20181598_Att. 24 - Superstreet Benefits and Capac_20160222

Attachment 24
Superstreet Benefits and Capacities
by
Joseph E. Hummer, Ph.D., P.E., Professor,
Rebecca L. Haley, Graduate Research Assistant, and
Sarah E. Ott, Graduate Research Assistant
At
The Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
North Carolina State University
And
Robert S. Foyle, P.E., Associate Director, and
Christopher M. Cunningham, P.E., Senior Research Associate
At
The Institute for Transportation Research and Education
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
For the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Final Report
Project: 2009 — 06
December, 2010

Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA/NC/2009-06
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Superstreet Benetits and Capacities December, 2010
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Dr. Joseph E. Hummer, Rebecca L. Haley, Sarah E. Ott, Robert S. Foyle,
and Christo her M. Cunnin ham
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
North Carolina State University
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No.
208 Mann Hall
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report
Research and Analysis Group August 2008 to August 2010
104 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
2009-06
Supplementary Notes:
l6. Abstract
This research evaluated operational, safety, and perceived effects of superstreets, called restricted crossing U-turn
intersections by FHWA, and developed a useful level of service estimation program which could be used on North
Carolina's urban and rural arterial roadway system. The operational analysis involved calibrating and validating
VISSIM models of three existing signalized superstreets in North Carolina — two isolated intersections, and one five-
intersection superstreet corridor. Results from the three models were compared to results from models of equivalent
conventional intersections at various volume levels using travel time as the main measure of effectiveness. The
superstreet outperformed the conventional intersection at each locarion studied, reducing the overall average travel
time per vehicle traveling through the intersection. The safety analysis involved three separate methods — naive,
comparison-group, and Empirical Bayes. Only unsignalized superstreets were analyzed using the Empirical Bayes
method. Three signalized superstreets were also evaluated using SSAM. The results from the analyses were
inconclusive with signalized superstreets. Unsignalized superstreets, however, showed a significant reduction in
total, angle and right turn, and left turn collisions in all analyses. Analyses also showed a significant reduction in
fatal and injury collisions as well. Resident, commuter, and business perceptions of superstreets were evaluated
using survey data. The perceptions were mixed within each of the three groups, with some positive and some
negative feelings. A LOS program was developed to provide highway capacity and service volumes for superstreets
for use in planning applications. The research outcomes will enable NCDOT to have a better understanding of
superstreet performance, which can lead to cost saving by reductions in collisions and travel time.
17. Key Wards 18. Distribution Statement
Superstreet, restricted crossing U-turn
intersection, level of service, operations,
safety, surveys
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
353
N'orm llU'1' N' 17UU.7 (x-72) Reproducfion of completed page authorized

DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the
North Carolina State University. The authors are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of
the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration at the
time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team acknowledges the North Carolina Department of Transportation for
supporting and funding this project. The team extends our thanks to the current and former
project Steering and Implementation Committee members including:
Jim Dunlop (Chair)
Jay Bennett
Shawn Troy
Denys Vielkanowitz
David Wasserman
Moy Biswas
Joe Chance
Brad Hibbs, FHWA
Reuben Moore
Kumar Neppalli
Shane York
Ernest Morrison
Jaepil Moon
The research team appreciates Mr. Shawn Troy, Mr. Reuben Moore, and Mr. Shane York of
NCDOT for their help with the data collection. The team also thanks Mr. Jim Dunlop, Mr.
David Wasserman and Mr. Ernest Morrison of NCDOT for good communications throughout the
proj ect.
Mr. Doug Cox in the NCDOT quality enhancement unit helped us produce residential and
commuter surveys. The team is very grateful for poug's contribution to this research. Special
thanks are given to Mr. Dale Lighthizer of Michigan DOT who helped with the field data
collection trip. Dr. Bastian Schroeder provided great advice on VISSIM, and Mr. Clint Spivey
was a terrific research assistant early in the project.
Without the help of all the above individuals, the project could not have been completed in such
a successful manner.
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arterials across North Carolina and the United States are operating inefficiently these days. In
urban and suburban areas they are becoming more and more congested due to growing traffic
demands, and in rural and suburban areas they experience far too many collisions. Agencies
tasked with fixing these arterials are running out of good solutions. Superstreets, called
restricted crossing U-turns by the Federal Highway Administration, are a part of a menu of
unconventional arterial designs that may provide a promising solution. Up to this point, there is
little valid information available on the effects of superstreets. Studies have been done analyzing
this new design, but the results are from theoretical analyses, macroscopic analyses, and
simulations of hypothetical arterials. The purpose of this research was to determine the
operational and safety effects of the superstreet treatment on real arterials in North Carolina.
The operational analysis involved calibrating and validating VISSIM models of three existing
signalized superstreets in North Carolina — two isolated intersections, and one five-intersection
superstreet corridor. Results from the three models were compared to results from models of
equivalent conventional intersections at various volume levels using travel time as the main
measure of effectiveness. The superstreet outperformed the conventional intersection at each
location studied, reducing the overall average travel time per vehicle traveling through the
intersection. The travel time savings and extra capacity at higher volumes can buy agencies
more years of good operation before intersection improvements are necessary.
The safety study involved a naive analysis and comparison group (C-G) analysis of rural
signalized and unsignalized superstreets and an Empirical Bayes (EB) method analysis of rural
unsignalized superstreets. The project team also evaluated three signalized superstreets using the
Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) because the VISSIM models were previously
calibrated and validated against travel time. These three methods of analysis were used to find
the effects a superstreet design has on collision frequencies and severities. Signalized
superstreets utilized the naive and GG methods because the NCDOT installed superstreets at
these sites for their congestion problems and not for their safety problems. Based on this fact,
regression-to-the-mean will not have an effect on the collision frequencies which makes the use
of the naive and C-G methods acceptable. Conversely, unsignalized superstreets were installed
for their safety issues and therefore, regression-to-the-mean must be accounted for in the
analysis. The results from analyses are inconclusive with signalized superstreets. Unsignalized
superstreets, however, showed a significant reduction in total, angle and right turn, and left turn
collisions in all analyses. Analyses also showed a significant reduction in fatal and injury
collisions as well.
In addition to the operational and safety analyses, the team conducted three surveys: a residential
survey to gather opinions of drivers that live near a superstreet, a survey to gather opinions of
commuters driving through a superstreet on a daily basis, and a business survey to gather the
perceived effects of superstreets on adjacent businesses. Each of the surveys provided
interesting feedback. Residents living near superstreets had mixed reactions about the ease of
navigation through superstreets compared to typical intersections, but they agree the design helps
them travel more safely through the intersection. Commuting drivers perceived superstreets to
be more difficult to navigate, but felt strongly about savings in travel time and reductions in
iv

numbers of stopped vehicles. Business reactions varied greatly depending on the ability to make
direct left turns from the arterial. In general, more business managers felt superstreets negatively
impacted business growth and operations. Based on the opinions of adjacent business
owners/managers, access and confusion have been identified as key problems in retaining the
number of regular customers and attracting new customers near superstreets. Agencies
contemplating superstreet projects should be aware of these perceptions and try to mitigate the
negative ones if possible.
The existing NCLOS program was modified to include a determination of highway capacity for
superstreets based upon the specific conditions present in North Carolina for use in planning
applications. The NCLOS tool is based upon the methodology and theory already present in the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual, but is geared specifically to North Carolina. The software
program includes a graphical interface that allows for various planning scenarios to be examined
in an efficient, yet accurate manner. Default values are provided for key parameters (such as
saturation flow rate, effective green, etc.) in calculating service volumes and capacity for the
superstreet being examined. However, users are able to change the values in lieu of more
specific or current information for their particular project.
The research outcomes will enable NCDOT to have a better understanding of superstreet
performance, which can lead to cost saving by reductions in collisions and travel time. The
NCDOT can better allocate its limited resources by understanding the best implementation for
signalized and unsignalized superstreets. The results of this research provide the first calibrated
VISSIM models, Empirical Bayes safety analysis, and LOS evaluation for superstreets, which
can help transportation agencies to implement this promising design in an optimal manner.
u

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER.............................................................................................................................. II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................III
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................................................................................................IV
TABLEOF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... VI
LISTOF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... X
LISTOF TABLES .................................................................................................................... XII
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Research Scope .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Outcomes and Benefits ..................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 6
2.0 TRAVEL TIME EXPERIMENT ......................................................................................... 7
2.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Median U-turns ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1.1 Operations ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1.2 Access Management ..................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Superstreets ......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Other Unconventional Intersection Designs ........................................................ 14
2.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Identification and Selection of Sites .................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................... 22
2.2.2.1 Turning Movement Data ............................................................................... 22
2.2.2.2 Travel Time Data .......................................................................................... 23
2.2.23 Free-Flow Speed Data ................................................................................... 24
2.2.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 24
2.2.3.1 Saturation Flow Study ................................................................................... 24
2.2.3.2 Travel Time Comparison of Superstreets and Conventional Intersections .. 24
2.3 Calibration and Validation of VISSIM Models ........................................................... 28
2.3.1 Model Construction ............................................................................................. 28
2.3.2 Model Calibration ................................................................................................ 29
2.3.3 Model Validation ................................................................................................. 32
2.4 Results .............................................................................................................................. 32
2.4.1 Saturation Flow Adjustment Factor for Directional Crossovers ......................... 32
2.4.2 Travel Time Comparison of Superstreets and Conventional Intersections ......... 34
vi

2.4.2.1 Travel Time Comparison .............................................................................. 35
2.4.2.2 Travel Time Effects on the Intersection ........................................................ 53
2.4.2.3 Travel Time Effects on the Arterial .............................................................. 55
2.4.2.4 Travel Time Effects on the Minor Road ....................................................... 56
2.4.2.5 Capacity Check ............................................................................................. 56
3.0 SAFETY ANALYSES ......................................................................................................... 59
3.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 59
3.1.1 Median U-Turns .................................................................................................. 59
3.1.2 Superstreets ......................................................................................................... 60
3.1.3 Access Management ............................................................................................ 64
3.1.3.1 Safety ............................................................................................................ 64
3.1.3.2 Economic Impacts ......................................................................................... 65
3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 66
3.2.1 Selection of Sites ................................................................................................. 66
3.2.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................... 67
3.2.3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 70
3.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 73
3.3.1 Naive Analysis .................................................................................................... 73
3.3.2 C-G Analysis ....................................................................................................... 77
3.3.3 EB Method .......................................................................................................... 83
3.3.3.1 EB Naive ....................................................................................................... 83
3.3.3.2 EB C-G .......................................................................................................... 86
3.3.4 Supplemental Collision Rate Analysis ................................................................ 88
3.3.5 Supplemental Time-of-Day and Mile Post Analysis ........................................... 90
33.5.1 US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive ................................................... 90
3.3.5.2 US-17 and the Leland Corridor ..................................................................... 93
3.3.5.3 US-17 and Lanvale Road .............................................................................. 93
3.3.6 Supplemental SSAM Analysis ............................................................................ 93
4.0 RESIDENT, COMMUTER, AND BUSINESS SURVEYS ............................................. 96
4.1 Resident Survey ............................................................................................................... 96
4.1.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 96
4.1.1.1 Identification and Selection of Sites ............................................................. 96
4.1.1.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 97
4.1.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 98
4.1.3 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 102
vii

4.1.3.1 Signalized vs. Unsignalized ........................................................................ 102
4.1.3.2 Signalized Sites ........................................................................................... 104
4.1.3.3 Unsignalized Sites ....................................................................................... 105
4.2 Commuter Survey ......................................................................................................... 106
4.2.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 106
4.2.2 Results ............................................................................................................... 107
4.2.3 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 111
4.3 Business Survey ............................................................................................................. 113
4.3.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 113
4.3.2 Results ............................................................................................................... 114
4.3.3 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 114
5.0 LOS PROGRAM ...............................................................................................................118
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................124
6.1 Travel Time Experiment .............................................................................................. 124
6.2 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................... 125
6.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey ................................................................ 126
6.4 LOS Program ................................................................................................................ 127
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................128
7.1 Travel Time Experiment .............................................................................................. 128
7.2 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................... 129
7.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey ................................................................ 129
7.4 LOS Program ................................................................................................................ 130
7.5 Future Research ............................................................................................................ 131
7.5.1 Travel Time Experiment ................................................................................... 131
7.5.2 Safety Analysis .................................................................................................. 131
7.5.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey ....................................................... 132
7.5.4 LOS Program ..................................................................................................... 132
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PLAN ............................ 133
8.1 Research Products ......................................................................................................... 133
8.2 Research Products Users .............................................................................................. 133
8.3 Research Products Applications .................................................................................. 134
9.0 CITED REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 135
10.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................139
10.1 Travel Time Experiment .............................................................................................. 139
10.1.1 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................... 139
10.1.2 VISSIM Calibration Parameters ........................................................................ 147
10.1.3 VISSIM Calibration and Validation Results ..................................................... 156
viii

10.2 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................... 159
10.2.1 Site Information ................................................................................................. 159
10.2.2 Crash Data ......................................................................................................... 165
10.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey ................................................................ 323
10.3.1 Resident Survey ................................................................................................. 323
10.3.2 Commuter Survey .............................................................................................. 328
10.3.3 Business Survey ................................................................................................ 331
ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1.1. Superstreet Design ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1. Median U-Turn Design ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.2. Reduced Conflict Intersection Developed by D. Eyler, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
(22) ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.3. US-15/501 at Erwin Rd./Europa Dr. in Chapel Hill, NC .......................................... 17
Figure 2.4. US-421 at Myrtle Gardens Dr./Carolina Beach Rd. in Wilmington, NC .................. 17
Figure 2.5. US-17 at Ploof Rd./Poole Rd. in Leland, NC ............................................................ 18
Figure 2.6. US-17 at Walmart/Gregory Rd. in Leland, NC ......................................................... 18
Figure 2.7. US-17 at Grandiflora Dr./West Gate Dr. in Leland, NC ........................................... 19
Figure 2.8. US-17 at Brunswick Forest Pkwy. in Leland, NC ..................................................... 19
Figure 2.9. US-17 at Lanvale Rd./Brunswick Forest Dr. in Leland, NC ..................................... 20
Figure 2.10. Crossover Types Considered for Saturation Flow Study ........................................ 21
Figure 2.1 L Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — Chapel Hill ..................................... 46
Figure 2.12. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — Wilmington .................................... 47
Figure 2.13. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Ploof/Poole .................... 48
Figure 2.14. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Walmart/Gregory........... 49
Figure 2.15. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Grandiflora/West Gate... 50
Figure 2.16. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Brunswick Forest........... 51
Figure 2.17. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Lanvale Rd ..................... 52
Figure 3.1. US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Road/Wilmont Road Collisions in the Before Period
....................................................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 3.2. Signalized Superstreet and Comparison Site Collisions in the Before Period .......... 80
Figure 3.3. Unsignalized Superstreet and Comparison Site Collisions in the Before Period...... 81
Figure 3.4. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Before Period Collision Diagram.......... 91
Figure 3.5. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive After Period Collision Diagram ............ 92
Figure 4.1. Map of UNGCH and the Superstreet (57) .............................................................. 106
Figure 10.1. Chapel Hill Travel Times ...................................................................................... 139
Figure 10.2. Wilmington Travel Times ..................................................................................... 140
Figure 10.3. Walmart/Gregory on US-17 Travel Times ............................................................ 140
Figure 10.4. Lanvale/Brunswick Forest on US-17 Travel Times .............................................. 141
Figure 10.5. Chapel Hill Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1, Collected on 10/27/2009.. 141
Figure 10.6. Chapel Hill Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2, Collected on 10/27/2009.. 142
Figure 10.7. Wilmington Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1, Collected on 7/17/2009... 142
Figure 10.8. Wilmington Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2, Collected on 7/18/2009... 143
Figure 10.9. Walmart/Gregory onUS-17 Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1, Collected on
7/ 17/2009 .................................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 10.10. Walmart/Gregory onUS-17 Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2, Collected on
7/ 18/2009 .................................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 10.11. Spot Speed Data .................................................................................................. 144
Figure 10.12. Chapel Hill Speed Distribution Curve ................................................................. 145
Figure 10.13. Wilmington Speed Distribution Curve ................................................................ 145
Figure 10.14. US-17 Speed Distribution Curve ......................................................................... 146
Figure 10.15. Lanvale Road Speed Distribution Curve ............................................................. 146
Figure 10.16. Vehicle Inputs for US-15/501 Superstreet in Chapel Hill (vph) ......................... 147
x

Figure 10.17. Vehicle Inputs far US-421 Superstreet in Wilmington (vph) ............................. 147
Figure 10.18. Vehicle Inputs for US-17 Superstreet Corridor in Leland (vph) ......................... 148
Figure 10.19. Speed Distributions ............................................................................................. 148
Figure 10.20. Chapel Hill Conflict Area Parameters ................................................................. 149
Figure 10.21. Wilmington Conflict Area Parameters ................................................................ 149
Figure 10.22. US-17 Conflict Area Parameters ......................................................................... 150
Figure 10.23. Chapel Hill Reduced Speed Areas ...................................................................... 150
Figure 10.24. Wilmington Reduced Speed Areas ...................................................................... 151
Figure 10.25. US-17 Reduced Speed Areas ............................................................................... 152
Figure 10.26. Chapel Hill Desired Speed Decisions .................................................................. 153
Figure 10.27. Wilmington Desired Speed Decisions ................................................................. 153
Figure 10.28. US-17 Desired Speed Decisions .......................................................................... 154
Figure10.28. continued ............................................................................................................. 155
Figure 10.29. Calibration Results by Movement ....................................................................... 156
Figure10.29. continued ............................................................................................................. 157
Figure 10.30. Validation Results by Movement ........................................................................ 158
Figure 10.31. Initial Letter Mailed to Residents Explaining the Survey ................................... 324
Figure 10.32. Cover Letter that Accompanied the Survey Packet ............................................. 325
Figure 10.33. Survey Mailed to Residents Living Near Superstreets ........................................ 326
Figure 10.34. Reminder Letter Mailed to Residents Who had Not Responded to the Initial
Survey......................................................................................................................................... 327
Figure 10.35. Initial Introductory Statement Emailed to UNGCH Faculty and Staff .............. 328
Figure 10.36. Survey Emailed to LTNGCH Faculty and Staff .................................................. 329
Figure10.36. continued ............................................................................................................. 330
Figure 10.37. Reminder Email Sent to Faculty and Staff Who had not Responded to the Initial
Survey......................................................................................................................................... 331
Figure10.38. Business Survey ................................................................................................... 332
Figure10.38. continued ............................................................................................................. 333
Figure10.38. continued ............................................................................................................. 334
xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Summary of Network-Wide Operating MOE (7) ....................................................... 10
Table 2.2. Comparison of the Average Total Travel Time in Different Volume Categories (19)
....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2.3. Signalized Superstreet Sites Selected for Operational Study ..................................... 16
Table 2.4. Crossover Sites Selected for the Saturation Flow Study ............................................ 22
Table 2.5. Achieved Permitted Travel Time Error for All Movements ....................................... 23
Table 2.6. Lane Configurations by Approach for Study Sites ..................................................... 25
Table 2.7. Cycle Lengths for Chapel Hill Superstreet and Conventional Intersections (sec) ..... 26
Table 2.8. Cycle Lengths for Wilmington Superstreet and Conventional Intersections (sec)..... 26
Table 2.9. Cycle Lengths for US-17 Superstreet and Conventional Intersections (sec) .............. 27
Table 2.10. Gap Values Used for Coding Conflict Areas in VISSIM ......................................... 30
Table 2.11. VISSIM Parameters Adjusted in Each Set of Runs During Calibration ................... 31
Table 2.12. Percent Difference in Travel Time (VISSIM — Field Data) from Calibration.......... 31
Table 2.13. Percent Difference in Travel Time (VISSIM — Field Data) from Validation........... 32
Table 2.14. Saturation Flow Adjustment Factors for Directional Crossovers ............................. 33
Table 2.15. Saturation Flow for Directional Crossovers ............................................................. 34
Table 2.16. Achieved Confidence Interval for Travel Time Results ........................................... 36
Table 2.17. Chapel Hill Volumes by Movement (vph) ............................................................... 37
Table 2.18. Chapel Hill Travel Times by Movement (sec) ......................................................... 38
Table 2.19. Wilmington Volumes by Movement (vph) ............................................................... 39
Table 2.20. Wilmington Travel Times by Movement (sec) ......................................................... 40
Table 2.21. US-17 Volumes by Movement (vph) ........................................................................ 41
Table2.21. continued ................................................................................................................... 42
Table 2.22. US-17 Travel Times by Movement (sec) ................................................................. 43
Table2.22. continued ................................................................................................................... 44
Table2.22. continued ................................................................................................................... 45
Table 223. Analysis of Variance for Travel Time, Using Adjusted SS for Tests ....................... 53
Table 2.24. Percent Difference in Average Travel Time Per Vehicle Between Superstreet and
Conventional Intersections ............................................................................................................ 54
Table 2.25. Standard Deviation of Simulated Travel Time by Movement (sec) ......................... 55
Table 226 Critical Sums for Superstreet and Conventional Intersections .................................. 58
Table 3.1. Percent Crash Reduction from NCDOT Spot Studies (32-42) ................................... 62
Table 3.1. continued (32-42) ........................................................................................................ 63
Table 3.2. Sites Selected for the Safety Analysis ........................................................................ 67
Table 3.3. Calculated HSM Calibration Factors .......................................................................... 73
Table 3.4. Number of Collisions per Treatment Site and by Collision Type .............................. 74
Table 3.5. Total Before and After Collisions for Treatment Sites and Comparison Sites........... 75
Table 3.6. Naive Method Results for Individual Superstreets — Total Collisions ....................... 76
Table 3.7. Naive Method Results ................................................................................................. 76
Table 3.8. Odds Ratio Example — Input Data .............................................................................. 77
Table 3.9. Odds Ratio Example - Calculation ............................................................................. 78
Table3.10. Odds Ratio Results .................................................................................................... 79
Table 3.11. C-G Method Example — Total Collisions ................................................................. 81
Table 3.12. C-G Method Results for Individual Superstreets — Total Collisions ........................ 82
xii

Table 3.13. GG Method Results for Signalized and Unsignalized Superstreets ........................ 83
Table 3.14. EB Naive Results for Individual Unsignalized Superstreets .................................... 84
Table 3.15. EB Naive Results for Unsignalized Superstreets ...................................................... 85
Table 3.16. EB Naive Results for Total Collisions with and without US-74 and Red Bank/Old
BalsamCorridor ............................................................................................................................ 85
Table 3.17. Comparison of EB Naive Results for Total Collisions between HSM and Hauer
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 86
Table 3.18. EB C-G Results for Individual Unsignalized Superstreets ....................................... 87
Table 3.19. EB GG Results for Unsignalized Superstreets ........................................................ 87
Table 3.20. EB C-G Results for Total Collisions with and without US-74 and Red Bank/Old
BalsamCorridor ............................................................................................................................ 88
Table 3.21. Collision Rate Comparison by Severity Level (crashes/year) .................................. 89
Table 3.22. Total Number of Conflicts per Site from SSAM ...................................................... 95
Table 3.23. Comparison of After Collisions to SSAM Conflicts ................................................ 95
Table 4.1. Sites Selected for Resident Survey ............................................................................. 97
Table 4.2. Number of Responses from Each Survey Site ............................................................ 99
Table 4.3. Resident Survey Results by Question ....................................................................... 100
Table4.3. continued ................................................................................................................... 101
Table 4.4. Value of d Achieved for the Key Questions ............................................................. 101
Table 4.5. Comparison of Signalized and Unsignalized Survey Responses .............................. 103
Table 4.6. Comparison of Key Survey Question Responses for Signalized Sites ..................... 104
Table 4.7. Comparison of Key Survey Question Responses for Unsignalized Sites ................. 105
Table 4.8. Commuter Survey Results by Question .................................................................... 108
Table4.8. continued ................................................................................................................... 109
Table 4.9. Job Representation .................................................................................................... 110
Table 4.10. Analysis of Survey Responses for Through vs. Non-Through Drivers .................. 112
Table 4.11. Comparison Between UNC-CH Non-Commuters and Residents .......................... 113
Table 4.12. Chapel Hill Business Survey Results ...................................................................... 115
Table 4.13. Chapel Hill Business Survey Comments ................................................................ 115
Table 4.14. US-421 Business Survey Results ............................................................................ 116
Table 4.15. US-421 Business Survey Comments ...................................................................... ll 7
Table 5.1. 2000HCM LOS Boundary Thresholds ..................................................................... 118
Table 5.2. Input Values for Best, Default, and Worst Cases ..................................................... 120
Table 5.3. Multilane Highway General Terrain Values ............................................................. 121
Table 5.4. AADT Capacity for LOS Boundary Thresholds ...................................................... 123
Table 10.1. Comparison Sites .................................................................................................... 159
Table10.1. continued ................................................................................................................. 160
Table 102. Superstreet Dates of Data Collection ...................................................................... 161
Table 103. Superstreet Geometric Details and Milepost Location ........................................... 162
Table 10.4. Superstreet Major Roadway AADTs ...................................................................... 163
Table 10.5. Superstreet Minor Roadway AADTs ...................................................................... 164
Table 10.6. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data .......................................... 167
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 168
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 169
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 170
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 171

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 172
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 173
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin RoadlEuropa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 174
Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data) ....................... 175
Table 10.7. US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data ............................................................ 176
Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data) ........................................ 177
Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data) ........................................ 178
Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data) ........................................ 179
Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data) ........................................ 180
Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data) ........................................ 181
Table 10.8. US-421 and SR-250UCarolina Beach Road Crash Data ........................................ 182
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 183
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 184
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 185
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 186
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 187
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 188
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 189
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 190
Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data) .................... 191
Table 10.9. US-17 and Mt. Pisgah Road/Sellers Road Crash Data ........................................... 192
Table 10.9. continued (US-17 and Mt. Pisgah Road/Sellers Road Crash Data) ........................ 193
Table 10.9. continued (US-17 and Mt. Pisgah RoadlSellers Road Crash Data) ........................ 194
Table 10.10. US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data .................................................... 195
Table 10.10. continued (US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data) ................................ 196
Table 10.10. continued (US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data) ................................ 197
Table 10.11. US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data........ 198
Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 199
Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 200
Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 201
Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 202
Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 203
Table 10.12. US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Road/Wilmont Road Crash Data ......................... 204
Table 10.13. US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Road/SR-1388 Crash Data ...................................... 205
Table 10.14. US-74 and Elmore Road/SR-1321 Crash Data ..................................................... 206
Table 10.15. US-74/76 and Blacksmith Road/SR-1800 Crash Data ......................................... 207
Table 10.16. NG24 and Haw Branch Road/SR-1230 Crash Data ............................................ 208
Table 10.16. continued (NC-24 and Haw Branch Road/SR-1230 Crash Data) ......................... 210
Table 10.17. US-1 and Camp Easter Road/Aiken Road Crash Data ......................................... 211
Table 10.17. continued (US-1 and Camp Easter Road/Aiken Road Crash Data) ...................... 213
Table 10.18. NC-87 and Peanut Plant Road/SR-1150 Crash Data ............................................ 214
xiv

Table 10.18. continued (NC-87 and Peanut Plant Road/SR-1150 Crash Data) ......................... 215
Table 10.19. NC-87/24 and 2"d Street Crash Data ..................................................................... 216
Table 10.19. continued (NC-87/24 and 2"d Street Crash Data) ................................................. 217
Table 10.19. continued (NC-87/24 and 2"d Street Crash Data) ................................................. 218
Table 10.20. NG87 and School Road/Butler Nursery Road Crash Data .................................. 219
Table 10.20. continued (NC-87 and School Road/Butler Nursery Road Crash Data) .............. 220
Table 10.21. NG87 and Grays Creek Church Road/Alderman Road Crash Data .................... 221
Table 10.22. US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data .................................. 222
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 223
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 224
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 225
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 226
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 227
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 228
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 229
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 230
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 231
Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data) ............... 232
Table 10.23. US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data ............................................ 233
Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data) ......................... 234
Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data) ......................... 235
Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data) ......................... 236
Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data) ......................... 237
Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data) ......................... 238
Table 10.24. NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data ................................................................... 239
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 240
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 241
Table 1024. continued (NG 132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 242
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 243
Table 1024. continued (NG 132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 244
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 245
Table 1024. continued (NG 132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 246
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 247
Table 1024. continued (NG 132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 248
Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data) ................................................ 249
Table 1025. NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data ............................................................... 250
Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data) ............................................ 251
Table 1025. continued (NG 132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data) ............................................ 252
Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data) ............................................ 253
Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data) ............................................ 254
Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data) ............................................ 255
Table 10.26. US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data ............................................................ 256
Table 10.26. continued (US-ll 7 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data) ......................................... 257
Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data) ......................................... 258
Table 10.26. continued (US-ll7 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data) ......................................... 259
Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data) ......................................... 260
xv

Table 10.27. US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data .................................................. 261
Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data) .............................. 262
Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data) .............................. 263
Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data) .............................. 264
Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data) .............................. 265
Table 10.28. US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data............ 266
Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 267
Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 268
Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 269
Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 270
Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash
Data) ............................................................................................................................................ 271
Table 10.29. US-17 and NG2ll/Green Swamp Road Crash Data ........................................... 272
Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data .......................... 273
Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NG211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data .......................... 274
Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data .......................... 275
Table 10.30. US-17 and SR-1357/Smith Road Crash Data ....................................................... 276
Table 10.30. continued US-17 and SR-1357/Smith Road Crash Data ...................................... 277
Table 10.31. US-17 and SR-1318/Mintz Cemetery Road Crash Data ...................................... 278
Table 10.32. US-17 and SR-1131/Cumbee Road Crash Data ................................................... 278
Table 10.33. US-17 and SR-ll36/Red Bug Road Crash Data .................................................. 279
Table 10.34. US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data .................................... 280
Table 1034. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 281
Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 282
Table 1034. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 283
Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 284
Table 1034. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 285
Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data) ................. 286
Table 1035. US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data .................................. 287
Table 10.35. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data) .............. 288
Table 1035. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data) .............. 289
Table 10.35. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data) .............. 290
Table 1036. US-23/441 and Mockingbird Lane/Macktown Gap Road Crash Data ................. 291
Table 10.36. continued (US-23/441 and Mockingbird Lane/Macktown Gap Road Crash Data)
....................
Table 10.37.
Table 10.38.
Table 10.39.
Table 10.40.
Table 10.41.
Table 10.41.
Table 10.41.
................................................................................................................................ 292
US-23/74 and SR-1156/Timberlake Road Crash Data ......................................... 293
US-74/441 and Bradley Branch Road/SR-1404 Crash Data ................................ 294
US-74/441 and Wilmont Cemetery Road/SR-1534 Crash Data ........................... 295
US-23/74 and Blanton Branch Road/SR-1709 Crash Data .................................. 296
US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data ......................................... 297
continued (US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data) ...................... 298
continued (US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data) ...................... 299
xvi

Table 10.42.
Table 10.43.
Table 10.44.
Table 10.45.
Table 10.46.
Table 10.46.
Table 10.47.
Table 10.47.
Table 10.48.
Table 10.49.
Table 10.49.
Table 10.50.
Table 10.51.
Table 10.51.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.52.
Table 10.53.
Table 10.54.
Table 10.55.
Table 10.56.
Table 10.56.
Table 10.57.
US-401 and Orlando Street Crash Data ................................................................ 299
NC-214 and Spearman Road/SR-1806 Crash Data .............................................. 300
NG214 and 9th Street Crash Data ........................................................................ 300
NC-24 and Blizzardtown Road/SR-1702 Crash Data ........................................... 301
NG24 and Koonce Fork Road/SR-1238 Crash Data ........................................... 302
continued (NC-24 and Koonce Fork Road/SR-1238 Crash Data) ........................ 303
US-1 and ValleyviewRoad/SR-1857 Crash Data ................................................. 304
continued (US-1 and ValleyviewRoad/SR-1857 Crash Data) .............................. 305
US-1 and Causey Road/Grant Road Crash Data .................................................. 305
NC-87 and SR-1145/Martin Luther King Drive Crash Data ................................ 306
continued (NC-87 and SR-1145/Martin Luther King Drive Crash Data) ............ 307
NC-87 and SR-1155/Cromartie Road Crash Data ................................................ 307
NC-210 and Sth Street Crash Data ....................................................................... 308
continued (NC-210 and Sth Street Crash Data) ..................................................... 309
NG210 and Weaver Street Crash Data ................................................................ 310
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 3ll
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 312
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 313
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 314
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 315
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 316
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 317
continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data) ............................................. 318
NG87 and County Line Road/SR-2257 Crash Data ............................................ 319
NG87 and Tobermory Road/SR-1303 Crash Data .............................................. 319
NC-24 and Downing Road/SR-1834 Crash Data ................................................. 320
NG87 and Wilmington Highway/Doc Bennett Road Crash Data ....................... 321
continued (NC-87 and Wilmington Highway/Doc Bennett Road Crash Data) .... 322
NG87 and Thrower Road1SR-2245 Crash Data .................................................. 322
xvii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Many arterials with four or more lanes in NC and across the US operate very poorly these
days. In suburban areas they are often congested, due in part to growing traffic demands that
probably will continue for some time, and in rural and suburban areas they experience far too
many collisions. Unfortunately, agencies tasked with fixing their arterials do not have many
good solutions available. For suburban arterials, conventional traffic engineering solutions
like actuated signals, turn bays, and signal systems have generally been exhausted. Widening
projects and bypasses are expensive, environmentally disruptive, and may not help
operations much. Flyovers and interchanges are expensive and unpopular with roadside
businesses left in the shadows. Intelligent transportation, transit, demand management, and
other possibilities have not yet proven helpful on arterials. For rural highways, signal
installations, flashing beacons, reduced speed limits, and other conventional measures all
have serious drawbacks.
Superstreets, called restricted crossing U-turns by the Federal Highway Administration, are a
part of a menu of unconventional arterial designs that may provide a promising solution for
arterials. They have the potential to move more vehicles efficiently and safely through the
same arterial pavement as conventional arterials, at-grade, with minimal disruptions to the
surrounding environment and businesses. A superstreet works by redirecting left turn and
through movements from side streets. Instead of allowing those to be made directly through
a two-way median opening, as in a conventional design, a superstreet sends those movements
to a one-way median opening 800 feet or so downstream, as Figure 1.1 shows. Thus, a side
street through movement will be made by a right turn, then a U-turn, then another right turn.
Readers should note that a superstreet is different from the design called a"directional
crossover" in North Carolina, in which one ar both of the U-turn maneuvers is made using a
two-way median opening. Superstreets, outside of North Carolina, are known to exist in
Maryland, Minnesota, and Michigan.
1

Superstreet with direct left turns from the arterial
Superstreet without direct left turns from the arterial
Figure 1.1. Superstreet Design
The results from this redirection are dramatic. Traffic signals now require only two phases
instead of the four or more phases—with green arrows for left turns from both streets--
usually required at a busy two-way median opening. Since every signal phase introduces
extra "lost time" for all motorists, this reduction in phases means significant time savings for
everyone. In addition, the superstreet intersection without direct left turns shown in Figure
l.l has only eight conflict points—places where vehicle streams cross, merge, or diverge—
and the superstreet intersection with direct left turns only has 14 conflict points while a
conventional intersection with a two-way median opening has 32. Since each conflict point
adds another way for a vehicle to get hit, superstreets are likely to be safer.
The most profound change provided by a superstreet in a suburban area is in progression,
which is the ability of vehicles to move along a road at a steady speed hitting one green
signal after another. With a superstreet, the signals that control one direction of the arterial
2

have nothing to do with the signals that control the other direction. This means that a
superstreet will operate like a pair of one-way streets, and that perfect progression is possible
at any speed with any signal spacing. This is an extraordinary capability; conventional
arterials cannot approach this efficiency even with excruciating control of accesses and signal
installations. The ability of a superstreet to control motorist speeds should add to its safety.
Superstreets also provide superb and safe service to crossing pedestrians.
1.1 Research Objectives
Superstreets are a promising new arterial design, but the idea meets resistance when proposed
in some places. Business owners and land owners are concerned about less direct access,
developers are concerned about higher signal equipment costs, and emergency officials are
concerned about indirect movements of their vehicles, for eXample. Motorists, who would
enjoy the presumed safety and travel time benefits from superstreets, are a"silent majority"
whose voices could get drowned out by the concerns of these other more vocal groups. The
NCDOT needs valid and local information on the benefits and capacities of superstreets to
represent this silent majority, answer the concerns of the vocal groups, and make the best
decisions for all stakeholders when superstreets are proposed.
One objective of this project was to fill this information gap and determine whether
superstreets are producing safety and operational benefits for motorists in North Carolina. In
rural areas, such as on US-23 and US-74 near Waynesville, superstreets have been in place
long enough on large enough stretches of highway to provide a good look at changes in
safety. In suburban areas such as US-17 in Brunswick County, the project team investigated
safety and delay, using sophisticated traffic models to simulate what conditions would be
with a conventional boulevard design. In both rural and suburban areas, the project team also
conducted surveys of local officials, business owners, shoppers, motorists, and other
stakeholders to gather opinions on the effects of the superstreet design.
This project also filled a critical need far a capacity and level of service methodology for
superstreets. The potential problems lie in two areas. First, there are questions about the
saturation flow rates—the basic building blocks of a capacity calculation--far the various
types of U-turn crossovers. To this point, analysts looking at superstreets are using default
saturation flow rates in their macroscopic procedures or microscopic simulation models. No
one has calibrated those models for superstreets. Some work has been done on capacities of
U-turns but superstreet crossovers are different from U-turns on conventional roads. The
NCDOT needs valid saturation flow rates for five types of crossovers:
• U-turn unopposed (shown above in Figure 1.1),
• U-turn unopposed and left turn,
• U-turn opposed,
• U-turn opposed and left turn, and
• Left turn (shown above in Figure 1.1).
Valid saturation flow values are the building blocks to help solve the second problem, which
is putting a capacity and level of service estimate together for an entire superstreet
intersection. A superstreet essentially breaks up a large conventional intersection into four
3

small intersections. Analysts can use conventional techniques to estimate the capacity and
level of service for these pieces, but no one has tried to assemble the pieces into a single
overall estimate of capacity and level of service for the entire intersection, including
consideration of the outstanding mainline progression and the extra travel times some
vehicles experience in completing their maneuvers.
This research has updated the NC LOS program to include a capability to estimate capacity
and level of service for superstreets. Co-PI Foyle helped develop the NC LOS program (1)
currently being used by several units within NCDOT. It is a unique, visual display of the
Highway Capacity Manual methodologies for freeways, multilane highways, arterials, and
two-lane highways. The program creates a graphical plot of LOS against AADT based on
default, boundary and user inputs, and has output reports and linking capabilities to
TransCAD. Another module can be added to this very intuitive and user-friendly software.
1.2 Research Scope
The scope of this research is the effect of superstreets on North Carolina motorists.
Superstreets affect safety, travel time and delay, and stakeholder opinion. The operational
analysis produced an overall intersection capacity estimate and a revision to the NC LOS
program.
Two main sources of data have been pursued in this research. The first source of data was
field and video-collected data for the travel time experiment. This included travel time runs,
free flow speeds, saturation flow studies, and origin-destination movements. The second
source of data was the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS) software for
the safety analysis. TEAAS is the primary tool used by the NCDOT to analyze and report on
crashes within North Carolina.
The extent of the data collection activity of this research is tremendous compared to similar
research reported in the literature. The relatively large data sets enabled us to evaluate the
impacts of superstreets and to create high-quality travel time models.
Though the team followed typical calibration and safety procedures, readers should note that
the direct results of this research (such as the travel time calibrated models or the safety
results) may not be directly applicable to other geographic regions of the US and other
countries. The readers in other geographic regions could use the methodologies and
procedures presented here, but, they may need to use their own data and draw conclusions
based on the data collected in their region.
1.3 Outcomes and Benefits
The results of the travel time experiment showed that all three signalized superstreets, which
included two isolated intersections and one iive-intersection corridor, performed better than
the corresponding conventional intersections when comparing the average travel times per
vehicle. The largest travel time savings occurred at the peak, peak+l0%, and peak+20%
demand levels.
0

With the superstreet reducing overall travel time through the intersection at peak periods and
higher, the design can buy an agency more years after the conventional intersection hits
capacity. Using the critical sum as a capacity check, the superstreet was able to provide more
capacity beyond what the conventional intersection could provide when it reached high
demand levels in these three cases. When agencies are looking to make intersection
improvements along their corridors, the superstreet can give them more capacity and at the
same time reduce travel time, therefore adding more years to the intersections' useful lives
before having to make additional improvements, and thus saving money.
The safety analyses of signalized superstreets did not provide a clear result. Each site we
examined had unique characteristics that affected its analysis. The US-15/501 superstreet
was affected by spillback from a downstream intersection; the US-17 superstreets were
implemented with signals and with a large development that significantly influenced traffic
volume and safety; and the US-421 superstreet has flashing yellow arrows for major left
turns and U-turns which no other signalized superstreet uses. The SSAM analysis for
signalized sites was also difficult because we coded our VISSIM models to produce travel
time results, and this was not optimal for a realistic safety model.
Unsignalized superstreets showed unambiguously a significant reduction in total, angle and
right turn, and left turn collisions in all analyses. Analyses also showed a significant
reduction in fatal and injury collisions as well.
The significant collision reduction from unsignalized superstreets is important because it
shows the strong success of NCDOT superstreet application. The cost savings to taxpayers
from this collision reduction will be enormous. Additionally, the NCDOT can use the
information to justify their design decisions to local citizens and business owners.
Each of the survey types provide interesting feedback. Residents living near superstreets
have mixed reactions about the ease of navigation through superstreets compared to typical
intersections, but agree that the design helps them travel more safely through the intersection.
Commuting drivers perceive superstreets to be more difficult to navigate, but feel strongly
about savings in travel time and reductions in numbers of stopped vehicles. Business
reactions varied greatly depending on the ability to make direct left turns from the arterial. In
general, more business managers feel superstreets negatively impact business growth and
operations. Based on the opinions of adjacent business owners/managers, access and
confusion have been identified as key problems in retaining the number of regular customers
and attracting new customers near superstreets. Agencies contemplating superstreet projects
should be aware of these perceptions and try to mitigate the negative ones if possible.
The benefits from this research should easily extend beyond the borders of North Carolina. It
is our hope that the benefits documented here would inspire analysts worldwide to also
consider superstreet alternatives in confidence, much as the publication of solid research
results on the safety of roundabouts in the late-1990s boosted confidence in that design. The
NCDOT and its motorist customers should enjoy a huge savings in construction, collision,
and delay costs in the future due to superstreets. The construction savings will come from
selecting a superstreet on an arterial rather than interchanges, which have become extremely
�

expensive over the past few years. The collision savings could be substantial, especially in
leading to less severe collisions. The prevention of an injury collision that would have
occurred at an unsignalized two-way median opening would save North Carolina citizens an
average of $100,000. The delay savings will be from motorists cruising through a superstreet
with minimal signal delay. A one-mile long superstreet design on a busy arterial that saves
motorists an average of one minute each during peak periods over a conventional boulevard
could easily add up to $1,000,000 per year in total savings. This delay savings would also
mean lower fuel consumption, better air quality, and other environmental benefits.
1.4 Report Organization
The remainder of the report is organized into chapters that present each of the major analyses
performed during this project. Chapters 2 and 3 introduce the travel time experiment and
safety analyses. Chapter 4 presents the resident, commuter, and business surveys. Chapter 5
discusses the NC LOS program. Chapters 6 and 7 present conclusions and recommendations
for each major analysis, and Chapter 8 presents technology transfer plans of the research
project. Chapters 9 and 10 are references and appendices for the report.
�

2.0 TRAVEL TIME EXPERIMENT
2.1 Literature Review
The literature review for this section addresses operational studies on both superstreets and
median U-turns. An important part of the superstreet concept is the use of directional median
U-turns, which is why it is important to include median U-turns in the literature review.
Most of the studies on median U-turns give similar results showing that the design decreases
average total delay at an intersection and reduces the number of conflict points and
collisions. There are fewer studies available on superstreets. Most of the studies on
superstreets are based on macroscopic analyses and simulations of hypothetical arterials.
211 Median U-turns
Median U-turns are similar to the superstreet in that both designs eliminate left turns from the
minor road to the arterial and send them instead to downstream directional U-turn crossovers.
The difference between the median U-turn intersection and the superstreet is that the median
U-turn allows through movements from both the arterial and minor road at the main
intersection. No left turns from the arterial to the minor road are allowed at the main
intersection, which operates with a two-phase signal. Figure 2.1 shows a diagram of the
median U-turn design.
Figure 2.1. Median U-Turn Design
There is a large variety of literature on median U-turns. The studies of interest to this project
include operational research for signalized intersections, as well as access management
studies. Some of the research topics include capacity of U-turns at unsignalized and
signalized openings, and travel time efficiency of inedian U-turns.
7

2.1.1.1 Operations
Al-Maseid (2) conducted a study on capacity of U-turns at median openings using two
different methods: empirical and gap-acceptance. The U-turn capacity model showed strong
correlation between conflicting traffic flow and average total delay. The gap-acceptance
model showed that critical gap varied according to average total delay and speed of
conflicting traffic flow. Both models yielded similar results for high and low conflicting
traffic volumes. The differences between the models were not significant at the 95%
confidence level so he concluded that both models give similar capacity results. Al-Maseid
noted that it is important to consider the delay effect on gap acceptance because drivers
change behavior the longer they have to wait, therefore accepting smaller gaps.
Liu et al (3) also performed a study on capacity of U-turns at median openings. Their study
was conducted on multilane highways in the Tampa Bay, Florida area. They predicted that
the factors affecting U-turn capacity would be major street traffic volume in the direction of
conflict, the critical gap for U-turn movements, and the follow up time for U-turn
movements. Results showed that U-turns at narrow median openings have a larger critical
gap than those at wide medians, and that median size can greatly affect the capacity - wide
medians were found to have up to 268 pc/h greater capacity than narrow medians. The major
street traffic volume was also a major factor — U-turn capacity decreased at a faster rate than
the capacity of a left turn movement from a major street when the major street volume
increased.
The Michigan Department of Transportation is a frequent user of directional crossovers on
their boulevards to relieve capacity problems that are associated with interlocking left turns
in bi-directional crossovers. Maki reported on this strategy (4); at the time (1996) Michigan
had over 425 miles of boulevards with 700 directional crossovers in their state highway
system. A capacity analysis showed a 20-50% capacity improvement, although it is not clear
in the report what volumes this applies to, or how many sites were analyzed. The measures
of effectiveness (MOEs) used for the operational analysis were network total time and left
turn total time in the network. The network consisted of six intersections. It was found that
even though left-turning vehicles would have to travel a longer distance, that extra travel
time was offset by delay savings at the intersection (compared to direct left turns), which is
similar to findings from other papers. Since this analysis was done on a network of six
intersections, it is possible that smaller netwarks with one, two or three intersections would
yield different results.
Dorothy et al performed a study (5) that compared a five-lane highway with a two-way left
turn lane (TWLTL) to a four-lane highway with a median (boulevard design). The measures
of effectiveness used were network total time (total time vehicle spends in the network which
includes delay and travel time), and left turn total time (time it takes to make a left turn as a
combination of delay and travel time). All analysis was done using TRAF-NETSIM
computer simulation and modeling. Results showed that the boulevard design with indirect
left turns and signalized crossovers had best results for both total network time and left turn
total time. Boulevards with direct left turns had the highest amount of delay. Hummer and
Boone's study on unconventional arterial intersection designs for NCDOT (6) compared the
travel efficiency of the median U-turn, continuous green T, and the NCSU bowtie
:

intersections to conventional intersections. They used Traf-Netsim 4.0 far network
simulation which was calibrated using field data from Michigan, Florida and Maryland. The
MOEs were total travel time and number of stops. The median U-turn was most effective
with higher through volumes and left turns. The relative efficiency varied with the through
volume. The median U-turn overall led to more travel time and stopped delay for left-turning
vehicles than the standard intersection.
Bared and Kaisar (7) performed a study investigating the operational benefits of inedian U-
turns for left-turning vehicles. They compared a typical intersection (four lanes intersecting
four lanes) to a median U-turn design. Their median U-turn design implemented U-turns for
the left-turning vehicles on the major road and direct left turns within the intersection for
vehicles on the minor road, which is opposite from a typical superstreet. CORSIM was used
for model simulation and TRANSYT-7F was used for signal optimization. Average network
travel time became noticeably better for the median U-turn design for entering flows upwards
of 6000 vph. Bared and Kaisar also found that the average proportion of vehicles that stop in
the network is 20-40% lower for the U-turn design; however, stopping time is higher for the
U-turning vehicles by 10-18 s/veh because they are likely to stop at both the main
intersection and the left turn bay downstream. The significance of the results could have
been greater if the models were calibrated with field data and if a series of intersections was
used instead of an isolated intersection.
Henderson and Stamatiadis (8) conducted a study on how median U-turns improve traffic
flow along arterials. Their study implemented median U-turns on a major arterial in
Lexington, Kentucky to see how it would help relieve congestion. They looked at both the
bowtie and superstreet designs before deciding that the median U-turn would be more
appropriate given the geometry of the road in an effort to keep construction time and cost at a
minimum. Modeling was done using TSIS and CORSINI, while TRANSYT-7F was used for
signal optimization. A p.m. peak hour travel time study validated the models. The
researchers implemented median U-turns at intersections with high left turn volumes and
high delays. The computer simulation had the following system-wide effects from the
median U-turns: increased speed, decreased average and total delay time, and an increase in
move/total time ratio, therefore increasing the efficiency of the network. Peak hour travel
times were reduced by 32% and delays were reduced by 35%. They also ran a simulation
that widened the arterial to three instead of two lanes in each direction, but the median U-turn
efficiency remained superior. Table 2.1 is a summary of the network-wide operating
measures of effectiveness.
�

Table 2.1. Summary of Network-Wide Operating MOE (7)
Move/Total System Total Average delay
time �mph) ( eh-hr) �min/veh-trip)
Existing Conditions 0.35 15.4 855 3.40
SignalOptimization 0.36 16.2 842 3.22
Additional Lane 0.41 17.8 703 2.65
U-turns' 0.41 17.8 647 2.45
U-turnsZ 0.44 19.0 583 2.19
U-turns & Additional Lane 0.47 20.8 498 1.85
Note:
1. At four intersections
2. At six intersecrions
Thakkar et al (9) conducted a study to evaluate the impacts of prohibiting median opening
movements. The factors that were investigated included: impacts on adjacent intersection
operations, median opening/driveway operations, arterial weaving operations, overall system
operations, rerouted motorist's convenience, safety, cost-benefit value, and public
acceptance. The investigators made the case that preventing left turns at a median opening or
driveway would shift the traffic to the nearest intersection, which would in turn decrease the
operation level due to heavier U-turn traffic volumes. This would not necessarily be the case
for superstreets since a designated directional crossover is built into the design, and would
theoretically be able to handle the volume of traffic needing to make U-turns to switch
directions.
2.1.1.2 Access Management
The TRB Access Management Manual (10) presented studies done across the country
indicating that raised medians have little to no overall adverse impact on surrounding
businesses. In Kansas, changes in traffic patterns did not cause a change in use in the
abutting businesses. In Texas, the perception of the median installation by business owners
prior to construction is usually worse than reality. Also, "accessibility to store" is usually
ranked lower than customer service, quality of product, and product price by business owners
when asked what factors were important in attracting customers.
Similar results were found in a study done by the Texas Transportation Institute (11)
addressing the economic impacts of raised medians. This four-year study was done at eleven
locations to assess the effects prior, during, and after construction of raised medians.
Through surveys and interviews with business owners and customers, the researchers found
that the only major adverse impact raised medians have is during the construction phase. For
businesses that were present before, during, and after construction, property value increased
by 6.7 percent after the construction of the raised median compared to the befare conditions,
while owners thought they would experience a decrease in value. The duration of
construction typically lasted one to two years, with construction dates between 1979 and
1998 for all study locations. As with other studies, accessibility is ranked lower in
10

importance for destination businesses, and slightly higher for pass-by businesses such as gas
stations. Overall, the study concludes that there is no negative economic impact caused by
raised medians.
21.2 Superstreets
Richard Kramer (12) first developed the superstreet concept in the 1980s as a way to
alleviate congestion on arterials. While the concept was new, the techniques he used were
not. Kramer listed ten "dream" characteristics of ideal operations on an arterial, with the
major focus on the importance of giving through traffic priority. The ten characteristics are
as follows:
L Its three or four lanes in each direction of travel would receive a minimum of
two-thirds to three-fourths of the signal cycle as green time at all intersections
encountered along its entire length.
2. Each direction of travel would be signalized for progressive movement so that
traffic would simultaneously flow as smoothly in each direction as if it were
two parallel one way streets.
3. Thru traffic would be protected (by signalization) from conflicting left turns
from the opposing direction.
4. Direct left turns would be provided from the arterial at frequent intervals, and
would be protected by signalization from conflicting thru traffic movements
from the opposing direction.
5. The facility would accommodate all maneuvers of increased truck sizes and
combinations allowable under the 1982 STAA.
6. Pedestrians crossing this arterial would be provided protected signal phasing
and be free from (lawful) conflict with any vehicular traffic crossing their
path; and the spacing of pedestrian crossing would be so convenient as to
discourage pedestrian crossing at unprotected locations.
7. The facility would also provide for transit operations that would not impede
thru traffic movement at any bus stop.
8. Transit bus operations would be enhanced by providing stops at all convenient
locations in close proximity to protected pedestrian crossings.
9. The geometric design of the facility would accommodate the infusion of
additional major traffic generators with minimal adverse affect to the road
user; i.e., thru traffic could continue to receive a minimum of two-thirds to
three-fourths of the signal cycle as arterial green time.
10. Signalization timing and offset programs for this arterial would be
independently variable for each direction to take into account changes in
traffic volumes, provide for special event (stadium) traffic, and accommodate
an uninterrupted flow for emergency vehicles having on-board pre-emption
equipment.
These characteristics provide the foundation for the superstreet design, which results in
perfect signalized progression. Each direction of the arterial acting as independent one-way
streets allows the flexibility to change progression speed, cycle lengths, and signal spacing in
either direction while still maintaining optimal progression along the corridor.
11

Hummer (13) in 1998 presented seven unconventional alternatives for intersections that
focus on left turns to and from the arterial. The two major points of the designs are to reduce
delay for through traffic and decrease the number of conflict points. Both the median U-turn
and superstreet are presented in this paper. While the paper does not include any quantitative
studies, data, or analysis, it does present the designs with a description, variations, history,
advantages, disadvantages, and when to consider each alternative. Since the superstreet
design is closely related to the median U-turn design, it is not surprising that similar
advantages and disadvantages are listed for both options. Both designs are said to operate
best with low to medium left turn volumes from the minor street. The median U-turn can
handle more minor street through traffic than the superstreet, but the superstreet can handle
more left turns from the arterial. The superstreet also has the advantage of "perfect
progression" in both directions at any time with any intersection spacing.
Hummer (14) also wrote a chapter on superstreets in an information report by the FHWA on
non-traditional intersections and interchanges. The chapter covers all aspects of the
superstreet design, including operations, safety, signalization treatment, pedestrian
accommodations, and access management considerations. VISSIM was used to assess the
operational performance of five geometric design cases, where 90 unique simulations were
done for both superstreet and comparable conventional intersections. When the ratio of
minor road volumes compared to total intersection volumes is small (less than 0.25),
simulation results show that superstreets have higher intersection capacities and shorter travel
times than conventional intersections. Pedestrians are accommodated better in low to
medium volume traffic scenarios.
Kim, Edara, and Bared (15) conducted a study on the operation and safety performance of
the superstreet. The study analyzed three scenarios of the superstreet design — one left lane
and two through lanes on major road, one left lane and three through lanes on major road,
and two left lanes and three through lanes — and compared them to the conventional
intersection. Using VISSIM to run various traffic flows, the researchers came up with ideal
volumes where a superstreet would function better than a standard intersection. Those
volumes were 260-340 veh/h/ln for left turn traffic and 900-1150 veh/h/ln for through traffic
on the major road with one left turn lane and two to three through lanes. It is important to
keep in mind that this analysis was done without collecting field data to calibrate the models
or check the numbers.
Reid and Hummer (16) conducted an experiment comparing travel time efficiency of inedian
U-turns to two-way left turn lanes and superstreets. The tests were done using CORSIM with
real traffic volumes and geometry from a median U-turn arterial in Detroit, ML Four time
periods were tested — AM peak, noon, midday, and PM peak. The superstreet proved better
than the TWLTL in mean speed for all four time periods and total system time for the peak
periods; however it had the highest mean stops far all time periods compared to both the
TWLTL and median U-turn. The superstreet was inferior to the median U-turn for all four
time periods in all three categories — total system time, mean stops per vehicle, and mean
speed. At first glance it seems that the median U-turn is superior to the superstreet, but it is
important to remember that the volumes used were based on an existing median U-turn
12

arterial with high cross street through volumes. Superstreets are not designed to handle high
cross street volumes, as their primary function is to serve the through vehicles. The results
from this experiment were restated in another paper by Hummer and Reid (17) on
unconventional left turn alternatives for urban and suburban arterials.
Another study by Reid and Hummer (18) compared travel times between seven
unconventional arterial intersection designs, which included both the median U-turn and
superstreet. The study obtained actual data from seven high-volume, conventional
intersections in North Carolina and Virginia and used them to construct traffic models in
CORSIM. For each simulation model the number of lanes, signal timing parameters, design
speeds, turn bay lengths and driver characteristics were all kept constant. Three volume
levels were used: peak afternoon, 15% greater than peak afternoon, and midday (off-peak).
The use of the off-peak volumes makes this study noteworthy since they take into
consideration that designers will want to know how the unconventional design performs at all
times of the day, not just the peak period. Results showed that while the conventional design
had the fewest amount of stops, at each type of intersection analyzed there was at least one
unconventional design that had a lower travel time. Superstreets only proved better than the
conventional design at intersections with two-lane cross streets, although superstreets were
still optimal for two-way progression.
Lu and Liu (19) conducted a study on the operational evaluation of right turns followed by
U-turns in which they developed travel time regression models for right turn U-turns (RTUT)
at both signalized intersections and unsignalized median openings. Data were collected from
sixteen four-lane arterial sites in Florida. The sites were selected based on the following
criteria: raised median with full or directional opening big enough to safely store vehicles,
four lanes of through traffic (two in each direction), speed limit of 40 mph or higher,
driveway with either two lanes (one for right turn and one for left turn) or shoulder flare so
the two movements do not interfere, high RTUT and direct left turn (DLT) volumes, median
width wide enough to store left turn vehicles, and downstream signal with exclusive left turn
lane and protected left turn phase. The travel time regression models developed were based
on RTUT flow rate, length to downstream intersection, and percent split in upstream through
traffic. Table 2.2 shows the comparison of the average total travel time far different volume
categories for a RTUT at a signalized intersection (sig), a RTUT at a median opening (med),
and a direct left turn. The model, however, does not take deceleration or acceleration into
consideration, and it does not take the vehicle through the entire length of the intersection.
13

Table 2.2. Comparison of the Average Total Travel Time in Different Volume
Categories (19)
Traffic Volume (vph) Average Travel Time (sec)
Through Left turn/U-turn RTUT (sig) RTUT (med) DLT
Volume volume
1000-1999 vph 101.2 48.1 22.2
2000-2999 vph 0-49 vph 114.1 53.3 28.8
3000-3999 vph 115.2 74.3 40.5
>— 4000 vph N/A N/A 49.7
1000-1999 vph 116.7 50.8 22.8
2000-2999 vph 122.6 55.1 32.2
>= 50 vph
3000-3999 vph 114.7 64.2 40.8
>= 4000 vph 111.4 72.6 48.7
Notes-- Through Volume: the major road through traffic volume in both directions of the arterials;
N/A: no data points in the specific category
A paper presented at the 3`d Urban Street Symposium by Hummer et al (20) explores the
capacity and progression of superstreets. To find intersection capacity they used the HCM
critical lane volume method but with modifications for the superstreet. Adjustments to the
ideal saturation flow rate were made for trucks, and an average saturation headway of 2.1
seconds was used to calculate a new base critical lane capacity of 1587 pcu/hr/ln. Lane
volumes were also adjusted to account for the slower speeds of turning movements. The
authors created an Excel spreadsheet to check demand against capacity. While they
recommend this procedure as a good starting tool for planners and traffic engineers to
determine the feasibility of a superstreet intersection, it does have limitations since it does
not address delay or travel times. FHWA recently released an alternative intersection
selection tool (21) that builds upon this concept using the critical lane volume as a
comparable method to determine capacity at conventional and unconventional intersections,
including the superstreet.
Hummer et al (20) also researched the effects of progression speed on total travel time and
total delay. A Synchro model was built representing the first superstreet opened on US-17 in
Brunswick County, NC. Existing intersection spacing was used; however assumptions and
simplifications were made for traffic volumes and geometry. Different scenarios were run
involving different levels of entering volumes, turning volumes, and progression speed, for a
total of 32 model runs. The results showed total delay staying approximately constant across
varying speeds, while travel time changes with speed. It also showed that the impact of
additional through vehicles is less than the impact of additional turning movements and side
street volumes. This study could be expanded by using the actual geometry from the site in a
model and comparing how it performs against the model with the simplified geometry.
2.1.3 Other Unconventional Intersection Designs
There are other unconventional intersection designs in place with similar concepts to the
superstreet. One of those is the reduced conflict intersection (RCI), developed by Denny
Eyler (22). The RCI prohibits direct left and through movements from the minor street,
14

similar to the superstreet. The minor street through and lefts essentially do a two-stage
crossing, first crossing one direction of traffic, but then travel away from the "center" of the
intersection to cross the other direction. Figure 2.2 shows a layout of the RCI.
Part time signal control
Light traffic; rest in circular
greens, left turns must yield
- - - ± - - - - - _ - -
- _ _I _ _� _' _ i}h9�_ _ - -
_ ��
Part time signal control
Light traffic; yellowlred flash
SRF
- - - _ �.r7_=_� _
� � - _ - _ _ _ _ J - _ _
_--L _ _ e � , ' _ . _ - - - - _ _ _
1
,r ,
''�� , '
� �
Part time signal control
Light traffic; rest in circular
� greens, left turns must yield
Figure 2.2. Reduced Conflict Intersection Developed by D. Eyler, SRF Consulting
Group, Inc. (22)
Demand-based signal controls are used to help guide traffic efficiently when excessive
queues or delays are detected. A partial RCI was built on US 169 near Mankato, Minnesota.
Currently there have not been any studies done on the operational affects of reduced conflict
intersections.
2.2 Methodology
This section describes the methodology used for the operational analysis conducted for this
research project. The operational analysis involved conducting a saturation flow study at
directional crossovers and simulating three superstreets in North Carolina and comparing
them to the equivalent conventional intersection. This section describes the process behind
the site selection, data collection, and data analysis.
2.2.1 Identification and Selection of Sites
The sites selected for the operational study were taken from a list that included all operating
signalized superstreets in North Carolula. The criteria for selection were signalization on all
legs of the intersection and at each crossover location. Unsignalized sliperstreet sites, also
referred to as directional crossovers, were not analyzed in the operational study because they
are generally implemented in rural areas as a safety countenneasure. There are currently four
exisring signalized superstreet sites in North Carolina. Three of these sites were selected for
15

the study and are listed below in Table 2.3. Figures 2.3 through 2.9 show aerial photos of the
study sites and the distances to the U-turn crossovers. The only site not chosen for this study
was a corridor on US-17 in Pender and New Hanover counties. This site was eliminated
because of low volumes along the minor roads.
Table 2.3. Signalized Superstreet Sites Selected for Operational Study
Arterial No. of Cross Street(s) Location
Intersections
US-15/501 1 Erwin Rd./Europa Dr. Chapel Hill, NC
US-421 1 Myrtle Gardens Dr./Carolina Beach Rd. Wilmington, NC
US-17 5 Ploof Rd./Poole Rd. Leland, NC
Gregory Rd./Walmart entrance
West Gate Dr./Grandiflora Dr.
BrLinswick Forest Pkwy
Lanvale Rd./Brunswick Forest Dr.
16

� ■ Iti � � ' �. ' � �� " "' --.. . -'��.�'P !► a �
�.
� . _ � L -^� T r' .�r-E�_. - ��4
�.� �� �. �� d 1 . - ' _ _,�� -- ,.
� . r
� � ' � r� �� � � " ���
� � �, k ' �' - a�' I�+� • ' { '� � � i'� i-- � �.�. � _ �. �' � •,- `��, �..p � -
� 1_ �,�'!� �L�'� _ � � �
'. � „ �.� ,- ^' . � _ . � f.. _ _ �l } .. , ��f`) �,i� I '�r�..a"I�.t• - • � �-�-� __�_�� ,.._��a",. � 4.� »�' .
_ h �����,�... �.+� -':-�..t R � � I
r.�� < � - . ' ' � ; � � � �-��� _ w
�.�_.+ �. '4 - ' .-�-a..-." ,� �, a,"_�.,..t
� ' � 4 r - �-� �i�; -r _ � _ r : , � � � _ _
§ � �,� -9 - - � « �
,� �. y -.�. �_„�'. � �� it ��
� ,4 . -
�. \s �, ' r � � �'' ` ' . . �' � � t� � � •� � -
:� - . ,�.- r ' - • �� , � �� 4
� s' `+4 _ y�,�— '� � I t -
� �i,.��- � �� � •.,� ♦ ♦ '��,
.1i � � r�" - � + . - �F'��� ' --x -� ��
l�iL �
�M' . . ■ �►' _ . � ``�i' i i F .: �' ' �� ,�' +�B � � ' 1 �� � ��� .-
Figure 2.3. US-15/501 at Erwin Rd./Europa Dr. in Chapel Hill, NC
�,. �` � — � � r# ��i� i��� : J _ - � �—�'' .-
; ,�" a4+� ' � z= �, ,� �ar�fina �each F�d. -_. r�
; _ ""' �'� _ F, ,- ,�� �� • ��.,� �s� � } .�_�� �._1
� � "t -� _ � . � � ' � �: � 8'��' -� �
}�«''�':'�r"� `�?! a a. �`i �'�i ` � a"� � r.�...��--�'�""� '� - � �
"�a'f•�� �'��� '' � �M i -- , --���� � � �a� F ; ` _ � �5 e! c _ -' v� i
�_ w �1 { . . �--
�,�-i . �,hry"�r�.'^ �/w^•� d�� �s,}*�•.;'F__�e +�►rf . _ _ ' � � �I's;� f-� 1� a-E _ � ..� N � l�q`�.` � _
t– �.d� �J''iid;'�� ° -� -� _ �. � " - ` ��" '—� .. ` � �. � �1�� +'R �• �A � �`.� r�� u� � {.
_ _
� . . � x .
� y�
. > � �� ^ "� s � �� ;�4 +�;s�. � '!�s 7iT�'� �' � � 1(�'►r�a� F .. � � . . � � r .
- �. � , � . i+� � �,� � � ,� �
.,�► ` a r � �s � r e �
.,,�
Figure 2.4. US-421 at Myrtle Gardens DrJCarolina Beach Rd. in Wilmington, NC
17

"'- ..e .��;��� --� ��„-. � ".�� -
� Pc�ale F�d.
�
IF + ` � .A - . j�3'� ' r
'� i
� ��i}p�-' �
�_ . _.. , � -
.-� _ — _ "__ _ �
� +P4 �
� t� � . ' � ' +R, �, ���Q .� r
'• . ,
� �''�'� _ __ - � � --. �
'�� �— _ �-_ - - �
4` �
_ _ "� � e
:i��• � • . . — _ _ � _ . p I
.s
" ` � — r
+e10 ,�
���A � �
- � � ���O' 1
_ . �locf �:d. , . �� -'• ! a� � ` "�.,,,,�'���
u ' � �� • �' .�
r � . �� a�-- r +_rr �' - . � _ � _
— "�..'._ _ — - . � - - i _ �i► _ _ — _ -- . _ . __ • __ ��'
Figure 2.5. US-17 at Ploof Rd./Poole Rd. in Leland, NC
arR�"�e��'^���r�:__� :•.� w� ;
� _ .. ��-�-�+=.:�-'�
'� 4��U'9
` I�Pegorj,r ��d. " � � �,. �.��.
���� s " � �
} .' "� � : �.- _" —
_ _.�. �__ . �� .�r.w '-- �
. � ' _ — � - � wr — sIr � .
_ i�, ... ,s• T i . . _
�
a`-` � - � -_ .1�
F �' �
T � �� �,'° . :
� 41fy���� . ,' - � , '� ��� . .�y . _ '
�� ` ' _ _ - � +�"�'�Im � � - �. - - - --_------r�,».�....--� ' _ _
Figure 2.6. US-17 at Walmart/Gregory Rd. in Leland, NC
:

�-' �� � -� ���;r►►��-
. ��_ � � - .��� � � � • I
I
�.F__. . . . _ .'- _ - '
;,� �
�� f� t o- ,���n�difl�r� �lr. � ' _��
. rt ,' ,� I r:. � '�
Z�oc�� F - rt . _
.� ' �— � _�'� �_- _
` �:si���
a
� ` � �"�.���lJC _ .����' A'��r�,��
f�
'��S'� �2'���� - �,
Figure 2.7. US-17 at Grandiflora Dr./West Gate Dr. in Leland, NC
��;_ __5 _ . _ �_ � ` _ - -
� �,.�'., 1� --- - - : � ��h _
- �--�
�-� � �� � � _ ,�
� "'_ . ' ' _`.� . �. � y �- _-_ — . _ . _ ��� t� .,-
--Z��• �~� ��s_� -
r. . - - - - � ��� S�Z+•+��-.-'�-�� .--� - .w`-�,2' - -
� _
- � � �, � �
_ . _ ��
� .
i
- ���� �� �
,�'1 _ � — — �,,�
Figure 2.8. US-17 at Brunswick Forest Pkwy. in Leland, NC
19

�-r . �� � ��r � �, �.
'.
�� {� I i r+�++�__:�".'� �
r_ - ` e
��` , � �c.w �y�-- - �-��- -i � - . r � .� �-,t,� T �a� ' �' '�, �
i - � � � _ � �"
��� • _r�'' s st., �`__._ = .F y - -
� r-.+3 �s--y w..�w+., • .iP.:---� - ,.��.MRl�! . s� . � � . �, � � - t+ , . � �
'�x � . . ..i. . �� '�7?�"'. — rs�_ 1. f4-_!-. l '.� _'1-�`-.�+�`� '.=.r-�++t-�.- ' " 'i-e� r y.
r A y^
-�� " '�r � � .� ►-'r`' i � � - . � � , ' I
a-�t- .- . ,;� � - . _
� � „ . .___ � — �
. ?�I� j � � .
� / ��,,11•�+�r�. ti.is, �w -
- � — - � � ���� _ � ��' � _ '� �ty�r _ x•^ �ki � ■ !
Figure 2.9. US-17 at Lanvale Rd./Brunswick Forest Dr. in Leland, NC
20

Along with the signalized superstreet sites, the team needed to identify sites for other types of
crossovers that exist for use in the saturation flow study. There were eight possible types of
crossovers identified by the teain: U-turn unopposed, U-turn unopposed and left turn, U-turn
opposed, U-turn opposed and left turn, left turn, left-over, left-out with signal, and left-out
with merge. Figure 2.10 shows the crossover types considered for this study.
a. U-tuar� unoppos��i
c. U-��am opg�ased
e. Left t�ar�
�. �..,. ,... �,
�. �J-��a�� unc��pc�sed & lefk t�urra
d. �J-�u��u� opposed & left te�rn
f. Left-aa�� (�vith si�n�l or merge}
Figure 2.10. Crossover Types Considered for Saturation Flow Study
21

The list of crossover types used in the saturation flow study was reduced down to four: U-
turn unopposed, U-turn opposed and left turn, left turn, and left-out with signal. The U-turn
unopposed with left turn and the U-turn opposed designs were eliminated because they are a
rare occurrence, most likely due to the one-way minor street. The left-over was eliminated
because it is the same as the left turn crossover, except with left turns added from both
directions on the major road. Saturation flows from the left turn can be applied to both left
turns on the left-over design. Finally, the left-out with merge was eliminated because
saturation flow is not relevant with the merges.
Study sites for the remaining crossover types were selected based on the criteria for
saturation flow studies as suggested by the ITE Manual of Transportation Engineering
Studies (23). Queues needed to have a minimum of seven vehicles to record the headways,
so high-volume arterials throughout North Carolina were scoured for crossover sites.
Finding few signalized crossovers in NC with enough queuing, the team focused site
selection in the Detroit, Michigan metro area. Michigan has hundreds of miles of arterial
roads with median U-turns (the "Michigan left"), with varying number of lanes and median
widths. Table 2.4 lists the sites selected for the saturation flow study. The team did not
collect saturation flow data at any of the NC superstreets because of the lack of queue
buildup at the U-turn crossovers.
Table 2.4. Crossover Sites Selected for the Saturation Flow Study
Site type Intersection(s) Location No. of Median
Lanes width
U-turn opposed Telegraph & 12 Mile Southfield, MI 1 narrow
+ left turn Hall & Schoenherr Utica, MI 2 wide
U-turn Telegraph & Maple Bloomfield Township, MI 1 narrow
unopposed Hall & Hayes Clinton, MI 2 wide
Telegraph & Ford Dearborn Heights, MI 1 narrow
Left-out
Hall & M53 (SB) Utica, MI 2 wide
Left turn Hall & M53 (NB) Utica, MI 2 wide
2.2.2 Data Collection
The field data collected from each of the three NC study sites were turning movement counts,
travel times, and free-flow speeds. The turning movement counts and free-flow speeds were
used as model inputs. The travel times collected in the field were compared to the VISSIM
travel time output during the calibration and validation process. The field data can be found
in Appendix 10.1.
2.2.2.1 Turning Movement Data
To collect the turning movement counts video cameras were set up (two or three depending
on the site) to capture all movements at the central intersection and the crossovers. The team
22

collected the data in two 90-minute sets at each site, which was limited by the length of the
video tapes.
Origin-destination counts were extracted from the videos for each of the twelve turning
movements at the intersection (left, through, and right from each leg) by tracking the
individual vehicles. Vehicles were counted in five-minute intervals, then converted into 15-
minute flows. Tracking the vehicles through the intersection is a time-consuming but
necessary process due to the redirection of side street traffic at superstreets. All U-turning
vehicles were ignored, as well as vehicles entering from and exiting to driveways along the
arterial. Passenger cars and heavy vehicles were counted separately to determine the vehicle
distribution at each site.
2.2.2.2 Travel Time Data
Travel time runs were done simultaneously with the turning movement count data collection
using GPS units in the vehicle. Prior to collecting the data, an initial set of travel time runs
were recorded from the Chapel Hill superstreet to determine the sample size needed. At a
95% confidence level with a 3.0 mph permitted error, a minimum of three runs for each
movement were needed (23). When collecting the actual data as many travel time runs as
time permitted before the 90-minute video tape ran out were performed, or before traffic
volume characteristics changed.
The US 17 superstreet in Leland consists of five total intersections, with three intersections
back-to-back and the remaining two farther apart. Data was collected at two of the five
intersections: US-17 at Walmart/Gregory Road and US-17 at Lanvale Road. Based on traffic
volume observations and the number of lanes from the minor road and at the crossovers, the
data from these intersections would be representative of the remaining three intersections.
The data collected from these intersections were applied to the remaining intersections along
the US-17 corridor.
The data collected from all three sites were post-processed in the office using GeoStats
TravTime 2.0. Travel time runs were constructed in the program using the GPS data points
collected in the field. The team calculated the achieved permitted errar for all travel time
movements based on the tables from the ITE Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies
(23). Table 2.5 lists the achieved permitted travel time error from each site for the combined
twelve movements.
Table 2.5. Achieved Permitted Travel Time Error for All Movements
Site Range (mph) Avg. (mph)
Chapel Hill 1.5 - 5.0 2.8
Wilmington 1.0 - 5.0 2.4
US-17 (Walmart/Gregory Rd.) 1.0 - 3.0 1.8
US-17 (Lanvale Rd.) 1.0 - 5.0 2.3
23

22.2.3 Free-Flow Speed Data
The final set of data collected was free-flow speed data. Speeds were collected during off-
peak periods using a laser gun. For each of the three sites, speeds were collected at a location
approaching the superstreet but far enough away from the influence of signals. Using the
laser gun, the speeds of randomly selected non-platooned vehicles were recorded. These
speeds were used to construct a speed distribution curve for each site for use in VISSIM.
Each distribution was checked using the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test, and all were
confirmed normally distributed.
2.2.3 Data Analysis
2.2.3.1 Saturation Flow Study
The team compiled the headway data collected in Michigan and calculated saturation flow
for each collection site for both the crossover and the adjacent through lanes. The saturation
flow for each observed queue was calculated, and then all were averaged to get a final
average saturation flow for each movement at that location. The saturation flow adjustment
factor was then calculated as the ratio of the crossover saturation flow to the through lane
saturation flow.
2.2.3.2 Travel Time Comparison of Superstreets and Conventional Intersections
Using the data collected in the field, the team calibrated and validated the three superstreet
models in VISSIM. The team also constructed models in VISSIM of an equivalent
conventional signalized intersection, had the superstreet not been built. The reason for using
VISSIM over other programs, such as SimTraffic, was because of the ability to specify
origin-destination segments for collecting travel time. Travel time was used as the measure
of effectiveness for the calibration and validation of the models, and in the comparison of the
superstreet and conventional models, so it was important to be able to specify the origin and
destination points for the travel time segments.
It was important to keep the comparison between the superstreet to the conventional
intersection fair. Far this analysis, the team defined "fair" based on geometry only, not cost.
This analysis was not a"before and after" comparison, but a comparison of the superstreet
design to an equivalent conventional intersection. The geometries (i.e. lanes) of the
conventional intersections were updated from the before scenario prior to the construction of
the superstreet. This was done to replicate what the conventional improvements would have
been had the superstreet not been built, assuming that improvements would have been made
at each site. At the Chapel Hill site, this included adding an additional left turn lane in both
directions of the major road. The superstreet along the US-17 corridor was built in
conjunction with major development along the arterial — a new Super-Walmart was
constructed, along with new retail, business, and residential developments. In this case
assumptions were made on the number of lanes for the conventional intersections.
Table 2.6 lists the approach configurations far each site. The major road with the U-turn
crossovers was the north-south street in each case. There were two approaches where there
were fewer lanes for the conventional than the superstreet, while there were four approaches
with fewer lanes for the superstreet than the conventional. As with the superstreet models,
24

the conventional models also included the adjacent intersections. No geometric
improvements were made to the adjacent intersections.
Table 2.6. Lane Configurations by Approach for Study Sites
SUPERSTREET CONVENTIONAL
NB SB EB Wg South North NB SB EB WB
SITE UT UT
Chapel Hill T,T,R T,T,R R,R R,R 2 2 L,L, L,L, LT,R LT,R
T,T,R T,T,R
Wilmington T R T R R,R R,R 1 1 T R T R L,T,R L,TR
, , , ,
US-17: L,L, L,T, R R R R 2 1 L,L, L,T, L T,R L,TR
Ploof T,T,R T,R '' T,T,R T,R '
US-17: L,T, L,L, L,T L L
Walmart T,R T,T,R R R,R 1 1 T,R T,T,R L,TR L,TR
US-17: L,T, L,T, R R R R 2 2 L,T, L,T, L TR L TR
Grandiflora T,R T,R ' ' T,R T,R ' '
US-17:
Brunswick T,T,R T T - R,R - 1 T,T,R T' T' - L,R
Forest ' '
US-17: L,T, L,L, R R R R 1 2 L,T, L,T, L TR L TR
Lanvale T,R T,T,R '' T,R T,R ' '
* L=1eft turn lane, R= right turn lane, T= through lane
To keep the comparison fair, the team used Synchro to optimize signal timings for both the
superstreets and the conventional intersections. This was done for various demand levels.
The yellow and all-red times were used from the original superstreet timings from the field
since the intersection widths did not change very much. All signals were coded as actuated-
coordinated with protected left turns. Signal timings and offsets were optimized for each
netwark. Tables 2.7 through 2.91ist the cycle lengths for all intersections in this study.
25

Table 2.7. Cycle Lengths for Chapel Hill Superstreet and Conventional Intersections
(sec)
emand Level peal�- Peal�- Peak- Peak+ Peak+
Intersections
40% 20% 10% Peak 10% 20%
Superstreet:
Ephesus Church* 80 90 110 120 100 110
South UT 110 115 115 120 110 115
Europa 110 115 ll 5 120 110 115
Erwin 90 105 105 120 85 95
North UT 90 105 105 120 85 95
Sage/Old Durham* 90 105 105 120 120 125
Conventional.•
Ephesus Church 90 120 120 120 100 110
Erwin/Europa 90 120 120 120 110 130
Sage/Old Durham 90 120 120 120 115 125
*Adjacent conventional intersections
Table 2.8. Cycle Lengths for Wilmington Superstreet and Conventional Intersections
(sec)
emand Level peak- Peak- Peak- Peak+ Peak+
Intersections
40% 20% 10% Peak 10% 20%
Superstreet:
Sanders* 75 80 100 90 110 120
South UT 75 80 100 90 110 120
Myrtle Gardens 75 80 100 90 110 120
Carolina Beach 80 110 90 120 130 130
North UT 80 55 90 60 130 130
College/Piner* 80 110 90 120 130 130
Conventional:
Sanders 75 115 115 120 120 120
Myrtle Gardens 75 115 115 120 120 120
College/Piner 75 115 115 120 120 120
*Adjacent conventional intersections
26

Table 2.9. Cycle Lengths for US-17 Superstreet and Conventional Intersections (sec)
nd Level Peak- Peak- Peak- peak Peak+ Peak+
40% 20% 10% 10% 20%
Intersections
Superst�eet:
Ploof 110 95 120 120 120 120
Ploof North UT 70 90 90 100 105 120
Poole 70 90 90 100 105 120
Poole South UT 110 95 120 120 120 120
Walmart 110 95 120 120 120 120
Walmart North UT 70 90 90 100 105 120
Gregory 70 90 90 100 105 120
Gregory South UT 110 95 120 120 120 120
West Gate 110 95 120 120 120 120
West Gate North UT 70 90 90 100 105 120
Grandiflora 70 90 90 100 105 120
Grandiflora South UT 110 95 120 120 120 120
Brunswick Forest Pkwy 70 90 60 70 105 120
Brunswick Forest North UT 110 95 90 100 120 120
Brunswick Forest Dr. 70 90 60 70 105 120
Brunswick Forest North UT 110 95 90 100 120 120
Lanvale 110 95 90 100 120 120
Lanvale South UT 70 90 60 70 105 120
Conventional:
Ploof/Poole 95 115 120 120 150 150
Walmart/Gregory 95 115 120 120 150 150
Grandiflora/West Gate 95 75 120 120 150 150
Brunswick Forest 75 75 120 120 105 105
Lanvale/Brunswick Forest 75 75 120 120 105 105
With varying volume levels and optimized signal timings, the travel time output from the
superstreet model was compared to the travel time output from the conventional model for all
three sites. Using travel time as the measure of effectiveness in this analysis allows for a fair
comparison between superstreets and conventional intersections because superstreets have
additional signals and require drivers to travel an extra distance to complete certain
maneuvers. The analysis was done comparing the travel times for each turning movement, as
well as comparing the average travel time per vehicle for the intersection as a whole.
27

2.3 Calibration and Validation of VISSIM Models
This section describes the processes used to calibrate and validate the superstreet models in
VISSIM. The team collected two sets of field data from each site—turning movement
counts, travel times, and free-flow speeds—to calibrate and validate each model.
The measure of effectiveness (MOE) used for calibration and validation was the travel time
output from VISSIM compared to the travel times collected in the field for all twelve
movements at the intersection (left, through, and right turn from each leg). This was also the
MOE used in the analysis of the results. Superstreets have additional signals and require
drivers to travel an extra distance to complete certain movements. Using travel time as the
MOE allows for a fair comparison between the superstreet and conventional intersection
because it takes into account any extra delay at the signals and the extra time it might take to
complete a turning movement.
2.31 Model Construction
The VISSIM models were calibrated using field data collected at each of three superstreet
sites. The team collected two sets of data from each site: the first data set was used for the
calibration, and the second data set was used for validating the models. The data included
turning movement counts, travel times, and free flow speeds at four intersections—two out of
the five superstreet intersections from the US-17 corridor, and one superstreet intersection
each at US-15/501 in Chapel Hill and US-421 in Wilmington. This set of intersections
makes up most of the signalized superstreets in North Carolina. Currently, the only other
signalized site in NC is on US-17 near the Pender and New Hanover County lines. This site
was not included in the study because of low minor street volumes. The team used the
turning movement counts for the vehicle inputs and origin-destination routing decisions, and
the free-flow speeds for speed distributions specific to each site.
The models were coded to replicate the superstreets using construction drawings and aerial
photography from Google Earth �O. Both the Chapel Hill and Wilmington superstreets have
adjacent conventional signalized intersections, which were included in the models to account
for platooning effects as vehicles enter the superstreet. All the signal timing data that were
used in the models, for both the superstreet and adjacent conventional intersections, were
actual field timings that were received from the NCDOT, the City of Wilmington, and the
Town of Chapel Hill.
Since the team included the adjacent intersections in the models, assumptions were made on
the percentages of the vehicle inputs that were coming from each leg of the adjacent
intersection. For Chapel Hill the team assumed a 60/40 split for the northbound vehicles, and
a 80/20 split for the southbound vehicles (the larger percentage of vehicles coming from the
main arterial). For Wilmington, the team assumed a 75/25 split for the northbound vehicles,
and a 70/30 split far the southbound vehicles. These assumptions were based on knowledge
on the operations of the adjacent intersection from field observations. The US-17 corridor
does not have adjacent signalized intersections, so the model only includes the five
superstreet intersections along the corridor. Vehicles arrived at the first signal on US-17 in a
random arrival distribution. Vehicle counts were binned into 15-minute counts, and then
:

converted to 15-minute flows since VISSIM requires volume inputs to be entered in vehicles
per hour.
Each superstreet model was run in sets of 10 runs. The team applied a 15-minute seeding
period to provide adequate time to fill the network with vehicles. The simulation period for
Chapel Hill and Wilmington was 5400 seconds (1.5 hours), and the period was 6300 seconds
(1.75 hours) for US-17. The duration of each simulation was based on the amount of traffic
volume data obtained from the first set of field data which was time-limited by the video
tapes used to record the data. Travel time output files were not collected during the seeding
period. All models were run using the multi-run setting, with a starting random seed of one
and with a random seed increment of one for each run in the set of ten.
2.3.2 Model Calibration
The models were calibrated using travel time as the comparison between VISSIM and the
field data. The team collected travel time data from four intersections—the superstreet
intersections in Chapel Hill and Wilmington, and two intersections along the US-17
superstreet corridor. Each intersection had twelve possible travel patterns (left, through, and
right at each leg of the intersection), for a total of 48 movements that were driven. The
purpose of the calibration was to test the mean percent difference in field collected travel
time versus modeled travel time over each of the 48 movements. This was achieved by
combining the travel times for each of the 48 movements from all three sites and calibrating
the models together based on the mean percent difference to achieve a"global" calibration
rather than calibrating them as individual sites. This was done to find the single set of
VISSIM parameters that was the best for all the sites, rather than settling for different
VISSIM parameters for different sites.
The main parameters adjusted in VISSIM were speed distribution and conflict areas. The
speed distribution for each site was based on the free-flow speed data collected in the field.
During the calibration process, the team kept the same shape of the distribution curve, but
changed the mean speed. The final speed distribution used for all three sites was a 25%
reduction of the original free-flow speed data collected in the field. The free-flow speed data
were collected during the off-peak period on the arterial approaching the superstreet, but far
enough away from the influence of the signals. Having to reduce the speeds to calibrate the
model is not surprising because the models are capturing the peak periods so there is a higher
volume of traffic, and vehicles travel slower through the intersection than on the open
arterial.
Conflict areas were used for coding the right turn on red (RTOR) at all sites, and for the
flashing yellow arrows utilized by NCDOT at Wilmington to allow permitted/protected lefts
for the mainline left turn movements and at the U-turn crossovers. The team used the video
from Wilmington to calculate the average rear gap that vehicles accepted when making a U-
turn and major left maneuver on a flashing yellow arrow, as well as a RTOR. This was the
only site with proper video footage to collect these data, so the team applied the RTOR gap
values from the Wilmington site to the Chapel Hill and US-17 models. Table 2.10 lists the
front and rear gap values used in VISSIM. At the time of data collection, the flashing yellow
arrow was still a new concept in North Carolina, so the team was unaware if vehicles were
29

not accepting gaps as efficiently as expected because of the actual gap size, or because of
unfamiliarity of the flashing yellow arrow. For future studies of superstreets, the team
recommends conducting a more thorough gap study at crossovers with flashing yellows and
for RTOR in conjunction with VISSIM calibration.
Table 2.10. Gap Values Used for Coding Conflict Areas in VISSIM
RTOR U-turn Major left
(flashing yellow) (flashing yellow)
SITE
Front gap Rear gap Front gap Rear gap Front gap Rear gap
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
Chapel Hill 2.0 3.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wilmington 2.0 3.6 3.0 7.1 2.0 5.5
US-17 2.5 3.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
To calibrate the models the team ran multiple sets of runs for each site as parameters were
adjusted in VISSIM. Table 2.11 shows the parameters adjusted for each set of runs. "Set 1"
is the earliest effort and "Set 5" is the latest effort. The team did not follow any particular
method when changing the parameters in each set; the team simply ran a set of runs, checked
the results, adjusted the parameters, and repeated until the final set of parameters could be
determined. The order of conducting these sets of runs does not have an impact on the
outcome of the final set of results. The models could be replicated by disregarding the
adjustments made in sets one through four, and directly inputting the parameters used in the
final set of runs (set five). The final set of parameters can be found in Appendix 10.1.
30

Table 2.11. VISSIM Parameters Adjusted in Each Set of Runs During Calibration
SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5
• orig. • reduced • reduced • updated • adjusted gap
parameters orig. speed orig. speed signal timing values for all
• no dist. by 20% dist. by 25% offsets RTOR and
adjustments • reduced • added flashing
speed zones reduced yellow
for U-turns speed zones arrows
• incr. SF for for UT
conflict approaches
areas for • added
minor desired
RTOR speed
decisions for
minor roads
• reduced des.
speed zones
for all turns
Table 2.12 shows the percent difference in the VISSIM travel time output compared to field
data for each site, as well as the mean difference for all sites combined. The Lanvale Rd.
intersection, part of the US-17 corridor, had consistently high differences in travel time and
did not calibrate as well as the other models. This is a low-volume intersection, and the
travel time data were collected at a different time than the other data from the corridor, and
were therefore under a different time of day plan for the signal operations. In the model, the
team used signal plans for the same time of day for the entire corridor. The discrepancy in
the signal timing between the model and when the team collected the field data at Lanvale
Road could be a reason far the large differences in travel time. The final calibration value
was a mean percent difference of -15.2% between the VISSIM output and field data. Fifteen
percent is a generally accepted target for comparing model and observed travel times (24).
Table 2.12. Percent Difference in Travel Time (VISSIM — Field Data) from Calibration
SITE SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5
Chapel Hill -16.9% -12.2% -9.5% -9.5°/o -9.2%
Wilmington -22.3% -22.5% -21.9% -21.9% -18.7%
US-17 (Walmart) -24.5% -16.9% -10.0% -9.6% -8.5%
US-17 (Lanvale Rd) -35.9% -31.7% -23.8% -23.4% -25.0%
Mean difference -23.7% -20.6% -16.0% -15.8°/a -15.2%
31

2.3.3 Model Validation
With the calibration complete, the team validated the models using the second set of field
data. The second set of field data was collected in the same manner as the first, but at a
different time of day. All parameters in the models were kept the same as they were in the
final calibration set. The only changes made to the models were the signal timing, which was
adjusted to the time of day plans corresponding to the time when the second data set was
collected, and the vehicle inputs. The vehicle counts from the second field data set were
grouped in 15-minute flows. The models were run in sets of ten runs each, keeping the same
seeding time, simulation period, and random seed generation as in the calibration stage.
Table 2.13 lists the percent difference in travel time for each site and the overall mean
percent difference. The final mean percent difference comparing the VISSIM travel time
output to the field data was -4.4%. Since the mean percent differences are less that the
percent differences from the calibration stage, all models are validated. Both the calibration
and validation results can be found in Appendix 10.1.
Table 213. Percent Difference in Travel Time (VISSIM — Field Data) from Validation
SITE SET 1
Chapel Hill 5.6%
Wilmington -10.5%
US-17 (Walmart) 2.1%
US-17 (Lanvale Rd) -17.6%
Mean percent difference -4.4%
2.4 Results
This section describes the results from the saturation flow study of U-turn crossovers and the
travel time experiment comparing superstreets to conventional intersections.
2.41 Saturation Flow Adjustment Factor for Directional Crossovers
The team calculated the saturation flow adjustment factar for four different crossovers types
based on the data collected in Michigan. Finding few signalized crossovers in NC with
enough queuing, the team focused site selection in the Detroit, Michigan metro area.
Michigan has hundreds of miles of arterial roads with median U-turns (the "Michigan left"),
with varying number of lanes and median widths. The saturation flow adjustment factor was
calculated as the ratio of the crossover saturation flow to the through lane saturation flow.
Table 2.14 lists the saturation flow adjustment factors for each site and type of crossover.
Table 2.15 lists the saturation flow for each crossover including sample size, mean, standard
deviation and variance.
32

Table 2.14. Saturation Flow Adjustment Factors for Directional Crossovers
Crossover No. of Median Sat. Flow
Location Crossover Width Adjustment
type Lanes (ft) Factor
U-turn opposed Telegraph Rd. & 12 Mile Rd. 1 45 0.895
+ left turn Hall Rd. & Schoenherr Rd. 2 150 1.006
U-turn Telegraph Rd. & Maple Rd. 1 45 0.839
unopposed Hall Rd. & Hayes Rd. 2 150 1.017
Telegraph Rd. & Ford Rd. 1 30 1.016
Left-out
Hall Rd. & M53 (SB) 2 200 0.945
Left turn Hall Rd. & M53 (NB) 2 160 1.054
33

Table 2.15. Saturation Flow for Directional Crossovers
Saturation flow
Crossover SITE Sample (veh/h/ln)
Type Size
Mean St. Dev. Var.
TELEGRAPH RD. & 12 MILE RD.
Crossover 84 1515 172.7 29828
U-turn Thru lanes 104 1693 257.1 66112
opposed +
left turn HALL RD. & SCHOENHERR RD.
Crossover 51 1762 238.7 56967
Thru lanes 159 1751 285.0 81220
TELEGRAPH RD. & MAPLE RD.
Crossover 60 1555 217.7 47381
U-turn Thru lanes 97 1854 334.3 1 ll750
unopposed HALL RD. & HAYES RD.
Crossover 83 1802 218.4 47688
Thru lanes 35 1772 274.8 75489
TELEGRAPH RD. & FORD RD.
Crossover 51 1992 244.3 59697
Left-out Thru lanes 220 1961 290.7 84535
HALL RD. & M53 (SB)
Crossover 114 1851 245.0 60012
Thru lanes 54 1958 381.0 145142
HALL RD. & M53 (NB)
Left turn Crossover 106 2086 269.3 72498
Thru lanes 115 1978 354.1 125397
Based on the site characteristics and the saturation flows, the team noticed that one-lane,
narrow median U-turn crossovers had saturation flow adjustment factars from around 0.85 to
0.90, while everything else, which includes two-lane, wide median U-turn crossovers as well
as left-outs and left turn crossovers, had an adjustment factor of about 1.0. The team
statistically analyzed this theory by conducting t-tests to compare the saturation flows of the
two sites for each crossover type. At the 95% confidence level, the one-lane narrow median
U-turn and two-lane wide median U-turn saturation flows were statistically different. The
team then compared the saturation flows for both one-lane, narrow median sites to see if
there was a difference between the U-turn unopposed and U-turn opposed. The t-test
confirmed that there was no significant difference at the 95% confidence level. Based on this
the team concluded that the adjustment factors for U-turns should be 0.85-0.90 for one-lane,
narrow medians and 1.0 for all other crossovers.
2.4.2 T�avel Ti�ne Compa�ison of Superstreets and Conventional Intersections
Using the calibrated and validated models of three of the four signalized superstreets in North
Carolina, the team set up an experiment to test the operational effects of superstreets
34

compared to conventional intersections. Models of the equivalent conventional intersection
at each site were also constructed in VISSIM. The team ran both the superstreet and
conventional models from each site at various demand levels and collected the travel time
output to compare the superstreet against the conventional, as well as to find the capacity
limits of the superstreet.
2.4.21 Travel Time Comparison
As discussed in Section 2.2, we ran both the superstreet and conventional models from each
site in VISSIM under varying demand levels. For each site the flow from the peak 15-minute
period from the turning movement count field data was used as the baseline. It was
important to use volume levels greater than and less than the peak to compare the two
designs not only during periods with increased demand, but also during off-peak periods.
The following demand levels were used in the comparison:
• Peak,
• Peak minus 10%,
• Peak minus 20%,
• Peak minus 40%,
• Peak plus 10%,
• Peak plus 20%, and
• Peak plus 40%.
All models were run in sets of ten runs for each demand level. A 15-minute seeding period
was used to provide adequate time to fill the network with vehicles. The simulation period
was one hour for all models. Travel time output files were not collected during the seeding
period. All models were run using the multi-run setting, with a starting random seed of one
and with a random seed increment of one for each run in the set of ten. The team used
Equation 2.1 (24) to determine if ten runs were sufficient for producing the estimated mean
travel time within 15% of the true mean at the 95% confidence level. Fifteen percent was
chosen as the desired confidence level because that is what was used as the target for the
calibration of the models.
Equation 2.1. CI�i-a>o�o = 2*t�i-aiz�,N-i S/�N
Where:
CI�i_a�o�o = the (1-a)% confidence interval for the true mean, where alpha equals the
probability of the true mean not lying within the confidence interval
T�i-aiz>,N-i = the t statistic for the probability of the two-sided error summing to
alpha within N-1 degrees of freedom
N= the number of repetitions
S= the standard deviation of the model results
The following shows an example calculation of the confidence interval for the WBL
movement at the Chapel Hill superstreet for the peak demand level. The average travel time
was 152 seconds with a standard deviation of 7.04 seconds.
35

CI��-a)��o = 2*t(1-a�2),rr-� S/�N
= 2*�2.262�*��.o44�i�Jlo
=1o.og Se�
CI as a percent of travel time =[(CI�i_a��io /Avg.TT)* 100]/2
_ ��lo.osilsz�*loo�i2
= 3.31%
The achieved confidence interval for the WBL movement at Chapel Hill during the peak
period was within 3.31% of the true mean travel time. All models, both superstreet and
conventional, from each site were well within the 15% target. Table 2.16 shows the achieved
confidence interval for the travel time results. The results were within +/- 2.4 to 6.5% of the
true mean travel time. Therefore, the team did not make more VISSIM runs than the original
ten for each scenario.
Table 2.16. Achieved Confidence Interval for Travel Time Results
Confidence Interval
Site
Superstreet Conventional
Chapel Hill 2.4% 3.2%
Wilmington 2.5% 5.9%
US-17 corridor 3.6% 6.5%
Certain geometric factors at the sites were influencing the travel time output enough at the
higher demand levels that the team made some changes to the original models. At the
Chapel Hill site there is a lane drop after the adjacent conventional intersection just south of
the superstreet. This lane drop was causing major congestion at the peak+l0% and higher
demand levels, so vehicles were not entering the superstreet at the demand level expected.
To get the full demand into the superstreet, an additional lane was added to alleviate the lane
drop problem. This allowed the vehicles to enter the superstreet at the appropriate demand
level, and thus allowed for a better analysis of the capabilities of the design without
compromising the fair comparison. This modified geometry was used for the peak+l0% and
peak+20% levels far both the superstreet and conventional models. The original geometry
was kept for all other demand levels because the upstream lane drop did not affect traffic
flow into the superstreet, and the team wanted to keep the existing conditions as much as
possible for a more accurate assessment of the superstreet at that location.
The other major factor that affected the travel time results was the adjacent intersections. At
the higher demand levels (peak+20% and peak+40%), these intersections were over capacity
and failing, causing major delay and congestion to spill back to the superstreet locations.
Using the data from these scenarios would not be a fair representation of the superstreet, so
the team did not include the peak+40% scenario in the results. The US-17 corridor does not
have nearby adjacent signalized intersections, but at the peak+20% level the conventional
comparison reached its limit, and any higher demand level caused errors in the model output.
36

Travel time output was collected far all twelve turning movements at each intersection. At
each intersection the major road runs in the north/south direction, while the minor road runs
east/west. Tables 2.17 through 2.22 give the volumes and travel times for each movement at
each intersection studied. The average travel time per vehicle for each movement was
calculated and compared between the superstreet and conventional intersection. Figures 2.11
through 2.17 display the results from each intersection. A negative percent difference means
the superstreet required less travel time than the conventional, while a positive percent
difference means the superstreet required more travel time.
Table 2.17. Chapel Hill Volumes by Movement (vph)
Peak- Peak- Peak-
Movement 40% 20% 10% PEAK Peak+10% Peak+20%
WBL 29 40 46 50 55 59
WBR 94 121 137 153 167 183
WBT 36 52 57 63 67 72
EBL 22 30 34 39 43 47
EBR 197 259 290 323 352 386
EBT 30 41 46 50 55 62
NBL 130 172 206 216 238 257
NBR 31 41 46 51 55 59
NBT 950 1270 1414 1590 1758 1905
SBL 55 72 81 88 94 109
SBR 35 48 53 59 65 71
SBT 912 1227 1362 1527 1681 1824
37

Table 2.18. Chapel Hill Travel Times by Movement (sec)
Peak-40% Peak-20% Peak-10% PEAK (AM) Peak+10% Peak+20%
Movement
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WBL 133 103 146 121 152 120 178 125 155 121 169 145
WBR 52 46 60 49 65 51 69 53 66 59 75 70
WBT 133 78 155 96 157 97 203 100 159 99 203 120
EBL 152 96 161 115 163 111 191 108 168 104 178 125
EBR 56 58 62 62 64 66 72 72 69 79 76 98
EBT 137 73 148 89 156 89 178 86 158 84 167 103
NBL 121 80 127 93 133 96 153 99 132 109 165 129
NBR 31 34 31 37 31 38 31 37 32 43 32 45
NBT 41 54 43 58 44 60 45 58 48 66 50 71
SBL 130 69 137 116 136 91 122 97 143 101 145 129
SBR 47 48 47 71 49 58 48 58 54 71 54 71
SBT 50 55 53 76 55 63 56 66 62 80 63 83
:

Table 2.19. Wilmington Volumes by Movement (vph)
Peak- Peak- Peak-
Movement 40% 20% 10% PEAK Peak+10% Peak+20%
WBL 62 83 93 103 117 129
WBR 66 90 104 115 124 134
WBT 12 15 16 18 21 23
EBL 26 36 40 45 51 56
EBR 55 73 83 91 100 108
EBT 6 7 8 9 10 11
NBL 47 61 70 78 86 94
NBR 54 73 81 88 97 106
NBT 883 1184 1334 1484 1629 1775
SBL 80 107 118 133 143 159
SBR 48 64 74 81 86 95
SBT 990 1318 1483 1649 1799 1962
39

Table 2.20. Wilmington Travel Times by Movement (sec)
Peak-40% Peak-20% Peak-10% PEAK (AM) Peak+10% Peak+20%
Movement
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WgL 106 77 114 101 125 121 125 147 153 279 164 278
WBR 41 41 43 48 46 53 47 64 50 111 51 110
WBT 90 50 105 72 107 74 109 88 132 135 155 128
EBL 110 69 121 85 129 94 134 92 152 111 171 108
EBR 47 47 50 48 52 49 54 58 59 60 64 64
EBT 97 57 110 73 117 68 114 71 143 77 159 76
NBL 52 50 57 52 60 54 61 72 70 85 78 93
NBR 39 39 41 40 41 41 42 41 41 42 42 44
NBT 50 52 53 59 53 61 55 58 54 62 55 66
SBL 48 45 55 50 57 51 62 63 67 67 73 73
SBR 33 34 36 36 34 37 37 35 36 36 37 38
SBT 49 54 53 59 51 62 55 53 53 54 53 55

Table 2.21. US-17 Volumes by Movement (vph)
Peak- Peak- Peak- Peak+ Peak+
Movement 40% 20% 10% Pea� 10% 20%
WBL 12 16 18 20 22 24
WBR 13 16 18 20 22 24
WBT 5 7 8 9 10 ll
EBL 39 53 60 66 75 80
o EBR 236 311 350 391 434 469
p°., EBT 5 8 9 11 11 13
o NBL 189 254 283 319 357 379
a NBR 23 31 33 37 42 47
NBT 1425 1898 2133 2358 2629 2834
SBL 14 17 20 22 23 26
SBR 38 54 59 65 72 79
SBT 859 1148 1294 1436 1571 1725
WBL 40 54 60 66 73 78
WBR 209 278 310 345 381 413
WBT 6 8 9 11 11 12
o EBL 11 14 17 18 20 21
a� EBR 12 17 18 20 23 26
�
L7 EBT 5 7 7 9 10 10
�
� NBL 13 17 19 20 23 24
� NBR 42 56 65 71 79 85
�
�
� NBT 1224 1632 1838 2029 2272 2446
SBL 193 258 291 321 361 386
SBR 24 31 34 38 45 47
SBT 977 1305 1466 1637 1772 1960
WBL 44 55 64 71 78 84
WBR 238 317 352 391 431 473
� WBT 5 8 8 10 10 11
� EBL 42 57 67 74 82 89
�
a EBR 234 312 345 387 424 466
� EBT 6 8 9 10 11 11
o NBL 18 24 26 28 24 33
� NBR 60 80 90 101 86 121
^�
� NBT 1152 1546 1742 1934 2158 2323
�.
�7 SBL 13 16 18 20 22 23
SBR 40 52 59 64 70 77
SBT 975 1303 1462 1629 1782 1953
41

Table 2.21. continued
Peak- Peak- Peak- Peak+ Peak+
Movement 40% 20% 10% Peak 10% 20%
� WBL 40 53 60 68 74 81
�
w WBR 235 315 351 389 430 467
� NBR 45 58 64 71 78 86
�� NBT 1006 1340 1507 1686 1843 2016
�
� SBL 194 261 288 318 350 382
pa SBT 1054 1407 1581 1762 1926 2119
WBL 42 57 64 72 77 84
� WBR 208 271 306 340 372 410
� WBT 6 8 11 11 12 12
� EBL 12 17 19 21 24 26
� EBR 11 14 16 18 19 21
U
...
� EBT 6 8 9 10 11 12
� NBL 13 16 19 21 22 25
�
?� NBR 43 57 62 68 75 80
� NBT 766 1030 1155 1283 1413 1541
� SBL 12 16 18 19 21 24
a SBR 43 56 63 68 75 84
SBT 1036 1386 1562 1743 1909 2094
42

Table 2.22. US-17 Travel Times by Movement (sec)
Moveme Peak-40% Peak-20% Peak-10% PEAK (AM) Peak+10% Peak+20%
Int. nt
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WBL 125 71 128 82 139 91 138 91 147 123 131 123
WBR 37 40 44 47 48 50 52 60 59 67 62 66
WBT 125 68 120 79 134 78 132 78 135 87 121 85
EBL 104 66 119 75 133 79 137 78 141 140 163 205
o EBR 37 38 44 48 48 56 56 63 66 143 80 217
�° EBT 106 63 125 77 140 71 139 74 139 143 171 212
o NBL 73 58 62 68 62 71 65 75 66 87 79 91
p� NBR 26 26 26 27 26 28 27 29 27 30 27 32
NBT 21 22 21 25 22 28 22 33 22 37 23 39
SBL 69 82 79 88 90 93 87 95 86 129 81 137
SBR 26 28 27 29 27 29 28 31 28 35 29 46
SBT 24 30 26 34 26 35 28 39 29 60 30 91
WBL 144 77 146 88 155 90 174 95 208 105 200 139
WBR 51 51 62 68 73 87 81 113 107 115 111 132
WBT 123 62 126 75 140 83 153 100 182 101 180 110
o EBL 113 74 119 87 142 87 149 93 152 117 175 124
a� EBR 33 37 38 37 40 39 41 41 43 50 50 49
�.
C7 EBT 102 67 112 68 138 73 131 66 136 75 152 73
�
� NBL 92 82 81 90 81 93 84 105 91 144 94 138
� NBR 35 37 38 40 37 51 38 64 40 80 46 84
�,
�
� NBT 39 43 44 50 43 65 44 85 47 111 57 120
SBL 62 72 72 106 83 124 87 170 103 365 86 421
SBR 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 31 25 40
SBT 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 40 38 49 39 59
43

Table 2.22. continued
Moveme Peak-40% Peak-20% Peak-10% PEAK (AM) Peak+10% Peak+20%
Int. nt
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WBL 157 77 155 75 162 119 167 151 174 221 170 386
WBR 42 45 50 51 55 66 61 90 69 140 77 357
� WBT 124 58 135 55 137 71 146 76 159 101 149 368
� EBL 131 75 153 73 174 128 162 163 182 255 190 391
�
a EBR 46 47 52 49 54 59 58 64 63 71 68 73
� EBT 120 55 137 44 158 64 157 58 163 76 169 73
o NBL 89 93 79 76 75 94 80 97 79 178 93 194
� NBR 35 38 36 38 38 38 39 40 38 120 40 117
�c
� NBT 41 50 44 49 45 49 48 63 48 187 54 193
�
L'7 SBL 67 90 74 74 82 114 76 112 77 123 70 111
SBR 30 31 30 34 31 32 31 32 32 33 32 44
SBT 41 45 42 56 44 48 44 49 45 56 47 74
; WBL 131 83 128 72 130 89 133 86 148 123 147 149
w WBR 40 38 45 43 44 50 47 56 57 132 61 165
� NBR 32 32 33 33 34 35 34 34 33 41 35 44
'3 NBT 34 38 35 39 36 51 38 53 39 107 40 126
�
�' SBL 60 53 68 52 53 65 57 72 78 75 75 75
�
� SBT 32 34 33 36 33 36 33 39 34 41 34 43

Table 2.22. continued
Moveme Peak-40% Peak-20% Peak-10% PEAK (AM) Peak+10% Peak+20%
Int. nt
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WBL 132 71 128 70 128 82 136 83 145 88 163 104
� WBR 45 47 50 52 50 59 55 64 66 100 75 140
� WBT 127 59 116 56 114 71 121 68 129 76 153 103
�EBL 124 77 137 81 127 111 138 105 159 123 160 141
� EBR 50 50 51 51 52 55 53 59 57 57 57 57
...
3 EBT 106 57 122 59 106 74 113 74 142 69 139 65
� NBL 107 84 95 81 97 106 100 109 102 101 109 113
�.
?� NBR 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 41 42 42 48
� NBT 51 54 53 57 56 59 56 61 58 91 60 121
� SBL 63 75 71 74 60 98 63 100 85 83 84 97
� SBR 40 37 40 38 41 39 41 41 41 43 43 42
SBT 49 52 49 56 50 57 50 59 51 63 53 61
45

40°r(r
-60°i6
�.
WBL
WBR
WBT
EBL
EBR
€B�
NE�L
NBR
� �
N BT
■ Pealk-4Q% ■ P�a�c-24D:� � Pea�c-10% ■ Peak — Pea�c+14Di6 ii� Peak+2��/
Figure 2.11. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — Chapel Hill
�
�
SBL
SBR
�
SBd

4Q°%
I zQ�u
v
V
� Q`•'�u
�
v
g
� -z�°%
�
a;
�
� -4Q°%
�
a�
a
f -�]Q�u
�a
u
�
�
I �
,� -gQ��u
❑
-� aa°r,
-� za°r,
-� 4a°r,
� NBL NB�
N R �
�
�
■ Peal<-4Q°l� ■ Peal<-20°f�� Peak-70°/u ■ Peak � Peak�-:LO% � Peak�ZO`,'i� -
Figure 2.12. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — Wilmington
47

�a°i�
4a°r�
Z�}�'u
al
u � u�u .
L
N
� -�a�iu
�
61
� -4a°r�
�
� -�f}�'u
OJ
� -80�/u
�.
�
7 -T�a�iu
Q
.� -�LZQ��u �
Q1
V
� -1� 4(?%
�
�
� -��a�rU
0
-T80%
-zoa°r�
-ZZf}�'u
■ Peak-40% ■ Peak-20% Peal<-�O�i� ■ Pe�ak � Peak+�0�i� � Peak�-ZO%
Figure 2.13. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Ploof/Poole
.•

5�%
Q �%u
v -50°!�
U
�
Q7
�
�, -�oa�rU
s
�
�
~ -�sa°r�
�
�
�
�
�
� -ZQ�}�u
�
�
.�
U
� -250°�0
L
�
�
�
0
-3a0°i�
-350%
-�aa°,��
■ Peak-40% ■ Peak-ZO�i� Peak-�0°i� ■ Peak � Peak+�Q°i� u� Peak�-ZO%
Figure 2.14. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Walmart/Gregory

�QOi'�
5 (?°lo
QL�
U
_�_
I
� �gR ' �BR NBL NBR �g� SBL SBR SB1f
-3QQ%
-35a�/U
-�l`}a°lu
■ Peak-�Q�/ ■ Pe�ak-2��i� Pc��k-�0�� ■ Pe�7k � Pe�3k,-�Q% u� Peak�-Z�%
Figure 2.15. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Grandiflora/West Gate
50

5 (}';�`o
1 WBR
Q% -- !.—. ��
1NBL �
-5Q%
-SD�%
-150°fu
-ZC}0°fo
-Z5Q%
Irl:j.i
�
Irl:i�
_� SBL SBT
�
■ PLaI<-40% ■ Peal<-20"/� Peak-�Q°!o ■ Peal< �� Peak{ �Q°!o �– Pe�71<+2f?"/o
Figure 2.16. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Brunswick Forest
51

�'VU�U
4C1°/U
v 2Qio
�
.�
�
� (] :�
v
�
a
�
~ -2Q°/u
�
a
�
�
H-
a� -4Q%
�
d
�
v
s -�G�%
�
�
a�
�-
�
a -$o�r�
-�ao�r�
-g2Q°f�
5BL 561f
� —.. —�_�� �
� SBR �
WI
■ Peal<-4(3°i� ■ Peal<-2(3°l� Peal<-� 0°10 ■ Peal< � PLaI<+��0% - Peak+ZO%
Figure 2.17. Comparison of Travel Times by Movement — US-17 @ Lanvale Rd
52

The team ran an ANOVA to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the
travel time results between the three sites, the designs (superstreet or conventional), and the
demand levels. Table 2.23 lists the results of the ANOVA. At a 95% confidence level the
interactions between all three factors, and between combinations of the factors, were all
statistically significant. This shows that location, the design choice, and the volume levels all
play a role and impact the travel times through the intersection. It is not surprising that the sites
and demand levels had a significant impact on travel time. The important result from this is that
the design choice - superstreet or conventional - did impact the travel time of vehicles traveling
through the intersection, doing so at both isolated intersections and corridors.
Table 2.23. Analysis of Variance for Travel Time, Using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS MS F P
Site 6 74785.4 74785.4 12464.2 1361.45 0.0000
Demand 5 96874.5 96874.5 19374.9 2116.29 0.0000
Design 1 48482.4 48482.4 48482.4 5295.66 0.0000
Site*Demand 30 28129 28129 937.6 102.42 0.0000
Site*Design 6 15860.5 15860.5 2643.4 288.74 0.0000
Demand*Design 5 44107.5 44107.5 8821.5 963.56 0.0000
Site*Demand*Design 30 24329.4 24329.4 811 88.58 0.0000
Error 756 6921.3 6921.3 9.2
Total 839 339490.1
S= 3.02574 R-Sq = 97.96% R-Sq(adj) 97.74%
2.4.2.2 Travel Time Effects on the Intersection
The simulations show that the superstreet reduces travel time for the major road through and left
movements, and increases travel time for the minor road through and left movements. However,
looking at the operation of the intersection as a whole, the superstreet outperforms the
conventional design. Table 2.24 shows the percent difference in average travel time per vehicle.
The superstreet reduced travel time for the average vehicle traveling through the intersection at
every location.
53

Table 2.24. Percent Difference in Average Travel Time Per Vehicle Between Superstreet
and Conventional Intersections
Intersection Pk-40% Pk-20% Pk-10% Peak Pk+10% Pk+20%
US-15/501 @
Erwin / Europa -1.6% -16.2% -4.8% -1.6% -13.8% -16.8%
US-421 @ -2.2% -6.7% -12.7% -1.5% -11.9% -12.7%
Myrtle Gardens Dr.
US-17 corridor (avg. _3.7% -7.7% -15.4% -26.5% -79.6% -100.2%
for all intersections)
US-17 @ Ploof / Poole -2.8% -15.1% -18.6% -27.8% -71.8% -106.3%
US-17 @ Walmart / _3.9% -10.9% -27.8% -54.0% -89.6% -99.2%
Gregory
US-17 @ Grandiflora / _7 2% -8.3% -5.6% -19.2% -122.8% -146.6%
West Gate
US-17 @ Brunswick _2 6% -0.6% -20.2% -23.4% -80.8% -104.3%
Forest Pkwy
US-17 @ Lanvale / _1.7% -5.4% -8.2% -10.0% -32.9% -49.4%
Brunswick Forest
Not only did the superstreet reduce travel time, but it also reduced travel time variability. Table
2.25 shows the standard deviation of the simulated travel times by movement for each site. The
superstreet had less travel time variability than the conventional intersection at the Wilmington
site and the US-17 corridor. The Chapel Hill simulations produced similar standard deviations
for the two designs, with the superstreet slightly greater than the conventional. However, with
the exception of the NBL, the arterial travel time variability was less for the superstreet than the
conventional model. The lower travel time standard deviation means drivers experience less
variability, and thus more reliability, when driving through superstreet intersections and
corridors compared to the conventional equivalent.
54

Table 2.25. Standard Deviation of Simulated Travel Time by Movement (sec)
Chapel Hill Wilmington US-17
Movement
SS Conv. SS Conv. SS Conv.
WBL 8.09 8.16 2.93 27.26 6.55 14.67
,� WBR 2.34 2.10 1.35 9.24 2.84 7.65
�
° WBT 12.16 7.53 6.69 17.21 13.66 15.93
�
� EBL 6.67 6.40 6.92 10.40 6.08 22.22
� EBR 1.47 1.86 1.78 1.67 2.59 7.44
EBT 5.10 4.82 9.58 12.27 11.84 14.72
NBL 9.04 5.14 2.44 3.40 5.67 8.26
NBR 1.00 1.32 0.86 0.74 0.85 2.22
ti
•� NBT 0.42 1.09 0.56 1.16 0.76 4.71
o�
Q SBL 3.34 8.91 2.31 3.68 5.21 13.31
SBR 1.12 2.05 1.05 1.15 0.68 1.59
SBT 0.51 0.86 0.62 0.71 0.31 2.30
Intersection Avg. 4.27 4.19 3.09 7.41 4.75 9.59
2.4.2.3 Travel Time Effects on the Arterial
At all sites the superstreet outperformed the conventional intersection for the major road through
movements. This was expected because the superstreet benefits the arterial through movements
due to the ability to have perfect progression in both directions. The superstreet major through
travel times improved over the conventional by a greater amount at the higher volume levels. At
both Wilmington and along the US-17 corridor, the major lefts also saw travel time
improvements over the conventional design.
At Chapel Hill, the northbound through (NBT) remained consistent at each volume level, with
improvements from 28% to 42%. With the exception of the peak-20% volumes, the southbound
through (SBT) travel times savings steadily increased over the conventional with each increasing
demand level. This was the only site where the major left turns experience more travel time than
the conventional design. This superstreet intersection does not allow the direct major left turns at
the main intersection. This is a modified design of the superstreet where the major left turns use
the downstream directional U-turn crossover to make the left turn maneuver. The direct left
turns were not built at this site because of a suspected weaving problem due to two roads
merging together just upstream of the superstreet.
The Wilmington superstreet resulted in a similar situation to the Chapel Hill superstreet, with
travel times improving more with each increase in traffic through the intersection for the NBT.
55

The NBT travel time savings for the superstreet over the conventional ranged from 3% to 14%.
The SBT improved steadily with increasing demand for the superstreet as well, except during the
peak, peak+l0% and peak+20% scenarios. The superstreet saw a minimal increase in travel time
during these three cases, from 1.5% to 5.1%.
The US-17 corridor saw similar effects as the Chapel Hill and Wilmington superstreets with
travel time steadily improving as demand increased. At the peak+l0% and peak+20% levels, the
major through movements had large travel time savings over the conventional, reaching up to
over 100% and even 200% in some cases. This is an indication that the conventional
intersections were most likely overloaded and failing.
2.4.2.4 Travel Time Effects on the Minor Road
The minor road through and left turn movements were negatively impacted by the superstreet.
By the nature of the design, the minor road through and left turns have to travel an extra distance
to a downstream U-turn, then back through the main intersection. The travel times for these
movements were higher at the superstreet than the conventional intersections for all sites. The
minor lefts were impacted less than the minor through movements at all sites.
Along the US-17 corridor, the minor left turn and through movements were affected more during
the low-volume scenarios, with the travel time difference between the superstreet and
conventional decreasing as the volumes increased. The percent differences ranged from a 30 to
40% increase at the lowest volumes (peak-40%), to a 9 to 18% decrease in travel time at the
highest volumes (peak+20%). At the highest demand level the superstreet travel times were
lower than the conventional travel times for all movements.
At the Chapel Hill and Wilmington sites, the minor left turn and through movements were
affected differently than they were along US-17. At Chapel Hill the minor left and through
movements were negatively impacted the most during the peak period, with 30 to 50% increases
in travel time. The differences then decreased as the volume levels changed from the peak. The
minar street movements were least negatively impacted by the superstreet during the highest
demand level, at only a 14 to 30% difference from the conventional. At Wilmington the
eastbound and westbound directions were affected differently. The WBT movement was
affected in the same way as the minor movements at Chapel Hill with the largest difference at
the peak demand. The opposite effect happened for the eastbound minor movements. The EBL
and EBT were negatively impacted the least during the peak period, and more during the high
volume and low volume scenarios. The WBL movement was different from the rest, with
superstreet travel times higher than the conventional for the low volume scenarios, and lower
than the conventional for the high volume scenarios.
2.4.2.5 Capacity Check
For a check on the capacity of each intersection, both superstreet and conventional, the team
applied the critical sum method. This method involves computing the sum of the critical lane
volumes for each signal phase. This was not done to calculate the actual capacity of superstreets
or the conventional intersections, but to compare the two designs to estimate how much more
capacity one might get out of a superstreet than a conventional intersection. A signal-controlled
intersection is generally considered to be in good operating condition if the critical sum is less
than 1400 vphpl with a four-phase signal, and 1600 vphpl with a two-phase signal. These values
56

come from the base saturation flow rate of 1900 pc/h/ln and multiplied by adjustment factars for
heavy vehicles, left turns, right turns, and U-turns (21). Table 2.26 lists the critical sums for both
the superstreet and conventional intersections for the high volume demand levels. The
superstreet outperforms the conventional intersections at all sites, and is below the 1600 vphpl
reference for two-phase signals at five of the intersections for all demand levels up to peak+40%.
Based on this check, the superstreet design has a higher capacity than the conventional design.
57

Table 2.26 Critical Sums for Superstreet and Conventional Intersections
Critical Sum (vphpl)
Site Demand
Conv. SS
Peak 1190 1020
Peak+10% 1310 1120
Chapel Hill
Peak+20% 1430 1220
Peak+40% 1670 1430
Peak 1120 1100
Peak+10% 1230 1210
Wilmington
Peak+20% 1340 1320
Peak+40% 1570 1540
Peak 1320 1410
Ploof/Poole Peak+10% 1450 1560
(US-17) Peak+20% 1580 1700
Peak+40% 1840 1980
Peak 1750 1410
Walmart/Gregory Peak+10% 1930 1560
(US-17) Peak+20% 2100 1700
Peak+40% 2450 1980
Peak 1310 1080
Grandiflora/West peak+l0% 1520 1280
Gate
(US-17) Peak+20% 1570 1300
Peak+40% 1830 1520
Peak 1140 1110
Brunswick Farest Peak+10% 1250 1230
(US-17) Peak+20% 1360 1340
Peak+40% 1590 1560
Peak 1320 960
Peak+10% 1450 1060
Lanvale Rd. peak+20% 1580 1150
(US-17) 1840 1340
Peak+40%
Peak+60% 2100 1540
:

3.0 SAFETY ANALYSES
3.1 Literature Review
The literature review for this section addresses safety studies on both superstreets and median U-
turns, as well as access management studies for safety and economic impacts. Median U-turn
intersections are included in the literature review because they use directional crossovers like
superstreets, and median U-turns have been used more extensively for a longer period of time.
Median U-turns, as in Figure 2.1, use directional crossovers for all left-turn movements, and
unlike superstreets, they allow minor street through movements. Most studies on median U-
turns and superstreets show they reduce the number of conflict points and collisions. There are
significantly fewer studies available on superstreets because of their limited field
implementation. Access management studies are included in the literature review because they
give depth into the safety and economic impacts of superstreets.
311 Median U-Turns
Maki conducted an evaluation of Michigan's median U-turns (4). As part of that effort, he
conducted a before and after study using five years of collision data at four locations where
directional crossovers replaced bi-directional crossovers. Directional crossovers allow
movement in one direction only, whereas bi-directional crossovers allow both turning
movements. The results showed a 60 percent reduction in total crashes, with more than a 95
percent reduction in angle crashes. Taylor et al performed a similar study (25). They examined
eight arterial road segments for 54 bi-directional crossover replacements and ten years of
collision data. The results showed an average of 30 percent reduction in total crashes. No
significant change occurred at intersections or crossovers that were not altered. Neither study
accounted for traffic volume changes, seasonal effects, or regression to the mean.
A study by Carter et al examined the operational and safety effects of U-turns at signalized
intersections (26). The locations used were a combination of randomly selected sites and U-turn
problem sites as identified by local traffic engineers. Despite the problem sites in the sample, 65
out of 78 sites had no U-turn collisions in the three year study period. Results showed that
locations with double left-turn lanes, protected right-turn overlap, high left-turn and conflicting
right-turn traffic volumes had the greatest number of U-turn collisions. The protected right-turn
overlap was a significant factor in increasing the likelihood of a collision. Overall, Carter et al
concluded that U-turns do not have a large negative effect on signalized intersections.
Potts et al conducted a study on the safety of unsignalized median openings on urban and
suburban arterials (27). Field data from twenty corridors in five different geographic regions of
the US were collected for specific median opening types, along with safety data from 668
median openings. The study looked at iifteen median opening types, including directional and
conventional openings, with and without left turn lanes and loons, mid-block openings, and
three- and four-leg intersections. The findings showed that collisions relating to U-turn and left-
turn movements at unsignalized median openings were infrequent. The rate of U-turn plus left-
turn crashes per median opening per year was found to be 0.41 for urban arterials and 0.20 for
rural arterials. Also, at three-leg intersections the rate was 48 percent lower far directional
median openings compared to conventional median openings. Four-leg intersections have a 15
percent reduction for directional median openings than conventional openings. This is relevant
59

to our study because superstreets use directional median openings and this design feature
indicates no safety concern.
Hummer and Reid compared the safety effectiveness of inedian U-turns to arterials with two-
way left turn lanes (TWLTL) and medians with conventional left turns using five years of
collision data in Michigan (17). Hummer and Reid found that total collision rates were
significantly lower for roadway sections with signalized median U-turns than with medians or
TWLTL. Roadway sections with unsignalized median U-turns had higher total collision rates
than conventional medians but were lower than TWLTL.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a TechBrief on the safety and
operational benefits of inedian U-turns (28). The report provides design guidelines and a
literature review of the important publications on median U-turns. Reported relevant safety
information found that replacing bidirectional crossovers with directional crossovers reduced the
number of total crash frequencies by 58 percent at four-legged intersections and 34 percent at
three-legged intersections. However, the safety study did not account for regression to the mean.
Also reported was that directional and bidirectional crossovers have approximately the same
collision rate for divided highway sections without traffic signals; however, as the traffic signal
density increases the directional crossovers have a 50 percent lower crash rate than the
bidirectional crossovers.
FHWA's Alternative Intersections Informational Report provides safety results for median U-
turn intersections (29). Implementation of inedian U-turn intersections from conventional four-
leg signalized intersections reduced rear-end, angle, and sideswipe collisions by 17, 96, and 61
percent, respectively.
31.2 Superstreets
A 2007 study by Kim, Edara and Bared also analyzed the safety performance of the superstreet
compared to conventional intersections (15). The safety analysis was done using the Surrogate
Safety Assessment Methodology tool (SSAM), which is a module of the VISSIM simulation
program that records the number of conflicts for each VISSIM run, for both single U-turn and
double U-turn lanes. Based on simulation runs in VISSIM, the single U-turn lanes reduced the
total number of conflicts by 80 percent. There was a 100 percent improvement in rear end
conflicts and a 10 percent increase in lane change conflicts; however, the increase in lane change
conflicts was not a significant finding. Double U-turn lanes resulted in a less favorable outcome.
They showed a significant increase in rear end conflicts (81 percent) and lane change conflicts
(75 percent), proving to be more dangerous in this measure than the conventional intersection.
The analysis was done using computer simulations that were not calibrated with field data.
A study by Hochstein et al analyzed crash data from unsignalized J-turn intersections in
Maryland and North Carolina (superstreets in Maryland are referred to as J-turns) (30). One site
in Maryland was converted to a J-turn from a two-way stopped-controlled intersection, resulting
in a 92 percent reduction in annual crash frequency at the main intersection. It should be noted
that crash data were not available for the crossover sections. In North Carolina, three spot
studies were conducted that showed 48-69 percent reductions in total collisions. The study
locations were the intersections of US-23/74 and SR-1527/1449, US-64 and SR-2234/2500, and
US-321 and SR-1796. While these studies give insight on the safety effects of superstreets,
conclusions on safety benefits cannot be drawn from the report because of the limited number of
•1

sites, sample size, and the use of naive before and after analysis. Hochstein et al, however,
report that rural TWSC intersections will benefit from J-turn (superstreet) implementation if they
have any of the following characteristics: a history of far-side right-angle collisions, collisions
within the median, or "left-turn leaving" collisions; high through volumes; or relatively low
volumes of left turns from the minor road. Hummer et al also investigated the safety aspects of
the superstreet (20, 29, 31). The papers analyzed the same sites in Maryland and North Carolina
as the Hochstein et al paper and yielded similar results and conclusions.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) performed several spot study
evaluations at locations across the state where directional median crossovers were installed as a
safety countermeasure (32-42). The directional crossovers prohibited left and through
movements from the side streets onto the main roadway. The locations either had full-median
openings or were two-way stop controlled intersections in the before period. All the locations
had divided major roadways. The spot studies consisted of a naive before and after analysis of
treatment sites, and in some cases, an analysis of intersections of either side of the location to test
for crash migration (treatment influenced intersections). At the US-64 and SR-2234 site in Wake
County, NCDOT also chose to evaluate the intersection using an odds ratio. The before and after
periods were equal for each study and ranged from three to six years. Although these studies are
naive, they generally show a crash reduction at the treatment sites. Table 1 shows the percent
reduction in total crashes and frontal impact crashes for the treatment sites, the treatment
influenced intersections, and the corridor strip which includes both treatment and influenced
intersections.
61

Table 3.1. Percent Crash Reduction from NCDOT Spot Studies (32-42)
US-23/74 from Jackson County Line to East of SR-1158, Haywood County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Tota I
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
US-23/74 strip -2.0 -75.0 5.6
Treatment site 4 20.0 -71.4 5.5
Treatment site 5 -66.7 -100.0 6.5
Treatment site 8 -42.9 -84.6 5.4
US-64 and SR-2234/SR-2500/Mark's Creek Rd., Wake County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Odds
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes Ratio ADT
Treatment site -47.6 -76.5 --- 5.8
Comparison site 53.8 -66.0 6.4
Treatment Influenced Intersections
Crossoverl 0.0
Crossover2 -11.1
US-321/Hickory Blvd. and SR-1796/Victoria Ct./Clover Dr., Caldwell County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Tota I
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
US-321 strip -38.0 -70.3 2.1
Crossoversection -68.8 -83.3
Treatment Influenced Intersections
SR-1164 -60.0 -71.4
SR-1774 -66.7 -66.7
SR-1223/Dickerson Blvd. from US-74 to Commerce Dr., Union County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Tota I
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
US-74 strip -54.7 -88.0 8.0
Treatment site 1 -61.3 -100.0
US-23/74 at SR-1527/Steeple Dr. and SR-1449/Cope Creek Rd., Jackson County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Tota I
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
Treatment site -53.3 -72.7 18.3
Treatment Influenced Intersections
Exit 85 ramp 100.0
SR-1788 0.0
US-70, Craven County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Tota I
Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
US-70 strip 146.4 6.7 10.6
Treatment sites (1-4) -46.2 -50.0 11.3
Treatment Influenced 261.5 57.1 12.7
Intersections (1-3)
62

Table 3.1. continued (32-42)
US-29/70 / I-856 at SR-1744/Mendenhall St., Davidson County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
Treatment site -76.9 -90.5 5.5
Treatment Influenced Intersections
I-85B at North Ave 0.0 5.2
I-85B at National Hwy 64.1 6.8
NC-132 and SR-2003/King's Grant Rd., New Hanover County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
Treatment site 11.8 -50.0 30.0
Treatment Influenced Intersections
NC-132 and SR-2004 9.4 -36.4
NC-132 and SR-2061 72.7 71.4
US-17 and Parkwood Dr., Onslow County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
US-17 strip -3.8
Treatment site -95.7
Treatment Influenced Intersections
US-17 and McDaniel Dr 209.5
US-17 and SR-1470 6.4
US-64 at SR-1163/Kelly Rd., Wake County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
Treatment site -18.6 -96.4 31.3
Treatment Influenced Intersections
Crossover 1 -50.0
Crossover2 0.0
US-70 and SR-1731/Piney Grove Rd., Wayne County
% reduction (-), % increase (+)
Total Crashes Frontal Impact Crashes ADT
Treatment site -85.2 -100.0 -3.4
NCDOT also performed a spot study evaluation at the intersection of NG87 and SR-
1150/Peanut Plant Road in Bladen County where a superstreet was installed as a safety
countermeasure (43). The spot study consisted of a naive before and after analysis with three
years of befare and after crash data. NCDOT found that the superstreet reduced total crashes and
frontal impact crashes by 833 percent and 90.9 percent, respectively. The average daily traffic
decreased by 19.8 percent from the before period year to the after period year (2004 to 2008).
NCDOT also analyzed surrounding intersections for crash migration. The study showed a
possible, but not likely, crash migration with an increase of three and six collisions in the after
period to the nearby intersections.
FHWA's Alternative Intersections Informational Report includes the safety benefits of
superstreets (also known as restricted crossing U-turn intersection ar RCUT) (29). The relevant
safety information included a before and after study of crash rates from the RCUTs along the
US-23/74 corridor in North Carolina and from the US-301 site in Maryland (previously
mentioned). The study also shows comparisons of the after period crash rates from three RCUTs
63

along US-17 in North Carolina to comparable conventional intersections in Charlotte, NC. A
before and after study was not used because the RCUTs were implemented as a part of the
redevelopment of the area and traffic patterns changed significantly from the before conditions.
The study used crash performance predictions for four-legged signalized intersections based on
Chapter 12 of AASHTO's Highway Safety Manual (HSM to be published later in 2010). The
findings showed that the total crash rates for all three RCUT intersections were below both the
HSM predicted rates and the comparison sites in Charlotte.
3.1.3 Access Management
There is a large variety of literature on access management. The studies of interest to this project
include safety impacts of directional median openings from driveways and economic impacts of
these access management techniques on businesses. Much of the safety literature for access
management is similar to or can be applied to median U-turns because they both involve
directional crossovers. The safety literature for access management is different because the
studies involve turns from driveways rather than turns from intersections.
3.1.3.1 Safety
Liu et al conducted a study to compare the safety of direct left turns versus right turns followed
by U-turns (RTUT) from driveways in Florida (44). The researchers used video-captured data
from sixteen median openings along urban or suburban multilane highways to conduct a conflict
study. The median openings were located on six- to eight-lane divided roadways and were split
between signalized intersections and unsignalized openings. The study produced 2,873 conflicts
for various driveway left turn alternatives. The findings show that indirect left turn movements
from a driveway at a median opening and at a signalized intersection have fewer conflicts than
direct left turn movements by 47 percent and 26 percent, respectively.
Pirinccioglu et al conducted a similar conflict study comparing RTUT with direct left turns
(DLT) along four-lane divided arterials (45). The researchers used video-collected U-turn data at
signalized intersections and median openings. The study showed that RTUT related conflicts are
less severe than DLT related conflicts at signalized intersections; however, RTUT movements
had a five percent higher conflict rate than DLTs. At median openings, DLT conflicts are mare
severe and the rates are 62 percent higher than RTUT movements. The severity and conflict
rates far both DLT and RTUT are higher at median openings than signalized intersections.
Lu et al also evaluated the safety effects of indirect driveway left turn treatments or RTUTs (46).
The study used 140 roadway segments where U-turns replace direct left turns from driveways
and 32 three-leg unsignalized intersections with direct left turns in Florida. The researchers
found that U-turn crashes are very infrequent with a collision rate of 0.2 crashes per year per site,
and most RTUT related crashes occur in the weaving section between driveways and U-turn
openings. Lu et al developed a crash prediction modeL They identified three key factors that
contribute to RTUT weaving section collisions: major roadway ADT, location of the U-turn bay,
and separation distances between driveway exits and downstream U-turn locations.
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Reports 420 and 524 showed
similar results far access management techniques on arterials (27, 47). NCHRP 420 reported
that U-turns generally provide a 20 percent collision reduction by eliminating direct left-turns
from driveways and a 35 percent reduction when the U-turns are signalized. NCHRP 524
•�

produced results of safety effectiveness of U-turns at unsignalized median openings. The study
used 918 unsignalized median openings found in 62 arterial corridors in seven states. The
arterials consisted of either four or six lane cross-sections with a balanced mixture of low and
high speed roadways. Forty-three percent of inedian openings were located on low speed
arterials (< 50 mph) and 57 percent on high speed arterials (> 55 mph). The research concluded
that access management strategies that increase U-turn volumes at unsignalized median openings
can be used safely and effectively. The study also found that U-turn and left-turn maneuvers at
unsignalized median openings occur very infrequently at 0.41 collisions per median opening per
year in urban arterial corridors, and 0.20 collisions per median opening per year in rural arterial
corridors. Median opening collision rates are significantly lower for midblock than at
intersections for urban arterials, and collision rates at three-leg conventional intersections are
slightly lower than for four-leg conventional intersections.
3.1.3.2 Economic Impacts
The Transportation Research Board Access Management Manual presented studies done across
the country indicating that raised medians have little to no overall adverse impact on surrounding
businesses (10). In Kansas, changes in access or traffic patterns did not cause a change in use of
the abutting businesses. In Texas, the number of customers and employment increased overall,
and the perception of the median installation by business owners prior to construction is usually
worse than reality. Also, business owners ranked "accessibility to store" lower in priority than
customer service, quality of product, and product price. In Iowa, before and after survey data
were collected from seven projects. Findings showed that 80 percent of businesses reported
equal or higher sales and reported no customer complaints about business access after project
completion. Ninety (90) to 100 percent of motorists also favored the roadway modifications
from controlled access. In Florida, a study showed no adverse impacts on truck deliveries and
business activity. Williams presented similar findings in all states (49)
Similar results were found in a study done by the Texas Transportation Institute addressing the
economic impacts of raised medians (11). This four-year study was done at eleven locations to
assess the effects prior, during, and after construction of raised medians. Through surveys and
interviews with business owners and customers, the researchers found that the only major
adverse impact raised medians have is during the construction phase. For businesses that were
present before, during, and after construction, property value increased by 6.7 percent after the
construction of the raised median compared to the before conditions, while owners thought they
would experience a decrease in value. The duration of construction typically lasted one to two
years, with construction dates between 1979 and 1998 far all study locations. As with other
studies, accessibility is ranked lower in importance for destination businesses, while slightly
higher for pass-by businesses such as gas stations. Overall, the study concludes that there is no
negative economic impact caused by raised medians.
FHWA's Alternative Intersections Informational Report provides access management
considerations far median U-turn and superstreet intersections (29). Because the designs
primarily service through traffic on the major road, inferences can be made that some land uses
that rely on pass-by traffic may suffer; however, no documented studies of inedian U-turns or
superstreets on adjacent land users are identiiied. The designs' flexibility on crossover
placement can provide safer and mare efficient access.
65

3.2 Methodology
This section describes the approach used to complete the evaluation of the safety effectiveness of
superstreets installed in North Carolina. The safety study involved a naive and comparison
group (C-G) analyses of signalized and unsignalized superstreets and an Empirical Bayes (EB)
method analysis of unsignalized superstreets. The team also evaluated signalized superstreets
using the Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) because VISSIM models were previously
calibrated and validated (see Chapter 2). The team used these three methods of analysis to find
the effects a superstreet design has on collision frequencies and severities. Signalized
superstreets utilized the C-G method because the NCDOT installed superstreets at these sites for
their congestion problems and not for their safety problems. Based on this fact, regression-to-
the-mean will not have an effect on the collision frequencies, thus making the use of the C-G
method acceptable. Conversely, unsignalized superstreets were installed for their safety issues;
therefore, regression-to-the-mean must be accounted for in the analysis.
3.21 Selection of Sites
The identification of sites for the safety analysis involved finding both signalized and
unsignalized superstreets in North Carolina. Sites were selected for the study only if they were,
by definition, a full superstreet. A site is considered to be a full superstreet if it reroutes left and
through movements from the side street to directional crossovers on both sides of the main
intersection. Figure 1.1, shown previously, displays the two most common four-legged
superstreet designs. Four-legged sites that had only one U-turn crossover or used a full-median
opening as a directional crossover were not included in the study. Table 3.2 lists the sites
selected for analysis. Site selection criteria also included that the roads must have existed prior
to the superstreet and the superstreet was not installed with other major improvements (no two-
lane to four-lane conversion for example).
••

Table 3.2. Sites Selected for the Safety Analysis
Main Road Cross Street(s) City County
US-15/501 Erwin Rd./Europa Dr. Chapel Hill Orange
US-17 (Ocean Hwy) Ploof Rd./Olde Waterford Way Leland Brunswick
US-17 (Ocean Hwy) West Gate Dr./Grandiflora Dr. Leland Brunswick
US-17 (Ocean Hwy) Gregory Rd. Leland Brunswick
US-421 (Carolina SR-2501 Wilmington New
Beach Rd.) Hanover
US-17 (Ocean Hwy) Mt. Pisgah Rd. (SR-1130)/Sellers Brunswick
Rd. (SR-1344)
US-17 (Ocean Hwy) Ocean Isle Beach Rd. (SR-1184) Brunswick
US-74 (Great Smokey Red Bank Rd. (SR-1155)/Walker Haywood
Mtn. Expressway) / Rd. (SR-1157)
US-23
US-74 (Great Smokey Old Balsam Rd. (SR- Haywood
Mtn. 1243)/Balsam Ridge Rd. (SR-
Expressway)/US-23 1158)
US-74/441 Barkers Creek Rd. (SR- Jackson
1392)/Wilmont Rd.
US-74/441 Dicks Creek Rd. (SR-1388) Jackson
US-74 (Andrew Elmore Rd. (SR-1321) Scotland
Jackson Hwy)
US-74/76 Blacksmith Rd. (SR-1800) Bolton Columbus
NG24 (Beulaville Haw Branch Rd. (SR-1230) Onslow
Hwy)
US-1 Camp Easter Rd./Aiken Rd. (SR- Moore
1853)
NG87 Peanut Plant Rd. (SR-1150) Elizabethtown Bladen
NG87/24 (Bragg N. 2"d St. Spring Lake Cumberland
Blvd.)
NG87 School Rd./Butler Nursery Rd. Fayetteville Cumberland
(SR-2233)
NG87 Alderman Rd. (SR-2261)/Grays Fayetteville Cumberland
Creek Church Rd.
3.2.2 Data Collection
The team began data collection by gathering information related to each site that was necessary
to assemble the appropriate collision reports. These data included distances from the main
intersection to the directional crossovers, all possible road names of the intersections including
route numbers, and the construction period. The team needed distances to the crossovers to
specify the area around the intersection for collecting relevant collision reports. Many roads in
the state have multiple names that collision reports could be filed under, so it was important to
list all possible road names when amassing collision reports. Lastly, the construction period was
needed to make sure the team requested collision reports for enough time prior to construction of
67

the superstreet. Most of these data gathered at this stage were useful in collecting collision data
and later in the safety analysis as well.
In addition to the data needed to acquire collision reports, the team also needed annual average
daily traffic (AADT), along with data on road geometry, traffic control information, and other
pertinent features of the site. The team retrieved AADT from the NCDOT traffic volume maps,
and used Google Earth to note road geometry and features.
To use the C-G method of analysis, it was necessary to identify a suitable list of comparison sites
for each superstreet. Comparison sites were used to predict what the collision frequency of the
treatment site would have been in the "after" period had the treatment not been in place. This is
important in determining the net safety effect following installation of the superstreet. Graphing
the collision frequency of the comparison sites with the superstreet sites in the "before" period
versus time, or using the sample odds ratio, helps show if the collision frequencies at the
comparison sites were tracking the treatment sites. If they tracked well, the team assumed that
the comparison sites would be good predictors of collision frequency if the superstreet had not
been built. The team typically used two comparison sites per superstreet for the C-G method;
however, some superstreets did not track well with two comparison sites so the team used either
one or three in those cases. The following criteria were used to find comparison sites:
1. Conventional intersections,
2. Similar geometry,
3. Traffic control measures,
4. Divided major road,
5. Proximity to the superstreet, and
6. Similar AADT.
The first three measures listed above were required for comparison sites. That is, comparison
sites must be conventional intersections (full median openings), they must have the same
geometry (number of approaches), and they must have the same form of traffic control as their
superstreet comparison. For instance, if a superstreet was a three-legged signalized intersection,
then its comparison sites must be three-legged signalized conventional intersections.
The last three measures listed above were not required but were highly recommended. That is,
the team wanted similar medians, similar AADTs, and proximity to the superstreets. Most
comparison sites had divided major roads, but at some locations the team was not able to find
adequate divided conventional intersections. If the AADTs were similar between treatment and
comparison sites they had a better chance of having a similar history of collisions because the
exposure levels were similar. Comparison sites with similar or higher AADTs helped ensure a
large enough sample of collisions to provide for a better analysis. The team wanted comparison
sites to be within five miles of the superstreet, and every effort was made to find similar sites in
this influence area. This was important because if the sites are in close proximity they likely
experienced the same weather events, driver demographics, and effects of policies which play an
important role on the collision history.
The EB method involves using a model to predict the collision frequency. The team chose to
calibrate and use the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) model, which will be discussed later. To
use the EB method of analysis for collision frequency, the team needed to iind a large pool of
•:

calibration sites for three-legged and four-legged superstreets. Unlike the GG method, the EB
method does not require each treatment site to have its own specific comparison sites. Instead,
the team found a model calibration factor for three-legged superstreets by analyzing a large pool
of three-legged calibration sites, and the team made a similar effort for four-legged sites. The
EB method works better if the calibration sites have varying characteristics in numbers of turn
lanes and AADTs. Calibration sites only need to share the most basic set of traits as the
superstreet sites: divided four-lane major road, undivided two-lane minor road, and two-way
stop-control. Varying the other characteristics enabled the team to collect a robust set of
calibration sites that will give a better estimate of the group need (50). Three-legged and four-
legged calibration sites were found by initially looking for intersections with given major and
minor approach AADTs on NCDOT traffic volume maps. Available AADTs were limited and,
to be time- and cost-efficient, the search focused on intersections or highways that already had
recorded volumes. Next, each candidate calibration site was checked using Google Maps to
confirm that it fit the necessary criteria. Sites that had one minor approach but had a commercial
driveway opposite of the minor approach were considered four-legged sites. Alternatively, sites
that had one minor approach and had a residential driveway opposite of the minor approach were
considered three-legged sites. The team used the following criteria to evaluate three-legged and
four-legged calibration sites:
• Full median opening or median that allows all direct movements,
• Major road is four-lane and divided for at least 500 feet beyond the intersection,
• Traffic control limited to stop-control on minor approach(s), and
• At least one minor approach AADT greater than 700 vehicles per day.
The criteria helped ensure fair comparisons between superstreets and their conventional
counterparts. The major road must be divided at least 500 feet beyond the intersection on the
major road because the only collisions desired are those related to the intersection and not from
geometry changes. The team also chose to set a constraint on the minor approach volume
because it was assumed a conventional intersection would only be retrofitted into a superstreet if
the volumes were significant enough to cause a safety concern. Although the HSM model has no
minimum volume, 700 vehicles per day was chosen as the constraint.
NCDOT traffic volume maps were reviewed from all counties in North Carolina to give the best
opportunity far site selection. Counties varied in the availability of calibration sites. Some
counties did not have four-lane divided highways with unsignalized intersections and others had
several. The goal was to collect between 30 and 50 calibration sites for each type of site, three-
legged and four-legged, because that is the recommendation of the Highway Safety Manual (51).
The team achieved a complete census rather than a random selection of calibration sites because
of setting certain criteria for calibration sites, and choosing every site meeting those criteria.
Strip analyses and collision reports were collected for all sites analyzed including superstreets,
comparison sites, and calibration sites. To collect the strip analyses the team used the Traffic
Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS) software which is the primary tool used by the
NCDOT to analyze and report on crashes within North Carolina (52). This software provides a
complete set of all police-reported collisions in North Carolina. It was necessary to collect code
numbers for each major road and mile posts for each area of interest. The area of interest for
treatment sites included 150 feet beyond the intersection on the minor road(s), and 500 feet
beyond each median crossover on the major road. The team chose 150 feet for the minor road
••

because that is standard NCDOT practice. The team chose 500 feet beyond the median
crossovers on the major road to capture all collisions that may have been affected by the
unconventional geometry. Comparison sites had the same area of interest as their superstreet
sites because it ensured a fair comparison for the C-G method. Calibration sites' area of interest
included 150 feet on the minor road(s) and 500 feet along the major road from the intersection.
The team chose 500 feet beyond the intersection on the major road to capture all collisions that
may have been affected by the intersection. The team used code numbers and mile posts in
conjunction with the appropriate time period for each site in TEAAS. The time period for
collected collision data for superstreets and their comparison sites was from five years prior to
the construction of the superstreet to the most recent day for which data were available.
Calibration sites were collected for five years as well, from January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2008.
To collect the collision reports the team used North Carolina's Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) Crash Reports Request which is a primary tool used by the NCDOT to gather specific
details on each collision (52). The DMV tool provided review of collision reports for all crashes
that were suspected at the intersections to make sure the location identified was correct, to see if
construction was ongoing or if construction may have attributed to the crash, and to see if the
geometry or traffic control had changed at any time during the data collection period. The team
included collisions that occurred during construction if the construction was temporary or if only
a few collisions occurred during construction. A site was not used if all of the collisions
occurred while the roadway was under construction. Appendix 10.2 contains dates of before and
after time periods, geometric details, and major and minor road AADTs for each site.
3.2.3 Data Analysis
The team conducted an observational before and after safety study using the naive and C-G
methods for signalized and unsignalized superstreets, and an EB approach for unsignalized
superstreets. Signalized superstreets utilized the naive and GG methods because (based on
feedback from NCDOT) the NCDOT installed superstreets at these sites for their congestion
problems and not far their safety problems. Based on this fact, regression-to-the-mean would not
have an effect on the collision frequencies which makes the use of the naive and C-G methods
acceptable. The C-G method properly accounts far any changes in collision frequencies from the
before period to the after period. Comparison sites were used to predict what the "after" period
would have been had the superstreet not been built. Graphing the collision frequency of the
comparison sites with the superstreet sites in the "before" period versus time, or using the sample
odds ratio, helps show if the comparison sites have similar trends to the treatment site. If they
tracked well, then it was assumed that the comparison sites would be good predictors for what
the collision frequency would have been at the treatment sites if the superstreet had not been
built. This analysis will summarize the effects, if any, the superstreet had on intersection safety
by comparing the actual number of collisions at the treatment site to what would have likely
happened had no treatment been installed.
The EB method was used to analyze the safety of unsignalized intersections. The NCDOT
selected most unsignalized sites far superstreet installation due to safety problems. The decision
to make a change based on safety is a red flag for regression-to-the-mean (RTM). RTM effects
make a treatment seem a lot safer than it really is because the intersections already had a higher-
than-average collision frequency, and regardless of whether or not a treatment had been installed,
the collision frequency was very likely to decrease even if the treatment had not been installed.
70

By taking RTM into account, the estimate of collisions had the treatment not been installed will
be unbiased, showing the actual affect of the countermeasure.
The EB method uses a model to predict the collision frequency at typical sites of interest (in this
case, on four-lane rural divided arterials). There were several available options for models, each
with its own advantages and disadvantages:
l. The intersection model in Chapter 11 of the Highway Safety Manual (51),
2. Dr. Jongdae Baek's model for multilane highway segments with or without curbs (53),
3. Ms. Stacie Phillips' model for four-lane median divided highways (54), or
4. Dr. Raghavan Srinivasan's model for two-lane highways (55).
The HSM Chapter 11 collision frequency model was beneficial because it is applicable to rural
divided multilane highway intersections. It is also applicable to three-legged and four-legged
intersections. The drawback to using this model was that it was not calibrated for North
Carolina.
Jongdae Baek's and Stacie Phillips' models would have been beneficial because they were
calibrated in North Carolina. The disadvantage of these models was that they do not take into
account side streets, and trying to modify the models to include minor road AADT's would have
been more complicated than calibrating the HSM model for North Carolina with no guarantee
that they would have fit well.
Raghavan Srinivasan's model for two-lane highways would have been beneficial because his
model had an adaptation if minor road AADT was unavailable, like at many of the study's
potential rural reference sites. However, it was not appropriate because it was for two-lane
highways only.
The team determined that the most effective approach was to use the HSM model and calculate a
calibration factor. The HSM model uses a procedure to estimate the expected average crash
frequency of a specific facility type. The chosen facility was a rural multilane highway
unsignalized intersection. The model estimates the expected average crash frequency for an
individual site, with the cumulative sum of all sites representing the entire network. The model
requires a set time period, consistent traffic control measures, and known AADTs on at least one
majar and minor approach. Equation 3.1 shows the predictive model used far three-leg and four-
leg stop-controlled intersections (51).
Equation 3.1 NpCea��c�a;,►t = Nspf;,,t x C; x(AMFi; x AMFzi x... x AMFa�)
Where:
Nprea��cea �nc = predicted average crash frequency for an individual intersection for the
selected year,
Nspf,,,t = predicted average crash frequency for an intersection with base conditions,
AMFi; ... AMF4i = Accident Modification Factors for three- and four-leg stop-
controlled intersections, and
C; = calibration factor for intersections of a specific type developed for use in North
Carolina.
71

Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) predict the average crash frequency for three- and four-leg
stop-controlled intersections with base conditions. The SPF base conditions are shown below:
• Zero degree intersection skew angle,
• No left turn lanes on major road,
• No right turn lanes on major road, and
• No presence of lighting.
The rural highway intersection SPF, Nspf,,,r, is calculated per year using regression coefficients
and major and minor leg AADTs. The SPF equation is modified for intersection type (three-leg
or four-leg) and severity level (total collisions, fatal and injury collisions, or KAB collisions
using the KABCO scale) through the regression coefficients. Equation 3.2 shows the SPF
calculation (51):
Equation 3.2 Nspfint — �a—��lnAAaT��—cxlnAAaTmin
Where:
NSpf ,,,t = SPF estimate of intersection-related expected average crash frequency for
base conditions,
AADT,,,a� = AADT (vehicles per day) for major road,
AADT,,,;,, = AADT (vehicles per day) for minor road, and
a, b, c= regression coefficients.
The team calculated the three-legged and four-legged SPFs for years 2004 to 2009 and for two
severity types: total collisions and fatal and injury collisions. Some sites did not have major or
minor AADTs for every year, and in those cases, a linear trend line was used to estimate the
missing traffic volumes. HSM methodology suggested using the higher AADT if both volumes
are given for a roadway
Accident Modification Factars (AMFs) are used to adjust the predicted average crash frequency
when base conditions are not met. AMFs are calculated per site, and can be modified for total
crashes or fatal and injury crashes (51). AMFs far intersections modify the effect on safety due
to intersection skew angle, presence of a left-turn(s) on the major road, presence of a right-
turn(s) on the major road, and presence of intersection lighting. "The AMFs are multiplicative
because the safety effects of the features they represent are presumed to be independent. Little
research exists regarding the independence of these effects, but there is no basis in current
knowledge for any assumption other than the independence of these effects" (51).
The calibration factor, C,, is calculated separately for facility type and severity level. Equation
3.3 shows the calibration equation (51):
�a]] sltes ���erved crashes
Equation 3.3 C; _
�a]] s�tes E�redicted rrashes
Table 3.3 shows the calculated calibration factors for 2004 to 2009 that were calculated from the
data collected far North Carolina. The results from Table 3.3 indicate that North Carolina
collisions occur at a higher rate than the collisions used to develop the base equation for the
HSM. This is not unusual as "the general level of crash frequencies may vary substantially from
one jurisdiction to another for a variety of reasons including climate, driver populations, animal
72

populations, crash reporting thresholds, and crash reporting system procedures" (51). For
example, unlike most other states, North Carolina has one single owner and agency far its roads
which would lead to more uniform crash reporting.
Table 3.3. Calculated HSM Calibration Factors
Facility Severity Level Calibration
Type Factor
Three-legged Total 1.57
Fatal and 2.05
injury
Four-legged Total 1.39
Fatal and 1.74
injury
3.3 Results
The team separated the analysis of superstreets into three separate groups. First, signalized
superstreets were not affected by RTM; therefore, they were only analyzed using observational
naive and comparison group (C-G) methods instead of Empirical Bayes (EB). As a
supplemental analysis of signalized superstreets, the team used a time-of-day and milepost
analysis and the Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM). Second, unsignalized
superstreets were affected by RTM; thus, they were analyzed using EB methods. As a
supplemental analysis of unsignalized superstreets, the team used observational naive and C-G
methods. Third, some superstreets were converted with additional major improvements, such as
signalized traffic control, additional through lanes, or as a brand new road. These signalized and
unsignalized superstreets had dissimilar before and after periods; therefore, they were only
analyzed using the HSM model for collision rates. These analyses are shown in the following
subsections.
3.31 Nai've Analysis
A naive study was performed on the superstreet sites to obtain a basic before/after analysis. The
naive study predicts what the safety of the site would have been in the after period had the
superstreet not been implemented; however, it has some shortcomings compared to mare
rigorous studies used later in this effort. The team used the naive study because it provided a
good base comparison for the C-G and EB methods. The team conducted the study on three
groups: all superstreets, only signalized superstreets, and only unsignalized sites. Then, each
group was analyzed using different collision types: total, fatal and injury, angle and right turns,
rear-end, sideswipes, left turns, and other. Right turn collisions were included with angles
because most crashes reported as right turns could also be categorized as angle crashes. Left turn
collisions could be reported as `Left Turn, Same Roadway' or `Left Turn, Different Roadways',
and were combined together in one category because the collision types were indistinguishable
in the collision reports. Left turn collisions were separated from angle and right turn collisions
because there was a distinguishable difference between the two categaries in the collision
reports. The `other' category includes all collision types not covered by the speciiic categories.
Table 3.4 shows the number of collisions per treatment site and by the collision type. Table 3.5
shows the before and after collisions for each treatment site and its comparison sites (which will
73

be used for the GG methods later). These collision data were used in all other safety analyses,
where appropriate, and will not be repeated in the rest of the paper. Appendix 10.2 contains
superstreet and comparison site crash data.
Table 3.4. Number of Collisions per Treatment Site and by Collision Type
Total Fatal & Angles & Rear Sideswipes Left
Treatment site injury right ends turns
turns
All 1331 556 270 493 118 181
Signalized 617 220 88 337 55 79
Unsignalized 714 336 182 156 63 102
Signalized superstreets
Erwin/Europa 226
Leland corridor 140
Carolina Beach 251
Unsignalized superstreets
Mt. Pisgah 83
Ocean Isle Beach 84
Red Bank/Old 169
Balsam corridor
Barkers Creek 31
Dicks Creek 24
Elmore 20
Blacksmith 19
Haw Branch 42
Camp Easter/Aiken 39
Peanut Plant 48
2"a Street 84
School Road 44
Gravs Creek Church 27
72 33 150
47 30 56
101 25 131
35 21 18
29 8 39
92 32 33
16
11
12
15
14
15
32
28
25
12
6
4
9
10
14
6
35
15
12
10
6
1
2
4
1
7
1
40
3
1
16
17
22
5
2
18
4
4
0
0
2
8
2
16
1
1
9
12
58
21
17
31
3
5
1
0
5
5
1
7
5
1
Other
269
58
211
18
25
15
18
18
55
12
10
8
5
20
13
9
6
23
14
74

Table 3.5. Total Before and After Collisions for Treatment Sites and Comparison Sites
Treatment site
Signalized sites
Erwin/Europa
Leland corridor
Carolina Beach
Unsignalized sites
Mt. Pisgah
Ocean Isle Beach
Red Bank/Old Balsam
corridor
Barkers Creek
Dicks Creek
Elmore
Blacksmith
Haw Branch
Camp Easter/Aiken
Peanut Plant
2°d Street
School Road
Gravs Creek Church
Time Period (months)
Before After
90 18
59 34
60 11
59
59
96
58
58
58
59
59
59
58
59
60
60
10
11
115
8
8
13
32
21
41
36
34
13
13
Treatment Sites Comparison Sites
Before After Before After
180 46 393 49
42 98 754 410
218 33 224 38
76
76
87
28
21
18
14
36
24
38
60
34
26
.
:
3
3
2
5
6
15
10
24
10
1
139
42
222
83
52
62
6
44
22
23
208
37
42
17
6
392
5
5
11
8
15
24
26
118
5
16
The team performed the naive studies with the duration factor, rd, and traffic flow adjustment
factor, rtf. The duration factor used the ratio of before and after time periods to adjust for
different durations before and after superstreet installation. The traffic flow adjustment factor
used the ratio of HSM rural unsignalized intersection SPFs for the before and after periods. The
team used the ratio of SPFs instead of a simple AADT proportionality for r� because the HSM
SPFs are more robust functions that take more into account than the simple AADT
proportionality. Due to time and resource constraints, the team was only able to conduct a
calibration study on unsignalized sites. Therefore, signalized intersections used the unsignalized
SPF for consistency.
The SPFs used AADTs taken from NCDOT traffic volume maps. A weighted average of
AADTs was used in the before period and after period where possible, and where impossible,
linear regression was used to estimate befare ar after volumes because it generally fit most
trends. The superstreets in Leland were not included in the naive study because huge
development in that area occurred along with the implementation of the superstreets. It is not a
fair study to analyze the Leland superstreets without taking into account the change in traffic
patterns that affected the safety of the sites. Equations 3.4 and 3.5 show the rd and rtf
calculations, respectively. Table 3.6 shows the naive method results far each superstreet by total
collisions, and Table 3.7 shows the results by collision type. A negative value in the table
indicates a reduction in the number of collisions, and a positive value indicates an increase in the
number of collisions.
Equation 3.4 I-d = duration oF after period
duratian af befare periad
75

ffaverage traffic flows forthe after period��
Equation 3.5 rtf = '
ffaverage traffic flaws far t�e befare periad�
Table 3.6. Naive Method Results for Individual Superstreets - Total Collisions
Superstreet � Impact (%) � St. dev. (%)
Signalized superstreets
US-15/501 and Erwin Rd/Europa Dr 25.2 25.7
US-421 and SR-2501 -26.1 * 21.0
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt Pisgah Rd/SR-1130 -54.6* 19.5
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Rd/SR-1184 -55.7* 18.3
US-74 and Red Bank Rd/Old Balsam Rd corridor -31.7* 18.1
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Rd/SR-1392 -32.6 40.3
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Rd/SR-1388 -11.9 52.7
US-74 and Elmore Rd/SR-1321 -53.1* 33.1
US-74/76 and Blacksmith Rd/SR-1800 -31.9 33.7
NG24 and Haw Branch Rd/SR-1230 -61.0* 17.3
US-1 and Camp Easter Rd/SR-1853 -22.7 26.3
NG87 and Peanut Plant Rd/SR-1150 -49.4* 18.6
NC-87/24 and 2"d St -35.4* 17.1
NG87 and School Rd/Butler Nursery Rd 7.6 39.8
NG87 and Grays Creek Church Rd/Alderman Rd -84.2* 15.4
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
Table 3.7. Naive Method Results
All Signalized Unsignalized
Collision type Impact St. dev Impact St. dev Impact St. dev
% % % % % °/a
Total -26.2* 8.5 -1.0 18.1 -34.3* 9.2
Fatal and injury -53.4* 7.7 -35.0* 17.8 -57.6* 8.1
Angle and right-turns -69.8* 6.7 102.5* 61.3 -86.4* 4.3
Rear-end 7.1 15.7 -10.0 18.6 22.2 25.0
Sideswipe 14.8 27.6 9.4 46.0 13.9 31.9
Left-turns -74.8* 7.4 -77.2* 13.5 -74.7* 8.3
Other 14.6 20.7 802* 70.3 8.7 20.9
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
The results from the naive method for individual superstreets infer that most implementations
were successful in reducing crashes. The signalized superstreet at US-421 showed a small
reduction in collisions while the US-15/501 signalized superstreet showed an increase in
collisions but was statistically insignificant. Eight of the 13 unsignalized superstreets
significantly reduced total collisions, while the other five were statistically insignificant (four
showed a reduction in collisions).
76

The results from the naive method by collision type show that superstreets reduce most types of
crashes. Superstreets reduced total crashes by 26 percent, fatal and injury crashes by 53 percent,
and angle and right turn crashes by 70 percent. The increase in rear-end, sideswipe, and other
crashes can be explained by the addition of more signals and additional vehicle maneuvers made
from the side street to the median U-turn opening; even so, the predicted increases in these
categories were not statistically significant. The results also show that unsignalized superstreets
reduced total crashes by 34 percent, fatal and injury crashes by 58 percent, and turning crashes
by approximately 80 percent (75 percent for left turns and 86 percent for angle and right turns).
The naive method shows that signalized superstreets reduce fatal and injury crashes by 35
percent and left-turning crashes by 77 percent. However, the results also indicate that signalized
superstreets increased angle and right turn crashes by just over 100 percent. As noted earlier,
findings from naive analyses should be used with caution. For our purposes, the team used these
findings to spot possible trends, and to help explain the findings of the C-G or EB methods
which account for more variability in the data.
3.3.2 C-G Analysis
Prior to conducting C-G studies, the team calculated sample odds ratios from total collisions by
individual sites, the set of all signalized sites, and the set of all unsignalized sites, to determine if
the comparison sites tracked well with the superstreets. If the mean of the odds ratio was within
one standard deviation of one, the collisions were assumed to track well and the comparison sites
were used in the C-G study. Equation 3.6 shows the odds ratio formula. The odds ratio can only
be calculated from whole years of data (i.e. partial years are not acceptable).
Equation 3.6 0 = (K*N)/(L*M)/(1+1/L+1/M)
Where:
o= odds ratio for year n,
K= superstreet collisions in year n-1,
L= superstreet collisions in year n,
M= sum of comparison site collisions in year n-1, and
N= sum of comparison site collisions in year n.
The following shows an example calculation of the odds ratio for US-74/441 and Barkers Creek
Road/Wilmont Road and its comparison sites. Table 3.8 shows the input data and Table 3.9
shows the calculation steps.
Table 3.8. Odds Ratio Example — Input Data
Superstreet Sum of Comparison Sites
2003 collision data 9 18
2004 collision data 5 11
2005 collision data 7 21
2006 collision data 3 12
77

Table 3.9. Odds Ratio Example - Calculation
Odds Ratio (o)
Formula Calculation Answer
2003-2004 =(K*N)/(L*M)/(1+UL+1/M) =(9*11)/(18*5)/(1+1/18+1/5) 0.876
2004-2005 —(K*N)/(L*M)/(1+1/L+UM) —(5*21)/(11*7)/(1+1/11+1/7 1.105
2005-2006 =(K*N)/(L*M)/(1+1/L+1/M) =(7*12)/(21*3)/(1+1/21+1/3) 0.966
Mean (m) =(003-04+oo4-os+oos-o6)�n =(0.876+1.105+0.966)/3 0.982
Variance (v) =((003-o4-m)�+(oo4-os- =((0.876-0.982)�+(1.105- 0.013
m)�+(oos-o6-m)�)/(n-1) 0.982)�+(0.966-0.982)�)/2
Standard =(v/n)0�5 =(0.013/3)°�5 0.067
deviation (s)
Within 1 standard Is m-s < 1.0 < m+s ? Is 0.982-0.067<1.0< Yes
deviation of 1.0? 0.982+0.067 ?
The team performed the odds ratio test for the set of signalized and unsignalized sites by
bringing all of the construction start dates to time zero. This enabled all sites to be analyzed in
one group even though the before periods varied greatly. This was possible because there were
no changes in reporting thresholds that would have caused significant problems during the
analysis. All sites had successful odds ratios except for NC-87 and Grays Creek Church
Road/Alderman Road in Cumberland County. The team used the comparison sites in the C-G
analysis for that site anyway because the mean plus the standard deviation equals 0.952 which
the team assumed to be close enough. Also, the unavailability of four-legged, unsignalized,
conventional intersections on divided major roadways near this superstreet made the analysis
difficult. In the unsignalized analysis, the team did not include collisions before 1996 to account
for collision recording changes that occurred in 1995. Table 3.10 shows the odds ratios for the
signalized set, the unsignalized set, and individual superstreets.
:

Table 3.10. Odds Ratio Results
Superstreet
Signalized sites
Unsignalized sites
US-15/501 and Erwin Rd/Europa Dr
US-17 Leland corridor
US-421 and SR-2501
US-17 and Mt Pisgah Rd1SR-1130
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Rd/SR-1184
US-74 and Red Bank Rd/Old Balsam Rd corridor
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Rd/SR-1392
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Rd/SR-1388
US-74 and Elmore Rd/SR-1321
US-74/76 and Blacksmith Rd/SR-1800
NG24 and Haw Branch Rd/SR-1230
US-1 and Camp Easter Rd/SR-1853
NG87 and Peanut Plant Rd/SR-1150
NC-87/24 and 2"d St
NG87 and School Rd/Butler Nursery Rd
NG87 and Gravs Creek Church Rd/Alderman Rd
Average � Std. dev. � Within 1 std.
m�o�
0.937
1.013
0.919
0.847
1.108
0.923
0.883
1.235
0.982
0.844
0.936
0.728
0.792
1.349
1.147
1.042
0.875
0.760
s�o�
0.173
0.151
0.113
0.473
0.302
0.393
0.162
0.354
0.067
0.333
0.341
0.372
0.395
1.144
0.577
0.143
0.186
0.192
dev.of 1.0?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Figure 3.1 shows a plot of the total before collisions for US-74/441 and Barkers Creek
Road/Wilmont Road and its comparison sites as an example to show if the collisions in both
groups had similar trends. Figure 3.2 shows the total crashes for the signalized set of
superstreets and their comparison sites in the before period using one start date. Similar to
Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3 shows the crashes for the unsignalized set.
79

25
2 Ll
5
� -�
��101
�►—Tre�tm�i7t Etefi�are
��=i�mparis+�n E�e#�7re
�
��10� 2�10� ��10�1 ��1�5 ��fJt� ��1f�7 ��1�►�i
Ye�r
Figure 3.1. US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Road/Wilmont Road Collisions in the Before
Period
—�Tr�eat�7iei7t Befa�-e
—��=omp�risun Before
-, , � , �
-4 -:3 -2 -1 4
Y�ar� Rrior#o �tartaf Construction
Figure 3.2. Signalized Superstreet and Comparison Site Collisions in the Before Period
:1

Figure 3.3. Unsignalized Superstreet and Comparison Site Collisions in the Before Period
The team conducted GG studies on individual superstreets, the signalized set of superstreets,
and the unsignalized set of superstreets. Conventional Hauer symbology and methodology were
used in the evaluation (50). The following is an example of a C-G analysis using total collisions
from US-74/441 and Barkers Creelc Road/Wilmont Road and its comparison sites. The input
data are as follows: K=28, L=3, M=83, N=S, Variance(o)=0.013. Table 3.11 shows the
calculations.
Table 3.11. C-G Method Example — Total Collisions
Step Formula Calculation Answer
�, =L =3 3
r� =(N/M)/(1+1/M) =(5/83)/(1+1/83) 0.06
� =r�*K =0.06*28 1.67
Variance(�) =L =3 3
Variance(w) =Variance(o)-(1/K+1/L+1/M+ =0.013-(1/28+1/3+1/83+ 0
1/N)>0, 0 otherwise 1/5)>0, 0 otherwise
Variance(r�)/r�� =llM+1/N+Variance(c�) =1/83+1/5+0 0.212
Variance(�) =��(1/K+ Variance(rt)/rr�) =1.67�(1/28+0.212) 0.69
S =�-�, =1.67-3 -1.3
9 =(�,/�)/(1+Variance(�)/��) =(3/1.67)/(1+0.69/1.67�) 1.44
Variance(S) =Variance(�)+Variance(�,) =0.69+3 3.69
Variance(A) =A�(Variance(�,)/�,�+Variance(�)/��) =1.44�(3/3�+0.69/1.67�)/ 0.78
/(1+ Variance(�)/��)� (1+0.69/1.67�)�
Standard =Variance(b)0�5 =3.69°�5 1.92
deviation(b)
Standard =Variance(A)o.s _� �go.s � gg
deviation(A)
:

Where:
�, = Actual number of after period crashes,
r� = Ratio of expected number of after collisions to the expected number of before
collisions on the comparison group (comparison ratio),
�= Predicted number of after period crashes had the treatment not been in place,
8= Reduction in the expected frequency of collisions in the after period, and
6= Ratio of what safety was with the treatment to what it would have been without
the treatment (Index of effectiveness).
Table 3.12 shows the C-G results for the individual superstreets. Due to sample size, individual
superstreets were only analyzed for total collisions. Note that a negative impact value indicates a
reduction in collisions.
Table 3.12. C-G Method Results for Individual Superstreets - Total Collisions
Superstreet � Impact (%) � St. dev. (%)
Signalized superstreets
US-15/501 and Erwin Rd/Europa Dr 94.7* 51.2
US-17 Leland corridor 158.8* 127.6
US-421 and SR-2501 -27.9 30.3
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt Pisgah Rd/SR-1130 -42.6* 29.6
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Rd/SR-1184 -10.7 45.9
US-74 and Red Bank Rd/Old Balsam Rd corridor -71.3� 14.4
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Rd/SR-1392 44.3 88.1
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Rd/SR-1388 19.5 73.1
US-74 and Elmore Rd/SR-1321 -47.2* 37.1
US-74/76 and Blacksmith Rd1SR-1800 -77.1 * 12.6
NC-24 and Haw Branch Rd/SR-1230 -68.7* 16.5
US-1 and Camp Easter Rd/SR-1853 -87.7* 5.0
NC-87 and Peanut Plant Rd/SR-1150 -87.2* 6.7
NC-87/24 and 2"d St -31.2* 17.9
NC-87 and School Rd/Butler Nursery Rd 77.9 84.5
NC-87 and Grays Creek Church Rd/Alderman Rd -90.8* 8.7
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
The results from the individual superstreets show that unsignalized superstreet installations were
successful. Ten superstreets showed a reduction in collisions with nine of those being
statistically significant. Of those ten, six superstreets had a reduction in collisions of 65 percent
or greater. Three unsignalized sites showed a decrease in safety, but those sites were also not
statistically different from zero. The signalized sites did not appear as successful; however, the
signalized superstreet analysis is limited because each site has issues. US-15/501 and Erwin
Road/Europa Drive is affected by spillback from the downstream conventional intersection and
the design does not allow major left turns, the US-17 superstreet was built with a large
development which affected the before/after study results, and the US-421 site has flashing
yellow arrows for major left turns and U-turns, a characteristic unique to that signalized
superstreet.
��

The team analyzed the signalized and unsignalized set of superstreets using different collision
types: total, fatal and injury, angle and right turns, rear-end, sideswipes, left turns, and other.
Right turn collisions were included with angles because most crashes reported as right turns
could also be categorized as angle crashes. Left turn collisions could be reported as `Left Turn,
Same Roadway' or `Left Turn, Different Roadways', and were combined together in one
category because the collision types were indistinguishable in the collision reports. The team
separated left turn collisions from angle and right turn collisions because there was a
distinguishable difference between the two categories in the collision reports. Table 3.13 shows
the C-G results for the signalized and unsignalized set of superstreets. Note that a negative
impact value indicates a reduction in collisions.
Table 3.13. C-G Method Results for Signalized and Unsignalized Superstreets
Collision Type S�gnalized Set � Un�signalized Set �
Impact ( /o) Std. dev. ( /o) Impact ( /o) Std. dev. ( /o)
Total 110.9* 35.1 -46.2* 8.0
Fatal and injury 108.5* 47.1 -62.7* 6.9
Angles and right turns 266.1 * 114.9 -74.5 * 7.8
Rear ends 192.6* 54.8 -0.6 24.2
Sideswipes 48.2 54.1 -13.3 29.6
Left turns -56.1 * 20.3 -59.4* 12.4
Other 59.0* 53.3 -14.6 18.2
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
The results show that unsignalized superstreets reduced collisions in every category. Total
collisions were reduced by 46 percent and fatal and injury collisions by 63 percent. Angle and
right turn collisions were reduced the most at 75 percent. The results also indicate that
signalized superstreets generally increased collisions. Total collisions increased by
approximately 111 percent and fatal and injury collisions by 109 percent. However, the
signalized sites had study issues that limited the usefulness of their analysis as noted above.
3.3.3 EB Method
The team analyzed unsignalized superstreets using the EB method to account for RTM because
these sites were primarily installed for safety reasons. The EB method can be applied to the
naive and C-G analyses (known hereafter as "EB naive" and "EB C-G"). The team followed the
EB naive method as described in Chapter 9 of the HSM (51), and the EB GG method as
described by Hauer (50). Each analysis type and the results are discussed below.
3.3.3.1 EB Naive
Chapter 9 of the HSM provides a 14-step approach to the EB naive method (51). The necessary
input data include duration of the before and after periods, number of before and after collisions,
and major and minor traffic volumes. The SPF also uses an overdispersion parameter (given by
the model), appropriate AMFs, and a calibration factor that the team calculated previously. The
steps have been repeated below:
1. Calculate the predicted crash frequency, Npre-s, for each site in the before period using
SPFs and AMFs.
��

2. Calculate the expected crash frequency, NeXp-B, far each site in the before period using
Npre_B and a weighting factor, w. The weighting factor is a function of the SPF
overdispersion parameter and NpYe-s that combines the two into a weighted average.
3. Calculate the predicted crash frequency, NpTe-A, for each site in the after period.
4. Calculate the adjustment factor, r, at each site to account for differences between the
before and after periods in duration and traffic volume.
5. Calculate the expected crash frequency, Ne�,_A, for each site in the after period as if the
treatment had not been in place. NeXp-A is a function of NeXp-s and r.
6. Calculate an odds ratio at each site. The odds ratio is an estimate of the safety
effectiveness of the superstreet and is a function of the observed after period collisions
and NeXp-A•
7. Calculate the safety effectiveness as a percentage crash change at each site. This is a
function of the odds ratio.
8. Calculate the overall effectiveness of the superstreet, in the form of an odds ratio, for all
sites combined.
9. Calculate a factor to adjust the odds ratio from Step 8 because it may be potentially
biased. The factor is in terms of the variance of Ne�,-A•
10. Calculate the unbiased safety effectiveness, 9, as a percentage change in crash frequency
across all sites.
11. Calculate the variance of the odds ratio from Step 8.
12. Calculate the standard deviation of the odds ratio from Step 8.
13. Calculate the standard deviation of 9 from Step 10.
14. Assess the statistical significance of 6 to determine if it is significant or not significant at
least one standard deviation from zero.
The team used these steps to analyze unsignalized superstreets. Tables 3.14 and 3.15 show the
results for unsignalized superstreets individually and as a whole, respectively. Due to sample
size, individual superstreets were only analyzed for total collisions. Note that a negative impact
value indicates a reduction in collisions.
Table 314. EB Naive Results for Individual Unsignalized Superstreets
Superstreet Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
US-17 and Mt Pisgah Rd/SR-1130 -50.6* 19.6
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Rd/SR-1184 -49.1 * 19.0
US-74 and Red Bank Rd/Old Balsam Rd corridor -22.9 11.9
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Rd/SR-1392 -25.3 46.0
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Rd/SR-1388 -7.7 57.8
US-74 and Elmore Rd/SR-1321 -49.3* 38.5
US-74/76 and Blacksmith Rd/SR-1800 -20.8 41.8
NC-24 and Haw Branch Rd/SR-1230 -51.2* 21.7
US-1 and Camp Easter Rd/SR-1853 -4.1 31.7
NC-87 and Peanut Plant Rd/SR-1150 -42.8* 20.4
NC-87/24 and 2°a St -28.4* 17.3
NC-87 and School Rd/Butler Nursery Rd 35.1 49.0
NC-87 and Grays Creek Church RdlAlderman Rd -81.2* 19.5
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
,•

Table 3.15. EB Naive Results for Unsignalized Superstreets
Collision type Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
Total -27.2* 24.5
Fatal and injury -51.0* 26.0
Angles and right turns -85.9* 15.4
Rear ends 12.4 71.3
Sideswipes -11.5 81.5
Left turns -76.1 * 26.4
Other 8.4 62.6
Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
The EB naive results for the individual unsignalized superstreets showed a collision reduction at
all 13 sites, except for one site that was not statistically significant. NC-87 and Grays Creek
Church Road/Alderman Road showed the largest crash reduction at 81 percent. Six sites showed
reductions in collisions that were statistically significant.
The EB naive results for unsignalized superstreets as a group indicate that the superstreet
significantly reduced total crashes by 27 percent and fatal and injury crashes by over 50 percent.
Unsignalized superstreets had a tremendous impact on turning collisions with a reduction of 86
percent on angles and right turn crashes and 76 percent on left turn crashes. Estimated changes
in rear end, sideswipe, and other collisions were not statistically significant.
The team observed that the US-74 and Red Bank/Old Balsam corridor had 82 of the 176 total
collisions in the after period. Because of this site's potential impact on the group results in Table
3.15, the team conducted the analysis again excluding the site. Table 3.16 shows the comparison
between the EB naive method results with and without the US-74 corridor. The team determined
that the US-74 and Red Bank/Old Balsam corridar did not have an overwhelming effect on the
EB naive analysis.
Table 316. EB Naive Results for Total Collisions with and without US-74 and Red
Bank/Old Balsam Corridor
Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
With US-74 corridor -27.2 6.8
Without US-74 corridor -30.9 27.6
The EB naive method is described by two sources: the HSM and Ezra Hauer (50, 51). The team
chose to use the HSM method because it uses a clear step-by-step approach, it is the later source,
and with the HSM's publication, it will likely become the premier source for all safety analyses
in the United States. However, the team wanted to compare the results of the HSM EB naive
method with Hauer's EB naive method to confirm the validity of the results. Table 3.17 shows
the comparison between the two methods for total collisions.
��

Table 3.17. Comparison of EB Naive Results for Total Collisions between HSM and Hauer
Methods
HSM Hauer
Collision type
Impact (%) Std. dev. (%) Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
Total -27.2 6.8 -29.1 11.0
Fatal and injury -51.0 7.2 -53.0 10.0
Angles and right turns -85.9 4.3 -86.5 4.4
Rear ends 12.4 19.8 12.4 22.2
Sideswipes -11.5 22.6 -8.1 23.4
Left turns -76.1 7.3 -77.6 7.5
Other 8.4 17.4 4.8 21.6
Table 3.17 shows that the two methods produce similar results for all collision rypes. The largest
difference between results was 3.4 percent for the other collision category. All collision types
had the same effect in regards to a reduction or an increase in collisions. This similarity of
results between the two methods indicates that the results are valid.
3.3.3.2 EB C-G
The team used Hauer's multivariate regression method in the EB C-G analysis because it should
account for RTM as well as seasonality, historical trends, and other factors that the C-G method
attempted to account for. However, the HSM does not include this type of analysis. The
multivariate regression method uses an SPF to estimate K, the expected number of crashes in the
before period, to compare with the observed collisions in the before period. The necessary input
data included observed collisions for treatment sites and comparison sites in the before and after
period and major and minor traffic volumes in the before period for the treatment sites. The
SPFs also used appropriate AMFs and a calibration factor. Guided by Hauer (51) the team used
the following steps to complete the EB C-G analysis:
1. Calculate r�, a ratio of collisions for the comparison sites.
2. Calculate x, the expected number of collisions for the treatment site in the before period.
This uses the SPF, appropriate AMFs, and the calibration factor.
3. Calculate the variance of x. This step involves finding the residual and difference
between x and the observed value, and then fitting a model to those differences. The
team chose to use a linear regression to find variance of x; however, any model that links
x to the difference is appropriate.
4. Calculate a, a weighting factor between zero and one that weights the model prediction
with the observed collisions.
5. Calculate E(x�K), the expected number of crashes when it is given that the site recorded
K observed collisions. This takes into account a which specifies how important the
model is compared to the observed collisions.
6. Calculate �, the expected number of crashes in the after period had there not been
treatment.
7. Calculate �, the reduction in the expected frequency of collisions
8. Calculate A, the index of effectiveness.
:•

Tables 3.18 and 3.19 show the results for unsignalized superstreets individually and as a whole,
respectively. Due to sample size, individual superstreets were only analyzed for total collisions.
Note that a negative impact value indicates a reduction in collisions.
Table 3.18. EB C-G Results for Individual Unsignalized Superstreets
Superstreet Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
US-17 and Mt Pisgah Rd/SR-1130 -68.6�` 8.2
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Rd/SR-1184 -93.1* 2.0
US-74 and Red Bank Rd/Old Balsam Rd corridor -94.8* 1.6
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Rd/SR-1392 13.0 67.7
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Rd/SR-1388 -13.0 52.8
US-74 and Elmore Rd/SR-1321 -44.6* 38.2
US-74/76 and Blacksmith Rd/SR-1800 -84.8* 8.2
NC-24 and Haw Branch Rd/SR-1230 -97.3* 0.6
US-1 and Camp Easter Rd1SR-1853 -94.9� 1.4
NC-87 and Peanut Plant Rd/SR-1150 -97.4* 0.8
NC-87/24 and 2"d St -90.4* 3.3
NC-87 and School Rd/Butler Nursery Rd -87.2* 3.0
NC-87 and Grays Creek Church Rd/Alderman Rd -98.2* 0.7
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
Table 319. EB C-G Results for Unsignalized Superstreets
Collision type Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
Total -73.7 * 13.2
Fatal and injury -85.2* 7.2
Angles and right turns -78.0* 9.3
Rear ends -16.3 29.1
Sideswipes -35.9* 24.8
Left turns -66.5 * 12.9
Other -27.1 * 23.0
* Denotes a significant difference of at least one standard deviation from zero.
The results from the EB C-G method show that unsignalized superstreets as a whole reduced all
types of collisions. Total, fatal and injury, and turning (angle and right turns and left turns)
crashes were all reduced by over 65 percent. A reduction in rear end collisions was the only type
that was not statistically significant. The EB GG analysis for individual unsignalized
superstreets showed that all of the superstreets either had a significant reduction in collisions or
were not statistically significant. Nine of the 13 superstreets had a reduction in collisions of 85
percent or greater. Only one superstreet showed a small increase in collisions but it was not
statistically significant.
As noted above, the US-74 and Red Bank/Old Balsam corridor had 82 of the 176 total treatment
collisions in the after period. Because of this site's potential impact on the results, the team
conducted the analysis again excluding the site. Table 3.20 shows the comparison between the
EB C-G method results with and without the US-74 and Red Bank/Old Balsam corridor. The
��

team determined that the US-74 and Red Bank/Old Balsam corridor did not have an
overwhelming effect on the EB GG analysis.
Table 3.20. EB C-G Results for Total Collisions with and without US-74 and Red
BanWOld Balsam Corridor
Impact (%) Std. dev. (%)
With US-74 corridor -73.7 13.2
Without US-74 corridor -71.9 14.1
3.3.4 Supplemental Collision Rate Analysis
The team used the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) collision prediction model to calculate
expected collisions for signalized and unsignalized superstreets that did not have comparable
before and after periods. This analysis provided collision predictions for the superstreets as if
they were conventional one-way stop-controlled intersections. The superstreets selected for this
analysis are along US-1, US-17, and US-601 in North Carolina. The US-601 superstreets in
Monroe County were implemented in conjunction with a two- to four-lane conversion. The US-
1 sites in Moore and Lee Counties were newly constructed sites and had no before period. The
Lanvale Road and Brunswick Forest Parkway superstreet intersections on US-17 in Brunswick
County were implemented in conjunction with signalization. Finally, the Sidbury Road and
Scotts Hill Loop Road superstreet intersections on US-17 in Pender County were constructed in
conjunction with a three- to four-lane conversion. Although the HSM does have a signalized
intersection prediction model, the team used the unsignalized intersection prediction model on
the signalized as well as the unsignalized sites due to time and cost constraints. To use the
signalized intersection prediction model, the team would have had to calibrate the signalized
HSM model as we1L Table 3.21 shows the HSM collision prediction model results by severity
level. Note that a negative difference indicates fewer collisions occurred in the after period than
what the model predicted would have occurred if a conventional stop-controlled intersection was
in place.

Table 3.21. Collision Rate Comparison by Severity Level (crashes/year)
Total Fatal & injury
Main road Cross street County
Observed Predicted Diff. (%) Observed Predicted Diff. (%)
Signalized superstreets
US-17 Lanvale Rd Brunswick 6.00 15.66 -9.66 (-161%) 4.80 7.07 -2.27 (-47%)
US-17 Brunswick Forest Brunswick 6.00 9.96 -3.96 (-66%) 1.20 4.21 -3.01 (-251%)
Pkwy
US-17 Sidbury Rd Pender 20.90 16.49 4.41 (21%) 5.81 7.54 -1.73 (-30%)
US-17 Scotts Hill Loop Rd Pender 15.10 15.34 -0.24 (-2%) 5.81 6.93 -1.12 (-19%)
Unsignalized superstreets
US-1 Cranes Creek Rd Moore 2.00 1.74 0.26 (13%) 0.67 0.76 -0.09 (-13%)
(SR-1825)
US-1 Cedar Lane Rd Lee 1.67 1.79 -0.12 (-7%) 0.00 0.93 -0.93 (N/A)
(SR-1182)
US-601 Marion Lee Rd Union 0.00 1.05 -1.05 (N/A) 0.00 0.44 -0.44 (N/A)
(SR-2105)
US-601 Eudy Rd (SR-2204) Union 0.00 1.10 -1.10 (N/A) 0.00 0.47 -0.47 (N/A)
US-601 Carl Funderburk Union 0.00 0.87 -0.87 (N/A) 0.00 0.33 -0.33 (N/A)
(SR-1950)
US-601 Griffin Cemetery Rd Union 2.00 1.42 0.58 (29%) 0.00 0.59 -0.59 (N/A)
(SR-1971)
US-601 Hargette Rd Union 0.00 1.27 -1.27 (N/A) 0.00 0.52 -0.52 (N/A)
(SR-1939)
US-601 Ervin Thomas Rd Union 0.00 2.18 -2.18 (N/A) 0.00 2.57 -2.57 (N/A)
(SR-2112)
US-601 Landsford Rd Union 4.00 1.99 2.01 (50%) 2.00 0.88 1.12 (56%)
(SR-10051
:•

The HSM collision prediction model results show that most superstreets performed well. Nine
of 13 superstreets had fewer total crashes than the model predicted. This means that if the
intersection had been conventional, then these sites would likely have had more collisions.
Twelve of the 13 superstreet sites performed better than conventional model predictions for fatal
and injury crashes as well.
3.3. S Supplemental Time-of-Day and Mile Post Analysis
The team analyzed three signalized superstreets using a time-of-day and mile post analysis
because each roadway is operating uniquely. The three signalized superstreets are US-15/501
and Erwin Road/Europa Drive, US-17 and the Leland corridor, and US-17 and Lanvale Road.
3.3.5.1 US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive
The team created a collision diagram of the superstreet at US-15/501 in Chapel Hill because it
was the first implementation of a signalized superstreet and some people perceive the site to have
safety problems. This superstreet is also the only signalized design in North Carolina that does
not allow direct left turns from the major roadway. Major left turns are instead directed through
downstream directional crossovers. The team was concerned that this type of design would have
a negative safety impact because of the longer driving distances, higher U-turning volumes, and
possible driver confusion. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the collision diagrams for the before and
after cases, respectively. As expected, the large majority of collisions in the before period were
near the intersection. With the superstreet in the after period, the collisions are spread out and no
longer centrally located. However, the team did notice an unusually high number of collisions in
the after period near the north crossover involving northbound vehicles: 15 crashes in the before
period and ten in the after period. With 90 months making up the before period, and only 18
months in the after period, this over involvement in the after period led to further analysis. The
team went over the collision reports for all ten northbound crashes near the north crossover in the
after period; the following is a summary of our findings:
• Eight collisions were rear ends and two were sideswipes,
• The two sideswipe collisions were an attempt by the driver to reduce impact (so were
essentially rear end collisions as well),
• Seven collisions explicitly say in the collision report that the first vehicle was stopped
due to traffic ahead, and
• Eighty percent of collisions occurred during a lunch ar PM peak hour.
The team concluded that these ten collisions were not the result of the superstreet at US-15/501
and Erwin Road/Europa Drive, but rather a failure of the conventional downstream intersection
at US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road to process its demand. The team recommends
that the downstream intersection be analyzed for superstreet conversion because the progression
benefits of a superstreet corridor would likely prevent the spillover that currently exists.
The team also conducted a second GG analysis without crossover collisions on the northbound
or southbound side. These included northbound collisions between the intersection and the
northern crossover and southbound collisions between the intersection and the southern
crossover. The results showed an increase of 28.5 percent of total crashes in the after period
with a standard deviation of 40.2 percent. Although this analysis still showed an increase in
collisions, the predicted increase was less than the C-G analysis showed earlier.
•�

Figure 3.4. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Before Period Collision Diagram
91

�J� 151�4
L�g47d
Type F�eae�nd r�ngle.+f�T �Id-eswrlp� Lefk TLrr7 C7ther
I'[��L:} �t �' --�rt � ''.+''�'
InJvr� �— �„�*' � � �,.�v
Fat�l � �' � �' .,.,�,,
C�urrher �af ���Illslon�
Ty��: R�ar�n�l r�rr�I�.�R1' SIci9�w�1�� L�ftTi.rn �C�th�r Tntal
PCJ{] 16 8 3 3 s 3�
I nj uryr � � � Q 1 '11
F.�tal �5 � �' 0 � 0
T�aCe�l 2d 1{] 3 3 s 4�
�
��
W
Figure 3.5. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive After Period Collision Diagram
92

3.3.52 US-17 and the Leland Corridar
The team conducted a time-of-day and mile post analysis on the Leland corridor because the
superstreets were implemented in conjunction with a large development, and the type of traffic
control changed from the before to the after period. The development influenced both traffic
volumes and collision data which prevented a fair before and after evaluation with a C-G
method. The team analyzed data from the collision reports for both before and after crashes.
The following is a summary of the findings:
• Before scenario
0 42 collisions in 59 months
0 36 percent of crashes were turning related (e.g. left turn or angle)
0 17 percent of crashes were rear end related
• After scenario
0 98 collisions in 34 months
0 35 percent of crashes were turning related
0 52 percent of crashes were rear end related
The installation of signals and the large development severely impacted the safety of the
corridor. Therefore, the team was unable to determine the impact the superstreet installation
itself had on safety in the corridor.
3.3.5.3 US-17 and Lanvale Road
Again, the team conducted a time-of-day and mile post analysis on the Lanvale Road superstreet
because the type of traffic control changed from stop signs in the before to signals in the after
period. The team analyzed data from the collision reports for both before and after crashes. The
team concluded that the superstreet is functioning well because of the very small number of
crashes. Also, four of the five collisions were rear end related which is generally an indicator of
a signalized intersection and not necessarily indicative of a superstreet. The following is a
summary of the findings:
• Before scenario
0 36 collisions in 59 months
0 36 percent of collisions were turning related
0 28 percent of collisions were rear end related
• After scenario
0 5 collisions in 10 months
0 80 percent of collisions were rear end related
0 20 percent were turning related
3.3.6 Supplemental SSAMAnalysis
SSAM is a microsimulation tool that counts the frequency of conflicts within a model run.
Conflicts occur when different road users will likely collide without evasive action. SSAM
counts four types of conflicts—rear end, lane-change, crossing, and unclassified—based on the
angle between the two vehicles involved. A SSAM niche is that it can be applied to designs that
have not been built because it does not require the collection or assessment of police-reported
crashes. Although not in the project proposal, the team used SSAM to analyze the three
93

signalized superstreets that were previously calibrated and validated for travel time studies in
VISSIM as described in Chapter 2. These superstreets are located at US-15/501 and Erwin
Road/Europa Drive, US-17 and the Leland corridor, and US-421 and SR-2501. The team also
applied SSAM to the superstreets' conventional counterparts as described in Chapter 2
(conventional signalized intersections that had comparable numbers of lanes to the superstreets).
Applying SSAM to the previously calibrated and validated superstreet VISSIM models was more
difiicult than the team initially expected. The difficulty was in the way the team coded the
VISSIM models. A strong benefit of VISSIM is that it can be coded to produce an unlimited
number of design solutions; however, with that freedom, there exist an unlimited number of
options for coding. The way the team coded the models was to produce travel time results, but it
did not realistically depict the safety of the superstreet because of the location and number of
links and connectors. For readers unfamiliar with VISSIM, links are the lanes and roadways that
contain vehicles and connectors are short pieces to connect links. From the team's experience
with the difficult VISSIM to SSAM crossover, the team recommends that VISSIM models
should be coded with any future applications in mind so that driver behavior and crash
opportunity are both more realistic.
The team analyzed each of the three sites using a range of volumes for both the conventional and
superstreet geometries. The team completed ten runs in VISSIM and then input the files in
SSAM to evaluate the number of conflicts. Because of the coding difficulties discussed earlier,
the team chose only to evaluate the total number of conflicts and not the types of conflicts
because how the team coded the VISSIM models will directly affect the type of conflicts
produced. The team hoped that the relative number of conflicts would be illustrative when
comparing different designs (superstreet or conventional). The total number of conflicts
included all conflicts with a time to collision (TTC) less than or equal to 1.5 seconds, the
standard measure for SSAM, and within 500 feet beyond the directional crossovers on the major
roadway and 150 feet beyond the intersection on the minor roadway (the distances the team used
for collision data collection). The corridor of signalized superstreets at US-17 in Leland was not
analyzed for peak plus 40 percent volume because the conventional geometries had significant
operational break down at that volume level. Table 3.22 shows the results from SSAM, as well
as a ratio of conflicts to compare geometries at each site. Table 3.23 shows the comparison of
actual collisions per month in the after period to SSAM conflicts for the peak volume.
•.

Table 3.22. Total Number of Cont7icts per Site from SSAM
olume Level Peak - Peak - Peak - Peak Peak Peak Peak
Site 40% 20% 10% +10% +20% +40%
US-15/501 366 1272 1014 1092 1832 1818 3031
Conventional
US-15/501 Superstreet 422 806 1085 1405 2244 2461 5359
Ratio of Superstreet to 1.15 0.63 1.07 1.29 1.22 1.35 1.77
Conventional
US-17 Conventional 2307 3947 4371 5459 6907 9262 -
US-17 Superstreet 1776 3500 4229 5280 5549 6581 -
Ratio of Superstreet to 0.77 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.80 0.71 -
Conventional
US-421 Conventional 564 1180 1608 1017 1504 1796 3438
US-421 Superstreet 248 652 743 1473 1163 1416 3382
Ratio of Superstreet to 0.44 0.55 0.46 1.45 0.77 0.79 0.98
Conventional
Table 3.23. Comparison of After Collisions to SSAM Conflicts
Site After Period Collisions per Month SSAM Conflicts at Peak Volume
US-15/501 2.56 1405
US-17 2.88 5280
US-421 3.00 1473
The results from SSAM show that the superstreet implementation was successful in reducing
conflicts at US-17 for all volumes and US-421 for most volumes. The US-17 superstreet showed
a bigger reduction in conflicts as the volumes increased from the peak period which may be
promising for the superstreet as traffic growth occurs. The US-15/501 superstreet did not
perform as well with an increase in conflicts compared to the conventional design at most
volumes. In general, the results are not consistent with other analyses of signalized superstreets.
As discussed previously with the link/connector assignments, the VISSIM models were not
designed specifically for SSAM, and the team would change the models if time and cost
permitted; therefore, analysts should use these results with caution.
'.

4.0 RESIDENT, COMMUTER, AND BUSINESS SURVEYS
Some operational and safety elements of superstreets have been evaluated; however, no
information has been gathered on the perceived effects of superstreets on local drivers,
commuters, and adjacent businesses. The purpose of this section of the report is to summarize
feedback from users of North Carolina superstreets. This section summarizes three surveys: a
residential survey to gather opinions of drivers that live near a superstreet, a survey to gather
opinions of commuters driving through a superstreet on a daily basis, and a business survey to
gather the perceived effects of superstreets on adjacent businesses.
41 Resident Survey
As mentioned above, one aspect of the superstreet design that has not been researched to this
point is the effect on nearby residents. It is important to consider the opinions of those directly
affected by the adjacent design because these residents can politically derail a superstreet
proposal, and because these effects cannot be captured through traffic simulation or collision
analyses. The team conducted a residential survey to gather opinion data from the taxpayers,
voters, and frequent users of the adjacent superstreet intersections and corridors. The team chose
to survey residents because they provide insight to the effects superstreets have on accessibility
and property value. In addition, nearby residents are also frequent users of the facility who can
provide insight on the navigability, travel time, and perceived delay associated with superstreets
and the conventional intersections they replaced, especially concerning the side street
movements. The following sections provide details on the methodology, results, and analysis of
the residential opinion survey.
411 Methodology
4.1.1.1 Identification and Selection of Sites
The sites selected for the resident survey were taken from a list that included all operating
superstreet intersections and corridors located in North Carolina. To get a full understanding of
the public's opinion, both signalized and unsignalized sites were included in the list,
encompassing both urban and rural areas. There were two major criteria used in the final site
selection:
1. The superstreet must have been constructed within the past five years.
2. There must have been a comparable "before" scenario.
The reason for the first criterion was that residents might have difficulty remembering driving
conditions of the previous intersection if the superstreet was constructed more than iive years
prior. The second criterion was imposed because it was important that the residents had
something to compare to the superstreet. At a few sites there was no before scenario (i.e. no
majar intersection prior to the construction of the superstreet). For example, the superstreet
corridor on US-17 in the town of Leland was built because of a major boom in land development
in the area. This site was eliminated from the survey list because there was little development
along that stretch of US-17 prior to the superstreet, so opinions on the superstreet would be
difficult to separate from opinions on the new development. After reducing the list based on the

above criteria, the final list totaled ten sites including three signalized superstreets (one corridor
and two intersections) and seven unsignalized superstreet intersections. Table 4.1 lists the sites
selected for the survey.
Table 41. Sites Selected for Resident Survey
Main Road Cross street(s) City County Type
US 15-501 Europa Dr. / Erwin Rd. Chapel Hill Orange Signalized
US 17 R�Phens Church Wilmington New Hanover Signalized
Scotts Hill Loop (corridor)
Rd. Pender
Sidbury Rd. Pender
US 17 Lanvale Rd. Lanvale Brunswick Signalized
US 17 Mt. Pisgah Rd. / Sellers Rd. Supply Brunswick Unsignalized
US 17 Ocean Isle Beach Rd. Shallotte Brunswick Unsignalized
US 74-76 Blacksmith Rd. Bolton Columbus Unsignalized
US 74 Elmore Rd. Laurinburg Scotland Unsignalized
US 74 Dicks Creek Rd. Whittier Jackson Unsignalized
NC 87 Peanut Plant Rd Elizabethtown Bladen Unsignalized
NC 24 Haw Branch Rd. Richlands Onslow Unsignalized
4.1.1.2 Data Collection
The research team considered three options to collect the resident opinion data: door-to-door
interviews, survey by mail to households, or collection of license plate numbers and then survey
by mail to vehicle owners. The authors concluded that mail-out surveys to households would
reach the greatest number of people and be the most cost effective method to obtain a large
sample size. The team used a four-wave mailing method. This technique involved sending mail
four different times to each randomly-selected household in approximately one-week intervals.
NCDOT personnel expect response rates for mail-out and mail-back surveys with just one
mailing to be around ten percent (10%), but with multiple mailings the response rate should be
much larger. The team calculated the required sample size for the mailings using Equation 4.1
(56).
Equation 4.1 n = t�pq/d�
Where:
n = sample size needed,
t= constant corresponding to the desired level of confidence, a,
p= proportion of units answering "yes",
q= proportion of units answering "no", and
d = percent errar.
97

Assuming a 15/85 response split on a key question in the survey, the researchers needed to
receive 196 total responses to achieve a five percent error (d=0.05) at the 95 percent confidence
level (t=1.96). The final sample size the team determined as necessary was 500, which was
calculated based on these parameters and an expected 40% return rate.
The researchers hired a local mailing service contractor to provide the addresses for households
near the selected sites. All addresses were within a two-mile radius of the nearest superstreet
location, and included both homeowners and renters. The list the researchers received contained
addresses for 2,000 households — 1,000 from the group of signalized sites and 1,000 from the
group of unsignalized sites. Each group contained an equal number of addresses from each site
within the group. The households receiving the survey were randomly selected using a random
number generator to extract 250 names from each group for an even representation of both
signalized and unsignalized superstreets. To ensure a good cross-section of the population, the
team provided instructions in the mailings to have the licensed driver (at least 16 years of age)
within the household who would be celebrating the next birthday to respond to the survey.
The four mailings included an initial letter describing the study, the survey packet, a reminder
letter, and a final survey packet. The survey packet included a cover letter explaining the survey
with instructions, the survey questions, and a return envelope with pre-paid postage. The
researchers mailed the first wave of mailings in mid-June, 2009. The second, third, and fourth
wave of mailings followed approximately one week apart. As the surveys were mailed back, the
results were recorded in a spreadsheet along with comments expressed by the residents.
Addresses were tracked to determine who responded and when the response was received. The
survey consisted of twelve questions, four of which the authors identified as key questions.
These questions were about perceived navigability, safety, travel time, and number of stopped
vehicles. Appendix 10.3 includes sample survey letters.
41.2 Results
Approximately two months after the initial letters were mailed the team received 145 surveys
back from the 500 selected households, for a 29% response rate. The three signalized sites
yielded 92 responses and the eight unsignalized sites combined for 53 responses. Table 4.2 lists
the number of responses the team received from each site. Table 4.3 provides the results for
each question. It is important to note that not all of question responses total 100% in Table 4.3
because not all respondents answered every question. It is also likely that those who responded
to the suroey had strong opinions either for or against the superstreet design.

Table 4.2. Number of Responses from Each Survey Site
Site City State Type # of
Responses
US 15-501 & Europa Dr. / Erwin Rd. Chapel Hill NC Signalized 37
US 17 & Scotts Hill Loop Rd. / Sidbury wilmington NC Signalized 38
Rd.
US 17 & Lanvale Rd. Leland NC Signalized 17
US 17 & Mt. Pisgah Rd. / Sellers Rd. Supply NC Unsignalized 10
US 17 & Ocean Isle Beach Rd. Shallotte NC Unsignalized 9
US 74-76 & Blacksmith Rd. Bolton NC Unsignalized 8
US 74 & Elmore Rd. Laurinburg NC Unsignalized 3
US 74 & Dicks Creek Rd. Whittier NC Unsignalized 6
NC 87 & Peanut Plant Rd. Elizabethtown NC Unsignalized 10
NC 24 & Haw Branch Rd. Richlands NC Unsignalized 7

Table 4.3. Resident Survey Results by Question
Question Response Signalized Unsignalized All
1. How long have you, personally, Less than 1 year 3% 4% 3%
lived near this intersection? 1- 3 years 22% 8% 17%
4- 10 years 43% 17% 34%
More than 10 years 32% 68% 45°/o
2. How often do you, personally, Daily 57% 42% 51%
drive this section of road? Weekly 26% 42% 32%
Monthly 10% 8% 9%
Few times a year 8% 6% 7%
3. How does navigation through Easier/less confusing 33% 38% 35%
the superstreet compare to a Same 17% 21% 19%
typical intersection? More difficult/more 41% 32% 38%
confusing
4. Had you heard about the Yes 34% 45% 38%
superstreet concept before it was
built at your location? No 66% 53% 61%
4a. If yes, what was your opinion Positive opinion 26% 50% 36%
on the superstreet concept before Neutral opinion 23% 17% 10%
it was built at your location? Negative opinion 29% 21 % 26%
Did not know enough 23% 12% 18%
5. Did you live here and have yes 92% 91 % 92°/o
your driver's license prior to the
construction of the superstreet? If
no, skip ahead to question 10. If No (skip to question 10) 8% 6% 7%
yes, proceed with survey.
6. How do you, personally, feel Positively 49% 56% 52%
the superstreet has affected your Same 28% 17% 24%
ability to safely navigate the
roadway compared to the Negatively 22% 23% 23%
previous roadway design?
7. How do you, personally, feel Positively 9% 15% 11%
the superstreet has affected Same 56% 58% 57%
property values in your area? Negatively 12% 8% 11%
Don't know - I rent 20% 10% 17%
8. How was travel time through Less travel time 1% 4% 2%
this section of roadway affected No change 24% 44% 31%
during the construction period? More travel time 74% 48% 65%
100

Table 4.3. continued
Question Response Signalized Unsignalized All
9. What differences, if any, have Less travel time 18% 10% 15%
you, personally, experienced in No change 32% 52% 39%
travel time since the opening of More travel time 51% 33% 44%
the superstreet?
10. What differences, if any, have Fewer stopped vehicles 36% 38% 37%
you, personally, noticed in the No change 16% 26% 20%
number of stopped vehicles
waiting to make a safe maneuver
since the opening of the More stopped vehicles 45% 28% 39%
superstreet?
11. Please select your age range: 16-29 11% 2% 8%
30-40 26% 32% 28%
50-65 36% 43% 39%
66 or above 27% 21% 25%
12. Please select your gender: Male 52% 42% 49%
Female 47% 57% 50%
Most respondents had lived near the superstreet intersection for a long-enough time to remember
the previous intersection design. Overall, the responses from males and females were evenly
split. The slight difference in male/female responses between signalized and unsignalized sites
was not large enough to be statistically significant. The team also received a relatively even split
for the age range of respondents, with the 16-29 age group being the only exception. The results
confirm there was no over-representation of any particular age group or gender.
The team tested the accuracy provided by the final sample size using Equation 4.1 far simple
random sampling of proportional data. Assuming a 95% confidence level, the achieved percent
error ranged from 6% to just over 8% for the four key questions in the survey. This is only
slightly greater than the team's goal of staying within 5% of the mean, and still within an
acceptable range for the results to show meaningful differences if they existed. Table 4.4 shows
the percent error (d) achieved and the sample size that the team would need to achieve results
within 5% of the mean.
Table 4.4. Value of d Achieved for the Key Questions
Q.3 Q.6 Q.9 Q.10
Alpha 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Actual n 145 133 133 145
Achieved d 7.90 8.49 6.11 7.99
n needed for d =
S% 362 383 199 371
101

4.1.3 Analysis
The team identified four key questions from the survey — questions three, six, nine, and ten — on
navigation, safety, travel time, and the number of stopped vehicles, respectively. Overall, thirty-
five percent (35%) of the total respondents found navigation through a superstreet easier and less
confusing compared to a typical intersection, while thirty-eight percent (38%) found it more
difficult and more confusing. Over half of the respondents (52%) reported that the superstreet
has a positive effect on their ability to safely navigate through the intersection, while twenty-
three percent (23%) reported a negative effect. Fifteen percent (15%) of the respondents
reported less travel time negotiating the superstreet, while forty-four percent (44%) reported
experiencing an increase in travel time. The team further analyzed the key questions comparing
responses from signalized and unsignalized superstreet sites.
4.1.3.1 Signalized vs. Unsignalized
The team performed a two-tailed Z-test for proportions at the 95% confidence level for the four
key survey questions to compare the responses from the signalized and unsignalized sites. Table
4.5 shows the results of the tests. It should be noted that not all of the responses in the table sum
to 100% because some respondents chose not to answer all of the questions. The only key
question with significant proportional differences between signalized and unsignalized sites was
question nine on travel time: just over half of the residents near unsignalized superstreets report
no change in travel time, compared to 32% reporting no change at signalized superstreets.
102

Table 4.5. Comparison of Signalized and Unsignalized Survey Responses
Response Significant
Unsignalize difference
KEY QUESTION Answer Signalized d �
#3 - How does navigation through Easier 33% 38% No
the superstreet compare to a typical Same 17% 21% No
intersection? More difficult 41% 32% No
#6 - How do you, personally, feel Positively 49% 56% No
the superstreet has affected your Same 28% 17% No
ability to safely navigate the
roadway compared to the previous Negatively 22% 23% No
roadway design?
#9 - What differences, if any, have Less TT 18% 10% No
you, personally, experienced in No change 32% 52% Yes
travel time since the opening of the
superstreet? More TT 51% 33% No
#10 - What differences, if any, have Fewer 36% 38% No
you, personally, noticed in the stopped
number of stopped vehicles waiting No change 16% 26% No
to make a safe maneuver since the
opening of the superstreet? More stopped 45% 28% No
A reason for a high percentage of responses for increased travel time is likely due to the survey
responses coming mostly from the neighborhoods located off of the side streets. More
complaints regarding travel time came from the signalized superstreets as opposed to the
unsignalized superstreets. One of the purposes of signalized superstreets is to improve
progression far the major street through movement, and as a result minor road left turn and
through traffic is required to make extra maneuvers. It is possible that motorists perceive this as
an increase in travel time because of the added movement. There were many comments from the
surveyed residents expressing how they feel they have to go out of their way to make a left or
through movement from the side road. One of the sites with multiple complaints was the US 15-
501 site in Chapel Hill, NC where there is no direct left turn from the major road to the minor
road (as shown in Figure 1.1).
Although not significant, another large difference in responses between the signalized and
unsignalized groups was for the number of stopped vehicles (Question 10). More residents near
the signalized sites (45%) felt there were more stopped vehicles than near the unsignalized sites
(28%). The team received multiple complaints of non-compliance for the "no turn on red" signs
and illegal left turns on red at the U-turn crossovers at two of the signalized sites, US-17 at
Scotts Hill Loop Road and US-17 at Lanvale Road. Under North Carolina law it is illegal to
make a left turn on red; therefore, drivers likely feel they are delayed unnecessarily at signalized
U-turn intersections if there are acceptable gaps in the approaching traffic.
103

4.1.32 Signalized Sites
The team separately analyzed the answers provided for each question for both signalized and
unsignalized sites. As before, a two-tailed Z-test for proportions was conducted at the 95%
confidence level on the same four key questions.
Table 4.6 shows the results for the signalized sites. The responses show that navigation through
a superstreet is not significantly easier or harder than a typical intersection (Question 3).
However, residents felt the superstreet design positively affected their ability to safely navigate
the intersection, with the results showing a significant difference between "positive" responses
(49%) and "negative" responses (22%), and between "positive" and "the same" responses (28%).
Table 4.6. Comparison of Key Survey Question Responses for Signalized Sites
Comparison
0 o Significant
KEY QUESTIONS � � difference?
response Nesponse
Easier 33% More 41 % No
#3 - How does navigation difficult
through the superstreet Easier 33% Same 17% Yes
compare to a typical
intersection? Same 17% More 41% Yes
difficult
#6 - How do you, personally, Positively 49% Negatively 22% Yes
feel the superstreet has positively 49% Same 28% Yes
affected your ability to safely
navigate the roadway
compared to the previous Same 28% Negatively 22% No
roadway design?
#9 - What differences, if any, Less TT 18% More TT 51% Yes
have you, personally, Less TT 18% No change 32% Yes
experienced in travel time
since the opening of the No change 32% More TT 51 % Yes
superstreet?
#10 - What differences, if any, More 450�o Fewer 36% No
have you, personally, noticed stopped stopped
in the number of stopped More 45% No change 16% Yes
vehicles waiting to make a safe stopped
maneuver since the opening of No change 16% Fewer 36% Yes
the superstreet? stopped
Only 18% of residents reported a reduction in travel time (question nine), while 51 % reported an
increase, and 32°/o reported no change. There were statistically significant differences between
all these answers. As previously discussed, the reason for the higher responses for increased
travel time or no change in travel time is likely because these were surveys of residents who live
along the side streets.
104

4.1.3.3 Unsignalized Sites
Table 4.7 displays the results for the two-tailed Z-tests for proportions for responses from
unsignalized sites. Similar to the signalized superstreets, the results for question six regarding
safe navigation through the superstreet showed significant differences between positive (56%)
and negative (23%), as well as positive and the same (17%). Unsignalized superstreets are
generally installed as a safety countermeasure, and while this survey is not a safety analysis, the
results are clear that nearby residents at least have a feeling of increased safety while traversing
the unsignalized superstreet compared to the previous intersection design.
Table 4.7. Comparison of Key Survey Question Responses for Unsignalized Sites
Comparison between response choices
0 o Significant
KEY QUESTIONS � � difference?
response response
#3 - How does navigation More
through the superstreet Easier 38% difficult 32% No
compare to a typical Easier 38% The same 21% No
intersection? More
The same 21% difficult 32% No
#6 - How do you, personally, positively 56% Negative 23% Yes
feel the superstreet has affected
your ability to safely navigate Positively 56% The same 17% Yes
the roadway compared to the
previous roadway design? The same 17% Negative 23% No
#9 - What differences, if any, Less TT 10% More TT 33% Yes
have you, personally, No
experienced in travel time Less TT 10% change 52% Yes
since the opening of the No
superstreet? change 52% More TT 33% No
#10 - What differences, if any, More Fewer
have you, personally, noticed stopped 28% stopped 38% No
in the number of stopped Mare No
vehicles waiting to make a safe stopped 28% change 26% No
maneuver since the opening of No Fewer
the superstreet? change 26% stopped 38% No
105

4.2 Commuter Survey
This study gathered opinions from the University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill (UNGCH)
faculty and staff to determine their perceptions of the superstreet located on US-15/501 in Chapel
Hill. The team's intention was to capture the opinions of commiiting drivers because the
residential survey focused on drivers entering from or exiting to the side streets, which did not
include the entire population of drivers utilizing the facility. Commuters were considered to be
drivers who only drive though the intersection both into and out of town, without turning onto
the side streets (Erwin Road or Europa Drive).
4.2.1 Methodology
The team counted on the fact that a large portion of coinmuting LTNGCH faculty and staff drive
through the superstreet at US-15/501 and Europa Drive/Erwin Road from I-40 or Durham
because UNGCH is located nearly three miles from the superstreet, and access into campus
from US-15/501 is a prunary route because of the interchange at I-40, a major commuter
freeway. Figure 4.1 shows the superstreet location relative to the UNGCH campus (57).
Although the faculty and staff population is not equivalent to the through movement population,
the faculty and staff population should be representative of any commuters. LTNGCH employs
over 17,000 people (58), of which an estimated 75% have an email address in the campus
directory. The iminense size of the employee base and the ease of using the publicly available
cainpus directory made the iJNC-CH faculty and staff a great resource for the survey.
�
:, 4++r
�r�
. �
�.Fa �i�ur .
r�c�1P•
° H` 4 C
� � 4�.sa�*w:
+6 � � t
IC.hx�p�l H �II
`�^.r.: � -* . � .
i� �-CH
�
r ����
� p �1�
�� Ma �.sf '��
i¢ ' �
SOi .�°
Figure 4.1. Map of UNC-CH and the Superstreet (57).
106

To collect the opinions of LJNGCH faculty and staff, the team decided that emailing a survey
was the most cost-effective and time-efficient way to reach the greatest number of people. As
noted in the previous survey, the sample size calculation for a key question with an 85/15 split on
the response shown above produced a target number of responses of just under 200. The team
expected a return rate of ten percent, based on opinions expressed for such surveys during a
recent webinar (11). Therefore, the team planned to select 2,000 names from the UNGCH
campus directory to obtain the necessary sample. An estimation of the number of people per
page with an email address prompted a selection of every ninth person. Choosing every ninth
person ensured random selection. This method resulted in an actual selection of 2,520 people.
The email included an introduction explaining the purpose of the survey and the definition of a
superstreet. It was important to make sure the survey participants were at LTNGCH long enough
before the superstreet was constructed to develop clear opinions on the before and after cases.
Faculty and staff were then asked questions about the road design and its effect on travel time,
safety, and navigation. Participants were given one week to respond. If they had not submitted
the survey after one week, they were sent another reminder survey. The majority of survey
questions were the same as the residential survey to facilitate comparisons. Appendix 10.3
includes a sample survey. The team added Questions 3 and 4 to establish through travelers from
those who turn at the superstreet. The team also modified the questions to specify the location of
the superstreet because the residential survey was generic in location. Otherwise, the survey
questions were the same as for the resident survey to allow easy comparison of the results.
4.2.2 Results
Seven weeks after the initial surveys were emailed, the team received 513 survey responses from
the 2,520 selected faculty and staff, resulting in a 20% response rate, which was well above the
anticipated 10% response rate and the desired 200 responses for an 85/15 split. Table 4.8 shows
the results. Not all of question responses total 100% because not all respondents answered every
question, and despite the instructions, some respondents provided more than one response per
question. In the analysis in Table 4.8, the team included multiple responses per question if those
were provided.
107

Table 4.8. Commuter Survey Results by Question
Question Response Choice %
Res onse
1. How long have you worked in Chapel Hill? Less than 1 year 0%
1 - 3 years 18%
4 - 10 years 31 %
More than 10 years 50%
I don't work in Chapel Hill 1%
2. How often do you, personally, drive on US- Daily 17%
15/501 at Europa Dr./Erwin Rd.? Weekly 38%
Monthly 27%
Few times a year 18%
Never (skip to Question 11) 0%
3. How do you drive through the intersection of As a through driver on US-15/501 without turning onto Europa Dr. ar Erwin Rd. 74%
US-15/501 and Europa Dr./Erwin Rd. into town Turning from US-15/501 onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. 11%
most often? Turning from Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. onto US-15/501 15%
4. How do you drive through the intersection of As a through driver on US-15/501 without turning onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. 77%
US-15/501 and Europa Dr. / Erwin Rd. out of Turning from US-15/501 onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. 16%
town most often? Turning from Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. onto US-15/501 6%
5. How does navigation through the superstreet Easier/less confusing 18%
compare to a typical intersection? Same 33%
More difficult/more confusing 48%
6a. Had you heard about the superstreet concept Yes 27%
before it was built at US-15/501? No 73%
6b. If yes, what was your opinion on the Positive opinion 11%
superstreet concept before it was built at US- Neutral opinion 29%
15/501? Negative opinion 17%
Did not know enough about superstreets to form an opinion 43°/o
7. How do you, personally, feel the superstreet Positively 34%
has affected your ability to safely navigate the Same 40%
roadway compared to the previous roadway
design? Negatively 26%
1:

Table 4.8. continued
Question Response Choice %
Res onse
8. How was travel time through this section of Less travel time 10%
roadway affected during the superstreet No change 31°/o
construction period? More travel time 59%
9. What differences, if any, have you, Less travel time 33%
personally, experienced in travel time since the No change 48%
opening of the superstreet? More travel time 19%
10. What differences, if any, have you, Fewer stopped vehicles 48%
personally, noticed in the number of stopped
vehicles waiting to make a safe maneuver since No change 31 %
the opening of the superstreet? More stopped vehicles 21 %
11. Please select your age range: 18-29 6%
30-49 42%
50-65 48%
66 or above 4%
12. Please select your gender: Male 37%
Female 63%
109

The age distribution of respondents varied from what was expected, but gender distribution did
not. The age range bins were broken into 18-29, 30-49, 50-65, and 66 and older. The youngest
and oldest age groups were a minority at 6% and 4%, respectively. The 18-29 year-old group
and the 66+ group, the groups of most concern, did not have responses that were significantly
different from each other.
The researchers compared daily users of the superstreet (17% of respondents) with infrequent
users (18% of respondents) to see if daily users of the superstreet have significantly different
opinions compared to those who infrequently drive through the superstreet. The team compared
the results from Question 2 in Table 4.8 using a two-tailed Z-test for proportions at the 95%
confidence level. The remaining 65% of respondents drove US-15/501 at Erwin Road/Europa
Drive either weekly or monthly. Daily and infrequent users both perceived the same or more
difficult navigation through the superstreet. Both types of users generally perceive that the
superstreet has not had a large effect on safety or travel time. Noticeable differences between
daily and infrequent users occur with respect to the number of stopped vehicles. Nearly 50% of
daily users perceive fewer stopped vehicles whereas half of infrequent users perceive no change
in the number of stopped vehicles.
The team compared job titles between respondents and a separate sample of the LJNC-CH
directory to determine if the survey respondent population was representative of the faculty and
staff population. The first 500 individuals listed in the directory comprised the directory sample.
The team categorized the participants into five groups: UNGCH Hospital, medicine-related,
academia, facility or maintenance, and other. Any person working at the LTNGCH Hospital,
regardless of job title, was included in UNC-CH Hospital set. The team isolated the hospital
employees because it was assumed they would be going to the same location on campus. The
medicine-related category included people who do not work at UNGCH Hospital, but whose job
title or department is in the field of inedicine. Examples include campus health services, family
medicine, dermatology, orthodontics, etc. The team grouped medicine-related fields together
because they also tend to work on a particular part of campus. The academia category included
any other college ar institution within the university. Facility or maintenance included building
services, ground services, energy services, etc. People whose job title or department could not
be placed in the other four categories were lumped into the "Other" category. Table 4.9 shows
the results. The percentage of respondents was statistically different than the directory sample
using a two-tailed Z-test for proportions at the 95% confidence level for every group except the
medicine-related job group. This could be because the Hospital complex is the furthest part of
campus from the superstreet.
Table 4.9. Job Representation
Job o % Directory Significant
Location/Department �O Respondents Sample Difference?
UNGCH Hospital 21 30 Yes
Medicine related 22 26 No
Academia 28 23 Yes
Facility/maintenance 2 4 Yes
Other 28 18 Yes
110

The team tested the accuracy of the final sample size using Equation 4.1 (shown previously) for
simple random sampling of proportional data. Assuming a 95% confidence level, the achieved
error in a mean proportion ranged from 3 to 4% for the four key questions which asked about
specific operation and safety issues.
4.2.3 Analysis
The team performed a two-tailed Z-test for proportions at the 95% confidence level for the four
key survey questions to analyze the responses from the commuter survey. Nearly all
comparisons of the responses for each key question showed significant differences.
Approximately half of the surveyed population perceived superstreets to be more difficult to
travel through, but the same percentage perceived fewer stopped cars at the intersection. Thirty-
four percent of respondents perceived positive safety effects, compared to 26% of respondents
that perceived negative safety effects.
A major reason for conducting the commuter survey was to gain the opinion of commuting
drivers because the residential survey did not capture their opinions. Sixty-seven percent (67%)
of respondents were "commuters" in the sense that they drove straight through the intersection
both into and out of town, without turning onto Erwin Road or Europa Drive. Major left turns
onto the side streets are not allowed from US-15/501; all left turns are made by making a U-turn.
Table 4.10 shows the results for commuters and non-commuters using a two-tailed Z-test for
proportions at the 95% confidence level. It should be noted that not all of the responses in Table
10 sum to 100% because some respondents chose not to answer all of the questions.
Surprisingly, commuters did not find the superstreet to be easier to navigate. Approximately
50% of commuters perceived no change in safety or travel time. An important difference was
noted between commuters and non-commuters for travel time; 35% of non-commuters believe
superstreets take more travel time compared to only 12% for commuters.
111

Table 4.10. Analysis of Survey Responses for Through vs. Non-Through Drivers
Response Significant
KEY QUESTIONS Answers Commuters Non-
Commuters Difference?
#5 - How does Easier 19% 18% No
navigation through the
superstreet compare to a Same 36% 28% No
typical intersection? More difficult 45% 54% No
#7 - How do you, positively 33% 36% No
personally, feel the
superstreet has affected
your ability to safely Same 44% 32% Yes
navigate the roadway
compared to the previous Negatively 22% 32% Yes
roadway design?
#9 - What differences, if Less TT 36% 27% Yes
any, have you, o 0
personally, experienced No change 52 /0 39 /o Yes
in travel time since the
opening of the More TT 12% 35% Yes
superstreet?
#10 - What differences, Fewer stopped 45% 53% No
if any, have you,
personally, noticed in the No change 36% 22% Yes
number of stopped
vehicles waiting to make
a safe maneuver since More stopped 20% 24% No
the opening of the
superstreet?
The team compared the opinions of UNC-CH faculty and staff non-commuters with the
respondents from the residential survey in Chapel Hill to determine if the responses would be
similar. The team used a two-tailed Z-test for proportions at the 95% confidence level. Table
4.11 shows the comparison. Only the key question on travel time had a response that was
significantly different. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of residential respondents perceived mare travel
time compared to only 35% of LTNC-CH faculty and staff non-commuters. In general, both
populations of respondents who use the minor street approaches to the superstreet perceive
superstreets to be safer, but more difficult to navigate and less efficient.
112

Table 4.11. Comparison Between UNC-CH Non-Commuters and Residents
Response Significant
KEY QUESTIONS Answers UNC- Residential
C� Difference?
Easier 18°/o 22% No
#5 - How does navigation
through the superstreet compare Same 28% 19% No
to a typical intersection? More 54% 54% No
Difficult
#7 - How do you, personally, positive 36% 41% No
feel the superstreet has affected
your ability to safely navigate Same 32% 35% No
the roadway compared to the
previous roadway design? Negative 32% 24% No
#9 - What differences, if any, Less 27% 21 % No
have you, personally, No Change 39% 21% No
experienced in travel time since
the opening of the superstreet? More 35% 59% Yes
#10 - What differences, if any, More 24% 38% No
have you, personally, noticed in
the number of stopped vehicles No Change 22% 22% No
waiting to make a safe
maneuver since the opening of Fewer 53% 38% No
the superstreet?
4.3 Business Survey
4.31 Methodology
The team conducted a survey of business owners and managers to obtain a better understanding
of the opinion of those people directly affected by proximity to the superstreet design. The
business survey helps evaluate the effect the design has on accessibility and property values of
land located near a superstreet intersection or corridor. No such survey on superstreets has been
done before, and very little information is known on the business impacts of superstreets, or even
conventional widening projects.
The team went door-to-door to conduct personal interviews at businesses along a superstreet
intersection or corridor. This process ensured that the team members spoke to a manager or
business owner. It also helped limit confusion on the purpose of the survey or questions within
the survey and allowed the team to obtain higher response rates on the limited sample of
businesses available to survey. The team chose to conduct business surveys for the signalized
superstreet intersections on US-15/SOlin Chapel Hill and on US-421 in Wilmington. The team
chose not to survey businesses near the other two signalized superstreet corridors in North
Carolina because they did not have adjacent businesses prior to the superstreet implementation.
113

The team also chose not to conduct surveys at unsignalized superstreets because they are in rural
areas with fewer businesses, and that effort would have resulted in only a few responses.
There are approximately 40 businesses near the superstreet at the US-421 site in Wilmington and
15 at the US-15/501 site in Chapel Hill. Because of the small sample size, the team decided a
door-to-door visit to each business would provide the best chance to obtain a survey response. It
was important to make sure the survey participants were there long enough before the superstreet
was constructed to develop clear opinions on the before and after cases. The team went door-to-
door to personally conduct the survey. If a manager or business owner was not available a
survey was left at the location to be mailed back. The team analyzed the sites separately because
of the different geometries. The superstreet in Chapel Hill does not allow left turns from US-
15/501 but the superstreet in Wilmington does allow left turns from US-17 (both shown in
Figure 1.1).
4.3.2 Results
The team received responses from ten businesses (67% response) near the superstreet in Chapel
Hill and 19 businesses (48% response) in Wilmington. The team members were not able to
obtain responses from several businesses because they had strict no solicitation policies, they
thought it was against company policy to answer surveys, or they did not mail the survey back if
a survey was left at the business.
Businesses varied along the superstreets in both type and size. National chains composed 70%
of respondents along the superstreet in Chapel Hill, but only 42% in Wilmington. At both
locations the team received feedback from hotels, restaurants, and services. The team did not
perform statistical analyses on the responses because of the small sample size.
4.3.3 Analysis
Table 4.12 shows the business survey results for Chapel Hill. It is important to note that not all
percentages add up to 100% because some respondents did not respond to that question or did
not know the answer. Fifty percent (50%) of managers ar business owners have noticed a
positive or negative change in their monthly revenue pattern since the opening of the superstreet
in 2008. Of the 50%, none of the respondents felt that the change was due to roadway
modifications. Negative changes were perceived to be a result of the economy. Some positive
changes were perceived as a result of recent interior renovations to the businesses. In general,
business owners/managers felt that the superstreet had a positive impact on traffic flow and
safety, but a negative or neutral impact on business growth. Some businesses mentioned access
problems because major left turns are not allowed at the intersection.
A comment and opinion section concluded each survey. Some business owners/managers made
multiple comments. Of all the comments, 30% of respondents expressed that the superstreet is
confusing and 30% felt it is less safe than a conventional intersection. However, another 30% of
respondents expressed that the superstreet has made a positive impact on safety and traffic flow.
Table 4.13 shows the results of the comments section.
114

Table 4.] 2. Chapel Hill Business Survey Results
Res onse
Question Increase No chan e Decrease
6a - Changes in monthly revenue 30% 10% 20%
pattern?
9b - Change in number of regular
customers since opening of the 20% 40% 10%
superstreet?
Stayedthe
Better same Worse
l0a - How has the superstreet affected o 0 0
traffic congestion? 40 /0 20 /0 10 /o
lOb - How has the superstreet affected o 0 0
traffic safety? 40 /0 20 /0 20 /o
lOc - How has the superstreet affected 10% 40% 20%
number of customers per day?
lOd - How has the superstreet affected 20% 30% 20%
gross sales?
l0e - How has the superstreet affected 0% 20% 10%
property value?
l Of - How has the superstreet affected
customer satisfaction with access to the 0% 30% 40%
store?
lOg - How has the superstreet affected 0% 70% 0%
delivery convenience?
Table 4.13. Chapel Hill Business Survey Comments
Comment Response
Superstreet is confusing 30%
Concern with safety 30%
Overall positive effect 30%
Table 4.14 shows the business survey results far the US-421 site. Not all percentages add up to
100% because some managers or owners did not respond to that question or did not know the
answer. Seventy-four percent (74%) of managers or business owners/managers have noticed a
change in their monthly revenue pattern since the opening of the superstreet in the summer of
2009. Of the 74%, half of the respondents felt roadway modifications had a net effect on
revenue patterns. Of that half, most business owners/managers felt the roadway negatively
affected revenue. The other half of business owners/managers felt the economy was the cause
for decreased revenue. Almost half of the respondents thought there was no change in the
115

number of regular customers, but nearly 40% believe that the superstreet has negatively impacted
their number of regular customers.
Table 4.14. US-421 Business Survey Results
Response
Question Increase No change Decrease
6a - Changes in monthly revenue 16% 16% 58%
pattern?
9b - Change in number of regular
customers since opening of the 16% 47% 37%
superstreet?
Better Same Worse
l0a - How has the superstreet affected 26% 53% 16%
traffic congestion?
lOb - How has the superstreet affected 37% 11% 53%
traffic safety?
l Oc - How has the superstreet affected 11 % 42% 47%
number of customers per day?
lOd - How has the superstreet affected 11% 26% 53%
gross sales?
l0e - How has the superstreet affected 5% 5% 16%
property value?
l Of - How has the superstreet affected
customer satisfaction with access to 0% 37% 58%
the stare?
lOg - How has the superstreet affected 0% 37% 47%
delivery convenience?
In general, US-421 business owners and managers felt the superstreet had a large negative
impact on safety because of the particular operations at the intersection. Major left turns are
allowed at this superstreet however, U-turns at the major intersection are illegal. Sixty-three
percent (63%) of businesses noted the prevalence and danger of illegal U-turns even though it is
signed and flagged as illegal. Another operational impact that businesses generally dislike is the
flashing yellow arrow signal for left turns at the major intersection and U-turns. They find it
confusing and dangerous because, in general, drivers do not use appropriate caution at the signal.
A comment and opinion section concluded each survey. In this comment section, 42% percent
of respondents felt the superstreet is confusing, and 42°/o felt it creates poor access for
businesses. Twenty-one percent (21 %) thought it takes too long to maneuver from the side road.
Only 26% felt the superstreet created a safer intersection. This safety percentage might be
skewed because, as several businesses noted, the superstreet has significantly limited the
116

frequency of injury and fatal crashes, but the illegal U-turns are creating a separate safety issue
involving less serious crashes. Table 4.15 shows the results of the comments section.
Table 4.15. US-421 Business Survey Comments
Comment Response
Poor access 42%
Illegal U-turns 63%
Confusing 42%
Longer travel time 21 %
Safer 26%
Helps congestion 5%
117

5.0 LOS PROGRAM
The North Carolina Level-of-Service (NCLOS) software program was developed through a
previous research project (No. 2003-12). It is unique in that it provides a visual depiction of the
service volume in relation to the measure of effectiveness (MOE) for four highway systems as
defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM). The software program utilizes the
operational methodologies for basic freeway segments, multilane highways, urban streets, and
two-lane highways to back-calculate the service volume (expressed as AADT) against the MOE
for that facility type for use in planning applications. The program then provides a visual plot of
that relationship for the analyst to see the effect of various inputs, which can be changed. Three
curves are provided in the plot: the best case, the default case, and the worst case.
Superstreets are a different facility type than those already programmed into NCLOS. The
signalized superstreet (a signalized multilane highway), with a left turn crossover from the major
highway, was decided to be programmed within NCLOS. The capacity of the facility is largely
dictated by the operation of the signal system. This represents an interrupted flow facility type
versus the previous four facility types (freeways, multilane highways, arterials, and two-lane
highways). For signalized intersections the MOE is average control delay per vehicle. Table 5.1
shows the 2000HCM LOS boundary thresholds for signalized intersections.
Table 5.1. 2000HCM LOS Boundary Thresholds
LOS Average Control Delay/Vehicle
(s/veh)
A <10
B > 10-20
C >20-35
D >35-55
E >55-80
F > 80
Another feature of the superstreet is that all side street traffic must turn right prior to the through
and left turning vehicles using the downstream U-turn to move "through" the intersection. This
activity greatly impacts the average control delay for side street traffic. However, NCLOS is
used as a capacity check for the mainline traffic. Hence, the programming for the superstreet
within NCLOS is only for the mainline. There is a separate spreadsheet application under
development that incorparates the side street movements into the analysis.
With this as background, the capacity of the mainline within a superstreet design will be
governed by the delay equation in the 2000HCM, shown by Equation 5.1.
118

Equation 5.1 d = dl(PF)+d2+d3
Where:
d= average control delay per vehicle (s/veh),
di = uniform control delay assuming uniform arrivals (s/veh),
PF = uniform delay progression adjustment factor to account for effects of signal
progression,
dz = incremental delay to account for effect of random arrivals and oversaturation
queues (s/veh), and
d3 = initial queue delay for delay to all vehicles at the start of any analysis period if
queues already present (s/veh).
For this application, PF is assumed to be 1.0, representing random arrivals at the upstream signal.
The dz and d3 terms are set to zero, assuming superstreets are being considered for locations
where arrival patterns and queuing would result in these terms having only a marginal effect on
overall control delay per vehicle. It is noted here that the mainline signal controlling the left
turns from the main street would provide very high progression for the mainline platoon released
from the upstream signal. The capacity at this signal location would be higher than the upstream
signal, but this capacity will not be used within NCLOS as the upstream signal will meter the
mainline flow.
With the above assumptions then, the calculation of di uses Equation 5.2.
z
O.SC 1- g
C
Equation 5.2 dl —
1- min(1, X) �
Where:
C = cycle length (s),
g= effective green time for lane group (s), and
X= v/c ratio or degree of saturation for lane group.
Thus, setting X= volume/capacity, one can solve the above equation for volume:
Now recall that:
volume — capacity 1_ O.SC 1— g/ C�
g/C d�
capacity = satflow xg/C
119

which when substituted into the equation gives the following:
O.SC 1—g/C �
volume = satflow 1—
d,
By setting dl equal to the threshold values for delay in the LOS table, and providing inputs for
satflow, cycle length, and g/C ratio, the volume can be determined for that control delay value.
(The program actually calculates the volume for control delay increments from 0.1 to 80.0 in
increments of 0.1 for plotting the curves.)
Recall that the volume above would be in pc/h/ln if an ideal satflow value is used. Therefore,
some additional corrections are needed to bring this volume to an AADT value. The final
equation becomes:
AADT = satflow 1—
Where:
O.SC 1—g/C Z
u�
#of lanes PHF fHV 1
KxD
AADT = annual average daily traffic (veh/day),
Satflow = saturation flow rate, adjusted to represent local conditions minus the effect
of trucks (pc/h/ln),
# of lanes = number of through lanes per direction,
PHF = peak hour factor,
fH� = heavy vehicle correction factor,
K= proportion of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour, and
D= direction distribution of traffic occurring during the peak hour.
The input values used for best, default, and worst cases are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Input Values for Best, Default, and Worst Cases
Input Best Case Default Case Worst Case
Adj. satflow 1800 1700 1600
C 80 90 120
g/C 0.80 0.70 0.65
# of lanes 3 2 2
PHF 0.95 0.90 0.80
% of Trucks 2 5 20
K 0.08 0.10 0.20
D 0.50 0.55 0.70
120

For the calculation of fHv, the standard equation from the HCM is used, shown in Equation 5.3.
Equation 5.3
Where:
f, _ 1
"V 1+PT ET —1
PT = proportion of trucks (deciinal) and
ET = passenger car equivalent for trucks and buses.
The 2000HCM recoinmends a set value for ET = 2.0 for signalized intersection operations.
However, multilane highway analysis procedures offer a range of values for both general terrain
and specific grade analyses. NCLOS allows use of the multilane highway general terrain values
for ET as show in Table 5.3, with 2.0 as the minimum.
Table 5.3. Multilane Highway General Terrain Values
Vehicle T e Level Rollin Mountainous
Trucks/Buses 2.0 2.5 4.5
Screen shots of the NCLOS superstreet program are shown below.
�
Region
' Coasml
�� Piedmad
I � Moun��
�� �CdiV�
Facilily Type
tenals
�ne HiaFr.va�s
uki-Lane H�igh�n�ays
ee�n•a��s
ipers[reets
Lerel
Rallin�
Ivinurrtainous
Facilities
Create fVzrr Facilih,�
DElete FaciliTy
Selzct Facilibj Reparts
8uper Street AnaBysis -'US 15 {Poe�lmmnt, , RoVIGng)
£L'
L
N
� E
eu
�
c
'�, r�
m
o D
— �.t :
o — .orsi ��- _.
C - C:Zf9LIiC�SE
Cj 35 � �-.urr�rtF�ctlit,
e� Ia' �
O ��
J e, �
7c
A
r 7r 2G 3.G 3C =r,- sC ;C 8G 9C 1rr,- 11G 12r 13C t�G 1L-r 1rr
AA�T (x �;6fF6 veh.}
MaximumAADT: 43800 MaximumPC: 47t00 AA�TCapacily: 463d0
MinimumAADT: 3780Q MinimumPC: 4060Q PCGapacily 51900
I IG�.tE Facility Ir�.forn�atie� �op, Facility Resette �efaulG PrEviev; Repart Erport?oTransCAD
��aY F�� I TraFfic Fado�s �
Facility IJamz �I IS 15
Tar�t LOS �
C,cleLemgtY ���
giC Ratio �—
S�turation Flaw 1'CG
121

The screen shot on the previous page shows the display graph along with the roadway factor
inputs (target LOS, cycle length, g/C ratio, and saturation flow rate). LOS C was selected and a
plot of the LOS C range for AADT is shown in the graph with corresponding AADT values
displayed just below the graph, including volumes for capacity (veh/day) and in passenger cars
per day.
�
RE9���
coas�
r• Riedma�N
!� Mounta�s �"�
�� SelectAll s
�
� E
w
�
FacililyType �
�a rc
?rtcncls
2 Lane Wghv:a�s o
Muki-Lane High�rvays o �
Free�n�ays �
Superstrzets �j ��c
Lz�•zl �
Rolling Q C
� Meurrtainous y
� �C
J �
��
a
F���r�
Create I'Jev; F�cility I
�elete Facilib� I
— 1
Select Facility Reports I
Super Street Analys4s -�1S 15 (�iecimont, , Ro91�r�gj
�� — Ee-5[:�a,e
I — .,�.��cc_��
p — C:ef�clt Casa
J — Curr�r.t Facilit/
/
L� 14 26 36 4r 56 GG� 7G 8r 9�? 1r,6 11G 1�r i?G 11G 1sp 166
AAaT (x'�,aa6 ueh.}
ManimumAA6T: 438�[I MaximumPC: 47100 AAOTCa�a¢ily. 48300
Minim.uml'IPDT: 37800 MinimumPC: 40600 PCCapacilp: 51900
�Jpdate Facility Informatior Cep� Faoility Re=etto Cefaults Fr�rieu; Repmrt EvporttoTransC.�
Fkrad��ay Fac[ors Tr�fic Fadars I
PHF I�.y
K Fe�ctar i,'.i) �
❑ Factarf'�;) IS�.
TrucAidus '.; I�
PJum Lanes Per Cir. 1�
The screen shot above shows the traffic factor inputs (PHF, K factor, D factor, % truck/bus, and
number of lanes per direction).
122

Using the default values as shown above for both 4-lane and 6-lane facilities, capacities at the
five LOS thresholds calculate to the AADT values in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4. AADT Capacity for LOS Boundary Thresholds
AADT (veh/da ) AADT (veh/day)
4-lane Superstreet Highway 6-lane Superstreet Highway
(Isolated Location) (Isolated Location)
LOS Level Rolling Mountain Level Rolling Mountain
A 32,300 30,800 28,200 48,400 46,200 42,300
B 43,300 41,300 37,800 64,900 61,900 56,600
C 48,000 45,800 41,900 72,000 68,600 62,800
D 50,300 47,900 43,900 75,400 71,900 65,800
E 51,500 49,100 45,000 77,300 73,700 67,400
Default inputs: Partial adjusted sat. flow = 1700 pcphpl; cycle length = 90 sec; g/C = 0.70;
number of lanes = 2; PHF = 0.90; % of trucks = 5; K= 0.10; D= 0.55.
The superstreet analysis for NCLOS covers an isolated superstreet intersection. Similar results
can be expected for a superstreet corridor where two or more adjacent intersections are also
designed as a superstreet. The mainline flow rate could be thought of as being metered by the
upstream signal for each direction. As long as the cycle length and g/C ratio remain constant for
all intersections, the results from NCLOS would be representative of the mainline flow rate
through the superstreet corridor since there should be better performance in the interior
intersections because of superior progression along the mainline in each direction. Another way
of stating this is the upstream signals are expected to have random arrivals versus ideal
progression far the interior signals. The random arrival pattern for the upstream signals means
that they are metering the flow through the superstreet corridor.
The analyst should recognize that speed limit (or free flow speed) is not an input parameter into
the superstreet analysis for the mainline flow rate. The signalized intersection delay function
does not depend on this input parameter.
Should it be necessary, the adjusted saturation flow rate value can be increased or decreased to
account far different regions of the state and different locations in or near urban areas. Local
knowledge will be important in selecting the appropriate value.
123

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
61 Travel Time Experiment
This project investigated the operational effects of superstreets compared to conventional
intersections. The team calibrated and validated models of three existing signalized superstreets
in VISSIM and compared them to the equivalent conventional intersection using travel time as
the measure of effectiveness. All three superstreets, which included two isolated intersections
and one five-intersection corridor, performed better than the corresponding conventional
intersections when comparing the average travel times per vehicle. The largest travel time
savings occurred at the peak, peak+l0%, and peak+20% demand levels.
With the superstreet reducing overall travel time through the intersection at peak periods and
higher, it means that it can buy an agency more years after the conventional intersection hits
capacity before a major upgrade is funded. Using the critical sum as a capacity check, the
superstreet was able to provide more capacity beyond what the conventional intersection could
provide when it reached high demand levels in these three cases. When agencies are looking to
make intersection improvements along their corridors, the superstreet can give them more
capacity and at the same time reduce travel time, therefore adding more years to the
intersections' useful life before having to make additional improvements, and thus saving
money.
The three superstreets modeled were all different from each other. The Chapel Hill site is a
single, isolated superstreet that does not allow direct left turns from the major road to the minor
road. The Wilmington site is also a single, isolated superstreet but it did allow direct left turns
from the major road, and it also allowed permitted and protected movements at the left turn and
U-turn crossovers. The Leland superstreet is as example of corridor application, with five
adjacent signalized superstreet intersections. At all three of these sites the superstreet required
less travel time for the average vehicle than the conventional intersection. This proves that the
superstreet design could work well as both an isolated intersection and a corridor. The corridor,
however, had a greater reduction in travel time over the conventional compared to the single
superstreet intersection locations. The superstreet design allows for perfect progression through
the arterial by creating a one-way pair and requiring only two-phase signals. Theory suggests,
and these results confirm, that the mare superstreet intersections that are back-to-back along a
corridor, the better the progression will be relative to a conventional corridor. The Chapel Hill
and Wilmington sites both have adjacent conventional intersections, which limit the progression
capabilities of the superstreet.
Broken down by movement, the major road through and left movements were positively
impacted by the superstreet design, having lower travel times than the conventional comparison
intersections. The minor road left and through movements were negatively impacted, with the
travel time higher for the superstreet than the conventional. The minor road left and through
movements have to travel an extra distance to a downstream crossover, and in doing so pass
through two extra signals. The minar movements were affected more during the low volume,
124

off-peak periods than the peak periods. Along the US-17 corridor the difference in travel time
steadily decreased as the demand increased. The minor left and minor through travel times were
only 9-18% higher than the conventional during the peak periods.
The Highway Capacity Manual defines an arterial as "a signalized street that primarily serves
through-traffic and that secondarily provides access to abutting properties, with signal spacing of
2.0 miles or less" (59). The positive affect the superstreet has on the arterial through and left
movements should prevail over any negative impacts to the minor road movements in many
corridors. By definition, the superstreet is helping serve the purpose of the arterial by effectively
and efficiently moving vehicles along the corridor.
6.2 Safety Analysis
The team investigated the safety effects of signalized and unsignalized superstreets in North
Carolina as a part of this project. Geometric, volume, and collision data were collected for
sixteen superstreets across the state.
The team conducted different analyses of signalized and unsignalized superstreets because
signalized superstreets were implemented for congestion purposes, and therefore, were not
affected by RTM. The team analyzed three signalized superstreets — two isolated intersections
and one three-intersection corridor — using SSAM and observational naive and C-G methods.
The team analyzed 13 unsignalized superstreets using observational naive and C-G methods as
well as the EB method.
In the EB method, the team used the HSM model for rural multilane highway unsignalized
intersections and calculated a calibration factor. The calculated calibration factor indicated that
North Carolina collisions occur at a higher rate than the collisions used to develop the base
equation far the HSM. The calibration factars far total collisions were 1.57 and 1.39 for three-
legged and four-legged unsignalized intersections, respectively. The calibration factors for fatal
and injury collisions were 2.05 and 1.74 for three-legged and four-legged unsignalized
intersections, respectively.
In the examination of signalized superstreets the team determined that each site had unique
characteristics that made its analysis difficult. The US-15/501 superstreet was likely affected by
spillback from a downstream intersection and by the fact that it does not allow direct left turns
from the major roadway; the US-17 superstreets were implemented in conjunction with signals
and a large development that significantly influenced traffic volume and safety; and the US-421
superstreet had flashing yellow arrows for major left turns and U-turns which no other signalized
superstreet uses. The SSAM analysis for signalized sites was also difficult because the team
coded the VISSIM models to produce travel time results, and this was not helpful in building a
realistic safety model. Due to time and cost constraints, the team was unable to code new
models; therefore, the SSAM results should not be used confidently.
The safety impacts of signalized superstreets are therefare inconclusive. The collision rate
comparison using the HSM model and SSAM results generally showed a reduction in collisions.
However, the naive and GG methods showed conflicting results. The US-421 superstreet
generally showed a reduction in collisions, which is important because the US-421 site is the
125

most typical signalized superstreet. This site allows direct left turns from the major road and the
development adjacent to the superstreet existed prior to superstreet implementation. Although
results are inconclusive from all signalized superstreets, the fact that the US-421 site showed
positive results is important for future signalized superstreet application because it is the typical
situation for implementation — an urban arterial with pre-existing heavy development.
Unsignalized superstreets showed a significant reduction in total, angle and right turn, and left
turn collisions in all analyses. All analyses also showed a significant reduction in fatal and
injury collisions as well.
Naive, C-G, and EB analytical methods for unsignalized superstreets showed significant
reduction in collisions; however the EB C-G method results were much more optimistic. The EB
GG method was not included in the HSM, and the method described by Hauer was not
absolutely clear to the team or other safety professionals the team consulted — of particular
concern is the regression calculation used for the variance of x. For these reasons, the team does
not suggest using the overly optimistic results as provided by the EB C-G method.
The significant collision reduction from unsignalized superstreets is important because it shows
the strong success of NCDOT superstreet application. The cost savings from this collision
reduction will be enormous. Additionally, the NCDOT can use the information to justify their
design decisions to local citizens and business owners.
6.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey
Based on the residential survey results, the following summarizes the major conclusions:
• Residents agreed that the superstreet design helps them travel more safely through the
intersection.
• Residents near signalized superstreets perceived more travel time through the
intersection.
• Residents near signalized superstreets perceived mare stopped vehicles at the
intersection.
The difference between unsignalized and signalized sites in relation to travel time and the
number of stopped vehicles is likely due in part to the nature of the traffic control device (signal
versus stop sign), and also to the inability of vehicles at signalized sites to make a legal left turn
on red. By surveying residents living near superstreets, the results reflect mostly those drivers
coming to and from the side streets, rather than the majority of through travelers. The responses
showing perceived increased travel time or no change in travel time are likely a reflection of
those making the additional movements of a right turn then U-turn to move in and/or out of the
minor roads.
Based on the commuter survey results, the following summarizes the major conclusions:
• Commuters perceived superstreets as more difficult to navigate.
• Commuters perceived savings in travel time and reductions in number of stopped
vehicles.
126

• Commuters perceived the superstreet intersection as safer than the conventional
intersection.
As drivers become more familiar with superstreets, the team believes the perceived effects on
safety and ease of navigation will improve. The superstreet in Chapel Hill does not allow major
left turns onto Erwin Road or Europa Drive which may aid in perceived increases in travel time
because of longer queues at crossovers, and therefore a longer delay at those signals.
Based on the business survey results, the following summarizes the major conclusions:
• Respondents from Chapel Hill recognize traffic flow and safety improvements at the
intersection.
• Business owners/managers at both locations felt the superstreet negatively impacted
business growth and operations.
• Business owners/managers at both locations identified customer access and confusion
problems associated with the superstreet design.
The businesses at Chapel Hill and Wilmington had separate issues with their respective
superstreet designs. The superstreet in Chapel Hill does not allow major left turns, which creates
some access issues, and the superstreet in Wilmington has an illegal U-turn problem at the main
intersection which is causing safety and delay concerns. Due to the small sample size, the team
recognizes these results may not be applicable to other superstreet locations.
6.4 LOS Program
The NCLOS program, version 2.2, has been programmed to include modeling the superstreet
using the MOE criteria of average control delay for signalized intersections. The program is
based on the delay equation in the 2000HCM for signalized intersections. Note that the dz and d3
terms are assumed to have negligible effect on the delay because superstreets are not installed
where breakdown conditions are expected to occur during the peak hour.
There are a wide range of AADT outputs for the best, default and worst cases within the NCLOS
program. This is primarily because the best case has three lanes per direction (versus two lanes
per direction for the default and worst cases) and a favorable cycle length, g/C ratio, saturation
flow rate, and truck percentage.
As with the previous version of NCLOS, the Department can change the default values in a
master spreadsheet if experience shows that adjustments are needed to better match with field
AADT values.
127

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
71 Travel Time Experiment
Agencies should consider superstreets as a viable option for upgrading arterials that look like the
three cases studied here. These intersections should be where low volume, two-lane roads meet
a high-volume, divided, four-, six-, or eight-lane arteriaL Building a superstreet instead of
upgrading the conventional intersection can save money over the long run because the increasing
traffic along the arterial will outgrow the conventional design before it outgrows the superstreet.
The team recommends building superstreets as a corridor rather than a single, isolated
intersection where possible. While a single superstreet intersection will improve travel time and
reduce congestion, the design works better as a corridor treatment since that allows for perfect
progression in both directions at any speed and signal spacing. The team also recommends
building them along developing corridors as a preventative measure to increase capacity and
reduce congestion before it actually happens, as was the case with the US-17 superstreet corridor
in Leland, NC.
The superstreet is best suited for divided arterials with high through and left turn volumes on the
major road. The arterial left turn volume per lane should be greater than 80% of the minor road
traffic per lane that moves during the same signal phase. Superstreets are not the optimal choice
for minor roads with high left turn and through volumes. The minor road total volume should
typically be less than 20% of the total intersection volume. Another useful rule of thumb, based
on Kramer's definition of an arterial receiving at least 2/3 of the green time (12), is that the
minar street two-way demand should be less than about 22,000 vehicles per day. The median
width should be between 40 and 70 feet to accommodate large trucks. If the median is not wide
enough, or there is not enough right-of-way to widen, loons can be built across from the median
crossovers for wide-turning vehicles (14).
Multiple residents from each signalized site commented on the disregard for the no left turn on
red rule at the U-turn crossovers. With the number of superstreets in North Carolina likely to
increase in future years, the team recommends evaluating the possibility of changing this rule so
a vehicle could make a left turn on red when entering a one-way street (which is essentially what
they are doing when completing the U-turn maneuver). This is allowed in other states at similar
locations.
Agencies should be proactive in education and public awareness of the benefits of superstreets.
The team suggests showing aerial video of an actual intersection or corridor before and after
superstreet implementation to help viewers understand how a superstreet functions compared to a
conventional intersection. Simulations are an excellent tool for analyzing designs but may not
provide the best visualization far the general public. Instead, a video showing an actual before
and after construction from an aerial vantage point may be more convincing. It is also important
to understand any perceived negative aspects of the design and mitigate them. As with any
intersection treatment, it is important to understand the circumstances where the superstreet will
128

be most beneficial. Superstreets reroute minar street left turn and through movements, and if the
demand for those movements is high, superstreets may not be the optimum design choice.
Superstreets are a promising solution for congested arterials, and agencies should seriously
consider them for operational and safety improvements.
7.2 Safety Analysis
NCDOT should consider unsignalized superstreets as a viable option for rural arterials. These
intersections should be where low-volume, two-lane roads meet a high-volume, divided, four-
lane arterial. A superstreet will have a higher initial cost than a conventional two-way STOP
controlled intersection because of the extra pavement in the directional crossovers and loons, but
it can save enormously over the life of the roadway because of the collision savings.
NCDOT should use caution when implementing signalized superstreets because our analyses are
inconclusive on their safety effects. However, the safety results from the US-421 site were
promising, and the previous travel time analysis indicates that signalized superstreets reduced
overall travel time.
As driver behavior changes, the predictive quality of the calibration factor used in the EB method
may deteriorate with time. As a result, the collision models should be recalibrated periodically
to ensure that they are continuing to adequately predict collisions. The calibration factor also
suggests that other state departments of transportation should not use these results directly but
rather should recalibrate them with data from their own state.
The team also recommends that NCDOT use the C-G method as the main tool to analyze the
safety of superstreets. RTM did not have an important impact as the team discovered when
comparing the EB naive results to the observational naive results (a 34 percent reduction
compared to a 27 percent reduction for total collisions, respectively) This indicates that the
effort to use the EB method is likely greater than the improvement in the results the method
provided for superstreets in North Carolina. This also shows that the NCDOT was opportunistic
in unsignalized superstreet implementation by choosing sites with a poor collision history but not
sites significantly affected by RTM. The C-G method is beneficial because it accounts far more
factors than the naive method. The C-G method uses comparison sites to capture other trends
that affect crash frequency and severity but whose causes are unknown. These other factors
included historical effects, weather conditions, driver behavior, and traffic pattern changes.
With the C-G method as the recommended analysis, the team believes the unsignalized
superstreet results should be used as a collision modification factor (CMF). The CMF would
allow for other states and agencies to make an estimated effect of unsignalized superstreet
implementation. The CMF far total collisions is -0.462 (or a reduction of 46.2%).
7.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey
Multiple residents from each signalized site commented on the disregard for the no left turn on
red rule at the U-turn crossovers. With the number of superstreets in North Carolina likely to
increase in future years, the researchers recommend evaluating the possibility of changing this
rule so a vehicle could make a left turn on red when entering a one-way street (which is
129

essentially what they are doing when completing the U-turn maneuver). This is allowed in other
states at similar locations.
The team believes that many of the safety and confusion problems associated by the business
respondents with their superstreets will resolve themselves in time. Superstreets in these
locations are still new and drivers are unfamiliar with their operation. Unfortunately, businesses
are forced to experience these growing pains. A follow-up survey in five to ten years is
recommended to determine if any opinions have changed. The team recommends that in future
superstreet implementation where major left turns are allowed at the main intersection, the
engineers design the left turn bay to make illegal U-turns difficult and uninviting. The team also
recommends surveying more businesses statewide once more superstreets are in place to better
understand the effect superstreets have on adj acent development.
Agencies considering superstreets should take a proactive approach in presenting safety and
operational benefits. Agencies should emphasize the safety benefits to the nearby residents and
the operational benefits to the commuters. They should pay special attention to businesses and
inform them of the benefits of the superstreet design. Benefits for businesses include choosing a
progression speed through the intersection and flexibility on location of crossovers. Additional
crossovers can be added with no effect on the operations of the intersection.
Planning meetings typically hear the voices from nearby residents and immediate community,
but may not hear opinions from the commuters who are benefiting most from the improved
operations. Agencies need to represent commuters in the discussions with other stakeholders. In
general, agencies need to identify what is of value to the stakeholders (residents, businesses, and
commuters). They should be proactive in education and public awareness. The team suggests
showing aerial video of an actual intersection or corridor before and after superstreet
implementation to help viewers understand how a superstreet functions compared to a
conventional intersection. Simulations are an excellent tool for analyzing designs but may not
provide the best visualization for the general public. It is also important to understand any
perceived negative aspects of the design and mitigate them. As with any intersection treatment,
it is important to understand under what circumstances the superstreet will be most beneficial.
Superstreets reroute minor street left-turn and through movements, and if the demand for those
movements is high, superstreets may not be the optimum design choice (2). Superstreets are a
promising solution for congested arterials, and agencies should seriously consider them for
safety and operational improvements.
7.4 LOS Program
The NCLOS program is available to use for determining the range of AADT volumes for
isolated superstreet installations across the state. The program can be helpful for planners when
considering various treatment options for arterials and thoroughfares throughout the state. The
program only considers the mainline LOS without any analysis provided for the side street
traffic. It would be helpful for future alternative considerations for NCLOS to have a superstreet
corridor analysis option.
130

7.5 Future Research
7.51 Travel Ti�ne Experiment
For any future research on the operational effects of superstreets, the team has suggestions to
consider when collecting data at existing superstreets. Lane utilization studies should be done
when collecting data from crossovers. From field observations, team members noted an uneven
distribution of vehicles at the two-lane crossovers. The team did not do a full lane utilization
study, but were able to look back at the videos and pull data from the Walmart intersection on
US-17 where there was an approximate 80/20 split in the lane use. At the rest of the two-lane
crossovers the team made assumptions on the lane utilization based on qualitative observations.
Another recommendation when collecting field data is to do a gap study where there are
permitted/protected movements at crossovers, as well as for right turn on red (RTOR). The team
was able to use the video footage to collect some gap data, but for future studies of superstreets,
the team recommends conducting a full-scale gap study in conjunction with VISSIM calibration.
There are many other studies that could be done to assess the operational impact of superstreets
that were not within the scope of this research project. Some of these research topics include
investigating the impacts:
• Of allowing left turns on red,
• Of not allowing right turns on red,
• On operations with and without the direct left turn from the arterial to the minor road,
• Of different distances to the U-turn crossovers and signal spacing,
• Of driveways along the arterial,
• On emissions and fuel savings, and
• On pedestrians and bicycles.
The safety impact of superstreets is included in the report, but there is also more research beyond
operational and safety analyses that can be done to assess the impact of the superstreet design. A
benefit/cost analysis and a decision support guideline would help provide assistance to DOTs
and other agencies considering the superstreet design.
Superstreets have the ability to be flexible with crossover distances and driveways along the
arterial because the road essentially acts as a one-way pair. Studies should be done to investigate
the impact of crossover distances and driveway locations on different signal options, such as
allowing permissive movements at the crossovers. When studying these effects, the team
recommends modeling them using data from existing superstreets and their adjacent
intersections. Using data from existing superstreets and modifying the geometry or signals will
allow for a good understanding of the effects of these changes on actual intersections.
7.5.2 Safety Analysis
Future research on the safety impacts of superstreets should include a SSAM analysis for
unsignalized sites using calibrated and validated VISSIM models. The VISSIM models should
be designed to realistically depict the safety of the arterial, a common oversight when travel time
131

or delay are calibrated and validated. Future research should also include validation of SSAM
with collision history. This should be done on both signalized and unsignalized superstreets to
assess each performance.
The safety effects of signalized superstreets were inconclusive because of the limited sample size
and nature of each site. When a larger sample size is available, future research should be
conducted to determine their safety impact.
The EB C-G method is not included in the HSM and I had problems using it in my analysis.
When this method is included in the HSM, future research should use it to analyze unsignalized
superstreets.
7.5.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey
Business surveys were only conducted at two superstreet locations — US-15/501 in Chapel Hill
and US-17 in Wilmington. The after period at both locations was less than a year when the
surveys were conducted. Future research should include surveying those businesses after several
years to determine if opinions changed about the superstreet. More superstreet locations should
be surveyed as well to gain a larger sample population.
7.5.4 LOS Program
As more superstreets are installed across the state, additional calibration of the NCLOS
programming to field conditions is needed for the AADT outputs to match actual values.
132

S.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PLAN
The following outlines how NCDOT and other agencies can use the products developed as part
of the research to analyze signalized and unsignalized superstreets in North Carolina and beyond.
S.1 Research Products
The project has produced research products in four areas: travel time, safety, perceived effects,
and NCLOS. This research report includes a literature summary, the full data sets, and details of
the statistical analyses. The research products include:
• Calibrated and validated VISSIM models for three signalized superstreets,
• Calibration factors for HSM collision prediction equations for unsignalized three-leg and
four-leg intersections in North Carolina,
• The NCLOS program updated (version 2.2) to make AADT estimates for superstreets,
presented in Chapter 5 of this report,
• The set of recommendations given in Chapter 7, and
• Four papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals or conferences:
Ott, S. E., Haley, R. L, Hummer, J. E., Foyle, R. S., and Cunningham, C. M., "Resident,
Commuter, and Business Perceptions of New Superstreets," Journal of Transportation
En 'n� eering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted 4-19-2010.
Haley, R. L., Ott, S. E, Hummer, J. E., Foyle, R. S., Cunningham, C. M., and Schroeder, B.
J., "Operational Effects of Signalized Superstreets in North Carolina," Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., Submitted 8-1-2010.
Ott, S. E., Haley, R. L, Hummer, J. E., Foyle, R. S., and Cunningham, C. M., "Safety Effects
of Superstreets in North Carolina," Accident Analvsis and Prevention, To be submitted.
Foyle, R. S., Hummer, J. E, Haley, R L., Ott, S. E., and Cunningham, C. M., "NCDOT Level
of Service Software Program for Signalized Superstreets," To be submitted.
8.2 Research Products Users
The following groups within the NCDOT can apply the research products to inform and improve
their decisions and policies:
• Traffic Management Unit,
• Traffic Systems Operation Unit,
• Traffic Safety Unit,
• Transportation Planning Branch, and
• Strategic Planning Office.
In addition, the research products can be useful to other departments of transportation, the
FHWA, other agencies, and consultants interested in the areas of superstreet design, operations
and safety.
133

The authars plan to send the paper on safety effects to the Highway Safety Research Center staff
in Chapel Hill who maintain the FHWA's Collision Countermeasure Clearinghouse. Hopefully,
the safety results will be accepted by the Clearinghouse and engineers around the country can
use the safety results to help judge their own superstreet proposals.
Planners, designers, and local officials can also use the research in public hearings. This
information can be used to present the operational and safety benefits, as well as understanding
the perceived effects of stakeholders and mitigating them.
8.3 Research Products Applications
The NCDOT and others outside the department can use the research products named in Section
8.1 to advance superstreet implementation and other areas. The recommendations in Chapter 7
can be applied across the NCDOT to improve implementation strategies and practical operational
and safety results for signalized and unsignalized superstreets.
The turning movement and travel time data collected as part of this research should be valuable
to the NCDOT, FHWA, and other agencies that are involved in superstreet, and more generally
unconventional intersection, data collection. The calibrated and validated VISSIM models are
valuable tools that NCDOT can use to evaluate other signalized superstreet sites.
The NCLOS program was created to meet the needs of NCDOT's planning activities, including
travel demand model efforts. The NCLOS program is a user-friendly software program that
allows for the determination of service levels and capacities for superstreets from basic roadway,
geographic, and traffic data.
Finally, the journal papers written as results of this research project advance the overall
knowledge of superstreet performance. The papers disseminate the research findings to
transportation agencies and the research community.
Planning, design, safety, and operations professionals should be able to use the products of this
research without formal training courses or seminars. Nonetheless, presentations at NCDOT
conferences, meetings of the NC Section Institute of Transportation Engineers, MPO meetings,
ar other meetings may be wise to publicize the findings. The authors will likely be available
during the next year or two to make those presentations.
134

9.0 CITED REFERENCES
1. Fain, S.J., C. M. Cunningham, R. S. Foyle, and N. M. Rouphail, "NCDOT Level of Service
Software Program for Highway Capacity Manual Planning Applications," NCDOT, August
2006.
2. Al-Maseid, H. R., "Capacity of U-Turns at Median Openings," ITE .Iournal, Vol. 69, No. 6,
June 1999.
3. Liu, P., J. Lu, E Hu, and G. Sokolow, "Capacity of U-Turn Movement at Median Openings
on Multilane Highways, " Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, April 2008, Pages
147-154.
4. Maki, R. E. "Directional Crossovers: Michigan's Preferred Left Turn Strategy". Presented at
the 75th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1996.
5. Dorothy, P. W., T. L. Maleck and S. E. Nolf, "Operational Aspects of the Michigan Design
for Divided Highways," Transportation Research Record 1579, TRB, Washington, DC, 1997
6. Hummer, J. E. and J. L. Boone, "The Travel Efficiency of Unconventional Arterial Intersection
Designs," Transportation Research Record 1500, TRB, 1995, Pages 153-161
7. Bared, J. G. and E. I. Kaisar, "Median U-Turn Design as an Alternative Treatment for Left
Turns at Signalized Intersections," ITE.Tou�nal, Vol. 72, No. 2, February 2002.
8. Henderson, S. M. and N. Stamatiadis, "Use of Median U-Turns to Improve Traffic Flow
Along Urban Arterials," .Tou�nal of the Transportation Research Por�u�n, Volume 40,
Number 2, Spring 2001.
9. Thakkar, J., V. Reddy, M. Hadi, and F. Vargas, "A Methodology to Evaluate the Impacts of
Prohibiting Median Opening Movements," 4th Annual Access Management Conference,
Transportation Research Board, Portland, Oregon, August 2000.
10. Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
11. Eisele, W. L., And W. E. Frawley, "A Methodology For Determining Economic Impacts Of
Raised Medians: Final Project Results," Texas Transportation Institute And The Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, 2000.
12. Kramer, R. P., "New Combinations of Old Techniques to Rejuvenate Jammed Suburban
Arterials," Strategies to Alleviate Tra�c Congestion, Proceedings of the 1987 National
Conference, ITE, Washington, DC, 1988.
13. Hummer, J. E., "Unconventional Left Turn Alternatives for Urban and Suburban Arterials:
Part One," ITE.Iou�nal, Volume 68, Number 9, September 1998.
14. Hummer, J. E. "Chapter 4- Restricted Crossing U-turn Intersection," in Alternative
Intersections /Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR), FHWA, 2009.
15. Kim, T., P. K. Edara, and J. G. Bared, "Operational and Safety Performance of a Non-
Traditional Intersection Design: The Superstreet," Transportation Resea�ch Board 86th
Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, DC, 2007.
16. Reid, J. D. and J. E. Hummer, "Analyzing System Travel Time in Arterial Corridors with
Unconventional Designs Using Microscopic Simulation." Paper 991519, presented at 7gtn
Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1998.
17. Hummer, J. E., and J. D. Reid. "Unconventional Left-Turn Alternatives for Urban and
Suburban Arterials: An Update." Transpo�tation Resea�ch E-Circular, Number E-0019,
December 2000.
135

18. Reid, J. D. and J. E. Hummer, "Travel Time Comparison Between Seven Unconventional
Arterial Intersection Designs," Transportation Research Record 1751, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2001.
19. Lu, J., and P. Liu, "Operational Evaluation of Right Turns Followed by U-turns (4-Lane
Arterial) as an Alternative to Direct Left Turns." Report Submitted to the Florida Department
of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. March 2005.
20. Hummer, J. E., B. Schroeder, J. Moon, and R. Jagannathan, "Recent Superstreet
Implementation and Research." Third Urban Streets Symposium. Transportation Research
Board. Seattle, WA, June 2007.
21. Asokan, A., J. Bared, R. Jagannathan, W. Hughes, F. Cicu, and P. F. Illotta, "Alternative
Intersections Selection Tool - AIST," TNansportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting
Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, TRB, Washington, DC, 2010.
22. Personal communication from D. Eyler to R. Haley, 22 Sept. 2008.
23. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Washington, DC, 2000.
24. California Department of Transportation Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation
Modeling Software, Dowling Associates, Inc., September 2002.
25. Taylor, W. C., L Lim, and D. R. Lighthizer, "Effect on Crashes Due to Construction of
Directional Median Crossover," Transportation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting
Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2001.
26. Carter, D., J. E. Hummer, R. S. Foyle, and S. Phillips, "Operational and Safety Effects of U-
Turns at Signalized Intersections," Transportation Research Record 1912, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2005.
27. Potts, I. B., H. S. Levinson, D. W. Harwood, and J. Gluck, "Safety of U-Turns at
Unsignalized Median Openings on Urban and Suburban Arterials," NCHRP Report 524,
NRC, 2005.
28. Federal Highway Administration, "Synthesis of the Median U-Turn Intersection Treatment,
Safety, And Operation Benefits," Publication No. FHWA-HRT-07-033, 2007.
29. Hughes, W., R. Jagannathan, D. Sengupta, and J. Hummer, "Alternative
Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR)," FHWA-HRT-09-060, 2010.
30. Hochstein, J. L., T. Maze, T. Welch, H. Preston, and R. Storm, "The J-Turn Intersection:
Design Guidance & Safety Experience," Submitted to Transportation Research Board, July
2008.
31. Hummer, J. E., and R. Jagannathan, "An Update on Superstreet Implementation and
Research," 8th National Conference on Access Management, Transportation Research Board,
Baltimare, MD, July 2008.
32. Simpson, C. L., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation on
US23/74 Located From the Jackson County Line to East of SR 1158 in Haywood County,"
Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, September 16, 2005,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/SS 14970
18.pdf, accessed Dec. 17, 2008.
33. Simpson, C. L., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation At
the Intersection of US 64 and SR 2234/SR 2500 (Mark's Creek Rd.) Near Knightdale in
Wake County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, September 16, 2005,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S 505992
43.pdf, accessed Dec. 17, 2008.
136

34. Bazzari, M., "Spot Safety Evaluation of the Median Directional Crossover Installation and
the Left Turn Storage Lanes Extension at the Intersection of US 321/Hickory Blvd. and SR
1796 — Victoria Ct/Clover Dr in Caldwell County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT,
Raleigh, Feb. 8, 2006,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/SS 11992
l0.pdf, accessed Dec. 17, 2008.
35. Robinson, B., "Evaluation of the Closure of One Full Access Crossover, the Installation of a
Directional Crossover at a Second Full Access Crossover, and the Installation of a Traffic
Signal at a Third Full Access Crossover on SR 1223 (Dickerson Blvd) From US 74 to
Commerce Dr Union County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, September 6,
2007, http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/
SS1002200.pdf, accessed Dec. 17, 2008.
36. Simpson, C. L., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation, At
the Intersection of US 23/74 at SR 1527—Steeple Drive and SR 1449—Cope Creek Road near
Sylva, Jackson County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, Sep. 14, 2005,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/SS 14970
17.pdf, accessed Dec. 17, 2008.
37. Goodrich, C. L., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation, Of Four Directional Crossover Installations
on US 70 Near havelock, in Craven County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh,
August 9, 2005,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/SS02002
08209.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
38. Schronce, J. B., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation on
US 29-70 / I-85 Business at SR 1744 (Mendenhall St) in Davidson County," Safety
Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, Feb. 13, 2007,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S 509992
28.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
39. Bazzari, M., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Median Directional Crossover
Installation at the Intersection of NC 132 and SR 2003 — King's Grant Rd/Entrance to Grace
Baptist Church Children's Academy in New Hanover County," Safety Evaluation Group,
NCDOT, Raleigh, Jan. 27, 2006,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S 503970
OS.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
40. Goodrich, C. L., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation, at
the Intersection of US 17 and Parkwood Drive- Western Shopping Plaza in Jacksonville,
Onslow County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, July 13, 2004,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S 503964
OO.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
41. Coleman, S. D., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation on
US 64 at SR 1163 (Kelly Rd) in Wake County," Safety Evaluation Group, NCDOT, Raleigh,
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S SO5000
15.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
42. Schronce, J. B., "Spot Safety Project Evaluation of the Directional Crossover Installation US
70 and SR 1731 (Piney Grove Road) Wayne County, near City of La Grange," Safety
Evaluation Crroup, NCDOT, Raleigh, July 6, 2009,
137

http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Reports/completed_files/docs/S 504012
73.pdf, accessed May 27, 2010.
43. Robinson, B., "Project Evaluation of the Construction of a Modified Super Street At the
Intersection of NC 87 and SR 1150 (Peanut Plant Rd) Bladen County," Safety Evaluation
Group, NCDOT, Raleigh, October 10, 2009
44. Liu, P., J. Lu, P. Fatih and S. Dissanayake, "Should Direct Left-Turns from Driveways be
Replaced by Right-Turns Followed by U-Turns? The Safety and Operational Comparison in
Florida," Third Urban Streets Symposium, Transportation Research Board, Seattle, WA,
June 2007.
45. Pirinccioglu, F., J. J. Lu, P. Liu, and G. Sokolow, "Safety Evaluation of Right Turn Followed
by U-turn as an Alternative to Direct Left Turn from Driveways on Four-Lane Arterials,"
Transportation Research E-Circular, 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, 2006.
46. Lu, J. J., P. Liu, and L. Lu, "Understanding Factors Affecting Safety Effects of Indirect
Driveway Left-Turn Treatments," Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, 2009.
47. Gluck, J., H. S. Levinson, and V. Stover, "Impacts of Access Management Techniques,"
NCHRP Report 420, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1999.
49. Williams, K. M., "Economic Impact of Access Management," National Technical
Information Service, 2000, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26500/26544/econeffects.pdf,
accessed May 28, 2010.
50. Hauer, E. Observational Before--AfteN Studies in Road Safety: Estimating the Effect of
Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety. Oxford, OX, U.K: Pergamon,
1997. Print.
51. Highway Safety Manual D�aft 3, NCHRP 17-36.
52. "Resources, Traffic Safety,Traffic Engineering, NCDOT." NCDOT: Home. Web. 26 Jan.
2010. <http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Resources/>.
53. Baek, J. Collision Models for Multilane Highway Segments with or without Curbs.
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering. North Carolina State
University. 2007.
54. Phillips, S. L. Empirical Collision Model for Four-Lane Median Divided and Five-Lane with
TWLTL Segments. Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering.
North Carolina State University. 2004.
55. Srinivasan, R. et al. Safety Evaluation of Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections.
In T�ansportation Research Record.• .Tournal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
2056, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008,
pp. 77-86.
56. Robertson, H. Douglas, J. E. Hummer, and D. C. Nelson. Manual of Transportation
Engineering Studies, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2000.
57. Google Maps. Web. 09 Dec. 2009. <http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-
a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hl=en&tab=wl>
58. LTNC Human Resources Department
59. TRB, Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2000.
60. Khattak, A., N. Rouphail, K. Monast, and J. Havel, "A Method for Prioritizing and
Expanding Freeway Service Patrols," T�ansportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2004.
138

10.0 APPENDICES
101 Travel Time Experiment
101.1 Field Data Collection
The field data collection for each signalized superstreet included a travel time study, turning
movement counts, and a spot speed study. Figures 10.1 through 10.4 show the travel times for
each superstreet. Figures 10.5 through 10.10 show the turning movement counts at each site, and
Figures 10.11 through 10.15 show the data from the spot speed studies.
��-� St.De}•.
» Dist:�nce �i�-�. » �peed �,�-�. Ti�a�-el Tra�-el
�cenario runs (�rti Sta as in h Tiine (iniu I'iine
�Iinor 14tT i EB'+ C C�. .'• 3 _ 1�).G =, �ti c],C}3�
�finar left [��Bj C� C�.�4� � 15.C� _'.63 0.599
�Iinor ii�frt [EB} � G.30 1 11.� 1.5, 0.35'
�Iinor ii�frt [��B`� � D,_', 1 1?.? 1,�= 0,�1'
�fitror t1u1i [EB', � 0.58 3 15? �.3C� 4.513
�Iitror t1u1i [���8'+ C� C�.�O _ 15.- 1.?� 4.?�3
�fajar let't (�IBj � C�.3� � 1?.� 1.?5 0.��3
�Iajor lett (SB;� 6 G.'S 1 1��.? O.t?� 0.??9
�Iajor i7��it t�TB} � 0,31 0 ?6.G 0,-8 0,306
�Iaj�+r ri��it f SB} � D,y6 1 ??.� 0,-1 0,130
�faj�r tfuli [�IBj � 0.�9 0 �S.? 0.?8 0.1 �,
�'I�i�C11'T�1YL1fSB�Y � ��.�� 1 �C.c� �.��� �.�4��
Figure 10.1. Chapel Hill Travel Times
139

��-� St.Ile�-.
-- Dis#ance �i�-�. � Speed �,�-�. Ti�a4-el Tra�-el
ScenAria runs (iru} Sta as iu h Iime {miu I'iine
�It��o�• 1:tC iEB`+ � G,6� _ 15,� _,"� 1,5C0
��Iitior let't i���TB j � 0,63 3 13. � 3.1_' 1.f11 �
'��Iiriar ii�ht �EBj 3 G,�O = 15.3 1,3� 0,36'
'��Iirior ii�ht (���;y 3 0,3_' 1 19.' 1.1_' 4.�33
'�Iitiar tluli fEB'S 5 �,51 3 1?.9 '.6� 0.959
��Iiriortluli(���; � G,�1 = 1?.� _',55 4,�36
��Iajor lett (�IBj 5 C�,,3 1 ?3.C� �.15 0.9?�
�i����� ��tt �sa; � G,63 1 1 C.� ',�' 0,6�3
��i����� �7�t�t i�;F ? o,�� o �f�.� o.c�� a.�ss
��Iajor ristit tSB} 3 G,3� 0 3?.1 0,G{ 0,�89
��i����� rtuti� �.�s� � o,�� o ���.� o.si �.1�s
�.i�����tt�2�is�) � a,�� o ��.� o.s? o.��a
Figure 10.2. Wilmington Travel Times
�i�-� St.De�-.
» Dist:�nce �i�-�. 4 Speed �i�-�. T'i•ar-el T'ra�-el
ScenArio runs (ini S�O ]S nn h T'iine {miu I'i�ne
�'I1�lor l�tt i E$`� -r` C�.�� 3 13.� =.�� C+.�1
�i��7�+��lift I, S�J�] � U��^ � 1�.1 ���7V 4+.��
��Iinor iY�ht �EBj � �•_'9 ' 15.� 1.35 CF.9'
�Iinor 1Y�ht (�riiB) 6 0.=_' 1 1`? O.S9 Ch.39
l�Iiizar tlu1� (EB� 6 0,�� = 1?.'• _,_5 C+.'6
l�Iiizar #1u1� (��rB j � C�.3� _ 11.3 �.�9 C+.��
��i;����� ��tr �a� � c�. � r 1 1�.� i.1, ��.��
��i����� ��tt (�a;, � o._� 1 1�.s 1.,� �+.3 �
��Iajor t7�tit [�IB;+ � C�.33 0 �1.� 4.G� C+.G-
l�iajor i7�tir f 5B j � 0. � 1 4 � 1.9 4.�a CM.O?
�Iajnr tfuu f�iB} � C�.�-� 0 ��.C� O.S1 CM.1.3
��i�����zt�1��:�a�, � o.�� o ��.s a.ss �r.o�
Figure 10.3. Walmart/Gregory on US-17 Travel Times
140

�i�-� St.De�•.
Ilisl.�nce �i�-�. = Speed ��-�. T'i�a4-el T'ra�-el
Scen�ria runs (ini �td l5 m h Tiine �tniu Tiine
�'Iitlor l:t't i EB"5 C C�.?c� � 1 S,6 '.C�1 C+,��
�Iitior lett i. ���8 j 1 C�,�4� _ 1�).9 1, �?3 -
�Iiti�+r ri�ht I_EBj ' G.�_' 1 ?6.3 1.43 Ci.39
�Iitlar ri�ht I�L'B'� _ 0.3� 1 1S.C� 1.?, Ci.O-
��IlIl01'111i'L1IEBti ; O,�O _' 1�.6 ',{�S 0.39
��Iinor tluli f��B'S ' 0.51 3 11.1 _'.�� C+.16
�Iajor lett (�iBj 5 0.�3 1 1?.6 1.5� CN.3�J
�Iajor lett [SB;E _ 0.�, 1 1G.� 1.G9 �.01
��i�������7�t�t(�5 � a.�� i ?�.s a.,� �.o?
�i;����� �Y�t�x t sa� _ a,�� a �o.� a,-i �.o�
��I��'or t1u1� i 5B? � 0,65 0 5�.1 0,-� Ci.G?
Figure 10.4. Lanvale/Brunswick Forest on US-17 Travel Times
Tiine: ?:36 -?:d��ui ?:4S - S:Q6am 5:�0 - 3:l�ain 8:1�-S:a41in 3:3� - S:��am
.liar-euievt rars tiucks cars ttvcks cais t2licks cass hucks cais t�vcks
I��T 31`' 11 �45 331 8 3?1 3 3`'1 5
��x � i ii a � i � o ii o
�r�L � i � s� o s 3 � 63 s �� 1
SBT 313 ; 377 14 `'93 1`' 365 5 3"'� 11
SBR > 0 1�} 6 Zi 0 11 0 7 0
SBL 16 0 "'1 6 30 0 '7 0 "'6 4
EBT 3 1 1�} 6 2� 0 6 0 7 4
EBR ti7 0 87 1 ?� fl 135 `' 105 0
EBL 9 0 3 6 9 fl > a s 1
��BT ? 1 11 6 1� fl "�3 0 15 4
L�BR 37 " `'� 6 3fl 0 "�3 0 33 4
L�BL 8 1 7 6 7 0 7 0 7 6
Figure 10.5. Chapel Hill Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1, Collected on 10/27/2009
141

7 iine
.11os-einent
I��T
1ti�R
1ti�L
SBT
SBR
SBL
EBT
EBR
EBL
[T�BT
[T�BR
����
11:30 - 11:4�am
cais t2�ucks
343 6
1fl fl
3& �
3�3 �
18 0
13 0
1'� 0
� '
9 fl
1i i
36 �
i� a
11:�� - 12:�Opm
rars nucks
33� 6
i� a
�3 a
320 1 "'
1 � ""
"' 6 0
13 0
�� a
s 1
14 "'
ry� a
s 1
1�:00 -12:1�prn
rai�s tivcks
336 9
1i a
�� a
31� 6
ie a
17 1
io a
s� a
5 0
S 0
�a 1
i3 1
1'_:1� - 12:30pm
C�IS Cl'llCl{S
3� 3
1fl a
si a
"'90 6
ii o
19 0
ie o
s� a
s r
1; a
�i a
i� o
1i:30 - 13:4�prn
fi8t5 C11iC�5�
39`' S
1� a
�b a
363 '
i� o
1� 0
io 0
sr 1
a
1a a
�� a
i; o
Figure 10.6. Chapel Hill Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2, Collected on 10/27/2009
Tiine: 11:60 - 12:l�pui 1?:1� - 1?:3Qprn 1?:3D - 1?;a�pm 12:�� - 1:64pin 1:QD - l:l�pin
�I05-2ll12ll[ cars tivcks cai�s tzlicks cars ti�ucks cai�s tivcks c�rs tilicks
I1�T 3fi11 � 3�D � 3?� 3 3' : ' 3-1 3
Iti�R "'� fl 11 1 `'1 � `'3 � 1S �
Iti�L "'3 1 ?� 0 16 0 1S 0 19 0
SBT 358 3 �1? ; 391 � �S7 3 33? �
SBR 16 0 16 0 1? 0 "'0 1 �'S 0
SBL 35 1 3� 1 �� 0 33 ' 35 0
EBT L fl � � "' � 3 � "' 0
EBR �'1 0 1�} 0 13 0 '� 0 3� 0
EBL 1S 0 8 0 ; fl 13 0 16 0
}1'JJT L � Y � ry � L � � �
���R 1� a �s a 1� i ry3 a ry� a
���L 1s o �� o ry� o �s o 3z i
Figure 10.7. Wilmington Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1, Collected on 7/17/2009
142

Tiine; 1�:30 - 16:��am 1D:#� - 11;D6arn 11:64 - ll:l�ain 11:1� - 11:30ain 11:3U - 11:4�ain
3Ia�-einent cai�s t2licks cars t�ucks cats tilicks rai�s trucks cat5 tivcks
I��T 333 ? 3�1 � 33� �03 3 3�� 3
Ir�R �'0 0 "' 1 0 "'> d 31 0 1; 0
Iti�L 1? 0 1� a r7 0 11 0 13 4
SBT 393 # 371 � �1`' 3 ��'7 `' -1-(il 0
SBR 19 fl 18 0 9 0 1� 0 1; 0
SBL 37 � 33 0 "'9 d �1 0 33 1
EBT 6 0 4 0 1 a "� 0 3 6
EBR `'4 1 18 0 `'3 0 18 0 19 0
EBL 17 D 1D 0 d # 0 1�' �
��Tsr s � � o � a 3 o i o
��TsR ryo fl 1� o �i a 3� o -�� a
4}'1JL ryL V ry� lJ ry� 1 LY lJ Ll1 �
Figure 10.8. Wilmington Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2, Collected on 7/18/2009
Iime: ";30 -?:4� -:�#� - 3;00 S:flO - 3;1� 8:1a - 3:30 5:30 - 8:3a 9:�� - 9:00
_lIo�ement cars h•ucks rai�s h�ucks rars t�ucks cars t�veks r1�s t�ucks €a�s trucks
�BT -i5 5 3 '�5 3 "' � '15 9 '3' 9
�BPi 13 C 9 0 1- 0 1-} 0 6 0 0
NBL �l a 4 0 S 0 3 0 ' 0 ? 0
SBT 14S 9 13S 14 175 13 139 16 ld? ?0 1?> 13
5Bt� 5 13 0 3 3 0 10 1 6 1
SSL _'� 1 ?fi 0 31 0 45 1 �3 0 i' '
EBT a ff ' 0 ? 0 1 0 1 0 ? 0
EBIZ 4 ff 3 0 -M1 0 3 1 0 1 0
EBL 3 4 5 ' -M1 0 1 3 3 ' �1 1
5[•'BT ff ff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5[•BR �� ff �li 1 5S 0 �5 1 i0 1 �3 1
L[•-BL 7 a 7 0 6 0 � 0 7 0 7 0
Figure 10.9. Walmart/Gregory onUS-17 Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #1,
Collected on 7/17/2009
143

Iime: 1:�� - ?:DO ?:flfl -?:1� ?:1� -?:30 ?:30 -':4� 2:3� - 3:00 3:DD - 3:1�
]Inr�emevt cars hvcks clrs irnctis ra�s hvrks cars trurks cai�s tilicks cars h•ucks
�ST =G9 ' �i0 � '16 i 185 � "•i 5 16i �
NBR lti 0 1� 0 15 0 11 0 1�4 0 1? 4
NBL ' 0 D 4 1 0 1 0 U 0 0
SBT 41? ' �-; ff �'3 3 -11 i ? �61 0 393 '
5BR 1 0 � U 4 0 1 4 � 0 1 4
SBL -6 0 90 1 93 0 96 4 SS 0 6� 0
EST 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 4 D
ESPL 1 0 1 a 3 0 3 0 0 3 0
ESL 1 0 i 4 ? 0 0 4 U 0 D
41•�T 1 0 ? U ' 0 0 4 U 0 a 0
4Z•�R 10- 0 &6 ff 9' 0 9? 0 lU6 1 S� 0
4l•BL �1 0 3? U '3 0 1b 0 15 0 '•? D
Figure 10.10. Walmart/Gregory onUS-17 Turning Movement Counts: Data Set #2,
Collected on 7/18/2009
Site �o. �bs. lle�n St. De3-. lledi.�n �Iode
C�17�1,�1 Hill 3;9 �C, _' �.�s) ;s]. � ���.�
��'iliiiur�ton '�1 51.� �.55 51.� �C�.?
L?5-1� 15� 5?.� �.�0 58.0 ��).�
Lair�-al� Rd. 30� 61.' �.�3 61.3 6�.6
Figure 10.11. Spot Speed Data
144

1C�ar�
qdbr8
n 41p�8
C �f C1pf0
fl!
a
� '�'d°'�
�
�
7 ��b°❑
i.:�
rt5
� �ida�8
�
� �4da0
�
�
�u�1F0
1C75fu
��G'p
��
Figure 1012. Chapel Hill Speed Distribution Curve
3� �(� �75 �(� �5 4� �65 70 r�
5�ee� (mi�l7}
Figure 10.13. Wilmington Speed Distribution Curve
145

i�o°�
�o°�G
sa°a
�
�o°�o
V
�
Yil
� �o�•�
6
Sf1
� p:
p� �J Q O
�
i-'
ISF
3 �[1'�'n
�
�
U
3 Q°Jo
2 d°'n
1L"�°�
Qu,Q
35
Figure 10.14. US-17 Speed Distribution Curve
�0 �15 �+� 55 �,C� �` 7i� 75 8+�
Speed {r�7pl�}
Figure 10.15. Lanvale Road Speed Distribution Curve
146

10.1.2 VISSIM Calibration Parameters
The VISSIM calibration parameters included vehicle inputs, speed distributions, conflict areas,
reduced speed areas, and desired speed decisions for each superstreet. Figures 10.16 through
10.18 show the vehicle inputs for each superstreet. Figure 10.19 shows the speed distributions at
each site. Figures 10.20 through 10.22 show the conflict area parameters, Figures 10.23 through
10.25 show the reduced speed areas, and Figures 10.26 through 10.28 show the desired speed
decisions for each superstreet.
SIMULATIDN PERI�D (sec)
PLI i
0-900 904-1840 1800-?700 �700-3600 3600-4500 4�00-�404
'BinguttTc�T�L'r•� 1�6C} 1�GQ 1��Q 1516 1G'� 1���
1�-�01 �I 876 $76 11�� 1090 474 931
Franlclin�I �9� `�9� 38� 363 3�� 710
Ephesus C'liurch (���'BR �9� �9� 38� 363 3�� 710
�B inpnt {IDIAL)* 1364 1364 1688 1460 161� 147�
15-�01 S 1091 1091 1354 1168 1306 1178
�agz (ERR 136 1�5 169 146 167 147
D1d Durhaiu {��'BL 136 136 169 146 167 147
S in nt 3�0 3�� ��� 4?S 6�� 48�
� � lil]lUT ��'� ��� 1�� ��� �}7 7'1p
* VS asstunptians: 64°`o L:S-1 �'�D1_ �D°.•o Franklin St_ �0°•a Egh�sus Chtiuch Rd.
* SB c�55lliT]�1t14ri5: SO�'o U�-1�;}01. 10°•a Sage Rd. 10°•a 01d Durham Rd.
Figure 1016. Vehicle Inputs for US-15/501 Superstreet in Chapel Hill (vph)
I��LTI'
SII�iLTL�T'I4� PER.IDIJ (sec}
0-900 1900-1800llso�-??ool'?Do-36�0
�B iir �ut i"T[ aI:�L'+� � 1GG0 1660 1��� 1 C��S
��1� 1'�� 1'�5 1116 1�3C}
Sanclzi� �1� �15 3-? �1'
5B ui�ut f7[=DT:�Lj 16�? 165' 1��4� 1S{�S
C�o11z�z Rd 5B 11 �6 1156 1305 1?GG
Piner f���BLj 165 165 1S6 181
L�S-�_1 �EBR� 33fl 33{i 3�3 36�
EB 11Y1Jllt 1 C�� 1 C� 1[+� S S
�T�B in �►t 13= 13 � � GO 188
�� �3551i1I1�7T10114: �d•�o t��-��1. ��4�0 ��3I1C1t1'S �I',
� SB ass�un�tions: ?�°'o C�011e� Rc6. 10 °'o Pit7�t• Rd. 1�°.o [: 5-�? 1
-5���
1���
1G��
361
1'96
1?�-
rso
359
'00
_{_
Figure 10.17. Vehicle Inputs for US-421 Superstreet in Wilmington (vph)
147

SIIvIULATIOIT PERI�D {sec}
PiJI 0-900 900- 1800- ��aa- 3�00- ��oo- s�oo-
1500 2700 3G00 �5�0 5400 6300
'B (LT�-17} 1' 1? 1? 1' 117? 1080 976 9�0 100�
�� ��.T�-r�� i;�o i��� i�ao r�;� 1��� 1��� 11��
�'B (P1aaf} 1`� 1� 48 44 36 �� 3b
B (Poo1z) ?00 ?Ofl ?1� ?�6 �40 ��4 �16
�����F111T1c3i�C� ��� ��� )17 7�� �''�� ��� 71�
B(Ciregar�•] 1� 1? 48 44 36 �� 36
� � (�� PST �7iii�� � �� ��� 7 1'} 7 � � L''�� �L� � 1 �
S (Cirandiflora] �00 ?�fl ?1? ?}6 �4D ?z� ?16
�'S (Bruns���ick Fo-r�st Pkti3�j 164 1fiA 168 1�6 196 13? lSfl
S(I.an�-ale} 164 1fiA 168 1�6 196 13? lSfl
�'B (Bruns���ick Farzs# Dr_) 0 0 4 4 $ 3 4
Figure 10.18. Vehicle Inputs for US-17 Superstreet Corridor in Leland (vph)
In xit s e e d aiuts
�airte Speed °'o
C��.�p�If-I�ll_�7x�d�. � � .S 0.00
�i2C�11C�CI 6i1��1 5�7E�L�5 �jI ZS��o} 30_S �_��
� 1.� �.��
36_0 Q_3?
37.5 0.47
39_8 Q_75
'�1. i O.S8
�i.5 0.96
�S.O 1.00
�1yrtl�C:ra�-e_inod?_ 30.i 0.00
(r�duced arig�l spe�d5 by?5%} 35_S �_11
39.� 0.30
��_4 Q_6U
�5.6 O.SS
�S_0 Q_95
51.9 1.00
L�l�wd iryad3 3 i.0 0.00
(r�duced arigival spe�ds by?5°fo} 39.0 0.10
�l.i 0.31
��_i �_G1
�6.5 O.S6
�B.S 0.95
5;.; 1.OU
Figure 10.19. Speed Distributions
.•

Add'1 sta� flbs�-. Adj_ Anticipate �roid
R+ho 5`ields� Font Ciap Rear Gag �F dist_ Rantes iOliT25 hlocking
E$R io �$T ' y_6 1C� 1Q � 1 1
EBR Ya �BT � ;_6 1 Q 14 X 1 1
��'BRtoI;1�T ? ;_6 ra S � 1 1
��'BRtoI;1�T ? ;_6 ra 6 X 1 1
Figure 10.20. Chapel Hill Conflict Area Parameters
Add�I ST0�7 D�Si-. At��_ AYlYYCI]}3TP Aioid
4[ ha 4�ields? FpI1T G3]7 RP3f G8�7 5F CIiST. �ip13i25 i411t25 �310C�Ci11E
ESR io 5BT ,.o �_� i� _ � r r
ESR ta �BT 2.0 3_s 1- � x 1 r
ItiSL ro SBT ?.o �_5 1� �� x r r
NBRta SSL ?.0 3_� 1� � x r r
IVUT ta SST i.0 7_1 1� ?� 1Y 1 1
5BL ro 1tiST 2.0 �_5 1� ?� � 1 1
�SRroNSL 2.0 i_6 1"� � X r r
�L:T taNBT i.0 7_1 1i ?0 Y 1 1
��'BRraIVST ?.0 3_6 1? � � 1 r
Figure 10.21. Wilmington Conflict Area Parameters
149

Fout Re.v stap Obs�-, �t�j. �nticipat .�i�-aid
L�7ra }ields`' C�p Gap SF rlist. Routes e inutes blocking
P�: E,B� to 5ST ?. � 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
P t�: EBP� to �BT ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
P:�: NBR ta SSL '�. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
P:p: SBR to NBL ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
P�p: �VBK ta �`BT ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
�T�'.`G: EBR to 5BT ?. � 3.6 14 3 � 1 1
�T�': G: ��R to 5BL ?. � 3.6 14 3 � 1 1
�T�'�G: 5SR ta ��L �. � 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
�T���G: WBRto�`ST �.� 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
�T�':�G: ��BR to �BT ?. � 3.6 14 3 � 1 1
G��L'G: EBR ta SBT �.� 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
C:�4rG: ��R to 5SL �. � 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
Ci�4rG: 5$R to ��L �. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
C;��4rG: �T�BR to ��T �. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
BF: NBR ta SBL '�. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
BF: ���BR ta NBT '�. � 3.6 10 3 X 1 1
L�BF: EBTti to 5BT �. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
L$F: ��R ta 5BL ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
LBF: 5BK to �'BL '�. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
LBF: G�BR to �`BT ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
L$F: ���BR to ��T ?. � 3.6 10 3 � 1 1
Figure 10.22. US-17 Conflict Area Parameters
5pe e d Dis t
Speed Dist rar HG'��
� a. � aine (�nin, ma�} frru� ��v��3
1 � i7h 3{_ 1" }��I �� 1" 3k}rl
z �TBR(?} � �1�_ ?�j 2 (1�_ �4)
3 ��BR atirter ? C1 �- '�] `� (1 �- ?0)
4 �T�BR inner � (1�_ 1'.�j `� (1�_ �4j
] V[_TT_nuYer approacli ? (1>. ��] `� (1�. ?0]
6 �T[_TT_outer aplxoacli � {1>. ?0) 2 (1 �- �0)
� ��� � ci;. ��� � �1,. �o�
� ��_3I]I]�Y 7 �Il. i�� � �1�. ���
9 EBR_outer � (1�_ ��) `� (1�_ �4)
lfl SUT_nmer apporoach � (1>. ��] `� (1�. ?0]
11 ST_TI'_auter ap�xoEtcli � (1�_ ��) `� (1�_ �4)
1 � �]-[_TT_nuYer � (9. 14] 4 (9, 1�)
1; �T[_TT_outer � (9. 14) � (9, 14'}
14 SUT_nmer �(9. 14] 4(9, 14}
1 � SUT_�uter � (9. 14] � (9, 14}
16 �T[ TI'_inrxer approachl � (1 �_ z�) `� (1 �_ �4)
17 V[_TT_outer aplaroachl � (1>. ��] � (1�. ?0]
Figure 10.23. Chapel Hill Reduced Speed Areas
150

Speecl ]]ist
5peed Dist c�e
�IG�-
(inin, u�1� }
� o. 1 aine ( inin, in�� }
1 �$R �(1=--'�] �[�=.=0�
� ��Z. � �1�, ��� � il�. ���
� SBR 3 (15, ?4} 3 (15. ?4}
4 SBL 3 [15, ?4) 3 [15. ?4}
5 Narth LTT 4(9, l�i) 4(9: l�j
� sQ�r� vr ��4, i�} a��; i��
� ���� � �1�, ��� � �1�� ���
$ ��BR-' 3 C15, ��) 3 [15. ��}
� �R � �1�; ��I � il�. ���
1� �R-� � �1�; ��I � il�. ���
11 Piner-��BL 3 [15; ?4) 3 [15, ?4}
12 Narth iTT (1} 3[15, ?4) 3[ 15, ?�}
1� ��BR a�n•oarll 3[15; ?�) 3[ 15. ?�}
14 �i�BR-`� appro��rtr 3 [15, ?4) 3 [15. ?4}
15 SBR approach 3[15, ?4) 3[ 15. ?4}
16 SBL approacli 3[15; ?�) 3 L15.'�}
I7 NBL. appI'OaCtY 3[iS, ��) 3 C1S. ���
18 NBR a�roach 3[15, ?4) 3[ 15. ?4}
19 E�R approach 3[15, ?4) 3[15. ?4}
?0 ESR-`� approach 3(15; ?4) 3 C15.'4}
�1 ''JOL11�Y � 3 I'O�iCil � �1�, �� � [1�. ��
Figure 10.24. Wilmington Reduced Speed Areas
151

10, I�ame
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
lv
lb
17
18
19
�q
21
�1
�3
��
�;
��
-� �
�g
�g
30
31
3"'
33
34
3t
3G
P � lL'3 R
P � �BF�
P:P SBL
P:P r�L
P:P r�L
P:P 5BR
P:P EBR
P:P EBR
P:P EBR
P:P I�ZTT
P:F 5UT approaclL
P:P 5UT approaclL
��'�GNtiI
��' G 5BR
��' G 5BL
��' G 5BL
��' G NBL
��' Ci L�BR
��' � Ci L�BR
��'� Ci I�$R
L�'� G EBR
��'���* �� T A�lO�C11
�i���'G hZTT ap�xoach
G�`4�'G hZTT ap�xoa ch
G�`4�'G L��R
G�`4�'G L��R
Ci:`4�'G SBL
Ci:`4�'G T��R
fi:`4�'G T��L
fi:`4�'G SBR
Ci:��'G EBR
Ci:��'Ci EBR
G���'G SUT aplxoach
fi:'4�'G S�JT aplxoach
SF �]�L1T approach
SF SSL
Speed Dist csi�l �peen 1]ist
HC:�-
(iuiu, inas) (iniu, �n:�}
? � 1�
3 � 1�
3 i15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 {15
3 {15
3 {15
3 {15
3 {15
3 {15
3 {15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 f15
3 L15
3 (15
3 C15
3 C15
3 f15
,��,
���,
'�0 ]
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
'�O 1
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
`�41
'�4 ]
'�4 ]
'�4 ]
'�4 ]
'�4 ]
24]
?4]
'�O 1
'�O 1
'�O 1
'�O 1
'�O 1
'�O 1
'�41
��1
��1
��)
= (1�
3 (1�
3 (1S
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (1S
3{15
3{15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (15
3(15
3(15
3(15
3 (15
3 (15
3 (1S
3 {1S
3 {1S
3 (1S
3 (1S
3 (1S
3{15
3 {1S
3f1S
3 (1S
SpeedDisrtar 5peedDist
HG�-
�o, lame imiu, inaa� min mas
3? BF 5BL � [=�_'0;� 3 (1'. =0;
38 BF LL'FsF �[1�_'0:� 3 11'.'-0)
39 BF V4BR 3(1�_ =0j 3(15- ?0)
�D BF R�R 3 (1�_ =0j 3 (15- ?0)
�1 L:BF �fUT approsch 3 C1�_ 30} 3(15_ ?0)
�7 L:"BF �fUT approsch 3(1�_ 20} 3(15_ ?0)
�3 L:"BF �BR 3 (1�_ =0;� 3 (15-'-0)
�l L:"BF �BR 3 (1�_ =0j 3 (15- ?0)
�t L:`BF �BR 3 {1�_ =0j 3 (1S- �0)
�6 L:"BF SSL 3 (1�_ =0j 3 (15- ?0)
�? L:"BF SSL 3 (1�_ =0j 3 (15- ?0)
�8 L:"BF �TBR 3 C17-=0j 3 (15-'-0)
�9 L:"BF �TBL 3 (1�_ =0j 3 (15- ?0)
5D L:`SF SBR 3(1�_'4j 3(1S_ �Oj
51 L:`SF EBR 3(1�_'4j 3(1S_ �Oj
5? L:`SF Si�T spproach 3(1�_'4j 3(1S_ �Oj
53 ��'�CiSBR approach 3 (1�_'4j 3 (1S_ �0)
5� ��'�CiR�R splxaach 3 (1�_'4j 3 (1S_ �0)
5� Ci:'Sh'C*A�R ap�xaach 3(1�_'4j 3(1S_ �0)
56 L:`SF SBR spproach 3(1�_'4j 3(1S_ ?Oj
5? L:`SF Si�T 6(9_ 1�) 6(9. 1�j
58 L:`BF �iUT 6(9. 1�} 6(9. 1�;�
5g L:`BF �iUT 6(9. 1�7 6(9. 1�;�
64 BF A�; T 6(9. 1�} 6(9. 1�;�
61 G:'4L'G SL.,T 6(9. 1�} 6(9. 1�;�
6� G:'4L'G SL.,T 6(9. 1�} 6 t9. 1�;�
63 G:'U4'G AZ-T 6(9. 1�} 6(9. 1�;�
6� G:'U4'G RZ T 6(9. 1�} 6{9. 1�;�
6� ��'�G SC; T 6(9. 1�} �i t9. 1�;�
66 ��'�G SBL agproac}� 3(17-'0;� 3(15-'_0)
67 ��'�G SBL agproac}� 3{15_'0;� 3(15-'-0)
68 P:P S[�T aplxoach 3{15_'0;� 3(15-'-0)
69 P:P S[�T aplxoach 3{15_'0;� 3(15- �0)
?4 P:P SliT 6(9. 1�} 6 t9. 1�;�
? 1 P:P Si�T 6(9. 1�} 6 t9. 1�)
'� P:P 5BZ s ro;�ch 3(1�_'0;� 3(15_ �0)
Figure 10.25. US-17 Reduced Speed Areas
152

Speed Dist cu• Speed I1ist HG�'
�D. y�P 11711i_ 1lli1S 11]lli. mi1S
i Etff�3 ��� : {�o.�o) , {�0_30}
� Etarapa EB ? {'0.30) ? {'0 �0)
3 Eurapa V�'BR 6{29.6_ i 1.2) (i {=9.6. 51.=)
� Eurap3 L[��R 6{29.6_ i 1.2) 6(29.6_ 51.2)
; Er�•ui �L� ;0 {29.3_ �5.�} i0 �2�.8. 36.0}
6 Eru•us EB 50 {`'9.3_ 35.4) i0 �29.3_ 3l.U}
- Er�•us EBR 6�29.6_ i 1.2) 6�29.6. ;1.=)
S Er�•ui EBR 6{=9.6_ ;1.=) 6�29.6. ;1.=}
9 NL`T a�roacti E(�3_ 3;) 8{'S. 3;)
10 I�]-[_TT a�roacki 8(`'S_ 35) 8��'S. 3;)
11 15-S015B after VL T 6{29.6_ i 1.2) 6{29.6. ;1.=)
1= 15-�0155 afrer VL T 6{29.6_ i 1.2) 6�29.6. ;1.=)
13 Si_TT a�roac�i 8{23_ 35) 8�25. 3;)
1� 15-501VS afrer 5L'T 6{29.6_ i 1.2) 6�29.6_ i 1.=)
1� 15-501YS after 5L'T 6{29.6_ ;1.=) 6�29.6. ;1.=)
16 I�BR �tne 8`'S_ 3i 8��'S. 3i
Figure 10.26. Chapel Hill Desired Speed Decisions
SpeedDistcv SpeedIxistHG�'
�a. lame iuin. in.0 iuin mu
1 R1��rrle Cr�rde:is �i'B 3t (13.6. '1.?} 30 (13. 6. � 1. �
� R�1�xtle c�arcie�is �t�� 30 (13.(i. =1.'1 30 (1�.6. �1.')
3 serti�ice Rd F� 7(2;. 33} ?(2�. 33}
� Phier ��B fi0 {36. �2.3} 64 (36. �?.3}
; s�� E� �a {��. ��.�} �a ���. �?. ��
6 h�1�rtleG:udes�s �BR MG uwd'�{3D_3_;1.9} MG uwd�(30_3_ �1.9}
7 A1�rr1eGardet�s V4BR n�s� ���a.�_;i.n} MG u�ad'�(30.3_ �1.9}
8 PhierVLBL I�iG itwd2{30.3_;1.9} MG itwd'�{30.3_51.9}
9 Pnier ��BL It�iG uwd2{3D_3_ i1.9} MG uwd2{3D_3_ 51.9}
14 Serti�ice Rd F�R n�s� ���a.�_;i.n} MG u�od'�(30.3_ �1.9}
ii s����� �a �� ni� �{�o.�_;i.n} n�� ���o.�_ �i.�}
1`� Sau�d�rs EBL It�iG iuod�{3D_3_;1.9} MG iuod�(3D_3_ 51.9}
13 Sanders EBL MG �'�(30.3_;1.9} MG �'�(30.3_ �1.9}
1� N[_1T a�roach S(2;. 3;) 8(25. 3;)
15 NBL a�rraach 5(2�_ 3i) 8(25_ 3i)
16 SBL a�roach S{2;. 3i) S(25. 3i)
17 SLT a�roach S(2;. 3;) S(25. 3;)
15 I��1�rt1eG:udes�s ER 3�{13_6. �1.'} 3D {18_5. �1.�
19 Sert�ice Rd V4� 7(7�. 33) 7(25. 33)
?4 L�S �31 after ���I MG uwd�{30.3_ ;1.9} MG uwd�{30.3_ � 1.9}
�1 LS�31 after�Z�I I��iG uwd�{3D_3_;1.9} MG uwd�{3D_3_51.9}
�z �s��i ������r n�i� ���a.�_;i.n} n�� ���a.�_�i.�}
�� z.�s ��i ��� �u-r n�� �{�o.�_;i.n� n�� �{�o.�_ si.�}
�� LS �`'1 after 5UT I��iG uwd� 3D_3_;1.9} MG iuod� 3D_3_ 51.9}
Figure 10.27. Wilmington Desired Speed Decisions
153

Speed Dist c:u• �peed Dist H�"
� o. �:une ivin� �n:�s iain, m.�s
= Ploof �L� .�0 r'_9.8. ��.�] �0 ���.8. 3�.0]
? Poc�e EB 50 (`?9.8. '�6.Oj �� (�9.8. 36_Oj
� Poal�e ES 50 i29.8. '�6.Oj �� ��9.8. 36_Oj
� Gre�oi�• ES �{��_ 35j 9 f�5_ 3�}
5 �•and��a FH 50 (29.8, �6.Oj �0 �29.8. 36.Oj
� C:ra�d��a FS 50 (29.8, �6.Oj �� ��9.8. 36_Oj
f C�,`e:tGate T��� 5� (29.8. �6.Oj �� ��9.8. 36_Oj
8 ��`e 1tGate C�� 5� f 29.8. 36.Oj �� ��9.8. 36_ 0]
9 Pnvss :3�c1:Forest ��B � 0 f 29. S, �6. Oj �0 ��9. S. 36. 07
10 Hnvss���cl:Forest ��B � 0 f 29. S. �6. Oj �0 {��. 8. 36. 0]
11 HF; `' ��� .�Q i`_'�.9. �5.07 �0 {�-�.9. '�S_O1
1 � HF�`' ��� -4� �`_'�.4. �S.O1 �0 {�-�.9. '�S_O1
1� HF�2 ��� -40 �"_'�.9. �5.�� �-0 {�-4.9. 25.0]
1� Lan�-al�e ES 5� (29.8. �6.Oj �� ��9.8. 3�.0)
1� i�,`ahiux-t �['� 8 {�0_ �Sj $ (��_ ��}
16 ��`ahvart �['B 8 {�0_ �'Sj S f�'0_ �'��
1? Ploof �74'SR LeL�ud n� f 3�_ �_ 56.8) L.eL�ivd nuo� f 35.�. 5�. �
1 E Ploof �74'Hl� LeL�ud n� f 3�. �_ 56. � L�L�nd nw� f 35. �. 5�. �
19 P�o1e ESR LeL�ud n� ( 3�. �_ 56.Sj LeL�ivd nuo� (35.�. 5�. Sj
�0 Poc�e EB�i LeL�ud �� i33_�_ 56.Sj LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. S�.Sj
'�1 P�P SC.,I' �r {�5_ 35j � f�'S- 3��
'�� P�P SC.,I' 9{'�5_ 35j � f�'S_ 3�}
�'� C�,`ahitiax-t ��'�R LeL�ud ivo� (35_�_ S�.�j LeL��a�d nuo� (35.�. S�.Sj
�'� ��`ahvart �L'BR LeL�ud n� (35_�_ 56.Sj LeL�ivd nua� f35.�. S�.Sj
�'� Gre �oi�• ES� LeL�ud �(35_ �_ 56. � LeL�ivd nuo� f 35. �. 5�. �
�'6 �n•e�o-i�• ES� LeL�ud nsa� (35.�_ 56.� I.eL�nd nw� (35.�. 5�.�
�? i�,`e:tGate T���R LeL�ud n�a� (35_�_ S�.Sj I eL�ud nuo� (35.�. S�.Sj
�8 ��'e:tGate T���R LeL�ud n�o� (35_�_ 56.� LeL�ud nuo� (35.�. 5�.b�
�9 C:rand¢�oa-a FSR LeL�ud �(35_�_ 56.8j LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. S�.Sj
30 �•and��aa-a FHI� LeL�ud nsa� (35.�_ 56.� L�L�nd nw� (35.�. 5�.�
�1 Hnn3s���clwForeset i�BR LeL�ud n�a� (35_�_ S�.Sj I eL�ud nuo� (35.�. 5�. Sj
3� HF; `' T���R LeL�ud �� (35_ �_ 56. Sj LeL�ivd nua� (35. �. 5�. Sj
33 HF��' C��R LeL�ud n� (35_�_ 56.� LeL�ivd nuo� f35.�. S�.S�
3� HF; �' C��R �r {�5_ 35j 9 f"_'S_ 3�}
3� HF; '� [��R �r {'�5_ 35j 9('�5_ 3�}
36 Lan�-a]Q ESR LeL�ud �(35_�_ 56.8j LeL�ivd nua� (33.�. S�.Sj
3? La n�-a}s ESR LeL�ud �(35_ �_ 56. � L.eL�ud nuo� f 35. �. 5�. �
3E L-an�•a1e SC I �{�>_ 35j � f'S_ 3��
39 HF T�� I �r {'�5_ 35j � f"_'S_ 3��
�0 HF T��I to �-17SS LeL�ud n�o� (35_�_ 56.8j LeL�ivd nuo� i3�.�. ��.Sj
41 HF T��I to �-17SS LeL�ud �(35_�_ 56.Sj LeL�ivd nuo� f35.�. S�.Sj
�� L•BF T�� I to � S-17SB LeL�ud n� f 35_ �_ 56. � LeL�ivd nuo� f 35. �. 5�. �
�'� L�BF T�� T to L:5-17SS LeL�ud n� (35_�_ S�.Sj LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. 5�. Sj
� L�BF SU7 roUS-17�15 LeL�ud �(35_�_ S�.8j LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. 5�.8j
�� L'BF SUI roUS-17�]B LeL�ud �� (35_�_ 56.8j LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. S�.Sj
�-6 G��T��C� SUT to US-17NS LeL�ud n� f35_�_ 56.� LeL��d nuo� f35.�. 5�. �
�? ���T�`� SUT to U�17NS LeL�ud n� (35.2_ 56.� L�L�nd nua� (35.�. 5�. �
�8 ���T�`��NT to US-17SS LeL�ud n� (35_�_ 56.5) LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. S�.Sj
�9 ���T�`G�NT to US-17SS LeL�ud n� (35_�_ 56.8j LeL�ivd nua� (35.�. 5�.b')
50 ���`GSUTtoUS-1,TN�S LeLtud n�f35_�_56.8) L.eL�ivd nuo�f35.�.5�.�
51 i�`'G SUT to- US-1?IkT� LeL�ud n� �35. �_ ��.8 L.eL�nd nw� �35.�. 5�.
Figure 10.28. US-17 Desired Speed Decisions
154

I I Speed Dist c:u� I �geed Dist H��-
l�o. �:une f�i. m:�] fmin. �n.�a��
��
5�
5�
j5
5�
Sf
58
�9
�0
�1
6�
�3
�
�5
��
67
�S
69
��
?1
7�'
��
��
��
��
��
��
�q
SO
S1
S'�
S3
S�
S5
S�
87
S�
S9
90
�1
9'�
93
9�
95
9�
9f
98
�9
10�
101
10�
��' � �JT to US-1 i ��
��' G VLTT to �TS-1?S�
P�P S� T to Ls 5-17�]B
P�p S� T to Ls 5-17�]B
P'P N�.,I' to L: S-1 �SS
P'P N�.,I' to L: S-1 �SS
P�p NL'T
V4"� �]UT
VL'�G SUT
G���� G N�TT
����� U ANT
����� U SC.'T
����`� SC.'T
Ploof ES
Poa1e i�L'B
Foo1e VLB
�4'ahxiart ES
�4'ahvart ES
�,n•egai�- �T��
VL'est�ate EB
�'e �t�ate ES
Ga�and�Zora �G'B
�,s�a�Zora ��r'�
Snnis��-ic6:Foresr ES
Snnis��-ic6:Foresr ES
SF�'� EB
BF�'� EB
I.au�-a1e i74'H
P'P NL'T to L: S-17SS
VL'�G VSR
VL'�G SHR
P�� I*ISI
P�P SS�
G'��� G NBR
������ SBR
SF I��F�
L�BF T��R
L�BF SBR
L�BF T��L
L�BF SBL
L�BF SBL
BF SBL
BF SBL
G���,`� NBL
G����� SSL
�'� G �]BL
VL':�G SHL
V4':'� SHL
P:•P I+ISL
P�P I+ISL
P�p SBL
eL�nd_nw� ���.�. ��.$1
w �
eL;nd_n�2 �35.�. 5�_Sj
eL;nd_n� �35.�. 5�_Sj
eL;nd_n� �35.�. 5�_Sj
eL;nd_nio.32 (�5.�. 56_8)
eL;nd_nio.32 (�5.�. 56_8)
9 f'_�_ 35�
� f��_ ��)
9 f'-�_ 35 j
9 f'-�_ 35�
� f��_ ��)
� f2�_ ��)
� f��_ ��)
�� ��9. $_ 36_0�
�0 ��9.$_36_(}}
�0 (�9.�_36_4j
S f='�_ �5j
S f��_ �5�
9 f"'�_ 35�
�0 (�9.8_ 36_4j
50 ��9.�_36_�}
50 �79.5_36_�}
�0 ��9.�_36_�j
�0 (�9.�_36_4�
�0 (�9.8_ 36_4�
�-0 ���4.9_ �'8_0�
�-0 ���4.�,- 28_�}
�0 (�9.�_36_4j
�0 ��9.8_ 36_�}
9 f'_�_ 35�
9 f'_�_ 35�
� f"��- �5)
9 ('��_ 35j
9 ('��_ 35j
� f'�_ ��)
� f��_ ��)
9 ('��_ 35�
9 f'��_ 35�
9 f'_�_ 35�
� f��_ ��)
9 f'�_ 35�
9 f'_�_ 35�
9 f'_�_ 35�
9 f'�_ 35}
9 f'-�_ 35 j
9 f'-�_ 35 j
9 f'_�_ 35�
� f��_ ��)
9 f'-�_ 35�
9 f'_�_ 35�
9 f"'�_ 35�
Figure 10.28. continued
Leland in� ( � �. �. �6.8}
Leland n��� (3�. �_ Sd.$}
Leland n�L (3�.�_ Sd.B}
Leland n�L (3 �. �_ 56.8}
Leland n�L (35. �_ 56.8}
Leland n��i (35. �_ 56.8}
9 f25. 35j
9 f2�. 3�j
9 (2�. 35j
9 (2�. 35j
9 ��5. 3�j
9 �2�. 3�j
9 f2�. 3�j
50 ('�9_8_ 3�.0�
50 ('�9_$_ 3�.��
50 ('��.8_ ��.0}
S f='�. ='Sj
S f 2�. �' Sj
9 f25. 35j
50 ('��.8_ �6.0}
50 ('�9_8_ �6.��
50 ('�9_8_ �6.��
50 {'��.8_ ��.�}
50 ('��.8_ �6.��
50 ('��.8_ �6.��
�J ('��_9_ �5.�}
�-i7 ('��_9_ �5.��
50 ('��.8_ �6.�}
50 (`�9_8_ �6.�}
9 f25. 35j
9 f"_'�. 35j
9 ��. 3�j
9 ('>�. 35j
9 (2�. 35j
9 f2�. 3�j
9 ��5. 3�)
9 f��. 35]
9 ��. 35j
9 f25. 35j
9 ��. 3�j
9 �5. 35J
9 �5. 35]
9 �5. 35)
9 (2�. 35j
9 (2�. 35j
9 (2�. 35j
9 f"_'�. 35j
9 f�'�. 3�]
9 ('>5. 35]
9 �5. 35)
9 �5. 35]
155

10.1.3 VISSIM Calibration and i�alidation Results
The VISSIM results are split into two parts: calibration and validation. Figure 10.29 shows the
calibration results by movement and Figure 10.30 shows the validation results by movement.
SETi 5ET2 SET3
Srte dabe Poaad Movement �lruns Field VISSIM 96Diff. VISSIM 96diff. VISSIM �diff_
Cha�el Fi =0}Z7{Z� min�r ',4'BL � �35.� '11�._ -{�.3�C 12�.Z -45.=X '137.� -d1.7?�
7:3�3:O�7am ',4'BF. 1 7fi.8 �7.1 -��.6�4 55.8 -�E.0�4 fi3.31 =,'.fi'�
(aataset�=} ',4'BT � '163.0 '118.0 -��.8�4 130.6 -��.3�4 1�8.61 -�3.r,x
mi n or E6L � �{,7.5 13fi.3 -f 3.d�4 lf 1.3 -41.3�4 'lf �.47 -•11.0'�
EBR 1 78.0 E3.Z -'18.��4 65.6 -1f.7�4 5b.53 -=4.77:
EBT � '1?3.� '1�fi.3 -3fi.6�4 13�.0 -33.7�4 1�f.ti7;' -3,'.7'�
maja- V6L � '173.4 10�.Z -41.=�4 11�.0 -35.d�4 11�.� -313'�
N6R 1 {�.0 �,'.3 -35.4�4 �8.0 -33.3�4 3Z.3,' -Z�.�'�
V6T � f3.5 44.0 =.�7L 4fi.3 fi.3"ti 5_.13 '17.5�C
maja• 56L � 18d.3 1��.d -�8.Z�4 133.7 -�5.B�4 1�S.S7 -3L.r,x
SBR 1 3f.8 5�.5 5�d.97L 55.= 58.4"ti 57.03 fi3.��C
SBT � 3�.0 E'1.5 57.E"ti 6/..� 66.4"ti 61.48 fi5.3�C
�rrtle G-oti�e 7}=7{� minor ',4'BL E 153.0 '1'10.8 -��.�& 1'13.� -�7.�& 1�fi.� -ZC5.2'�
_2:Q}1:3�pm ',4'BR � 8�.•1 41.0 -�.Z& 40.� -�.Z& {7.01 -.1'.r,x
faatasetR=} }N�T
minor E6L
EBR � 7$.7 �1.8 -33.5"': �C._ �3{.?"': 55.�9=' �`-�'-
EBT 5 '1{=.8 '103.0 -�7.diC 102.8 -�7.6i4 '102.5Fs -�',.7�
maja• V&L 5 105.0 53.� -48.7�4 53.= -4�.1�4 5=.55 -5�.�'�
N&R � 3�.� 35.8 -0.2'?u 3�.d -1.Z�4 37.15 -E.�'�
V6T � {S.� 55.3 Z0.5"ti �.5 =8.8"ti �.51 '10.��&
maja- S�L
SBF. � f�.0 33.8 -'1�.5�C 3{.� -1fi.�X 35.0', -�E.S'�
SBT � 58.Z �3.6 -7.8'ti 5�.� -�.="ti 53.0� -8.7x
J�17:crraar 7{i7{� minor ',4'BL 5 '1�d.8 82.0 -3{.3�C 11.� -�fi.3X '12{.3� -O.fX
1+Jamart 7:3��:QOam },4'BR 4 {�.•1 35.8 -1�.•1�C 4�.6 -13.6�C {8.44 -1.8'�C
fcatasetR=} N,'�T
minor E8L
EBF. � f�.0 32.8 -�'1.�X 3/..= -18.SX 3=.03 -ZE.'1'�
EBT E '13�.0 ',fi.7 _r,r,.a�, 8'1.� -4'1.=�4 '105.67 -Z4.0?:
maja• �16L 5 75.7 �.3 -�8.3�4 5�.3 -�1.7�4 8d.�1 5.7x
N6R � 38.d �4.0 -37.6�4 �fi.� -30.=�4 �7.35 -Z8.7'�
�16T � {'1.= 38.8 -5.5"ti 43.6 fi.s?ti 37.E,' -83�C
maja• 5&L 1 78.0 48.7 -37.6�4 5�.8 -3�.3�4 fi5.&�i -�S'�
SBR 3 �{.0 ��.6 -5.57L �f.Z 'l.s?ti �3.3� -�.8'�C
SBT � 3{.Z 30.� -'].57L 35.B 7.E'?t� 'rl.8i 2.Uk
��5-'17xrrcar 7{=7{� minor },4'BL 1 '1'15.8 0.0 94.7 -�'1.7�4 fi=.83 -•iE.fi'�
la-,uale F.d. S:LY�6:3C�m ',4'�R � 7fi.Z 0.0 40.6 -4fi.7�4 38.&�i -•15.0'�
icat=_=_etR=} ',4'BT � 1fi5.5 0.0 55.8 -Eb.B�4 14f.U& -3',3'�
minor E&L E 15b.8 85.Z -{S.OX �.6 -37.=�4 1�7.Z,' -�8.8'�
EBR � fi'1.5 43.5 -��.3X: 48.= -�1.8�4 f�.18 -ZC5.0'�
EBT � 'l�d.s Efi.� -Zfi.3�4 ES..1 -45.=�4 �1.3E -Z4.2'�
maja• V6L 5 �{.� 50.� -35.8& �7.5 -�$.7& ']038 -4 $':
r'i�Pi � {].�S �.'� 3�.'� -�1.'� : �J.1: �� { ^_
'��
maja• 56L � 1�_.�� ��3.J -31.'� : �.� -�.'� : 11.�5 -L3 ] ^"
SBF. � {�.3 �8.�� -33.8:: 33.8 -�0.�".: �5.1� -33 S�
SBT 4 f5.Z 43.3 -f.="ti S�.Z =5.5"ti S=.lE '13.3�4
tatal no. field •u-�s: 110 ^ean d'fterenae: -�3.7�4 -�0.6�C -�E.O'�
'1�er�� low input ti�alumes
'}xc ud'n�v=_ _es be:ause -�o TT •uns aand_�ted in iield tar c=_ta set �1
Figure 10.29. Calibration Results by Movement
156

sEr a sEr s
Site Date Road Movement �1 runs Field VISSIM 96 Diff, VISSIMI 96Uiff,
C•iap�i H' I 1Cl�7!ZG�`3 rni•ior 'J��L 2 23�.2 137.10 -�11.77c 135.�}� -f40.�7c
7:3�}-9:O�a m WB R S 76.8 63.31 -17.67c G3.8� -16.9?c
fdata set pSi S�fBT � 1{i8.�} 128.65 -23.�17c 128.93 -23.3?c
rninor EBL 2 2A0_9 1�72.4f1 -�11.d7c 1�43.5� -fLd.3?c
E9R S 78.0 66.s3 -1�1.77e G7S8 -13.�1?e
E9T 2 13`3_2 12�1.07 -37.�7c 12�1.��1 -37.6?c
rndjor hJ9L � 173_�7 11}.19 -3S.37e 119.36 -31.2?e
N9R S �I�.O 3�.37 -Z�.�}7c 3Z.31 -23.1?c
hJ9T � �13.� SS.S3 17.57e 51_32 18_Q'!'.�
rnajor SBL 2 lEfl_3 125.5f1 -30.�17c 1Z6.�6 -3d.0?c
59R S 3�1.8 57.d3 £3.�37c 56.77 G3.1^G
59T 2 39.0 E++1.�1$ £,5.37c fr1.52 �i5.�i�i
Myrtle�,rove 7{17/2049 rni�o• 'J��L 6 S58_4 S2a.13 -ZO.Z7c 13�.56 -16.L�c
LZ:O�S:3�prn '.+�BR � 89.�1 �17.�1 -�17.�17e •:t�.3t� -�17.t�'x.
fdata set �Si 4+�fBT
rninor EBL
EBR � 78.0 SS.+1C, -28.}7c S�_Q7 -29.�17c
E�T S 1A1.8 1�}Z.�S -Z7.�7c 11S.Ed -21.3?c
rnajor hl�L 5 14Y.�} SS.s9 -Sd.53e 58_36 -fL+l.�l?e
N9R � 39.�+ 37.55 -G_9"6 39_58 -4.8Y�
hJ9T � �15.�+ 50.}1 10.C�?e 50.9 10.9Y.�
rndjor ��L
SBR � �I�.O 3�.m' -S6.}3e 3t�.92 -1�.17e
SBT 2 �8.2 �3.�2 -8_9^.'0 53.8� 7.�7 �
US-17corridor 7{17/2049 rni�o• '.+��L 5 12�1.8 123.�� -Q_7"G 1Z9.7S 3.9?�
'J�falrnart 7:3�9:OOam ',NBR +1 �I�'.�I +15.71 -1.3 M •:8.3•9 -1.�1 1
fdata set F�S} 4VBT
rninor E�L
EBR �I�.O 35.67 -��I.G'x: 3r1.8 -17.1?c
EBT G 139_Q 1Q3.19 -Z�1.37c 145.57 -23.67c
rnajor N9L 5 75.7 SO.r�., 6.�1'7G 79_2�4 �1.67c
N�R � 3Fs.�l �8.5.5 -25.67c 27_22 -29.1?c
hl�T � �IS.1 37.77 -8.1�i 38_25 -5_9^'.�
rnajor 59L 1 78.0 65.52 -SS.s7c 65.6 -15.97c
SBR 3 2�1.0 ��.�Ci -�7_8"G 23_G7 -1_�7^6
59T � 3f1.2 3+1.�7 �.z7G 3�4.86 S.9?c
US-17corridor 7{17/2049 rninor '.+��L S 11�.8 G1.3 -�17.S7e G0.5�1 -�17.77e
Lanvale Rd. 5:C46:34prn 4+�fBR � 76.2 �10.31 -�47.S7c A4.28 -�47.17c
fdataset#�S} 4VBT 2 1G5_9 1�}Z.33 -38.37c 10�.75 -38.U7c
rninor E9L C, 156_8 127.25 -58.57c 117.87 -2�1.87c
E�R � 65.5 Sd.Z -18.�7c 50_26 -18.3?c
E9T 2 12�45 93.�18 -��1.}7e 85_S8 -31.37e
rnajar N9L 5 �1.9 90.81 -�7.3"G $8.x1 -£,_7 a
N9R � �13.8 35.}9 -18.77e 33.?t� -2�.�+�e
N �T
rnajor SBL � 1�}L.� 7'�.'?7 -�S.Sk 81.27 -1�'.�+�e
SBR 2 �1�.3 �5.6� -3�.33e �7.5 -3f1.33c
59T A �15.2 SS.�G 13.57c SZ_C✓� 16.G",'o
lokal no. field runs: 1S4 -SS.S�e -15.2?e
*excludinx values be�ause no TTruns �onducted in iield fordata set {FL
Figure 10.29. continued
157

SET 1
Site Date Road Mowement #runs Field VISSIM %Ditt.
�f'<iFt•I I I II lf}l�'7l�{lf]r1 rii r';:r 'u�JE�L '? li8.r] 1?= '' ;:
_1:3C] 1:[Xl.�rii bVE3R 2 �2.�4 Cr3.[,Z 1.U'i�,
��i��<, ��:� �,�i �v�i z i��.� _���.�z t�.��;;.
riiiricar LE3L 2 '3'.l.[} lfl�s.71 ��i.U�f�.
LE3R � S'l.t] E�4.8�} �'.i.7'�'�
LE31 3 131.�4 1Z1.f1'� 7.:��:�.
ri i<ij:: • NE3L 3 �+.2 117.8� l�i.�;�f�.
NE3R Z 3�?.[} 3�.33 17.1'".,
N�T 2 =r3._ �1.{l� -3.1':�.
r� �<�j:; • SE3L '2 1 L:�..a '_Z•'1.3�1 7.7'i��
;'E3F2 'x .11._ .i£�.{;3 3c�.-`:�
Sf31 '? -�7 � l'��.•11 :a.1'ry�
h•1y•`le� Ca•c�ve� 7/1't�f�C�1'� rii r�:;r VJ�L {] 13E.G
10:3�11=�4:��rn ',rVE�F? '? �;1.[? •1:?.,' 3r1.{'r.•
I[i�la �e: k ��21 ',rVE31 f, lf}.3. f _llr.I] 1�.�'.�
rii r�:;r LE3L [, 1�43.[} 1�'�.•'I 1{.•'I'".,
LE3R 2 11{].� :�:r.7 �'Ir].=r'".�
E�T O 11#�.��
ri i<aj:; � NE3L {] �E3.7
NE3R 'I -.i._ :i{3.1 �t;.l":.
NE3T Z �'IS.[} �1.� �.3':�,
r��t�j::• SE3L [, =r[,..i 73.�1 ��J.{3�f�.
SE3R Z �'13..a 3�.� -1�.:;�',
SE31 2 :�2..a ��l.l 3.1'i��
U3 17tc�rri.ic}r 7,`lc�,`�'[}{]�] rii r�:;r �VBL 1 1[X1.2 1f13.2�' �'12.��f�.
LN{i�riiarL 1:�4�-3:l�prii 4VaR Z E�J.� .a{3.{37 _.:�`:�.
��i������u�; �wv�r {i iz:�.rx l��.c:> i.��x.
rii r�:ar LE3L :� 1�47.2 131.�� 1[}.•'I'".,
E E3 R 2 7•1. 7 �C]. 3�'I �'I C;. C]`�',
LE31 1 1:a7.2 _1�.1�'I �' : �''".�
rii<ij:;• NE3L 1 �12.[} �3��.00 {3.a.�'�f�.
NE3F 2 ',ki.: i=r.7� C'x.{i`f�.
NE31 3 :r�l.[} �i0.{1€� �:a.l'�',
riitijcar SE3L :� 7:�._ Cr'1.77 13.4;'".,
SE3R Z �3.f �:r.3:r 8.3'i��
SE31 3 '.',:�.Cr i7.{17 �.3'Y4�
U3 _7c•��•ri.ic�r rii r�:;r 'wVExL 1 11:�.� Crl.[,� �'IC:.S'�!,
L�n�.�:i c� Rd. NO 2nd D!#T1� SET bVE3R Z 7[,.1 .U.U7 �'17.�'I'�',
;�rolur;7� irGpuL:s bV�T Z 1C::�.i] iU�'I.��'I 37.3'�',
I•t�m 1st data �el, rii r�::r LE3L [, l:a[,.� 13=r.fl i -13.��'".,
�c� compare tc� TT LE3R 2 £�1..a .a;�.3u -�.1�:�.
I•i�rn lyl data :>e:'1 LE31 2 12{l..a r]�'I.�+1 �3.5;'`'.�
r��<�j:;- NE3L :� `�'1.'� r]7.21 �.fl'X,
NE3R 'x .'13.'r' .�£�.�?{i l.a.=r'�•�
N�7
niajcar SE3L 'I 1[}l. . 71.:i 1z].7'".,
SE3F� 2 �'11.i :'.[��' 3.1'i�,
5E31 {1 �'I:�.� �1.2�1 �'f}.15�.
Lc�L:il nc�. lic� cj r�r�:s: 117 �vx�<ir� �jil le�re�nc•c�: �i.�'I;�.
"e:�:: t�.iir��� v<iltie::> :}{:C'i3ll:s{: '7;: f'T •un:> ::C}fl{j4J{.•4'{j i�r I ie:l.i `..• d<i::i :>i:l .�1
Figure 10.30. Validation Results by Movement
158

10.2 Safety Analysis
10.2.1 Site Information
Table 10.1 shows the location of each superstreet site and its respective comparison sites.
Table 10.1. Comparison Sites
Intersection Main Road Cross Street(s) County
Signalized sites
Superstreet US-15/501 Erwin Rd./Europa Dr. Orange
Comparison US-15/501 S. Estes Dr./SR-1750 Orange
Comparison US-15/501 Sage Rd./Old Durham Rd. Orange
Superstreet US-17 Leland corridor (Ploof Rd./Olde Waterford Way, Brunswick
West Gate Dr./Grandiflora Dr., Gregory Rd.)
Comparison NC-132 Bragg Dr. New Hanover
Comparison NC-132 Pinecliff Dr. New Hanover
Comparison US-117 Holly Tree Rd. New Hanover
Superstreet US-421 SR-2501/Carolina Beach Rd. New Hanover
Comparison US-421 Sanders Rd./SR-1187 New Hanover
Comparison US-421 Halyburton Memorial Pkwy./Veterans. Dr. New Hanover
Unsignalized sites
Superstreet US-17 Mt. Pisgah Rd. (SR-1130)/Sellers Rd. (SR-1344) Brunswick
Comparison US-17 Smith Ave./SR-1357 Brunswick
Comparison US-17 NG211/Green Swamp Rd. Brunswick
Superstreet US-17 Ocean Isle Beach Rd./SR-1184 Brunswick
Comparison US-17 Mintz Cemetery Rd./SR-1318 Brunswick
Comparison US-17 Cumbee Rd./SR-1131 Brunswick
Comparison US-17 Red Bug Rd./SR-1136 Brunswick
Superstreet US-74/23 Red Bank Rd. (SR-1155)/Walker Rd. (SR-1157) Haywood
and Old Balsam Rd. (SR-1243)/Balsam Ridge
Rd. (SR-1158)
Comparison US-74/23 Mineral Springs Rd./SR-1456 Jackson
Comparison US-74/23 Hidden Valley Rd./SR-1788 Jackson
Superstreet US-74/441 Barkers Creek Rd. (SR-1392)/Wilmont Rd. Jackson
Comparison US-74/23 Timberlake Rd./SR-1156 Haywood
Comparison US-23/441 Mockingbird Ln. (SR-1360)/Macktown Gap Rd. Jackson
(SR-1377)
Superstreet US-74/441 Dicks Creek Rd./SR-1388 Jackson
Comparison US-74/23 Blanton Branch Rd./SR-1709 Jackson
Comparison US-74/441 Wilmont Cemetery Rd./SR-1534 Jackson
Comparison US-74/441 Bradley Branch Rd./SR-1404 Jackson
159

Table 10.1. continued
Intersection Main Road Cross Street(s) County
Superstreet US-74 Elmore Rd./SR-1321 Scotland
Comparison US-74 Murdock St. (SR-1251)/Church St. (SR-1312) Scotland
Comparison US-401 Orlando St. Scotland
Superstreet US-74/76 Blacksmith Rd./SR-1800 Columbus
Comparison NC-214 Spearman Rd./SR-1806 Columbus
Comparison NC-214 9t" St. Columbus
Superstreet NC-24 Haw Branch Rd. (SR-1230) Onslow
Comparison NC-24 Koonce Fork Rd./SR-1238 Onslow
Comparison NC-24 Blizzardtown Rd./SR-1702 Duplin
Superstreet US-1 Camp Easter Rd./Aiken Rd. (SR-1853) Moore
Comparison US-1 Causey Rd. (SR-2025)/Grant Rd. (SR-1869) Moore
Comparison US-1 Valleyview Rd./SR-1857 Moore
Superstreet NC-87 Peanut Plant Rd. (SR-1150) Bladen
Comparison NC-87 Cromartie Rd./SR-1155 Bladen
Comparison NC-87 Martin Luther King Dr./SR-1145 Bladen
Superstreet NC-87/24 N. 2°a St. Cumberland
Comparison NC-210 Weaver St. Cumberland
Comparison NC-210 N. St" St. Cumberland
Superstreet NC-87 School Rd.Butler Nursery Rd. (SR-2233) Cumberland
Comparison NC-87 County Line Rd./SR-2257 Cumberland
Comparison NC-87 Tobermory Rd./SR-1303 Bladen
Comparison NG24 Downing Rd./SR-1834 Cumberland
Superstreet NC-87 Alderman Rd. (SR-2261)/Grays Creek Church Cumberland
Rd. (SR-2235)
Comparison NC-87 Thrower Rd./SR-2245 Cumberland
Comparison NC-87 Doc Bennett Rd. (SR-2212)/Wilmington Hwy Cumberland
(SR-2337)
Table 10.2 shows the dates of data collection far each superstreet. The team used one month of
burning period before and after construction to account for driver adjustment, as well as give a
buffer far approximate construction dates.
160

Table 10.2. Superstreet Dates of Data Collection
Before Period Collection After Period Collection
Superstreet Total Total
Start Date End Date �months) Start Date End Date �month
Signalized superstNeets
US-15/501 and 1/1/1999 6/31/2006 90 8/1/2008 1/31/2010 18
Erwin/Europa
US-17 and Leland 4/1/2001 2/30/2006 59 10/1/2006 7/31/2009 34
corridor
US-421 and SR- 10/1/2003 9/30/2008 60 8/1/2009 6/30/2010 ll
2501
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt. 5/1/2003 3/31/2008 59 10/1/2008 7/31/2009 10
Pisgah
US-17 and Ocean 6/1/2003 4/30/2008 59 1/1/2009 7/31/2009 ll
Isle Beach
US-74 and Red 1/1/1991 12/31/1998 96 1/1/2000 7/31/2009 115
Bank/Old Balsam
corridor
US-74/441 and 9/1/2002 6/30/2007 58 12/1/2008 7/31/2009 8
Barkers Creek
US-74/441 and 9/1/2002 6/30/2007 58 12/1/2008 7/31/2009 8
Dicks Creek
US-74 and Elmore 1/1/2003 10/31/2007 58 7/1/2008 7/31/2009 13
US-74/76 and 8/1/2001 6/30/2006 59 12/1/2006 7/31/2009 32
Blacksmith
NC-24 and Haw 6/1/2002 4/30/2007 59 1/1/2008 9/30/2009 21
Branch
US-1 and Camp 9/1/2000 7/31/2005 59 5/1/2006 9/30/2009 41
Easter
NC-87 and Peanut 4/1/2001 1/31/2006 58 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 36
Plant
NC-87/24 and 2"d 4/1/2001 2/30/2006 59 12/1/2006 9/30/2009 34
St.
NC-87 and School 9/1/2003 8/31/2008 60 6/1/2009 6/30/2010 13
Rd.
NC-87 and Grays 9/1/2003 8/31/2008 60 6/1/2009 6/30/2010 13
Creek Church
Table 103 shows the intersection location by milepost (MP), number of legs, and distances to
crossovers for each superstreet. The MP location is for the arterial with the lowest route number
if coinciding routes exist. Coinciding routes are when a road or segment of road has dual names
(e.g. US-15/501 ar Ocean Isle Beach Rd./SR-1184). The distances to the crossover(s) are also
shown; however, in the collection the team included an additional 500 feet beyond each
crossover to include collisions related to the nearby intersection.
161

Table 10.3. Superstreet Geometric Details and Milepost Location
Superstreet Legs Distance to Crossover(s) MP
(ft) Location
Signalized superstreets
US-15/501 and Erwin/Europa
US-17 and Leland corridor
US-421 and SR-2501
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt. Pisgah
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach
US-74 and Red Bank/Old
Balsam corridor
US-74/441 and Barkers Creek
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek
US-74 and Elmore
US-74/76 and Blacksmith
NC-24 and Haw Branch
US-1 and Camp Easter
NC-87 and Peanut Plant
NC-87/24 and 2°a St.
NC-87 and School Rd.
NC-87 and Grays Creek Church
4 800N, 8005
4 700N, 15005
(ends of corridor)
4 900N, 13005
4 1500E, 1200W
3 900E
4 1900N,900S
(ends of corridor)
4 1550N, 14005
3 1600W
4 950N, 9005
4 900E, 900W
4 950E, 1850W
4 1150E, 1200W
4 700N, 7005
3 10005
4 2600N, 12505
4 1900N, 20005
7.41
N/A
13.42
20.17
10.21
N/A
6.53
8.11
7.95
35.53
1.21
17.49
27.00
3.14
3.14
3.94S,
3.97N
Tables 10.4 and 10.5 show the annual average daily traffic (AADT) for the major and minor
roadway, respectively, for each superstreet in the study years. The AADT was taken from
NCDOT AADT maps. In cases where AADTs are given on either side of the intersection, the
larger of the two AADTs was used, per NCDOT and HSM guidelines. Three minor roadways
did not have AADTs, and in two cases the team used AADTs from nearby, similar intersections.
These sites included US-74/441 and Dicks Creek and NC-87/24 and 2nd Street. The other site,
US-421 and Carolina Beach Road, did not have a comparable nearby intersection so in that case
the team used hourly distribution factars (K factors) for North Carolina freeways as developed
by Asad Khattak et al (60). Also, some sites did not have traffic volumes in either before years
ar after years, so in those cases the team used a linear regression to obtain traffic volumes.
AADTs that were not directly provided by NCDOT AADT maps are italicized in Tables 10.4
and 10.5.
162

Superstreet
Signalized superst�eets
US-15/501 and
Erwin/Europa
US-17 and Leland
corridor
US-421 and SR-2501
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt. Pisgah
US-17 and Ocean Isle
Beach
US-74 and Red Bank/Old
Balsam corridor
US-74/441 and Barkers
Creek
US-74/441 and Dicks
Creek
US-74 and Elmore
US-74/76 and Blacksmith
NG24 and Haw Branch
US-1 and Camp Easter
NG87 and Peanut Plant
NG87/24 and 2"d St.
NG87 and School Rd.
NG87 and Grays Creek
Church
Table 10.4. Superstreet Major Roadway AADTs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
41000 40000
21000
44000 42000
27000 33000
35000 37000
44080 44490
39000 45000
38000
26000 28000 31000 31000 33500
19000 21000 20000 24000 25000 23000 25600
21000 21000 21000 19000 23000 22000 21000 22000 22000
21000 21000 21000 22000 20000 23000 22000 22285
21000 21000 21000 22000 20000 23000 22000 22285
22000 20000 22000 19000 18000 17500
9000 9200 9500 12000 12000 13000 10000 8400
8100 7800 8400 7900 8400 8400 9300
14000 16000 15000 16000 17000 17000 16000
8000 6600 8300 6700 6900 6200 5900
31000 32000
8400 9200 9400 9750 10000
8400 9200 9400 9750 10000
163

Table 10.5. Superstreet Minor Roadway AADTs
Superstreet 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Signalized superstreets
US-15/501 and 13000 13000 12000 10000 12000 10820 10575
Erwin/Europa
US-17 and Leland corridor 1800
US-421 and SR-2501 17250
Unsignalized superstreets
US-17 and Mt. Pisgah 5000
US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach 5000
US-74 and Red Bank/Old 630 550 650
Balsam corridor
US-74/441 and Barkers 1600 1500 1600
Creek
US-74/441 and Dicks Creek 1600 1 S00 1600
US-74 and Elmore 430 330 570 SSO 590
US-74/76 and Blacksmith 820
NG24 and Haw Branch 1300 1500 1500 1500
US-1 and Camp Easter 470 510 520
NG87 and Peanut Plant 3200 3200 3400 2600
NG87/24 and 2"d St. 1000
NG87 and School Rd. 900 1200 1200 1325 1400
NG87 and Grays Creek 1700 1600 1600 1560 1530
Church
164

10.2.2 Crash Data
The following tables show the crash data, obtained through TEAAS, for each superstreet and
comparison site. Each table includes the time of the crash (month, day, year), collision type,
crash severity level (F, A, B, C), conditions (R, L, W), crash ID, and MP. The features of each
crash are described below by the North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of
Motor Vehicles Crash Report Instruction Manual.
Crash severity level is the most severe injury sustained to a person involved in the crash.
Severity level can be one of the following:
1. F— A death that occurs within 12 months after the crash.
2. A injury type (disabling) — Injury obviously serious enough to prevent the person injured
from performing his normal activities for at least one day beyond the day of the collision.
Massive blood loss, broken bone, unconsciousness of more than momentary duration are
examples.
3. B injury type (evident) — Obvious injury, other than killed or disabling, which is evident
at the scene. Bruises, swelling, limping, soreness, are examples. Class B injury would
not necessarily prevent the person from carrying on his normal activities.
4. C injury type (possible) — No visible injury, but person complains for pain or has been
momentarily unconscious.
Road surface condition (R) describes the roadway surface conditions at the time and place of the
crash, and can be the following:
l. Dry
2. Wet
3. Water (standing, moving)
4. Ice
5. Snow
6. Slush
7. Sand, mud, dirt, gravel
8. Fuel, oil
9. Other
10. Unknown
Ambient light condition (L) is the type of light that existed at the time of the crash. Light
conditions are described as follows:
1. Daylight
2. Dusk
3. Dawn
4. Darkness (lighted roadway)
Weather condition (W) is the general atmospheric conditions that existed at the time of the crash.
Weather conditions include the following:
1. Clear
2. Cloudy
3. Raining
165

4. Snowing
5. Fog, smog, smoke
6. Sleet, hail, freezing rain/drizzle
7. Severe crosswinds
8. Blowing sand, dirt, snow
9. Other
Tables 10.6 through 10.8 show the crashes for the three signalized superstreets, and Tables 10.9
through 10.21 show the crashes for the 13 unsignalized superstreets. Tables 10.22 through 10.28
show the crashes for the signalized comparison sites. Tables 10.29 through 10.57 show the
crashes for unsignalized comparison sites.
166

Table 10.6. US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data
Month Day Year Collision Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 21 1999 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 99012989 7.395
1 22 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 99013807 7.419
2 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 99033750 7.42
3 11 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 99046604 7.51
3 18 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 99050943 7.17
4 8 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99065636 7.41
4 16 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 99070948 7.41
4 30 1999 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 99081534 7.41
5 12 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99089734 7.406
6 9 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99109460 7.408
6 23 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99119289 7.41
6 30 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 99124459 7.51
7 10 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 99131126 7.438
7 12 1999 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 99132620 7.41
7 30 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99144575 7.31
8 6 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 99149277 7.39
8 9 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 99151153 7.17
8 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 99158882 7.51
8 21 1999 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99159635 7.415
8 23 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99160701 7.406
8 30 1999 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 99165971 7.42
9 14 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 99177875 7.41
9 18 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 99181773 7.41
9 30 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 99191078 7.391
10 26 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99211952 7.406
12 21 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 99258791 7.414
1 12 2000 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100006968 7.401
167

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 14 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 100008712 7.206
2 3 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100024046 7.406
2 13 2000 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100030427 7.41
4 15 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100074113 7.17
4 25 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100081058 7.41
5 13 2000 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100094166 7.41
5 21 2000 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100099750 7.41
6 14 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100117027 7.523
6 26 2000 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100126078 7.41
6 28 2000 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 2 0 2 4 3 100127674 7.271
6 30 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100129724 7.41
7 25 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 100145882 7.41
8 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100164571 7.41
9 22 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100188577 7.473
10 10 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100202155 7.372
10 28 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100215368 7.398
11 3 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100220898 7.51
11 28 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100241033 7.419
12 5 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100246577 7.41
12 18 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100255824 7.28
12 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100257656 7.22
12 28 2000 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100263015 7.406
12 28 2000 ANGLE 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 100263088 7.41
1 4 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100266892 7.42
1 8 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100269726 7.473
1 18 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100276107 7.51
2 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100295583 7.506
•:

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100298829 7.419
2 26 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100303100 7.41
3 16 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100314700 7.438
4 20 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100339651 7.41
5 2 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100347648 7.552
5 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100356939 7.415
5 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100356565 7.53
6 12 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100375887 7.41
6 23 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100380250 7.53
7 7 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100392530 7.55
8 30 2001 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 100428827 7.406
9 11 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100438520 7.51
9 13 2001 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100439467 7.369
9 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 100444099 7.523
10 12 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100461740 7.41
11 7 2001 ANIMAL 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100482863 7.51
11 11 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100487005 7.443
11 14 2001 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100489698 7.41
11 15 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100489430 7.406
11 16 2001 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100490425 7.41
11 19 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100492640 7.256
12 5 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100505313 7.51
12 16 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100515657 7.466
1 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 100532186 7.41
1 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 100532185 7.41
1 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100532183 7.466
1 10 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100535162 7.41
169

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100541673 7.41
1 22 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100543546 7.41
1 27 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100546442 7.41
1 29 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100547671 7.41
3 23 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 100584453 7.404
4 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100609161 7.504
4 30 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100611126 7.22
5 28 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100630976 7.42
5 31 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100634027 7.38
8 S 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100679464 7.556
8 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100685024 7.463
9 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100708916 7.558
9 21 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100714883 7.51
10 10 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100728741 7.21
11 11 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100756127 7.406
1 11 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100804170 7.25
3 22 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100856225 7.221
3 30 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100861470 7.406
4 7 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100867593 7.51
4 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100872096 7.553
5 7 2003 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100890991 7.406
5 22 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100902849 7.41
6 2 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100911566 7.553
8 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100968037 7.41
8 8 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100963375 7.467
9 5 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100985355 7.353
9 18 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100994722 7.41
170

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 19 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100995578 7.21
9 19 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100995588 7.421
9 27 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101002065 7.372
10 18 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101019115 7.51
10 20 2003 ANGLE 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 101021199 7.41
12 10 2003 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101065658 7.41
12 13 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 1 1 0 0 1 4 1 101136882 7.48
12 23 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101077363 7.506
1 5 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101086218 7.406
1 16 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101094301 7.372
3 6 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101135784 7.41
4 20 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101168147 7.41
4 29 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101175368 7.41
4 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 101175730 7.51
5 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101184986 7.457
5 27 2004 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101197576 7.25
6 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101214856 7.41
6 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 2 5 1 101223292 7.542
7 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101233143 7.429
7 25 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101242739 7.42
8 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101258806 7.408
8 23 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101265460 7.41
9 16 2004 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101285050 7.51
9 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101286118 7.53
10 7 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101302917 7.277
10 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 101306047 7.41
10 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101308750 7.456
1%1

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 21 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101341939 7.41
11 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 101344871 7.406
1 6 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 101380120 7.21
1 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101387547 7.41
1 19 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101389685 7.41
1 19 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 101389020 7.41
1 24 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 101394195 7.429
2 1 2005 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101401376 7.406
2 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101403116 7.53
2 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101416394 7.51
3 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101425454 7.399
3 25 2005 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 101440903 7.41
3 31 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101444734 7.51
4 2 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101446692 7.387
4 5 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101448689 7.41
4 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101455749 7.41
4 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101459720 7.406
4 21 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101459718 7.41
4 25 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101462572 7.419
5 7 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101471435 7.41
5 13 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101475574 7.406
5 23 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101482086 7.399
6 30 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101419785 7.41
7 14 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101518739 7.51
7 26 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101526052 7.505
8 22 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101546543 7.429
8 23 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101547724 7.482
172

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 101600414 7.32
12 10 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101569823 7.397
12 20 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101638944 7.41
12 23 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101641252 7.397
12 27 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101644281 7.467
12 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 101644761 7.413
12 30 2005 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101646411 7.41
1 S 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101650032 7.41
1 16 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101657782 7.41
2 S 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101671304 7.41
3 3 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101687660 7.412
3 22 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101700009 7.41
3 31 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101707145 7.41
5 24 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101739209 7.457
5 25 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101739400 7.407
6 21 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101766571 7.41
6 22 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101766822 7.457
6 28 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101770910 7.403
8 4 2008 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102367697 7.41
8 5 2008 RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102381288 7.41
8 17 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102389751 7.4
8 17 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102390206 7.429
8 21 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102391433 7.485
8 25 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102393101 7.17
9 10 2008 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102407791 7.41
9 15 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102408589 7.41
9 19 2008 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102410016 7.405
173

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 8 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 102420648 7.41
10 11 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102421645 7.467
10 17 2008 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102437463 7.372
10 24 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102453186 7.363
11 8 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102460662 7.457
11 10 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102460570 7.41
11 17 2008 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102466623 7.353
11 22 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102468242 7.46
11 22 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102468239 7.46
11 24 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102473816 7.372
11 24 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102468251 7.41
12 2 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102478749 7.446
12 10 2008 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 102487953 7.406
12 19 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102492343 7.41
12 19 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 102494011 7.457
12 22 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102495218 7.448
12 26 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 102502751 7.448
1 16 2009 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102517456 7.41
1 20 2009 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 102521086 7.41
2 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102538505 7.51
2 20 2009 RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102540434 7.41
3 11 2009 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102553848 7.505
4 7 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102572690 7.438
4 18 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102576801 7.36
4 25 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102581026 7.31
6 10 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102618280 7.41
6 10 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102618284 7.429
174

Table 10.6. continued (US-15/501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 11 2009 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 102618318 7.41
6 22 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102625076 7.46
7 2 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102636929 7.41
7 30 2009 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102652395 7.31
8 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102669286 7.31
8 19 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102662595 7.32
10 27 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102713078 7.413
12 2 2009 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102756484 7.41
12 22 2009 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102771122 7.41
1 12 2010 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102782552 7.41
175

Table 10.7. US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 29 2003 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100817833 42.45
3 7 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101135103 42.45
3 19 2007 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101988118 42.45
3 23 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 102580148 42.5
9 1 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101553094 42.55
10 4 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101575241 42.55
2 2 2002 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100550198 42.59
10 11 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101854317 42.6
3 29 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101443195 42.64
11 29 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101348488 42.69
3 16 2008 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 102284250 42.7
5 29 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102314171 42.7
9 13 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100439148 42.75
12 21 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100789908 42.75
10 4 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101007187 42.75
5 12 2004 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101185753 42.75
10 21 2004 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101313695 42.75
5 18 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101478644 42.75
7 11 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101516236 42.75
9 1 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101553110 42.75
12 20 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101916658 42.75
1 3 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101928019 42.75
3 13 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101982421 42.75
3 19 2007 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101988114 42.75
11 21 2007 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102197649 42.75
7 27 2008 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102399684 42.75
10 1 2008 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102436691 42.75
176

Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 5 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102436707 42.75
2 24 2009 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102555065 42.75
7 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102643782 42.75
10 28 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101870565 42.752
1 4 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102232671 42.752
2 14 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101409665 42.755
12 29 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102228364 42.755
11 8 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101603357 42.84
11 22 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 5 2 101893886 42.85
9 23 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102146869 42.85
9 26 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102149112 42.85
3 16 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101984510 42.89
10 15 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101857155 42.93
1 30 2007 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101948426 42.93
3 10 2002 Jackknife 0 0 4 0 1 5 1 100574818 42.939
8 27 2004 Overturn/Rollover 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 101267969 42.943
3 8 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101978803 43.03
4 26 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101462953 43.09
4 16 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102013303 43.09
9 10 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102134917 43.107
10 11 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101854328 43.13
3 14 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101983977 43.13
4 6 2007 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102004297 43.13
6 29 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102077065 43.13
11 11 2007 Angle 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 102189776 43.13
1 5 2008 Rear End, Turn 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 102268693 43.13
4 10 2008 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102259673 43.13
177

Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 22 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102310334 43.13
5 3 2008 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102317907 43.13
6 13 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 10 1 1 102345712 43.13
6 15 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102348063 43.13
6 20 2008 Angle 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102350434 43.13
8 23 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102399819 43.13
9 19 2008 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102420547 43.13
12 31 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102511192 43.13
2 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 102538731 43.13
3 13 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 102553596 43.13
5 31 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102608001 43.13
11 15 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102464105 43.135
2 21 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101123724 43.14
4 14 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101163255 43.14
12 7 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102210278 43.14
5 8 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 5 1 1 1 102600979 43.14
3 13 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102553100 43.149
10 6 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102436717 43.18
7 17 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 4 1 1 1 1 102644408 43.188
4 27 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100608853 43.19
4 27 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100608854 43.19
9 4 2002 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100911868 43.19
5 8 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101471817 43.19
8 9 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101536495 43.24
5 14 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101733427 43.25
5 20 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101480139 43.29
11 16 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101609712 43.29
178

Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 24 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102171338 43.29
1 10 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 102511183 43.295
1 3 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 102511249 43.345
5 23 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102019335 43.352
7 23 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102096511 43.352
9 21 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 100996766 43.371
4 7 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102579195 43.371
1 14 2002 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 100536808 43.383
10 13 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101854887 43.386
10 22 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101314197 43.39
2 11 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101407702 43.39
2 18 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101412360 43.39
3 25 2005 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101440693 43.39
5 29 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101486425 43.39
2 9 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101673339 43.39
10 28 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101870577 43.39
12 22 2006 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101918489 43.39
2 28 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101971259 43.39
3 27 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101956327 43.39
4 10 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102007223 43.39
4 16 2007 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102012616 43.39
5 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102041165 43.39
7 20 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102093420 43.39
8 18 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102116195 43.39
11 14 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102190997 43.39
1 9 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102352404 43.39
6 22 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 102353510 43.39
179

Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 11 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102366118 43.39
8 23 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102399819 43.39
8 26 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102399807 43.39
8 26 2008 Angle 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 102399801 43.39
9 8 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102408994 43.39
10 25 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102435248 43.39
12 8 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102493166 43.39
12 16 2008 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 102493160 43.39
12 22 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102510097 43.39
12 31 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102510078 43.39
6 10 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102616156 43.39
6 26 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102631102 43.39
7 12 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102643785 43.39
6 24 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 102073294 43.391
4 14 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102305124 43.395
12 21 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101367731 43.397
6 6 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102620085 43.4
6 26 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101506027 43.409
6 30 2007 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102078049 43.409
11 12 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 102189292 43.409
4 14 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102579008 43.409
6 9 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102620079 43.409
6 30 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102078054 43.418
9 26 2008 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 102410122 43.42
8 24 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102409260 43.428
11 14 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102191018 43.44
12 6 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101905598 43.49
:1

Table 10.7. continued (US-17 and the Leland Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 2 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102056340 43.49
4 1 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102294849 43.49
S 27 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102598496 43.49
10 28 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100474008 43.54
8 16 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101464423 43.59
181

Table 10.8. US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W I
4 14 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101454908 13.08
3 16 2010 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102816477 13.08
4 17 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102841755 13.08
10 26 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102713448 13.09
8 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101535388 13.12
5 16 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101734143 13.12
3 31 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102294320 13.12
3 6 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102822464 13.12
5 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101200275 13.22
7 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 101242080 13.22
4 30 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101465939 13.22
6 25 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101505673 13.22
7 30 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101529202 13.22
8 22 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101546513 13.22
9 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101558831 13.22
6 8 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101754000 13.22
12 7 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101906741 13.22
1 24 2007 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101944564 13.22
1 24 2007 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101944570 13.22
3 27 2008 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102292050 13.22
5 18 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102327531 13.22
9 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 102413706 13.22
11 1 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101597954 13.25
9 21 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101566544 13.26
4 14 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101454898 13.27
3 2 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101974286 13.27
5 10 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102035191 13.27
182

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
5 5 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102032425 13.28
5 6 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102857021 13.311
3 8 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101136448 13.32
3 13 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101140203 13.32
8 16 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101259938 13.32
9 9 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101279526 13.32
11 29 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 101348758 13.32
11 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 101348752 13.32
3 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101424237 13.32
6 11 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101496327 13.32
6 29 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101508750 13.32
6 30 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101509347 13.32
5 5 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 101728326 13.32
7 10 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101782300 13.32
7 11 2006 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101780812 13.32
8 11 2006 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101805417 13.32
2 16 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101961735 13.32
11 12 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102189554 13.32
12 27 2007 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102226508 13.32
3 16 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102284408 13.32
1 13 2010 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102783127 , 13.32
1 21 2004 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101097619 13.344
3 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102291147 13.37
5 8 2008 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102321218 13.37
11 22 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101343173 13.385
4 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101447567 13.39
10 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 101594837 13.39
183

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
8 28 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102672228 13.39
10 31 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102179197 13.408
12 3 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101352272 13.409
4 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101163629 13.411
1 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 102250075 13.411
2 7 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101954828 13.413
9 10 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 102684494 13.413
5 4 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102318269 13.414
12 19 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102220948 13.415
6 27 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102356136 13.415
10 30 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101029684 13.416
5 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102054162 13.416
11 30 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102205084 13.416
11 16 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 101610596 13.417
6 23 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101218620 13.418
11 14 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101886511 13.418
10 8 2003 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101010714 13.42
10 17 2003 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101018525 13.42
10 31 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 101033331 13.42
11 11 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101040434 13.42
11 14 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101043204 13.42
11 23 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101051081 13.42
12 17 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101072781 13.42
1 28 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101105226 13.42
1 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101106088 13.42
2 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101116293 13.42
2 16 2004 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101120031 13.42

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
3 14 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101140998 13.42
3 15 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101141569 13.42
3 15 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101141554 13.42
4 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101161112 13.42
4 25 2004 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101172239 13.42
4 26 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101173284 13.42
5 4 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101179615 13.42
5 8 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101183183 13.42
5 21 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101192973 13.42
5 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101198216 13.42
5 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101199335 13.42
6 6 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101205479 13.42
6 27 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101221876 13.42
7 3 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 1 1 5 2 101226548 13.42
7 6 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 101228781 13.42
7 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101241845 13.42
7 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 101243293 13.42
8 27 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101268346 13.42
10 13 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101307249 13.42
10 15 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101309483 13.42
11 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101339417 13.42
12 2 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101351388 13.42
12 4 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101352913 13.42
1 7 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101381605 13.42
1 7 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101381072 13.42
1 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101388074 13.42
2 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 101410653 13.42
185

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
3 14 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101393297 13.42
3 29 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101443501 13.42
4 10 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101452450 13.42
4 26 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101463192 13.42
5 12 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101475001 13.42
5 12 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101475002 13.42
6 29 2005 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101508569 13.42
7 4 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101511948 13.42
7 17 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101520247 13.42
7 22 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101524262 13.42
9 17 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101564279 13.42
11 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101604676 13.42
1 4 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101649432 13.42
1 25 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101663578 13.42
2 10 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101674201 13.42
3 4 2006 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101688238 13.42
3 9 2006 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101691538 13.42
3 15 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101696087 13.42
3 16 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101696517 13.42
4 4 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101707331 13.42
4 15 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101715164 13.42
4 27 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101722812 13.42
5 5 2006 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101728331 13.42
5 8 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101729835 13.42
5 19 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101735956 13.42
3 20 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101765871 13.42
7 21 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101790417 13.42
:•

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
7 27 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101794759 13.42
8 30 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101820201 13.42
9 2 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101822861 13.42
9 12 2006 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101829738 13.42
9 13 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101830499 13.42
9 17 2006 ANGLE 0 0 4 4 1 1 1 101834125 13.42
10 9 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101851675 13.42
10 31 2006 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101873155 13.42
10 31 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 5 1 4 1 101873160 13.42
11 10 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101882926 13.42
11 22 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101894424 13.42
1 7 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101931887 13.42
2 23 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101967669 13.42
3 3 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 101975223 13.42
3 6 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101953666 13.42
3 8 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101979006 13.42
3 22 2007 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101990346 13.42
3 28 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101994892 13.42
4 16 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102013421 13.42
5 24 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102047945 13.42
6 4 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102058066 13.42
6 27 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102075857 13.42
7 3 2007 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 102080802 13.42
7 29 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 102101358 13.42
7 29 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102101359 13.42
8 2 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102104155 13.42
8 12 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102111389 13.42
187

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
8 27 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102123249 13.42
9 7 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102132745 13.42
10 4 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102156075 13.42
10 7 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102158850 13.42
10 9 2007 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102160202 13.42
10 14 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102164208 13.42
10 24 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102171670 13.42
10 28 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102176409 13.42
11 12 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102189533 13.42
12 3 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102208240 13.42
12 7 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 102210866 13.42
12 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102213609 13.42
12 12 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102214770 13.42
1 3 2008 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102232338 13.42
1 23 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102247188 13.42
2 7 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 102257513 13.42
2 12 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102263095 13.42
2 13 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 102261218 13.42
3 17 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102285033 13.42
3 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102291152 13.42
3 26 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102291151 13.42
3 30 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102293805 13.42
5 4 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102318259 13.42
5 12 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102323997 13.42
6 23 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102356942 13.42
6 29 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102357171 13.42
7 20 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102372138 13.42

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
7 24 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102374817 13.42
8 7 2009 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102658986 13.42
8 19 2009 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102656121 13.42
10 7 2009 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102701084 13.42
1 22 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 102773441 13.42
3 16 2010 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102816418 13.42
4 1 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102830003 13.42
4 13 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102838448 13.42
4 21 2010 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102851961 13.42
5 11 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102860786 13.42
5 13 2010 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102862594 13.42
6 9 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102899992 13.42
6 11 2010 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102886084 13.42
11 4 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101601909 13.426
10 15 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 101309478 13.49
2 12 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101408678 13.49
7 11 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101516438 13.49
10 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101594373 13.49
1 30 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101667189 13.49
2 3 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101669469 13.49
3 10 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102280041 13.49
12 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102762336 13.49
1 23 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102793134 13.49
2 16 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102793433 13.49
11 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101040809 13.52
4 13 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102838442 13.54
9 11 2003 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100989300 13.59
:•

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
1 30 2004 RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101106719 13.59
4 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101163634 13.59
5 3 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101178859 13.59
5 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101198614 13.59
7 15 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101235696 13.59
9 11 2005 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101560088 13.59
11 11 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101606491 13.59
12 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101628486 13.59
12 20 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101638955 13.59
3 10 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101692548 13.59
4 28 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101723606 13.59
6 13 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101759999 13.59
9 11 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101829066 13.59
10 17 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101859181 13.59
5 28 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102051427 13.59
7 28 2007 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102100521 13.59
8 14 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102113271 13.59
6 10 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102343480 13.59
7 5 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102361441 13.59
8 27 2008 RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102395736 13.59
8 29 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102397409 13.59
8 23 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102658316 13.59
11 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102728876 13.59
3 24 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102831676 13.59
4 21 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102844609 13.59
5 8 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102872668 13.59
5 10 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102869380 13.59
190

Table 10.8. continued (US-421 and SR-2501/Carolina Beach Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID I MP
F A B C R L W
4 24 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102847279 13.595
4 14 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101714364 13.64
8 9 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101804064 13.64
3 8 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101979017 13.652
4 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101176180 13.658
1 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101391397 13.66
9 28 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102690204 13.663
4 6 2010 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 102840593 13.664
191

Table 10.9. US-17 and Mt. Pisgah Road/Sellers Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 23 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 100903687 19.87
6 19 2003 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100924587 20.17
6 25 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100929141 20.17
7 25 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100951635 19.97
7 26 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100952496 20.47
8 19 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100971687 19.97
2 9 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 101113762 20.17
2 20 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101122671 20.17
2 20 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101122668 20.27
3 10 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101137812 20.17
3 10 2004 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101137826 20.17
3 23 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101147187 20.37
4 5 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101156458 20.17
4 13 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101162304 20.17
4 10 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101160225 20.175
5 7 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101181900 20.17
6 23 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101217929 20.174
7 16 2004 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101235867 20.17
7 20 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101238682 20.17
10 18 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 101311310 20.17
10 19 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101312155 20.17
11 19 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101340109 20.17
12 9 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101356781 20.17
12 10 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101320635 20.22
12 3 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101351667 20.47
1 10 2005 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101382914 20.17
2 16 2005 Rear End, Turn 0 0 2 0 1 5 5 101411148 20.17
2 24 2005 Angle 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 101418515 20.17
4 12 2005 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101453401 20.17
5 12 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101474675 20.17
192

Table 10.9. continued (US-17 and Mt. Pisgah Road/Sellers Road Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 18 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101501053 20.17
6 23 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101504187 20.37
7 25 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101525587 20.37
8 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101537630 20.17
10 2 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101573895 20.07
11 12 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101606744 19.97
11 11 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101606171 20.17
12 10 2005 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101630042 20.37
1 29 2006 Angle 0 1 1 0 2 5 2 101666315 20.17
2 3 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 101669167 20.17
5 5 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101744726 19.97
7 9 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101778669 20.17
8 24 2006 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101815317 20.165
8 4 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101800677 20.17
8 14 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101807637 20.17
10 21 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101862362 19.97
10 15 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101857144 20.07
10 16 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101857636 20.17
1 21 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101942534 19.87
1 4 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101929065 20.17
2 23 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101967527 20.17
3 20 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101988790 19.83
3 15 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101983614 20.17
3 30 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101998552 20.17
4 5 2007 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102003354 20.07
4 19 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102014856 20.17
5 2 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102028225 20.17
5 15 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102042064 20.17
5 30 2007 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102053160 20.17
193

Table 10.9. continued (US-17 and Mt. Pisgah Road/Sellers Road Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 23 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102095934 20.17
8 11 2007 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102110381 20.17
9 5 2007 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 102130011 20.17
9 11 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102136142 20.17
9 22 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 102146035 20.17
10 25 2007 Fixed Object 1 0 0 0 2 5 2 102172338 19.97
10 9 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102159790 20.17
11 14 2007 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102191000 20.17
11 26 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 102142917 20.17
11 28 2007 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102203136 20.17
11 28 2007 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102203128 20.198
12 11 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102213765 20.17
12 20 2007 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102221411 20.17
2 7 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102257157 20.17
2 7 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102257159 20.17
2 5 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 102255594 20.27
3 23 2008 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102289118 20.17
11 8 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102438245 19.87
11 17 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102466442 19.97
12 18 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102476740 20.07
2 17 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102521352 20.34
4 2 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 102564819 20.17
6 15 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102613726 20.17
7 6 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102627499 20.37
194

Table 10.10. US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 18 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100923819 10.21
6 18 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100923829 10.21
6 21 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100926435 10.21
6 22 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100927025 10.21
7 5 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100936960 10.21
7 11 2003 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 100941024 10.21
8 31 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100980867 10.21
10 14 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101015300 10.21
10 26 2003 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 101025655 10.21
10 29 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101028198 10.21
11 29 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101055842 10.21
1 30 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101106433 10.21
2 5 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101110561 10.21
3 4 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101132772 10.21
5 18 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101190094 10.21
5 26 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101196418 10.21
6 29 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101222733 10.21
7 2 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101225066 10.21
7 8 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101229651 10.21
7 30 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101246074 10.21
8 7 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101252812 10.21
9 1 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101272267 10.21
10 27 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101318822 10.21
1 14 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101385634 10.21
2 20 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101415507 10.21
2 23 2005 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 101417985 10.21
4 27 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101463785 10.21
5 27 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101484657 10.21
7 17 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101520274 10.21
7 29 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101528169 10.21
195

Table 10.10. continued (US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 20 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101565943 10.21
9 26 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101569541 10.21
11 17 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101610650 10.21
1 4 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101648804 10.21
3 31 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 101704777 10.21
4 12 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101718572 10.21
6 22 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101767098 10.21
7 6 2006 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101774779 10.21
7 7 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101779661 10.21
7 12 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101782318 10.21
8 1 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101797578 10.21
8 5 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 101800369 10.21
8 20 2006 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101808257 10.21
8 25 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101815946 10.21
11 14 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101886222 10.21
12 28 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101922696 10.21
2 22 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101966701 10.21
3 6 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101978100 10.21
3 26 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101995848 10.21
5 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102041172 10.21
5 24 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101993938 10.21
5 27 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 102051049 10.21
5 28 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102051249 10.21
6 10 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102062434 10.21
6 21 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102070065 10.21
7 6 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102082205 10.21
8 1 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 102102847 10.21
8 2 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102103402 10.21
8 6 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102106970 10.21
196

Table 10.10. continued (US-17 and Ocean Isle Beach Road Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 3 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102127845 10.21
9 26 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 1 0 2 1 5 1 102149123 10.21
10 11 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102161238 10.21
11 2 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102180604 10.21
12 27 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102226923 10.21
1 2 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102231237 10.21
2 22 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102267792 10.21
4 18 2008 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102265929 10.21
1 1 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102484267 10.21
1 16 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102497784 10.21
1 26 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102523720 10.21
2 11 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102516737 10.21
2 13 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102518962 10.21
3 7 2009 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102550076 10.21
5 2 2009 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102586416 10.21
7 9 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102929575 10.21
7 27 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101243649 10.211
7 5 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100936947 10.219
9 18 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102143129 10.219
10 18 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101586476 10.31
11 8 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101603365 10.31
6 28 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102076189 10.31
1 7 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101380771 10.41
2 21 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 101680848 10.41
2 18 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102265222 10.41
197

Table 10.11. US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 1 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 102546617 0.84
7 13 2000 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100137213 0.88
9 22 1992 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 2 0 2 1 3 92139351 0.91
10 6 1992 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 92148471 0.91
9 16 1994 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 94161068 0.91
10 14 1994 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 94180662 0.91
7 23 1995 Angle 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 95136878 0.91
9 21 1996 Angle 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 96180048 0.91
9 22 1996 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 3 2 0 1 1 1 96180660 0.91
12 16 1997 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 97245995 0.91
10 9 2000 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100201181 0.91
8 31 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100429825 0.91
7 S 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100657786 0.91
10 15 2002 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100733168 0.91
10 12 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101306638 0.91
10 26 1998 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98205563 0.92
7 1 1997 Rear End, Turn 0 0 3 0 2 1 3 97124007 0.93
10 24 1994 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 94188141 0.94
3 1 1996 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 96043632 0.94
5 24 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 97097809 0.94
10 13 2000 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100204512 0.94
11 4 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100480522 0.94
10 15 1995 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 95197182 0.95
5 23 1996 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 96097108 0.95
2 5 1997 Angle 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 97022870 0.96
7 10 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 2 0 0 2 1 3 94116485 0.97
7 29 1995 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 95141272 0.97
4 26 1997 Angle 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 97077967 0.97
5 13 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100093991 0.99
6 2 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 100911045 0.99
•�

Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 11 1994 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 94042398 1
2 10 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 100826898 1
6 9 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100917389 1
6 23 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101218195 1
7 7 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102638221 1
6 6 1993 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93086667 1.01
7 4 1993 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93102345 1.01
9 16 1995 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 95174921 1.01
9 9 1997 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97169653 1.01
10 6 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 97188009 1.01
11 23 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100495612 1.01
5 15 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 1 0 0 2 1 5 1 101188297 1.01
10 24 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102453146 1.01
9 23 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100998432 1.04
11 20 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102449598 1.04
10 1 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101004922 1.091
7 3 1997 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 97125474 1.095
9 9 1994 Head On 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 94156812 1.1
5 8 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100616704 1.1
11 22 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101050523 1.1
9 29 1998 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 98185407 1.101
9 16 2000 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100183651 1.101
1 25 1998 Pedestrian 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 98016442 1.104
12 6 2000 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100247052 1.106
5 24 1991 Angle 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 91070932 1.11
7 20 1991 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 91100399 1.11
8 24 1992 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 5 0 1 1 1 92123678 1.11
3 15 1993 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 93039132 1.11
7 7 1993 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 93103914 1.11
199

Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 18 1994 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 94084074 1.11
2 23 1995 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 95034561 1.11
6 20 1995 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 95114394 1.11
9 1 1995 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 95165077 1.11
1 4 1996 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 96002538 1.11
7 9 1996 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 96127820 1.11
11 24 1996 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 96229788 1.11
4 3 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 3 4 1 2 1 97061909 1.11
8 S 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 97147016 1.11
1 20 1998 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98012948 1.11
8 22 1998 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98158939 1.11
2 25 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100565958 1.11
5 15 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101188272 1.11
3 3 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 100306191 1.111
8 25 2007 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 102121881 1.114
4 29 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100084049 1.116
7 28 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102100843 1.14
8 24 1993 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 93132101 1.179
12 6 1992 Ran Off Road - Right 0 2 0 0 4 5 6 92186997 1.21
9 16 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101284949 1.23
11 13 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 3 0 1 5 2 102442650 1.29
7 24 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102640466 1.29
12 6 1992 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 4 4 6 92186992 1.31
8 6 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102112779 1.37
4 30 1993 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93065533 1.39
3 28 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101994812 1.39
3 13 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100312727 1.4
1 9 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 101382172 1.4
4 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101452427 1.4
200

Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 25 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101896545 1.4
12 11 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102487577 1.4
1 30 1995 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 95012467 1.41
10 23 1995 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 95203609 1.41
7 3 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100131011 1.41
3 1 2009 Fixed Object 1 0 3 0 6 1 4 102534253 1.41
12 4 1991 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 91175445 1.49
12 4 1991 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 91175446 1.49
12 4 1991 Angle 0 0 1 1 4 5 1 91175448 1.49
5 14 1995 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 95087318 1.49
1 26 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100903390 1.49
4 6 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101157371 1.49
12 4 1993 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 93198587 1.51
2 7 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100824895 1.51
9 9 1995 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 95170316 1.54
7 3 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 97125470 1.59
7 24 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101241723 1.59
8 3 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101249507 1.59
5 11 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101474240 1.6
1 6 1994 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 94002948 1.61
6 12 2000 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100115558 1.65
11 18 1993 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 93187992 1.662
5 2 1997 Ran Off Road - Left 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 97082678 1.67
10 4 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 100724364 1.676
8 4 1991 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 91108942 1.69
7 25 1992 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 92107509 1.69
10 9 1992 Angle 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 92150306 1.69
11 23 1994 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 3 0 0 1 5 1 94210919 1.69
5 3 1995 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 95079707 1.69
201

Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 5 1996 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 96105523 1.69
9 22 1996 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 96180658 1.69
8 16 1997 Angle 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 97154223 1.69
10 5 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 6 0 0 1 5 1 97187522 1.69
10 10 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 97192429 1.69
10 21 1997 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 97199815 1.69
10 24 1997 Angle 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 97202243 1.69
4 17 1998 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 1 0 4 1 1 2 98071979 1.69
7 16 1998 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 98132304 1.69
9 25 1998 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 98182803 1.69
10 16 1998 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98197998 1.69
2 4 2000 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100024737 1.69
11 16 2000 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100231721 1.69
4 8 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100595236 1.69
7 13 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100662872 1.69
7 26 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 100672816 1.69
9 7 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 100704039 1.69
11 7 2002 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100752483 1.69
7 2 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101225354 1.69
10 10 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101305224 1.69
5 31 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101487496 1.69
8 9 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101535622 1.69
10 16 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101857795 1.69
1 24 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102247446 1.69
5 10 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102329196 1.69
5 20 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102312710 1.69
5 10 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102586945 1.69
7 4 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102081208 1.709
3 10 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100847027 1.713
202

Table 10.11. continued (US-74/23 and Red Bank Road and Old Balsam Road Corridor Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 31 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101030695 1.72
3 31 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102568818 1.79
2 28 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 101421827 1.8
4 17 2006 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101716129 1.8
12 25 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100793196 1.88
3 6 1992 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 92031906 1.89
12 6 1992 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 92186993 1.89
9 6 1995 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 95168095 1.89
10 S 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100198506 1.9
9 14 1992 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 92134800 1.94
8 3 1993 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 93119504 1.99
3 1 1994 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 94035865 1.99
12 23 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102224501 1.99
9 20 1993 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 93148029 2
6 22 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 101217656 2
12 13 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102216022 2
12 1 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 102472812 2
4 10 2009 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 102564994 2
10 10 1997 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 97192428 2.07
10 29 2000 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100216398 2.07
8 29 2001 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 5 2 100428178 2.07
4 11 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 2 1 2 1 3 94062544 2.11
4 11 1998 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 98068087 2.16
203

Table 10.12. US-74/441 and Barkers Creek Road/Wilmont Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 28 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101002696 6.19
4 6 2005 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101413031 6.19
11 26 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101618264 6.22
12 9 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 101357131 6.23
12 9 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101357130 6.23
7 7 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100938034 6.33
12 15 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101070990 6.33
11 24 2003 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101051978 6.362
8 25 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100976306 6.39
10 26 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 100741946 6.43
6 17 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102622641 6.43
12 28 2006 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101922841 6.455
4 12 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100871956 6.53
1 26 2004 Angle 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 101103047 6.53
9 10 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101280370 6.53
7 10 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 8 1 1 2 101515862 6.53
10 14 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101583824 6.53
4 9 2006 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101711123 6.53
4 24 2007 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 102021039 6.53
6 17 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102622616 6.53
11 18 2003 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101046830 6.545
5 13 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102038089 6.59
8 8 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101535640 6.63
2 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 101962459 6.63
5 12 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102608763 6.69
6 30 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101223901 6.71
8 6 2006 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101801380 6.71
8 7 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100962160 6.73
8 27 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101550296 6.78
12 15 2003 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101070096 6.83
6 30 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101509306 6.83
204

Table 10.13. US-74/441 and Dicks Creek Road/SR-1388 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 5 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 5 101008335 7.73
10 30 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101596013 7.81
12 8 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101355970 7.91
6 9 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101494291 8.01
9 15 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101562252 8.01
11 1 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101597900 8.01
7 24 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101791756 8.01
3 14 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102553189 8.01
5 11 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 102036092 8.015
3 20 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 101145374 8.06
5 5 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102031401 8.072
6 12 2005 Angle 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 101496521 8.076
2 18 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101679637 8.091
11 29 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101056087 8.11
6 8 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101206823 8.11
6 25 2004 Angle 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 101220207 8.11
8 9 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101254266 8.11
6 20 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 101502438 8.11
10 28 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101595450 8.11
11 13 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101885445 8.11
5 10 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 102606287 8.11
8 20 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100972688 8.117
7 3 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101511683 8.19
5 26 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 102608780 8.193
205

Table 10.14. US-74 and Elmore Road/SR-1321 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 15 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 101309577 7.68
3 22 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101146896 7.75
9 25 2008 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102415671 7.75
3 16 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 102549567 7.75
6 10 2006 Pedestrian 0 1 0 0 1 5 2 101759361 7.8
1 26 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 101103506 7.85
2 22 2003 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 5 2 100836526 7.95
12 8 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101063761 7.95
12 12 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101067533 7.95
1 31 2004 Angle 0 0 4 3 1 1 2 101110175 7.95
11 12 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101334043 7.95
5 17 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101478426 7.95
11 13 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101607996 7.95
2 10 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101674286 7.95
2 25 2006 Movable Object 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101683972 7.95
8 26 2006 Angle 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 101817054 7.95
9 19 2006 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101835392 7.95
9 26 2006 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101839914 7.95
8 7 2007 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 3 1 5 2 102107899 8.05
12 25 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101921657 8.15
206

Table 10.15. US-74/76 and Blacksmith Road/SR-1800 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 21 2001 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100422245 35.33
4 15 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101413162 35.33
8 12 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 102385479 35.33
8 2 2008 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102379303 35.43
3 29 2005 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101443282 35.519
2 4 2002 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100551390 35.53
2 28 2002 Angle 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 100567565 35.53
7 16 2002 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 100664802 35.53
7 21 2003 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100948552 35.53
10 18 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101019234 35.53
5 6 2004 Angle 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 101181137 35.53
1 11 2005 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 101342462 35.53
1 12 2005 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 101384605 35.53
1 12 2005 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101384149 35.53
8 24 2005 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 101547871 35.53
1 13 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 100536403 35.6
12 10 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 101909079 35.63
2 5 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 102255727 35.73
3 5 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102549210 35.73
207

Table 10.16. NC-24 and Haw Branch Road/SR-1230 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 27 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101421222 0.81
3 13 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101982651 1
12 31 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100796929 1.01
11 26 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101346660 1.01
11 4 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101877123 1.01
4 16 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102306402 1.209
6 23 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100649169 1.21
10 15 2002 Angle 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100733462 1.21
3 2 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100842200 1.21
10 12 2003 Angle 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 101014340 1.21
11 7 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101037437 1.21
2 8 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101113503 1.21
3 12 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 101139828 1.21
4 21 2004 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101168952 1.21
6 2 2004 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101202227 1.21
6 11 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101209322 1.21
7 15 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101235349 1.21
8 1 2004 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 101247852 1.21
10 16 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101310427 1.21
11 23 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101344160 1.21
4 7 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101450059 1.21
8 8 2005 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 101535723 1.21
9 1 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101553347 1.21
11 3 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101600410 1.21
7 15 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101785639 1.21
9 4 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101824058 1.21
1 17 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101939334 1.21
6 27 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102621740 1.21
7 25 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102640492 1.21
8 18 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102658073 1.21
7 14 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100944324 1.31
1:

10 25 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101591553 1.31
209

Table 10.16. continued (NC-24 and Haw Branch Road/SR-1230 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 5 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101847841 1.31
1 9 2007 Animal 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101934775 1.31
1 22 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101392634 1.38
9 24 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101568951 1.41
2 18 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 102538619 1.41
S 27 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101740096 1.51
6 2 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101742601 1.51
11 1 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100747500 1.54
3 25 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102293794 1.55
2 25 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 101972351 1.65
210

Table 10.17. US-1 and Camp Easter Road/Aiken Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 10 2008 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102237340 17.23
10 30 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102105892 17.27
8 6 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 102649859 17.31
9 28 2006 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101831913 17.33
11 21 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101893306 17.33
11 21 2006 Jackknife 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101874393 17.33
11 28 2006 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101863313 17.33
2 4 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102255252 17.33
11 13 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102441266 17.33
3 30 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101998133 17.354
1 27 2002 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100546435 17.405
11 17 2007 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102195315 17.416
4 12 2001 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100334395 17.43
9 16 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100711181 17.43
3 10 2003 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100847472 17.43
6 19 2003 Angle 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 100924530 17.43
2 22 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101124192 17.43
3 19 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101144787 17.43
11 2 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101324552 17.43
11 10 2004 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101331927 17.43
1 18 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101388664 17.43
1 24 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101394168 17.43
12 29 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101924250 17.43
11 15 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102192510 17.43
5 10 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 102322499 17.43
1 29 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100283962 17.433
11 14 2008 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102453760 17.436
7 22 2005 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101524212 17.439
9 15 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101284217 17.53
2 28 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100840798 17.55
2 23 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100301251 17.59
211

6 5 2002 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100636853 17.63
212

Table 10.17. continued (US-1 and Camp Easter Road/Aiken Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 21 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100764999 17.63
4 13 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 101162639 17.63
8 20 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100690379 17.69
9 18 2000 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 100185332 17.73
2 6 2004 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101111169 17.73
3 24 2004 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 101148155 17.73
3 17 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101434906 17.73
213

Table 10.18. NC-87 and Peanut Plant Road/SR-1150 Crash Data
Injury Condition
Month Day Year Crash Type F A B C R L W Crash ID MP
1 13 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101933735 26.8
12 14 2001 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100513449 26.9
1 22 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102245805 26.9
3 28 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 102561911 26.9
5 5 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 102318835 26.957
4 2 2001 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100327203 27
S 3 2001 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100348332 27
5 24 2001 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100362924 27
5 26 2001 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100364602 27
6 28 2001 Angle 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 100386748 27
9 2 2001 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 100431271 27
10 25 2001 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100471450 27
12 21 2001 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100519254 27
2 22 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100563864 27
2 28 2002 Angle 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 100567498 27
5 17 2002 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100623260 27
6 13 2002 Angle 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 100641902 27
9 21 2002 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100714460 27
1 27 2003 Angle 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 100816501 27
3 31 2003 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 100861816 27
4 17 2003 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 100875214 27
10 2 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101005674 27
11 22 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101049850 27
1 2 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101083625 27
3 15 2004 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101141133 27
5 27 2004 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101197120 27
214

Table 10.18. continued (NC-87 and Peanut Plant Road/SR-1150 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 31 2004 Angle 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101200355 27
7 10 2004 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 101231304 27
7 10 2004 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 101231363 27
8 3 2004 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 101249277 27
8 7 2004 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101252650 27
8 24 2004 Movable Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101265790 27
9 4 2004 Angle 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 101274671 27
9 28 2004 Angle 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 101295042 27
10 20 2004 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 101313066 27
6 27 2005 Angle 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 101425349 27
7 20 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101438431 27
4 2 2005 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101446356 27
4 10 2005 Angle 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 101452275 27
10 21 2005 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101587483 27
11 14 2005 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101608061 27
7 31 2007 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102102121 27
4 4 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102561125 27
3 6 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102276697 27.006
2 10 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102534511 27.019
10 7 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 101578431 27.08
12 20 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101916656 27.1
10 24 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102171334 27.2
215

Table 10.19. NC-87/24 and 2°d Street Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 6 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101337061 3.05
1 5 2007 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101880308 3.055
1 2 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 5 4 8 100535086 3.062
4 12 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 102252435 3.062
8 18 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100420972 3.065
3 9 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101315462 3.067
2 4 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101110245 3.071
12 14 2004 Pedestrian 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101233641 3.071
1 15 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100537902 3.075
8 9 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101447127 3.079
6 5 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 100370871 3.081
7 30 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 100955274 3.081
6 26 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 101413705 3.084
12 26 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 101242334 3.087
12 22 2004 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 101238534 3.089
1 30 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100547846 3.09
2 4 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100551240 3.09
11 29 2002 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100770663 3.09
3 20 2004 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101145638 3.09
4 5 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101346346 3.09
1 5 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 101620129 3.09
2 15 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102183863 3.09
8 17 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100687849 3.092
12 9 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100510859 3.094
5 12 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101185603 3.094
3 26 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100858081 3.096
1 31 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101904606 3.096
10 29 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100500069 3.099
10 11 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101498997 3.102
7 10 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102346356 3.102
4 9 2005 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101335638 3.104
6 8 2007 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 101995688 3.105
216

Table 10.19. continued (NC-87/24 and 2°d Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 12 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100604690 3.112
9 22 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102692803 3.13
9 1 2008 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102382388 3.134
10 27 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101514192 3.137
3 15 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100578406 3.14
6 22 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100926981 3.14
9 17 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100993343 3.14
4 17 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101165926 3.14
5 22 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 101193213 3.14
8 27 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 101129549 3.14
7 10 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102020031 3.14
6 27 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102334886 3.14
2 22 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100904110 3.143
1 15 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100806604 3.144
5 6 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102281044 3.147
8 2 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102370790 3.147
5 23 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100362062 3.149
12 13 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 100512318 3.149
6 25 2002 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100650730 3.149
6 9 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101998358 3.15
4 27 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100608788 3.158
4 4 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102567163 3.16
12 23 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100791227 3.161
8 19 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102058920 3.168
4 26 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101172389 3.17
9 22 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102068914 3.178
12 23 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102141943 3.178
1 25 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100815451 3.18
5 16 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100897590 3.18
5 23 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100903304 3.197
5 3 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102290361 3.197
2 1 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100550053 3.211
217

Table 10.19. continued (NC-87/24 and 2°d Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 4 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100570515 3.215
7 3 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100389958 3.225
11 27 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102455405 3.23
12 24 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 100792102 3.232
8 31 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102070456 3.235
10 22 2008 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102438087 3.235
11 18 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101045645 3.24
1 16 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101093840 3.254
10 14 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101502043 3.28
1 2 2007 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 101892154 3.28
3 25 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102249074 3.28
2 13 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101116596 3.293
6 9 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 100373263 3.33
1 24 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101263744 3.33
8 8 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101447121 3.341
8 8 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101447121 3.341
12 20 2003 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101074975 3.36
12 6 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101596377 3.39
12 12 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101230828 3.4
4 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101961068 3.416
218

Table 10.20. NC-87 and School Road/Butler Nursery Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 23 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 101077525 2.84
11 16 2006 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101890235 2.84
1 27 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 4 5 1 101103830 3.04
1 28 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 4 4 5 1 101105004 3.04
2 28 2004 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 101129663 3.04
4 3 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101155248 3.04
11 26 2004 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101346250 3.04
12 7 2004 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101355030 3.04
10 16 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101585156 3.04
12 21 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101640357 3.04
11 9 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101881708 3.04
12 2 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 6 1 5 1 101904132 3.04
1 23 2007 ANGLE 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 101926038 3.04
2 7 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101954636 3.04
2 8 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101955466 3.04
3 14 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102282912 3.04
3 31 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 2 5 2 102294717 3.04
6 20 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102350454 3.04
6 26 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102621568 3.04
7 22 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 102644665 3.04
8 2 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102652527 3.04
9 3 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102667833 3.04
10 25 2009 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102718857 3.04
11 26 2009 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 102730541 3.04
2 13 2010 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 102802248 3.04
3 22 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102820303 3.04
219

Table 10.20. continued (NC-87 and School Road/Butler Nursery Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 4 2010 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102840091 3.04
6 10 2010 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102885297 3.04
11 6 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101602256 3.135
12 16 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101363307 3.14
8 20 2005 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101544892 3.14
7 9 2006 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101778656 3.14
1 17 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101934512 3.14
4 21 2007 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102021782 3.14
6 8 2007 ANGLE 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 102061036 3.14
3 19 2008 ANGLE 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 102286723 3.14
6 6 2008 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 102340371 3.14
10 14 2003 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101015381 3.24
4 15 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 102011724 3.42
7 1 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101224446 3.64
10 8 2003 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101010092 3.67
12 15 2005 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101633423 3.67
8 5 2006 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 101800443 3.69
1 5 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 101927309 3.72
220

Table 10.21. NC-87 and Grays Creek Church Road/Alderman Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 1 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101224446 3.64
10 8 2003 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101010092 3.67
12 15 2005 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101633423 3.67
8 5 2006 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 101800443 3.69
1 5 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 101927309 3.72
7 23 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 102366897 3.74
7 23 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102366902 3.74
4 16 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102306057 3.77
10 10 2004 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101305116 3.84
2 26 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101970289 3.84
1 17 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101387930 3.908
11 8 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101037764 3.94
9 28 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101295100 3.94
3 28 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102292394 3.94
8 26 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102122349 3.945
6 11 2004 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101208817 3.97
6 11 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101208821 3.97
6 30 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101223652 3.97
10 30 2005 ANGLE 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 101596617 3.97
11 23 2005 ANGLE 1 0 2 2 1 5 1 101616656 3.97
11 18 2005 ANGLE 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 101616873 3.97
2 8 2006 ANGLE 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 101672815 3.97
11 5 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102183436 3.97
7 26 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102645295 3.97
8 27 2004 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101268073 4.04
1 7 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101931731 4.17
10 11 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101846916 4.33
221

Table 10.22. US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 28 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99239601 7.573
12 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100783481 7.573
5 22 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100361879 7.58
6 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100378150 7.58
5 6 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100890253 7.58
7 15 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100944577 7.58
11 5 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101035396 7.58
12 4 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101060365 7.58
5 10 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101184583 7.58
11 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101615151 7.58
6 27 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100386464 7.591
2 21 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101680971 7.591
12 13 2000 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100252103 7.595
10 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100210275 7.606
5 27 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 100906569 7.606
6 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101221551 7.606
10 17 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100465602 7.61
2 12 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100557277 7.61
5 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100621445 7.61
8 2 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100676794 7.61
1 29 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100818306 7.61
7 28 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100148256 7.623
3 27 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 99056400 7.625
5 11 2000 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100092373 7.63
8 2 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 100151581 7.63
3 29 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100860423 7.63
12 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100514956 7.64
6 9 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100114107 7.65
222

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 17 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 99115330 7.656
7 25 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101525826 7.659
6 9 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100114126 7.66
11 25 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101052741 7.66
6 12 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102616343 7.66
9 10 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100988588 7.666
11 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101333898 7.666
4 1 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 99061305 7.673
12 4 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 99244113 7.673
10 31 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100218246 7.673
12 23 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101077791 7.673
1 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101099719 7.673
9 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101286099 7.673
10 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101321306 7.673
11 28 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101348046 7.673
3 4 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101688267 7.673
11 17 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100232825 7.679
3 15 1999 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99048831 7.68
12 3 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99243164 7.68
7 3 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100131139 7.68
11 9 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 100225165 7.68
10 3 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100454091 7.68
11 21 2001 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100494288 7.68
10 12 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100731241 7.68
2 27 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100839671 7.68
12 8 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101063695 7.68
3 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101149556 7.68
223

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 9 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101332842 7.68
12 1 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101351325 7.68
6 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101500865 7.68
1 26 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101664282 7.68
2 3 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101669498 7.68
8 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102669292 7.68
10 30 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102719387 7.68
7 27 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102646916 7.683
6 1 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99104021 7.685
8 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100695583 7.685
10 31 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101597049 7.685
S 14 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101733639 7.685
8 16 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100969329 7.688
1 11 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100541967 7.694
11 5 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101328045 7.695
3 5 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100045599 7.7
12 22 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100520799 7.706
2 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99033756 7.707
10 10 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100459731 7.717
10 25 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102444400 7.718
2 6 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100289329 7.723
4 9 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100869282 7.723
7 12 2000 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 100136691 7.73
11 24 2000 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100238166 7.73
12 5 2002 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 100776553 7.73
4 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101176273 7.73
12 2 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101623311 7.73
224

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 3 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102419543 7.73
11 17 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102467327 7.73
S 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102587308 7.73
9 1 1999 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99167399 7.733
1 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101385095 7.733
11 19 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101613002 7.733
9 9 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100178937 7.736
9 24 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100191749 7.736
2 17 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100297325 7.736
1 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 5 2 100819971 7.738
11 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101338031 7.742
2 9 2006 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101673675 7.742
7 29 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102652403 7.742
1 25 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100545330 7.745
7 12 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101517199 7.745
9 17 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99180987 7.749
4 21 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100605062 7.752
3 6 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101689397 7.752
2 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100298658 7.76
1 30 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100819011 7.76
11 10 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99224381 7.761
10 21 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100738289 7.761
9 15 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100182499 7.762
6 12 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100397279 7.762
5 14 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 99091295 7.764
6 4 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99106153 7.767
9 23 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100998586 7.767
22S

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 13 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99177109 7.77
2 3 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100023912 7.77
1 28 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 100283039 7.77
6 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100642818 7.771
10 31 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101323066 7.771
4 5 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99063712 7.773
5 22 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99096991 7.773
6 4 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99106154 7.773
7 27 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99142427 7.773
7 19 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100141559 7.773
11 14 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100230246 7.773
10 26 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100472893 7.773
3 23 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100584446 7.773
3 26 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 4 2 100858603 7.773
6 7 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 100915431 7.773
7 15 2003 BACKING UP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100944568 7.773
11 16 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101610181 7.773
5 9 2009 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102590007 7.773
7 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100141821 7.774
10 3 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101299550 7.774
2 8 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100555021 7.776
8 24 2003 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100975824 7.776
2 10 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100292099 7.777
4 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101166617 7.777
10 30 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99215443 7.778
6 1 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101201375 7.778
8 27 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 99164293 7.78
226

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 11 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99250224 7.78
1 7 2000 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100003508 7.78
1 13 2000 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100008307 7.78
6 9 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100114109 7.78
9 10 2000 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 100204793 7.78
11 14 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100230209 7.78
11 16 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100231875 7.78
12 19 2000 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 100257367 7.78
3 2 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100310420 7.78
3 24 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100321069 7.78
4 27 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100343997 7.78
S 10 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100353500 7.78
10 25 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100471390 7.78
10 29 2001 ANGLE 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 100475214 7.78
11 7 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100482345 7.78
2 11 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100556616 7.78
4 28 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100609750 7.78
1 13 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 100819018 7.78
3 12 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100849043 7.78
8 17 2003 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 100971466 7.78
10 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101014191 7.78
10 22 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101022589 7.78
4 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101166884 7.78
7 12 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101233162 7.78
3 2 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101423354 7.78
8 27 2005 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101550361 7.78
10 13 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101583197 7.78
22%

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 25 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102438626 7.78
12 23 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102501864 7.78
3 23 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102557095 7.78
1 9 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100585821 7.781
4 25 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101171642 7.782
11 6 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101036432 7.783
1 13 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100008302 7.784
6 14 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101761950 7.784
1 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101385118 7.786
2 13 2004 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101116695 7.788
4 16 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100074806 7.791
7 29 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102652400 7.792
9 13 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100991035 7.793
8 23 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100975157 7.8
7 7 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 102634381 7.806
3 23 2001 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100584472 7.808
11 19 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101613004 7.808
3 25 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 102561681 7.808
9 1 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100173318 7.81
9 16 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100992904 7.818
8 9 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102658657 7.818
5 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100630135 7.825
11 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100490428 7.83
1 27 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100816869 7.83
4 13 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101314483 7.83
5 31 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100910201 7.831
3 27 2009 PEDESTRIAN 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 102579027 7.831
22g

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 18 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100358550 7.836
9 21 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 100714894 7.837
4 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101157909 7.837
9 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100718838 7.84
12 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100783472 7.84
10 17 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 102462235 7.846
7 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100401040 7.855
S 25 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100905360 7.873
9 1 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100173276 7.874
1 8 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100269665 7.875
1 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101107162 7.875
7 6 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99128349 7.88
12 17 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100786217 7.88
4 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101161953 7.88
2 27 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101685248 7.88
9 6 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100704169 7.883
1 22 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100543075 7.89
8 15 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101259045 7.89
2 23 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100036635 7.906
1 19 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100043607 7.925
6 6 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100914529 7.93
10 1 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100195244 7.94
9 24 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100716772 7.94
3 13 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101694010 7.94
11 15 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100488933 7.951
1 23 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101099411 7.951
8 9 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100414495 7.969
229

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100956466 7.973
4 13 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100335165 7.975
3 16 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100579682 7.975
12 5 2009 BACKING UP 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 102757785 7.98
9 25 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100447984 7.99
S 6 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101181392 7.998
1 15 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99009425 8
3 17 1999 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99050305 8
7 9 1999 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99130474 8
8 20 1999 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 99158884 8
9 10 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 99175247 8
10 20 1999 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 99206871 8
10 29 1999 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 99214489 8
11 23 1999 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 99235552 8
11 29 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 99240250 8
12 8 1999 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99246649 8
7 16 2000 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100139710 8
11 2 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100219940 8
2 28 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100304300 8
11 26 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100498240 8
12 3 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100504037 8
3 19 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100581493 8
4 19 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 100603970 8
6 1 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 10 4 1 100634347 8
6 12 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100656216 8
9 2 2002 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 100700537 8
9 20 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100714174 8
230

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 11 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100781402 8
12 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100784415 8
2 11 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 100827789 8
3 19 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100853694 8
4 11 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100871400 8
4 13 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100872429 8
5 12 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100894882 8
7 7 2003 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100938445 8
11 8 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101037978 8
12 29 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101081323 8
8 5 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101252025 8
8 27 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101269038 8
9 27 2004 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101294719 8
10 19 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101312466 8
1 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101385094 8
4 20 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101458914 8
4 28 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101464729 8
5 16 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101477583 8
5 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101481310 8
6 6 2005 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101492334 8
6 14 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101498344 8
10 18 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101586748 8
4 16 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101715671 8
5 18 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101735534 8
8 18 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102390323 8
9 6 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 102403069 8
10 17 2008 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102429394 8
231

Table 10.22. continued (US-15/501 and Sage Road/Old Durham Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 26 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102438607 8
11 14 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 102465633 8
12 10 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102486486 8
6 8 2005 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 1 0 2 4 2 101493890 8.006
4 1 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 99061304 8.025
11 19 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99231890 8.025
11 30 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 99240884 8.025
9 8 2005 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101558125 8.025
232

Table 10.23. US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 11 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102658652 5.867
12 9 1999 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99248091 5.87
12 10 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 99249136 5.874
12 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 99257865 5.91
4 30 2000 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100084668 5.91
12 4 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100266195 5.91
4 11 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101711446 5.91
10 21 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102710760 5.91
11 19 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102739772 5.91
12 7 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101355314 5.921
2 4 2002 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 100551834 5.923
11 14 2000 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100260100 5.946
6 22 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100382762 5.96
11 16 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100761030 6
3 2 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100842220 6
9 21 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101566566 6
7 30 2000 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100149545 6.01
2 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100561448 6.01
3 22 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100583741 6.01
6 22 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101503692 6.01
1 16 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100274895 6.022
6 30 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100932928 6.022
6 9 2005 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101494360 6.028
12 9 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101066058 6.057
12 20 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101639281 6.063
1 15 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 99009423 6.077
3 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101135385 6.077
6 14 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100117022 6.091
233

Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 4 2000 RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100110433 6.092
6 4 2000 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100110011 6.092
7 18 2009 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 102640847 6.096
4 9 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101159733 6.101
4 2 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102566859 6.101
9 12 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102686103 6.101
12 28 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102774429 6.102
11 21 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102471809 6.105
1 18 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 100276106 6.106
10 8 2005 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101580036 6.106
2 14 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100294883 6.107
9 24 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100447132 6.107
4 2 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101154537 6.108
1 19 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 6 1 2 101389677 6.109
1 2 1999 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 1 2 0 2 5 3 99001102 6.11
2 3 1999 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99021987 6.11
4 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99073384 6.11
5 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99095461 6.11
8 20 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 99158883 6.11
1 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100013710 6.11
2 12 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100029894 6.11
4 6 2000 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100067237 6.11
4 19 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100076794 6.11
4 25 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100080479 6.11
5 21 2000 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100099414 6.11
10 7 2000 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100200210 6.11
10 20 2000 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100210253 6.11
234

Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 8 2000 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100248604 6.11
3 5 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100307848 6.11
6 18 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100379834 6.11
7 23 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100402734 6.11
9 7 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100434744 6.11
10 14 2001 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100463350 6.11
10 26 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100472896 6.11
12 1 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100502565 6.11
1 15 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100537993 6.11
4 5 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100593558 6.11
8 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100680846 6.11
10 12 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100731243 6.11
10 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100736039 6.11
10 24 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100740361 6.11
11 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100759028 6.11
1 14 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100805768 6.11
1 23 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 100813611 6.11
1 23 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 100813615 6.11
4 4 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100865237 6.11
4 24 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100880591 6.11
8 20 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 100972787 6.11
9 3 2003 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 100985361 6.11
10 4 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101007537 6.11
10 28 2003 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101027807 6.11
11 3 2003 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101041760 6.11
1 10 2004 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101090502 6.11
4 5 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101156750 6.11
235

Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 24 2004 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101171622 6.11
5 15 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101188359 6.11
6 30 2004 REAR END, TURN 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101224025 6.11
7 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101244662 6.11
10 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 10 8 9 101302936 6.11
11 13 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101335268 6.11
12 20 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101367217 6.11
2 24 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101418978 6.11
2 28 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101421942 6.11
4 13 2005 RIGHTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101455236 6.11
4 17 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101457624 6.11
4 26 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101595009 6.11
5 13 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101475590 6.11
5 15 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101476997 6.11
6 6 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101492312 6.11
7 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101512222 6.11
7 25 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101525534 6.11
8 9 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101536842 6.11
11 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101603891 6.11
2 9 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101673662 6.11
2 11 2006 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101675005 6.11
2 22 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101682418 6.11
2 24 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101683474 6.11
3 25 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101704173 6.11
6 19 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101764889 6.11
6 22 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101766816 6.11
8 8 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102383030 6.11
236

Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 11 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102487716 6.11
3 8 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 5 1 5 1 102550834 6.11
S 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102587307 6.11
5 29 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102607879 6.11
6 24 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102625492 6.11
7 12 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102638916 6.11
9 5 2009 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102678835 6.11
11 9 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102729167 6.11
12 31 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102775273 6.11
6 19 2009 ANGLE 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 102626868 6.112
5 2 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100086015 6.114
12 30 2008 PEDESTRIAN 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 102504778 6.116
9 15 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100183059 6.117
3 20 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 100055722 6.119
5 22 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 100100331 6.119
1 21 2002 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100542552 6.119
9 16 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99180125 6.12
9 28 2001 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100450858 6.12
12 31 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100526055 6.12
8 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100957573 6.122
2 1 1999 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 99020582 6.123
6 17 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 99115329 6.123
8 19 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99157905 6.123
3 4 2000 PEDESTRIAN 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 100045127 6.123
6 2 2000 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100108730 6.123
11 25 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100239073 6.123
3 28 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100323402 6.123
237

Table 10.23. continued (US-15/501 and S. Estes Drive/SR-1750 Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 11 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100333307 6.123
6 1 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100369945 6.123
8 21 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100422624 6.123
2 6 2002 PEDESTRIAN 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 100553454 6.123
3 16 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100851611 6.123
3 18 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100853083 6.123
2 4 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101403105 6.123
1 30 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101667202 6.123
11 25 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 102468259 6.123
8 26 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101549936 6.124
7 26 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100672444 6.126
S 14 2000 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100094363 6.128
12 16 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101363631 6.131
4 19 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 99072706 6.134
6 16 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 99114673 6.16
5 1 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102585989 6.16
9 26 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101001298 6.167
12 11 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101066785 6.167
12 12 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100511926 6.168
5 25 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102606960 6.237
4 2 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100327568 6.26
1 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101093543 6.26
2 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100558569 6.271
11 19 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 101047501 6.271
9 12 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 99176380 6.306
9 15 1999 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 99179132 6.306
7 27 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100953344 6.323
238

Table 10.24. NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 30 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100675246 2.571
8 26 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100977530 2.571
3 14 2004 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101140979 2.571
9 30 2004 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101296920 2.571
11 8 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101926320 2.571
4 8 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102300804 2.571
8 11 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102386683 2.571
2 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 4 3 100554006 2.572
8 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100688914 2.572
S 1 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102027581 2.572
2 23 2008 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102269246 2.572
4 15 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100600580 2.573
6 28 2009 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 102644910 2.573
4 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101454082 2.574
2 2 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101400957 2.575
4 10 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102571838 2.576
10 26 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100742073 2.578
2 12 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102260962 2.578
2 25 2006 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 2 4 3 101684371 2.579
2 13 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102261962 2.579
7 25 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101242726 2.58
2 1 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101950269 2.58
1 17 2004 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 101095120 2.586
4 28 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100345192 2.588
1 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101087148 2.589
11 3 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102182734 2.589
1 10 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102514711 2.589
239

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102532135 2.589
5 6 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102320515 2.594
7 6 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100937879 2.598
7 11 2001 PEDALCYCLIST 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 100395156 2.607
12 16 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100785880 2.608
12 20 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100789470 2.608
11 13 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101886163 2.608
3 9 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101980532 2.608
5 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102597942 2.608
8 2 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100677377 2.61
1 25 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101395001 2.615
11 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101600951 2.615
11 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101600969 2.615
12 2 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101623295 2.615
7 19 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100667254 2.617
3 2 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100569248 2.626
2 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101406541 2.627
4 16 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102307485 2.627
1 23 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102522898 2.627
6 10 2005 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101494963 2.634
7 30 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102377619 2.634
12 8 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101629012 2.646
10 26 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102174951 2.65
2 23 2008 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102269238 2.663
7 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102642776 2.663
10 13 2001 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100462499 2.664
1 3 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101929010 2.665
240

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101557770 2.67
2 9 2004 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 101114445 2.672
6 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101497677 2.672
7 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101520661 2.672
3 16 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102284869 2.677
S 27 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100907084 2.682
7 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101549113 2.682
8 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101260818 2.683
12 6 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100777549 2.691
12 3 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 101059285 2.691
8 13 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101540113 2.691
12 10 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102487432 2.691
2 18 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102537074 2.691
4 5 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101448723 2.695
7 21 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100949046 2.7
7 22 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100949278 2.7
12 7 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101064412 2.7
8 11 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101538652 2.7
11 1 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 101876308 2.7
4 17 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102578316 2.7
3 30 2002 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100589272 2.701
6 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101500118 2.701
1 8 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102512722 2.701
8 14 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100418000 2.702
6 1 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101488149 2.704
4 1 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101153638 2.706
11 8 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102186990 2.706
241

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 15 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100944553 2.708
11 22 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101894925 2.708
3 27 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 6 2 1 3 102562688 2.708
11 30 2004 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101349660 2.709
4 25 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100342906 2.71
10 29 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100475177 2.71
12 14 2001 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100514133 2.71
4 24 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100606979 2.71
4 28 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100610425 2.71
S 22 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100627010 2.71
7 1 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 100655075 2.71
7 18 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100666431 2.71
9 13 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100708600 2.71
1 22 2003 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100811789 2.71
3 4 2003 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100843491 2.71
3 19 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100853673 2.71
7 12 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100943302 2.71
8 8 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100964279 2.71
8 13 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100967149 2.71
8 28 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100978825 2.71
9 3 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100983320 2.71
9 4 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100984480 2.71
11 4 2003 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101034390 2.71
12 4 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101059608 2.71
2 1 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101107869 2.71
3 2 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101132988 2.71
5 18 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101190963 2.71
242

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
S 21 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101192965 2.71
6 16 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101284676 2.71
6 17 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101213898 2.71
6 18 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101214292 2.71
9 3 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101274627 2.71
9 27 2004 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101294693 2.71
11 2 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101326335 2.71
11 12 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101333868 2.71
5 5 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 101469179 2.71
10 15 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101584687 2.71
11 29 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 101621171 2.71
12 2 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101623296 2.71
12 17 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 101638061 2.71
1 5 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 101650611 2.71
1 6 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 101650783 2.71
10 2 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101845618 2.71
2 11 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101958047 2.71
2 24 2007 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101969264 2.71
5 3 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102030308 2.71
7 20 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 8 2 102094238 2.71
11 8 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102187657 2.71
1 4 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102233333 2.71
4 3 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 102296165 2.71
5 6 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 102320504 2.71
5 13 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102324736 2.71
8 1 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102379238 2.71
9 28 2008 ANGLE 1 0 2 0 1 5 1 102425174 2.71
243

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 4 2008 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102426057 2.71
12 26 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102503188 2.71
4 17 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 102590586 2.71
5 1 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102593329 2.71
S 6 2009 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102594953 2.71
S 28 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 102612118 2.71
6 6 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102618072 2.71
6 30 2009 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 102633283 2.71
7 6 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102634295 2.71
7 27 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102653985 2.71
4 29 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102589641 2.715
12 20 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101639254 2.719
5 4 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102029839 2.722
10 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101030089 2.723
7 29 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101245447 2.724
4 1 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 101445342 2.734
7 2 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101226854 2.75
10 9 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101851687 2.75
9 21 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101566859 2.761
8 22 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102118751 2.761
6 22 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100382743 2.8
3 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101135886 2.817
5 20 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101191789 2.817
8 5 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100679443 2.82
3 2 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101974295 2.82
4 8 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100868439 2.836
10 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101030123 2.85
244

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 5 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101953604 2.85
5 23 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102615659 2.85
11 11 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101040143 2.855
6 28 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 101222680 2.855
1 14 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101386171 2.855
1 3 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101648414 2.855
12 11 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101910063 2.855
3 31 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101999989 2.855
8 8 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102108904 2.855
4 18 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102308520 2.855
11 4 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102452523 2.855
3 18 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102556867 2.855
6 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100651760 2.856
10 11 2006 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101853160 2.857
9 25 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101000016 2.865
10 26 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101592865 2.865
10 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101306829 2.874
1 21 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101391390 2.874
3 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101435293 2.874
5 6 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101470123 2.874
11 5 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100481221 2.875
7 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101519497 2.887
7 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100956716 2.893
7 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101237105 2.893
1 9 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 102236435 2.893
3 1 2008 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102274849 2.893
8 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102395103 2.893
245

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 27 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100426814 2.894
4 29 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102315730 2.898
3 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101424975 2.907
10 28 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 101027780 2.912
1 16 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101094719 2.912
1 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 101105225 2.912
9 21 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102147938 2.912
11 25 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 100497418 2.913
1 16 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100807450 2.922
4 12 2005 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101453874 2.926
7 22 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101240276 2.929
S 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100894868 2.93
11 11 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100756598 2.94
2 5 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100822973 2.94
2 22 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 100836476 2.94
10 10 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 101012938 2.94
11 18 2004 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101339438 2.94
11 30 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 100501685 2.941
5 20 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100901460 2.941
9 22 2007 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 102146764 2.941
12 12 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102492410 2.942
11 13 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102465559 2.945
3 28 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100587278 2.949
3 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101423963 2.949
9 2 2007 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102127813 2.949
5 30 2001 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100367066 2.95
9 2 2001 ANGLE 0 0 1 4 1 2 1 100431259 2.95
246

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 3 2001 ANGLE 0 0 7 0 1 1 2 100432131 2.95
9 26 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 100449234 2.95
10 3 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100454515 2.95
11 2 2001 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100478564 2.95
2 17 2002 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 100560931 2.95
2 26 2002 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100567360 2.95
4 14 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 100600206 2.95
S 10 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 100618993 2.95
6 23 2002 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100649170 2.95
8 9 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100682361 2.95
9 1 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 100700100 2.95
9 26 2002 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 100717779 2.95
11 17 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 100761324 2.95
2 17 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100832396 2.95
5 3 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100888013 2.95
8 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100966502 2.95
10 17 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101018533 2.95
10 22 2003 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101022199 2.95
10 31 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101031749 2.95
12 1 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101057416 2.95
2 5 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101111605 2.95
2 28 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101130473 2.95
6 26 2004 ANGLE 0 2 0 3 1 4 2 101221068 2.95
7 2 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101225434 2.95
8 6 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101252659 2.95
12 4 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101353409 2.95
1 11 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101383729 2.95
247

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 4 2005 ANGLE 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 101402952 2.95
3 5 2005 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101426089 2.95
3 24 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101441462 2.95
7 3 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101511750 2.95
7 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101520137 2.95
12 26 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 101643189 2.95
2 12 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 101675723 2.95
2 28 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 101686534 2.95
2 14 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101960708 2.95
S 16 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 102041122 2.95
8 8 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102108616 2.95
9 20 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 102145126 2.95
9 28 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102151627 2.95
10 30 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102178821 2.95
4 25 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102313272 2.95
5 20 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102329032 2.95
5 22 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102330234 2.95
6 2 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102341354 2.95
7 17 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102370315 2.95
8 30 2008 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102398398 2.95
10 11 2008 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102427009 2.95
10 25 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102442276 2.95
11 14 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102467232 2.95
2 3 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102528592 2.95
12 10 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101065640 2.952
2 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 101122309 2.953
5 3 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101179007 2.954
.•

Table 10.24. continued (NC-132 and Bragg Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year I Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 4 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 101326422 2.958
2 24 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101419202 2.959
1 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101935143 2.969
8 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102126659 2.969
10 2 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102419426 2.969
S 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100885951 2.983
5 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100885963 2.984
7 31 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101530288 2.988
3 31 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102568445 2.988
2 7 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101671944 2.997
9 21 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101290680 3.003
1 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101388090 3.026
2 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101121484 3.045
1 19 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101389653 3.05
1 3 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102232616 3.06
2 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100820681 3.083
7 10 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102365237 3.103
2 16 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 101120975 3.147
8 25 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100976447 3.15
1 18 2005 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101388684 3.15
11 13 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101885524 3.159
5 5 2007 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102031424 3.171
10 3 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100723705 3.2
10 23 2008 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102441765 3.265
12 27 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100794681 3.303
9 24 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100999855 3.322
3 21 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102556827 3.322
249

Table 10.25. NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 15 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101071710 1.81
2 7 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100553993 1.825
11 13 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100758461 1.9
8 1 2004 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101247827 1.9
11 18 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101339436 1.9
7 4 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 102637256 1.911
4 23 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100341304 1.963
12 31 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 101646648 1.963
1 12 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101654905 1.98
1 27 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 102525010 1.98
5 1 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102585978 1.995
2 9 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101406514 1.998
9 30 2001 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100452223 2
2 18 2002 RIGHTTURN,SAMEROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100561456 2
3 21 2002 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100584174 2
6 4 2003 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100913350 2
2 5 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101111644 2
6 5 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101204840 2
6 23 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101218267 2
1 4 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101378985 2
6 23 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101504114 2
7 25 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101527066 2
8 24 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101547784 2
12 19 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101638166 2
1 16 2007 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101934283 2
3 30 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101999154 2
4 22 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102036706 2
250

Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 31 2007 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102054173 2
1 5 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102233565 2
5 19 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102328367 2
9 12 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 102407563 2
11 26 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102474584 2
1 16 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102517648 2
5 6 2009 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102591692 2
3 30 2002 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100589262 2.001
12 7 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101628190 2.002
11 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100762142 2.004
8 4 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102105456 2.005
1 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101388085 2.012
8 6 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 100961111 2.012
1 29 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102251087 2.012
2 2 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101680467 2.019
5 14 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 100356237 2.029
8 24 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101548046 2.03
11 13 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100487818 2.056
4 12 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100598384 2.056
6 23 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102354541 2.057
8 18 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100971114 2.08
9 1 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101272561 2.08
12 12 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102214767 2.08
6 23 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102353865 2.08
2 2 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 102528117 2.08
10 18 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101311782 2.085
1 28 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101947027 2.11
251

Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 22 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102046179 2.14
5 14 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102324894 2.17
7 9 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100660812 2.171
12 16 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102472438 2.171
12 15 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101071702 2.173
6 3 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 100635496 2.18
4 28 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100883773 2.18
7 10 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101231263 2.18
5 5 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101469193 2.18
10 1 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101573721 2.18
12 5 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 101625588 2.18
12 3 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102207193 2.18
12 30 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102504766 2.18
4 20 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102579321 2.18
4 29 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102585773 2.182
5 2 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100348080 2.188
12 17 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102491805 2.189
1 9 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101089141 2.192
9 13 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 102137983 2.199
11 16 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100490422 2.2
2 7 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 102532289 2.204
7 2 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100389801 2.208
8 27 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101550368 2.208
11 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100762607 2.218
12 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101355729 2.22
5 2 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100887132 2.23
6 26 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100385873 2.236
2S2

Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 31 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101667763 2.25
4 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101159135 2.254
1 4 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101378986 2.264
4 10 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102007408 2.27
8 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102126612 2.272
1 9 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100534024 2.28
1 25 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100545314 2.28
10 31 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100746576 2.28
8 3 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100959150 2.28
5 12 2004 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101186108 2.28
11 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 101334450 2.28
1 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101965411 2.28
2 22 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101967083 2.28
6 10 2003 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100918350 2.284
4 25 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101173258 2.295
9 28 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101295383 2.298
5 24 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100905137 2.304
6 20 2002 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100647586 2.307
12 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101371233 2.308
11 29 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101621146 2.311
11 1 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100477126 2.312
8 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 101535408 2.312
9 25 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102148700 2.317
7 28 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102100523 2.32
1 23 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102246882 2.32
2 22 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101124186 2.322
5 28 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102333973 2.322
253

Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 26 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100882301 2.327
4 1 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 101445655 2.33
5 28 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101486095 2.33
6 13 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102065379 2.33
3 18 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102301628 2.33
5 9 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100892158 2.334
6 9 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101207424 2.336
1 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 2 2 4 2 102249386 2.339
8 3 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101249901 2.34
7 12 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100395828 2.345
4 5 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100593517 2.345
8 20 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100690397 2.346
8 6 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100961106 2.349
2 21 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101682119 2.349
7 2 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100935101 2.354
10 8 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102425992 2.358
6 7 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102617246 2.365
12 13 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102489464 2.368
10 4 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101575186 2.382
7 3 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101511751 2.402
10 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101308758 2.42
6 2 2001 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100369581 2.424
8 31 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100430139 2.47
2 13 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102536211 2.475
9 7 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101556915 2.483
10 2 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 10 8 9 101574105 2.494
5 1 2001 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100347396 2.509
254

Table 10.25. continued (NC-132 and Pinecliff Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 27 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102099198 2.513
11 7 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100752157 2.521
5 11 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100354249 2.523
3 3 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100842372 2.523
7 26 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101242986 2.523
2 S 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100552490 2.532
12 20 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100788691 2.532
12 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101067446 2.532
12 18 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101637568 2.532
9 21 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102145443 2.532
1 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 101349110 2.542
1 24 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101941835 2.542
4 6 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100330291 2.55
9 18 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 100712744 2.55
7 20 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102088952 2.55
9 6 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100986267 2.551
5 8 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101183188 2.551
11 28 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 102474927 2.551
4 3 2002 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100592083 2.552
10 17 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 101859501 2.556
255

Table 10.26. US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 13 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102325261 2.78
4 28 2009 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102589615 2.826
8 21 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100422470 2.83
12 28 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100523980 2.83
2 4 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100551812 2.83
11 13 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100758144 2.83
5 9 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100892784 2.83
3 16 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101433632 2.83
12 24 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101921113 2.83
1 24 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102247740 2.83
9 25 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 102412529 2.83
1 26 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 102524029 2.83
S 7 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102601389 2.83
12 4 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100504870 2.835
2 1 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100549682 2.848
3 17 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100580237 2.886
12 12 2002 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100782138 2.887
3 17 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 102285683 2.887
2 18 2009 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 102537071 2.904
10 25 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102173578 2.906
6 17 2007 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102068059 2.925
10 24 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100461368 2.98
8 19 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101262290 2.98
6 20 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102071351 2.994
9 20 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100444489 3
9 6 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100703555 3
3 11 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100859045 3
256

Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 6 2006 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101849556 3
11 7 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101928299 3
3 20 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101989514 3
2 2 2008 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102255685 3
10 29 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100475179 3.017
4 3 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100592343 3.027
12 12 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102489362 3.037
2 25 2002 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100565807 3.08
10 8 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101304244 3.112
1 11 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100535576 3.113
4 17 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100875639 3.131
8 15 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102114532 3.141
1 4 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101649756 3.146
1 17 2003 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100808456 3.149
5 28 2001 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100365620 3.15
12 5 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100505797 3.15
2 28 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100567825 3.15
3 3 2002 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 100570352 3.15
4 16 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100601357 3.15
4 24 2002 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100606981 3.15
6 29 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100653878 3.15
7 12 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 100661996 3.15
10 10 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100728714 3.15
1 14 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100805401 3.15
7 21 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100948983 3.15
8 12 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100966476 3.15
8 31 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100980850 3.15
2S7

Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 10 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101012378 3.15
10 10 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101012332 3.15
11 24 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101051411 3.15
9 30 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101299808 3.15
6 12 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101497991 3.15
9 15 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101562626 3.15
10 2 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101574333 3.15
11 3 2005 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101599974 3.15
1 15 2006 ANGLE 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 101656956 3.15
2 5 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101676778 3.15
10 12 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 101855099 3.15
11 29 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 101899739 3.15
12 13 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101912251 3.15
1 7 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101932019 3.15
2 8 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101955972 3.15
4 24 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102021198 3.15
10 5 2007 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 102158267 3.15
11 15 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102193124 3.15
3 31 2008 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 102294802 3.15
4 28 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 102315146 3.15
5 10 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102323846 3.15
8 31 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102400799 3.15
9 7 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102403467 3.15
9 26 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102414519 3.15
9 30 2008 ANGLE 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 102418155 3.15
10 31 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102445894 3.15
12 31 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 102506392 3.15
2S8

Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 12 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102516510 3.15
3 12 2009 ANGLE 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 102556849 3.15
6 12 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102620077 3.15
7 14 2009 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102669810 3.15
1 2 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102507830 3.152
S 21 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100901785 3.154
2 19 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102544450 3.154
S 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101196705 3.158
2 13 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101409276 3.16
7 3 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102369608 3.16
9 13 2001 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100439452 3.162
12 2 2002 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100773042 3.165
4 25 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100607725 3.168
5 23 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100627782 3.168
10 30 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102445604 3.169
5 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100885949 3.17
3 14 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100850291 3.178
1 24 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 100544601 3.18
9 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101561537 3.191
8 5 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100961000 3.197
1 16 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101093947 3.197
11 29 2001 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100500552 3.206
2 21 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100563429 3.225
6 26 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101506252 3.226
10 4 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100724657 3.245
5 24 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102332139 3.245
6 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101222653 3.25
2S9

Table 10.26. continued (US-117 and Holly Tree Road Crash Data)
Month Day I Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 14 2001 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100440160 3.27
11 14 2007 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102192089 3.27
8 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102126611 3.3
8 9 2003 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100964066 3.35
S 7 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101182342 3.37
11 22 2002 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100766009 3.381
9 14 2001 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 100439706 3.4
8 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101267899 3.4
7 13 2005 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101517463 3.4
7 30 2007 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102102053 3.4
2 10 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100826634 3.434
10 20 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101021437 3.437
12 6 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101626521 3.437
2 14 2009 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102537561 3.456
3 29 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100860838 3.47
5 19 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101479868 3.47
6 29 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101508315 3.475
3 12 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102556853 3.475
5 1 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100611634 3.476
11 30 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101621365 3.494
1 4 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101085689 3.513
5 10 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101473776 3.513
260

Table 10.27. US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102061931 12.442
2 21 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101416374 12.47
4 14 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101454901 12.47
11 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101619493 12.47
2 8 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101673291 12.47
4 18 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102014499 12.47
11 19 2004 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101340396 12.48
2 22 2010 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102815304 12.48
11 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101349661 12.57
1 6 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101086587 12.58
7 17 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101236849 12.58
6 23 2005 MOVABLE OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101504352 12.58
11 12 2005 RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101607245 12.58
8 7 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102658989 12.66
3 26 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101149509 12.68
4 1 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101445649 12.68
6 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101499676 12.68
3 21 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101990009 12.68
9 24 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102120151 12.68
5 26 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102332686 12.68
2 5 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102801373 12.68
3 19 2010 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102820849 12.68
10 15 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101309484 12.685
4 10 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102007396 12.739
9 17 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102142481 12.761
12 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102229876 12.771
6 24 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102897788 12.771
261

Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 2 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101845603 12.773
1 14 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101092850 12.78
1 25 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101101638 12.78
12 18 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101365312 12.78
7 6 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101513422 12.78
8 1 2005 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101530822 12.78
9 10 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101559414 12.78
11 6 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101878764 12.78
3 26 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101993552 12.78
11 13 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102190357 12.78
11 18 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102195951 12.78
12 19 2007 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102220968 12.78
3 13 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102283146 12.78
4 18 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102309226 12.78
4 21 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 102309869 12.78
9 26 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102681476 12.78
3 11 2010 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 102822197 12.78
5 8 2010 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102858595 12.78
5 23 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101194338 12.782
6 25 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101220279 12.785
2 22 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101682398 12.785
8 10 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101804788 12.786
8 10 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102662698 12.786
1 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101385772 12.789
10 15 2009 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102696260 12.794
3 31 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101445002 12.799
7 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102102333 12.818
262

Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 5 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102361671 12.82
6 4 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101491311 12.827
3 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 5 2 101435309 12.832
11 25 2009 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 102732542 12.837
S 2 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102028419 12.843
3 7 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101978746 12.861
12 18 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101073730 12.88
1 20 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101097120 12.88
5 7 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101197573 12.88
6 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101222347 12.88
8 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101266374 12.88
8 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101535703 12.88
8 23 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101547107 12.88
4 16 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101715661 12.88
6 17 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101763921 12.88
7 1 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101773890 12.88
6 2 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102055985 12.88
6 16 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102067661 12.88
8 24 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102120519 12.88
8 30 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102126760 12.88
9 1 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102127113 12.88
9 4 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102129080 12.88
9 20 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102144602 12.88
9 28 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102079443 12.88
4 29 2008 RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102315352 12.88
6 20 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102624221 12.88
2 16 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102794070 12.88
263

Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 25 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102898254 12.88
6 6 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101205176 12.89
10 2 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102153904 12.9
7 31 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102378992 12.9
8 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102110788 12.91
11 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101610208 12.92
11 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 101611593 12.92
9 26 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101841224 12.92
9 30 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101844310 12.92
S 21 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102045768 12.92
7 4 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102081641 12.92
1 18 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102243625 12.92
3 23 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101991509 12.93
4 6 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102005026 12.93
10 24 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102711958 12.93
2 11 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101408046 12.98
2 26 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101420283 12.98
6 25 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101505381 12.98
7 2 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101510911 12.98
9 24 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101569011 12.98
4 14 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101714052 12.98
5 2 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101725904 12.98
1 15 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101938346 12.98
1 15 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101938353 12.98
7 20 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102093895 12.98
2 7 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102257511 12.98
6 24 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102902394 12.98
264

Table 10.27. continued (US-421 and Sanders Road/SR-1187 Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 20 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101522443 12.999
6 8 2004 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 101206420 13.02
6 25 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101768991 13.02
8 18 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102116814 13.02
8 15 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 102670056 13.02
265

Table 10.28. US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 28 2006 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101770893 10.8
S 12 2005 ANGLE 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101474996 10.82
9 24 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101568678 10.82
12 23 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101641241 10.82
5 18 2007 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102042603 10.82
10 26 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101025994 10.86
7 31 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101246969 10.87
11 9 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101331389 10.88
8 30 2008 REAR END, TURN 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 102397811 10.88
11 25 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 101896611 10.9
11 25 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101896691 10.9
4 23 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101170500 10.92
10 22 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 101589000 10.92
4 1 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101734333 10.92
5 26 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102332682 10.92
2 27 2010 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102803067 10.92
7 20 2008 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102372133 10.959
3 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101434937 10.987
8 11 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101805422 10.995
8 12 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101807050 11
8 30 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102398399 11.018
7 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 101232131 11.02
7 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101232393 11.02
1 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101377868 11.02
6 11 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101496052 11.02
5 29 2006 REAR END, TURN 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101740980 11.02
7 15 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101785624 11.02
266

Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 13 2007 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102196274 11.02
8 29 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102667883 11.02
4 24 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102311336 11.05
1 3 2008 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102232334 11.06
4 6 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102301662 11.06
9 1 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102680585 11.093
5 21 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 101481299 11.1
S 12 2005 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101474997 11.101
2 5 2010 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102784609 11.106
8 31 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102126238 11.107
5 30 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102875411 11.107
8 7 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101801985 11.11
7 8 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101514878 11.111
7 30 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101245979 11.114
7 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101511736 11.115
5 6 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101728520 11.115
4 9 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 4 2 102838444 11.115
7 13 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101517922 11.116
9 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101558873 11.117
9 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101564213 11.117
4 23 2005 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101461235 11.118
5 12 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101732431 11.118
8 31 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102665796 11.118
8 31 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102665802 11.119
10 8 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101010662 11.12
11 3 2003 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101033620 11.12
12 9 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101064701 11.12
26%

Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 13 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101186700 11.12
10 22 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101299414 11.12
10 28 2004 HEAD ON 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101320172 11.12
11 2 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101326337 11.12
12 13 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101360791 11.12
1 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101397564 11.12
2 10 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101407085 11.12
2 15 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 101410662 11.12
3 18 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101435712 11.12
3 2 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101686851 11.12
4 8 2006 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101709928 11.12
8 S 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101800873 11.12
11 12 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101884823 11.12
7 18 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102092196 11.12
11 30 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102205078 11.12
12 18 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 102220228 11.12
3 6 2008 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102277261 11.12
6 19 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102349611 11.12
2 17 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102795228 11.12
3 29 2010 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102833652 11.12
11 25 2005 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101617741 11.122
7 25 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101792593 11.122
8 17 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 101810101 11.122
11 3 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102711794 11.123
1 10 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101382958 11.124
1 1 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101647233 11.124
3 26 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101993567 11.127
•:

Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 20 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102196828 11.127
4 16 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102307513 11.13
11 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101344861 11.131
9 16 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101563422 11.131
8 8 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101253964 11.15
8 27 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101550344 11.158
9 29 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102152358 11.165
7 22 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102367227 11.175
1 29 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102778620 11.2
1 17 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101388076 11.22
4 5 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101448158 11.22
6 6 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101492338 11.22
5 7 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101729440 11.22
6 23 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101767842 11.22
8 19 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101811626 11.22
10 13 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 101855358 11.22
1 9 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101934770 11.22
9 28 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102151349 11.22
8 1 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102648399 11.22
1 13 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101092382 11.25
7 4 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 5 1 1 2 101226994 11.25
9 8 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102134134 11.25
2 21 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102268874 11.25
8 14 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102386975 11.25
3 2 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102819602 11.25
8 28 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101818626 11.27
12 12 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 102215142 11.312
269

Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 2 2004 PEDESTRIAN 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101202111 11.318
4 24 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101171212 11.32
8 21 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 102391271 11.338
1 24 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102790020 11.341
S 12 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102862796 11.341
6 27 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101507037 11.346
1 10 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101383518 11.347
8 23 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102391873 11.348
4 17 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101165751 11.35
7 1 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101224658 11.35
9 18 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101286988 11.35
10 4 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101300452 11.35
1 12 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101384719 11.35
2 21 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101416365 11.35
8 31 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101552738 11.35
9 29 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101572190 11.35
9 30 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101572795 11.35
10 6 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 4 2 1 2 101577188 11.35
2 7 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101672690 11.35
2 24 2006 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101682925 11.35
6 8 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101754002 11.35
6 28 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101770888 11.35
8 3 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101799198 11.35
3 22 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101990367 11.35
8 26 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102122569 11.35
5 18 2008 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101478846 11.35
7 18 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102371164 11.35
2%�

Table 10.28. continued (US-421 and Halyburton Memorial Parkway/Veterans Drive Crash Data)
Month I Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 4 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102381111 11.35
8 23 2009 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102661085 11.35
12 9 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102759101 11.35
2 9 2010 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102787019 11.35
3 1 2010 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102805502 11.35
4 26 2010 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 102855557 11.35
6 23 2010 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102896591 11.35
4 11 2005 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101453046 11.352
9 27 2008 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102413715 11.353
11 3 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101599560 11.354
12 6 2004 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101354556 11.355
1 28 2008 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102250611 11.355
8 12 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101539304 11.365
10 29 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102177346 11.37
271

Table 10.29. US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 18 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 100970714 21.57
5 27 2003 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100906634 21.64
8 10 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101804531 21.64
6 16 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102066802 21.73
10 16 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101309974 21.74
1 24 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101393912 21.74
8 1 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101534208 21.74
12 6 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102209689 21.74
2 29 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102272513 21.74
3 4 2005 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101424650 21.77
10 4 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101846996 21.77
10 6 2006 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101848012 21.77
7 26 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100952416 21.84
2 21 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101123247 21.84
4 29 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 101174887 21.84
11 18 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 101611959 21.84
2 13 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101633643 21.84
6 25 2009 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 102625660 21.84
8 15 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101259071 21.845
7 16 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101519674 21.881
7 8 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102635695 21.892
4 9 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101451353 21.897
10 22 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101314195 21.904
2 7 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101404553 21.921
10 21 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102442367 21.921
10 12 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101854679 21.931
9 25 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102148399 21.931
7 28 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102647678 21.931
12 31 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101375628 21.932
1 12 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101933245 21.933
4 16 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102012603 21.934
272

Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 6 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102588506 21.934
6 18 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100923831 21.937
9 26 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101840336 21.937
10 29 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101282498 21.938
7 4 2003 Angle 0 0 3 1 1 5 1 100936368 21.94
8 3 2003 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100958662 21.94
8 3 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100958656 21.94
10 7 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 101009441 21.94
11 8 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101037718 21.94
11 28 2003 Angle 0 0 2 0 2 5 5 101054926 21.94
1 22 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101098253 21.94
4 14 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101163264 21.94
4 28 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101174245 21.94
S 6 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101181704 21.94
8 15 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101259068 21.94
10 2 2004 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 1 5 1 5 1 101298615 21.94
10 19 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101312146 21.94
10 22 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101314212 21.94
10 28 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101319825 21.94
11 5 2004 Angle 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 101327341 21.94
2 8 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 101405421 21.94
5 6 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101470185 21.94
5 7 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101471136 21.94
5 16 2005 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 101477310 21.94
6 24 2005 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 4 1 101504828 21.94
7 1 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101509810 21.94
11 15 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101609170 21.94
12 14 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101570703 21.94
3 30 2006 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 101704298 21.94
5 27 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101739887 21.94
7 4 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101775222 21.94
8 4 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 4 1 5 1 101799888 21.94
273

Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 26 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101816694 21.94
9 6 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101825637 21.94
9 16 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101833220 21.94
2 9 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101956022 21.94
2 21 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101964909 21.94
7 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102091280 21.94
9 30 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102087035 21.94
10 24 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102171359 21.94
12 2 2007 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102206447 21.94
1 18 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102243005 21.94
12 6 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 102483915 21.94
3 21 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102558621 21.94
7 15 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102634798 21.94
8 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101537624 21.942
10 17 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101585849 21.944
2 17 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101678210 21.944
4 30 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101175782 21.948
3 23 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102289102 21.948
1 5 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101379324 21.949
2 12 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102260439 21.949
4 14 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 102571501 21.949
3 31 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102294049 21.951
7 4 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101512022 21.954
7 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101515724 21.959
10 5 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101575680 21.959
12 27 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101923961 21.959
10 14 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101015313 21.963
3 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102558439 21.973
10 2 2003 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 101007817 21.978
3 7 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101427254 22.04
4 2 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101446384 22.04
7 30 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 101529687 22.04
274

Table 10.29. continued US-17 and NC-211/Green Swamp Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 23 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102046824 22.04
1 23 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 102246609 22.04
11 27 2004 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101346891 22.07
1 2 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101647583 22.07
11 7 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101036993 22.14
4 6 2005 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101449016 22.14
1 29 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102525543 22.14
6 3 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102612228 22.14
7 28 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 102100381 22.17
7 2 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102633474 22.196
9 10 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101280088 22.22
2 9 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 101673327 22.22
2 9 2009 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102532726 22.226
3 15 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101141145 22.229
2 27 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102271195 22.232
9 22 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101290195 22.24
2 8 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 101405415 22.24
8 13 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 100966834 22.27
7 9 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101515227 22.27
8 6 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 101801230 22.27
275

Table 10.30. US-17 and SR-1357/Smith Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 11 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101208663 14.595
11 18 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101722875 14.6
6 19 2007 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102071081 14.6
10 10 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 0 4 0 1 1 2 102234041 14.6
6 26 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101769248 14.619
6 4 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 5 5 101744708 14.66
5 8 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100891244 14.687
9 2 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101272927 14.7
1 20 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101378433 14.7
11 4 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101600571 14.7
11 25 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101896391 14.754
1 11 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 102492525 14.755
8 19 2003 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100971672 14.756
7 22 2003 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 100949358 14.76
11 14 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101042813 14.76
12 17 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101072419 14.76
5 3 2004 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101263188 14.76
6 30 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101223561 14.76
8 22 2004 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101263207 14.76
10 25 2004 Angle 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 101317484 14.76
3 15 2005 Head On 0 1 0 1 1 5 1 101433499 14.76
4 21 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101459512 14.76
6 28 2005 Angle 0 0 2 1 2 1 3 101507939 14.76
8 8 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101535464 14.76
12 9 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101629098 14.76
12 30 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 101645616 14.76
4 3 2006 Ran Off Road - Right 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 101722901 14.76
5 11 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101731127 14.76
5 12 2006 Angle 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 101732199 14.76
6 3 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101744516 14.76
6 24 2006 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101813610 14.76
276

Table 10.30. continued US-17 and SR-1357/Smith Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 4 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101799889 14.76
8 17 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101809867 14.76
3 5 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101976653 14.76
10 9 2007 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102159782 14.76
1 27 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102249519 14.76
2 8 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102258595 14.76
2 27 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102531232 14.76
10 25 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102443523 14.96
12 19 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101915911 15.06
10 20 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101020493 15.1
277

Table 10.31. US-17 and SR-1318/Mintz Cemetery Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 28 2003 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101027388 8.71
10 11 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101853073 8.71
12 12 2007 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102214563 8.71
6 4 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102604445 8.71
6 12 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102611439 8.71
8 5 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100960259 8.81
8 23 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 101814544 8.81
1 7 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101931660 8.81
4 5 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102567601 8.81
7 28 2003 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 100953630 8.91
7 28 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101527245 8.91
Table 10.32. US-17 and SR-1131/Cumbee Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 9 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101304583 18.73
10 24 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101590485 18.73
10 6 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101008549 18.83
6 24 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101218685 18.83
3 22 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101438101 18.83
4 6 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101449033 18.83
12 21 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102222750 18.83
2 10 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101956937 18.93
278

Table 10.33. US-17 and SR-1136/Red Bug Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 19 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101659275 16.61
7 4 2007 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102081129 16.611
9 6 2004 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 101276315 16.625
11 21 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101341657 16.626
1 20 2005 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101390344 16.626
4 4 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102297192 16.628
10 9 2003 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 1 2 1 5 1 101011500 16.63
7 30 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101246065 16.63
11 2 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101324251 16.63
1 18 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101388423 16.63
4 22 2005 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101460320 16.63
12 8 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101628244 16.63
6 9 2006 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101754991 16.63
7 S 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101778146 16.63
10 6 2006 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101848018 16.63
10 10 2006 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101852221 16.63
10 4 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102155613 16.63
11 16 2007 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102193288 16.63
12 3 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102207600 16.63
12 14 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102216489 16.63
3 3 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102274513 16.63
3 13 2008 SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102282264 16.63
3 2 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102533062 16.63
7 20 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101788335 16.73
3 20 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102558102 16.73
3 20 2009 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102558105 16.73
7 21 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102094317 16.76
9 28 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101500828 16.86
4 19 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102308561 16.86
2%9

Table 10.34. US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 20 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 101698913 14.38
7 21 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 97136752 14.39
1 20 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 102501823 14.41
9 21 1995 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 95178083 14.42
12 21 1993 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 93211819 14.424
4 14 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 96071177 14.44
12 12 1997 Ran Off Road - Left 0 1 0 0 1 5 2 97243311 14.445
3 3 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101132370 14.446
1 31 2000 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100021704 14.45
3 31 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101153108 14.458
5 29 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 100908391 14.49
2 21 2000 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100035343 14.501
11 21 1991 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 91167853 14.52
4 14 2005 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101455180 14.52
4 4 2006 Fixed Object 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 101706972 14.52
4 10 1993 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93053818 14.53
10 8 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102414688 14.56
8 25 2004 Other Non-Collision 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101266775 14.59
5 16 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102591231 14.62
8 25 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100425552 14.64
1 22 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 94013626 14.67
9 24 1996 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 96182041 14.67
5 25 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100363618 14.67
4 6 1997 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 97064067 14.69
8 25 2007 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 102122226 14.71
2 6 2003 Head On 0 0 0 1 5 5 2 100824033 14.72
1 16 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 100010018 14.81
7 18 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 102029076 14.81
11 3 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101325748 14.82
2 15 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 96034400 14.89
7 1 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102352415 14.89
:1

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 15 1991 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 91147655 14.94
10 11 1994 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 94178024 14.94
11 6 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 96215055 14.94
12 20 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101638849 14.94
9 12 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100990068 14.983
2 27 1998 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98038522 14.997
1 13 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101655896 15
10 29 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101028515 15.002
5 27 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101197367 15.002
3 14 1994 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 94043848 15.01
6 27 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101506952 15.012
9 7 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100704056 15.016
3 7 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101427597 15.019
7 7 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102363078 15.019
S 4 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101727357 15.02
6 23 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100383267 15.026
11 4 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101535861 15.035
6 24 1998 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 98118851 15.038
6 20 1991 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 91084781 15.04
9 20 1991 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 91133495 15.04
11 25 1991 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 91170290 15.04
3 6 1992 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 92031927 15.04
5 19 1992 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 92071059 15.04
8 10 1992 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 92115480 15.04
12 23 1992 Angle 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 92198050 15.04
1 28 1993 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93013938 15.04
4 28 1993 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93064183 15.04
5 7 1993 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 93069849 15.04
7 14 1993 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 93107721 15.04
7 27 1993 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93115436 15.04
11 16 1993 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 93186651 15.04
4 4 1994 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 94056803 15.04
281

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 16 1994 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 94064381 15.04
9 11 1994 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 94158063 15.04
9 30 1994 Angle 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 94170607 15.04
11 24 1994 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 94211595 15.04
12 12 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 94224266 15.04
8 14 1995 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 95151597 15.04
11 23 1995 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 95229162 15.04
3 25 1996 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 96058256 15.04
10 7 1996 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 96161579 15.04
12 22 1996 Not Available 0 2 0 1 96253310 15.04
1 16 1997 Head On 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 97010260 15.04
4 6 1997 Angle 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 97064065 15.04
4 18 1997 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 97072295 15.04
6 8 1997 Angle 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 97108580 15.04
7 3 1997 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 97125497 15.04
9 20 1997 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 97177565 15.04
12 23 1997 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 97251770 15.04
1 30 1998 Angle 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 98020126 15.04
3 27 1998 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 98057336 15.04
6 26 1998 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 98120311 15.04
10 14 1998 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 98196396 15.04
11 23 1998 Angle 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 98228354 15.04
11 21 2001 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100494125 15.04
7 3 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100657105 15.04
1 9 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100802477 15.04
5 21 2003 Other Collision With Vehicle 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 100901627 15.04
7 30 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100955614 15.04
9 8 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100987238 15.04
10 16 2003 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101017624 15.04
2 26 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 101127311 15.04
4 15 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101164259 15.04
8 2 2004 Head On 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 101248381 15.04
282

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 13 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101360718 15.04
3 10 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101429676 15.04
4 21 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101459662 15.04
5 19 2006 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101735962 15.04
12 10 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 101909215 15.04
12 18 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101915392 15.04
12 28 2006 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101922829 15.04
2 20 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101964603 15.04
2 24 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 102269781 15.04
5 19 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102328318 15.04
6 27 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102351537 15.04
8 29 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102405733 15.04
12 8 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102486228 15.04
4 30 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102587420 15.04
S 11 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 5 2 102591420 15.04
S 28 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102599949 15.04
4 22 1992 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 92056217 15.042
9 18 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 97155244 15.046
1 23 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 100543635 15.07
5 23 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101194251 15.08
7 30 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102101652 15.097
4 22 1992 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 92056216 15.14
2 8 1993 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 93019683 15.14
7 31 2003 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 100956309 15.14
2 18 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 101965580 15.14
7 14 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102642063 15.14
7 26 2007 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102098399 15.145
3 20 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101988947 15.159
10 23 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 102170591 15.16
2 6 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102256855 15.18
6 21 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 102347086 15.185
7 21 1991 Ran Off Road - Right 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 91100908 15.189
283

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 27 1994 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 1 2 0 1 5 1 94148109 15.19
10 12 2000 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100203569 15.19
4 30 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100610967 15.2
11 14 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101336143 15.21
S 11 2008 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102323679 15.21
S 9 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 100892642 15.217
4 17 1993 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 93058135 15.22
8 7 1998 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98148089 15.22
12 9 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101064655 15.22
7 30 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 101246360 15.22
7 6 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101779042 15.22
1 29 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102525632 15.22
12 22 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101640485 15.231
1 4 1998 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 98001775 15.25
1 16 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 98010174 15.26
11 19 1994 Pedestrian 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 94107780 15.264
11 6 1993 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 93180205 15.29
11 11 2002 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100755901 15.29
10 15 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 94181788 15.31
2 28 1994 Angle 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 94035272 15.32
12 7 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100247666 15.32
11 12 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 101042288 15.32
12 2 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101902218 15.33
8 9 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 98149688 15.34
11 18 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 101046267 15.38
10 26 1991 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 91153780 15.4
8 16 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 94140836 15.4
7 28 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100148052 15.4
5 8 2002 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100616722 15.4
8 20 2000 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 100164497 15.42
12 12 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101067381 15.42
3 22 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101146693 15.42

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 12 2007 Fixed Object 2 0 0 0 1 5 2 102136370 15.44
11 9 2007 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102187304 15.45
6 1 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 2 2 5 3 100368516 15.47
12 25 2004 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101371588 15.47
12 16 1995 Animal 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 95247124 15.5
9 2 1993 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 93137000 15.54
7 30 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101246341 15.54
7 18 1994 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 94124380 15.57
3 7 2001 Overturn/Rollover 0 1 0 1 1 5 1 100308898 15.66
12 8 1997 Angle 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 97239814 15.732
2 27 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102535455 15.761
1 8 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100801933 15.766
12 17 1991 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 91182352 15.77
6 17 1998 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 98114070 15.77
S 31 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 100367545 15.77
3 9 2003 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100846645 15.77
9 6 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101556585 15.77
6 13 2001 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100373273 15.82
4 8 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100868300 15.87
7 18 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101237398 15.87
9 15 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101562249 15.87
11 17 2005 Fixed Object 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 101610860 15.87
9 15 2007 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102140725 15.88
8 25 2008 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 102393973 15.89
11 3 1992 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 92165827 15.9
5 4 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 98083958 15.95
1 19 1994 Ran Off Road - Right 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 94011511 15.97
9 12 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 100995449 15.97
8 11 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 102110892 15.97
12 25 2002 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100793205 15.98
8 31 2001 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100429946 16.02
10 24 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97202277 16.05
28S

Table 10.34. continued (US-74/23 and Hidden Valley Road/SR-1788 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 29 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102025510 16.05
10 2 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101574051 16.07
11 25 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102456707 16.07
3 14 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102553188 16.07
7 8 2009 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102638230 16.07
:•

Table 10.35. US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 14 2000 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100229925 16.14
3 30 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101152377 16.17
1 6 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 101380060 16.17
7 5 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 101512675 16.17
6 10 1998 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 98109571 16.19
12 29 1997 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 0 0 1 5 5 4 97256359 16.2
S 6 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 96085901 16.24
6 27 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100652005 16.25
12 4 2004 Head On 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 101352856 16.25
9 14 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 98175127 16.26
12 12 1996 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 96244682 16.28
4 14 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 96071178 16.3
S 2 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 97082705 16.3
8 27 1997 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97161721 16.3
8 21 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 100973349 16.3
6 1 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102336493 16.359
2 17 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 100297196 16.37
1 16 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 1 5 1 2 100822655 16.37
9 18 1996 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 96177742 16.39
6 19 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 98115236 16.4
9 8 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 98170732 16.4
5 8 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102033619 16.4
7 20 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 102637795 16.4
7 28 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 97141557 16.41
11 18 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101046256 16.41
9 16 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 101284962 16.44
3 14 2008 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102283008 16.45
6 13 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97111830 16.47
6 13 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97111829 16.47
1 16 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 100807296 16.47
1 17 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 101095080 16.47
287

Table 10.35. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 9 2004 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 101315573 16.47
5 28 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102600833 16.47
10 24 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97202278 16.49
1 10 1997 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 97005804 16.5
3 24 1997 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 97055394 16.5
2 17 1998 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 98032011 16.5
3 20 1998 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 98052961 16.5
S 27 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 98099340 16.5
12 29 2001 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100524950 16.5
6 14 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 100921275 16.5
11 18 2003 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101046242 16.5
5 8 2004 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101183132 16.5
8 12 2004 Fixed Object 1 5 2 0 2 1 3 101256203 16.5
6 12 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101496501 16.5
1 11 2006 si 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101653839 16.5
8 31 2006 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101820649 16.5
7 13 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102349318 16.5
6 11 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 101757984 16.51
12 28 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102227677 16.51
12 28 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 98255889 16.52
12 12 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101910601 16.52
7 10 1995 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 95128136 16.53
10 15 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 2 3 5 3 100733200 16.6
11 15 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101887309 16.6
4 18 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101166823 16.672
2 26 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 100566477 16.689
8 17 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100688205 16.691
4 2 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100327444 16.7
8 3 2001 Angle 0 0 0 5 1 3 2 100410508 16.7
10 22 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100738530 16.7
5 14 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 101476304 16.7
12 22 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101918603 16.7

Table 10.35. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 11 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 102007809 16.7
3 4 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102275644 16.7
8 26 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 102393963 16.7
6 25 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101220202 16.709
9 13 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 98174504 16.78
8 18 1996 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 96155226 16.8
3 30 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100325399 16.8
1 29 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 101397956 16.8
5 20 2005 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101480623 16.8
5 26 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101484268 16.8
3 20 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101988959 16.8
9 2 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102127525 16.8
11 9 2000 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100225647 16.81
S 8 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100616730 16.81
12 9 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 97240758 16.82
4 29 1997 Ran Off Road - Right 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 97080515 16.85
4 29 1997 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 97080514 16.87
11 23 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101051034 16.87
5 15 1996 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 1 0 2 5 3 96091820 16.9
12 23 1998 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 98252429 16.9
8 17 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102115507 16.9
4 13 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101162575 16.961
12 12 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101631464 16.97
1 19 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 102518607 16.97
4 1 2009 Head On 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102561362 16.97
11 21 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101049373 16.979
10 26 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101592465 16.989
11 24 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101051984 17.22
1 3 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101648357 17.22
11 21 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101615004 17.22
9 10 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102135069 17.257
11 4 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102182988 17.311
:•

Table 10.35. continued (US-74/23 and Mineral Springs Road/SR-1456 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 9 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102513620 17.311
7 4 1997 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 97126189 17.32
9 24 1997 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 97180178 17.32
4 4 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102568906 17.32
6 12 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100919712 17.42
10 18 2003 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101019491 17.42
1 2 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 5 5 4 102506859 17.54
7 11 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100661594 17.6
4 24 2009 Other Non-Collision 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102582673 17.635
7 9 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100660230 17.72
10 25 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100740637 17.73
10 24 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101865266 17.73
2 26 2007 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101972551 17.73
11 22 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102526955 17.73
12 31 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 100796807 17.77
8 13 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101539816 17.81
290

Table 10.36. US-23/441 and Mockingbird Lane/Macktown Gap Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 31 2002 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100746401 9.3
6 24 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100928702 9.35
7 6 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100937643 9.35
8 29 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100979503 9.4
10 6 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101848110 9.4
3 3 2007 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101975149 9.4
9 26 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100718268 9.5
10 24 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100740227 9.5
10 10 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101012816 9.5
2 15 2004 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101119004 9.5
6 21 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101216727 9.5
2 12 2005 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101408639 9.5
6 14 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102065586 9.5
4 11 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101161067 9.613
5 9 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100892480 9.614
9 14 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100709262 9.615
5 9 2006 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101720438 9.616
3 7 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101690343 9.618
9 5 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100702549 9.62
10 7 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100726472 9.62
12 30 2002 Angle 0 1 1 0 1 4 1 100796128 9.62
7 14 2003 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 100943641 9.62
8 8 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100962972 9.62
9 9 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 100987873 9.62
11 17 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 101045342 9.62
5 8 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101183133 9.62
5 9 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101183732 9.62
5 11 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101185319 9.62
9 8 2004 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101278716 9.62
1 13 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 101384999 9.62
3 23 2005 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101440229 9.62
291

Table 10.36. continued (US-23/441 and Mockingbird Lane/Macktown Gap Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
5 13 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101475390 9.62
6 26 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101506187 9.62
7 19 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 0 1 4 2 101522083 9.62
7 30 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101529145 9.62
9 10 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101559367 9.62
11 10 2005 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 101605645 9.62
11 23 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101616958 9.62
7 28 2006 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101795455 9.62
7 29 2006 Backing Up 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101795805 9.62
10 21 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 101862572 9.62
11 15 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 101867233 9.62
4 14 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102578040 9.62
7 16 2009 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102642069 9.62
9 14 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100709255 9.623
12 22 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101640493 9.626
10 20 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 100737324 9.627
12 23 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 101077701 9.628
3 27 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101694721 9.634
8 2 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101798458 9.639
9 17 2002 Jackknife 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100711885 9.644
7 9 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 101230710 9.667
5 28 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101198121 9.677
4 4 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 100865038 9.72
9 9 2003 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100987872 9.72
6 8 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101206839 9.72
1 4 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102498299 9.72
292

Table 10.37. US-23/74 and SR-1156/Timberlake Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 10 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 100940638 23.002
1 15 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 101386904 23.01
2 9 2005 Angle 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 101406420 23.01
10 7 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 101578790 23.01
11 12 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101607095 23.01
5 21 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 101737148 23.01
6 11 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102063610 23.01
10 28 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 100743564 23.12
5 21 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102044156 23.12
12 2 2002 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100772891 23.15
11 29 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 101056039 23.21
4 2 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 5 1 2 101446552 23.21
11 11 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101332326 23.25
8 19 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101544104 23.25
12 18 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 101073654 23.348
11 24 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 100767343 23.41
2 7 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 3 0 5 1 2 100826329 23.41
4 2 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 101446560 23.41
7 21 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101522993 23.41
4 29 2006 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101724058 23.41
6 18 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102068469 23.42
12 4 2003 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 101059898 23.45
9 25 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101840145 23.45
5 23 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101997361 23.45
11 29 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 101056034 23.51
11 29 2003 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 1 1 0 5 1 2 101056048 23.51
1 15 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101386897 23.52
1 18 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101388603 23.61
1 17 2009 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 4 5 6 102497697 23.62
3 1 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 102546617 23.65
10 15 2002 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100733168 23.72
293

Table 10.38. US-74/441 and Bradley Branch Road/SR-1404 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 20 2003 Overturn/Rollover 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 100996313 5.03
5 9 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100892486 5.13
5 19 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101190919 5.13
7 17 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101786761 5.13
1 23 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 100813083 5.21
1 23 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100813081 5.23
1 23 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100813085 5.23
4 29 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100884240 5.23
9 20 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100996319 5.23
4 11 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101161074 5.23
4 3 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101706453 5.23
10 1 2006 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101844946 5.23
10 8 2005 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101579929 5.273
7 15 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 101519398 5.3
S 22 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 101481711 5.33
294

Table 10.39. US-74/441 and Wilmont Cemetery Road/SR-1534 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 27 2002 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 100742652 3.86
4 16 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 100874775 3.901
6 3 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101202707 3.902
5 15 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100897127 3.94
7 5 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 100937172 3.94
7 27 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 100953821 3.94
9 21 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100996949 3.94
1 3 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101380488 3.94
1 19 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101389555 3.94
4 9 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101451706 3.94
4 23 2005 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101461197 3.94
4 28 2005 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101464671 3.94
6 22 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101503616 3.94
3 9 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101691479 3.94
7 27 2006 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101793786 3.94
3 5 2007 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101977072 3.94
1 2 2009 Angle 0 0 0 2 4 1 3 102506900 3.94
6 4 2009 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102617822 3.94
5 20 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101736750 3.949
10 27 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101868544 3.978
6 25 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102073578 4.016
8 22 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 100974237 4.04
8 22 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100974238 4.19
9 23 2002 Overturn/Rollover 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 100715888 4.24
4 6 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100866675 4.24
4 17 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102578035 4.33
295

Table 10.40. US-23/74 and Blanton Branch Road/SR-1709 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 18 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101166823 16.672
5 14 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 101476304 16.7
12 22 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101918603 16.7
4 11 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 102007809 16.7
6 25 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101220202 16.709
1 29 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 101397956 16.8
S 20 2005 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101480623 16.8
S 26 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101484268 16.8
3 20 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101988959 16.8
11 23 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101051034 16.87
4 13 2004 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101162575 16.961
12 12 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101631464 16.97
1 19 2009 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 102518607 16.97
4 1 2009 Head On 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102561362 16.97
11 21 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101049373 16.979
10 26 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101592465 16.989
296

Table 10.41. US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type F A B C R L W Crash ID MP
10 31 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101873260 5.66
2 12 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 100828505 5.681
9 29 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101844002 5.685
6 24 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102632744 5.686
6 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101494422 5.695
8 9 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101536903 5.695
6 25 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101768876 5.695
8 31 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102126644 5.696
2 19 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100834603 5.7
4 19 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100877390 5.7
5 1 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101177134 5.7
6 16 2004 PEDALCYCLIST 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101212945 5.7
7 11 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101232431 5.7
8 15 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 101259486 5.7
9 3 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101274239 5.7
6 3 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101490511 5.7
8 30 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101552219 5.7
2 11 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 101675399 5.7
5 26 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101739805 5.7
8 23 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101799763 5.7
10 24 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101865555 5.7
11 17 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101890398 5.7
3 7 2007 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101978403 5.7
5 8 2007 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 102033758 5.7
9 16 2007 ANGLE 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 102141522 5.7
9 19 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102075402 5.7
10 1 2007 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102153626 5.7
10 13 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 102163386 5.7
8 7 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 102365398 5.7
8 14 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102393939 5.7
8 21 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102391346 5.7
29%

Table 10.41. continued (US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 9 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 101089702 5.705
7 1 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101773978 5.708
3 28 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101994976 5.709
10 23 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102427265 5.715
8 30 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102125211 5.724
7 23 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102353917 5.8
8 12 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101257078 5.83
4 24 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 3 1 3 101723207 5.83
10 26 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101592584 5.921
8 28 2004 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101269510 5.93
9 10 2004 RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101280521 5.93
11 27 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 2 5 2 101324210 5.93
11 28 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101348085 5.93
11 29 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101348871 5.93
4 13 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101454527 5.93
S 17 2005 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101478431 5.93
6 2 2005 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 101489868 5.93
6 17 2005 ANGLE 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 101500550 5.93
10 1 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101573779 5.93
11 23 2005 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101617100 5.93
6 15 2006 ANGLE 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 101763436 5.93
8 30 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 101819844 5.93
10 27 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 101868809 5.93
12 21 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101918001 5.93
12 28 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101923690 5.93
7 13 2007 PEDESTRIAN 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102088045 5.93
8 1 2007 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 102103171 5.93
10 1 2007 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102153618 5.93
7 2 2008 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102359302 5.93
11 6 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102481354 5.93
12 16 2008 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102473429 5.93
1 17 2009 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 102518094 5.93
•�

Table 10.41. continued (US-74 and Murdock Street/Church Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 7 2003 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101009422 5.968
5 6 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101181460 6.03
8 3 2005 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101458835 6.03
3 16 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102558716 6.03
Table 10.42. US-401 and Orlando Street Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 21 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 101566602 9.18
2 2 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 6 1 100820886 9.338
11 6 2004 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101329003 9.34
3 8 2006 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101690964 9.34
5 10 2006 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101730894 9.34
12 23 2003 ANGLE 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 101077873 9.363
299

Table 10.43. NC-214 and Spearman Road/SR-1806 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 7 2004 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101324200 16.97
6 9 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 102608171 17.132
8 9 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100682001 17.14
6 17 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 102348995 17.14
4 1 2009 Angle 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 102561147 17.14
2 4 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101109841 17.21
Table 10.44. NC-214 and 9t� Street Crash Data
Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
Month F A B C R L W
11 5 2001 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 100480732 14.97
5 31 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 102601758 14.97
3 31 2003 Pedestrian 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 100861884 15.31
8 17 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102115367 15.32
3 11 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101692783 15.37
9 13 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 102392303 15.37
2 11 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102533835 15.37
12 9 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102485418 15.413
300

Table 10.45. NC-24 and Blizzardtown Road/SR-1702 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 29 2002 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 100770909 22.18
4 29 2003 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 100884053 22.18
1 16 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101094141 22.18
9 19 2004 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101287405 22.18
1 14 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 101656445 22.18
6 28 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101770789 22.18
4 11 2009 ANGLE 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 102565481 22.18
12 8 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101355895 22.28
11 10 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101605457 22.28
11 10 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101882706 22.38
12 23 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101077553 22.48
301

Table 10.46. NC-24 and Koonce Fork Road/SR-1238 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 29 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101486658 3.19
4 30 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102026333 3.19
2 4 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 101670541 3.284
10 22 2003 Parked Motor Vehicl 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 101034400 3.29
11 4 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101034532 3.3
8 14 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 101258745 3.3
6 28 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101770912 3.39
6 19 2002 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100646437 3.44
9 17 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100993422 3.46
7 19 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100667311 3.54
11 17 2002 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100761749 3.64
2 15 2003 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100830783 3.64
S 15 2003 Angle 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 100897291 3.64
12 2 2003 Angle 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 101058349 3.64
11 25 2004 Angle 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 101345868 3.64
7 19 2006 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101787990 3.64
11 26 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101897637 3.64
3 6 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102549926 3.7
7 11 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 100661690 3.8
9 16 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100711378 3.8
10 12 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100731120 3.8
12 1 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100772395 3.8
5 21 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 100901791 3.8
8 1 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100956857 3.8
8 22 2003 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100974423 3.8
6 29 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101223273 3.8
7 8 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101229952 3.8
11 14 2004 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101336174 3.8
11 24 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101301084 3.8
6 18 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101501809 3.8
12 25 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 101643224 3.8
302

Table 10.46. continued (NC-24 and Koonce Fork Road/SR-1238 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 15 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 101914212 3.8
4 11 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 102301741 3.8
7 19 2008 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 102371609 3.8
10 15 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102442270 3.8
11 22 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102468277 3.8
2 17 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102538339 3.8
S 14 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102591497 3.8
6 12 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102611458 3.8
3 30 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 100861467 3.819
7 18 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 102371177 3.851
8 1 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102378614 3.859
7 3 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 100656667 3.9
6 30 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101509376 3.9
3 21 2008 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102287440 3.9
3 25 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 102290651 3.9
9 30 2008 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102406822 4
7 8 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 102630594 4
303

Table 10.47. US-1 and ValleyviewRoad/SR-1857 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 14 2002 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100758888 14.11
7 28 2004 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101244584 14.11
11 4 2006 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101877091 14.11
12 7 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102210815 14.11
6 9 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102342706 14.11
1 25 2009 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102501758 14.11
2 19 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102541160 14.11
7 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 102636026 14.11
11 23 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 6 1 1 5 1 101051757 14.21
4 14 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 101163610 14.21
1 10 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102237339 14.21
11 30 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102456100 14.21
10 3 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102154980 14.22
12 14 2000 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 100243037 14.223
5 26 2009 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 102607408 14.23
12 16 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101071800 14.31
12 30 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101375239 14.31
3 25 2005 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101440874 14.31
5 29 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102303818 14.31
11 1 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102432977 14.31
11 18 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 100491925 14.4
11 3 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 102451748 14.4
7 3 2001 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100390386 14.41
11 5 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101035369 14.41
2 14 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 101410002 14.41
10 30 2006 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101871865 14.41
11 18 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102195924 14.41
6 11 2003 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 100919539 14.428
4 7 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102005250 14.43
11 14 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101886474 14.51
12 10 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 102468002 14.51
304

Table 10.47. continued (US-1 and ValleyviewRoad/SR-1857 Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 13 2000 Ran Off Road - Right 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 100181554 14.65
10 6 2001 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 100456776 14.71
2 25 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 100838281 14.71
Table 10.48. US-1 and Causey Road/Grant Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 11 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100871357 16.97
5 15 2003 Animal 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100897259 16.97
12 11 2007 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102213931 16.97
11 26 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102455080 16.97
12 26 2008 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102501346 16.97
6 20 2003 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100925981 17.01
4 1 2005 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101445637 17.086
8 11 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101255921 17.098
11 13 2006 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101885500 17.108
4 18 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102014495 17.11
8 19 2007 Overturn/Rollover 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 102116947 17.11
11 13 2002 Animal 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 100758097 17.13
305

Table 10.49. NC-87 and SR-1145/Martin Luther King Drive Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 3 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101875833 25.824
4 19 2001 Angle 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 100338641 25.83
4 26 2001 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100343278 25.83
9 30 2001 Angle 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 100451966 25.83
4 S 2002 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 100593032 25.83
7 27 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100672966 25.83
4 2 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100863188 25.83
5 4 2003 Angle 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 100888243 25.83
11 3 2003 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101032898 25.83
4 9 2004 Angle 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 101159364 25.83
5 4 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101179278 25.83
6 26 2004 Angle 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 101220732 25.83
8 4 2004 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101250791 25.83
1 20 2005 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101390333 25.83
3 8 2005 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101428085 25.83
3 11 2005 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101430062 25.83
3 14 2005 Animal 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101431945 25.83
4 8 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101450268 25.83
7 11 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101517542 25.83
9 27 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101570844 25.83
10 12 2005 Angle 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 101582440 25.83
11 27 2006 Angle 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 101908654 25.83
12 1 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101902967 25.83
12 1 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101903086 25.83
4 4 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101968422 25.83
4 27 2007 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102024119 25.83
5 14 2007 Angle 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 102038401 25.83
6 20 2007 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 102069717 25.83
7 3 2007 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102089105 25.83
7 16 2007 Angle 0 0 1 7 1 1 1 102090465 25.83
9 3 2007 Angle 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 102131736 25.83
306

Table 10.49. continued (NC-87 and SR-1145/Martin Luther King Drive Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
12 8 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 102211740 25.83
2 25 2008 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102269840 25.83
10 5 2008 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102423021 25.83
1 27 2009 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 102504007 25.83
2 20 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102540358 25.83
4 9 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102564786 25.83
6 18 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102615732 25.83
6 1 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101200925 25.865
Table 10.50. NC-87 and SR-1155/Cromartie Road Crash Data
Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
Month F A B C R L W
10 10 2002 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100728262 27.88
1 10 2005 Angle 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 101382906 27.88
11 3 2006 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101875834 27.88
4 21 2007 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 102017651 27.88
2 21 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 102267145 27.88
2 26 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102270548 27.88
10 3 2008 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102419579 27.88
12 28 2008 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 102503607 27.88
9 28 2007 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102150655 28.08
8 26 2008 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102393273 28.08
307

Table 10.51. NC-210 and 5th Street Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 19 2005 Angle 0 0 1 1 1 5 1 101346348 37.815
8 28 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101130199 37.817
12 3 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102146340 37.819
1 23 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100543990 37.83
8 24 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100692903 37.832
10 24 2008 Right Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 102430630 37.84
11 12 2008 Angle 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 102442529 37.845
10 24 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 102172120 37.86
6 26 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 101220558 37.87
12 9 2006 Pedestrian 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101862901 37.882
3 21 2002 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100582397 37.892
1 28 2004 Overturn/Rollover 0 0 0 0 4 4 9 101104764 37.901
12 5 2006 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101859094 37.908
11 12 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 101222089 37.91
S 20 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 4 3 102318362 37.91
6 14 2008 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102339620 37.91
6 5 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102614436 37.91
6 9 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102623314 37.91
2 26 2004 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 101126085 37.926
1 4 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 101259267 37.929
1 23 2003 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100812015 37.938
9 2 2002 Other Non-Collision 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100702217 37.949
1 19 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101982864 37.96
12 27 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 101239482 38.03
12 27 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 4 4 4 101242338 38.03
12 27 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 101242343 38.03
2 17 2006 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101637944 38.03
2 20 2006 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101628752 38.03
12 20 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 4 0 1 4 1 101871091 38.03
8 24 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102047268 38.03
11 27 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102117149 38.03
12 2 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 102122415 38.03
1:

Table 10.51. continued (NC-210 and St" Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 30 2008 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102166910 38.03
3 6 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102210368 38.03
6 21 2008 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102333824 38.03
7 9 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 102343910 38.03
2 14 2009 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102524661 38.03
3 19 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102556506 38.06
7 5 2008 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102340573 38.062
309

Table 10.52. NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
7 17 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 102643891 3.73
11 12 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 101239013 3.739
1 30 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102511464 37.49
3 1 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100841077 37.493
2 11 2005 RIGHTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101282224 37.493
10 9 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100727479 37.502
4 14 2003 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 100872832 37.502
3 22 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101318016 37.502
12 15 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101594939 37.502
2 20 2008 BACKING UP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102189004 37.502
7 8 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102344661 37.502
6 27 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100651709 37.503
1 27 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102510837 37.51
4 5 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100329782 37.512
11 2 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100747796 37.512
10 22 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101556043 37.512
7 6 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102627109 37.513
11 12 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 101238154 37.521
1 26 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101637938 37.521
12 18 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102138831 37.521
12 20 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102139788 37.521
7 23 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100669456 37.522
11 18 2003 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101045649 37.522
5 31 2005 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101386549 37.523
12 22 2001 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100530705 37.526
12 27 2004 OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 4 5 4 101258600 37.526
4 18 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101343588 37.526
1 14 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 3 2 1 4 1 101591180 37.526
3 22 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102222004 37.53
7 28 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102360084 37.53
7 28 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102360083 37.53
6 13 2009 PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102619927 37.53
310

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 23 2002 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100627202 37.531
6 21 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100647403 37.531
8 17 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100687845 37.531
10 24 2002 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100739886 37.531
10 18 2003 ANGLE 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101014486 37.531
5 27 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101249647 37.531
1 11 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101253741 37.531
7 13 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102633001 37.537
11 12 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 101238154 37.541
1 26 2006 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101637938 37.541
12 20 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102139788 37.541
5 31 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101386549 37.543
12 22 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100530705 37.546
12 27 2004 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 0 4 5 4 101258600 37.546
8 17 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 100687841 37.547
3 22 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102222004 37.55
6 21 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100647331 37.551
6 21 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100647403 37.551
8 17 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100687845 37.551
10 24 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100739886 37.551
5 27 2004 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101249647 37.551
1 11 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101253741 37.551
3 27 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101320464 37.551
4 2 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 100863083 37.552
12 18 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101234258 37.555
1 10 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100535166 37.556
2 14 2006 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101626427 37.556
7 4 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102021439 37.556
9 9 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102057391 37.556
9 12 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 101141880 37.557
10 17 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101222094 37.557
8 15 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102039249 37.557
311

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
8 26 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102674515 37.557
10 14 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100732065 37.558
12 26 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 101246608 37.558
1 31 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101270503 37.558
S 29 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101383984 37.558
1 30 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101274441 37.559
6 27 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102007525 37.559
9 26 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102074900 37.559
5 2 2001 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100347573 37.56
5 19 2001 Pedalcyclist 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100359273 37.56
5 28 2001 Angle 1 0 1 3 2 1 2 100365612 37.56
6 20 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100380774 37.56
9 28 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100465015 37.56
10 27 2001 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 100498577 37.56
10 28 2001 Head On 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100499318 37.56
11 3 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 100487040 37.56
11 29 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100510830 37.56
12 4 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 100510866 37.56
12 13 2001 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 2 2 4 5 100512335 37.56
3 3 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 100911260 37.56
3 29 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100599187 37.56
5 23 2002 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100627202 37.56
5 24 2002 Angle 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 101195194 37.56
6 1 2002 Unknown 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100633803 37.56
7 23 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100669456 37.56
8 3 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100677638 37.56
10 24 2002 Backing Up 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100739874 37.56
10 25 2002 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 100740594 37.56
11 4 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 100749247 37.56
12 21 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100789797 37.56
1 13 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100804695 37.56
1 23 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100812007 37.56
312

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
1 23 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100812013 37.56
1 23 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 100812012 37.56
4 4 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100865462 37.56
5 24 2003 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100904649 37.56
8 11 2003 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100965530 37.56
8 16 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 100969278 37.56
8 21 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100972992 37.56
9 7 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 100986285 37.56
9 25 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 100999889 37.56
10 16 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101016827 37.56
10 18 2003 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 101014486 37.56
11 2 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101032116 37.56
11 3 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101032714 37.56
11 14 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101042627 37.56
11 18 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101045649 37.56
11 23 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101050749 37.56
12 4 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101059502 37.56
12 11 2003 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101066269 37.56
12 30 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101081486 37.56
1 3 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101084063 37.56
1 23 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 101098675 37.56
1 28 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 4 4 4 1 101105761 37.56
3 9 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101137149 37.56
3 10 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101138366 37.56
3 11 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101138570 37.56
3 12 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101139323 37.56
4 8 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101159072 37.56
4 15 2004 Other Collision With Vehicle 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101163868 37.56
5 18 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101189835 37.56
5 18 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101189842 37.56
6 20 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101217465 37.56
6 26 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 2 4 2 101220562 37.56
313

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
6 27 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101221588 37.56
7 6 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101228690 37.56
8 2 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101130201 37.56
8 8 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101147992 37.56
10 1 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101213027 37.56
10 3 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101167557 37.56
10 13 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101174567 37.56
10 18 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101195575 37.56
11 14 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101217362 37.56
11 17 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101206509 37.56
12 14 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 101230075 37.56
12 26 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 101261612 37.56
12 26 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 101242333 37.56
12 31 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101242949 37.56
1 3 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101260355 37.56
2 12 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101282226 37.56
2 15 2005 Ran Off Road - Left 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 101291236 37.56
2 15 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101287493 37.56
2 21 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101294221 37.56
2 23 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101295559 37.56
3 11 2005 Head On 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 101307766 37.56
3 14 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101346337 37.56
3 16 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 101314465 37.56
3 20 2005 Head On 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 101327665 37.56
4 4 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 101331259 37.56
4 18 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101343588 37.56
4 22 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101349027 37.56
5 24 2005 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101382466 37.56
6 11 2005 Angle 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 101397495 37.56
6 23 2005 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101428855 37.56
7 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101424979 37.56
7 10 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101421081 37.56
314

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
9 20 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 101481334 37.56
10 8 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101499657 37.56
10 15 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101544273 37.56
11 9 2005 Backing Up 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101532585 37.56
11 11 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 4 1 4 1 101541280 37.56
12 24 2005 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101570572 37.56
1 9 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101594941 37.56
1 13 2006 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101591178 37.56
1 14 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 3 2 1 4 1 101591180 37.56
2 1 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101613990 37.56
2 25 2006 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101640881 37.56
1 18 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 3 2 4 3 101899012 37.56
1 22 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101898977 37.56
3 1 2007 lef 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 101935838 37.56
4 22 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 101986016 37.56
S 26 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101984724 37.56
6 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102007519 37.56
6 17 2007 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 101996320 37.56
8 2 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102030057 37.56
8 6 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102032669 37.56
8 11 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 102040709 37.56
8 20 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102107366 37.56
9 25 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102073685 37.56
11 1 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102099280 37.56
11 13 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102110495 37.56
12 13 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102133150 37.56
12 18 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102138831 37.56
12 29 2007 Angle 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 102141968 37.56
1 7 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 102151904 37.56
2 27 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102196929 37.56
3 28 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102247936 37.56
4 10 2008 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102272462 37.56
315

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
4 14 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102266605 37.56
5 18 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102304841 37.56
7 8 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102355524 37.56
7 25 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102355526 37.56
7 28 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102360084 37.56
7 28 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102360083 37.56
8 7 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102372926 37.56
8 13 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 102369053 37.56
10 3 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102410560 37.56
11 1 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 102464948 37.56
11 7 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102438088 37.56
11 30 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 102460467 37.56
12 6 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 1 0 2 4 3 102473954 37.56
1 16 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102497849 37.56
3 4 2009 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102537878 37.56
3 21 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102553631 37.56
3 27 2009 Angle 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 102556513 37.56
3 28 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102558912 37.56
4 8 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102566801 37.56
7 6 2009 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102636141 37.56
7 14 2009 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102635931 37.56
8 6 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102671954 37.56
8 21 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102674361 37.56
9 1 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102674034 37.56
12 29 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 101242335 37.562
7 26 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 100672804 37.563
8 2 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100676706 37.564
6 3 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100635084 37.565
7 16 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100945473 37.568
9 18 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101147993 37.569
12 9 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101238537 37.569
3 18 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101315466 37.569
316

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 12 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101973073 37.569
7 3 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100389956 37.571
10 10 2003 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101012155 37.574
4 14 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101343585 37.574
1 14 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102497790 37.575
4 26 2002 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100607905 37.578
4 22 2005 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 1 0 2 4 2 101349030 37.598
11 5 2004 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101197405 37.6
12 18 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101234244 37.6
5 31 2005 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101386551 37.6
7 12 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101419742 37.607
9 17 2009 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102674938 37.617
9 20 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102692798 37.617
11 16 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102114696 37.625
4 23 2004 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101170828 37.636
10 17 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102089698 37.653
1 14 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102497791 37.655
9 23 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100999265 37.66
9 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102676142 37.66
9 18 2009 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102684370 37.66
5 28 2004 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101198485 37.682
5 24 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101195204 37.692
10 10 2001 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100485025 37.702
2 18 2002 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100561080 37.702
11 9 2008 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 102443761 37.71
8 7 2001 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100420456 37.711
10 24 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101023635 37.711
1 12 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101258599 37.711
12 22 2004 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 101238541 37.712
4 30 2003 Rear End, Turn 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100884688 37.716
8 13 2004 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 101148002 37.717
8 22 2003 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 100973719 37.72
317

Table 10.52. continued (NC-210 and Weaver Street Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 19 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 101046559 37.72
9 8 2004 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 101233644 37.72
1 27 2005 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101270495 37.72
5 30 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101983757 37.72
7 13 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102036582 37.72
7 13 2007 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102015103 37.72
11 27 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102134775 37.72
2 12 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 102189009 37.72
3 27 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102228597 37.72
5 18 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102294379 37.72
10 24 2008 Angle 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102431005 37.72
12 31 2008 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102482855 37.72
1 10 2002 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100537009 37.722
2 10 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 100826592 37.722
S 30 2003 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 100908758 37.722
2 5 2009 Ran Off Road - Right 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102521224 37.722
3 14 2005 Angle 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 101314454 37.723
2 23 2009 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102527221 37.724
8 29 2009 Angle 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102672669 37.726
3 23 2007 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 101951923 37.727
11 21 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102126418 37.727
7 7 2001 Pedalcyclist 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 100392514 37.729
11 20 2005 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101591177 37.729
2 5 2009 Movable Object 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102521225 37.729
10 19 2004 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101180241 37.731
9 6 2007 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102071912 37.757
11 8 2003 Rear End, Slow or Stop 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 101038206 37.759
11 18 2007 Left Turn, Different Roadways 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102114703 37.76
11 19 2007 Angle 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102113950 37.76
3 22 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 102288715 37.76
10 29 2008 Left Turn, Same Roadway 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102446845 37.764
318

Table 10.53. NC-87 and County Line Road/SR-2257 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
3 23 2008 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102289111 48.73
1 6 2010 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102759913 48.75
2 8 2006 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101633659 48.83
5 29 2008 OTHER NON-COLLISION 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102334230 48.85
2 17 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101120461 0
12 14 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101632986 0
4 15 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 102011720 0
2 17 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 101120470 0.04
2 7 2010 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 102784556 0.04
1 7 2007 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101931718 0.133
4 30 2008 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102315825 0.14
10 30 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101322146 0.6
Table 10.54. NC-87 and Tobermory Road/SR-1303 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 21 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 101587476 47.93
7 5 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102635370 47.93
2 25 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101419482 48.03
1 16 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101093991 48.13
1 21 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101661133 48.13
8 22 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 101814120 48.23
3 16 2007 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 101984514 48.23
11 18 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102195090 48.33
7 18 2008 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102370340 48.43
4 18 2010 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102843872 48.53
6 6 2006 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101758904 48.63
319

Table 10.55. NC-24 and Downing Road/SR-1834 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
5 23 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 101194177 17.02
7 25 2006 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101792419 17.22
12 20 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 102754821 17.251
10 19 2004 LEFTTURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 101312196 17.33
10 28 2004 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 101319920 17.33
1 25 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101394767 17.33
6 27 2005 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101506803 17.33
11 7 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 101602968 17.33
1 15 2006 ANGLE 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 101656836 17.33
8 17 2006 RIGHTTURN,DIFFERENTROADWAYS 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 101809894 17.33
9 21 2006 ANGLE 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 101837244 17.33
6 3 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 4 1 1 2 102053937 17.33
6 15 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102066020 17.33
8 25 2007 ANGLE 1 0 3 0 1 5 1 102121808 17.33
8 27 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 102122956 17.33
9 18 2007 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102143179 17.33
8 30 2008 REAR END, TURN 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 102397726 17.33
10 7 2006 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 101849787 17.43
3 25 2008 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 102238033 17.63
320

Table 10.56. NC-87 and Wilmington Highway/Doc Bennett Road Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
2 26 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 101126893 8.02
3 25 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101992728 8.02
7 5 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 101227648 8.04
12 13 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 101912330 8.04
7 14 2009 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102635658 8.04
12 26 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 101372044 8.046
11 13 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101042595 8.06
10 18 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102166392 8.068
2 1 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 101949844 8.116
12 26 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 101372013 8.14
12 26 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 101372014 8.14
8 5 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 101533483 8.14
8 13 2009 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 102652751 8.14
9 14 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102140481 8.19
1 27 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 101103800 8.23
4 12 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102303439 8.28
2 17 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 101120479 8.36
11 24 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102199866 8.38
9 28 2006 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 101827707 8.48
10 23 2006 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 101864406 8.48
3 27 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101993869 8.48
10 18 2007 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102166399 8.48
8 7 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102658449 8.48
9 5 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102675406 8.48
10 2 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102694703 8.48
10 24 2009 FIXED OBJECT 0 2 0 1 1 5 1 102705152 8.48
2 26 2004 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 101126839 8.487
1 5 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 101085748 8.489
2 3 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 101401935 8.53
11 21 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101341761 8.58
11 24 2009 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102746774 8.58
12 31 2009 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102758274 8.594
321

Table 10.56. continued (NC-87 and Wilmington Highway/Doc Bennett Road Crash Data)
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
10 3 2005 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 101501857 8.93
Table 10.57. NC-87 and Thrower Road/SR-2245 Crash Data
Month Day Year Crash Type Injury Condition Crash ID MP
F A B C R L W
11 11 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 102718812 3.94
5 28 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 102874894 3.94
3 23 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 102821237 3.97
3 7 2010 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102809458 4.07
8 27 2009 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 102665051 4.33
12 26 2006 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101921766 4.69
1 22 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102172645 4.69
2 25 2008 ANGLE 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 102269896 4.69
3 5 2008 SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102276165 4.69
4 12 2008 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 102303474 4.69
6 7 2008 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 102344291 4.69
7 20 2005 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101522260 4.719
7 4 2008 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 102361099 4.73
5 22 2007 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102045994 4.79
8 18 2008 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 102390224 4.79
12 14 2007 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 102216557 4.797
11 13 2003 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101042600 4.8
10 26 2009 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102703068 4.802
8 31 2006 OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 101820452 4.827
9 30 2004 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 101296726 4.83
11 9 2004 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 101330970 4.83
12 24 2004 FIXED OBJECT 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 101371041 4.83
9 17 2005 LEFTTURN, SAME ROADWAY 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 101563765 4.83
4 1 2010 ANIMAL 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 102842672 4.89
3 3 2010 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 102814664 4.93
322

10.3 Resident, Commuter, and Business Survey
10.3.1 Resident Survey
Figure 10.31 shows the initial letter mailed to residents explaining the survey, Figure 10.32
shows the cover letter that accompanied the survey packet, and Figure 10.33 shows the
residential survey. Figure 10.31 shows the reminder letter for those residents who did not
complete the initial survey.
323

�.UF�RE�JT F�ESIC�EPJT
1.��. h��l�i��.�.#.
�c�rrie°w�h�er�. P�J� 1�3��
�r�etings.
P,Jorth C�rolin� State �lni�.��rsit�� is cand�.ic�ting rese�rch spon�ared b,,� the RJarth �°�rolin�
G�epartrr�ent �f Tr�nspart�tian to e�,ral�a�te the effec�s of s�i�er�treet�. +�. s�aper�treet is �n
int�rs��tion r�esir�nth�tprahibits ��ir�ctl�ft-t�irn and thrau�h r�7�r�.r�ments fror�� the sid� �tr��ts.
Instead. th� laftturns fron7 the side �tr�et� ar� marJe b;rt�arning right onto the m�in ro��d then
m;�w;in� s� �i-t�am �.ising a one-m�r�,� m�di;�n opsnin�, �s sh�raun b;� th� �dQtt�r� lin� in th� di�gran7
belaw: through rna er�merits �cro�� the main road �re done in � similar manner. a-� �hav�rn b;,� the
d��hed line in the diagr�m.
[����;������r,�� ���a�',^�a���]
* f��'�s����^d'er�ad'���r�el
�
�
�V ! _ � '�`�'�`:
�
�.-..- .-..-.-.,-�.'-' �
�
��
��
FI;�],.�r�,�7,.B��ic �uprer�tr�e#�le�ign
';��e �r� ���therin� opinians frar�� rasiderrts th�t li�r�e ne�r ����,er�tre�t to b�tter �r��der�t�nd ho��
'���II the de�i�n is �ork:ing. r�. ���per�treet i� locti�t�d n��r ,,�o�.i �t th� inter�ection of [r���,��� r�aa�
r�ar��] �nd [;�����r� r�a�' K�a��]. ��h�rt� eune-��}e ��ie�ti�ar�r�ire �ri11 ta�e �rri�in� in tYte rn�il
�h��rkly� an�! �will ir�clu�i�e � retuFn �r��r�l��e with p�re-�i�J ��tage %�r ��aur c�n�enier�c��.
'�au h��re be�n selected ta r�pr�sent,.roGir n�igh�ors in thi� �ur��e;�—;��aur apinian i� of r�re�t
�,+�lue.
Ple��e h�lp �,i� b;��t�N;ing � f�wd niin�.ite� to p�rtir�ipate in thi� stud,�� b;� can�pleting �n�1 returning
th� �urre��fornl avh�n �rau receis�e it. :�.II �,�rti�ip�nt� and responses u�rill r�m�in �nom�mous. lfv,
'.;.4�1J.,�.�,pwey.y� ny;;..:���..�.'�ti �.rl�,.:�?l,�v�.�.'�,.�� nt,�t.#,h�,.�.�d,��vv���:.�,.5',�,v�.�.,x�.�2<��➢;.!-!.��.��1Jl.f;!,�� ��v1�,.�t�.��,�,�v� ����.
:7��;�,��.,g,f,Il.LJf�lCllef� �J7�S�1.�.��1,.
T���a�Cy��!
Figure 10.31. Initial Letter Mailed to Residents Explaining the Survey
324

�l��.REPJT RE�IG�Ef�JT
�.� �..f����.�i.� ..��.
�it��. �l� 1�3�5
Gra�tings,
P�lartl7 C�arolin� �t�t� Uni�,��r�it;.r is car�dGic�tin� res��rch s�on�ored ��� the P�lorth G�ralina
D��,�rtment of Transport�tion to ev�al�a�t� the effect� of s�ap�rstr��t�. .+�. s�ip�r�tr��t i� an
int�rs��tian d�signth�t �rohih�its Jirp�t I�ft-t�.irn �nd thro�agh n��ouem�nt� fra�n7 the �irJe str��ts.
In�te�rJ, the leftt�arn� from the sid� stre�t�s �re rri�de b,� t��rning right onto th� n�ain raad then
r��kin� ��i-t��rn �.i�inr� � on�-v�r�;� r�7�lian op�ning, t�� sha�w��n b;� th� dotted lin� in th� rJi��ram
belo�,�;thro�agh ma���n7��ts �cros�sth� m�ir� ro�d �re dane in � simil�rm�r�ner. �s �ho�v�n b�,+th�e
d��hed line in tl�� �i�gr�m.
,� �s —��_ . ,�.
[�"�r��e�r�ra���� �c��'��ar��]
i� f�r�ver� ���'e rca�'r�ar�el
�a� � _•.,�;.�� �
+�:
�
..-..-.-..-.-..�, �-' �
.�,� ;.�ou m�,r rec�ll from our �ir��.�ious letter, �ve �re r��th�ring opinion� fram ne�rt�,�� resid�nts tr�
bettef Ufldef5t�fld hO�N tia�'ell the deSlgfl 15 �Ofb:.lflg. .�, �upefStfeet 15 10��t�d fle�3f t�4U �t th�
int�rszction a�f [rr7ve,� �����' �a��] ti�nd [r;E�e�rc��'r;a�re]. Te� en��are �e f�w�e ��7�1 crc���-
��cti�n �f the ��ulati�n,, p�lea�se I�el� u� by ha�ving tl�e Ii��r����d �iriveF —�t Ieas# 1��+ear�
�f ��e — within th�e I�ou�eh��ld �rl� will b� celebrating t�e r�e�€t k�irthda�}+ �n�wer th�e
f�llr�wing b�i�f �u�r�}r,��e�tiar�� f�und c�r� tl� I��k a�f this lett��.
'A�"w'h�n ;�ou �re finish�� �,I��se pl�ce this ���r�.�e;.� in tl�e m�il �asing the �nclo��d en��relope �nd
pr�-paid p�st���. If ;��'o�a h�'re an� q�ae�tians cont��t th� sturJ,�f �dir�ctar, Dr. Ll���ph H�an�n�er �t
i;�1 �;� 515-??�� r�r h�_ii7�i��era�:ncsu.�lu. .�ll p�rticip�nts �r�d res��,nses 4v�ill rem�in �nan,ama�as.
7�,��°�n�r y��r �r y€��� ��edp tivi�h ��� r�rp��°�n�t r���ar��h �
Figure 10.32. Cover Letter that Accompanied the Survey Packet
325

RE�I�ENT �URVEY
1. ��•,x� I�n� hg�,•� �•�u, p�•a�nglF�•, In•a� nagr this intar��:t��n?
= Laaa thgn 1�•ag• = 1— 3�•agr =�— 1 D y�g•a = f,1�•3 ing� 1� p•3g•a
�. ��•,k� �fi�� �� �•�u, p�rs�nglh�•, �rFr•3 i� a ��ti�n �f rog�?
_ G 9'�' _�4�88 iC�' _ f;1� nth F�• = Fa'hk' tl�l W_ � 9'�'� 9'
�. �D',k' �D3� �gr�•'��gt'�� thr�u�h tha ��7���t�aat �DIll�9�a tD 9�'�FC9I I�tar��L D'1�
� EJ}��; ��� ���,fuain� _ � �91'YW_ _ fti�D�� �I�FCIJ��m�ra'.`.D'IfJ�'1�
�. �9� �'�J '1�B'� B�J�Llttfl8 o-Llpa'o-t•��t ��'1��1 ��f�'� t'4k'Bo- �J L BL�'�J' ��91�'1�
_�?o- _ r�'�
�f �'? �, 'tiY'191 'tiY9 � �"J J' 'J'J 'I 'J'1 'J'1 �'1� aJ'J� •a�•��t �'J'1�'Jt 'J�f'J'� � 'h'9 a 'J J � 9L �'� J' 'J �91 'J'I �
_ P�o-I[f4'� ��'1 �'Y _ NaLJt�B ��'1 �'1 _ ���BLY� ��'1 �'1
_'� II�L {'1�'.k' �'I�LI�h B�J�LIt o-:J��'o-t'aat} i� f�^n 9n �pinion
�J. G � �'� J 4� '13 �3 B'1•� '1 B4'8 �'� LI' �' 4'?' o- �'1 � �' �' t� t'1� �� Il otRJ�'L �'1 �f t'1� o-J �� •o-t•��t� �F rra
r
skiy aFread [a ques�or� 7�. �fyes, yroceed �+itfr survey.
- l���a - r�� .'skiy to quesborr i�;•
FJ. ��'SY �� ]�'�J, ��'��'19 �', faa� t'18 aJ�?'air88t hga 9ff?�"l�� �'�J' 9� t�' t� a9f3�' '194 �9�� t'1�
r�g�•.t�g�•��mpgr�� to th8 pr8r�•�ua r�gd•�ti�g�•��ai�n?
= P� art��8 F�� = Na•� gt��8 F�� = 5 g�
. �-i�'St' �� �'�J, �Br�Il9IFk', f�� t'1� aJ��'atr88t hga 9{���'l8� ��.'J.'J� L� �JILI83 Ill �'�LI� 9�89?
- � ��3 � = r��•�gt��3p� - 5g� -C�n't kn��,ti�— I r8nt
�. ���'y1"yk'9�l'94'� t� l7f�Ll�'1 l'1 a�€:ti�n �f r�g��yx'9'�' 9ff8{�1�� �J"17l'I� v�'l�l'J'�"L�'1 ��'���
—�r,� l'51�'� l� _ r�D �'15f1�8 _ fJIDfB tf94'� l"l3
�. 'i5"19l � ff�'�'1'��� 'rf gn��, f194'8'�'�LI� �8r�f19IFp'� �7C�8fFafl{�� Ifl tf9V� l "I� �'1'� l'1� ���'1 '17 �f t'1�
�J:}�'�i'»i7
-�� t'9�'�I t� = r�a �7g73� = fylar8 tf9�'�I tircw_
1�.'�f,�hgt�rff���'1��, f g�p�, �gv� p�a�, a�•aa�g 3��, 7ai��•� ��r t�r� numb8r af �tapp�� ���'1 ��a�yk�gi�r3
t� fri9I4� 9 �9f� ^l9'1�JY?' �'1'}� �'I? :}:}?'1 '1� :}f t'1? �J:}�•�t•»t7
_ fy�:} �� �t:} �:}�•� ���'1 � � � _ r�:} v'19'I•3� _ F�'yk'?' �t:}:}:}� � Y�'1 � � �
1 1. P4�g� � a�t ��aur g�� rg73�:
= 1�-�9 = 3�-�� = 5��5 = �� �• g�ar�
1�. P 3g� � ��t �•��• ����a•:
_ fy�9 � _ F�''l9 �
�'I t'I� 3:}9'� :}� :}'yk', :} �9� :}':}Y �� 9'1'�' 9�� t �'19 1'I:}J�'It3'f:}J "19'�' '19V� '��9'� 'I� 3J:}3•31•3313
'1 � ^l9'�' 'I� J�3 vD^l"13'IL� '3 9L3�� iD iDD �� �'JY3'3� '1 t'1 � �J3�t D'1'19 '� D"�"JJ ^l9'�' 9��'��� t'J'J ��
'1�i v�r3'�� '1 i'1 3 3J'r'31�'.
Pl�as� pla��thisf�rm in th� �n�l�s���n�r�l�pean� mail it ba�kt� us.
Thankyau;
Figure 10.33. Survey Mailed to Residents Living Near Superstreets
326

GUF�F�EPdT F�E�;IC#EP�JT
1� 3� ra1 � i n�t.
�it��. r•J� �����,
�r��ton��3,
�'}�' +r7.'7i'y'�' rdW ="Y.7i1Ji� il9'+�a ?�{�iva� '7'Jt[Y� �f -5 f��5�ro..�l '��itJ�"}+' r`v'J4��1 i.5f���`�'l9 ��9t� �., Ii�i=�it4 i3
���i�;� fa� tt�L �Yari:h �����'ung C��9rtro��t af org�sp��rtgti�n �n th� aff��s af s���rtr��t�. u a
r��mun�� �}��au, s=_.��'�trs�t is gn a�t�ea��::t�arr d�asp��e� thgt pra�hi�its •�ir�ui �ft-iu�en g�t�J thr�u�•��
'�lD'h+^E'ftl°i!l'i'v fF�aTl ��I�' Sf�� :�tf��t5. ��ilv4�J�, t�l� �=ft.' ttJlll� ft�'.}fol t�f� 5l��� vt���'�� 9Cm !"tlBa'�= aJ�Y
t�ua�in� r�ahf �nt� tk�p ro-�g�n r�g•� ih�� mg4���i•a s u-tum u�in�p g ��na=,t��y� ��ii.gn ��anin��, gs
�ha�►t��n '��. th� �i�tt�•� lin8 in th� �li��r�m ��I�•�x; thr�u�h m�v��nts-g�r�sath� rng:r� r��� �r=
���n� u� g su�ni➢�� rm9���R, �� stl�a•y+r� �°X thm �gsfhm� �u�� �n th� ��k���gr�.
�
� i.!l va r� d?}3 ia
�,1�'1�'��:..�,,,E��i� s��pFer�tr��t �esi��m
��� r� a �i _� a.c���]
— - "�'�-:
�:
�
.- —_.g, . r�-' .
�llf f�v^�f�5 =F7�'y'k' ffY9l'y+'�J !7'�'�r� Gl'1it GL�VJS�i��� 7}WG �VJS'�'�'yp. �a�h��a 'ni"�JI� I=:� l:� '�Ev7.f1•� 'y'�J t!'15�'y�J
ry,gyes �j.aa"I }'a��'t$�t'3 P�p,�s'��E11�'}+''•7LJ�Gi�l��ll.�1-'.}� Ifl ffl� �tll�'�, 9Gi� �'�VJi 7�d�IB'JEi 85'r�S}f I'tl��!rt�llrlt
in n�9����� v� un•�a�t�n�� h��yx���x�ll tha ��si•a� �°�u��rk�i��. If i� fg�i���u hg�r� r�tvTnm•� th� sv�r�r��d,
•yx� thank yav far y�•�ur pg�ti�ip.gt%�n!
F�r�aue vanrne�o-�n•;�, ^�� ��x�ill �� rnsitlue��� �p•�u gn-ath�ssves���'� ���:�,�t. P�g� tg�cm fi6�� tor�w_ t� fili!
�LIt��I� �k"f'JE�aLI���I'311I150��. .�..�J ��PYIPFI��F, 5�CIy'd��Lu��'�t B3 �'J°^J�3•� II�JS'}+'�VJ B�$fl� 'i�lt�e��^v�8�'I
�f �rinaeri r�a�" .na.�aae] g��d iTKna��i rv3�" .n3m�]. .K.ff �grt�:����U gn•� r_�p�n��= �,wi��f �r;�si�
J ll `.�' Rl'�'SYI'J LI S. .� �, — d r1Y='q �' r�'''!5�it a �f7'�.{ �I I� F=° r• "'� ,G fn �! �5 F
,r�Fi,.PTJ5?�N�T,/JJ,�i�P�i�i4,iC•�iw"��.`�.�•:\>•: •: �J�,lJ�nn�,r';/,"r��w�
�q,��x�`�..�`.�;�x��.�:,,sv.�v�.v�.r. h.u� er��nm r.��:�wu, �.� u;
�ra rrk qrrxr I�r �rrxrr Fr�P,p �f�fr �i� irnpr�rtar�[ re� �a r� �'
Figure 10.34. Reminder Letter Mailed to Residents Who had Not Responded to the Initial
Survey
327

10.3.2 Commuter Survey
Figure 10.35 shows the initial introductory statement emailed to LTNGCH faculty and staff
explaining the survey, and Figure 10.36 shows the commuter survey. Figure 10.37 shows the
reminder email for those faculty and staff that did not complete the initial survey.
Greetings,
North Carolina State University is conducting research sponsored by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to evaluate the effects of superstreets. A superstreet is an
intersection design that prohibits direct left-turn and through movements from the side streets.
Instead, the left turns from the side streets are made by turning right onto the main road then
making a U-turn using a one-way median opening; through movements across the main road are
done in a similar manner.
The team are gathering opinions from University of North Carolina faculty and staff to better
understand how well the design is working. A superstreet is located near the UNC-CH campus
at the intersection of US-15/501 and Europa Dr. / Erwin Rd. This intersection is located just
north of the Franklin St./US-15/501 split and 1.2 miles west of I-40. Many UNC-CH faculty and
staff commute to work through that intersection. Please help us evaluate the superstreet by
answering the following brief survey questions found below. It will take approximately 3
minutes to complete this survey.
Please fill out the survey using the following steps:
1. Reply to this email by clicking "Reply"
2. Place an "X" before the answer that best fits your opinion for each question
3. When you are finished please email this survey back to Sarah Ott at seott(c�ncsu.edu
If you have any questions about the survey or superstreets contact the study director, Dr. Joseph
Hummer at [phone] or hummer(a�ncsu.edu. All participant identification and particular
responses will remain anonymous in our reports and publications.
Thank you for your help with this important research!
Figure 10.35. Initial Introductory Statement Emailed to UNC-CH Faculty and Staff
328

UNC-CH FACULTY AND STAFF SURVEY
How long have you worked in Chapel Hill?
_ Less than 1 year
_ 1 — 3 years
4 — 10 years
More than 10 years
_ I don't work in Chapel Hill
2. How often do you, personally, drive on US-15/501 at Europa Dr. / Erwin Rd.?
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Few times a year
Never
If your answer to Question 2 is "Never", please skip to Question 11
3. How do you drive through the intersection of US-15/501 and Europa Dr./Erwin Rd. into
town most often?
As a through driver on US-15/501 without turning onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd.
Turning from US-15/501 onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd.
_ Turning from Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. onto US-15/501
4. How do you drive through the intersection of US-15/501 and Europa Dr./Erwin Rd. out of
town most often?
As a through driver on US-15/501 without turning onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd.
Turning from US-15/501 onto Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd.
_ Turning from Europa Dr. or Erwin Rd. onto US-15/501
5. How does navigation through the superstreet compare to a typical intersection?
Easier/less confusing
The same
_ More difficult/more confusing
6. Had you heard about the superstreet concept before it was built at US-15/501?
Yes
No
If yes, what was your opinion on the superstreet concept before it was built at US-15/501?
Positive opinion
Neutral opinion
Negative opinion
_ Did not know enough about superstreets to form an opinion
Figure 10.36. Survey Emailed to UNC-CH Faculty and Staff
329

7. How do you, personally, feel the superstreet has affected your ability to safely navigate the
roadway compared to the previous roadway design?
Positively
_ Negatively
Same
8. How was travel time through this section of roadway affected durinq the superstreet
construction qeriod?
Less travel time
No change
More travel time
9. What differences, if any, have you, personally, experienced in travel time since the openinq
of the superstreet?
Less travel time
No change
More travel time
10. What differences, if any, have you, personally, noticed in the number of stopped vehicles
waiting to make a safe maneuver since the openinq of the superstreet?
More stopped vehicles
No change
_ Fewer stopped vehicles
11. Please select your age range:
18-29
30-49
50-65
66 or above
12. Please select your gender:
Male
Female
In the space below, please provide any additional thoughts you may have regarding
superstreets. This may include comments related to topics covered in this questionnaire or you
may address topics not covered in this survey.
Thank you!
Figure 10.36. continued
330

Greetings,
By now you should have received notice of a research study North Carolina State University is
doing for the North Carolina Department of Transportation on the effects of superstreets. To
remind you, a superstreet is an intersection design that prohibits direct left-turn and through
movements from the side streets. Instead, the left turns from the side streets are made by
turning right onto the main road then making a U-turn using a one-way median opening; through
movements across the main road are done in a similar manner.
Our records show that you have not returned our survey. The team would like to remind you that
you have been selected to represent your fellow commuters in the study, and your opinion is
very important in helping us understand how well the design is working. If in fact you have
returned the survey, the team thank you for your participation! For your convenience, another
survey is included in this email. Please take the time to fill out the short questionnaire. As a
reminder, a superstreet is located near the UNC-CH campus at the intersection of US-15/501
and Europa Dr./Erwin Rd. This intersection is located just north of the Franklin St. / US-15/501
split and 1.2 miles west of I-40.
Please fill out the survey using the following steps:
1. Reply to this email by clicking "Reply"
2. Place an "X" before the answer that best fits your opinion for each question
3. When you are finished please email this survey back to Sarah Ott at seott(a�ncsu.edu
If you have any questions about the survey or superstreets contact the study director, Dr. Joseph
Hummer at [phone] or hummer(a�ncsu.edu. All participant identification and particular
responses will remain anonymous in our reports and publications.
Thank you for your help with this important research!
Figure 10.37. Reminder Email Sent to Faculty and Staff Who had not Responded to the
Initial Survey
10.3.3 Business Survey
The team conducted business surveys at two signalized superstreet locations through personal
interviews. Figure 10.38 shows the business survey.
331

Economic Effects ofAccess Management - Median Design on US-15/501
The North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation (NCDOT) is conducting an analysis of the economic effect of
access management techniques through a research project at NC State Universiry. In parricular, this project will
document the effect of the median modif'ication (an access management technique) that occurred on the roadway
adjacent to your business. The research team is asking each business to complete the following questionnaire.
Your answers will be kept anonyrnous and data will be summarized so that the analysis and report will in no way
disclose data on your spec�c company. The research team thanks you in advance for fillmg out this brief survey.
Your time is valuable, and the answers you give will help NCDOT fiuther understand the effects of access
Contact Information
*Note: This survey should be completed by an individ
with its operations since 2008.
Name:
Phone Number
�ailing Address
Email Address
Website
1 When did this busmess begm operations at this location, if known` Month
When did you begin your employment at this location? Month
What is your job ritle`
2 How would you classify this bus
_ Local (one location) _ Local (multiple locations) _ Regional Cham
_ National Chain _ Other (please specify) ______
en at this location or
Year
Year
3 Please rank the following considerations in ascending order from 1 to 6(with 1 as the most important) that
you think customers use when selecting a business of your type, please assign each number only once:
Accessiblity to Store
Customer Service
Distance to Travel
Hours of Operation
Product Price
Product Quality
4 What percentage of your customers do you believe are customers who did NOT intend to stop at your
particular business at the beginning of their trip?
0% to 20% 21% to 40% 41% to 60% 61% to 80% 81% to 100%
Figure 10.38. Business Survey
332

5 What are your approximate number of sales transactions/patrons`
For an average week sales transactions / patrons (please circle which value you reported)
For an average Satur� sales transactions / patrons (please circle which value you reported)
6 Has your expected monthly revenue pattern changed since 2008?
_ Yes _ No
If you answered YES, please describe why you think the fluctuation occurred (List all applicable reasons).
Are you familiar with the fact that the median design of the main roadway alongside your business changed
7 in 2008?
Yes No
If yes, please turn to the next page to complete the survey.
If no, please return the survey, thank you for your time and effort.
8 Were you in favor of the roadway modifications before construction?
_ Yes _ No
Why or Why Not?:
9 Did your business experience a change in the number of regular customers during construction on the
project?
Decrease _ No Change _ Increase
Following the completion of the qroject, has your business experienced a change in the number of
re�ular customers?
Decrease _ No Change _ Increase
10 Do you feel that the installation of the raised median has made the following parameters better, worse,
or about the same as before the median project was constructed?
Figure 10.38. continued
333

a. Traffic Congestion
b. Traffic Safety
c. Number of Customers per Day
d. Gross Sales
e. Property Value
£ Customer Satisfaction with Access to Store
g. Delivery Convenience
_ Better
_ Better
_ Better
_ Better
_ Better
_ Better
_ Better
_ Worse
_ Warse
_ Worse
_ Worse
_ Worse
_ Worse
_ Worse
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
_ Stayed about the same
11 What was your involvement in the public hearing and public meeting process for this median project?
_ Attended several meetings _ Attended one meeting _ No involvement
_ Not aware of any public hearings or meetings
12 Please share any additional thoughts on the median project adjacent to your business. This may include
thoughts on the survey questions or other thoughts on median treaments and their impacts you might have.
Please return this completed form to Daniel Findley via one of the following methods:
Email: Daniel [e-mail]
Fax:[phone]
Mail: ITRE
Access Management Survey
Centennial Campus Box 8601
Raleigh, NC 27695-8601
If you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding this study please call Mr. Bob Foyle
with the Institute for Transportarion Research and Education at NC State at [phone].
End of Survev - Thank vou for takin� the time to
Figure 10.38. continued
this
334