Laserfiche WebLink
The county road segments with the characteristics listed above were prioritized using contributing <br />factors identified from the collision data. Road segments that were previously on the safety plan were <br />included for rating. The prioritization factors and their scores are shown in Table 4. The resulting road <br />segment prioritization is shown in Table 5. <br />Development of Safety Improvement Projects <br />After roadway segments were prioritized using the risk-based scoring as described above, the results <br />were reviewed and the list was shortened so the plan could focus on the segments that would see the <br />most benefit from safety improvements. <br />Road segments with a score of 60 or lower were removed from consideration. Road segments that <br />were within the scope of current projects or recently completed projects were also removed. Each <br />accident report was examined for further details regarding the incident to further identify contributing <br />factors, driver actions, alcohol or drug influence, intersection related, and any countermeasures already <br />in place. The list of candidate locations was further reduced by eliminating roadway segments where <br />accidents were alcohol or drug related with no hazard at the site and segments where countermeasures <br />were already in place or where no countermeasures would have prevented the accident. <br />TABLE 4 <br />Key Factors and Weighted Scores <br />Item Number <br />Factors and Collision Types <br />Score <br />1 <br />OVERALL CRITERIA MET: <br />Meets minimum criteria and was included in previous hazard elimination plan <br />20 <br />Meets minimum criteria but not included in previous hazard elimination plan <br />10 <br />Does not meet minimum criteria and was included in previous hazard elim. plan <br />5 <br />2 <br />INADEQUATE CLEAR ZONE WITH STEEP EMBANKMENT OR DITCHES (NO GUARDRAIL) <br />Over 50% of the side slopes are too steep <br />20 <br />About 10% to 50% of side slopes too steep <br />10 <br />At least one section has side slopes too steep <br />5 <br />3 <br />FIXED OBJECTS IN CLEAR ZONE (FENCE, UTILITY POLES, TREE, MAILBOX, ETC.) <br />Over 50% of the road has fixed objects in clear zone <br />20 <br />About 10% to 50% of the road has fixed objects in clear zone <br />10 <br />At least one section of the road has fixed objects in clear zone <br />5 <br />4 <br />ROADWAY CURVATURE - HORIZONTAL CURVE <br />Over 50% of the road is in a horizontal curve <br />20 <br />About 10% to 50% of the road is in a horizontal curve <br />10 <br />At least one section of the road is in a horizontal curve <br />5 <br />5 <br />ONE OR MORE FATAL OR SERIOUS INJURY COLUSION(S) - 2011 THROUGH 2015 <br />Fatality <br />50 ea. <br />Serious Injury <br />40 ea. <br />6 <br />INJURY <br />15 ea. <br />Development of Safety Improvement Projects <br />After roadway segments were prioritized using the risk-based scoring as described above, the results <br />were reviewed and the list was shortened so the plan could focus on the segments that would see the <br />most benefit from safety improvements. <br />Road segments with a score of 60 or lower were removed from consideration. Road segments that <br />were within the scope of current projects or recently completed projects were also removed. Each <br />accident report was examined for further details regarding the incident to further identify contributing <br />factors, driver actions, alcohol or drug influence, intersection related, and any countermeasures already <br />in place. The list of candidate locations was further reduced by eliminating roadway segments where <br />accidents were alcohol or drug related with no hazard at the site and segments where countermeasures <br />were already in place or where no countermeasures would have prevented the accident. <br />