NO TRAFFIC DEATHS BY 2030 IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY€¦ · Automated Traffic Enforcement $0M $5M $10M...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    17-May-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    1
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of NO TRAFFIC DEATHS BY 2030 IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY€¦ · Automated Traffic Enforcement $0M $5M $10M...

  • NO TRAFFIC DEATHS BY 2030

    IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

  • 3

    MEETING AGENDA,

    PURPOSE, & GOALS

  • 4

    I. Introduction (10 mins)

    1. Introduce all team members

    2. Introduce the program and meeting agenda

    • Recap of previous meetings and where we are

    • Meeting purpose and goals

    II. County’s Presentation – Traffic Law Enforcement (40 mins)

    1. Traffic Stop Data

    2. Overview of High Visibility Enforcement from MCPD

    3. Q&A

    III.Break (10 mins)

    IV.Draft Equity Statement and Discussion (55 mins)

    V. Next Steps (5 mins)

  • 5

    Meeting 1:

    Define Equity

    Meeting 2:

    Engineering

    Meeting 3:

    Education

    Meeting 4:

    Enforcement

    Document Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

    Draft Equity

    Statement for

    Vision Zero

    Task Force &

    Public Review

    Equity Statement

    for Vision Zero

    DRAFT

    10 – Year Vision

    Zero Strategy

    http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/254074/how-to-draw-a-bunch-of-documents-icon-with-tikzhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

  • 6

    ✓ Review data and practices for traffic law enforcement

    ✓ Revise draft equity statement developed from Meeting #3

    ✓ Discuss equity framework considerations and scorecard for

    engineering and education

  • 7

    ➢ During Q&A, raise your hand and wait for the facilitator to call on you.

    ➢ Avoid interrupting another task force member.

    ➢ Avoid distracting sidebar conversations.

    ➢ Question assumptions, but don’t assume someone is wrong. We all have

    different perspectives and our task does not have a right or wrong textbook

    answer. Build on other’s ideas instead of tearing them down.

  • 8

    TRAFFIC SAFETY

    ENFORCEMENT

  • 9

    $91,029,214

    $26,014,889

    $663,120

    Engineering &

    Maintenance

    Enforcement

    Education

    $0M $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M

    $117,707,223 is

    allocated for Vision

    Zero related work

    and projects across

    the capital and

    operating budgets

    for the current fiscal

    year (FY19).

    22% of the Vision

    Zero budget

    supports County-

    funded enforcement

    efforts. Budget

    shown does not

    incorporate funding

    for patrol officers.

  • 10

    $83,517

    $180,000

    $5,943,322

    $19,808,050

    Police Enforcement for HIAs - Data Analyst

    Police Enforcement for HIAs - Overtime

    School Safety Program/General Fund

    Automated Traffic Enforcement

    $0M $5M $10M $15M $20M $25M

    Of the $26,014,889

    in the FY19 budget

    for Enforcement,

    76% is for speed

    and red light

    automated

    enforcement. Not

    explicitly included in

    the Vision Zero

    budget are Patrol

    and Field Services in

    MCPD since officers

    perform more duties

    than traffic

    enforcement.

  • For Vision Zero, the County

    utilizes the National Highway

    Traffic Safety Administration’s

    (NHTSA’s) annual

    communications calendar for

    issue specific timing. For

    example, each May is National

    Bicycle Safety Month, mid-

    September is Child Passenger

    Safety Week, and December is

    Impaired Driving deterrence.

    NHTSA and the Maryland

    Highway Safety Office

    (MHSO) provide marketing

    materials to anyone looking

    to spread the message.

    11

    https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/

  • MCPD utilizes the Maryland

    Highway Safety Office’s high

    visibility enforcement (HVE)

    calendar to perform regular

    stepped up enforcement all

    year round. MCPD utilizes

    analyses from MHSO, Traffic

    Division data analyst, and

    CountyStat to identify

    hotspots for crashes.

    Enforcement is typically tied

    with education to inform

    residents of the dangerous

    behaviors, ways to curb the

    behaviors, and explain why

    we perform high visibility

    enforcement.

    12

    Distracted

    Driving

    Occupant

    ProtectionImpairment

    Aggressive

    DrivingSpeeding

    Pedestrian

    Safety

  • 13

    Montgomery

    County Police

    averaged 120,665

    traffic stops from

    2013 to 2018.

    Each traffic stop

    averages 1.8

    violations.

    88% of people

    stopped have a

    Maryland driver’s

    license, followed by

    3% for DC and VA.

    112,125

    129,891 130,362120,275

    110,239121,095

    190,519

    223,783235,370

    219,758

    199,170

    218,280

    0

    50,000

    100,000

    150,000

    200,000

    250,000

    2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

    Nu

    mb

    er

    of

    Traff

    ic S

    top

    s an

    d V

    iola

    tio

    ns

    Year

    Stops Violations

  • 14

    Starting in 2015,

    more warnings were

    recorded compared

    to citations.

    The number of

    Safety Equipment

    Repair Orders

    (SEROs) averaged

    11,575 during the

    time period.

    100,318106,989

    105,607100,868

    81,331 81,65778,498

    102,872

    115,935

    108,058 108,455

    126,844

    11,703 13,922 13,828 10,832 9,384 9,779

    0

    20,000

    40,000

    60,000

    80,000

    100,000

    120,000

    140,000

    2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

    Nu

    mb

    er

    of

    Vio

    lati

    on

    s

    Year

    Citation Warning SERO

  • 15

    Top violations are

    related to speeding,

    violating right-of

    way, no or expired

    license/registration,

    and distracted

    driving. Note that

    charges, such as

    those related to

    driving under a

    suspended license

    or registration, have

    related charges.

    Violation

    Avg.

    Violations

    per Year

    Violation

    Avg.

    Violations

    per Year

    Exceeding The Posted Speed Limit 25,974

    Person Driving Motor Vehicle On Highway Or

    Public Use Property On Suspended License

    And Privilege

    4,150

    Driver Failure To Obey Properly Placed

    Traffic Control Device17,363

    Person Driving Motor Vehicle While License

    Suspended Under [Various Rules]3,792

    Failure To Display Registration Card

    Upon Demand By Police Officer10,237

    Driving Vehicle In Excess Of Reasonable And

    Prudent Speed On Highway3,610

    Driver Failure To Stop At Stop Sign Line 6,816Driving Vehicle On Highway Without Current

    Registration Plates And Validation Tabs3,438

    Driving Vehicle On Highway With

    Suspended Registration6,788 Operator Not Restrained By Seatbelt 3,136

    Driver Using Hands To Use Handheld

    Phone While Motor Vehicle In Motion5,718 Driver Changing Lanes When Unsafe 3,101

    Failure Of Individual Driving On

    Highway To Display License To

    Uniformed Police On Demand

    5,710

    Failure Of Veh. On Hwy. To Display Lighted

    Lamps, Illuminating Device In Unfavorable

    Visibility Cond

    2,980

    Displaying Expired Registration Plate

    Issued By Any State5,203

    Negligent Driving Vehicle In Careless And

    Imprudent Manner Endangering Property, Life

    And Person

    2,673

    Driving Motor Vehicle On Highway

    Without Required License And

    Authorization

    4,546Failure To Attach Vehicle Registration Plates At

    Front And Rear2,585

    Repair order - Stop Lights 4,513Driver Failure To Stop At Steady Circular Red

    Signal2,540

  • 16

    Legend:Violation

    Avg.

    Violations

    per Year

    Violation

    Avg.

    Violations

    per Year

    Exceeding The Posted Speed Limit 25,974

    Person Driving Motor Vehicle On Highway Or

    Public Use Property On Suspended License

    And Privilege

    4,150

    Driver Failure To Obey Properly Placed

    Traffic Control Device17,363

    Person Driving Motor Vehicle While License

    Suspended Under [Various Rules]3,792

    Failure To Display Registration Card

    Upon Demand By Police Officer10,237

    Driving Vehicle In Excess Of Reasonable And

    Prudent Speed On Highway3,610

    Driver Failure To Stop At Stop Sign Line 6,816Driving Vehicle On Highway Without Current

    Registration Plates And Validation Tabs3,438

    Driving Vehicle On Highway With

    Suspended Registration6,788 Operator Not Restrained By Seatbelt 3,136

    Driver Using Hands To Use Handheld

    Phone While Motor Vehicle In Motion5,718 Driver Changing Lanes When Unsafe 3,101

    Failure Of Individual Driving On

    Highway To Display License To

    Uniformed Police On Demand

    5,710

    Failure Of Veh. On Hwy. To Display Lighted

    Lamps, Illuminating Device In Unfavorable

    Visibility Cond

    2,980

    Displaying Expired Registration Plate

    Issued By Any State5,203

    Negligent Driving Vehicle In Careless And

    Imprudent Manner Endangering Property, Life

    And Person

    2,673

    Driving Motor Vehicle On Highway

    Without Required License And

    Authorization

    4,546Failure To Attach Vehicle Registration Plates At

    Front And Rear2,585

    Repair order - Stop Lights 4,513Driver Failure To Stop At Steady Circular Red

    Signal2,540

    Aggressive

    Driving

    Equipment

    License/

    Registration

    Mobile Phone

    Right of Way

    Seatbelt Use

    Speeding

  • 17

    Montgomery

    County Police

    arrested on average

    3,323 people for

    driving under the

    influence from 2013

    to 2018. The top

    months for DUI

    stops are in

    November and

    December when the

    holiday task force is

    underway.

    3,302 3,324

    3,4823,605 3,160

    3,062

    0

    500

    1,000

    1,500

    2,000

    2,500

    3,000

    3,500

    4,000

    2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

    DU

    I C

    harg

    es

    Year

  • 18

    Montgomery

    County Police utilize

    crash and citation

    data to prioritize

    locations for DUI

    high visibility

    enforcement and

    checkpoints. The

    map shows areas

    with higher rates of

    DUI crashes and

    citations around

    Halloween 2014-

    2017.

  • 19

    The number of

    violations written to

    drivers violating

    pedestrians’ right of

    way and pedestrians

    crossing illegally

    were nearly equal

    each year. MCPD

    conducts 280

    pedestrian safety

    details each year.

    838 867

    1,009

    1,3081,264

    864

    692

    986

    1,818

    1,247

    1,131

    918

    0

    200

    400

    600

    800

    1,000

    1,200

    1,400

    1,600

    1,800

    2,000

    2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

    Nu

    mb

    er

    of

    Vio

    lati

    on

    s

    Year

    Drivers Pedestrians

  • 20

    The map on the left

    shows pedestrian

    safety enforcement

    locations and

    density of violations

    from 2013 to 2018.

    Enforcement against

    drivers and

    pedestrians are

    based on the

    Pedestrian High

    Injury Areas and the

    Vision Zero High

    Injury Network.

  • 21

    AUTOMATED

    ENFORCEMENT

  • 22

    Placement of speed

    cameras are set by

    Maryland state law,

    Traffic Article 21-

    809.

    Legal Requirements, cameras can only be placed

    • Residential roads with a speed limit of 35 MPH or less OR

    • School Zones

    Site Selection:

    • Pre-enforcement verification: requests from citizens,

    collision data, community and environmental concerns

    (places of worship, schools, public facilities, etc.),

    pedestrian activity

    • Data collection and analysis

    • Site Visit

    • Approval by Citizen Advisory Board for Traffic Issues (CAB-

    TI), and the Director of MCP’s Traffic Division. The Traffic

    Division Director has final approval.

  • 23

    IIHS review showed:

    • 10% reduction in

    mean speeds

    • 62% reduction in

    likelihood

    travelling 10 mph

    above speed

    limit

    • 39% reduction in

    likelihood that

    crash resulted in

    incapacitating or

    fatal injury

  • 24

    DRAFTING EQUITY

    FRAMEWORK

  • 25

    Patient Arrives Intake ProcessPriority is

    Determined

    Processed in

    Order of

    Priority

    Decision

    Framework

  • 26

    Vision Zero

    Request

    Evaluation

    Process

    Priority is

    Determined

    Processed in

    Order of

    Priority

    Decision

    Framework

  • 1. Definition

    2. Discussion

    Questions

    How do you define

    equity of

    Montgomery

    County’s Vision

    Zero Program?

    What does Equity

    look like if we are

    able to achieve it? 27

  • 28

    To achieve Vision Zero, Montgomery County will prioritize and allocate funding and

    resources to the communities that experience a disproportionate burden of traffic-

    related fatalities and serious injuries.

    Guiding Principles:

    • Community Engagement: Montgomery County will consider everyone’s voices

    and concerns, which includes being proactive to engage communities that may

    not be represented in the process

    • Access: Residents all over Montgomery County can safely access multiple

    transportation options to reach their destination.

    • High Injury Network: Using a data-driven approach, Montgomery County will

    prioritize funding to the high injury network, with special attention to community

    that have higher rates of poverty, young people, and persons of color.

    • Address Historical Disinvestment: Investments in areas that are historically

    underserved by transportation funding and projects.

  • NO TRAFFIC DEATHS BY 2030

    IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

    29https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/

    https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/

  • 30

    APPENDIX

  • 31

    THE “3Es”

    IN PRACTICE

  • 32

    Changing

    Pedestrian

    and Driver

    Behavior

    Engineering EnforcementEducation

  • 33

    Performance Monitoring Methodology

    – Data on midblock crossings and signal adherence

    – Baseline data collected 10/25 and 11/1

    – Post-education data collected 11/30 and 12/5

    – AM Peak (7:00am–9:30am) and PM Peak (2:30pm–6:30pm)

    Preliminary Education Impact Findings

    Pedestrian BehaviorsPercent

    Baseline

    Percent Post-

    Education% Change

    Baseline

    Count

    Post-

    Education

    Count

    Mid-block Crossing 9.2% 6.7% -27.2% 2,444 2,321

    Crossing Outside of

    Crosswalk8.5% 4.2% -50.6% 322 307

    Crossing During “Walk”

    Phase59.9% 60.7% 1.3%

    1,772 1,715Crossing during “flashing

    hand” Phase4.6% 8.0% 73.9%

    Crossing During “Do Not

    Walk” Phase34.9% 31.3% -10.3%

    Data Source: Foursquare ITP

  • 34

    RECAP OF

    DATA PRESENTATION

  • The High Injury Network

    (HIN) identifies roadway

    segments that have a

    higher amount of crashes

    (at least one crash per mile

    per year) relative to the

    amount of traffic on that

    road. MCDOT uses this

    initial list to identify

    roadways for engineering

    improvements.

    35

    Legend

    Crash Rate

    Low

    Low – Medium

    Medium

    Medium – High

    High

  • 275256

    202181

    168155

    130

    259

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    300

    13-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

    Dri

    vers

    KSI p

    er

    100k R

    eg

    iste

    red

    Age Group

    5

    31

    53

    34 3539

    4643

    47

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

    Ped

    est

    rian

    s K

    SI p

    er

    100k p

    op

    .

    Age Group

    1

    18

    8 8 8

    10

    6

    9

    5

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    16

    18

    20

    0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

    Cycl

    ists

    KSI p

    er

    100k p

    op

    .

    Age Group36

  • 57% 52%

    78%

    43% 48%

    22%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    70%

    80%

    90%

    100%

    Drivers Pedestrians Cyclists

    Perc

    en

    t K

    ille

    d o

    r Severe

    ly In

    jure

    d

    Male Female

    37

  • Black or African Americans

    have the highest traffic

    fatality rate in

    Montgomery County and

    Hispanic residents are

    nearly tied.

    Hispanic pedestrians are

    killed at a rate that is 3x

    higher than Non-Hispanic

    White residents.

    38

    6.2

    2.93.2

    6.3

    1.6

    4.34.5

    0.9

    3.4

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    All Traffic Deaths Pedestrians Vehicle Occupants

    Fata

    liti

    es

    per

    100k P

    op

    ula

    tio

    n

    Hispanic Black or African American White

    Source / notes

    • CDC Mortality Data 2011-22015 via

    WONDER database

    • Ethnicity/race not currently captured in

    crash database

  • 39

    41%46%

    49%56% 59%

    62%56% 59%

    61%64%

    44%42%

    43%

    40% 35%32%

    36%26%

    27%24%

    2%1%

    3%

    4% 5% 6%7%

    3%3% 3%

    13% 11%5%

    11% 9% 9%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    70%

    80%

    90%

    100%

    2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

    Perc

    en

    t o

    f To

    tal

    Driver Pedestrian Both Not Determined

    Note: numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding. MCPD will be reviewing the 2015-2017 unknowns and will update the results.

    For the party deemed at

    fault, the rate has remained

    steady since 2012 with 60%

    drivers at fault, 30%

    pedestrians at fault, and

    10% both/undetermined.

    For fatal crashes between

    2012 and 2017, the at fault

    rates were flipped with 40%

    for drivers, 57% for

    pedestrians, and 3% for

    both.

  • 40

    Crash Density was higher in

    neighborhoods with…Higher

    Percentage of households that

    speak English less than “very well”

    Higher Percentage of population that is

    Hispanic or Latino

    HigherPercentage of households below

    the poverty level

    Lower

    Median age