduce rear end crashes. Strategies that are intended to address conditions that are not common in Olmsted County - 85% of intersection crashes occur on dry pavements, so strategies intended to improve pavement skid resistance were not carried forward. Strategies that have not proven to reduce crashes in Minnesota installing transverse rumble strips on the minor approaches to STOP controlled intersections was not carried forward because research has never been able to demonstrate a crash reduction and because research has shown that the primary factor contributing to angle crashes at STOP controlled intersections is gap recognition as opposed to intersection recognition. This screening effort resulted in the identification of 10 priority strategies for signalized intersections (Figure 4.2) and 28 strategies for unsignalized intersections (Figure 4.3). Objectives 17.2 A -- Reduce frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through traffic control and operational improvements 17.2 B -- Reduce frequency and severity of intersection conflicts through geometric improvements 17.2 D -- Improve driver awareness of intersections and signal control 17.2 E -- Improve driver compliance with traffic control devices 17.2 F -- Improve access management near signalized intersections 17.2 G -- Improve safety through other infrastructure treatments Strategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 17.2 A1 -- Employ multiphase signal operation Low Tried / Proven Short 17.2 A2 -- Optimize clearance intervals Low Proven Short 17.2 A4 -- Employ signal coordination along a corridor or route Moderate Proven Medium 17.2 A6 -- Improve operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities at signalized Low Tried / Proven Short intersections 17.2 A7 -- Remove unwarranted signal Low Proven Short 17.2 B3 -- Improve geometry of pedestrian and bicycle facilities 17.2 D2 -- Improve visibility of signals and signs at intersections 17.2 E2 -- Supplement conventional enforcement of red-light running with confirmation lights 17.2 F1 -- Restrict access to properties using driveway closures or turn restrictions 17.2 G3 -- Coordinate closely spaced signals near at-grade railroad crossings Figure 4.2 Signalized Intersections Safety Strategies Source: NCHRP 500 Series Low Tried / Proven Short Low Tried Short Low Tried Short Low Tried Medium Moderate Tried Long SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-4

Objectives Strategies Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation 17.1 A -- Improve management of 17.1 A1 -- Implement driveway closure/relocations Moderate Tried Medium access near unsignalized intersections 17.1 A2 -- Implement driveway turn restrictions Low Tried Short 17.1 B4 -- Provide bypass lanes on shoulders at T- intersections Low Tried Short 17.1 B11 -- Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by signing Low Tried Short 17.1 B12 -- Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median openings Low Tried Short 17.1 B -- Reduce the frequency and severity of intersection 17.1 B13 -- Close or relocate "high-risk" intersections High Tried Long conflicts through geometric design 17.1 B14 -- Convert four-legged intersections to two T- improvements intersections High Tried Medium 17.1 C -- Improve sight distance at unsignalized intersections 17.1 B16 -- Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew High Proven Medium 17.1 B17 -- Use indirect left-turn treatments to minimize conflicts at divided highway intersections Moderate Tried Medium 171. B18 -- Improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities to reduce conflicts between motorists and nonmotorists Moderate Varies Medium 17.1 C1 -- Clear sight triangle on stop- or yield-controlled approaches to intersections Low Tried Short 17.1 C4 -- Eliminate parking that restricts sight distance Low Tried Short 17.1 D -- Improve availability of 17.1 D1 -- Provide an automated real-time system to inform gaps in traffic and assist drivers in drivers of suitability of available gaps for making turning and judging gap sizes at unsignalized crossing maneuvers intersections 17.1 E1 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing and delineation 17.1 E2 -- Improve visibility of intersections by providing 17.1 E -- Improve driver lighting awareness of intersections as 17.1 E4 -- Provide a stop bar (or provide a wider stop bar) on viewed from the intersection minor-road approaches approach 17.1 E5 -- Install larger regulatory and warning signs at intersections 17.1 E9 -- Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD 17.1 F -- Choose appropriate intersection traffic control to minimize crash frequency and severity 17.1 G -- Improve driver compliance with traffic control devices and traffic laws at intersections 17.1 H -- Reduce operating speeds on specific intersection approaches 17.1 I -- Guide motorists more effectively through complex intersections Figure 4.3 Unsignalized Safety Strategies Source: NCHRP 500 Series 17.1 F2 -- Provide all-way stop control at appropriate intersections Moderate Experimental Medium Low Tried Short Moderate to High Proven Medium Low Tried Short Low Tried Short Low Tried Short Low Proven Short 17.1 F3 -- Provide roundabouts at appropriate locations High Proven Long 17.1 G1 -- Provide targeted enforcement to reduce stop sign violations Moderate Tried Short 17.1 G2 -- Provide targeted public information and education on safety problems at specific intersections Low Tried Short 17.1 H1 -- Provide dynamic speed feedback signs Moderate Proven Short 17.1 H2 -- Provide traffic calming on intersection approaches through a combination of geometrics and traffic control Moderate Proven Medium devices 17.1 H3 -- Post appropriate speed limit on intersection approaches Low Tried Short 17.1 I1 -- Provide turn path markings Low Tried Short 17.1 I2 -- Provide a double yellow centerline on the median opening of a divided highway at intersections Low Tried Short 17.1 I3 -- Provide lane assignment signing or marking at complex intersections Low Tried Short 4.3 Driver Behavior Based Strategies 4.3.1 Seat Belt Usage Not using a seat belt is one of the key factors contributing to fatal crashes in Olmsted County. Crash data for the years 2002 2006 shows that 30% of the fatal crashes involved unbelted occupants and information provided by the County Sherriff indicates that in 2008, 78% of fatal crashes involved an unbelted occupant. In response to these statistics, a list of SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-5

seven strategies was assembled that is based on both the NCHRP 500 series reports and from a safe communities program in Wright County. These strategies focus on two areas increasing the use of occupant restraints and educating parents about the proper use of child and infant restraints. The priority seat belt usage strategies are documented in Figure 4.4. Objectives Strategies 8.1 A1- Conduct highly publicized enforcement campaigns to maximize restraint use. 8.1 A- Maximize use 8.1 A2- Provide enhanced public education to population groups of occupant restraints with lower than average restraint use rates. by all vehicle 8.1 A3- Encourage the enactment of local laws that will permit occupants standard enforcement of restraint laws. 8.1 A4- Support Legislation to change seat belt usage from a secondary to a primary offense. 8.1 B- Insure that restraints, especially child and infant restraints, are properly used 8.1 B1- Provide community locations for instruction in proper child restraint use, including both public safety agencies and health care providers, that are almost always available. 8.1 B2- Conduct high-profile child restraint inspection events at multiple community locations. 8.1 B3- Train law enforcement personnel to check for proper child restraint use in all motorist encounters. Figure 4.4 Seat Belt Usage Safety Strategies Source: NCHRP 500 Series and Safe Communities of Wright County Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation Moderate-High Proven Medium Low Proven Short Low Tried Medium Low Proven Medium Low Tried Short Low Proven Short Moderate Tried Short It should be noted that while Olmsted County was going through the safety planning process, Minnesota was a secondary state relative to the enforcement of seat belt usage a driver could only be issued a citation for not wearing a seat belt if they were stopped for another violation. This status as a secondary state lead to the inclusion of a strategy to support legislation to change enforcement of seat belt usage from a secondary to a primary offense. In May, 2009 the Legislature passed into law a statute that makes Minnesota a primary state and that law went into effect in August, 2009. 4.3.2 Impaired/Aggressive/Young Drivers Drivers under the age of 21 years were involved in more that one-third of fatal crashes in Olmsted County and aggressive and impaired driving were factors that contributed to 25% and 15% of fatal crashes, respectively. The priority list of fourteen strategies was developed that focus on two areas enforcement and education. The enforcement related strategies include support for more effective techniques and for legislation that would allow the use of two proven effective strategies that are currently prohibited in Minnesota the use of sobriety checkpoints (that are allowed in 38 states) and the use of ignition interlocks as a condition for license reinstatement following a DWI. The education related strategies are primarily focused on helping young drivers and a public information campaign to deter aggressive driving. The priority Impaired, Aggressive and Young Driver strategies are documented in Figure 4.5. SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-6

Objectives More Effective Traffic Enforcement Laws Strategies Support legislation to allow sobriety checkpoints (38 states allow) Enhance DWI detection through special DWI patrols and related traffic enforcement Publicize and Enforce Zero Tolerance Laws for Drivers Under Age 21 Targeted enforcement to deter aggressive driving in specific population, including those with a history of such behavior and at specific locations Relative Cost to Implement and Operate Effectiveness Typical Timeframe for Implementation Low Proven Medium Low Tried Short Moderate Proven Short Low Tried Short Ensuring Safer Bicycle Travel Deter aggressive driving Prosecute, Impose Sanctions on, and Treat DWI Offenders Public Outreach and Awareness Campaigns Seek increased County adoption of policies to better accommodate bicyclists on public roads, and encourage legislatures to fund bicycle facilities Low Tried Short Increase bicycle helmet usage Low Proven Short Provide separate trails for bicycling Moderate Tried Medium Provide wide paved shoulders along designated bicycle routes Moderate Tried Medium Reduce nonrecurring delays and provide better information about these delays Moderate-High Experimental Suspend driver's license administratively upon arrest Low Proven Medium Establish stronger penalties for BAC test refusal than for test failure Low Tried Long Eliminate diversion programs and plea bargains to non-alcohol offenses Moderate Tried Long Incarcerate offenders Moderate-High Proven Long Support legislation to require ignition interlocks as a condition for license reinstatement Engage parents through outreach programs designed to educate parents about driving tips for their teens Develop parent-teen driver's education presentations and handbook aimed at educating individuals on the risk of teen driving Create a seat belt challenge among high schools to encourage teens to buckle up Develop and implement a public education/information program on bicycle safety targeting all age groups of bicyclists and drivers Conduct educational and public information campaigns against aggressive driving Figure 4.5 Impaired/Aggressive/Young Driver/Bicycle Safety Strategies Source: NCHRP 500 Series and Safe Communities of Wright County Low Proven Medium Low Tried Medium Moderate Tried Medium Low Tried Short Moderate Tried Short Moderate Tried Short 4.3.3 Bicycles The analysis of Olmsted County s crash records data base found that bicycle related crashes are relatively infrequent, they account for approximately 4% of severe crashes (about 2/year). However, this frequency exceeds the statewide average (1%) and recent information indicates that bicycle related crashes are one of only two safety emphasis areas to see an increase over the past several years (the other emphasis area with an increase in crashes is motorcycles). As a result, a priority list of four bicycle safety strategies was assembled (Figure 4.5). SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-7

Figure 4.6 Workshop Voting Results SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-8

4.4 Safety Strategies Workshop A key element in Olmsted County s safety planning process included conducting a Safety Strategies Workshop. The Workshop was held on January 7 th, 2009 at the 4H Building on the County Fair grounds and was attended by 50 Safety Partners representing: Olmsted County - Public Works - Law Enforcement - Planning - Public Health - Board of Commissioners Cities - Rochester Public Works, Law Enforcement and Elected Officials - Elected officials from Byron, Chatfield, Oronoco and Stewartville Mn/DOT - District 6 staff - Central Office staff representing State Aid to Local Government and Traffic Engineering Townships Mayo Clinic Bicycle Advocates Driving Educators Figure 4.7 Edge Line Rumble StripE s The two primary objectives of the Workshop included sharing the results of the data driven analytical process and to provide a forum to review and discuss the short list of safety strategies with the County s Safety Partners. During the Workshop, the Safety Partners also participated in an exercise that resulted in a further screening of the safety priorities the highest ranked infrastructure and driver behavior based strategies are identified in Figure 4.6 and can be summarized as follows: Infrastructure Strategies - Edge Line Rumble StripE s (a series of grooves at the road edge that includes the white edge line Figure 4.7) - Red Light Confirmation Lights (Figure 4.8) - Improved Traffic Signs, Markings and Delineation (Figure 4.9) - Traffic Signal Coordination - Center Line Rumble Strips (Figure 4.10) Driver Behavior Strategies - Developing parent/teen driver education Figure 4.8 Confirmation Light in Dakota County SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-9

campaign - Support legislation changing seat belt enforcement to a primary offense (note this legislation was passed and went into effect in August, 2009). Figure 4.9 Improved Traffic Signs, Markings and Delineation Figure 4.10 Centerline Rumble Strips SAFETY STRATEGIES 4-10

Section 5 Detailed Crash Analysis

5. Detailed Crash Analysis The initial County wide analysis of crashes found that of the almost 1,300 crashes that occur on Olmsted County highways annually, approximately 83% occur in urban areas. However, when severe crashes were considered (fatal + A-injury) there was an almost even distribution with 24 severe crashes per year in urban areas and 21 severe crashes per year in rural areas. A more detailed review of the crash data found that four elements of the County system account for the majority (60%) of these severe crashes: 1) Rural highway segments (20%) 2) Urban STOP controlled intersections (16%) 3) Rural STOP controlled intersections (13%) 4) Urban signalized intersections (11%) The following sections document the results of detailed crash analysis of these four elements of Olmsted County s highway system and describe the characteristics and factors that contribute to the crashes that occur at these locations. This information was then used in a series of prioritization exercises that identified specific locations that are considered to be at-risk and therefore, candidates for safety investments. 5.1 Rural Highway Segments There are 324 miles of rural highway in Olmsted County s system and the predominant type of crash is a single vehicle running off the road. These single vehicle crashes account for almost 40% of all rural crashes and 46% of the severe rural crashes. Given that the desired end product is a list of safety projects the deployment of specific mitigation strategies at specific locations, a series of questions need to be answered. First, are all rural segments equally at risk? If so, any approach to implementation would be equally effective. However, if some segments are more at-risk than others, the most cost-effective approach to implementation would involve a screening exercise to identify the subset of the most at-risk segments. The first step of the detailed analysis of crashes along rural road segments consisted of disaggregating the 324 miles of rural highways into volume categories and then determining the distribution for each category of miles, vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and road departure crashes. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 5.1 and suggest that the approximately one-half of the system mileage with daily traffic volumes between 500 and 2,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is most at-risk based on the fact that the fraction of road departure crashes on these segments exceeds the fraction of VMT, these segments have the highest rate of road departure crashes (0.5 road departure crashes per million vehicle miles of travel) and this rate is 60% to 100% higher than for any of the other volume categories. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-1

35% 30% 33% CSAH Mileage (~324 miles) VMT Road Departure Crashes (275 total) 26% 25% 21% 23% 23% 20% 20% 19% 18% 17% 15% 15% 14% 13% 10% 5% 0% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 4000+ Figure 5.1 CSAH Mileage and Road Departure Crashes By ADT Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. The second step in the detailed analysis consisted of ranking the 38 segments in the 500 to 2,000 VPD volume category based on the number of road departure crashes, total crashes and severe crashes. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 5.2 and indicate a suggested priority that has the 3.4 mile segment of CSAH 36 (between US 52 and CR 143) ranked highest as a result of 12 road departure crashes, 3 severe crashes and 25 total crashes and the 1.9 mile segment of CSAH 18 (between CSAH 12 and the Wabasha County line) ranked 38 th with no crashes during the study period. The data also indicate that these 38 segments contain almost one-half of the road departure crashes that occur on Olmsted County s rural highways and almost 70% of all severe crashes. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-2

RoR Crashes Route From To ADT Length Crashes K A Total CSAH 36 US 52 CR 143 1050 3.4 12 2 1 25 CSAH 3 CSAH 6 CSAH 4 884 17.5 10 1 4 21 CSAH 3 CSAH 14 CSAH 13 1072 8.2 10 3 15 CSAH 14 Dodge County CSAH 3 (west) 600 5.3 6 1 8 CSAH 13 Dodge County Goodhue County 760 1.7 6 2 7 CR 112 CSAH 14 US 52 1070 4.4 6 1 17 CR 104 CR 117 CSAH 4 1100 6.6 6 8 CSAH 10 US 14 Wabasha County 1070 10.2 5 1 12 CSAH 15 TH 30 CSAH 25 552 6.6 4 6 CSAH 5 CSAH 25 US 14 680 5 4 8 CSAH 24 CSAH 2 Wabasha County 820 4.7 4 5 CSAH 6 CSAH 3 US 63 875 7.6 4 8 CSAH 10 Chatfield city limit I-90 569 8.2 3 1 3 CR 142 CSAH 7 Sheek Street N 770 5 3 1 3 CR 117 CSAH 15 CSAH 8 980 3.4 3 1 4 CSAH 8 CSAH 6 CSAH 35 1150 1.8 3 1 1 4 CSAH 5 Dodge County CSAH 22 CSAH 3 1450 5 3 5 CR 133 55th Street NW CSAH 14 1600 2.4 3 7 CR 114 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 600 2.1 2 4 CSAH 11 CSAH 2 TH 247 668 7.5 2 1 1 8 CSAH 3 CSAH 4 CSAH 14 800 0.25 2 2 CSAH 12 CSAH 3 US 52 810 3.5 2 3 CR 111 CSAH 1 US 52 820 2.6 2 1 3 CSAH 20 TH 30 CSAH 16 500 4.6 1 1 4 CSAH 7 US 52 I-90 790 2.3 1 4 CSAH 16 CSAH 8 CSAH 20 793 3.8 1 1 5 CSAH 16 CSAH 20 CSAH 1 800 1.4 1 1 CSAH 9 CSAH 10 Winona County 820 3 1 6 CSAH 14 US 63 CSAH 11 850 3.2 1 1 2 CSAH 20 CSAH 16 (west) US 63 940 4.4 1 2 CR 143 CSAH 36 CSAH 11 1104 2.4 1 3 CSAH 14 CSAH 3 US 52 1450 2.9 1 1 11 CSAH 8 Mower County CSAH 6 1500 0.5 1 2 CSAH 25 CSAH 3 CSAH 22 1720 5.5 1 1 1 10 CSAH 27 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 900 1.7 0 2 CSAH 19 CSAH 23 US 14 940 1.9 0 1 1 CSAH 10 I-90 US 14 1200 1.7 0 0 CSAH 18 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 1200 1.9 0 0 Total 164.2 116 8 23 239 Countywide Rural Corridor Total 323.5 275 15 40 539 Figure 5.2 Prioritizing Rural Segments with ADT between 500 and 2,000 The detailed crash analysis also identified a subset of the rural highway system that appears to be a factor that contributes to the overall frequency of road departure crashes horizontal curves (Figure 5.3). The 324 miles of rural County highways contains 239 horizontal curves and the total length of these curves is approximately 31 miles, or slightly less than 10% of the system mileage. However, 40% of both total road and severe road departure crashes occur in horizontal curves. As a result, it was concluded that horizontal curves are an at-risk element of the County s rural highway system and as was the case with the rural highway segments, an analysis was completed to prioritize the curves based on the relative degree of risk. The results of this analysis documented the following crash characteristics: Almost 75% of the curves had no crashes during the five year study period. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-3

Four of the curves had 1 fatal crash none had 2 fatal crashes. One curve had 2 A injury crashes and nine more curves had 1 A injury crash. One curve averaged 1 crash per year and the average annual number of crashes per curve was 0.08. 35% 30% 25% 33% 26% 28% 26% CSAH Mileage (~324 miles) VMT Total Curve Related RD (112 total) Total Curve Related (159 total) 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 21% 21% 20% 20% 18% 18% 18% 17% 15% 14% 13% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 4000+ Figure 5.3 CSAH Mileage and Curve Related Crashes By ADT Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. All of this information supports the notion that traditional methods of assigning safety risk based on the number of crashes could not be effective if applied to horizontal curves there are simply too few crashes in curves to be a reliable indicator of the relative degree of risk. As a result, a new technique was developed for Olmsted County that was based on combining an understanding of the characteristics of the curves in Olmsted County where crashes did occur with the results of similar efforts in other counties in Minnesota and with the results of recently published research by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Cost-Benefit-Analysis of In-Vehicle Technologies and Infrastructure Changes to Avoid Crashes Along Curves and Shoulders, University of Minnesota and CH2M HILL, June 2009). This detailed crash analysis of curve related crashes suggest that in addition to crashes, four features increase the level of risk at individual curves: Curve radius shorter curve radii result in higher crash rates (Figure 5.4). In Olmsted County, curves with radii less than 1,500 feet have crash rates two to three times greater than curves with longer radii. This relationship is similar to that found in the Minnesota and national research, but in these documents the radii/safety relationship is even more pronounced. Traffic volumes there is a range of volumes in each system that is over represented relative to the frequency of curve related crashes. In Olmsted County the curves in the volume range between 1,000 and 2,500 VPD accounted for 32% of the mileage, 39% of the VMT and 43% of the curve related crashes DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-4

(Figure 5.3). The fraction of the curve related crashes in each of the other volume categories was less than or equal to the fraction of VMT. Intersection in the curve the presence of an intersection in the curve increased the level of risk. Visual trap the presence of a visual trap (a situation that occurs when a crest vertical curve is ahead of the beginning of the horizontal curve of when there is a minor road continuing on the tangent Figure 5.5) increased the level of risk. 60% 3 2.7 53% Percentage (%) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4% 3% 20% 8% 38% 27% 1.8 34% 39% 37% 34% 27% 1.2 18% 14% 0.7 10% 0.7 6% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0.0 0% 1% 0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 Radius Length (~167,100 feet) VMT Severe Curve Crashes (15 total) Curves (240 total) Crash Rate 0.8 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Crash Rate (crashes/mvm) Figure 5.4 Curve Crashes Disaggregated by Radius Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-5

Figure 5.5 CSAH Visual Trap This information resulted in the development of a prioritization process that documented these five factors at each of the 239 curves. An example of the application of these factors to a sample of the horizontal curves is illustrated in Figure 5.6 and the results of applying the process, a ranking of the twenty-two most at-risk curves, is documented in Figure 5.7. These twenty-three curves represent under 10% of all curves in Olmsted County s system, but 50% of the curve related fatal crashes and 64% of the severe curve related crashes. In addition, these curves include one where all five factors were present, six curves where four factors were present and sixteen curves where three factors were present. 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 8 CSAH 8 Mower Co - CSAH 6 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1,300 425 x 2 1,500 None 0 0 150 125 x 1 1,950 None 0 0 1,250 700 xx 2 1,950 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,150 650 xx 9 CSAH 4 CSAH 5 - CSAH 22 3 2,650 None 0 0 3,000 600 4 2,650 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3,000 725 Yes x 5 2,650 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1,150 1,225 Yes xx 6 3,075 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1,150 1,875 Yes xxx 10 CR 154 US 52 - CR 112 No Curves 1 1,150 None 0 0 2,500 650 Yes xx 11 CSAH 8 CSAH 6 - CSAH 35 2 1,150 None 0 0 2,200 600 x 3 1,150 None 0 0 1,150 1,050 Yes Yes xxxx 4 1,150 None 0 0 1,600 775 Yes xx 1 2,100 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 600 875 Yes Yes Yes xxx 2 2,100 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 600 875 Yes Yes xxx 12 CSAH 8 CSAH 35 - Meadow 3 3,500 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1,100 325 x Crossing Rd 4 3,500 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,150 850 x 5 3,500 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 850 1,000 x 6 3,500 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1,450 825 Figure 5.6 Curve Prioritization Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-6

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 26 CSAH 5 Byron City Limits - Dodge 5 2,150 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,100 1,025 Yes xxx 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 42 CSAH 3 CSAH 6 - CSAH 4 5 1,000 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 850 1,350 Yes Yes xxxxx 6 1,150 None 0 0 850 1,250 Yes Yes xxxx 44 CSAH 6 CSAH 3 - US 63 1 1,250 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 850 1,225 Yes Yes xxxx 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 63 CSAH 25 CSAH 3 - CSAH 22 1 1,900 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1,050 975 Yes xxx 3 1,900 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,150 1,075 Yes Yes xxxx 64 CSAH 23 CSAH 19 - TH 42 4 295 None 0 0 800 1,250 Yes Yes xxx 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 Figure 5.7 High Priority Curves 5.2 Urban STOP Controlled Intersections Approximately 30% of the severe crashes that occur along Olmsted County s urban system of highways occur at STOP controlled intersections and the most common type of crash at these intersections is a right angle collision (60%). The detailed analysis found that over 80% of these severe crashes occurred in Rochester and the remainder occurred in Oronoco and Stewartville. The analysis also found: The intersections with severe crashes in Oronoco have already been improved as a result of the various upgrading projects along TH 52. The intersections in Stewartville are along a segment of TH 63 that is 30 miles per hour and the officers that investigated the crashes could not identify any contributing factors. As a result, the detailed analysis focused in on the 80% of the crashes that occurred at STOP controlled intersections in Rochester. The next step in the analytical process involved identifying locations with multiple crashes and in this case all crashes (not just severe) were considered in order to increase the size of the data set. This helps in the identification of factors contributing to the types of crashes which are of most interest right angle collisions. A total of five intersections in Rochester were identified as having more than five crashes (Figure 5.8) and two items stand out right angle collisions (48%) are the type most over represented in the sample and two of the multiple crash intersections are located along Circle Drive (NE, NW and SW). Circle Drive is in fact the only road with more than one intersection with multiple crashes. Crash Severity Intersection K A B C PDO US 14 & CSAH 7 3 3 10 US 63 & CSAH 6 1 2 2 13 CSAH 25 & CR 125 4 11 CSAH 9 & CR 155 4 1 4 CSAH 22 & CSAH 25 (west) 1 2 4 CSAH 22 & 9th St NW 2 3 11 DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-7

Figure 5.8 Urban STOP Controlled Intersections with more than five crashes Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. 5.3 Rural STOP Controlled Intersections Approximately 30% of the severe crashes along Olmsted County s rural system of highways occur at STOP controlled intersections and the most common type of crash at these intersections is a right angle collision (52%). Given that there are approximately 350 of these intersections across the County, it was determined that the analysis would focus on the subset of intersections where the probability of conflicts was greatest at the highest volume intersections. A further review of the County s system found that these high volume intersections can be identified by the jurisdiction of the entering legs as a result, the subset of STOP controlled intersections included in the detailed analysis were defined by having at least one leg on the County State Aid Highway system and the remaining legs on either the County State Aid or the State Trunk Highway system. This subset was found to include a total of 71 intersections and this group of intersections was found to account for almost onethird of both total and the severe intersection related crashes in the County. In order to further prioritize the Stop controlled rural intersections, additional analysis found that a particular group of intersections had on average the highest crash rates intersections with a ratio of Minor Leg Average Daily Traffic/Major Leg Average Daily Traffic between 0.3 and 0.5 (Figure 5.9). The twenty-five intersections in this range of ADT s have crash rates that average more than 0.6 crashes per million entering vehicles and this rate is 50% greater than the Countywide average and more than twice the average in any other volume category. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-8

0.80 0.70 Crash Rate 0.60 0.50 Crash Rate 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.5-0.8 0.8+ ADT Range (Minor/Major) Figure 5.9 Rural STOP Intersections Crash Rate by ADT Range Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. Finally, these intersections were prioritized by their crash rate, with the resulting ranking identified in Figure 5.10. It should be noted that these twenty-five intersections account for around 5% of all rural STOP controlled intersections but they account for 19% of total rural intersection crashes and 13% of severe intersection related crashes. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-9

Figure 5.10 Prioritization of Rural STOP Controlled Intersections Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2002-2006. 5.4 Urban Signalized Intersections Approximately 20% of the severe crashes in urban areas in Olmsted County occur at signalized intersections. The most common type of severe crash at the signals along the County s system in and around Rochester is a right angle collision (41%). The detailed analysis of the crash data found three corridors CSAH 22 East, CSAH 22 West and TH 14 (the South Beltway where many of the cross streets are County highways) - with the greatest concentration of both total crashes and angle crashes. The twenty-eight signalized intersections along these corridors account for approximately 20% of the signalized intersections in Olmsted County, but they account for 28% of all crashes and 37% of all right angle crashes. In addition, right angle crashes at these twenty-eight signals accounted for 64% of the severe crashes clearly, crashes, angle crashes and severe angle crashes are over represented at these intersections. The twenty-eight signalized intersections along these high priority corridors are identified in Figure 5.11. DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-10

US 14 from US 52 to CSAH 11 US 14 and Memorial Pkwy SW (+) US 14 and 12 th St SW (T) US 14 and TH 63 (+) US 14 and CR 146 (3 rd Ave SE) (+) US 14 and 8 th Ave SE (+) US 14 and CSAH 1 (11 th Ave SE) (+) US 14 and CSAH 36 (15 th Ave SE) (+) US 14 and CSAH 22 (T) US 14 and CSAH 11 (+) CSAH 22 (West) from US 52 to US 52/14 CSAH 22 and West Frontage Rd (+) CSAH 22 and Chateau Rd NW (+) CSAH 22 and 55 th St NW (+) CSAH 22 and 41 st St. NW (T) CSAH 22 and CSAH 4 (Valley High Dr NW) (+) CSAH 22 and 19 th St NW (+) CSAH 22 and 7 th St NW (North) (+) CSAH 22 and 7 th St NW (South) (+) CSAH 22 and CSAH 34 (Country Club Rd SW) (+) CSAH 22 and CSAH 8 (Bamber Valley Rd SW) (T) CSAH 22 and CSAH 25 (16 th St SW) (T) CSAH 22 and Fox Valley Dr SW (+) CSAH 22 (East) from US 14 to US 52 CSAH 22 and CSAH 9 (Collegeview Rd E) (+) CSAH 22 and CSAH 2 (Viola Rd NE) (+) CSAH 22 and TH 63 (+) CSAH 22 and East River Rd NE (+) CSAH 22 and West River Pkwy NW (+) CSAH 22 and 18 th Ave NW (+) CSAH 22 and 22 nd Ave NW (+) Figure 5.11 Signalized Intersections along High Priority Corridors Note: Italics indicate signals under County Jurisdiction. (+)-Four-leg intersection, (T)-Three-leg intersection DETAILED CRASH ANALYSIS 5-11

Section 6 Safety Projects

6. Safety Projects One of the key objectives of Olmsted County s safety planning effort involved identifying low cost safety related projects that are focused on the County s documented safety emphasis areas. These safety emphasis areas contain the greatest number of severe crashes occurring along the County s system of highways and deploying mitigations for the factors contributing to these crashes represent the best opportunity to move Olmsted County Towards Zero Deaths. The need for low cost projects that can be widely deployed across the County s system of highways is based on the fact that Olmsted County averages 45 severe crashes (Fatal + A Injury) per year and these are spread across more than 300 miles of County highways and hundreds of intersections. As a result, the density of these severe crashes is very low and Minnesota s Strategic Highway Safety Plan has demonstrated that the most effective programmatic approach involves a wide application of relatively low cost safety projects. The effort to develop low cost safety projects is based on the application of high priority strategies at the most at-risk locations that were identified as part of the detailed analysis of the County s system of highways. The high priority safety strategies were identified in Chapter 4, and basically consist of the following types of improvements: Improvements to the edges of rural highways and enhanced delineation of horizontal curves in rural areas. Upgrading the signs and pavement markings, installing street lights and providing dynamic warning signs at rural STOP controlled intersections. Adding technology at signalized intersections to support increased enforcement levels for red light running. Adding channelization and median islands to restrict/control turning maneuvers at urban STOP controlled intersections. The at-risk locations were documented in Chapter 5, and include rural County highway segments, STOP controlled intersections in both rural and urban areas and signalized intersections. The low cost safety projects that are suggested for implementation are described in the following sections. It should be noted that the list of potential projects is greater than what can reasonably be undertaken in a single year based on funding limitations and that the actual schedule for implementation of individual projects will be a function of securing funding from the State s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). It should also be noted that the safety planning process that Olmsted County followed is consistent with the Minnesota s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and that the high priority safety strategies are among those recommended for local systems in the State s Strategic Plan. Both of these items put Olmsted County in a position to be successful at securing HSIP funding. SAFETY PROJECTS 6-1

6.1 Infrastructure Based 6.1.1 Rural Highway Segments The high priority strategies identified using edge line rumble stripes and 6 inch wide edge lines (Figure 6.1) to better delineate the road edges and increased use of Chevron warning signs to define horizontal curves in order to help keep drivers on the roads. Three projects involving the deployment of these strategies are suggested. Figure 6.1 Rumble StripEs and 6 Inch Wide Edge Line The 324 miles of rural County Highway were divided into 52 distinct segments and these segments were then ranked based on a combination of crash and traffic volume characteristics. The first low cost safety project consists of adding edge line rumble stripes to the thirty-eight highest priority segments (approximately 164 miles) described in Figure 6.2. This group of highway segments was designated as the highest priority for edge treatments because they fall in a range of daily traffic volumes (500 to 2,000 vehicles per day) that has the highest fraction and rate of road departure crashes. The estimated cost of deploying edge line rumble stripe s is $2,400/mile and the estimated cost of the project is almost $400,000. SAFETY PROJECTS 6-2

RoR Crashes Route From To ADT Length Crashes K A Total CSAH 36 US 52 CR 143 1050 3.4 12 2 1 25 CSAH 3 CSAH 6 CSAH 4 884 17.5 10 1 4 21 CSAH 3 CSAH 14 CSAH 13 1072 8.2 10 3 15 CSAH 14 Dodge County CSAH 3 (west) 600 5.3 6 1 8 CSAH 13 Dodge County Goodhue County 760 1.7 6 2 7 CR 112 CSAH 14 US 52 1070 4.4 6 1 17 CR 104 CR 117 CSAH 4 1100 6.6 6 8 CSAH 10 US 14 Wabasha County 1070 10.2 5 1 12 CSAH 15 TH 30 CSAH 25 552 6.6 4 6 CSAH 5 CSAH 25 US 14 680 5 4 8 CSAH 24 CSAH 2 Wabasha County 820 4.7 4 5 CSAH 6 CSAH 3 US 63 875 7.6 4 8 CSAH 10 Chatfield city limit I-90 569 8.2 3 1 3 CR 142 CSAH 7 Sheek Street N 770 5 3 1 3 CR 117 CSAH 15 CSAH 8 980 3.4 3 1 4 CSAH 8 CSAH 6 CSAH 35 1150 1.8 3 1 1 4 CSAH 5 Dodge County CSAH 22 CSAH 3 1450 5 3 5 CR 133 55th Street NW CSAH 14 1600 2.4 3 7 CR 114 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 600 2.1 2 4 CSAH 11 CSAH 2 TH 247 668 7.5 2 1 1 8 CSAH 3 CSAH 4 CSAH 14 800 0.25 2 2 CSAH 12 CSAH 3 US 52 810 3.5 2 3 CR 111 CSAH 1 US 52 820 2.6 2 1 3 CSAH 20 TH 30 CSAH 16 500 4.6 1 1 4 CSAH 7 US 52 I-90 790 2.3 1 4 CSAH 16 CSAH 8 CSAH 20 793 3.8 1 1 5 CSAH 16 CSAH 20 CSAH 1 800 1.4 1 1 CSAH 9 CSAH 10 Winona County 820 3 1 6 CSAH 14 US 63 CSAH 11 850 3.2 1 1 2 CSAH 20 CSAH 16 (west) US 63 940 4.4 1 2 CR 143 CSAH 36 CSAH 11 1104 2.4 1 3 CSAH 14 CSAH 3 US 52 1450 2.9 1 1 11 CSAH 8 Mower County CSAH 6 1500 0.5 1 2 CSAH 25 CSAH 3 CSAH 22 1720 5.5 1 1 1 10 CSAH 27 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 900 1.7 0 2 CSAH 19 CSAH 23 US 14 940 1.9 0 1 1 CSAH 10 I-90 US 14 1200 1.7 0 0 CSAH 18 CSAH 12 Wabasha County 1200 1.9 0 0 Total 164.2 116 8 23 239 Countywide Rural Corridor Total 323.5 275 15 40 539 Figure 6.2 Rumble StripEs and 6 Inch Wide Edge Line Projects A second safety project involves adding a 6 wide edge line to an additional fourteen segments (approximately 84 miles) as described in Figure 6.3. These segments were designated as a second priority for edge treatments based on having the next highest fraction and rate of road departure crashes. The estimated cost of installing a 6 edge line is $300/mile and the estimated cost of the project is $25,000. SAFETY PROJECTS 6-3

RoR Crashes Route From To ADT Length Crashes K A Total CSAH 1 Fillmore County US 52 3395 10.3 16 1 25 CSAH 8 CSAH 35 Meadow Crossing Road 2190 8.7 14 1 2 21 CSAH 4 CSAH 5 CSAH 22 2695 6.8 13 1 28 CR 147 48th Street SW CR 125 2210 3.3 11 16 CSAH 2 36th Avenue NE TH 42 2557 8.5 11 3 17 CSAH 9 CSAH 22 CSAH 10 2146 13.9 9 19 CSAH 11 CSAH 36 CSAH 2 2195 6.6 9 1 1 16 CSAH 21 US 63 Wabasha County 2600 5 8 1 10 CSAH 34 CSAH 3 CSAH 22 2100 4.6 7 17 CSAH 12 US 52 US 63 2330 6.6 7 3 13 CSAH 5 Bryon city limits Dodge County CSAH 17 2125 4 4 1 9 CR 154 US 52 CR 112 2800 1.6 3 1 10 CSAH 35 CSAH 8 US 63 3150 2 3 1 6 CSAH 34 US 14 CSAH 3 2100 1.7 1 2 Total 83.6 116 5 12 209 Countywide Rural Corridor Total 323.5 275 15 40 539 Figure 6.3 6 Inch Wide Edge Line Projects A third safety project addressing road departure crashes involves adding Chevron warning signs (Figure 6.4) at the group of twenty-two high risk horizontal curves identified in Figure 6.5. The estimated cost of adding chevrons is $1,000/curve and the estimated cost of the project is $22,000. Figure 6.4 Typical Chevron on Curves SAFETY PROJECTS 6-4

Corridor Segment Description Curve 7 CSAH 3 Mower Co - CSAH 6 1 9 CSAH 4 CSAH 5 - CSAH 22 6 11 CSAH 8 CSAH 6 - CSAH 35 3 18 CSAH 11 CSAH 36 - CSAH 2 2 20 CSAH 2 36th Ave NE - TH 42 4 21 CR 133 55th St NW - CSAH 14 6 22 CSAH 3 CSAH 14 - CSAH 13 9 24 CSAH 12 US 52 - US 63 2 26 CSAH 5 Byron City Limits - Dodge 5 Co (CSAH 17) 6 41 CSAH 34 US 14 - CSAH 3 3 42 CSAH 3 CSAH 6 - CSAH 4 5 6 44 CSAH 6 CSAH 3 - US 63 1 2 52 CSAH 10 Chatfield City Limits - I-90 4 63 CSAH 25 CSAH 3 - CSAH 22 1 3 64 CSAH 23 CSAH 19 - TH 42 4 5 65 CR 143 CSAH 11 - CSAH 19 3 71 CSAH 16 CSAH 1 - US 52 3 75 CSAH 18 CSAH 12 - Wabasha Co 4 Figure 6.5 High Priority Curves 6.1.2 Urban STOP Controlled Intersections The detailed crash analysis found that 82% of the severe crashes at urban STOP controlled intersections were in Rochester, that 63% of these involved right angle collisions and that the only highway with multiple intersections with severe crashes was CSAH 22 (Circle Drive). This information combined with the high priority safety strategy that involves restricting crossing/turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median openings points to a safety project at the STOP controlled intersections along CSAH 22. The suggested safety project would involve either building median islands or channelizing islands on the minor leg approaches at selected intersections along CSAH 22 (Figure 6.6) that would prevent the most hazardous movements at the intersections the minor road crossing maneuvers. The estimated cost of these intersection modifications is $75,000/intersection and the estimated cost for addressing the five intersections (Figure 6.7) identified as black spots (those with 5 or more crashes during the study period) is $450,000. SAFETY PROJECTS 6-5

Figure 6.6 Examples of Median Restrictions Source: Google Maps Intersection Ring CSAH 22 and 6th Ave NE CSAH 22 and Century Valley Road NE NE CSAH 22 and 1st Street NW NW CSAH 22 and 26th Street/Technology Drive NW CSAH 22 and 9th Street NW Figure 6.7 Intersections for Minor Leg Channelization 6.1.3 Rural STOP Controlled Intersections The detailed crash analysis of rural STOP controlled intersections found that the most common crash type at the twenty-five high priority intersections was a right angle collision (57%) and that almost 65% of the severe crashes occurred during dark conditions. Combining this data with the high priority strategies results in three safety projects at rural STOP controlled intersections. The six top ranked intersections (Figure 6.8) on the high priority list have the highest crash rates (five above the critical crash rate), account for 67% of total crashes and 75% of the severe crashes occurring at the twenty-five high priority intersections. The suggested project at these six intersections involves installing a mainline dynamic warning sign (Figure 6.9), street lighting (Figure 6.10) and upgraded signs and pavement markings (Figure 6.11). The estimated cost of adding these safety features is $45,000/intersection and the estimated cost of the project is $270,000. Number Intersection Actual Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate 1 CSAH 23 & CSAH 19 (East) 2.52 2.20 2 CSAH 3 & CSAH 34 1.57 0.92 3 CSAH 3 & CSAH 12 1.22 1.27 4 US 63 & CSAH 14 1.11 0.67 5 US 63 & CSAH 12/TH 247 1.02 0.73 6 TH 42 & CSAH 9 0.85 0.82 Figure 6.8 Top Six High Priority Rural STOP Controlled Intersections SAFETY PROJECTS 6-6

Figure 6.9 Mainline Dynamic Warning Sign Figure 6.10 Street Lighting SAFETY PROJECTS 6-7

Figure 6.11 Upgraded Signs and Markings The second project involves addressing the next six intersections on the list of high priority intersections (Figure 6.12). These intersections have crash rates above the countywide average and account for over 20% of total crashes occurring at the high priority intersections. The suggested project involves installing street lights and upgraded signs and pavement markings at an estimated cost of $15,000/intersection and an estimated project cost of $90,000. Number Intersection Actual Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate 7 CSAH 3 & CSAH 5 0.70 1.02 8 TH 30 & CSAH 1 0.56 0.94 9 TH 30 & CSAH 8 0.54 0.85 10 CSAH 11 & CSAH 14 0.50 1.38 11 CSAH 20 & CSAH 16 0.49 1.37 12 CSAH 11 & CSAH 9 0.47 0.81 Figure 6.12 High Priority Intersections 7 thru 12 The third project involves upgrading the signs and pavement markings at the remaining 13 locations (Figure 6.13) on the list of high priority intersections. The estimated cost of SAFETY PROJECTS 6-8

upgrading the signs and pavement markings is $7,000/intersection and the estimated project cost is $91,000. Number Intersection Actual Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate 13 CSAH 16 & CSAH 20 0.40 1.26 14 CSAH 14 & CSAH 3 (west) 0.38 1.24 15 CSAH 6 & CSAH 8 (west) 0.37 1.22 16 CSAH 14 & CR 112 0.19 0.69 17 CSAH 34 & CR 104 0.19 0.94 18 CSAH 5 & CSAH 4 0.18 0.93 19 CSAH 4 & CSAH 3 (west) 0.18 0.93 20 CSAH 36 & CSAH 11 0.09 0.75 21 US 14 & CSAH 11 0.05 0.65 22 CSAH 8 & CSAH 35 0.00 0.97 23 CSAH 6 & CSAH 8 (east) 0.00 1.08 24 CSAH 25 & CSAH 5 0.00 1.47 25 CSAH 3 & CSAH 17 0.00 1.43 Figure 6.13 High Priority Intersections 13 thru 25 6.1.4 Urban Signalized Intersections The detailed crash analysis of the signalized intersections documented that the most common type of crash is a right angle collision (41%). In order to have two vehicles in the intersection at the same time, it is clear that (at least) one of the vehicles had made an error and was in the intersection when the light was red. A review of the design guides for traffic signals suggests that implementation of a number of mitigation strategies to improve driver s compliance with signal change intervals, which includes, the use of overhead indications, 12-inch lenses and background shields. A review of the signalized intersections in Olmsted County found that the County, Mn/DOT and the City of Rochester all routinely provide these features. This suggests that signal design features are likely not a factor contributing to the red light running that is associated with the right angle collisions and points towards an enhanced enforcement effort. Conversations with law enforcement officials in Rochester found a recognition that red light running was an important issue, but they were not able to assign enough officers to this detail due to staff limitations and the fact that it requires a minimum of two officers to safely carry out the operation (one on the approach to witness the violation and a second on the far side to chase the violator). In order to enhance the enforcement of red light running, a new technology has been developed involving the addition of a confirmation light (Figure 6.14) on the back of the signal mast arms. This light is wired into the red light circuit of the signal so that one officer on the far side of the intersection can observe the confirmation light (which comes on when the red light is illuminated) and be in a safe position to chase violators. The use of the red light confirmation light was one of the highest ranked safety strategies at the County s Safety Workshop. SAFETY PROJECTS 6-9

Figure 6.14 Confirmation Lights in Dakota County The suggested safety project involves installing the confirmation light at twenty-eight signalized intersections (Figure 6.15) along the three corridors with the greatest concentration of both total crashes and angle crashes CSAH 22 East, CSAH 22 West and TH 14 (the South Beltway). The estimated cost of adding the confirmation lights is $1,000/approach and the estimated cost of the project is $100,000. 6.2 Driver Behavior Based In order to address the driver behavior related factors that contribute to severe crashes, the Olmsted County Public Works Department will continue to provide professional staff to participate with their safety partners in a variety of activities, including: Countywide Fatal Crash Review Committee Southeast Minnesota TZD Safe Community coalitions Coordination with the county health department in efforts to educate drivers about seat belt usage, impaired driving and speeding Coordination with the county sheriff s department and other law enforcement officials regarding snow and ice issues and enhanced efforts to reduce red light running. 6.3 Support Bicycle Safety In support of addressing bicyclist safety concerns, Olmsted County Public Works Department will increase the level of coordination with ROCOG relative to their Long Range Thoroughfare Plan regarding future bike routes. When county highway projects are being developed on segments that are designated bike routes, consideration will be given to providing full width paved shoulders or an off-road trail, based on the availability of funding and where right-of-way widths are sufficient. In addition, in order to strike a balance between motorist and bicyclist safety, Olmsted County has chosen to employ a bicycle friendly rumble strip design for use along rural highways. The bicycle friendly design has been adopted by a number of state departments SAFETY PROJECTS 6-10