bozeman community transportation safety plan · bozeman community transportation safety plan ......
Post on 20-Jan-2019
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Transportation leadership you can trust.
presented to
presented by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Bozeman Community Transportation
Safety Plan
Bozeman Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee – Meeting 1
October 16, 2012
Audrey Wennink
2
Project Team
Montana Department of Transportation
» Carol Strizich
» Pam Langve-Davis
Consultant Team from Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
» Audrey Wennink – Senior Analyst
» Sam Lawton – Project Manager
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
Community Transportation Safety Planning (CTSP) Process Overview
Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) Role & Responsibilities
TSAC Membership Discussion
Bozeman Crash Data Overview
Community Safety Issues Discussion
CTSP Vision
CTSP Goal
Next Steps
3
MT Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan
Developed through
coordinated,
comprehensive, data-
driven process
Designed to reduce
fatal and injury crashes
on MT roadways
12 Emphasis Areas
including urban area
crashes
4
Community Transportation Safety Plans
Target fatal and injury crashes based on locally identified
safety problems
Devise safety strategies that can be implemented at the local
level
Customize strategies based on local priorities, organizational
structures, programs, leadership
5
6
Purpose of Transportation Safety Plan
The Bozeman community seeks to develop a
multimodal Community Transportation Safety Plan
to document the area’s transportation safety issues
and identify a comprehensive set of strategies to
reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes.
Plan Development Process
7
Establish TSAC
Review Crash Data
Establish CTSP Goal
Identify Emphasis Areas
EA 1 EA 2 EA 3
Safety Strategies
Performance Measures
CTSP
Implementation
Implementation Responsibilities
8
Work Plan and Timeline (proposed)
Kickoff Meeting October 16, 2012
Select Emphasis Areas November
Identify Current Strategies/Plan Safety Summit
December
Safety Summit January
Draft Plan February
Final Plan March
9
Transportation Safety Advisory Committee
(TSAC)
TSAC Draft Mission Statement
To provide guidance on the development of the
Community Transportation Safety Plan and
participate in and provide direction on plan
implementation.
10
TSAC Roles and Responsibilities
Attend committee meetings and the Transportation Safety
Summit
Review available data; identify data needs
Identify vision and goal
Determine priority safety emphasis areas
Review and finalize strategies, action steps, and performance measures
Identify lead agencies, organizations, and individuals to facilitate implementation
Approve and submit final plan to Bozeman for adoption
Support implementation of the Community Transportation Safety Plan
11
“ The 4 E’s of Safety”
Engineering
Education
Emergency Response
Enforcement
Potential TSAC Membership
School District
Administrators
Montana State University
Bozeman Public Works
Montana Department of
Transportation
Bozeman Police
Department
MT Highway Patrol
Buckle Up MT – Bozeman
Coordinator
Gallatin County DUI Task
Force
Safe Routes to School
Coordinator
Bozeman Deaconess
Hospital
HRDC/Streamline/Galavan
Others?
12
Crash Data
Crash Data Analysis Process
Behavior, e.g.
» Distracted
» Speeding
» Impaired
» Safety Belt Use
Infrastructure/Crash Types, e.g.
» Intersections
» Road departure
Demographics, e.g.
» Under 25
» 65 and older 14
Bozeman Crash Severity (2006-2010)
15
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
9 40 214
603
2,780
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
FA
TA
L
INC
APA
CIT
AT
ING
IN
JUR
Y
NO
N IN
CA
PA
CIT
AT
ING
INJU
RY
OT
HER
IN
JUR
Y
PR
OPER
TY
DA
MA
GE O
NLY
Crashes by Severity
BOZEMAN
Bozeman Crash Severity (2009-2011)
16
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
154
162
176
7 6 4
1 2 1 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010 2011
Non-severe Injury Crashes
Incapacitating Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
Behavior
Bozeman Injuries by Safety Device Use
(2006-2010)
18
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
NO
NE U
SED
/ U
SED
IMPR
OPER
LY
PR
OPER
USE
HELM
ET
USE
D
REST
RA
INT
USE
UN
KN
OW
N
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Drivers by Impairment – All Crashes
(2006-2010)
19
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
YES
(ALC
OH
OL
PR
ESE
NT
)
YES
(DR
UG
S
PR
ESE
NT
)
YES
(ALC
OH
OL
AN
D D
RU
GS
PR
ESE
NT
)
NO
T R
EPO
RT
ED
UN
KN
OW
N
NO
T S
TA
TED
Drivers by Impairment *
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Driver Contributing Circumstances
All Crashes – 2006-2010
20
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
OT
HER
*(D
RIV
ER
)
DR
UG
S
ALC
OH
OL
FA
ILED
TO
YIE
LD
RIG
HT
OF W
AY
DIS
REG
AR
DED
TR
AFFIC
SIG
NS
EX
CEED
ED
ST
AT
ED
SPEED
LIM
IT
TO
O F
AST
FO
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S
MA
DE A
N IM
PR
OPER
TU
RN
WR
ON
G S
IDE O
R W
RO
NG
WA
Y
FO
LLO
WED
TO
O C
LO
SELY
IMPR
OPER
LA
NE C
HA
NG
E
IMPR
OPER
BA
CK
ING
OPER
AT
ION
IMPR
OPER
PA
SSIN
G
IMPR
OPER
SIG
NA
LS
IMPR
OPER
PA
RK
ING
FELL A
SLEEP, FA
INT
ED
ET
C.
LIC
. R
EST
. N
OT
CO
MPLIE
D
INA
TT
EN
TIV
E D
RIV
ING
CELL P
HO
NE
CA
RELESS
DR
IVIN
G
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Demographics
Bozeman Drivers by Gender – All Crashes
(2006-2010)
22
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
MA
LE
FEM
ALE
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Drivers by Age - All Crashes
(2006-2010)
23
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0 -
14 Y
RS
15 -
19 Y
RS
20 -
24 Y
RS
25 -
29 Y
RS
30 -
34 Y
RS
35 -
39 Y
RS
40 -
44 Y
RS
45 -
49 Y
RS
50 -
54 Y
RS
55 -
59 Y
RS
60 -
64 Y
RS
65 -
69 Y
RS
70 -
74 Y
RS
75+
YR
S
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Crash Type
Bozeman Vehicles in a Crash by First Harmful
Event (2006-2010)
25
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
OV
ER
TU
RN
FIR
E/E
XPLO
SIO
N
IMM
ER
SIO
N
JAC
KK
NIF
E
OT
HER
NO
NC
OLLIS
ION
PED
EST
RIA
N
PED
ALC
YC
LE
RA
ILW
AY
TR
AIN
MV
IN
TR
AN
SPO
RT
MV
IN
TR
AN
SPO
RT
ON
…
PA
RK
ED
MV
MV
AT
RR
XIN
G
WIL
D A
NIM
AL
DO
MEST
IC A
NIM
AL
OT
HER
OB
J. N
OT
FIX
ED
IMPA
CT
AT
TEN
UA
TO
R
BR
IDG
E/P
IER
/AB
UT
MEN
T
BR
IDG
E P
AR
APET
EN
D
BR
IDG
E R
AIL
GU
AR
DR
AIL
FA
CE
GU
AR
DR
AIL
EN
D
MED
IAN
BA
RR
IER
HW
Y. T
RA
FFIC
SIG
N P
OST
OV
ER
HEA
D S
IGN
SU
PPO
RT
LU
MIN
AIR
E/L
IGH
T S
UPPO
RT
UT
ILIT
Y P
OLE
OT
HER
PO
ST
CU
LV
ER
T
CU
RB
DIT
CH
EM
BA
NK
MEN
T
FEN
CE
MA
IL B
OX
TR
EE
OT
HER
FIX
ED
OB
JEC
T
RO
CK
OR
BO
ULD
ER
UN
KN
OW
N
Vehicle by First Harmful Event BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
Other Factors
Bozeman Vehicle Type – All Crashes
(2006-2010)
27
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
PA
SSEN
GER
CA
R
PIC
KU
P
VA
N
MIN
I V
AN
SUV
MO
TO
RH
OM
E
MO
TO
RC
YC
LE
BIC
YC
LE
TR
UC
K-T
RA
CT
OR
BU
S
SCH
OO
L B
US
AM
BU
LA
NC
E
CO
NST
RU
CT
ION
EQ
UIP
MEN
T
OT
HER
UN
KN
OW
N
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Crashes by Time of Day
(2006-2010)
28
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
12:0
0 M
- 1
2:5
9A
M
1:0
0
- 1:5
9
2:0
0
- 2:5
9
3:0
0
- 3:5
9
4:0
0
- 4:5
9
5:0
0
- 5:5
9
6:0
0
- 6:5
9
7:0
0
- 7:5
9
8:0
0
- 8:5
9
9:0
0
- 9:5
9
10:0
0 -
10:5
9
11:0
0 -
11:5
9
12:0
0 N
- 1
2:5
9PM
1:0
0
- 1:5
9
2:0
0
- 2:5
9
3:0
0
- 3:5
9
4:0
0
- 4:5
9
5:0
0
- 5:5
9
6:0
0
- 6:5
9
7:0
0
- 7:5
9
8:0
0
- 8:5
9
9:0
0
- 9:5
9
10:0
0 -
10:5
9
11:0
0 -
11:5
9
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Crashes by Day of Week
(2006-2010)
29
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
SUN
DA
Y
MO
ND
AY
TU
ESD
AY
WED
NESD
AY
TH
UR
SD
AY
FR
IDA
Y
SAT
UR
DA
Y
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Bozeman Crashes by Road Condition
(2006-2010)
30
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
DR
Y
WET
SNO
W O
R S
LU
SH ICE
SAN
D,M
UD
,DIR
T,O
IL
DEB
RIS
LO
OSE
GR
AV
EL
OT
HER
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
Bozeman Crashes by Relationship to Junction
(2006-2010)
31
32.6%
58.3%
8.0%
0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
39.1%
54.2%
5.3% 0.2% 1.2% 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
NO
N JU
NC
TIO
N
INT
ER
SEC
TIO
N
DR
IVEW
AY
RR
X-I
NG
RELA
TED
INT
ER
CH
AN
GE
NO
T S
TA
TED
BOZEMAN COMPARISON COMMUNITIES
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
Initial Findings
Safety Belt Use
Young Drivers
Distracted/Inattentive Driving
Intersection Crashes
32
Safety Vision
Bozeman Vision
Where does Bozeman want to be in the future regarding
transportation safety?
Example Vision Statements
» Bozeman will have the safest transportation system of any
community in MT
» Bozeman will establish a culture of safety on its roadways
» Vision Zero
34
Bozeman Safety Vision
All travelers arrive safely at their destination
35
CTSP Goal
Bozeman Five-Year Annual Averages (2006-2010)
Fatal Crashes Incapacitating
Injury Crashes
Non-Severe
Injury Crashes
PDO
Crashes
Total Crashes
2 8 163 556 666
37
Fatalities Incapacitating
Injuries
Non-Severe
Injuries
2 9 189
Annual Crashes
Annual Fatalities/Injuries
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
38
Examples - Traffic Safety Goals
Butte
To reduce motor vehicle
crashes by 20 percent by
2017, from an annual
average of 671 crashes
to an annual average of
537 crashes.
Shelby/Toole County
Reduce annual average
severe crashes within
Toole County by one
third from 2010 to
2015, resulting in an
average of no more
than four severe injury
crashes per year. Cheyenne, WY
Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes by 10 percent
from 2008 to 2020 (Reduction of 3.5 fatal and serious injury crashes per
year)
39
CTSP Goals - Sample Approaches
20 percent reduction in severe injuries (fatalities +
incapacitating injuries)
Reduction in a specific number of severe injuries
Percent reduction in total crashes
One death is one too many – zero fatalities
Reduce fatal and incapacitating injuries by half by 2030 (MT
CHSP)
Bozeman Safety Goal
Reduce fatalities and injuries by 25% by 2018
40
Next Steps
Next TSAC Meeting
Additional data analysis
Determine Emphasis Areas for Plan
Finalize Goal
42
Example:
Butte-Silver Bow - All Crashes by Emphasis Area
43
1094
226
1281
704
229
42
1814
28
21
70
814
96
1013
1
254
3
923
229
1099
559
179
67
1433
16
9
45
648
125
719
4
217
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Run-Off-The-Road
Alcohol/Drug-Related
Young Driver Involved
Older Driver Involved
Large Truck Involved
Motorcycle Involved
Intersection/Intersection-Related
Pedestrian Involved
Bicycle Involved
Asleep/Fainted/etc. Related
Speed-Related
Animal Related
Inattentive Driving Related
Train Involved
Unbelted
Native American (Fatalities Only)
All Crashes 2006-2010
All Crashes 2001-2005
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
Example: Butte-Silver Bow Fatal/Incapacitating
Crashes by Emphasis Area
44
106
41
32
20
15
18
46
4
4
14
59
0
43
0
100
3
98
36
32
21
6
22
25
8
1
11
35
2
20
0
77
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Run-Off-The-Road
Alcohol/Drug-Related
Young Driver Involved
Older Driver Involved
Large Truck Involved
Motorcycle Involved
Intersection/Intersection-Related
Pedestrian Involved
Bicycle Involved
Asleep/Fainted/etc. Related
Speed-Related
Animal Related
Inattentive Driving Related
Train Involved
Unbelted
Native American (Fatalities Only)
2006-2010
2001-2005
Note: Unbelted and Native American data represent number of people, not crashes
Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012
Next Steps
Select dates & locations for next two meetings
» Develop agenda and materials
Select potential dates & location for Safety Summit (January)
Identify other potential TSAC members
Homework:
» What are Bozeman’s most significant transportation safety
issues?
» What programs are currently in place?
» What more should or could be done?
» Think about Plan Goal for finalization at next meeting
45
Open Discussion
top related