Skip to content
FHWA Safety: First graphic from left courtesy of (http://www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden)
Home > Five Percent Reports

Virginia 2006 Five Percent Report

This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code.  Each state’s report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs.  The reports included on this Web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage.  Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site.

Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence—Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports.

Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fiveguidance.htm.

Commonwealth of Virginia
FY 2006-07 Annual Report
Highway Safety Improvement Program

Prepared by the Traffic Engineering Division
August 2006

Chapter 5 Virginia's Top Five Percent Locations with Most Severe Needs

Following the new SAFETEA-LU HSIP requirements [Section 148 (c) (1) (D)] for reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has identified the top 5 percent of high crash locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs statewide. Further, VDOT has proposed countermeasures for improving safety with an estimate of the associated costs based on a safety assessment of the identified locations.

VDOT is fortunate that it maintains 80 percent of the 72 thousand miles of public roadways in Virginia. As such, VDOT keeps detailed records on road inventory, traffic volume history and crashes in a related database called the Highway Traffic Records Inventory System (HTRIS) for roadways maintained. The sections below describe the method used to identify the top five percent high crash locations and then to develop suggested countermeasures and costs.

5.1 Methodology for Identify High Crash Locations

HTRIS is a legacy mainframe database that functions using batch file query outputs to printers to run predetermined reports. The quality control method, a statistical analysis method, is used by HTRIS to identify high crash locations on VDOT-maintained roadways. This method compares crash rates of individual locations with the crash rates of all similar locations by road functional classification over the same period of time within the nine VDOT construction districts. The locations exceeding average crash rates are identified as problem locations with a 95 percent confidence interval. As such, VDOT district-wide average crash and critical rates are calculated for roadway section and intersection configuration categories. Recently, database code has been developed to provide electronic summary data for the high-crash locations previously printed. The most recent available 2004 HTRIS data was used to create listings of crash location data classified by district, intersection and segment for a calendar year. VDOT used the district-based information as the basis for identifying the top five percent of the statewide high crash locations.

To include all problem locations that are not part of the VDOT maintained system, VDOT requested each city jurisdiction to identify the top 10 high crash and/or severe crash intersections and top 10 segments. The information was received by e-mail and letters to be compared with HTRIS results for the VDOT systems. Limited information on high crash locations was provided by the larger cities. So, rather than skew the findings to a few non-VDOT maintained jurisdication networks only the VDOT systems are reported. In coming years better coordination and data systems will be necessary to cover the entire roadway network in Virginia.

The top five percent of the most hazardous crash locations in 2004 were identified using the following procedure on the VDOT systems:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

5.2 Crash Data Analysis and Results

Analysis of identified crash locations from HTRIS was completed and provided the following results. Table 5.1 provides a summary of crash and critical rates by district. Fatal and injury crash frequency for intersections, and fatal and injury crash density for segments are shown in Table 5.2. Northern Virginia (NOVA) district, which is the largest urbanized area, has 38 percent and 28 percent of the high severe crash intersections and segments, respectively. Also, the highest crash intersection and crash density segment is located in the NoVA district.

Table 5-1 2004 Above Average Crash Rate and Critical Rate Statistics by District

Intersections

DISTRICT No. Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate(1)
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Bristol 56 .35 15.93 1.66 .21 .71 .29
Salem 192 .22 12.45 .98 .22 2.59 .35
Lynchburg 86 .23 4.83 1.19 .22 1.36 .48
Richmond 453 .17 9.34 1.12 .26 2.52 .48
Hampton Roads 119 .15 44.91 1.34 .20 1.11 .39
Fredericksburg 241 .12 5.89 1.01 .23 .81 .40
Culpeper 188 .16 8.25 1.23 .29 1.71 .46
Staunton 122 .27 7.15 1.25 .23 .64 .35
Northern Virginia 902 .09 40.29 1.00 .12 .77 .49
State Total 2359 .86 44.91 1.09 .12 2.59 .45

(1) Rate per Million Entering Vehicles

Segments

DISTRICT No. Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate(2)
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Bristol 103 84.86 5747.68 659.69 76.35 1627.34 287.21
Salem 182 62.20 7209.81 601.63 59.18 874.03 195.31
Lynchburg 68 128.95 7979.79 804.21 50.21 1410.80 372.53
Richmond 357 62.59 58708.42 724.45 42.07 1776.71 616.32
Hampton Roads 235 67.06 4348.77 370.00 .000 1702.32 210.58
Fredericksburg 186 50.92 3173.43 442.60 52.67 556.88 177.63
Culpeper 160 91.48 8473.38 656.44 88.95 1241.85 377.20
Staunton 187 85.58 11415.53 516.75 80.39 1695.92 294.45
Northern Virginia 568 52.59 19226.15 505.88 .000 1219.30 684.75
State Total 2046 50.92 58708.42 561.60 .000 1776.71 477.25

(2) Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

Table 5-2 2004 Fatal and Injury Location Crash Statistics by District Intersections (F+I Crash Frequency)

District No. Min Max Mean
Bristol 56 0 5 2.00
Salem 192 0 10 1.82
Lynchburg 86 0 8 2.02
Richmond 453 0 17 2.27
Hampton Roads 119 0 11 2.30
Fredericksburg 241 0 12 2.16
Culpeper 188 0 18 2.22
Staunton 122 0 7 1.85
Northern Virginia 902 0 26 3.90
State Total 2359 0 26 2.81

Segments (F+I Crash Density)

District No. Min Max Mean
Bristol 103 .00 20.00 6.99
Salem 182 .00 32.97 6.40
Lynchburg 68 .00 25.00 5.69
Richmond 357 .00 53.29 8.89
Hampton Roads 235 .00 50.00 10.59
Fredericksburg 186 .00 38.71 7.18
Culpeper 160 .00 27.50 7.03
Staunton 187 .00 27.50 5.74
Northern Virginia 568 .00 72.73 13.4
State Total 2046 .00 72.73 9.33

Table 5-3 provides a comparison between the top five percent (2.5 percent of both intersections and segments) location and statewide crash rates, total number of crashes, and fatal and injury crash frequency. The top five percent of hazardous locations consist of twenty intersections and sixteen segments. As is shown in Table 5-2, the frequency and density of fatal and injury crashes of the top five percent were more than four times higher than the statewide average.

Table 5-3 Top Five Percent of High Crash Locations

Intersections (F+I Crash Frequency)

  N Min Max Mean
Crash Rate Top 2.5% 20 1.18 14.83 2.64
Statewide 2359 .09 44.91 1.09
Total Crashes Top 2.5% 20 12 62 29.25
Statewide 2359 3 62 7.74
Fat + Inj Crash
Frequency		 Top 2.5% 20 8 26 13.75
Statewide 2359 0 26 2.81

Segments (F+I Crash Density)

  N Min Max Mean
Crash Rate Top 2.5% 16 593.04 1495.92 878.83
Statewide 2046 50.92 58708.42 561.60
Total Crashes Top 2.5% 16 28 129 58.50
Statewide 2046 3 279 17.47
Fat + Inj Crash
Density		 Top 2.5% 16 27.87 72.73 44.77
Statewide 2046 .00 72.73 9.33

Figure 5-1 provides information for the top five percent of hazardous locations classified by jurisdictions, district, and signalized and un-signalized intersection. Additional location specific descriptions and information are provided in the next section reporting the safety assessments and proposed countermeasures.

Figure 5-1 Top Five Percent of the Hazardous Locations

(a) Top 2.5 Percent of Hazardous Intersections

(b) Top 2.5 Percent of Hazardous Segments

5-3 Assessment of Top Five Percent High Crash Locations

To determine feasible safety countermeasures for the identified high crash roadway segments and intersections, an in-house safety assessment was conducted using available data and information. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 provide information that identifies the high crash locations with the exposure and crash frequencies during 2004 for intersections and segments, respectively. Collision types for the recorded crashes were also reviewed to determine potential countermeasures. VDOT inventory, 2002 aerial photos and video logs (1999-2002) of the routes were used to determine existing conditions. Snap-shots of aerial photos for the sites are provided in Appendix B

Based on the reviews, lower cost and high cost countermeasures were proposed based on expected time to complete, impacts and costs. Detailed costs were not developed; rather generic estimates were developed based on similar recent safety project costs. For high impact and cost countermeasures, a lower limit of expected costs is provided given the uncertainty with right-of-way and utility impacts. For all proposed countermeasures, field review of conditions will be necessary to determine the feasibility of the improvements and whether any other options are available.

Tables 5-6 and 5-7 provide existing conditions information with the proposed low and high cost countermeasures with the associated cost estimates. Countermeasures range from signing and marking to construction of an interchange with costs from $5,000 to $20 million or more. Impediments to implementation are primarily the associated right-of-way impacts and costs; however, access management may also be difficult without major reconstruction.

Table 5-4 Top 2.5 Percent Hazardous Intersection Characteristics

INT ID DISTRICT COUNTY CTR DEV NODE ENT ADT INT CON INT APP 1 INT APP 2 INT APP 3 INT APP 4 INT APP 5 TOT CRA F + I CRA
RTE PRE RTE NUM RTE PRE RTE NUM RTE PRE RTE NUM RTE PRE RTE NUM RTE PRE RTE NUM
Int 1 Richmond Chesterfield Sig 203381 57,651 3 US 00060 US 00060 20 00645         37 17
Int 2 Richmond Hanover Sig 373253 46,010 5 US 00360 US 00360 42 00642 42 00642 42 01117 34 17
Int 3 Hampton Roads James City Unsig 398051 17,247 3 SR 00322 47 00612 47 00612         12 8
Int 4 Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Unsig 616315 28,068 3 US 00001 US 00001 88 00677         14 8
Int 5 Culpeper Albemarle Sig 110126 72,764 4 US 00029 US 00029 2 00631 2 00631     45 18
Int 6 Culpeper Albemarle Unsig 710694 40,068 3 US 00029 US 00029 2 01721         21 9
Int 7 Culpeper Culpeper Unsig 233223 23,520 5 US 00029 US 00029 23 00666 23 00666 23 00667 15 8
Int 8 NOVA Fairfax Sig 264849 60,808 4 SR 00236 SR 00236 29 00713 29 00713     62 26
Int 9 NOVA Fairfax Sig 263203 28,998 3 29 00613 29 00613 29 08113         45 22
Int 10 NOVA Fairfax Sig 263290 60,692 4 29 00617 29 00617 29 00620 29 00620     35 17
Int 11 NOVA Fairfax Sig 264119 79,269 3 SR 00028 SR 00028 29 00657         34 17
Int 12 NOVA Fairfax Unsig 272564 39,912 3 US 00001 US 00001 29 05282         25 13
Int 13 NOVA Fairfax Unsig 265012 42,948 3 SR 00007 SR 00007 29 00773         22 8
Int 14 NOVA Fairfax Unsig 732636 16,791 3 29 08690 29 08690 29 08699         17 11
Int 15 NOVA Fairfax Unsig 263615 16,024 4 29 00636 29 00636 29 00641 29 00641     16 11
Int 16 NOVA Prince William Sig 549349 57,864 3 SR 00055 US 00029 US 00029         52 17
Int 17 NOVA Prince William Sig 547483 67,888 4 SR 00234 SR 00234 76 01566 76 01566     50 23
Int 18 NOVA Prince William Unsig 547903 38,373 3 US 00001 US 00001 76 01901         19 9
Int 19 NOVA Prince William Unsig 546138 23,739 3 76 00621 76 00621 76 00622         16 8
Int 20 NOVA Prince William Unsig 547722 2,586 3 76 01780 76 01781 76 01781         14 8

Table 5-5 Top 2.5 Percent Hazardous Segment Characteristics

SEG ID DIST COUNT SYS FUN CLASS RTE PRE RTE NUM FR NODE NODE OFF TO NODE NODE OFF 1 LEN FR NODE DESCRIPTION TO NODE DESCRIPTION DVMT NUM CRA F + I Den
Seg 1 Rich Henrico P Urb Prin Art US 00360 50693 0.000 378870 0.019 0.319 JB-43-20127/HENRICO CL/ECL RICH MST CLAIRE LANE(R)/ 11790 33 53.29
Seg 2 Hamp Norfolk IS Urb IS IS 00064W 50625 0.090 483179 0.500 0.610 JB-27-64-114-122/ECL HAMPTON-WCL IS-00064-W272A(L)/TO OCEAN VIEW A 12454 68 27.87
Seg 3 NOVA Arlington P Urb Prin Art SR 00120 100310 0.363 100306 0.000 0.357 0006602(R)/6602/WES T GLEBE RD S JOYCE STREET(L)/ 10386 28 50.42
Seg 4 NOVA Fairfax S Urb Prin Art 29 07100 715731 0.400 715737 0.000 0.780 29-00665(B)/ RAMP FROM RT 267(R)/RAMP TO RT 26 36258 93 44.87
Seg 5 NOVA Fairfax S Urb Min Art 29 00640 276819 0.000 263811 0.009 0.679 29-00789(B)/EAST 29-03579(L)/ 27100 73 36.82
Seg 6 NOVA Fairfax P Urb Prin Art US 00001 266387 0.000 267145 0.093 0.403 FR-00744(L)/2901401(B)/ FR-00744(L)/2901779(L)/ 24947 54 49.63
Seg 7 NOVA Fairfax S Urb Min Art 29 00644 263802 0.000 263272 0.051 0.441 29-00789(L)/WEST 29-00617/ 22313 53 38.55
Seg 8 NOVA Fairfax P Urb Prin Art SR 00007 269283 0.000 265089 0.086 0.326 29-03024(L)/ 29-00794(R)/ 13795 47 52.15
Seg 9 NOVA Fairfax S Urb Min Art 29 00620 263375 0.000 719523 0.095 0.365 SR-00123(B)/ ROANOKE LANE(L)/ 13345 44 41.10
Seg 10 NOVA Fairfax S Urb Min Art 29 00613 263202 0.264 276350 0.025 0.451 29-01377(L)/2908695(R)/ 29-00635(L)/Gap Terminus/ 9677 41 35.48
Seg 11 NOVA Prince William P Urb Prin Art US 00001 549287 0.012 547112 0.006 1.014 MELLOTT RD(L)/ 76-01317(R)/ 36381 129 50.30
Seg 12 NOVA Prince William S Urb Min Art 76 00784 546650 0.000 735487 0.038 0.678 76-01811(B)/ ENT TO ASHDALE PLAZA(L)/ 28782 74 42.77
Seg 13 NOVA Prince William P Urb Min Art C1SR 00234 547405 0.244 547357 0.009 0.385 76-01530(B)/ 76-01500(L)/ 18378 68 72.73
Seg 14 NOVA Prince William S Urb Min Art 76 00784 726291 0.000 719675 0.000 0.380 76-02491(R)/ FORESTDALE PLAZA ROAD(L)/ 11345 53 52.63
Seg 15 NOVA Prince William S Urb Min Art 76 00641 703564 0.000 546283 0.000 0.500 76-02214(R)/ 76-02000(B)/ 16590 40 34.00
Seg 16 NOVA Prince William S Urb Min Art 76 00640 548756 0.000 546051 0.005 0.355 76-00610(R)/7602245(L)/ 76-02025(L)/7601760(R)/ 13922 38 33.80

Table 5-6 Top 2.5 Percent Hazardous Intersections Proposed Countermeasures and Cost Estimates

INT ID LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS POTENTIAL REMEDITIES ESTIMATED COSTS IMPLEMENTATION IMPEDIMENTS
VDOT DISTRICT COUNTY INT @ROUTE 1 INT @ROUTE 2
Int 1 Richmond Chesterfield US 60 645 1. Six-lane divided 45 mph urban arterial intersect with four lane undivided secondary road and a private driveway to a mall
2. More than three accesses in 740 ft on Rt. US 60 EB between Rt. SR 645 and Rt. 653
3. Two thru lanes and exclusive left/right turn lane on Rt. US 60
4. One share/left turn and One exclusive right on Rt. 645
5. Signalized intersection
6. 1/3 rear end, over half angle crashes, most on Rt. US 60		 High Cost
1. Add exclusive left turn lane and signal on minor street (Rt. 645 and mall driveway) if the left turn volume justify.
2. Extend right turn lane along Rt. US 60 both directions and add a second left turn lane into the mall coupled with access management

High Cost
1. $300K
2. $500K

 - ROW and restricting access
Int 2 Richmond Hanover US 360 642 1. Four-lane divided 45 mph urban arterial intersect with four lane divided road
2. Three thru lanes and one left/right exclusive lane on Rt. US 360 approaches; Two exclusive let turn lane and one thru lane on Rt. SR 642
3. High percentage (62%)of rear end, mainly on Rt. US 360		 Low Cost
1. Increase the yellow interval of signal
High Cost
1. Extend the Rt. 295 ramp lane through the intersection; provide RT at signal, close RT channelization
2. Extend LT on Rt. US 360 EB
3. Relocate the side street connection to Rt. 360 and remove existing signal and close crossover		 Low Cost
1. $5K High Cost
1. $600K
2. $300K
3. $1M +		  
Int 3 Hampton Roads James City SR 322 612 1. Two-lane undivided intersect with two lane undivided
2. Stop sign controlled T-intersection
3. 11 out of 12 crashes are angle
4. Sight distances problem (trees on the west side of Rt. 612, stop bar back from the intersection)		 Low Cost
1. Reduce the speed limit on Rt. SR 612
2. Move stop bar closer to intersection High Cost
1. Add signal		 Low Cost
1-2. $7K
High Cost
1. 180K		  
Int 4 Fred'burg Spotsylvania US 1 677 1.Comlicated intersection (Five legs with frontage road), Rt. US 1 is four lane divided 45 mph; Rt. SR 677 undivided unmarked road, Rt. SR 620 undivided two lanes
2. Stop signed controlled on Rt. 677 and frontage road?
3. 40% rear end, and 50% angle crashes, most on Rt. US 1

Low Cost
1. Optimize the yellow interval
2. Reduce the speed limit on Rt. US 1 to 35 mph or 40mph near the intersection
3. Marking improvement through intersection

High Cost
1. Close FR on SB Rt. US 1
2. Add lane on WB Rt. 620

Low Cost
1-3. $12K

High Cost
1. $100K
2. $500K

 - ROW impacts and cost
Int 5 Culpeper Albemarle US 29 631 1.Eight-lane divided 45 mph highway intersect four lane divided roadway
2. Two exclusive left turn lanes and two thru lanes and one exclusive right turn lane on Rt. SR 631 approaches
3. Four thru lanes and two exclusive left turn lane and right turn channelization
4. Skewed intersection,
5. High percentage of rear end on Rt. SR631, frequent rear end and angle crashes on Rt. US 29

Low Cost
1. Signal Optimization
2. Marking improvement through intersection
3. Install/improve advance intersection warning on Rt. SR 631

High Cost
1. Realign intersection

Low Cost
1. $5K
2. $5K
3. $5K

High Cost
1. $300K

 - ROW impacts and cost
Int 6 Culpeper Albemarle US 29 1721 1.T-intersection of four lane divided 55mph highway and four lane divided road
2. Two thru lanes and one exclusive left/right turn lane on Rt. US29; two left turn lane on Rt. 1721 3. 68% rear end crashes on Rt. US 29		 Low Cost
1. Reduce speed limit near the intersection
2. Install/improve advance intersection warning		 Low Cost
1-2. $7K		  
Int 7 Culpeper Culpeper US 29 666 1. Four-lane divided 55 mph primary intersect two lane undivided secondary road
2. Flashing yellow signal on major road and flashing signal with stop sign on t he minor
3. Two thru lanes and exclusive left/right turn lane on Rt. US29 4. Rear End crashes on minor street

Low Cost
1. Advance intersection warning sign on minor street.

High Cost
2. Install semi-actuated signal

Low Cost
1. $3K

High Cost
2. $25K

 - AADT on both roads should be investigated to justify a signal installation. A signal warrants report should be prepared
Int 8 NOVA Fairfax SR 236 713 1. Four-lane 45 mph major arterial with FR on south side
2. Highly congested commuter/ commercial corridor
3. Two thru lanes, one LTL on Rt. 236. Split phased on minor streets
4. Ped crossings provided

Low Cost
1. Remove free flow RT lane and FR to provide thru and turning capacity/safety
2. Reconfigure minor approaches and retime signal

High Cost
1. Construct Interchange

Low Cost
1-2. $1M +

High Cost
2. $20M +

 - ROW impacts and cost - Interchange was considered in 1990's but was impact and cost prohibitive.
Int 9 NOVA Fairfax 613 8113 1. End of Six-lane 55 mph LA freeway Rt. 7900
2. Highly congested commuter corridor
3. Two thru lanes, one LTL and free flow RTL on every approach
4. Ped crossings provided

Low Cost
1. Remove free flow RT lanes and provide dual LTL where ROW available

High Cost
1. Construct Interchange

Low Cost
1. $750K

High Cost
1. $20M +

 - ROW impacts and cost
Int 10 NOVA Fairfax 617 620 1. Four-lane divided 40 mph Int w/ four-lane divided
2. Highly congested commuter/commercial corridor
3. Two thru lanes, one LTL and RTL on every approach
4. Ped crossings provided		 Low Cost
1. Remove RT lanes and provide dual LTL where ROW available; also use FR ROW on Rt. 620		 Low Cost
1. $750K		 - Removing frontage road and ROW impacts
Int 11 NOVA Fairfax SR 28 657 1. Six-lane 55 mph LA Rt. 28 Int adjacent to Rt. I-66
2. Highly congested commuter corridor
3. Potential sight distance/line issues with vertical curve on Rt. 28 and horizontal curves on Rt. 657/620

Low Cost
1. Remove LT movements from minor approaches and retime signal

High Cost
1. Modify Interchange @ I-66

Low Cost
1. $200K

High Cost
1. $20M +

 - ROW impacts w/ adjacent park land and cost
Int 12 NOVA Fairfax US 1 5282 1. Offset signalized intersection w/ Rt. 3105
2. Highly congested commercial corridor
3. Potential sight distance/line issues with vertical curve and commercial signing
4. FR on opposite side is signalized

Low Cost
1. Restrict movements from FR to RIRO; remove signalization and retime signal
2. Remove commercial signing and landscaping restricting sight lines
3. Additional pavement markings and re-striping, islands, crosswalks and sidewalks

High Cost
1. Reconfigure intersection using FR ROW following Rt. US 1 corridor study recommendations

Low Cost
1-3. $40K

High Cost
1. $500K +

 - High cost option would need too also reconfigure the adjacent Rt. 3105 intersection and the east side FR
- ROW impacts and cost
Int 13 NOVA Fairfax SR 7 773 1. Offset signalized intersection w/ Rt. 2773
2. Highly congested commercial corridor
3. TWCLTL approaching Rt. 2773 FR on north side of Rt. 7
4. Multiple stop bars

Low Cost
1. Restrict movements with signing and marking and retime signal

High Cost
1. Realign Rt. 773 or Rt. 2773

Low Cost
1. $7.5K

High Cost
1. $1M +

 - ROW impacts and cost - High costs could be reduced with ROW and parking agreements between Co and commercial development
Int 14 NOVA Fairfax 8690 8699 1. Unsignalized multilane intersection after curve on major
2. Congested commercial corridor near Franconia Rd

Low Cost
1. Reduce Speed Limit, provide advance intersection warning and lighting

High Cost
1. Signalize the intersection

Low Cost
1. $10K

High Cost
1. $200K

  
Int 15 NOVA Fairfax 636 641 The intersection no longer exists N/A N/A N/A
Int 16 NOVA Prince William SR 55 US 29 1. Skewed angle and highly congested
2. Adjacent Rail Xing and commercial entrances

Low Cost
1. Close adjacent Rt. SR 642 intersection and retime signal
2. Interconnect signal with Rail Xing

High Cost
1. Existing road realignment and grade separation project in PE

Low Cost
1. $250K
2. $200K

High Cost
1. Part of $182M Rt. I-66 IC project

 - Part of I-66 IC project
- Signal mods are short term with new IC
- I-66 IC only funded for PE
Int 17 NOVA Prince William SR 234 1566 1. Rt. SR 234 Commercial and commuter corridor
2. Rt. 1566 Cross-county connector
3.High thru and turning volumes
4. Dual LTL and channelized RTL
5. Some pedestrian activity

Low Cost
1. Pedestrian crossing and signal phase upgrades is existing HES project
2. Reduce corridor speed limit and change signal CI
3. Upgrade lane marking and provide “puppy” tracks for TM

High Cost
1. Construct interchange

Low Cost
1. Part of $450K project
2. $10K
3. 2.5K

High Cost

1. $15M

 - Peak vs. off-peak speeds and mgmt
- Access mgmt in corridor
- Cost and Local concurrence
- Commercial ROW and Utilities
Int 18 NOVA Prince William US 1 1901 1. Rt. US 1 four-lane undivided rural section w/ 55 mph speed limit
2. Rt. 1901 two-lane residential street stop control w/ 25 mph SL
3. Limited sight distance and small turn radius
4. No marking on Rt. 1901 and small stop sign

Low Cost
1. Advance intersection warning signs
2. Improve Turn radius and sight lines to/from Rt. 1901
3. Install lane marking, stop bar and large stop sign on Rt. 1901

High Cost
1. Construct NB LTL and SB RTL

Low Cost
1-3. $25K

High Cost
1. $500K

 - Rt. US 1 Corridor study proposes six-lane divided section with appropriate turn lanes at intersections
- ROW impacts and cost
Int 19 NOVA Prince William 621 622 1. Two-lane rural road (Rt. 622) T-intersection with same (Rt. 621)
2. Unsignalized 3. Four-lane divided parallel facility under construction will alleviate traffic and safety issues

Low Cost
1. Advance intersection warning signs
2. Improve Turn radius and sight lines to/from Rt. 622
3. HES project to add EB LTL to NB Rt. 622

High Cost
1. Construct SB turn-lanes and widen Rt. 621
2. Signalize intersection

Low Cost
1. $300K HES project

High Cost
1. Additional $500K

  
Int 20 NOVA Prince William 1780 1781 1. 90 degree turn made into T-Int with PRTC bus garage/terminal
2. Only PRTC bus driveway is stop controlled		 Low Cost
1. Advance intersection warning signs with lane rumble strips to reduce speed.
2. Add all-way stop w/ markings
3. Improve Turn radius and sight lines
4. Reduce lane widths with markings		 Low Cost
1-4. $35K		 - Work with PRTC bus service and turning limitations.

Table 5-7 Top 2.5 Percent Hazardous Segments Proposed Countermeasures and Cost Estimates

INT ID LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS POTENTIAL REMEDITIES ESTIMATED COSTS IMPLEMENTATION IMPEDIMENTS
VDOT DISTRICT COUNTY ROUTE LENGTH (Mile)
Seg 1 Richmond Henrico US 360 0.319 1. Divided six-lane w/ 45 mph urban primary principle arterial roadway
2. Highly congested commuter traffic, especially on-ramp to Rt. IS-64 West bound
3. Skewed angle and insufficient acceleration from off-ramp

Low Cost
1. Provide signal coordination (adequate offset) for through traffic movement

High Cost
1. Provide lane channelization for on-ramp traffic with additional pavement markings (striping) and guide signs

Low Cost
1. $10K

High Cost
1. $50K

  
Seg 2 Hampton Roads Norfolk IS 64W 0.610 1. Divided four-lane w/ 55 mph urban interstate highway with advanced CMS information
2. Highly congested commuter traffic		 High Cost
1. Provide adequate/additional congestion warning information by CMS or media w/improved detection
2. Reroute/reallocation commuter traffic from Rt. IS 64 to Rt. IS 664 by pre-route and en-route public information
3. Implement variable speed limits		 High Cost
1. $1M +		 - Implement 2006 law to use variable speed limits cost TBD
- Cost for instrumentation
Seg 3 NOVA Arlington SR 120 0.357 1. Divided four-lane w/ 35 mph urban primary principle arterial roadway
2. Frequent mid-block turning movement from driveways
3. Ped crossings provided

Low Cost
1. Add signal heads and optimize signal coordination
2. Restrict parking near corner and crosswalk

High Cost
1. Improve access management from driveways
2. Provide adequate lane pavement markings
3. Install traffic signal

Low Cost
1-2. $10K

High Cost
1. $100K
2. $35K
3. $180K

  
Seg 4 NOVA Fairfax 7100 0.780 1. Divided four-lane w/ 50 mph urban secondary principle arterial roadway

Low Cost
1. Extend/adjust amber phase for clearance
2. Add lane drop warning signs

High Cost
1. Coordinate signal timing
2. Widen lanes (four to six) with adequate storage

Low Cost
1-2. $5K

High Cost
1. $15K
2. $1M +

  
Seg 5 NOVA Fairfax 644 0.679 1. Divided six-lane w/ 35 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. School crossing area
3. Dual LTL and channelized RTL
4. Frequent turning movement to driveways

Low Cost
1. Provide markings to supplement signs
2. Improve or install pavement markings

High Cost
1. Install traffic signal and coordination

Low Cost
1-2. $10K

High Cost
1. $180K

  
Seg 6 NOVA Fairfax US 1 0.403 1. Divided six-lane w/ 45 mph urban primary principle arterial roadway
2. Inadequate median entrance from driveway 3. Ped crossings provided

Low Cost
1. Reduce speed limit and restrict right turning movement (no-turn-on-red)
2. Relocate crosswalk and add stop bar and signage

High Cost
1. Add signal heads and optimize signal coordination
2. Apply Access management

Low Cost
1-2.$15K

High Cost
1. $15K
2. $600K

  
Seg 7 NOVA Fairfax 644 0.441 1. Divided six-lane w/35 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. High congested commuter traffic w/school zone
3. Bus service is provided

Low Cost
N/A

High Cost
N/A

Low Cost
N/A

High Cost
N/A

 Recently lane widened w/ Springfield IC so limited remedy for safety improvement
Seg 8 NOVA Fairfax SR 7 0.326 1. Undivided four-lane w/40 mph urban primary principle arterial roadway
2. Frequent turning movement from driveways
3. Bus service is provided
4. School crossing area
5. High crash intersection #13 is located

Low Cost
1. Re-stripe wide lane to 11ft
2. Remove CTWLTL and replace raised median
3. Consolidate driveways

High Cost
1. Widen lanes (six-lane) with adequate turning storage

Low Cost
1-2. $200K

High Cost
1. $1M +

 - Restricting access
- ROW impacts and cost
Seg 9 NOVA Fairfax 620 0.365 1. Divided four-lane w/40 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. Heavy turning movement
3. Ped crossings and sidewalk provided

Low Cost
1. Prohibit LT into plaza and RT into service station
2. Retiming/adjust signal for pedestrian crossing

High Cost
1. Extend EB RTL and WB LTL

Low Cost
1-2. $50K

High Cost
1. $250K

  
Seg 10 NOVA Fairfax 613 0.451 1. Divided four-lane w/35 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. Dual LTL and channelized RTL
3. Ped crossing and sidewalk provided
4. School zone at south end

Low Cost
1. Extend/adjust amber phase for clearance
2. Improve pavement markings and warning signs for lane drop at Rt. 613

High Cost
1. Widen to four-lane divided north of Rt. 7900
2. Improve access management at the junction of Rt. 613 and Rt. 7900

Low Cost
1. $5K
2. $5K

High Cost
1. $1M +
2. $1M +

 - ROW impacts and cost
- Grave yard at north end
Seg 11 NOVA Prince William US 1 1.014 1. Undivided four-lane w/35 mph urban primary principle arterial roadway
2. Poor access management
3. Ped crossings provided
4. Insufficient advance intersection warning signs

Low Cost
1. Install advance intersection warning signs

High Cost
1. Improve roadway surface and skid resistance
2. Improve access management from driveway and following Rt. US 1 study recommendations

Low Cost
1. $5K

High Cost
1. $100K
2. $1M +

 - High cost but low impacts expected
Seg 12 NOVA Prince William 784 0.678 1. Divided four-lane w/45 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. Dual LTL and channelized RTL
3. Width shoulder (10 ft+)

Low Cost
1. Install advance intersection warning signs
2. Extend/adjust amber phase for clearance
3. Revise signal phase sequence and timing

High Cost
1. Extend TL storage

Low Cost
1-3. $20K

High Cost
1. $400K

  
Seg 13 NOVA Prince William C1SR 234 0.385 1. Divided six-lane w/45 mph urban primary minor arterial roadway
2.Frequent turning movement from driveways
3. Continuous but partially missing sidewalk and crosswalk from BPS project
4. High crash intersection #17 is located at the middle of the segment

Low Cost
1. Revise signal phase sequence and timing

High Cost
1. Provide RTL and LTL on Rt. 1500
2. Improve access management from driveways on Rt. 1566

Low Cost
1. $10K

High Cost
1. $200K
2. $500K +

 - Restricting access
Seg 14 NOVA Prince William 784 0.380 1. Divided four-lane w/35 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. Continuous RTL at partial segment
3. Insufficient/inadequate advance intersection warning signs

Low Cost
1. Install advance intersection warning signs

High Cost
1. Extend LTL storage

Low Cost
1. $5K

High Cost
1. $200K

  
Seg 15 NOVA Prince William 641 0.500 1. Divided six-lane w/45 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway 2. Insufficient/inadequate advance intersection warning signs 3. Limited sight distance from horizontal curve 4. Frequency turning movement Low Cost 1. Reduce speed limit w/signs 2. Install advance intersection warning signs High Cost 1. Make Rt. 2214 RIRO and extend LTL into Rt. 2418 2. Extend RTL and LTL storage Low Cost 1. $2K 2. $10K High Cost 1. $150K 2. $300K - Restricting access to public road
Seg 16 NOVA Prince William 640 0.355 1. Divided six-lane w/45 mph urban secondary minor arterial roadway
2. Dual LTL, one thru and shared RT with thru movement
3. Continuous sidewalk provided

Low Cost
1. Reduce speed limit w/signs
2. Install traffic signal at Rt. 2025 and provide signal coordination for thru traffic

High Cost
1. Extend four-lane divided Rt. 640 to south of intersection w/ Rt. 610

Low Cost
1. $2K 2. $200K

High Cost
1. 1M +

 - High cost widening in county plan, but not priority

 

Office of Operations FHWA Safety Home