Speed Management Action Plan 

for Randolph County 

Analysis, Problem Identification, Planning, Implementation 

FHWA Safety Program

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov
i 
ii

CONTENTS 

Chapter 1. Overview of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1

Safety Goals of the Plan ........................................................................................................... 1

Need for the Plan ..................................................................................................................... 2

Plan Approaches ...................................................................................................................... 5

Organization of this Document ............................................................................................... 6

Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................ 8

Action Plan Summary ............................................................................................................ 11

Evaluation and Performance Measures ................................................................................ 14

Sustaining and Updating the Plan ......................................................................................... 14

Chapter 2. Speeding-related Safety Issues ................................................................................... 16

Data and Methods ................................................................................................................. 16

Countywide Issues ................................................................................................................. 17

Rural Areas Crash Characteristics .......................................................................................... 17

Speed Study Results .............................................................................................................. 19

Rural Areas – Other Key Challenges and Issues .................................................................... 19

Urban Areas Crash Characteristics ........................................................................................ 20

Urban Areas – Other Key Challenges and Issues ................................................................... 21

Other Key Countywide Issues ................................................................................................ 22

Corridor Problems ................................................................................................................. 22

Urban, Multi-lane Corridors (undivided) ............................................................................... 22

Urban, Two-lane Corridors .................................................................................................... 24

Rural, Two-Lane Routes ......................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 3. Speed Management Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures ............................... 27

Actions and Strategies to Address Countywide Issues .......................................................... 27

Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash Corridors....................... 31

Countermeasures for Urban, Multi-Lane Corridors .............................................................. 33

Countermeasures for Urban Two-lane Roads ....................................................................... 40

Countermeasures for Rural Two-Lane Roads ........................................................................ 46

Systematic Speed Management Approach within Other Safety Programs .......................... 52

Roadway Departure and Curves ............................................................................................ 52

Pedestrian Plans, School Zones ............................................................................................. 53

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ..................................................................... 53

Chapter 4. Multi-year Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 54

Detailed Proposed Implementation Actions ......................................................................... 54

*Action Item 4 - Step 5. Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures .................................. 58

Implementation Steps following Project Approval ............................................................... 60
iii

Evaluation Plan ...................................................................................................................... 62

Action Plan Update ................................................................................................................ 63

Additional References ................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 67

CMFs for Fatal and Injury Crashes due to Changes in Operating Speeds ............................. 67

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 68

Countywide Analysis Results ................................................................................................. 68

Corridor Screening Methods ................................................................................................. 73

Corridor Screening Results .................................................................................................... 75

Urban, Multi-lane Corridors .................................................................................................. 76

Urban, Two-lane Corridors .................................................................................................... 77

Other Area Types ................................................................................................................... 81

Crash Issues Near Schools ..................................................................................................... 81

Sections with Curve-related Crash Problems ........................................................................ 81

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................... 88

Countywide Proactive Approach - Additional Considerations .............................................. 88

Countywide Comprehensive Approaches - Additional Considerations ................................ 89

Systematic Approach - Additional Countermeasures Considerations .................................. 90

Appendix D .................................................................................................................................... 93

Economic Analysis Examples ................................................................................................. 93

Program Evaluation Measures .............................................................................................. 96

TABLES 

Table 1. Action Items for Randolph Co. Speed Management Safety Action Plan and Timeline for 

Implementation. ........................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2. Next Steps for Action Plan Implementation. This Table may be updated to incorporate 

On-going Action Steps and Schedules. ......................................................................................... 14

Table 3. Characteristics associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes in Rural Areas 

of Randolph County, compared with Statewide averages, that might be Treated by Engineering, 

Enforcement, and Educational Countermeasures. (Crash Years, 2007-2011.) ............................ 18

Table 4. Characteristics highly associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes in 

Municipalities of Randolph County that might be treated by Engineering, Enforcement, and 

Educational Countermeasures. (Crash years, 2007-2011.) .......................................................... 21

Table 5. Proactive and Comprehensive Action Items and Strategies to Address Countywide 

Issues. ............................................................................................................................................ 28
iv

Table 6. Systematic and Comprehensive Actions to Address Speeding and Related Crashes on 

High Crash Corridors. .................................................................................................................... 32

Table 7. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (Crash Modification Factors or CMFs) for Urban, 

Multi-Lane Corridors.* .................................................................................................................. 35

Table 8. Target Crash Reductions for Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Roads. ................................ 40

Table 9. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (CMFs) for Urban Two-lane Corridors. ................ 42

Table 10. Target Crash Reductions for Treatment of 11 Urban Two-lane Roads. ........................ 46

Table 11. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (CMFs) for Rural, Two-Lane Corridors. ............... 48

Table 12. Target Crash Reductions for a Priority List of Rural, Two-lane Roads. ......................... 52

Table 13. Action Item 1 - Speed Limit Setting. .............................................................................. 55

Table 14. Action Item 2 - Build Support through Communications and Publicity. ....................... 56

Table 15. Action Item 3 - Develop Proactive Speed and Safety Review Process for New Roads. 57

Table 16. Action Item 4 - Develop Systematic Screening and Prioritization Process. .................. 58

Table 17. Action Item 5 - Develop a Corridor-focused Targeted Enforcement Program. ............ 61

Table 18. Action Item 6 - Implement Speed and Safety Review through Other Safety Plans and 

Programs. ...................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 19. Randolph County Reportable Crashes by Road Classification and Numbers Located to 

Routes. .......................................................................................................................................... 69

Table 20. Speeding-related (SR) Crash Characteristics in Randolph County, NC with Statewide 

comparisons. ................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 21. Fatal (K-severity) and Disabling-Injury (A-severity) Crash Characteristics in Randolph 

County, with Statewide (NC) comparisons. .................................................................................. 71

Table 22. Analysis Matrix and Roadway Miles for Screening for Speeding-related Crash 

Problems by Corridor. ................................................................................................................... 74

Table 23. Prioritized List of Urban Multi-lane Routes for Speed and Safety Review. .................. 76

Table 24. Prioritized List of Urban Two-lane Routes for Speed and Safety Review. .................... 78

Table 25. Priority List of Rural Two-lane Routes for Speed Limit and Safety Review. ................. 80

Table 26. School properties ranked by five-year number of Severe and Speeding-related crashes 

within One Mile of School Property. ............................................................................................ 82

Table 27. Road Segments with Three or more Severe crashes indicated to occur at a Curve. .... 84

Table 28. Road Sections with Eight or More Any Severity Crashes at Curves. ............................. 85

Table 29. Estimated Crash Reductions from Randomly Targeted, but Highly Visible Enforcement 

that covers 60% of network crashes or 70% of Fatal and A-type crashes. .................................. 93

Table 30. Cost-benefit analysis of Road Diet Implementations. (Assuming three corridors with 

AADT < 10,000 can be treated, with low range and high-range estimates of effect.) ................. 94

Table 31. Estimated Crash Reductions for Curve-related Crashes (assuming 12 curves with the 

highest frequencies of KAB crashes or 35 curves with the highest number of total crashes can 

be treated). ................................................................................................................................... 95
v 

Table 32. Estimated Crash Reductions from Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) Deployed 

within One mile of Schools. .......................................................................................................... 96

Table 33. Example Program Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................ 97

Table 34. Example Countermeasure or Program Safety Evaluation Matrix. ................................ 98

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Crash and Speeding-related Fatal and Injury Trends in Randolph County, NC, 2007-

2011. ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Randolph County Speeding-related Crashes, 2007-2011. ............................................... 4

Figure 3. Expected fatal crash reductions for small average speed reductions at lower and 

higher initial speeds. (Based on data in Table 3E-2 from Highway Safety Manual, 2010). .......... 67

Figure 4. Distributions of Speeding-related, and Injury Crashes by Rural and Urban Locations. 68

Figure 5. Rural Killed and Disabling Crashes by Crash Hour, 2007-2011. ..................................... 72

Figure 6. Scatter plot of 85th percentile (point) speeds by speed limit for a select group of 

roads. ............................................................................................................................................ 72

Figure 7. Speeding-related or Pedestrian or Bicycle Crashes within One Mile of School 

Properties. ..................................................................................................................................... 83

Figure 8. Number of Crashes with Fatal (K), Disabling (A), or Evident (B) severity of injuries 

within one mile of school property. ............................................................................................. 83

Figure 9. Randolph County Growth Management Areas. ............................................................ 88
1 

Chapter 1. Overview of the Plan 

This Speed Management Action Plan characterizes Randolph County’s speeding and safety 

problems and speed management issues, identifies appropriate countermeasures and 

strategies, and describes implementation actions the State, County, and other partners can 

take to reduce speeding and speeding-related fatal and injury crashes on the County’s roads.

This Plan will facilitate coordination and cooperation among State and local agencies including 

road planners, designers and managers, enforcement officials, public health practitioners, and 

policy-makers to identify and implement the most cost-effective and feasible strategies. 

The remainder of this chapter outlines the safety goals of the Plan, the need for the Plan, 

broadly describes the speed management approaches, outlines the remaining Plan content, 

defines terms used, and provides an overview of the problems and action items for 

implementing specific strategies. 

Safety Goals of the Plan 

The safety goals of the Plan are to reduce speeding-related crashes and injuries. 

The safety goals of this Action Plan are as follows: 

 Goal 1: Reduce fatal and injury crashes, especially those attributed to speeding. Speeding 

includes operating a vehicle at speeds above limits and exceeding a safe speed for existing 

conditions. 

 Short-term goal: Reduce fatal and injury crashes related to speeding by 10 percent 

within five years. Analysis of the problem and identification of potential solutions and 

anticipated implementation led to this target. 

 Longer-term goal: Significantly reduce the number of fatal and injury crashes each year 

through enhanced enforcement and publicity measures, as well as improved roadway 

designs and operations.1 

 Goal 2: Improve compliance with speed limits. 

This plan will help the County contribute to the State meeting its Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) safety goals. The most recent SHSP for North Carolina (2007) had an overall goal of 

reducing the fatality rate to 1.0 person per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008, although 

that goal had not yet been met as of 2011. In 2011, the average three-year Statewide fatality 

 

1

A potential long-term target for speed-related crash reductions is from 30-35 percent of fatal and injury crashes, 

or the proportion indicated to have speeding as a contributing factor. 
2 

rate was 1.18. Randolph County’s most recent average three-year fatality rate was slightly 

higher at 1.23. Although speeding was identified as a concern, and speed management 

strategies were included, specific safety goals for speeding-related strategies were not defined 

in North Carolina’s 2007 SHSP. However, the SHSP is due to be updated. This County Plan could 

potentially help the State implement targets for speed management actions in support of the 

overall SHSP safety goals as well as provide a model for other local communities. 

Need for the Plan

Nearly 16,000 crashes were reported in Randolph County during the five-year period of 2007 to 

2011. In total, 32 percent of 15,740 reportable crashes resulted in injuries or possible injuries. 

These crashes are estimated to have a dollars-equivalent average comprehensive cost to the 

community of more than $160 million per year.

Major characteristics of the speeding and injury crash problem include the following: 

 An average of nearly 17 percent of the County’s total crashes were considered 

speeding-related by officers who investigated the crashes, compared with an average of 

10 percent for the State of North Carolina as a whole. 

 Around 1,000 injury crashes, including fatalities, were reported each year (Figure 1). 

 There were 101 fatal crashes in the County that resulted in 111 people killed, and an 

additional 152 crashes that resulted in disabling-type injuries. On average, 35 percent of 

the fatal and disabling-injury crashes were associated with speeding according to data 

from police crash reports (Figure 1).

 Speeding-related crashes, and fatal and injury crashes, are widely dispersed across 

urban areas, highway corridors and the extensive rural secondary road network (See 

Figure 2). 
3 

 

Figure 1. Crash and Speeding-related Fatal and Injury Trends in Randolph County, NC, 2007-2011. 

Many of the speed management issues and challenges are not unique to Randolph County. 

Some of the issues identified include the following: 

 Speed Limit Setting: The various ways that speed limits are set across rural and urban 

areas, changes in development and other factor have resulted in roads that send mixed 

messages to drivers about appropriate speeds. (Methods and practices include statutory 

maximums for a legacy road network that existed prior to current design standards, 

speed zoning through engineering studies, and different practices among city and State 

jurisdictions.) The message that speed limits are established for safety reasons has been 

contaminated. 

 Speeding Above Limits is Common: Randolph County speed studies and NC survey data 

show that speeding five miles or more above limits is common, even on low speed 

roads. 2 

2

North Carolina Governor’s Highway Safety Program (n.d.). FY 2012 Annual Report. 
4 

Figure 2. Randolph County Speeding-related Crashes, 2007-2011. 

(Note: Only mileposted crashes that could be mapped to State roads are shown, approximately 74% of 

the total.) 

 Design: Issues with high-to-low speed transition zones from rural to more developed 

areas, roadway designs that are often incompatible with area land uses and road 

purposes, a lack of self-enforcing roadway designs, and limited funds for making 

improvements each year create challenges. 

 Enforcement: Current policy decisions by County and city agencies and elected leaders 

limit the presence of traffic law enforcement in the County. Low levels of enforcement, 

legal barriers to implementing automated speed enforcement, and challenges to 

enforcing on an extensive rural, two-lane road network may all contribute to the 

prevalence of speeding. 

 Adjudication: The courts are clogged with violators who challenge their speeding 

citations. This situation results in frequent plea agreements due to the need to process 

many citations through the courts, and may further weaken enforcement efforts. The 

processes may also lead to inconsistent treatment of offenders, and potentially, allows 

repeat and flagrant violators to escape punishment, if such violators are not identified. 

In addition, research shows that punitive measures meted out through the courts (and 

through insurance penalties) may not be effective deterrents. 

 Public Information and Education, and Culture of Speeding: A lack of educational or 

publicity support for enforcement or other speed management efforts encourages a 
5 

culture that seems to embrace driving fast and limits population-wide deterrence of 

speeding. 

This Plan identifies engineering and road design measures to help better manage speeds and to 

target related safety issues that may contribute to excessive speed for conditions types of 

crashes. Since it is only possible for the State DOT to treat a small portion of the road network 

with engineering measures each year (most roads warranting treatment are managed by the 

State), the County also needs to seek ways to improve enforcement and adjudication to 

support established limits. Even if roads are well-designed to support reasonable and safe 

speed limits established, highly visible and committed enforcement is needed to support those 

limits. Chapter 2 describes the problems in more detail. Speed management is a complex 

endeavor that requires all parties to work together. This Plan includes much technical 

information useful to engineers and other professionals, but also includes information relevant 

for enforcement and injury prevention specialists, and policy-makers.

Some of the challenges of implementing effective measures can be met through Speed Plan 

activities that: 1) specifically address the barriers to a more systematic approach to 

implementing effective solutions; 2) prioritize strategies based on factual information and best 

practice knowledge; and 3) strengthen existing partnerships, communication, and work toward 

mutually-agreeable solutions through the safety goals of the community and State. For 

example, some engineering measures with proven safety benefits (e.g. roundabout intersection 

designs), are likely to improve mobility as well as safety. Road diets or conversions of traffic 

lanes may also help to reduce speeds and crashes while providing space for other uses such as 

bicycle lanes or parking for local businesses. Access management measures can also reduce the 

numbers of conflicts that may contribute to speeding-related crashes along complex corridors. 

The Plan action steps should foster inter-agency collaboration and implementation of effective 

strategies. 

Challenging some of the existing beliefs about speed may also be important to maximize 

success. For example, widespread, low-level speeding may be as much of a safety problem as 

flagrant, but less frequent speeding by large amounts. The Highway Safety Manual estimates 

that a 2 mph reduction in average operating speed from 30 mph will yield a reduction in fatal 

crashes of 34 percent (AASHTO, 2010; and Appendix A). 

This Speed Management Action Plan will help Randolph County stakeholders, including the 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), public safety agencies, injury 

prevention partners, and other stakeholders work together to identify optimal solutions to 

reduce the level of speeding and the resultant serious injuries and fatalities in a cost-effective 

manner. 

Plan Approaches 

The Plan incorporates the following types of approaches to help meet the safety goals: 
6

 Develop proactive and coordinated approaches to roadway planning, roadway design, and 

other speed management measures to reduce the opportunities to speed and lower the risk 

of serious harm on improved or new roads. 

 Use a systematic approach to identify and treat current severe crash problems resulting 

from speeding in excess of limits or exceeding a safe speed for existing conditions. 

 Use comprehensive and coordinated enforcement, educational, and engineering strategies 

to improve motorist compliance with speed limits and with the basic speed rule. Seek the 

support of multiple stakeholders and the public for effective speed management and crash 

reduction strategies.

These approaches and associated strategies and countermeasures are described in greater 

detail in later sections.

Organization of this Document

The following descriptions of organization and content should aid users of this document: 

Chapter 1 – Overview of the Plan – This chapter describes the Safety Goals of the Plan, Need 

for the Plan, the general Plan Approaches, a Summary of Action Items of the Plan, Evaluation 

and Update of the Plan, and Definitions of Terms used in the Plan. 

Note that the short-term safety goal reflects analysis of the problem, the potential solutions 

available, and assessment of what portion of the problem might be targeted by 

countermeasures within a five-year implementation period. Plan implementers may adjust the 

crash reduction target to reflect the strategies selected and a more detailed determination of 

extent of planned implementation. Improving speed compliance serves as a short-term 

measure to assess enforcement and public education efforts, and of implemented design 

improvements. Plan implementers may wish to establish a specific speed compliance target as 

more data are gathered about the extent of speeding. They may also establish a long-term 

crash reduction target. 

Chapter 2 – Speeding-related Safety Problems – Chapter 2 describes the Countywide crash and 

speed management issues identified, and speeding-related safety and severe crash problems 

identified for certain corridor types and other location types. 

Note that the primary focus of this Plan is on corridors, predominantly State-owned routes, 

including intersections. However, Towns could implement a similar systematic approach to 

identify and treat problems on local streets. Problem identification does not have to rely only 

on crash data. Local knowledge of the problems, speed studies, and more formal community 

input that has already been incorporated into other safety or transportation plans are 

important sources of information.

Chapter 3 Speed Management Action Items, Strategies, and Countermeasures – Chapter 3

describes the solutions to problems described in Chapter 2.
7

Actions and Strategies to Address Countywide Problems. This section describes the types 

of proactive and comprehensive action steps and strategies needed to address the 

Countywide safety problems and speed management issues.

Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash Corridors. This section 

describes systematic and comprehensive actions and countermeasures to target existing 

speeding-related safety problems on high crash corridors. Local stakeholders could use 

similar measures to target other areas of concern such as local streets near schools. 

Systematic Speed Management Approach within Other Safety Programs. This section 

describes how speed management plan activities may be coordinated with other safety 

programs.

Chapter 4 – Multi-year Implementation Plan – Chapter 4 outlines the Detailed Proposed 

Implementation Actions and specific strategies that may be implemented within each Action 

Item, Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures, additional Implementation steps Evaluation 

Plan, and plan renewal processes (Action Plan Update). 

References – References include sources for additional information that were cited in the plan, 

and additional supplemental resources.

Appendix A – Supplemental information for Chapter 1. For the first time, with publication of 

the Highway Safety Manual in 2010, estimates of the effect of changes on injury and fatal 

crashes resulting from changes in average operating speeds are available. 

Appendix B – This supplemental information for Chapter 2 provides detailed results of problem 

identification and lists of priority corridors for further diagnosis and potential treatment. These 

or similar lists refined by the stakeholders, may be used in implementing the systematic 

treatment of problem areas identified through network screening.

Appendix C – Additional information for Chapter 3 about strategies and countermeasures that 

may be implemented through the Plan. 

Appendix D – Supplemental information for Chapter 4 provides examples of economic analyses 

of feasible countermeasures. There is also supplemental information on plan and 

countermeasures evaluation.

Separate document - Randolph County Speed Management Plan – Field Visits: Summary and 

Speed Management Plan Recommendations is available as a separate report to local 

stakeholders.

Speed Management Toolkit – Separate FHWA resource with additional countermeasures crash 

modification factors, tip sheets, and links to other resources useful for speed management plan 

implementation.
8

Definitions of Terms 

The following are definitions for terms used in this document:

Basic Speed Rule – The Basic Speed Rule requires vehicle operators to drive at a speed that 

is reasonable and prudent. As a corollary to this rule, State laws usually provide that "every 

person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an 

intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching an going around and curve, when 

approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when 

special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or 

highway conditions.” North Carolina’s Basic Speed Rule states “No person shall drive a 

vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then 

existing. NC ST § 20-141(a).” 3

Comprehensive approach – A comprehensive approach aims to make use of the full range 

of strategies to address speeding-related safety problems related to the road user, the 

streets and highways, the vehicle, the environment, and the management system. 

Comprehensive strategies in this Plan include engineering and design, enforcement and 

judicial measures, education and publicity, management strategies, policies, evaluation, and 

coordinating the strategies to achieve the bottom line safety targets. 

Coordinated approach – The goal of a coordinated approach to any traffic safety area, 

including speed management “is to move away from independent activities of engineers, 

law enforcement, educators, judges, and other highway-safety specialists,” including injury 

prevention and publicity experts, and to promote the formation of working groups and 

alliances that represent all of the elements of the safety system. In so doing, the team can 

draw upon their combined expertise and resources to reach the bottom-line goal of 

targeted reduction of crashes fatalities and injuries. 

Countermeasure – Essentially, a treatment to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes.

Crash modification factor (CMF) – Multiplicative factor used to compute the expected 

number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure. Standard errors of the 

estimate give an idea of the quality of the estimate and potential variation of effect. If 

available, calibrated State estimates may provide a better estimate of effects for the State.4

 

3

NHTSA (2011b). Summary of State Speed Laws. Eleventh Edition. Current as of February 1, 2010. DOT HS 811 457. 

U.S. DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

4

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
9

Crash reduction factor (CRF) – Estimate of the percentage reduction in crashes due to a 

particular countermeasure.5The crash modification factor (CMF) estimates in tables in this 

document can be used to estimate expected crash reduction percentages [(1 – CMF) * 100]. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program – The “Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) [is] a core Federal-aid program. The goal of the program is to achieve a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-Stateowned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic 

approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.” 

This program was continued by MAP-21, the federal transportation bill that went into effect 

October 21, 2012.6 

Operating speed(s) – The speeds at which vehicles actually travel under free-flow 

(unconstrained or uncongested) conditions. The most often used measure of operating 

speed is the 85th percentile speed (see definition), but average or mean speed and other 

speed distributional measures may also be used.7

Proactive approach – A proactive approach, as described in this document, is a practice of 

planning and designing new roads or street improvements that considers intended 

operating speed and appropriate speed limits in the very earliest stages. A proactive 

approach aims to engage safety and mobility goals and various stakeholders in the planning, 

design, and operations of streets and highways to target speeds appropriate to the land 

uses and purposes of the road to minimize future problems. (See self-enforcing road 

design.)

Road Departure Plan – The North Carolina Roadway Departure (Safety) Implementation 

Plan (2009) was developed with support from FHWA. The Road Departure Plan describes 

strategies and implementation of countermeasures to reduce road and lane departure 

crashes and injuries.

 

5

Ibid.

6

See FHWA’s HSIP webpage for more information on eligibility and requirements: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info/resources_npr.cfm

7

Donnell, E.T., Hines, S.C., Mahoney, K.M., Porter, R.J., McGee, H. (2009). Speed Concepts: Informational Guide. 

Report No. FHWA-SA-10-001, Washington, D.C.: Office of Safety, Federal Highway Administration. Available at: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa10001/
10

Roadway Safety Audit – RSAs offer a formalized way for an expert, multi-disciplinary team 

to make a qualitative assessment of safety conditions from the perspective of different road 

users, and to identify potential treatment alternatives.8

Rural/urban crash – A rural or urban crash indicates whether the crash was reported to 

occur inside municipal boundaries (urban) or outside any municipality (rural). 

Rural/urban road section – Rural or urban was defined by whether or not a road section 

was within municipality boundaries (urban) or outside (rural).

Self-enforcing road design – A self-enforcing roadway design, which may be an objective of 

the proactive approach, is road design that reinforces established limits and reduces 

opportunities to speed.9The goal of such designs is to increase consistency of design with 

limits, and to minimize the need for traffic law enforcement to enforce speed limits because 

the road itself induces drivers to adopt operating speeds that are within established limits. 

Self-explaining road design – The development of a consistent design and appearance for 

each roadway purpose or function category.10 Self-explaining designs complement selfenforcing design by making the type of road, and associated speed limit(s), more readily 

evident to drivers.

Severe crash – Two definitions are used. For Countywide analyses, a severe crash is defined 

as a crash involving fatalities (K-type) or disabling-type injuries (A-type from the crash 

reporting system). For network screening, which depends on smaller subsets of the data, 

the definition includes crashes involving evident (B-type) injuries.

Speeding-related crash – The definition of speeding-related crash used is based on 

indications that any driver involved in the crash contributed to the crash by travelling “in 

excess of the posted limit” or “in excess of safe speed for conditions.” The latter definition 

flows from NC’s Basic Speed Rule statute. The public safety officers responding to and 

reporting on the crash make these assessments.

Systematic approach – In this document, the systematic approach is a process to identify 

and prioritize locations where speeding-related crashes are concentrated or greater than 

expected, and to apply systematic diagnosis and treatment of the problems. Diagnosis will 

 

8

See FHWA Roadway Safety Audit Guidelines (2006) and other resources on FHWA’s RSA webpages 

(http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/) for more information. Include speed limit review and assessment of speedingrelated safety issues as part of the audit process.

9

Brewer, J. et al. (2001). Geometric Design Practices for European Roads. Report No. FHWA-PL-01-026, 

Washington, D.C.: FHWA. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/geometric-designpractices/resources/geometric-design-practices/

10 Ibid.
11

include checks for consistency between speed limits, road design and operations (such as 

signal timing), and operating speeds. The systematic approach then follows up with 

application of appropriate remedies, including potential changes to speed limits to rectify 

inconsistencies and improve safety. Remedies may include design and engineering changes 

as well as application of enforcement and educational measures. 

85th percentile speed – The speed at or below which 85 percent of vehicles travel. 

Action Plan Summary

As mentioned, there are three basic approaches to this Plan: Proactive, Comprehensive, and 

Systematic. A brief description of the approaches follows:

 A Proactive approach aims to foster creation of self-enforcing roadway designs appropriate 

to the land use, and user needs (functions of the road) to reduce future speeding and injury 

risk. The approach engages to develop collaborative and consistent policies, procedures and 

safety guidance in speed-limit setting and design for new projects and roadway 

improvements. 

 The key focus of Comprehensive strategies is to seek community support for the program, 

to coordinate various stakeholders and engage the community in setting and enforcing 

appropriate limits, and to complement and enhance the effectiveness of design and 

engineering measures with locally-tailored communications and educational measures. 

 A Systematic approach will be used to identify and treat existing speeding and safety 

problems with cost-effective countermeasures (engineering and enforcement-related 

measures), and to coordinate such a systematic approach with other Safety Plans and focus 

areas. 

For implementing the Systematic approach, the Plan uses problem screening (based on prior 

crashes) and follow-up diagnosis to identify and prioritize areas with speeding-related problems 

to treat. The main road types to be treated through the Systematic approach within the current 

five-year period are:

 Multi-lane, but not physically-divided, urban routes.

 Two-lane urban corridors.

 Rural, two-lane roads.

The Systematic approach aims to make use of the following strategies: 

 Reviewing speed limits; improving the relationship among speed limits, target operating 

speeds, and design.

 Setting appropriate limits considering area land use, and user needs for safety as well as 

mobility.

 Implementing appropriate safety improvements to the roadway. 

 Seeking support from enforcement, the courts, public health professionals, and 

communications experts to support reasonable and safe limits, and speed compliance 

by drivers.
12

 Determining the need for more extensive improvements such as major redesign. 

The Proactive approach also makes use of similar processes, with some changes, but 

implements these for new projects and upgrades. 

Table 1 outlines the Speed Management Plan Action Items that were selected as most 

promising or needed by key stakeholders through meetings and further stakeholder discussion. 

Each Action Item involves processes, coordinated actions and policies to use to develop and 

implement the most appropriate types of countermeasures and to sustain an on-going and 

effective speed management program. Chapter 3 describes alternate countermeasures and 

strategies available to address identified problems. Table 1 also identifies agency roles and 

prospective timelines. The section on Detailed Proposed Implementation Actions in Chapter 4 

describes strategies for implementation in more detail.

Table 1. Action Items for Randolph Co. Speed Management Safety Action Plan and Timeline for 

Implementation.

Table 1 Action Item Stakeholder Roles Approach

Timeline 

1) Develop a County Council or task force 

to engage on speed limit setting and 

safety, coordination of design and 

enforcement for existing roads, and to 

work toward a consistent limit setting 

process and outcomes throughout the 

County. (Proactive and Comprehensive 

approaches)

Lead: Regional Planning Organization, 

Transportation Advisory Commission 

(Piedmont Triad Regional Council [PTRCTAC])

and Injury Prevention specialists (e.g. 

County Public Health department) 

Others: NCDOT, Municipal Staff, Elected 

Officials, Law Enforcement, Judicial 

Officials, Public and Private Partners

Need support: Local elected and public 

officials

Proactive

3 – 5+

2) Frame the Speeding and Safety 

Problem through a Public Information 

and Education Program to build support 

for effective policies and comprehensive 

strategies, to seek funding, and to 

improve effectiveness of enforcement 

and engineering countermeasures. 

(Comprehensive approach)

Lead: Injury prevention (e.g. County 

Public Health Dept.)

Others: NCDOT Communications Office, 

DA’s office, Law Enforcement, NCDOT 

Safety and Mobility Office (pos.), 

Emergency responders (pos.)

Comprehensive

2 – 4 years
13

Table 1 Action Item Stakeholder Roles Approach

Timeline 

3) Develop an inter-agency speed and 

safety review process to assess land use 

and transportation plans, designs, and 

implemented projects to ensure that 

new and improved roads meet sound 

speed management design and safety 

principles for the area land uses and 

intended purposes of the street or 

highway. (Proactive approach)

Lead: Regional Planning Organization 

(PTRC-TAC)

Others: NCDOT: Transportation Planning 

Branch, Division, Roadway Design, Safety 

and Mobility, Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Division

County and local planning staff; elected 

officials; law enforcement 

representatives, public health

Proactive 

1 –3 years

4) Review existing speed limits, conduct 

additional diagnosis, and develop 

treatment plans for prioritized lists of 

problem corridors. (Systematic approach)

Lead: NCDOT Safety and Mobility

Others: Municipal Staff (city streets), 

County Staff (rural routes), Law 

Enforcement agencies, Judiciary, Health 

officials, Regional Planning Organization, 

Municipal Planning Organization

Need support: Local elected officials if 

speed limits are changed

Systematic

3 – 5 years

5) Develop a corridor focused, high 

visibility enforcement and adjudication 

effort. (Comprehensive approach)

Lead: State Highway Patrol, local law 

enforcement agencies, and NCDOT 

Safety and Mobility

Others: Courts officials, Injury Prevention 

Communications experts, 

Need support: Elected officials

Systematic and 

Comprehensive

3 – 5 years

6) Implement speed and safety reviews 

within the HSIP program, including 

Intersections and Sections, with the 

NCDOT Roadway Departure Plan and 

with any Pedestrian Safety Plans. 

(Systematic approach).

Lead: NCDOT Safety & Mobility Office 

Others: Law enforcement agencies, 

NCDOT Safety engineers, Division of 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 

(potentially), Local agency staff (in urban 

areas) 

Systematic

3- 5 years

Table 2 describes Initial steps for Plan implementation. The speed management workgroup may 

continue to add to and update Table 2 to schedule and track action steps, decisions, and 

implementation progress. 
14

Table 2. Next Steps for Action Plan Implementation. This Table may be updated to incorporate Ongoing Action Steps and Schedules.

Implementation steps Timeline Steps 

completed

DOT and local stakeholders review plan 

elements including problem types, potential 

countermeasures, and proposed action steps.

Two weeks from receipt of draft 

plan

Done

Schedule meeting to prioritize most promising 

Action Steps and strategies. 

Two weeks from receipt of draft 

plan

Done

Verify lead agencies, staff leadership and other 

Owners to be involved in Action Step Planning 

and Implementation activities.

Three weeks from receipt of draft 

plan

Done

Schedule meetings of workgroups for individual 

or combined action steps.

Two months from receipt of plan

Seek support of local elected officials and the 

public by conducting additional outreach.

As needed

Evaluation and Performance Measures

The evaluation measures will include interim process measures and safety outcome measures 

consistent with the safety goals of the Plan. Since the goals of the plan are to reduce fatal and 

injury crashes and to improve speed compliance, the primary measures of program 

effectiveness are: 

 Changes in crash frequency and severity. 

 Changes in operating speed distributions. 

Process measures and implementation measures will also be used to track and link program 

efforts to safety outcomes, and to improve and sustain the program. Specific countermeasures 

may be evaluated, as feasible, to determine treatment effects in the local context. 

See Chapter 4, Evaluation Plan section, for more information.

Sustaining and Updating the Plan 

As the stakeholders continue to meet and prioritize the Action Items and particular strategies, 

consider the following:

 The implementation timeline for this initial plan is five years, but can be changed as 

needed. Depending on the Action Items advanced, some strategies will likely require 

longer than five years to fully carry out and implement. 

 The plan is a working document, and may be updated and revised as actions or 

strategies are refined and revised. 

 As already mentioned, a Plan evaluation using relevant performance measures is part of 

the implementation. Plan implementation and safety progress should be monitored 
15

with appropriate performance measures throughout the implementation period. The 

plan should be fully evaluated around the end of the implementation period as to how 

much of the plan was implemented and whether Safety Goals were met.

 To sustain and build the program, update the plan near the end of the initial plan 

period. The update will incorporate input from the Plan evaluation, an updated problem 

identification, and incorporation of new proven countermeasures. 
16

Chapter 2. Speeding-related Safety Issues

This chapter provides a brief description of the problem identification processes. This chapter 

also describes the speeding-related safety problems and speed management problems 

identified through these methods. The safety problems are the targets for strategies and 

countermeasures outlined in Chapter 3. The general speed management issues and challenges 

are addressed through the Action Items and strategies outlined in the Plan as well as in some 

cases by specific countermeasures.

Data and Methods 

Analysts conducted three types of data analyses using data for five years of reportable crashes

(2007-2011) obtained from NCDOT’s State crash files:

 County-level analyses. County-level frequency tables using crash data variables were 

used to identify Countywide trends and general crash factors associated with significant 

proportions of speeding-related or severe crashes. Speeding crash relationships were 

also compared to Statewide trends, but since conditions in Randolph County may be 

different than those for the State as a whole, those comparisons should be interpreted 

cautiously.

 Network screening at a corridor level was performed using crash data matched to 

roadway sections. (Roadway inventory data up to date as of 2011 were also obtained 

from NCDOT as GIS-based inventory files.) Only mileposted crashes and sections of 

roadway (a majority of State-owned roads; few local streets) could be included in these 

analyses. Network screening identified routes where severe and/or speeding-related 

crashes were over-represented compared with other similar routes. The characteristics 

used to categorize roads included rural or urban location, whether the road was 

physically divided or undivided, and number of lanes. Intersection crashes were 

included in the corridor-level screening. 

 Spatial analyses. Spatial analyses in a GIS (ARCMAP10) platform were used to rank 

schools by severe and speeding-related crashes, and to rank road sections with crashes 

on/near curves. The results of these analyses are included in Appendix B as 

supplemental information Stakeholders opted to focus on corridors in the current Plan. 

Other problem identification resulted from:

 County Stakeholders meeting. Input from Randolph County stakeholders through 

workshop held January 9, 2013. Follow-up prioritization meeting held April 19, 2013.

 Field visits. To gain insight into the nature of the problems, a team of road safety 

stakeholders and an FHWA representative conducted problem assessment field visits to 

10(+) corridors identified through the preliminary network screening. A companion 

report has been provided to stakeholders (Randolph County Speed Management Plan –

Field Visits: Summary and Speed Management Plan Recommendations, Conducted 

February 10 – 14, 2013). Complete, independent roadway safety audits (RSAs) would 

ideally be used to identify specific design and roadway problems, behavioral issues, and 

recommend appropriate treatments (in addition to other engineering studies).
17

 Pre-existing speed data. A limited number of speed study reports were obtained for 

routes preliminarily identified as having crash problems. These data were useful for 

noting general prior speeding trends and operating speed-speed limit relationships.

 Expert speed management workshop. Input from a Statewide stakeholders and expert 

speed management workshop held in October of 2011 in Raleigh, NC (independent of 

the present project).

Countywide Issues

There were nearly 16,000 reported crashes for Randolph County over the five-year analysis 

period. General Countywide trends include the following:

 2,644, or 16.8 percent of the total crashes, were indicated to involve speeding, 

compared to a Statewide average of 10.1 percent. 

 253, or 1.6 percent of total crashes, involved fatal or disabling type injuries (slightly 

higher than the Statewide average).

 Approximately 59 percent of total crashes occurred in rural areas.

 77 percent of speeding-related crashes occurred in rural areas.

 72 percent of fatal and disabling injury crashes occurred in rural areas.

For further Countywide crash analyses, the data were subset by whether crashes occurred in 

rural or urban locations. Both issues and solutions may vary for towns and cities (urban) versus 

rural locations. Speed limit setting procedures may vary, and some of the stakeholders are 

different. A summary of key results is provided in the following sections. 

Rural Areas Crash Characteristics

Table 3 shows characteristics of the speeding-related and severe crash problems in rural areas 

of the County. Note that there is significant overlap between crashes that are both speedingrelated and more severe, as illustrated in Figure 1. The traits that are associated with high 

percentages of speeding-related or severe crashes could be targets for widespread engineering 

countermeasures at locations with similar problem types, and for treatments such as antispeeding enforcement and publicity campaigns. Suitable countermeasures are described in 

Chapter 3. More discussion about some of the speeding crash issues follows:

 61 percent of speeding-related crashes in rural areas were associated with curves. (This 

does not necessarily mean that the curve contributed to the crash.) Curves were also 

strongly associated with serious injury crashes (38 percent), although to a smaller 

degree.

 More speeding-related (42 percent) and severe crashes (48 percent) occur at night.

 A much larger portion (21 percent) of severe crashes occurred at intersections 

compared with the proportion of speeding-related crashes (7 percent). 

 Alcohol was also a factor in a larger portion of severe crashes (30 percent) compared 

with speeding-related crashes (13 percent). 

 Teen drivers were involved at a lower rate in severe crashes (13 percent) compared with 

speeding-related crashes (24 percent). 
18

 Slippery surfaces (wet, icy, and snowy roads) were present in 18 percent of speedingrelated crashes but in only 2 percent of severe crashes. 

Curves, crashes at night, and intersections may be targets for widespread efforts due to the 

high percentages of speeding and severe crashes at these locations or conditions. (See Table 20

and Table 21 in Appendix B for more detailed results and comparisons.) In addition, measures 

targeting alcohol could also help to reduce more severe, speeding-related crashes. 

The top three types of crashes in rural Randolph County were the following: 

 Striking fixed objects (a type of road departure crash) (2899, 31 percent of rural 

crashes).

 Collisions with animals (2106, 23 percent of rural crashes).

 Rear-end collisions (1244, 13 percent of rural crashes).

Roadway departure and fixed object crash types are frequently associated with speeding. Rearend collisions may also be related to operating speeds and sight-distance issues. The 

preponderance of animal collisions on rural roads is also a consideration for determining 

appropriate limits. 

Speeding and more severe crashes also vary by hour of day. Evening hours have higher 

proportions of speeding, and account for larger numbers of severe crashes (Figure 5 in 

Appendix B). These hours may be key times for speed enforcement. The effects of engineering 

countermeasures during evening and hours of darkness should be considered when prioritizing 

countermeasures (Table 3). 

Table 3. Characteristics associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes in Rural Areas of 

Randolph County, compared with Statewide averages, that might be Treated by Engineering, 

Enforcement, and Educational Countermeasures. (Crash Years, 2007-2011.)

Crash Characteristics

Number 

of Rural 

SR

Crashes -

County

(2036)

Percent 

of All 

Rural SR

Crashes -

County

Average 

Percentage of 

Rural SR 

Crashes 

Statewide

Number 

of Rural 

Severe1

Crashes 

- County

(182)

Percent 

of All 

Rural 

Severe1

Crashes 

-

County

Average 

Percentage 

of Rural 

Severe 

Crashes 

Statewide

Two-lane road 1727 85% 75% 151 83% 79%

Nighttime (most 

unlighted roads)

857 42% 38% 87 48% 41%

On curve 1239 61% 54% 70 38% 41%

Alcohol involved 262 13% 10% 54 30% 27%

Intersection 150 7% 7% 38 21% 17%

Teen drivers (16 to 19) 497 24% 22% 23 13% 15%

Multi-lane, divided 231 11% 19% 17 9% 14%

Wet Roads (incl. 

standing water)

558 27% 36% 10 5% 11%

Icy/snowy roads 379 19% 18% 4 2% 1%
19

Speed Study Results

Analysts reviewed summary results for 89 different pre-existing speed studies conducted by 

NCDOT. Data were for routes that had been identified through preliminary screening as having 

potential speeding-related crash problems. The studies dated from 1998 to the present, and 

included multiple studies at a few locations. Key findings follow:

 The results showed that that speeding above limits was widespread on the vast majority 

of the roads where speed studies were conducted. In 73 percent of the road locations 

studied, the 85th percentile speed was above limits. 

 85th percentile speeds were at least 5 mph over limits for more than 40 percent of 

routes. 

 85th percentile speeds of at least 10 mph above limits were observed on a significant 

percentage (12 percent) of the roads studied. (See Figure 6 and other information in 

Appendix B.) 

Roads with high levels of speeding and severe crash problems should be priorities for speed 

limit review, enhanced enforcement and/or engineering treatments. Roads identified as having 

severe and speeding-related crash problems that do not have high levels of speeding above the 

limits may need lower limits as well as other safety measures. 

Rural Areas – Other Key Challenges and Issues

Other issues in rural areas include the following:

 The maximum statutory rural (outside municipal boundaries) speed limit in the State 

and County is 55 mph. This limit applies to many miles of rural secondary routes, a 

legacy farm-to-market network that serves residences and other local access, unless a 

speed ordinance and posted limit are present. Most of the rural secondary corridors 

were not designed or built to modern standards for 55 mph highways, and there may be 

a number of geometric features (e.g. narrow roads, poor shoulders, sharp curves and 

steep grades, short sight distance) and other conditions (lack of lighting, number of 

driveways or junctions) that violate driver expectancy for a 55 mph road. Changes in 

development and traffic patterns over time have also affected many routes. These 

issues likely affect the widespread nature of crashes on the rural road network.

 Most requests for speed studies, currently, are for lower limits. Based on the foregoing 

issues, State safety engineers think that a lower statutory maximum speed limit might 

provide a safer baseline limit, with the burden on speed limit review to justify a higher 

limit (NC Speed Management Recommendations, report to NCDOT, 2012 draft).

 Most speed studies and safety treatments currently are initiated in a reactive approach 

to problems (speeding complaints or crashes).

 Policy decisions and other enforcement challenges result in a low level of enforcement 

on rural and some urban streets and highways. 
20

Urban Areas Crash Characteristics

The following characteristics were observed for Randolph County urban areas crashes:

 About 41 percent of Randolph County total reported crashes occurred within various 

municipal limits in the County.

 About 28 percent of severe (KA-severity crashes) occurred within urban areas.

 About 23 percent of speeding-related crashes occurred within urban areas.

Table 4 summarizes characteristics that are associated with significant portions of the speedingrelated and severe crashes within municipalities or the urban areas of the County. These factors 

may be targets for implementation of engineering countermeasures, and for treatments such 

as anti-speeding enforcement and publicity campaigns.

As with rural areas, there were differences in the degree to which traits were associated with 

speeding versus severe crashes. Two-lane, undivided urban roads were most highly 

represented in severe crashes (65 percent), even more so than for speeding-related crashes (49 

percent). The proportion of severe crashes that occurred on two-lane roads was also much 

larger than for the State on average, but this may be in part due to the extent of mileage of 

different road types in the County. A larger percentage of urban severe crashes occurred at 

intersections compared with speeding-related crashes. Alcohol was also more involved in 

severe crashes, while wet roads and teen drivers seem to be less represented in more severe 

crashes than in speeding-related crashes in urban areas (Table 4).
21

Table 4. Characteristics highly associated with Speeding-related (SR) and Severe Crashes in 

Municipalities of Randolph County that might be treated by Engineering, Enforcement, and 

Educational Countermeasures. (Crash years, 2007-2011.)

Crash 

Characteristic

Number 

and

Urban SR 

Crashes 

in 

County

(n = 615)

Percent 

of Urban 

SR 

Crashes in 

County

Average 

Percentage 

of Urban SR 

Crashes 

Statewide

Number of

Urban 

Severe 

Crashes in 

County

(n = 71)

Percent of

Urban 

Severe 

Crashes in 

County

Average 

Percentage of 

Urban Severe 

Crashes 

Statewide

Two-lane, 

undivided 302 49% 37% 46 65% 33%

Multi-lane, divided 199 32% 36% 9 13% 33%

Multi-lane, 

undivided 82 13% 15% 12 17% 26%

Crash at curve 184 30% 28% 17 24% 18%

Dark (lighted) 83 14% 24% 15 21% 27%

Dark (unlighted 

roadways) 134 22% 14% 12 17% 15%

Crash at 

Intersection 67 11% 15% 16 23% 30%

Alcohol-involved 59 10% 11% 15 21% 23%

Wet roads 314 51% 48% 12 17% 13%

Teen driver 138 22% 20% 11 16% 13%

Urban Areas – Other Key Challenges and Issues

Some of the other issues identified through Statewide and local stakeholder meetings include 

the following:

 The urban default statutory maximum is 35 mph. To change limits on State-owned roads 

passing through municipalities requires agreement through concurrent State and local 

ordinances, but such concurrence may be difficult to achieve.

 Many urban streets and highways still carry the statutory limits, but both lower limits 

and higher limits have been posted through speed zoning and ordinances. A diversity of 

practices among towns and history of ordinances, annexations, statutory limits, and 

designs has resulted in a variety of limits for similar and diverse types of roads.

 Some of the smaller communities in the County at present lack their own police 

departments, and/or traffic enforcement capabilities. The Trinity and Archdale area has 

several major highways, large amount of traffic, significant fatal crashes, and safety 

issues around high schools according to information provided at the stakeholder kick-off 

meeting. Trinity is one of the communities lacking local traffic enforcement.
22

Other Key Countywide Issues 

The following issues were identified through stakeholders meetings and other sources:

 Drivers may not know what limits are, particularly statutory limits that are not posted.

 Traffic courts are overwhelmed with processing appearances by violators that opt to 

contest their tickets. Many plea arrangements and convictions for non-speeding 

offenses are the outcomes. Thus, drivers may perceive that convictions for speeding as 

charged are rare and that violators are treated inconsistently.

 Apart from Statewide initiatives such as No Need to Speed, which are twice-yearly 

enforcement blitzes, there have been no coordinated efforts to create sustained, 

randomly targeted, but high-visibility speed enforcement campaigns. Current 

enforcement focuses on a few top crash corridors. Drivers are very likely aware that 

there is little risk of being detected speeding on other roads.

Corridor Problems

The start of a systematic process is to identify zones, corridors, or areas that may have more 

than expected or a higher than average proportion of speeding-related crashes for that road 

type. These roads may be good candidates for further assessment and potential treatment. 

Network screening was used to identify locations, or more specifically corridors, where 

speeding may be contributing to crash and injury problems. The screening approach grouped 

similar road types (rural/urban, design configuration, and number of lanes) for analysis, and 

made use of the following measures:

 Proportion of crashes that were speeding-related. 

 Proportion of crashes with more severe injuries. 

 Rate of more severe injury crashes per mile of roadway length. 

Neither traffic volume data nor actual operating speed data were available for all road sections, 

especially for the lower-volume rural roads that predominate in this County, and hence traffic 

volume data were not used in the screening methods. Traffic volume and actual speeds should 

be considered during field review and diagnosis. Results of the screening process focused 

attention on the following three types of routes for application of a systematic approach:

 Urban, multi-lane, but not physically-divided corridors.

 Urban, two-lane corridors. 

 Rural, two-lane roads.

In addition, a spatial analysis demonstrated potential for identifying area-wide concerns such as 

neighborhoods or areas near schools that may have severe and speeding-related crash 

problems.

Urban, Multi-lane Corridors (undivided)

An average of about five percent of total crashes resulted in severe injuries and about four 

percent of crashes were speeding-related on urban, multi-lane, but not physically divided 

corridors. 
23

Six corridors that accounted for most of the mileage and the crashes on these road types were 

identified for further diagnosis. See Table 23 in Appendix B

Appendix B information provides additional detailed analysis results, supplementing results in 

Chapter 2 for a list of these corridors. Focusing attention on these six corridors for treatment 

would target approximately:

 6 percent of fatal crashes (6 fatal crashes).

 6 percent of severe crashes (94 severe crashes). 

 3 percent of speeding-related crashes (70 speeding-related crashes). 

 12 percent of total crashes (1788 crashes).

 Less than 1 percent (0.7 percent) of the County’s mileposted roadway miles.

As mentioned, several of the priority corridors were visited by the field review team for more 

in-depth assessment of the types of problems present. 

Problem types observed (see companion document, Speed Management Recommendations 

from Roadway Safety Field Visits) on a few of these urban, multi-lane roads include the 

following: 

 Transition areas from rural, high speed, multi-lane roads to lower speed urban, multilane corridors do not adequately convey to drivers the need to slow. Transitions in land 

use are often gradual and difficult to perceive, and the road designs do not change 

much, or at all. 

 Limits may change abruptly from 55 to 45 to 35 (rural to urban transition).

 Some corridors have diverse adjacent land uses (residential, commercial, senior living, 

schools), many driveways and connections, and significant conflict areas associated with 

a five-lane (two lanes in each direction with a center, two-way left turn lane) design. 

 The same type environments provide a complex background to drivers, and may 

obscure important safety information, especially if drivers are traveling at higher 

speeds. Traffic signals, school caution signs, other warning signs, and wayfinding 

information may be difficult to see amidst the utility poles, commercial signs, and 

driveway connections. Drivers from out-of-town may be most in need of cues about 

speed limits, directional information, and other safety information.

 Few pedestrian or bicycle amenities are present on some roads and therefore 

separation of different weight and speed (type) of users is often inadequate. (There are 

few and infrequent traffic signals, no pedestrians signals or crosswalks, lack of 

median/refuge islands or other crossing aids, lack of bike facilities, lack of sidewalks in 

some areas.)

 Law enforcement and judicial officials perceive the 35 mph limit on some sections of 

urban, multi-lane arterial-type corridors to lack credibility to drivers and they deem such 

sections challenging to enforce since many drivers exceed the 35 mph limit. 

 Some multi-lane corridors are overbuilt, and do not need multiple lanes to carry only 

low traffic volumes of mostly local traffic. 
24

 Skewed angle intersections and intersections with other geometric problems (sight 

distance issues due to grades and curves) are present on both arterial-type, higher 

volume, and local, lower volume corridors. Skewed angle intersections can lead to high 

turning speeds as well as sight distance / visibility issues at intersections.

 Significant angle and rear-end collision types were common on both higher volume 

(highway type) and lower-volume, local corridors. 

Urban, Two-lane Corridors 

On average, about 8 percent of all crashes on urban two-lane routes were severe, and 13 

percent were indicated to be speeding-related. 

A subset of 11 corridors was identified through the screening process for further review. See 

Table 24 in the Appendices for Chapter 2, for the list of urban two-lane corridors to consider for 

implementing the systematic approach.

This subset of 11 corridors accounted for approximately:

 4 percent of severe crashes in the County (63 severe crashes). 

 2 percent of speeding-related crashes (54 speeding-related crashes). 

 3 percent of total crashes (485 total crashes). 

 1 percent of the County’s mileposted roadway miles. 

Problems observed that could potentially contribute to speeding and speeding-related crashes 

on some of these urban two-lane streets (that have similar characteristics) included:

 The street design and configuration does not change from rural to urban areas. The 

urban portions are striped and look like rural highways.

 Rural to urban high to low-speed transitions: Changes in land use and driveway density 

are often gradual and difficult to perceive from high (55 mph limits) to low-speed 

(generally 35 mph) urban areas. Speed transition area treatments from rural to 

incorporated areas are generally lacking.

 Typical of many rural two-lanes in the region: There may be no sidewalks, shoulders, or 

other space for bikes or for pedestrians to walk resulting in a lack of separation of 

different user types. Pedestrians were observed walking in the road or along the road 

edge. Since the statutory urban speed limit is 35, and travel speeds may be higher, 

separation seems inadequate.

 Ditches and numerous fixed objects (mailboxes, hard structures, trees, and signposts) 

are near the roadway; lanes tend to be narrow, and there is little recovery opportunity if 

vehicles run off edge of the road or encroach on the opposite lane.

 Large vehicles are also common on some corridors. 

 Rear-end and angle type crashes were common for the route observed. 

 Fixed object and road departure crash types were also represented – types often 

associated with too fast for conditions.

 Curves or grades may result in inadequate sight distance at intersections and numerous 

driveways in some sections, especially if vehicles are speeding.
25

 Acute angle intersections, some also associated with curves, may add to sight distance 

issues, especially problematic for sharp left turns and if approach speeds are high. 

 There is little delineation or confusing alignment at some skewed junctions; drivers 

unfamiliar with the route may have difficulty perceiving which route they need to 

follow. 

 Roadway drop-offs at intersecting roadways combined with curves on approaches (e.g. 

Hub Morris and Liberty) could result in vehicles losing control at intersections. 

Rural, Two-Lane Routes

Rural, two-lane roads represent the majority of roadway inventory miles in the County, 

although the average annual daily traffic volumes are low. Many routes have less than 1000 

vehicles per day. The vast majority are classified as State Secondary roads, although a few twolane roads serve as U.S. or North Carolina highways. Unless a speed ordinance exists, rural 

roads have a maximum, statutory speed limit of 55 mph. Roads operating under the default 

maximum do not have to be posted with the limit. The assumption is that most of the rural 

two-lane roadway miles presently operate under the statutory limit. 

A subset of 18 corridors was prioritized through the screening process for additional systematic 

diagnosis (Table 25 in Appendix B).

The prioritized group of 18 corridors accounted for the following:

 About 13 percent of the County’s severe crashes, or 204 severe crashes.

 About 8 percent of the County’s speeding-related crashes, 214 speeding-related 

crashes.

 About 9 percent of the County’s total reported crashes, 1438 total crashes.

 About 4 percent of the County’s mileposted roadway miles.

Problem types observed during field visits included:

 There is typically little to no paved shoulder; ditches and numerous fixed objects 

including trees and mailboxes are near the roadway. 

 There are many curves and curves with grade and curve-related crashes; some routes 

seem to have few and short tangent sections between curves. 

 Other corridors have longer tangent sections, which may allow drivers to attain high 

speeds between curves/grades or other features that may require slower travel.

 The curves and grades contribute to sight distance issues at intersections, driveways, 

and other areas. Rear-end collisions (13 percent of rural crashes) suggest potential sight 

distance problems that could relate to prevailing speeds. (Conduct further analyses to 

determine if rear-end collisions are over-represented at particular locations.)

 The 55 mph statutory limit, unless a speed zone exists, may not be appropriate for many 

sections (and as further described under the Countywide problem description). 

 There is no space for bicyclists to travel or for pedestrians to walk along these roads 

except in the travel lane. 

 There may be inconsistencies in the treatment of curves with similar geometries 

(advisory limits, warnings, etc.).
26

 Edge lines may not show up well in adverse weather or at night. 

 Rumble strips and safety edge have not yet been widely implemented on state 

secondary routes. 

 Many miles of these roads, largely low volume, with low level of enforcement. 

 Emergency response time may be high due to distances to more remote areas.

 Fixed object (road departure) crashes are the most common type (35 percent of all rural 

crashes).

 Animal collisions are also common (23 percent).

Chapter 3 describes action items, strategies, and countermeasures for addressing many of the 

problem types and crash problems described in this chapter. 
27

Chapter 3. Speed Management Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures

This chapter describes actions that may be used to implement Countywide strategies and 

countermeasures and to systematically assess and treat the Problem Corridors identified 

through network screening. In addition, the chapter outlines alternate engineering and 

enforcement strategies to treat identified safety or speed management issues, along with 

expected effects on crashes.

Actions and Strategies to Address Countywide Issues

The focus of Countywide actions will be to foster creation of land-use-appropriate and selfenforcing roadway designs over time by engaging to develop more collaborative and consistent 

policies, procedures and guidance in speed-limit setting and design. The NC Complete Streets 

guidelines are resource that could be used as a starting framework to assess the network 

function and purpose of roads, and to develop appropriate speed limit-setting policies and 

designs for new projects or improvements. Under a Complete Streets approach, current and 

future land use and user safety as well as mobility needs should be key elements in speed limit 

setting and target travel speeds. 

The key focus of comprehensive strategies is to engage law enforcement and the community in 

setting appropriate limits, and to build support among the public and law enforcement 

community to enforce close to established limits. Enforcement and publicity are especially 

needed to supplement design and engineering when road designs or limits cannot be changed, 

or design and engineering measures are insufficient to achieve the desired operating speeds. It 

may also be desirable to engage with other stakeholders Statewide to seek the legal authority 

to use proven tools such as automated enforcement to supplement traditional enforcement.

Table 5 describes three Action Items and related strategies that the State, County, and other 

partners may use to address the issues identified in Chapter 2. The Action Item describes the 

process and/or group needed to consider the strategies and issues characterized in the second 

and third columns, respectively. Most of the strategies outlined in Table 5 do not have proven 

crash reduction or safety effects, but flow from best practice principles or provide the 

framework for a sustainable speed management program. 
28

Table 5. Proactive and Comprehensive Action Items and Strategies to Address Countywide Issues. 

Table 5 

Action Items

Strategies that may be included 

under these Action Items Issues to be Addressed

Develop a County 

Council/task force to 

engage on speed limit 

setting and safety, 

coordination of design and 

enforcement for existing 

roads, and to work toward 

a more consistent limit 

setting process and 

outcomes throughout the 

County. (Comprehensive 

and Proactive)

 Set appropriate speed limits for the 

roadway design, context, and users 

to improve safety for new and 

existing roads. 

 Develop a collaborative speed limit 

setting process among NCDOT, 

local governments and law 

enforcement. Seek public input 

about safe and appropriate speeds.

 Consider using NCDOT’s Complete 

Streets guidelines (NCDOT, 2012) 

and collaborative processes to 

guide implementation (e.g. 

determine road types and target 

operating speeds/speed limits, and 

appropriate design).

 Consider using fewer different 

speed limits, for example 25, 35, 

and 45 mph in urban areas to help 

improve driver comprehension.

 Varied practices and outcomes 

in setting speed limits, 

especially in urban/suburban 

areas across the County.

 Lack of agreement between 

the State DOT and 

communities about 

appropriate speed limits on 

urban streets.

 Poor credibility and 

enforceability of speed limits 

on some roads; may lead to 

general lack of speed limit 

credibility.

 Many sections of urban streets 

that have incompatible design 

with speed limits and/or 

current land uses.

 Many rural two-lane routes 

that were not designed to 

current 55 mph limits.

 Drivers may not know the 

speed limits, particularly 

statutory limits that are not 

posted.
29

Table 5 

Action Items

Strategies that may be included 

under these Action Items Issues to be Addressed

Frame Problem through a 

Public Information and 

Education Program 

- to help support effective 

limit setting policies and 

comprehensive strategies, 

to seek funding, and to 

provide support of 

enhanced enforcement 

and other effective 

countermeasures.

(Comprehensive)

 Ensure that drivers know what all 

speed limits are, including 

statutory maximums.

 Improve communications about 

the safety reasons for effective 

policies and strategies to improve 

public and political support.

 Seek additional funding and 

political support to increase 

enforcement in rural and urban 

areas. 

 Increase visibility/conspicuity of 

enforcement to enhance deterrent 

effects. 

 Work toward gaining State legal 

authority to utilize automated 

(photo) speed enforcement as an 

enforcement tool.

 Use publicity and education to 

enhance speed-deterrent effects of 

enforcement programs and other 

programs. (See Countermeasures 

That Work and other resources for 

the types of programs that are 

likely to be effective, or seek 

technical assistance. See Keys to 

Communication Success tip sheets 

in the Speed Management Toolkit.)

 Poor credibility and 

enforceability of speed limits 

on some roads may lead to 

general lack of speed limit 

credibility. Difficulty in 

agreeing on appropriate 

limits.

 Drivers may not know what 

limits are, particularly when 

statutory limits are not 

posted, or are infrequently 

posted.

 Widespread speeding above 

limits.

 Insufficient enforcement 

resources, low enforcement 

presence in many areas. 

 Political and administrative 

challenges to implement 

stricter adjudication of 

speeding violations.

 Legal barriers to 

implementing automated 

enforcement under current 

State law.

 Speeding-related (SR) crashes 

involve all ages of drivers. 

Teens accounted for about 25 

percent of speeding-related 

and a lower proportion of 

severe crashes.

 A high percentage (77 

percent) of speeding-related 

crashes are in rural areas.

 A high percentage of 

speeding-related crashes (35 

percent) occur at night (most 

on unlighted roads).

 A high percentage of 

speeding-related crashes 

occur at curves (54 percent).
30

Table 5 

Action Items

Strategies that may be included 

under these Action Items Issues to be Addressed

Develop an inter-agency 

speed and safety 

assessment process to 

review plans, designs, and 

implementation to ensure 

that new projects meet 

sound speed management 

design and operations 

principles for the area land 

uses and intended 

purposes of the road. 

(Proactive)

 Coordinate with transportation and 

land use plans in setting limits and 

designing roads.

 Set or revise speed limits early in 

the new project planning process 

to provide adequate safety for the 

land use, road type, and expected 

users.

 Consider using NCDOT’s Complete 

Streets guidelines (NCDOT, 2012) 

and collaborative approach to 

coordinate with land use, user 

needs, and guide implementation.

 Consider specific designs, signs, 

and markings to apply to similar 

road types throughout jurisdiction 

(self-explaining designs).

 Utilize tools such as the Interactive 

Highway Safety Design Model 

(IHSDM) to evaluate design 

consistency and estimate safety 

and operational performance of 

design alternatives. 

 Conduct speed and safety reviews 

of designs, during construction and 

implementation of all new and 

pending projects, including 

maintenance and operations 

projects, to ensure that: 

 Design is matched to elicit speeds 

close to the intended speed limit 

(self-enforcing). (Note that even if 

design speeds close to the limit are 

used, the perceived design speed 

may be higher, leading to higher 

driver speed selection.) 

 Operations features are 

coordinated with target speeds.

 Facilities and operations separate 

different weight and speed of users 

on roads with moderate or high 

limits and target operating speeds. 

 Speed-managing designs that will 

have long-lasting effects are 

prioritized. 

 Review work zone procedures, 

signing, compliance, and 

monitoring to ensure that work 

zone speed zones are credible and 

appropriately implemented.

 Consider variable speed limits for 

new /improved freeways

 Lack of self-enforcing 

roadway designs and safety 

issues relating to 

inappropriate speed for area 

land uses and other 

conditions.

 Lack of credibility of speed 

limits due to frequent 

incompatibility with design or 

operations during certain 

times or at certain locations. 

 Street and road designs 

and/or limits that are 

incompatible with each other 

or with current or future land 

uses or other transportation 

needs. 

 Reactive approach to 

managing speed and 

providing safety treatments 

not as effective as initial good 

design. 

 Difficulty in enforcing speed 

limits where inferred design 

speed or actual design speed 

is significantly higher than 

limit. 
31

Specific opportunities to implement the proactive strategies include the following:

 Opening of US 311 bypasses (under construction and review). Conduct speed and 

safety review before opening the new highway.

 US 64 bypass (pending) including connections with local streets.

 “Big” urban/suburban roads such as US 311, Archdale, and US 64 in Asheboro and 

Ramseur have many design issues, conflicts, and crashes. When alternate/ bypass 

routes are opened, there is also an opportunity for purpose, speed and safety-oriented 

design review once some of the traffic functions are shifted from the current roads. 

 Zoo Parkway connector (planned).

 County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, currently under development. Specific 

plans in the County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) that are under active 

consideration should be assessed with regard to their compatibility with current and 

future land uses, and designs for appropriate speed. 

 Other transportation plans including The Central Region of NC Bicycle Plan and other 

multi-modal plans (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit plans).

 Land use and development plans including a County-level growth management plan 

adopted in 2009 to guide economic and residential development. See Appendix C

for a map from that plan.

 Coordinate with North Carolina DOT’s Complete Streets Policy and implementation 

approach in all plans and pending projects. 

Actions, Strategies, and Countermeasures to Address High Crash Corridors 

As mentioned, the systematic approach is the process used to identify, prioritize, and treat 

existing safety and speed management issues by corridors or other areas. A pragmatic 

approach will find ways to implement speed and safety review and speed managing 

improvements within other safety programs, and through planned maintenance and operations 

improvements as is done in North Carolina’s Complete Streets implementation approach. 

Table 6 describes three Action Items and Strategies to implement a systematic approach to 

treating corridors or other areas of concern, and to address some of the barriers and challenges 

in a local speed management program. As in Table 5, the Action Items provide the 

organizational set-up for selecting and developing a cost-effective treatment package of 

countermeasures. The systematic approach to diagnosing and treating speeding-related issues

can be applied to the corridors identified through network screening for that purpose, or other 

areas systematically identified. 

Table 7, Table 9, and Table 11 provide more details on alternate countermeasures or strategies 

that can be selected through the actions and systematic processes outlined in Table 6. 

Although individual diagnosis should be performed for each corridor, application of more 

uniform designs, markings, and other treatments for similar area and road types may be tried, 

especially for proven measures. Such treatment could improve consistency of message to 

drivers about safe speeds in similar land use and roadway contexts. 
32

Table 6. Systematic and Comprehensive Actions to Address Speeding and Related Crashes on High 

Crash Corridors.

Table 6 Action Items Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

Develop team and 

schedule to conduct 

speed and safety 

reviews and develop 

treatment 

recommendations for 

prioritized lists of three 

different corridor types. 

(Systematic approach)

 Conduct speed and engineering 

studies and additional diagnosis steps. 

 Conduct Roadway Safety Audit as part 

of diagnosis. As part of the safety audit 

process:

- Involve law enforcement and local 

elected officials.

- Determine the area (land use) and

roadway context (purposes and 

users of the road, what types of 

conflicts and severity of crashes 

may occur based on existing 

design).

- If changing the limit is an option, 

determine appropriate limit based 

on the context described (above). 

- Assess credibility of the speed limit 

to drivers.

- Determine what changes can be 

made to the roadway to improve 

safety and support proposed limit. 

- Determine timeline (short, longterm) for engineering, other 

improvements.

- Determine what other safety 

improvements are needed – e.g., 

on higher speed roads, are safer 

pedestrian crossings needed?

- Determine whether enforcement 

improvements are needed to 

improve compliance with limits 

(including any changed limits).

 Apply similar countermeasures to 

similar location / problem types. 

 Take advantage of maintenance and 

operations opportunities to 

reconfigure or make other design or 

engineering improvements.

 This systematic approach 

should be used for each of the 

prioritized problem corridors 

identified through network 

screening – undivided, multilane, urban streets; 

undivided, two-lane urban 

streets; and undivided, rural, 

two-lane routes.

 Specific problem types and 

countermeasures for each 

road type are described in 

Table 7, Table 9, and Table 11
33

Table 6 Action Items Strategies that may be Used Issues to be Addressed

Develop a corridor 

focused enforcement 

and adjudication plan to 

target corridors with 

severe crash problems 

and speeding. 

(Systematic and 

Comprehensive)

 Randomly target enforcement to 

select corridors with high frequencies 

of severe crashes and speeding.

 Tighten adjudication of citations for 

targeted corridors and publicize the 

effort. 

 Coordinate with engineering and 

design to enforce roads where 

changes cannot be implemented right 

away. 

 Enhance deterrent effects of any type 

of speed enforcement program with 

publicity.

 Widespread speeding above 

limits.

 Insufficient enforcement 

resources, low enforcement 

presence in many areas. 

 Legal barriers to 

implementing automated 

enforcement under current 

State law.

 Widespread plea agreements 

and low conviction rate for 

many violators who contest 

charges in court.

Implement speed and 

safety reviews within 

the HSIP program, 

within the NCDOT 

Roadway Departure 

(crash reduction) Plan 

and with any future 

Pedestrian Safety Plans. 

(Systematic)

 Incorporate routine diagnosis of 

speeding issues into other safety 

programs and plans.

 Assess whether corridor-level speed 

management issues are contributing 

to spot safety issues.

 Implement corridor or area-wide 

speed reviews and speed management 

countermeasures if needed to 

supplement spot safety 

improvements.

 Coordinate with law enforcement to 

supplement or provide enhanced 

enforcement before engineering 

measures can be implemented.

 Speeding at intersections, 

inappropriate speeds in 

pedestrian areas, speedingrelated roadway departure 

crashes.

The next three sections describe effective countermeasures that might be selected 

through the Action Items to address issues on the three road types. Recall that the 

corridor screening approach included intersection crashes, and treatment of 

intersections is considered within each corridor type.

Countermeasures for Urban, Multi-Lane Corridors

Although urban multi-lane corridors (not access-controlled) accounted for lower overall 

proportions of more severe crashes and speeding-related crashes compared to total crashes, 

the crashes are spread over a relatively low number of miles of roadway, but which may have 

higher volumes of traffic. Speed management measures applied to these roadways would 

target a significant proportion of the problem, and may be cost-effective per mile of roadway 

treated, even if speeding crash rates (per vehicle miles) are lower than on other types of roads.

The availability of speed-controlling and crash-reducing countermeasures for urban (even if 

small town, urban) situations also increases the feasibility of treating speeding-related crashes 
34

on these roadways. Some of these streets also tend to serve a variety of important functions 

from serving through traffic to local access to homes, schools and businesses.

Screening highlighted six routes for further diagnosis (listed in Table 23 in Appendix B). 

Speeding-related engineering countermeasures for urban, multi-lane corridors include (but are 

not limited to):

 Speed studies, limit review, and potentially changes to limits or speed zones.

 Roundabout intersection design.

 Road diets (conversions of regular traffic lanes to other uses).

 Road / lane narrowing through markings or physical measures.

 Gateway treatments.

 Medians or median islands.

 Coordinated signal progression/ signal timing change.

 Other design elements (lighting, sidewalks, street trees) that highlight the urban nature 

of the corridor.

Table 7 lists alternate countermeasures to treat issues on undivided, multi-lane, urban 

corridors. The expected effects on crashes are shown in the “CMFs” column. CMFs (or crash 

modification factors) show the expected effects (with standard errors) of the different 

treatments. Factors less than 1 have a crash-reducing effect. (A CMF of 0.7 is expected to yield 

a crash rate of 0.7 times the prior crash rate, or a 30 percent crash reduction, controlling for 

traffic volume and other trends.) The types of crashes covered by the CMF estimates are shown 

below the estimate. In addition to addressing the types of issues shown in the “Problem Types 

Treated” column, speed-reducing or controlling countermeasures are expected to lower the 

frequency of fatal and severe injury crashes of all types. The estimates (or locally-calibrated 

estimates) may be used to help determine the benefits (and cost-effectiveness) of each 

treatment. However, each corridor must be assessed through further diagnosis steps to 

determine the most appropriate treatment or combination of treatments. 

Further diagnosis will include intersections as well as corridor-wide issues. Other intersection 

improvements may be needed in addition to more direct speed-managing improvements 

shown in Table 7.

Enforcement and related communications will supplement or complement design and 

engineering improvements or target improved compliance when changes cannot be made to 

the street right away. Emphasis should be on corridors with higher proportions or rates of 

severe crashes related to speeding. Crash modification factor estimates for automated 

enforcement and earned media are shown in Table 7. Expected safety effects of other 

enforcement measures are described in the NCHRP Guide for Reducing Speeding-Related 

Crashes (NCHRP, 2009) and Countermeasures That Work (NHTSA, 2011). See also Effectiveness 

of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures. NCHRP Report 622 and other resources listed 

in the supplemental references. Such measures might include reduced enforcement thresholds, 

enhanced publicity of enforcement, and improved adjudication of citations. Roads where limits 

are changed may also be in need of improved enforcement.
35

Table 7. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (Crash Modification Factors or CMFs) for Urban, MultiLane Corridors.*

Table 7 

Countermeasure / 

Strategy

CMFs 

(with std. errors)11 Issues Addressed More Information

Conduct speed 

studies, limit 

review, and 

potentially 

implement changes 

to speed limits or 

length of zones

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Credibility and Enforceability of speed 

limit.

 Limits may change abruptly from 55 to 45 

to 35; other transition issues. 

12, 13

Changes in 

speed limits 

may not affect 

crashes much 

without other 

supporting 

measures

Improve signing of 

speed zones with 

package of larger 

signs and new 

warning signs; 

repeat signs more 

frequently; use on 

both sides of multilane roads. 

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Transition areas issues

 Limits may change abruptly from 55 to 45 

to 35

 Drivers on multi-lane roads may miss signs

 Credibility and Enforceability of speed 

limit.

14, 15

 

11 Standard errors provide an indication of the precision and reliability of the CMF estimate. Small standard errors 

relative to the CMF indicate less variability in the expected outcome.

12 Forbes, G.J. T. Gardner, H. McGee, R. Srinivasan. (2012) Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An 

Informational Report. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/

13 USLimits2 tool. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/

14 Torbic, D.J. et al., (2012). Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways. 

NCHRP Report No. 737, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Available: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_737.pdf

15 Design guidance and Excel workbook also available at project webpage: NCHRP 15-40 [Final], Design Guidance 

for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways, 

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2721
36

Table 7 

Countermeasure / 

Strategy

CMFs 

(with std. errors)11 Issues Addressed More Information

Road diet 

conversion from 

multiple, undivided 

lanes to fewer 

traffic lanes with 

bicycle or parking 

lanes. 

0.53 

(0.01 s.e.)

All crash types; all 

severities

4000 – 14,000 AADT, 

small urban areas

 Big road, multi-lanes, and carry only low 

traffic volumes of mostly local traffic, 

which can lead to speeding.

16

May require 

changes in 

detection at 

signalized 

intersections, 

re-timing, or 

addition of 

turn lanes

Repl. Stopcontrolled 

Intersection with 

Roundabout 

- One-lane (if 

number of lanes 

reduced) 

0.22 (0.07 s.e.) 

Injury 

Any of the roundabout measures: (Replace 

Stop-controlled, one-lane or two-lane; or 

Replace Signal-controled, one-lane or twolane) may treat these problem types: 

 Intersection collisions - About 11 percent 

of severe crashes in urban areas occurred 

at intersections. 

 Speeding on corridor or on intersection 

approaches.

 Skewed angle intersections, sight distance 

issues.

 Other geometric issues (observed).

 Low-speed turns related to acute angle.

 High speed turns related to obtuse angle 

Difficult access from lower volume side 

streets.

17, 18

May also help 

to lower 

corridor 

section 

speeds

- Two lane 

Roundabout

0.28 (0.09 s.e.) 

injury

Repl. Signalcontrolled 

intersection with 

Roundabout

- One lane (if 

number of lanes 

reduced)

0.451 (0.115 u.s.e) 

Injury and Fatal

17, 18, 19,

- Two lane 

Roundabout

0.288 (0.065 u.s.e)

Injury and Fatal

 

16 Road Diet Roadway Configuration. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures Available at: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.pdf

17 Isebrands, H., Hallmark, S., Fitzsimmons, E. and Stroda, J. (2008).Toolbox to Evaluate the Impacts of Roundabouts 

on a Corridor or Roadway Network, St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Transportation. Available: 

http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200824.pdf

18 NCHRP (2010). Roundabouts: An informational guide, Second edition. NCHRP Report 672, Transportation 

Research Board: Washington, D.C. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf

19 Woodmansey, A., and Spalding, K. (2012). Montana's Roundabout Corridor. Public Roads 75 (no.2), 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/12janfeb/02.cfm
37

Table 7 

Countermeasure / 

Strategy

CMFs 

(with std. errors)11 Issues Addressed More Information

Realign skewed 

intersections

See more 

information link

 Skewed angle intersections; visibility.

 High speed turns on obtuse angle.

 Low speed turns.

 Sight distance issues due to angle.

20

Gateway treatment 

combination 

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Transition areas from rural, high speed, 

multi-lane roads to lower speed urban, 

multi-lane corridors do not adequately 

convey to drivers the need to slow.

 Speeding on urban sections of these 

corridors

14, 15

Median 0.78 (0.02 s.e.) 

Serious, Minor Injury 

Median-problem types treated:

 Transition areas from rural, high speed, 

multi-lane roads to lower speed urban, 

multi-lane corridors do not adequately 

convey to drivers the need to slow.

 Lack of pedestrian/cyclist refuges when 

crossing wide roads.

14, 15

Median 0.54 (0.48 a.s.e)

Pedestrian-motor 

vehicle 

14, 15

Center median 

island

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Drivers speeding – wider roads. 

 Need for pedestrian refuge.

21

Signal coordination/ 

traffic progression 

to encourage 

consistent speed 

between signals

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 High-volume corridors with speeding 

between intersections. 

 Speeding between signals.

 Speed variance within a section.

 Speeding-related rear-end crashes.

22, 23, 24,25

See Dixie 

Drive corridor 

study suggests 

issues with 

flows and 

intersections 

which could 

lead to 

frustration 

and excessive 

acceleration 

between 

signals.

 

20 Realign Intersection Approaches to Reduce or Eliminate Intersection Skew (2008). UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 

SAFETY STRATEGIES), U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration webpage: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/intsafestratbro/ub16_intersection_skew.pdf

21 FHWA Traffic Calming website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm
38

Table 7 

Countermeasure / 

Strategy

CMFs 

(with std. errors)11 Issues Addressed More Information

Increase pavement 

friction 

Varied estimates 

available for 

different intersection 

types and sections

 About 45% of all urban area crashes and 

17% of severe crashes were assoc. with 

wet surfaces; further analysis needed of 

which intersections may have issues.

26

Narrow travel lanes No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Credibility and Enforceability of speed 

limit.

27, 28

Various 

optical/perceptual 

pavement markings 

No CMFs available

(Estimate CMFs)*

 Transition areas from rural, high speed, 

multi-lane roads to lower speed.

 Curves.

29

Effects may 

be less longterm than 

design/ 

physical 

measures

 

22 NCHRP (2003). Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. NCHRP Report 500, 

Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research 

Board. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v5.pdf

23 Signalized Intersection Safety Strategies (2008). Companion slides to NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12: A Guide for 

Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections. U.S. DOT, FHWA, Office of Safety. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signalized/presentations/nchrp500_v12/

24 Koonce, P., et al. (2008). Traffic Signal Timing Manual, Chapter 6. Washington, D.C.: FHWA. Publication No.

FHWA-HOP-08-024. Available: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08024/chapter6.htm#6.2

25 Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2011). US 64 Corridor Study. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of 

Transportation.

26 FHWA’s Pavement Friction program website: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_friction/

27 Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds: a Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness (2009) 

(FHWA) website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/

28 AASHTO (2010. Highway Safety Manual. 1st edition. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. Available: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

29 Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds: a Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness (2009) 

(FHWA) website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/
39

Table 7 

Countermeasure / 

Strategy

CMFs 

(with std. errors)11 Issues Addressed More Information

Randomly target 

high visibility 

enforcement to 

cover a large 

proportion of high 

crash corridors and 

improve 

adjudication

0.826 (no s.e.) 

Total crashes 

 -Widespread speeding and related 

crashes.

30

Automated speed 

enforcement 

(mobile, 

conspicuous)

0.85 (0.11 s.e.) Fatal, 

Serious and Minor 

Injury – urban 

arterials

 Speeding and related crashes.

 Need for supplemental enforcement & 

deterrence.

31, 30

Automated speed 

enforcement (fixed, 

conspicuous)

0.52 (0.14 s.e.) 

Serious, Minor Injury 

– urban freeway

 Speeding and related crashes.

 Need for supplemental enforcement & 

deterrence.

31,30

Publicity related to 

enforcement 

(automated)

0.9 (0.12 s.e.) 

Fatal, Serious and 

Minor Injury - urban

 Speeding and related crashes.

 Need for supplemental enforcement & 

deterrence.

31,30

Enforce closer to 

limit (especially if 

limits are changed).

No CMFs available.

(Estimate CMFs)*

 High enforcement and adjudication 

tolerances. 

 Widespread speeding above limits.

32

Table 8 shows the crash reduction target developed for urban-multi-lane corridors. This target 

assumes that the six priority corridors identified in Table 23 are treated with a package of 

measures that have an average of 20 percent expected reduction in total crashes and 30 

percent reduction in severe crashes. The following crash savings are expected: 

 

30 See Chapter 3 in NHTSA (2011). Countermeasures that Work. Publication no. DOT HS 811 444, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available: 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures.html

31 AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. Available: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

32 NCHRP. (2009). Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. NCHRP Report 500, 

Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 

Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v23.pdf
40

 Target Crash Reductions for Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Roads - An estimated 28 severe 

crashes and 363 total crashes could be prevented, with an estimated crash cost savings of 

from $5.4 to about $6 million dollars (Table 8). (The reason for the differing assumptions for 

severe and total crashes is that speed-reducing measures often reduce more severe crashes 

to a greater degree than total crashes.) 33

Table 8. Target Crash Reductions for Urban, Undivided, Multi-lane Roads.

Crash 

Types/severity

Crashes 

targeted

% Crash 

reduction 

target

Five-year 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. Monetary 

costs (urban)

Five-year Crash-cost 

savings*

Total crashes 1788 20% 363 $15,000 avg. ± $5.38 million

KAB-severity 94 30% 28 F = $1,600,000 

A= $85,000

B = 32,000

$5.96 million

*It may be reasonable to include more years of savings if the countermeasures will have a longer useful 

life. 

Countermeasures for Urban Two-lane Roads

The 11 priority corridors identified have a higher than average severity (more than 10 percent 

severe crashes) compared to all urban two-lanes (8 percent), and accounted for 6 percent of all 

severe crashes in the County.

Problem types for some of these roads were described in Chapter 2. Issues include roads that 

were not designed for an urban environment and vehicles speeding above limits (typically 35 

mph). Over the longer term, as development continues on these streets, there is an increasing 

need to address the design issues. There is little separation of users such as provision of space 

to walk/bike or places to safely cross streets that are needed in developed areas. There tend to 

be few turn lanes, poor intersection configurations, sight distance issues, and inadequate 

lighting in some areas, among other potential issues. 

Design and engineering countermeasures for these types of routes include (but are not limited 

to):

 Roundabout (or mini-roundabout) intersection designs.

 Gateway treatments at rural to urban transition areas.

 

33 Assuming that crashes would remain at a similar level if the roads are untreated. Estimates controlling for 

regression toward the mean and traffic volumes, such as E.B. methods, may yield lower estimates of effect.
41

 Traffic calming measures (lateral or vertical shifts or narrowing/ curb extensions –

creative design approaches may be needed).

 Chevron pavement markings or optical speed bars at gateway areas.

 Increase pavement friction and/or improve drainage to reduce wet surface-related 

crashes. 34

 Improved delineation or reconfiguring of some intersections (skewed, poor alignment, 

etc.). 

 Turn lanes may be needed (more analysis required) at some locations.

 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities (space to walk or ride) and crossing treatments. 

 Paved shoulders or pedestrian and bicycle facilities would also increase buffer zone to 

fixed objects. 

As with urban, multi-lane roads, measures including enforcement and publicity may be needed 

to complement design and engineering improvements or to improve compliance when changes 

cannot be made to the roadway or street right away. 

Table 9 describes countermeasures to treat speeding-related crash issues on urban, two-lane 

corridors. Again, measures that reduce travel speeds may be expected to have effects on 

reducing the occurrence of more severe crashes of all types. Problem diagnosis is required for 

each route to determine the specific issues and types of solutions needed, but consistent 

application of designs, signs, and markings for similar road and area types may help to improve 

driver recognition of appropriate speeds.

 

34 NCHRP. (2004). Guidance for Implementation of theAASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 12: A Guide 

for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12. Washington, D.C.: Transportation 

Research Board. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v12.pdf
42

Table 9. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (CMFs) for Urban Two-lane Corridors. 35

Table 9 Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Urban Two-lane

CMF (with 

standard 

errors)

CMF Crash 

Types

Issues Addressed

Links to 

More 

information

Conduct speed studies, 

limit review, and 

potentially implement 

changes to limits or speed 

zones.

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Rural to urban high to low-speed transition 

areas.

 Other speed zones that may not reflect 

area type and context.

12

Gateway treatments No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Rural to urban high to low-speed 

transitions.

36, 14

Repl. Stop-controlled 

Intersection with 

Roundabout (one-lane)

0.22 (0.07 s.e.)

Injury

 Skewed angle intersections; sight distance 

issues.

 Roadway drop-offs at intersecting 

roadways. 

 Poor delineation of skewed junctions.

 Angle collisions frequent.

 Intersection crashes – particularly those 

related to speeding (too fast or exc. limits).

18, 37

Repl. Signal-controlled 

intersections with 

Roundabouts (one-lane)

0.451 

(0.115 u.s.e)

Injury and Fatal

18, 19

Mini-roundabout 0.18 CMF (no 

s.e. estimate)

(Alternatively, 

estimate 

CMFs)*

 Skewed angle intersections.

 Intersection crashes.

 Speeding, running stop signs.

 Roadway drop-offs at intersecting 

roadways.

 Poor delineation.

 Angle collisions.

 Speeding on lower-volume and 

neighborhood streets.

21, 27

 

35 See Speed Management Toolkit for more crash modification factors (expected) by location type and crash type.

36 Forbes, G. (2011). Speed Reduction Techniques for Rural High-to-Low Speed Transitions, A Synthesis of Highway 

Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 412, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Available: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_412.pdf

37 Srinivasan, R., et al. (2011), Evaluation of Safety Strategies at Signalized Intersections, NCHRP Report 705, 

Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board.
43

Table 9 Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Urban Two-lane

CMF (with 

standard 

errors)

CMF Crash 

Types

Issues Addressed

Links to 

More 

information

Realign skewed 

intersections 

See more 

information 

link.

 Skewed angle intersections. 20

Speed humps/tables/ 

cushions

 

0.6 (0.16 a.s.e.) 

Serious, Minor 

injury

(Or estimate 

CMFs) *

 Drivers speeding – sight distance and other 

issues due to curves, intersections, and 

other. 

21, 27

Raised crosswalk No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Speeding through intersections.

 Need for slowing speeds for pedestrian 

crossing.

21, 27

Lateral shift / chicane,

Or Create consistently 

‘curvy’ alignment

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Drivers speeding.

 Straight alignments that result in high 

inferred design speed; or straight 

alignments alternating with curvy 

alignments resulting in too high speed at 

curves.

21, 27

Center median island No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Drivers speeding – wider roads.

 Need for pedestrian refuge.

21, 27

Curb extension 

/Neckdown -

midblock/section

(consider innovative 

design where no curb 

exists)

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Curves on many (stop-controlled) T or Yintersection approaches; curves or grades 

may also affect sight distance at numerous 

driveways in some sections.

21, 27
44

Table 9 Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Urban Two-lane

CMF (with 

standard 

errors)

CMF Crash 

Types

Issues Addressed

Links to 

More 

information

Bulb-out - intersection No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Speeding through intersections –

pedestrian area. 

21, 27

Speed display/feedback 

devices

0.54 

(0.17 a.s.e.) 

Total crashes –

while in place

(Or estimate 

CMFs) *

 Drivers speeding inadvertently (grades/ 

misperception).

38

Increase pavement 

friction

0.599

(0.082 s.e.)

Total crashes

 Wet surfaces/weather related “too fast” 

crashes.

26

Chevron pavement 

markings, optical speed 

bars at gateways

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Rural to urban high to low-speed 

transitions.

21, 27

Sidewalks and bike lanes No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Ditches and numerous fixed objects; 

frequent road departure crash types.

 No sidewalks, shoulders or other space for 

bikes or for pedestrians to walk (separation 

of users).

Enhance street lighting Seek 

appropriate 

CMFs through 

the HSM,

39 or 

CMF 

Clearinghouse

40

 Nighttime crashes (especially too fast). Lighting is 

not known 

to be a 

speedreducing 

measure.

 

38 Elvik, R., Hoye, A., Vaa, T., and Sørensen, M. (2009). Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Second Edition. 

Emerald Group Publishing: Bradford, GBr, 1137 pp.

39 AASHTO (2010. Highway Safety Manual. 1st edition. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. Available: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

40 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. Federal Highway Administration. Website, managed by UNC Highway 

Safety Research Center. See http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
45

Table 9 Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Urban Two-lane

CMF (with 

standard 

errors)

CMF Crash 

Types

Issues Addressed

Links to 

More 

information

 Improve enforcement 

and adjudication on 

high-crash corridors.

 Enforce closer to limit 

(especially if limits are 

changed).

 See other measures in 

Table 7 for Urban Multilane

See references 

for information 

 Speeding above limits.

 Injury and speeding-related crashes.

32, 41, 42

Table 10 shows target crash reductions for treatment of the top 11 urban two-lane roads. If 

suitable combinations of treatments are implemented to reduce total crashes by an average of 

20 percent, and severe crashes by an average of 30 percent for the top 11 priority corridors, the 

following crash savings may be obtained: 

 Target Crash Reductions for Urban Two-lane Roads - An estimated savings of 19 severe 

(fatal, disabling, and evident injury) crashes and 97 total crashes, at a potential crash cost 

savings of around $1 million may be realized (





 Table 10).43

 

41Ibid.

42 Preusser, D.F., Williams, A.F., Nichols, J.L., Tison, J., and Chaudhary, N.K. (2008). Effectiveness of Behavioral 

Highway Safety Countermeasures. NCHRP Report 622, Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board. Available: 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14195

43 Again, the assumption is that crashes would remain at a similar level if the roads are untreated. Estimates 

controlling for regression toward the mean and traffic volumes, such as E.B. methods were not used since volume 

data were not uniformly available. Estimates of expected effects (CMFs) may also need to be locally adjusted.
46

Table 10. Target Crash Reductions for Treatment of 11 Urban Two-lane Roads.

Crash Type / 

Severity

Crashes 

targeted

% Crash 

reduction 

target

Five-year 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. Monetary 

costs (urban)

Potential Five-year 

Crash-cost savings*

Total crashes 485 20% 97 $15,000 avg. ± $319,000

KAB-severity 63 30% 19 F = $1,600,000 

Injury= $23,000 

(this estimate is on 

the low side since 

includes A,B, and Ctype)

$1.06 million to 

$1.45 million

*It may be reasonable to include more years of savings if the countermeasures will have a longer useful 

life.

±

Since these routes were identified for having higher rates of injury crashes, the total crash estimate 

may over-estimate potential impacts due to potential regression toward the mean effect.

Countermeasures for Rural Two-Lane Roads 

The 18 rural two-lane routes prioritized for review (Table 25) have an average of 14.1 percent 

severe crashes compared to 12.7 percent for all rural two lanes and accounted for 13 percent of 

all the County’s severe crashes.

Calming speeds on rural, two-lane roads is a significant challenge, given the many miles of 

roadway and the relatively widely dispersed nature of the problem. Since only routes with the 

most severe crash histories and higher traffic volumes are likely to be treated with engineering 

countermeasures in any given year, a community-based enforcement campaign may be an 

essential ingredient of a comprehensive approach to reduce speeding-related crashes on rural 

roads.

Design and engineering Countermeasures for rural two-lane routes and their intersections 

include (but are not limited to):

 Replaced stop-controlled intersection with one-lane roundabout / mini-roundabout.

 Replace signal-controlled intersection with one-lane roundabout.t

 Lane narrowing treatments (transverse in-lane rumble strips and painted median) on 

major road approaches to intersections with smaller, two-lane, stop-controlled roads. 

Narrowing treatment may be warranted on the larger roads to slow drivers on the main 

road, uncontrolled approaches – especially where speeding and sight distance issues 

may be present. As already mentioned, roundabouts or mini-roundabout are another 

more effective, but also more costly approach to managing speeds and reducing severe 

crashes at intersections.

 Lateral shift/chicane or lane narrowing treatments at high to lower-speed transition 

areas (such as near residential areas, schools).

 Wider lane lines (NC experimental; assess effects on travel speeds).

 Safety edge treatment (to mitigate, improve recovery of road departures).

 Other treatments intended to reduce or mitigate road departure, nighttime, or curverelated crashes such as rumble strips, improved curve delineation, warning signs, and 
47

barriers as appropriate. Implement NC has a roadway departure plan for systematic 

implementation of countermeasures to reduce road departure crashes on road sections 

or curves meeting the screening criteria. However, few rural two-lane roads may meet 

the current criteria, so supplemental enforcement and speed-reducing countermeasures 

may be needed.

 Spot treatments such as systematic addition of paved shoulder width and edge 

treatments on and near curves may be a further approach to complement other 

systematic improvements that may be implemented through the Roadway Departure 

(crash reduction) Plan. Such an approach may be implemented more widely than 

corridor-long shoulder improvements, and may have the added advantage of not 

leading to higher speeds that could occur if shoulders were widened for an entire 

corridor. However, crash modification factors and speed effects for this type of addition 

of shoulder width seem to be unavailable (evaluation need).

 Consider lowering speed limits and enhancing speed enforcement for routes or sections 

with multiple curves, curves/grades, or other issues that cannot be sufficiently treated 

through a spot safety approach. 

 Other implementations such as improving shoulders without widening pavement, 

visually narrowing the road by eliminating the centerline (low-volume roads) or other 

experimental treatments may help to slow speeds. 

 Considering traffic volumes and other factors (e.g. importance as transportation 

corridors, bicycle routes, change in development or traffic patterns), some of the routes 

may warrant inclusion in capital improvement projects for significant upgrades and redesign such as flattening curves, adding or improving paved shoulders with sufficient 

space for pedestrians and bicyclists, adding sidepaths, or other treatments. The effects 

on travel speed of such upgrades are, however, unknown. The Interactive Highway 

Safety Design Model may be used to estimate safety performance of alternate designs.44

Again, speed enforcement and publicity measures are needed to supplement engineering 

treatments. It may be possible to target a larger number of rural routes that have higher than 

average frequencies of severe and speeding-related crashes for supplemental, high-visibility 

enforcement. The goal is to deter speeders, so using publicity or other means to enhance 

effectiveness is essential.

Table 11 describes countermeasures to treat speeding-related crash problems on rural twolane corridors, along with some of the problem types treated by each countermeasure.

 

44 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). Available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/
48

Table 11. Countermeasures and Crash Effects (CMFs) for Rural, Two-Lane Corridors.

Table 11 

Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Rural 

Two-lane

CMFs (with std. 

errors) Problem Types treated Links to More information

Conduct speed 

studies, limit 

review, and 

potentially 

implement changes 

to limits or speed 

zones.

No CMFs 

available

 High to low-speed transition areas (such 

as schools or neighborhoods).

 Other speed zones that may not reflect 

area type and context.

 Many curves, and curve/grade –related 

sight-distance issues, narrow lanes, poor 

shoulders.

12

Repl. Stopcontrolled 

Intersection with 

Roundabout (onelane)

0.13 

(0.03 s.e.) 

Injury crashes

 21% of the most severe rural crashes 

occurred at intersections.

 Speeding along the corridor.

18, 37

Repl. Signalcontrolled 

intersections with 

Roundabouts (onelane)

0.259 (0.066 

u.s.e) 

Injury and Fatal 

(estimate from 

suburban 

locations)

 21% of the most severe rural crashes 

occurred at intersections.

 Speeding along the corridor.

18, 19

Mini-roundabout No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 21% of the most severe rural crashes 

occurred at intersections.

21

Transverse (in lane) 

rumble strips on 

minor-leg, stopcontrolled 

intersection 

approaches, 3 and 4 

leg, intersections

0.785 

(0.107 u.s.e) -

KAB-severity

per intersection 

per year

 21% of the most severe rural crashes 

occurred at intersections.

 Speeding along the corridor.

45

Use in areas 

where noise is 

not a concern; 

high stop-sign 

running 

crashes might

be an 

indication 

(FHWA).

 

45 Srinivasan, R., Baek, J., and Council, F., "Safety Evaluation of Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches to StopControlled Intersections in Rural Areas." Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, D.C., (2010)
49

Table 11 

Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Rural 

Two-lane

CMFs (with std. 

errors) Problem Types treated Links to More information

Reduce lane width 

using longitudinal 

rumble strips and 

painted median 

(major approaches) 

0.8

(no s.e.)

 21% of the most severe rural crashes 

occurred at intersections.

 Speeding along the corridor.

46

Speed 

humps/tables/ 

cushions

 

0.6 (0.16 a.s.e.) 

Serious and 

Minor Injury

(Alternatively, 

estimate 

CMFs)*

 Developed or other areas (school zones, 

etc.) where significant measures are 

needed to reduce speeds.

21, 27

Lateral shift / 

chicane 

(consider for use at 

end of transitions 

areas such as near 

residential areas or 

town limits)

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Developed or other areas (school zones, 

etc.) where significant measures are 

needed to reduce speeds.

21, 27

Other type of pinch 

point or narrowing 

design

No CMFs 

available

(Estimate 

CMFs)*

 Need to slow speeds along a corridor. 21, 27

Shoulder rumble 

strips 

0.71 

(0.09 s.e.) 

Injury and Fatal

 Road departure crash types.

 Poor shoulders, little recovery 

opportunity.

Effects on 

speed 

unknown. 

Noise 

considerations 

in developed 

areas.

Consult NC 

Road 

Departure 

Plan.

 

46 FHWA (2010). Crash Impact of Smooth Lane Narrowing with Rumble Strips at Two-Lane Rural Stop-Controlled 

Intersections. FHWA Tech Brief. Available: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10047/index.cfm
50

Table 11 

Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Rural 

Two-lane

CMFs (with std. 

errors) Problem Types treated Links to More information

Centerline rumble 

strips 

0.88 

(0.03 s.e.)

Injury and Fatal

 Sections where crossing center-line crash 

types are a problem (need further 

analysis).

Effects on 

speed 

unknown. 

Noise 

considerations 

in developed 

areas.

Consult NC 

Road 

Departure 

Plan. 

Routinely 

Implement Safety 

edge with 

resurfacing

0.943 

(0.057 u.s.e) 

All Severities

 Road departure crash types.

 Poor shoulders, little recovery 

opportunity.

47

Not a speedreducing 

measure

Wider lane lines (6” 

instead of 4”) 

0.702 48

(no s.e.) 

Fatal, Serious, 

and Minor 

Injury

 Edge lines may not show up well in 

adverse weather or at night. 

 42% of SR crashes and 48% of severe 

crashes at night on rural roads.

Not known to 

be a speedreducing

measure. 

Ensure that the 

measure does 

not increase 

speeds.

NC DOT is 

presently 

evaluating the 

treatment in 

some NC 

counties.

 

47 The Safety Edge Pavement Treatment (FHWA website). See 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/brochure/

48 “Users of this CMF should be aware that some TRB reviewers expressed concern that the magnitude of safety 

effect shown by the CMFs from this study is larger that would be intuitive based on knowledge of the 

countermeasure.” (CMF Clearinghouse)
51

Table 11 

Countermeasure/ 

Strategy - Rural 

Two-lane

CMFs (with std. 

errors) Problem Types treated Links to More information

Increase pavement 

friction

Thus far, not

found effective 

for rural, 2-lane

 Wet weather, “too fast” crashes. 49

Improve lighting at 

key locations such 

as intersections 

with a high 

frequency of 

nighttime, severe or 

speeding-related 

crashes.

 42% of SR crashes and 48% of severe 

crashes occurred at night on rural roads.

 Lower the speed 

limit corridorwide and enforce. 

 Lower limit in 

speed zones and 

enforce. 

 Add paved 

shoulders near 

curves and grades 

to provide space 

for bicyclists and 

pedestrians and 

to reduce run-offroad at these 

locations.

No CMFs 

available

 Narrow lanes, poor shoulders, fixed 

objects near the roadway, and little 

recovery opportunity.

 Many curves.

 Roads do not meet 55 design standards; 

many features requiring lower speeds.

 Sight distance issues at intersections, 

driveways, etc. due to ext. curve and 

curve/grade combinations.

 No space for pedestrians or bicycles –

especially problematic where sight 

distance is compromised (curves/grades).

Randomly target 

high visibility 

enforcement to 

larger proportion of 

high crash corridors

0.69 (no s.e.) 

Fatal crashes

0.87 (no s.e.) 

Injury crashes

 Widespread speeding and related 

crashes.

 Resource limitations; need for 

sustainable program.

 Need for supplemental enforcement and 

deterrence on high crash corridors.

30

Publicity related to 

enforcement

Estimate for 

urban area

 Speeding and related crashes.

 Need for supplemental enforcement and 

deterrence.

30

 

49 Harkey, D.L., et al. (2008). Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. NCHRP 

Report 617. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
52

Table 12 shows target crash reductions for treatment of priority rural, two-lane roads. 

Implementing treatments for the top 18 priority corridors that average 30 percent reductions in 

severe crashes and 20 percent reductions in total crashes, the following crash and cost savings 

may be realized: 

 Target Crash Reductions for Rural, Two-lane Roads – An estimated savings of 66 severe 

crashes and 235 total crashes would be equivalent to crash cost savings of from $6 million 

to $10 million (Table 12).

Table 12. Target Crash Reductions for a Priority List of Rural, Two-lane Roads.

Crash Type / 

Severity

Crashes 

targeted

% Crash 

reduction 

target

Five-year 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. Monetary 

costs (rural)

Potential Fiveyear Crash-cost 

savings*

All Crashes 1438 20% 235 $27,000 $6,345,000

K 17 30% 5 $1,700,000 $8,500,000

AB 187 30% 61 $31,000 $1,891,000

KAB 204 $10,391,000

Systematic Speed Management Approach within Other Safety Programs 

Roadway Departure and Curves

While roadway departure crashes occur at a variety of locations, many road departures occur at 

curves, particularly on rural routes. Sections with at least three severe curve-related crashes or 

nine or more total curve-related crashes were identified (bolded route numbers in Table 27 and 

Table 28 in the Appendices). These sections could be priorities for speed limit and safety review 

for the section or corridor to determine whether speed-reducing measures or engineering 

countermeasures outlined in the North Carolina Road Departure (Safety) Plan are appropriate.

The Roadway Departure Plan recommends systematic, progressive treatment packages of the 

following measures to address increasing appropriate crash thresholds: 

 Centerline Rumble Strips To Reduce Head-On and Opposing-Flow Sideswipe Crashes.

 Edge and Shoulder Rumble Strips To Reduce Road Departure Crashes. 

 Alignment Delineation To Reduce Night Road Departure Crashes. 

 Select Tree Removal in Rural Areas To Reduce Future Tree Crash Occurrences. 

It is not at present clear whether many of the curves or road sections in Randolph County will 

meet the volume and other warrants for systematic treatment under the North Carolina Road 

Departure Plan. There may be opportunities to broaden the application to treat some sections 

and curves with greater than expected severe crashes that meet geometric and other risk 

considerations, if not precise crash thresholds delineated in the Road Departure Plan.

There is also a need to determine how speed managing measures may complement the Road 

Departure treatment plans. Since many of the lower-volume roads and locations may not meet 
53

warrants for treatment under the Roadway Departure Plan, speed management measurements 

should be considered to reduce risk of serious crashes. Further diagnosis, including speed limit 

review, should be performed to determine whether limits are appropriate. In some cases, there 

may be a need for speed zoning of particular sections or even for corridor-wide adjustment of 

speed limits to send a more consistent message to drivers about appropriate speeds. 

Enforcement improvements may be among the countermeasures needed. 

Pedestrian Plans, School Zones

Speeding in neighborhoods and school zones is a significant concern for most communities due 

to the vulnerability of pedestrians, bicyclists, children, and senior citizens. A systematic speed 

management approach can also be used help select appropriate countermeasures to address 

speeding issues near schools or on local streets. 

Table 26 in Appendix B ranks Randolph County schools according to severe and speedingrelated crashes within one mile of school properties. Pedestrian plans and areas of concern 

mentioned in public input processes should also be consulted for areas where speed and safety 

reviews may be needed. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

In addition to focusing on the corridors identified through network screening as having 

potential speeding and safety issues, sections and intersections identified through the HSIP 

(spot safety program) could be subjected to similar systematic diagnosis and review for 

potential speeding-related safety issues. Speeding has not been included in the State’s 

screening process up to now, but may be contributing to crash occurrence or crash severity at 

the problem locations. Measurement of the problem should incorporate conducting speed 

studies.

The following chapter describes an Action Plan to prioritize and implement selected strategies 

and countermeasures from the foregoing systematic, proactive, and comprehensive 

approaches and to sustain an effective program.
54

Chapter 4. Multi-year Implementation Plan

Speeding is a complex issue and problem that interacts with varied human cultural, economic 

and political, environmental, and roadway issues. This chapter describes a Plan of Action Items 

to enable the State and County stakeholders to arrive at locally-acceptable solutions to reduce 

speeding, crashes, and serious injuries and to sustain a cooperative approach to speed 

management. Commitment to the process and consideration of varied points of view by all 

partners is essential to success. The sections following the Action Items outline more details for 

ranking and selecting specific countermeasures, and for implementing, evaluating and renewing 

the Plan. 

Detailed Proposed Implementation Actions 

This section outlines speed management actions the county, NCDOT, injury prevention, and 

other partners can take to reduce serious injury crashes. Tables 13 through 18 outline six Action 

Items for the County, State, and City partners to implement. The issues that could be addressed 

by the strategies and countermeasures within each of the below action items were detailed in 

Chapter 3. This list was developed with input from stakeholders, and describes organizational 

roles and potential strategies or countermeasures that may be implemented under each Action 

Item. Further implementation steps for the systematic treatment approach (Action Items 4 and 

6) follow Action Item 4 (Table 16).
55

Table 13. Action Item 1 - Speed Limit Setting.

Action Item 1

Develop a County Council/task force to engage on speed limit setting and 

safety, coordination of design and enforcement for existing roads, and to 

work toward a consistent limit setting process and outcomes throughout the 

County. (Proactive)

Leadership: Injury prevention (e.g. County Public Health Dept.) and NCDOT Safety and 

Mobility

Others needed: NCDOT Division and District Office, NCDOT Safety and Mobility Office, local 

government representatives (elected officials), NCDOT Communications Office 

(pos.)

Schedule: 5 – 8 years

Strategies 

(Comprehensive 

and Proactive): 

 Set appropriate speed limits for the roadway design, context, and users to 

improve safety, enforceability and credibility of speed limits on new and 

existing roads. 

- Develop a collaborative speed limit setting process with local governments 

and law enforcement. Seek public input about safe and appropriate 

speeds. 

- Involve elected officials and other stakeholders. 

 Consider using NCDOT’s Complete Streets guidelines (NCDOT, 2012) and 

collaborative processes to guide implementation and design (e.g. determine 

road types and target operating speeds/speed limits, and appropriate 

design).

 Consider using fewer different speed limits, for example 25, 35, and 45 mph 

in urban areas to help improve driver comprehension.

Implementation 

steps

1. Recruit appropriate stakeholder representatives to task force.

2. Schedule first meeting.

3. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

4. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Groups 2 and 3 (potentially others)

5. Set goals.

6. Determine strategies and processes.

7. Implement strategies and processes.

8. Document outcomes.
56

Table 14. Action Item 2 - Build Support through Communications and Publicity.

Action Item 2

Frame the Speeding and Safety Problem through a Public Information and 

Education Program to build support for effective policies and comprehensive 

strategies, to seek funding, and to improve effectiveness of enforcement and 

engineering countermeasures. (Comprehensive approach)

Lead: Injury prevention (e.g. County Public Health Dept.)

Others needed: NCDOT Communications Office, NCDOT Communications Office, DA’s office, 

Law Enforcement (communications), Local government representatives 

(elected officials), NC DOT Safety and Mobility Office (pos.)

Timeline: 5 – 8 years

Strategies: 

(Comprehensive)

 Ensure that speed limits, including statutory maximums, are wellcommunicated to drivers.

 Improve and increase communications about the safety reasons for effective 

policies and strategies, to improve public and political support.

 Seek additional funding to increase enforcement in rural and urban areas. 

 Increase visibility/conspicuity of enforcement to enhance deterrent effects. 

 Work toward gaining State authority to utilize automated (photo) speed 

enforcement as an enforcement tool.

 Draw on local creativity and resources (schools, businesses, partners such as 

Community Transportation Partners) to support and develop locally-tailored 

education, awareness, and enforcement strategies to enhance speeddeterrent effects of enforcement programs and potentially to target some 

of the top crash issues (rural, curves, nighttime).

Implementation 

steps

1. Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for communications task force.

2. Schedule first meeting.

3. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

4. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Group 1.

5. Set goals.

6. Determine strategies and programs.

7. Implement strategies and programs.

8. Document outcomes.
57

Table 15. Action Item 3 - Develop Proactive Speed and Safety Review Process for New Roads.

Action Item 3

Develop an inter-agency speed and safety review process to assess plans, 

designs, and built roads/upgrade projects to ensure that new projects meet 

sound speed management design and safety principles for the area land uses 

and intended purposes of the road. (Proactive)

Lead: Piedmont Triad Regional Council-Transportation Advisory Commission

Others needed:

NCDOT: Transportation Planning Branch, Division, Roadway Design, Safety and 

Mobility, Bicycle and Pedestrian Division

County and local planning staff; elected officials; Law enforcement 

representatives

Timeline: 5 years

Work underway

 NC DOT has adopted a Complete Streets Policy (and encourages local 

governments to pursue Complete Streets) and has developed design 

guidelines for implementation that could be used as a framework for speed 

limit setting and review in a proactive manner.

 County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is under development.

Strategies: 

(Proactive)

 Coordinate with transportation and land use plans in setting limits and 

designing roads.

 Set or revise speed limits early in the new project planning process to 

provide adequate safety for the land use, road type, and users expected, 

and to determine appropriate design. (Use the NCDOT Complete Streets 

approach (NCDOT, 2012) as a possible implementation framework and for

design guidance.)

 Conduct design, construction, and implementation reviews of all new and 

pending projects, including maintenance and operations projects to ensure 

that: 

- Design is matched to elicit speeds close to the intended speed limit (selfenforcing).

- Operations features are coordinated with target speeds.

- Facilities are provided to separate different weight and speed of users in 

time and space on roads with intended speeds much above 25-30 mph. 

 Prioritize designs in new projects that manage speeds such as narrower and 

fewer lanes, roundabout intersection designs, tight turn radii at 

intersections, and shifts in travel ways (context-dependent). 

Implementation 

steps

1. Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for communications task force.

2. Schedule first meeting.

3. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

4. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Group 1.

5. Set goals.

6. Determine strategies and programs.

7. Implement strategies and programs.

8. Document outcomes.
58

Table 16. Action Item 4 - Develop Systematic Screening and Prioritization Process.

Action Item 4

Review existing speed limits, conduct additional diagnosis, and develop 

treatment plans for prioritized lists of problem corridors. (Systematic 

approach)

Lead: Leadership: NCDOT Safety and Mobility Regional Field Unit

Others needed:

NCDOT Division, Municipal staffs and decision-makers, Regional Planning 

Organizations, Municipal Planning Organizations, local law enforcement/law 

enforcement liaison, elected officials, courts officials

Timeline: 5 years 

Work Underway: Road Safety team visited a number of problem corridors and began diagnosis. 

RSA report summarizes findings and recommendations.

Strategies

(Systematic): 

 Conduct speed and engineering studies and additional diagnosis steps as per 

all safety programs, and described in next section.

 Consider an injury minimization approach to speed limit setting.

 Utilize the US Limits tool for expert guidance in speed limit setting for speed 

zones.

 Consider whether statutory maximum limits are appropriate for entire 

corridors or whether entire corridors or portions of corridors should be 

changed.

 Identify alternate, feasible countermeasures from lists in Table 7, Table 9, 

Table 11, and other sources. 

Implementation 

steps

1. Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for task force.

2. Schedule first meeting.

3. Prioritize corridors for further diagnosis.

4. Establish diagnosis procedures – for example determine if independent RSA 

teams will be used to conduct audits.

5. *See “Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures” and other steps following 

Action Items.

6. Coordinate with planning group for Item 3.

*Action Item 4 - Step 5. Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures

Detailed steps for Selection and Ranking of Countermeasures for Action item 4, (systematic 

diagnosis and treatment of existing problems) include: 

5.1 In coordination with other owners/stakeholders: Finalize priority list of routes or 

areas for speed and safety review. The lists for different corridor types and area 

types (sections and intersections in the HSIP list, Road Departure Plan and others) 

could be coordinated with or even combined into one prioritization list if 

appropriate. In addition, more routes may be added if some on the lists have already 

been treated or upgrades are pending. 

5.2 Diagnose the problem for each corridor or focus area.

a. Along with speed and engineering studies, diagnosis may involve conducting 

Roadway Safety Audits s in cooperation with local government and law 
59

enforcement, conducting speed studies and other engineering assessments. 

Consider hiring independent audit teams to conduct RSAs. 

b. Determine the area (land use) and roadway context (purposes and users of the 

road, what types of conflicts and crashes may occur based on existing design).

c. If changing the limit is an option, determine what speed limit should be set 

based on the roadway context, types of conflicts and crashes that may occur 

(injury/fatality risk).

d. Assess credibility of the speed limit to drivers.

5.3 Again, in collaboration with other stakeholders, determine appropriate speed limit 

and whether changes in the limit for the corridor are warranted based on safety 

concerns, the environmental context, and considering enforcement and other 

concerns regarding speed limit credibility. Coordinate with local agency 

representatives. 

a. Assess rural to urban transition areas or other speed zone changes if relevant. 

5.4 Complete diagnosis and identify alternate countermeasures. If the recommendation 

is to change speed limits, consult and coordinate with local governments, 

stakeholders groups, law enforcement, judiciary and educators to implement. 

a. Determine what design and engineering changes can be made to the roadway to 

improve credibility of the limit, and bring operating speeds more in line with 

desired limits (self-enforcing designs), reduce speed variance, or achieve other

speed management objectives.

b. Determine what other engineering safety improvements are needed.

c. Determine whether enforcement enhancements are needed to increase 

compliance with limits (including any changed limits).

5.5 Conduct feasibility assessments on alternate measures.

5.6 Finalize the list of feasible countermeasures for the corridor or area. Combinations 

of multiple countermeasures may be needed. 

5.7 Identify funding sources and levels and perform economic assessments for 

alternate, feasible treatment options and priorities within each program/funding 

area.

5.8 Identify the most appropriate set of countermeasures for each corridor or location. 

These steps are discussed in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the recently published the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM).Error! Bookmark not defined.

Step 5.5 Feasibility Assessments. The intent of a feasibility assessment is to consider how likely 

the measure is to be implemented, and implemented well, taking financial and non-financial 

constraints and issues into consideration. This is also a time to consider opportunities exist to 

facilitate implementation. Some of the considerations may include:

 Barriers to implementation, local acceptability.

 Funding sources available.

 Current and future land uses along and near the corridor.

 Lifespan of the project.
60

 Applicability to multiple locations or need for consistent application of low-cost signs, 

markings, and design elements to improve driver comprehension and acceptance of 

limits.

 Potential for long-term improvement of compliance with speed limits (self-enforcing 

designs).

 Need for additional enforcement to supplement engineering measures.

Stakeholders may conduct feasibility assessment early in the Plan implementation process. For 

example, Plan implementers could select countermeasures and strategies that might be applied 

on a widespread basis to improve driver perceptions of appropriate speeds to drive on different 

types of roads. Such measures could then receive priority. 

Step 5.7 Economic Assessments. The intent of the economic analysis is to compare the benefits 

and costs of alternative countermeasures using the most appropriate estimates of expected 

safety effects available, once the problems and feasible alternate solutions have been

identified. Chapter 7 of the HSM has a detailed discussion on how economic assessments can 

be conducted. Appendix D shows some examples using simplified assumptions (that future 

crashes will be the same as current crashes, barring any treatment). 

Each funding source should be considered separately in order to maximize the effectiveness of 

each program area. Other economic considerations include the ability to utilize planned 

maintenance or operations projects to restripe or make other speed management design or 

engineering improvements. Non-traditional funding sources may also be available to implement 

some types of improvements or programs. 

Finally, the systematic approach may be strengthened by considering overall objectives of the 

program and whether systematic application of similar measures to similar locations (if 

appropriate, based on individual diagnosis) may increase effectiveness of certain types of 

measures – for example, those that aim toward improving self-enforcing, self-explaining 

roadways. Thus, measures for individual locations should not perhaps be considered in isolation 

but as part of an overall approach. Linkage of the systematic approach with proactive strategies 

and decisions may be important. 

Implementation Steps following Project Approval

Once treatment locations and countermeasures are approved, the following process steps 

should be performed:

6.1 Design project(s) and allocate appropriate funding sources and/or pursue grants or 

private funding.

6.2 Develop implementation schedule, assign tasks. 

6.3 Finalize safety targets or other goals.

6.4 Identify measures of effectiveness and develop evaluation plan. 

6.5 Implement and complete evaluation.

6.6 Communicate results to decision-makers and the public.
61

More details of these and other implementation processes are described in the NCHRP Guide 

for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes, Section VI.32

Table 17. Action Item 5 - Develop a Corridor-focused Targeted Enforcement Program.

Action Item 5 Develop a corridor focused, high visibility enforcement and adjudication 

effort. (Systematic process and Comprehensive treatment)

Lead: State Highway Patrol and NCDOT Safety and Mobility

Others needed: Injury Prevention (Communications experts), local law enforcement, elected 

officials, courts officials 

Timeline: 1 - 2 years 

Strategies: 

(Comprehensive)

 Randomly target enforcement to a larger number of select corridors with 

high frequencies and proportions of severe crashes. 

 Coordinate with engineering (Action Item 4) to enforce high crash roads 

where changes cannot be implemented right away. 

 Tighten adjudication of citations on targeted corridors and publicize the 

effort to maximize deterrent effects. 

 Enhance deterrent effects of any type of speed enforcement program with 

publicity.

Implementation 

steps

1. Recruit appropriate stakeholder partners for task force.

2. Schedule first meeting.

3. Set future meeting schedule and agenda.

4. Coordinate with Action Item Planning Groups 1 and 4.

5. Set goals.

6. Determine strategies, policies, and procedures and implementation needs.

7. Implement strategies and programs.

8. Document outcomes.
62

Table 18. Action Item 6 - Implement Speed and Safety Review through Other Safety Plans and 

Programs.

Action Item 6

Implement speed and safety reviews within the HSIP program, within the 

NCDOT Roadway Departure Plan and with any Pedestrian Safety Plans 

developed in future. (Systematic approach).

Lead: NCDOT Safety and Mobility 

Involved: Law enforcement agencies, NCDOT Division engineers, Local agency staff 

Schedule: 3 – 5 years; longer term

Work underway:  Roadway Departure Implementation Plan (NCDOT, 2009)

 HSIP priority intersection and section lists (NCDOT, 2012) 

 Intersections with Pedestrian Safety issues (Asheboro ) 

Strategies

(Systematic)

 Incorporate routine diagnosis of speeding issues into the HSIP program, 

Pedestrian and Bicycle safety programs, and the NC Roadway Departure 

Safety Plan implementation program.

 Assess whether corridor-level speed management issues are contributing to 

spot safety problems.

Implementation 

Steps 

1. Identify existing and needed opportunities for coordination.

2. Schedule meetings as needed or piggy-back on existing

3. Identify needs including but not limited to:

a. Speed studies.

b. Data and project plan sharing.

c. Law enforcement assistance for particular corridors or areas.

d. Innovative strategies.

e. Research/evaluation needs.

Evaluation Plan

Since the goals of the plan are to reduce fatal and injury crashes and to improve speed 

compliance, the primary measures of program effectiveness are safety measures: 

 Changes in crash frequency and severity and changes in speeding-related crashes. 

 Changes in operating speed distributions (average speed, 85th percentile speed, 

percentage of speeders X miles above limit). 

The program will be evaluated with respect to changes in crashes, especially more severe 

crashes and speeding-related crashes compared with trends absent the program. Speed 

measurements provide earlier feedback than crash trends and are a good indicator of safety 

risk. See more about Safety Effectiveness Measures below. 

Other measures are essential to provide and additional support for program effectiveness and 

knowledge to help sustain program efforts. These include:

 The type, number and locations of treatments implemented.
63

 Other program processes instituted, policies adopted or other institutional change.

Table 33 in Appendix D provides a Program Evaluation Matrix that describes these and 

other potential measures of effectiveness. 

Safety effectiveness measures. Speed measurements will be performed at baseline (before any 

countermeasures are implemented) and used throughout the Plan Implementation period to 

track progress and provide early indications of safety effects. Speed measurements may 

include:

 On-going speed monitoring of a representative sample of the roads covered by the Plan. 

 Speed measurements, taken before and after countermeasures are implemented on 

specific corridors. 

The timing of crash-based evaluations will depend on when and how many measures are 

implemented, and the availability of sufficient years and number of crashes for evaluation. 

Additional technical assistance is available to help determine appropriate evaluation methods 

to control for other trends and safety programs. 

Countermeasures evaluation. It may be important to evaluate specific countermeasures to 

provide additional information about program effects. More information about safety 

evaluation of countermeasures is included in Appendix D. Table 34 in Appendix D is a matrix 

with potential measures of effectiveness for individual countermeasures or comprehensive 

strategies.

Plan evaluation. At the end of the implementation period, perform an assessment of whether 

the crash reduction targets and speed compliance goals of the overall Plan were met. 

Communicate results to decision-makers and the public, and use results to help develop 

ambitious targets for an updated Plan. 

Consult with the technical assistance team if help is needed in developing appropriate 

measures of effectiveness and evaluation protocols.

Action Plan Update

The plan will be a working document, with additional implementation actions, schedules, and 

other updates incorporated as needed during the five-year plan period. 

At the end of five years, following plan evaluation, update the plan incorporating lessons 

learned from the evaluation and implementation experiences, as well as from an updated 

problem assessment process.
64

Additional References

AASHTO (2010). Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition. American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials: Washington, D.C.

Child Fatality Task Force (2012). Teen Road Safety in North Carolina: Putting Best Practice 

into Action. http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/Committees/NCCFTF/Reports and 

Data/Teen Road Safety, Dec 2012.pdf

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway 

Safety Offices. (2011). 6th ed.,Publication no. DOT HS 811 444, Washington, D.C.: NHTSA. 

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

Donnell, E.T., Himes, S.C., Mahoney, K. M., and Porter, R.J. (2009). Understanding speed 

concepts: Key definitions and case study examples. Transportation Research Record 2120: 

3-11.

Donnell, E.T., Hines, S.C., Mahoney, K.M., Porter, R.J., McGee, H. (2009). Speed Concepts: 

Informational Guide. Report No. FHWA-SA-10-001, Washington, D.C.: Office of Safety, 

Federal Highway Administration. 

Eccles, K.A., R. Fiedler, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, and G. Hansen (2012). Automated Enforcement 

for Speeding and Red Light Running. NCHRP Report 729, Washington, D.C.: Transportation 

Research Board.

Elvik, R., Hoye, A., Vaa, T., and Sørensen, M. (2009). Handbook of Road Safety Measures, 

Second Edition. Emerald Group Publishing: Bradford, GBr, 1137 pp.

Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds (2009): A Desktop Reference of 

Potential Effectiveness. FHWA Office of Safety website. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/

FHWA (2008). Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven 

Safety Countermeasures; http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/

FHWA. (n.d.) Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/projects/safety/comprehensive/ihsdm/

FHWA (n.d.).Roadway Safety Audits. Webpage and resources. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/

FHWA. (n.d.). Speed Management Safety. Webpage and resources. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ 

Forbes, G.J., T. Gardner, H. McGee, R. Srinivasan, Ph.D. (2012) Methods and Practices for 

Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration, Office of Safety.
65

Hauer, E. (2010). Lessons learned from other countries. White Papers for “Toward Zero 

Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety,” White Paper No. 9. 

http://safety.transportation.org/doc/web9 Lessons Learned White Paper.pdf

Managing Speed: Review of current practice for setting and enforcing speed limits. (1998). 

Committee for Guidance on Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits, Transportation Research 

Board, Special Report 254, National Research Council. Washington, D.C., National Academy 

Press.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Adding Power to Our Voices: A Framing 

Guide for Communicating about Injury. Atlanta, GA: US Department of health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008 (revised March 2010). 

http://www.cdc.gov/injuryNCHRP 

NCDOT. (2012). North Carolina Department of Transportation Complete Streets Planning 

and Design Guidelines. http://www.completestreetsnc.org/

NHTSA (2011a). Countermeasures that Work. Publication no. DOT HS 811 444, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures.html

NHTSA (2011b). Summary of State Speed Laws. Eleventh Edition. Current as of February 1, 

2010. DOT HS 811 457. U.S. DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

NHTSA. (2006). Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Highway Safety 

Program Guidelines No. 19. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Preusser, D.F., Williams, A.F., Nichols, J.L., Tison, J., and Chaudhary, N.K. (2008). 

Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures. NCHRP Report 622,

Washington, D.C: Transportation Research Board. 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=14195

Randolph County Speed Management Plan – Field Visits: Summary and Speed Management 

Plan Recommendations, Conducted February 10 – 14, 2013, authored by Libby Thomas, 

UNC Highway Safety Research Center.

Shinar, D. (2007). Traffic Safety and Human Behavior. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing 

Group, Ltd., 813 pp.

Speed Management: Road Safety Manual for Decision-makers and Practitioners. (2008). 

Geneva: Global Road Safety Partnership. 

http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/speed_manual/en/

Srinivasan, R., et al. (2011), Evaluation of Safety Strategies at Signalized Intersections, 

NCHRP Report 705, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Srinivasan, R., Parker, M., Harkey, D., Tharpe, D. & Sumner, R. (2006). Expert System for 

Recommending Speed Limits in Speed Zones: Final Report. National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. 

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/acl/NCHRP%200367_FinalReport.pdf
66

Thomas, L.J., R. Srinivasan, L.E. Decina, and L. Staplin (2008). Safety effects of automated 

speed enforcement programs: Critical review of international literature. Transportation 

Research Record 2078:117-126.

U.S. DOT. (2008). Speed Enforcement Camera Systems: Operational Guidelines. Publication 

No. DOT HS 810 916. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highway Administration. 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30100/30166/810916.pdf

U.S. DOT, NHTSA website. General traffic safety marketing guidance. 

http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/TOOLS/Branding

USLimits2. FHWA. A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed Limit 

Recommendations. http://www.uslimits.com/
67

Appendix A 

Below is information from the Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO, 2010) referred to in Chapter 1 

that allows users to predict the expected change in fatal and injury crashes that might be 

obtained from reductions in average operating speeds. 

CMFs for Fatal and Injury Crashes due to Changes in Operating Speeds 

The Speed Management Toolkit (Tables 9 and 10) show estimates of expected injury and fatal 

Crash Modifications (CMFs) for given changes in average operating speeds for different initial 

operating speeds, based on AASHTO, 2010, p. 3-57, Table 3E-2. 

Those tables may be used in conjunction with expected travel speed reductions for different 

speed-reducing measures (if there are no crash-based CMFs available) to estimate expected 

changes in injury and fatal crashes. Figure 3 illustrates the magnitude of crash reduction effects 

for changes of average operating speeds of only one or two miles per hour (mph). Proportional 

reductions are expected to be greater where initial average operating speeds are lower but 

small changes can also have a significant impact on higher speed roads, especially if there are 

large numbers of injury and fatal crashes. 

Figure 3. Expected fatal crash reductions for small average speed reductions at lower and higher initial 

speeds. (Based on data in Table 3E-2 from Highway Safety Manual, 2010). 

A one to two mph reduction in average operating speed could reduce fatal crashes by from 17 

to 34 percent, respectively (initial average speed of 30 mph, darker blue bars) or 9 to 17 

percent (initial average operating speed of 60 mph, light colored bars) (estimates from Highway 

Safety Manual, p. 3-57, Table 3E-2).

 
68

Appendix B 

Appendix B information provides additional detailed analysis results, supplementing results in 

Chapter 2. Table 23, Table 24, and Table 25, in particular, provide lists of urban and rural 

corridors which, based on high proportions of severe and speeding-related crashes, might be 

prioritized for early speed limit and safety review. 

Countywide Analysis Results 

Nearly 16,000 (15,739) crashes were reported from Randolph County for the five year period 

(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Distributions of Speeding-related, and Injury Crashes by Rural and Urban Locations. 

SR = speeding-related crashes; KA = fatal and disabling injury crashes; KAB includes fatal, disabling, and 

evident injury crashes. 

Table 19 shows the proportion of crashes that could be matched to each road classification 

type (right-most column). Matching was lower than expected on US highways, which should all 

be mileposted, suggesting that there are unresolved issues with the data. These issues could 

affect the validity of some of the results. 
69

Table 19. Randolph County Reportable Crashes by Road Classification and Numbers Located to Routes.

Road 

Class.

Total Reported Matched to Roadway % of 

reported 

crashes 

matched 

to 

roadway

Not 

Speeding

-related

Speeding

-related

% 

Speeding

-related

Total 

crashes

Not 

Speeding

-related

Speeding

-related

% 

Speeding

-related

Total

missing 1,124 911 5 916 81.5%

Interstate 383 194 33.6 577 335 176 34.4 511 88.6%

US 4,375 437 9.1 4,812 3,093 225 6.8 3318 69.0%

NC 1,526 202 11.7 1,728 1,317 183 12.2 1500 86.8%

SR 4,242 1,691 28.5 5,933 3,474 1,426 29.1 4900 82.6%

Local 1,357 116 7.9 1,473 433 35 7.5 468 31.8%

PVA 54 1 1.8 55 12 0 0 12 21.8%

Private 15 1 6.2 16 3 0 0 3 18.8%

Other 19 2 9.5 21 4 1 20.0 5 23.8%

Totals 11,971 2,644 16.8 15,739 9582 2,051 17.6 11,633 73.9%

The next tables show distributions of different key environmental and driver factors subdivided 

by Rural or Urban locations. Results are shown separately for speeding-related (SR) and severe 

(fatal and disabling severity) crashes.

Overall, Randolph County observed nearly 22 percent of crashes (21.8%) to be speeding-related 

in rural parts of the County compared to an average of 15.8 percent in rural areas Statewide. In 

urban areas of the County, nearly 10 percent (9.6%) of crashes were thought to be speedingrelated, compared to 5.6% of crashes in urban areas Statewide. (These data are not shown in 

the tables.) See Table 20 for comparisons by crash characteristics.

The County experienced a slightly lower than average percentage of crashes that involved fatal 

or serious injuries in rural areas (2.0%) compared to the State as a whole (2.5%). In urban areas 

of the County, the proportion of crashes involving fatal or serious injuries was slightly higher at 

1.1 percent of all crashes, compared to 0.9 percent for the State as a whole. See Table 21 for 

comparisons by crash characteristics.
70

Table 20. Speeding-related (SR) Crash Characteristics in Randolph County, NC with Statewide 

comparisons. 

Road Type

Randolph 

SR Rural 

Crashes

Percent of 

County Rural 

SR Crashes

Percent of 

NC Rural SR 

Crashes

Randolph SR 

Urban 

Crashes

Percent of 

County Urban 

SR Crashes

Percent of 

NC Urban 

SR Crashes

2L Undiv 1727 84.8 75.5 302 49.1 36.7

ML Div 231 11.4 18.9 199 32.4 35.9

ML Undiv 31 1.5 2.6 82 13.3 15.5

Other 47 2.3 3.0 32 5.2 11.9

Ambient Light

daylight 1092 53.6 57.7 370 60.2 56.7

dusk 40 2.0 1.9 14 2.3 2.7

dawn 42 2.1 2.3 12 2.0 2.1

dark - lighted 

roadway 33 1.6 1.5 83 13.5 23.6

dark - roadway not 

lighted 824 40.5 36.2 134 21.8 14.2

Road Surface Condition

dry 1078 52.9 45.9 222 36.1 36.9

wet 517 25.4 32.8 276 44.9 43.0

water (standing) 41 2.0 2.9 38 6.2 4.9

ice 194 9.5 8.9 30 4.9 7.0

snow 144 7.1 6.9 40 6.5 5.7

slush 41 2.0 1.7 9 1.5 2.0

gravel, mud, etc. 13 0.6 0.6 . . 0.1

Crash at Curve

Not at curve 797 39.1 46.1 431 70.1 72.2

At curve 1239 60.9 53.9 184 29.9 27.8

Intersection

IntersectionRelated 150 7.4 6.7 67 10.9 15.3

Non-Intersect. 1886 92.6 93.3 548 89.1 84.7

Teen-Involved 

No teen driver(s) 1539 75.6 78.5 477 77.6 79.7

Teen driver(s) 497 24.4 21.5 138 22.4 20.3

Alcohol-Involved 

No alcohol-involved 1774 87.1 90.1 556 90.4 89.2

Alcohol-Involved 

Crash 262 12.9 9.9 59 9.6 10.8
71

Table 21. Fatal (K-severity) and Disabling-Injury (A-severity) Crash Characteristics in Randolph County, 

with Statewide (NC) comparisons.

Road Type

Randolph 

Rural KA 

Severity 

Crashes

Percent of 

County Rural 

KA Crashes

Percent of NC 

Rural KA Crashes

Randolph 

Urban KA 

Severity 

Crashes

Percent of 

County 

Urban KA 

Crashes

Percent 

of NC 

Urban 

KA 

Crashes

2L Undiv 151 83.0 79.0 46 64.8 32.7

ML Div 17 9.3 13.8 9 12.7 32.9

ML Undiv 13 7.1 5.3 12 16.9 25.7

Other 1 0.6 1.9 4 5.6 8.7

Ambient Light

daylight 88 48.4 54.9 38 53.52 54.1

dusk 2 1.1 2.3 5 7.04 2.7

dawn 4 2.2 1.6 1 1.41 1.5

dark - lighted 

roadway 4 2.2 1.6 15 21.13 26.9

dark - roadway 

not lighted 83 45.6 39.5 12 16.90 14.5

Surface 

Conditions

dry 167 91.8 86.2 58 81.69 85.6

wet 10 5.5 11.4 12 16.90 12.9

ice 3 1.7 0.8 . . 0.5

snow 1 0.6 0.4 . . 0.1

Crash at Curve

No 112 61.5 59.1 54 76.06 82.2

Yes 70 38.5 40.9 17 23.94 17.8

Intersection

IntersectionRelated 38 20.9 17.4 16 22.5 29.9

Non-Intersection 144 79.1 82.6 55 77.5 70.1

Teen-Involved 

no teen driver(s) 159 87.4 85.4 60 84.5 86.8

teen driver(s) 23 12.6 14.6 11 15.5 13.2

Alcohol Involved

No Alcohol 128 70.3 73.1 56 78.9 76.9

Alcohol involved 54 29.7 26.9 15 21.1 23.1
72

Figure 5. Rural Killed and Disabling Crashes by Crash Hour, 2007-2011. 

Prior Speed Studies. Speed data were collected from 1998 to 2012 on a number of routes 

throughout the County. The studies were for corridors that were identified through preliminary 

screening for this project, and which had prior speed studies because of crash histories or 

requests by residents. A simple scatter plot of the data (no consideration to time trend) shows 

the speed limits by the associated average 85th percentile point speeds at the study locations. A 

trend line fitted to the data shows that there is a positive association between the limit and the 

85th percentile speeds. Most of the 55 mph limits are not posted but are statutory limits. There 

were relatively few studies where posted speeds were 35 mph (that were not indicated to be 

advisory speeds), but, the dispersion across locations appears wider at the lower speed limits. 

Figure 6. Scatter plot of 85th percentile (point) speeds by speed limit for a select group of roads. 
73

Corridor Screening Methods 

Network screening. There are many ways to screen a network to identify corridors or sections 

that may need safety treatment. The more advanced methods make use of safety performance 

functions and the empirical Bayes method in order to identify segments. These advanced 

methods are intended to address potential bias due to regression to the mean (RTM). To use 

such methods, there is a need for traffic volume data for all segments in the network. In North 

Carolina, traffic volume data are not available for significant sections of the state secondary 

system. Hence, safety performance functions and EB methods cannot be used for these types 

of roads. 

Considering this limitation, the screening approach made use of the following measures: 

 Proportion of crashes that were speeding-related.

 Proportion of crashes with more severe injuries 

 Rate of more severe injury crashes per mile of roadway length. 

 Rate of speeding-related crashes per mile. (In the final results, this measure was not 

used to prioritize treatments, since the rate of KAB per mile seemed more useful for the 

main objective to reduce fatal and injury crashes.) 

Traffic volumes were not considered directly by the screening method, but will of course form 

part of additional analysis and diagnosis. The screening method used in this Plan adopted a 

proportions or percentage of crashes by crash type (speeding-related or severe) approach. 

Kononov (2002) found that looking at the percentage distribution of crashes by crash type can 

reveal the “existence of crash patterns susceptible to correction” that may or may not be 

accompanied by the overrepresentation in expected or expected excess crashes from the 

Empirical Bayes (E-B) methods of screening.50 The E-B methods, which are considered state of 

the art with respect to controlling for traffic volume and other trends, also require traffic 

volume data to implement. 

The screening approach made use of the following measures: 

 Proportion of crashes that were speeding-related. 

 Proportion of crashes with more severe injuries. 

 Rate of more severe injury crashes per mile of roadway length. 

 Rate of speeding-related crashes per mile. 

In order to reduce the possible bias due to Regression Toward the Mean (RTM), or the influence 

of one or two-years with more severe crashes, five years of data were included. In addition, 

 

50 Kononov, J. (2002), Identifying Locations with Potential for Collision Reductions: Use of Direct Diagnostics and 

Pattern Recognition Methodologies, Transportation Research Record 1784, pp. 153-158.
74

since routes were the starting point (instead of segments) for these analyses, possible bias due 

to RTM may be reduced by including larger units of analysis.

To conduct this screening, mileposted routes were identified and grouped for analysis as shown 

in Table 22. This grouping was used so that routes with similar location types (rural or urban), 

geometric characteristics (divided or undivided and number of lanes), and general traffic 

volume ranges were compared to each other. 

Table 22. Analysis Matrix and Roadway Miles for Screening for Speeding-related Crash Problems by 

Corridor.

Road type

Urban 

No 

Access 

control

(miles)

Urban 

Partial 

control 

(miles)

Urban 

Full

control

(miles)

Rural No 

control

(miles)

Rural 

Partial 

control 

(miles)

Rural 

Full

control

(miles)

Row 

totals

Row % of 

Total

Two-lane 164 3.7 0.1 1480 0.00 0.09 1647.9 89.7

Multi-lane, 

undivided 14 -- -- 7 -- -- 21 1.1

Multi-lane, 

divided* 4 0.3 22 27 13.40 68.70 135.4 7.4

Ramps 9 -- -- 18 -- -- 27 1.5

Service road 0.3 -- -- 4.7 -- -- 5 0.3

Column 

totals 191.3 4.0 22.1 1536.7 13.4 68.8 1836.3 100

Column % of 

Total 10.4 0.2 1.2 83.7 0.7 3.8

*By median or other positive barrier

Comparisons were made within each category of roads to identify corridors with higher than 

average proportions of speeding or of severe of crashes for that category. 

Tiers based on proportion of crashes

For the screening, routes with at least 10 total crashes were initially selected.

Secondly, those routes that had higher than average proportions of combined killed (K), 

disabling (A-type), or evident (B-type) injury crashes (severe group or KAB in the tables), and/or 

of speeding-related crashes compared to the entire group were identified. 

Routes were also ranked based on the rate of severe or speeding-related crashes per mile, but, 

as mentioned, only rate severe per mile was used in the ultimate prioritization of corridors.

Tier 1 = Routes with higher than the average proportion of severe and higher than the average 

proportion of speeding + pedestrian or bicycle crashes. 
75

Tier 2 = Routes with higher than average proportion of severe crashes, but not a higher than 

average proportion of speeding + pedestrian or bicycle crashes.

Tier 3 = Routes with higher than the average proportion of speeding + pedestrian or bicycle 

crashes, but not higher than the average proportion of severe crashes.

Implications of the Tiers

Tier 1 - The crash data suggest that Routes in Tier 1 have indications of both a crash severity 

problem, and a speeding problem and may merit further assessment.

Tier 2 - Routes in Tier 2 have indications of a crash severity problem, but not a clear indication 

of speeding (greater than average). These findings suggest a potential mismatch between 

operating speeds and the driving environment resulting in a high severity of crashes, even if it is 

not yet clear that operating speeds are in excess of current limits and/or too fast for conditions. 

Additional review is warranted to consider whether speed limits are set appropriately or 

whether other changes to the roadway or enforcement may be needed.

Tier 3 - Routes in Tier 3 have indications of a speeding problem, but as of yet, this has not 

seemed to translate to a higher than average proportion of severe crashes for that route. 

However, such routes may warrant additional review, which could proactively prevent such 

speeding from resulting in a greater number of severe crashes in time. 

The screening based on severe crashes per roadway mile was used to rank the corridors within 

each tier based on proportions of severe and speeding + pedestrian or bicycle crashes. 

The numbers and percentages of crashes by route type and of the County total reported in the 

following sections are approximate and based on mileposted crashes only. Additionally, a few 

crashes are counted more than once since they were linked to multiple intersecting routes as 

well as the main “on route.” 

Corridor Screening Results

The focus of analysis results was on non-freeway routes with greater roadway mileage extents 

and crashes. These routes or areas include:

 Urban, multi-lane, but not physically-divided corridors.

 Urban, two-lane corridors.

 Rural, two-lane roads.

Results of the screening for the above three types of corridors, which are recommended for 

further diagnosis are shown in Table 23, Table 24, and Table 25. Other route types may have 

speeding-related crash problems as well, but could not be easily identified without comparison 

to a larger reference group.
76

Urban, Multi-lane Corridors

Table 23 lists the priority corridors for speed and safety review (Action Item 4) as identified screening of urban, multi-lane, but 

undivided roads. The route numbers in bold type were also identified as corridors of concern for safety or mobility/congestion 

reasons through public input processes for the Randolph Comprehensive Transportation plan (CTP). It is suggested that all six

corridors should be reviewed for proper speed limits and safety concerns relating to exceeding limits or inappropriate speed for 

conditions.

Table 23. Prioritized List of Urban Multi-lane Routes for Speed and Safety Review.

Route ID

AADT 

range

Total 

Crashes Fatal no.

Severe 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

proportion

Severity 

Index

Speedingrelated no.

Speedingrelated 

proportion

Total 

Crashes 

per Mi.

Corridor 

Length in 

miles

Severe 

crashes 

per Mi Tier

40001707

2900 -

7000 92 2 6 0.07 5.2 4 0.04 76.2 1.207 5.0 1

40001950 9700 37 0 2 0.05 3.0 3 0.08 36.9 1.003 2.0 1

40001451 3900 61 0 5 0.08 2.8 0 0.00 152.5 0.4 12.5 2

40001009±

10,000 –

23,000 450 1 29 0.06 4.3 16 0.04 159.1 2.828 10.3 2

29000220*

10,000 –

26,000 247 2 15 0.06 4.4 7 0.03 93.4 2.644 5.7 2

20000064

20,000 –

32,000 907 1 37 0.04 3.7 40 0.04 185.3 4.895 7.6 3

Subtotals -- 1788 6 94 0.05 -- 70 0.04 -- 13.232 -- --

Prop. of all 

Urban 

Multilane

-- 0.98 1.0 1.0 -- -- 0.97 -- -- 0.97 -- --

All Urban 

Multilane -- 1824 6 94 0.05 4.0 72 0.04 -- 13.621 5.2 --

Prop. Of 

County Total -- 0.12 0.06 0.06 -- -- .03 -- -- .007 -- --

County Total -- 15,739 101 1556 -- -- 2804 -- -- 1836 -- --

± Route numbers beginning with: 4= State Secondary roads, 2= US Highways

*There seem to be errors in the data associated with US 220 access-controlled freeway which was opened within the past few years. Crashes attributable to 

that road may have been incorrectly placed on the business (old US 220) which is not access-controlled.
77

Current NCDOT HSIP section warrants for urban non-freeway routes are for a minimum total 

crashes of 20, and a minimum crashes per mile rate of 40 (NCDOT, Traffic Safety Systems 

Section, HSIP Program, Safety Warrants, 2012). All of the ranked, urban four-lane, undivided 

routes in Tiers 1-3 in the table meet or far exceed that threshold for total crashes, with the 

exception of 40001950. 

Urban, Two-lane Corridors

Preliminary screening selected routes with the following:

 At least 10 total crashes. 

 Tiers as described above by proportion of severe & speeding + pedestrian or bicycle, 

and ranked by severe crashes per mile.

The initial group of 28 corridors accounted for:

 928 total crashes (45 percent of the total urban two-lane crashes).

 96 severe crashes (56 percent of urban two-lane, KAB-severity crashes).

 149 speeding-related + pedestrian or bicycle crashes (56 percent of urban two-lane, 

speeding-related crashes).

 31 percent of urban, two-lane roadway miles (Table 24).

It may be infeasible to include 28 corridors for speed reviews and diagnosis and treatment 

within a five-year plan. One way to further prioritize routes for review would be to start with 

Tier 1, which has both a higher than average percentage of severe crashes and a higher than 

average proportion of speeding-related crashes. 

However, Tier 2 corridors which have an above-average proportion of severe but not of 

speeding crashes accounts for a larger number of severe crashes, a larger number of total 

crashes, has a higher average severe crash per mile rate, and lower total mileage to treat. 

Therefore, a further minimum threshold of two severe crashes per mile was applied to Tiers 1-3 

and reduced the number of corridors to a more feasible number of 11 corridors, highlighted in 

darker shades in Table 24. Route numbers in bold type were also identified through the 

County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
78

Table 24. Prioritized List of Urban Two-lane Routes for Speed and Safety Review. 

Route ID AADT

Total 

Crash 

no.

Fatal 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

proportion

Severity 

Index

Speedingrelated 

Crash 

No.

Speedingrelated 

propor

-tion

Corridor 

Length 

in 

miles 

Total 

Crashes 

per mi

Severe 

Crashes 

per mi

Speedingrelated 

Crashes 

per mi Tier

40001451 3300 - 3900 36 0 3 0.08 3.47 6 0.17 1.03 34.99 2.92 5.83 1

40002261 1500 - 5900 69 0 10 0.14 6.44 10 0.14 3.85 17.94 2.60 2.60 1

40001564 1500-3200 32 0 8 0.25 6.14 8 0.25 3.87 8.26 2.06 2.06 1

40001004 2400-9000 41 1 5 0.12 7.59 11 0.27 2.98 13.78 1.68 3.70 1

40002189 970-1800 12 0 1 0.08 11.02 3 0.25 0.64 18.75 1.56 4.69 1

30000022 2200 - 3000 29 0 4 0.14 2.53 5 0.17 3.16 9.18 1.27 1.58 1

40001556 3100-6000 20 0 2 0.10 3.22 4 0.20 2.47 8.11 0.81 1.62 1

40001558 4800 18 0 2 0.11 7.68 4 0.22 2.66 6.76 0.75 1.50 1

40003252 3100 - 6000 17 0 2 0.12 12.53 9 0.53 2.76 6.16 0.72 3.26 1

20000064

12,000 –

23,000 15 0 2 0.13 4.45 1 0.07 0.20 74.62 9.95 4.97 2

40001952 4600-6900 85 1 11 0.13 4.33 10 0.12 1.53 55.44 7.17 6.52 2

40002344 4200-6100 29 0 5 0.17 5.34 2 0.07 0.72 40.28 6.94 2.78 2

40001577 7800-8900 82 0 8 0.10 3.44 4 0.05 2.52 32.54 3.17 1.59 2

40001443 1500 - 3300 29 0 4 0.14 3.30 2 0.07 1.28 22.64 3.12 1.56 2

30000049 6600 – 19,000 62 0 7 0.11 5.83 6 0.10 2.43 25.51 2.88 2.47 2

40002183 2600-3000 18 0 3 0.17 3.88 1 0.06 1.36 13.19 2.20 0.73 2

40001462 6100-8600 22 0 2 0.09 6.80 2 0.09 1.24 17.67 1.61 1.61 2

40002237 4200-5400 28 1 2 0.07 7.14 4 0.14 0.72 39.11 2.79 5.59 3

40001547 5000 - 12,000 88 0 6 0.07 4.03 17 0.19 3.03 29.00 1.98 5.60 3

40001595 9000-13,000 70 0 5 0.07 4.62 11 0.16 2.76 25.36 1.81 3.99 3

40001748 unk 19 0 1 0.05 3.73 5 0.26 0.70 27.22 1.43 7.16 3

40001504 2400 - 3200 15 0 1 0.07 3.96 3 0.20 1.36 11.05 0.74 2.21 3

40001619 3400 - 5000 23 0 1 0.04 3.25 3 0.13 1.76 13.06 0.57 1.70 3

40001566 1100 - 1600 14 1 1 0.07 6.94 3 0.21 2.00 6.98 0.50 1.50 3

40002345 4200 12 0 0 0.00 3.47 2 0.17 0.69 17.51 0.00 2.92 3

40002119 1200 - 2900 20 0 0 0.00 3.22 3 0.15 1.06 18.83 0.00 2.82 3

40001610 1400 - 2000 11 0 0 0.00 3.02 5 0.45 1.96 5.61 0.00 2.55 3

40003255 2,100 12 0 0 0.00 1.62 5 0.42 0.43 27.98 0.00 11.66 3
79

Route ID AADT

Total 

Crash 

no.

Fatal 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

proportion

Severity 

Index

Speedingrelated 

Crash 

No.

Speedingrelated 

propor

-tion

Corridor 

Length 

in 

miles 

Total 

Crashes 

per mi

Severe 

Crashes 

per mi

Speedingrelated 

Crashes 

per mi Tier

Subtotals -- 928 4 96 -- -- 149 -- 51.18 -- -- -- --

Prop. of 

Urban 2Ln -- 0.45 0.56 -- -- 0.56 -- 0.31 -- -- -- --

Totals for 

Urban 2Ln -- 2,083 7 171 0.08 4.47 268 0.13 163.84 -- 1.04 1.64 --

Prop. Of 

County 

Total

-- .13 0.07 0.11 -- -- 0.10 -- .09 -- -- -- --

County 

Total -- 15,739 101 1556 -- -- 2,804 -- 1,836 -- -- -- --

Rural, Two-Lane Results

To prioritize speed and safety review through screening, routes with at least 10 total crashes were initially selected. 

 Then routes with higher than average severe or SpPB proportions of crashes were identified, ranked by tiers, and within 

tiers, ranked by severe crashes per mile. 

 The top five corridors for high rate of severe per mile were also selected if they were not already identified in the high 

proportion screening.

Approximately 31 percent (466 routes) of 1473 numbered and mileposted routes had one or more crashes in the five-year study 

period. Of the routes with at least 10 total crashes, 39 routes had higher average percentages of both severe and speeding/pedbike-related crashes (Tier 1) as indicated from crash data and 33 had higher than average severe crashes but not speeding/ped-bikerelated (Tier 2). Because of these large numbers and an even larger number of routes identified in Tier 3, (higher than average 

speeding/ped-bike-related only), only Tiers 1 and 2 were included in further prioritization, along with consideration of rate of severe 

crashes per mile. 

The final selection included only routes with an average of greater than two severe crashes per mile in addition to the above criteria. 

See Table 25 for the prioritized list of routes. Again, route numbers in bold represent corridors also identified through the CTP public 

input.
80

Table 25. Priority List of Rural Two-lane Routes for Speed Limit and Safety Review.

Route

AADT 

(max.)

Total 

Crashes

Fatal 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

no.

Severe 

Crash 

proportion

Severity 

Index

Speedingrelated 

Crash no.

Speedingrelated 

Crash 

proportion

Corridor 

Length

in miles

Severe 

Crashes 

per mile

Tier Other

40002226 1,900 11 1 5 0.45 10.58 4 0.36 1.65 3.02 1

only those 

with KAB 

rate / mi of > 

/ = 2 

40002111 1,600 16 1 6 0.38 12.33 7 0.44 2.04 2.95 1

40001144 5,000 75 0 12 0.16 3.76 19 0.25 4.48 2.68 1

40001534 800 11 0 4 0.36 11.25 4 0.36 1.86 2.15 1

40001408 3,900 105 0 17 0.16 5.63 37 0.35 8.05 2.11 1

40001009 14,000 40 0 6 0.15 4.52 3 0.08 0.64 9.33 2

only those 

with KAB 

rate / mi of > 

/ = 2

40002149 4,400 22 1 5 0.23 8.15 4 0.18 1.24 4.03 2

40002183 3,000 30 1 6 0.20 7.53 6 0.20 1.61 3.72 2

40001150 5,400 14 0 3 0.21 8.53 0 0.00 0.85 3.53 2

40001007 4,400 33 1 5 0.15 5.76 7 0.21 1.58 3.17 2

40002218 1,400 10 0 2 0.20 3.22 1 0.10 0.84 2.39 2

20000064 19,000 219 6 32 0.15 6.30 29 0.13 13.45 2.38 2

40002345 4,200 19 0 3 0.16 3.34 3 0.16 1.44 2.09 2

40001004 9300 247 2 32 0.13 5.60 48 0.19 15.42 2.07 2

40002417 750 13 0 4 0.31 10.25 2 0.15 1.99 2.01 2

40002270 8,300 48 0 5 0.10 4.08 1 0.02 0.52 9.58

n/a

KAB per 

mile > 2, not 

in Tier 1 or 

2, but >/= 5 

KAB 

20000311 15,000 303 3 35 0.12 5.24 23 0.08 6.94 5.05

29000220 14,000 222 1 22 0.10 4.24 16 0.07 10.40 2.12

Subtotals -- 1,438 17 204 0.141 -- 214 0.148 75.00 2.85 -- --

Prop of all 

Rural 2Lane -- 0.24 0.28 0.26 -- -- 0.14 -- 0.05 -- -- --

All Rural 

2Lane -- 6,045 61 772 0.127 5.09 1495 0.247 1,479.88 0.52 -- --

All Rural 

2Lane prop. 

of County 

total

-- 0.38 0.60 0.50 -- -- 0.53 -- 0.81 -- -- --

County Total -- 15,739 101 1556 -- -- 2804 -- 1837 -- -- --
81

In addition to the crash screening results, the following routes were indicated per the Randolph 

County CTP, Jan 2012 survey responses, to have safety or congestion concerns. These route 

numbers, when found in the screening priority lists, are highlighted in bold below and in the 

Tables above, as they may receive extra priority for speed limit review and safety assessment 

based on their importance to local drivers. Note that some routes span urban and rural 

corridors and/or change from two to multi-lane, but may appear in only one of the lists. When 

routes span rural to urban zones or change geometries, it may be important to assess the 

different section types and transition areas. 

 I-85

 US 220

 US 311

 US 64

 NC 42, Salisbury Street

 NC 49

 NC 22

 NC 62

 Fayetteville Street (US 

Business 220)

 Old Liberty Road (SR 2261)

 Presnell Street (SR 1462)

 Zoo Parkway/NC 159

 Academy Street (SR 1950)

 McDowell Road (SR 1150)

 Caraway Mountain Road (SR 

1004)

Other Area Types 

Crash Issues Near Schools 

Spatial analyses revealed a list of schools where: 1) high frequencies of severe; or 2) high 

frequencies of speeding, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes occurred near school sites in the 

County. 

These school properties are ranked and prioritized in Table 26 and illustrated in Figure 7 and 

Figure 8. The high crash school neighborhoods might be targets for additional investigation of 

whether area-wide speed calming or other engineering countermeasures are warranted. In 

addition, the affected schools could be a focus for enhanced enforcement and publicity efforts 

and outreach. 

Sections with Curve-related Crash Problems 

Finally, road sections with crashes indicated to occur on curves are shown in Table 27 (severe 

crashes), and Table 28 (total crashes). The sections with higher frequencies may warrant 
82

additional investigation and consideration for speed limit review and potentially other 

treatment. 

Table 26. School properties ranked by five-year number of Severe and Speeding-related crashes within 

One Mile of School Property. 

PROP

NUM

PROP

Street Description

Severe 

Crash 

Count

Speed 

Crash 

Count

524 HOLLY ST Baseball, Basketball, V-ball, Shelter 56 64

5746 TRINITY HIGH SCHO High school 30 72

5457 BRAXTON CRAVEN 

RD

Elementary School 29 87

5105 ARCHDALE RD Middle School 24 53

100 SWAIM ST Elementary school 19 27

6068 SUITS RD Elementary school 16 13

4901 TABERNACLE 

SCHOOL

Elementary school 15 15

1 US HWY 311 Soccer field (part) 14 14

286 EASTERN 

RANDOLPH

High School 14 13

1 CLARK AVE Ball field for elementary school 12 18

1 PINE ST Across road from elem school 12 16

1509 HOPEWELL 

FRIENDS

Middle School 8 8

1 NC HWY 22 N Baseball field (part) 7 14

5302 FOUSHEE RD Middle School 7 3

204 HIGHFILL ST BB/FB field next to elem school 7 2

4528 NC HWY 22 S Elementary School 6 11

3557 GRANGE HALL RD Elementary school 4 2

3493 RAMSEUR JULIAN 

RD

Middle school 2 8

1 OLD COX RD Wooded area adjoining zoo 1 7

1 OLD PLANK RD Lighted Baseball field adjac. to 

school

1 5

Totals 284 452
83

Figure 7. Speeding-related or Pedestrian or Bicycle Crashes within One Mile of School Properties. 

Figure 8. Number of Crashes with Fatal (K), Disabling (A), or Evident (B) severity of injuries within one 

mile of school property. 
84

Table 27. Road Segments with Three or more Severe crashes indicated to occur at a Curve. 

Route

Freq. 

KAB on 

Curve 

RTE 

type Beg Inters End Inters BegMp1

End

Mp1

Speed 

limit

AADT 

estimate 

(2011)

Segment 

Lngth

Crashes mileposts

SR-1004 8 2L 40001539 40001413 11.85 13.45 55 1500 1.60 12.688;12.968;12.46; 

12.768;12.368;12.86; 

12.568;12.838

SR-2149 4 2L 40002150 40002261 0.47 1.67 55 3200 1.20 1.06;1.26;0.95;1.335

SR-2261 4 2L 40002442 40002440 14.14 14.49 55 1100 0.35 14.204;14.304;14.284; 14.204

SR-2839 4 2L 40002972 30000159 2.67 3.31 55 1300 0.64 3.29;3.17;2.77;2.702

SR-1114 3 2L 40001248 40001142 7.80 11.44 55 1100 3.64 10.38;8.22;11.18

SR-1518 3 2L 40001504 40001514 3.76 5.59 55 2100 1.83 4.28;4.25;4.68

SR-2111 3 2L 40002132 40002136 0.00 0.74 55 1600 0.74 0.54;0.64;0

SR-2116 3 2L 40002115 40002111 0.77 1.44 55 2100 0.67 1.37;1.37;1.41

SR-2226 3 2L 40002225 40002141 0.82 1.66 35 1900 0.83 1.624;1.36;0.92

SR-2261 3 2L 40002132 30000022 8.61 9.06 55 1400 0.45 8.71;8.86;8.71

SR-2261 3 2L 40002149 40002183 1.90 2.00 35 3600 0.10 1.99;1.917;1.996

 Total KAB 

target

41

There were 85 roadway segments with five or more crashes on curves. Table 28 includes 31 road segments with eight or more 

crashes of any severity on curves. All types were included, since angle and other collision types could conceivably be related to the 

presence of the curve. 
85

Table 28. Road Sections with Eight or More Any Severity Crashes at Curves. 

Route

Freq All on 

Curve

RTE 

Type Beg Inters End Inters Beg Mp1

End 

Mp1

SPDD

Limit

AADT 

estimate 

(2011)

Seg-ment 

Lngth Crashes mileposts

SR-1004 30 2L 40001539 40001413 11.85 13.45 55 1500 1.602 12.518;12.688;11.968;13.268;

12.868;12.968;12.668;12.768;

12.468;12.968;13.168;12.768;

12.868;12.468;12.568;11.918;

13.168;12.868;12.868;12.568;

12.768;12.368;12.868;13.068;

12.748;12.868;12.038;12.568;

12.838;12.868

SR-1114 16 2L 40001248 40001142 7.80 11.44 55 1100 3.643 8.89;10.88;10.38;8.29;9.38;10.

38;10.58;9.18;9.88;8.22;10.48;

11.18;9.78;10.29;9.09;10.28

SR-1952 14 2L 29000220 40001989 0.26 0.34 35 6000 0.083 0.322;0.326;0.307;0.317;0.326

;0.317;0.319;0.302;0.318;0.32

4;0.312;0.317;0.322;0.311

SR-2327 12 2L 20000064 30000042 0.30 0.66 35 8600 0.359 0.658;0.324;0.332;0.33;0.311;

0.363;0.305;0.63;0.33; 

0.629;0.334;0.33

SR-1518 11 2L 40001504 40001514 3.76 5.59 55 2100 1.829 0;4.28;0;4.25;4.95;4.38;4.85;3.

769;3.88;4.68;3.88

SR-1144 10 2L 40001203 40001162 1.74 2.23 55 3100 0.491 1.928;1.828;2.078;1.828;1.878

;1.838;2.028;1.783;1.828;1.92

8

SR-1004 10 2L 40001608 40001566 1.04 1.54 45 3900 0.497 1.14;1.28;1.24;1.501;1.14;1.08

;1.18;1.34;1.34;1.18

SR-1408 10 2L 40001542 40001548 2.08 2.67 55 2400 0.591 2.592;2.671;2.371;2.28;2.58;2.

571;2.652;2.08;2.647;2.571

NC-42 9 2L 40002197 40002192 2.13 2.18 35 13000 0.053 2.133;2.133;2.133;2.133;2.133

;2.145;2.133;2.154;2.133

SR-1950 9 4L 40001955 29000220 1.29 1.48 35 9700 0.187 1.359;1.457;1.353;1.331;1.35;

1.446;1.322;1.361;1.35

SR-2839 9 2L 40002972 30000159 2.67 3.31 55 1300 0.639 3.29;3.27;3.19;3.17;2.77;2.77;

2.702;2.702;2.69
86

Route

Freq All on 

Curve

RTE 

Type Beg Inters End Inters Beg Mp1

End 

Mp1

SPDD

Limit

AADT 

estimate 

(2011)

Seg-ment 

Lngth Crashes mileposts

SR-1748 9 2L 30000062 40001595 0.00 0.70 25 0 0.698 0.6;0.5;0.4;0.4;0.3;0.2;0.2;0.2;

0.2

SR-2261 9 2L 40002450 40002442 11.99 13.10 55 900 1.112 12.804;12.19;12.29;12.704;12;

12.29;12.19; 12.604;12.19

SR-2149 9 2L 40002150 40002261 0.47 1.67 55 3200 1.205 1.06;1.26;1.26;0.95;1.552;0.65

;1.06;1.335;0.55

SR-2834 9 2L 37000159 40002830 2.52 3.75 55 0 1.232 3.685;3.684;3.681;3.641;3.641

;3.541;3.491;3.141;2.521

SR-1162 9 2L 40001142 40001214 0.60 2.02 55 530 1.422 1.37;1.52;1.3;1.42;1.52;1.3;1.5

2;1.12;1.4

SR-1547 9 2L 40001549 40003106 6.20 7.68 55 1300 1.481 6.58;6.48;6.48;6.48;6.38;7.63;

7.43;7.23;7.13

SR-2611 9 2L 40002610 40002614 1.41 3.01 55 810 1.604 2.814;2.814;2.814;2.814;2.714

;2.704;2.614;1.74;1.54

NC-22 8 2L 40002991 30000042 6.31 6.42 55 2000 0.108 6.411;6.33;6.33;6.33;6.33;6.33

;6.33;6.33

SR-2834 8 2L 40002830 40002824 3.79 4.11 55 0 0.314 3.941;3.941;3.941;3.841;3.841

;3.841;3.841;3.841

SR-3255 8 2L 40001444 40001442 1.68 2.08 35 2200 0.408 0.29;0.29;1.89;1.884;2.002;1.8

78;1.978;1.854

US-311 8 2L 40001514 40001941 1.81 2.28 55 13000 0.468 2.012;1.912;1.912;1.962;2.212

;2.012;1.912;2.012

I-85 8 DCL 80003890 40001619 0.52 0.99 55 21000 0.470 0.89;0.99;0.89;0.89;0.79;0.89;

0.99;0.372

SR-2261 8 2L 40002442 40002440 13.10 13.73 55 1100 0.632 13.104;13.304;13.304;13.504;

13.504;13.304;13.404;13.404

SR-2116 8 2L 40002115 40002111 0.77 1.44 55 2100 0.673 1.37;1.37;1.41;0.87;1.41;0.779

;1.17;1.37

SR-2261 8 2L 40002183 40002128 2.00 2.69 35 1500 0.686 2.224;2.2;2.624;2.129;2.429;2.

224;2.058;0
87

Route

Freq All on 

Curve

RTE 

Type Beg Inters End Inters Beg Mp1

End 

Mp1

SPDD

Limit

AADT 

estimate 

(2011)

Seg-ment 

Lngth Crashes mileposts

I-85 8 DCL 80003898 80003901 1.66 2.37 70 52000 0.709 1.86;2.06;2.06;2.06;2.06;1.84;

2.06;2.16

SR-1408 8 2L 40003118 40003117 5.15 5.93 55 1500 0.779 5.356;5.836;5.836;5.256;5.836

;5.636;5.856;5.456

SR-1553 8 2L 40003249 40003232 2.30 3.32 55 0 1.022 3.125;3.125;2.825;2.805;2.725

;2.605;2.505;2.405

SR-1542 8 2L 40002048 40001543 0.11 1.20 55 0 1.091 0.91;0.81;0.71;0.71;0.602;0.4;

0.302;0

SR-2615 8 2L 40002619 40001003 0.97 2.23 45 870 1.257 2.22;2.22;2.19;1.82;1.82;1.72;

1.42;1.02

Total all-sev. 

crash target

307
88

Appendix C 

Countywide Proactive Approach - Additional Considerations 

Consider the future as well as current land uses when planning and designing new projects and 

roadway improvements. Density of development, area type, connections to existing streets, 

and multi-modal transportation needs should be carefully considered in the design and 

intended operating speed of new roads. Figure 9 illustrates the planned growth areas from the 

County’s 2009 Growth Management Plan. 

Figure 9. Randolph County Growth Management Areas. 
89

Countywide Comprehensive Approaches - Additional Considerations 

Some view speeding as a problem of the few, but in fact it is a population-level problem. The 

research shows that drivers of all ages speed – some by high levels and often, and some 

infrequently or by small degrees. However, each increment of speeding by many drivers adds to 

an overall increase in risk of more severe crashes. Low levels of speeding have a significant 

effect on expected fatal and injury crashes. This risk in turn translates to tragedy for the 

individuals that are involved. Many safer countries have adopted an approach to safety 

management that puts the human at the forefront of decisions about infrastructure, speedlimit setting, and other policies with an aim to reduce the chances of a fatality or life-altering 

injury when inevitable human mistakes occur. For more information on different approaches to 

speed management, see Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational 

Report (Forbes, et al., 2012) available on FHWA’s speed management website, and Lessons 

Learned from Other Countries, a white paper prepared by Dr. Ezra Hauer as part of Toward Zero 

Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety” (Hauer, 2010).

Consider that despite their inexperience, young drivers (ages 16 to 19) accounted for only onefourth of rural speeding-related crashes in the County as indicated by crash data, and a lower 

percentage of severe crashes. As evidence by the other 75 percent, many older and more 

experienced drivers also do not correctly anticipate the need to slow (below the 55 mph 

maximum limit) at many locations or situations (curves, grades, before intersections, rainy 

weather, at night, etc.) leading to numerous “too fast for conditions” types of crashes. In 

addition, a significant body of research evidence shows that drivers often do not anticipate 

certain risks or slow in time to avoid a crash (7). Finally, there will also continue to be a new 

cohort of inexperienced drivers each year who may perceive that the statutory limit of 55 is a 

safe and reasonable speed throughout county rural roads. 

The default, statutory 55 mph rural speed limit may not send the right message to drivers of 

any age or experience level, since there are many exceptions where lower speeds are 

warranted. Unanticipated situations, perhaps exacerbated by distracting thoughts or actions 

and other situations that often lead to serious crashes. Urban areas also have many issues with 

road designs that may not match safe operating speeds for the environment, at least under 

certain conditions or times. 

Younger drivers also learn from their parents and peers, and the cultural norms in general. 

North Carolina has a long history of glorifying speed, as exemplified through the history of stock 

car racing, which emerged in the State. The axiom that “everyone speeds” is rings literally and 

figuratively true as both national data, and data from a Statewide survey reveal. Eighty-five 

percent of surveyed North Carolina drivers admitted to speeding more than 5 mph above the 

limit on low speed (30 mph) roads (Final Report, NHTSA-GHSA Statewide Telephone 

Survey (July 12 – 21, 2010). Five miles per hour may translate to between 64 and 78 percent 

more fatal crashes than would occur if everyone were traveling at the speed limit or lower

(from AASHTO Highway Safety Manual estimates, p. 3-57). 
90

Solutions: Consequently, a population-wide, injury-prevention approach to speed limit setting 

policies, communications, and enforcement is needed to address the social and behavioral 

elements of speeding and resultant severe crashes. 

According to a report by the NC Child Fatality Task Force, policies, laws, and credible and 

consistent enforcement applied to the entire population are also the most effective means to 

attempt to reduce speeding among younger drivers (Child Fatality Task Force, 2012).51

Measures that single out young drivers such as fear-based approaches do not tend to work 

among that population. While the messenger, messages, and format may target specific groups 

of drivers (age groups, cultural or ethnic groups), the over-arching context should be about 

enforcing rules that apply to everyone, in order to reduce injury and achieve norms of safe 

speed behavior. In that context, enforcement policies, practices and messages should reinforce 

the notion that enforcement is about reducing speeding to save lives, not about punishing 

drivers. There also needs to be a strong perception, cultivated through a highly visible program 

and improved publicity, that enforcement may be encountered anytime, anywhere to help 

achieve the deterrence needed. 

Other approaches that include rewarding drivers for safe behavior such as through lower 

insurance premiums, or, potentially other locally developed programs, also show promise 

(NHTSA, 2011). 

Systematic Approach - Additional Countermeasures Considerations 

Road diets. Among the most promising and proven measures, for multi-lane roads with traffic 

volumes up to around 15,000 and sometimes higher, and where other conditions allow, road 

diets provide a low-cost treatment with a fairly high certainty of expected crash reductions and 

speed calming. (The costs may increase depending on whether constructed features such as 

medians or median-islands are added, extent of changes needed at intersections, and so on.)

Assuming that each of the three lower-volume, but multi-lane roadways is a good candidate for 

a road diet, approximately one-half of the target crash reductions might be achievable through 

implementing road diets alone (Table 30). In addition, there may be lower-volume sections of 

some of the other roads that could be suitable for road diets. 

Traffic calming. If/when the number of through motorized lanes is reduced, other treatments 

may become more feasible if speeding is still an issue. Such treatments might include bulb-outs 

at intersections, single-lane roundabout intersection designs, raised pedestrian crossings and 

others. Shifting alignments by using median islands, shifting on-street parking, or chicanes may 

 

51 Child Fatality Task Force. (2012). Teen Road Safety in North Carolina: Putting Best Practice into Action. 

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/Committees/NCCFTF/Reports and Data/Teen Road Safety, Dec 2012.pdf
91

also be appropriate depending on context. Bicyclists’ concerns should be considered in 

treatment selection.

Traffic calming treatments may be needed on some state roads where such treatments have 

not ordinarily been implemented. But, traffic calming measures (lateral shifts, pinch points, 

vertical devices) have been shown to slow speeds and may be among of the few ways to 

consistently slow speeds in areas such as transitions from rural to more develop areas or on 

lower-volume urban streets. These are decisions that should be jointly made between NCDOT 

and local road users.

Lower travel speeds. Traffic calming options on wider roads with more traffic may be 

challenging, but treatments, such as the ones listed below, have been successful in some 

situations and should be considered to help to slow speeds where needed, such as at town 

limits / transition areas or throughout corridors as needed. A combination of multiple 

treatments may be needed.

 Gateway treatments. 

 Medians or median islands, perhaps in conjunction with gateways at the end of 

transition zones, and as pedestrian refuge islands.

 Reductions in lane width through re-striping. 

 Wider lane line stripes.

 Use of roadway markings such as converging chevrons, optical speed bars or other 

perceptual measures.

 Enhanced enforcement, closer to limit.

Speed reduction effects. A combination of measures that lower average operating speeds by 2 

mph, assuming an average initial operating speed of 40 mph can be expected to reduce injury 

crashes by 14 percent and fatal crashes by 27 percent (From AASHTO, 2010, p. 3-57). These or 

other estimates for other expected change in speed might be used for cost-benefit analyses as 

shown in Table 30 in lieu of more specific crash reduction estimates for particular 

countermeasures. For example, some gateway treatment combinations have lowered travel 

speeds by up to five mph.

Intersection treatments. Although not explicitly a speeding-related treatment, the potential 

need for intersection treatments and measures to separate different types and speed of users 

at crossing/junctions and along the roadway also must be determined through field assessment 

and further diagnosis. 

 Crossing treatments and pedestrian signals may be needed to ensure that pedestrians 

have safe places and times to cross roadways when operating speeds are above 25 mph. 

Provide separated facilities by user type. In a similar vein, separated space to walk/cycle along 

the road (and potentially or for other types of traffic such as large trucks) may be needed, 

depending on target operating speeds.
92

Currently pending roadway improvements also provide an ideal opportunity to implement 

speed and safety review on actual planned street and roadway improvements (at various stages 

in the processes from plans to nearly completed construction). 

Future opportunities may include Safe Routes to School Plans, small area 

economic/transportation plans, and others. 

While specific crash reduction targets are not appropriate for these types of strategies, longterm trends should reflect improved safety performance. 

Curve treatments. Spot treatments, such as enhanced curve delineation, have had good 

success in reducing crashes at the locations treated (Srinivasan et al., 2010b) and may be 

successful if consistently and systematically applied. However, it is unclear whether there are 

spillover effects (positive or negative) to untreated curves (or other “hot spots”) with either 

similar or different radii and other characteristics. In addition, signs, barriers, and other fixed 

objects have the potential themselves to become roadside hazards for fixed object type crashes 

if not carefully implemented, and are costly to maintain.

Design consistency. In general, consistency of design is likely to be a more reliable safety 

measure than use of signs and other spot treatments to try to slow drivers from their normal 

operating speeds in advance of exceptional features (sharp curves, etc.) (AASHTO, 2010; 

Donnell et al., 2009). 
93

Appendix D

Economic Analysis Examples

The below economic analysis examples supplement plan prioritization materials for Chapter 4.

 Countermeasure: Target high visibility enforcement to a larger proportion of the 

network (or select corridors) where serious crashes occur by randomly allocating 

existing enforcement levels. (The number of corridors that can be targeted, and 

expected numbers of crashes on those corridors, will affect the estimates of crash 

reductions.)

 Estimated crash savings - approximately 28 fatal and disabling-injury crashes and 

approximately 1100 total crashes for a monetary savings of $18 to $22 million, before 

implementation costs (Table 29).

Table 29. Estimated Crash Reductions from Randomly Targeted, but Highly Visible Enforcement that 

covers 60% of network crashes or 70% of Fatal and A-type crashes. 52

Crash Injury 

Severity

5 Yr Num. 

Crashes 

Expected if No 

Treatment

Exp Crash 

Reds.

Avg. 5 Yr 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. Costs / 

Crash

Monetary 

Savings

Fatal and 

Disabling-type 

crashes (KA)

17

(70% of total)

16% 28 $660,000 $18,480,000

Total crashes 9444 

(60% of total)

12%91133 $20,000 $22,660,000

Countermeasure: Convert four lane, lower volume roads (Road Diet from four-lane 

cross-section) to two lanes, plus other uses (turn lanes, parking or bicycle lanes).

Estimated crash savings: 190 total crashes in five years, and 14 severe crashes at a crash 

cost savings of 825,000 to 1.75 million (Table 30).

 

52 Newstead, Cameron, & Leggett (2001). The crash reduction effectiveness of a network-wide traffic police 

deployment system. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33: 393-406. And, supported by theory (Shinar, D. (2007). 

Traffic Safety and Human Behavior. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group, Ltd., 813 pp.)
94

Table 30. Cost-benefit analysis of Road Diet Implementations. (Assuming three corridors with AADT < 

10,000 can be treated, with low range and high-range estimates of effect.) 53

Crash 

Injury

Severity

5 Yr No. of 

Crashes 

Expected if 

No 

Treatment

Exp 

Crash 

Reds

Exp. 

Five Yr 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. 

Monetary 

Costs per 

Crash

Exp. 5-yr 

Crash Cost 

Savings

Countermeasure

Costs

Estimated 

Crash Costs 

Saved

All 190 29%

(low 

est.)

55 $15,000 $825,000 Minimal – if 

through 

resurfacing*

$825,000 

low range 

Fatal

Disabling

Evident

2

2

11

14

47%

(high 

est.)

0.9

0.9

5.1

1,600,000

85,000

32,000

1,504,000

79,900

165,440

1,749,340

Minimal – if 

through 

resurfacing

1.75 

million high 

range (not 

including PDOs) 

*Other improvements such as medians or refuge islands could further reduce crashes, but add to costs.

Table 31 illustrates economic analysis for curve-related treatments. Note that economic 

analysis should consider the expected useful life of treatments to determine crash/cost 

benefits.

 

53 CMF estimates from Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements”, NCHRP Project 17-

25 Final Report, Washington, D.C., National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research 

Board, (2008)Delineation." Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-045, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 

(2009)
95

Table 31. Estimated Crash Reductions for Curve-related Crashes (assuming 12 curves with the highest 

frequencies of KAB crashes or 35 curves with the highest number of total crashes can be treated).54

Crash 

types 

used in 

estimate

Crashes 

expected 

with no 

Treatment 

(5 yrs)

% Crash 

reduction 

target

Fiveyear 

Crash 

Savings

Avg. 

Monetary 

costs

Potential 

Five-year 

Crash-cost 

savings*

Countermeasure 

Costs

Cost 

benefit

Total 

crashes 

31 road 

segments

307

Crashes

(assume 

35 curves) 

18%

(all nonintersection)

55 $27,000 

(average 

rural crash 

cost)

$1,485,000 $300 - $1600 per 

curve

Est. total 

$56,000 – high 

range

26: 1

KABseverity 11 road 

segments

41 crashes

(assume 

12 curves) 

25%

Fatal and 

injury; 

nighttime 

10 $31,000 

(average 

B-injury 

crash cost 

– rural ; 

lowest 

severity 

rep. in 

crash 

target) 

$310,000 $300 - $1600 per 

curve

Est. total 

$19,200 high 

range

16: 1

(not 

incl. 

other 

severity 

of 

crashes)

*It may be reasonable to include more years of savings if the countermeasures will have a longer useful 

life.

Table 32 shows the potential crash and economic savings for implementing automated speed 

enforcement and associated publicity in zones within one mile of County schools.

 

54 Srinivasan, R., Baek, J., Carter, D., Persaud, B., Lyon, C., Eccles, K., Gross, F., Lefler, N., "Safety Evaluation of 

Improved Curve Delineation." Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-045, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 

(2009)
96

Table 32. Estimated Crash Reductions from Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) Deployed within 

One mile of Schools. 55

Crash Injury 

Severity

Crashes

Expected - No 

Treatment (5 

years 

assumed)

Exp Crash 

Reds.

Avg. 5 Yr 

Crash Reds. Avg. Costs/Crash Monetary Savings

Fatal and Atype50 15% 7.5 $660,000 $4,950,000

B- and C-type 985 15% 147.75 $22,000 $3,250,500

ASE only – economic savings $8,200,500

Fatal and Atype

50 25% 12.5 $660,000 $8,250,000

B- and C-type 985 25% 246.25 $22,000 $5,417,500

ASE + publicity – economic savings $13,667,500

Program Evaluation Measures

Table 33 describes potential performance measures for program evaluation, not including 

specific safety assessment.

 

55 Moon, J.P. and J. E. Hummer. "Estimating the Longer-Term Safety Effects of Speed Enforcement Cameras in 

Charlotte, NC." TRB 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, D.C. 2010
97

Table 33. Example Program Evaluation Matrix

Program elements

Intermediate 

Measures Process Measures

Barriers to 

Implementation 

overcome

Lessons 

Learned

Proactive process: 

Coordinate with local 

government to set 

appropriate speed 

limits on urban roads 

managed by the State

- Speed studies 

conducted.

-Number of locations 

identified that 

warranted change.

- Meetings/ 

communications held.

- Concerns 

documented.

- Number of locations 

warranting changed 

limits that were 

changed.

- Number of Safety 

improvements 

implemented.

- Enforcement 

tolerance (evidence 

of change).

- Speeding convictions 

as charged.

- Driver speeding or 

speed compliance.

-Self-reported driver 

attitudes toward 

speeding or speeding 

countermeasures.

e.g. Change to 

existing practice or 

policy

Systematic Process:

e.g. Review existing 

speed limits and 

conduct roadway safety 

assessments for 

prioritized lists of 

corridors.

Meetings, 

organizational 

structure, procedures 

developed, integration 

with existing programs.

Number of corridors 

with speed and safety 

assessments.

e.g. Time, staffing 

limitations

Specific 

Countermeasures: e.g. 

Increase randomly 

targeted enforcement 

to a larger number of 

high crash corridors 

Document deployment 

strategy.

Officer-hours 

deployed by location.

e.g. Allocating 

existing resources 

or increasing 

enforcement 

resources

Specific 

Countermeasures: 

Implement 3 road diets

Document number of 

potential road diets.

Number Planned.

Number Pending.

Number Implemented.

e.g. Community 

resistance to 

change

Systematic Process:

e.g. Review existing 

speed limits and 

conduct roadway safety 

assessments for 

prioritized lists of 

corridors.

Meetings, 

organizational 

structure, procedures 

developed, integration 

with existing programs.

Number of corridors 

with speed and safety 

assessments.

e.g. Time, staffing 

limitations

Countermeasures evaluation. In order to properly estimate the safety performance of a 

treatment, it is necessary to select the appropriate study design and statistical analysis 

technique. Selection of the appropriate study design and statistical analysis technique depends
98

on many factors including the nature of the treatment, how it has been implemented, and data 

that are available for the evaluation. The following documents discuss the issues associated 

with different types of study designs:

AASHTO, Safety Effectiveness Evaluation, Chapter 9 of the HSM.

Gross, Persaud, and Lyon, A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors, 

Report FHWA-SA-10-032, December 2010.

Carter, Srinivasan, Gross, and Council, Recommended Protocol for Developing Crash 

Modification Factors, Final Report from NCHRP Project 20-07 (Task 314), February 2012.

Observational before-after studies and cross sectional comparisons may be used. These two 

study designs are also discussed further in the separate Speed Management Action Plan 

Template, Appendix B. 

It is important to recognize that crash analysis may not be feasible or sufficient under many 

situations. For example, if sufficient number of sites and years of crash data are not available to 

provide a statistically reliable estimate of the safety effectiveness of a treatment, then it will be 

prudent for the analyst to consider surrogate measures such as average speed to obtain further 

insight into the effectiveness of a treatment. 

Table 34 describes potential measures for safety evaluation of countermeasures.

Table 34. Example Countermeasure or Program Safety Evaluation Matrix.

Countermeasure Short term measures Longer-term measures Crash cost outcome

Speed and crash-lowering 

countermeasure

(e.g. road diet)

-Before and after speed 

measurements at target and 

comparison sites (similar 

untreated locations). 

-Follow-up speed 

measurements over 

time.

-Crash-based evaluation 

(at least three years after 

crash data) 

Crash cost savings 

over useful life 

compared with 

countermeasure cost 

Other countermeasures

(e.g. signal upgrade, change 

in phasing)

-Other safety surrogate 

measures (e.g. compliance, 

conflicts).

Identify control/reference 

sites for crash evaluation. 

-Crash-based evaluation 

(at least three years after 

crash data). *May be 

difficult to evaluate 

treatments implemented 

at only a few locations. 

Crash cost savings 

over useful life 

compared with

countermeasure cost

Targeted enforcement -Percentage of drivers 

complying with limit at 

target and comparison sites.

-Number of citations and 

time spent enforcing at 

target and comparison sites 

(process measures).

- Percentage of drivers 

complying with limit.

- Change in frequency or 

severity of crashes (if 

sufficient years, sites 

available).

Crash cost savings
99
For More Information:

Visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

FHWA, Office of Safety

Guan Xu

gxu@dot.gov

FHWA-SA-15-017