Day thomas presentation

Speed Management Action Planning for Randolph County, NC

National Rural Transportation ConferenceRural Transportation Safety

April 24, 2013

Randolph County

• Pop. 142,901 (2011)• 9 Municipalities• Largest: Asheboro - 25,012• Smallest: Seagrove – 228• 10% Hispanic• 82% White Alone• 7% Black

Need for Action - Randolph Crash Trends

Need for Action – Randolph Injury Trends

Need for Action –

Randolph Crash Factors

NC Drivers AdmitFrequency of Driving More than 5 MPH Over the Limit in a 30 MPH Zone Most of the time 22% About half the time 17% Occasionally 46% Never 15% Don’t know/Not sure 1%Yet, a majority, 55%, did not recall having read, seen or heard specific messages or information related to speed enforcement programs

FINAL REPORT, NHTSA-GHSASTATEWIDE TELEPHONE SURVEY (July 12 – 21, 2010)

Benefits of Speed Management Action Plan – Meeting Safety Goals

Use a Systematic Approach to identify and treat problems

Seek solutions through engineering, enforcement, public information and education

Use a Proactive Approach to prevent future problems

Benefits – Coordinate and Amplify Efforts

Benefits – Improve Quality of Life Develop sustainable

program that reflects the community

Reduce injury and associated costs to community

Improve transportation options and livability

Framework of Action Plan

Some of the County’s different types of Streets with crash problems and findings

S Church St – Urban four lane; ~ 3500 vehs. / day

Church/Walker St & high school (signal-control)

Church Street

Church and Wainman

Potential Solution: Convert four lane to two lanes + other uses (e.g. bike lanes/parking)

Expected crash reductions - 20% – 47% in total crashes

Expected crash reductions - 20% – 47% in total crashes

Erwin Road conversion, Durham

Edgewater Dr, Orlando conversion

3.6

1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0In

jury

Rat

e (p

er M

VM

)

Before After

(41 per yr)(41 per yr)

(12 per yr)(12 per yr)

Edgewater Dr, Orlando conversion

Edgewater Dr, Orlando conversion

15.7%

7.5%9.8% 8.9%

29.5%

19.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ve

hic

les

Tra

ve

lin

g o

ve

r 3

6 M

PH

Before AfterBefore BeforeAfter

North End Middle South End

After

SR 2261, Old Liberty Rd

Predominant Crash chars.

Dry surface 78%

Wet 14%

Daylight 65%

Dark, lighted road 25%

Clear or cloudy 90%

At Curve 29%

Predominant Crash types

Rear-end 22%

Angle 14%

Varied other

Liberty Road – Rural to Urban

Old Liberty Road, Ashe. 1500 – 5900 vehicles per day

Liberty Road

Solutions? Some short term geometric and signing

improvements at intersections Potential curve treatments Possible gateway treatments at urban limits Longer term – What is the vision of the street’s

purposes - plan and design accordingly

US 64, Ramseur - Franklinville

8200 – 18,000 vehs per day;193 crashes in five years; higher than average percentage - more severe

US 64 East of Ramseur

Strategic Highway Corridor

Jordan Road/ US 64, Ramseur – What changed?

US 64 in Ramseur – what changed?

What didn’t change?

Potential SolutionsReview speed limits, signing, length of speed

transitions, zonesDifficult to affect the design speed much without

major re-doMedian refuges, lane width reductions in shorter

term Enforce closer to limitEngineering and design improvements at

intersections Lighting

Hoover Hill Rd

Fork Creek Mill Rd

Bull Run Creek Rd

Rural Two-lanes

Enhanced curve delineation

Expected crash reductions - ~ 25% in fatal and injury crashes at treated curves

Expected crash reductions - ~ 25% in fatal and injury crashes at treated curves

Enhanced curve delineation

Larger night-time crash reductions expected

Larger night-time crash reductions expected

Stripe wider edge line on rural roads

Wider edge lines are being tested on rural NC roads now;Total width of road may be a consideration

Wider edge lines are being tested on rural NC roads now;Total width of road may be a consideration

Potential Solutions Review speed limits Safety edge, rumble strips Assess high speed rural intersections

Low-cost slowing treatments – rumbles and paved medians or

Roundabout designs Determine if more extensive upgrades -

realignments, paved shoulders are warranted

Use Roundabout and Mini-roundabout designs for intersection control

Hillsborough Street BID

Controls speeds.Expected crash reductions - ~ 65% - 90% dep. on environment and whether converting from two-way stop control or signal

Controls speeds.Expected crash reductions - ~ 65% - 90% dep. on environment and whether converting from two-way stop control or signal

Small Reductions in Speeds

AASHTO, 2010, Highway Safety Manual, p. 3-57

Can have a largeImpact on safety

Enforcement, Educational, and Policy Solutions

Enhance enforcement presence and conspicuity Lower (default) speed limit

Lower enforcement tolerance

Court adjudication procedures and revenue

Action Plan1. Review Existing Speed Limits for

Different Types of Roadway Corridors and Intersections (Rural v. Urban)• What should be done? 2. Prioritize Curves with Severe

Crashes for Assessment and Systematic Treatment

Action Plan

3. Frame Problem through a Public Information and Education Program

4. Corridor Focused Enforcement Program

Challenges/Next Steps1. How to prioritize what and where

speed management modifications to roadways should occur and how much

2. Develop resources and political will for targeted enforcement and automated speed enforcement and consistent penalties

3. Public buy-in needed for comprehensive speed management program

• Sponsored by Federal Highway Administration, Speed Management Program

• Randolph County Task Force

• Plan Analysis and Support by University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center

Speed Management Action Plan

Guan Xu Guan.Xu@dot.gov

Jesse Dayjday@ptrc.org

Libby Thomasthomas@hsrc.unc.edu