U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
FHWA's RSPCB Peer-to-Peer Program (P2P) supports and sponsors peer exchanges and workshops hosted by agencies.
October 9-10, 2013
FHWA's Office of Safety sponsors P2P events. Learn more.
All States have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that provides a framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. While a State SHSP can assist local practitioners with addressing safety on local roads, a locally-focused plan can address the unique conditions that contribute to crashes and assist local officials with making informed safety investment decisions.
A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) can build on the foundation established by a State's SHSP and provides a framework for local practitioners to proactively identify the factors that contribute to crashes within their jurisdictions. It will provide the basis for the systemic implementation of safety countermeasures across an entire jurisdiction and identifies data-driven strategies that can be used to improve the overall safety of all road users. Comprehensive plans include a prioritized list of projects that often include infrastructure improvements as well as enforcement and education activities. Ultimately, an LRSP ensures flexibility so that local jurisdictions can leverage the plan to meet their specific needs.
An LRSP integrates the 4Es of Safety (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services) and provides an excellent opportunity for stakeholders at all levels of government to work together to address safety challenges. An LRSP promotes road safety awareness, develops lasting partnerships, instills or enhances collaboration across multiple disciplines, and assists local agencies with leveraging safety funding.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been a pioneer in the area of Local Road Safety Plans. While their process for developing county-level safety plans is not the only example available, it is one of the most widely recognized initiatives—including a 2011 National Roadway Safety Award.
Minnesota's 2007 SHSP noted more than 50 percent of the State's traffic fatalities occurred on local roads, which are operated by counties. In order to meet the statewide Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) goal, MnDOT recognized that they would have to reduce crashes on those systems. Subsequently, MnDOT initiated the County Roadway Safety Plans (CRSP) Program to more effectively involve local highway agencies in the safety planning process and to provide these agencies with the technical assistance needed to successfully apply for State and Federal safety funding.
The MN CRSP process includes a crash analysis and system-wide risk assessment of road and traffic characteristics for each county. The results of this process are used to identify low-cost, infrastructure-based safety projects for specific at-risk locations on county roadways. Stakeholders from all 4Es are involved during the CRSP process which subsequently leads to the identification of enforcement and education strategies that also become part of the plan. MnDOT works with county engineers to prioritize projects and familiarize them with the safety project development and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) solicitation processes.
Other States are now looking to Minnesota's CRSP Program as they develop or consider their own Local Road Safety Plan initiative. Specifically, Colorado and Iowa are interested in developing Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) with their counties and want to learn from Minnesota's experience as they start their own programs. Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri have started Local Road Safety Plans and are interested in insight from their peers to enhance their initiatives. To assist these States, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety sponsored a Local Road Safety Plan Peer Exchange, which was hosted by Minnesota October 9-10, 2013 in Minneapolis. The catalyst for the peer exchange was a request submitted by the FHWA Iowa Division Office through the Local and Rural Road Safety Peer Assistance Program offered as part of the FHWA Roadway Safety Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Program.1
Representatives from all levels of government in Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and Missouri participated, including Federal, State, and county representatives. To ensure a candid discussion and provide the most comprehensive perspective of the CRSP process, participants from Minnesota included champions who supported the CRSP Program from the very beginning as well as county engineers who were skeptical at first, but eventually became advocates of CRSPs after recognizing their benefits.
There were three primary goals for the peer exchange.
The peer exchange provided a forum for attendees to share information on processes for developing an LRSP, plan content and layout, engaging stakeholders, and implementing the plan. While attendees discussed many topics related to LRSPs over the course of the two-day meeting, some points recurred multiple times and are regarded as key takeaways. These central takeaways are summarized on the following page and provide additional guidance and considerations for developing a Local Road Safety Plan.
In total, 66 attendees participated in the peer exchange. Attendees represented FHWA, State DOTs, counties, and Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Centers from Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri. Each State is in a varying stage of developing Local Road Safety Plans. Some have just started discussing the concept while others have developed plans with pilot counties. All visiting States had a desire to learn more about the process and welcomed the opportunity to meet with their counterparts in from other states.
The peer exchange was formatted to provide a mix of presentations, facilitated roundtable discussions, and breakout sessions. This structure provided attendees with several opportunities to collect information for developing Local Road Safety Plans or learning solutions for improving existing Local Road Safety Plans. Each State was encouraged to share their noteworthy practices and innovations as well as challenges and barriers experienced as they consider or develop LRSPs. The facilitated discussions allowed participants as groups to focus on specific topics such as linking LRSPs to a State's SHSP and moving forward after an LRSP is finalized (for example, maintaining stakeholder interest).
For each of the breakout sessions, the attendees were divided into groups based on their level of government. Three groups consisted of a mix of county engineers and LTAP staff. A fourth group consisted solely of State DOT staff. The members of the 3 county level/LTAP groups changed with each breakout session to allow attendees to hear from different individuals and/or exchange information in a small group setting.
Each State delegation spent time developing Action Plans at the end of the peer exchange. A virtual peer exchange will be coordinated within the next year to follow up with attendees on their progress.
Sue Groth, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT), welcomed the group to the peer exchange and provided opening remarks. She offered the following key points to the group:
Will Stein, FHWA Minnesota Division Office, also provided opening remarks and offered the following key points for developing LRSPs.
Rosemarie Anderson, FHWA Headquarters, emphasized that the goal for this peer exchange is for everyone to have a game plan for developing Local Road Safety Plans when they leave.
Attendees introduced themselves and stated their expectations for the peer exchange. A complete list of all peer exchange attendees is included in Appendix A. Table 1 summarizes attendees' expectations.
Table 1. Attendee expectations.
|Understand what an LRSP is and what it looks like.|
|Learn the nuts and bolts for developing an LRSP.|
|Hear about Minnesota's experiences and lessons learned.|
|Learn the benefits that Minnesota County Engineers recognized from developing LRSPs. Did the time put into creating the plan save them time now?|
|Develop an action plan to create LRSPs similar to Minnesota.|
|Learn about county plans vs. regional plans (to help decide which to develop).|
|Learn how to work with the State DOT and get FHWA involvement.|
|Learn how to secure funding to develop LRSPs and implement projects.|
|Learn how LRSPs can be used to leverage more funding for locals.|
|Understand how an LRSP helps to allocate resources and secure State/Federal funding.|
|Learn how to prioritize projects.|
|Learn how to get the counties engaged and how to get buy-in.|
|Understand the systemic (proactive) approach so that local plans do not chase crash locations.|
|Understand the MPO's role in plans for their region.|
|Learn how a county's study can be used to help develop an LRSP.|
|Learn about the implementation phase after the LRSP is complete.|
|Learn if there are legal implications for having an LRSP.|
|Learn how the dots are connected from FHWA to the State to the locals.|
|Learn how to bring the education and engineering sides together.|
|Learn how to involve law enforcement and other partners/stakeholders.|
|Learn how to be an advocate for the counties.|
|Learn how safety projects can compete with capacity projects.|
|Answer questions and share knowledge/experiences.|
|Learn if there is anything they haven't thought of and if there is anything they can do better when the LRSPs are updated.|
A representative from each visiting delegation provided a brief presentation to familiarize everyone with the status of Local Road Safety Plan development in their State, including challenges experienced and lessons learned. This section of the report highlights the key points from each State's presentation.
Federal, State, and local representatives from Minnesota provided presentations during this peer exchange session. Their presentations, and subsequent group discussion, focused on how to get buy-in from county engineers and administrators; challenges and barriers to getting started; strategies to address barriers; Federal, State and county roles in an LRSP; and other stakeholders involvement.
This section of the report summarizes the key points made from each speaker and the group discussion that followed.
There is language in MAP-21 that the purpose of the HSIP Program is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land. This language can be used to combat any resistance to the development of LRSPs. There is no regulatory split, but agencies need to keep to the spirit of the language in MAP-21.
Funding is a critical first step. Consider how your State funds safety projects on the local system.
You do not want the plan to sit on a shelf. You want to convert the plan into treatments (like rumble strips).
How MnDOT allocates funding to locals:
About 50% of crashes occur on State highways and the other half are on the local system. MnDOT compares crashes against the amount of funding allocated to determine if there is good alignment between the funding split. If 50% of crashes are on the local system, is 50% of funding allocated to local projects?
Minnesota identifies parts of the local system that are at higher risk and where there are greater opportunities for improvements. MnDOT had to sell their Districts on doing less State projects and letting the locals do more. Now is a great time to make a case in your States that additional funding can go to the locals with more funding available through HSIP under MAP-21. This can help persuade upper management.
The Federal-aid process is often viewed as an obstacle. It is complex and Federal regulations apply. FHWA should be a resource. They have a Local Programs Engineer, Safety Engineer, Financial Specialists, experts at FHWA Headquarters, and technical experts in the Resource Center. Some State DOTs also have offices/personnel to assist/work with local agencies. FHWA has a website that can be used as a resource: Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies. The website is located at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/.
Evaluation is critical during implementation. Agencies need to keep very good data on where and when safety treatments were constructed. Evaluations assist with funding the most beneficial projects and will inform future safety planning efforts.
An attendee suggested a more generalized/streamlined Federal-aid process. For example, agencies will not use Federal-aid funds for a signing project because it's too cumbersome and has too many administrative costs associated with it. Agencies will not do a $100,000 Federal-aid project for safety. FHWA suggested multiple counties combining projects to make it a larger project that can use Federal-aid funding. Ohio has a best practice in this area. Ohio DOT purchases the signs and then lets the local agencies use their own work forces to install them.2
There are 141,000 miles of roadway in Minnesota; 130,000 are local (92%). If an agency's goal is zero fatalities, crashes on the local system must be addressed. However, there are 2 challenges with determining where to focus safety funds:
MnDOT started allocating HSIP funds to local agencies in 2006. They look at the percentage of fatalities in each District by Area Transportation Partnership (ATP)3 to help decide funding distribution (how much funding each District gets). There are 8 MnDOT Districts. They further divide funding by splitting between State/local roads in the District.
MnDOT developed an approach to identify risk factors to assist with determining locations to apply safety funds. This approach leads to improvements at locations where there have not been crashes, but the possibility exists based on roadway characteristics. For example, intersection risk factors can include: skewed; on horizontal curve; volume ratio major/minor roadway. When developing an LRSP for a county, MnDOT looked at their entire system and used a data tree to determine risk factors that led to the identification of locations to install safety countermeasures.
Otter Tail has 1,052 miles of county highways that are all paved.
The Minnesota County Engineers Highway Safety Committee was formed and the counties were involved in the MnDOT TZD efforts from the beginning.
Otter Tail has strong partnerships with FHWA, MnDOT (including the State Aid Office), Minnesota LTAP, and various associations. Otter Tail has a Safe Roads Coalition that represents the 4Es on a local level.
Things that Rick likes about his county's LRSP:
When talking about regional plans, there must be strong buy-in from entities in that region. The Otter Tail LRSP is the county's plan, and the county's alone. Individualism could be jeopardized with a regional plan.
Strategies and Lessons Learned:
Since the LRSP's development, there has been a shift in the safety culture. Before the plan, he would have reduced the number of signs purchased for replacement or reduced striping. With the plan in place, he would never cut those items now.
Additional Comments from Minnesota Participants During Group Discussion
State and county representatives from Minnesota provided presentations during this session. Their presentations, and subsequent group discussion, focused on funding plan development, the requirements, challenges and benefits of the process including time commitment, coordination and stakeholder involvement.
This section of the report summarizes the key points made from each speaker and the group discussion that followed.
Minnesota's Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) program started in 2003 before the CRSP initiative. Minnesota uses all forms of the 4Es with TZD and has included a 5th E - “Everyone Else.” TZD was encouraged while the CRSPs were developed.
The TZD State-level program structure incorporates regional coordination and focus. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) funded the salaries of 3 pilot TZD Regional Coordinators using 402 safety funds. The positions are now funded 50% through MnDOT and 50% through DPS.
The development of the Stearns County CRSP started with a review of all county routes. They reviewed 405 intersections and evaluated things like traffic control devices, street lighting, etc. They also reviewed 244 road segments.
LESSONS LEARNED BY STEARNS COUNTY
FHWA as well as State and local representatives from Minnesota provided presentations during this session. Their presentations, and subsequent group discussion, explained the systemic approach and helped attendees understand the data that formed the basis of the Minnesota CRSPs.
This section of the report summarizes the key points made from each speaker and the group discussion that followed.
The systemic approach is a safety improvement that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular severe crash types. The benefit of systemic safety planning is that it's proactive; an agency is not waiting for a crash to occur before taking action.
The Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool4 is a guide that presents a process for incorporating systemic safety planning into traditional safety management processes. The tool can accommodate different degrees of data availability. Agencies that piloted the tool include:
New York analyzed their statewide data and found that 41% of crashes occurred at intersections. They then identified crash factors and further narrowed locations using descriptive statistics. The further an agency identifies risk factors, the closer they can get to the problem.
Thurston County established an Advisory Group to get feedback from stakeholders and also to educate them on the systemic process. Agencies can get a lot of support when they engage stakeholders early. The county prioritized their risk factors using a simple scoring system. Higher confidence risk factors received a higher score and vice versa. Applying their scoring system, they ranked each curve. The county selected 5 primary countermeasures based on factors such as low cost, MUTCD compliance, etc. In addition to implementing countermeasures, Thurston County realized they could also make changes in their maintenance activities that would lead to improvements.
An agency cannot make safety investment decisions without data. Local agencies can look at Statewide data (from similar roads) for comparison. Alternatively, locals can collect their own data.
Align priorities with the funding that is available.
It is important to consider evaluation when developing LRSPs. It helps define what success looks like.
Visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/ for resource materials.
Instead of waiting for an event to happen and reacting, St. Louis County changed to a proactive approach to deploy strategies. They moved from a localized approach to systemic, and from events-based to risk-based. St. Louis County has now implemented a variety of countermeasures across the county.
Consequences of the Traditional (Reactive) Approach:
A systemic approach is not:
A systemic approach is the result of a planning process.
The equation for a traditional approach: crashes = risk, no crashes = no risk.
The equation for a systemic approach: no crashes ≠ no risk.
County engineers have to educate the public that an intersection is not as bad as they think it is. For example, an intersection perceived as dangerous by the public might really only be ranked 75th out of 450. The systemic approach builds credibility with public officials and the public.
Safety plans may seem daunting, but take it one day at a time. It is a process that should never stop.
The Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) is an application that has crash data for all public roads in Minnesota. It is available to MnDOT, cities, and counties, but it's not open to the general public.
Users can select by County, District, Tribal Land, or State. Crash data for selection includes a variety of information; day of the week, age of the driver, month of the crash, etc. Data can be exported and used to create charts. The system can also generate Crash Type Summaries. Aerial photography is available so users can see what the area looks like.
Crash data is updated quarterly and the homepage indicates when the most recent update was completed. MnDOT gets data from the Department of Public Safety.
The system was built by a consultant. Iowa DOT initially developed the tool and Minnesota made it web-based. Before the web-based version, Minnesota had a desktop version that operated from CDs. The problem was that every time the data was updated, new CDs had to be sent out for users to download.
Howard Preston with CH2M Hill (contractor to MnDOT) provided a presentation on what to include in an LRSP. This peer exchange session identified the essential elements of the LRSP and how to customize the plan to local needs.
Below is a summary of the key points made during the presentation.
Every county in Minnesota has a County Roadway Safety Plan.
Why prepare local plans? MAP-21 requires States to address all roads as part of their statewide safety planning efforts. Further, you cannot get to zero deaths without addressing the local system as part of a comprehensive safety plan.
Challenges with Developing LRSPs:
What a county needs to start an LRSP:
The perspective on data is different if you're a State DOT looking down than the county engineer looking up. A State DOT sees 2,000 crashes on the local system. A county engineer only sees that he has one severe crash at the intersection with a State road and therefore he does not have a safety problem.
The plan development process starts with (1) a crash analysis, then (2) selecting safety emphasis areas, and finally (3) developing a comprehensive list of safety strategies. The county should then hold a Safety Workshop and identify a short list of critical strategies.
If a county has 800 curves, they can't address them all. However, if they are prioritized, they can address 200. That is manageable.
Another idea is to bundle the counties. Similar to how 10-12 counties will band together to let a project. Instead of a $100k project, it becomes a $2M project.
Using a data tree, Minnesota realized they had to address roadway departures. When drilling further down, they more specifically identified a need to address horizontal curves because they accounted for 50% of the roadway departure crashes. After analysis, MnDOT removed gravel roads from the mix because more crashes were happening on paved roads. With the paved roads that remained, MnDOT looked at the characteristics of the roads at crash locations. They then reviewed the highway system to see what other roads had the same characteristics.
Risk Factors Identified for Segments:
Risk Factors for Curves:
Risk Factors for Intersections:
In Risk Assessment Findings, MnDOT could not just use crash data alone because the data would indicate minimal severe crashes. They have to also look at risk factors to establish a priority list for projects.
If a county has a capital project (reconstruction) that matches a segment on the high priority list in the CRSP, the county uses their capital funds for the middle 24' of the roadway and MnDOT provides funding to address the outer edge.
To select proven strategies, Minnesota used the Crash Modifications Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse and NCHRP Report 500 guides. For example, signalized intersection strategies included curb extensions and medians as well as pedestrian countdown timers.
Attendees divided into groups by governmental level to discuss the content, process, and funding of Local Road Safety Plans. At the end of the breakout session, a representative from each group reported on their discussion. Below is a summary of the groups' report outs.
What we liked best about Minnesota process.
What do you think will work in your State?
What should the level of local involvement be in LRSP development?
What should your role be?
Who are the stakeholders that need to be involved?
How do you get buy-in from leadership?
What might affect plans varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?
How would you use the plan?
Minnesota Lessons Learned
How Minnesota Publicizes Their Plans
Would Minnesota eliminate any parts of the plan?
Are there liability issues?
The second day of the peer exchange began with a group discussion of how Local Road Safety Plans are tied to a State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
Minnesota is currently updating their SHSP and they have a multidisciplinary Steering Committee that includes a local representative. MnDOT has held 8 meetings across the State which have included the TZD coordinators.
Minnesota's SHSP is a cyclical process and a toolbox with a menu of options. CRSPs are referred to as mini SHSPs.
How can locals be incorporated into the State's SHSP?
How do you get money to local roads? What needs to be in the LRSP to use the money?
Do Minnesota CRSPs reference the SHSP?
State and local representatives from Minnesota provided presentations during this session. Their presentations, and subsequent group discussion, focused on project selection, project development, project packaging (grouping projects), funding sources, and methods for LRSP implementation.
Wayne's presentation focused on the strategies implemented in Wright County as a result of their LRSP.
The State SHSP identifies the Statewide safety goal, the safety emphasis areas, and high priority strategies.
Wright County was among the first group of counties to have a CRSP developed. The benefits of the plan far outweighed the challenges.
“Safe Communities of Wright County” was formed in 1997 and there are a number of community partners. It was started by the Hospital using a grant from a national hospital board.
Projects/Programs Implemented by Safe Communities:
The Wright County Traffic Safety Tool Box includes:
Rural intersection street lighting. Wright County created a program for rural intersection street lighting, which has been extremely popular and used as a statewide model. The county has to pay for the power, but LED lights cost less.
Intersection advance warning system. The system provides a warning in both directions. It provides a warning for the side street traffic, but also for the through traffic. A system costs approximately $40k. It alerts drivers that there is a vehicle approaching on the cross street. If installing these systems again, the county would probably use loop detectors instead of radar.
Improved signing. Chevron signs and guide marker plates on curves. Flashing chevron signs on a curve with a visual trap (flashing is triggered for vehicles traveling at 47 MPH or higher).
Edge treatments. The county is using the SafetyEdge, rumble strips/stripes, and grooved edge markings. The county learned that rumble stripes are not a good solution on roads with a high volume of traffic (about 10,000 ADT). To address noise complaints, they installed a second 6” wide edge line inside of the rumble stripe and it worked.
Dynamic Speed Display Signs. Signs that (1) post the speed limit and (2) provide actual speed feedback to the driver.
MnDOT's function in project implementation is providing the funding. MnDOT funds local projects from HSIP and Penalty Funds (Sect 164) (MS 32).
MnDOT distributes safety dollars based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries. District 1 has 8% of the State's fatal and injury crashes, so they get 8% of the funding. That is further broken down to determine the percentage of crashes on the State and local roads and funding is allocated respectively.
After the funding is split up, decisions must be made on how to apply it. The old approach was to be reactive and identify black spot locations. The new approach is to use surrogates of crashes to identify locations where crashes are likely to occur.
The solicitation process continues to evolve. MnDOT wanted funding to be there right after the CRSPs were developed to reinforce the importance of the plans. The solicitation announcement includes a summary of the funding available for each ATP (District). MnDOT had $31M available last year for projects that would be installed in 2014-2016.
Project Applications to MnDOT:
MnDOT encourages counties to work together. They will not get as good a price for installing 12 miles of rumble strips as opposed to 100 miles. There was a $350k limit on individual systemic projects, but MnDOT waived that limit if a county worked with another county.
MnDOT also encourages agencies to submit multiple applications so that they are not putting all of their eggs in one basket. An agency should put in as many applications as they can handle.
There is an administrative cost that goes along with getting Federal funding. The locals pay a 10% match; sometimes more. MnDOT requires a 10% match. The 10% match is applied across the board to be fair to all counties and it makes administrative functions easier.
MnDOT had to make decisions on what would not be eligible for the solicitation. These projects include:
Summary of the 2014-2016 Local Solicitation for HSIP Funds:
MnDOT awarded projects for chevrons, ITS warning systems, intersection lighting, enhanced pavement markings, intersection signing, and 2’ shoulder paving.
MnDOT sends out an Award Memo to everyone who receives funding. The memos include guidance on the projects.
Are projects stand-alone, or part of a rehab project?
Attendees divided into groups by governmental level to discuss the benefits to safety at the local level as a result of LRSPs. Groups shared ideas with each other on getting stakeholder feedback and management support during plan development. They also discussed the cost to counties, what works well and what does not and why.
At the end of the breakout session, a representative from each group reported on their discussion. This section of the report summarizes the groups' report outs.
Benefits of Safety Plans
The list below provides links to websites discussed during the peer exchange.
Involving Elected Officials
How a Regional Agency Can Support an LRSP
How LTAPs Can Support an LRSP
Benefits of Local Agencies Leading Development of the LRSP
First Steps in the LRSP Development Process.
How is the Minnesota CRSP Tied to the State SHSP?
Next Step for Minnesota
State DOT Report Out
How do you manage the maintenance costs of a countermeasure after using HSIP funds to install it originally?
The second roundtable discussion focused on updating an LRSP. Kaye Bieniek, Olmsted County Engineer, started the session with a presentation on how her county has moved forward since development of their CRSP.
Olmsted County applied for HSIP funds to develop their CRSP. Olmsted put in some money to match the HSIP funds and the county was the lead. (As opposed to the other 86 counties whose plans were led and funded by MnDOT.)
Because of the CRSP, the county incorporated safety into projects that were not using HSIP funds.
They focused on safety emphasis areas during the first stakeholder meeting then prioritized the strategies. This is where people really got involved. Due to the TZD initiative, the stakeholder partners were already there and engaged. This really helped.
Olmsted County ended up with project categories.
After projects are identified, they are included in the Capital Improvement Plan.
The County Board formally adopted the CRSP in November 2009.
The Olmsted County CRSP is on their website at https://www.co.olmsted.mn.us/pw/Pages/default.aspx.
The county has been successful in applying for and receiving HSIP funds. They've received nearly $1M.
They had some challenges with implementing some of their projects (such as the red light running project) because of multijurisdictional issues.
The CRSP has been in place for ~5 years. So, what now?
A large chunk of projects in the plan have been implemented, but not all.
The county has more automatic use of wider edge lines, rumble strips, and SafetyEdge. The CRSP has definitely impacted the safety culture.
Now that the CRSP has been used for a few years, the county is considering the following for the next update:
The best thing to come out of the Olmsted CRSP is the culture change and the partnerships that have been developed.
How valuable was the TZD when developing the LRSP?
How was the SafetyEdge included to be eligible for funding?
How do you handle maintenance costs? For example, costs associated with maintaining a 6” edge line.
How did you get people to meetings?
How did you address liability concerns?
At the end of the peer exchange, attendees divided into their State delegations and created a list of actions they would undertake as a result of the meeting. This section of the report summarizes each State's strategies for moving forward with development of LRSPs.
|Renée Railsback||Colorado LTAP|
|Doyle Villers||La Plata County Road and Bridge|
|Scott Wiggs||Arapahoe County|
|Lee Bjerke||Winneshiek County|
|Joel Fantz||Palo Alto County|
|Nicole Fox||Iowa DOT|
|Paul Geilenfeldt||Marshall County|
|Vanessa Goetz||Iowa DOT|
|Todd Kinney||Clinton County Secondary Roads|
|Keith Knapp||Iowa LTAP|
|Jan Laaser-Webb||Iowa DOT|
|Brian Moore||Wapello County|
|Terry Ostendorf||Iowa DOT|
|Jerry Roche||FHWA-Iowa Division|
|Bob Sperry||Iowa LTAP|
|Dan Waid||Hamilton County|
|Norm Bowers||Kansas Association of Counties|
|Steven Buckley||Kansas DOT|
|Dave Corp||Kansas DOT|
|Zach Edwardson||Wichita Area MPO|
|Lisa Harris||Kansas LTAP|
|Darryl Lutz||Butler County|
|Justin Mader||McPherson County|
|Danielle Marten||Kansas DOT|
|Clark Rusco||Barton County|
|Ron Seitz||Kansas DOT|
|Lynnette Firman||Michigan DOT|
|Karl Hanson||Wexford County Road Commission|
|Larry Hummel||Van Buren County Road Commission|
|Kimberly Lariviere||Michigan DOT|
|Kajal Patel||Southeast Michigan COG|
|Lon Aune||Marshall County|
|Kaye Bieniek||Olmsted County|
|Peter Buchen||Minnesota DOT|
|Mindy Carlson||Minnesota LTAP|
|Brad Estochen||Minnesota DOT|
|Wayne Fingalson||Wright County Highway Department|
|Sue Groth||Minnesota DOT|
|Kristine Hernandez||Minnesota DOT|
|Sulmaan Khan||Minnesota DOT|
|Steve Kubista||Chippewa/Lac qui Parle County|
|Derek Leuer||Minnesota DOT|
|Vic Lund||St. Louis County|
|Howard Preston||CH2M Hill, Inc.|
|Wayne Sandberg||Washington County|
|Kristi Sebastian||Dakota County|
|Will Stein||FHWA-Minnesota Division|
|Jodi Teich||Stearns County|
|Mark Vizecky||Minnesota DOT|
|Rick West||Otter Tail County|
|Julie Whitcher||Minnesota DOT|
|Aaron Bartlett||Mid-America Regional Council|
|Larry Grither||East-West Gateway COG|
|Martin Gugel||City of Springfield Department of Public Works|
|Glenn Henninger||St. Louis County Department of Highways & Traffic|
|Adam Humphrey||Greene County Highway Department|
|Jason Jonas||Jefferson County|
|John Miller||Missouri DOT|
|Teresa Krenning||Missouri DOT|
|Laurel McKean||Missouri DOT|
|Anna Musial||East-West Gateway COG|
|Ashley Reinkemeyer||Missouri DOT|
|Judy Wagner||Missouri DOT|
|October 9, 2013|
|8:00 - 8:30 A.M.||
Rosemarie Anderson, FHWA Office of Safety
|8:30 - 9:00 A.M.||Participant Introductions|
|9:00 - 10:00 A.M.||State Presentations
Each visiting state will briefly discuss their Local Road Safety Planning status including challenges experienced and lessons learned.
|10:00 - 10:15 A.M.||Break|
|10:15 - 11:15 A.M.||
How Minnesota Started County Road Safety Plans
Attendee recognizing the challenges to undertaking a new concept and selling it to management and stakeholders
|11:15 A.M. - 12:15 P.M.||
Developing Local Road Safety Plans
Attendees have an understanding of the Plan development process including agency time commitment.
|12:15 - 1:00 P.M.||Lunch|
|1:00 - 2:00 P.M.||
Attendees understand the data basis of the MN county road safety plan as well as the benefits of the systemic approach.
|2:00 - 2:15 P.M.||Break|
|2:15 - 3:00 P.M.||
Local Road Safety Plan Content - One size fit all?
Attendees will be able to determine essential elements of the LRSP to customize for their local needs.
|3:00 - 4:15 P.M.||
Breakout Session - Plan
|4:15 - 4:45 P.M.||Report Out|
|4:45 - 5:00 P.M.||Recap & Wrap Up|
|October 10, 2013|
|8:00 - 8:45 A.M.||
Roundtable Discussion - SHSP/County Road Safety Plan Relationship
Practices in project implementation through plan development
|8:45 - 10:00 A.M.||
Local Road Safety Plan Implementation
Practices in project implementation through plan development
|10:00 - 10:15 A.M.||Break|
|10:15 - 11:30 A.M.||
Breakout Session - Program Evaluation
|11:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.||Report Out|
|12:00 - 12:45 P.M.||Lunch|
|12:45 - 1:30 P.M.||
Facilitated Roundtable Discussion - Moving Forward
Understanding potential roadblocks
|1:30 - 1:45 P.M.||Break|
|1:45 - 3:15 P.M.||
Action Planning - Breakout Group by State
|3:15 - 3:45 P.M.||Report Out|
|3:45 - 4:00 P.M.||Wrap Up (Next Steps), Adjourn|
1 The Roadway Safety P2P provides technical assistance on policy, program, and technical issues across a broad range of roadway safety topics. The program is designed to help agencies develop and implement effective strategies and programs that reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. For additional information about the Roadway Safety Peer-to-Peer Program, visit https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/technical.aspx. (back)
2 A summary of the Ohio Township Sign Safety Program is available in FHWA's publication titled Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance. To download a copy, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa13029/index.cfm#toc. (back)
3 MnDOT created Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) to emphasize greater public involvement in the preparation of transportation plans and programs. (back)