Laserfiche WebLink
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 />ScorinE Criteria and Weiqhted 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 safetv plan 10 <br />Does not meet minimum criteria and was included in previous local safety plan 5 <br />2 lnadequate clear zone with steep embankment or ditches (no quardrail) <br />Over 50% of the side slopes are too steep 20 <br />About 1 0% to 50% of side slooes too steep 10 <br />At least one section has side slopes too steep 5 <br />3 Fixed obiects in clear zone (fences. utilitv poles. trees. mailboxes. etc.) <br />Over 50% of the road has fixed obiects in clear zone 20 <br />About 1 0% to 50% of the road has fixed obiects in clear zone 10 <br />At least one section of the road has fixed obiects in clear zone 5 <br />4 Roadwav Curvature - Horizontal Curve <br />Over 50% of the road is in a horizontal curve 20 <br />About 10% to 50% ofthe 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 />Fatalitv (per oerson/s)50 ea <br />Serious lniury (per person/s)40 ea <br />6 INJURY (per oerson/s)15 ea. <br />Development of Road Segment Safety lmprovements <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improvements and eliminated erroneous results or locations reflecting outdated information, 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 reportwas <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. <br />9