Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> <br />Table 3. Scoring criteria and weighted score values used in assessing road safety project priority for 2021. Higher scores <br />indicate a higher priority road segment and/or higher countermeasure needs. <br /> <br />Scoring Criteria and Weighted Scores <br /> Item <br />Number Factors and Collision Types Score <br />1 OVERALL CRITERIA MET: <br /> Meets minimum criteria and was included in previous local safety plan 20 <br /> Meets minimum criteria but not included in previous local safety plan 10 <br /> Does not meet minimum criteria and was included in previous local safety plan 5 <br />2 Inadequate clear zone with steep embankment or ditches (no guardrail) <br /> Over 50% of the side slopes are too steep 20 <br /> About 10% to 50% of side slopes too steep 10 <br /> At least one section has side slopes too steep 5 <br />3 Fixed objects in clear zone (fences, utility poles, trees, mailboxes, etc.) <br /> Over 50% of the road has fixed objects in clear zone 20 <br /> About 10% to 50% of the road has fixed objects in clear zone 10 <br /> At least one section of the road has fixed objects in clear zone 5 <br />4 Roadway Curvature – Horizontal Curve <br /> Over 50% of the road is in a horizontal curve 20 <br /> About 10% to 50% of the road is in a horizontal curve 10 <br /> At least one section of the road is in a horizontal curve 5 <br />5 ONE OR MORE FATAL OR SERIOUS INJURY COLLISION(S) – 2015 THROUGH 2019 <br /> Fatality (per person/s) 50 ea. <br /> Serious Injury (per person/s) 40 ea. <br />6 INJURY (per person/s) 15 ea. <br /> <br />Development of Road Segment Safety Improvements <br />After roadway segments were prioritized using the risk-based scoring as described above, the results were reviewed, <br />and the list was shortened so the plan could focus on the segments that would see the most benefit from safety <br />improvements and eliminated erroneous results or locations reflecting outdated information. <br />Road segments with a score lower than 55 were removed from consideration in an attempt to break segments down <br />into higher priority rating and lower priority rating groups. Road segments that were within the scope of current <br />improvement projects or recently completed improvement projects were also removed. Each accident report was <br />examined for further details regarding the incident to further identify contributing factors, driver actions, alcohol or <br />drug influence, intersection related, and any countermeasures already in place. The list of candidate locations was <br />further reduced by eliminating roadway segments where accidents were alcohol or drug related with no hazard at the <br />site and segments where countermeasures were already in place and or where no countermeasures would have <br />prevented the accident. While these road segments are important to monitor, focus is given to other locations where <br />collisions due to deficiencies in the road structure can be addressed. The remaining roadway segments were then <br />evaluated for potential safety improvements and countermeasures.