North Carolina

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: NC
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be 

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................3

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................3

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................5

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 23

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 27

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................46

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................70
iv
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The purpose of the North Carolina Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) is to provide a continuous and 

systematic procedure that identifies, investigates and addresses 

specific safety concerns throughout the state. The ultimate goal 

of the HSIP is to reduce the number of traffic crashes, injuries, 

and fatalities by reducing the potential for and the severity of 

these incidents of public roadways.

North Carolina recognizes traffic crashes as a significant 

problem that continues to challenge the state. In 2012, there 

were over 240,000 reported traffic crashes that resulted in 1,276 

persons killed and over 110,000 injuries on our roadways. The 

socioeconomic impact of these crashes is severe, resulting in a 

loss of over $10.3 billion to the economy of North Carolina 

annually. This impact translates to a crash cost to the state of 

over $1 million every hour and approximately $28 million every 

day and a staggering social impact as well. North Carolina has 

established a vision to have a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency 

highway safety approach to research, planning, investigation, 

design, construction, maintenance, operation and evaluation of 

transportation systems, which results in reduced fatalities, 

injuries and economic losses, related to crashes. In addition, 

there is a coordinated strategic effort to address emerging safety 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

issues. In January 2008 the Executive Committee for Highway 

Safety met to reexamine their goals. The committee agreed to 

adopt a 2.5% reduction in annual fatalities each year over the 

next 20 years as the new goal.

This “HSIP Report” describes North Carolina DOT’s 

implementation and effectiveness of its Highway Safety 

Improvement Program. These reports satisfy the requirements 

under Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 924 (23 

CFR 924). The NCDOT Rail Division is developing the 

“Railway-Highway Crossing Report” as a separate report 

submission. North Carolina DOT has opted to use the 2012 

Calendar Year as the reporting period for the “HSIP Report”; 

however, some of our 2013 plans, goals, and methods are 

included in this report.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

In North Carolina, the local county governments are not responsible for the maintenance of 

roadways. NCDOT highway network covers nearly 80,000 roadway miles; municipal 

governments maintain some downtown streets, residential streets and subdivision roads.

As a future goal, NCDOT is currently working with the UNC Highway Safety Research Center 

(HSRC) to develop a low cost safety improvements training course that will focus on 

municipalities. NCDOT is hopeful that the low cost safety improvements training course will 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

help municipalities gain confidence with problem identification, countermeasure selection and 

project evaluation.

NCDOT receives crash data from the Department of Motor Vehicles and has the capability to 

identify potentially hazardous locations on all publicly traveled North Carolina roadways.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The design, planning, and operations units within NCDOT play a significant role within the State 

Highway Safety Plan. These units utilize safety data during their planning phase in many ways. 

NCDOT's Policy to Projects process uses data regarding pavement condition, traffic congestion 

and road safety, as well as input from local government and NCDOT staff to determine 

transportation priorities. MPO's and RPO's utilize traffic crash data to develop transportation 

plans. Many resurfacing projects are utilizing safety edge treatments to reduce the potential 

for overcorrection-type crashes. The Governor’s Highways Safety Program oversees a variety of 

important safety campaigns, including "Booze It and Lose It" and "Click It or Ticket It."

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Local Government Association

Other: Other-NC State Highway Patrol

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: 

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

NCDOT continues to enhance the HSIP steering committee by utilizing various stakeholders.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Freeway

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Median Width

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Frontal Impact Crashes

Other-Percent Frontal Impact Crashes

Other-Frequency of Crashes during Dark Conditions

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potential Hazardous Listing or 

RSA Location

5

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Road Departure Crashes in a Curve

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Bicycle Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Bicycle Crashes

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potentially Hazardous Listing 5
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Roadway Departure 

Crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Percent Roadway Departure Crashes

Other-Percent Night Crashes

Other-Percent Wet Condition Crashes

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potentially Hazardous Listing 

or RSA Location

5

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Pedestrian Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Pedestrian Crashes

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate 

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potentially Hazardous Listing 

or RSA

5

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

0

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

NCDOT is continuing to develop safety performance functions and will utilize the ISDM on 

future STIP projects.

NCDOT is actively working on new systemic programs to implement wide edge lines, enhanced 

curve warning signs and safety edge treatments.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter the programmed and obligated funding for each applicable funding category.

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 55356010 78 % 40862419 66 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 8901450 12 % 3101530 5 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 7139718 10 % 18069788 29 %

Totals 71397178 100% 62033737 100%

How much funding is programmed to local (non-state owned and maintained) safety projects? 

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 

$5,200,000.00

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?

$5,200,000.00
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period?

$0.00

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period? 

$0.00

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

NCDOT is responsible for the safety of nearly 80,000 miles of rural and urban highways. Cities 

and towns are responsible for over 21,000 miles of streets; most of this mileage is downtown 

and residential streets. While NCDOT administers HSIP funds, most municipalities are hesitant 

to participate due to the federal guidelines. Local governments are unwilling to administer the 

competitive bidding process.

The complex federal safety program process discourages many opportunities to utilize the HSIP 

for low-cost safety projects. In some cases administrative costs may be higher than the project 

costs.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

In an attempt to assess the safety of our roads, the Safety Evaluation Group of the Traffic Safety 

Systems Management Section has evaluated hundreds of countermeasure projects. The 

methodologies used in these evaluations offer various philosophies and ideas, in an effort to 
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

provide objective countermeasure crash reduction results. This information is provided so the 

benefit or lack of benefit for this type of project can be recognized and utilized for future 

projects. As the Safety Evaluation Group completes additional reviews for these types of 

countermeasures, we will be able to provide objective and definite information regarding 

actual crash reduction factors. These evaluations can be found on our website at: 

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety-Evaluation.aspx.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See 

attached 

files
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

Present data showing the general highway safety trends in the state for the past five years. 

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 1466 1347 1328 1226 1277

Number of serious injuries 2773 2479 2283 2365 2278

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.56 1.5 1.45 1.38 1.29

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 3.54 3.14 2.82 2.55 2.37

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2012

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

230 626 0 0

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -

INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 

OTHER FREEWAY

16 66 0 0

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -

OTHER

211 729 0 0

MINOR ARTERIAL 192 665 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

MAJOR ARTERIAL 232 817 0 0

UNKNOWN 273 1052 0 0

UNKNOWN 273 1052 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

808 2772 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

230 626 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

UNKNOWN 273 1052 0 0

UNKNOWN 273 1052 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

The N.C. Department of Transportation is committed to measuring and improving performance. 

The department's Organizational Performance Dashboard, which is featured on NCDOT's web 

page, serves as an indicator of how well we are meeting our mission and goals. One major 

NCDOT goal is "Making our transportation network safer". This is defined as the total number 

of statewide fatalities on NC roads per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for the calendar year 

to date. The fatality rate gauge shown on our Performance Dashboard is accompanied by a 

trend chart of the total number of fatalities, crashes and injuries by year. The Performance 

Dashboard can be found at https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/dashboard/

Many staff members within NCDOT have a work performance metric for highway safety 

included in their year-end appraisal.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 1.43 1.39 1.3 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 1.35 1.21 1.18 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 2.78 2.6 2.47 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

For each year:

Fatal rate = (Number of fatalities for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65) / (Population 

Figure shown in "Section 142: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance")

The numbers shown above are the 5-year rolling average.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Decline in the fatal rates
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Many NCDOT staff member have a performance metric for highway safety listed in their 

year-end appraisal

Other: Other-More systemic programs are being incorporated in the HSIP
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

The use of safety edge is being accepted by highway operations staff as not simply a safety 

enhancement but also a maintenance enhancement. Safety edge will be required on all 

contract resurfacing that is let by the Central and Division offices.

NCDOT has initiated a project to study the impacts of wide edge markings on two-lane rural 

roads.

60% of all highway fatalities in North Carolina are a result of roadway departure crashes. The 

Traffic Safety Systems Section is working with all 14 highway divisions to systemically treat 

hundreds of identified curve locations with enhanced warning signs.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Speed-related 504 0 0 0 42542 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

Alcohol-Involved 439 0 0 0 8750 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

Unbelted Persons 465 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Vehicle/pedestrian 165 0 0 0 1773 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Vehicle/bicycle 21 0 0 0 794 0 0

Improving 

motorcycle safety 

and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

Motorcycle 163 0 0 0 3824 0 0

Making truck travel Commercial Motor 97 0 0 0 2458 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

safer Veh.

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

Run-off-road 842 0 0 0 30673 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Groups of similar project types
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Project evaluation for safety projects can be found at this link.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety-Evaluation.aspx
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Systemic Treatments
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

No evaluations for systemic treatments are available. These types of treatments will be studied at a later date.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

The North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is an organized and systematic 

safety process developed to identify, analyze, investigate and improve potentially hazardous 

locations with concentrations and patterns of correctable crashes. The program is able to 

determine locations that exceed minimum warranting criteria that are based on multiple 

factors that, in most cases, include severity, frequency, and crash type. The program is 

presently structured into six distinct phases:

I. Development of warranting criteria

II. Identification of of potentially hazardous locations meeting minimum warrant criteria

III. Detailed crash analysis of program locations

IV. Engineering field investigation of program locations and evaluation of potential 

recommendations (where appropriate)

V. Project development

VI. Implement countermeasures

VII.Evaluation of countermeasures implemented with HSIP funds

The warrants developed by the Traffic Safety Systems Section (TSSS) have consistently shown 

the ability to identify intersections, sections, and bicycle/pedestrian intersections with severe 

injuries and chronic crash patterns. The Regional Traffic Engineers utilize thorough 

investigations, traffic operations and safety expertise and proven tools such as signal warrant 

studies, sight distance measurements, Crash Reduction Factors and Benefit to Cost analysis to 

ensure to effective projects are developed. Projects are selected through a competitive Benefit to 

Cost based program. Evaluations completed by the Traffic Safety Systems Section have shown 

that the average project yields a 14 to one return.
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

See 

information 

below.

In an attempt to assess the safety of our roads, the Safety Evaluation Group of the Traffic Safety Systems Management Section has 

evaluated hundreds of projects. The methodologies used in NCDOT's evaluations offer various philosophies and ideas, in an effort to 

provide objective countermeasure crash reduction results. This information is gathered so the benefit or lack of benefit for this type 

of project can be recognized and utilized for future projects. As the Safety Evaluation Group completes additional reviews for various 

types of countermeasures, we will be able to provide objective and definite information regarding actual crash reduction factors.

Completed project evaluations can be found at the link below:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety-Evaluation.aspx
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing the Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP&Hazard Elimination Program Projects that 

Received FUNDS IN CY2012.xlsx

Progress in Implementing the Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP&Hazard Elimination Program Projects that 

Received FUNDS IN CY2012.xlsx

Progress in Implementing the Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

High Risk Rural Road Projects that Received FUNDS 

IN CY2012.xlsx
2013 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location 

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data 

are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013. 

Performance measure means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor 

changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.

Programmed funds mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into 

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety 

data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.