20040526 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060314

h6wac &A
Q
LA,
-? p
40 Na(-4--,j e4 -Ap/ Ic.u7 s CJ
Dawes u.?? nw,r MeR 4-01u.t_ `6 .No-J QiJvkc ?Jo?'ce- "4eD -fir '{64
I
3
J
AeA-
F4I?
Clak
? 14"
q e r?
ay\ VLM 40n
?41 1W e1 4v' s$es-

'?-rac? 5 iSS?e
+ -tLt,s
IYU ? n
March 9, 2006
Pre-Application Meeting
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR, Water Quality Division
Wetlands / 401 Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604

r ? ~a

Mr.

Dear Mr. Dorney:
This package includes a letter from Land Management Group, Inc. along with revised site plans. The
net wetlands impact is approximately 6.91 acres (7.16 - 0.25) and the "spoils" road will be removed as
you suggested. Also, the other drive will be narrowed to 35 feet to further address fragmentation issue.
With 6.91 acres of impact and 31.02 credits for mitigation, the ratio is approximately 4.5 to 1.
Another part of the package is information pertaining to alternative sites and highway safety (cover
sheet labeled "Alternative Sites and Highway Safety"). This "alternative sites and highway safety"
information must be reviewed in combination with the federal grant information package to have a full
understanding of all truck-related safety issues. Safety reports and research materials are highlighted
in the federal grant package and shown as attachments. Additionally, I had numerous discussions with
everyone on the attached contact list to verify data, ask questions, etc. Both the alternative sites and
federal grant packages shed light on major safety concerns and alarming truck crash rates on US Hwy.
421 and US Hwy. 74/76. These packages provide the reader with a large amount of detailed
information and demonstrate the need to fully understand all truck-related safety issues.
Most support documents are part of the federal grant package with attachments listed in order,
however, one chart is extremely important and is shown as Exhibit 5-1 and is titled "Relative Crash
Risk by Driving Time Under the Pre-2003 HOS Rule." Because this chart and support documents are
so important, I hope we can discuss some critical points on Thursday at our meeting.
At the hearing, someone asked about school buses leaving Belville Elementary and which ones
traveled down Blackwell Rd. I spent an afternoon watching every bus (starting with 10 buses on
school grounds) and found that 2 buses turned left onto Blackwell Rd. One bus turned left
immediately onto Chapel Loop Rd. and the other bus traveled pass the proposed site. Thus, only 1 out
of 10 school buses drove past the site on Blackwell Rd.
Someone else commented that they had not seen responses to the public notice letters. A copy of the
June, 2005 responses are attached (See letter from Land Management dated June 2005).
All of the data in both reports is important since highway safety is a major concern.
Copies were hand delivered to the office of Noelle Lutheran with DWQ and Tom Farrell with USACE
on Friday, March 10, 2006.
Thanks again and we will see you on Thursday.
Sincerely,
a,,._ p 11474 .
Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
Cc: Noelle Lutheran, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Tom Farrell, USAGE, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
Clark Wright, Ward and Davis, Attorney at Law
Brent Manning, Land Management Group, Inc.
Kathy Lassiter, Gibson Engineers, PC
2
Environmental Consultants
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
SHIPPING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:
3805 Wrightsville Ave., #14 office [phone]
Wilmington, N.C. 28403 fax [phone]
Mr. John Dorney , l
NC Division of Water Quality I j
7
ftt
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
W? r' 1P J : /1 1'/
March 9, 2006
Re: Noremac Truck Stop Application
Mr. Dorney:
Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG) has been working with Mr. Cameron to reduce the proposed impacts associated with
the construction of the truck stop located off of Blackwell Road. We have successfully reduced net impacts on-site to 7.16
acres. This total includes a total of 2.12 acres of on-site creation which will be subtracted from the 9.29 acres of total fill that
is currently requested.
Small revisions to the wetland delineation are also being proposed. LMG has installed several hydrologic monitoring wells
which will provide detailed information on the groundwater levels along the eastern and western wetland boundaries. These
proposed changes will not result in a dramatic decrease in wetland impact, adding approximately 0.25 acres of additional
uplands to the tract. Proposed changes to the existing wetland boundary will be reviewed by the USACOE on March 14th,
2006.
In addition to on-site wetland creation and preservation, Mr. Cameron remains committed to executing the Rattlesnake Bay
Restoration Plan which was previously submitted to your office. This project would provide 12.3 acres of in-kind restoration
and is located within the same 8-digit HUC as the impact site (Cape Fear 03030005). The proposed restoration would be
achieved through infilling of the existing ditch network and removal of soil roads. Following the earthwork phase,
appropriate vegetation would be planted throughout the area.
At the present time the following is proposed as mitigation for the impacts associated with the development of the Blackwell
Road site:
12.3 acres of wetland restoration (1:1 ratio) 12.3 acres
4.7 acres of wetland enhancement (2:1 ratio)4 2.35 acres
163.7 acres of wetland preservation (10:1 ratio)4 16.37 acres
Total Restoration Credits -> 31.02 acres
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.
Sincerel
rent Manning
Environmental Scientist
encl.

?
4
'
:
r
?
?
'
?'
i
?
\•
, X21
t . ?a'
?,
-
r _ - _ ? - _ .,y
? ? ?
' A ;

-16
e Mk. w ' V M'

74
16

Mitigation Site ``Sl ti "; ?« S J °

r

! 11

M ' .•
Impact Site J 7, e r ,

L
7
-T
wt-

T. _
A -A
/ J,

I
:
^
,
t
J
$
.
.?<'f
C. \. ?-
L _ r - 1
' :11? +f• ?M ? k •,
.
?
,. SMY,A I?It?.r ?

r

t/
y
I
wMWC_&

Mp,R
a?a??? cN
R?
A'fERB
DS ?0 gZOt?

??
WES
N Noremac Energy, Inc. Vicinity Map
DeLorme Gazatteer
Rattlesnake Bay Mitigation Plan
0 1 2
miles Brunswick County Land Management Group, Inc.
EI

?,_.
_ 0A
Mitigation Plan
Enhancement (4.7ac.)
Q Restoration (12.3 ac.)
Conservation Easement (1
1 0
ac.) I
" Noremac Energy, Inc.
1998 Aerial Photography
Rattlesnake Bay Mitigation Plan
500 1,000
ft Brunswick County Land Management Group, Inc.
............ -
69GZ xo?t O eC y7?t?c arny? Hifi'? ?i t?71'IC)?T'ti?;? E77,t10 d ? 1 [A' I
1zIkI
6S1,S'l.. vacTT?arz,} 111-TOM ulu>'t!`??4'? g' sr<??;) ???1
?? >a
f?? 7 B ,kNlv86llq.Til,./1D 'C ?h .got I? T,.7 ?"QVI-T I,?l,J, aie NV71,UJAN

,x

C? P
Z G
te' `?

"SAO
U
A p a
I'll",
?!nny^?aE>?
J;
r „*t
ark'
Sep
/C:l \? \--?/
e
4
W
V J
rr
a
c
L .'
.? I
x5
?y
a?.
all

(
I
(
i
I

h
8

1 iI
ICI
I ?I
I
f i
I j.
li
U I ji
d
II
I
rn
U
d ?
?o
h
Ilp
ad
z?

l h,
~ ti.
6ZO8'f,Q Otr,
691,7 s0;_t ^O 'd yC ,xIy mr.In} Blfib ?" . IC)7TV") i ! ?!C)N '"> IIh on
651 ^7, y^ VIYeD UTON `x'101n {°{
- - - - -------- ----
e?

'
Yt
.....?J
f,........... ? v
? L 1 ?
d
i
z
t
t
1
1
S
i
I
t
t
I
i
}
C
l

W
c n
lit I
{
tl?'
r
g;6

67081,5L'O 16
69j "L 0a C) d V041,1f XI!Vjq i3ihb
t L ?nagrinr? gbi??M1l `'110111 q ;

I o
W
lJ J
i
i
i
i
i
f
t f
i
I(
I?
t
t
t
Ali]
e'
3
i

tee.
f..

Alternative Sites faE??r
And
Highway Safety
Dated March 9, 2006
Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
Wilmington, NC
Contacts Regarding Highway Safety
March 9, 2006
Mr. Darrell Jernigan, Director
Governor's Highway Safety Program
1508 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1508
[phone]
Support Letter for Grant
Susan Coward
Support Letter for Grant
Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs and Budget Coordination
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
[phone]
Chris Hartley
State Director
CMV - Crash Statistics
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA)
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 468
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
Caitlin Hughes Rayman Support Letter for Grant
Federal Legislative Programs Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Governor's Office
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 332
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[phone] Mobile #
Bob Cullen
Definitions & Statistics
Information Resource Manager
AASHTO
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
Roger Hawkins Analysis of Crash Data
Senior Traffic Engineer-NCDOT
Recently retired after 30 years with DOT
[phone]
Chris Oliver, E.I.
Crash Statistics
Safety Planning Engineer
Safety Planning Group-NCDOT
1561 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
[phone]
Brian Murphy, PE
Traffic Safety Project Engineer
Safety Evaluation Group-NCDOT
1561 Mail Service Center
City Ranking / Crash Statistics
Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
[phone]
Dr. Ron Hughes Truck Safety Specialist
Program Director
The Institute of Transportation Research & Education - NCSU
Centennial Campus, Box 8601
Raleigh, NC 27695-8601
[phone]
Formerly a Senior Researcher with Highway Safety Research Center - UNC
Eric Rodgman, MPH
Senior Database Analyst
Highway Safety Research Center at UNC
CB# 3430
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
[phone]
Kathy Lassiter, PE
Senior Project Manager
Gibson Engineers, PC
PO Box 700
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
[phone]
DOT Projects - Design Engineer
30 years experience with NCDOT
Mike Kozlosky Grant Contact
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Wilmington / Wilmington MPO
[phone]
Jim Scapellato
The Scapellato Group, Inc.
1946 Saxon Valley Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
[phone]
[phone]
Consultant
28 years with Federal Highway Admin.
Colonel Richard J. Smith Military Convoy issues
Logistics Movement Control Center (LMCC)
Camp Lejeune, NC
[phone]
Other Contacts within North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Operations
Highway Division 3
Allen Pope, PE Division Engineer
Joe Blair, PE Division Construction Engineer
Mason Herndon Division Environmental Officer
Division Operations
Roger Hawkins Division Traffic Engineer
David Smith Asst Division Traffic Engineer
District 3 - Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
Dan Cumbo, PE District Engineer
Chris Baker Asst. District Engineer
Traffic Services
Bob Hammond Traffic Tech IV
County Maintenance Yard
Iris McCombs Highway Maintenance Engineer
Janice Smith Transportation Tech 11
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
Danny McComas
NC State Representative
PO Box 2274
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone] Work
[phone] Home
Richard Burr
US Senator
217 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
Wilmington Office
201 North Front St., Ste. 809
Wilmington, NC 28401
[phone]
.Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmenta(Consultants
'Post e Bar, 2522
?GI?i ims tort' orth Carolina 28402
2hone: 910-452-0001
dune 3, 2005
Mr. Tom Farrell
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Re: Federal agency comments to proposed truck stop off of Blackwell Rd. (Action ID No.
200400116)
Dear Mr. Farrell:
This letter is written in response to comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, US EPA, and the NC Coastal Federation. In
the months since these comments were received Land Management Group, Inc. has been retained by
Mr. Cameron to develop a more complete mitigation plan. Mr. Cameron has also conducted a
thorough investigation of available alternatives to the proposed siting of the truck stop. Impacts have
also been reduced through the removal of the "drop lot". A total of 11.09 acres of wetland fill is now
proposed.
1. Ecological Concerns
A majority of the comments from the agencies reference a lack of appropriate mitigation for the
proposed impacts. To address these deficiencies, Land Management Group, Inc. has developed a
wetland restoration plan for a tract located near the community of Sandy Run, NC -15 miles west of
Wilmington. A mixture of restoration, enhancement, and preservation is proposed on the 114.06 acre
tract. A total of 12.3 acres of wetland restoration is planned through the removal of existing roadways
and the filling of ditches throughout the property. Grading of an existing air strip will also be
conducted, which will contribute 3.4 acres. Following earthwork, these areas will be planted with
typical pocosin vegetation such pond pine (Pinus serotina), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), and bitter
gallberry (Ilex glabra). Monitoring of the restored areas will be conducted for five years subsequent to
the plantings. Success criteria will be based on the achievement of plant densities above 320 stems per
acre, and the documented presence of wetland hydrology.
Enhancement of wetlands on the property will be achieved through the filling of perimeter ditching
around a 4.7 acre area. At the present time this area contains a dense stand of wetland species such as
sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea borbonia), and Ti-ti (Cyrilla racemiflora).
However, the generalized soil moisture regime throughout this area do not meet wetland criteria and
show evidence of localized drainage, caused by the ditching. Furthermore, these soils were originally
mapped as a Torhunta series, a mucky fine sand that is listed as a hydric soil in Brunswick County.
This designation provides evidence that hydric soils exhibited wetland conditions prior to
anthropogenic impacts on the site.
Conservation easements will be placed on the entire tract following the successful completion of the
wetland restoration and enhancement activities. In addition to this, an easement will also be placed on
the remaining 47.3 acres of wetlands at the impact site off of Blackwell Road. This easement will
dramatically reduce potential cumulative impacts as the truck stop will be unable to expand regardless
of future plans for the property.
Final mitigation ratios meet or exceed the guidelines published by the NCDWQ 401 Water Quality
requirements. A total of 12.3 acres of restoration are proposed, generating a >1:1 ratio. Enhancement
of 4.7 acres will produce 2.35 credits (using a 2:1 ratio). Conservation of 161.9 acres (114.6 acres at
mitigation site, 47.3 acres at impact site) will create 16.19 credits (using a 10:1 ratio). Overall, 30.84
credits are offered as mitigation for the 11.09 acres of proposed wetland impact for a final ratio of
2.78:1.
Comments regarding the presence of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) on the mitigation site have
been investigated. A review of the proposed restoration areas found no suitable habit for the RCW. A
majority of the restoration area has been clear-cut and is devoid of mature vegetation that provides
habitat for the RCW. Furthermore, no mechanized activities will take place on the 102.3 acres of
habitat not included in the restoration footprint.
Concerns regarding habitat fragmentation have been addressed through the addition of several
passageways underneath the two proposed roadbeds. Two large box culverts will be placed in each
roadbed in addition to two stormwater culverts, all of which will provide for passage in between each
of the three wetland "islands".
The aforementioned culverts will also provide hydrologic connectivity throughout the entire site.
Stormwater events will be pre-treated by a series approved retention devices that will be installed as a
result of the increase in impervious surface coverage. Following pre-treatment, water will sheet flow
into the surrounding wetland areas. Water will drain from the site through the culvert located under
Blackwell Road, from there it will eventually enter the Brunswick River through an unnamed tributary.
The addition of these stormwater/habitat features ensures that water flow within and out of the site
will mirror the current regime.
II. Alternative Site Analysis
Mr. Cameron has conducted a thorough review of the alternative sites available within the area. A
total of 13 sites were evaluated on a variety of factors such as safety, economics, location, and
feasibility. These alternatives are discussed in-depth (pp. 33-50) within the document submitted to the
USACOE on January 1, 2005. Sites were reviewed and dismissed due to current land pricing,
insufficient size, contamination, and safety concerns. Furthermore, sites that did meet criteria were
unavailable due to the owner's unwillingness to sell.
In summary, we have improved and expanded the mitigation plan to include ratios sufficient to meet
NC DWQ stated guidelines. Improvements to the original design have also been implemented to
reduce overall impact and allow for habitat connectivity. Overall, the mitigation plan that has been
submitted allows for greater than a 1:1 ratio of impact area to restored area. In addition, several acres
of enhancement and 13* acres of preservation are also offered as part of the mitigation package.
161 "A
All efforts to explore alternative sites have also been exhausted. Sites suggested by NCDWQ and the
USACOE were researched by Mr. Cameron on a wide variety of issues and found not to be as suitable
as the current proposed location on Blackwell Rd.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you for
your time.
Sincerely,
Brent Manning
Environmental Scientist
Cc: Noelle Lutheran, NCDWQ
Tom Farrell, USACOE
David Syster, Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
Clark Wright, Ward and Davis Attorney at Law
Exhibit 5-1
Relative Crash Risk by Driving Time Under the Pre-2003 HOS Rule
20.00
E 15.00
Co.
C 10.00
N
5.00
CL)
M
0.00
Leaall

-? ; .- illeaal -.
1
1
I
I
I
I
2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Hours Driving
(Since last 8-hr Break)
NOTE: Numbers above each bar chart represent the number of large trucks involved in fatigue crashes and total fatal crashes, respectively.
Data Source: Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA), 1991-2002
For example, for the IOtn hour of driving, xhibit 5-1 indicates that the relative risk per
involvement in a fatigue-related crash is roughly 2;5 times higher than in the first hour of driving
(reading across to the vertical axis of the chart). In the I It hour of driving, the relative risk Der
involvement in a fat;g,tP-related crash is rou hly five times higher than that in the first hour. The
first number above each bar chart represents the number of large trucks involved in ati e-
related atal crashes between 1991 and 2002 for each driving hour, while the second represents
the total number of large trucks involved in all fatal crashes within that same driving hour. For
example, within the 11th hour of driving, there were 9 large trucks involved in fatigue-related
fatal crashes between 1991-2002, while there were 94 large trucks involved ink fatal crashes ,
uring that same driving hour. The figures above each chart help to provide abetter
understanding of the prevalence of large truck fata crashes in each driving hour
Lin that they
_ reveal that as driving hours increase, the number of fatal crashes, as well as fatigue-related fatal
crashes, generally decrease in a steady fashion.
Using the 11th hour driving data as an example, the relative risk ratios representing each bar chart
in Exhibit 5.1 were estimated via the following steps. First, the number of trucks involved in
fatigue-related fatal crashes (9) within the 11th hour of driving were divided by the number of
trucks involved in all fatal crashes in the 1 lth hour of driving (94). The result, 9.6 percent,
represents the percentage of all trucks involved in fatal crashes during the 11th driving hour
where it was determined that the truck driver was fatigued at the time of the crash. Second, the
number of trucks involved in fatigue-related fatal crashes between 1991-2002 for all hours of
driving (990) were divided by the number of trucks involved in all fatal crashes for all hours of
August 15, 2005 45
Table of Content
Pate
Introduction 1
Intersection Analysis Report
for NC Hwy. 133 & Blackwell Rd. 3
Traffic Safety Engineers Rank Cities 4
Grant Information and Support letters/Resolutions 5
Projections-Accidents, Fatalities & Injuries 6
Methodology & Basis 8
Adjustment 1- Car & Truck Volume at Site 9
Adjustment 2 - Traffic Signal 11
Adjustment 3 - Traffic Counts 12
Adjustment 4 - Conflict Point Ratio 12
Summary of Accident Projections 15
Conflict Points 15
Conflict Points at Proposed Site 16
Conflict Points at Alternative Site 10 or Any site on US Hwy. 421 18
Conflict Points at Alternative Sites 3 & 4 or
Summary of Conflict Points
Any site on US Hwy. 74/76 20
23
Summary of Highway Safety
24
Alternative Sites Ranked by Probability for Accidents 26
ATTACHMENTS
Offer of Support Letter from Governor's Liaison
Resolution from Town of Belville
Letter from Brunswick Electric
Spreadsheet showing 20 accidents caused by existing Truck Stop
Crash Severity-Injury Definitions
Letter from Scapellato Group dated June 8, 2005
Letter from Scapellato Group dated January 20, 2006
Statement of Qualifications for James E. Scapellato
Resume for James E. Scapellato
Letter from Kathy Lassiter with Gibson Engineers, PC
dated June 7, 2005
Letter from Kathy Lassiter with Gibson Engineers, PC
dated January 20, 2006
Company Bio - Gibson Engineers, PC
Resume for Kathy Lassiter, PE
INTRODUCTION
Alternative site analysis is a major consideration when applying for a wetlands permit and analysis
related to a special use, such as a truck stop, is critical. Public safety is the most important factor
when evaluating alternative sites for a truck stop, especially when you consider a truck's weight,
length, acceleration, deceleration and sometimes, hazardous cargo .
What makes the preferred site different? Highway interchanges with ramps allow trucks to safely
enter or exit a US highway and the preferred site is the only available site with access to two (2)
interchanges with ramps. Highway ramps at the preferred site are extremely safe for trucks because
of the grade separation (elevation of ramp is different from US highway elevation) and signals
control traffic flow at the end of ramps. Also, ramps at the Leland interchange are straight, not
curved. (Prior information submitted to DWQ covers this subject in-depth.) Not a single, available
alternative site will have access to two highway interchanges with ramps, traffic signals or
grade/lane separation. All available alternative sites will gain access to a US highway via turning
lanes only and turning lanes are not as safe as a US highway interchange with ramps.
This report will evaluate the ramification of a truck stop at alternative sites in terms of the number
of vehicle accidents, fatalities, and injuries caused by the truck stop at that specific site. For
example, if a truck stop is built at Alternative Site #3, 11.7 accidents, .5 fatalities and 12.5 injuries
will occur every year because of the truck stop. If a truck stop is built at Alternative Site #10, 7.6
accidents, 0 fatalities and 8.1 injuries will occur every year because of the truck stop. This report
will not address the "cost" of accidents, injuries and fatalities or the suffering of injured occupants
after the accident, but a Memorandum (see attached) from Shawn Troy, PE. Traffic Safety
Engineer, NCDOT shows the Standardized Crash Cost Estimates for North Carolina.
In addition, support documents will substantiate these findings and numerous safety reports will
concur with the findings. Such reports include highway analysis by NCDOT, average statewide
crash rates for cars and trucks, specific accident reports, NCDOT ranking of dangerous highways in
North Carolina and other state and federal reports.
This report will provide important information regarding accidents caused by a truck stop on a US
Highway in the area and will demonstrate that serious accidents will occur at alternative sites if a
truck stop is built on a US Highway without ramp access.
This report will evaluate other related factors such as homeland security, military use, hazardous
cargo and truck driver fatigue. For example, if a fire or an explosion occurred on site due to
hazardous cargo or problems with petroleum storage tanks, the surrounding wetlands will act as a
buffer to protect neighboring houses and businesses.
Again, public safety is the most important factor for such an unusual project, however, other
important safety criteria include traffic counts, speed limits, access, roadway design, truck traffic
growth, conflict points, etc. For example, over 8.2 million vehicles per year travel past
Alternative Site #3 and #4 on US Hwy 74/76 with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. By introducing
an additional 230,000 trucks per year that are turning, merging, accelerating, decelerating and
crossing through-traffic lanes with 8.25 million vehicles, there is a very high probability that
accidents will occur. The key questions are: When the accident occurs, what are the speeds of each
vehicle at impact?
Will the accident involve a passenger car and 80,000 pound truck loaded with gasoline? How many
will be injured or killed? (When taken in this context, 11.7 accidents, .5 fatalities and 12.5 injuries
per year seem extremely low for Alternative Site #3.) In contrast, the preferred site will provide
access to and from US Hwy. 74/76 via highway ramps with grade separation and traffic signals at
one end and a highway interchange at the other end.
Additionally, the annual traffic count on Blackwell Rd. is 730,000 versus 8.25 million on US Hwy.
74/76. Thus, the probabilities for accidents at Site #3 versus the preferred site are quite different.
Another factor to consider is truck driver fatigue. Without adequate overnight parking for trucks,
fatigued truck drivers cause 138 accidents, 47 injuries and 2.4 fatalities in southeastern North
Carolina each and every year. If fatigued drivers had adequate overnight parking in the Wilmington
area, lives could be saved. For years, fatigued truck drivers have waited for adequate overnight
parking in Wilmington and for each year they wait, 2.4 motorists in North Carolina have died from
truck involved accidents directly related to driver fatigue.
Another measurement of highway safety is the ranking or comparison of crash rates for all vehicles
and for trucks only. One state is ranked against other states in terms of truck involved crashes and
the topic is discussed in detail in the attached Federal Grant Application.
Trucks make up a very high percentage of traffic in the area due to the Wilmington port and other
manufacturing facilities. Data from several studies show that in over 88% of truck involved
crashes, the driver of the truck was not injured and that 80% of truck involved crashes are the fault
of the other motorist.
Again, by introducing additional truck traffic (trucks that will be slowing, merging, turning,
crossing, diverging, etc. with other vehicles at high speeds) onto highways proven to be dangerous,
the likelihood that truck involved accidents will increase is extremely high.
This report will show that the preferred site is the only available site with certain attributes that
contribute to public safety. As mentioned, in case of fire or explosion at the preferred site,
surrounding wetlands will act as a buffer to protect neighboring houses and businesses. No other
site offers that protection. During hurricane evacuation or after a hurricane, the preferred site will
be used by emergency providers (power, phone, ambulance, fire, police, military, etc.) as a staging
area since it is the only available site geographically centered between area towns. Also, it is the
only available site with access to two (2) highway interchanges with ramps and merge lanes.
2
Vehicular accidents are inevitable and truck-involved accidents are devastating, however, reducing
the risk / probability of truck involved accidents can be achieved by selecting the site with the
lowest risk for accidents. The research/support documents attached to Federal Grant Application is
actual data compiled by government agencies to address safety and should not be discounted since
the outcome might increase the risk of accidents, however, all data has special characteristics. For
example, many accidents are not reported or the NC Highway Patrol Officer fills in the wrong slot
in the accident report. Also, traffic counts are 2 to 3 years old, data from safety studies even older
and truck traffic growth is not factored into the report.
A high number of trucks operate within the area due to the Wilmington port and various plants. In
addition, most trucks use I-40 and US Hwy. 74/76 as their primary truck routes. Prior reports
submitted to DWQ addressed this issue. For example, a new truck stop on US Hwy. 421 would
increase the likelihood for accidents, injuries and fatalities, especially with a 65-acre soccer
complex next door.
Intersection Analysis Report
Intersection Analysis Report for NC Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd.
In a letter from the Corps of Engineers dated August 3, 2005, a specific intersection was singled
out. The intersection is located at the junction of NC Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd. They state in
their letter that "we have heard and observed that traffic on Village Rd. below the Highway 74/76
overpass can become quite congested at certain times of day." They are concerned about the
increase in traffic volume, especially truck traffic and believe that volume "would impose a heavy
burden on traffic in that vicinity. With these concerns in mind, we are interested in seeing
documentation on how traffic patterns and traffic volume would be affected by a truck stop on
Blackwell Rd."
NCDENR and the Corps are not traffic safety experts and they question highway safety issues
without merit. Dr. Ron Hughes is the top truck safety expert in the state and one of the most highly
regarded truck safety experts in the nation. Unfortunately, his email dated March 4, 2005 (copy
attached) did not matter to NCDENR or the Corps. Dr. Hughes agrees with highway ramps
assessment regarding safety and deemed it "strange that NCDENR is making judgments that should
rightly be within the domain of NCDOT ..."
The attached Federal Grant Application lists all safety experts that have had input regarding this
project and their safety concerns have been very different issues from that of the Corps and
NCDENR.
Also, it is interesting to note that similar concerns about congestion and the increase in traffic,
especially truck traffic, were not concerns at alternative sites, even though existing traffic volume
and speeds are much higher.
The intersection analysis report from NCDOT shows all accidents at the intersection of NC Hwy.
133 and Blackwell Rd. from 2001 to 2003. The Intersection Analysis Report is attached and a
summary of the statistics are shown below:
Total Crashes 18 6 per year
Total Fatalities 0 0 per year
Class A injuries 0 0 per year
Class B injuries 4 1.3 per year
Class C injuries 11 3.6 per year
Total number of vehicles involved in crashes over 3 year period 38 vehicles
pll-
Average speed of vehicles at impact
i
21 MPH 64
Crashes caused by Left Turn, different roadway 7 accidents
Posted Speed Limit on NC Hwy. 133 35 MPH
For a "congested" area, 6 minor accidents per year is not very "concerning." Also, only 7
accidents in a three (3) year period were "turning" accidents. Fatalities and Class A injuries are
zero (0) because of the vehicle's low speed at impact and low traffic counts at that intersection.
Traffic is congested at certain times each day, but congestion is a very different issue than crash
severity. For instance, if the same vehicle tried to make a left turn onto US Hwy. 421 or US Hwy.
74/76 at certain times each day, the consequences would be quite different since the speed at impact
would be much higher than 21 MPH. Impact speeds of 55 MPH or higher would increase crash
severity, fatalities and Class A injuries. Also, existing traffic counts are much higher on both US
Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/76 meaning the number of crashes would increase.
The Corps' concerns are completely mitigated by one very important fact. DRIVERS LEAVING
THE PREFERRED SITE HAVE A CHOICE. Traffic leaving the preferred site can turn right
onto Blackwell Rd. to exit the site. A right turn to exit gives all traffic access to a traffic signal at
Ploof Rd. and US Hwy. 17. (See letter from NCDOT) That traffic signal will allow trucks to safely
transition onto US Hwy. 17 and onto US Hwy. 74/76 via an interchange. (The preferred site is the
only site with access to TWO interchanges.) Again, traffic can left turn to exit with access onto NC
Hwy. 133 from Blackwell Rd. OR drivers can turn right to exit with access to a traffic signal and
interchange. Unlike Alternative sites where drivers have only one choice, every vehicle has a
choice when exiting the proposed site and both include access to an interchange.
Traffic Safety Engineers Rank Cities
Traffic safety engineers with NCDOT rank cities with populations of 10,000 or less based on
accidents. The annual rankings are based on crash statistics and population to come up with an
overall standing. Whiteville, NC was ranked #1 for three straight years with the most accidents,
injuries and fatalities. In 2004, it "will rank near the top again" according to Brian Murphy, a traffic
safety engineer with NCDOT. Out of 471 cities, Whiteville was ranked #1 for 3 (maybe 4) straight
years. Leland was ranked 30th out of 471 cities based on the same data. Both cities are located on
US Hwy. 74/76 in southeastern North Carolina and "cities with a significant amount of through
traffic but a relatively low population" could attribute the high number of accidents to US Hwy.
74/76. Brian Murphy could not confirm that conclusion without further research, but what other
explanation is there?
4
Truck driver fatigue is such a serious problem, the federal government stepped in to allocate funds
to build overnight parking for trucks. The SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill, signed on 8/10/05,
provides grants to assist entities by "constructing commercial motor vehicle parking facilities
adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel plazas." (Section 1305, [3] Eligible Projects-B) The
grants will go to areas lacking adequate parking with $25 million available over a four year period.
Hopefully, the attached Federal Grant Application will have support from the
following people/entities:
Resolution of support from
Wilmington MPO Transportation Advisory Committee
Mike Kozlosky
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Wilmington / Wilmington MPO
[phone]
Letters of support from
Mr. Darrell Jernigan, Director
Governor's Highway Safety Program
1508 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1508
[phone]
Susan Coward
Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs and Budget Coordination
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
[phone]
Caitlin Hughes Rayman
Federal Legislative Programs Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Governor's Office
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 332
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
5
Danny McComas
NC State Representative
PO Box 2274
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone]
Richard Burr
US Senator
217 Russell Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
[phone]
Wilmington Office
201 North Front St., Ste. 809
Wilmington, NC 28401
[phone]
The Town of Belville approved the project on 2/18/05 and passed a Resolution in Support of
the project on 9/21/04.
(See attached emails and Belville Resolution)
Contact information regarding the Federal Grant is Bill Mahorney 202-366-6817, Office of Freight
Management & Operations, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT.
Proiections
Accident, Fatality & Injury Proiections at Alternative Sites
Accidents, fatalities and injuries will increase in the immediate area of a truck stop. As shown, the
existing truck stop on US Hwy. 421 caused, on average, two accidents every year. Even with a stop
light within 250 feet of the entrance to slow traffic down, two accidents and 1.9 injuries occur every
year due to the truck stop. (A list of the 20 accidents over a ten year period is attached.)
The accidents can be summarized as follows:
Directly in Front of Existing Truck Stop
1995-2005 Per Year
Total Accidents 20 2.0
Fatalities -0- -0-
Type A* Injuries 6 .6
Type B* Injuries 8 .8
Type C* Injuries 5 _5
Total Injuries 19 1.9
*DOT Crash Severity-Injury Status description - See Attachment in Federal Grant package.
6
If the truck stop is built on US Hwy. 421 or on US Hwy. 74/76 as suggested by
NCDENR and the Corps, the following fatalities and accidents will result:
Total Accidents
Fatalities
Type A Injuries
Type B Injuries
Type C Injuries
Total Injuries
Accidents, Fatalities and Injuries Per Year
US Hw. 421
Alternative Site 10
Per Year
7.6
-0-
2.6
3.3
2.2
8.1
US Hwy. 74/76
Alternative Sites 3 & 4
Per Year
11.7
.5
4.0
5.1
3.4
12.5
If the truck stop is built on Blackwell Rd., as proposed, the following accidents
will result:
Blackwell Rd.
Proposed Site
Per Year
Total Accidents 3
Fatalities -0-
Type A Injuries -0-
Type B Injuries .5
Type C Injuries 2.5
Total Injuries 3.0
The differences are dramatic and concerning. If compared side by side, it shows the
following:
Accidents, Fatalities and Injuries Per Year
Blackwell Rd. US Hw. 421 US Hwy. 74/76
Proposed Site Alternative Site #10 Alternative Sites 3 & 4
Per Year Per Year Per Year
Total Accidents 3 7.6 11.7
Fatalities -0- -0- .5
Type A Injuries -0- 2.6 4.0
Type B Injuries .5 3.3 5.1
Type C Injuries 2.5 2.2 3.4
Total Injuries 3.0 8.1 12.5
7
When compared to Blackwell Rd., 253% more accidents on US Hwy. 421 and 390% more
accidents on US Hwy. 74/76. Type A and B injuries are higher on US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy.
74/76 than Blackwell Rd. due to higher speeds and access problems. US Hwy. 74/76 has the
highest number of injuries (4 times more than Blackwell Rd.) and one fatality every other year
because of speed, access and higher traffic counts.
This report will support the projections above regarding accidents, injuries and
fatalities at alternative sites. These finding are supported by hundreds of crash
reports, numerous safety studies, and other critical documents that support
these conclusions. It is inevitable that accidents and injuries will occur on
roadways near a new truck stop, however, the number and severity of accidents
can be reduced if the preferred site is selected.
The number of accidents, crash severity and injuries are based on crash data,
traffic volume, speed, access, traffic signals, conflict points, truck traffic growth
and curb cuts.
For example, crash data shows that vehicles turning to enter or exit the existing truck stop on US
Hwy. 421 from a high-speed, US highway caused the following:
38% of vehicles involved in accidents were traveling at 40 MPH or higher
65% of accidents involved a truck
75% of accident types were turning, rear end or backing accidents
There is a direct correlation between speed and crash severity, ie, higher speeds increase the
probability of deaths and Type A injuries in a crash. Fatal crashes are a joint function of high traffic
volumes and high speeds. Additionally, if a truck is involved, crash severity usually increases.
Methodology for Proiections
Accidents will occur at the proposed site, however, the number of accidents and crash severity will
be much lower than accidents at Alternative Sites #3, #4 and #10 or any US highway site. By
comparing the proposed site to alternative sites, the proposed site is much safer due to lower traffic
volume, lower speeds, better access (interchange vs. intersection, signal, etc.) and fewer conflict
points. The findings are substantiated by studies ranking US Hwy. 74/76 and US Hwy. 421 as the
most dangerous roads in the area in terms of truck crash rates.
Data from several sources will clearly show where and why accidents occur. Assumptions and
variables will be discussed. In addition, crash data, safety reports and letters from two experts are
attached.
Basis for Projections
Projections are based on historical data, current strip analysis reports and AASHTO guidelines
regarding highway design and access issues. Proof that accidents occur around truck stops is found
in crash reports on US Hwy. 421 north. (20 accident reports confirmed that the only reason for all
20 accidents was ingress/egress to existing truck stop on US Hwy. 421. Certified copies of accident
reports are available for review.)
In order to determine the impact of a new truck stop on a US highway, the data from each accident
report at the existing truck stop was analyzed and compared to each alternative site. Statistically,
there is a very high probability that similar accidents would occur at Alternative Sites #3, #4 and
#10 or any site on a US highway in the area.
Accidents at the Existing Truck Stop on US Hwy. 421
1995-2005 Per Year
Total Accidents 20 2.0
Fatalities -0- -0-
Type A* Injuries 6 .6
Type B* Injuries 8 .8
Type C* Injuries 5 _5
Total Injuries 19 1.9
Adiustments for the differences
Adjustments for the differences will be discussed at length, however, data is based on the same
highway type, same speed limit, same access and same curb cut.
Adiustment #1
Daily vehicle traffic utilizing the existing truck stop on US Hwy. 421 is much lower than traffic at
the proposed truck stop. Traffic counts for both sites were taken from the feasibility study and are
calculated as follows:
Existing truck stop - Passenger Car
Monthly gas fuel volume = 50,000 gallons
Average gas fill up per car = 12 gallons
Car count per month = 4,167 (50,000 / 12 gallons)
Cars at site per day = 139 (4,167 / 30 days)
Proposed truck stop - Passeneer Car
Monthly gas fuel volume = 208,000 gallons
Average gas fill up per car = 12 gallons
Car count per month = 17,333 (208,000 / 12 gallons)
Cars at site per day = 578 (17,333 / 30 days)
9
Existing truck stop - Trucks
Monthly diesel fuel volume = 175,000 gallons
Average diesel fuel fill up per truck = 88 gallons
Trucks fueling per month = 1,989 (175,000 / 88)
Trucks fueling per day = 66 (1,989 / 30 days)
Truck Volume at existing truck stop per day
Ratio for facility with limited parking 2 to 1
Truck volume per day = 198 (2 x 66 = 132 + 66 = 198)
Proposed truck stop - Trucks
Monthly diesel fuel volume = 332,979 gallons
Average diesel fuel fill up per truck = 88 gallons
Trucks fueling per month = 3,784 (332,979 / 88)
Trucks fueling per day = 126 (3,784 / 30 days)
Truck Volume at Proposed truck stop per day
Ratio for new facility with adequate parking 4 to 1
Truck volume per day = 630 (4 x 126 = 504 + 126 = 630)
Summary of Volume
Existing Truck Stop VERSUS Proposed Truck Stop
Cars 139 Cars 578
Trucks 198 Trucks 630
TOTAL 337 TOTAL 1,208
RATIO OF VEHICLES
1,208 / 337 = 3.6 Ratio
* One industry standard is the number of trucks that fuel versus the number of trucks that stop for reasons other than
fuel. Other reasons to stop include food, sleep, bathroom break, cigarettes, etc. The industry standard shows that four
(4) trucks will stop for every one truck that fuels. Of course, parking must be available to encourage them to stop. At
best, the existing truck stop has 12 to 14 spaces. This means that many trucks will not stop if parking is not available.
Thus, the industry standard for parking must be adjusted down for the Hwy. 421 site. Instead of 4 to 1, the ratio is 2 to
1.
10
Thus, accidents at the existing truck stop must be adjusted by the above ratio to compensate for
higher traffic counts utilizing the proposed truck stop.
Existing Truck Stop Adjusted
Per Year Adiustment Per Year
Total Accidents 2 x 3.6 = 7.2
Fatalities -0- x 3.6 = -0-
Type A Injuries .6 x 3.6 = 2.2
Type B Injuries .8 x 3.6 = 2.9
Type C Injuries .5 x 3.6 = 1.8
Adjustment #2
The existing truck stop benefits from a traffic signal within 250 feet of the entrance. While that
entrance is not "controlled" by a traffic signal, the signal has a "slowing effect" on traffic, ie,
vehicles must stop at the light or slow as they pass through intersection or make turns. This slowing
effect reduces the number and severity of accidents.
If the proposed truck stop is built on a US highway on any Alternative Site, the there must be an
adjustment upward of 0.4 to each category for no access to a traffic signal:
US Hwy. 421
Adjusted Alternative Site 10
Per Year Adiustment Per Year
Total Accidents 7.2 + .4 = 7.6
Fatalities -0- -0-
Type A Injuries 2.2 + .4 = 2.6
Type B Injuries 2.9 + .4 = 3.3
Type C Injuries 1.8 + .4 = 2.2
Total Injuries 8.1
Again, if the proposed truck stop is built at Alternative Site #10 on US Hwy. 421, approximately 7.6
accidents and 8.1 injuries will result. In addition, it is highly probable that a Type A injury will
become a fatality, especially since traffic from the nearby Soccer Complex has not been
factored in and the area will not have the benefit of a traffic light.
11
Adjustment #3
2003 traffic counts on US Hwy. 421 are 13,000 vehicles per day and 2003 traffic counts on US
Hwy. 74/76 are 20,000 vehicles per day. An adjustment must be made for the difference in traffic
volumes. The index for the adjustment will be as follows:
20,000 / 13,000 = 1.54
If the proposed truck stop is built at Alternative Site #3 or #4 on US Hwy. 74/76, the following
accidents and injuries will occur:
Adjusted
US Hwy. 74/76
Alternative Sites 3 & 4
Per Year Adiustment Per Year
Total Accidents 7.6 x 1.54 = 11.7
Fatalities .5
Type A Injuries 2.6 x 1.54 = 4.0
Type B Injuries 3.3 x 1.54 = 5.1
Type C Injuries 2.2 x 1.54 = 3.4
Total Injuries 12.5
The 18.5-mile section of US Hwy. 74/76 from Wilmington to Delco is dangerous with NCDOT
accident reports documenting 116 accidents, 1.5 fatalities and 89 injuries per year. The 0.5
fatalities per year is based on truck only crash data, statewide truck crash rates, speeding, access
issues, driver fatigue, higher traffic volumes and the addition of 230,000 trucks per year.
Again, if the proposed truck stop is built at Alternative Sites #3 or #4 on US Hwy. 74/76 (or any site
on US Hwy. 74/76), approximately.5 fatalities, 11.7 accidents and 12.5 injuries will result. Also,
Site #4 is adjacent to a large public park and both sites will not have the benefit of a traffic light.
Are the wetlands worth the fatalities, injuries and accidents?
Adjustment #4
Conflict points are defined as a location where the paths of two vehicles merge, diverge, cross or
queue behind each other. (Source - FHA, USDOT) Specific conflict points at the proposed site
and Alternative Sites #3, #4 and #10 are discussed on the next page, however, a summary shows the
following:
Blackwell Rd. US Hw. 421 US Hwy. 74/76
Proposed Site Alternative Site 10 Alternative Sites 3 & 4
# of Conflict Points 8 20 28
Ratio=2.5 (20/8) Ratio=3.5 (28/8)
12
The correlation between conflict points and accidents must be considered when projecting
accidents. The correlation of conflict points between alternative sites and the preferred site was
used to project accidents at the preferred site.
For example, 20 conflict points at Site #10 divided by 8 conflict points at preferred site equals 2.5
(20/8 = 2.5). If 7.6 accidents at Site #10 are divided by 2.5 (7.6/2.5 = 3.0), then 3 accidents should
occur at preferred site.
The same logic is used for US Hwy. 74/76 sites. 28 conflicts points at Site #3 divided by 8 conflict
points at preferred site equals 3.5 (28/8 = 3.5). If 11.7 accidents at Site #3 are divided by 3.5
(11.7/3.5 = 3.3), then 3.3 accidents should occur at preferred site. (The adjustment to 3.0 accidents
was made to allow for higher traffic counts on US Hwy. 74/76. In other words, 3 accidents times
3.5 is only 10.5 accidents at Site #3 (3 x 3.5 = 10.5) and the actual number is 11.7, thus, higher
traffic counts would increase accidents by approximately 1 accident per year.)
Severity of injuries at the proposed site is lower than alternative sites for the following reasons:
1. Trucks entering the proposed site from either direction would create zero (0) conflict
points because they have access to highway ramps with grade separation and traffic
signals.
2. Trucks exiting the site will exit onto Blackwell Rd. where traffic counts are only 2,000
per day.
3. Trucks can turn right or left onto Blackwell Rd. to exit the site. A right turn to exit gives
drivers access to a traffic signal at Ploof Rd. and Hwy. 17. (See letter from NCDOT)
That traffic signal will allow trucks to safely transition onto US Hwy. 17 and onto US
Hwy. 74/76 via an interchange. A left turn to exit gives drivers access from Blackwell
Rd. onto NC Hwy. 133. Even if drivers decide to turn left onto Hwy. 133, the speed
limit on NC Hwy. 133 is 35 MPH and traffic counts are only 11,000 vehicles per day.
4. Accidents will occur at the proposed site, but the number of accidents are lower and
injuries are less severe due to lower speeds.
Drivers have several options to safely exit the preferred site and travel in any direction; one
gives drivers access to a clover-leaf interchange and one gives drivers access to the "Leland"
interchange. Drivers leaving alternative sites have only one way to exit and that is without
traffic signals or ramps. The preferred site is the only available site with access to two US
highway interchanges.
13
Thus, accidents and injuries at the proposed site are as follows:
Blackwell Rd.
Proposed Site
Per Year
Total Accidents 3
Fatalities -0-
Type A Injuries
Type B Injuries
Type C Injuries
-0-
2_5
Total Injuries 3.0
14
Summary of Accidents
Accidents, Fatalities and Injuries Per Year
Blackwell Rd. US Hw. 421 US Hwy. 74/76
Proposed Site Alternative Site 10 Alternative Sites 3 & 4
Per Year Per Year Per Year
Total Accidents 3 7.6 11.7
Fatalities -0- -0- .5
Type A Injuries -0- 2.6 4.0
Type B Injuries .5 3.3 5.1
Type C Injuries 2.5 2.2 3.4
Total Injuries 3.0 8.1 12.5
Conflict Points
Conflict points are defined as a location where the paths of two vehicles merge, diverge, cross or
queue behind each other. (Source - Federal Highway Administration, USDOT. See attachment)
Cars and trucks must "interact" or share the highway, but conflict points are magnified by 2 or 3
times the normal danger when a car interacts with a truck. This is for several reasons. First, trucks
are bigger, heavier, slower and more dangerous than 2 cars sharing the highway. Second, trucks
have blind spots on both sides and behind. Third, at 55 MPH, fully-loaded trucks take the length of
a football field to stop; that is 50% farther than a car. Thus, identifying conflict points between cars
and trucks is critical to the safety of all motorists.
Conflict points occur at locations where vehicles turn, merge, diverge, change lanes, cross, queue,
accelerate, decelerate and stop. Every conflict point is a place with potential for an accident and
some traffic movements are more dangerous than others, especially for trucks.
Each site is evaluated by the number of conflict points generated each day, based on 1,208 vehicles
entering the site and 1,208 vehicles leaving the site. Vehicles can enter a site from two different
directions and exit a site to travel in two different directions. (An adjustment will be made for
ingress/egress with 1,208 vehicles divided 50/50 for ingress and egress.)
Each point represents the number of times one vehicle has the potential to "conflict" with another
vehicle. Also, vehicle speed, lane selection and direction of travel are under "manual" control of
the driver and the driver is subject to motivation, alertness (on cell phone, sleepy, under the
influence of alcohol/drugs, looking at ratio, etc.) and vehicle control capabilities (inexperienced,
young driver versus experienced, older driver).
15
Conflict Points at Proposed Site
The Blackwell Rd. site is the safest site since all trucks have access via highway ramps with grade
separation and traffic signals. Also, traffic counts on Blackwell Rd. and NC Hwy. 133 are much
lower than US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/76. Trucks leaving the site will have the option of using
NC Hwy. 133 at Blackwell Rd. or the traffic signal at Ploof Rd. and Hwy. 17 that leads to another
interchange.
Number of
Conflict Points
Ingress
Approaching site from Wilmington
Exit Hwy. 74/76 via highway ramp
Deceleration on highway ramp
Left turn at traffic signal
Right turn onto Blackwell Rd.
Right turn into project
Approaching site from Whiteville
Exit Hwy. 74/76 via highway ramp
Deceleration on highway ramp
Right turn at traffic signal
Right turn onto Blackwell Rd.
Right turn into project
Speed Limit Traffic Count
NC Hwy. 133 35 MPH 11,000 Vehicles per Day (VPD)
Blackwell Rd 55 MPH 2,000 VPD
Sight Distance, if inclement weather Good
Access via Highway Ramps Yes
Length of ramp adequate to decelerate Yes
Exit through-traffic lanes before deceleration Yes
Length of ramp adequate for stacking of trucks Yes
Allows through traffic to pass without delay Yes
Grade Separation Yes
Ramps are straight, not curved Yes
Access to Traffic Signals Yes
Egress
Exit site via second entrance (southwest corner of nronert
Exit site by crossing both lanes of Blackwell Rd onto Chappell Loop Rd. 1 & 2
Turn right onto Ploof Rd.
Turn right at traffic signal onto US Hwy. 17
Accelerate in through-traffic lanes 3
Access to US Hwy. 74/76 West via Interchange
Access to US Hwy. 74/76 East via lengthy merge lanes
16
Exit site via first entrance onto Blackwell Rd. traveling northeast
Turn left onto Blackwell Rd. 4
Cross one lane of traffic 5
Accelerate in through-traffic 6
Turn left onto NC Hwy. 133 7
Accelerate in through traffic 8
Turn right or left at traffic signals for ramp access
Speed Limit
Blackwell Rd 55 MPH
Chappell Loop Rd. 45 MPH
Ploof Rd 45 MPH
Traffic Count
2,000 Vehicles per Day (VPD)
2,000 VPD
Not available
Access via Highway Ramps Yes
Accelerate on ramps Yes
Grade Separation Yes
Ramps are straight, not curved Yes
Access to Traffic Signals at Highway interchange Yes
Access to Traffic Signal at Ploof Rd. and Hwy. 17 Yes
Access to US Hwy. 74/76 via TWO interchanges Yes
Total Conflict points generated at site with 630 trucks and 578 cars
per day:
Ingress
630 + 578 =1,208 x 0 conflict points = -0- conflict points per day
Egress
630 + 578 =1,208 x 8 conflict points = 9,664 total conflict points per
day
17
Conflict Points at Alternative Site #10 on US Hwy. 421 (Any site on US
Hwy. 421
Alternative Site #10 on US Highway 421 is one of the most dangerous sites in the area. US Hwy.
421 is ranked in the state as having a high number of truck-involved accidents. Dr. Ron Hughes, a
specialist in truck-involved accidents in North Carolina, documented the problem on US Hwy. 421
in a report titled "Commercial Vehicle Safety in NC" (page 35). Again, the strip analysis report on
US Hwy. 421 shows the much higher truck crash rates for that highway segment versus statewide
truck crash rates. Additionally, 20 accidents in front of the existing truck stop on US Hwy. 421
confirm the problem of accidents and conflict points. By introducing an additional 230,000 trucks
per year that are turning, merging, accelerating, decelerating and crossing through-traffic lanes with
4.7 million vehicles, there is a very high probability that accidents will occur. The key questions
are: When the accident occurs, what are the speeds of each vehicle at impact? Will the accident
involve a passenger car and 80,000 pound truck loaded with gasoline? How many will be injured or
killed?
Number of
Conflict Points
Ingress
Approaching site from Wilmington
Deceleration in through-traffic lanes
Change to higher-speed left lane & decelerate further
Enter center turning lane
Stacking of numerous trucks in center turning lane
Conflict with exiting, left-turning traffic
Turn Left & Cross two lanes of on-coming traffic
Approaching site from Currie
Deceleration in through-traffic lanes
Transition to Right Turn Lane & decelerate further
Stacking in right turn lane
Site Distance, especially in inclement weather
Speed Traffic Count
US Hwy. 421 55 MPH 13,000 Vehicles per Day
Vehicle Speeds higher than posted speed limit
Adjacent to Large Soccer Complex
Access via Highway Ramps
Allows through traffic to pass without delay
Grade Separation
Ramps are straight, not curved
Access to Traffic Signal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NA
No
2
3
4
5&6
7
8
9
Poor
7,745,000 vehicles per
year
18
Egress
Exiting site is dangerous, especially if vehicle is making a left turn
Turning Right
Exit by turning right onto US Hwy. 421 10
Accelerate in through-traffic lanes (high probability of rear-end collision due
to curve at RR tracks) 11
Turning Left
Exit by turning left into Center Turning Lane 12
Conflict with entering vehicles in center turn lane 13
Cross two lanes of on-coming through traffic 14 & 15
Accelerate in center lane 16
Merge into higher-speed left lane 17
Merge into right lane 18
Accelerate in through-traffic lanes 19
Curve in highway creates unsafe sight distance 20
Total Conflict points generated at Alternative Site #10 with 630 trucks
and 578 cars per day:
Approaching site from Wilmington 6 points x 604* = 3,624
Approaching site from Currie 3 points x 604 = 1,812
Egress 11 points x 1,208 = 13,288
Total conflict points per day 189724
*630 + 578 = 1,208 / 2 = 604
19
Conflict Points at Alternative Sites #3 & #4 (Any site on US Hi!hwa
74/76
Alternative Sites #3 & #4 are located on US Highway 74/76, which is another dangerous highway
in the area. According to Dr. Ron Hughes, a specialist in truck-involved accidents in North
Carolina, Brunswick County is in the "Top 21" most dangerous counties in the state in terms of
truck-involved accidents. (Report titled "Truck Safety in NC", page 13). Again, the strip analysis
report on US Hwy. 74/76 shows the much higher truck crash rates for that highway segment versus
statewide truck crash rates. 8.25 million vehicles per year travel past Alternative Site #3 and #4 on
US Hwy 74/76 with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. By introducing an additional 230,000 trucks
per year that are turning, merging, accelerating, decelerating and crossing through-traffic lanes with
8.25 million vehicles, there is a very high probability that accidents will occur. The key questions
are: When the accident occurs, what are the speeds of each vehicle at impact? Will the accident
involve a passenger car and 80,000 pound truck loaded with gasoline? How many will be injured or
killed?
Number of
Conflict Points
Ingress-Site #3
Approaching site from Wilmington
Deceleration in through-traffic lanes 1
Transition to right turn lane & decelerate further 2
Stacking in right turn lane 3
Conflicts with Mt. Misery Rd. ramp 4
Approaching site from Delco (Median Left Turn)
Deceleration in through-traffic lanes 5
Change to higher speed left lane & decelerate further 6 & 7
Stacking in median left turn lane 8
Conflict with other traffic in median area 9
Width of Median (too narrow for trucks) 10
Cross two lanes of on-coming traffic 11 & 12
Egress-Site #3
Right Turn to exit site 13
Accelerate in through-traffic lanes 14
Median Left Turn
Cross two lanes of on-coming traffic 15 & 16
(Trucks will accelerate to clear lanes OR trucks will block lanes to gain
access to median in hopes that traffic will see them and slow down or stop)
Width of Median (too narrow for trucks) 17
Conflict with other traffic in median area 18
Turn Left & Accelerate/Merge in through-traffic lanes 19 & 20
20
Median U-Turn
Accelerate into right lane
Change to higher speed left lane & decelerate
Stacking in median left turn lane
Conflict with other traffic in median area
Turn left & cross two lanes of on-coming traffic
Accelerate/Merge in through-traffic lanes
Speed Traffic Count
US Hwy. 74/76 55 MPH 22,600 Vehicles per Day
Access via Highway Ramps No
Allows through traffic to pass without delay No
Grade Separation No
Ramps are straight, not curved NA
Access to Traffic Signal No
Across highway from large public park
Yes
8.25 million
vehicles/year
21
22 &23
24
25
26 & 27
28
Total Conflict points generated at Alternative Site #3 with 630 trucks
and 578 cars per day:
Ingress- Site #3
Approaching site from Wilmington 4 points x 604* = 2,416
Approaching site from Delco
Egress- Site #3
Egress-Right Turn
Egress-Left Turn
Egress-U Turn
8 points x 604 = 4,832
2 points x 604 = 1,208
6 points x 302** = 1,812
8 points x 302 = 2,416
Total conflict points per day
*630 + 578 = 1,208 / 2 = 604
**604/2=302
12,684
21
Ingress-Site #4
Site #3 and Site #4 have very similar conflict points with Site #4 having 11 ingress conflict points.
Approaching site from Wilmington 8 points x 604 = 4,832
Approaching site from Delco 3 points x 604 = 1,812
Egress-Site #4
Site #3 and Site #4 have very similar conflict points with Site #4 having 8 egress conflict points.
Egress-Right Turn 2 points x 604 = 1,208
Egress-Left Turn 6 points x 604 = 3,624
Total conflict points per day 11,476
Speed Traffic Count
US Hwy. 74/76 55 MPH 22,600 Vehicles per Day 8.25 million vehicles
per year
Vehicle speeds substantially higher then posted speed limit Yes
Adjacent to large public park Yes
Access via Highway Ramps No
Allows through traffic to pass without delay No
Grade Separation No
Access to Traffic Signal No
22
Summary of Sites
Blackwell Rd.
Proposed Site
# of Conflict Points 8
US Hw. 421
Alternative Site 10
20
US Hwy. 74/76
Alternative Sites 3 & 4
28&19,
respectively
Again, if the proposed truck stop is built on US Hwy. 421 North or on US Hwy.
74/76 as suggested by NCDENR and the Corps, the following fatalities and
accidents will result:
Accidents, Fatalities and Injuries Per Year
Blackwell Rd. US Hw. 421 US Hwy. 74/76
Proposed Site Alternative Site 10 Alternative Sites 3 & 4
Per Year Per Year Per Year

Total Accidents 3 7.6 11.7
Fatalities -0- -0- .5
Type A Injuries -0- 2.6 4.0
Type B Injuries .5 3.3 5.1
Type C Injuries 2.5 2.2 3.4
Total Injuries 3.0 8.1 12.5

23
Summary of Highway Safety
Strip analysis reports highlight the problem for passenger cars on US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/76
when truck traffic is present.
• Trucks on US Hwy. 421 increase the chance of an accident by 433% and increase the
chance of an injury by 658%.
• Trucks on US Hwy. 74/76 increase the chance of an accident by 166%, increase the
chance of a fatality by 200% and increase the chance of an injury by 166%.
Truck traffic is a major consideration with serious consequences. The numbers above are not
20% higher or 501/6 higher, but 166% to 658% higher than the NC statewide averages. No
matter how the numbers are stated, it is a very dangerous situation.
SUMMARY
The intersection analysis report for NC Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd. shows 6 accidents per year
with few serious injuries. Crash severity is low since the average speed at impact is only 21 MPH.
(Speed limit on NC Hwy. 133 is 35 MPH) Additionally, drivers have the choice of exiting onto NC
Hwy. 133 OR using a traffic signal and interchange for access to US Hwy. 17 and US Hwy. 74/76.
Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender Counties were ranked in the top 21 counties within the state
as having the most truck involved crashes (1995 to 1999). Unfortunately, US Hwy. 421 in New
Hanover County and US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County (2001 to 2003) still have some of the
highest truck crash rates in North Carolina.
Projected accidents, fatalities and injuries are preventable if the location is selected based on one
critical factor, highway safety. Instead, wetlands are elevated above highway safety. The existing
truck stop on US Hwy. 421 is proof that accidents will occur near a new truck stop.
Conflict points are well defined by safety experts and show where potential problems might occur.
Accidents occur at conflict points between two or more vehicles and accidents between a car and
truck can be devastating. In addition, AASHTO publications state that highway ramps are
extremely safe for both truck and passenger car traffic and ramps would reduce the number of
highway accidents. This information shows that lives are at risk if a new truck stop is built at
any site on a US highway without highway ramps.
No one knows for sure exactly how many accidents will occur if a truck stop is build on a US
highway without ramp access, but it is clear that truck crash rates in the area are a problem.
Projections are based on historical data and future trends with higher "value" or weight placed on
certain data. While projections are not perfect and some people will argue about the accuracy, no
one has a crystal ball. However, all concerned citizens should agree with the statement that
accidents will occur near the proposed truck stop.
24
There is a "margin of error" in any statistical analysis. (How reliable is the data? How old is the
data? Who collected and compiled the data? What size sample was taken? How does one interpret
the data and what variables should be considered? And so on.) While projections are never totally
accurate, the margin of error for this analysis is minor since NCDOT included all accident reports
(not just a sampling) and compiled the data. If projections are skewed one way or the other, then
the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities are too low (See attached data for Federal Grant,
especially with the increase in truck traffic, the age of the data, not all accidents are reported and the
ratio of conflict points to accidents. (For example, approximately 6.8 million conflict points will
occur every year if a truck stop is built on US Hwy. 421, but only 7.6 accidents are projected. In
addition, truck traffic, as a percentage of all traffic, is much higher in the Wilmington area due to
the port.)
Is pharmaceutical testing perfect? Will airport security prevent every act of terrorism? Obviously,
neither is perfect, but adequate testing and security will save some lives over the long run if
researchers and security agents do everything in their power to reduce or prevent a tragedy. This
situation is very similar; we should do everything in our power to protect motorists on US
highways. As the President and CEO of AAA Carolinas stated "we need local and state traffic
safety officials to pay attention to what is happening on North Carolina highways."
This report showed that the number and severity of accidents can be reduced or prevented by
simply selecting the safest site. The key words are reduced or prevented; why not reduce or
prevent as many fatalities and severe injuries as possible?
Truck driver fatigue is a serious problem in southeastern North Carolina. NCDENR would prefer to
wait a year or two or three or more until another alternative site becomes available, but every year
of waiting means 2.4 fatalities, 47 iniuries and 138 accidents in this area. Also, why hasn't a
full-service truck stop been built in southeastern North Carolina before now, especially with the
port's growth?
New Hanover County is ranked #1 by AAA for the sixth straight year as the most dangerous county
in North Carolina in terms of the likelihood of being in a crash and being injured.
AASHTO information and guidelines were discussed at length in prior packages submitted to
NCDENR and ACE.
Will building a truck stop on a US highway without highway ramp access pose
an imminent risk to the general public? YES
NCDENR and the Corps must carefully review safety at alternative sites. The
only negative issue, as related to the proposed site, is wetlands.
25
Sites Ranked by Probability for Accidents
All sites are ranked based on the risk of accidents, injuries and fatalities occurring at each site.
The alternative site analysis, required by DWQ and ACE, is best described in terms of probability
of accidents based on highway safety. For example, below is a list of all sites ranked in order from
highest to lowest. Sites having the highest probability (or likelihood) of accidents occurring at that
site are listed at the top, then sites with lower probabilities, then sites with the lowest likelihood of
accidents.
Highest Probability Alternative site next to UNCW
of Alternative Site # 1
Accidents Alternative Site #10
Alternative Site #3
Alternative Site #4
Corps recommended site with 29.33 acres
Alternative Site #5
Alternative Site #11
Alternative Site #2
Alternative Site #13
Alternative Site #12
Alternative Site #6
Alternative Site #7
Lowest Probability Alternative Site #8
of Alternative Site #9
Accidents Preferred Site

Ranking is based on speed limit, traffic count, signalization (or lack of signalization), conflict
points, access to highway ramps, statewide truck crash rates, highway design, congestion, etc. 1
The following two examples demonstrate the reasons for the ranking:
Example 1
At 3:40am on Thursday, July 14, 2005, two tractor-trailer trucks heading east on US Hwy. 74/76
towards Wilmington were involved in a fatal crash. One truck was traveling at 55 mph and the
other truck at 60 mph. The crash was 10 mile west of Wilmington and occurred as one truck began
to pass the other truck. A passenger car with a drunk driver pulled out in front of the trucks at a
median crossover and one truck driver was killed. (see attached accident report.)
Certainly, the drunk driver contributed to the accident by causing a chain-reaction, but speed and
highway design caused the death of the truck driver. It is well documented that crash severity is
related to roadway design and speed and that fatal truck-involved crashes are directed related to the
vehicle's speed and lack of sufficient highway design.
For example, if the same accident occurred at the intersection of Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd., all
three drivers would have survived the crash because the speed of the trucks would have been 35
mph, not 55 to 60 mph. (The speed limit on Hwy. 133 at Blackwell Rd. is 35 mph.) While the
"opportunities" for collisions between trucks and other vehicles cannot be eliminated, the severity
of impact can be reduced since it is a function of speed and highway design.
26
If both trucks had been traveling at slower speeds OR if the accident occurred at an
interchange instead of a median crossover, there would have been one less fatality on US Hwy.
74/76 in 2005.
Example 2
Truck traffic on US Hwy. 421 has an enormous negative impact on highway safety. For example,
at 4:40am on January 25, 2006, a truck with double trailers was traveling north on US Hwy. 421
(near Sutton Steam Plant Rd.) and made a left-hand turn crossing two lanes of traffic. Another
vehicle traveling south on US Hwy. 421 at 60 mph slammed into the side of the truck, killing the
driver. (66% of all truck involved accidents occur from midnight to 6:00am.) The truck driver was
charged with failure to yield and was most likely fatigue related. Since passenger cars must share
the highway with trucks, it is important to know why this highway segment is so dangerous.
No one should build a large truck stop next to UNCW on South College Rd or on a dangerous US
highway without ramp access, especially since those areas are already dangerous to all drivers, for
obvious reasons.
Again, the preferred site has the lowest probability for accidents of all available sites and if an
accident does occur, crash severity is low due to low vehicular speeds.
The need for a truck stop is not in question, but why hasn't one been built? The three most
important aspects of almost any project are location, viability and capital. Location addresses
proximity to the port, highway infrastructure, availability, visibility, highway access (safety) and
cost. Viability addresses economic survival and must attract tourists, truckers and locals as
customers. However, a truck stop is very different from all other real estate projects because
of highway safety.
Trucking provides the essential link between national and international trade and local economies.
Because of this link, a safe commercial motor vehicle industry is vital to North Carolina's economy.
27
Page 1 of 1
Dan Cameron
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:13 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Meeting with MPO
Thanks. Please let me know when you will be looking for a support letter from us.
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mar 1, 2006 12:47
To: "Caitlin Rayman"
Subj : Meeting with MPO
The meeting with Board members at Wilmington MPO went well and they are open to finding out more
information. The attached Executive Summary is the same one I handed out at meeting.
Thanks,
Dan Cameron
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *

TOWN of BELVILLE Incorporated in 1977
Mayor Albert O. Ismert
Mayor Pro Tern Michael King
Commissioner Jean Rhodes
Commissioner Elly Lister
Commissioner Tom Gale
175 Main Street
Belville, North Carolina 28451
September 22, 2004
Mr. Dan Cameron
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Cameron:
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Enclosed please find a copy the resolution "Supporting NOREMAC Travel
Center" adopted by the Belville Town Council on September 21, 2004.
If additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me at 371-2456.
Sincerely,
Utt -0 i (Y&
Adrienne L. Smith
Town Clerk, CMC
ALS
Enc
c: File
M"
r
k
J?rr
Town of Belville
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NOREMAC TRAVEL CENTER
WHEREAS, the Belville Planning Board approved Article 10, Section 10.3,
Special Use/Travel Center in the Belville Zoning Ordinance on April 21, 2004 at
the Belville Planning Board Meeting, and;
WHEREAS, the Belville Board of Commissioners, approved Article 10,
Section 10.3, Special Use/Travel Center to the Belville Zoning Ordinance on May
18, 2004 at the regular town meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Belville Board of Commissioners deemed it beneficial to
issue a Special Use/Travel Center Permit to the Noremac Travel Center for
providing an emergency staging site for disaster relief, a positive impact on the
tax basis of the town, employment opportunities and to promote economic
growth, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Belville Board of
Commissioners supports the efforts of the Noremac Travel Center in the Town of
Belville.
THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2004.
ATTEST:

Albert Ismert, Mayor
MQ
"I XA Qbij - 11 412$
W-?A
Adrienne L. Smi h, Town Clerk
Q,
BRUNSWICK 11Cr:u) F1 WV. rI N. ,`4(-2
ELECTRIC 1'0 R ON 5_r, "ImIloxtc. ? 450
\IEMBERSUiP CORPORATION Q I i - ;51-4 3`) I tiE`-;-f_-5,? i I F:? ; 10 5?-.} 2Q )
October 13. 2004
Mr. Tom Farrell
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
WilminLyton, NC 28402
RE: Noremac Travel Center in Belville
Dear Mr. Farrell:
Brunswick Electric Membership Corporation has worked with Mr. Dan
Cameron in planning and preparing for his Travel Center located off Hwy 17
in Brunswick County.
This site has the potential of serving as a staging area for BEMC as well as
contracted assistance during hurricanes or other emergency situations which
require the restoration of power. The five (5) acres of parking as well as the
benefits of food and possible fuel can significantly support our restoration
efforts.
Thank you for your support of this project.
Sincerely,
Judy Gore
Vice President. Customer Service
-k
A TuUCIIStonc Encn-n Coopcrallvc ?
.3

z s

QO v c 0) 2 cn -Al co
N
<
(D x <
(D X <
m x <
(D c7
X
Q d
n
W
co
N co
N
O CD
N co
CA CD
CD -4 N C4 N O
z
O
(O O
t0 w?w
A W 00 W
W pO?1
r `I
W
c
N
1

{'!
ID
y
o Cf
y o
co C!
tP
N
o Cf
W
N
o !'f
m
y O
o t1
W
y
N n_
N O
w t'1
m
N
O
w w w w eo m w w
w W
a w a w a w a ;o
?p w a to
? co a a
IC V N V N rn !P T N rn N in W N 1D to
<D
1 !D
1 W
1 !P
1 <D
"'? <D
1 lD
1 W
'7
C)
° y Ch
O
O
O
Q N a) ID 0) N fD f0 10 w O

n
7
2
=
"a , U) cy.
C" Cl) C.
CD CD
a
<?i
o`'i
cn
chi

A
(p

= t0
m
o?
x n
x -i
oZ -p
x cm
`, -I

`
W 7c -u

x

v
fo

x

m
n
w m m C)
w m_ D
s D C7
w D

O/
N
N m

C m
G m

O
a N L .
6)

O 6
° G7
w
'-?
m
w
(n W
y
m
to
q

O
2
W

0
M

N
2
n
w
w

O
2

?p
0
2
f>

>
0

<p
w
q

to
v?
w <
to
S
5-
m .0 (° (O T
2
'
2
d F V
2 N '0
2 @ 2 t° _ !D
x N s
o cD co cD m 0) N
3 w 3
m
CL m a

w
I

d i
x
o
y
w
m
0)
0?)
t0
7

w
C

!D
0
o x 7C d o c C
?o a0
3 v v n 3 v

CD m
O o 0 0 0 0 0 o TI
0 0 0 0 o N s

i
O O O O f O N O
O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0
W
co
3
N
CL
C
m
O
1
pr
CO)
O
10
O
7
C
CO)
2
N

C 0 C 0 C Q a
0 C
U1
-D, 0
W c
N p
O L
0 co CD
? 0 N 0 C O N 0
(
D (
D CD X
a Q Q a

0 0 co CD Of D 000 O0D ODD
0
N)
o
0
K)
N
o
W

0)

00
o

000

A

O
W W A co W CA W Z
? CST two coo c 0 N OD 3
V
J
A
C < C N < <
N N co
N
N
N
S S J S S S S S
C7
?p
?
o Cf
y o
w
-4 C7
W
co
v -? Cf
eD o
N n
co o
o A
N o
o n
9 o
0 n

v
3 !P - 3 1 3 N 3 1 °; 3
co
m
F
m
S m
a O d
a c d
o cn
a ,?
to o+
a n+
a to m
a
?, d
a m
m d
a o
W o
CD W o
o m lD m N CD CD co W o CD co

W
1 N
1 W
1 m
1
1
1 W
1
1
n

7C

2 O
77
f0
y

0)Gy+1+

GI

"I O

10 O

fQ

j

e j

f0

Cl)

(p
76 o O 0 C-" v
0 m r o J
_
D
2
IMO

_

?

=

y

?

=

v

o

2

_

'

D

co D n m m D D -I i
3 N
a " 3 3
a
a 3
0 0 0 0 0
w m ?' °?' m ' m o
to
cn o N 0 fn
` N 0) to
to ? m °
t'o 0 1 co c" m t
o
?
@ Ao CD t N -1 S

03-
r
tic'
S
o
m
co
r
2
r m

-
t'o
.
ro
2
Cs
_ 2 a ? 2 N ? _ 2 0 ? 2 N ? 2 <D
D D D n i 0 D n D N

3
m y C
3 C
3 y
(:D" y
cD
CL a a o. n
A

S
C'!
m
W
?
d o
m v
m v
m o
t v
t
m
m a
n
0 m ?' ? ? ? ' to

PL .
A x x m
n
O m N

0 ?g 3 0
CL 3 o° 3 3 ?g 3
-4
3 F
0
0?
d
0?
N N N
O O o O o 0 0 o T
O O O N O O O O D

C

N
w
O O O O O O W
O 0 N 0 0 0 0
O
(7
y
y
CL
C
m
O
C
n
pr
CO)
O
.a
C
N
z A
< < -? 3
2- 2
(D
OD
V C
0 < 0 N 0 N
N
n n n n
n

O O S
? O W O
N)
--4
co z

C
v v
O 0)
4 O
Cl)
3
1

6

3 W ca
3 0
3 o v
N
0 CL ° N
N ? ID !p W W N
W
1
1
? W
?
0
O @
-i
A m
U)
N x A d
? o <
=
10
r O i
V 1
2 O O ?
m fo
r y
m '
n
_ ? _ = 3•
?
_ ?
•
ep
C C ? C
3 ?
CL 3 cn 3 co
L7
0 O
0 G7
0
_0 i
o m fo

4
Vji En
m
7
N (n
9 cn
a cn
° U,
g

I CO
?j En
N
S
GS
v
to
m
r
?
v
r'o
m

to

13 u

(5

v
C)

W
= n = n S n =
N
ID 3 m = w =
c d n
U

-0
-
N C!
?
0
3•
m
CD w
m
ID

0 g v
W m d m n
D a? co

o
c
o Er m (D
N F 3 3 3 -1
d d 0
N fop ?
Q O O O O n
Q O O O O

c
C.
0
Q O W O O W
N O O (?
y
N
a
C
m
POL
O
C
O
13
C
N
N
urasn aeveriry-lniury status
the most severe injury to a person involved in the crash.
1. natal (Killed) - Deaths, which occur within 12 months after the crash.
2. A Injury Type (Disabling) - Injury obviously serioi4s enough to prevent the person injured
from performing their normal activities for at least one day beyond the day of the crash.
Massive loss of blood, 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 their normal activities.
4. C Injury Type (Possible) - No visible injury, but person complains of pain, or has been
momentarily unconscious.
5. No injury (PDO-Property Damage Only)
6. Unknown
- s The Scapellato Group, Inc.
?Yansporlabon co„m mn8
June 8, 2005
Mr. Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC.
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
Re: Expert Report by James E. Scapellato
Noremac Truck Stop and Travel Center
Dear Mr. Cameron:
With a reasonable degree of professional certainty, enclosed are my findings,
opinions, and conclusions expressed in the above referenced matter. The information and
facts relied upon to form my opinions come from review of documents that comprises
part of the administrative record submitted to Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Water
Quality Division, Raleigh, North Carolina in support of Noremac's request for
environmental permit(s). Noremac Enterprises, LLC has retained the professional
services of the Scapellato Group, Inc. to issue an expert report in this matter.
My opinions expressed herein are premised on more than 36 years of professional
work, education, and training in regulatory and compliance matters in the areas of motor
carrier safety, environmental, public involvement, and Federal-aid highway
preconstruction and construction matters. If necessary, I am willing to testify in any
administrative proceeding or, if necessary, in any court proceeding concerning the
opinions expressed herein.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:
Since January 1999, I currently serve as Vice President of Operations and
Counsel for the Scapellato Group, Inc. (SGI), a transportation consulting company
located on Johns Island, South Carolina. Prior to forming SGI, I worked first for the
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
l1FC...e. one cc'7 0171 _ G'- QA'2 ee'7 MIA - G'-1• cnlntinnennlcrnnarnm rnm
s? The Scapeftato Group, Inc.
Transportation Conad ing
State of West Virginia for approximately two years as a Field Safety and Research
Specialist and thereafter for U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for more than 28 years. I retired from federal service in January
1999. During my federal career, I held positions in the US DOT as a Senior Executive
Service (SES) Program Manager, Division Administrator, Regional and Assistant
Regional Counsel, and Safety Management Specialist.
Specific to motor carriers, I served as the Federal Highway Administration's
Office of Motor Carriers Director of Research and Standards for five years, and for one
year as the Director of Federal Enforcement and State Programs. As the Director of
Research and Standards, I was responsible for writing and interpreting the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, managing the $10 million driver and truck research program,
and responsible for preparing regulatory interpretive guidance. As the Director of Motor
Carrier Enforcement, I was responsible for developing federal enforcement policy and
procedures for federal and state field investigators and managing the $100 million State
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grant Program for state roadside enforcement.
As Regional Counsel for the Federal Highway Administration, I served as the
chief legal officer for the Southeast Region of the United States and litigated over 70
environmental cases in various Federal District and Appellate Courts throughout the
Southeast. I have reviewed hundreds of environmental documents for NEPA compliance
and legal sufficiency and have mediated and facilitated negotiated settlements on many
contested environmental projects and issues. Throughout my 36-year professional career,
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 2
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsascavaoup.com
The Scapellato Group, Inc.
Transportation Conking
I have dedicated myself to improving highway safety and environmental enhancement
throughout the Nation.'
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS
1. Congress, in 1999, created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) to address truck safety issues from a public policy standpoint.2 Since
creation of the FMCSA, the Secretary of Transportation has deemed safety as the
number one priority of the U.S. Department of Transportation to proactively
fulfill the mandates of Congress.
2. States participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, as a
condition to receiving grant funds, must also adopt the federal regulatory scheme
into state law. 3 The FMCSA has determined that North Carolina has compatible
state safety laws and regulations with those set forth in the federal regulatory
scheme.4 Accordingly, North Carolina's safety requirements governing
inter/intrastate operations of motor carriers in the State are essentially identical to
the federal requirements and have the same force and effect.
Besides safety, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), also a modal
administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation, also place
environmental compliance and mitigation as a high priority as a part of the
' See attached curriculum vitae for more information on qualifications.
2 See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat 1748 (1999), Section
113(a) and (b).
3 The MCSAP is a federal grant program that provides financial assistance to states to reduce the number
and severity of accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles
(CMV).... See 49 C.F.R. § 350.101.
4 Compatible or Compatibility means that State laws and regulations applicable to interstate commerce and
to intrastate movement of hazardous materials are identical to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) or have the same effect as the FMCSRs; and
that State laws applicable to intrastate commerce are either identical to or have the same effect as the
FMCSRs or fall within the established limited variances under §§350.341, 350.343, and 350.345 of this
subchapter. See 49 C.F.R. § 355.5.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
nffirP• Rd's 557 W" - Fny- RXI 557 01 ?4 - Email- SnlutinnSn.CCangoun.com
s The ScapeDato Group, Inc.
Transportation Consulting
Federal-aid Highway Program.5 The North Carolina Department of
Transportation is a grant recipient of Federal-aid highway funding and as a
condition must conform to the policies and practices of the Federal
Administrations.
4. As a former federal regulator and attorney, I know of no federal law, regulation,
policy, or grant condition that places wetlands protection above that of safety of
the motoring public. As a matter of statutory construction, the U.S. Congress
spoke clearly to this issue when it passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999, specifically Section 113 (a) and (b). Moreover, the U.S. Congress
vested full authority and responsibility of road safety and construction to the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and its modal administrations as a
means to ensure national uniformity and standardization.6 As a recipient of
federal funding, North Carolina has agreed to conform to the federal statutory and
regulatory scheme.
5. In my experience, projects that have wetland impacts can be properly advanced as
long as appropriate measures are incorporated into the project design for wetland
restoration, mitigation, and preservation. Therefore, projects contributing to a
community's economic viability or quality of life have not been outright barred or
unreasonably held hostage because of adverse wetland impacts. Simply put, if the
opposite result were true, such Agency power and authority would be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law because it would
frustrate the public policy purposes of numerous federal laws.
5 See 23 CFR Part 771, NEPA compliance requirements.
6 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 4
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsnscatwoup.com
s„ y The Scapellato Group, Inc.
? Tranayorlabon Consulting
6. In my judgment, matters concerning highway safety, geometrics, and access
control are matters best left to well trained and qualified individuals within federal
and state departments of transportation, and not to environmental specialists who
have other talents and expertise areas. To allow unqualified persons to influence
these important highway decisions is to essentially play Russian roulette with
public safety. Although wetland protection is in the public interest, such interest
does not trump safety of the motoring public.
7. I believe Noremac has made a compelling case for its truck stop and travel center
at the preferred location. The area demographics, pre-existing highway network
and ramps, and port accessibility make this site attractive because it will safely
meet current and future travel demands of the motoring public, especially
interstate truck drivers. With heightened national concern over security, truck
driver hours-of-service, and health aspects of driver fatigue, construction of a
modern truck/car facility on a major travel corridor is a welcome investment.
8. As a former researcher, I conducted much of the initial research on truck accident
causation, driver fatigue, hours of service revision, speed control, and truck driver
medical conditions. In my judgment, Noremac's submission to WQD is a fair
representation of applicable safety research. Furthermore, independent research
completed by North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute, American Trucking Associations,
and the AAA confirm safety findings relied upon by the applicant. Therefore, I
concur completely in Noremac's safety findings and conclusions contained in
documents submitted to the WQD.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 5
nffirP• RAI 557 01 77 -.. Fax• R41 557 01 24 - Fmsil• SnlutinnSnScanunun_cnm
s The Scapellato Group, Inc.
Tramporlatwn Cona dung
9. Based on the research I conducted, I have first hand knowledge that tired truck
drivers pose an imminent health risk to other drivers on the road and that
governments have responsibility to help truckers find adequate places to rest.
Further, States have the primary responsibility to maintain highways and to ensure
safe movement of people and goods. A deficient number of public/private truck
stops can negatively impact highway safety, especially with the growing demand
of freight movements. Since North Carolina is ranked in the Top 10 states in fatal
truck crashes, and Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender Counties are ranked in
the Top 25 most dangerous counties, a modern truck stop to service the needs and
expectations of more than 1,200 motorists in the Wilmington area, in my
judgment, will have a positive safety impact on the entire State.
10. In the United States, it is well recognized that freight movement is escalating at an
alarming rate, especially in port cities. Specifically, at the preferred site, truck
traffic is anticipated to increase by 22 percent in 2005 and double within the next
few years because of the demand at the Wilmington Port. With increased freight
demands and heavier loads, the Nation's highway infrastructure will be put to the
test. Historically, truck travel has been concentrated to interstates and other
nationally designated highways because pavement designs for those roads can
more appropriately handle truckloads of 80,000 lbs. or more. Thus, the preferred
location for the truck center capitalizes on U.S. Highway 74/76/17 and its
supporting ramp infrastructure to provide for safe movement and transition of
fully loaded tractor-trailer rigs from highway to travel center.
11. In addition to highway access, other important social, environmental and
economic factors must be considered as well. Some of these complex factors
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 6
Office- R41 5S7 0 122 - Fax- R41 557 01 24 - Email- cnlntinncnccanornm_cnm
The ScapeDato Group, Inc.
Transportation Conadfmg
include: cargo types (e.g. hazardous chemicals, nuclear fuel or waste, explosives,
gasoline), social factors (e.g. population centers and demographics, schools and
play areas), environmental factors (e.g. wetlands, natural and cultural resources,
endangered species), and economic development factors (e.g. jobs, taxable
income, economic development and stimulation). In my opinion, the Noremac
submission presents a fair, non-biased representation of these social,
environmental, and economic factors surrounding the proposed undertaking. I see
no evidence in the administrative record that provides a solid basis for selection of
an alternate site over that of the preferred site of U.S. Highway 74/76/17 in
Brunswick County, particularly when analyzed against the totality of social,
environmental, and economic factors.
12. The WQD's push for alternate sites 3, 4 or 10 over that of the preferred site is
without merit. Although wetland avoidance is an import public policy goal, it
does not trump other important public policy objectives. Here, it appears that
WQD will either deny or hold in abeyance Noremac's permit application pending
acquiescence to one of the sites the Agency prefers (i.e. sites that totally avoid
wetlands). I find this posturing perplexing since the NCDOT and local officials in
the impact area have all expressed support for the project at the preferred site.
Moreover, local agencies have approved and issued all local permits needed to
build on the preferred site.
13. The proposed truck center anticipates about 1,200 vehicles per day (625 trucks
and 578 cars). Because of this mix of vehicles, safety will be compromised unless
certain highway conflict points are eliminated. For example, properly designed
highway ramps will eliminate dangerous conflict points between cars and trucks
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 7
Office- R43 557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutions(a7scangouD.com
S The ScapeRato Group, Inc.
Transportation Conmdang
and greatly enhance the safety of the motoring public. As aforementioned, the
safety design aspect of this project becomes even more critical because North
Carolina ranks (according to the U.S. DOT) as one of the Top 10 states having the
greatest number of fatal, truck related crashes.
14. Based on my own professional knowledge, Noremac's representation of safety
data, research, and AASHTO highway design principles are fair and consistent
with information frequently used by highway and safety practitioners. In short,
Noremac is not making a sensational statement here.
15. As a former FHWA Division Administrator, I am familiar with AASHTO
highway design standards. In my private consulting capacity, I have completed
environmental assessments and community impact reports that examined several
truck issues in relationship to NEPA compliance. In my opinion the alternatives
that WQD is pushing will not enhance highway safety. Instead, the selection of
Site 3, 4 or 10, based on the information presented, will most likely have an
adverse affect on highway safety. Hypothetically, if Noremac and others were to
acquiesce to WQD staff's wishes and a catastrophic truck fatal accident occurred,
or a child was injured because of the lure of a truck stop next to a soccer complex
adjacent to the most dangerous road in the tri-county area, I doubt seriously if any
person in the WQD would be proud of that result in order to save 11.02 acres of
wetlands. Such legal defense and public and media scrutiny would be left entirely
in the hands of Noremac officials and not with the WQD. Therefore, use of an
alternate that is known to have negative safety consequences solely to save
wetlands is intolerable, particularly in light of the generous wetland mitigation
plan offered by Noremac
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsascamoup.com
s The Scapellato Group, Inc.
Transportation Conmdang
16. Properly designed highway ramps such as those described at the preferred site
provide the safest transition for trucks and cars and will serve to eliminate many
conflict points (i.e. those due to stopping, starting, merging, and turning). Ramp
configuration is desirable, especially when traffic volumes included a high
percentage of trucks. Speed and size differentials between cars and trucks also
have the potential to cause safety conflicts. Ramps and transition roads reduce
this type problem by allowing for the safe transition of trucks and cars on and off
the mainline. The preferred alternative is the only alternative that has ramps,
transition roads, and other conflict resolution attributes that are or could be
prudently constructed.
17. Clearly, in my mind, the preferred site is truly that-the preferred site. This
location is approximately 6 miles from the port and I-40. The land is available at
a reasonable price and large enough to allow 18 truck parking spaces per acre, a
critical economic benchmark for a truck stop. There are no significant problems
with vehicle access to and from the site at this location. Modern and safe ramps
already exist on Highway 74/76/17 that will permit easy transition for trucks on
and off the mainline. Local officials and other potential users (U.S. military, fire
and rescue) all favor this location, even though some wetlands will be impacted.
18. Noremac offers a comprehensive wetland mitigation plan for the taking of 11.02
acres of wetlands at the preferred site. In short, Noremac proposes to WQD
restoration of 22.18 acres of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio, preservation of 110.9 acres at
a 10:1 ratio, all equaling a total acreage of 133.08 (12:1 ratio) and accompanied
by a permanent conservation easement that prevents growth or expansion of the
travel center in the future. In furtherance of its good faith commitment to protect
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 9
Office- 943.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutions(@,scaDEouD.com
The Scapellato Group, Inc.
Transportation Consulang
wetlands, Noremac has voluntarily eliminated several services from its planned
facility as a means to preserve wetlands. These services/features include: truck
service center, tire service center, truck wash area, car wash area, and the drop lot.
19. In contrast, all other alternate sites have serious limitations or constraints that
make them less desirable than the preferred site as below described:
a. Site #1 N.C. Highway 132 at I-140-This site has documented access
problems and no transitional roads or ramps. It has site distance and left
turn problems and is a high fatality highway. The truck stop would be too
near schools and the land too expensive to purchase.
b. Site #2 Highway 17 South at Old Town Creek Road-The land has
already been sold.
c. Site #3 Leland Industrial Park-This site is too far from the port and I-
40. It has access problems and no transition roads or ramps. The highway
speeds are too fast for safe transition of 625 trucks and 578 cars per day.
Landowners and neighbors object to a truck stop in the area. At this
location Highway 74/76 is a dangerous road with too many highway
conflict points.
d. Site #4 Highway 74/76 Across from Leland Industrial Park- This site
is too far from the port and I-40. It has access problems and no transition
roads or ramps. The highway speeds are too fast for safe transition of 625
trucks and 578 cars per day. Landowners and neighbors object to a truck
stop in the area. At this location Highway 74/76 is a dangerous road with
too many highway conflict points. The land configuration is too small for
the planned truck center, too expensive, and too close to a public park.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 10
Offira• RAI 557 0172 - Fax- R41 557 .0124 - Finail- Rol utionsnscangnun.com
s The ScapeDato Group, Inc.
Transportation Consulting
e. Site #5 Highway 74/76 West and Highway 87-At this site, the truck
center would impact 16.7 acres of wetlands. The site has access and
construction problems because of wetlands, and is too far from the port
and I-40.
f. Sites #6, #7, #8, & #9 Four Quadrants at I-40 and Holly Shelter
Road-Property owners refuse to sell their land. Owners do not want a
truck stop in the area, the land is too expensive, and the site too far from
port.
g. Site #10 Highway 421 North- This site is too far from the port and I-40.
It has access problems and no transition roads or ramps. The highway is
the most dangerous in the tri-county area and highway speeds are too fast
for safe transition of 625 trucks and 578 cars per day. At this location,
Highway 421 has too many highway conflict points. The land is too
expensive to buy and too expensive to clear (junk yard). There is ground
water contamination from the former landfill that poses complex problems
and the site has no sewer hook-up. Plus, there is a multi field youth soccer
complex adjacent to the site.
h. Site #11 Westgate Business Park-There is no land available, all parcels
have been sold.
i. Site #12 Southside of Blackwell Road-Land parcels are too long and
too narrow to accommodate the truck center. There is a well-established
African-American residential community that would be impacted by the
truck center. Owners of the land refuse to sell and site clean up would be
expensive.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 11
Offira• RAI 557 01 77 - Fav• RAI 557 017d - Fmnii- mhitiomna ccanurnm_cnm
The Scapeltato Group, Inc.
Transportation Consulting
j. Site #13 Parcels Near Highway 74/76/17 and Blackwell Road-Owners
refuse to sell their land.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS:
1. Commercial establishments (truck stop and travel center) that have access directly
from high-speed, well-traveled roadways such as Highway 421 without transition
roads or ramps can result in unsafe highway conditions. In my experience, such
occurrences will ultimately lead to a disproportionate number of highway
accidents, deaths, and injuries and will be compounded as growth and congestion
increases in the area. Here, the preferred site location and highway configuration
by far provides the best design to avoid this contingency.
2. Public policy objectives for wetland restoration, mitigation, and preservation do
not trump highway safety public policy interests. To the contrary, protection of
human life is by far the supreme objective here. Therefore, leveraging a different
site location for a proposed truck center through the wetland permitting process
does not necessarily further societal interests.
3. In my professional judgment, Noremac has presented a solid case using objective
evidence in a fair and representative manner to support its application for permits
at the preferred location. In my opinion, the Water Quality Division's denial of
Noremac's application for environmental (wetland) reasons is not justified based
on the administrative record before the Agency. I challenge the WQD to produce
a federal or state law that condones putting human lives at high risk to preserve
11.02 acres of wetlands, especially in light of the generous wetland mitigation
plan.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 12
nffra• RAI ;;7 0177 - Fav• RAI SG7 MIA ... Pma;I- cnlrntinne(n?cnnnarnm nnm
.mil' The ScapeRato Group, Inc.
P? Trwmportatwn Conavking
ADDITIONAL OPINIONS:
The above opinions are based upon review of information and documents
provided to me as of June 8, 2005. I reserve the right to modify and/or add to my
opinions if additional information and documents become available that are germane to
this matter.
Very truly yours,
James E. Scapellato
Scapellato Group, Inc.
Attachment
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 13
nff - RAI S57 0 177 - Fav• RAI 557 0 174 --. Finail• Rohltinn-, a?3canaoun_com
January 20, 2006
Mr. Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC.
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
Re: Supplemental Expert Report by James E. Scapellato
Noremac Truck Stop and Travel Center
Dear Mr. Cameron:
Please be advised that I am supplementing my initial expert report sent to you on
June 8, 2005. I believe this is necessary because of additional information I reviewed as
well as information acquired during my site visit to the project location. I reviewed the
Department of Water Quality (DWQ) letters addressing this project, which I believe
require comment. With a reasonable degree of professional certainty, I offer my
supplemental opinions as expressed below.
EXTERNAL FACTORS SUPPORTING THE NEED AND PURPOSE FOR THE
PROJECT
In the past five years (especially since 9/11) several external factors have required the
federal government's attention, particularly in the airline and trucking industry. Some of
these factors are relevant to this case such as demand for intermodal connectivity, driver
fatigue and alertness, driving hours-of-service, shortage of parking and rest areas for
over-the-road truck drivers, including unreasonable state enforcement of parking rules.
The proposed truck stop and travel center at Blackwell Road, US 17, and US 74/76 is
needed and will serve an important public safety purpose consistent with Federal and
North Carolina safety goals. In further support of the need for such a facility, I include
what my research has revealed:
Freight Increases
1. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the U.S.
freight transportation network moves over 15 billion tons of goods, worth over $9
trillion mostly by truck (USDOT FHWA 2002).
2. Freight transportation contributes to the economy by providing jobs to millions of
people-an important indicator of economic growth. In 2000, more than 10
million people were employed in transportation-related industries, including for-
hire services, vehicle manufacturing, and parts suppliers. Truck drivers, alone,
2
accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total number of transportation occupational
workers (USDOT BTS 2002).
3. The volume of freight moved on the U.S. transportation system has grown
dramatically over the past twenty years and is projected to increase by nearly 70
percent by 2020. FHWA estimates that freight tonnage will increase from 9.6
trillion tons in 2004 to 13 trillion tons in 2016.
4. Currently, trucks carry 71 percent of the freight tonnage equaling 80 percent of
the value of US shipments.
5. North Carolina is currently planning to develop a major new terminal that would
rival the current size of the Port of Charleston and give steamship lines another
deepwater gateway to the Southeast. The North Carolina State Ports Authority
board agreed to pursue a $30 million dollar purchase of 600 acres on the Cape
Fear River near Southport. The completion would coincide with a projected
doubling of the North American container market by 2015. Port officials believe
the Southport terminal would be capable of handling the equivalent of 2 million
20-foot long shipping containers annually, which are usually off-loaded and
transported by truck. State officials see this project making North Carolina more
competitive with South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia in attracting businesses
that import large volumes of goods such as automobile manufacturers and
distribution companies.
Highway Crashes
1. Every year there are over 41,000 highway fatalities in the United States and over
5,000 of these fatalities occur in crashes involving large trucks, despite
government's best efforts.
2. The US DOT's number one priority is safety (i.e. reducing highway fatalities,
injury, and property damage crashes on America's highways).
3. For the DOT to meet its priority, aggressive steps had to be taken to eliminate
significant crash causation factors.
Truck Drivers and Turnover
1. There are 3.4 million truck drivers, which include 1.3 million long-haul (over-the-
road) drivers. In 2004, there was a shortage of 20,000 drivers. The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) projects by 2009 the driver
shortage will escalate to 45,000 and by 2014 to a staggering 110,000.
Consequently, over the next 10 years, the trucking industry will need to fill the
driver seat with 539,000 new drivers in order to meet freight demands, which
equates to about 54,000 new drivers each year. See Global Insight Report, The
US Truck Driver Shortage, May 2005.
2. According to the American Trucking Associations, driver turnover currently in
the truckload segment of the industry is 133 percent. The average turnover rate
over the past 5 years has averaged about 121 percent each year. The high
turnover rate has been attributable to the hard life on the road, long hours, time
away from home, health, security, and pay.
3. Because of the severe driver shortage and mounting turnover problems, trucking
companies are reaching out to women, minorities, and individuals from other
3
countries to fill driver seats. North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) has
helped American businesses to look beyond the US borders for business and
drivers. Cultural diversity has created its own set of issues, particularly for those
who earn a living driving an 18-wheeler coast to coast for extended periods of
time.
Driver Fatigue and Health
1. The FMCSA has estimated that driver fatigue is a primary factor in 4.5 percent of
large truck-involved crashes and a secondary factor in an additional 10.5 percent
of large truck-involved crashes (See FMCSA Driver Fatigue and Alertness
Study).
2. In North Carolina, fatigued truck drivers are purported to cause 73 accidents and
2.5 fatalities in Southeastern North Carolina each year.
3. A truck driver's life on the road is hard, especially for an over-the-road truck
driver as evidenced by the extremely high turnover for drivers in that segment of
the industry. Because of freight and security demands coupled with just-in-time
deliveries, truck driver health and safety issues have come to the forefront (See
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 429 F. 3d 1136, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2005)(holding that the USDOT
failed to adequately consider health effects of drivers in the new HOS rule). For
example, 25 to 30 percent of truck drivers have sleep apnea as compared to only 5
percent of the adult population in the United States, which stresses special health
ramifications for truckers who fail to get adequate sleep/rest.
4. To combat driver fatigue, the USDOT/FMCSA recently revised its hours-of-
service (HOS) rules. The new rules cap the number of hours a driver may drive
each day in addition to how many hours the driver must sleep/rest and/or be off
duty (See 49 CFR Part 395).
Shortage of Parking/Rest Areas
1. Inadequate rest by truck drivers coupled with the shortage and availability of safe
places for truck drivers to obtain needed rest are two important causative accident
factors that the USDOT needed to address promptly.
2. The FMCSA has completed two parking studies (1996 and 2002) both concluding
there is a parking shortage. The 1996 study concluded that there was a shortfall
of 28,400 public truck parking spaces nationwide.
3. Most truck drivers depend on parking facilities, at both commercial truck stops
and travel plazas and public rest areas, to obtain needed rest. However, it is not
clear whether an adequate number of parking spaces exist in all states or along
certain high truck volume corridors. However, North Carolina has a parking
space shortage especially on the I-95 and I-40 corridors.
4. Compounding the problem, some state enforcement officers enforce a 2-hour
parking limit at rest/parking areas. Consequently, there are times when a fatigued
truck driver is forced back on the road or to an unsafe parking location (road or
ramp shoulder) that can cause safety and security problems for themselves and
others sharing the highways.
4
Because of the risk to the motoring public stemming from tired truck drivers and the
inability to find adequate truck stops or rest areas, Congress has directed the USDOT
to take aggressive action to create public/private alliances to solve these significant
health and safety public policy issues. Through the use of incentives and grants (See
SAFETEA LU § 1305), the USDOT and State of North Carolina are working together,
with industry input, to develop an action plan to mitigate health and safety problems.
Some of the identified countermeasures are:
• Expand or improve commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
• Expand or improve public rest areas.
• Encourage the formation of public/private partnerships.
• Educate or inform drivers about available spaces.
• Change parking enforcement rules.
• Conduct additional studies.
In view of the above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed truck stop and travel
center at Blackwell Road, US 17, and US 74/76 is clearly the preferred alternative. There
are compelling safety reasons to support my opinion. This truck stop is well designed
and will provide services consistent with federal and state safety goals. It will also help
further economic interests of the local area, the state and ultimately the Nation. Although
taking of wetlands is necessary for this project to advance because there is no practical
avoidance alternatives, the mitigation plan for the take is generous and well beyond what
is generally the accepted practice in my experience.
For any other alternative location to reach safety acceptability like the preferred, it will
cause an unacceptable level of community disruption (i.e. putting a truck stop in a non-
traditional environment) and would also require considerable investment from the state
for alternate site locations to perform safely given the anticipated volume and mix of
trucks and cars. In short, economic goals, safety goals, and environmental goals are not
mutually exclusive.
THERE ARE NO PRACTICAL AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In my professional opinion, the preferred alternative is superior to all other
alternatives primarily because of safety considerations.
The preferred alternative serves best national and state public safety goals,
particularly in light of current truck size, weight, configurations, and operating
characteristics such as acceleration and deceleration speeds.
Highway ramps at Leland interchange have been constructed by NCDOT and
meet federal design standards. These ramps are modern and straight (not
curved) for easy and safe use by drivers of tractor-trailer combinations fully
loaded with 80,000 pounds of freight.
• Because of existing roadway improvements on US 74/76 as well as those
contemplated on Blackwell road, the preferred site requires no major
infrastructure improvements like those most likely needed at alternative sites
to safely function.
• Unlike other alternative sites, the preferred alternative will permit truck access
to and from US 74/76 via highway ramps with grade separation and traffic
signals at one end and a highway interchange at the other end.
• Once trucks are on Blackwell Road the volume of traffic reduces significantly
from the volume on US 74/76 or US 421 as well as the speed of vehicles,
which significantly reduces the risk of truck/car conflicts.
• In my experience, truck drivers will use a truck stop regularly if the driver
perceives the facility to be safe and secure, within a reasonable distance from
the primary route of travel, and user-friendly for truckers. The Blackwell site
meets all of these conditions.
• The intersection at NC 133 and Blackwell Road may warrant at some future
time a traffic signal instead of the current stop sign. As is, truckers can easily
maneuver the left turn movement onto NC 133 in order to gain easy access to
US 74/76. Congestion at this intersection does not appear to be a problem nor
do accident conflicts. The state's accident reports show only 6 minor
accidents each year for the past three years with no fatalities reported.
• Truckers exiting the preferred site who choose to turn right will have access to
a traffic signal at Ploof Road and US 17. This signalized intersection will
allow trucks to safely transition onto US 17 and on to US 74/76 via an
interchange designed and constructed by the NCDOT.
• The preferred site is the only alternative with access to two interchanges
designed and built by the NCDOT meeting federal design standards.
• Because of heavy truck loads, Blackwell Road most likely will need
reconstruction over time. This road was not designed for heavy truck travel.
However, the anticipated costs associated with this type of improvement, in
comparison with ramp and grade separation, are far less than improvements
identified as necessary with other alternatives.
Alternates that use either US 421 or US 74/76 are unacceptable from a safety standpoint
and therefore, in my judgment, are not practical avoidance alternatives either under state
or federal permitting rules because they frustrate public policy goals. Consider:
• The junction of US 421 and 117 in New Hanover County is one of North
Carolina's highest truck involved accident locations.
• US 421 near alternate site #10 is four times higher than NC statewide truck
crash rates. Access to and from this site pose too may safety conflict points,
plus the site is contaminated.
• Truck crash rates on US 74/76 near alternate Sites #3 and #4 are 1.7 times
higher than NC statewide truck crash rates and fatalities are double that. The
merging of Mt. Misery Road with US 74/76 going west (away from
Wilmington) near Site #3 does not allow sufficient weaving maneuver room
to accommodate the right turn into the industrial complex given the
6
anticipated mix of tractor-trailer combinations with other types of vehicles.
Going east from Site #3 (towards Wilmington) requires a tractor trailer to turn
right, then immediately cross over two lanes of fast moving traffic, wiggle its
way left into the left turn bay and median cut through, and make a u-turn type
maneuver merging back into two lanes of fast moving traffic to go East.
Chances are the rear end of the trailer will protrude into the oncoming traffic
lane while the driver is waiting to make the u-turn-obviously a nightmare for
a truck driver and a disservice to others sharing the road. Alternate Site #4 is
equally bad even though there is a median cut-through because it involves
four directional movements requiring the driver to cross over two lanes of fast
moving traffic. In short, the conflict points at Sites #3 and #4 are simply too
risky and impractical.
Adding a significant volume of trucks to the traffic mix at already dangerous
locations is unwise and contrary to federal and state safety goals and thus
contrary to public policy.
• The existing truck stop on US 421 was ranked as the top location in New
Hanover County in terms of truck-involved crashes. Why increase the death
statistics on US 421 by adding another truck stop at site #10, in order to clean
up a contaminated site and save 11 acres of wetlands, given the generous
mitigation plan?
• Because of speed differentials between trucks and cars and highway
geometrics at site #3, #4 on US 74/76 and at #10 on US 421, the likelihood of
increased accidents and fatalities on these roadways if a truck stop were built
at any of these locations will become reality.
RESPONSES TO DWQ LETTERS
I have read DWQ's letters dated February 25, 2005, and June 2, 2005. I am disturbed by
the DWQ's insensitivity for the safety mission of the USDOT and NCDOT. I recognize
and respect the need for environmental protection on all fronts. Sustainability of our
natural resources is paramount to preserve our quality of life for generations to come.
However, neither the Country's economic wheels nor societal mobility needs should take
a back seat to wetland preservation because of an administrative permit process. Private
businesses should not be manipulated into paying for clean up costs at contaminated sites
or forced to make highway infrastructure improvements at inferior locations in order to
get a permit. Arbitrary government actions force individuals unnecessarily into an
adversarial process that sometimes is less than satisfying. The cost and time to take on
the government to reach final closure at all levels of government is equally disheartening.
The second part of DWQ's letter that is disturbing to me is the reference that they
disclosed to Mr. Cameron prior to his purchase that it would be very hard to obtain
permits. I find that difficult to comprehend in absence of science or data to support the
conclusion-as if the DWQ had already predetermined the outcome at the pre-application
stage.
7
SUMMARY OPINIONS
From a truck safety standpoint, there are no practicable alternative sites, other than the
preferred, that would allow a large tractor-trailer combination (18 wheeler) or over-sized
specialized rig to enter and exit safely the existing highway without major highway
infrastructure improvements. In the interest of all parties, the project scope has been
reduced to mitigate wetland and environmental impacts. I believe such actions are
reasonable because they properly balance safety and environmental public policy
objectives. Further, the data relied upon to justify the project at the preferred location is
reasonable because it comes from recognized data sources created by federal or state
governments to serve public interest objectives instead of private economic interests.
Alternate sites #3, #4, and #10 recommended (preferred) by DWQ are safety disasters for
truckers entering and exiting these sites during all hours and under varying weather
conditions. Highways 421 and 74/76 are extremely dangerous roadways. To force
location of a truck stop to one of these sites through the permitting process would be an
injustice to those who share the roads with trucks. If DWQ were to prevail in this matter,
it would serve no validated purpose other than fuel DWQ's insensitivity and disregard for
the safety mission of the USDOT and the NCDOT. To grant individuals the power to
dictate such outcome without earned expertise in safety or highway design is indicative
of a flawed and arbitrary administrative process.
There is no question in my mind that the truck stop is needed and will serve as a valuable
addition to the community. The only question that remains is where to put it, considering
the record as a whole. The documents I reviewed indicate a location at the preferred site
albeit from a highway and safety perspective.
RESERVATION
The above supplemental opinions are based upon my review of information and
documents provided to or acquired by me as of January 20, 2006. I reserve the right to
modify and/or add to my opinions if additional information and documents become
available that are germane to this matter.
Very truly yours,
James E. Scapellato
Scapellato Group, Inc.
8
SUPPLEMATAL DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Supplemental research materials provided to me by Mr. Dan Cameron January 2006
FHWA Freight Story Research 2002
FHWA Parking Shortage Studies 1996 and 2002
Global Insight Driver Shortage Study 2005
Gallup Organization, Empty Seats and Musical Chairs 1997
Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study
FHWA Sleep Apnea Medical Guidelines
Transport Topics Op Ed Piece January 2, 2006
SafeTea Lu Section 1309
Rule 26 Items
for
James E. Scapellato
Statement of Qualifications:
Private Transportation Consultant (Five Years):
1. Part Owner, Director, and Officer for the Scapellato Group, Inc. (SGI, a family
owned and operated transportation consulting company located on Johns Island,
South Carolina.
2. Serves as Vice President of Operations & Counsel for the SGI
3. Employed by SGI since January 1999.
4. Provides executive level consulting services to private companies and government
agencies in environment, safety, and/or highway and motor carrier regulatory and
program areas.
5. Provided safety consulting services to over 50 interstate motor carriers on
regulatory safety compliance matters.
6. Served as an expert in over 35 interstate trucking cases.
7. Defended over 20 motor carriers in administrative safety rating or civil penalty
cases before the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
Prior Government Experience (30 years):
1. Worked for the State of West Virginia for approximately two years as a Field
Safety and Research Specialist
2. Worked for U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for seven years as a senior highway
safety management specialist.
3. Worked for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for seven years as Assistant Regional Counsel and five
years as the Regional Counsel for the Southeast.
4. Specific to motor carriers, worked for the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers Director of Research
and Standards for five years, and for one year as the Director of Federal
Enforcement and State Programs.
5. As the Director of Research and Standards, I was responsible for writing and
interpreting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, managing the $10
million driver and truck research program, and issuing regulatory interpretive
guidance.
6. As the Director of Federal Enforcement, I was responsible for developing federal
enforcement policy and procedures for federal field investigators and managing
2
the $100 million State Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grant Program for
roadside enforcement.
7. Worked for three years as the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration's Tennessee Division Administrator managing the $650
million Federal-aid highway program.
8. Retired from Federal service in 1999 to start a transportation consulting business.
Education:
J.D. Atlanta Law School, 1976 (Georgia Bar License #628250-1977-2005 Active)
M.P.A, University of Georgia 1985 (Public Administration)
B.S., Georgia State University cum laude, 1982 (Business Administration)
B.S., M.S., West Virginia University, 1969 (Education Emphasis Transportation Safety)
List of Cases-Deposition or Trial Testimony
1. Sylvia Sims v. Advance Stores Company, Inc.
Attorney Wm. Howell Morrison for the Defendant.
Deposition-January 2001
2. Balascio v. Eck et al.
Attorney Mr. Arthur Schaertel for the Defendant.
Deposition-April 2001
3. Sumpter v. ROCOR Transportation Company et al.
Attorney David Pearlman for the Plaintiff.
Deposition-May 2001
4. Charters v. PRIME, Inc
Attorney David Perkins for the Defendant.
Deposition-June 2002.
5. Charles Olmstead V. Shakespeare
Attorney Gray Culberson for the Defendant.
Deposition-February 2004
6. Estrada v. FedEx Ground (RPS)
Attorney Mark Grajski for the Defendant.
Trial Testimony-May 2004
7. Emily A. Epstein v. Charleston Steel and Metal Company et al
Attorney Mark Brandenburg for the Defendant.
Deposition-March 2004
8. Michael Turner v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Attorney Ed Moor for the Defendant.
Deposition-June 2004
9. Trisha Taylor v. Wando Trucking, Inc. and William Forrest
Attorney Frank McCann for the Plaintiff
Deposition-November 2004
Articles:
As a private consultant:
1. "Back to Basics in Safety Enforcement," Transport Topics. March 8, 1999.
2. "Paving for the Long Term," Transport Topics. November 15, 1999.
3. "Prescription for Hours of Service," Transport Topics. September, 2000.
As a government official:
1. Several rulemakings, regulatory interpretations, cost benefit analyses, research
and technical reports, medical conflict reports, enforcement policies and other
governmental writings.
The Scapellato Group, Inc.
Transportation Consulting
CURRICULUM VITAE
JAMES E. SCAPELLATO
THE SCAPELLATO GROUP, INC.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
Vice President, The Scapellato Group, Inc. January 1999 - Present.
Serves as Vice President of Operations and Counsel and performs executive level
consultant services for a broad spectrum of clients in areas of highways,
environment, and safety. Provides expert advice and services primarily in safety
and environmental (NEPA) regulatory matters. Clients include American
Concrete Pavement Association-Southeast Chapter, Palmer Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, American Trucking Association, SC
Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, CECS, PBS&J, H.W.
Lochner, Florida Turnpike Authority, Kimley-Horn, LS3P, FedEx Ground, MS
Carriers, J.B. Hunt, Prime, Inc., Tyson Foods, AYR Motor Express, Star
Transport, Inc., Louisiana Transportation, Inc., Darrell Andrews Trucking, Inc.,
Lee Sartin Trucking, Inc, Anderson Trucking Co., Williamson Transport Co.
Division Administrator (Tennessee) for the Federal Highway Administration.
August 1996 - January 1999 (Retired January, 1999, over 28 years service).
Served as the manager of the $650 million dollar Federal-aid highway
construction program in the State of Tennessee. Supervised a team of
professional engineers and specialists to carry out mandated legislative and
regulatory highway and safety programs throughout the state.
Director, Safety and Technology Office, for the Federal Highway Administration
Office of Motor Carriers (Washington, D.C.). January 1996 - August 1996.
Served as the Office Director (SES) for the $100 million Federal and State grant-
in-aid enforcement program, the Federal enforcement and hazardous materials
program, and the $30 million ITS/CVO program nationwide. Managed three
divisions comprised of managers, engineers and specialists to carry out national
legislative and regulatory programs and projects.
Director, Research and Standards Office, for the Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Motor Carriers (Washington, D.C.). June 1990 - January 1996.
Served as the Office Director (SES) for rulemaking and research. Managed the
regulatory rulemaking process affecting interstate trucking. Managed the $8
million research program and conducted research to promote safety and efficiency
of interstate motor carriage. Managed three divisions comprised of medical,
S?1 The Scapellato Group, Inc. 2
Transportation Consulting
engineering and safety specialists to carry out mandated legislative and regulatory
motor carrier programs and projects.
Regional Counsel for the Federal Highway Administration for the Southeast
Region. January 1985 - May 1990.
Served as the chief legal officer for the Federal Highway Administration in the
Region. Defended agency decisions, programs, and project actions in Federal and
State courts throughout the region. Supervised a staff of attorneys and clerks.
Assistant Regional Counsel for the Federal Highway Administration for the
Southeast Region. March 1978 - January 1985.
Served as the first assistant to the Regional Counsel for the Atlanta Region.
Defended agency decisions, programs and project actions in Federal and State
courts throughout the region. Supervised attorneys and clerks.
Highway Management Specialist for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in Region 4. June 1971 - March 1978.
Research Analyst for the Governor's State and Community Programs Office for
West Virginia -From January 1970 - June 1971.
EDUCATION:
J.D. Atlanta Law School, 1976
M.P.A, University of Georgia 1985
B.B.A., Georgia State University cum laude, 1982
B.S., M.S., West Virginia University, 1969
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Adjunct Professor, Business Law and Business Management, Dekalb College, Clarkston,
Georgia.
Adjunct Professor, Business Law, Strayer College, Alexandria, Virginia.
PRESENTATIONS:
• Testified before the United States Congress on two separate occasions involving
matters affecting interstate commerce.
• Testified before a Senate committee on the Commercial Drivers Licensing
requirements.
• Negotiated NAFTA safety harmonization agreements with Mexico and Canada.
1946 Saxon Valley Circle NE- Atlanta, GA 30319
l1 CC__. AAA 7n^ O')AL r__.. AAA 7'1'7 07AO r.v_A1 ----/l,.__._._.._..._ __.v
The Scapellato Group, Inc. 3
Transportation Consulting
• Presented numerous technical, legal, and managerial papers at various federal,
state, and local conferences on subjects such as federal practice, regulatory
reform, civil rights, environment, motor carrier safety, highway safety, federal
due process, innovative financing, contract claims, personnel actions and right-of-
way topics.
• Speaker at hundreds of private organizations' conferences and seminars covering
such topics as, motor carrier safety regulations, safety management, research,
enforcement, commercial vehicle operations, and other topics.
• Prepared expert reports for attorneys in motor carrier safety matters
• Performs administrative legal defense of motor carrier safety cases before DOT
Administrative Law Judges.
ARTICLES:
"Back to Basics in Safety Enforcement," Transport Topics. March 8, 1999.
"Paving for the Long Term," Transport Topics. November 15, 1999.
"Prescription for Hours of Service," Transport Topics. September, 2000.
AWARDS:
Division Administrator Outstanding Performance Award 1999.
Senior Executive Service Outstanding Performance Awards 1990, 1993, and 1996 -
FHWA.
Division Administrator Outstanding Performance Award 1998 - FHWA
Superior Achievement Awards 1982, 1985 - FHWA.
Special Achievement Award 1975, 1977 - NHTSA.
Governor's Citation of Merit 1971 - WV
LEGAL BAR MEMBERSHIP:
Member of the State Bar of Georgia - Active Status - 1976 to Present
Court Membership:
• United States Supreme Court
• Federal Courts of Appeal for the Fifth, Sixth and D.C. Circuits
• Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and Central District
Court of Illinois
• All State Courts of Georgia
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
• State Bar of Georgia
• American Trucking Associations
• South Carolina Trucking Association
• American Concrete Pavement Associations
1946 Saxon Valley Circle NE- Atlanta, GA 30319
r1CC __. AAA In'7 07AC L'...,. AAA 117 OIAO. L'.....,.:1.......«/1 .................«.... «.
?r The Scapellato Group, Lic. 4
Transportation Consulting
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Scapellato Group, Inc.
1946 Saxon Valley Circle N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30319
404-327-8346 (Office)
404-327-8346 (Fax)
843-224-6376 (Cell)
Email: scap(ic scapgroup.com
1946 Saxon Valley Circle NE- Atlanta, GA 30319
Mr. Dan Cameron
Noremac Energy, Inc.
3504 Saint Frances Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Cameron:
After reviewing the information package you provided, we agree that from a traffic
standpoint, the preferred site will operate more efficiently and safely. Since all sites have
been eliminated except for sites #3, #4, #10 and the preferred site, these four sites will be
addressed.
Site #3: This site is located at the intersection of Mercantile Street and US 74-76.
According to the 2003 traffic data US 74-76 carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per
day in this area. There is not a median cross-over at Mercantile Street so direct access to
US 74-76 south is prohibited. This movement would be gained by making a right turn
onto US 74-76, merging into the fast lane, then making a U-turn at the median cross-over
at Enterprise. The median width in this area is 60' which is only wide enough for a large
truck to make the turn from the inner lane to the outer lane(AASHTO exhibit 9-92). In
doing this, the trucks have to wait for both south bound lanes to clear before making the
U-turn. The projected number of vehicles using the trucking center is 1200 vehicles per
day (according to the Response to Request for Additional Information for Noremac Truck
Stop & Travel Center) of which 625 are trucks. It is assumed that half the trucks would
be traveling south, making the U-turn; therefore, this is an undesirable design. AASHTO
does not recommend allowing large trucks to make U-turns because they are large and
slower thus interfering with the safety of the existing traffic.
Another problem with this location is the close proximity of the acceleration ramp from
Mt. Misery Road. It is approximately 900' from the end of the acceleration ramp to the
center of Mercantile Street. This is not enough distance to develop a right turn lane. A
major conflict will exist when vehicles are accelerating from the ramp to get into the
traffic stream of US 74-76 and the trucks are slowing down to turn into the site.
Site #4: This site is located on the opposite side of US 74-76 at the intersection of
Enterprise and US 74-76. There is a median cross over at this location that makes for a
better traffic situation than site #3. Assuming that trucks will be entering the site from
Enterprise Street which has access to the median cross-over, even with a four legged
intersection and the addition of turn lanes, there would still be 32 possible conflict points.
The 20,000 cars per day on US 74-76 and the slower speed of the anticipated 625 trucks
accessing this site, create a dangerous situation. The median width on US 74-76 is 60
PO Box 700 - Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
feet; therefore inadequate for allowing trucks leaving the site to sit and wait for an
opening to make a left turn onto US 74-76 north without affecting traffic in the thru
lanes.
Site #10: This site would access US 421 via Fleming Street. US421 is a five-lane
roadway section with a 12' center turn lane. US 421, in this area is carrying an average
of 11,000 vehicles per day according to 2003 traffic data. Due to the number and
locations of driveways in this area, it is impossible to develop adequate turn lanes and
storage lanes that will safely handle 625 trucks per day that are projected to use this site.
With the addition of any development, the objective is to preserve the intended function
of the highway and minimize impacts to the existing traffic. This location is an
undesirable situation because there is no way to eliminate or minimize the additional
conflicts that would be created.
Preferred Site: The preferred site is located off Blackwell Road with access to US 17 to
the west and access to US 74-76 via NC 133 to the east. The biggest advantage to this
site is the fact that it has multiple access points and has access via an interchange. It
eliminates the conflicts on the major traffic carrying highways since access is to
Blackwell Road. The average daily traffic on Blackwell Road is approximately 2000
according to the 2003 traffic data. Access to US 17 to the east is provided by a signalized
intersection at Blackwell Road and US 17. The intersection of Blackwell Road and NC
133 is currently an unsignalized intersection but can be signalized whenever traffic
warrants. NC 133 in the area of the interchange is a four-lane divided section.
Access management has become a major factor to be considered as more and more traffic
is using our highways. The lack of adequate access management of the highway system
and the addition of inappropriate direct access to the state highway system is a major
contributor to highway accidents and has been one of the greatest single factor behind the
functional deterioration of highways in the state. The addition of a major truck
example of undesirable access management situation.
The above opinions are based upon review of information provided to Gibson Engineers,
PC as of June 2, 2005. If additional information is required, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Gibson Engineers, PC
4GIenda M. Gibson, PE
President and Principle-in-Charge
le _-?
Kathy Lassiter, PE
Senior Project Manager
PO Box 700 • Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
January 20, 2006
Introduction
This report is an addendum to my letter of June 7, 2005, which only addressed
sites #3, #4, #10 and the preferred site. Since that time, I have visited all the
sites in question and have reviewed various documented material.
Section 1
This section of my report covers the material in my letter of June 7, 2005 and
additional information concerning sites #3, #4, #10, and the preferred site that I
have learned since.
Site #3: This site is located at the intersection of Mercantile Street and US 74-
76. According to the 2003 traffic data, US 74-76 carries approximately 20,000
vehicles per day in this area. There is not a median cross-over at Mercantile
Street, so direct access to US 74-76 south is prohibited. This movement would
be gained by making a right turn onto US 74-76, merging into the fast lane, then
making a U-turn at the median cross-over at Enterprise. The median width in this
area is 60', which is only wide enough for a large truck to make the turn from the
inner lane to the outer lane (AASHTO exhibit 9-92). In doing this, the trucks have
to wait for both south bound lanes to clear before making the U-turn. The
projected number of vehicles using the trucking center is 1200 vehicles per day
(according to the Response to Request for Additional Information for Noremac
Truck Stop & Travel Center) of which 625 are trucks. It is assumed that half the
trucks would be traveling south, making the U-turn; therefore, this is an
undesirable design. AASHTO does not recommend allowing large trucks to
make U-turns, because they are large and slower; thus interfering with the safety
of the existing traffic.
Another problem with this location is the close proximity of the acceleration ramp
from Mt. Misery Road. It is approximately 900' from the end of the acceleration
ramp to the center of Mercantile Street. This is not enough distance to develop a
right turn lane. A major conflict will exist when vehicles are accelerating from the
ramp to get into the traffic stream of US 74-76 and the trucks are slowing down to
turn into the site.
The distance between Site #3 and the median cross-over at Enterprise Drive is
approximately 600'. In 600', a truck leaving the site will have to merge across
two lanes and into a left-turn lane in order to make a U-turn at the median cross-
over. The distance of 600' is extremely short to accomplish the weave across 2
lanes of traffic traveling at 55 mph.
US 74/76 is not a controlled access facility, therefore; the accident rate is higher
than for a controlled access facility. If the truck stop were built at this site, this
area would have the potential for an extremely dangerous situation, when you
consider the additional 625 trucks using the site, with half of them making the U-
turn at the cross-over.
Crashes are not related as much to speed as to the range in speeds from the
highest to the lowest. In a situation like site #3, the travel speed of the cars on
US 74-76 is 55 mph or more therefore the slower speed of the 625 trucks per day
leaving the site, attempting to cross 2 lanes of traffic have a big influence on
traffic because of this speed differential.
Site #4: This site is located on the opposite side of US 74-76 from site #3 at the
intersection of Enterprise and US 74-76. There is a median cross over at this
location that makes for a better traffic situation than for site #3. Trucks will not be
required to make U-turns when accessing or leaving the site.
There is a four-way intersection at Enterprise Street and a median cross-over.
Even with the addition of turn lanes, an intersection of this type has 32 possible
conflict points. The 20,000 cars per day on US 74-76 and the slower speed of
the anticipated 625 trucks accessing this site create a dangerous situation. The
median width on US 74-76 is 60 feet wide; therefore inadequate for allowing
trucks leaving the site to sit and wait for an opening to make a left turn onto US
74-76 west without affecting traffic in the thru lanes.
The speed differential between the travel speed of the traffic using US 74-76 and
the truckers using the site would create the same problems as with site #3.
Sites #3 and #4 are approximately 10 miles from the Port of Wilmington.
Site #10: This site would access US 421 via Fleming Street. A large soccer
complex is planned for the land immediately behind the specific property being
considered. The 800 to 900 families using the complex on the weekend and the
trucks accessing the truck facility would definitely not be good mix.
US 421 is a five-lane roadway section with a 12' center turn lane. US 421, in this
area is carrying an average of 13,000 vehicles per day according to 2003 traffic
data. Due to the number and location of driveways in this area, it is impossible to
develop adequate turn lanes and storage lanes that will safely handle 625 trucks
per day that are projected to use the truck stop. With the addition of any
development, the objective is to preserve the intended function of the highway
and minimize impacts to the existing traffic. This location is an undesirable
situation because it would be difficult to minimize the additional conflicts that
would be created by the addition of a large truck complex.
The lack of a divided median contributes to high crash rates in this area. The
addition of 625 trucks per day will only make matters worse, and increase the
number and severity of accidents.
2
The existing small truck stop located on US 421 is experiencing a lot of traffic
accidents at this time. The fact that there is a varied mixture of traffic on US 421
in this area and the lack of a barrier median may be a contributing factor. If so,
a large trucking facility would only make matters worse.
In addition to the potential traffic problems in the area of site #10, the site is
contaminated and would require a large amount of fill to raise the grade to an
acceptable level.
Preferred Site: The preferred site is located off Blackwell Road with access to
US 17 to the west and access to US 74-76 via NC 133 to the east. The biggest
advantage to this site is the fact that it has multiple access points and has access
via an interchange.
The preferred site eliminates the conflicts on the major traffic carrying highways
since access is to Blackwell Road. The average daily traffic on Blackwell Road is
approximately 2000, according to the 2003 traffic data. Access to US 17 to the
east will be provided by a signalized intersection at Ploof Road and US 17. The
intersection of Blackwell Road and NC 133 is an unsignalized intersection. NC
133 in the area of the interchange is a four-lane divided roadway.
The site is accessible to US 74/76 as well as 1-40. The area around the preferred
site is somewhat residential, but mostly commercial.
Ingress would most likely be from US 74/76 via NC 133 and exit via Ploof Road.
The speed limit on Blackwell Road is 55 mph.
Mr. Cameron realizes that at certain times of day, it will be difficult to make a left
turn from Blackwell Road onto NC 133 to access the interchange with US 75/76.
That is the reason this is such a viable site, truckers will have the choice of using
US 17 then to US 74/76.
Section Number 2
The second part of this report addresses the sites not covered by my original
letter. I did not address them originally, because I thought they had been
eliminated. Since then, I have visited the various sites in question.
Site #1: This site is off NC 132. It is a remote site with no access off a 2-lane
roadway. There is a huge high school, a middle school and north campus of the
technical college. There are two major problems with this site. Truckers would
not be willing to drive to this site because it is too far from their normal route and
it would be very unsafe due to student drivers and all the kids in the area.
Site #2: No longer available
Site #5: There are 17 or 18 acres wetlands on this site. The site is located off
the highway. Mr. Cameron would need an easement in order to obtain access.
Site #6,7,8, & 9
Mr. Cameron looked at this area but could not put together a large enough track
to make the truck facility work. A lot of the properties have been handed down
from generation to generation and there is no clear deed at this time. Even if you
could put together a large enough track, you would only get 1-40 trucks. There
are also wetlands to be considered.
Section Number 3
1 have reviewed the information contained in Mr. Cameron's report as it relates to
accidents and projections of the number and severity of accidents if a truck stop
is located at the different sites that have been suggested for review. I am not an
expert on making these predictions but I do recognize Brian Murphy, PE Traffic
Safety Project Engineer and Chris Oliver, E. I. Safety Planning Engineer as
experts in this field. It is my understanding that they directed Mr. Cameron in his
computations regarding the projected traffic accidents and the severity at the
various sites. Therefore, I think all the sites have been adequately considered
and the preferred site is the only reasonable site because of the projected
accidents.
Methodology for Projections
Accidents will occur at the proposed site, however, the number of accidents and
crash severity will be much lower than accidents at Alternative Sites #3, #4 and
#10 or any US highway site. By comparing the proposed site to alternative sites,
the proposed site is much safer due to lower traffic volume, lower speeds, better
access (interchange vs. intersection, signal, etc.) and fewer conflict points. The
findings are substantiated by studies ranking US Hwy. 74/76 and US Hwy. 421
as the most dangerous roads in the area in terms of truck crash rates.
Basis for Proiections
Projections are based on historical data, current strip analysis reports and
AASHTO guidelines regarding highway design and access issues. Proof that
accidents occur around truck stops is found in crash reports on US Hwy. 421
north. (20 accident reports confirmed that the only reason for all 20 accidents
was ingress/egress to existing truck stop on US Hwy. 421).
In order to determine the impact of a new truck stop on a US highway, the data
from each accident report at the existing truck stop was analyzed and compared
to each alternative site. Statistically, there is a very high probability that similar
accidents would occur at Alternative Sites #3, #4 and #10 or any site on a US
highway in the area.
4
Conclusion
After studying the traffic situations at each of the sites, I feel there is only one site
that is adequate for developing a truck facility, and that it is the preferred site on
Blackwell Road. Not only is it the safest site because of the lack of conflicts with
existing traffic, truckers have a choice as to how they access.
The need for more truck stops in this area is becoming more and more apparent
as truck traffic increases. One of the reasons truck traffic is increasing is due to
the rapid growth of the Port of Wilmington. The volume of international trade is
expected to double by 2020. As the trade increases so will truck traffic. In the
year 2004, container traffic increased by 24%, and in 2005, it increased by 20%.
With this increasing truck traffic, we need to recognize that the trucks have
needs, and at this time, these needs are not being met.
There are no truck facilities in this area. In fact the closest truck stop is on 1-95
near Dunn. Where are truck drivers supposed to rest? It is a growing national
concern that needs to be addressed.
In a coastal area like Wilmington, we realize the need to preserve our wetlands;
but, at what cost? I really feel there is room for preserving our wetlands and
creating a safe haven for truckers to eat, shower and rest. Mr. Cameron has
developed a generous mitigation plan for the wetlands that would be disturbed on
this site. Why not take advantage of the opportunity to create a safe environment
for truckers to stop and rest, and take advantage of this mitigation plan. It will
help the truckers, as well as preserve the environment. This is one way of
supporting the growth of our ports, and the economy of the area.
Access management has become a major factor to be considered as more and
more traffic is using our highways. The lack of adequate access management of
the highway system and the addition of inappropriate direct access to the state
highway system is a major contributor to highway accidents. It is one of the
greatest single factors behind the functional deterioration of highways in the
state. The addition of a major truck stop/travel center to an uncontrolled access
facility without a nearby interchange is an example of an undesirable access
management situation.
The above supplemental information is based on review of information and
documents provided to or acquired by me as of January 20, 2006. 1 reserve the
right to modify and/or add to my opinions if additional information and documents
become available concerning this matter.
Very truly yours,
Kathy Lassiter, PE
Senior Project Manager
Gibson Engineers, PC

GIBBON
ENGINEERS, PC
Company Bio
Gibson Engineers, PC is focused on providing engineering solutions to Departments of Transportation in
the areas of roadway and rail design. It is a DBE/WBE firm with 6 employees owned and operated by
Ms. Glenda M. Gibson, PE. As a firm, Gibson Engineers is committed to producing a quality product in
a timely manner. Ms. Gibson has many contacts within NCDOT and her thorough knowledge of the
department and department policy allows this firm to offer a vast resource to the engineering
community.
Gibson Engineers, PC is a properly registered corporation with the Secretary of State and with the North
Carolina and South Carolina Boards of Registration for Engineers and Land Surveyors. Gibson
Engineers is on the Register of Qualified Firms for the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
We have the financial ability to undertake the work and to assume the liability of the work. Our firm
has the necessary Professional Liability Insurance coverage. We have an accounting system with the
ability to track costs chargeable to the project. The employees and owners of Gibson Engineers, PC are
not involved in any activity that may constitute a conflict of interest in pursuing or executing any work
for which we may be selected.
DBE Status of li irm
Gibson Engineers, PC is a Woman Business Enterprise / Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(WBE/DBE) certified with the North Carolina and South Carolina Departments of Transportation, City
of Raleigh, Triangle Transit, Charlotte Area Transit, City of Greensboro, and the City of Winston-
Salem.
Contlict of Interest
Ms. Gibson of Gibson Engineers is related to a NCDOT official in Division 6 and does not seek to
perform any activities within Division 6. We have no other potential conflict of interest in the state of
North Carolina or South Carolina.
Percentage of Work to Be Performed in North Carolina
All work will be performed in the Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina office of Gibson Engineers, PC with
100% North Carolina based personnel assigned to the project. Gibson Engineers has been at this
location since its incorporation in 2003.
TN,ne/ Location of Wort: Beim Performed by Gibson En14ineers
University of North Carolina at Charlotte: Developed plans and quantities for a roundabout
intersection design. The design is complete.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, U-3321, Garden Parkway: I-85 west of Gastonia to
NC 160 in Mecklenburg County. Gibson Engineers is working as a subconsultant to develop
alternatives for a section of the Garden Parkway for NCDOT. The project consists of multi-lane
roadway on new location. The preliminary design is ongoing.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, U-3109, Mebane Bypass: The development of
preliminary plans for NC 119 relocation on new location in Alamance County. The preliminary design
is ongoing.
Intersection redesign, US 521 and Industrial Drive, Mecklenburg County: Final plans were
developed to redesign the intersection of US 521/Industrial Drive for a private developer.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, B-4110 Durham County & B-4124 Granville
County: The development of right of way and final plans for the replacement of bridges with offsite
detours.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, R-2594 Transylvania County: Developed detours
necessary for maintenance of traffic as part of the preliminary design. Plans are complete.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Bridge Maintenance: Responsible for the roadway
design and project management of multiple bridge replacement projects to be completed with short
deadlines. Several projects are complete and others are at various stages.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division: Relocation of Rigsbee Road in
connection with a high-speed East Durham Siding Rail project in conjunction with the addition of a
railroad siding between the D & S Junction and Glover Road.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rail Division: Gibson Engineers' contract was
recently extended for reviewing NCDOT projects for possible impacts to railroads.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, R-2510C: Gibson Engineers is providing the right of
way plan design for a portion of the project as a subconsultant.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, R-2581 & R-2587: In negotiations as a
subconsultant for roadway design to develop the preliminary and/or functional design for improvement
to US 158 from I-95 south of Roanoke Rapids in Halifax County to I-85 west or Norlina in Warren
County.
Town of Fuquay-Varina, Judd Parkway: Subconsultant for the roadway design of the extension of
Judd Parkway in Fuquay-Varina. The design includes the design of 700 LF of a three-lane curb and
gutter section on new location with sidewalks.
21

•sjoafoid Iuauiaouldol o2puq put sails uoijvSijiul pule gom `suoijtjs g2tom Norul `sua.re jsai sla Ilam
st `soijunoO XjowoSjuoW put snutgtO `SinqualNoaW ui Suluaptm 6t, DN `doo-I lolnO uiallaS-uojsuiAA,
oqj `doo-IlalnO g2iolmd oqj opnloui .iojissu-j •sW jo uoiloonp agl iopun podolanap sloofold oqj jo olduzus
d •siuoXjo iagwnu u .Ioj sslalo aisop o2uugoiojui up jg2ntj put podolanap.zajtsst'I 'SW •aanlon.Ilsuijui
uullo.zuo glJON JO uoiloaloid oqj put Iuaulaftuuul ssaoou of olula.I Iugj lzoddns plnoo sltioiJO
put s.103Ilaul uoisioop `sluapisoi uuilairD g7poN jugj soiotlod dolanap oI sum QS.IUgo asogm 0311!W WOO
Juowo0vuuW ssoood oigl jo .Iagw3w aAilola ut sum 10JISSU'I -SW `.Ia3ui2ug loo fold Su saiinp nq
oI uotjtppt uI •uoijonpoad uuld Iuug put Xum jo lg2il `,C.reuiwila.id `luuoilounj ui oouailodxa anisuajxa
suit aqS •oouai.Iadxa siec)X 0£ glim £OOZ ui loouigug Ioafoad t su uoijuvodsut.Is jo juaull.ItdoQ
agj wojj polijai njIssp-I -sW 'Uoijuliodsutil jO ju3wVudaQ agj OI 8uiuznlai oiojoq s.ItaX aAg JO3
uug Oul.IaauiOua alunild u fq poXolduia sum aqS 'Iiufl uSisaQ ,Ctmpuo-d uoilulzodsuail 3o Iuowlirda(I
tuilOJUD gl.IoN oqj gltm s voX 01 joj pa)I.Iom aqS •Xi?OIOUgoaZ 8uua3ui2ug IiniD ui aa.i2ap ajlaioossd
ut glim 8961 ui ajnlijsul Itoiugoo j 3llinallaXt3 UIOig pajunpuiB japssuZ •sw ',LOQDN Pule 1013as
ojtnijd agj ui glog poXolduia aligm sjoofold jo YC4o Ilan aptm t sopnlow aouauadxa JQH •aouauadxa
ui?isap Jo s.ItaX 9£ .Iano gjim iaauii?uo aisop Xumpuol put loOutui joofold poouoi.Iadxo up si iolissu-I •sW
zaBtuvW joofoad loiuaS - as .ial!ssuri glvx
•sjoofoid.iogjo Xutul uo Ioijuoo ,?jilunb st Ilam su AjunoO ojvA?
ui pto21 uut3 a.nuplix put `soijunoD wuginCl put a)IuM ui 2uiuopiM SS DN `XlunoO RinguoplooW ui
puOZI gojngD )IoolD p.relluW `,cluno3 a)ltAA, ui 8uiuoptrn I SI1 `i,4unoD a)Iurn ul doo-I .zajnO gotaltZl oql
sapnloui aouauadxa loo fold xDgjO 'Iit2I paadS g$iH IstaglnoS aql ioj su.Oisop luuoijounj agl pamaina.I
suq put sajnoi pui paads ggiq agl jo suoijoas snoijtn.IOJ sutld Iuauianoiduii Iit.z llaianas pajalduioo suq
agS •sptoillin of sloudwi algtssod ioj sloaCoid JOQON 2uim3in3i .IOJ algisuodsol si aqs aaagm uotsinlQ
Ire21 s,uoijtjiodsuvjLjO juawpvdaQ uuilolvo glioN agl ioj 31zom Ioulluoo 8uiuuoj.Iad uaaq suq uosgi0
•sW `.ItaS Isud oqj 1o3 •XliiogjnV jisut.IZ 312uti.IZ .IOJ ulajsxs Iiti I1Ou0120.I t jo UOII33S umolumop
giialmd aqj uo aaauiSua loofoid stm uosgi0 •sW •slu3wolinbai jod saililigtsiQ glim uuoinwV
lain goigm sXumpvoa agj jo sOuisso.zo /(73mu33B papinoid antq sjoafold ltzanaS 'suoiltpou WOOOt
aloSoiq put s)Iltmapis papino.id sloafoad XuuW •suBisap lupowillnuz ajlaiodloom goigm sloafold Xuuw
uO p31.iom stq aqS •sloofo.id juauiaotldol 3Bpuq aldillnul put `sloofoid Suiuoptm utgm `saSutgoiojui
glim sXvmaaij uoiluool mou `altjs.iolut oI u$tsap Pul jgsia.IJ put.ia2uasstd wag 2ui?uu.I slog fold jo
X13ULIA apim t uo p3jlom stq aqS •uSisap Iiui put luowo2vuuul loafold `uSisop Xumpuoi ui uoilonpoid
uuld Itug put Svm jo jg8ii `fapuiuiila.id `Iuuoijoun3 ui aouauadxa anisualxa suq uosgi0 •sW '0d
`snouiOug uosg10 vuls of Suiu$isw Iijun io2uuvW Ioofoad u sla SIBOX aniU .IOJ ul.Iig ajtnitd t Xq paXoldula
slam aqS -nouiiiug u2isaQ loafold t su jturl uOisaQ XtmpuoN uoijuliodsualljo luowpudaQ tuilolto
gI.ION agl .zo3 s.IUQX OI Jano pxllom aqS 'i?uta9aul9ug IIAID ut aa.I2ap Sg la glim L86I ui Xjtsaaniun
ojujS tuilaito glioN woij polunptzf uosgi0 •sw •uital joafOld agl of voddns digsiapual 211011s aptnoid
of .lag alquua Ipm `sainpoooid put, saioilod ZOQON jo 32p3lmo" ggnoiogl u glim pouiquloo jLOQDN
put.10130s altnild aqj ui gloq paXoldwo aligm sloafocd jo S1311LIn aptM t uO aouauadxa u2is3p jo slv3f,
LI 13H 'aogJo tul.Iun-Xunbn3 s,uulj aqj saftuuui put sjooui2ug uosgiO jo luapisazd si uosQiO •sW
a8.ilago ui-Itdiouiid - &I uosglf) *W upualo
Iu>;aZ UnisaQ aa1 sauinsa-8
March 9, 2006 '
?X

Mr. Darrell Jernigan, Director
Governor's Highway Safety Program
1508 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1508
17
t;!MN i?PRRANCH
Dear Mr. Jernigan:
I have been corresponding with Caitlin Rayman, the Governor's Federal Programs Coordinator in
Washington, DC. Caitlin has been very helpful and provided contact information for your office and
the office of Susan Coward, Deputy Secretary at NCDOT.
I plan to construct a truck stop in the Wilmington area and I am applying for a $750,000 federal grant
that is part of the transportation bill known as SAFETEA-LU. Section 1305 of SAFETEA-LU
provides grant funding to address the shortage of long-term parking for commercial vehicles. The bill
states that funding priority will be given to applicants that:
• Demonstrate a severe shortage of commercial vehicle parking in the corridor.
• Have consulted with affected State and local governments.
• Demonstrate that their proposed project is likely to have positive effects on highway safety,
traffic congestion or air quality.
Funds will be used to construct 85 overnight parking spaces for trucks in the Wilmington area.
Southeastern North Carolina is fortunate to have the Wilmington Port and the Sunny Point Military
Port in Southport; however, there is a severe shortage of parking for trucks servicing the ports and the
region. Unfortunately, the eight-county region in southeastern North Carolina has only 122 overnight
parking spaces for approximately 8,000 trucks.
This package includes an Executive Summary, an in-depth write-up and research/support documents.
The Executive Summary highlights safety concerns such as truck involved fatalities, truck driver
fatigue, truck crash rates, and truck traffic growth, just to name a few. The detailed write-up covers
many aspects of highway safety as related to this grant.
If this grant application is funded, it will provide an excellent solution to a serious problem.
The purpose of this correspondence is to ask for your support of the grant in the form of a letter. The
purposed "conduit" for the application is the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
and the entity building the truck stop is Noremac Enterprises, LLC.
I hope to have several letters of support by mid-April, when the Wilmington MPO meets.
My contact information is:
Dan R. Cameron, Jr. Mobile [phone]
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
3504 St. Francis Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28409
My contact within the USDOT regarding the grant is Bill Mahorney, 202-366-6817, Office of Freight
Management & Operations, Federal Highway Administration in Washington, DC.
If you have any questions regarding this information or the project, please call my mobile number
listed above or email me at [e-mail].
Thank you for your consideration and time. I will follow up with you in a few weeks to see if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
Cc: Caitlin Hughes Rayman
Federal Legislative Programs Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Governor's Office
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 332
Washington, DC 20001
Susan Coward
Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs and Budget Coordination
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
SAFETEA-LU - Fact Sheets - Truck Parking Facilities
Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions
TRUCK PARKING FACILITIES
Page 1 of 2
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Authorization $0 $6.25M $6.25M $6.25M $6.25M
Program Purpose
The Truck Parking Facilities program is a pilot program that provides funding to address the shortage of
long-term parking for commercial vehicles on the National Highway System.
Statutory References
SAFETEA-LU Section: 1305
Funding
Funded by contract authority, to remain available until expended. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-
aid obligation limitation and are not transferable.
States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and local governments are eligible recipients of
program funds. To receive funds, a State, MPO or local government must submit an application.
Funding priority will be given to applicants that:
• demonstrate a severe shortage of commercial vehicle parking in the corridor
• have consulted with affected State and local governments, community groups, providers of
commercial vehicle parking, and motorist and trucking organizations
• demonstrate that their proposed projects are likely to have positive effects on highway safety, traffic
congestion or air quality
Eligible Use of Funds
Funds shall be available for projects on the NHS that may include the following activities:
• constructing safety rest areas that include commercial vehicle parking
• constructing commercial vehicle parking facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel
plazas
• opening existing facilities to commercial vehicles
• promoting the availability of publicly or privately provided commercial vehicle parking on the NHS
using ITS systems and other means
• constructing turnouts for commercial vehicles
• making capital improvements to public commercial vehicle parking facilities to allow year-round use
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/truckpark.htm 3/7/2006
Legislation I Summary Information I Fact Sheets I Funding Tables I Cross Reference
SAFETEA-LU - Fact Sheets - Truck Parking Facilities Page 2 of 2
• improve the geometric design of interchanges to improve access to parking facilities
Report to Congress
A report on the results of the pilot program shall be submitted to Congress not later than 3 years after
enactment of SAFETEA-LU.
Federal Share
The Federal share is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. Certain safety
improvements listed in 23 USC 120(c) have a Federal share of 100 percent.
FHWA Home I Feedback
0 FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
hq://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/truckpark.htm 3/7/2006
Page 1 of 1
Dan Cameron
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:13 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Meeting with MPO
Thanks. Please let me know when you will be looking for a support letter from us.
----Original Message----
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mar 1, 2006 12:47
To: "Caitlin Rayman"
Subj : Meeting with MPO
The meeting with Board members at Wilmington MPO went well and they are open to finding out more
information. The attached Executive Summary is the same one I handed out at meeting.
Thanks,
Dan Cameron
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
3/7/2006
Executive Summary
Request for $750,000 Grant
For
Overnight Truck Parking
Under
C A FFTT A -T .TT Cao"nn 1111

This grant will provide the funding to construct 85 overnight parking spaces for trucks in
the Wilmington area.
Demand for parking will continue to increase because truck traffic in southeastern North
Carolina will double in the next 5 to 6 years.
The Executive Summary highlights the problem of accidents, injuries and fatalities caused by
truck driver fatigue and provides a solution; construction of overnight truck parking. The problem
of truck driver fatigue is well documented and the federal government addressed the problem by
establishing a grant program within the 2005 transportation bill known as SAFETEA-LU. Section
1305 within this bill provides funding for overnight truck parking in areas that demonstrate a dire
need for truck parking. Overnight parking will provide truck drivers with better opportunities to
obtain sleep, and thereby reduce the incidence of crashes attributed in whole or in part to drivers
operating commercial motor vehicles (CMV) while drowsy, tired or fatigued. This access to
overnight truck parking is encouraged because of fatalities and injuries occurring each year
because of drowsy, tired and fatigued CMV drivers transporting goods. A reduction in fatalities,
injuries and crashes will occur within this region if CMV drivers have access to adequate
overnight parking.
Southeastern North Carolina has 122 overnight, truck parking spaces for approximately
8,000 trucks per day traveling in the region. In North Carolina and in the region, truck
accidents are a serious problem. Typically, accidents involving trucks are not "fender benders",
but devastating crashes with disabling injuries and fatalities.
The following information highlights the problem:
• In 2004, North Carolina was ranked 5 h in the nation in terms of fatal crashes involving
large trucks. (If the top 5 states were ranked by fatal crashes divided by population, North
Carolina ranks 2nd )
• North Carolina fatalities involving large trucks increased by 22% in 2004.
• New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender Counties were ranked in the top 21 counties in North
Carolina in terms of truck involved crashes.
• Truck crash rates on US Hwy. 421 in New Hanover County are 433% higher than North
Carolina's statewide average of truck crash rates. (Truck crash injury rates are 658%
higher than statewide average on US Hwy. 421)
• Truck crash rates on US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County are 166% higher than North
Carolina's statewide average of truck crash rates. (Fatal truck crash rates are 200% higher
and iniM truck crash rates are 166% higher than the statewide average on US Hwy.
74/76)
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) overall state data rating for North
Carolina is poor in terms of completeness, timeliness and accuracy.
Total accident statistics (car & truck accidents) from AAA rank New Hanover County as
the most dangerous county for 6 straight years.
Total accidents on a 2-mile section of US Hwy. 421 North averages 14 crashes and 10.6
injuries per year. (7 accidents and 5 injuries per mile per year.)
Total accidents on an 18-mile section of US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County averages
116 crashes, 1.5 fatalities and 89 injuries per year. (6 accidents & 5 injuries per mile per
year.)
The statistics for truck crash rates include large trucks only and do not include concrete trucks,
dump trucks, garbage trucks, etc. This indicates the actual statistics are most likely higher than
stated above.
Roadways in the area are dangerous due to congestion, high speeds, driver's poor driving ability
(distracted by cell phones, radio, etc.) and the lack of highway infrastructure. In addition, this area
has an enormous concentration of trucks due to the Wilmington Port, manufacturing plants,
military port and strong economic growth.
Truck-involved fatal crashes, injuries and crash rates are high in the state and local area because
most drivers do not approach trucks "with caution". Drivers pull out in front of trucks traveling at
55 mph. Drivers travel beside trucks in the truck's blind spot. Drivers do not consider the size,
weight, cargo, maneuverability and stopping distance of fully-loaded trucks. Basically, drivers are
"impatient" around trucks and are not safety conscious.
The combination of a driver's impatience with trucks and the unusually high concentration of
trucks contribute to the area's poor safety record. Unfortunately, truck driver fatigue increases the
probability of truck involved accidents. Also, this high concentration of trucks and speed of traffic
on many area roadways require a higher level of driver alertness, for the sheer mass and speed of a
truck can make it deadly when accidents occur.
This grant will help reduce truck driver fatigue by providing adequate overnight parking in
the area and will have the following impact:
• Save a minimum of 2 lives each year by providing fatigued truck drivers with a place
to sleep and rest.
• Reduce injuries by 47 per year.
• Eliminate 138 truck-involved accidents caused by driver fatigue.
• Annual savings in crash related damages = $10.5 million
Another benefit of parking is a reduction in "Relative Crash Risk" caused by fatigue. The facility
will provide truck drivers with a place to park while they eat a meal. Researchers found that a one
hour meal break will "reset alertness" of the driver by a "striking amount." For example, if a
driver is in his I Vh hour of driving and stops to eat, the Relative Crash Risk of fatigue drops by
500%.
The grant will fund construction of 85 parking spaces in the Wilmington area and provide
drivers with the opportunity to rest and obtain sleep. Unfortunately, some truck drivers do
not always comply with Hours-of Service (HOS) regulations and might continue to drive
regardless of available overnight parking. However, available parking provides additional
incentive to stop and sleep thereby reducing fatigue.
2
The Noremac Travel Center will be the only full-service truck stop facility in Southeastern North
Carolina. The project is located 3.5 miles west of Wilmington, NC on US Highway 74/76 in
Belville, NC and will cater to the traveling public and truck drivers. This state-of-the-art facility is
located near a major North Carolina port with access to I-40 via the new Wilmington By-Pass (I-
140). Brunswick County is one of the fastest growing counties in the state and the Wilmington
Port is expanding to accommodate more containers on larger ships. Based on a feasibility study
conducted in 2003, approximately 625 trucks and 578 cars will visit the site everyday. With the
area's growth and the Port's expansion, estimates show that 1,800 people per day will visit the
site.
Wilmington Port
Truck traffic at the Wilmington Port will double in the next 6.5 years.
Background
For purposes of this report, the southeast region is defined as 8 counties in southeastern North
Carolina (Brunswick, Columbus, Bladen, Sampson, Duplin, Pender, New Hanover and Onslow).
This area includes counties within a 70-mile radius of the Wilmington Port. The region includes
major travel corridors for trucks, public rest areas and private truck parking facilities. (See
attached radius map.) Currently, fatigued truck drivers have access to the following list of
overnight truck parking:
Overnight Truck Parking Spaces
Maior Corridors Public Private Total
US Hwy. 17 South 15 18 33
US Hwy. 74/76 West 0 20 20
US Hwy. 421 North 6 15* 21
Interstate 40 West 10 38 48
US Hwy. 17 North 0 0 0
TOTAL 31 91 122
*Only 15 overnight truck parking spaces are available in the Wilmington area.
Approximately 8,000 trucks per day travel on-major corridors within the 8 county area and
about 5,500 trucks per day travel in the Wilmington area. With only 122 parking spaces for
8,000 trucks, many truck drivers will continue to drive even though they have not slept for
10 to 15 hours.
Overnight parking for trucks in the Wilmington area is inadequate with only 15 parking spaces for
5,500 trucks. The Wilmington Port is a destination for long-haul trucks wherein fatigue is much
more serious. If a long-haul driver travels all night and all day to reach the port and loads cargo
late in the day, the driver should stop and sleep before the return trip. Unfortunately, with only 15
overnight parking spaces for 5,500 trucks, most drivers are "forced" to continue to the nearest
facility with available, overnight parking. In some cases, they drive another 1 % hours to the
nearest truck stop on I-95.
3
Support Documents
Studies supporting this problem are listed below and available on the Internet:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, USDOT, "Regulatory Impact Analysis and Small
Business Analysis for Hours of Service Options" December 2002. This report is referred to as
the 2003 RIA. http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf85/240882 web.pdf
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, USDOT, "Regulatory Impact Analysis and Small
Business Analysis for Hours of Service Options" August 15, 2005. This report is referred to as
proposed 2005 RIA. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/re ug latory-impact.htm
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis 317, "Dealing with Truck
Parking Demands", 2003 http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp syn 317.1)df
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Highway Special Investigation Report, "Truck
Parking Areas", May 17, 2000 http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SIROOOI .pdf
Federal Highway Administration (FHA), Technical Report, "Study of Adequacy of Commercial
Truck Parking Facilities", March 2002 http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/01158/01158.pdf
FMCSA, Safety Program, "Intelligent Transportation Systems and Truck Parking", February 2005
http://www.fmcsa.dot.aov/safetyprogs/research/briefs/intelligent transportation truckparking.vdf
The NTSB report specifically identifies Region 4 of Federal Highway Administration as
"areas needing the greatest number of additional truck parking." Region 4 includes North
Carolina.
Proiect
The travel center/truck stop will cater to tourists, locals and truck drivers. The facility includes a
12,000 sf building, parking for 85 trucks, gas and diesel fueling, parking for 60 cars and auxiliary
truck services (scales, anti-idling equipment, etc.). The building will include two restaurants, a
deli, showers, convenience store, play area for kids and upscale restrooms.
Feasibility Study
A comprehensive feasibility study was conducted by MPSI, an industry specialist, in 2003. A
representative of MPSI spent several days in southeastern North Carolina to evaluate the viability
of a truck stop in the area. In addition, a consultant was hired to assist with truck traffic
projections and truck parking. Highlights of their findings are listed below:
1. Approximately 630 trucks and 578 cars will visit the site every day. (125 of the trucks will
fuel at the site.)
2. Fuel sales will average 541,000 gallons every month or 6.5 million gallons annually.
3. The nearest full-service truck stop is located in Dunn, NC on I-95 which is over 100 miles
away.
4. Every day, over 1,800 people will stop at the site.
4
The feasibility study was conducted prior to the deepening the river channel to 42 feet and prior to
the addition of a new steamship line. The combined effect is an additional 1,300 trucks per week
resulting in truck traffic doubling within the next few years. Again, this was not a part of the
study.
Tourism
The area does not have a Welcome CenterNisitor's Center. The travel center will have a positive
impact on tourism by meeting the needs of area tourists.
More Information
If you would like more information or have questions, contact Dan Cameron at 520-4403. This
information is a summary with a full report available upon request.
SAFETEA-LU CONTACT
Bill Mahorney 202-366-6817, Office of Freight Management & Operations, Federal Highway
Administration, USDOT.
Proposal to Apply for Federal Grant
Under
SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill
Section 1305
Truck Parking Facilities
Dated March 9, 2006
Presented by
Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
Wilmington, NC
Table of Content
Page
Introduction 1
Overnight Parking Spaces for Trucks 2
Federal Safety Reports 4
Truck Crash Data 10
Benefits of Overnight parking for trucks 13
Benefits of One Hour Break from driving 14
Summary of Truck only Crash Statistics for NC 15
Strip Analysis Reports 17
Strip Analysis Reports for US Hwy. 421 17
Truck Crash Rates 18
Strip Analysis Reports for US Hwy. 74/74 19
Truck Crash Rates 20
Traffic Safety Engineers Rank Cities 21
Summary of Strip Analysis Reports 22
Other Important Issues 24
Traffic Counts 26
Economic Impact of Travel Center 33
Cost of 85 Parking Spaces 35
ATTACHMENTS
Contact list regarding Highway Safety
Chart - Relative Crash Risk by Driving Time
Email & Chart from NC Ports Authority about growth of truck
traffic
Vehicle-type sheet showing trucks excluded from research
70-mile Radius Map
Memorandum from NCDOT Traffic Safety Engineer
Standardized Crash Cost Estimates for North Carolina
Strip Analysis Reports for US Hwy. 421
Email from Chris Oliver regarding Statewide Truck Crash Rates
Crash Rates & Truck Crash Rates spreadsheet for US Hwy. 421
Statewide Crash Rates for All Vehicles
Statewide Truck Crash Rates for Trucks only
Guidelines for Utilizing NC Statewide Crash Rates
Strip Analysis Reports for US Hwy. 74/76
Crash Rates & Truck Crash Rates spreadsheet for US Hwy. 74/76
Email from Dr. Ron Hughes, Truck Safety Expert
Intersection Analysis Report for NC Hwy. 133 & Blackwell Rd.
NCDOT Strip & Intersection Analysis Report Code Index sheet
Letter from NCDOT regarding Traffic Signal on US Hwy. 17
Email from Brian Murphy, NCDOT regarding Whiteville
Ranking
Fact Sheet on SAFETEA-LU, Section 1305
Crash Severity-Injury Definitions
Glossary from USDOT - Terms & Definitions
FMCSA Data - Ranking States
NC - Summary of Large Trucks Reported in Crashes
NC - Motor Carrier Safety Fact Sheets
FMCSA Data - Roadside Inspections in NC
AAA Carolinas Report New Hanover County
Accident report for Fatality on US Hwy. 74/76
Accident report for Fatality on US Hwy. 421
INTRODUCTION
This $750,000 grant proposal will address the serious problem of truck driver fatigue and the lack of
overnight truck parking in southeastern North Carolina. If this grant is approved, it will provide the
funding to construct 85 spaces for truck drivers to sleep and rest. In addition, approximately 12 to 15
spaces will have IdleAire equipment which helps reduce air pollution in the area.
Truck traffic in southeastern North Carolina will double in the next 5 to 6 years.
Trucking provides the essential link between national and international trade and local economies.
Because of this link, a safe commercial motor vehicle industry is vital to North Carolina's economy. The
trucking industry is regulated by several departments within the state and federal government and trucks
must adhere to their many rules and regulations. Many of these regulations address truck and highway
safety, especially in areas where truck involved accidents are a problem. In order to evaluate truck safety
in North Carolina, many factors are considered such as a truck's weight and size, driver training, accident
reports, motor carrier records, driver fatigue, highway segment (strip) analysis reports, truck crash rates,
truck involved fatalities, etc. This report will show that North Carolina and more particularly,
southeastern North Carolina is poorly ranked in terms of truck involved accidents, fatalities and injuries.
Two reasons for this poor ranking are the high number of trucks on area highways and the lack of
adequate overnight parking for trucks.
Truck traffic in the area is extremely high due to the Wilmington port, manufacturing plants, military port
and regional economic growth. Unfortunately, southeastern North Carolina does not have adequate
overnight truck parking to handle the high volume of trucks and thus, accidents occur because of truck
driver fatigue. This grant will improve highway safety by reducing the number of truck involved
accidents caused by truck driver fatigue.
A list of all public and private overnight truck parking in southeastern North Carolina is shown below:
Overnight Truck Parking Spaces
Major Corridors Public Private Total
US Hwy. 17 South 15 18 33
US Hwy. 74/76 West 0 20 20
US Hwy. 421 North 6 15* 21
Interstate 40 North 10 38 48
US Hwy. 17 North 0 0 0
TOTAL 31 91 122
*Only 15 overnight truck parking spaces are available in the Wilmington area.
Southeastern North Carolina is defined as all locations offering truck parking within a 70-mile radius of
the Wilmington Port and is further defined as 8-county region (Brunswick, Columbus, Bladen, Sampson,
Duplin, Pender, New Hanover and Onslow).
US Hwy. 17 South
Public Spaces -15
The Shallotte Visitor's Center/Rest Area is 40 miles from the Wilmington Port with 8 spaces for
truck parking. The next public parking area is South Carolina's Welcome Center with 7 parking
spaces and is 55 miles from the port.
Private Spaces -18
Two convenience stores on US Hwy. 17 south offer parking for 9 and 9 trucks, however, neither
location offers showers, restaurants, scales, etc.
US Hwy. 74/76 West
Public Spaces - 0
Public parking for trucks is not available.
Private Spaces - 20
Delco has a small convenience store with limited truck parking in the rear of building. The
building contained one shower, but the shower was out of order at time of visit.
US Hwy. 421 North
Public Spaces - 6
Sampson County Rest Area offers 6 parking spaces for trucks and is located 60 miles from the
Wilmington Port. (10 miles south of Clinton, NC on US Hwy. 421.)
Private Spaces -15
The Worsley fuel stop is located in Wilmington with approximately 15 parking spaces for trucks.
The location offers limited services and is extremely difficult to access. However, it is the only
facility will truck parking in the immediate area.
Interstate 40 West
Public Spaces -10
Duplin County I-40 Rest Area offers 10 parking spaces for trucks and is located 65 miles from the
Wilmington Port. (Located in median of I-40 at NC 24 interchange, 2 miles west of Warsaw.)
Private Spaces - 38
Wilco/Hess location offers 24 spaces, Sunoco/Bojangles offers 6 spaces and Kangaroo offers 8
spaces. Hess is the only location with showers and circular access to truck parking. All private
spaces are located in the same general area as public spaces.
2
US Hwy. 17 North
Public Spaces - 0
Carteret County US Hwy. 70 Visitor Center/Rest Area has 0 truck parking spaces and is located in
Morehead City.
Private Spaces - 0
US Hwy. 17 is not a truck corridor with one exception, the military. Currently, trucks do not have
access to any overnight parking. This is a problem for military convoys since most convoys are
large and need adequate space to park many large vehicles. The only facility large enough to
accommodate a military convoy is the proposed truck stop.
With only 15 overnight spaces for trucks in the Wilmington area and over 5,500 trucks per day, accidents
due to fatigue will continue to occur. Additionally, the region has only 122 spaces for over 8,000 trucks
per day. In order to reduce the incidence of crashes attributed in whole or in part to drivers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) while drowsy, tired or fatigued, drivers must have access to more
overnight truck parking. A reduction in fatalities and injuries will occur within the region if CMV drivers
have access to adequate overnight parking.
Based on historical data, an increase in overnight parking in southeastern North Carolina will:
• Save approximately 2.4 lives each year
• Reduce injuries by 47.7 each year
• Eliminate 138.7 truck-involved crashes
• Annual savings in Crash Related Damages = $10.5 million*
*The average damage/cost per large truck crash is $75,637 (2003 RIA Report, pages 8-36 & 8-37) and 138.7 truck involved accidents can be avoided. If the
two are multiplied, savings would total $10.5 MILLION PER YEAR ($75,637 X 138.7 Crashes = $10.5 million).
Based on projections from the North Carolina Ports Authority, truck traffic at the Wilmington Port will
double within 6 % years. Thus, port truck traffic and other truck traffic will continue to grow in the
region without any corresponding increase in overnight truck parking. Studies conducted by state and
federal safety experts show that truck driver fatigue accounts for hundreds of truck involved accidents
every year. Public safety is the most important factor when evaluating truck parking facilities in the
region and this grant request will greatly improve highway safety.
Without adequate overnight parking for trucks, fatigued truck drivers cause approximately 138 accidents,
47 injuries and 2 fatalities every y in southeastern North Carolina. If fatigued drivers had adequate
overnight parking in the Wilmington area, fatalities and injuries could be prevented. For years, fatigued
truck drivers have waited for adequate overnight parking in Wilmington and for each year they wait, 2
motorists have died in southeastern North Carolina from truck involved accidents directly related to driver
fatigue.
3
This report will not address the "cost" of accidents, injuries and fatalities or the suffering of injured
occupants after the accident, but a Memorandum (see attached) from Shawn Troy, PE. Traffic Safety
Engineer, NCDOT shows the Standardized Crash Cost Estimates for North Carolina.
In addition, research/support documents will substantiate deaths, injuries and accidents caused by truck
driver fatigue and numerous safety reports will concur with the findings. Reports include highway
analysis by NCDOT, average statewide crash rates for cars and trucks, specific accident reports, NCDOT
ranking of dangerous highways in North Carolina and other state reports.
Federal Reports
Federal reports on inadequate parking and truck driver fatigue are shown below and excepts from the
reports are highlighted.
A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides an assessment of the costs and benefits of potential
changes in USDOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Hours of Service regulations.
The Hours of Service (HOS) regulations address the number of hours that a commercial vehicle driver
(CMV) driver may drive. New HOS driving rules became effective on 1/4/04 and showed that full
compliance could save lives. However, after the 2003 HOS rules had been in effect for several months, it
was vacated by a federal appeals court. In response to the court's action, Congress extended the 2003 rule
for a year, in order to give FMCSA a chance to revisit the issues cited by the court. The proposed action
is for the FMCSA to revise its HOS regulations.
The new HOS regulations took effect October 1, 2005, with a transitional period ending on December 31,
2005. The new rules are very similar with two exceptions, sleeper berth provisions and short-haul
provisions were changed. (See attachments.)
The purpose of the 2005 RIA was to further improve CMV safety by revising the FMCSA HOS
regulations to require motor carriers to provide CMV drivers with better opportunities to obtain sleep, in
order to reduce the incidence of drowsy, tired or fatigued drivers and the crashes in which they are
involved.
Other fatigue related reports are included, but the most important ones are Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) reports.
2003 RIA Report
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, USDOT, "Regulatory Impact Analysis and Small Business
Analysis for Hours of Service Options" December 2002. This report is referred to as the 2003 RIA.
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf85/240882 web.pdf
Executive Summary-Page 1
By reducing the incidence of drowsy, tired or fatigued drivers, FMCSA expects to be able to prevent a
significant number of the hundreds of fatalities and thousands of injuries that occur each year on US roads
because of fatigued CMV drivers and the crashes in which they are involved.
4
PaEe 1-2
The HOS regulations have existed in their current form since 1962. Since that time significant changes in
highways, equipment and transit time demands have occurred. The high volume and speed of CMV
operations on highways and the higher traffic conditions in local and regional areas require a high level of
driver alertness.
Page 8-36
Average damages per large truck crash are $75,637.
2005 RIA Report
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, USDOT, "Regulatory Impact Analysis and Small Business
Analysis for Hours of Service Options" August 15, 2005. This report is referred to as proposed 2005
RIA. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/regulatory-impact.htm
FMCSA reexamined its HOS regulations in light of US Court of Appeals ruling, but most became
effective on 1011105.
Page 42 Relationship between Fatigue and Truck Crashes
The first step in this analysis was to estimate the fraction of crashes that appear to be attributable to
fatigue. Several crash databases were evaluated to determine the relationship. The databases are as
follows:
AGENCY DATABASE
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration General Estimates System (GES)
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration Motor Carrier Mgmt. Information System (MCMIS)
One goal is to accurately calculate the number of accidents caused by the driver of the truck and then
determine how many are attributable to fatigue. All three databases have serious statistical problems and
none give a conclusive percentage of accidents caused by fatigue. For example, FARS records accidents
with fatalities only and does not include data on crashes without fatalities. Obviously, truck involved
accidents with serious injuries or property damage only accidents are not included in FARS.
However, a footnote on page 43 of this report indicates the following:
Paze 43 - Footnote #30
"This means that fatigue is a significant factor in about 25% of all truck-involved crashes where the truck
driver is responsible."
Another problem with implementation of new HOS regulations is compliance with federal regulations.
Who will monitor compliance? How do you track compliance? Is 100% compliance reasonable? For
obvious reasons, compliance will never reach 100%, but the goal is not to reach 100% compliance, but to
reduce fatigue related crashes.
5
PaLre 45
Pre-2003 HOS Rule allowed truck drivers to drive up to 10 hours since last 8-hour break. 2003 RIA rules
allowed driving up to 11 hours since last 8-hour break. Thus, the pre-2003 HOS Rule meant that if
drivers continued to drive after 10 hours, then they were driving illegally. Exhibit 5-1 on page 45 shows
the relative crash risk by each driving hour and the proportional problem with fatigue, ie, the longer a
driver continues driving, the higher the risk of fatigue related crashes. Chart is titled "Relative Crash Risk
by Driving Time Under the Pre-2003 HOS Rule."
For example, for the 13`h hour of driving, the relative risk per involvement in a fatigue-related crash is
13 times higher than the first hour of driving. (See attached Exhibit 5-1.)
Page C-20 Relevant Findings
The rest breaks had an influence on critical safety measures. For example, the effects of hours of driving
were reduced to starting levels by the one hour lunch break. While the recovery effect of a rest break is
not surprising, the magnitude of the effect is striking.
Pages SB-23 & C-24
Time of day was the "strongest and most consistent factor influencing driver fatigue and alertness." Night
driving (e.g. from midnight to dawn) was associated with the worse performance on four important
criteria.
NCHRP Report
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis 317, "Dealing with Truck Parking
Demands", 2003 htlp://trb.org/l)ublications/nchM/nchro syn 317.1)df
Page 1
It is nationally recognized that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operators frequently cannot find
adequate, safe parking for rest purposes.
Page 2
Factors to be considered include poor accessibility to private supply due to poor geometric design.
Page 4
Parking shortages are concentrated and solutions thereto should be targeted at a corridor or regional level;
therefore, the analysis of shortages and development of solutions should be performed at the corridor,
state, or sub-state, rather than the national level.
Page 9
Highways with a higher proportion of long-haul drivers will typically generate a larger demand for truck
parking than do other highways with more short-haul drivers. Drivers wanting to take a short break are
more likely to choose a location for its convenience, whereas drivers taking a long break are more likely
to choose a location that has more favorable amenities.
6
Page 15-20 State Practices & Potential Solutions
• Establish federal assistance program targeted at truck parking.
• Encourage the development of public-private partnerships.
• Improve access to commercial truck stops.
• Identify locations where commercial vehicle parking can be combined with ports of entry.
• Tourist Information - Additional tourist information will be provided to enhance economic
development.
• Encourage local government and business support for constructing and operating commercial
truck stop facilities in or near their community industrial and business parks. The "Not in my
backyard" attitude has made it difficult to develop new commercial truck stops.
Page 30 APPENDIX B List of Survey Respondents
26 States responded. North Carolina did not respond.
NTSB Report
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Highway Special Investigation Report, "Truck Parking
Areas", May 17, 2000 http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/SIROOOI.pdf
The NTSB has investigated catastrophic truck accidents and fatalities for over 30 years and commercial
driver fatigue is a safety issue the Board has addressed on a continuous basis.
Page 2
Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that truck driver fatigue may
be a contributing factor in as many as 30% to 40% of all heavy truck accidents. The Safety Board had
earlier estimated in a 1990 safety study, that 31% of accidents are fatigue related.
Page 5
However, according to the FHWA, the recent growth in truck traffic has not brought a corresponding
growth in parking.
Page 6
The areas needing the greatest number of additional truck parking are in FHWA Regions 1 and 4.
(Region 4 includes North Carolina.)
Page 10
The study found that on an average weekday night nearly 44% of the parked trucks were pulled over on
ramps and shoulders, thus, creating dangerous highway situations.
Page 17-18
States have the responsibility to ensure that highways are safe for travel for the public. The Safety Board
concludes that Federal and State governments have the responsibility to maintain highway safety and that
the lack of available truck parking or the truck drivers not knowing where parking would be available,
can negatively impact safety.
7
FHA Report
Federal Highway Administration (FHA), Technical Report, "Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck
Parking Facilities", March 2002 http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/01158/01158.pdf
Executive Summary
Inventory of Public and Commercial Truck Spaces
Approximately 10% of truck parking spaces are in public rest areas and 90% were in commercial truck
stops.
Recommendations for Improvements
• Remove cost-prohibitive road improvement requirements imposed by State DOT upon developers
attempting to open new parking facilities.
• Provide low-interest loans or grants to commercial truck stops to increase capacity.
• Encourage local government and business support for construction and operating commercial
truck stop and travel plaza facilities in or near their community industry and business parks.
• Big parking spaces that allow trucks to maneuver in and out.
Page 24
The number of parking spaces is only part of the issue related to the adequacy of the supply of truck
parking spaces. For example, if sufficient spaces are available yet these spaces are either difficult to
access or do not have the amenities that a driver needs, then a driver may choose to park at an over-
crowded facility, may park at an inappropriate location, or may drive while tired (or fatigued) to find a
more favorable facility.
Pate 32
Because the estimated growth rates for parking supply are national averages and local growth will vary
considerably, it is not appropriate to use these figures to generate State-specific estimates of the future
adequacy of truck parking spaces.
Pate 41
• Partner with other State agencies, such as Department of Tourism, to incorporate truck parking
needs into new development.
• Identify locations where commercial vehicle parking can be combined with ports of entry.
• Six States (included North Carolina) indicated that they intended to rely on the private sector to
provide additional commercial truck parking along overcrowded corridors.
Pate 46-47
Building spaces that have neither the convenience nor the amenities necessary to convince a truck driver
to use the spaces would not help; tired drivers would either continue to drive to locate spaces with
preferred amenities or would park in unsafe locations because of greater convenience.
If a driver has "used up" his hours of driving, he is forced to either violate these regulations or find a place
to rest. This leads to the following observations about the truck parking problem with respect to
distribution and spacing:
8
• The problem of truck parking is, by its very nature, a local problem.
• Shortages also appear to be worse for non-Interstate highways.
Page 48-49
The FHA report states "... that tired truck drivers pose an imminent health risk to other drivers on the
road and that governments have a prevailing interest to protect citizen-drivers by helping tired truck
drivers find rest."
Long-haul drivers using the port will result in a greater demand for overnight parking than short-haul
driver.
One of the most powerful features of the truck parking demand model is its ability to estimate future
demand so that long-range plans can be formulated to accommodate this future demand.
FMCSA Report
FMCSA, Safety Program, "Intelligent Transportation Systems and Truck Parking", February 2005
http://www.f ncsa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/research/briefs/intelligent transportation truckparking_pdf
Section 3 Background
Congress directed the NTSB to review the causes of truck crashes. In its review, NTSB found a major
issue was the lack of safe, available truck parking.
Section 4.2 Supply and Demand of Parking
In certain parts of the U.S., there are regional shortages of parking. Furthermore, statewide aggregate
figures do not indicate whether there are shortages or surpluses of parking along specific corridors or at
particular locations within corridors. Spaces need to be available at the right time and place, namely close
to the time and place where the driver runs out of hours of service (HOS) for that day.
4.4 Summary
For overnight rests, most drivers prefer truck stops. Although the current nationwide supply of truck
stops appears to be adequate, there are regional shortages. Furthermore, given the desire to maximize
productivity, while remaining legal under the hours-of-service rules, a driver may find that he has run out
of available driving hours with no legal parking available nearby. As a result, drivers sometimes park on
the shoulder of a highway or ramp, creating a safety hazard. Continued growth in the truckload industry
will lead to increased demand for truck parking.
6 What are Potential Solutions?
Recommendations included the following:
• Provide financial support to support development of commercial truck stops.
• Establish Federal assistance program targeted at truck parking.
• Encourage the development of public-private partnerships.
• Improve access, layout and configuration of truck parking.
• Separate truck, car and RV parking.
9
8 Conclusions
Is there a shortage of parking?
Yes, there are regional shortages.
Is the shortage likely to worsen?
Yes, continued growth in the truckload industry will lead to increased demand for truck parking.
This FMCSA report titled "Intelligent Transportation Systems and Truck Parking" dated February 2005
indirectly supports the need for a truck stop in Wilmington, NC. "The demand for overnight truck
parking is influenced by the location of major truck routes, pickup and delivery locations (Wilmington
Port) and hours-of-service rules." Overnight parking is needed at a location that includes food, fuel,
restrooms, showers, laundry, lounge, well-lit parking lots and is convenient to major highways and both
ports. Without these services, drivers are inclined to park illegally on ramps and shoulders, creating a
safety hazard or drive beyond their hours-of-service. According to this report, there are regional
shortages of truck parking and it is likely to worsen due to growth in trucking from the port.
NCHRP Report
The NCHRP Report 500, Volume 13: "A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Heavy Trucks" states
that when a heavy truck is involved in a crash, it is 2.6 times more likely to result in a fatality than a crash
between two passenger cars and serious injuries are twice as likely. The objective of the report was to
reduce the number of heavy-truck fatalities by identifying several causes. One major cause was truck
driver fatigue due to inadequate truck parking.
In truck crashes, the "other vehicle" occupant is almost 6 times more likely to die in the crash than a truck
occupant.
Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that truck driver fatigue may
be a contributing factor in as many as 30% to 40% of all heavy truck accidents. The report states that the
effects of driver fatigue on truck-involved crashes shows these numbers could be reduced substantially if
adequate parking for trucks was available. The report determined that drivers should "schedule" 8 hours
of sleep at appropriate times in order to minimize the effects of fatigue. This means timing the "end" of
their hours of service in the evening and at a destination point such as the Wilmington port.
Crash Data
The following crash data was compiled from FMCSA and NC Highway Research Center in Chapel Hill.
The data covers truck accidents only. Each accident might have one or more injuries or fatalities.
2004 National Truck-Involved Crash Data (FMCSA data)
Trucks involved in Fatal Crashes
Truck involved Fatalities
Trucks involved in Injury Crashes
Truck involved Injuries
Property Damage Only (PDO) Crashes
Total Truck-Involved Crashes
Average Costs per Truck-Involved Crash
4,862
5,190*
62,896
91,406*
321,403
436,000*
$62,613
10
*One crash might have multiple fatalities or injuries.
2004 North Carolina Truck-Involved Crash Data (FMCSA data
Trucks involved in Fatal Crashes 182
Truck involved Fatalities 198*
Trucks involved in Injury Crashes 2,230
Truck involved Injuries 3,340*
Property Damage Only (PDO) Crashes 2,038
Total Truck-Involved Crashes 4,450
*One crash might have multiple fatalities or injuries.
2004 Southeastern North Carolina, 8-Countv Region For Truck-Involved Crash Data
(NC Hiehway Research Center)
Truck involved Fatalities 11
Truck involved Injuries 222
Property Damage Only (PDO) Crashes 412
Total Truck-Involved Crashes 645
North Carolina Statistics
• 60% of truck involved crashes involve some level of serious injury.
• 70% of truck involved fatalities occur on US-numbered (34%) or NC-numbered routes (24%).
• 83% of truck involved fatalities involved a tractor trailer truck.
• In 88% of truck involved crashes, the driver of the truck was not injured.
The combination of manufacturing plants in the area, two ports and truck corridors within this region
increase the "opportunity" for collisions between trucks and other vehicles.
Clearly, the driving public in North Carolina needs to improve its driving practices in the vicinity of
trucks, especially since truck traffic can be expected to increase the severity of crashes.
Calculating Percentage of Truck Involved Crashes Attributable to Fatigue
Because of the difficulty of identifying the causes of crashes, there is considerable uncertainty about the
percentage of crashes that can be attributed directly or indirectly to fatigue. As mentioned, another
problem is the assumption of 100% compliance with existing or future HOS regulations.
Fatigue is defined as the decreased ability to perform, induced by a lack of adequate sleep, approximately
8 hours per 24-hour period. (2003 RIA Report, page 8-1)
11
Several reports show that truck driver fatigue may be a contributing factor in as many as 30% to 40% of
all heavy truck accidents. Other reports show long haul drivers have higher fatigue levels than short haul
drivers due to distance and time on the road, but the total for fatigue related crashes is 15.1%. (2003 RIA,
page 8-38) The proposed 2005 RIA report states "This means that fatigue is a significant factor in about
25% of all truck-involved crashes where the truck driver is responsible." (Page 43 - Footnote #30) The
FARS database estimates that 8.15% of FATAL truck involved crashes are caused by fatigue, but that
percentage does not apply to injuries and property damage. In the Hanowski study, dated September
2000, fatigue was determined to be a contributing factor in 20.8% of all truck involved accidents. A
preliminary RIA report showed fatigue at 15%.
The proposed 2005 RIA report states that the first step in this analysis is to estimate the fraction of crashes
that appear to be attributable to fatigue. Several crash databases were evaluated to determine the
crash/fatigue relationship and are listed below:
AGENCY DATABASE
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration General Estimates System (GES)
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration Motor Carrier Mgmt. Information System (MCMIS)
One goal is to accurately calculate the number of accidents caused by the driver of the truck and then
determine how many are attributable to fatigue. All three databases have serious statistical problems and
none indicate a conclusive percentage of accidents caused by fatigue. For example, FARS records
accidents with fatalities only and does not include data on crashes without fatalities. Obviously, truck
involved accidents with serious injuries or property damage only are not included in FARS.
Problems within Databases (2003 RIA Report)
1. The lack of alertness, or inattention, can be attributable to fatigue and is a serious problem
while driving. For example, a crash is clearly the fault of the other driver, but the truck driver
was fatigued and could not react in time to avoid the other vehicle. A well-rested truck driver
might have avoided the other vehicle. No database can measure the possibility of avoiding a
crash or measure the "avoidance factor". Thus, only 20% of crashes attributed to inattention
were counted as fatigue related.
2. Law enforcement officers who complete accident reports rarely have specialized training in
crash investigation or even in completing the forms.
3. MCMIS database undercounts truck accidents attributable to fatigue due to the removal of the
check block titled "apparent driver condition" from crash data sheet in 2000. This lack of
information was found to be a "serious data quality problem."
4. FARS counts fatalities only in databases and it is not realistic to extend fatigue-related crash
estimates from fatal crashes to injury and property damage only crashes.
5. Driver condition was not reported in truck crash data from 8 states. These data reporting
problems result in a logical inconsistency in calculating fatigue involved crash rates for trucks.
12
6. Within FARS databases, many of the key variables (vehicle configuration, body type, harmful
events, driver charges, impact details, etc.) are coded as "9's", which means unknown or
unreported. If coded as "99", the entire accident report was eliminated.
7. Long haul truckers have a higher "fatigue factor" than short haul truckers. Long haul is
defined as more than 150 miles and most trucks with container loads travel more than 150
miles.
8. The definition of a large truck does not include certain trucks such as concrete trucks, garbage
trucks, dump trucks, etc. If these trucks were included, fatigue percentages would be higher.
For example, the propane truck accident on Hwy. 211 in Brunswick County on Saturday,
March 4, 2006 will not be counted as a truck accident due to the truck's size. (Single unit
trucks with 2-axles and 6 tires and Single unit trucks with 3 or more axles are not included.)
Methodology to Calculation of Fatigue Related percentage
Different reports give different fatigue related estimates/percentages. Unfortunately, crash reports are not
designed to identify fatigue as a factor, thus, the problems listed above are legitimate concerns. Because
of this problem, an average of all reports will be taken to determine an estimate of fatigue related crashes.
Various Reports Percentage
November, 1994 research report by NHTSA - 30% to 40% 35.0%
1990 NTSB report 31.0%
2003 RIA Total of long haul & short haul (pg. 8-33 & 8-38) 15.1%
2005 RIA report 25.0%
FARS database - FATAL truck involved crashes only 8.15%
Hanowski study, dated September 2000 20.8%
Preliminary RIA report (2003 RIA, pg. 8-15, Footnote 111) 15.0%
Total of 150.0
150 divided by 7 reports is 21.44% or rounded to 21.5%.
Considering the data quality problems within each database and crash report, the lack of 8 states
reporting, human error, the "avoidance factor", truck definition limitations, etc., 21.5% is a reasonable
average, but in all probability, it is too low.
The goal is to reduce fatalities, injuries and accidents by building 85 overnight truck parking spaces.
Thus, a reduction in the numbers below would improve safety on our highways every year. For purposes
of this report, 21.5% of all accident categories are attributable to fatigue.
Southeastern NC
Truck involved Fatalities
Truck involved Injuries
Property Damage Only (PDO) Crashes
Total Truck-Involved Crashes
2004
11 x 21.5% = 2.4 fatalities
222 x 21.5% = 47.7 Injuries
412 x 21.5% = 88.6 Damage
645 x 21.5% = 138.7 Total
13
In southeastern North Carolina, 2.4 lives could be saved, 47.7 injuries prevented and 138.7 fewer
crashes if driver fatigue were eliminated in the 8 county region. Again, any reduction in each
category would improve highway safety for all motorists. These are projections for ONE YEAR
ONLY, BASED ON 2004 DATA. The long-term benefits of this grant are enormous considering
the potential of preventing 2.4 fatalities, 47.7 injuries and 138.7 crashes EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
Average damages per large truck crash is $75,637 (2003 RIA, pg. 8-36).
One truck-involved fatality or injury is too many, especially if it could have been prevented by
providing adequate truck parking.
The region will benefit from parking by reducing fatigue related accidents, but not all fatigue related
fatalities and injuries will be eliminated with the construction of overnight parking spaces. New spaces
will give drivers the opportunity (and hopefully give drivers incentive) to stop, rest, eat, shower or obtain
sleep.
Why does Wilmington have inadequate truck parking, especially with two ports? What can be
done to improve the situation? All reports and safety studies list truck driver fatigue, especially for
long haulers, as a serious problem.
Challenges associated with increasing truck traffic from the Wilmington port pose a significant and
growing threat to transportation and public safety. More and better planning will be needed as
these challenges become more frequent and severe.
Another serious issue is daytime parking for trucks. Most trucks cannot just "pull over and park"
for lunch or dinner due to their size. This facility will allow drivers to park, eat or rest during
daytime hours which will benefit highway safety. As mentioned, a break will "restart" their
daytime alertness to levels similar to the first hour of driving and thereby reduce their relative risk
factor of fatigue.
Benefits of a One Hour Break from Driving
This facility will allow drivers to take a one hour break from driving to eat breakfast, lunch or dinner.
As stated in 2005 RIA, pages 45-46, even a one hour break to eat will have an influence on critical safety
measures. For example, the effects of hours of driving were reduced to starting levels by the one hour
break for a meal.
The "Relative Crash Risk by Driving Time" chart on page 45 highlights the benefits of a one hour break.
For example, if a driver is in his 11th hour of driving, the relative risk factor per involvement in a fatigue
related crash is roughly FIVE TIMES higher than the first hour of driving. If that driver parks for one
hour to eat a meal, the relative risk factor drops to "starting levels", which means the relative risk factor
dropped to the level associated with the first hour of driving. (Relative risk factor dropped from 5.04 to
0.52.) Obviously, the benefits of a one hour break versus the benefits of 8 hours of sleep cannot compare,
14
however, researchers stated "While the recovery effect of a rest break is not surprising, the magnitude of
the effect is striking (page C-20 Relevant Finding, chart on page 45, 2005, RIA).
Since parking for large trucks is limited to only 122 spaces in an 8-county area for 8,000 trucks, parking
for a meal is also a problem. This new facility will make parking available during all hours of the day and
night which in turn will improve highway safety for everyone by reducing daytime fatigue.
The southeast region of North Carolina has only 122 overnight parking spaces for 8,000 trucks and
the region has a high concentration of trucks due to the ports, manufacturing and regional growth.
The combined effect of fatigue and this "higher than normal" number of trucks contribute to the
region's high truck crash rates. However, the addition of 85 parking spaces will reduce fatigue and
allow truck drivers to stop for breaks.
SAFETEA-LU CONTACT
Bill Mahorney 202-366-6817, Office of Freight Management & Operations, Federal Highway
Administration, USDOT.
Another measurement of highway safety is the ranking or comparison of crash rates for all vehicles and
for trucks only. One state is compared or ranked against other states or one county is compared to another
county. Safety engineers within each state can even rank highway segments. Safety engineers measure
truck involved accidents separately due to the danger large trucks pose to the general public. This report
will highlight the findings of safety engineers within the NCDOT based on North Carolina Statewide
Crash Rates for cars and trucks. For example, TRUCK ONLY CRASH RATES show the following:
• In 2004, North Carolina was ranked 5th in the nation in terms of fatal crashes involving large
trucks. (If the top 5 states were ranked by fatal crashes divided by population, North Carolina
ranks 2° .)**
• North Carolina fatalities involving large trucks increased by 22% in 2004.**
• New Hanover, Brunswick and Pender Counties were ranked in the top 21 counties in North
Carolina in terms of truck involved crashes.
• Truck crash rates on US Hwy. 421 in New Hanover County are 433% higher than North
Carolina's statewide average of truck crash rates.* (Truck crash injury rates are 658% higher than
statewide average on US Hwy. 421)
• Truck crash rates on US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County are 166% higher than North Carolina's
statewide average of truck crash rates.* (Fatal truck crash rates are 200% higher and injury truck
crash rates are 166% higher than the statewide average on US Hwy. 74/76)
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) overall state data rating for North Carolina
is poor in terms of completeness, timeliness and accuracy.
• Total accident statistics (not just truck accidents) rank New Hanover County as the most
dangerous county for 6 straight years.
15
Total accidents on a 2-mile section of US Hwy. 421 North averages 14 crashes and 10.6 injuries
per year. (7 accidents and 5 injuries per mile per year.)
Total accidents on an 18-mile section of US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County averages 116
crashes, 1.5 fatalities and 89 injuries per year. (6 accidents and 5 injuries per mile per year.)
** Based on 2004 FMCSA Crash Profiles.
* Based on NC Statewide Truck Crash Rates for 2001-2003 compiled by NCDOT.
Trucks make up a very high percentage of traffic in the area due to the Wilmington port and numerous
manufacturing facilities. Data from several studies show that in truck involved accidents, occupants of
the other vehicle are killed or injured 88% of the time and occupants of the truck are killed or injured 12%
of the time.
Growth at the Wilmington Port will bring additional truck traffic to the area. These trucks, loaded with
containers, petroleum, chemicals, lumber, gravel, etc., will be slowing, merging, turning and crossing
with other vehicles at high speeds on major US highways in the area. Lives will be saved by reducing the
number of fatigued truck drivers in the area.
Supporting Documents
Supporting documents include the following:
1.) Strip Analysis Reports for US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy 74/76. Both analysis reports are from North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
2.) NCDOT Statewide CRASH RATES for all vehicles and trucks only for similar type highways.
3.) Comparison between strip analysis reports and NC Statewide crash rates for all vehicles and
trucks only.
4.) NCDOT Report ranking dangerous towns with population of 10,000 or less
5.) Safety reports ranking the state and areas within the state as dangerous highways based on truck-
involved accidents.
6.) Several reports and data from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and NC
Highway Research Center-UNC.
7.) Safety reports from federal agencies addressing truck driver fatigue and the lack of overnight
parking for trucks.
8.) Memorandum from NCDOT listing Comprehensive Cost Per Crash type & Injury type.
9.) For the 6`h straight year, New Hanover County ranked #1 in North Carolina in collisions and
injuries.
Vehicular accidents are inevitable and truck-involved accidents are devastating, however, reducing the
risk / probability of truck involved accidents can be achieved by reducing the number of fatigued truck
drivers. The information listed above is actual data compiled by government agencies to address safety.
16
Strip (Highway ) Analysis Reports
Strip analysis reports examine crash data from highway segments over a certain period of time. Reports
are compiled from actual crash reports filled out by law enforcement officers. Traffic safety engineers
with NCDOT use the reports to recommend highway design changes, traffic pattern changes and highway
planning. They compare crash rates for each highway segment to statewide crash rates.
Based on statewide truck crash rates, US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/74 are dangerous highways,
especially with truck traffic. Truck crash rates for each highway segment are much higher than statewide
truck crash rates.
Crash severity increases at higher speeds and if a truck is involved in a crash. Thus, it is important to
differentiate between truck-involved crashes and all other crashes. For example, if a large truck is
involved in an accident with another vehicle traveling at a high speed, the likelihood of fatalities and
serious injuries will increase. If vehicles are traveling at reduced speeds at impact, then crash severity
should decrease and thereby save lives. If a truck driver falls asleep while driving at high speeds, then
every motorist is at risk of becoming the next fatality.
Strip Analysis Report for US Hwy. 421
This report shows all accidents on US Hwy. 421 from the junction at US Hwy. 117 to Sutton Steam Plant
Rd. The highway segment is 2.16 miles and the study covers 10.33 years (1/1/95 to 4/30/05). Summary
statistics are attached with certain data highlighted below:
• 41% of all accidents involved a truck.
• This short, highway segment averaged 14 crashes and 10.6 injuries per year.
• 48% of all accidents were caused by Left Turns or Rear End, Slow or Stopped traffic.
• Truck Crash Rate for highway segment is 28.42.
Comparison between US Hwy. 421
Highway Segment Crash Rates and NC Statewide Crash Rates
Statewide crash rates are determined by NCDOT's Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch in
Raleigh. (Primary contacts were Brian Murphy, PE, Traffic Safety Project Engineer, 919-733-3668 and
Chris Oliver, E.I., Safety Planning Engineer, 919-715-0140.) Statewide crash rates cover a period of
three years (2001 to 2003) and are broken out by different road types in rural and urban settings. For US
Hwy. 421 comparison, the statewide roadway type was: rural US routes with 4lanes with continuous left
turn lane. Three statewide categories are highlighted: Total Crash Rates, Fatal Crash Rates and Non-
Fatal Injury Crash Rates.
17
US Hwy. 421 crash rates are shown below:
US Hwy. 421 NC Statewide
Crash Rates Crash Rates
For 2001-2003 For 2001-2003
Total Crash Rates 135.01 147.26
Fatal Crash Rates 7.11 * 1.49
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates 71.06 61.42
*Not representative of Fatal Crash Rates since the two fatalities were pedestrians.
The total crash rate for US Hwy. 421 is lower than the statewide crash rate meaning this highway segment
is slightly safer than statewide averages for this highway type. However, if an accident does occur,
occupants are more likely to be injured.
On average, this particular highway segment is very similar to statewide US highway, rural routes within
North Carolina. Again, this was for all vehicles. A much different story is shown for trucks only.
Comparison between US Hwy. 421
Highway Segment Truck Crash Rates and NC Statewide Truck Crash Rates
Crash rates are a way for safety engineers to measure highway safety and engineers break out rates for
trucks only. (Crash rates are calculated for trucks only on the attached sheet.) Additionally, only
accidents that occurred from 2001 to 2003 were included in this comparison and are summarized below:
Total Crash Rates
Fatal Crash Rates
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates
US Hwy. 421
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
28.42
-0-
17.76
NC Statewide
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
6.56
0.19
2.7
• TRUCK CRASH RATES ARE 433% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK CRASH
RATES
• TRUCK CRASH INJURY RATES ARE 658% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK
CRASH INJURY RATES
Truck traffic on US Hwy. 421 has an enormous negative impact on highway safety. For example, at
4:40am on January 25, 2006, a truck with double trailers was traveling north on US Hwy. 421 (near
Sutton Steam Plant Rd.) and made a left-hand turn crossing two lanes of traffic. Another vehicle traveling
south on US Hwy. 421 at 60 mph slammed into the side of the truck, killing the driver. (66% of all truck
involved accidents occur from midnight to 6:00am.) The truck driver was charged with failure to yield
and was most likely fatigue related. Since passenger cars must share the highway with trucks, it is
important to compare this highway segment to statewide truck crash rates.
18
According to Chris Oliver (see email dated 11/28/05), two types of trucks were excluded, a "box" truck
(2-axle, 6-tire) and "straight" trucks (3 or more axles). Both types of truck can weigh up to 40,000 lbs
and have a length of up to 40 feet. Examples of these types are concrete trucks, large delivery trucks,
garbage trucks, propane trucks, etc. These trucks do not have a coupling or "5th wheel", but are just as
dangerous. If these trucks were included, the data would change as follows:
Total Crash Rates
Fatal Crash Rates
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates
US Hwy. 421
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
42.63
-0-
31.97
NC Statewide
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
6.56
0.19
2.7
TRUCK CRASH RATES ARE 650% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK CRASH
RATES
• TRUCK CRASH INJURY RATES ARE 1184% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE
TRUCK CRASH INJURY RATES
Remember, this compares truck traffic on US Hwy. 421 with truck traffic on similar
highways throughout the state. Based on the information above, this section of US Hwy.
421 is very dangerous with more than SIX TIMES the number of accidents and TWELVE
TIMES the number of injuries.
Strip Analysis Report for US Hwy. 74/76
This report shows all accidents on US Hwy. 74/76 from Delco area in Columbus County to South Front
St. in Wilmington. This highway segment is 18.51 miles and the study covers 14.41 years (1/1/90 to
5/31/04). Summary statistics are attached with certain data highlighted below:
• 18% of all accidents involved a truck.
• This highway segment averaged 116 crashes, 1.5 fatalities and 89 injuries per year.
• Highway has grass median dividing travel directions.
• 29% of all accidents were caused by Rear End, Slow or Stopped traffic.
• Accidents have increased 40% since 2001.
• Truck Crash Rate for highway segment is 9.17.
This highway segment has a grass median dividing travelers and has partial control access, but still has
serious safety problems. (Hugh Thompson, Senior Right of Way person with NCDOT, 251-5733,
confirmed that US Hwy. 74/76 has partial control access, regardless of fence location.)
Again, Brunswick County was one out of 21 counties targeted by NCDMV as having the most truck
involved accidents in the state.
19
Comparison between US Hwy. 74/76
Hi!hway Segment Crash Rates and NC Statewide Crash Rates
Statewide crash rates are determined by NCDOT's Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch in
Raleigh. (Primary contacts were Brian Murphy, PE, Traffic Safety Project Engineer, 919-733-3668 and
Chris Oliver, E.I., Safety Planning Engineer, 919-715-0140.) Statewide crash rates cover a period of
three years (2001 to 2003) and are broken out by different road types in rural and urban settings. For US
Hwy. 74/76 comparison, the statewide roadway type was: rural US routes with 4 or more lanes divided.
Three statewide categories are highlighted: Total Crash Rates, Fatal Crash Rates and Non-Fatal Injury
Crash Rates. Calculations for US Hwy. 74/76 crash rates are shown on attached sheet with a summary
shown below:
Total Crash Rates
Fatal Crash Rates
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates
US Hwy. 74/76
Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
96.27
0.87
36.24
NC Statewide
Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
86.37
1.01
34.11
The total crash rate for US Hwy. 74/76 is higher than the statewide crash rate meaning this highway
segment is slightly more dangerous than statewide averages for this highway type. If an accident does
occur, injuries average about the same.
On average, this particular highway segment is very similar to statewide US highway, rural routes within
North Carolina. Again, this was for all vehicles. A much different story is shown below for trucks only.
Comparison between US Hwy. 74/76
Highway Segment Truck Crash Rates and NC Statewide Truck Crash Rates
Crash rates are a way for safety engineers to measure highway safety and engineers break out rates for
trucks only. (Again, crash rates are calculated for trucks only on the attached sheet.) Additionally, only
accidents that occurred from 2001 to 2003 were included in this comparison and are summarized below:
US Hwy. 74/76 NC Statewide
TRUCK Crash Rates TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003 For 2001-2003
Total Crash Rates 9.17 5.51
Fatal Crash Rates 0.22 0.11
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates 3.49 2.1
• TRUCK CRASH RATES ARE 166% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK CRASH
RATES
20
• FATALITIES ARE 200% HIGHER
• TRUCK CRASH INJURY RATES ARE 166% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK
CRASH INJURY RATES
Truck traffic on US Hwy. 74/76 has an enormous negative impact on highway safety. For example, at
3:40am on July 14, 2005, two trucks were traveling east on US Hwy. 74/76 near Leland. A drunk driver
pulled out in front of one truck causing an accident and killing one truck driver. Since passenger cars
must share the highway with trucks, this comparison to statewide truck crash rates is appropriate. This is
proof that trucks on US Hwy. 74/76 are a serious safety concern.
According to Chris Oliver (see email dated 11/28/05), two types of trucks were excluded, a "box" truck
(2-axle, 6-tire) and "straight" trucks (3 or more axles). Both types of truck can weigh up to 40,000 lbs
and have a length of up to 40 feet. Examples of these types are concrete trucks and large delivery trucks.
These trucks do not have a coupling or "5th wheel", but are just as dangerous. Statistics change
dramatically if these trucks were included:
Total Crash Rates
Fatal Crash Rates
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rates
US Hwy. 74/76
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
11.79
0.44
5.02
NC Statewide
TRUCK Crash Rates
For 2001-2003
5.51
0.11
2.1
• TRUCK CRASH RATES ARE 214% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK CRASH
RATES
• FATALITIES ARE 400% HIGHER
• TRUCK CRASH INJURY RATES ARE 239% HIGHER THAN NC STATEWIDE TRUCK
CRASH INJURY RATES
Remember, this compares truck traffic on US Hwy. 74/76 with truck traffic on similar highways
throughout the state. Based on the information above, this section of US Hwy. 74/76 is very dangerous
with more than twice the number of accidents and injuries and FOUR TIMES the number of fatalities.
Traffic Safety Engineers Rank Cities
Traffic safety engineers with NCDOT rank cities with populations of 10,000 or less based on accidents.
The annual rankings are based on crash statistics and population to come up with an overall standing.
Whiteville, NC was ranked #1 for three straight years with the most accidents, injuries and fatalities. In
2004, it "will rank near the top again" according to Brian Murphy, a traffic safety engineer with NCDOT.
Out of 471 cities, Whiteville was ranked #1 for 3 (maybe 4) straight years. Leland was ranked 30th out of
21
471 cities based on the same data. Both cities are located on US Hwy. 74/76 in southeastern North
Carolina and "cities with a significant amount of through traffic but a relatively low population" could
attribute the high number of accidents to US Hwy. 74/76. Brian Murphy could not confirm that
conclusion without further research, but what other explanation is there?
Summary
Strip analysis reports are used to compare one highway to another or with statewide averages. If US
Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/76 are measured by all vehicle accidents in the state, both are similar to
statewide crash rates for US highway, rural routes. However, if truck only crash rates are compared to
statewide averages, both highways are extremely dangerous. The same is true for Whiteville and Leland.
Both cities have terrible rankings within the state because of US Hwy. 74/76.
Southeastern North Carolina highways are "overcrowded" with trucks due to the Wilmington Port. Since
trucks travel hundreds of miles each day to reach the port (and sometimes several days), driver fatigue is a
serious problem. In some cases, drivers will arrive at the port after driving for 10 straight hours, load
cargo, and then leave the area without rest. They do not comply with federal regulations (hours-of-
service) due to the lack of adequate overnight truck parking. Even a one hour break and meal would help
fatigue, but with no place to park, they will continue to drive. Usually, they will travel to their next
destination where adequate parking is available. If this happens, every motorist in North Carolina is at
risk of being the next fatality.
Truck driver fatigue is such a serious problem, the federal government stepped in to allocate federal
dollars to build overnight parking for trucks. The SAFETEA-LU Transportation Bill, Section 1305
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/truckpark.htm) provides grants to assist entities by
"constructing commercial motor vehicle parking facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel
plazas."
Summary of Highway Safety
Strip analysis reports highlight the problem for passenger cars on US Hwy. 421 and US Hwy. 74/76 when
truck traffic is present.
• Trucks on US Hwy. 421 increase the chance of an accident by 433% and increase the chance
of an injury by 658%.
Trucks on US Hwy. 74/76 increase the chance of an accident by 166%, increase the chance of
a fatality by 200% and increase the chance of an injury by 166%.
Truck traffic is a major consideration with serious consequences. The numbers above are not 20%
higher or 50% higher, but 166% to 658% higher than NC statewide average for truck crash rates.
No matter how the numbers are stated, both are dangerous highways.
22
North Carolina ranked 8th in the nation in 1999 in terms of the highest number of truck involved
fatalities.
Current North Carolina rankings and data show the following:
2004*
• NC ranked 5th in nation - Fatalities in Crashes Involving Large Trucks
• NC ranked 2°d in nation - Fatalities divided by population
• NC ranked 5th in nation - Fatal Crashes Involving Large Trucks
• NC ranked 6th in nation - Large Trucks involved in Fatal Crashes
• Fatalities involving large trucks increased by 22% in 2004
• Crashes involving trucks with hazardous material increased by 57% over 2003
• For the first time in 3 years, North Carolina Fatality Rate is higher than National Average
• Roadside inspections were down 18% over 2002
2005*
• Overall state ranking for motor carrier safety - POOR
*From attached FMCSA information
Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender Counties were ranked in the top 21 counties within the state as
having the most truck involved crashes (1995 to 1999). Unfortunately, US Hwy. 421 in New Hanover
County and US Hwy. 74/76 in Brunswick County (2001 to 2003) still have some of the highest truck
crash rates in North Carolina.
Conflict points are well defined by safety experts and show where potential problems might occur.
Accidents occur at conflict points between two or more vehicles and accidents between a car and truck
can be devastating. In addition, AASHTO publications state that highway ramps are extremely safe for
both truck and passenger car traffic and ramps would reduce the number of highway accidents. This
information shows that lives are at risk if a new truck stop is built at any site on a US highway
without highway ramps.
New Hanover County is ranked #1 by AAA for the sixth straight year as the most dangerous county in
North Carolina in terms of the likelihood of being in a crash and being injured.
Unfortunately, some people are not convinced that safety is a major issue, even after submission of many
safety reports and extensive crash data. Hopefully, it will not take a tragedy such as the crash between a
school bus and tractor/trailer truck in Florida to convince them. (That accident was definitely caused by
driver fatigue.)
23
Other Important Issues
In addition to safety, other benefits of the proposed site include:
1. Homeland security - Military can use site during deployment
2. Reduce truck traffic on city streets - Incentive for trucks to use I-140
3. Staging area after hurricanes for Brunswick Electric, Brunswick EMS & Leland Fire & Rescue
with access to all major arteries
4. Geographically central to most populated areas in northern Brunswick County (See Map)
5. Creation of 85 new jobs, promote tourism and annual tax revenue paid to federal, state and local
governments of $3,115,600
6. Growth and importance of trucking industry
Currently, trucks leaving the port driving to I-40 use Shipyard Blvd. and South College Rd. That route
has 22 stoplights, heavy congestion and goes by a large high school and UNCW. If the same truck
traveling to I-40 uses the new by-pass (I-140), then drivers encounter only 5 stoplights and have a
truck stop within 2 miles of their route to rest, eat and refuel. This is incentive for truck drivers to
move away from congested city streets and to take a one hour break.
2.) The site is geographically located in the middle of northern Brunswick County and in the middle of the
most populated areas. Scott Garner, Deputy Director of Brunswick County Emergency Services and
Fire Marshal, commented that access to populated areas via major transportation corridors was
preferred during emergencies and after hurricanes. John Grimes, Chief of Leland Fire and Rescue,
commented that refueling at a site centrally located would improve response time during emergencies
and that the generator will allow them to refuel after hurricanes. Since the site is centrally located and
has access to major roads, Brunswick Electric and other utility providers will use the site as a staging
area after hurricane. Also, during evacuation, the site can refuel cars and trucks, especially since the
area has few fueling stations. Thus, more sites are needed to help avoid a Hurricane Katrina-type
refueling problem during evacuation.
3.) Economic impact is significant. The project will create 85 jobs, collect over $3.1 million in taxes per
y.gar and boost tourism by providing a travel center/visitor's center with restaurants, fuel, parking,
maps, clean bathrooms, etc. Tourism is one of North Carolina's largest industries accounting for
$13.2 billion in revenue across the state and $585 million in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties.
Unfortunately, the area does not have a welcome center or travel center or rest area to serve
tourist. (The nearest sites are located in Shallotte and Warsaw.) The site is ideal for a visitor's
center/rest area since four major US highways converge in the area and tourists will have access to I-
140. In addition, the only welcome center for tourists traveling between Wilmington and Myrtle
Beach on US Hwy. 17 is in South Carolina. The site must have good access, visibility, access to
water and sewer, be geographically centered and have access to major US highways. This facility
would greatly enhance tourism in the area by meeting those criteria.
24
4.) Growth of truck traffic in the area is a serious concern and must be addressed. Truck traffic from the
Wilmington port will double within 6 % years. Projections for the year 2020 call for a DOUBLING
of freight volumes, a 65% increase in domestic tonnage, a doubling on international tonnage, with
trucks carrying 75% of all tonnage. Southeastern North Carolina is lacking the facilities to handle the
growth of truck traffic in the region.
Area Overview
Wilmington
The City of Wilmington is located near the coast of southeastern North Carolina in New Hanover County.
The Port of Wilmington is located on the Cape Fear River in New Hanover County and is operated by the
North Carolina State Ports Authority. The port is a major hub for the Mid-Atlantic region and handles
bulk, container and specialized cargo. A substantial portion of the cargo entering and leaving the Port of
Wilmington is transported by truck. Additionally, the military has the Sunny Point terminal in Southport,
NC on the Cape Fear River as well as nearby Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point military bases. Because of
the ports, military bases and manufacturing plants, truck traffic in the area is high.
Brunswick County
Brunswick County was the 5ch fastest growing county in the state with population growth of 43.5% from
1990 to 2000. (53% of all Americans now live on or near the coast.) Currently, the population is over
83,000 residents with over 19 people moving in every day. The NC State Data Center projects growth of
54% through 2020. Brunswick County ranks 7`h in land area out of 100 counties and is made up of a
collection of rural and coastal communities. Beach communities include Bald Head Island, Oak Island,
Holden Beach, Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach and municipalities include Leland, Southport,
Shallotte and Bolivia. Primary growth areas are concentrated south of the County's major roadway, US
Hwy. 17. The Noremac facility is located where Hwy. 17 and Hwy. 74/76 merge near Leland.
The Port of Wilmington
Highway infrastructure is critical to the success of the "intermodal" transportation needs of the port and
the area has excellent highways that allow freight to move quickly and efficiently. The port addressed the
needs of steamship companies by deepening the port to 42 feet which will increase tonnage (and truck
traffic) as larger ships are able to dock. Currently, the Port of Wilmington handles over 1,910,000 tons of
cargo every year. The primary imports are chemicals, metal products and forest products. The primary
exports are wood pulp, general merchandise and forest products. The NC Ports Authority maintains
inland terminals in Charlotte and Greensboro.
25
Additionally, the military utilize highways and the port to deploy weaponry, supplies and equipment to
war zones. With the new Wilmington by-pass (I-140) and MLK, Jr. extension, truck traffic can avoid
congested areas in town. Thus, trucks entering or leaving the port will have access to Interstate 40 via
Hwy. 421 North and I-140. (Truck counts are higher along Hwy. 74/76 and I-40 since these corridors
connect to I-95.) With roads and facilities in place, the area's economy will benefit as businesses and the
port expand.
NCDOT Traffic Counts
Because of the magnitude of this project, traffic counts are a very important component used to verify
MPSI results. Maps highlighting traffic counts were obtained from the NC Department of
Transportation's web site (http://www.ncdot.or it/gis/DataDistribution/TrafficSurveyMaps/ ) for three
years. Vehicle traffic is shown on the chart with actual counts for 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The NCDOT maps show specific roads where counts were taken on both sides over a 48-hour period
during weekdays. The counts are adjusted for seasonality and stated as average daily counts.
2001 2002 2003
Daily Daily Daily 2004
Count Count Count (est.)
Brunswick County
Hwy. 74/76 & Hwy. 17 (At the Brunswick River) 58,000 NA 59,000* 70,000
Hwy. 74/76 & Hwy. 17 (After the Leland exit) 40,000 42,000 46,000 48,000
Hwy. 17 South 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000
Hwy. 74/76 West 20,000 18,000 19,000
Hwy. 74/76 West (after Mt. Misery Rd. NE exit) 19,000 19,000
In Leland: South Navassa Road 3,900 4,500 4,400
Village Road NE 9,200 NA 8,800
Old Fayetteville Road 4,800 4,800 3,700
In Belville: Blackwell Road 1,500 1,700 2,000 2,200
Main Street 810 590 590
Chappell Loop Road 1,700 NA 2,000 2,200
Hwy. 133 South 9,400 9,300 11,000 12,000
New Hanover County
I-40 at Holly Shelter Rd.
Before the Holly Shelter exit 23,000 25,000 22,000
After the Holly Shelter exit 22,000 23,000 20,000
26
*The 59,000 count for 2003 appears inaccurate due to growth in Brunswick County and growth on adjoining roads. Alena
Cook with NCDOT in Raleigh is researching the low, two-year increase.
Many factors contribute to changing traffic patterns from one year to the next; however, major factors
include the outgrowth from Wilmington and the popularity of beach communities in Brunswick County.
People move to Brunswick County because of the proximity to Wilmington, less traffic, available land,
lower crime and recreation. However, because only two bridges cross the Cape Fear River, all traffic,
including trucks, must "funnel" in and out of Wilmington on two bridges. In addition, this concentration
of traffic is due to the merging of four US highways as the roads cross the Brunswick River. (Hwy. 74,
Hwy. 76, Hwy. 17 and Hwy. 133 merge just before the Brunswick River.)
From 2001 to 2003, traffic on Hwy. 74/76 & Hwy. 17, after the Leland exit, increased by 15% and the
count on Hwy. 17 South increased by 6,000 vehicles per day or 29%. In contrast, Hwy. 74/76 West
traffic was stable and counts in the Leland area are down 5%. This indicates that growth is moving away
from the Leland side of Hwy. 74/76 and towards coastal communities in south Brunswick County. This is
clearly evident on Hwy. 17 South, however, traffic counts on Hwy. 17 South are mostly residential and
tourists, not truck traffic since trucks use Hwy. 74/76 and I-40.
2004 estimates are based on NCDOT's projected growth of 5% per year.
Truck Traffic Count
Truck counts are a combination of MPSI actual counts and estimates from the NCDOT. (The NCDOT
estimates truck traffic at 4% of total traffic.) The MPSI column is for 2003 and the NCDOT projections
are for 2004. Truck data does not include all area roads, only I-40 and US Hwy. 74/76, since these are
primary truck routes.
2003 2004
MPSI NCDOT
Truck Traffic Counts Daily Daily
Count Count
Brunswick County
Hwy. 74/76 & Hwy. 17 (At the Brunswick River) 2,800
Hwy. 74/76 West
2,850
New Hanover County
I-40 at Holly Shelter Rd. 2,600
The calculation for the 2004 NCDOT truck count on Hwy. 74/76 is 70,000 vehicles times 4% equals
2,800 trucks (70,000 x .04 = 2,800). This confirms the MPSI count of 2,850 trucks per day on Hwy.
74/76, meaning the count is reasonably accurate.
27
Approximately 5,450 trucks per day travel on two primary highways and this does not include the
addition of 260 trucks per day due to the new steamship line and new trucking company at the port. By
the end of 2006, the estimate will approach 6,000 trucks per day on primary truck corridors only.
Gary Hall, owner of Gary Hall & Associates, is a truck stop consultant in Oregon and he reviewed the
traffic data. Based on his experience, two issues are critical to the viability of the truck stop: 1.) sales are
based on truck traffic from both Hwy. 74/76 and I-40 and 2.) approximately 3% of all trucks will stop
and fuel. First, the new by-pass connecting Hwy. 421 with I-40 will encourage trucks entering or leaving
the port to access I-40 via the new by-pass versus going through town. By using the connector, trucks
will avoid 22 stoplights and congested city streets. (Truck traffic on the Memorial Bridge and Hwy. 421
North will increase as more trucks connect to I-40 via I-140. Since the Noremac facility is only 2 miles
from the Memorial bridge/Hwy. 421 North, trucks from both highways will stop and fuel.) Second,
fueling trucks are 3% of total trucks, or 163 per day (5,450 x .03) to 180 per day (6,000 x .03).
Based on traffic counts and industry percentages, MPSI's projections are very conservative, especially
since the study shows only 123 fueling trucks per day versus 163 fueling trucks per day.
Several other factors must be considered in this analysis:
1. Truck counts were taken on two highways only. Many more trucks are in the area, but are not
included.
2. Economic growth in southeastern North Carolina was not considered.
3. Trucks makeup 4% of all traffic. Most likely, the percentage is higher around Wilmington due
to the ports and local manufacturing plants.
4. Approx. 3% of all trucks will stop to fuel. Again, the percentage is probably higher since the
nearest full-service, truck stop facility is 100 miles away on I-95 in Dunn.
5. Officials at the NC Ports Authority project two additional steamship lines in the near future.
Trucks serve the nation in many capacities, but their primary function is the transportation of goods. With
larger and larger trucks, size and weight are serious issues and all truck drivers must put safety first.
Thus, drivers will consider road width, weight limitations, access, turning radius, on/off ramps to
accelerate/decelerate, traffic count/patterns, location and general road conditions before entering a road or
site. Convenience is another consideration as well as services at the site. The Noremac Travel
Center/Truck Stop will offer all services and will provide a place for drivers to rest, fuel, shower, eat,
check their rig and re-check their load to make sure it is secure. All this contributes to safer roads for
everyone.
Brunswick Electric Membership Corporation
Brunswick Electric Membership Corporation (BEMC) is an electric membership cooperative with
customers in Columbus, Brunswick, Robeson and Bladen Counties and it the third largest coop in the
state. BEMC will use the site as a staging area after hurricanes due to its central location within their
service area and access to major highways in the area. In addition, parking within the site is large enough
to handle emergency vehicles and supplies after hurricanes or during disasters. Utility crews from out of
state and local power companies will have access to fuel, food and showers during this time (the site will
have a generator).
28
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is very involved in the process and controls
many factors regarding the site. Issues range from curb cuts to road improvements to impact on traffic in
and around the area. During the many meetings with the NCDOT, most officials agreed with the need for
a truck stop and they were encouraged to see the use of highway ramps for access. All NCDOT officials
consider safety to be the most important issue regarding any proposal and several agreed that overnight
parking is needed.
Road Improvements on Blackwell Rd.
NCDOT required specific road improvements in order to obtain curb cut permits for site access. A center
turning lane and a right turning lane will be added, with each new lane 12 feet wide. Existing lanes will
be widened from 10' to 12' (addition of 4' of pavement). Thus, 28 feet of pavement will be added and
then dedicated back to the DOT. Engineered plans have been submitted to the DOT and they are
reviewing third draft.
Intersection Analysis Report
Intersection Analysis Report for NC Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd.
The intersection is located at the junction of NC Hwy. 133 and Blackwell Rd. in Belville. Concerns about
an increase in traffic volume, especially truck traffic, were addressed. Truck traffic exiting the site will
have access to a traffic signal on US Hwy. 17 at Ploof Rd. This will allow trucks to safely enter a major
thoroughfare with interchange access to US Hwy. 74/76.
The intersection analysis report from NCDOT shows all accidents at the intersection of NC Hwy. 133 and
Blackwell Rd. from 2001 to 2003. A summary of the statistics are shown below:
Total Crashes
Total Fatalities
Class A injuries
Class B injuries
Class C injuries
18 6 per year
0 0 per year
0 0 per year
4 1.3 per year
11 3.6 per year
Total number of vehicles involved in crashes over 3 year period 38 vehicles
Average speed of vehicles at impact 21 MPH
Crashes caused by Left Turn, different roadway 7 accidents
Posted Speed Limit on NC Hwy. 133 35 MPH
Fatalities and Class A injuries are zero (0) because of vehicle's low speed at impact and low traffic counts
at that intersection. Traffic is congested at certain times each day, but congestion is a very different issue
than crash severity. For instance, if the same vehicle tried to make a left turn onto US Hwy. 421 or US
Hwy. 74/76 at certain times each day, the consequences would be quite different since the speed at impact
29
would be much higher than 21 MPH. Impact speeds of 55 MPH or higher would increase crash severity,
fatalities and Class A injuries. Also, existing traffic counts are much higher on both US Hwy. 421 and
US Hwy. 74/76 meaning the number of crashes would increase.
AGAIN, DRIVERS LEAVING THE SITE HAVE A CHOICE. Traffic leaving the site can turn right
onto Blackwell Rd. to exit the site. A right turn to exit site gives traffic access to a stop light at Ploof Rd.
and US Hwy. 17. That traffic signal will allow trucks to safely transition onto US Hwy. 17 and onto US
Hwy. 74/76 via an interchange. (This site is the only site with access to TWO interchanges.) OR traffic
can turn left onto Blackwell Rd. for access onto NC Hwy. 133.
US Marine Corps in Camp Lejeune, NC
Fort Bragg & Pope Air Force Base in Fayetteville, NC
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point in Southport, NC
There are five major Marine Corps commands and one Navy command at Camp Lejeune and it is home to
"Expeditionary Forces in Readiness". Fort Bragg and neighboring Pope Air Force Base form one of the
largest military complexes in the world. The Sunny Point Terminal in Southport, NC is a military seaport
used to ship ammunitions, explosives and equipment to troops overseas. It is the largest ammunition port
in the nation and is the key Atlantic Coast ammunition shipping point. With such a large concentration of
military bases and ports in southeastern North Carolina, the military is an important consideration
regarding truck parking. Deployment of troops, supplies and equipment are essential elements to the
military's readiness and military convoys from area bases will use the site to rest and check their cargo.
Colonel Richard Smith with the US Marine Corp. at Camp Lejeune was contacted regarding the truck
stop; he stated that convoys could use the site as a "safe haven" before proceeding to Sunny Point or the
Wilmington Port.
Truck Stop Industry Consultant
Gary Hall with Gary Hall & Associates is a consultant to the truck stop/travel center industry and assisted
with the size of parcel and services needed. He consults with truck stop owners across the US and is very
familiar with the needs of a port city. He was the only consultant recommended by the National
Association of Truck Stop Owners (NATSO). He provided invaluable insight into services, parcel size
and fueling/non-fueling truck counts. Mr. Hall provided a letter describing the essential components of a
port travel center. A copy of his letter and his summary profile are available upon request.
Feasibility Study
A feasibility study was conducted in 2003 to analyze the economic viability of a truck stop in
Wilmington. While the study was site specific (I-40 at Holly Shelter Rd.), the industry specialist
conducting the study concluded the site along Hwy. 74/76 was slightly better since Hwy. 74/76 has the
highest truck count. Based on the feasibility study and the letter from Gary Hall, 625 trucks per day and
578 cars per day will stop at the site. Thus, almost 1,200 vehicles per day will visit the site. (A copy of
the feasibility report is available upon request.)
30
Methodology
All retail truck stops and fuel stops with a minimum diesel volume of 50,000 gallon per month within the
trading area were surveyed. The trading area is defined as: I-40 from Wilmington to I-95, south on I-95
to Hwy. 74, Hwy. 74 back to Wilmington. The trading area includes the area around Wilmington and all
stops within said area. The specific trading area is defined as those outlets whose volume will decrease as
the result of a new facility. Truck and fuel stops outside the specific trading area may lose volume, but
the impact will be minimal. Thus, the facility will compete with sites in the specific trading area, but not
all sites are within the trading area.
Travel corridors mentioned in the trading area are major transportation thoroughfares within the region
and I-95 has the highest traffic volume. Several existing sites have diesel capabilities and will compete
with the site, however, only the Sadler Truck Plaza in Dunn, NC is considered a full- service truck stop.
During the survey process, over 100 operational and physical characteristics were recorded and a personal
interview was conducted at each surveyed location. (The four-page form and photos of each outlet are
part of the Feasibility Study.)
Competition
Including the site, a total of 16 outlets were surveyed; one qualified as a truck stop, nine were considered
fuel stops (sites do not have restaurant with wait staff or showers, driver's lounge, etc.) and 5 were
convenience stores.
Sadler Truck Plaza (Outlet #13) has 150 spaces for truck parking, 12 truck fueling positions, 9 showers, 2
bays to service trucks and a full-service restaurant. The location is branded Shell and sells 540,000
gallons of diesel every month. Pilot Travel Plaza on I-95 (Outlet #12) has 75 spaces for truck parking, 8
truck-fueling positions and 3 showers. They offer fast food service, but do not have service bays for
trucks or a full-service restaurant. Pilot is one of the largest truck stop companies in the country and name
recognition "sells" fuel, thus, they average 850,000 gallon of diesel each month. Sadler and Pilot are 2
miles apart on I-95 and both are approximately 105 miles from the site.
The Wilco Travel Plaza (Outlet #10) on I-40 in Warsaw opened in late 2003 and has 24 spaces for truck
parking, 6 truck-fueling positions, 3 showers and an Arby's Restaurant. Since it opened after June, 2003,
sales data for the site was not available. This site is approx. 65 miles from site.
The Scotchman Travel Center (Outlet #16) on Hwy. 421 North in Wilmington is the closes facility to the
site and has 15 spaces for truck parking, 4 truck-fueling positions, no showers and a full-service
restaurant. The site is owned by the Worsley Company and is categorized as a fuel stop. The site sells
175,000 gallons of diesel each month, but has limited parking and is not clean.
Delco (Outlet #15) is categorized as a fuel stop and has 20 spaces for truck parking, 3 diesel fuel
positions, one shower and a fast food restaurant with 44 seats. The site is extremely dirty and truck
parking is questionable. This site is 15 miles from Noremac site.
31
Convenience stores cannot compete with a truck stop or fuel stop because parking is limited. According
to the study, only two fuel stops will compete within the specific trading area and both Delco and
Scotsman are considered substandard. One truck stop was surveyed with similar services; however, the
site is not in the specific trading area. The Noremac Travel Center will benefit from limited competition
(fuel stops only) in the specific trading area and from only one truck stop in the trading area (Sadler is
over 100 miles from site).
Volume Proiections
The specialist conducting the feasibility study provided diesel fuel and gas projections for the proposed
site based on the following assumptions:
10 Gas fueling positions
Full Canopy over gas island
2 fueling positions for RVs, buses and trailers (non-hwy. & hwy. diesel)
8 diesel fueling positions
8 satellite or remote hoses (They can fuel on each side of truck at the same time.)
Full Canopy over diesel island
Full Service Restaurant
Convenience Store
Adequate truck parking
3 showers
Barriers separating passenger and truck traffic
Open 24/7 and 365 days per year
MPSI VOLUME PROJECTIONS
DIESEL GALLONS PER MONTH 332,979
GASOLINE GALLONS PER MONTH 208,000
CONVENIENCE/TRUCKER STORE - SALES PER MO $101,000
Gallons, not dollars, are used as the measurement in the petroleum industry. Once projected gallons were
established, all other information could be obtained. For example, the steps after gallons are 1.) projected
cashflow, 2.) cost estimates, 3.) debt service/coverage and 4.) projected working capital, especially for
year one. All of these are based on industry standards and derived from gallons.
Recommendations
In addition to the listed assumptions above, others recommended the following:
Propane tanks for RVs
Dump stations for RVs to purge their waste tank
6 showers
32
2 restaurants
Billboard Advertising on I-40 and Hwy. 74/76
Several recent factors were not considered in the Feasibility Report:
1. Expansion at the Wilmington Port. (New steamship line announced December 2004.)
2. Superior Location on Hwy. 74/76 (closer to the port and more truck volume)
3. BTT announced new service to port meaning more containers and trucks.
The Feasibility Report is a comprehensive study of competition, location, demand, traffic, access and
services. Essential services must be offered in order for the travel center/truck stop to compete with
existing sites. Sales projections can be achieved if recommendations are followed and since the only
other truck stop is 100 miles away on I-95.
Economic Impact of Travel Center
The economic benefits to the area and state are substantial. Annual revenue from the truck stop will total
$13 million dollars of which over $3 million is paid in state and federal fuel excise tax. (NCDOT will
receive the majority of this $3 million per year to build and improve roads and highways in North
Carolina.) Currently, truckers buy a high percentage of diesel fuel in other state due to North Carolina's
higher state excise tax (NC-$0.2455, SC-$0.16, GA-$0.075), especially since they do not have a facility to
use in southeastern NC. This truck stop will provide the incentive to bring tax dollars back into the state
by providing a place to park/sleep, eat, shower, fuel, etc. In addition to fuel excise tax, the company will
pay property tax of $20,800, payroll tax of $10,800, and collect $84,000 in sales tax of which $30,000 is
paid to Brunswick County and $54,000 is paid to North Carolina. The total tax dollars generated by
the truck stop are $3,115,600 each and every year and the citizens of North Carolina will directly
benefit. Since the "life of a truck stop" is 30 years, the total amount collected in taxes is over
$93,000,000.
The new facility will generate 65 full-time and 20 part-time positions in Brunswick County. These
positions include employees in the convenience store, restaurant, quick service restaurants and
sandwich/coffee shop. Since the company will create a substantial number of new jobs in a rural county,
loans are available through SBA and USDA Rural Economic Development Program.
The economic impact to North Carolina and to Brunswick County is enormous and job creation is a
priority in rural America according to the USDA. With $3,115,600 collected in taxes every year
and 85 new jobs, the citizens of Brunswick County and North Carolina will benefit from this
facility.
33
Essential Components of a Truck Stop
Fuelin
Fueling is essential to a truck stop since all truck stop facilities are in business to sell diesel fuel and
gasoline. The industry and the feasibility study measure competition in terms of gallons sold. Due to the
volatility of gas and diesel prices, sales measured in dollars is not an accurate assessment. According to
the feasibility study, the truck stop will generate sales of 332,979 gallons of diesel per month and 208,000
gallons of gasoline per month. Based on the average truck fill-up of 90 gallons and car fill-up of 12
gallons, the per day volume can be determined as follows:
332,979/30 days=11,099 gallons per day/90 gallon fill-up=123 trucks per day
208,000/30 days=6,933 gallons per day/12 gallons pumped=578 cars per day
Thus, 123 trucks and 578 cars will fuel at the site per day.
In summary, the diesel fueling area will have 4 fueling positions/lanes and two passing lanes to go around
the fueling area. The gas fueling area will have 6 fueling positions for cars, 1 for cars fueling diesel/gas
and 1 for fueling gas and diesel to RVs. (In the petroleum industry, fueling positions are always even
numbers since the dispenser can pump fuel into two vehicles at the same time; one on each site.) In
addition to gas and diesel, the site will have non-highway diesel for off-road equipment.
Environmental regulations have been passed to reduce the sulfur content in diesel fuel and for truck
manufacturers to produce a diesel engine with lower emissions. Refiners will be required to reduce sulfur
content, but engine manufacturers are dealing with a much more difficult problem. Engine manufacturers
plan to use diesel particulate filters (DPF) and a fuel additive known as urea. If urea is approved, every
truck stop in the country will be required to dispense urea, meaning more dispensing/fueling stations will
be needed.
Building
A building with adequate space is essential to a truck stop/travel center. The building must contain
showers, lounge, restaurant, restrooms, laundry, sandwich/coffee shop, quick service restaurants (QSR),
convenience store and two checkout areas. The building will be 12,000 square feet to accommodate
1,800 customers per day. (With almost 1,200 vehicles per day and 1.5 passengers per vehicle, 1,800
people will pass through the doors each day.)
Passenger Car Parking
The restaurant in the building will have 200 seats and the QSR will have 60 seats for a total of 260 seats.
The Town of Belville requires one parking space for every 4 seats. By dividing 260 by 4, the minimum
parking required for cars is 65 spaces. Parking spaces on the westside of the building will be available for
RVs, buses and vehicles with trailers (horse, boat, moving, etc.) Several RV spaces will have hookups for
power, water and sewer dump station.
34
Truck Parking
Parking is another essential service of truck stops, especially with the new US Department of
Transportation guidelines regarding hours-of-operation and off-duty hours. (The off-duty hours can not
include time for meals or fueling stops. Only the use of a sleeper berth can extend the on-duty period.
See attached Hours of Service Regulations). Most truck drivers will not stop if space is not available for
overnight parking. If the driver is sleepy because he did not stop to rest, then the driver could fall asleep
at the wheel due to fatigue. Overnight parking will encourage drivers to sleep which will improve
highway safety for everyone. Thus, truck parking is critical and, according to Gary Hall, the site should
have at least 85 spaces. This includes 15 spaces for IdleAire equipment (See below). Parking for truck
spaces are 20 feet by 80 feet with 60 feet in between each row for access.
Cost of 85 Parking Spaces for Trucks
The $750,000 grant will fund construction of 85 overnight parking spaces at a cost of approximately
$8,800 each. Costs are broken down as follows:
Land (4.7 acres x 18 spaces per acre=85) $ 400,000
Site Improvements ($5,500 x 85) $ 467,000
Roadside Improvements (DOT required) $ 35,000
Utilities Installation $ 25,000
Professional Fees 10,000
Total Cost $ 937,000
20% Match Funding $ 187,000
Amount of Grant $ 750,000
($85,000 per acre; land purchase + fill material)
(grading, gravel, asphalt, curbing, paving)
(grading, curbs, center lanes, right turn lanes, etc.)
(for IdleAire equipment)
(engineer, surveys, stormwater plan)
The land cost is $85,000 per acre and site improvements are $5,500 per parking space. Roadside
improvements are $35,000 which is only 11% of total, roadside improvement costs.
Cost of Maintaining Parking Spaces and Travel Center
The $200,000 in annual maintenance costs would be paid by the property owner and all capital
improvements paid by the landowner.
IdleAire & Air Pollution
Anti-idling ordinances are more relevant than ever to the trucking industry. Basically, the truck driver is
running the engine even when the truck is parked; this allows the driver to use on-board electronic
equipment and run heating and cooling systems. Unfortunately, when the truck's engine is idling,
emissions are a serious problem with one gallon of diesel fuel burned every hour. Because of emissions,
many areas are banning idling, whether or not the truck is parked at a truck stop or along side the road. In
some cases, the driver must run the engine if they want to stay warm. IdleAire was developed to provide
the necessary connections and heating and cooling without running the engine. IdleAire's equipment
provides heating and cooling, a touch screen computer with Internet access, phone connections,
television, 1 I Ov shorepower with two outlets and USB ports.
35
Scales
The weight of a truck is regulated by state and federal government regulations and trucks must use scales
to measure weight as required by the government. If they are found in violation of the weight limits, they
could lose their license and their livelihood. Many times a truck will weigh before and after fueling since
fueling can add as much as 2,800 pounds. The scales are 20 feet wide and 85 feet long and the area in
front of the scales will store two additional trucks.
On-Site Traffic Flow
On-site streets and space between parked trucks are needed to allow traffic to move efficiently and
without accidents. The space needed between parked trucks is 60 feet for access and the on-site streets
are 32 feet wide.
Overview of the Trucking Industry
The trucking industry is vital to the economy since a very high percentage of all goods are shipped by
truck. Most drivers find employment in areas along major interstate roadways where trucking companies
haul from major distribution points, such as a port or factory. For this reason, a distribution center or a
port is a destination. The US Department of Transportation governs hours of service and state and federal
regulations govern the qualifications and standards for truck drivers. For example, a long-distance driver
cannot work more than 60 hours in any 7-day period and they are required to rest 10 hours for every 11
hours of driving. Thus, a place to park overnight is very important.
Trucks - Size and Weight
All states are required by Federal regulation to enforce size and weight limits on Federal-aid highways.
North Carolina General Statutes 20-116 and 20-118 describe the maximum size and weight of all vehicles
on North Carolina, non-interstate roads. NCGA 20-116 states the maximum size as follows: the max.
width of any truck is 8 %Z feet and max. height is 13 Meet; truck length cannot exceed 60 feet. (Federal
guidelines allow trucks as long as 82 feet, such as automobile transports, tankers, tandems, etc.) NCGS
20-118 states the maximum weight depends on the truck. Single, double and multiple axles are treated
differently depending on distance between the first and last axle. (The longer the truck the more weight it
can carry.) Weight ranges from 20,000 lbs. for single-axle to 80,000 lbs. with four (4) axles or more.
Thus, the longer trucks typically weigh more, but cannot exceed overall gross vehicle weight (GVW) of
80,000 lbs.
Due to the size and weight of trucks, NCGA Statue 20-116 (h) allows the NCDOT to detour truck traffic
away from passenger cars with truck routes if "safety will be promoted or the public interest will be
served." For example, trucks are not allowed to "pass through" downtown Wilmington on 3rd St. unless
they have a delivery/pickup.
36
The turning radius is much wider for a truck than a car and acceleration/deceleration speed depends on the
road's grade/slope and the vehicle's weight. For trucks drivers, stopping, starting, turning and merging
are the most difficult driving issues for any trip. For example, if they are turning left across a divided
highway and the grass median is only 50 feet wide and the truck is 60 feet long, that is a problem. If a
truck cannot make a turn, truck drivers usually "swing out" into other lanes enabling the trailer to make
the turn.
The Need for a Truck Stop
Truck counts are high in southeastern North Carolina due to the ports and area manufacturing facilities.
In addition, goods are shipped to the area via truck as the region grows. Geographically, North Carolina
is the "middle state" along the east coast in terms of truckers' hours-of-service. For example, if a truck
leaves the Northeast and travels south on I-95, his federally mandated, hours-of-service end in Wilson,
NC. The same is true when traveling north on I-95 from Florida. Each driver must decide whether to
stop for 8 hours and sleep or continue driving to their destination. Unfortunately, many will continue
driving to Charlotte, Greensboro, Charleston, etc.
Over 5,400 trucks travel in and out of the area everyday and one-third of those are traveling in or out of
the Wilmington Port and two-thirds are transporting products/cargo from numerous plants and terminals.
(Currently, truck movements from the Wilmington Port are 8,630 trucks per week. This number will
increase to 12,654 trucks per week within the next few years.)
Transportation System and the Wilmington Port
As mentioned, the Wilmington Port is a destination for truck traffic and the current and proposed road
improvements will dramatically improve the flow of truck traffic in and around the city and port.
Truckers will avoid congested areas through town if they are traveling to I-40 and will use the by-pass as
a connector. Thus, the new by-pass will provide incentive for trucks to access the port without going
through town.
The Wilmington Port
Structure
The NC Port Authority owns the land and leases property and certain operations to companies.
Employees of the port are state employees and work 8-12 and 1-5, Monday through Friday. State
employees include crane operators, yard staff, office staff and the administration. Independent companies
hire union employees to move cargo/containers once it is unloaded/loaded on a ship. The steamship lines
own the ships and schedule times to arrive at different ports, similar to airport traffic. Steamship lines are
consolidating or forming alliances, thus, ships might carry containers from 4 different steamship
companies. Products include wood chips, processed pulp wood, lumber, grain and containers.
Steamship Lines
The largest steamship line serving the Wilmington Port is Yang Ming from Taiwan. They have been
aligned with the Wilmington Port for more than 20 years. They operate 70 ships worldwide and have
access to 178 ships through their partners. Yang Ming's partners include K-Line of Japan, COSCO of
Mainland China, and Hanjin of South Korea.
37
Currently, Yang Ming's container ships are loaded with 4,000 containers for delivery to different east
coast ports. Every Wednesday at 8:00am, their ship docks and 700 containers are unloaded at the
Wilmington Port. This weekly service established Yang Ming as a regional, mid-Atlantic provider. In
2004, Yang Ming ordered 8 new container ships capable of carrying 5,550 containers. In addition, they
restructured their Asia to US East Coast service in order to reduce transit time. With the completion of
the 42 foot dredging project, larger ships can now dock. The larger ships will carry more containers
bound for the Wilmington Port with at least 300 more containers per week. A new steamship line was
announced in December 2004 which will add 1,000 containers per week. Thus, an additional 1,300
containers per week will enter the port.
Improvements
The port plans to move the main truck entrance to the north end of the property. The improvements are
related to a new transportation corridor within the port. This corridor will allow rail traffic and truck
traffic to flow more freely from one end of the port to the other and provide closer and better access to the
Memorial Bridge. The improvements will cost approx. $3 million and will be completed within 5 years.
Operations
Ships are scheduled to arrive at the port on a certain day and time. Depending on the cargo, certain berths
are needed to load/unload the ship. Ships carrying bulk, containers, steel, etc. use certain berth due to on-
shore equipment. Logistics and scheduling are very important since all berths cannot handle all cargo. In
unusual cases, ships dock and are loaded/unloaded on the weekend, such as military deployments. The
port has adequate capacity to store empty and full containers, truck chassis, lumber, steel, bulk, military
equipment, etc.
West Coast Ports versus East Coastal Ports
All West Coast ports have serious labor problems and run at 110% of capacity. The Wilmington port
does not lease berths or operations to independent companies and state employees unload ships and
managing the process. The West Coast ports lease everything to independent companies; thus, unions run
the West Coast ports and steamship lines are at the mercy of unions when they go on strike. (A labor
strike in October, 2002 closed all West Coast ports for 10 days and cost steamship lines millions per day.)
Capacity is another problem. Freight from the Pacific Rim has overwhelmed the West Coast ports since
many items are now manufactured in the Far East. Land around several West coast ports is not available
for expansion or is very, very expensive. The capacity issue will be resolved, but steamship lines are not
waiting. They are diversifying by adding ports on the East Coast in case of future labor/union problems
or capacity problems. The Director of Strategic Planning for the NC State Ports Authority, Cris A.
Mowrey, projects container traffic on the East Coast to double (maybe triple) over the next few years.
Import versus Export
Imports from abroad far outweigh exports from the US and this imbalance creates an enormous inflow of
containers at east coast ports. As imports increase with goods from abroad, steamship lines will save time
by shipping to ports with excess capacity. Case in point is BTT trucking; they expanded to Wilmington
because Norfolk was backlogged with ships.
38
Growth
Pricing between steamship lines is very competitive which means ports cannot expect more revenue by
increasing prices to the steamship lines. However, the Wilmington Port can expand services by utilizing
available capacity. Everything is in place for the Wilmington port to grow by adding larger ships
with existing steamship lines and adding new steamship lines.
The port will experience gradual, linear growth as larger ships bring in more containers. This growth is
measurable and predictable and will increase truck traffic. However, significant growth will occur when
new steamship lines are added. The management team at the NC Port Authority is committed, and
aggressively pursuing three (3) new steamship lines for the Wilmington port over the next two (2) years.
Again, one new, and larger, ship from a new steamship line will add 1,000 to 1,100 containers per week.
If three are added, that means 3,000 to 3,300 more containers per week.
Instead of linear growth, the port would experience substantial growth and utilize available capacity.
Additional
Containers
Per Week
Larger Yang Ming ship with additional
Weekly delivery of Containers 300
First new Steamship (12/2004) 1,100
Second new Steamship line 1,100
Third new Steamship line 11100
TOTAL PER WEEK 3,600
Each additional container requires one (1) truck, i.e., truck traffic will substantially increase within
two years. This does not include general growth of truck traffic nor military truck traffic.
With twice as many scheduled container vessels now calling at Wilmington, the state port has seen
container volumes surge 29% per year.
Impact on the Trucking Industry
The NC State Ports Authority works closely with the NCDOT to insure their customers have access to the
best interstate road system. Management from the port is lobbying Congress and NCDOT to designate
US Hwy. 74 as Interstate into Wilmington and bring I-20 to Wilmington. (I-40 provides service to the
north, Hwy. 74 to the West and I-95 and I-20 to the South and North) Interstate roads are very important
to the region since almost all containers are transported by truck. (Bulk cargo is transported by rail and
truck.) As mentioned, the Wilmington By-Pass has been designated as interstate (I-140) and will serve as
a by-pass for traffic around Wilmington.
Truckine and The Port's Growth
The Wilmington Port is on the verge of unprecedented growth and related truck traffic will dramatically
increase over the next few years. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc. (BTT), a Charlotte-based trucking
company and the largest container hauler in the nation, recently opened an office at the Port of
39
Wilmington. They are expanding to Wilmington due to shipping delays in Norfolk. The high probability
for growth is based on the following:
1. Larger ships can dock at the port due to a 42-foot channel.
2. New steamship lines will come to Wilmington because of the port's available capacity and deeper
channel. (One new steamship line announced in December 2004.)
3. Imports are increasing from Asia and the Far East.
4. West Coast Ports are operating at capacity and have labor problems.
5. BTT announced they are opening a facility near the port.
In summary, truck traffic will dramatically increase due to the port and the local economy.
Financial Considerations
Financial information was based on an opening date in May, 2007. Currently, construction is scheduled
to begin September 2006 with an opening date of May 2007.
Sales Forecast
Sales estimates are conservative considering the port's growth since 2003.
As mentioned, gallons are based on the feasibility study, however, gallons could be calculated as a
percentage of truck volume (industry average is 3% of truck traffic will fuel at site). As stated earlier,
combined truck volumes on Hwy. 74/75 and I-40 total 5,450 trucks per day and 3% of all trucks will
purchase fuel at the new facility. The calculation for 3% of truck traffic is as follows:
Truck Volume per day on highways 5,450
Times x 3%
Fueling Trucks per day 163.5
Current estimates show a total of 817 trucks visiting the site everyday with 85 truck parking spaces
Site Considerations
The property is located within the city limits of the Town of Belville and permits from the Town of
Belville were obtained in 2004. The project will have access to water, sewer, power, natural gas, etc. The
site is 5.5 miles from the port's gate on Shipyard Blvd. However, once the main truck gate moves
towards Greenfield Lake, the distance is cut by 2 miles to 3.5 miles.
The Town of Belville approved the site plan on 2/18/05.
40
Stormwater Plan
The Stormwater Plan is complete and has been reviewed by NCDENR. The plan includes retention ponds
to diffuse, non-erosive flow. Stormwater ponds are not designed to treat off-site runoff from Hwy. 74/76
and Hwy. 17, only on-site runoff. During hurricanes, on-site street elevations will allow traffic to enter
the site without floodwaters covering the area.
SUMMARY
The safety of the general public is the most important issue and should be considered first, before all other
factors. Most people would agree that safety is paramount, but how do you define safety? For the
traveling public, safety is defined as the ability to arrive at their destination and return from that
destination in a safe and timely manner. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) describe safety in terms of road design: "the objective in design of any engineered
road to be used by the general public is to satisfy the demands for service in the safest and most
economical manner."
This grant will fund the construction of 85 overnight truck parking spaces in the Wilmington area.
Please contact Dan Cameron at [phone] if you have any questions.
41
Contacts Regarding Highway Safety
March 9, 2006
Mr. Darrell Jernigan, Director Support Letter for Grant
Governor's Highway Safety Program
1508 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1508
[phone]
Susan Coward Support Letter for Grant
Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs and Budget Coordination
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
[phone]
Chris Hartley
State Director
CMV - Crash Statistics
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA)
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 468
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
Caitlin Hughes Rayman
Support Letter for Grant
Federal Legislative Programs Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Governor's Office
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 332
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
[phone] Mobile #
Bob Cullen
Information Resource Manager
AASHTO
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
Definitions & Statistics
Roger Hawkins Analysis of Crash Data
Senior Traffic Engineer-NCDOT
Recently retired after 30 years with DOT
[phone]
Chris Oliver, E.I.
Safety Planning Engineer
Safety Planning Group-NCDOT
1561 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
[phone]
Crash Statistics
Brian Murphy, PE
Traffic Safety Project Engineer
Safety Evaluation Group-NCDOT
1561 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1561
[phone]
City Ranking / Crash Statistics
Dr. Ron Hughes Truck Safety Specialist
Program Director
The Institute of Transportation Research & Education - NCSU
Centennial Campus, Box 8601
Raleigh, NC 27695-8601
[phone]
Formerly a Senior Researcher with Highway Safety Research Center - UNC
Eric Rodgman, MPH
Senior Database Analyst
Highway Safety Research Center at UNC
CB# 3430
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
[phone]
Kathy Lassiter, PE
Senior Project Manager
Gibson Engineers, PC
PO Box 700
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
[phone]
DOT Projects - Design Engineer
30 years experience with NCDOT
Mike Kozlosky
Grant Contact
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Wilmington / Wilmington MPO
[phone]
Jim Scapellato
The Scapellato Group, Inc.
1946 Saxon Valley Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
[phone]
[phone]
Consultant
28 years with Federal Highway Admin.
Colonel Richard J. Smith Military Convoy issues
Logistics Movement Control Center (LMCC)
Camp Lejeune, NC
[phone]
Other Contacts within North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Operations
Highway Division 3
Allen Pope, PE Division Engineer [phone]
Joe Blair, PE Division Construction Engineer [phone]
Mason Herndon Division Environmental Officer [phone]
Division Operations
Roger Hawkins Division Traffic Engineer [phone]
David Smith Asst Division Traffic Engineer [phone]
District 3 - Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
Dan Cumbo, PE District Engineer [phone]
Chris Baker Asst. District Engineer [phone]
Traffic Services
Bob Hammond Traffic Tech IV [phone]
County Maintenance Yard
his McCombs Highway Maintenance Engineer [phone]
Janice Smith Transportation Tech 11 [phone]
M
o M
a M
a O
d v
o v
? w
m v
m w
0 O
= v
m cn t7
0 ?
3 r
c m
7•
m ?
m ?o
m D
m OO n
7• c?
M. ?
0 oo
_ w
3 Z r
9 m
3 T
d ? ? v?
m ?
o C)
7 ?
o G?
m (-
0 tn
= <-
t O
fD U?
o r
a W
-
- -1
o CO
c Q-
0 n
7• (n
(D v
m W
=
- v
m ?
0 (?
7•
0 0
- 0
-
(D 0 - 3
O <
O. 7 m
? <
0 m
a
7 (
1
?•
CL 7.
y N
O' fD O.
O
S
m
?
;0
m 7.
y cr
(D 7 (D 7
0 0
0 0 3 a
a
7 m
1 c
m 7 <
CL 7.
N
S t
i1
(D .
(D
m CD
7 ifD w .
m 7
'
OL
D .
0
7•
m
a
•`

I
-<
°c
o
o c
?s -I
o -I
w cn cn
m cn
o cn
m cn
3 q)
3 Cd
3 cn
@ ;0
r- m x
o x
s m
o m
m
7 0

< 9
o 9
0 K
0 9
m r

• r
m r
m
f r
m r
m
7 -

7 2
c 2 2
m 2
m 2
m 2
m

= 0
7.
o
m
m
c 'm
m m
7 0
o 0
m a
m 0
c 7
v m m
o m
m

?c
7 3 3 H n N < (D ,
7' ,
7 ,
7 3
Q q m
3 % c T. 7
7 7
m §.
N
D? y .
CD m
N ?•
CD 3.
y 3
m N (o H
O 3 7
m (o ?
m 3
y 3
m 0 <
7 3
Q 3
m
m

7 _ (
p 7
y 3
C (D y
-U
q m
7
N
7
7
7
m
y
.
N
7
N
7
7
m _
D?
7
0
7
7 7 n
m m
0 a m
7 0
7
m m
jT7
CD
m
?
7 m
Z
m m m m m
O 7
o 2 v m
v
m
0
V)
c 2 ('
m
7 r
m
S cn
s cn
o K

m z

n Z

c7 ?

m C

to -1
7• r
m Z

n Z

n Z

O Z

0 Z

o r
m
7 O r

7
IN Z

0 Z

n V

po G)

iT ?
m - Z

C) S

9 Z

(7 m
m r

F, 0

m (?

=r W

2

0 co

2 2 D C

Q 2 Z r
m r
m Z

C) C?

m m

m Z

Ca Z

n
<

m

0
- d

3 S•

N

S
m ?

7'
m ?

Ej- v

m v

O 7

7
-

m
CD
N 7
m

= v

0

0 v

0

0 O. N G v

m v

m

O N

o
7 7 7

ai

Z

0 m

N v

O n

m
y •
m

2 N

? 7

N N

O
7 7

N

- m

.7+ D

n

a
- 0
v

m m a

3
v

O
3
m
,
y

0
v

0
v

0
m D
C
3
3 K Z ? > 1 7
m m m Z
z ?
m
C m -1 - v m T ?.
1 §.
o 0 m Z ? m ? o
7 o --1 --1

m
E;

o ?-

G) ..
.
O
m
m m
7. .77
W
o 7
(D
S m
Dl
w SD
'V 7
m
o 7
m ;O m
0
r
7 7
N
N m
CD.
O fD
7 -
f2o
fD c
? m
7
?c a) ;0 m
y ?.
0 m
N^
O cn
m 7 7
?' Cl)
D O m
N l<
cn 3
m 0
N m ;K
7 m =
N (7p r
7 a
D (n m N (D m m
m (D A y 0
0 o 7
7
m 3 ,
9 < > > j
D - h m ,
.. D (3D N N m m n o C
o m m (o m 6 3
i
D
m C
) O c ;L .
CD a (n
Z n
i
3
m

CL ? 7
CD
CD 7
fD
T'
n
C
;0
C
O
G)
go
O
G)
O
-0
0
m
.Z1
0
j
.
m
n
C
?
n
?

O.

O.

m
7.
7
y N m N m _ m
U) N
m 7 p
C W p
C ;3.
N CD
(n y N y (D (D N N
m CD G7 G7 CO 7 m m m m m m o
7 C °c S 7. 7 D Iz
m
M
'D
M

O 2 (
?
cb
7 CD
7 0
m C cZ-i
m
0
O
N a
p CD N 7 y N
Cl)
S 2 2
0
O
7 cn

(D
O cn

0 cn

m c?
M ?
3 cn

(D (n

0 cn

0 D
N
T ao
fD c?
m c?
7, v?
-
m c?
O ?n

0 cn

(D v
< v_?

(D -+
D@ g

(c v ?
m
m m
7
< v cn
0 cn

(D cn
m
7 ;0
m cn

(D c?
O T
(D
cL v
<
T
K cn

m C?
O
7 r
m
m v_?

m <
f7 v
a v
co cn

0 w
2 v
< cn

m tn

m v
N cn

m v
fD v
< D
y
N

C V

A

t O y.

p

l

k

k ?.
3
<

3
3

k

N
L"

N,
a

0

y
0

k

0

3
3

m

N

O

0

N

7

k

m

u

m

C

V

A

k

7

N

V

ya

N

o

7.

n

y

0

0

N
a j
N tD
O -
N ,
7
0
0
W v
'
< o
r N
m
m
W O
7
O
cn c
m m
en
7
7
m !
m C?
7 C a
(D ?,
A S
S
5.
7 ,,,
,
V .
m
7 v
? °f a

m Qo .. 0

O

1 a .

C B,

R rn

7 m ? »

M m

D

CD

7 o m °

m cC

F A

N

O

@

O
m

N
v

D
g rn

n
Qe

n
O?

?

W

O
cn

?

?

>

O

.
m.
I 3 7 tn
K
m
9
m
°
o
D
m
y
m
a
m
7
?
°
°
m
7
o
0
m
m
m
m
a
m
y
T.
CD
CD

3

,

0 (

D

m

°

1

(mD

7

m

19

-

0

fn

N

j

CD

?

-

a

0 0

m

CD

<

•. 7

m .

?9

k

l

o
2
( - m
7 i
d
°
' o
v o
m d
y o
7
C RD . y 3. 7 < 7 °D

W a p
- ('

O 7p

0
CD 7. W
CD
=
7 -
N„ <
CD
CD
m
j
CD
01 O
7 n a
m g q
m
fOD 7
m
O
a c
m
7 m
7
(D
O
O o
7
(mD 7
?.
n
7 y
m m
cD 7 ::r
n cn
m m
•?
D m 7c'
m =
m m
7
y c: m w 7• m 7 3 m m (
N 7
cn
2 0
0 -n
CD
(?
d
n
U) CD
m
CD m < 0 < m

A
0
2
m vi*
W cn
N n
FD.
N m m m y
CA n D to cn
a

co
3 '7
(m
0
m
N ni
N
V Coo tj (D C0 (D (D fj0 tD (j (j (j fj (j A (j fj CD j c0 f0 fj (O fj fj tj (? (j ? fj fj fj (j0 fj fj A (O (B CD (D CD ? (? (? (j (D tD (D (O (.D
N O O O O O O O (D O O O O O W O (D O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D (D O fD 0 ? 0 0 0 (D O CT O 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V
N V
DI V
T W W A N N V V W N W .A Ul IV
W V (A IV j t.1
A A
C V
O A.
0 V V V
0 W
0 ?I
(0 4.7
W O
C11 N W
0 W V
V W M
0 V
0 to
Cn V
M :N
W V
M N W V
W Ja
V W 7
O N V
0 V
0 N N

V
W
W O
N j C71
N Cn
A (?1
A ?D CcpD
T O
W j j ? CT
V W
W
N QI
N (D
O C
C71
W 71
N
W
N
W
8
N
(O j
N
00 ?
D7 j
(O j
N
da
N
A
0
W j
W
O
N s
N
A j ?
Ln
fD M
V 0
V 0
W 0
A N
0 O
0 0
0) 4
CJ7 ?l
N) W
O 0
V N
A -4
W W
O W
N
D7 W
N 0
V H M
W O
O 0
O 0
O V
A V V
LA N
N V
O W
W W
V 0
j 4
0 1
W p
(O tD
W N
V 01
W 4
W I
N -
O
W
W A
A tD
W
V w
0 V
N IV
0 0
V w
O m
V m
O
O CC" 0071 W V A N W O CT W A W U01 N Ul W W 0 A O W (
?pp
C77 00
77 U7
W
W
w
w
0
W
O
( D W
N
V
V
W
N
N
O
W
W
co
(W i1
(Ci'n
N
( O N
a 01
(.n
O
tD
n
0
M
H
67
a
n.
Exhibit 5-1
Relative Crash Risk by Driving Time Under the Pre-2003 HOS Rule
20.00
15.00
:
c
CL. 10.00
Cr
d
5.00
0.00
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13
Hours Driving
(Since fast 8-hr Break)
NOTE: Numbers above each bar chart represent the number of large trucks involved in fatigue crashes and total fatal crashes, respectively.
Data Source: Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents (TIFA), 1991-2002
For example, for the 10'h hour of driving FBchibit 5-1 indicates that the relative risk per
m
involvement in afatigue-related crash is roughly 2.5 timesher than in the first hour of driving
(reading across to the vertical axis of the chart). In the 11 hour of driving the relative riskpeer
involvement in aguesrelated crash is roughly five times higher than that in the first hour. The
first number above each bar chart represents the number of large trucks involved in ati e-
related atal crashes between 1991 and 2002 for each driving hour, while the second represents
the total number of large trucks involved in all fatal crashes within that same driving hour. For
example, within the 1 Ph hour of driving, there were 9 large trucks involved in fatiue-reeiated
fatal crashes between 1991-2002, while there were 941arge trucks involved infatal crashes
_MONTng that same driving hour. The figures above each chart help to provide a better
understanding of the prevalence of large truck fat4tcrashes in each driving hour, in__that the
reveal that as driving hours increaseythe number of fatal crashes, as well as fatigue-related fatal
generally decrease in a steady fashion.
Using the 11'' hour driving data as an example, the relative risk ratios representing each bar chart
in Exhibit 5.1 were estimated via the following steps. First, the number of trucks involved in
fatigue-,related fatal crashes (9) within the 11th hour of driving were divided by the number of
trucks involved in all fatal crashes in the I Ph hour of driving (94). The result, 9.6 percent,
represents the percentage of all trucks involved in fatal crashes during the 11th driving hour
where it was determined that the truck driver was fatigued at the time of the crash. Second, the
number of trucks involved in fatigue-related fatal crashes between 1991-2002 for all hours of
driving (990) were divided by the number of trucks involved in all fatal crashes for all hours of
August 15, 2005 45
Dan Cameron
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:45 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: truck projections
Attachments: Presentation1.ppt

Presentation 1. ppt
(66 KB)
Dan -
Here is the one slide with POW truck projections which are based on a full build out
container capacity of 530,000 TEU. Given the approximate ratio of 1.5 truck trips (one
way) per TEU, applying the same ratio to the conceptual full build out capacity at the
North Carolina International Port of 1,500,000 TEU, you can add another 2+ million truck
trips out in the 2020 timeframe. As we discussed, these numbers are based on conceptual
capacities and the completion of major capital development projects over the next 10-15
years. Please call if you have questions.
Cris
(See attached file: Presentationl.ppt)
Cris A. Mowrey
Director, Strategic Planning
NCSPA Engineering & Development
910.343.6363
910.343.6393 (fax)
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or used
by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
.p.
0
0
0
0
0
o?
0
0
0
0
0
Co
0
0
0
0
0
CD
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
N N N
O O O

01 O V1
o on
o ? o d

C
? H

p

V
0
;:I-
0
_3
cm
r-i-
0
0
77
m
cn-
3
CD
0?
o.
CD
0
rrorin uaronna uepartment OT I ransponatlon
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index
Alchl/Drgs - Driver Alcohol/Drugs Suspected Status Codes
0=NO
1 = YES - ALCOHOL, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
2 = YES - ALCOHOL, NO IMPAIRMENTDETECTED
3 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
4 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
5 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
6 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
7 = UNKNOWN
voi oxm - vojeci otrucN Nuuun
14 = PEDESTRIAN
15 = PEDALCYCLIST
17 = ANIMAL
18 = MOVABLE OBJECT
20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
33 = TREE
34 = UTILITY POLE
35 = LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY
36 = LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY
37 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY
38 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY
39 = OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT
40 = COMMERCIAL SIGN
41 = GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER
42 = GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER
43 = GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN
44 = GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN
45 = SHOULDER BARRIER END
46 = SHOULDER BARRIER FACE
47 = MEDIAN BARRIER END
48 = MEDIAN BARRIER FACE
49 = BRIDGE RAIL END
50 = BRIDGE RAIL FACE
51 = OVERHEAD PART UNDERPASS
52 = PIER ON SHOULDER OF UNDERPASS
53 = PIER IN MEDIAN OF UNDERPASS
54 = ABUTMENT OF UNDERPASS
55 = TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN
56 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER
57 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN
58 = DITCH
59 = EMBANKMENT
60 = MAILBOX
61 = FENCE OR FENCE POST
62 = CONTRUCTION BARRIER
63 = CRASH CUSHION
64 = OTHER FIXED OBJECT
uru[ tr - venicie oiyle %.vues
1 = PASSENGER CAR
2 = PICKUP
3 = LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL)
4 = SPORT UTILITY
5 = VAN
6 = COMMERCIAL BUS 1 \ \ _ 1`
7 = SCHOOL Bus No-p i?
8 = OACTIVI THER TB BUS
10 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE) ?C?l?
= SINGLE UNIT TRUCK 3 OR MORE AXLES)
12 ---TRUCK/
13 = TRUCKITRACTOR
14 = TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER
15 = TRACTOR/DOULBES
1?-.F-VNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK
17 = TAXICAB
18 = FARM EQUIPMENT
19 = FARM TRACTOR
20 = MOTORCYCLE
21 = MOPED
22 = MOTOR SCOOTER OR MOTOR BIKE
23 = PEDALCYCLE
24 = PEDESTRIAN
25 = MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
26 = OTHER
27 = ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV)
28 = FIRETRUCK
29 = EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD
30 = MILITARY
31 = POLICE
32 = UNKNOWN
07/19/2000 Page 2 of 2
rage i of
wan t.,ameron
erom: lrlilt; lUp11C( J. Vllvur tcunvu( c?uu(s(a(e.nc.us?
bent: iv?onaay, ?voven-Wer ,46, LUUZ) AM
10: uan Gameron
Subject: Re: Statewide Crash Rates for Trucks only
Good morning. The truck crash rates are calculated in the same manner as the NC Statewide Crash
Rates. I have attached a copy of the Crash Rate Guidelines which provides an explanation of how the
crash rates are calculated and other definitions. In terms of truck crash rates, the following vehicle/unit
tvnes are used in the calculation of the truck crash rates:
12. Truck/trailer
13. Truck/tractor
14. Tractor/semi-trailer
15. Tractor/doubles
16. Unknown heavy truck.
In terms of the number of trucks involved in crashes for the strip analysis report previously provided to
you, the truck crashes are summarized as followed:
Total Crashes - 33
Fatal Crashes - 0
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes - 15
Total Injury Crashes - 15
Property Damage Only Crashes - 18
Night Crashes - 3
Wet Crashes - 9.
I would also like to point out that the NC Statewide Crash Rates are based on three years of crash data.
So in terms of comparing like data sets, we recommend comparing data in three year increments.
If you need any further assistance, feel free to either email or phone me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Oliver
Dan Cameron wrote:
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Any luck with crash data for trucks only?
Thanks, Dan Cameron
From: Christopher]. Oliver [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Dan Cameron
Subject: Re: Statewide Crash Rates for Trucks only
What is the section you are trying to calculate the truck crash rate for? I will have someone
look at the section and calculate the truck crash rate for you.
zoo \ r
?0_ o 1
G) D 1 -(D a cf)
090 p® to (yp ?` •,, ?Sp?.y Q ?y.l I opl (zD Z y t -•I
M PO
. Q •', f S? .,..m `?` •.? ' m `` ` ... °
ma n`S 25S 5. a p. S y 00 N .' a= ?
C.) 3 w G)
r o ° a 5. w G.
do
o w .,Z ....f ?i ?). O
_89 > 0 -4
?' fn a T M d A T ?J o
C t! ?.... n W
A o 0 1 r n Q O /.
0 (D 0 N
IN
;u z
0m
0 ° m
0 :F ' d o 3 M0 ; C) m ai o }o !k
M co =r
OZ _fY
(D 0
'ro `. c Z " - ..,'.. ..w " ?O <.. 0 S,
m p`
:r 0
a :3
m ?D Q, 5 00 (D
cn m 00
D o
e Z,t ?'r? o = ca
o
vo a = ,* 5 m cn $ D
$ _ g
m. n ? ...?y N 3 os (A
o
?- o r O o ,
0-3 C, g! c - CL g S, o+ g ?> CDC j m
CO M
m m
0 ST
03
$ r 1 i 0 5 H Z m 3? ?.
fig
,?7m6f? 1bm ? n n v n _
O co` m° N ?s 1 ?N
D$ S 6l ?OO (n O °m
-4 CL
JR,
0 C13
C m F• 7r' GA
m O m o '`
°W g a z T cn
o N o ` a; E7 _(n
i CC
? mA w m D O -4'_ G
z U)
C \ o _ n' „off O
S o i' n
1• m
- 0
M rF•
X0 0, G)
m
a - ?,C m I o
T7 { o s /
CL C 11 M 'V I g
rM_ G)
°
` . rv7 g, LA
`
co M
n o
Z i ?.
w N = .... N pr
C) *A 0
o < :
S ? o a a,•
Of o vN Z
tD fn O b? R`. o r
m
G) -0
-n gy
?gJ
m
rn
0
r-n C) -n
IJ OA
vrd ;• a
o ; ,`
s„a SfAT, (°
y?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
August 5, 2005
Memorandum
TO: Regional and Division Traffic Engineers
FROM: Shawn A. Troy, PE
Traffic Safety Engineer
SUBJECT: Standardized Crash Cost Estimates for North Carolina
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch periodically updates cost figures
associated with traffic crashes for use by branch personnel for cost analyses. Increases in
medical care and other inflationary costs can quickly render previously developed cost
estimates obsolete.
The 2003 North Carolina crash costs include the cost associated with the average number
of injuries in each crash type. For example, the average fatal crash in 2003 on North
Carolina's roads contained 1.11 fatal injuries, 0.26 A injuries, 0.44 B injuries and 0.33 C
injuries. The injury costs include estimates of medical costs, emergency services, loss of
productivity, employer cost, property damage and change in quality of life. Table 1
shows the comprehensive cost of crashes by severity.
Table 1 Comprehensive Cost Per Crash
Crash Type Cost Per Crash
2003 Dollars
Fatal Crash $3,700,000
A Injury Crash $220,000
B Injury Crash $64,000
C Injury Crash $31,000
Property Damage only Crash $4,300
Average Crash $42,000
Non-Fatal Injury Crash $46,000
Severe Injury Crash (F+A) $1,300,000
Moderate Injury Crash (B+C) $39,000
Note: All figures are rounded to two significant figures
Table 2 includes only the reportable crashes that occurred on public roads in 2003. Note
that for various reasons, many traffic crashes are not reported. A traffic crash in North
Carolina is defined as reportable if it involves an injury or total estimated property
damage of $1,000 or more. A traffic crash is rated by the most severe injury involved in
the incident. If a crash had eight people involved and seven people sustained C type
injuries and one person sustained type A injuries, the crash is recorded as an A Injury
crash. However, there were eight injuries. A property damage only crash is one in which
no people were injured in the incident.
Table 2 Number of Crashes Compared to the Number of Injuries in North Carolina during 2003
Number of Crashes Number of Injuries
Fatal 1,402 1,559
A Injury 3,035 4,030
B Injury 21,341 29,338
C Injury 59,164 101,313
Property Damage Only 146,650 --
Source: The North Carolina Accident Database
Table 3 shows the average number of each type of injury that occurred in each crash
severity category. These numbers were derived by totaling all the individual injuries that
occurred in a severity category. The total is then divided by the total number of crashes
in that category. For example, there were 1559 fatalities, 363 A injuries, 613 B injuries
and 465 C injuries in 1402 fatal crashes. If the number of injuries is divided by the
number of crashes, then there was an average of 1.11 fatalities, 0.26 A injuries, 0.44 B
injuries and 0.33 C injuries in each fatal crash.
Table 3 Average Number of Injuries by Severity Category
Average Average Average Average
Crash Type Number of Number of A Number of B Number of C
Fatal Injuries Injuries Injuries Injuries
C Injury Crash 0 0 0 1.52
B Injury Crash 0 0 1.29 0.47
A Injury Crash 0 1.21 0.40 0.37
Fatal Crash 1.11 0.26 0.44 0.33
The cost per injury data was obtained from Dr. Ted Miller of The Children's Safety
Network Economics and Insurance Resource Center, a nationally recognized expert in
the field. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the cost for each injury type. The Monetary cost
considers only the cost of medical costs, emergency services, loss of productivity,
employer cost, traffic delay and property damage. This cost is often considered "out of
pocket" expenses. The comprehensive cost considers the pain and suffering associated
with the injuries.
Table 4 Cost per Injury in North Carolina

Fatal
Injury
A
Injury
B`
Injury'
C'
Injury Property
Damage
Only
Medicala $22,094 $17,339 $3,796 $2,036 $162
Emergency Servicesb $1,285 $317 $206 $134 $65
Victim Work Losse $1,147,647 $25,343 $7,779 $3,762 $412
Employer Costsd $8,969 $1,335 $549 $303 $98
Traffic Delaye $543 $236 $228 $194 $279
Property Damagef $12,000 $4,718 $4,010 $3,031 $2,717
MONETARY COST $1,192,537 $49,288 $16,568 $9,460 $3,732
Quality of Lifeg $2,097,615 $114,207 $25,615 $10,667 $559
COMPREHENSIVE COST $3,290,153 $163,495 $42,182 $20,127 $4,292
a) Medical includes hospital, physician, rehabilitation, prescription and related cost.
b) Emergency Service include police, fire, ambulance and helicopter services.
c) Victim Work Loss includes wages, fringe benefits and household work.
d) Employer Cost values time, the extra work and distractions for supervisors and coworkers that injuries cause.
e) Traffic Delay values the time lost in traffic jams caused by crashes.
0 Property Damage is the cost to repair or replace damaged vehicles and property.
g) Quality of Life values the pain, suffering and quality of life that the family loses because of a death or injury.
Source: Ted Miller, Dexter Taylor, Children's Safety Network, Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, October 2004, PIRE,
Calverton, MD.
The cost per crash is calculated by multiplying the cost per injury from Table 4 and the
average number of injuries per crash from Table 3. Table 5 shows the computations for
fatal crashes in 2003. The cost associated with a crash includes all costs associated with
each injury involved. The example of the fatal crash shows that the average fatal crash
included 1.11 fatal injuries, 0.26 A injuries, 0.44 B injuries and 0.33 C injuries. The
same type of calculation was completed for A, B, and C injury Crashes. Table 6 shows
the results of these calculations.
Table 5 Computation of Monetary and Comprehensive Cost Per Fatal Crash

Injury Number of
Injuries
1
Monetary Cost
2 Comprehensive
Cost
3 Monetary
Crash Cost
1X2 Comprehensive
Crash Cost
1 X3
Fatal Injury 1.11 $1,192,537 $3,290,153 $1,323,716 $3,652,070
A Injury 0.26 $49,288 $163,495 $12,814 $42,509
B Injury 0.44 $16,568 $42,182 $7,290 $18,560
C Injury 0.33 $9,460 $20,127 $3,122 $6,642
Total $1,346,942 $3,719,780
TOTAL (rounded to 2 significant figures) $1,300,000 $3,700,000
Table 6 Monetary and Comprehensive Cost for Traffic Crashes In North Carolina
Monetary Comprehensive
2003 Dollars 2003 Dollars
Fatal Crash $1,300,000 $3,700,000
A Injury Crash $70,000 $220,000
B Injury Crash $26,000 $64,000
C Injury Crash $14,000 $31,000
Property Damage Only Crash $3,700 $4,200
Average Crash $17,000 $42,000
Non-Fatal Injury Crash $19,000 $46,000
Severe Injury Crash (F+A) $470,000 $1,300,000
Moderate Injury Crash B+C $17,000 $39,000
The 2003 crash costs were also summarized between urban and rural categories. Rural
crashes are usually more severe making the cost of an average rural crash higher than that
of the average urban crash. Table 7 shows the number of crashes broken down by
severity category and its respective percentage of total crashes. Notice that there are
more severe crashes in rural areas, and a higher percentage of rural crashes fall within the
more severe categories.
Table 7 Urban and Rural Crash Summary by Severity Category
Rural Urban
Severity Number of % Of Total Number of ova Of Total
Crashes Crashes
K 1,006 1.1% 396 0.3%
A 2,004 2.2% 1,031 0.7%
B 11,060 11.9% 10,281 7.4%
C 22,209 23.9% 36,955 26.6%
PDO 56,614 60.9% 90,036 64.9%
Table 8 shows the 2003 crash costs for rural and urban areas. The 2003 combined (urban
and rural) crash costs are also presented for comparison. The crash cost for each severity
category is very similar across the board for urban, rural, and combined categories.
There is little change because the number of injuries per crash for each severity category
changes very little when looking at rural and urban crashes. The big difference comes in
the average costs. The average rural crash costs are higher because severe crashes make
up a higher percentage of the total rural crashes when compared to the urban crash costs.
Table 8 Monetary and Comprehensive Crash Costs for Urban and Rural Areas
Combined Rural - Urban
Monetary Comprehensive Monetary Comprehensive Monetary Comprehensive
Fatal Crash $1,300,000 $3,700,000 $1,400,000 $3,800,000 $1,300,000 $3,700,000
A Injury Crash $70,000 $220,000 $71,000 $230,000 $67,000 $210,000
B Injury Crash $26,000 $64,000 $25,000 $63,000 $26,000 $64,000
C Injury Crash $14,000 $31,000 $14,000 $29,000 $15,000 $31,000
Property Damage Only Crash $3,700 $4,300 $3,700 $4,300 $3,700 $4,300
Severe Injury Crash (F+A) $470,000 $1,300,000 $500,000 $1,400,000 $420,000 $1,200,000
Moderate Injury Crash (B+C) $17,000 $39,000 $18,000 $41,000 $17,000 $38,000
Average Crash $17,000 $42,000 $25,000 $63,000 $13,000 $28,000
Non-Fatal Injury Crash $19,000 $46,000 $21,000 $51,000 $18,000 $42,000
If you have any questions regarding 2003 crash costs, please contact Brian Murphy, PE at
[phone].
ST/bgm
Dan Cameron
From: Christopher J. Oliver [col [e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:23 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: M. Pate Butler, P.E.; Elizabeth R. Hedgepeth; David A. Smith, P.E.
Subject: Citizen Requests
Attachments: US 421 from US 117-NC 133 to Sutton Steam.pdf; Codes.pdf; Additional TEAAS Codes.pdf

US 421 from US Codes.pdf (14 KB) Additional TEARS
117-NC 133 to S... Codes.pdf (82...
October 7, 2005
Mr. Dan Cameron
Noremac Enterprises
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
Dear Mr. Cameron,
Subject: Crash Statistics for the Section of US 421-North Terminal Road from US 117-NC
133-Parsley Street to Secondary Route 1394 (Sutton Steam Plant Road) in New Hanover County
Enclosed you will find the requested information for the time period from January 1, 1995
to April 30, 2005 for the section described above. The crash statistics have been
generated and are available through North Carolina's Crash Database. This database
provides an inventory of reported crashes on record that have occurred at this location.
Please note that many traffic crashes go unreported for a variety of reasons, and this
report simply provides a listing of all crashes on record that occurred within 0 feet of
the section described above.
If you have any other questions, then feel free to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Oliver, E.I.
Safety Planning Engineer
CJO:cc
Attachment
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or used
by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Study Criteria
Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route
SDF200510052 200510052 76.8 8.4 11900
Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No.
10/04/2005 910-520-4403 910-790-8631
County Municipality
Name Code Div . Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years
NEW HANOVER 64 3 All and Rural 0 01/01/1995 04/30/2005 10.33
Location Text Requestor
US 421-North Termin al Road from US 117-NC Dan Cameron
133-Parsley Street to Secondary Route 1394 Noremac Energy
(Sutton Steam Plant Road) 3504 St Francis Dr
Wilmington, NC
Included Accidents Old MP New MP Type
95031351 23.226 I
95066743 23.283 I
95129585 23.22 I
95142667 23.244 I
95233933 23.281 I
96079270 24.01 I
96100486 23.98 I
96151207 23.62 I
96193507 23.22 I
96217313 23.39 I
96236129 23.22 I
96236934 23.296 I
97017445 23.52 I
97094421 23.22 I
97181808 23.22 I
97191809 23.29 I
97217289 23.225 I
98001852 23.22 I
98085532 23.32 I
98088126 23.277 I
98145308 23.42 I
99110715 23.546 I
99223314 24.579 23.99 R
99228455 23.29 I
100224811 25.38 25.28 R
10/07/2005 -32-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Summary Statistics
Crash Type
Total Crashes
Fatal Crashes
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes
Total Injury Crashes
Property Damage Only Crashes
Night Crashes
Wet Crashes
Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes
145 100.00
2 1.38
74 51.03
76 52.41
69 47.59
36 24.83
43 29.66
5 3.45
Crash Severity Summary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes
Fatal Crashes
Class A Crashes
Class B Crashes
Class C Crashes
Property Damage Only Crashes
145 100.00
2 1.38
8 5.52
22 15.17
44 30.34
69 47.59

Vehicle Exposure Statistics
Annual ADT = 11900
Total Length = 2.16 (Miles) 3.476 (Kilometers)
Total Vehicle Exposure = 96.98 (MVMT) 156.08 (MVKMT)

y
Crashes Per 100 Million Crashes Per 100 Million
Crash Rate Vehicle Miles Vehicle Kilometers `CS
Total Crash Rate 149.51 O 92.90
Fatal Crash Rate 2.06 ---. of 1.28
Non Fatal Crash Rate 76.30 47.41
Night Crash Rate 37.12 23.07
Wet Crash Rate 44.34 27.55
EPDO Rate 1434.71 891.49
High Level Crash Summary
Number of Percent
Crashes of Total
10/07/2005 -17-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Miscellaneous Statistics
Severity Index = 9.60
EPDO Crash Index = 1391.40
Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 719325.00
Accident Tvoe Summa

Accident Type Number of
Crashes Percent
of Total
ANGLE 8 5.52
ANIMAL 9 6.21
BACKING UP 5 3.45
FIXED OBJECT 4 2.76
HEAD ON 2 1.38
LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 22 15.17
LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 22 15.17
MOVABLE OBJECT 6 4.14
NOT AVAILABLE 1 0.69
OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 1 0.69
OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 2 1.38
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 2 1.36
PEDALCYCLIST 1 0.69
PEDESTRIAN 3 2.07
RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 5 3.45
RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 5 3.45
RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 1 0.69
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 26 17.93
REAR END, TURN 4 2.76

RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 0 2.07

RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY (2) 2.07
RR TRAIN, ENGINE 1 0.69
SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 2 1.38
SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 7 4.83
Injury Summary

Injury Type Number of
Injuries Percent
of Total
Fatal Injuries 2 1.79
Class A Injuries 10 8.93
Class B Injuries 32 28.57
Class C Injuries 68 60.71

10/07/2005 .18-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Iniury Summary
Number of Percent
Injury Type Injuries of Total
Total Non-Fatal Injuries 110 98.21
Total Injuries 112 100.00
10/07/2005 _19-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Monthly Summary
Number of Percent
Month Crashes of Total
Jan 11 7.59
Feb 16 11.03
Mar 11 7.59
Apr 12 8.28
May 10 6.90
Jun 10 6.90
Jul 19 13.10
Aug 5 3.45
Sep 12 8.28
Oct 12 8.26
Nov 18 12.41
Dec 9 6.21

Day Daily Summary
Number of Percent
Crashes of Total
Mon 21 14.48
Tue 28 19.31
Wed 30 20.69
Thu 16 11.03
Fri 26 17.93
Sat 15 10.34
Sun 9 6.21
10/07/2005 -20-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Hourly Summ

Hour Number of
Crashes Percent
of Total
0000-0059 1 0.69
0100-0159 1 0.69
0200-0259 1 0.69
0300-0359 1 0.69
0400-0459 2 1.38
0500-0559 7 4.83
0600-0659 20 13.79
0700-0759 10 6.90
0800-0859 1 0.69
0900-0959 6 4.14
1000-1059 9 6.21
1100-1159 5 3.45
1200-1259 10 6.90
1300-1359 11 7.59
1400-1459 7 4.83
1500-1559 15 10.34
1600-1659 10 6.90
1700-1759 7 4.83
1800-1859 6 4.14
1900-1959 2 1.38
2000-2059 5 3.45
2100-2159 3 2.07
2200-2259 2 1.38
2300-2359 3 2.07
10/07/2005 -21-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Licht and Road Conditions Summary
Condition Dry Wet Other Total
Day 64 29 1 94
Dark 28 7 1 36
Other 7 7 1 15
Total 99 43 3 145
Object Struck Summary

Object Type
Times
Struck
Percent
of Total
ANIMAL 9 18.75
CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER 3 6.25
DITCH 2 4.17
GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER 1 2.08
MOVABLE OBJECT 4 8.33
OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 2 4.17
OTHER FIXED OBJECT 8 16.67
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 5 10.42
PEDALCYCLIST 2 4.17
PEDESTRIAN 6 12.50
TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN 4 8.33
TREE 2 4.17
Vehicle Type Summary
Number Percent
Vehicle Type Involved of Total
?
`LIGxHTRV K'-( v
MOPED 1 0.37
MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 1 0.37
PASSENGER CAR 111 41.26
PEDALCYCLE 1 0.37
PEDESTRIAN 3 1.12
PICKUP 62 23.05
SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE) 12 4.46
SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (3 OR MORE AXLES) 10 3.72
SPORT UTILITY 12 4.46
TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER 7 2.60
TRUCK/TRACTOR 2 0.74
TRUCK/TRAILER 28 10.41
Sys
10/07/2005
-22-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Vehicle Type Summary
Vehicle Type
Number Percent
Involved of Total
UNKNOWN
VAN
0.74
3.35
10/0712005 -23-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Yearly Totals Summary

Year Accident
Total Fatal
Accidents Accidents Totals
Injury
Accidents
Property Damage
Only Accidents
1995 14 0 11 3
1996 22 0 12 10
1997 8 0 3 5
1998 14 0 7 7
1999 12 0 6 6
2000 13 0 6 7
2001 15 0 9 6
2002 9 1 5 3
2003 14 1 6 7
2004 16 0 5 11
2005 8 0 4 4
Total 145 2 74 69
Injury Totals
Class A, B,
Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries
1995 0 16
1996 0 15
1997 0 4
1998 0 7
1999 0 11
2000 0 9
2001 0 13
2002 1 6
2003 1 12
2004 0 10
2005 0 7
Total 2 110
Miscellaneous Totals
Year Property Damage E PDO Index
10/07/2005 -24-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
1995 $ 49500 232.20
1996 $ 104250 110.80
1997 $ 46875 98.60
1998 $ 43650 134.20
1999 $ 44750 193.20
2000 $ 64600 125.80
2001 $ 95050 81.60
2002 $ 34050 190.20
2003 $ 96500 134.20
2004 $ 82750 53.00
2005 $ 57350 37.60
Total $ 719325 1391.40
Type of Accident Totals
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other
1995 2 1 3 2 2 0 4
1996 2 2 3 2 4 1 8
1997 2 0 4 0 0 0 2
1998 3 0 3 4 0 2 2
1999 4 0 3 3 0 1 1
2000 4 0 4 0 1 2 2
2001 4 1 3 0 1 2 4
2002 5 0 0 0 0 1 3
2003 8 2 0 0 0 0 4
2004 5 0 5 0 0 0 6
2005 5 0 2 0 0 0 1
Total 44 6 30 11 8 9 37
10/0712005 -25-
Page 1 of 2
Dan Cameron
From: Christopher J. Oliver [col [e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:52 AM
To: Dan Cameron
Subject: Re: Statewide Crash Rates for Trucks only
Good morning. The truck crash rates are calculated in the same manner as the NC Statewide Crash
Rates. I have attached a copy of the Crash Rate Guidelines which provides an explanation of how the
crash rates are calculated and other definitions. In terms of truck crash rates, the following vehicle/unit
types are used in the calculation of the truck crash rates:
12. Truck/trailer
13. Truck/tractor
14. Tractor/semi-trailer
15. Tractor/doubles
16. Unknown heavy truck.
In terms of the number of trucks involved in crashes for the strip analysis report previously provided to
you, the truck crashes are summarized as followed:
Total Crashes - 33
Fatal Crashes - 0
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes - 15
Total Injury Crashes - 15
Property Damage Only Crashes - 18
Night Crashes - 3
Wet Crashes - 9.
I would also like to point out that the NC Statewide Crash Rates are based on three years of crash data.
So in terms of comparing like data sets, we recommend comparing data in three year increments.
If you need any further assistance, feel free to either email or phone me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Oliver
Dan Cameron wrote:
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Any luck with crash data for trucks only?
Thanks, Dan Cameron
From: Christopher J. Oliver [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Dan Cameron
Subject: Re: Statewide Crash Rates for Trucks only
What is the section you are trying to calculate the truck crash rate for? I will have someone
look at the section and calculate the truck crash rate for you.
11/28/2005
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Oliver
Dan Cameron wrote:
Chris, I am trying to calculate the truck crash rates from the strip analysis reports you
sent so that I can compare to statewide truck crash rates (See
http://www.ncdot.or.q/doh/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/ses/rates/2003/statewide.pdf
page 7)
1 know how to calculate "Crashes Per 100 million Vehicle Miles" , but I am not sure
about truck crashes. I counted all the truck crashes for that strip and divided by same
"100 million vehicle miles of travel" number used in total crash rate. Is that right? Can
you help with truck calculation?
Thanks so much!
Dan Cameron
910.520.4403
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do
not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have
received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete
this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be
reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient.
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
11/28/2005
0 ; z „ -i z ? -i z „ -i z -+ -I ?
CL ?
x <
x <
x D D
L0
a? 0 0 0 0 O CD O 0 0 0 O
: 0
5 CD (D <
r
m 0 ?
v
-
0
-11

-n

0

<

D .

< ?

m ?

? n

? m

?

C

N rt
N 0
Cu 0
m n
N 0
N
m 0
N r*
p? N
N CD (
Q (D
2-
(o m
0
3 CD
0
N m
(D in
in 3 3 =r =r 7 n .< o 3 0 CT O .
0 ;o C X C CA C C @ m O .' r. '< Q
(D N ? 7 N N 7 x C) x
- (D O O O Z
p p 0
N C O O O O .o N y O N CJ CD n
II s11
n C in
S :U .Z7 N
? O
7 p = rX X N
::r O
O cO N p fD ? O m

a
a _ ?
o
v B.
m C)
o
c ph N v CL CL o o ,? v n. a o o
0
=r
(D
o
sv
CL o Cn
, (D c
CD l< X C) CD 0 Q
o m
Q
co
(n o
°1 m
`` co
m
?
u)
o m co °
9 m
9
3
cn <
? m m 3 X ( 3
n 3 Q 3 3 v ? a 3 3 a) CD
- 9
N
rt (a

(A
•
(D
CD
CD
:3
<<

3
Q
C
CD
7

(n
3
Q
C 3
(D
M
CD Q m Cn
CD CD = v -. . + CD =
N to rt
Q 7
co -
Q 7
'°
o co CD r- n (a CD 0) a
d Co CD Q (o C CD Q tG ,C- 9

CU
Q 7
r
C
C
-r
a
M.
Cn
K
0
(D 7
O C
? ((D J
(O C
CL CD
•
. .
s U) .o O
Q (n Q
Q
CD
O C
? CD a
% M
o
o Z -0 o
Q < C1
m m

C.
0 M.
CL
o

CD
C
a CD N
<
o: N
0 O N
p W = D
CD
CL
= -L o
O
1 --L
CA O
O (p? _
r
CT CD
CL -I v W
CI O
ill) O C
A
OD N In W
Cn W CO p
-{ m O -? O N N W - CD 0o - 0 O C) O
8 ? m
O 3 Cn O : co CA 0 O 1
Cn O W O Cn
?,
0
_
< ° 0 ?5
o :r
y
?
r

CD
-A.
N rn
X
' --4 0
0

a
y
N
((D
Cn
CA
S

m a
c
a CO)
o O°
oo
N
w
_
_
9
CA)
N
00
v
O
OD
co N
O C)
cn
00

N
C)
In
w
Cn

tD

A

^`
< (C) r -I O A 0 00 O O ? O
9 00 A CO O N Cn O N Cn O co Cn 0 0 Cn O W O O O T
CQ y' CA
Z
0
O
C =r fir

n o

IV o
-? rn
CT ?
y
IV o
-? rn
Cn o
W m
N a
(D
-( co Cn ?. -I to o
y

?Cw
VI
4Ph
IV
Z
O
t STANDARD
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
RURAL STATE HIGHWAYS
IN I LK- UNI I LU NUK I H 'SLUUNUAKY I U I AL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA PRIMARY ROAD RURAL
TOTAL CRASHES 25,465 58,332 58,673 142,470 142,811 285,281
FATAL CRASHES 221 692 715 1,628 1,453 3,081
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 7,801 23,345 23,418 54,564 53,936 108,500
NIGHT CRASHES 7,655 17,336 19,507 44,498 56,621 101,119
WET CRASHES 6,247 11,685 10,666 28,598 25,726 54,324
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 0.87% 1.19% 1.22% 1.14% 1.02% 1.08%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 30.63% 40.02% 39.91% 38.30% 37.77% 38.03%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 30.06% 29.72% 33.25% 31.23% 39.65% 35.45%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 24.53% 20.03% 18.18% 20,07% 18.01% 19.04%
MILES OF ROAD 801 4,229 6,925 11,955 59,550 71,505
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 39,800 9,500 4,400 8,500 600 2,000
TRAVEL 100MVM 1 349.08 438.40 330.71 1,118.19 409.71 1,527.90
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 72.95 133.06 177.42 127.41 348.57 186.71
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.63 1.58 2.16 1.46 3.55 2.02
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 22.35 53.25 70.81 48.80 131.64 71.01
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 21.93 39.54 58.99 39.79 138.20 66.18
WET CRASH RATE 2 17.90 26.65 32.25 25.58 62.79 35.55
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 5.16 6.66 6.88 6.49 6.58 6.53
URBAN STATE HIGHWAYS
IN I ER- UNI I tU NUK I H StUUNUAKY NUN- I U I AL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA PRIMARY ROAD SYSTEM URBAN
TOTAL CRASHES 26,422 91,630 53,510 171,562 99,061 109,303 379,926
FATAL CRASHES 99 277 162 538 252 235 1,025
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 8,280 31,314 18,350 57,944 32,318 35,430 125,692
NIGHT CRASHES 6,454 18,688 10,699 35,841 21,636 23,434 80,911
WET CRASHES 6,162 17,306 9,721 33,189 18,191 19,226 70,606
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 0.37% 0.30% 0.30% 0.31% 0.25% 0.22% 0.27%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 31.34% 34.17% 34.29% 33.77% 32.62% 32.41% 33.08%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 24.43% 20.40% 19.99% 20.89% 21.84% 21.44% 21.30%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 23.32% 18.89% 18.17% 19.35% 18.36% 17.59% 18.58%
MILES OF ROAD 237 1,278 1,113 2,628 4,306 23,224 30,158
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 76,300 18,400 11,600 20,700 5,000 1,000 3,300
TRAVEL 100MVM 1) 198.01 258.15 140.86 597.02 233.56 254.30 1,084.89
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 133.44 354.95 379.87 287.36 424.13 429.81 350.20
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.50 1.07 1.15 0.90 1.08 0.93 0.95
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 41.82 121.30 130.27 97.05 138.37 139.32 115.86
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 32.59 72.39 75.95 60.03 92.63 92.15 74.58
WET CRASH RATE 2 31.12 67.04 69.01 55.59 77.88 75.60 65.08
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 4.20 4.44 4.50 4.42 4.31 4.22 4.32
ALL STATE HIGHWAYS,
IN I tK- UNI I tU NUK I H bLUUNUAKY NUN- I U I AL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA RIMARY ROAD SYSTEM System
TOTAL CRASHES 51,887 149,962 112,183-r- 314,032 241,872 109,303.'7 665,207
FATAL CRASHES 320 969 877 2,166 1,705 235 4,106
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 16,081 54,659 41,768 112,508 86,254 35,430 234,192
NIGHT CRASHES 14,109 36,024 30,206 80,339 78,257 23,434 182,030
WET CRASHES 12,409 28,991 20,387 61,787 43,917 19,226 124,930
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 0.62% 0.65% 0.78% 0.69% 0.70% 0.22% 0.62%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 30.99% 36.45% 37.23% 35.83% 35.66% 32.41% 35.21%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 27.19% 24.02% 26.93% 25.58% 32.35% 21.44% 27.36%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 23.92% 19.33% 18.17% 19.68% 18.16% 17.59% 18.78%
MILES OF ROAD 1,038 5,507 8,038 +"4 14,583 63,856 23,224 :. 101,663
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 48,100 11,600 5,400 10,700 900 1,000 2,300
TRAVEL 100MVM 1 547.09 696.55 471.57 1,715.22 643.27 254.30 2,612.79
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 94.84 215.29 237.89 183.09 376.00 429.81 254.60
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.58 1.39 1.86 1.26 2.65 0.93 1.57
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 29.39 78.47 88.57 65.59 134.09 139.32 89.63
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 25.79 51.72 64.05 46.84 121.65 92.15 69.67
WET CRASH RATE 2 22.68 41.62 43.23 36.02 68.27 75.60 47.81
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 4.63 5.29 5.77 5.34 5.74 4.22 5.20
(1) ESTIMATED VALUE
(2) ACCIDENT RATES ARE IN ACCIDENTS PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
(3) SEVERITY INDEX =(76.8'(F+A) + 8.4`(B+C) + PDO)/ TOTAL CRASHES
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 1
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL INTERSTATE ROUTES
ROAD TYPE SYSTEM TOTAL FATAL NON-FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 801 72.95 0.63 22.35 21.93 17.90
TOTAL 1 801 72.95 0.63 22.35 21.93 17.90
URBAN INTERSTATE ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE MILES TOTAL FATAL INJURY NIGHT WET
LANES UNDIVIDED
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 237 133.44 0.50 41.82 32.59 31.12
TOTAL 1 237 133.44 0.50 41.82 32.59 31.12
ALL INTERSTATE ROUTES
ROAD TYPE SYSTEM TOTAL FATAL NON-FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,038 94.84 0.58 29.39 25.79 22.68
TOTAL 1 1,038 94.84 0.58 29.39 25.79 22.68
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 2
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 2,664
14 171.66
194.58 2.24
2.23 71.63
71.92 52.25
57.43 33.23
37.35
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 16 157.23 3.23 69.46 44.69 31.77
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 70 125.46 1.57 51.20 32.76 25.80
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 180 147.26 1.49 61.42 37.10 27.94
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 594 137.56 1.38 53.88 39.11 26.33
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 317 86.37 1.01 34.11 26.81 17.72
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 374 71.87 0.83 23.38 23.76 18.71
TOTAL 4,229 133.06 1.58 53.25 39.54 26.65
URBAN UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 494
9 6
475.54 0.98
1.72 113.14
156.51 62.09
86.85 59.64
82.55
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 5 681.09 1.71 240.69 138.27 112.66
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 119 557.83 1.35 201.74 104.64 101.44
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 249 437.13 1.47 156.24 88.32 83.48
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 192 424.41 1.00 135.63 90.35 78.45
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 112 249.24 0.73 82.52 51.70 48.08
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 98 152.63 0.84 48.66 36.13 33.25
TOTAL 1,278 354.95 1.07 121.30 72.39 67.04
ALL UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 3,158
23 205.50
305.09 1.96
2.03 80.88
105.19 54.44
69.00 39.11
32.47
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 21 282.86 2.87 110.52 67.13 51.17
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 189 421.56 1.42 154.30 81.99 77.60
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 429 334.18 1.48 122.57 70.13 63.75
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 786 237.66 1.25 82.41 56.99 44.52
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 429 152.35 0.90 53.72 36.89 30.02
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 472 99.50 0.83 32.03 27.99 23.68
TOTAL 5,507 215.29 1.39 78.47 51.72 41.62
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 3
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED

LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE*
6,605
X
15
184.65
164.33
2_.,T1
1.08
73.77
67.35
62.66
49.57
33.28
32.33
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 19 212.97 1.48 79.12 44.37 42.15
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED* 42 227.77 2.15 80.73 61.14 42.20
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 86.0 137.82 1.73 55.58 39.77 27.34
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 108 152.84 1.21 62.88 41.64 30.01
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS* 19 130.03 1.39 50.01 44.73 22.23
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 31 28.97 0.24 11.86 6.60 6.36
TOTAL 6,925 177.42 2.16 70.81 58.99 32.25
URBAN NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 788
3 345.41
494.67 1.20
0.00 118.77
174.40 70.09
107.81 59.98
88.79
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 6 527.25 1.22 181.43 119.33 87.67
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 103 453.48 1.23 160.61 86.20 84.46
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 95 345.48 0.88 120.85 62.98 63.96
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 89 521.54 1.28 173.24 107.91 99.05
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 18 265.88 1.41 88.92 55.16 50.03
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 11 140.53 0.38 45.51 32.37 28.56
TOTAL 1,113 379.87 1.15 130.27 75.95 69.01
ALL NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
.2 LANES UNDIVIDED 7,393 215.30 2.10 5 64.07 .
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 18 212.31 0.92 82.90 58.03 40.53
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 25 331.71 1.38 117.78 72.69 59.35
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 145 406.81 1.42 144.09 81.01 75.72
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 181 263.58 1.22 95.11 53.82 49.51
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 197 376.19 1.25 129.73 81.78 71.83
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 37 213.05 1.40 73.79 51.10 39.22
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 42 72.59 0.30 25.01 16.68 15.04
TOTAL 8,038 237.89 1.86 88.57 64.05 43.23
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 4
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED 9,269 8 33.26
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 29 179.20 1.64 69.60 53.43 34.80
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 35 180.72 2.49 73.53 44.56 36.14
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 112 157.49 1.75 60.45 41.65 30.93
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 266 144.46 1.56 59.69 37.89 27.76
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 702 139.59 1.36 55.07 39.44 26.82
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 336 89.17 1.04 35.13 27.96 18.01
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,206 71.93 0.66 22.33 21.97 17.82
TOTAL 11,955 127.41 1.46 48.80 39.79 25.58
URBAN PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* X
12
479.62
1.35
160.32
91.32
83.88
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 11 591.30 1.42 206.10 127.21 98.08
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 222 511.31 1.30 183.40 96.42 93.87
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 344 413.06 1.31 146.95 81.67 78.36
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 281 454.03 1.09 147.10 95.71 84.73
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 130 251.52 0.82 83.40 52.17 48.35
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 346 136.76 0.55 43.03 33.17 31.42
TOTAL 2,628 287.36 0.90 97.05 60.03 55.59
ALL PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES - - INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 10,551
41 211.Fr
265.80 1.05
1.56 81.80
95.75 60.49--
64.35 38.64
48.95
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 46 305.86 2.17 113.94 69.75 55.02
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 334 415.52 1.42 150.11 81.59 76.83
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 610 314.77 1.40 115.02 65.65 59.84
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 983 265.61 1.25 91.96 61.99 50.03
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 466 158.12 0.94 55.63 38.24 30.90
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,552 95.21 0.62 29.76 25.99 22.70
TOTAL 14,583 183.09 1.26 65.59 46.84 36.02
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 5
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* ,
7
328.49
0.00
58.24
72.22
48.92
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 5 86.15 0.00 34.46 24.12 27.57
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED* 40 356.95 0.98 130.11 95.01 73.40
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 26 352.22 1.30 132.04 86.51 73.83
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 44 131.60 0.29 43.57 27.53 26.20
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS* 4 248.23 0.54 86.69 56.54 47.39
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 7 43.25 0.00 11.34 15.60 10.99
TOTAL 59,550 348.57 3.55 131.64 138.20 62.79
URBAN SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* X
15
634.34
0.58
197.14
123.51
117.71
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 23 564.39 0.71 176.55 108.48 93.24
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 213 518.50 1.19 176.05 105.36 100.55
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 139 533.25 1.18 168.99 114.17 100.71
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 69 318.13 0.55 107.39 63.23 63.16
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 32 227.03 0.49 78.92 55.60 43.89
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 14 162.31 0.22 49.86 40.41 43.93
TOTAL 4,306 424.13 1.08 138.37 92.63 77.88
ALL SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 63,218
22 368.70
573.39 3.04
0.46 133.74
169.46 129.28
113.28 63Tr'-
104.00
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 28 519.79 0.64 163.30 100.61 87.11
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 253 501.45 1.17 171.20 104.27 97.69
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 165 515.26 1.20 165.32 111.42 98.03
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 113 258.85 0.47 87.11 51.88 51.41
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 36 230.31 0.50 80.13 55.75 44.43
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 21 116.77 0.14 35.12 30.92 31.33
TOTAL 63,856 376.00 2.65 134.09 121.65 68.27
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 6
STANDARD
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
RURAL STATE HIGHWAYS
INIEK- UNIIEU NUKIH SEUUNUAKY IUTAL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA PRIMARY ROAD RURAL
TOTAL CRASHES 3,581 3,144 1,988 8,713 1,933 10,646
FATAL CRASHES 63 112 54 229 28 257
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 1,069 1,183 844 3,096 694 3,790
NIGHT CRASHES 1,126 674 402 2,202 396 2,598
WET CRASHES 652 556 328 1,536 291 1,827
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 1.76% 3.56% 2.72% 2.63% 1.45% 2.41%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 29.85% 37.63% 42.45% 35.53% 35.90% 35.60%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 31.44% 21.44% 20.22% 25.27% 20.49% 24.40%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 18.21% 17.68% 16.50% 17.63% 15.05% 17.16%
MILES OF ROAD 801 4,229 6,925 11,955 59,550 71,505
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 39,800 9,500 4,400 8,500 600 2,000
TRAVEL 100MVM) 1) 349.08 438.40 330.71 1,118.19 409.71 1,527.90
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 10.26 7.17 6.01 7.79 4.72 6.97
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.18 0.26 0.16 0.20 0.07 0.17
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 3.06 2.70 2.55 2.77 1.69 2.48
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 3.23 1.54 1.22 1.97 0.97 1.70
WET CRASH RATE 2) 1.87 1.27 0.99 1.37 0.71 1.20
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 5.82 9.18 9.84 7.98 6.78 7.76
URBAN STATE HIGHWAYS
IN I EK- UNI I EU NUK I H SEUUNUAKY NUN- I U I AL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA PRIMARY ROAD SYSTEM URBAN
TOTAL CRASHES 3,017 3,230 1,471 7,718 1,880 2,130 11,728
FATAL CRASHES 25 31 8 64 12 9 85
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 938 870 426 2,234 432 449 3,115
NIGHT CRASHES 738 493 176 1,407 230 266 1,903
WET CRASHES 526 540 215 1,281 273 280 1,834
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 0.83% 0.96% 0.54% 0.83% 0.64% 0.43% 0.73%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 31.09% 26.93% 28.96% 28.95% 22.98% 21.09% 26.56%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 24.46% 15.26% 11.96% 18.23% 12.23% 12.50% 16.23%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 17.43% 16.72% 14.62% 16.60% 14.52% 13.14% 15.64%
MILES OF ROAD 237 1,278 1,113 2,628 4,306 23,224 30,158
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 76,300 18,400 11,600 20,700 5,000 1,000 3,300
TRAVEL 100MVM 1) 198.01 258.15 140.86 597.02 233.56 254.30 1,084.89
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 15.24 12.51 10.44 12.93 8.05 8.38 10.81
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.08
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 4.74 3.37 3.02 3.74 1.85 1.77 2.87
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 3.73 1.91 1.25 2.36 0.98 1.05 1.75
WET CRASH RATE 2) 2.66 2.09 1.53 2.15 1.17 1.10 1.69
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 4.74 4.65 4.60 4.68 4.38 3.34 4.30
ALL STATE HIGHWAYS
IN I EK- UNI I EU NUKIH SEUUNUAKY NUN- I U I AL
ITEMS STATE STATES CAROLINA PRIMARY ROAD SYSTEM System
TOTAL CRASHES 6,598 6,374 3,459 16,431 3,813 2,130 22,374
FATAL CRASHES 88 143 62 = 293 40 9 = 342
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 2,007 2,053 1,270 5,330 1,126 449 6,905
NIGHT CRASHES 1,864 1,167 578 3,609 626 266 4,501
WET CRASHES 1,178 1,096 543 2,817 564 280 3,661
PERCENT FATAL CRASHES 1.33% 2.24% 1.79% 1.78% 1.05% 0.43% 1.53%
PERCENT NON-FATAL INJURY CRASHES 30.42% 32.21% 36.72% 32.44% 29.53% 21.09% 30.86%
PERCENT NIGHT CRASHES 28.25% 18.31% 16.71% 21.96% 16.42% 12.50% 20.12%
PERCENT WET CRASHES 17.85% 17.19% 15.70% 17.14% 14.79% 13.14% 16.36%
MILES OF ROAD 1,038 5,507 8,038 14,583 63,856 23,224 101,663
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 48,100 11,600 5,400 10,700 900 1,000 2,300
TRAVEL 100MVM 1 547.09 696.55 471.57 1,715.22 643.27 254.30 2,612.79
TOTAL CRASH RATE (2) 12.06 9.15 7.34 9.58 5.93 8.38 8.56
FATAL CRASH RATE (2) 0.16 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.13
NON-FATAL INJURY CRASH RATE (2) 3.67 2.95 2.69 3.11 1.75 1.77 2.64
NIGHT CRASH RATE (2) 3.41 1.68 1.23 2.10 0.97 1.05 1.72
WET CRASH RATE 2) 2.15 1.57 1.15 1.64 0.88 1.10 1.40
SEVERITY INDEX (3) 5.28 6.79 7.62 6.34 5.76 3.34 5.83
(1) ESTIMATED VALUE
(2) ACCIDENT RATES ARE IN ACCIDENTS PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
(3) SEVERITY INDEX =(76.8'(F+A) + 8.4'(B+C) + PDO)/ TOTAL CRASHES
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 1
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL INTERSTATE ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE MILES TOTAL FATAL INJURY NIGHT WET
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 801 10.26 0.18 3.06 3.23 1.87
TOTAL 1 801 10.26 0.18 3.06 3.23 1.87
URBAN INTERSTATE ROUTES
SYSTEM TOTAL FATAL NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE MILES INJURY NIGHT WET
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 237 15.24 0.13 4.74 3.73 2.66
TOTAL 237 15.24 0.13 4.74 3.73 2.66
ALL INTERST

ROAD TYPE SYSTEM TOTAL NON-FATAL
FATAL
NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
3 LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,038 12.06 0.16 3.67 3.41 2.15
TOTAL 1,038 12.06 0.16 3.67 3.41 2.15
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 2
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 2,6 4
14
6.69 0.41
0.56 3.42
3.90 1.81
0.56 1.59--
0.56
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 16 6.46 0.00 2.15 1.62 2.15
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 70 7.06 0.10 3.24 0.98 0.98
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 180 6.56 0.19 2.70 1.43 1.14
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 594 7.34 0.22 2.64 1.41 1.23
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 317 5.51 0.11 2.10 1.37 1.03
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 374 4.63 0.13 1.60 1.40 0.96
TOTAL 4,229 7.17 0.26 2.70 1.54 1.27
URBAN UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 494
9 10.40
15.48 0.11
0.00 2.72
4.30 1.59
1.72
1.72
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 5 17.07 0.00 3.41 3.41 3.41
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 119 15.85 0.14 4.06 2.17 2.39
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 249 12.44 0.10 3.49 1.64 2.27
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 192 16.23 0.15 4.16 2.52 2.40
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 112 11.85 0.03 3.36 1.82 2.10
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 98 8.55 0.20 2.46 1.74 1.54
TOTAL 1,278 12.51 0.12 3.37 1.91 2.09
ALL UNITED STATES ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED ,5
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 23 10.15 0.34 4.06 1.01 1.01
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 21 9.01 0.00 2.46 2.05 2.46
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 189 13.08 0.12 3.80 1.79 1.95
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 429 10.35 0.14 3.21 1.57 1.87
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 786 10.44 0.20 3.17 1.80 1.63
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 429 8.08 0.08 2.61 1.56 1.46
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 472 5.97 0.15 1.90 1.51 1.16
TOTAL 5,507 9.15 0.21 2.95 1.68 1.57
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 3
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED

LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE*
6,6 5
X
15

2.69
0.18
0.00
2.67
1.08
1.25
0.54

0.00
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 19 11.09 0.74 2.96 0.74 1.48
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED* 42 7.97 0.22 3.01 2.37 1.08
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 86.0 4.90 0.08 1.36 1.21 1.05
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 108 5.21 0.06 2.35 1.02 0.32
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS* 19 5.00 0.00 2.78 1.11 0.28
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 31 1.22 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 6,925 6.01 0.16 2.55 1.22 0.99
URBAN NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES -- INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 788
3 91! -
12.68 5.08
0.00 2.80
3.17 1.11
0.00 1.44
0.00
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 6 15.83 0.00 3.65 1.22 3.65
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 103 11.73 0.06 3.82 1.12 1.63
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 95 8.98 0.00 2.40 0.98 1.13
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 89 13.90 0.04 3.97 2.07 2.15
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 18 11.49 0.18 3.71 1.59 1.06
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 11 4.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 1.14
TOTAL 1,113 10.44 0.06 3.02 1.25 1.53
ALL NORTH CAROLINA ROUTES

ROAD TYPE SYSTEM
MILES TOTAL
FATAL NON-FATAL
INJURY
NIGHT
WET
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 7,393
18 6.88
4.14 0.16
0.00 2.70
1.38 1.23
0.46 1.14
0.00
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 25 12.88 0.46 3.22 0.92 2.30
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 145 10.95 0.09 3.65 1.38 1.51
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 181 7.37 0.03 1.99 1.07 1.10
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 197 10.48 0.05 3.33 1.65 1.43
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 37 8.97 0.11 3.35 1.40 0.76
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 42 2.31 0.00 0.52 0.15 0.45
TOTAL 8,038 7.34 0.13 2.69 1.23 1.15
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 4
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED 7.
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 29 4.66 0.27 2.47 0.55 0.27
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 35 8.41 0.31 2.49 1.25 1.87
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 112 7.35 0.13 3.17 1.42 1.01
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 266 6.07 0.16 2.30 1.36 1.12
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 702 7.06 0.20 2.60 1.36 1.11
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 336 5.48 0.11 2.14 1.36 0.98
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,206 9.09 0.17 2.76 2.84 1.67
TOTAL 11,955 7.79 0.20 2.77 1.97 1.37
URBAN PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 1,282
12 9.94
14.88 0.09
0.00 2.77
4.06 1.31
1.35
1.35
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 11 16.35 0.00 3.55 2.13 3.55
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 222 14.01 0.10 3.95 1.70 2.05
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 344 11.53 0.08 3.21 1.47 1.97
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 281 15.52 0.11 4.10 2.38 2.32
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 130 11.80 0.05 3.41 1.79 1.96
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 346 13.89 0.14 4.27 3.33 2.44
TOTAL 2,628 12.93 0.11 3.74 2.36 2.15
ALL PRIMARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 10,551
41 7.77
7.61 0.23
0.20 2.91
2.93 1.42
0.78 1.32
0.59
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 46 10.83 0.22 2.82 1.52 2.38
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 334 12.21 0.11 3.74 1.62 1.77
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 610 9.53 0.11 2.87 1.43 1.66
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 983 10.45 0.17 3.20 1.77 1.59
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 466 8.17 0.08 2.68 1.54 1.40
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 1,552 10.81 0.16 3.30 3.01 1.95
TOTAL 14,583 9.58 0.17 3.11 2.10 1.64
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 5
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates
By Road System, Type and Control
Crash Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
RURAL SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
? 7
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 7 2.33 0.00 2.33 2.33 0.00
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED* 40 7.36 0.00 2.70 1.96 2.45
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 26 3.25 0.00 0.65 0.33 1.30
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 44 3.68 0.00 1.03 0.59 0.88
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS* 4 2.69 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 7 1.42 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.35
TOTAL 59,550 4.72 0.07 1.69 0.97 0.71
URBAN SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
MILES INJURY
2 LANES UNDIVIDED
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 3,801
15 7.93
6.96 0.06
0.00 1.81
1.74 0.93
1.16 1.12
0.58
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 23 10.64 0.00 2.48 0.71 2.13
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 213 10.11 0.12 2.38 1.07 1.48
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 139 9.33 0.00 2.15 1.36 1.36
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 69 6.17 0.00 1.17 1.03 1.30
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 32 3.84 0.00 1.08 0.59 0.30
FULL CONTROL ACCESS* 14 2.42 0.00 0.66 0.44 0.22
TOTAL 4,306 8.05 0.05 1.85 0.98 1.17
ALL SECONDARY ROUTES
SYSTEM NON-FATAL
ROAD TYPE TOTAL FATAL NIGHT WET
-- MILES INJURY
2 LANES UND17M=
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE* 63,218
22 5.58
6.04
0.00 1.74
1.86 0.96
1.39 O.Mr--
0.46
3 LANES UNDIVIDED* 28 9.64 0.00 2.25 0.64 1.93
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 253 9.82 0.10 2.41 1.17 1.58
4+ LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 165 8.73 0.00 2.00 1.26 1.36
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH
NO CONTROL ACCESS 113 5.38 0.00 1.12 0.89 1.17
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 36 3.66 0.00 1.08 0.50 0.25
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 21 2.03 0.00 0.54 0.41 0.27
TOTAL 63,856 5.93 0.06 1.75 0.97 0.88
NOTE: INCLUDES ONLY ROUTE SEGMENTS WITH COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
* RATES ARE NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
2001-2003 Three Year Truck Crash Rates (Standard)
Page 6
Guidelines for Utilizing NC Statewide Crash Rates
Glossary
Continuous Left Turn Lane: A roadway with a lane in the median area that is
marked to provide a deceleration and storage area, out of the through-traffic stream, for
vehicles traveling in either direction to use in making left turns.
Divided: Roadway has a median that is designed to physically separate the two
directions of travel. This includes mountable pavement, curb, grass or positive barrier
medians.
Full Control Access: No at-grade street intersections or driveways are permitted on
roads with full access control. Access to the highway is provided through interchanges
with selected public roads.
Interstate: Routes that are classified on the Interstate highway system within the state
of North Carolina (For example: I-40, I-277). This includes urban loop facilities but does
not include interstate "business" routes. The "business" routes are included in the
"United States" route crash data.
Night Crash (Rate): A crash that occurred when the ambient light condition was
described as "Darkness".
No Control Access: Adjacent property owners are permitted one or more direct
driveway connections to the street or highway.
Nonfatal Iniurv Crash (Rate): A crash that results in injuries, with no fatal
injuries, to one or more persons.
Non-System: Routes that are not owned and maintained by NCDOT. (For example: a
local city street, a national forest road, Indian reservation road)
North Carolina: Routes that are classified as a North Carolina Route within the
state of North Carolina. (For example: NC 7, NC 273, NC 24 Business)
Number of Lanes: The total number of lanes for through traffic in both directions of
travel. Does not include climbing lanes, passing lanes, turning lanes, and speed change
lanes (ramp, weave lanes, etc.).
Partial Control Access: Adjacent property owners are allowed limited public
crossroad intersections (at grade) and some carefully predetermined driveways.
Primary: All Routes that are classified as an Interstate Route, United States Route
or North Carolina Route within the state of North Carolina. (For example: 126, US 74
Alternate, NC 68)
Rural: Segments of highway outside the corporate limits of a city or town (for purposes
of crash rates only).
Secondary Road: Routes that are classified as a State Secondary Route within the
state of North Carolina. (For example: SR 1010, SR 2000)
Undivided: Roadway does not have a median between the two directions of travel.
United States: Routes that are classified as a United States Route or Interstate
Business Route within the state of North Carolina. (For example: US 1, US 321, US 501
Business, I-95 Business)
Urban: Segments of highway inside the corporate limits of a city or town (for
purposes of crash rates only).
Wet Crash (Rate): A crash that occurred when the roadway surface condition was
described as "Wet" or "Water (standing, moving)".
Crash Rate Defined
Crash rate is defined as:
Crash Rate = Crash Count
Exposure
Exposure is typically derived from the annual average daily traffic (AADT). To calculate
the exposure, you multiply the AADT by 365, the number of years in the study and the
length of the roadway segment. To illustrate, if 145 crashes occurred on a 0.92 mile
section of roadway during a three-year period, the crash rate is 145/(24000x365x3x0.92)
= 5.99 crashes/vehicle miles traveled (or 599.18 crashes per I00mvmt).
Selecting a Comparison Crash Rate (An Example)
To illustrate how to use the NC Statewide Rates, we will find a comparison rate for an
example roadway segment. Examine the map below of a section of US 301/NC 96
(Brightleaf Blvd.) in the town of Smithfield in Johnston County. The example section
used is from SR 1921 (Hospital Road) to SR 1923 (Booker Dairy Road). US 301 is
classified as a "United States" route; therefore, the rates on Page 3 of the NC Statewide
Rates should be used (See Exhibit 2). Also, this example section is within the city limits
of Smithfield; therefore, the "urban" rate can be used. The cross section at this location is
a four-lane roadway with a continuous left-turn lane similar to the roadway shown in
Exhibit 7. Therefore, an appropriate comparison rate for the Total Crash Rate of this
US 301 section is 374.08 crashes per 100 mvmt. The average crash rate for all Urban
United States Routes (346.74 crashes per 100 mvmt) could also be used as an alternative.
'( I
SE,I

C
'SECTION
URBA N UNITED STATE ROUTES
ROAD TYPE SYSTEM
MILES TOTAL FATAL NON-FATAL
INJURY NIGHT WET
2 LANES UNDIVIDED 494 321.84 0.98 117.08 62.92 53.87
2 LANES CONT. LEFT TURN LANE 9 219.28 0.86 68.79 36.12 36.98
3 LANES UNDIVIDED 5 336.28 1.71 124.61 69.99 47.80
4 OR MORE LANES UNDIVIDED 119 631.41 1.49 235.78 120.71 109.43
+ LANES CONT, LEFT TURN LANE 249 374.08 1.19 138.79 75.20 69.30
4 OR MORE LANES DIVIDED WITH:
NO CONTROL ACCESS 192 432.42 1.23 145.91 91.93 72.71
PARTIAL CONTROL ACCESS 112 245.66 0.76 85.97 51.56 44.10
FULL CONTROL ACCESS 98 155.81 0.89 51.24 36.08 30.96
46.74 1.08 123.47 70.88 61.07

Exhibit 2 - 2000-2002 Crash Rates for Urban United States Routes (from Page 3)
Statewide, Division or Countv Crash Rates
The NC Statewide Rates are typically used to examine groups of locations that are spread
throughout the state of North Carolina. The division wide and countywide crash rates are
used to examine safety programs or groups of locations that are located in a single
division or county, respectively.
'? Rte, ? ,?I ??' _ ???•
Exhibit 1 - Map of Example Section
I
Critical Crash Rate Method
A simple comparison of the roadway crash rate vs. the average crash rate would identify
nearly one-half of all locations as having a potential highway safety concern. A more
appropriate method is the critical crash rate method. This statistical tool can be used to
screen for high accident locations, by utilizing a confidence interval that can be adjusted
up or down to accommodate the needs of your safety program. If a segment has an actual
crash rate higher than the critical rate, the location may have a potential highway safety
deficiency and may deem additional analysis. The additional analyses may include but
are not limited to the following: crash pattern studies, severity studies, BIC ratio studies,
etc. To compute the critical crash rate for a site, use the following equation:
F, = Fa +k(Fa /M)y +112M
where:
Fc = the critical crash rate
Fa = statewide crash rate of roadway class or average crash rate
K = a probability constant. Some values are:
K = 1.645 for a 95% confidence level, commonly used for rural areas
K = 3.291 for a 99.95% confidence level, commonly used for urban areas
M = vehicle exposure, the exposure should be calculated in 100mvmt if NC
Statewide Rates is used
Another advantage of using the critical crash rate method is because it accounts for
exposure. A short segment of roadway could have an extremely high crash rate although
the roadway's crash history identified only a small number of crashes. Locations with
low exposure will be measured against a higher critical rate. Thus, the locations that
have a small segment length (or low ADT) and low crash counts will not be overflagged
when compared to locations that have high ADT's and high crash counts.
Example
Calculate the F,, the critical crash rate, for the roadway section discussed earlier. A
3-year crash history was completed for the 0.92-mile section of US 301 in Smithfield and
the completed study included 145 total reported crashes (See Exhibit 3). The ADT for
this segment was 24,000 vpd and the vehicle exposure is calculated to be 24.2 mvmt or
(0.242 100mvmt). The calculated total crash rate is 599.18 crashes per 100mvmt. The
statewide crash rate for United States routes with a continuous left-turn lane of 374.08
crashes per 100 mvmt will be used for the average crash rate, Fa. This calculation will
use k = 3.291 which is the value used for the 99.95 % confidence level.
Fc = 374.08 + 3.291(374.08 / 0.242)'/2 + 1/(2 * 0.242) = 505.58 crashes per l 00mvmt
Therefore, the crash rate for this segment is higher than the critical crash rate,
599.18 > 505.58 crashes per 100mvmt.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
High Level Crash Summary
Summary Statistics
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 145 100.00
Fatal Crashes 0 0.00
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 48 33.10
Total Injury Crashes 48 33.10
Property Damage Only Crashes 97 66.90
Night Crashes 15 10.34
Wet Crashes 23 15.86
Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes 1 0.69
Vehicle Exposure Statistics
Annual ADT = 24000
Total Length = 0.92 (Miles) 1.481 (Kilometers)
Total Vehicle Exposure = 24.2 (MVMT) 38.95 (MVKMT)
Crashes Per 100 Million Crashes Per 100 Million
Crash Rate Vehicle Miles Vehicle Kilometers
Total Crash Rate 599.18 372.27
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 0.00
Non Fatal Crash Rate 198.35 123.23
Night Crash Rate 61.98 38.51
Wet Crash Rate 95.04 59.05
EPDO Rate 2914.92 1811.04
Exhibit 3 - 2000 - 2002 Crash Rates for Example Section
Metric Conversion
The NC Statewide Rates calculated crash rates in units of crashes per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled. To convert to metric units or crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometers
traveled divide the crash rates by 1.609. For example:
374.08 crashes per 100mvmt =1.609 = 232.49 crashes per 100mvkt
HiAwav Safetv Imarovement Program
The purpose of the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to
provide a continuous and systematic procedure that identifies and reviews specific traffic
safety issues in the state and to determine potentially hazardous (PH) locations that are
possibly deficient in these issues. The Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit
(TSSMU) and the Regional Traffic Engineering (RTE) staff continuously strive, through
a collaborative effort, to improve the identification of relevant traffic safety issues,
minimum warranting criteria, and the location selection process.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Study Criteria
Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route
SDF200412052 200412052 76.8 8.4 22600
Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No.
12/07/2004 910-520-4403 910-790-8631
County Municipality
Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years
BRUNSWICK 9 3 All and Rural 0 01/01/1990 05/31/2004 14.41
Location Text Requestor
US 74-US 76-US 17-US 421-NC 87-NC 133-Andrew Dan Cameron
Jackson Hwy from SR 1868 (TV Tower Rd) in Noremac Energy
Columbus County to S Front Street in New Hanover 3502 St Francis Dr
County Wilmington 28409
Included Accidents Old MP New MP Type
90000374 0.52 I
90000794 17.05 I
90003518 18.453 I
90027205 3.06 I
90027532 1.49 I
90034619 18.16 I
90043408 6.89 I
90049989 17.839 I
90049991 17.839 I
90052670 17.82 I
90053028 15.87 I
90054290 6 I
90054916 0.99 I
90057004 4.79 I
90057059 1.26 I
90057062 1.26 I
90057063 1.21 I
90061188 17.877 I
90062946 4.79 I
90064494 17.8 I
90067382 4.5 I
90068564 17.82 I
90069079 0.6 I
90069550 18.49 I
90069552 18.48 I
10112/2005 -231-
4 0 North Carolina Department of Transportation
C Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Summa[y Statistics C) oz!)
High Level Crash Summary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 1669 100.00
Fatal Crashes 16 0.96 //l 1 r 1?/?^
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 711 42.60 -t1(?? ?? f-`v
Total Injury Crashes 727 43.56
Property Damage Only Crashes 942 56.44 J?_J Ul? J
I ?, r
Night Crashes 493 29.54 I
Wet Crashes 456 27.32
Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes 95 5.69
Crash Severity Summary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 1669 100.00
Fatal Crashes 16 0.96
Class A Crashes 68 4.07
Class H Crashes 170 10.19
Class C Crashes 473 28.34
Property Damage Only Crashes 942 56.44
z
fY
Vehicle Exposure Statistics/
Annual ADT = 22600 V
Total Length = 18.51 (Miles) 29.789 (Kilometers) fs
Total Vehicle Exposure = 2202.49 (MVMT) 3544.56 (MVKMT)
Crashes Per 100 Million Crashes Per 100 Million
Crash Rate Vehicle Miles Vehicle Kilometers
Total Crash Rate N 75.78 47.09
Fatal Crash Rate X0.73 ^ 1.01 0.45
Non Fatal Crash Rate 32.28 20.06
Night Crash Rate 22.38 13.91
Wet Crash Rate 20.70 12.86
EPDO Rate 580.91 360.96
10/12/2005 YL
i j
J /
/ \Ca?
Y?
5 ?r
-173-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Miscellaneous Statistics
Severity Index = 7.67
EPDO Crash Index = 12794.40
Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 7366073.00
Accident Tvoe Summa

Accident Type Number of
Crashes Percent
of Total
ANGLE 175 10.49
ANIMAL 117 7.01
BACKING UP 5 0.30
FIXED OBJECT 180 10.78
HEAD ON 4 0.24
JACKKNIFE 5 0.30
LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 23 1.38
LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 25 1.50
MOVABLE OBJECT 55 3.30
NOT AVAILABLE 6 0.36
OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE 3 0.18
OTHER NON-COLLISION 37 2.22
OVERTURN/ROLLOVER 41 2.46
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 22 1.32
PEDALCYCLIST 2 0.12
PEDESTRIAN 5 0.30
RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT 134 8.03
RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT 174 10.43
RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT 1 0.06
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 490 29.36
REAR END, TURN 12 0.72
RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 7 0.42
RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 7 0.42
SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION 1 0.06
SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION 138 8.27
Iniurv Summa
Number of Percent
Injury Type Injuries of Total
Fatal injuries 21 1.61
Class A Injuries 104 7.99
Class B Injuries 251 19.28
10/12/2005 -174-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Iniury Summary
Number of Percent
Injury Type Injuries of Total
Class C Injuries 926 71.12
Total Non-Fatal injuries 1281 98.39
Total Injuries 1302 100.00
10/12/2005 -175-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Monthly Summ
Number of Percent
Month Crashes of Total
Jan 145 8.69
Feb 126 7.55
Mar 158 9.47
Apr 126 7.55
May 153 9.17
Jun 124 7.43
Jul 135 8.09
Aug 124 7.43
Sep 128 7.67
Oct 172 10.31
Nov 141 8.45
Dec 137 8.21
Daily Summary
Number of Percent
Day Crashes of Total
Mon 260 15.58
Tue 255 15.28
Wed 227 13.60
Thu 267 16.00
Fri 269 16.12
Sat 204 12.22
Sun 187 11.20
10/12/2005 -176-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Ho

Hour urly Summary
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
0000-0059 33 1.98
0100-0159 32 1.92
0200-0259 32 1.92
0300-0359 27 1.62
0400-0459 28 1.68
0500-0559 34 2.04
0600-0659 98 5.87
0700-0759 123 7.37
0800-0859 95 5.69
0900-0959 58 3.48
1000-1059 72 4.31
1100-1159 68 4.07
1200-1259 85 5.09
1300-1359 84 5.03
1400-1459 102 6.11
1500-1559 118 7.07
1600-1659 98 5.87
1700-1759 139 8.33
1800-1859 97 5.81
1900-1959 66 3.95
2000-2059 48 2.88
2100-2159 51 3.06
2200-2259 43 2.58
2300-2359 38 2.28
10/12/2005 -177-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Liaht and Road Conditions Su mmary

Condition Dry Wet Other Total
Day 763 291 19 1073
Dark 354 125 14 493
Other 48 40 15 103
Total 1165 456 48 1669
Object Struck Summary

Object Type
Times
Struck
Percent
of Total
ANIMAL 119 14.07
BRIDGE RAIL END 4 0.47
BRIDGE RAIL FACE 42 4.96
CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN 4 0.47
CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER 1 0.12
COMMERCIAL SIGN 1 0.12
CONTRUCTION BARRIER 1 0.12
DITCH 100 11.82
EMBANKMENT 1 0.12
GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN 10 1.18
GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER 7 0.83
GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN 42 4.96
GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER 54 6.38
LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY 1 0.12
LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY 7 0.83
MEDIAN BARRIER FACE 5 0.59
MOVABLE OBJECT 29 3.43
OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY 18 2.13
OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 36 4.26
OTHER FIXED OBJECT 155 16.32
PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE 68 8.04
PEDALCYCLIST 4 0.47
PEDESTRIAN 13 1.54
SHOULDER BARRIER FACE 2 0.24
TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN 11 1.30
TREE 104 12.29
UTILITY POLE 7 0.83
10/12/2005 -178-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report

Vehicle Type Vehicle Type Summary
Number
Involved
Percent
of Total
ACTIVITY BUS 1 0.03
EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD 1 0.03
FARM EQUIPMENT 2 0.07
FARM TRACTOR 2 0.07
LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL) 41 1.43
MILITARY 2 0.07
MOPED 1 0.03
MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 3 0.10
MOTORCYCLE 7 0.24
NOT AVAILABLE 7 0.24
OTHER 5 0.17
PASSENGER CAR 1646 57.39
PEDALCYCLE 2 0.07
PEDESTRIAN 8 0.28
PICKUP 483 16.84
POLICE 3 0.10
SCHOOL BUS 3 0.10
SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE) 107 3.73
SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (3 OR MORE AXLES) 17 0.59
SPORT UTILITY 143 4.99
TAXICAB 1 0.03
TRACTOR/DOULBES 1 0.03
TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER 46 1.60
TRUCK/TRACTOR 4 0.14
TRUCK/TRAILER 124 4.32
UNKNOWN 57 1.99
UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK 2 0.07
VAN 149 5.20
lfi?

V l 'Q'rf O d z(
me, 4dS
I
_7?lkr t)
-? A 14
'Y)w ---

10/12/2005 -179-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Yearly Totals Summary

Year Accident Totals
Total Fatal Injury
Accidents Accidents Accidents
Property Damage
Only Accidents
1990 75 3 25 47
1991 65 0 27 38
1992 78 2 35 41
1993 77 0 37 40
1994 84 1 41 42
1995 78 1 40 37
1996 135 1 64 70
1997 165 0 63 102
1998 112 0 63 49
1999 134 1 70 63
2000 172 1
/ 62 109
2001 121 3 48 70
2002 147 4 1 49 97
2003 170 1 68 101
2004 56 1 19 36
Total 1669 16 711 942
Injury Totals
Class A, B,
Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries
1990 3 52
1991 0 49
1992 2 81
1993 0 65
1994 3 85
1995 1 63
1996 2 118
1997 0 103
1998 0 115
1999 1 124
2000 1 114
2001 3 74
2002 3 83
2003 1 119
10/12/2005 -180-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Injury Totals
Class A, B,
Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries
2004 1 36
Total 21 1281
Miscellaneous Totals
Year Property Damage EPDO Index
1990 $ 371680 761.00
1991 $ 197900 470.00
1992 $ 297705 1035.80
1993 $ 283900 624.40
1994 $ 313400 668.40
1995 $ 346005 860.20
1996 $ 528430 1300.00
1997 $ 667066 1110.00
1998 $ 555250 1125.40
1999 $ 631318 1001.40
2000 $ 811000 980.20
2001 $ 584390 840.40
2002 $ 598740 722.20
2003 $ 850439 885.80
2004 $ 328850 409.20
Total $ 7366073 12794.40
Tvoe of Accident Total
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other
1990 3 1 20 23 13 3 12
1991 4 0 18 17 12 4 10
1992 0 0 25 21 15 8 9
1993 2 1 26 21 9 6 12
1994 2 1 18 29 14 6 14
1995 4 1 16 29 8 4 16
1996 2 0 34 35 13 10 41
1997 3 1 48 34 22 11 46
1998 1 2 39 28 18 5 19
1999 6 0 36 39 14 15 24
2000 2 1 59 11 17 14 68
2001 1 2 40 7 8 16 47
2002 6 2 55 5 4 14 61
2003 10 1 51 8 7 17 76
10/12/2005 -181-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Type of Accident Totals
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other
2004 2 1 17 2 1 6 27
Total 48 14 502 309 175 139 482
10/12/2005 -182-
0 --l -n -i -1 -4 z 'n --I z -i -I CD <

@

C

C- o

O

O 0 0 0,

O

N

O

0

0

0

O

.

O X

p

X

p
X

<
<

D
' ° ? m v n -n - v - m
-n n? a? CL r o z F v ? r
? n
@ i
- n
@ n
@
O v
r« n
v n
W- n n 0)
m aa)
* n
m N o. rn °
(C) m
n
3 ca
n CD
m
+•

N
N
N S
D
N
N
N
' N

U
07
` s
-.
N v
(D
S ?
n =r =r 7
.
n S
(D <
i 0
CD C (D C j N
T .Z]
0)
a) C CD C c N
CD
M 0

o 0

O

z

0
im
° ,:R (D (D Q
7 c n (D Z
n S 0 X
v O
K X
a fD
N O 0 (D (D Z

Di
0 n
0
0 C
N <D
N
N
N CD
N
'? O
N
= O
N -
O N
O .<
(D ?
0

0
=r
;o
X
=
=) O
CL
=r
=r
:3 O
CL _
CL
51
CD
W"
CD
'o CD 0
v C C ° N `? d C. C. O N `W ? p CD fn N c
Q O (D
a)
7
Q
cn
(D
O
C.
i
C
0 * m C) CD

°
0
?
co
co 0
°) N (C
3
;0
rn
m O
N w
`< co
3
?
3
to
` 0 m
to m
CC CL CD CD 0 (a (D CL cn m CD :3 (0
C 3 ° CD N l< co

s

CL

v (
D
3 N

c

w C
D
3

0) Q

C
:
-i
m
Cn m l 3
y Q
.<
co o
( 3 5'
to
n (0 3 ?' <
m
o CD C. (° CD 3 CL (° CD
=r CD C: Cl) (a m (D CL
D) N' (D CL Co C.
l< (D C. (C a
•<
w p C ° C
CD (a a- =. CC CL
@

N
? C:
CL CD
CL CD
N

O

n `< =.
O
a M.
O
a
CD m
0 o
'
o
'
O
M. D_ C.
m ?.
N N
m
C. CD
<' o?
0
o. CO)

CL A
D
?

(D C)

O D
O
O

-4 QO

N
r
R N rn v (D N r
C v W
0) 0 to
0) A Cn
O O
O v i 0 O 0 0 a
N QO N O 4 0 0 U7
i 0 W O U1 O RI

o z
0
0
x o ; y r
. rn
0
C..)
00 t
/)
@
0 j v W y

O
C
O a t
n
i
X

90
.01 C) C)
? -4
v A N

C" i
r
w
0
?
O O
O
(D i
Po
o (
D
O
W
O C
o

?
O
N
A
A
-I
(D
N
W
N
Ut
A
?
A
(D
N
N
-I
i
0)
N)
-4
0
C)
CJI
0
W
O
U1
O
CO)
S
-i ° o z
o
0

C o w c1 Z

N O
i cn
CA
N o
-? cn
Vl °o
W (D a
(D

C
S
-
4
0)
Daniel Cameron
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Truck Stop in Wilmington, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:17 PM
To: Daniel Cameron
Subject: RE: Truck Stop in Wilmington, NC
>Deceleration/acceleration ramps are not a panacea (e.g., we now that
weigh station ramps can be unsafe when vehicles back up onto the main
line. That said, acceleration/deceleration ramps are certainly preferred
over simple curb cuts that would require large vehicles to slow
significantly upon entering the facility; and upon leaving the facility
would cause signficant interference with traffic on the main line.
I'm going to suggest an individual who might be able to work with you
further. His name is Reggie Hines. He retired recently from the Motor
Carrier Enforcement section which was then under the NCDMV. He works with
firms, usually carriers, on issues relevant to safety and compliance. I
don't have his contact information with me now, but will try to locate it
and make it available to you by the first of next week.
I may be missing something in you description of the problem, but it seems
strange to me that NCDENR is making judgements that should rightly be
within the domain of NCDOT roadway design and traffic engineering. Once
you are able to contact Reggie Hines (if that works out) you should make
available to him, or to whomever, more details on DNER's objection to the
design or placement of your proposed facility.
Ron Hughes
1
Dan Cameron
From: Christopher J. Oliver [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:12 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: M. Pate Butler, P.E.
Subject: *** Spam You Can Delete *** Crash Statistics
A?hc Ar.b
NC 133-River and Codes.pdf
Blackwell.pdf...
August 16, 2004
Mr. Dan Cameron
Noremac Energy, Inc.
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
[e-mail]
Dear Mr. Cameron,
Subject: Crash Statistics for the Intersection of NC 133-River
Road and Secondary Route 1551 (Blackwell Road) in Brunswick
County
Enclosed you will find the requested information for the time
period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003 for the
intersection described above. The crash statistics have been
generated and are available through North Carolina's Crash
Database. This database provides an inventory of reported
crashes on record that have occurred at this location. Please
note that many traffic crashes go unreported for a variety of
reasons, and this report simply provides a listing of all crashes
on record that occurred within 150 feet of the intersection
described above.
If you have any other questions, then feel free to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Oliver, E.I.
Traffic Safety Engineer
CJO:co
Attachment
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Study Criteria
Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. BIC Cf. ADT ADT Route
GMM200408069 200408069 76.8 8.4 7700
Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No.
08/10/2004 [phone]
County Municipality
Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years
BRUNSWICK 9 3 All and Rural 150 01/01/2001 12/31/2003 3.00
Location Text Requestor
NC 133-River Road and Secondary Route 1551 MR. DAN CAMERON
(Blackwell Road) NOREMAC ENERGY, INC.
Fiche Roads
Name Code
NC 133 30000133
RIVER 50026030
Intersection Road Combinations
Name Code Code Name
NC 133 30000133 40001551 SR 1551
RIVER 50026030 40001551 SR 1551
NC 133 30000133 50002849 BLACKWELL
RIVER 50026030 50002849 BLACKWELL
08/16/2004 -10-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Summary Statistics
High Level Crash Su mmary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 18 100.00
Fatal Crashes 0 0.00
Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 8 44.44
Total Injury Crashes 8 44.44
Property Damage Only Crashes 10 55.56
Night Crashes 1 5.56
Wet Crashes 4 22.22
Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes 2 11.11
Crash Severity S ummary
Number of Percent
Crash Type Crashes of Total
Total Crashes 18 100.00
Fatal Crashes 0 0.00
Class A Crashes 0 0.00
Class B Crashes 3 16.67
Class C Crashes 5 27.78
Property Damage Only Crashes 10 55.56
Vehicle Exposure Statistics
Annual ADT = 7700
Total Vehicle Exposure =8.43 (MEV)
Crash Rate
Crashes Per 100 Million
Vehicles Entered
Total Crash Rate 213.49
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00
Non Fatal Crash Rate 94.88
Night Crash Rate 11.86
Wet Crash Rate 47.44
EPDO Rate 915.61
08/1612004 -4-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Severity Index = 4.29
EPDO Crash Index = 77.20
Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 70600.00
Accident Type S ummary
Number of Percent
Accident Type Crashes of Total
ANGLE 4 22.22
LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS 7 38.89
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 6 33.33
REAR END, TURN 1 5.56
Y
Number of Percent
Injury Type Injuries of Total
Fatal Injuries 0 0.00
Class A Injuries 0 0.00
Class E Injuries 4 26.67
Class C Injuries 11 73.33
Total Non-Fatal Injuries 15 100.00
Total Injuries 15 100.00
08/16/2004 '5"
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
monsmy bummary
Number of Percent
Month Crashes of Total
Jan 1 5.56
Feb 0 0.00
Mar 3 16.67
Apr 0 0.00
May 2 11.11
Jun 1 5.56
Jul 1 5.56
Aug 3 16.67
Sep 1 5.56
Oct 5 27.78
Nov 0 0.00
Dec 1 5.56
Daily Summary
Number of Percent
Day Crashes of Total
Mon 3 16.67
Tue 3 16.67
Wed 2 11.11
Thu 5 27.78
Fri 1 5.56
Sat 3 16.67
Sun 1 5.56
08/16/2004 '6'
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Ho

Hour urly Summary
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
0000-0059 0 0.00
0100-0159 0 0.00
0200-0259 0 0.00
0300-0359 0 0.00
0400-0459 0 0.00
0500-0559 0 0.00
0600-0659 0 0.00
0700-0759 0 0.00
0800-0859 1 5.56
0900-0959 3 16.67
1000-1059 0 0.00
1100-1159 3 16.67
1200-1259 1 5.56
1300-1359 1 5.56
1400-1459 2 11.11
1500-1559 0 0.00
1600-1659 5 27.78
1700-1759 0 0.00
1800-1859 1 5.56
1900-1959 0 0.00
2000-2059 1 5.56
2100-2159 0 0.00
2200-2259 0 0.00
2300-2359 0 0.00
08/16/2004 -7-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Light and Road Conditions Summary
Condition Dry Wet Other Total
Day 14 3 0 17
Dark 0 1 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 14 4 0 18
Vehicle TVDe Summa

Vehicle Type Number
Involved Percent
of Total
LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL) 1 2.63
MOTORCYCLE 2 5.26
PASSENGER CAR 17 44.74
PICKUP 9 23.68
SPORT UTILITY 4 10.53
TRUCK/TRACTOR 1 2.63
VAN 4 10.53

?r

61Y
08/16/2004 '8-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Intersection Analysis Report
Yearly Totals Summary
Accident Totals
Total Fatal Injury
Property Damage
Year Accidents Accidents Accidents Only Accidents
2001 7 0 3 4
2002 5 0 1 4
2003 6 0 4 2
Total 18 0 8 10
Injury Totals
Class A, B,
Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries
2001 0 7
2002 0 1
2003 0 7
Total 0 15
Miscellaneous Totals
Year Property Damage EPDO Index
2001 $ 29500 29.20
2002 $ 10200 12.40
2003 $ 30900 35.60
Total $ 70600 77.20
Type of Acciden t Totals
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other
2001 2 0 3 0 2 0 0
2002 3 0 1 0 1 0 0
2003 2 0 3 0 1 0 0
Total 7 0 7 0 4 0 0
08/1612004 '9"
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index
T - Type of Accident Codes
0 = UNKNOWN
1 = RAN OFF ROAD - RIGHT
2 = RAN OFF ROAD - LEFT
3 = RAN OFF ROAD - STRAIGHT
4 = JACKKNIFE
5 = OVERTURN/ROLLOVER
13 = OTHER NON-COLLISION
14 = PEDESTRIAN
15 = PEDALCYCLIST
16 = RR TRAIN, ENGINE
17 = ANIMAL
18 = MOVABLE OBJECT
19 = FIXED OBJECT
20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
21 = REAR END, SLOW OR STOP
22 = REAR END, TURN
23 = LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
24 = LEFT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
25 = RIGHT TURN, SAME ROADWAY
26 = RIGHT TURN, DIFFERENT ROADWAYS
27 = HEAD ON
28 = SIDESWIPE, SAME DIRECTION
29 = SIDESWIPE, OPPOSITE DIRECTION
30 = ANGLE
31 = BACKING UP
32 = OTHER COLLISION WITH VEHICLE
C - Road Condition Codes
1 = 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
F - Road Feature Codes
0 = NO SPECIAL FEATURE
1 = BRIDGE
2 = BRIDGE APPROACH
3 = UNDERPASS
4 = DRIVEWAY, PUBLIC
5 = DRIVEWAY, PRIVATE
6 = ALLEY INTERSECTION
7 = FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION
8 = T-INTERSECTION
9 = Y-INTERSECTION
10 = TRAFFIC CIRCLE/ROUNDABOUT
11 = FIVE-POINT, OR MORE
12 = RELATED TO INTERSECTION
13 = NON-INTERSECTION MEDIAN CROSSING
14 = END OR BEGINNING - DIVIDED HIGHWAY
15 = OFF RAMP ENTRY
16 = OFF RAMP PROPER
17 = OFF RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD
18 = MERGE LANE BETWEEN ON AND OFF RAMP
19 = ON RAMP ENTRY
20 = ON RAMP PROPER
21 = ON RAMP TERMINAL ON CROSSROAD
22 = RAILROAD CROSSING
23 = TUNNEL
24 = SHARED-USE PATHS OR TRAILS
25 = OTHER
S - Accident Severity Codes
K = FATAL
A = A-LEVEL INJURY
B = B-LEVEL INJURY
C = C-LEVEL INJURY
0 = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY
Light Cndtn - Light Condition Codes
1 = DAYLIGHT
2 = DUSK
3 = DAWN
4 = DARK - LIGHTED ROADWAY
5 = DARK - ROADWAY NOT LIGHTED
6 = DARK - UNKNOWN LIGHTING
7 = OTHER
8 = UNKNOWN
Veh Mnvr - Vehicle Maneuver Codes
Ped Actn - Pedestrian Action Codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
= ENTERING OR CROSSING SPECIFIED LOCATION
= WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING WITH TRAFFIC
= WALKING, RIDING, RUNNING/JOGGING AGAINST TRAFFIC
= WORKING
= PUSHING VEHICLE
= APPROACHING OR
= PLAYING
= STANDING
= OTHER
LEAVING VEHICLE
1 = STOPPED IN TRAVEL LANE
2 = PARKED OUT OF TRAVEL LANES
3 = PARKED IN TRAVEL LANES
4 = GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD
5 = CHANGING LANES OR MERGING
6 = PASSING
7 = MAKING RIGHT TURN
8 = MAKING LEFT TURN
9 = MAKING U-TURN
10 = BACKING
11 = SLOWING OR STOPPING
12 = STARTING IN ROADWAY
13 = PARKING
14 = LEAVING PARKED POSITION
15 = AVOIDING OBJECT IN ROAD
07/19/2000 Page 1 of 2
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Fiche, Intersection, and Strip Reports Code Index
Alchl/Drgs - Driver Alcohol/Drugs Suspected Status Codes
0=NO
1 = YES - ALCOHOL, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
2 = YES - ALCOHOL, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
3 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
4 = YES - OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
5 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED
6 = YES - ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, NO IMPAIRMENT DETECTED
7 = UNKNOWN
Obj Strk - Object Struck Codes
14 = PEDESTRIAN
15 = PEDALCYCLIST
17 = ANIMAL
18 = MOVABLE OBJECT
20 = PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE
33 = TREE
34 = UTILITY POLE
35 = LUMINAIRE POLE NON-BREAKAWAY
36 = LUMINAIRE POLE BREAKAWAY
37 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY
38 = OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN BREAKAWAY
39 = OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT
40 = COMMERCIAL SIGN
41 = GUARDRAIL END ON SHOULDER
42 = GUARDRAIL FACE ON SHOULDER
43 = GUARDRAIL END IN MEDIAN
44 = GUARDRAIL FACE IN MEDIAN
45 = SHOULDER BARRIER END
46 = SHOULDER BARRIER FACE
47 = MEDIAN BARRIER END
48 = MEDIAN BARRIER FACE
49 = BRIDGE RAIL END
50 = BRIDGE RAIL FACE
51 = OVERHEAD PART UNDERPASS
52 = PIER ON SHOULDER OF UNDERPASS
53 = PIER IN MEDIAN OF UNDERPASS
54 = ABUTMENT OF UNDERPASS
55 = TRAFFIC ISLAND CURB OR MEDIAN
56 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON SHOULDER
57 = CATCH BASIN OR CULVERT ON MEDIAN
58 = DITCH
59 = EMBANKMENT
60 = MAILBOX
61 = FENCE OR FENCE POST
62 = CONTRUCTION BARRIER
63 = CRASH CUSHION
64 = OTHER FIXED OBJECT
Unit # - Vehicle Style Codes
1 = PASSENGER CAR
2 = PICKUP
3 = LIGHT TRUCK (MINI-VAN, PANEL)
4 = SPORT UTILITY
5 = VAN
6 = COMMERCIAL BUS
7 = SCHOOL BUS
8 = ACTIVITY BUS
.__Q= OTHER BUS
10 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (2-AXLE, 6-TIRE)
11 = SINGLE UNIT TRUCK (3 OR MORE AXLES)
12 = TRUCK/TRAILER
13 = TRUCK/TRACTOR
14 = TRACTOR/SEMI-TRAILER
15 = TRACTOR/DOULBES
UNKNOWN HEAVY TRUCK
17 = TAXICAB
18 = FARM EQUIPMENT
19 = FARM TRACTOR
20 = MOTORCYCLE
21 = MOPED
22 = MOTOR SCOOTER OR MOTOR BIKE
23 = PEDALCYCLE
24 = PEDESTRIAN
25 = MOTOR HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
26 = OTHER
27 = ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV)
28 = FIRETRUCK
29 = EMS VEHICLE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD
30 = MILITARY
31 = POLICE
32 = UNKNOWN
07/19/2000 Page 2 of 2
Condition Road Traffic Control
R - Road Surface Condition
1 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
L - Ambient Light Condition
1 Daylight
2 Dusk
3 Dawn
4 Dark - Lighted Roadway
5 Dark - Roadway Not
Lighted
6 Dark - Unknown Lighting
7 Other
8 Unknown
W - Weather Condition
1 Clear
2 Cloudy
3 Rain
4 Snow
5 Fog, Smog, Smoke
6 Sleet, Hail, Freezing
Rain/Drizzle
7 Severe Crosswinds
8 Blowing Sand, Dirt, Snow
9 Other
Rd Ch - Road Character
1 Straight - Level
2 Straight - Hillcrest
3 Straight - Grade
4 Straight - Bottom
5 Curve - Level
6 Curve - Hillcrest
7 Curve - Grade
8 Curve - Bottom
9 Other
10 Unknown
Rd Ci - Roadway
Contributing Circumstances
0 None
1 Road Surface Condition
2 Debris
3 Rut, Holes, Bumps
4 Work Zone
5 Worn Travel-Polished
Surface
6 Obstruction in Roadway
7 Traffic Control Device
Inoperative, Not Visible or
Missing
8 Shoulders Low, Soft or
High
9 No Shoulders
10 Non-Highway Work
11 Other
12 Unknown
Dv - Traffic Control Device
0 No Control Present
1 Stop Sign
2 Yield Sign
3 Stop and Go Signal
4 Flashing Signal with Stop
Sign
5 Flashing Signal without
Stop Sign
6 RR Gate and Flasher
7 RR Flasher
8 RR Crossbucks Only
9 Human Control
10 Warning Sign
11 School Zone Signs
12 Flashing Stop and Go
Signal
13 Double Yellow Line, No
Passing Zone
14 Other
Op - Traffic Control
Operating
1 Yes
2 No
3 Unknown
?@ OIMM'??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 19, 2005
Mr. Dan Cameron
Noremac Enterprises, LLC
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Cameron:
This letter is in response to your request for information about the proposed changes to US 17 in
Brunswick County in the vicinity of Ploof Road (SR 1566). The proposed future access to Ploof Road will
be via a signalized directional crossover, which will allow left and right turns in from US 17 but only allow
right turns out. Anyone wishing to head south on US 17 would utilize a specially designed U-turn
crossover approximately 800 feet north of the Ploof Road intersection. This configuration is referred to as
a superstreet. Based on proposed future development, the Department expects US 17 from the US 74/ US
76 interchange to the future I-140 interchange will be converted to the superstreet design.
I hope this information answers your request. If you have any questions, you may call me at (910) 251-
5724.
Sincerely,
David A. Smith, PE
Assistant Division Traffic Engineer
DAS:das:
CC: D. R. Cumbo, PE
124 Division Drive 910-251-2693 FAX: [phone]
Page 1 of 2
Dan Cameron
From: Brian G. Murphy [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Dan Cameron
Cc: Shawn A. Troy
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Crash Statistics for Whiteville, NC]
Dan,
I apologize for the delayed response. It looks like Whiteville will be ranked near the top again in the
2004 rankings that will be released soon.
The cities are ranked on a variety of different categories to come up with the overall rankings. A
complete list of the categories the cities are ranked on are listed
below (equally weighted):
Total Crashes
Total Non-Fatal Injury Crashes
Total Fatal Crashes
Estimated Property Damage Only Index
Severity Index
Annual Crashes per 1,000 Persons
Annual Fatal Crashes per 1,000 Persons
Annual Non-Fatal Injury Crashes Per 1,000 Persons
Average Annual Crash Cost
Average Annual Crash Cost Person
With several ranking categories being based on population data, there is some bias in the rankings for
cities with a significant amount of through traffic but a relatively low population. Whiteville and Leland
possibly fall into this category. There is likely a great deal more through traffic that flows through the
city than is represented in the city population (destination/beach traffic on US 74/76?). More
investigation would be needed to confirm this.
If you would like to see more detailed information about specific routes in these cities, please let me
know and our department can provide that data.
Thanks for your interest in higway safety. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further,
please feel free to contact me.
Brian Murphy, PE
Traffic Safety Project Engineer
[phone]
"Shawn A. Troy" wrote:
11/14/2005
Page 2 of 2
Shawn A. Troy, PE
NCDOT-Traffic Safety Unit
[phone]
Subject: Crash Statistics for Whiteville, NC
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:44:13 -0400
From: "Dan Cameron" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
am compiling crash data on US Hwy. 74/76 in SE North Carolina and noticed that Whiteville
ranked Number 1 for 2001, 2002 and 2003 (see
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/ses/rankings/cityrankingsless.pdf )
How can Whiteville be #1 for three straight years? Does US Hwy. 74/76 have anything to do with
their ranking?
Also, is Leland, NC ranked #35 because of US Hwy. 74/76?
If so, why is Hwy. 74/76 so dangerous in each area?
Thanks so much for responding in a timely manner.
Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Wilmington, NC
Phone [phone]
dcameron 0)portcitycapitaIbank. com
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
* Please note: Internet e-mail is not a secure form of communication. Please do not
transmit confidential or sensitive information through this medium. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please contact us immediately by return e-mail and delete this
document. The contents of this message are confidential and may not be reproduced or
used by anyone other than the intended recipient. *
11/14/2005
O ? ??nr ama?'p ogz--M '9-z?n?xCZ
rz m < z M ff ?o j z?S z O o rrnn
? Q o
A w w- N N A A =r Npp . A?pp A A ?n ..pD U =J A b T? r A U W %U? J U==•p U W O? U J ? U- Oo ??
O ON. tUi. w? J A? a?? A 0 Q. S 00. A?? b N A? U N w m J b- Oe A A w Vii U y a w T? O ?p S? '> w? ?Nj 8 6
b A W o0 J J N b N A N
e
O\ A A W A W J A Vi W J lA A w U N N W W A O\ W A W A U A U A W A 00 W W A W J U N U W W W In A U Oa W n S
00 ?O U ?D - tJ O ?l UY 00 H w + Oe J O in N? 00 O. J J O ? O O? B O O w N U J? A U W ?+ Oo pp u -
A W- N w A U o0 ?? U N w$? g 0 0 U N?? P N? ? N ?? A N g 00 ? C1 DO A A S
e o e e e a e e e o o e e e e D e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a e o e a a e o e a a o a e e e e e e
A
Y
t a
^J^• ? -? •-• -+ - O N A N N N N - - w p? N e w .A-- w N N w N? w A? w N N N A w U N A w w N .D O? O. A Oe d p
z
0
0 W 01 G N A W V. N ONE VJi ? O? W? O? N T T? V W U r A 00 b 00 Q` U m OP. ? O? In U N N .A.. W a r `NO N O A S c O
„,pro
? A b? b a W N A 0 A J N VJi ENO ? U U? W N b 00 ? oN0 Q` A N N A OUO t-n N N U N U ? O. A b O T w J ? w N ?+ 8 ;
- "' o UQ
F
O
? V J Oho \NO O w VUi A P O ON0 ? O O W b A N N VAi ? W N A b J? J b b ONE - ?+ U O OO U W J O` N U W ?"? ?-, A N .-• 8, ??
N? aC1
A A A A? pp w A A A W W W W U W w W W W N N N N N N w N N N - - N? n
b Oo J T A N- O b oe J a A w N- O b J J 0\ U A N- O b oa J P U .> w N .? O .O 00 J T U A W N- g G A•
a '*
a s
o
•? c
b n m m ? o o n r m C o m v v m 3 o r m r m p r °l -? y
'7>X? oyX ?z _ raCp-ay z ?p9 m??c'?- o
OFyin'ZD-1?Z???n<z?z??wrmm ??O?On O?•-? ? r rD r ?...
d -q
??r^?ppm0 wrwDOmO?r? -zi?j ?CjO;u O > ny rm? r d z? -x-11p 6:7
Oz z S p rnOZ v, OS?CO vzi O
zr0 Cmyr??SpS zzr v yO0 ?zzmW pzmyrrn? lry[SrDSn ?•O+f
y 7C -1 rrn C tr" rr, l*r7 ttm^^%orcr^ ? O rn rmr_' ? r"i
?t ? ? m m O? ?[ n z m m A
rn 4 N
w y
m
0
?s
p? y p pp.. OO?? ?.
A A W A 000 N a 000 U W .?.. U A U U VOi N W o .N. A 00 ? .00 ? ?? J A N 0 00 lbn U U VAi W W O T N J t?i? 0?0 U? W A V? Y O
O
fD^
J A 01 J W- W T A b J Oa W A C1 O N A A U A A A- 00 U O. O? b O. N J O. N A A A N V1 .+ U U U T W A W W ,? O
A N 00 J „_, A - G N A. w p J N pp J J A w N T J to J N Oa N- U N 00 ?p O. N 4 'S
- b U- O- 00 S J A b- N O .? O A? A- S W O? ?? Oo De b? A O? U O J J w S N N? O O O A- ?, ?
eeeeeee eeee eeeee eeeo e e ee e<> e eeo eeeeeeeeeea a ?eeeeea z
n
m
n
a
- O- .- O .-• r.+ -+ r-. .+ N ?-+ O O- w N N '- O N .- + w N n+ 0 ?••• w N 0- O .- ••- O- .- .- N -•• N A- A - N O r? 6
2
O
7
p N?.J QQ?? n ?
00 S A u N b J J Ob. U W A T vJi O N a A U w b a v O? ENO A oAa V. V N v o-0 U U N w P U U N N ow0 p A Q m
??.J! p_p AA pN
N O T ?+ ? w w U •00 00 N V U w Vii b T O'o A j N m J b J A T p O J? W? W U? v J A A O W W W U? U b S
pp?? - pp OO??
O N ? W? w? 00 T N OJO J A O O A U A w A ?A•, b C W? A J O. A w e ?-• O A P Vii m W? twn J w .J-S A O Owe b W S F
00
b b U U W w b b b 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 J JCT TJ 1 J AJ w NJ -J OJ P T G1 OT? U Q? w 0? T T U? U U U U W U U U O
J J N O O b v U A -- O b b Oa J A N- O ?O J O? U A N- O W
SAFETEA-LU - Fact Sheets - Truck Parking Facilities
Page 1 of 2
FHVVA Home I Feedback
Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions
TRUCK PARKING FACILITIES
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Authorization $0 $6.25M $6.25M $6.25M $6.25M
Program Purpose
The Truck Parking Facilities program is a pilot program that provides funding to address the shortage of long-tern
commercial vehicles on the National Highway System.
Statutory References
SAFETEA-LU Section: 1305
Funding
Funded by contract authority, to remain available until expended. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obli
limitation and are not transferable.
States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and local governments are eligible recipients of program fun,
receive funds, a State, MPO or local government must submit an application.
Funding priority will be given to applicants that:
• demonstrate a severe shortage of commercial vehicle parking in the corridor
• have consulted with affected State and local governments, community groups, providers of commercial vel
parking, and motorist and trucking organizations
• demonstrate that their proposed projects are likely to have positive effects on highway safety, traffic conge.
quality
Eligible Use of Funds
Funds shall be available for projects on the NIHS that may include the following activities:
• constructing safety rest areas that include commercial vehicle parking
• constructing commercial vehicle parking facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel plazas
• opening existing facilities to commercial vehicles
• promoting the availability of publicly or;privately provided commercial vehicle parking on the NHS using IT:
and other means
• constructing turnouts for commercial vehicles
• making capital improvements to public commercial vehicle parking facilities to allow year-round use
• improve the geometric design of interchanges to improve access to parking facilities
httn://www_fhwa_dnt env/safetealn/factcheet/trncknark litm 11 /1 /'JMS
Legislation Summary information I Fact Sheets I Funding Tables
$25 Min. Parking Plan Is Part of Highway Act
T TNews.
TTNew:.com
TTNews Home
FREE Newsletters
Jobs/Classifieds
m Place a Classified
Fuel Prices
Industry Press Releases
RSS Feeds
My User. Profile
Help/FAQ
w Advertise Online
Transport Topics
Subscribe
Renew
TT100 Industry Rankings
Archive Index
Staff
" Advertise
Customer Service
TT Directories
Insurance & Finance
Freight Brokers &
Logistics
Technology
" Professional. Services
Free Magazines
Light & Medium Truck
Utility Fleet Management
Contact Us
Press Releases
Letters to the Editor
Reprints
Web Links
ATA Home
Resources
Chat Session Archive
FMCSA Transcript
2004 Diesel Engines
* HOS Transcript
Diesel Engine Transcript
Webinar Archive
9
bjhansport Topics
Page I of 2
$25 Min. Parking Plan Is Part of Highway
Act
Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
Among the money set aside for the construction of bridges and highways as
part of the just-enacted, six-year federal highway funding act was $25 million
for a pilot project to increase the number of truck parking facilities along the
nation's highways.
The program is to allocate $6.25 million a year for the From
next four federal fiscal years, starting Sept. 30, to the latest
address the shortage of long-term parking for print
commercial motor vehicles on the National Highway edition
System," the legislation said.
The $286.4 billion highway funding law requires the secretary of transportation
to establish the pilot project in conjunction with state, regional and local
governments to create a variety of parking facilities on the highway system.
For the full story, see the Aug. 15 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe
today.
By Sean McNally
Staff Reporter
Updated on 8/18/2005 - 9:15:00 AM EST
Crash Severity-Injury Status
The most severe injury to a person involved in the crash.
1. Fatal (Killed) - Deaths, which occur within 12 months after the crash.
2. A Injury Type (Disabling) - Injury obviously serious enough to prevent the person injured
from performing their normal activities for at least one day beyond the day of the crash.
Massive loss of blood, 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 their normal activities.
4. C Injury Type (Possible) - No visible injury, but person complains of pain, or has been
momentarily unconscious.
5. No injury (PDO-Property Damage Only)
6. Unknown
Q
CONTENTS
Glossary
85th-percentile speed-a speed value obtained from a set of field-measured speeds where
only 15 percent of the observed speeds are greater (source: HCM 2000).
AADT-see average annual daily traffic. A
AASHO-American Association of State Highway Officials. Predecessor to AASHTO.
AASHTO-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
accessible-describes a site, building, facility, or portion thereof that complies with the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (source: ADAAG).
accessible route-a continuous, unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements and
spaces of a building or facility. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles,
curb ramps, crosswalks at vehicular ways, walks, ramps, and lifts (source: ADAAG).
accident-see crash.
ADA-Americans with Disabilities Act.
ADAAG-Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
all-way stop control-all approaches at the intersections have stop signs where all drivers
must come to a complete stop. The decision to proceed is based in part on the rules of the
road, which suggest that the driver on the right has the right-of-way, and also on the traffic
conditions of the other approaches (source: HCM 2000).
angle, entry-see entry angle.
approach-the portion of a roadway leading into a roundabout
approach capacity-the capacity provided at the yield line during a specified period of time.
approach curvature-a series of progressively sharper curves used on an approach to slow
traffic to a safe speed prior to reaching the yield line.
approach road half-width-term used in the United Kingdom regression models. The ap-
proach half width is measured at a point in the approach upstream from any entry flare, from
the median line or median curb to the nearside curb along a line perpendicular to the curb. See
also approach width. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
approach speed-the posted or 85th-percentile speed on an approach prior to any geometric
or signing treatments designed to slow speeds.
approach width-the width of the roadway used by approaching traffic upstream of any
changes in width associated with the roundabout. The approach width is typically no more
than half the total roadway width.
apron-the mountable portion of the central islandadjacent to the circulatory roadway. Used
in smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel tracking of large vehicles.
average annual daily traffic-the total volume passing a point or segment of a highway
facility in both directions for one year divided by the number of days in the year (source: HCM
2000).
average effective flare length-term used in the United Kingdom regression models. De-
fined by a geometric construct and is approximately equivalent to the length of flare that can
be effectively used by vehicles. (source: UK Geometric Design of Roundabouts)
AWSC-see all-way stop control.
back of queue-the distance between the yield line of a roundabout and the farthest reach of B
an upstream queue, expressed as a number of vehicles. The vehicles previously stopped at
the front of the queue may be moving (adapted from HCM 2000).
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide • Glossary 1231?
a
usa???
anm?«x?
CONTENTS
benefit-cost analysis-a method of economic evaluation that uses the benefit-cost ratio as
the measure of effectiveness.
benefit-cost ratio-the difference in benefits between an alternative and the no-build sce-
nario, divided by the difference in costs between the alternative and the no-build scenario.
See also incremental benefit-cost ratio.
bulb-out-see curb extension.
C capacity-the maximum sustainable flow rate at which persons or vehicles can be reason-
ably expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specified
time period under a given roadway, geometric, traffic, environmental, and control conditions.
Usually expressed as vehicles per hour, passenger cars per hour, or persons per hour (source:
HCM 2000).
capacity, approach-see approach capacity.
capacity, roundabout-see roundabout capacity.
capital recovery factor-a factor that converts a present value cost into an annualized cost
over a period of n years using an assumed discount rate of i percent.
central island-the raised area in the center of a roundabout around which traffic circulates.
CFR-Code of Federal Regulations.
channelization-the separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite
paths of travel by traffic islands or pavement marking to facilitate the safe and orderly move-
ments of both vehicles and pedestrians (source: 1994 AASHTO Green Book).
circle, inscribed-see inscribed circle.
circular intersection-an intersection that vehicles traverse by circulating around a central
island.
circulating flow-see circulating volume.
circulating path radius-the minimum radius on the fastest through path around the central
island.
circulating traffic-vehicles located on the circulatory roadway.
circulating volume-the total volume in a given period of time on the circulatory roadway
immediately prior to an entrance.
circulatory roadway-the curved path used by vehicles to travel in a counterclockwise fash-
ion around the central island.
circulatory roadway width-the width between the outer edge of the circulatory roadway
and the central island, not including the width of any apron.
circulating speed-the speed vehicles travel at while on the circulatory roadway.
community enhancement roundabout-a roundabout used for aesthetic or community
enhancement reasons, rather than as a solution to traffic problems. When used, often located
in commercial and civic districts.
conflict point-a location where the paths of two vehicles, or a vehicle and a bicycle or
pedestrian, merge, diverge, cross, or queue behind each other.
conflict, crossing-see crossing conflict.
conflict, diverge-see diverge conflict.
conflict, merge-see merge conflict.
conflict, queuing-see queuing conflict.
conflicting flows-the two paths that merge, diverge, cross, or queue behind each other at
a conflict point.
control delay-delay experienced by vehicles at an intersection due to movements at slower
speeds and stops on approaches as vehicles move up in the queue.
,232 Federal Highway Administration
Table 1: Fatal Crashes Involving Large Trucks by State: 1994 - 2004
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
....................................
Arkansas
California
Colorado
......................................
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist of Columbia
......................................
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
....................................
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
.......................................
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
......................................
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
....................................
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
......................
.
.
N .......
. a
orth ..
. Carolin .
North Dakota
Ohio
........................................
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
....................................
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
........................................
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1994
145
5
79
81
319
55
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
8
72
84
342
48
24 24
11 9
2 1
...........................
268 260
182 171
4 3
...........................
36 27
155 153
139 149
...........................
69 64
48 57
91 99
......................
107 79
20 22
69 48
......................
41 33
161 148
75 71
......................
76 98
123 89
17 26
......................
43 41
27 27
8 7
.
70 ..... ... 9...1..
36 39
190 142
175 163
8 7
180 187
70 80
58 62
190 .1
70..........
.....
6 ....
.
3
81 85
5 12
...
......
130 .......
.......
112
314 316
2 6 2 6..........
......
9 .......
12
116 91
51 60
......
.......... 56 ........... ................
47
93 83
19 13
137 155 136 136 143 128 112 130 131
6 7 1 5 4 10 4 5 13
77 67 93 94 91 74 84
.
.
.
. 95
...
.....
.
..
. 88
.........
...
.....
93 ..................
101 ................
93 .....................
86 ..................
100 ..................
88 .......
...
.
...
75 .
...
.
.
.
93 .
.
89
340 338 319 A 304 331 334 313 311 359 2
54
.. 73
........
.......... 46
.............. 60
............
....
.
. 60
.
...
.
.. 75
.
..
.
.
.
. 47
.
..
.
.
. 58
..
............ 60
..
....
..
..
..
.
31 22 .

28 ..
..
1
9 .
.
.
..1 ......
3 ..
.6 .
.
.
..
2
6 ...
..
.
..
1...
.7 .
....
23 .
.
.,
25
13 14 16 9 19 11 16 15 17
4 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 5

260 ............
265 ...............
297 .... ............
294 ..................
279 ..................
303 ..................
320 ...................
314 ..............
322 3
192 208 189 204 189 216 169 201 214
11
. . . .. 3
...... . . .
.
. 3
.
. 3 2 8 4 4 4

37 . . .
.
.. .
28 . .. ..
. . . . . .
. .
23 . . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
25 . ..... . .. .. . . . . . . .
25 . .... . . . .. . . .. . . . .
30 .... . . . . .. . . .. . . . .
28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
37 . . . . . . . . . .. .. .
28
134 155 165 178 152 172 142 162 139
144 143
.
. 156 167 138 120 110 142 139
.............
73 ...
...
..........
74 ...............
77 ......................
92 ..................
78 ..................
70 ..................
61 ...................
56 ..............
58
59 78 72 78 70 73 70 62 76
87
.. 100
.....
............ 94
.....
........ 86
....
.
.
. 85 91 104 108 110
...
87 .
118 .
.
128 .
...
...
........
111 ..................
108 ..................
111 ..................
95 ...................
107 ..............
90
13 21 21 23 24 23 21 13 18
65
... 78
........
.......... 57
........
..
.. 53
.
.
. 58 70 58 55 67
..
32 .
37 .
..
31 .
..
......
.........
35 ..................
45 ..................
27 ..................
22 ...................
34 ..............
37
138 124 139 126 137 115 120 104 104
58
..... 87
.................. 75
................ 83
.................... 73
....
...
..
. 59 75 61
. 64

83
91
102 .
104 .
.
.
....
.
107 ..................
84 ..................
71 ...............
...
61 ..............
81
143 133 145 144 145 118 137 140 132
19 24 18 15 24 25 20 21 14
.....
45 ..................
46 ................
39 .....................
52 ..................
48 ..................
55 ..................
47 ...................
46 ..............
39
39 26 32 38 33 41 29 32 25
11 12 10 9 10 13 14 12 13
.....
79 ...................
79 ...............
66 .....................
56 ........ 7.....9 ..... ........ 7....1 ...... ........ 6.....3 ..... ........ 6.....9 ...... ....... 7.....6..
46 45 40 43 42 45 45 37 52
140 141 128 153 147 128 123 139 121
...... 2...1....3 ...
155 181 ... .. 1 .. 7..........
9 ..... 1...64 .......... ..........6 .....
176 ..................
152 ........................ 1.......72 ..
148 .
S-
9 11 7 18 9 11 16 14 13
181
............ 185
................... 174
............... 183
.................
... 166
...
. 156 182 134 160

83
89
99 .
80 .
..
...........
97 ..................
77 ..................
97 ...................
90 ..............
92
52 68 65 41 51 52 44 49 46
169
. 181 162 187 164 159 157 188 165
...
..
6 .....
..................
2
...............
3
.....................
9
........... 1 .......
........... 5 .......
..................
5
........... 6 ........
..............
5
91 82 109 105 108 99 83 89 97
18
.
. 15
.
........
.. 14
.
.
. 18
. 18 20 16 14 17
..
..

152 ..
.
..
..126 .....1.
1...
3... ....................

149 . .
................

145 .....
1...1...7 .......
.. ................

124
......1..0.....3 ......

........
..... 1.28
391 384 401 1 367 412 422 391 419 383 1
32
...... 45
........
..
........ 45
............... 39
................. 38
.....
.
.. 31
. 34 17 26

9 1
4
9 ....
8 .
..
.. 8 ..... .......... 6 ....... ........ 1...0 ....... ...................
10 ..............
12
104 115 112 94 99 95 82 107 89
65
.
....... 73
.......
....
..... 63
..
. 55 59 55 52 38 50
5.
1 .
4.
9 .
....:.g ..
38 ........... 4? ......
4 ........ 46 .......... ........ 44 .......... ........ 5.....5 ..... ........ 5....1 ....... ....... 5.....6..
84 77 86 72 91 91 85 86 90
11 21 26 21 18 20 23 25 29
US Total 4,373 4,194 4,413 4,614 4,579 4,560 4,573 4,451 4,224 4,335 4,440
Notes: A large truck is defined as a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Analysis Division, FMCSA Sep. 13, 2005
Table 3: Fatalities in Crashes Involving Large Trucks by State: 1994 - 2004
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
..................................
Arkansas
California
Colorado
..................................
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist of Columbia
..................................
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
..................................
Idah
o
Illinois
Indiana
.....................................
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
...........................................
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
...........................................
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
....
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
.......................
.
.
.
.
N orth .. Carolina ..........
North Dakota
Ohio
...........................................
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
.......................................
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
...........................................
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
171 160 152 172 158 161 159 145 128 147 163
5 8 6 7 2 5 4 10 8 5 14
94 90 98
.
.
....
... 73
.................. 125
.................. 108
.....
.......
.
. 105
....
............ 85
..........
..
.... 104
.
.
. 119
...
.
.
.
. 106
..
.
.
.....
91 ..................
102 ......
.
.
.
104 135 109 .
.
.
96 ..
.
118 .
.
98 ....
..
.......
..
98 .
....
.
.
.....
.
109 .........
.
110
386 433 390 409 378 363 374 378 362 370 415
61 53 63 80 61 71 68 95 53 77 69
....... ..
27 ..................
29 ..................
34 ..................
25 ..................
28 .................
21 ...................
34 ..................
29 ..................
18 ....................
24 ..............
25
11 9 14 17 17 11 20 15 17 19 18
2 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 5
.....
310 ..................
290 ..................
305 ..................
308 ..................
352 .................
349 .....................................
310 365 ......................................
376 365 ..............
377
3
214 201 220 254 223 248 219 255 198 232 248
5 3 13
.
. 3
.
...
.
.
.
.
. 3 3 2 8 4 4 4
.....
38 ..................
38 .......
.......
..
40 ....
.
.
.
.
.
34 ..................
28 .................
31 ...................
26 ..................
34 ..................
32 ....................
40 ..............
29
178 171 152 166 184 211 173 200 156 194 158
157 165 166 158
. 181 205 163 135 131 156 157
....
77 ..................
88 ..................
84 ...............
..
89 ..................
92 .................
112 ...................
90 ..................
83 ..................
68 ....................
77 ..............
70
59 68 64 96 86 96 81 80 79 71 94
109 106
..
........... 100
.................. 115
.................. 112
.................. 94
................. 101
...............
.... 107
.
.
..
...
. 122
. 119 124
....
119 .....
97
107
132
157
131 .
126 ....
.
...
.
123 .
.................
114 ...................
130 ..............
100
27 28 15 23 23 25 30 28 22 14 21
79 59
.
.
......... 70
.....
....
......... 84
.........
.....
.... 63
.................. 54
........
....... 63
......
....
.
. 78
.. 63 62 83
45 .... ..
.....
36 3
9 3
9
35 .
.
37 .
..
...
..
51 ..
.........0 ....
3 ..............4 .....
2 ......... 35 .......... ........ 4....1..
186 172 162 150 159 139 156 122 135 117 109
88 78
.
........ 77
.................. 102
.................. 87
.................. 91
......
.
.
.. 89
. 64 86 68 73
....... ....
98 .........
123
99
106
130 .
.
...
..
118 .
..................
123 .................
98 ...................
83 ...................
72 ..............
101
148 97 167 158 183 178 183 139 154 167 158
20 30 21
.
......
..... 27
..
...........
.. 21 19 26 27 26 27 16
....
52 ..................
45 ....
.
.
63 .
..
53 ..................
43 .................
59 ....................
56 .................
68 ...................
59 ...................
56 ..............
49
28 31 44 31 38 44 37 46 32 32 29
8 10
.
.. 12
.
............... 12
.................. 10
.......
..
.. 11
.
. 10 14 15 13 15
......... ....
84 ..............
.
96 .
.
86
92 ....
.
..
72 .....
....
......
60 ....................
94 .................
77 ...................
72 ...................
75 ..............
79
44 47 56 53 46 66 52 59 61 50 63
210 149 161 161 143 177 157 139 132 158 140
207.... ......1.98... ......1.83... ......231.... ......247... ......201... ........191.... .....201.... ...... 169.... ...... 1.6 2.... .....198
9 12 12 12 11 25 10 12 19 16 14
222
.
... 217
.....
..
....
..... 224
.........
.....
.... 220
..............
..... 200
......
..
......... 215
.....
.
......
.
. 189
.
..
..
... 168 203 151 190

.
83
.
. 9
1
9
9 10
5
1
34
.
.
.03
1
.
..
....12 .....
1
......... 9....4 .....
...... 1...30 .........
...................
102
..............
114
64 72 64 80 74 49 52 64 55 65 53
221 196
.. 185
.................. 196
................... 181
........
....... 227 184 185 174 224 189
.....
6 .............
...
3
6
2 .
.
3 .................
9 ....................
1 ..................
6 ..................
5 ...................
6 ..............
5
104 104 111 90 128 118 133 108 101 99 110
17 14
.. 24
.................. 20
................... 15
.............. 23
. 22 21 19 17 18
..... ....
146 ................
129
175
145 ...
125 ...
.............
185 ....................
163 ..................
138 ..................
150 ...................
118 ..............
155
412 381 450 455 479 434 513 486 467 487 468 j
32 34
.. 36
..
......... 57
.
........
.....
. 54 43 39 34 44 21 31
....
10 ................
15 ......
.
10 .
.
.
.
18 .................
9 .................
11 ....................
9 ..................
7 ..................
10 ...................
10 ..............
15
132 98 121 130 131 107 115 110 100 120 98
54
...
..
.. 75
..
..
....... 73
.................. 89
................... 72
................. 63
..
. 72 63 55 46 57
..
......
..
61 ..
..
...
53

60

60

42 .
..............
65 ...................

57 ..................

48 ..................

65 ....................

57 .......... .
..
64
111 96 105 95 107 81 97 108 109 101 107
22 17 16 25 33 25 21 23 32 30 41
US Total 1 5,144 4,918 5,142 5,398 5,395 5,380 5,282 5,111
Notes: A large truck is defined as a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Analysis Division, FMCSA Sep. 13, 2005
Table 2: Large Trucks Involved in Fatal Crashes by State: 1994 - 2004
State 1 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998
1999
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Alabama 153 144 141 167 149 144 153 144 123 148 135
Alaska 5 8 7 7 1 5 4 10 4 5 13
Arizona 80 79 79
............. 72
.................. 98
.................. 108
.................. 100
................... 79
................. 88
................... 102
................. 102
...............
.............................................
Arkansas ....................
85 ..................
96 .....
98 113 105 92 109 102 78 101 93
California 350 364 366 369 365 319 362 365 346 333 381
Colorado
.......... 55
.
.. 51
.................. 55
.................. 75
.................. 52
.................. 60
.................. 65
................... 85
................. 51
................... 61
................. 64
...............
..................................
Connecticut ...
26 25 32 23 29 22 36 28 17 24 27
Delaware 12 9 16 16 18 10 21 11 17 15 18
Dist of Columbia 2 1 4 3
.
....
...
. 1 2 2 1 0 0 5
.............................................

Florida ........ 290... ......... .....281..... .. ...... ........ ....

279.. ... ...
.
....
.284 ......31...... 3.. ... - '--3'-2-7*** .... ...... 302........ .. ... ........335......... ...... 3-5, 1-* ..... .. ....... 343 ........
.....

..
...... 359..
Georgia 193 189 211 218 197 220 208 230 203 208 233
Hawaii 4 3 11
............. 3
..............
... 4
...
......... 3
.
.
..
.
.. 2
. 8 4 4 4
.............................................
Idaho ....................
37 ..................
29 .....
39 .
30 ..
....
23 ..
..
.....
.
.
25 ...........
.......
26 .................
32 ...................
30 ..................
38 ..............
29
Illinois 168 158 147 166 186 193 163 180 159 178 151
Indiana 148 160 160
..
.
...
. 160
......
...
...
... 180
....
...
...
. 191
. 167 133 120 166 166
............................................
Iowa .....................
75 ..................
68 ....
.....
.
.
86 .
.
.
75 .
.
.....
81 .
................
99 ...................
84 .................
76 ...................
67 ..................
62 ..............
60
Kansas 50 59 62 81 78 82 79 78 75 73 85
Kentucky 94 101 92
....... 108
.................. 99
.....
............. 94
.....
.
. 97 95 114 117 123

Louisiana
111
86
89
124 .
142 .
.....
....
120 ...................
113 .................
126 ...................
103 ..................
117 ..............
99
Maine 20 24 13 21 21 25 24 27 21 14 18
Maryland 76 49 66
....
..
... 88
.......
..
...
.. 66
.
..
.... 57 67 76 61 63 76
....
Massachusetts .....
41 ..................
33 ....
...
..
34 ..
.
.
38 ...
.
........
38 .................
35 ...................
46 .................
27 ...................
22 ..................
34 ..............
39
Michigan 173 163 159 127 146 132 147 123 123 110 115
Minnesota
.....
...
. 75 76
.
.
......... 65
.................. 88
.................. 79
................... 86
................. 77
.........
......... 60
.
.
.
.
. 78 62 66
.........................
.
..........
Mississippi ....................
85 .....
.
.
103
88
99
108
111 .
118 ......
.
..
..
.
85 ...................
72 ..................
67 ........64.
84
Missouri 128 93 150 139 155 155 165 129 151 153 145
Montana 17 26 19 24 18 15 24 27 22 21 15
............................................
Nebraska .....
44 ..................
41 ..................
48 ..................
46 ...................
40 .................
58 ...................
52 .................
61 ...................
59 ..................
52 ..............
41
Nevada 28 32 40 27 34 41 36 44 33 36 28
New Hampshire 8 8
... 12
..........
....... 12
.................. 10
..............
.... 9
...
.....
... 10 14 15 13 13
.........
New jersey .....
75 ..............
.
102 .
82
80 .
71 .
.
....
59 ...................
88 .................
76 ...................
69 ..................
85 ..............
87
New Mexico 37 40 53 51 44 48 45 47 57 39 58
New York
.......
.. 195 148 150
..
............. 144
.................. 130
.........
. 159
. 153 134 131 147 128
...
................................
North Carolina .....
186 ..................
178 ..
.
166
195 .
........
232 ..............
..
'190 ...................
173 ..................
186 ..................
166 ..................
160 ..............
182
North Dakota 9 8 10 12 8 18 11 11 18 14 13
Ohio
.
. 197 201 205
.
.
.
.
....... 203
.
................ 187
... 201 189 163 189 147 179
...
.
.......................................
Oklahoma ....................
71 ..................
83 ...
.
.
.
.
89 .
.
97 ...............
105 ..................
82 ..................
107 ..................
84 ..................
108 ..................
104 ..............
97
Oregon 63 66 58 77 67 48 59 52 45 52 47
Pennsylvania 203 184 184
.
. 193
.
...
....
. 178 207 177 181 174 213 209

Rhode Island .....
6 ..................
3 .......
.
........
6 ..
....
....
2 ..................
3 ..................
9 ..................
1 ..................
5 ..................
5 ..................
6 ..............
5
South Carolina 88 90 98 89 118 124 120 106 91 96 102
South Dakota
........................................... 15
.
.. 15
.
..
............. 18
.................. 15
................... 14
.................. 18
..............
. 22
.....
..
...
. 22
..
. 16 14 17
.
Tennessee ..
137 .
.
115
165
130
133 .
..
168 ...
..
.
.
157 .....
..........
129 ..................
130 ..................
113 ..............
141
Texas 333 333 411 411 425 385 447 460 414 448 423
Utah
........................ 27
.. 28
.
................ 33
.................. 47
................... 49
.................. 41
..............
.. 39
.
..
..
...
. 33
.
.
. 38 18 26

Vermont .
..
10 .
12 9 15 10 .
.
8 .
.
...
.
..
.
8 .
..........
....
6 ..................
10 ..................
12 ..............
12
Virginia 126 93 118 120 115 107 112 115 89 122 95
Washington 53 64
..... 69
.................. 77
................... 70
...
.
..
.
. 59 64 56 53 39 52

West Virginia .....
57 .............
50
58
52 .
..
.
.
.....
40 ..................
50 ..................
48 ..................
48 ............ ..
57 ..................
55 ..............
61
Wisconsin 103 85 94 80 90 74 98 95 93 89 94
Wyoming 20 15 11 24 30 25 18 23 27 28 47
US Total 4,644 4,472 4,755 4,917 4,955 4,920 4,995 4,823 4,587 4,721 4,862
Notes: A large truck is defined as a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Analysis Division, FMCSA Sep. 13, 2005
2
3

t-
State Overview
Pagel of 3
?A8d Home .What's Newl .Contacts .Site Guide ?A&I Data .Feedback A8I User Login
State: North Carolina
Select a Report Format: History List of State Crash Reports

North Carolina: Summary of Large Trucks Reported in Crashes
Down
Number of large Trucks 2000 2001 2002 2003
Reported In:
Fatal and Non-Fatal Crashes 4,535 3,248 4,466 4,407
Fatal Crashes 173 186 166 160
load Table Data
2004

4,450
182
Non-Fatal Crashes 4,362 3,062 4,300 4,247 4,268
Injury Crashes -? 2,450 1,731 2,348 2,194 2,230
Towaway Crashes :J L 4,245 3,036 4,197 4,138 4,1851 1
HM Placard Crashes 42 31 29 30 47
Number of:
Fatalities 191 201 169 162 198
Injuries 3,934 2,600 3,613 3,477 3,340
*Non-Fatal distributions are based on the National MCMIS Crash database. It is estimated that the National MCMIS Crash
database contains approximately 95% of all state-reportable crashes for the Nation.
North Carolina: Summary of Buses Reported in Crashes
Down
Number of Buses Reported 2000 2001 2002 2003
In:
Fatal and Non-Fatal Crashes 99 57 67 123 load Table Data
2004

132
Fatal Crashes 0 0 2 ©
Non-Fatal Crashes -? 99 50 65 117
Injury Crashes 71 35 38 75
Towaway Crashes 87 38 58 105
HM Placard Crashes 0 0 0 0 8
124
67
113
0
Number of:
Fatalities 0 9 0 © 0
Injuries 316 129 106 177 231
*Non-Fatal distributions are based on the National MCMIS Crash database. It is estimated that the National MCMIS Crash
database contains approximately 95% of all state-reportable crashes for the Nation.
Data Source: FARS & MCMIS (September 2005 data snapshot)
Number of Buses
Reported in Fatal and Non-Fatal C
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/CrashProfile/st overview.ASP 1/6/2006
State Overview Page 1 of 2
?A&I Home .What's Newl .Contacts .Site Guide ?A&I Data .Feedback ! A&I User
State: North Carolina A Year: 2004
Select a Report Format: Description 4 List of State Crash Reports
Summary of Commercial Motor Vehicles Reported in Crashes
The 'Summary of Commercial Motor Vehicles Reported in Crashes' report identifies
the number of large trucks and buses reported in fatal, non-fatal, injury, towaway,
and HM Placard crashes. The report also identifies the number of fatalities and
injuries reported in large truck and bus crashes for each state for the most recent five
years. The crash data are aggregated to the state level for each profile state and are
provided in table format. The number of total reported crashes, fatal crashes, non-
fatal crashes, and fatalities also are presented in graph format for large trucks and
buses. The fatal crash data are collected from FARS, and the non-fatal crash data
are collected from MCMIS.
Definitions
Fatal crash - A crash where one or more persons dies within 30 days of the crash.
The fatality does not have to occur at the scene of the crash. It includes any person
involved in the crash, including pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as occupants of
the passenger cars and trucks.
Non-fatal crash - A crash where one or more persons has non-fatal injuries
requiring transportation by a vehicle for the purpose of obtaining immediate medical
attention; or one or more of the vehicles were towed away from the scene due to
"disabling damage". The towed vehicle need not be the truck or bus involved in the
crash.
Towaway crash - A crash where one or more of the vehicles were towed away from
the scene due to "disabling damage". The towed vehicle need not be the truck or bus
involved in the crash.
Injury crash - A crash where one or more persons has non-fatal injuries requiring
transportation by a vehicle for the purpose of obtaining immediate medical attention.
HM Placard crash - A crash where the large truck was carrying HM. This is
indicated if the truck displays an HM placard.
Hazardous Material (HM) - HM is any substance or material which has been
determined by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing an
unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce and
which has been so designated under regulations of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Most vehicles carrying HM are required by law to conspicuously
display a placard indicating the class, type or the specific name of the HM cargo. In
addition, vehicles transporting HM in tank cars, cargo tanks, or portable tanks are
required to display the 4-digit hazardous materials number assigned to the specific
material on placards or orange panels.
Injury - One or more persons has non-fatal injuries requiring transportation by a
vehicle for the purpose of obtaining immediate medical attention.
Fatality - One or more persons dies within 30 days of the crash. The fatality does not
have to occur at the scene of the crash. It includes any person involved in the crash,
including pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as occupants of the passenger cars and
trucks.
Data Sources: FARS & MCMIS (September 2005 data snapshot)
CAUTION: Although efforts have been made to provide the most accurate and complete MCMIS Crash data
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/CrashProfile/st-overviewdesc.ASP 1/6/2006
I rA&I Home .What's Newl .Contacts .Site Guide ?A&I Data p-Feedback Aa User Login
spa ,e Federal M*Wr Career Safety Administration
A
:::... rnalymb A Infbrma'tion Online
Feder0111111
I't'ir
Solely Admirnifhral`on
North Carolina - Motor Carrier Safety Fact Sheet
(With select safety data from 2000-2005)
Active Carriers
i NC National
# of Interstate and HM Intrastate Carriers m? 22,948 1? 694,064
# of Power Units s 139,5061 4,712,909
, SafeStat ._.._._ ?..._..._... _,._. _
NC National
# % of State # % of National
SafeStat Scored Carriers ( i
i 288 1.26%1 9,278 1.34%
(Cat A, B, and C) I
SafeStat Scored Carriers ?.-
(Cat A, B, and C) Power Units 3,510 2.52%1 146,877: 3.12%1
Data Source: SafeStat Run Results as of Friday, December 23, 2005. Updated Monthly. For more information go to, SafeStat Online.
State Safety Data Quality
as of September 23, 2005
Overall State Rating
Completeness (Crash) I I
Timeliness (Crash)
w
Timeliness (inspection)
Accuracy (Crash) i
IAccurac (Inspection) I
Overriding Indicator (Consistency) I
I Overall State DQ Rating History
Good
Fair
Poor "
I 09104 12104 03105 06105 091105
Ratings: o
Goode Fair CD Poore Insufficient Data
Data Source: For more information, go to State Safety Data Quality.
FMCSA Grant Funding
CVARS Grants for North Carolina ?? ?? ? ..-...
Fiscal Years (2002-2005)
Award Date
515/2004 Expiration Date
5/4/2005 . ?. Award Amount
$193,350?? _
i vaia source: r•misH, vmce or inronnanon managemem, aaia snapsnoi as or uo/z4/uo.
MCSAP Funding for North Carolina
Fiscal Years (2002-2004)
2002 2003 2004
$4,231,560 $4,613,438
$4,371,021
i uaw source: rmGJA, sarery vrograms nice, Iuzt5/U4.
Large Truck Crash Facts
Number of 1
# Large Trucks
Re orted in:
p 20

NC 00 j
"/° of

National 20

NC 01 1
% of

National 20
i
NC 02
%° of
I
National i 2003
% of
NC
? National 2004
% of
NC
6
I National i
Fatal and Non-
Fatal Crashes

4
535

4
04% ?

248
3

97% i
2 y

4
466

97%1
3

4
407 3
46%J T

450 3
20%
4
(EARS &
MCMIS) , . , . , . ,
. .
,

...,..
Fatal Crashes I [ ' I
j (EARS)
No n-Fatal
Crashes 173

4,359 3.46% ?
??##
4.07% I 186 ?

3,062 3.86%

2.93% 166

4,300 3.62%

3.99% } 160 ? 3.39%

4,247, 3.46% 182 ? 3.74%

4,268 13.18016
t (MCMIS)
Injury Crashes
(MCMIS)
Towaway
Crashes
2,450 'F

4,245
4.52% i

4.29% =
I
2,348

3,03?6
:
i 4.50%

?
3-..19-%- /-
2,348

4,197 ,
4.23%

4.23% ? i
2,194 3.62%

. 4,138 3.68%
2,230 3.55%

4,1853.36%
(MCMIS)
HM Placard ,
1
Crashes (FARS
& MCMIS) 42 1.81% 31
i 1.55% 29
) 1.58%
I 30 1.30%
I I 1.79%
47
Number of
f MCMIS -mm3,934 4.93% 1 2,600 } 3.40% 3,613 4.399/6 3,477 3.90% 3,340 3.65% %
Fatalitiesa 147 2.50% „144 2.73% .^157 2.91%y 134 2.56% p158' 2.77%.
(FARS)

Data Source: FARS & MCMIS (September 2005 data snapshot).
For more information, go to Crash Profiles Online Module.

Large Truck and Bus Fatality Rate Per 100 Million Adjusted Vehicle-Miles Traveled
2002 2003 2004
Fatalities es Adjusted Fatality Fatalities s Adjusted Fatality Fatalities Adjusted ry Fatality
VMT' Rate VMT Rate VMT Rate
National 5,240 221,448 2.4 5,341 224,700 2.4 5,470 211,141 2.3
North
175 7,380 2.4 171 7,503 2.3 204 7,753 2.6
i, Carolina
Fatality Rate History 2002-2004
(
s
2

r

u_
2002 2003 2004
i
-m- National
i
-9North Carolina
J?-?in?• ??.
3 eps?, N?
-NNA,t' 1\ low
(? - National Goal 1.65
?? - State Safety Program Facts
Compliance Reviews (CRs)
Calendar Years 2002-2004 i
2002 2003 2004
, i....Y...n-»ne.w» _ -.........?.._?.......?-i
NC I National NC i National yw.wr,»n >n..m.•rv.ua
NC National
Total # of CRs
y % Satisfactory t 342, 9,293 ; 261 8,344
54.6806 60.15% 51.34% 59.95% 340, 7,623
60.88% I 57.67%

% Conditional 3.68% i 27.44% 34.87% i 28.10% 25.00% I 30.28%
Unsatisfactory 19.01% 9.59% f 12.64% = 9 040
?t -?
'
P-p
0 14.12% 9.16%

o
`.•_-..o .i._ __ _
% Not Rated 2.63%
2.82% 1.15%0
2.91% 0.00%i 2.90
/
! ? ._ ? .„<?.,...,m........,...-..,.?..?..._, ? >
uaia 000[Uu: rrv" ors, ''V "'"o uecenweX co, cwo ud d snaN5X1UL.
For more information go to, Program Measures Compliance Review sub-module.
Roadside Inspections (Rls)
Calendar Years 2002.2004
2002
I ..?.,...w.... 2003
NC _ National NC _ 3? National
I

j Total # of Ris
? 55,97
3,013,652 ?
40,700 ;
3,012,402
2
;Driver OOS Rate 4.90% 7.19 /0 4.88 /° 6.76 /o
Vehicle OOS Rate 4 » _ 12.85% 22.90%, 12.09%0 ' 22.84%
I HM OOS Rate j 4.82%1 ? 5.74% 4.89% 5.27%0
2004
NCT _ National
45,777 3,014,907
2.68% 6.57%°
8.01%µ 23.32%"
5.78% 5.56%0
1 Driver OOS Rate is based on inspection levels 1, 2, and 3.
) Vehicle OOS Rate is based on inspection levels 1 2, and 5.
HM 003 Rate is based on inspection levels 1, 2, and 3 when HM is present.
For more information go to, Program Measures Roadside Inspection sub-module.
Traffic Enforcement (TE)
Calendar Years 2002-2004
X
2002 2003 d 2004
i

_._y..m.,..-..
Total # of TE Violations lNC National
16,419 973,169 NC National
_ 12,9961 1,011 945 NC National
15,628 1,045,300
8
% Specified Violations 45.53% 42.06%° ! 4..,..,....
44.65% 45.42% .........«...,..,
45.81 % » 49.08%
% Serious Violations 26.18% d 24.93% 30.21 %' 24.02%1 31.78% s 23.43%

t % Other Specified Violations 19.36% 3 17.13% i 14.44% 21.41 % 14.03% 25.65%
% Unspecified Violations 54.47% 57.94% 55.35% 54 58°/ 54.19% 50.92%
_ ?
Data Source: FMCSA. MCINIS March 2 M65 data snaoshot.
9.
For more information go to, Program Measures Traffic Enforcement sub-module. " ovM_?. J N}e'sti C
FMCSA Contacts
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite
Main Address & 468,
Main Phone: Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
1 Division Administrator: , Christopher M Hartley m

MCSAP Contacts
Agency NC State Highway Patrol
[phone]
X 5
Program Measures,Roadside Inspections,State Reports,Inspection Level Page 1 of 1
Attention: The print-orientation setting may need to be set to "landscape" in order to print all information on this page
rede+al ivlo1 r C?r'rw
Analysis & In}orrnation Online 5alelpAwlnun strahcn
North Carolina - Roadside Inspection Activity b Inspection Level for Calendar Years
2002 2003 1 1 2004
Inspection Level Inspections OOS Rate' Inspections OOS Rate' Inspections OOS Rate"
Number Percent Driver Vehicle Number Percent Driver Vehicle Number Percent Driver Vehicle
I. Full
11. Walk-Around 11,171
42,261 19.96%
75.50% 5.82% 25.49% 9,654
4.50% 9.43% 28,619 23.72%
70.32% 4.74%
4.64% 20.64%
9.20% 12,684
29,062 27.71%
63.49% 3.09%
2.33% 13.25%
5.72%
III. Driver Only 2,161 3.86% 8.10% 2,017 4.96% 8.87% 3,452 7.54% 4.14%
IV. Special Study 292 0.52% ?? 182 0.45% ? ? 200 0.44% ? ?
V. Terminal 87 0.16% 45.98% 228 0.56% 11.40% 379 0.83% 8.18%
Total 55,972 100.00% 4.90% 12.85% 40,700 100.00% 4.88% 12.09% 45,777 100.00% 2.68% 8.01Y.
• Driver OOS rate is based on Inspection levels 1, 2 and 3.
• Vehicle OOS rate is based on inspection levels 1, 2 and 5.
Data Source: FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) March 25, 2005 data snapshot
http://ai.f ncsa.dot.gov/ProgramMeasures/RI/SR/CONML.asp?ST=NC&RY=2004&R.F=H... 1/6/2006
Program Measures,Roadside Inspections, State Reports,Inspection Level Page 1 of 1
Attention: The print-orientation setting may need to be set to "landscape" in order to print all information on this page
Ftderal fv{olor Cgrrxr
Analysis & information Online Saiety?dmni?trannn'';:
North Carolina - Roadside Inspec tion Activity b Inspection Level for Calendar Year 2004
North Carolina National North Carolina - National Percent Diff.*
Inspection Level Inspections OOS Rate** Inspections 1 1 OOS Rate"
I OOS Rate**

Number

Percent
?
Dnver

Vehicle
?
Number Percent
F?
Driver Vehicle
nspections
?
Driver
i
Vehicle
I. Full
II. Walk-Around 12,684
29,062 27.71%
63.49% 3.09%
2.33% 13.25%
5.72% 1,070,965 35.52%
1,142,477 37.89% 5.08% 28.53%
6.73% 18.87% 22.00%
67.53% -39.18%
65.45% 53.55%
-69.71%
III. Driver Only
IV. Special Study 3,452
200 7.54%
0.44% 4.14%
? ?
? 744,385 24.69%
21,184 0.70% 8.46% ?
?? -69.46%
37.82% -51.01%
V. Terminal 379 0.83% 8.18% 35,896 1.19% 9.33% -30.46% 12.33%
Total 45,777 100.00% 2.68% 8.01% 3,014,907 100.00% 6.57% 23.32% ? ? ?
*The State-National Percent Difference is computed by the following formula:
(State Percent - National Percent) / National Percent
" Driver OOS rate is based on inspection levels 1, 2 and 3.
* Vehicle OOS rate is based on inspection levels 1, 2 and 5.
Data Source: FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) March 25, 2005 data snapshot
http://ai. f nesa.dot.gov/ProgramMeasures/RI/SR/CONML.asp?PTP=&ST=NC&RY=2004&... 1/6/2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 22, 2005
For More Information Contact:
TOM CROSBY (W) 704-569-7733 (H) 704-542-4550 (C) 704-649-
9377
SARAH DAVIS (W) 704-569-7768 (H) 704-395-9232
BERTIE, NEW HANOVER TOP AAA'S 2004 MOST DANGEROUS
COUNTIES' RANKING; TRACTOR TRAILER, MOTORCYCLE
CRASH FREQUENCY HIGHEST IN HAYWOOD AND GRAHAM
COUNTIES
Rural Bertie County in eastern North Carolina became the most
dangerous county, per mile traveled, for fatal crashes in 2004 when
highway deaths skyrocketed from five the previous year to 14,
according to AAA Carolinas.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of a motorist being in a crash and being
injured, per mile driven, remained the greatest in New Hanover
County, which includes the city of Wilmington. It is the sixth
consecutive year New Hanover ranked first in both categories.
Tractor trailer crashes, as a percentage of all traffic crashes, were
highest in rural Haywood County, with its winding, narrow mountain
roads. One of every 10 traffic crashes in Haywood County involved a
tractor trailer.
Tiny Graham County, also in western North Carolina, had the
highest percentage of motorcycle crashes on its winding mountain
roads with scenic views often sought by motorcyclists. One out of
every four Graham County traffic crashes involved a motorcycle.
For the first time, AAA Carolinas looked at the percentage of
motorcycle and tractor trailer crashes in each county.
Statewide, traffic collisions remained relatively steady at 230,577,
while traffic deaths climbed 1.4 percent. Tractor trailer crashes
increased 1.3 percent while tractor trailer fatal crashes climbed 4.3
percent to 120 last year. Motorcycle crashes jumped 13 percent and
deaths were up 22 percent to 117. (See chart).
"Traffic carnage continues to grow in North Carolina," said David E.
Parsons, president and CEO of AAA Carolinas, which analyzes
crash data annually.
"We need local and state traffic safety officials to pay attention to
what is happening on the highways and, hopefully, convince the
legislature to assist in stricter enforcement, more education and
better engineering in those counties that continue to rank high for
traffic crashes," Parsons said.
Motorcycles remain one of the most dangerous modes of
transportation. Property-damage only crashes, in which everyone
could walk away uninjured, occur twice as often as injury collisions
for all types of motor vehicles. However, when a motorcycle is
involved, injury collisions occur six times more frequently than
property-damage crashes.
"When riding a motorcycle and something goes wrong, the danger
factor increases dramatically due to the vulnerability of the
motorcyclist and any passenger," said Parsons. "Many motorcycle
crashes are often not the fault of the motorcyclist but, regardless,
they pay a high price for someone else's poor driver behavior."
Here are the counties where motorcycle crashes accounted for the
largest percentage of all traffic crashes in 2004:
Total crashes: Graham (24 percent), Swain (10 percent) and
Madison (6 percent)
Fatal crashes: Camden (100 percent of all fatal crashes), Graham
(50 percent), Macon (50 percent) and Montgomery (50 percent)
Injury crashes: Graham (45 percent), Swain (17 percent), and
Madison (12 percent)
While some counties have a higher number of total tractor trailer
crashes, the counties where tractor trailers account for a larger
percentage of the total crashes are: Haywood (10 percent), Anson (9
percent) and Polk (8.7 percent).
"In tractor-trailer crashes, 80 percent of time it is the fault of the other
motorist," Parsons said.
"Motorists need to engage in good defensive driving: don't pass on a
big rig's right side, steer clear of their blind spots and don't cut off an
80,000 pound truck that takes the length of a football field to stop."
For total tractor-trailer crashes, but with a much lower percentage of
all traffic crashes in the county, the top counties were Mecklenburg
(1,360 tractor trailer crashes), Wake (612) and Guilford (437).
Overall, the rankings for the most dangerous counties in which a
motorist had the greatest chance of being in a crash per mile
traveled and the number of years in top three:
Fatal crashes: Bertie (1 year), Hertford (1 year), Hoke (3 years)
Injury only: New Hanover (6 years), Graham (2 years),
Mecklenburg (5 years)
Property-damage only: Durham (1 year), Mecklenburg (2 years),
New Hanover (6 years)
Total collisions: New Hanover (6 years), Mecklenburg (9 years),
Pitt (1 year)
Bertie County saw many of their 2004 highway deaths on US
highways 13 and 17, and mostly between 12:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. -
when school lets out.
For 2005, the county is on pace to reduce their deaths in half, said
North Carolina Highway Patrol 1st Sgt. R.T. Futrell.
DMV•:,.'9 (Roy. 9199) THIS REPORT IS FOR THE USE OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE DATA IS COLLECTED FOR
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMMING. DETERMINATIONS OF 00 „or wrife:nThese apace;
3 -FAULT' ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INSURERS OR OF THE STATE'S COURTS.
No. of units involved form of ? I Supplemental Report i Non-Repartablc Fatality
jl Date I County Time--- Tocal Use/Papa . _.. _-.... -- - Date Received by DMV
1
07/14/2005 BRUNSWICK 03:40 050714013BA-01
. _ 10
2 L 33Relnuonto Crash . In L.J?._IIYII_I 23
1 0 Rondwny Surface 1 occurred HNear NORTHWEST or 01.10 Mites N S E W .maids raunicipal.ty,
-
C M.naapehiy
L?Cllf?dC?
A US 74 1.1
- - _ -) ._-. - _ l ea -•---• It. N S E Wr ?
i an Ramp or (R.R. Crossing r o1.0o
3 c....?..,«..........._..., Service Road ,oa ....-.va
2 o L' FAtrom NC 87 I_ll_ 11x117 RP 1438 Lail°dq ------ -
N x toward Longitude I 23
_ I JJJJ
- -- ._ N S E W Albludo -- - I
UNITlr I-.,]VEHICLE I__JPEDESTRIAN I_IHIrrrtRUN [*1 COMMERCIAL UNITS Ix]VEHICLE I IPEDESTRIANI_IHITnRUN[]OTHER _
20 VEHICLE
- Drlver WILLIAM LESTER NORRIS Driver ROBERT CARL ANDERSON
Rrst Middle last Rrst Mlddb Vet
L-2
Address 651 SWAMP FOX HWY W 261 CLUBHOUSE DR SW Address 3

8_....._
2
7.. _
5
city TABOR CITY state _NC zip __28463-
Seme Address on Drivers Drivers H [phone]
License7lxlY
No
I
l Phone W
ee
_ Numbers
D,L. r 4881606.
.
..
' _ NC
..
..... .... -... _. Stets
..
.
..
e
661. Licens -.
..
.
...
-
DOB 05/13/1957 34 Vision 0 35 Physical 1 36 D.L. 1`•
Obstruction •• Condition .. Restrictions
City SUPPLY - - --- State NC Zip 28462._..
Same Address on Drivers Drivers H _(910)864_4523 ----
License? l' Phone
Yes I_.INo Numbers W O.L. _-
r 29691728 NC
State
COL License
DOB 08104/1971 34 Vision 0 35 Physical 5 38 D.L.
_.__.._.,._-_-...-._Obstruction -.._.Condition .... ---Restrictions
--•
Alcohol/ 38 Alcohol/ 39 Results 40 Vehicle 38 Alcohol/ 39 Results 40 Vahicla
-- 00..,(if known) 0 Seizure (DWI) I: I 37 Drugs Alcohol/ Suspected 1 Drugs Test 1 (if known) 5 Seizure (DWI)
gyps Sunpected Drupe Tool
...... . _ . .. , _-.__ . - -.. _. __ ._ ... I
NORRIS
owner WILLIAM LESTER
- -
- Same as Dnver7 1?
>ddroas 651 SWAMP FOX HWY W
_.... . -..... _ . _
..`?
Same Addread es Drlver) I l _ -
--
City TABOR CITY __ State .._NC Zip - 28463
L71182 Plate NC Plate
pl
Y
r
St 2006
ate
?,___
ear .._
ate-_ _..._.._._ _
VIN _4V1WDB_R_H6SN_697992_
VehicleWHITE Vehicle 1995 41Vehicle 14 42Vehic le 0Ye9
Mbke --- '---------- Year ---7---Style(Type) Drivable I_XINa
43 TAD FL-4/BD-7 44 Estimated 40000
. ---------......... _...... Damage - . _.. -- ---° -
Insurance CONTINENTAL
Company ... --- -- ° -.... - -- - -- - -- - -- -.._._._-..
policy r TRK257348431
20 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: Cargo, Carrier Name, Address, Source ---
45 Cargo Body Type - 3 - ? Same Address as Owner?

WILLIAM
LESTER NORRIS
_
_
_
Shipping
651 SWAMP FOX HWY W
TABOR CITY. NC 28463
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Owner ROBERT CARL ANDERSON
Sams am Orwar) I._.
Address 261 CLUBHOUSE DR SW
- Same Address a Driver)
City -SUPPLY - ---- -- state NC Zip 28462
SPY4809 Plate NC Plate 2005
Plater ._.._.-_-•___-__V-_-_,__ State Year -
VIN JNLHS34P2KW00_4835
Vehicle NISSAN - Vehicle 1989 41 Vehicle 1 42 Vehicle 11Y..
Make -- -- Year --Style --Style (Type) ----Drivable ?No
43 TAD RFO-7 / BR-3 44 Estimated 1000
-•-•--------- ---- Damage -- ---• --
Insurance PROGRESSIVE
Company
Policy r 47821895-1 ------ -- - -
Carrier Identification Numbers, GVWR, Axles
Source:
139659
I]rr.ek US DOT#
ICCr Ades on v.hida 6
-
- Including Trailers
ers State NC Slater
?
s FTAr
p
p
1XI Driver FEIr Fleetr Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating
Names and Addresses for All Persons (Unit III Init 2 Drv, Pcd. etc. - See Above); Use check blocks if address same :is
2
0
0
117
119
18
30
19
I)
E(R)
A 1 1 1 d t
a
e a W M 2 0
0 2 1 4 w Whir Towed To/ey: JOHN RUSS WRECKER SERVICE(D) /JOHN RUSS WRECKER SERVIC
er
se
bove L e E
B 2 1 1 Unit 2-0rv I, Ped 2, W M 2 0 0 2 1 4 '
r 2 rowed To/By: COUNTY LINE WRECKER SERVICE(R) / COUNTY LINE WRECKER SEFiVI
Veh
etc. see above _ above -- j
C - _ --

E L

F
G
H
-- -- --- ---
46 Name of EMS A,B-BRUNSWICK COUNTY EMS
A,B-NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL
d7 Injured Taken-CEOTERIWILMIt! rTON tlE----------------
by EMS to (Treatment Facility and City or Town)
46 Name of EMS
47 Injured Taken
by EMS to (Treatment Facility and City or Town)
_ - -r .. ... --
•a rovers or INITIAL
CONTACT unitit 1 2.3.31 VEHICLE INFO. Vetter 1 Vane 2 ROADWAY INFO. WORK ZONE RELATED
------ .. - ._ . ,
Iwote m coeasl 2 20.13 I - ' -- - f -
Unite , _ 80 Authenasd Speed Umit i 5S 55 09 Road FeaNrs 13 78 Warts tone Area I - -
CRASH SEQUENCE (Unit Laval) Undl 1 Units ,2 {I81 Emmara of Ongn• I r waxerg sp••a 55 -_ 5 -I70 Road Character 1 i 79 work Actively I
leg Vehicle MoneuvuAciton 4 8 02 Ea11mNa of speed ar Impact 50 5 71 Road Classification 2 it Worts Area Msrked
50 Non•Molonat Action 83 Tire Impre.mant Oeioro Impact In 1 78 0 7' Road Surface Type 3 I81 Crain Location --"- -- -- - .
51 Nen•Malartsl Location Prior to Impact dt Distance traveled Aber Impact 11172 70 73 Road Conftgurahon 3 TRAILER INFO,_ _ Unitt# 1_ Und• 2
52 Crash Sequence • First Event for This Unit 23 23 80 Emergency Vehicle use 74 Awass Control 3 82 T,Rdw Type 9 0
S] Crash Sequence • second Event 4 2 BB Post Goth I If 'Yet' check block F1 0 75 Number of Lanai tit Trailer No. Aules
?--•?
0 (Inches)
54 Crash Sequence • Third Event - -• - - - ? 87 School Bus • Contact Vehhicle L-,I I . J 78 Traffic Control Type WItlIh
---°------_-?_-'----- ------1--..__...?.__-•-------'---- ----- -- - -- - J--- Length (feel) 53
SS Crab 9equencePounh Evert -- -j- 889ahool BUe_NOnebMeq V•Mele I?- `7 77 Tiefllo Control Opar ------- -.-.-
LL _ __ _ 2nd Trader No. Mi..
Sd Most Harmful Event for This Unit - 23 I 23 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: H02ardaua Malailals Imralvsmani - ----
._...__,_____.?_-.- Width (inches)
IY1
57 DlstanaarDlnnten to Object Struck 0 0 Het Mat Placard 1-11 Yes No L? Prom Placard Indicate: - --"'
_ Hazardous Caro /? LAnglh (feel) ..
58 Vehicle Undarnde/Overnde 2 - 1 Released ,?•,.. F,.a,,,•„?1})1NO 4dlgit placard number or Idptt number from .? -.-
nams from dlamond or box bottom of diannM 82 Unit N Overwrcth Permit 0
so Vehicle 08141:11 0 0 Carrying Hat MN Yee No wnvidth TrW
?? I .. and Ovarwidthe
&4 61?0'1111AM __....' __...-...,. Moods Hama
Intlltlala
Nanh
US74
Ul
-n MEDIAN
r
:r
?t•? 3::::a• y?'
'rl - sea _
? I
-r
C-Ti
i
Unite 1 was L^1 Traveling MIKE US 74 -Unite 2 we* IN Traveling LJI_.lOlx? US 74 L1 Parked Facing N S E W ---- I JParked Facing N S E W on --
85 NARRATIVE w-••••-•-•w--••••M---•- _VEHICLE#1 WAS TRAVELING WEST ON US74. VEHICL_E#2 AND VEHICLE#3 WERE TRAVELING EAST ON
US74 yE) ilk #1 A~EMPT?D A LEFT TURN _ONTO T?iE EA- --UNDDDANeOF U574. FROM A ME XAN CROSSOVER. VE0IC #1 FAIL D-
Q_Y[E,W TO QN-C-OMaGSEAEEIQ-+NQ_aULLE1ZpIBEQTLY-] IO-IHEIRA-VEL-EAIl D-E-YE QLE#2-YEHICLE#2-Q01LaEaWITH
_VFHIQIE#1-Y-_HLQLE/#IWA.aF.U,5HED-OEEIHE_Ei.QAQERQM-THE-[MPAQT YEHJQLE#Z.JACK_KNlE.ED-ANC-)_QAME_LQ_BEQT-EABTI LLY_IN--.-
._1HERDAaWAY-uEH1CLE#3.WAS UNABLE ID SEE.VFHICLEA2AND_SIRLICK V -H(CLE#2_IALTHESBAILEELPORTiDN-OE-THF VEHIrI F
VEHLCLE42-WAS-2USHEa-DE THEROAa1NIO_TEiE-MED.IAN.AND CAME RFST-EACING WEST VEHICLE#3 RAN (REF THE ROAn INTO THE
_-MED AN-AND CAAtE-I_QBESMIN-THEiMED1AN_EACM EAST. _ NOTE-ThE )BNER-QF_VEH1CLE#3 WAS KILLED AS A
_-RESIJLLQE-IHE COLLISION
80 Typer/ NONE ?- Owner Address ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE -- - -- stabs
Phone Property? Estimated
Owne
- -- -------- -- ? Damage S 0
Name WAYNE NELSON Add,.%. 9434 SWALLOW TAIL LN CHARLOTTE NC 28269 -
Phone No. [phone]
PATTERSON,JR
Name HELEN MAY MOSLEY Address 4928 GRINDERS WAY NE, LELAND NC 28451 Phone No. [phone]
Name ROBERT CARL ANDERSON 3900828-9/3900829rd - 5W?Dk fI!' PIOUS DEATH BY MOTOR VEHICLE
Name _ Charge(s) -
Officer Name Officer Number Department Dale of Report
TRP_J A MEMORY, IV - - 1315 STATE HIGHWAY PATROL NCNHP0000 07/14/2005

1'15A'l`7.1h
DMV-349 (Rov. 9199) THIS REPORT IS FOR THE USE OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES. THE DATA IS COLLECTED FOR
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMMING. DETERMINATIONS OF not 4ide in lhcuspdces
"
'
ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INSURERS OR OF THE STATE'S COURTS.
FAULT
3

1 No, of Units ovoived Form 2 of ? ( I Supplemental Report ( Mon-Reportable Catal_L
t
-

Data j
County -
- Time _
..
-- -local Uu/Patrof Area - Data Aeccived Fy DMV
1
" 07/14/2005 BRUNSWICK 03:40 050714013BA-01

1 L 33 nelatwn to Crash IIn
O Roadway Surface 1 occurred 7 Near NORTHWEST
or 01.10 Miles N S E W outame muniapetry
MunKipalny
A
?
[??(X)?

-
- -- US 74-
T on Ramp or (R
...
--
. 01.00
.R, Crooning I
) - --- Mdea ft- N S E W
3 ,.;:,....:.:.u ....::
I Service Rood
- - -- ---
m.
(

2 Lalludis
_-
O At NC 87 RP 1438
_ . ?S?( toward
.
...
From
- -
-
'
....
.
N
....?? ---
---•--
:c.:
......,..
- ?f:.»
:c .- ..
S E E W W
N - x. -- :r.-.«..t...-»
....:'c.?. Longitude --
Altituda
UNITS 3 ..VEHICLE I( PEDESTRIAN [-'(HIT & RUN F^_1 COMMERCIAL UNIT# _ (VEHICLE [PEDESTRIAN (HIT & RUN [:]OTHER
20 VEHICLE
- -- Driver MICHAEL LEE THOMPSON Driver

2 --

Rnt
Mkklle Wt
?
v First First ..-
t Middle - Jrt

5 Address 128 CEDAR FARMS LN Yd
t
__.-.....-.__.._-__.4
._
Address

- 3
--- ROCKY POINT stela NC Zip 28457
Y - , -. ,-
City _ -Slate Zip
Some Address on Drivers Onver's H
- Phone Same Address on Drtvaes Dnvefs H -^ _
Phone
Ltcenee? [XJYes J
(NO Numb
rs W License? (
W
(Yes 1
] No N
b
,•
a -
.
ers
um
2 D.L. 1,1765420 stele NC D.L. 1
• Slots
-
-
_
CDL L cense .._..._._...__
- -
-
-
CDL License ---
10380.L.
12/21/1955 34 Vision 13 3S Physical
?B 34 Vision 35 Physical 38 D.L.
DOB
_
-- Obstruction - -- •• Condition _-._ Restrictions Obstruction ---- Condition .-Restrictions
---•---
I7 7 Alcohol! 7 38 Alcohol/ 39 Results 40 Vehicle
1 5 Vehicle
40
'
37 Alcohol) 38 Alcohol/

$
Drugs Suspected.___._._. Drugs Test -(if known) Seizure (DWI) n -- -
known)
Drupe Suspected --Drugs Tsel -•( Seizure (DWI)
Owner ESTES EXPRESS LINES Owner
Same es Oriver
7-7

Sams as Omer)
Address 3901 W BROAD ST Address

Sams Addrase as Orivsr7 __ _ _
Same Addrets+a OmeH
City RICHMOND HILL y_ - - stets NC__ Zip _284--_-. city _- -•--_--.._..__.___.?_ State Zip
Plate NC Plate 2006
1 LL9969
Pl
Y Plate Plate
--
ate
State •-____-
ear
Plate 1 _,--_,•-_____-- __-_--, Slate Year
VIN 1HSHCAHR33H549840
-
-
_ - - ` - ?_
VIN
t
11
vehicleINTERNTL Vehicle 2003 41 VeIncla 14 42 Vehicle Cycle Vehicle Vehicle 41 Vehicle 42 Vehicle ?Yes
Make --•-----°•-• Yaer -•'----Style (Type) -----Drivable I-?]( No Make ----- Yaer •--.Style (type) Drivable ?No

FD-7 44 Estimated 45000
43 TAO
d3 TAD 44 Estimated
_._- ._..._ ___..._.._?-_...--•- Damage --- ------ -------------- Damage --
Insurance ZURICH Insurance
Company -- ------- - - ------- --- - - -- - - -- --- Company ------- - ---
Policy 1 TRK298362300 Policy
20 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: Cargo, Carrier Name, Address, Source Carrier Identification Numbers, GVWR, Axles
45 Caro Body Type 3 Source:
g y ype - Same Address as Owner? .
?
' IX Truck
ESTES EXPRESS LINES
US DOT1 121018-- ICC1 Ales on Vehicle 6
---- Including Trailers
3901 W BROAD ST - ?p-Pa"Ig
wPert -
Stale NC State 1 IFTA/
RICHMOND HILL, NC 28457 ?D .er FEI1 Fleetif ?*Vehicls
Wepht pabnq
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Names and Addresses for All Persons (Unit I/Unit 2 Drv, Ped, etc. - See Above): Use check blocks itaddress same as
A 3 1 1 Unit I.Orv 1, Pad 1,
etc. see above W M 0 0 0 1 1 1 a?ve Vehl 3 Towed To/By: PARRISH(O) I PARRISH(O)
_
B Unll 2-Drv 2, Pad 2,
etc, see above see
above
Veh! - Towed T./By:
C -
D
E
F
G
H
1 a
23J
123
1J.
0
0
1J
16 .
13
A-BRUNSWICK COUNTY EMS
46 Name of EMS._-__.-_-_-- 46 Name of EMS_-_
A-NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL
47 Injured Taken -GENTER/WILMINGTO4 NC ---- ---- 47 Injured Taken
by EMS to (Treatment Faulty and City or Town) by EMS to (Treatment Facility and City or Town)
ee POINTS OF INITIAL tine 3 1,2,3 VEHICLE INFO. vahr 3 Vehr 0
CONTACT ROADWAY INFO. WORK LONt RELATED '
-
-
I _
-.. -. .. _ .._ I -
I (Write A Cod••) Unllr 0 ._

r 5
- e0 Aulhent •O Sp••d Limn 55
rep Read Fulm• 13 7e Wo,kron. A-
I i
'CRASH SEQUENCE (Unit Lov"I) Unnr 3 IUndr 0 e1 Estimate of Ongmat Traveling Speed 60 70 Road Character _ 170 Wolk AWWY _
L
'ep Vnmte ManeuveuActron 4 I e2 Estimate al Speed I Impact 50 .71 Road Cl.es hesuan 2 W Work Area Merk.d
_ - _ - --
SO Non•Moralist Action e] Tin Imprnelen¦ Sdms Impact
(h) 1134 72 Rood Surface Type 3 61 Crash Location
St Non•Melarul laestlen Pram to Impact e4 Distance traveled ARet Impact (h) 286 73 Reed Configuration 3 TRAILER INFO.
3
0
unM _
unNN _
52 Clash Sequence • First Event Pat Thrs Und 23 e5 Emergency Vehicle Use 74 Access Control ' 3- 62 Trailer Type - - 9 :7-
-
- - _. -
53 Crash Sequence • Second Event
^2
• fb Post Crash Fin d Yu' check block 75 Number of Latin LI Trailer No. Axles - --
1 ) 4 2
_
- (inches)
Widen 54 Crash Sequence Third Event ------- - • - ---- 07 School Sus • Contact Vahhtao 7e Train. Control Typo - - 0 102
548
6 Crash Sequence • Fourth Event
e8 School Bus • Nencemact Vehicle _ I-I ? 77 Tlefflo Cunha Opel --
_
__ 2nd Trader No. Axles
50 Most Hsrmlui Event rot This Unit 23 - COk/MERCIAL VEHICLE; Hazardous Mel adN8 InvoWemen! -
Hot Met Pteaerd 1Yes - No Width (Inches)
57 DUtannNlnctten to Object Struck 0 1) 1._.I prom Ptuatd Indicate:
Length (1.01)
•_---- Huardove Cargo I}(IYes nNO 4•d4t placard numbers ldipu number from - ---
Retuned
?l
3
r.?..,.w
54 Vehicle Un--- - Ovmrlde
....,.,,.?.r name from diamond or box bottom of diamond 63 Unit r ._ Owrwldln perms r
---
50 Vehicle Ddeele -0 Calrymg Mai Met h(IY-9 I. No 0000 3 Over ndth Trailer
and Ovemiffth

Indicate
North
US74
-n MEDIAN xi:i

hl }?
A
TI - _
I s?
y

-- ---.
Unity -3 wu ?Trevelln9 ?LJlxlU US 74
Un11N 0 wu 17Travehny
on
L
-
J
1 Parked Facing N S E W
on -
L,P.A.4 Facing N S E
L
W
e5 NARRATIVE ?- -- --?• ----•- VEHICLEa1 WAS TRAVELING WEST ON US74. VEHICLE#2 AND VE
HICLEa3 WERE TRAVELING EAST ON
_
1574. VF?I1CLEt1 ATTEMPID A LEFT TURN ONTO THE EASTBOUND LANa_OF U574 FROM A MEDIAN CROSSQER b?IC- LE/t1 FAILfD
_
_-IQYIELQJ-QS2LLC.QMING-IEIAE LC-AND-PULLER_Q(REr-TLYIRT_9SHETJ3AVF-LP-AIFLQF-YEHQLE#2Z-VEHICIENZ_CQLLIQEQ_IN.ITH
-VEHICLEk1. V-E ICLE# WAS-P--ILSHEQ. QFF-THE-RQAI? EPLQM THEJMP-ACT YEHICLE#2-JACKKNJFED-ANQ_CAME
T
QBES
AEiTJALLY IN
LP
_
-
.
-
-IHF RnAa%NA` -VEHIc-'I ga_V11A8 UNABLEiQ-SEE.VEHICLE#2-AND_S.TRL1.CK-VENICLE-92I&-THE.TE3AILEfiPORT10N_OFSHEVEN?r.( F
-1LEHICLE,M2-WASP-USEIED=THEROAD_INIQJHEMED AN QNn-MME-REST-FACING_WEELVEHICLEY3_RAN-OEEiIF Roman iNrn THE
._.-MEDIAN_AND-CAMEJQAEST__IRME-MEDJAN.FACINCiEASI- _ -NQTE:IHEJ0ELV_EEiQF_VEHLCLE Z IA?K1L LFD AS A
_BE-SllLLQETHE-BE-LLIS1QN. _

ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE State
SS Type/ Owner Add....
Pn perty7 Fsbhneb d
owner NONE Phone
D
0
?
amage $
WITNESSES
Name WAYNE NELSON Add,,,, 9434 SWALLOW TAIL LN, CHARLOTTE NC 28269 Pho
[phone]
N
ne
o.
PATTERSON,JR
Name HELEN MAY MOSLEY Address 4928 GRINDERS WAY NE, LELAND NC 28451 Phone No. -(910)655_0308
3900828-9/3900829T/AFFWI
ROBERT CARL ANDERSON Ch
0WI!0 ftoUS DEATH BY MOTOR VEHICLE
U VV I
N
,
ame
arge(s)
Name Charge(s)
Officer Name Officer Number Department Data al Report
TRP. J A MEMORY, IV 1315 STATE HIGHWAY PATROL NCNHPO000 07/14/2005
, A 7-49-0 5-
lv 71
AT
F; o aC cn o M 3 a r{ ?+ *r1 c ?.y
CD tJ o .5
in. 0
o -t cn W y )h '
.<
07 77'?7Qv+ O d.p. - VI. .~. b
p, N d O. ,.? n OT N m O <`< O O "3 (' ,j i? " ?dtr
o°_c?x?- N? Z? ?'vo ??' 1 Jai Ed
Uq T.- N .D. d ? LY N t7 = O ry ? ff?1 ? -. I.? :.. 47p f ?;??
?}???•a?nt[o??ro?no • {??
y iL ?d ? 45o
7 a N ?•p''aa .r ? n O' ?' ,,,,, ? }.?-. ?? ? .:, '?:? k ;,? W.?.i
EL CL
FD "rD CD
., q ?. d O. w o d C•"
P.M
o-7 13' S- "'? ni ('J ?_ ti ri o -?.i- .+, 4 , 1 ?• r`
C, t3
- Z _0 CD
n
y k i u ' Ci?.w
07? y r1
Sz
y 7 r1t'` _ 1 i c-
r t c 3
o
O
? d 4 y.
-; rr
N _f
W -
a?
N ?. lh
DMVJ49 (Rev. 9199) THIS REPORT IS FOR THE USE OF THE DMSION OF MOTOR VEHICLES. THE DATA IS COLLECTED FOR
NT HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMMING. DETERMINATIONS OF
tese spaces
o not wnfe rn
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUE
'FAULT' ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INSURERS OR Of THE STATE'S COURT 9
No. of Units involved Forth 1 of 1 ? Supplemental Report ? Non-Reports a FATAL ate eceh etl y
t
me oca se
ate ounty i
2
01/25/2006
NEW HANOVER 04:40
J
060125017BA-B6
1
0
N??? 23
2 L 33 Relation to
1 Crash In WILMINGTON or 02.90 Miles N S E W outside municipality
3 0 Roadway Surface occurred X Neat Q???
C Municipality
? 00.40 Miles n• N S E W
A on US 421 Romp or (R.R. Crossing r< ??-) roti.M... r
11
3 T K,....,,,....-••..-. "" w«. _" 1 W.?..I
Service Road Latitude
1 0 8 At RP 2145 ?xJl??? toward RP 1394

v..lw..."-»«....« ... «....,.
Longitude
23
N X From
u..•..?.... •...w.«.«,•.. "o-w«... N S E W Allilude
[]OTHER
2 VEHICLE []PEDESTRIAN []HIT & RUN
UNIT# 1 [] VEHICLE []PEDESTRIAN []HIT & RUN []X COMMERCIAL UNITS
20 VEHICLE
CARL FRANKLIN
FUTRELL JR
Dr ANDREW
iver BANOZAK Driver
Frst Middle Ust

4 Frst
Last
Middle
1 206 OAKWOOD LN
342 NORTHWEST DR Address

r Address 12
28036 CURRIE state NC Zip 28435 0
DAVIDSON State NC Zip City
City
892-9435
Drivers H (704)
' Drivers H
some Address on Drivers Phone 13
s
Same Address on Driver
Phone
License? [Ey
s ?No N
b
W License? El yes ?No Numbers W
e
ers
um NC
NC r 8443900 State
L
D
2 25355206
D.L. r State .
.
COL License
14
COL License
34 Vision 0 35 Physical j 36 D.L. 1 36 D.L.
12/1611974 34 Vision 13 35 Physical 10
tion Condition ---Restrictions
DO
t
Ob 19
02iO2/1952
DOB Obstruction Condition - Restrictions ruc
s
B

40 Vehicle
l/ 39 Results
h
l
15
7 Alcohol/ 38 Alcohol/ 39 Results
0
0 40 Vehicle
re (DWI) ?
S
i co
o
38 A
37 Alcohol/ 7 Dru s Test 3 (it known) 5 Seizure (DWI) ?
d 9
5 (f known) _
Drugs Suspected 0 Drugs Test e
zu
_ Drugs Suspecte 16
CARL FRANKLIN FUTRELL JR
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION INC owner
Owner
-
$arrte as (Myer?
Same as Driver?
206 OAKWOOD LN
3910 EAST HARRISON ST Address 17
Address
Sams Pddreo as Orivsr7 Same Addrea as Driver?
28435
NC
0
DECATUR State IL Zip 62524 Zip
CURRIE State
City
City
ate
IL
s
Plate
2006 Plate Plate 2006
SRA 1102 State NC Year 18
la a
Plate r P365206 Year Plate Jr
1GCCS19ZORK103158 19
VIN 4V4M19RF01N306571 VIN
42 Vehicle []Yes

VehicIeVOLVO Vehicle 2001 41 Vehicle 15
42 Vehicle Yes CHEV Vehicle 1994 41 Vehicle 2
Va
e X No
Year Style (Type) Drivable
Make Year Style (Type) Drivable ? No k
Make -

43 TAD RBQ-2 44 Estimated 1
2000 FD-7 44 Estimated 8000
43 TAO Damage
Damage
Insurance NATIONWIDE
Insurance OLD REPUBLIC Company
Company
MWML18562 policy r 6132,1538763
olicy
20 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: Cargo, Carrier Name, Address, Source Carrier Identification Numbers, GVWR, Axles
Source:
45 Cargo Body Type 3 ? same Address as Owner?
?
Truck 065616 112713 Asks on vehicle 5
US DOTr ICCr I
rs ---
dvdm
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION INC . p A
n
10083
Sh
ipp
Shipping
? KS IFT tFTA:
State State r
3910 EAST HARRISON ST Dapers 110080
2 ?Dr ver 440594706 Fleetr Dross Vehicle
FEIN Weight Dating
DECATUR, IL 625
4
sses for All Persons (Unit 1/Unit 2 Dry, Ped, etc. -Sea Above): Use check blacks if address same as
d Add
oc oe ?? "a '20 3n 31 32 Names an re
A 1 1 1 that 1-Div 1, pod 1,
ate, see above W M 2 1 0 2 -1 -5 above Vehr Towed To/Br: DESTINATION / DRIVE
B 2 1 1 unk 2-Div 2, Pad 2.
etc. see above W M 2 1 0 1 1 1 asalesvs Veh1 ? Towed Ta/BY: D& N WRECKER / Wf
C
D
E
F
G
H
46 Name of EMS B-MEDICAL EXAMINER 46 Name of EMS
n:,,.n-1 1-1- 13-NEW HANOVER REGIONAL, WILMINGTON 47 Iniured Taken
A7 I
48 POINTS OF INITIAL 1 38
CONTACT Unite _ VEHICLE INFO. - yaha 1 VeAe 2 ROADWAY INFO. WORK ZONE RELATED
(Write in Cade,) Unite 2 2,3 80 Authorized Speed Until 55 55 89 Road Feature 4 78 Workions Area 5
CRASH SEQUENCE (Unit Level) Unit. 1 Unite 2 at Estimate al Original Traveling Speed 5 60 70 Road Character 1 79 Work Activity
49 Vehicle ManauveflAction 8 4 62 Estimate of Speed at Impact 5 60 rJ 71 Road Classification 2 80 Work Area Marked
50 NomMalorlsl Action 80 Tire Impressions Before Impact (h.) 0 0 72 Road Surface Type 4 81 Crash Location
51 Nan•Moforlat Loullon prior to impact 64 Di,tance traveled Alter Impact (ff) 8 7 rk 7] Road Configuration 3 TRAILER INFO. Unite 1 Unit#
52 Crash Sequence - First Event for This Unit 23 23 85 Emergency Vehicle Use t+k l Access Control 1 82 Trailer Type 9 0
SJ Crash Sequence Second Event 88 post Crash Fin (if Yef' check black)

El

El I
75 Number or Lanes
5
I,t Trails, No. Aales
Width (Indies)
1
102
54 Crash Sequence • Third Even 87 School Bus - Contact Vahhicla EJ 78 Traffic Control Typs
0
Length (IUQ
28
55 Crash Sequence - Fouts Event 8a Schaal Bus • Nonnnlect Vehicle 77 Traffic Control Oper
2nd Tnilsr No. gxlu 2
5a Most Harmful Event for This Unit 23 23 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: Hazardous Materials Involvement Width (inches) 102

57 Oalsncer0irsction to Object Struck
0
0 Hag Mat Placard (] Yes ®No From placard indicate: Length (feet) 8

58 Vehicle Underhde/Override

2

1 Hazardous Cargo Yes No
4dgi! plaord number or ldl0it number from
Released u....M w...wv.w name from diamond or box bottom of diamond

87 Unit I_
Ovenndth Trailer
Overwidlh Permit M
59 Vehicle Detects 0 5 Carrying Haz Mat Yes ®No end O.am din
84 DIAGRAM
UI

US-421
mdioare
1
North

W
Y
- .2 2 N
µ --
CJ1

3
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION
INC
Unite 1 -we, OTraveling Q?00 US 421 Unite 2 was ZTraveling ?aao
Parked Facing N S E W on - Parked Facing N S E W on US 421 '
85 NARRATIVE ;•-?••?•••?••-•••••••- .,.-•^•? VEHICLE 1 WAS TRAVELING NORTH ON US 421. VEHICLE 2 WAS TRAVELING SOUTH ON US
421 VEHICLE T FAU FD TO YIELD AS IT WAS MAKING A LEFT TURN INTO PVA YELLOW TRANSPORTATIO N INC VEHICLE 2 STRUCK
VEHICLE 1VEHICLE??VEHICI ES CAME TO REST IN ROADWAY, CAME TO REST IN THE ROADWAY

ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE
88 Type/ Owner Address
owner NONE Phone State
Property? Estimated 0
Damage s
WITNESSES

Nome MARY ERNE Add..,, 6523 MALPASS CORNER RD, CURRIE NC 28435
283-7299
Phone No. (910)
Name Address Phone No.
`
HI .E
Nam. ANDREW BANDZAK Charge(,) MISDEMEANOR Dl AWH BWVt
r
Na••
•wn4
Name Charge(,)
Officer Named / Officer Number Department
TRP. R J ALPHIN, JR ;: Vi?.n? 1438 STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Dale of Report
NCNHPO000 01/25/2006
?0F W A TF9p Michael F. Easley, Governor
?? MCI William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
co r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O < Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
401 Oversight/Express Review, Program Development and
Transportation Permitting Units
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
To:
Company: u
From:
Number of pages
Fax #: _ 93 - ?P)71
Date: ?05-
cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hh ://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands

Np
One
i Caro tna
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/ 10% Post Consumer Paper
. i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HE o_., t, Q V D
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER OS-EHR- 2 U R
czpoy AU G 1 - 2005
NOREMAC ENTERPRISES, LLC, )
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Petitioner, )
V. ) PETITION FOR CONTESTED
CASE HEARING
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, )
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT )
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Respondent. }
NOW COMES PETITIONER, by and through counsel, pursuant to the
terms of Respondent's June 2, 2005 denial letter, 15A NCAC 02H.0504(b), N.C.G.S.
15013-23(f), and Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
files this Petition For Contested Case Hearing challenging the decision of the Division of
Water Quality ("DWQ") within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR") denying Petitioner's application for a 401 water quality certification. In
support, Petitioner says as follows:
Procedural Background
On or about July 19, 2004, Petitioner submitted a modified application to
Respondent in connection with Petitioner's proposed construction and operation of a new
truck stop and travel center, accessible by entry/exit ramps to U. S. Highway 17 and U. S.
Highway 74/76, which center is maximally designed to safely serve fast-growing truck
traffic associated with the Wilmington Port and the City of Wilmington.
2. Earlier, on June 7, 2004, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps")
issued its public notice for Petitioner's project, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act ("CWA") and implementing regulations. As required by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines, the Corps has the legal duty to
assess and resolve the issues of wetlands avoidance, minimization and mitigation,
including the sub-issue of "practicable alternatives."
3. On or about August 31, 2004, representatives of Petitioner and
Respondent met and conducted a site visit to further discuss the 401 certification process
for Petitioner's proposed project.
4. On or about September 13, 2004, Respondent wrote Petitioner requesting
additional information regarding "avoidance and minimization," other existing truck
stops in the larger project area, wetland impact minimization, mitigation, cumulative
impacts, stormwater plans and the nature of the wetlands at the project site. Thereafter,
Petitioner provided additional information to Respondent on each of the requested issues,
and further reduced the wetlands impacts associated with the project.
On February 25, 2005, Respondent wrote Petitioner requesting additional
information regarding avoidance (i.e., consideration of "practicable alternatives"),
minimization (i.e., project configuration on the proposed project site), and mitigation
(i.e., mitigation of actual project wetlands impacts to assure no net loss). Thereafter,
additional information on these issues was provided by Petitioner to Respondent.
6. On or about May 16, 2005, Petitioner submitted a complete application to
Respondent in connection with Petitioner's proposed construction and operation of a new
truck stop and travel center, accessible by entry/exit ramps to U. S. Highway 17 and U. S.
Highway 74/76, which center is maximally designed to safely serve fast-growing truck
traffic associated with the Wilmington Port and the City of Wilmington.
7. On June 2, 2005, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for 401
certification on the stated grounds that existing wetland uses would be removed and
"there are practicable alternatives to this location including the I-40/Holly Shelter Road
and Leland Industrial Park sites as outlined in our February 25, 2005 letter."
Bases For Petitioner's Contested Case
8. Petitioner is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes and implementing regulations. Petitioner owns the
project site; Petitioner is the 401 certification applicant; Petitioner has invested
significant time, effort and money into its truck stop and travel center proposal.
9. This petition for contested case hearing is timely filed.
10. Respondent's actions in denying Petitioner's application for a 401
certification have deprived Petitioner of its ability to realize the fruits of its investments
2
of time, labor, property and money into the truck stop and travel center proposal;
deprived Petitioner of the ability to fully utilize its real property; and otherwise
substantially prejudiced Petitioner's rights.
11. For the reasons set forth in this Petition, and later to be set forth in
Petitioner's Prehearing Statement and at hearing, Respondent's actions in denying
Petitioner's application for a 401 certification constituted agency action: (a) in excess of
Respondent's authority and jurisdiction; (b) that was erroneous; (c) that was taken
without proper procedure; (d) that was arbitrary and capricious; and (e) that involved
actions and omissions not in accord with rule or law.
12. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in, among other things, how
Respondent defined (and failed to properly define) the geographic scope of the relevant
wetland waters identified by Respondent for purposes of assessing loss or degradation of
existing wetland uses.
13. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in, among other things, how
Respondent defined (and failed to properly define) qualitative aspects of the wetland
waters identified by Respondent for purposes of assessing loss or degradation of existing
wetland uses.
14. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in that Respondent has no
legally appropriate definition or standard for defining and/or determining "degradation"
with respect to wetland waters or wetland uses, or for defining the scope, nature and
extent of wetland waters that is relevant for purposes of such analysis.
15. The findings made by Respondent DWQ in its denial letter regarding
"practicable alternatives" were not supported by competent evidence, were arbitrary,
capricious, unlawful and not made with proper procedure.
16. Respondent DWQ's application of the "practicable alternatives" language
set forth in 15A NCAC 02H.0506 was, under the circumstances of this case, unlawful,
arbitrary capricious and without proper procedure.
17. Respondent's failure to properly evaluate and compare alternatives
relative to the project purpose and need, and failures to properly and adequately assess
traffic management and highway safety illustrate, without limitation, some of
Respondent's failings with regard to the practicable alternatives analysis issue.
18. Respondent does not have the proper expertise to adequately assess the
highway traffic management and safety issues referred to by Respondent in its 401
certification denial letter. Respondent engaged in arbitrary, capricious and unlawful
efforts to assess highway safety and traffic management issues, all to the great detriment
of Petitioner, and all in the face of the highly qualified expert analysis submitted by
Petitioner in support of its 401 certification application.
19. North Carolina consistently ranks as one of the least safe states in the
Nation in terms of fatal vehicle accidents involving trucks; further, Brunswick, New
Hanover and Pender counties rank as some of the most dangerous in the State and Nation
in terms of highway traffic safety concerns. Respondent arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully disregarded the substantial traffic management and highway safety superiority
of Petitioner's proposed site in carrying out Respondent's "practicable alternatives"
analysis and denying Petitioner's 401 certification application.
20. Respondent's failure to accept the highly qualified expert opinions and
analysis submitted by Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner's proposed site offers
significant highway safety and traffic management benefits was arbitrary, capricious,
unlawful and without proper procedure.
21. Respondent formulated its own (unqualified) opinions regarding traffic
safety, traffic management and other alternative site characteristics without any credible
basis therefor, thereby constituting arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful agency action, and
agency action taken without proper procedure.
22. Petitioner's proposed site is the only practicably available alternative
within the meaning of applicable state and federal law.
23. Petitioner's proposed site is the only practicably available site that is
geographically centered within the purpose and need area that would allow county
emergency services personnel to timely respond to potential accidents or other homeland
security needs.
4
24. Petitioner's proposed site provides the safest access to major
thoroughfares, and is central to Leland, Navassa and Belville.
25. As confirmed by Petitioner's experts, the Leland Industrial Park sites are
not suitable for a truck stop for highway safety and traffic management reasons;
Respondent's failure to accept these expert conclusions was arbitrary, capricious,
unlawful and without proper procedure.
26. On information and belief, NCDOT officials prefer Petitioner's proposed
site.
27. On information and belief, NCDOT will install an appropriate traffic
signal at Petitioner's proposed site to further improve traffic management and safety.
28. Petitioner's project site is the only "practicable alternative" due to critical
highway traffic management and safety issues - issues that are outside of Respondent's
expertise to properly consider and evaluate.
29. Petitioner's proposed project site is the only "practicable alternative" with
access via highway ramps. Access via highway ramps is necessary to achieve
appropriate levels of highway traffic management and safety.
30. In reaching its 401 certification denial decision, Respondent has
arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully, and improperly elevated the importance of wetlands
protection over that of human life and public safety. Wetlands protection and water
quality protection are very important goals that Respondent is statutorily charged to
further and protect; however, when Respondent elevates such goals over human life and
public safety, and does so by engaging in highway traffic safety and traffic management
analyses where Respondent has no credible expertise, then Respondent's actions become
arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and without proper procedure.
31. Respondent arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully singled out several
alternative sites and deemed them as "practicable" despite the fact that such sites, if used
for Petitioner's truck stop and travel center purposes require hundreds of daily unsafe
traffic movements by slow-moving 18-wheeler tractor trailer trucks, mixed with large
volumes of high speed automobile traffic - including, as an example, hundreds of U-turns
each day across narrow dividing medians to access major through roads. For additional
specific information on these issues, please see the attached two letters from nationally
recognized traffic safety and highway experts, previously provided to Respondent. The
terms of the attached letters are incorporated into this Petition by reference.
32. Federal laws and regulations, including-but-not-limited to regulations and
findings promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the provisions of the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999, combined with North Carolina's receipt of significant
federal highway grants and other funding, require that Respondent give particular weight
to highway safety and traffic management issues in carrying out the 401 certification
process. The decision made by Respondent in this case is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful
and without proper procedure because of Respondents' utter failure to take these laws,
regulations and requirements into account and/or accord them proper weight.
33. In addition to the above arguments, Petitioner also may argue at hearing
that Respondent has no legal authority under North Carolina law to undertake a
practicable alternatives analysis separate and apart from the analysis that federal law
requires be carried out by the Corps under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act
and the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The 401 certification process is not a permit; the relevant
permit is the Section 404 permit issued by the Corps; the Section 401 certification
authority delegated by federal law to Respondent is a derivative process relative to the
Section 404 permit process; Respondent has no legal authority to render a final agency
decision on the so-called sequencing issues defined in the federal 404(b)(1) guidelines
and in Section 404 of the federal CWA.
34. In all events, as carried out in this case, Respondent's denial letter
improperly, unlawfully, arbitrarily and capriciously purported to supplant and replace the
Section 404 review and 404(b)(1) guidelines analysis that federal law requires be carried
out by the Corps.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully requests that a contested case be
commenced, an administrative law judge assigned, and a hearing be held, and that the
assigned Administrative Law Judge issue a Decision finding that Respondent DWQ's
actions in denying Petitioner's 401 certification application were arbitrary and capricious,
unlawful, taken without proper procedure, and not otherwise in accordance with law.
6
This the 29th day of July, 2005.
L Clark Wright, Jr.
N.C. Bar No. 11163 /,
Ward and Davis, LLT
409 Pollock Street
New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-1101 (voice)
252-633-9400 (fax)
Attorneys for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR
CONTESTED CASE HEARING has been duly served upon the persons named below by
depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Daniel C. Oakley, Esq. or
Mary Penny Thompson, Esq.
DENR General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
This the Ag day of July, 2005.
I. Clark Wrighnr.
N.C. Bar No. 011163
Ward and Davis, LLP
409 Pollock Street
New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-1101 (voice)
252-633-9400 (fax)
Attorneys for Petitioner
7
? GiBsON
ENGINEERS, PC
June 7, 2005
Mr. Dan Cameron
Noremac Energy, Inc.
3504 Saint Frances Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
Dear Mr. Cameron:
After reviewing the information package you provided, we agree that from a traffic
standpoint, the preferred site will operate more efficiently and safely. Since all sites have
been eliminated except for sites #3, #4, #10 and the preferred site, these four sites will be
addressed.
Site #3: This site is located at the intersection of Mercantile Street and US 74-76.
According to the 2003 traffic data US 74-76 carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per
day in this area. There is not a median cross-over at Mercantile Street so direct access to
US 74-76 south is prohibited. This movement would be gained by making a right turn
onto US 74-76, merging into the fast lane, then making a U-turn at the median cross-over
at Enterprise. The median width in this area is 60' which is only wide enough for a large
truck to make the turn from the inner lane to the outer lane(AASHTO exhibit 9-92). In
doing this, the trucks have to wait for both south bound lanes to clear before making the
U-tum. The projected number of vehicles using the trucking center is 1200 vehicles per
day (according to the Rs nse to Request or Additional Information for Noremao Truck
Stop & Travel Center) of which 625 are trucks. It is assumed that half the trucks would
be traveling south, making the U-turn; therefore, this is an undesirable design. A.ASHTO
does not recommend allowing large trucks to make U-turns because they are large and
slower thus interfering with the safety of the existing traffic.
Another problem with this location is the close proximity of the acceleration ramp from
Mt. Misery Road. It is approximately 900' from the end of the acceleration ramp to the
center of Mercantile Street. This is not enough distance to develop a right turn lane. A
major conflict will exist when vehicles are accelerating from the ramp to get into the
traffic stream of US 74-76 and the trucks are.slowing down to turn into the site.
Site #4: This site is located on the opposite side of US 74-76 at the intersection of
Enterprise and US 74-76. There is a median cross over at this location that makes for a
better traffic situation than site #3. Assuming that trucks will be entering the site from
Enterprise Street which has access to the median cross-over, even with a four legged
intersection and the addition of turn lanes, there would still be 32 possible conflict points.
The 20,000 cars per day on US 74-76 and the slower speed of the anticipated 625 trucks
accessing this site, create a dangerous situation. The median width on US 74-76 is 60
PO Box 700 • Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
00
, --?-C5;'i i:Li-N1; PORT ;1T C -PI L

feet; therefore inadequate for allowing trucks leaving the site to sit and wait for an
opening to make a left turn onto US 74-76 north without affecting traffic in the thru
lanes.
Site #10: This site would access US 421 via Fleming Street. US421 is a five-lane
roadway section with a 12' center turn lane. US 421, in this area is carrying an average
of 11,000 vehicles per day according to 2003 traffic data. Due to the number and
locations of driveways in this area, it is impossible to develop adequate turn lanes and
storage lanes that will safely handle 625 trucks per day that are projected to use this site.
With the addition of any development, the objective is to preserve the intended function
of the highway and minimize impacts to the existing.traffic. This location is an
undesirable situation because there is no way to eliminate or minimize the additional
conflicts that would be created.
Preferred Site: The preferred site is located off Blackwell Road with access to US 17 to
the west and access to US 74-76 via NC 133 to the cast. The biggest advantage to this
site is the fact that it has multiple access points and has access via an interchange. It
eliminates the conflicts on the major traffic carrying highways since access is to
Blackwell Road. The average daily traffic on Blackwell Road is approximately 2000
according to the 2003 traffic data Access to US 17 to the east is provided by a signalized
intersection at Blackwell Road and US 17. The intersection of Blackwell Road and NC
133 is currently an unsignalized intersection but can be signalized whenever traffic
warrants. NC 133 in the area of the interchange is a four-lane divided section.
Access management has become a major factor to be considered as more and more traffic
is using our highways. The lack of adequate access management of the highway system
and the addition of ' inappropriate direct access to the state highway system is a major
contributor to highway accidents and has been one of the neatest singe factor behind the
functional deterioration of highways in the state. The addition of a major truck
Sincerely,
Gibson Engineers, PC
lends M. Gr?bson, PE
President and Principle-in-Charge
Kaz?
Kathy Lassiter, PE
Senior Project Manager
PO Box 700 • Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
The above opinions are based upon review of information provided to Gibson Engineers.
PC as of June 2, 2005. If additional information is required, please let us know.
The ScapeOate Group, Inc.
7hVivortaa- CoMw 649
June 8, 2005
Mr. Dan R. Cameron, Jr.
Noremac Enterprises, LLC.
3504 St. Francis Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
Re: Expert Report by James E. Scapellato
Noremac Truck Stop and Travel Center
Dear Mr. Cameron:
With a reasonable degree of professional certainty, enclosed are my findings,
opinions, and conclusions expressed in the above referenced matter. The information and
facts relied upon to form my opinions come from review of documents that comprises
part of the administrative record submitted to Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Water
Quality Division, Raleigh, North Carolina in support of Noremac's request for
environmental permit(s). NOM ac Enterprises, LLC has retained the professional
services of the Scapellato Group, Inc. to issue an expert report in this matter.
My opinions expressed herein are premised on more than 36 years of professional
work, education, and training in regulatory and compliance matters in the areas of motor
carrier safety, environmental, public involvement, and Federal-aid highway
preconstruction and construction matters. If necessary, I am willing to testify in any
administrative proceeding or, if necessary, in any court proceeding concerning the
opinions expressed herein.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:
Since January 1999, I currently serve as Vice President of Operations and
Counsel for the Scapellato Group, Inc. (SGI), a transportation consulting company
located on Johns Island, South Carolina. Prior to forming SGI, I worked first for the
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 1
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutions(a4scapgoua.com
8-057 3:37PN1;P0R7 C1T" CAP[-AL pytp3A4cLd6 M 3i 2C
The Scapeliato Group, Inc.
71-W-426- 00-4&q
State of West Virginia for approximately two years as a Field Safety and Research
Specialist and thereafter for U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for more than 28 years. I retired from federal service in January
1999. During my federal career, I held positions in the US DOT as a Senior Executive
Service (SES) Program Manager, Division Administrator, Regional and Assistant
Regional Counsel, and Safety Management Specialist.
Specific to motor carriers, I served as the Federal Highway Administration's
Office of Motor Carriers Director of Research and Standards for five years, and for one
year as the Director of Federal Enforcement and State Programs. As the Director of
Research and Standards, I was responsible for writing and interpreting the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, managing the $10 million driver and truck research program,
and responsible for preparing regulatory interpretive guidance. As the Director of Motor
Carrier Enforcement, I was responsible for developing federal enforcement policy and
procedures for federal and state field investigators and managing the $100 million State
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Grant Program for state roadside enforcement.
As Regional Counsel for the Federal Highway Administration, I served as the
chief legal officer for the Southeast Region of the United States and litigated over 70
environmental cases in various Federal District and Appellate Courts throughout the
Southeast. I have reviewed hundreds of environmental documents for NEPA compliance
and legal sufficiency and have mediated and facilitated negotiated s:.ttlements on many
contested environmental projects and issues. Throughout my 36-year professional career,
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 2
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] Email: SOlUtionsZscapeouD.com
/ S The Scape/ato Group, Inc.
- 7-w-f tr - Coiwrenia
I have dedicated myself to improving highway safety and environmental enhancement
throughout the Nation.'
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS
1. Congress, in 1999, created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) to address truck safety issues from a public policy standpoint.2 Since
creation of the FMCSA, the Secretary of Transportation has deemed safety as the
number one priority of the U.S. Department of Transportation to proactively
fulfill the mandates of Congress.
2. States participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, as a
condition to receiving grant funds, must also adopt the federal regulatory scheme
into state law. 3 The FMCSA has determined that North Carolina has compatible
state safety laws and regulations with those set forth in the federal regulatory
scheme.4 Accordingly, North Carolina's safety requirements governing
inter/intrastate operations of motor carriers in the State are essentially identical to
the federal requirements and have the same force and effect.
3. Besides safety, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), also a modal
administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation, also place
environmental compliance and mitigation as a high priority as a part of the
See attached curriculum vitae for more information on qualifications.
2 See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat 1748 (1999), Section
113(a) and (b).
' The MCSAP is a federal grant program that provides financial assistance to states to reduce the number
and severity of accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles
(CMV).... See 49 C.F.R. § 350.101.
4 Compatible or Compatibility means that State laws and regulations applicable to interstate commerce and
to intrastate movement of hazardous materials are identical to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) aid the Hazardous Materials Regulations OW113) or have the same effect as the FMCSRs; and
that State laws applicable to intrastate commerce are either Identical to or have the same effect as the
FMCSRs or fall within the established limited variances under §§350.341, 350.343, and 350.345 of this
subchapter. See 49 C.F.R. § 355.5.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
Office: 943.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsna.scannoun com
The Scapeltato Group, Inc.
Federal-aid Highway Programs The North Carolina Department of
Transportation is a grant recipient of Federal-aid highway funding and as a
condition must conform to the policies and practices of the Federal
Administrations.
4. As a former federal regulator and attorney, I know of no federal law, regulation,
policy, or grant condition that places wetlands protection above that of safety of
the motoring public. As a matter of statutory construction, the U.S. Congress
spoke clearly to this issue when it passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999, specifically Section 113 (a) and (b). Moreover, the U.S. Congress
vested full authority and responsibility of road safety and construction to the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and its modal administrations as a
means to ensure national uniformity and standardization.6 As a recipient of
federal funding, North Carolina has agreed to conform to the federal statutory and
regulatory scheme.
5. In my experience, projects that have wetland impacts can be properly advanced as
long as appropriate measures are incorporated into the project design for wetland
restoration, mitigation, and preservation. Therefore, projects contributing to a
community's economic viability or quality of life have not been outright barred or
unreasonably held hostage because of adverse wetland impacts. Simply put, if the
opposite result were true, such Agency power and authority would be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law because it would
frustrate the public policy purposes of numerous federal laws.
3 See 23 CFR Part 771, NEPA compliance requirements.
6 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (ANTSA).
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 4
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone]:4 - Email: solutions ?scan¢out).com
The SeapelVto Group, Inc.
adox COMWAWK
6. In my judgment, matters concerning highway safety, geometries, and access
control are matters best left to well trained and qualified individuals within federal
and state departments of transportation, and not to environmental specialists who
have other talents and expertise areas. To allow unqualified persons to influence
these important highway decisions is to essentially play Russian roulette with
public safety. Although wetland protection is in the public interest, such interest
does not trump safety of the motoring public.
7. 1 believe Noremac has made a compelling case for its truck stop and travel center
at the preferred location. The area demographics, pre-existing highway network
and ramps, and port accessibility make this site attractive because it will safely
meet current and future travel demands of the motoring public, especially
interstate truck drivers. With heightened national concern over security, truck
driver hours-of-service, and health aspects of driver fatigue, construction of a
modern track/car facility on a major travel corridor is a welcome investment.
8. As a former researcher, I conducted much of the initial research on truck accident
causation, driver fatigue, hours of service revision, speed control, and truck driver
medical conditions. In my judgment, Noremac's submission to WQD is a fair
representation of applicable safety research. Furthermore, independent research
completed by North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute, American Trucking Associations,
and the AAA confirm safety findings relied upon by the applicant. Therefore, I
concur completely in Noremac's safety findings and conclusions contained in
documents submitted to the WQD.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionascanp-oun.com
The Scapelato Group, Inc.
_ , sly
/ Tkwyo?rortoM i
9. Based on the research I conducted, I have first hand knowledge that tired truck
drivers pose an imminent health risk to other drivers on the road and that
governments have responsibility to help truckers find adequate places to rest.
Further, States have the primary responsibility to maintain highways and to ensure
safe movement of people and goods. A deficient number of public/private truck
stops can negatively impact highway safety, especially with the growing demand
of freight movements. Since North Carolina is ranked in the Top 10 states in fatal
truck crashes, and Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender Counties are ranked in
the Top 25 most dangerous counties, a modern truck stop to service the needs and
expectations of more than 1,200 motorists in the Wilmington area, in my
judgment, will have a positive safety impact on the entire State.
10.1n the United States, it is well recognized that freight movement is escalating at an
alarming rate, especially in port cities. Specifically, at the preferred site, truck
traffic is anticipated to increase by 22 percent in 2005 and double within the next
few years because of the demand at the Wilmington Port. With increased freight
demands and heavier loads, the Nation's highway infrastructure will be put to the
test. Historically, truck travel has been concentrated to interstates and other
nationally designated highways because pavement designs for those roads can
more appropriately handle truckloads of 80,000 lbs. or more. Thus, the preferred
location for the truck center capitalizes on U.S. Highway 74/76/17 and its
supporting ramp infrastructure to provide for safe movement and transition of
fully loaded tractor-trailer rigs from highway to travel center.
11. In addition to highway access, other important social, environmental and
economic factors must be considered as well. Some of these complex factors
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 6
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutigns(a scaoQouu.com

The Scapegato Grow Inc.
sir : T??o
include: cargo types (e.g. hazardous chemicals, nuclear fuel or waste, explosives,
gasoline), social factors (e.g. population centers and demographics, schools and
play areas), environmental factors (e.g. wetlands, natural and cultural resources,
endangered species), and economic development factors (e.g. jobs, taxable
income, economic development and stimulation). In my opinion, the Noremac
submission presents a fair, non-biased representation of these social,
environmental, and economic factors surrounding the proposed undertaking. I see
no evidence in the administrative record that provides a solid basis for selection of
an alternate site over that of the preferred site of 'U.S. Highway 74/76/17 in
Brunswick County, particularly when analyzed against the totality of social,
environmental, and economic factors.
12. The WQD's push for alternate sites 3, 4 or 10 over that of the preferred site is
without merit. Although wetland avoidance is an import public policy goal, it
does not trump other important public policy objectives. Here, it appears that
WQD will either deny or hold in abeyance Noremac's permit application pending
acquiescence to one of the sites the Agency prefers (i.e. sites that totally avoid
wetlands). I find this posturing perplexing since the NCDOT and local officials in
the impact area have all expressed support for the project at the preferred site.
Moreover, local agencies have approved and issued all local permits needed to
build on the preferred site.
13. The proposed truck center anticipates about 1,200 vehicles per day (625 trucks
and 578 cars). Because of this mix of vehicles, safety will be compromised unless
certain highway conflict points are eliminated. For example, properly designed
highway ramps will eliminate dangerous conflict points between cars and trucks
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 7
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsescapQoup.com
0001?
ozo
The ScepeAnto GrouP, Inc.
1 S? 1fan?ortaeoon Co+wrkfrK
and greatly enhance the safety of the motoring public. As aforementioned, the
safety design aspect of this project becomes even more critical because North
Carolina ranks (according to the U.S. DOT) as one of the Top 10 states having the
greatest number of fatal, truck related crashes.
14. Based on my own professional knowledge, Noremac's representation of safety
data, research, and AASHTO highway design principles are fair and consistent
with information frequently used by highway and safety practitioners. In short,
Noremac is not making a sensational statement here.
15. As a former FHWA Division Administrator, I am familiar with AASHTO
highway design standards. In my private consulting capacity, I have completed
environmental assessments and community impact reports that examined several
truck issues in relationship to NEPA compliance. In my opinion the alternatives
that WQD is pushing will not enhance highway safety. Instead, the selection of
Site 3, 4 or 10, based on the information presented, will most likely have an
adverse affect on highway safety. Hypothetically, if Noremac and others were to
acquiesce to WQD staff's wishes and a catastrophic truck fatal accident occurred;
or a child was injured because of the lure of a truck stop next to a soccer complex
adjacent to the most dangerous road in the tri-county area, I doubt seriously if any
person in the WQD would be proud of that result in order to save 11.02 acres of
wetlands. Such legal defense and public and media scrutiny would be left entirely
in the hands of Noremac officials and not with the WQD. Therefore, use of an
alternate that is known to have negative safety consequences solely to save
wetlands is intolerable, particularly in light of the generous wetland mitigation
plan offered by Noremac
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsQscagf_oup.com
The scape0ato Group, Inc.
1fo+?orwtton CosarJa+?
16. Properly designed highway ramps such as those described at the preferred site
provide the safest transition for trucks and cars and will serve to eliminate many
conflict points (i.e. those due to stopping, starting, merging, and turning). Ramp
configuration is desirable, especially when traffic volumes included a high
percentage of trucks. Speed and size differentials between cars and trucks also
have the potential to cause safety conflicts. Ramps and transition roads reduce
this type problem by allowing for the safe transition of trucks and cars on and off
the mainline. The preferred alternative is the only alternative that has ramps,
transition roads, and other conflict resolution attributes that are or could be
prudently constructed.
17. Clearly, in my mind, the preferred site is truly that-the preferred site. This
location is approximately 6 miles from the port and I-40. The land is available at
a reasonable price and large enough to allow 18 truck parking spaces per acre, a
critical economic benchmark for a truck stop. There are no significant problems
with vehicle access to and from the site at this location. Modern and safe ramps
already exist on Highway 74/76/17 that will permit easy transition for trucks on
and off the mainline. Local officials and other potential users (U.S. military, fire
and rescue) all favor this location, even though some wetlands will be impacted.
18. Noremac offers a comprehensive wetland mitigation plan for the taking of 11.02
acres of wetlands at the preferred site. In short, Noremac proposes to WQD
restoration of 22.18 acres of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio, preservation of 110.9 acres at
a 10:1 ratio, all equaling a total acreage of 133.08 (12:1 ratio) and accompanied
by a permanent conservation easement that prevents growth or expansion of the
travel center in the future. In furtherance of its good faith commitment to protect
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 9
Office: 843.557.0122 -Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionsf2scappoup.com
/ MW Scapeage CsrOnp, Inc.
wetlands, Noremac has voluntarily eliminated several services from its planned
facility as a means to preserve wetlands. These services/features include: truck
service center, tire service center, truck wash area, car wash area, and the drop lot.
19. In contrast, all other alternate sites have serious limitations or constraints that
make them less desirable than the preferred site as below described:
a. Site #1 N.C. Highway 132 at I-140-This site has documented access
problems and no transitional roads or ramps. It has site distance and left
turn problems and is a high fatality highway. The truck stop would be too
near schools and the land too expensive to purchase.
b. Site #2 Highway 17 South at Old Town Creek Road-The land has
already been sold.
c. She #3 Leland Industrial Park-This site is too far from the port and I-
40. It has access problems and no transition roads or ramps. The highway
speeds are too fast for safe transition of 625 trucks and 578 cars per day.
Landowners and neighbors object to a truck stop in the area. At this
location Highway 74/76 is a dangerous road with too many highway
conflict points.
d. Site #4 Highway 74/76 Across from Leland Industrial Park- This site
is too far from the port and I-40. It has access problems and no transition
roads or ramps. The highway speeds are too fast for safe transition of 625
trucks and 578 cars per day. Landowners and neighbors object to a truck
stop in the area. At this location Highway 74/76 is a dangerous road with
too many highway conflict points. The land configuration is too small for
the planned truck center, too expensive, and too close to a public park.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 10
l tions.a
Office: 843.557.0122 -Fax: [phone] -Email: aoscan¢oun.com
Ld-GS, _?:37P(A;FOR7 CIT

The Scapellato Group, inc.
7h ww atjon CoMM"V
e. Site #5 Highway 74/76 West and Highway 87-At this site, the truck
center would impact 16.7 acres of wetlands. The site has access and
construction problems because of wetlands, and is too far from the port
and I-40.
f. Sites #6, #7, #8, & #9 Four Quadrants at 1.40 and Holly Shelter
Road-Property owners refuse to sell their land. Owners do not want a
truck stop in the area, the land is too expensive, and the site too far from
port.
g. Site #10 Highway 421 North- This site is too far from the port and I-40.
It has access problems and no transition roads or ramps. The highway is
the most dangerous in the tri-county area and highway speeds are too fast
for safe transition of 625 trucks and 578 cars per day. At this location,
Highway 421 has too many highway conflict points. The land is too
expensive to buy and too expensive to clear (junk yard). There is ground
water contamination from the former landfill that poses complex problems
and the site has no sewer hook-up. Plus, there is a multi field youth soccer
complex adjacent to the site.
h. Site #11 Westgate Business Park-There is no land available, all parcels
have been sold.
i. Site #12 Southside of Blackwell Road-Land parcels are too long and
too narrow to accommodate the truck center. There is a well-established
African-American residential community that would be impacted by the
truck center. Owners of the land refuse to sell and site clean up would be
expensive.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island, SC 29455 11
Office: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] - Email: solutionaa.seapeout).com
The ScapeDato Groouyp.,)<nc.
j. Site #13 Parcels Near Highway 74/76/17 and Blackwell Road-Owners
refuse to sell their land.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS:
1. Commercial establishments (truck stop and travel center) that have access directly
from high-speed, well-traveled roadways such as Highway 421 without transition
roads or ramps can result in unsafe highway conditions. In my experience, such
occurrences will ultimately lead to a disproportionate number of highway
accidents, deaths, and injuries and will be compounded as growth and congestion
increases in the area. Here, the preferred site location and highway configuration
by far provides the best design to avoid this contingency.
2. Public policy objectives for wetland restoration, mitigation, and preservation do
not trump highway safety public policy interests. To the contrary, protection of
human life is by far the supreme objective here. Therefore, leveraging a different
site location for a proposed truck center through the wetland permitting process
does not necessarily further societal interests.
3. In my professional judgment, Noremac has presented a solid case using objective
evidence in a fair and representative manner to support its application for permits
at the preferred location. In my opinion, the Water Quality Division's denial of
Noremac's application for environmental (wetland) reasons is not justified based
on the administrative record before the Agency. I challenge the WQD to produce
a federal or state law that condones putting human lives at high risk to preserve
11.02 acres of wetlands, especially in light of the generous wetland mitigation
plan.
3952 Gift Blvd - Johns Island; SC 29455 12
Officc: 843.557.0122 - Fax: [phone] -- Email: solutionsQ'scapRoup.com
t..
' The &apellltto Group, rnc.
ADDITIONAL OPINIONS:
The above opinions are based upon review of information and documents
provided to me as of June 8, 2005. I reserve the right to modify and/or add to my
opinions if additional information and documents become available that are germane to
this matter.
Very truly yours,
James E. Scapellato
Scapellato Group, Inc.
Attachment
3952 Gift Blvd Johns Island, SC 29455 13
Office: 843.557.0122 Fax: [phone] - Email: soluticns!aZscayaoumcom
WARD AND DA V 1S, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ALFRED D. WARD
ALFRED D. WARD, JR.
JOHN A.J. WARD
MICHAEL SCOTT DAVIS
1. CLARK WRIGHT, JR.
August 1, 2005
Ms. Kim Hausen, Clerk
Office of Administrative Hearings
424 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Filing of Petition For Contested Case Hearing
Noremac v. DENR/DWQ
05-EHR-????
Dear Ms. Hausen:
409 POLLOCK STREET
PO DRAWER 1428
NEW BERN, NC 28563
252.633.1101 FAX [phone]
icvd wardanddavis.com
Enclosed for filing is the original and two copies of Petitioner's Petition For Contested Case
Hearing, which document originally was filed via facsimile transmission earlier today (July 29,
2005). I would be most appreciative if you would file the same and return a stamp-filed copy to me
in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-prepaid envelope.
Please do not hesitate to give me a call should you have any questions or need additional
information.
Very truly yours,
I. Clark Wright, Jr.
ICW:icw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dan Cameron (via e-mail; enclosure via separate e-mail)
Mary Penny Thompson, Esq. (via e-mail; enclosure via separate e-mail)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER 05-EHR-
NOREMAC ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Petitioner,
V.
PETITION FOR CONTESTED
CASE HEARING
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
NOW COMES PETITIONER, by and through counsel, pursuant to the
terms of Respondent's June 2, 2005 denial letter, 15A NCAC 02H.0504(b), N.C.G.S.
15013-23(f), and Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
files this Petition For Contested Case Hearing challenging the decision of the Division of
Water Quality ("DWQ") within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR") denying Petitioner's application for a 401 water quality certification. In
support, Petitioner says as follows:
Procedural Background
On or about July 19, 2004, Petitioner submitted a modified application to
Respondent in connection with Petitioner's proposed construction and operation of a new
truck stop and travel center, accessible by entry/exit ramps to U.S. Highway 17 and U.S.
Highway 74/76, which center is maximally designed to safely serve fast-growing truck
traffic associated with the Wilmington Port and the City of Wilmington.
2. Earlier, on June 7, 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps")
issued its public notice for Petitioner's project, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act ("CWA") and implementing regulations. As required by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines, the Corps has the legal duty to
assess and resolve the issues of wetlands avoidance, minimization and mitigation,
including the sub-issue of "practicable alternatives."
3. On or about August 31, 2004, representatives of Petitioner and
Respondent met and conducted a site visit to further discuss the 401 certification process
for Petitioner's proposed project.
4. On or about September 13, 2004, Respondent wrote Petitioner requesting
additional information regarding "avoidance and minimization," other existing truck
stops in the larger project area, wetland impact minimization, mitigation, cumulative
impacts, stormwater plans and the nature of the wetlands at the project site. Thereafter,
Petitioner provided additional information to Respondent on each of the requested issues,
and further reduced the wetlands impacts associated with the project.
5. On February 25, 2005, Respondent wrote Petitioner requesting additional
information regarding avoidance (i.e., consideration of "practicable alternatives"),
minimization (i.e., project configuration on the proposed project site), and mitigation
(i.e., mitigation of actual project wetlands impacts to assure no net loss). Thereafter,
additional information on these issues was provided by Petitioner to Respondent.
6. On or about May 16, 2005, Petitioner submitted a complete application to
Respondent in connection with Petitioner's proposed construction and operation of a new
truck stop and travel center, accessible by entry/exit ramps to U.S. Highway 17 and U.S.
Highway 74/76, which center is maximally designed to safely serve fast-growing truck
traffic associated with the Wilmington Port and the City of Wilmington.
7. On June 2, 2005, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for 401
certification on the stated grounds that existing wetland uses would be removed and
"there are practicable alternatives to this location including the I-40/Holly Shelter Road
and Leland Industrial Park sites as outlined in our February 25, 2005 letter."
Bases For Petitioner's Contested Case
8. Petitioner is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes and implementing regulations. Petitioner owns the
project site; Petitioner is the 401 certification applicant; Petitioner has invested
significant time, effort and money into its truck stop and travel center proposal.
9. This petition for contested case hearing is timely filed.
10. Respondent's actions in denying Petitioner's application for a 401
certification have deprived Petitioner of its ability to realize the fruits of its investments
2
of time, labor, property and money into the truck stop and travel center proposal;
deprived Petitioner of the ability to fully utilize its real property; and otherwise
substantially prejudiced Petitioner's rights.
11. For the reasons set forth in this Petition, and later to be set forth in
Petitioner's Prehearing Statement and at hearing, Respondent's actions in denying
Petitioner's application for a 401 certification constituted agency action: (a) in excess of
Respondent's authority and jurisdiction; (b) that was erroneous; (c) that was taken
without proper procedure; (d) that was arbitrary and capricious; and (e) that involved
actions and omissions not in accord with rule or law.
12. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in, among other things, how
Respondent defined (and failed to properly define) the geographic scope of the relevant
wetland waters identified by Respondent for purposes of assessing loss or degradation of
existing wetland uses.
13. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in, among other things, how
Respondent defined (and failed to properly define) qualitative aspects of the wetland
waters identified by Respondent for purposes of assessing loss or degradation of existing
wetland uses.
14. Respondent's 401 certification denial was arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully vague, and undertaken without proper procedure in that Respondent has no
legally appropriate definition or standard for defining and/or determining "degradation"
with respect to wetland waters or wetland uses, or for defining the scope, nature and
extent of wetland waters that is relevant for purposes of such analysis.
15. The findings made by Respondent DWQ in its denial letter regarding
"practicable alternatives" were not supported by competent evidence, were arbitrary,
capricious, unlawful and not made with proper procedure.
16. Respondent DWQ's application of the "practicable alternatives" language
set forth in 15A NCAC 02H.0506 was, under the circumstances of this case, unlawful,
arbitrary capricious and without proper procedure.
17. Respondent's failure to properly evaluate and compare alternatives
relative to the project purpose and need, and failures to properly and adequately assess
traffic management and highway safety illustrate, without limitation, some of
Respondent's failings with regard to the practicable alternatives analysis issue.
18. Respondent does not have the proper expertise to adequately assess the
highway traffic management and safety issues referred to by Respondent in its 401
certification denial letter. Respondent engaged in arbitrary, capricious and unlawful
efforts to assess highway safety and traffic management issues, all to the great detriment
of Petitioner, and all in the face of the highly qualified expert analysis submitted by
Petitioner in support of its 401 certification application.
19. North Carolina consistently ranks as one of the least safe states in the
Nation in terms of fatal vehicle accidents involving trucks; further, Brunswick, New
Hanover and Pender counties rank as some of the most dangerous in the State and Nation
in terms of highway traffic safety concerns. Respondent arbitrarily, capriciously and
unlawfully disregarded the substantial traffic management and highway safety superiority
of Petitioner's proposed site in carrying out Respondent's "practicable alternatives"
analysis and denying Petitioner's 401 certification application.
20. Respondent's failure to accept the highly qualified expert opinions and
analysis submitted by Petitioner to the effect that Petitioner's proposed site offers
significant highway safety and traffic management benefits was arbitrary, capricious,
unlawful and without proper procedure.
21. Respondent formulated its own (unqualified) opinions regarding traffic
safety, traffic management and other alternative site characteristics without any credible
basis therefor, thereby constituting arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful agency action, and
agency action taken without proper procedure.
22. Petitioner's proposed site is the only practicably available alternative
within the meaning of applicable state and federal law.
23. Petitioner's proposed site is the only practicably available site that is
geographically centered within the purpose and need area that would allow county
emergency services personnel to timely respond to potential accidents or other homeland
security needs.
4

24. Petitioner's proposed site provides the safest access to major
thoroughfares, and is central to Leland, Navassa and Belville.
25. As confirmed by Petitioner's experts, the Leland Industrial Park sites are
not suitable for a truck stop for highway safety and traffic management reasons;
Respondent's failure to accept these expert conclusions was arbitrary, capricious,
unlawful and without proper procedure.
26. On information and belief, NCDOT officials prefer Petitioner's proposed
site.
27. On information and belief, NCDOT will install an appropriate traffic
signal at Petitioner's proposed site to further improve traffic management and safety.
28. Petitioner's project site is the only "practicable alternative" due to critical
highway traffic management and safety issues - issues that are outside of Respondent's
expertise to properly consider and evaluate.
29. Petitioner's proposed project site is the only "practicable alternative" with
access via highway ramps. Access via highway ramps is necessary to achieve
appropriate levels of highway traffic management and safety.
30. In reaching its 401 certification denial decision, Respondent has
arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully, and improperly elevated the importance of wetlands
protection over that of human life and public safety. Wetlands protection and water
quality protection are very important goals that Respondent is statutorily charged to
further and protect; however, when Respondent elevates such goals over human life and
public safety, and does so by engaging in highway traffic safety and traffic management
analyses where Respondent has no credible expertise, then Respondent's actions become
arbitrary, capricious, unlawful and without proper procedure.
31. Respondent arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully singled out several
alternative sites and deemed them as "practicable" despite the fact that such sites, if used
for Petitioner's truck stop and travel center purposes require hundreds of daily unsafe
traffic movements by slow-moving 18-wheeler tractor trailer trucks, mixed with large
volumes of high speed automobile traffic - including, as an example, hundreds of U-turns
each day across narrow dividing medians to access major through roads. For additional
specific information on these issues, please see the attached two letters from nationally
5
recognized traffic safety and highway experts, previously provided to Respondent. The
terms of the attached letters are incorporated into this Petition by reference.
32. Federal laws and regulations, including-but-not-limited to regulations and
findings promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the provisions of the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999, combined with North Carolina's receipt of significant
federal highway grants and other funding, require that Respondent give particular weight
to highway safety and traffic management issues in carrying out the 401 certification
process. The decision made by Respondent in this case is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful
and without proper procedure because of Respondents' utter failure to take these laws,
regulations and requirements into account and/or accord them proper weight.
33. In addition to the above arguments, Petitioner also may argue at hearing
that Respondent has no legal authority under North Carolina law to undertake a
practicable alternatives analysis separate and apart from the analysis that federal law
requires be carried out by the Corps under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act
and the 404(b)(1) guidelines. The 401 certification process is not a permit; the relevant
permit is the Section 404 permit issued by the Corps; the Section 401 certification
authority delegated by federal law to Respondent is a derivative process relative to the
Section 404 permit process; Respondent has no legal authority to render a final agency
decision on the so-called sequencing issues defined in the federal 404(b)(1) guidelines
and in Section 404 of the federal CWA.
34. In all events, as carried out in this case, Respondent's denial letter
improperly, unlawfully, arbitrarily and capriciously purported to supplant and replace the
Section 404 review and 404(b)(1) guidelines analysis that federal law requires be carried
out by the Corps.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully requests that a contested case be
commenced, an administrative law judge assigned, and a hearing be held, and that the
assigned Administrative Law Judge issue a Decision finding that Respondent DWQ's
actions in denying Petitioner's 401 certification application were arbitrary and capricious,
unlawful, taken without proper procedure, and not otherwise in accordance with law.
6
This the 29th day of July, 2005.
1. Clark Wright, Jr.
N.C. Bar No. 11163
Ward and Davis, LLP
409 Pollock Street
New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-1101 (voice)
252-633-9400 (fax)
Attorneys for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR
CONTESTED CASE HEARING has been duly served upon the persons named below by
depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Daniel C. Oakley, Esq. or
Mary Penny Thompson, Esq.
DENR General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
This the day of July, 2005.
I. Clark Wright, Jr.
N.C. Bar No. 011163
Ward and Davis, LLP
409 Pollock Street
New Bern, NC 28560
252-633-1101 (voice)
252-633-9400 (fax)
Attorneys for Petitioner
7