Speed Management Action Plan for Randolph County: Analysis, Problem Identification, Planning, Implementation

Xu, Guan · 2015 · ROSA P / United States. Federal Highway Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This document presents the Speed Management Action Plan for Randolph County, North Carolina, developed by the Federal Highway Administration to address the county’s high rate of speeding-related crashes. The plan was motivated by data from 2007–2011 showing that nearly 16,000 crashes occurred in the county, with 17% classified as speeding-related—significantly higher than the state average of 10%. Speeding contributed to 35% of fatal and disabling-injury crashes, resulting in an estimated annual cost exceeding $160 million. The primary safety goals are to reduce fatal and injury crashes related to speeding by 10% within five years and to improve overall compliance with speed limits. The plan employs a three-pronged methodology: proactive, comprehensive, and systematic approaches. The proactive approach focuses on planning and designing new or improved roads to be "self-enforcing," ensuring design speeds align with posted limits and land uses. The comprehensive approach coordinates engineering, enforcement, education, and judicial strategies to build community support and deter speeding. The systematic approach uses data-driven screening to identify and prioritize high-crash corridors for targeted treatment. This analysis categorized roads into urban multi-lane, urban two-lane, and rural two-lane corridors, utilizing crash modification factors (CMFs) to estimate the potential safety benefits of specific countermeasures. Key findings identified widespread speeding, inconsistent speed limit setting practices, and inadequate enforcement as major barriers to safety. The plan details specific countermeasures for each corridor type, such as road diets for urban multi-lane roads and curve treatments for rural routes. It also highlights challenges in adjudication, where clogged courts lead to plea agreements that weaken deterrence, and a cultural acceptance of speeding. The document provides prioritized lists of corridors for speed and safety reviews, including segments near schools and curves with high crash frequencies. Economic analyses and crash reduction estimates are provided to justify the implementation of engineering and enforcement strategies. The significance of this plan lies in its structured, multi-year implementation framework designed to foster inter-agency collaboration among state, county, and local stakeholders. By integrating speed management into broader safety programs like the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the plan aims to create a sustainable model for reducing fatalities and injuries. It emphasizes that effective speed management requires more than engineering solutions; it necessitates coordinated enforcement, public education, and consistent policy application to change driver behavior and roadway design standards.

Key finding

Speeding was a contributing factor in 35 percent of fatal and disabling injury crashes in Randolph County between 2007 and 2011, prompting a targeted action plan with a five-year goal to reduce such crashes by 10 percent.

Methodology

dataset

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• speed management
• perceptual countermeasures
• incidence prevalence
• roadway lighting effects
• automated enforcement cameras

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
• Empirical Findings: crash risk outcomes, observational prevalence