Minnesota 2006 Five Percent Report
This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code. Each state’s report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. The reports included on this Web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage. Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site.
Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence—Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports. |
Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fiveguidance.htm.
Minnesota Annual Highway Safety Improvement Program Report
For State Fiscal Year 2006
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the requirements of Section 1401 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for users Act (SAFETY-LU) – which created the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a new “core funding” program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – The Office of Traffic, Security and Operations is submitting an annual report assessing the effectiveness of projects funded under the forerunner - the Hazard Elimination Program (HES).
The report is divided into five separate sections as requested by the FHWA. The first section will discuss progress in implementing HSIP projects. The second section will address an assessment of the effectiveness of the program from an overall perspective. The third section will provide a detailed analysis of safety project effectiveness and the fourth section will discuss the implementation and plans for the High Risk Rural Roads Program. The fifth section entails our interpretation of the top 5% hazardous locations.
PART E. 5 PERCENT REPORT
Methodology
As a condition for obligating HSIP funds, Section 148©(1)(D) of SAFETEA-LU requires states to prepare an annual report that describes not less than 5 percent of their public road locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs. For this report, Mn/DOT, after discussion with FHWA's Division Safety Engineer, determined that the highest crash locations were defined by our Top 200 intersections and Top 150 sections list. These lists are ranked by crash cost which is a measure of total crashes and their severity. These lists only include roadways under the jurisdiction of the State, but it is doubtful that other sections or intersections maintained by other jurisdictions would have higher crash costs.
Assessment of Remedies
For this report, the top 5% of each of these lists were evaluated. Tables 10a and 10b list the top 5 percent of the intersections and sections of highway from the overall lists. For the sections list, the top 10 are all located in the Metro District. Nine of the ten are on the Interstate system and are all interconnected. The characteristics of these sections are very similar: highly congested urban corridors with a high density of access. Crashes are related directly to congestion and the proximity of access. Remedies to the safety issues are directly related to eliminating congestion. These projects are extremely costly and complex. Funding has been identified for very few. The construction costs listed in the table are gross estimates for future projects, but total almost 4 billion dollars. Mn/DOT has begun detailed crash analysis of some sections and has identified some low cost projects, which we believe will have an impact on safety. After implementation, an analysis of their safety impact will be performed.
For the intersections list, half are in the Metro district and all but one intersection is signalized. Some projects have been scheduled or completed to try to improve the safety problems. An analysis of their safety impact will be performed when sufficient data is available. Four of the locations will require the construction of interchanges to mitigate the safety problems, which as noted by the construction costs will involve significant funding.
TABLE 7a - Top Ten Sections
| Sys | Num | Length (Miles) | Section Description | Dist | Rank | Crash Cost | Minor Project | Year | Major Project | Year | Other Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISTH | 94 | 0.54 | Henn/Ramsey CL To Beg 8 LN .4 Mi E TH 280 | M | 1 | $1,664,537 | Lengthening exit ramp EB-NB | 2008 | NONE | Identified as need/studying | |
| ISTH | 94 | 4.704 | Beg 6 LN I 394 To Henn/Ram CL (236.319) | M | 2 | $1,544,643 | Re-striping NB 35W to WB 94 | 2006 | NONE | Study underway | |
| ISTH | 35W | 2.43 | Beg 8 Ln 46Th St Ramp To Beg 6 LN TH 65 Ramp | M | 3 | $1,213,210 | NONE | Expansion | 2024-2030 | Study underway for northern section | |
| ISTH | 94 | 0.925 | Beg 6 LN .2 Mi W Marion St To W Jct I 35E(Beg Coin) | M | 4 | $1,198,703 | NONE | NONE | Identified as need/studying | ||
| ISTH | 94 | 1.407 | (End Coin)E Jct I 35E To Beg 10 LN E Mounds Blvd | M | 5 | $1,001,706 | NONE | NONE | Identified as need/studying | ||
| ISTH | 35E | 1.286 | Beg SL 55 .1 Mi S EB I 94 To 6 LN .2 Mi S Cayuga Br | M | 6 | $893,157 | NONE | Expansion on north end | 2014 | ||
| ISTH | 35W | 4.336 | Beg 6 Ln TH 65 To Beg SL 60 8 LN New Brighton Blvd | M | 7 | $866,040 | NONE | NONE | Study underway | ||
| ISTH | 35W | 2.361 | Beg 6 LN E Jct TH 62 To Beg 8 LN N Of 46Th St | M | 8 | $837,018 | NONE | Expansion/ reconstruction | 2007 | ||
| ISTH | 94 | 4.151 | Beg 8 LN .4 Mi E TH 280 To Beg 6 LN .2 Mi W Marion | M | 9 | $749,048 | NONE | NONE | Identified as need/studying | ||
| USTH | 10 | 1.86 | Beg Frwy Fair Oak To Beg SL 65 .3 mi E Of CSAH 7 | M | 10 | $720,833 | NONE | NONE |
TABLE 7b - Top Ten Intersections
| Sys | Num | Intersection Description | Dist | Rank | Crash Cost | Minor Project | Year | Major Project | Year | Other Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNTH | 51 | CR B Csah25/Roseville | M | 1 | $1,262,800 | NONE | Expansion/Reconstruction | 2007 | ||
| MNTH | 15 | S Jct TH 232 Nd Sts/St Cloud | 3 | 2 | $1,012,950 | Signal revisions, ITS | 2003 | Dual left turns | 2005 | |
| USTH | 169 | 85Th Av Ncsah109/Brookpark | M | 3 | $978,900 | NONE | Construct Interchange | 2008 | ||
| USTH | 10 | Fair Oak Avmsas129Rt M12/Anka | M | 4 | $938,050 | NONE | NONE | Identified as need/studying | ||
| USTH | 10 | Sunfish Lake CSAH 57Lt MSAS 113 | M | 5 | $809,000 | Signal revisions, access mgmt | 2006 | NONE | HPP Project/studying | |
| USTH | 169 | CSAH 81/Brookpk | M | 6 | $737,300 | NONE | Construct Interchange | 2008 | ||
| MNTH | 23 | 33rd Av MSAS 121 MSAS 134/Stc | 3 | 7 | $703,950 | Signal revisions | 2004 | NONE | ||
| USTH | 169 | 190th St CSAH 11 | 3 | 8 | $654,600 | Removed sight restriction | 2004 | NONE | ||
| MNTH | 65 | CSAH 5/Isanti | 3 | 9 | $651,400 | Signal revisions, AWF | 2004 | Rebuild intersection | 2008 | |
| USTH | 63 | 37Th St NW CSAH 22/Roch | 6 | 10 | $644,750 | NONE | NONE | Considering protected left turns |
The prime impediments to implementing safety remedies with sufficient impact are funding availability. For the sections list, these costs are significantly higher than the intersections costs, but would undoubtedly have a much greater impact. An additional impediment to implementation is the political acceptability of these improvements. Many of these sections and intersections are in urban areas. Construction projects would have environmental and social impacts which may be unacceptable to local units of government. Another issue for signalized intersections is the debate between safety and capacity in regard to protected left turns. A balance between operations, access and safety will be necessary.
