HIGHWAY- RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROJECT SELECTION Maureen - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

HIGHWAY- RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SAFETY PROJECT SELECTION

Maureen Jensen P.E. | Assistant Director Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations October 4, 2017

| mndot.gov

Outline

• Grade Crossing Safety Background
• Development of Risk Factor Method
• Future Project Selection Process
• Discussion

10/4/2017 2

Minnesota Railroad Safety Facts

• In the state of Minnesota there are approximately

4,000 at-grade public crossings

• Of the 4,000 public crossings over a third have active

warning devices (Gates, Flashers).

• Over 85% of trips (AADT) and 60% of trains cross at

active crossings

Grade Crossing Safety Program Goals

• Eliminate fatalities and injuries at grade

crossings (TZD)

• Maintain warning devices in a state of

good repair

10/4/2017 4

Funding:

Section 130: $6.5M State: $1 M

Minnesota Grade Crossing fatalities 2004-2013

Crossbucks Stop Sign Flashers Gates Total Did not stop 14 24 2 40 Stopped on crossing 1 2 1 3 7 Stopped then proceeded 2 2 Suicide 1 1 Went around gates 9 9 Went thru gate 1 1 Unknown 1 1 7 9 Grand Total 18 28 3 20 69 Percent of fatalities 26 41 4 29 % AADT 11 7 24 58

5

MAP-21 –PUW Process Update

• Candidate crossings were selected by each ATP, based on input from OFCVO,

Local Road Authorities and railroads.

• OFCVO used the federal accident prediction (AP) model for screening - train

and vehicle exposure, crash history.

• Didn’t always result in the highest risk crossings (Federal Guideline)
• Local Road Authorities were unable to provide match funds in some cases
• ATP targets difficult to establish
• Could take 6 years to get a project programmed
• Most states taking a statewide approach

STATEWIDE PROGRAM, NO MATCH

6

Development of Risk Factors for Screening (2015)

• Accident Prediction Equation wasn’t aligning with the risks seen

by MnDOT or road authorities

• Minnesota’s 10-year crash history analysis
• 91% of public grade crossings had NO crashes.
• 96% had NO crashes resulting in injuries.
• 99% had NO fatal crashes.
• 1 crossing had TWO fatal crashes.
• More than 50% of crossings with a injury crash had NO prior crashes.
• Presence of a single crash at a crossing suggests that a second

crash (in the next 10 years) is unlikely.

7

RISK FACTOR DETERMINATION

42% of Fatal Crashes vs. 23% of Crossings 38% of Fatal Crashes vs. 24% of Crossings

8

SELECTED RISK FACTORS

9

Risk Factors

Active Passive

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Volumes

Roadway AADT 2500 Unlimited 150 Unlimited Total Trains per Day 10 Unlimited 4 Unlimited Volume Cross Product 20,000 Unlimited 750 Unlimited

Speeds

Roadway Speed Limit 45 Unlimited Maximum Timetable Speed 31 Unlimited 36 Unlimited

Design

Number of Mainline Tracks 2 Unlimited Skew ≥15° ≥15°

Surroundings

Distance to Nearby Intersection 1 foot 99 feet 40 feet 160 feet Distance to Nearest Crossing 0.5 mile 1 mile 0.5 mile 1 mile Clearing Sight Distance Any Quadrant Fails Any Quadrant Fails Approaching Sight Distance Any Quadrant Fails

Safety Improvement Strategies

10

Warning Devices

• New signals and gates
• Signs and Pavement Markings
• Replacement of antiquated/upgrades
• Ped gates, mazes
• Medians

Elimination of Hazards

• Improve geometrics
• Eliminate at-grade crossings (Consolidation, closure)
• Improve sight lines
• Grade separation (roadway, pedestrian)

District 8 ATP Projects

The most successful safety strategies are not realistic for every at-risk crossing.

• Signals + Gates + Medians has the best safety performance but the highest implementation costs ($500k-

$700k). Must be replaced every 20-30 years. This results in a 300 year backlog.

• Need lower cost (and effective) alternative strategies.
• Corridor approach (such as the Crude by Rail Corridor) and County Safety Plans are an opportunity to partner

with local agencies to accomplish closures + upgrades

11

FY Location

2017 CSAH 6, 190th St NE, Township of Roseville, Kandiyohi County- install gates 2017 M1, Dike Rd, Granite Falls, Yellow Medicine County - install gates 2017 CSAH 7, Stewart, McLeod County - upgrade system 2018 CSAH 4, 150th St SE, Atwater, Kandiyohi County - upgrade system 2018 CSAH 9, Darwin, Meeker County - upgrade system 2019 T 170, 45th Ave SW, Township of Willmar, Kandiyohi County 2019 US 12, Willmar, Kandiyohi County - upgrade system

2017 – New Project Selection Requirements

• FHWA – 100% waiver for 130 ended – must be 90-10
• Legislature: MnDOT needs to improve transparency on how projects are selected.
• Transparent – Clear to the public
• Involvement of stakeholders
• Scoring “formula”
• Risk Factors are used to identify candidate pool, but are not the only factors for selecting

safety projects and determining the best solution

10/4/2017 Optional Tagline Goes Here | mndot.gov/ 12

Develop Project Selection Process

• Develop a Programming Update Workgroup Sub-committee to develop recommendations
• Include members from ATP, MPO, LRA, FHWA, MnDOT, State Aid
• Committee to review and recommend:
• Program Goals
• Statewide, APT approach
• Eligibility/Focus Areas/Investment Goals
• Selection/Scoring Criteria
• Process and Documentation (Solicitation, etc)
• Complete by May of 2018 for PUW, TPIC approval
• Begin Using for 2021

10/4/2017 Optional Tagline Goes Here | mndot.gov/ 13

Discussion and Questions

14

Thank you!

Maureen Jensen

Maureen.jensen@state.mn.us 651-366-3668

10/4/2017 Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations | mndot.gov 15