3-Attachment B - 2024 Wasatch Back Safety Action Plan.pdf

MOUNTAINLAND

SAFE STREETS

RPO

SAFETY

ACTION

PLAN

i

2024 SAFETY ACTION PLAN

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................ES 1

ES 1. Safe Streets for All Program

ES 2. Safety Analysis

ES 3. Equity

ES 4. Recommendations

1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Safe System Approach

1.3. RPO Commitment

2. Planning Structure

2.1. Stakeholder Committee

3. Safety Analysis

3.1. Crash Data Sources

3.2. Crash Analysis Zones

3.3. Crash Data Overview

3.4. Analysis Components

3.5. Systemic Safety

3.6. Local Agency Concerns

4. Engagement and Collaboration

4.1. Website

4.2. Pop-Up Events

4.3. Public Open Houses

4.4. Group Outreach

4.5. Local Government Outreach

5. Equity Considerations

5.1. Disadvantaged Community Analysis

5.2. Vehicle Crash Data and Underserved Areas

5.3. Travel Pattern Analysis

6. Policy and Process Change

6.1. Best Practices

ii

6.2. MPO/RPO Planning Processes

6.3. Recommended Policies and Practices

6.4. Safety Countermeasures Toolkit

7. Strategy and Process Selection

7.1. Project Identifcation

7.2. Prioritization Process

7.3. Projects

7.4. Programmatic Safety Improvements

7.5. Evolving Technology and Smart Systems

8. Progress and Transparency

8.1. Future Updates

8.2. Safe Streets Report Dashboard

8.3. Monitoring Progress

APPENDIX A: Safe Streets Countermeasures Toolkit

APPENDIX B: State-level Policies to Further Roadway Safety

APPENDIX C: Project Scoring Tables

APPENDIX D: RPO Process Evaluation

FIGURES

Figure ES-1. Summit and Wasatch County High Injury Network ........................................................ ES 2

Figure 1. Safe System Approach Components

Figure 3. Summit County Total Crashes

Figure 2. Crash Analysis Zones

Figure 4. Summit County Serious Injury & Fatal Crashes

Figure 5. Summit County Pedestrian & Bicycle Crashes

Figure 6. Wasatch County Total Crashes

Figure 7. Wasatch County Serious Injury & Fatal Crashes

Figure 8. Wasatch County Pedestrian & Bicycle Crashes

Figure 9. Crash Analysis Zone Emphasis Areas

Figure 10. North Summit Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations iii

Figure 11. Park City Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

Figure 12. Snyderville/Kimball Junction Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

Figure 13. South Summit Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

Figure 14. Heber Valley County Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

Figure 15. North Summit Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 16. Park City Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 17. Snyderville/Kimball Junction Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 18. South Summit Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 19. Unincorporated Summit County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 20. Heber Valley County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 21. Unincorporated Wasatch County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

Figure 22: Facility Profle Tiers by Share of Roadway Mileage and Share of Serious Crashes

Figure 23: Facility Profle Tiers by Road Ownership

Figure 24: Map of High-Risk Facilities (Summit & Wasatch Counties)

Figure 25: Interactive Dashboard with Full Resolution

Figure 26: Dashboard with Diferent Filters

Figure 27. Infographic of Survey Results

Figure 28. Pedestrian Intercept Survey

Figure 29. Sticky Dot Exercise

Figure 30. Pop-Up Event at Wasatch Senior Center & Library

Figure 31. Summit County Open House

Figure 32. Wasatch County Open House

Figure 33. MAG Area Disadvantaged Census Tracts

Figure 34. Utah County Disadvantaged Census Tracts

Figure 35. Summit and Wasatch County People in Poverty Travel Pattern Analysis

Figure 36. Summit and Wasatch County Zero-Car Household Travel Pattern Analysis

Figure 37. Types of Plans Reviewed

Figure 38. Plan Highlight: Safety Metric in Summit County Active Transportation Plan

Figure 39. Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy

Figure 40. North Summit County Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations

Figure 41. Snyderville/Kimball Junction and Park City Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations

Figure 42. South Summit Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations iv

Figure 43. Unincorporated Summit County Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations

Figure 44. Heber Valley Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations

Figure 45. Unincorporated Wasatch County Crash Analysis Zone Project Recommendations

TABLES

Table ES-1. Percent Disadvantaged Census Tracts................................................................................ ES 3

Table 1. MAG RPO Stakeholder Committee

Table 2. Crash Analysis Zones

Table 3. Facility Profle Tiers by Factors

Table 4. Summary of Safety Plans in Summit and Wasatch Counties

Table 5. National Best Practices Reference Manuals and Resources

Table 6. Overarching Rationale for Recommendations

Table 7. Regional Strategies

Table 8. Local Strategies

Table 9. Prioritization Scoring Rubric

Table 10. Prioritization Thresholds by Crash Analysis Zone

Table 11. North Summit

Table 12. Park City

Table 13. Snyderville/Kimball Junction

Table 14. South Summit

Table 16. Heber Valley

Table 17. Unincorporated Wasatch County

Table 18. Number of Proposed Projects Related to Education & Enforcement

Table 19. Number of Red-Light Running Crashes with Fatal and Serious Injuries

ES - 1

2024 RPO SAFETY ACTION PLAN

MOUNTAIN LAND

ES - 1. Executive Summary

ES-1.1. SAFE STREETS FOR ALL PROGRAM

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program provides grants to local and regional jurisdictions for implementation, planning, and demonstration activities as part of a systematic approach to preventing deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s roadways. The SS4A program collaborates within USDOT, and with outside organizations committed to roadway safety, to disseminate program information and build capacity to help communities apply for grants and successfully implement grant activities.

SS4A identifes eight key components to be completed to qualify as an eligible Safety Action Plan. The Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Safety Action documents the satisfaction of the eight components in this report:

Chapter 1 Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting: documents the leadership commitment adopted by the RPO Board to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes by 50% by 2050 with an eventual goal to eliminate all fatal and serious injury crashes.

Chapter 2 Planning Structure: identifes the Stakeholder Committee to guide the development, implementation and monitoring of the plan.

Chapter 3 Safety Analysis: documents historical crash trends and locations of fatal and serious injury crashes, contributing factors, and crash types by relevant road users; provides a systemic analysis of high-risk locations.

Chapter 4 Engagement and Collaboration: summarizes the engagement conducted with agencies, public groups, and stakeholders through in-person and virtual outreach.

Chapter 5 Equity Considerations: documents analysis to identify transportation disadvantaged populations according to federal defnitions and presents travel pattern analysis of disadvantaged populations.

Chapter 6 Policy and Process Changes: identifes current plans and policies related to safety and identifes opportunities to improve how MAG conducts its planning and transportation funding processes to better prioritize safety.

Chapter 7 Strategy and Project Selections: Identifes a prioritized, comprehensive list of projects and strategies to address identifed safety problems including programs and strategies.

Chapter 8 Progress and Transparency: Describes how progress towards safety goals can be measured over time and outlines the online dashboard created to track key safety metrics as projects and strategies are implemented.

ES - 2

SUMMIT COUNTY

UINTAH

AND OURAY

RESERVATION

ES-1.2. SAFETY ANALYSIS

Data for this analysis were downloaded from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Numetric database. The fve most recent complete years of data, 2018-2022, were used. While crashes occurring on interstates were excluded, all other crashes during the study period were included in the analysis. Prior to analyzing the crash data, the data were grouped into crash analysis zones that represented groupings of one or more jurisdictions. This was done to ensure that there was an adequate sample size of crashes from which to identify trends and provide some contextual consistency.

Figure ES-1. Summit and Wasatch County High Injury Network

ES - 3

2024 RPO SAFETY ACTION PLAN MOUNTAIN LAND

In Summit and Wasatch counties, 7,270 crashes occurred during the study period. This included 280 serious injury crashes and 54 crashes resulting in a fatality. Serious injury crashes peaked at 62 in both 2018 and 2020; a low of 42 crashes was reported in 2022. Fatal crashes were highest in 2021, with 15, with a low of 6 in 2019.

Overrepresented emphasis areas were identifed for each crash analysis zone in the counties. Several emphasis areas were overrepresented in four of the RPO’s seven crash analysis areas: impaired driving, bicycle crashes, pedestrian safety, roadway departure, speed management, and senior safety. In North Summit, 50% of serious injury and fatal crashes involved impaired driving. Fatal and serious injury roadway departure crashes were particularly prevalent in the unincorporated areas, making up 65% and 51% in unincorporated Summit County and Wasatch County, respectively. Approximately 33% of fatal and serious crashes in these unincorporated areas involved unsafe speeds.

A high injury network (HIN) was developed for each crash analysis zone to identify locations for which investments can have the greatest impact to mitigate crash-related fatalities and serious injuries (Figure ES- 1). The HIN for each zone incorporated the top 10% of road miles based on a detailed scoring methodology.

In Summit and Wasatch counties, the high injury network incorporated the locations for up to 75% of each zone’s fatal and serious injury crashes.

ES-1.3. EQUITY

Within the RPO, there is a total population of 74,800 according to the USDOT’s Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer (Table ES-1). For the national results, 0% of the census tracts within the RPO qualify as disadvantaged communities. However, for the state results, 14% of census tracts in Summit County and 10% of census tracts in Wasatch County qualify as disadvantaged. The census tracts are home to 7,700 people or 10% of the region’s total population.

Table ES-1. Percent Disadvantaged Census Tracts

NATIONAL RESULTS STATE RESULTS

Disadvantaged Disadvantaged Disadvantaged

Jurisdiction Total

Population Tract

Population (% Tracts

(% of Area Tract

Population (% Disadvantaged Tracts

(% of Area Total) of Total) Total) of Total)

Summit County 41,700 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2,200 (5%) 1 (14%)

Wasatch County 1 33,100 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5,500 (17%) 1 (10%)

1 An eastern portion of the county includes Uintah and Ouray of-reservation trust land. It is not a full census tract and has a population of less than 50. (2020

Census Redistricting Data)

ES - 4

ENGAGEMENT

Engagement for the RPO consisted of in-person and online survey opportunities in December 2023 to collect input about perceptions and lived experiences of safety on roads in Summit County and Wasatch County that the team could use alongside analysis to develop the High Injury Network and get early ideas for mitigation projects. Once the HIN was created and draft countermeasures identifed, a series of in-person public open houses and pop-up events were held in strategic locations to reach groups living in/near disadvantaged census tracts. The events informed the community about the work done so far and gathered input on which strategies seemed the most efective/likely to succeed for each community and what people would be willing to individually do to stay safe on the roads.

Events included virtual meetings for Wasatch and Summit counties in November 2023 along with pedestrian intercept surveys in Heber and Park City. Then, during April 2024, the team hosted in-person open houses in Kimball Junction and Heber City, pop-up events in Kamas at the Kamas Valley Library and in Heber at the Wasatch County Library & Senior Center.

ES-1.4. RECOMMENDATIONS

The plan recommends 96 short-, medium-, and long-term projects to improve safety at HIN locations in Summit and Wasatch counties. Some recommended projects include programmatic elements: a total of one teen driving education program, 20 speed enforcement programs, and seven red light running enforcement or education programs are recommended in various crash analysis zones throughout the county. Other project components focus on engineering-based improvements to roadway infrastructure. These include countermeasures such as enhancements to or construction of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; trafc calming elements; and trafc signal timing updates.

1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program provides grants to local and regional jurisdictions for implementation, planning, and demonstration activities as part of a systematic approach to preventing deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s roadways. The SS4A program collaborates within USDOT, and with outside organizations committed to roadway safety, to disseminate program information and build capacity to help communities apply for grants and successfully implement grant activities.

SS4A requires an eligible Safety Action Plan to be adopted before applying to implement projects and strategies. It also provides funding for two types of grants: Planning and Demonstration Grants and Implementation Grants.

A SS4A Safety Action Plan includes the following eight key components:

1. Leadership commitment and goal setting:

An ofcial public commitment by the public safety committee to an ultimate goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

2. Planning structure

Form an Action Plan Committee and Public Safety Committee which are responsible for the development, implementation, and monitoring of the Action Plan.

3. Safety analysis

Analyze existing conditions and historical trends to measure the level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries in and near the project area. Analyze locations where there are crashes and the severity of the crashes, as well as contributing factors and crash types by relevant road users. An analysis of systemic and specifc safety needs is also performed, with the mapping of higher-risk locations.

4. Engagement and collaboration

Engage the public and relevant stakeholders to allow for both community representation and feedback.

Analyze and incorporate information received into the Action Plan. Include overlapping jurisdictions in the process. Coordinate and align other governmental plans and planning processes to the extent practical.

5. Equity

Consider equity by identifying underserved communities with recent and historic demographic data and population characteristics.

6. Policy and process changes

Assess current plans, guidelines, and policies related to safety and identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize transportation safety through the adoption of new policies, guidelines, and/or standards, as appropriate.

7. Strategy and project selections

Identify a comprehensive list of projects and strategies that address safety problems. Once identifed, prioritize the list of projects and strategies for when the strategies and countermeasures will be deployed. The list should include specifc projects and strategies, descriptions of programs of projects and strategies, and an explanation of how the project list was prioritized and the criteria used.

8. Progress and transparency

Describe the method to measure progress over time after an Action Plan is developed or updated, including outcome data. Ensure ongoing transparency is established with residents and other relevant stakeholders.

The Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) has received a federal SS4A grant to develop a Safety Action Plan for Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties that will provide a complete, well-defned strategy to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries in each county.

A Safety Action Plan is a data-driven approach that identifes the areas with the most safety needs so those areas can be targeted frst. The Safety Action Plan aims to identify safety improvements to justify and prioritize investment decisions. It is a powerful way to prioritize safety improvement projects and rationalize investment decisions. The information in this plan will also help connect more clearly with stakeholders and the public, and access funding opportunities for future improvements and public education.

Wasatch and Summit counties are located east of the Salt Lake-Provo urban area in a more rural and mountainous area called the Wasatch Back. Wasatch County has a population of 34,788 and Summit County has a population of 42,357.1 Wasatch County has a total area of 1,206 square miles and Summit County has a total of 1,872 square miles. Heber City is the most populous city in Wasatch County and Park City is the most populous city in Summit County.

MAG operates the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) for the Wasatch Back area including Summit and Wasatch counties. An RPO is formed to give rural transportation decision-makers and citizens a voice in the regional transportation planning process. Its work focuses on transportation planning, land-use planning, and studies.

The RPO is governed by the RPO Board, which is made up of elected ofcials from Summit and Wasatch County. Each member municipality and county have a vote. Two Technical Advisory Committees (TACs), one in Summit and one in Wasatch County, are made up of municipal and county staf. The TACs conduct studies, create the draft transportation plan, and make recommendations to the RPO Board.

2020 U.S. Census 1

1.2. SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH

USDOT adopts a Safe System Approach (Figure 1) as the guiding theory to address roadway safety. The Safe System Approach has been embraced by the transportation community as an efective way to address and mitigate the risks inherent in our enormous and complex transportation system. It works by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in the frst place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur. It is a holistic and comprehensive approach that provides a guiding framework to make places safer for people.

This is a shift from a conventional safety approach because it focuses on both human mistakes AND human vulnerability and designs a system with many redundancies in place to protect everyone.

USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and the Department’s ongoing safety programs are working towards a future with zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries. In support of this approach, safety programs are focused on infrastructure, human behavior, responsible oversight of the vehicle and transportation industry, and emergency response.

The Action Plan Committee and the Public Safety Committee were guided by the principles of the Safe Systems Approach in the development and implementation of the MAG Safety Action Plan. The Safe Systems Approach, also known as Vision Zero, is a comprehensive approach to road safety that aims to eliminate trafc-related deaths and serious injuries. It recognizes that humans are fallible and make mistakes, so it focuses on creating a forgiving system that takes into account human error and ensures that those errors do not result in serious consequences.

Safe System Approach Core Principles:

• Human Fallibility:

The approach acknowledges that people will make mistakes on the road. Instead of blaming individuals, it seeks to design systems that prevent errors from leading to serious consequences.

• Shared Responsibility:

The responsibility for road safety is shared among various stakeholders, including road users, vehicle manufacturers, infrastructure designers, and policymakers.

Collaboration and coordination among these stakeholders are essential for achieving safe systems.

• Safe Infrastructure:

Proactive tools should be used to identify and address safety issues in the transportation system, rather than waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterward. It involves creating safe roads, intersections, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes that minimize the potential for crashes and protect vulnerable roadway users (VRUs).

• Redundancy is Crucial:

Reducing risks requires that all parts of the transportation system be strengthened, so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect people.

Safe System Approach Objectives:

• Safer People:

Encourage safe, responsible driving and behavior by people who use our roads and create conditions that prioritize their ability to reach their destination unharmed. This includes promoting compliance with trafc laws and discouraging impaired driving, distracted driving, and aggressive behaviors.

• Safer Roads

Design roadway environments to mitigate human mistakes and account for injury tolerances, encourage safer behaviors, and facilitate safe travel by the most vulnerable users.

• Safe vehicles:

Vehicle design and technology have a signifcant impact on road safety. Safe vehicles are equipped with features such as seat belts, airbags, advanced driver assistance systems, and crash avoidance technologies that mitigate the risk of crashes or reduce their severity.

• Safe speeds:

Speed is a critical factor in the severity of crashes. The Safe Systems Approach emphasizes safer speeds in all roadway environments through a combination of thoughtful, equitable, context-appropriate roadway design, appropriate speed-limit setting, targeted education, outreach campaigns, and enforcement.

• Post Crash Care:

Enhance the survivability of crashes through expedient access to emergency medical care, while creating a safe working environment for vital frst responders and preventing secondary crashes through robust trafc incident management practices.

Five E’s of Safety:

The Five E’s are the fundamentals in trafc safety to reduce the number and severity of crashes. They consists of the following concepts:

• Engineering:

This involves planning, designing, building, and maintaining safer transportation systems. Design principles and standards proven to improve safety for all users should be employed.

• Education:

Education is a key component of roadway safety. It leads to changes in behavior that can save lives.

Proposed safety projects will include projects to educate the public, especially teenagers and older drivers, about numerous safety issues.

Figure 1. Safe System Approach Compo-nents Source: Federal Highway Administra-tion (FHWA) https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SaferPeople https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SaferRoads

• Enforcement:

Law Enforcement works diligently to remind people of the laws associated with the use of our roadway network to increase safety.

• Emergency Services:

Instant response from emergency teams can save lives. Deploying trained dispatchers and ensuring the right resources arrive to provide care and address safety at the scene can reduce the number of fatalities and the severity of injuries.

• Everyone:

Everyone needs to make a diference and we all need to work together if we are going to reach Zero Fatalities. Ensuring all agencies and the public are working together is one of the main pillars of the Safety Committee.

1.3. RPO COMMITMENT

The frst of the eight key components of a SS4A Safety Action Plan is for a governing body to adopt a goal to a timeline to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. The goal may take one of two forms:

• A target date to achieve zero fatal roadway fatalities and serious injuries, or

• A target date for an ambitious percent reduction of roadway fatalities and serious injuries with an eventual goal to eliminate all roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

On May 6, 2024 the MAG RPO Board adopted the goal to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes by 50% by 2050 with an eventual goal to eliminate all fatal and serious injury crashes. This goal is branded as the “Fifty in 50” goal.

Subgoals were also developed to help RPO members focus initial eforts and support progress towards the overall goal. The subgoals target fatal and serious injury crash types that are overrepresented in Wasatch County and Summit County as discussed in Chapter 3. The subgoals are:

• By 2035, achieve a 35% reduction for fatal and serious injury crashes for the following focus crash types:

º Speed related

º Bicycle or pedestrian involved

º Motorcycle involved

º Intersection related

• By 2035, implement programs related to the following focus areas:

º Distracted driving

º Impaired driving

º Teen/older drivers

2024 SAFETY ACTION PLAN MOUNTAIN LAND

2. Planning Structure

2.1. STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE

MAG formed a stakeholder committee to guide the development of the Safety Action Plan. The stakeholder committee represented several MAG RPO member jurisdictions as well as partner agencies (Table 1). The stakeholder committee met monthly to review project progress, guide project decisions, and coordinate outreach with the community.

Table 1. MAG RPO Stakeholder Committee

Name Position Agency

Doug Smith Planning Director Wasatch County

Carl Miller Transportation Planning Director Summit County

Russell Funk City Engineer Heber City

Conor Campobasso Transportation Planner Park City

Alex Roy Assistant Transportation Planning Manager

Park City

Michael Henke City Planning Administrator Midway City

Caroline Rodriguez Executive Director High Valley Transit

Eric Rasband Region 3 Planning Manager Utah Department of Transportation

Geof Dupaix Region 2 Planning Manager Utah Department of Transportation

Peter Tang Program Trafc Engineer Utah Department of Transportation

3. Safety Analysis

3.1. CRASH DATA SOURCES

Data for this analysis were downloaded from the UDOT Numetric database. The fve most recent complete years of data, 2018-2022, were used. While crashes occurring on interstates were excluded, all other crashes during the study period were included in the analysis.

3.2. CRASH ANALYSIS ZONES

Prior to analyzing the crash data, the data were grouped into crash analysis zones that represented groupings of one or more jurisdictions. This was done to ensure that there was an adequate sample size of crashes from which to identify trends and provide some contextual consistency.

Crash analysis zones did not cross county boundaries and combined jurisdictions with similar characteristics.

In Summit County, the urbanized areas – Park City, Snyderville, the Kamas Valley, and the Coalville area

– are relatively geographically separated from each other, so these were formed into individual zones.

Wasatch County’s one urbanized area, the Heber Valley, was designated as a crash analysis zone. The crash analysis zones for each county are listed in Table 2 and are shown in Figure 2.

Table 2. Crash Analysis Zones

County Crash Analysis Zone Jurisdictions

North Summit Coalville, Hennefer

Park City Park City

SUMMIT COUNTY Snyderville/Kimball Junction Snyderville, Kimball Junction

South Summit Kamas, Oakley, Francis

Unincorporated Summit County Unincorporated areas

WASATCH COUNTY

Heber Valley

Unincorporated Wasatch County

Heber, Midway, Charleston, Daniel

Hideout, Independence, Unincorporated areas

3.3. CRASH DATA OVERVIEW

The following section details historical crash data for Summit County and Wasatch County for the fve-year analysis period 2018 to 2022. Crash trends are shown for total crashes, fatal/serious injury crashes and pedestrian/bicycle related crashes.

j

Safety Action Plan Area

-•• County Boundary i ---------

SUMMIT COUNTY

c'

WASATCH COUNTY

l \..'--:---·""'·-·v·

UTAH COUNTY l • .,_ .,.... ________ \ 14 Milos r" 3.5 i

3.3.1. SUMMIT COUNTY

Total crashes in Summit County ranged from 595 in 2020 to 847 in 2019. Summit County saw a reduction of crashes in 2020 likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and total crashes have remained lower in 2021 and 2022 than the crash totals that were seen before 2020. Figure 3 shows total crashes in Summit County from 2018 to 2022.

1,000

C ra sh es

Year

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Figure 3. Summit County Total Crashes

Figure 4 shows the serious injury and fatal crashes Figure 2. Crash Analysis Zones by year in Summit County. Serious injury crashes in Summit County peaked in 2020 at 28 serious injury crashes even though total crashes for the county were lowest in 2020. Fatal crashes have increased from 2018 to 2022, peaking at six crashes in 2021.

30 28

Figure 5 shows the pedestrian-related and bicycle-related crashes in Summit County from 2018 to C ra sh es 20

2022. Pedestrian-related crashes in Summit County 10 peaked in 2020 with 15 crashes but were lower in 2021 and 2022. Bicycle-related crashes peaked in 5

2019 with nine crashes and remained steady from 0

6 5

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2019 to 2022.

Severe Injury Fatal

Figure 4. Summit County Serious Injury & Fatal

Crashes

3.3.2. WASATCH COUNTY

C ra sh es

8 8

Total crashes for Wasatch County peaked in 2019 with 829 total crashes, falling to 655 crashes in 2020 and

Serious injury crashes have generally trended downward from 2018 to 2022 in Wasatch County.

Fatal crashes per year in Wasatch County ranged

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 between four fatal crashes and nine fatal crashes Bicycle from 2018 to 2022, peaking at nine crashes in 2019, Pedestrian

2021 and 2022.

C ra

Figure 7 shows the fatal and serious Figure 5. Summit County Pedestrian & Bicycle injury crashes in Wasatch County from 2018 to 2022.

Crashes

Figure 8 shows the pedestrian-related crashes and bicycle-related crashes in Wasatch County. Overall occurrences of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the county are relatively low with pedestrian crashes peaking at six crashes in 2020 and bicycle-related crashes peaking at eight crashes in 2021.

1000 50 have remained below pre-pandemic totals through 2022. Figure 6 shows the total crashes by year for Wasatch County.

734 733 761

C ra

800 40

400 20

Pedestrian Bicycle

36 36

0 0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Year Severe Injury Fatal

Figure 6. Wasatch County Total Crashes Figure 7. Wasatch County Serious Injury & Fatal

Crashes

Pedestrian Bicycle

C ra

4 4

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Pedestrian Bicycle

Figure 8. Wasatch County Pedestrian & Bicycle

Crashes

3.4.1. EMPHASIS AREAS

3.4. ANALYSIS

COMPONENTS

Several types of analyses were used to consider safety from multiple angles and to assist in identifying and prioritizing projects for each crash analysis zone.

These included an assessment of emphasis areas, crash hotspot locations, and the development of high-injury networks for each crash analysis zone, which are described in more detail in the subsequent sections. The three analyses built upon each other to identify key locations for improvements, and ultimately guided development of projects and project prioritization.

Emphasis areas provide a framework for focusing on reducing fatalities and injuries by developing and implementing strategies within those specifc areas to increase road user safety across a state. The Utah Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) features 11 emphasis safety areas that are to be given special attention by safety organizations to achieve Utah’s ultimate goal of zero road user fatalities. These emphasis areas highlight the most common and substantial contributing factors to fatal and serious injury crashes in Utah:

• Aggressive driving

• Distracted driving

• Impaired driving

• Motorcycle safety

• Pedestrian safety

• Roadway departure crashes

• Intersection safety

• Speed management

• Teen driving safety

• Use of safety restraints

• Senior safety

The SHSP also features “continuing safety areas,” which address programs and initiatives currently underway within the state’s safety agencies. Continuing safety areas that were relevant and capable of being analyzed for this study include:

• Bicycle safety

• Commercial motor vehicle safety

• Work zone safety

For simplicity, all relevant areas, whether an emphasis area or a continuing safety area, are subsequently referred to as emphasis areas.

3.4.1.1. Methodology

As part of the crash analysis, the study team identifed the emphasis areas that were overrepresented within each crash analysis zone. The results of this analysis were incorporated into the development of the High Injury Network (HIN), improvement strategies, and project identifcation, which are discussed later in this report. The percentage of crashes within each emphasis area resulting in a fatality or serious injury was calculated for each crash analysis zone and compared to both the county and state rates. Emphasis areas with crash analysis zone rates greater than both the county and state rates were considered “overrepresented.”

Additionally, some emphasis areas that were not overrepresented based on the data were still included for consideration based on crash analysis zone priorities.

3.4.1.2. Results

Figure 9 shows the overrepresented emphasis areas for each crash analysis zone. In the RPO counties, a number of emphasis areas were overrepresented in more than half of the crash analysis zones. Impaired driving, pedestrian safety, roadway departure crashes, speed management, senior safety, bicycle safety, and commercial motor vehicle safety were all seen at higher rates in four of the counties’ seven crash analysis zones compared to both county and state levels. North Summit had the highest rates of impaired driving (50%), senior safety (25%), and bicycle safety (25%) involvement with fatal and serious injury crashes.

Approximately 65% of fatal and serious injury crashes involved pedestrians in Snyderville/Kimball Junction.

Heavy vehicles were involved in 16% of the fatal and serious injury crashes in Park City. Unincorporated Summit County had the highest rates of roadway departure fatal and serious injury crashes (65%), while the highest rates of these crashes involving speeding occurred in Unincorporated Wasatch County (33%).

While not listed as an emphasis area or continuing safety area in the SHSP, the rates of fatal and serious injury crashes involving wildlife were also assessed owing to the concerns of jurisdictions and local advocacy groups. In Summit County, 13% of crashes involved wild animals. In Wasatch County, 19% involved wild animals. However, the number resulting in fatality or serious injury was still very low, at three and eight crashes, respectively. Due to this low number of crashes, crashes involving wild animals were not further analyzed as a potential additional emphasis area.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

EMPHASIS AREA

C ou nt o f E m ph as is A re as

A gg re ss iv e

D riv in g

D is tr ac te d

D riv in g

Im pa ire d

D riv in g

M ot or cy cl e

Sa fe ty

Bi cy cl e

C ra sh es

Pe de st ria n Sa fe ty

Ro ad w ay

D ep ar tu re C ra sh es

In te rs ec tio n

Sa fe ty

Sp ee d M an ag em en t

Te en

D riv in g

Sa fe ty

U se

O f S af et y Re st ra in ts

Se ni or S af et y

C om m er ci al

V eh ic le s

D ro w sy

D riv er s

W or k Zo ne S af et y

WASATCH COUNTY

Heber Valley 7

Unincorporated 5

SUMMIT COUNTY

Park City 5

Snyderville/Kimball Jct 8

South Summit 5

North Summit 8

Unincorporated 6

> County & State Manual Addition

Figure 9. Crash Analysis Zone Emphasis Areas

3.4.2. HOTSPOT ANALYSIS

3.4.2.1. Methodology

Intersection hotspots were identifed for each crash analysis zone to determine locations with a high density of crashes within 250 feet of an intersection. Three types of hotspots were assessed: all crashes, fatal and serious injury crashes, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes. ArcGIS software was used to identify the hotspots; crashes for each hotspot location were then analyzed for trends in Excel.

3.4.2.2. Results

Figure 10 through Figure 14 show the hotspot locations for each crash analysis zone.

3.4.2.3. Summit County

North Summit’s all crash hotspots were largely located in Downtown Coalville. Hotspots of serious injury and fatal crashes were located on Chalk Creek Road and Hoytsville Road, mostly just outside of the denser areas of this region. There were too few crashes involving a bicyclist or pedestrian to identify hotspots for these crashes.

In Park City, the largest all crash and bicycle and pedestrian crash hotspots were located at the intersection of Kearns Boulevard and Monitor Drive and along Park Avenue/SR-224. This is right in the midst of a number of hotels, condominiums, and a golf course. Park City High School, Treasure Mountain Junior High School, and McPolin Elementary School are also adjacent to this area. Deer Valley Drive and Marsac Avenue, a roundabout, was the primary serious injury and fatal crash hotspot. Several resorts, lodges, and recreation areas are accessible through this intersection.

Snyderville/Kimball Junction’s primary hotspot for all crashes was located at the intersection of SR-224 and Ute Boulevard; this is also the highest hotspot for serious injury and fatal crashes. This intersection is the frst major intersection next to the I-80 interchange and is in the middle of a large shopping area. Hotpots of bicycle and pedestrian crashes were located primarily along Landmark Drive as well as at SR-224 and Bear Hollow Drive/Silver Springs Drive, which is adjacent to Parley’s Park Elementary School.

Signifcant all crash hotspots in South Summit were found along Main Street in Kamas, particularly between SR-248 and SR-150. Other hotspots were located along SR-32: serious injury and fatal crash hotspots were located along this road at the two primary intersections within Peoa, while bicycle and pedestrian crash hotspots could be found on SR-32 from Oakley to Kamas. A trail/path parallels SR-32 for a portion of this section.

3.4.2.4. Wasatch County

Heber Main Street was the site of Heber Valley’s largest crash hotspots. The most sizeable hotspot for all crashes and fatal and serious injury crashes was at the “HUB” intersection of Main Street (US-40) and US- 189, which is a major intersection between two regional highways at the south end of the city. The biggest bicycle and pedestrian crash hotspot was located in the center of Heber at Main Street and Center Street.

Unincorporated Summit County and Wasatch County crashes were less frequent than urban areas and hot spots often overlapped with the HIN designations. Thus results focused on the HIN designations documented in Section 3.4.3.

SAFE STREETS

I

Echo

• Reservoir

• I

• I

• • I

• • I

' I I I I I

I I

I

• All Crashes

,? Bike/Ped Crashes

■ Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes

Crash Analysis Zone

I I

I I I I , ' I

0 .50

1 Mile

Figure 10. North Summit Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

SAFE STREETS

I I .

0 0 .3

• All Crashes

• Bike/Ped Crashes

■ Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

I

I I I I I ·-- -· I

' I .. - I I

• I I . --·

Figure 11. Park City Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

SAFE STREETS

• All Crashes

• Bike/Ped Crashes

■ Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

• • • I I

1.8

Figure 12. Snyderville/Kimball Junction Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

0.5

'I

' ' 'I ' I , , , 2 Miles I

• All Crashes

• Bike/Ped Crashes

■ Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes

Crash Analysis Zone

I I I

• I I

• I

• • I

• I

• I I

• I I

I I

• I

I

• I

• I

Figure 13. South Summit Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations tJ All Crashes

Bike/Ped Crashes

■ Serious Injury/Fatal Crashes

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

2 Miles

Figure 14. Heber Valley County Crash Analysis Zone Hotspot Locations

3.4.3. HIGH INJURY NETWORK

3.4.3.1. Methodology

A HIN represents a priority network of locations where crashes, particularly higher severity crashes, are concentrated and occurring most frequently. This type of network is a useful safety tool for prioritizing investments to have the greatest impact on crash-related fatalities and serious injuries.

One HIN was made for each crash analysis zone to take into account the diferences in each zone’s crash trends. HIN scores were calculated for every road segment in the zone based on a number of factors:

• Number of Crashes: Fatal, serious injury, and minor injury crashes

• Emphasis Areas: Number of fatal and serious injury crashes corresponding to the overrepresented emphasis areas for each crash analysis zone (see Figure 9)

• Equity: Overall or transportation inequality census tract percentile ranking from the USDOT Equitable Transportation Community Explorer (ETC). Overall equity ranking was used for zones with incorporated cities and towns, while transportation inequality was used for unincorporated zones.

Weighting was applied to each of the components listed above. Crashes with a higher degree of severity were assigned a higher weight than those with a lower degree of severity. Overrepresented emphasis areas were weighted based on the degree to which each emphasis area correlated with the number of statewide fatal and serious injury crashes.

The top 10% of segment miles with the highest scores were included in the HIN. Finally, the HIN segments were smoothed in ArcGIS to combine nearby segments into contiguous corridors and remove outliers based on local knowledge.

3.4.3.2. Results

The resulting HINs for each crash analysis zone can be seen in Figure 15 through Figure 21.

3.4.3.3. Summit County

In the North Summit crash analysis zone, the top 10% of roadway segments with the highest HIN scores – those that were designated as part of the HIN – were the site of 75% of the zone’s serious injury and fatal crashes. HIN segment locations included Chalk Creek Road in Coalville, which had two serious injury crashes;

Echo Dam Road north of Coalville, with one serious injury crash; and West Hoytsville Road southwest of Coalville, with four crashes including one fatality.

Park City’s HIN was the site of 63% of the zone’s crashes resulting in a serious injury or fatality. The HIN segment with the highest number of crashes was on SR-224 (Park Avenue) which is the main north-south corridor between Park City and I-80 and had 140 crashes including six resulting in a serious injury between Meadows Drive and Homestake Road. Other HIN segments included SR-248 near US-40 (117 crashes), Kearns Boulevard in Park City (102 crashes), and US-40 south of the SR-248 interchange (57 crashes).

Snyderville/Kimball Junction’s HIN mainly included roadway segments on SR-224 and US-40. Together, these accounted for 63% of serious injury and fatal crashes in the crash analysis zone. SR-224 was the location of almost 470 crashes, including 23 resulting in serious injury and one resulting in a fatality. The HIN segments with the highest number of crashes were SR-224 in Kimball Junction, SR-224 south of Snyderville, and US-40 north of SR-248.

In the South Summit crash analysis zone, the roads comparing the HIN included 59% of the zone’s serious injury and fatal crashes. The HIN segment on SR-32 from Oakley to Kamas had signifcantly more crashes than other locations: 46 total crashes occurred here, including 2 resulting in serious injury and two resulting in fatality. Other segments with a high number of crashes included north Kamas Main Street, south Kamas Main Street, and Center Street in Kamas.

Owing to the large area of Unincorporated Summit County and the spread-out nature of its crashes, this crash analysis zone’s HIN included only 17% of serious injury and fatal crashes. Two HIN segments occurred on SR-150 (Mirror Lake Highway), with 55 crashes and with 12 crashes; and one HIN segment occurred on the Wasatch Frontage Road of I-80 near the Wyoming border, with three crashes including one fatality.

3.4.3.4. Wasatch County

Heber Valley’s HIN roads are largely located in Heber; several segments are also located in Midway. The HIN accounts for 72% of the crash analysis zone’s crashes resulting in serious injury or fatality. The segments with the highest number of crashes were US-40 north of Heber, which had 187 total crashes including 13 resulting in serious injury; US-189 southwest of Heber, with 125 crashes including two fatalities; and south Heber Main Street from Center Street to 1200 South, with 187 crashes and four fatalities.

Owing to Unincorporated Wasatch County’s large area and the geographic expanse over which crashes occurred, this crash analysis zone’s HIN includes only 39% of the zone’s serious injury and fatal crashes.

A small segment of US-6 from MP 210.5 to 212.9, the major highway connecting the Wasatch Front with southeastern Utah, falls within Wasatch County and had a high number of serious injury/fatal crashes with 72 total crashes that included fve serious injury crashes and three fatal crashes. Several US-189 segments near Deer Creek reservoir and segments on US-40 also had a high number of total crashes. US-40 north of SR-32 had the highest number of crashes, with 248 total, nine serious injury, and two fatal crashes.

SAFE STREETS

• Echo

• Reservoir

I I I I I

I I

- High Injury Network Segment

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

I I

• I

' 'I •

' ' ' 'I ' I

0 .25 0 .50

1 Mi

Figure 15. North Summit Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

t-_.____.1..__---r-+~ ·----

I

0 0 .3

- High Injury Network Segment

Crash Analysis Zone

• "'• u.--=-·•

I

·-- -· I

I I

• I I . --· I

I I -.. •~

I

Figure 16. Park City Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

- High Injury Network Segment

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

' • • • I I I I

1.8

Figure 17. Snyderville/Kimball Junction Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

• I ·- :·--·-----, ......... . •

' ' ' I

~---11111111111-..,.....~rl....i....;:;-JI

• • • I

• • I

• • I

• • • • • • I

• • • • I

• • • I

• • • • I

• • • • • • • I

- High Injury Network Segment

0.5 1 2 Miles I Crash Analysis

Figure 18. South Summit Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

0 3 .25 6 .5

• ... ,. - High Injury Network Segment

• • • Crash Analysis

Figure 19. Unincorporated Summit County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

- High Injury Network Segment

• • • Crash Analysis Zone

2 Miles

Figure 20. Heber Valley County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

I ..

' • I

I • I

0 2.75 5.5

I -• • • I • ..

- High Injury Network Segment

I

I

I

I • , Crash Analysis Zone

I -... ~

Figure 21. Unincorporated Wasatch County Crash Analysis Zone HIN

SAFE STREETS

3.5. SYSTEMIC SAFETY

While the analyses of emphasis areas, hotspots, and the HIN identify trends in historical crashes and the location of those crashes, systemic safety identifes high-risk locations where there may not be a history of crashes. Systemic safety enables local governments to understand the attributes of roadways that have elevated serious crashes (those that led to a fatality or serious injury) and identify roadway facilities with those same attributes across the region. This systemic safety analysis enables governments to proactively implement safety countermeasures on these high-risk facilities without waiting for a serious crash to happen.

3.5.1. METHODOLOGY

The project team identifed high-risk facilities by 1) locating roadways with serious crashes that occurred between 2018 and 2022, 2) examining the attributes of those roadways, and 3) screening all public roadways within Summit, Utah, and Wasatch counties for those same attributes.

The region’s roadway network was divided into half-mile segments, retaining essential attributes such as road classifcation and speed limit. Supplementary data from sources like the U.S. Census and public databases were also incorporated to capture additional attributes like socioeconomic indicators and transit stop locations.

Based on data availability, these roadway attributes were screened as potential factors in high-risk facilities and were examined to determine which factors are key indicators of high-risk facilities.

• Roadway Functional Classification

• Speed Limits

• Traffic Volume

• Transit Stops or Stations

• Land Use Context (Urban vs. Rural)

• Proximity to Public Parks

• Proximity to Schools

• Household Poverty

• Zero Vehicles Households

Data availability infuenced the selection of screening factors. Factors such as lane widths, presence of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, median width and type, intersection control type, and surface type were considered but excluded due to unavailable data or poor data quality.

With improved roadway network data collection practices, the region and local governments can conduct additional screening of more factors to expand the understanding of high risk facility profles.

The team screened the roadway factors individually to determine their correlation with serious crash frequencies. For instance, categorical factors like road classifcation (e.g., arterial or local roads) were screened separately for each unique classifcation. Similarly, numerical factors such as poverty rates were screened by considering various breakpoints to split the data. The project team iteratively screened these factors, identifying the ones most closely correlated with locations that have a high frequency of serious crashes. At the end of this process, the project team was able to defne a set of factors that characterize the most high-risk road facilities.

3.5.2. HIGH-RISK FACILITY PROFILES

Through the systemic analysis, the project team identifed fve facility profle tiers based on their relative risk levels for fatal and serious injury crashes.2 The factors identifed in each of these tiers should be considered collectively as high-risk facilities. For example, while high-speed roads are identifed in the Critical tier, the results of the analysis do not indicate that simply high-speed roads are high-risk. Similarly, correlation does not signify causation. For example, although Critical tier facilities include facilities near transit stops, this does not signify transit stops themselves are high-risk.

The fve tiers and their correlated factors are:

Critical Tier: Road facilities with high trafc volumes (over 10,000 vehicles per day), speed limits over 30 MPH, near transit stops, and in communities with high poverty rates (over 45% of households have incomes below 200% of the poverty level).

High Tier: Road facilities with high trafc volumes (over 10,000 vehicles per day), speed limits under or equal to 30 MPH, and near transit stops; also includes roads with speed limits greater than 30 MPH, are not near transit stops, and in communities with low poverty rates (than or equal to 45% of households below 200% of the poverty level).

Medium Tier: Road facilities with high trafc volumes (over 10,000 vehicles per day), speed limits under or equal to 30 MPH, and not near transit stops; also includes all…