Missoula Community Transportation Safety Plan · » Pam Langve-Davis Consultant Team from Cambridge Systematics, Inc. » Audrey Wennink – Senior Analyst » Sam Lawton – Project

presented to

Missoula Community Transportation Safety Plan

Missoula Transportation Safety Advisory Committee – Meeting 1

Transportation leadership you can trust.

presented byCambridge Systematics, Inc.

February 21, 2013

Audrey Wennink

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» Sam Lawton – Project Manager

2

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions

Community Transportation Safety Planning (CTSP) Pro cess Overview

Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) Rol e & Responsibilities

TSAC Membership DiscussionTSAC Membership Discussion

Missoula Crash Data Overview

Community Safety Issues Discussion

CTSP Vision

CTSP Goal

Next Steps

3

MT Comprehensive Highway Safety PlanDeveloped through coordinated, comprehensive, data- driven process

Designed to reduce fatal and injury fatal and injury crashes on MT roadways

12 Emphasis Areas including urban area crashes

4

Community Transportation Safety Plans

Target reduction of fatal and injury crashes based on local crash data and analysis

Devise safety strategies that can be implemented at the local level

Customize strategies based on local priorities, organizational structures, programs, leadership

5

Purpose of Transportation Safety Plan

The Missoula community seeks to develop a multimodal Community Transportation Safety

Plan to document the area’s transportation safety issues and identify a comprehensive set safety issues and identify a comprehensive set of strategies to reduce the number and severity

of traffic crashes.

6

Plan Development ProcessEstablish TSAC

Review Crash Data

Establish CTSP Goal

Identify Emphasis Areas

EA 1 EA 2 EA 3

7

Safety Strategies

Performance Measures

CTSP

Implementation

Implementation Responsibilities

Work Plan and Timeline (proposed)Kickoff MeetingKickoff Meeting February 21, 2013

Select Emphasis AreasSelect Emphasis Areas March 21, 2013

Identify Current Strategies/Plan Identify Current Strategies/Plan Safety SummitSafety Summit April 18, 2013

Safety SummitSafety Summit May 16, 2013

Draft PlanDraft Plan June 20, 2013

8

Draft PlanDraft Plan June 20, 2013

Final PlanFinal Plan July 18, 2013

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

9

and participate in and provide direction on plan implementation.

TSAC Roles and Responsibilities

Attend committee meetings and the Transportation Sa fety 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 individu als to facilitate implementation

Approve and submit final plan for formal adoption

Support implementation of the Community Transportat ion Safety Plan

10

“ The 4 E’s of Safety”

Engineering

11

Education

EmergencyResponse

Enforcement

Proposed TSAC MembershipMissoula Planning DepartmentCity of Missoula Bicycle/Pedestrian OfficeMontana Rail LinkMissoula County DUI Task ForceMissoula County Public

Missoula Police DepartmentMissoula County Sherriff’s OfficeMontana Highway PatrolMissoula County Public WorksMissoula City Public WorksMissoula Fire DepartmentMissoula County Public

SchoolsSt. Patrick HospitalMissoula County Office of Emergency ManagementMissoula Emergency Services

Missoula Fire DepartmentMissoula Rural Fire DepartmentMontana Dept. of Transp.Mountain LineMissoula International Airport

12

Proposed TSAC Membership (continued)

University of Montana Office of Public SafetyCity of Missoula Development ServicesMontana Department of Public Health and Human Public Health and Human ServicesMissoula Aging ServicesASUM Office of Transportation, UCOthers?

13

Crash Data

Crash Data Analysis ProcessBehavior, e.g.» Distracted» Speeding» Impaired» Safety Belt Use

Infrastructure/Crash Types, e.g.Infrastructure/Crash Types, e.g.» Intersections» Road departure

Demographics, e.g. » Under 25» 65 and older

15

Missoula Crash Severity (2009-2011)

1292

1198 1180

800

1000

1200

1400

Property Damage Only

Other Injury Crash

16

Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2013

261 236 230

9275 74

12788 85

3 3 90

200

400

600

2009 2010 2011

Non Severe Injury Crash

Incapacitating Crash

Fatal Crash

BehaviorBehavior

Missoula Injuries by Safety Belt Use (2007-2011)

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Injuries by Safety Belt Use

MISSOULA COMPARISON COMMUNITIES

18


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

UN

BE

LTE

D

BE

LTE

D

HE

LME

T U

SE

D

RE

ST

RA

INT

US

E

UN

KN

OW

N

Missoula Drivers by Impairment – All Crashes(2007-2011)

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%


19


0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

YE

S (

ALC

OH

OL

PR

ES

EN

T)

YE

S (

DR

UG

S

PR

ES

EN

T)

YE

S (

ALC

OH

OL

AN

D D

RU

GS

P

RE

SE

NT

)

NO

T R

EP

OR

TE

D

UN

KN

OW

N

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Missoula Driver Contributing Circumstances All Crashes – (2007-2011)

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%MISSOULA COMPARISON COMMUNITIES

20Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012

0.0%

5.0%

OT

HE

R*(

DR

IVE

R)

DR

UG

S

ALC

OH

OL

FA

ILE

D T

O Y

IELD

RIG

HT

OF

WA

Y

DIS

RE

GA

RD

ED

TR

AF

FIC

SIG

NS

EX

CE

ED

ED

ST

AT

ED

SP

EE

D …

TO

O F

AS

T F

OR

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

MA

DE

AN

IMP

RO

PE

R T

UR

N

WR

ON

G S

IDE

OR

WR

ON

G W

AY

FO

LLO

WE

D T

OO

CLO

SE

LY

IMP

RO

PE

R L

AN

E C

HA

NG

E

IMP

RO

PE

R B

AC

KIN

G …

IMP

RO

PE

R P

AS

SIN

G

IMP

RO

PE

R S

IGN

ALS

IMP

RO

PE

R P

AR

KIN

G

FE

LL A

SLE

EP

, FA

INT

ED

ET

C.

LIC

. RE

ST

. NO

T C

OM

PLI

ED

INA

TT

EN

TIV

E D

RIV

ING

CE

LL P

HO

NE

CA

RE

LES

S D

RIV

ING

DemographicsDemographics

Missoula Drivers by Gender – All Crashes(2007-2011)

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%


22


0.0%10.0%

MA

LE

FE

MA

LE

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Missoula Drivers by Age - All Crashes(2007-2011)

8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%20.0%


23


0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

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

TAT

ED

Crash TypeCrash Type

Missoula Vehicles in a Crash by First Harmful Event (2007-2011)

2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%


25Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2013

0.0%1.0%2.0%

OV

ER

TU

RN

FIR

E/E

XP

LOS

ION

OT

HE

R N

ON

CO

LLIS

ION

PE

DE

ST

RIA

N

PE

DA

LCY

CLE

MV

IN T

RA

NS

PO

RT

ON

…

PA

RK

ED

MV

WIL

D A

NIM

AL

DO

ME

ST

IC A

NIM

AL

OT

HE

R O

BJ.

NO

T F

IXE

D

GU

AR

DR

AIL

FA

CE

HW

Y. T

RA

FF

IC S

IGN

PO

ST

LUM

INA

IRE

/LIG

HT

SU

PP

OR

T

UT

ILIT

Y P

OLE

OT

HE

R P

OS

T

DIT

CH

FE

NC

E

MA

IL B

OX

OT

HE

R F

IXE

D O

BJE

CT

UN

KN

OW

N

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Other FactorsOther Factors

Missoula Vehicle Type – All Crashes(2007-2011)

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%


27


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

PA

SS

EN

GE

R C

AR

PIC

KU

P

VA

N

MIN

I VA

N

SU

V

MO

TO

RH

OM

E

MO

TO

RC

YC

LE

BIC

YC

LE

TR

UC

K-T

RA

CT

OR

BU

S

SC

HO

OL

BU

S

AM

BU

LAN

CE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

OT

HE

R

UN

KN

OW

N

NO

T S

TA

TE

D

Missoula Crashes by Time of Day(2007-2011)

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%


28


0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

12:0

0 M

-12

:59A

M

1:00

-

1:59

2:00

-

2:59

3:00

-

3:59

4:00

-

4:59

5:00

-

5:59

6:00

-

6:59

7:00

-

7:59

8:00

-

8:59

9:00

-

9:59

10:0

0

-10

:59

11:0

0

-11

:59

12:0

0 N

-12

:59P

M

1:00

-

1:59

2:00

-

2:59

3:00

-

3:59

4:00

-

4:59

5:00

-

5:59

6:00

-

6:59

7:00

-

7:59

8:00

-

8:59

9:00

-

9:59

10:0

0

-10

:59

11:0

0

-11

:59

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Missoula Crashes by Day of Week(2007-2011)

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%


29


0.0%

5.0%

SU

ND

AY

MO

ND

AY

TU

ES

DA

Y

WE

DN

ES

DA

Y

TH

UR

SD

AY

FR

IDA

Y

SA

TU

RD

AY

Missoula Crashes by Road Condition(2007-2011)

20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%


30


0.0%10.0%20.0%

DR

Y

WE

T

SN

OW

OR

S

LUS

H ICE

SA

ND

,MU

D,D

IRT,

OIL D

EB

RIS

LOO

SE

GR

AV

EL

OT

HE

R

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Missoula Crashes by Relationship to Junction (2007-2011)

15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%


31


0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%

NO

N J

UN

CT

ION

IN

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

R

ELA

TE

D

IN D

RIV

EW

AY

A

CC

ES

S

DR

IVE

WA

Y

RE

LAT

ED

RR

X-I

NG

R

ELA

TE

D

INT

ER

CH

AN

GE

NO

T S

TAT

ED

Crashes by Traffic Control(2007-2011)

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%


32

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

NO

NE

TR

AF

FIC

SIG

NA

LS

SIG

NA

LS N

OT

WO

RK

ING

SIG

NA

LS F

LAS

HIN

G

FLA

SH

ER

FLA

SH

ER

NO

T W

OR

KIN

G

ST

OP

SIG

N

YIE

LD S

IGN

RA

ILR

OA

D S

IGN

AL

RA

ILR

OA

D S

IGN

ALS

NO

T

WO

RK

ING

RA

ILR

OA

D G

AT

ES

RA

ILR

OA

D G

AT

ES

NO

T

WO

RK

ING

RR

X-B

UC

K

SIG

NS

& P

AV

EM

AR

K

TR

AF

FIC

SIG

NS

PA

VE

ME

NT

MA

RK

ING

S

TR

AF

FIC

CO

NT

RO

L D

OW

N/M

ISS

ING

NO

PA

SS

ING

ZO

NE

NO

SIG

NS

, NO

PA

VE

MA

RK

OT

HE

R

Initial Findings

Intersections

Young drivers

Inattentive/careless

33

Safety VisionSafety Vision

Missoula Vision

Where does Missoula want to be in the future regarding transportation safety?

Example Vision Statements» All travelers will arrive safely at their

destinationdestination» Missoula will have the safest transportation

system of any community in MT» Missoula will establish a culture of safety on

its roadways» Vision Zero

35

Missoula Safety Vision

Target Zero

36

CTSP GoalCTSP Goal

Missoula Annual Averages

Fatal Crashes

Incapacitating Injury Crashes

Non-Severe Injury

Crashes

PDOCrashes

Total Crashes

8 120 396 1,369 1,893

Urban Area Annual Crashes (2007-2011)

38

Fatalities Incapacitating Injuries

Non-SevereInjuries

8 143 519

Urban Area Annual Fatalities/Injuries (2007-2011)


Examples - Traffic Safety Goals

ButteButte

To reduce motor To reduce motor vehicle vehicle crashes by 20 crashes by 20 percent by 2017, from percent by 2017, from an annual average of an annual average of

671 crashes to an 671 crashes to an annual average of 537 annual average of 537

Shelby/Toole CountyShelby/Toole County

Reduce annual average severe crashes

within Toole County by one third from

2010 to 2015, resulting in an

annual average of 537 annual average of 537 crashescrashes.. resulting in an

average of no more than four severe

injury crashes per year.

39

BozemanBozeman

Reduce fatalities and injuries by 25% by

2018.

CTSP Goals - Sample Approaches

20 percent reduction in severe injuries ( fatalities + incapacitating injuries)

Reduction in a specific number of severe injuries

One death is one too many – zero fatalitiesOne death is one too many – zero fatalities

Reduce fatal and incapacitating injuries by half by 2030 (MT CHSP)

40

Missoula Safety Goal

Reduce the five-year average of fatal and severe in jury crashes by 5 percent per year, for a reduction by 2 5 percent by 2018.

41

Next StepsNext Steps

Next TSAC Meeting

Additional data analysis

Determine Emphasis Areas for Plan

Finalize Goal

43

Example: Butte-Silver Bow –All Crashes by Emphasis Area

21

70

814

96

1013

1

254

3

9

45

648

125

719

4

217

1

Bicycle Involved

Asleep/Fainted/etc. Related

Speed-Related

Animal Related

Inattentive Driving Related

Train Involved

Unbelted

Native American (Fatalities Only)

1094

226

1281

704

229

42

1814

28

21

923

229

1099

559

179

67

1433

16

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 InvolvedAll Crashes 2006-2010

All Crashes 2001-2005

44 Source: MDT-Safety Management System, 2012

Example: Butte-Silver Bow Fatal/Incapacitating Crashes by Emphasis Area

4

14

59

0

43

0

100

3

1

11

35

2

20

0

77

1

Bicycle Involved

Asleep/Fainted/etc. Related

Speed-Related

Animal Related

Inattentive Driving Related

Train Involved

Unbelted

Native American (Fatalities Only)

45

106

41

32

20

15

18

46

4

4

98

36

32

21

6

22

25

8

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 Involved2006-2010

2001-2005

Note: Unbelted and Native American data represent number of people, not crashes


Next StepsSelect dates & locations for next two meetings» Develop agenda and materials

Select potential dates & location for Safety Summit (May)

Identify other potential TSAC members

Homework: » What are Missoula’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 meet ing

46

Open DiscussionOpen Discussion

Documents

Missoula Community Transportation Safety Plan · » Pam Langve-Davis Consultant Team from Cambridge Systematics, Inc. » Audrey Wennink – Senior Analyst » Sam Lawton – Project