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

Georgia 2007 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.

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Traffic Safety & Design

2007 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

5 Percent Report

Background

This report addresses locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs of public roads in Georgia as mandated by Section 148(c)(1)(D) of Title 23 USC. These Sections discuss development and implementation of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities on all public roads. As part of its SHSP, a State must have a crash data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis. Georgia's 5 Percent Report demonstrates its ability to comply with these legislative data requirements. This report includes safety improvements to the locations identified, estimated costs of the remedies and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. As of 2006, the State of Georgia had almost 117,000 centerline miles of roadway throughout its 159 counties. The vast majority of these routes were categorized as Rural. In 2006, there were 18,065.69 miles of state maintained routes with the remainder divided amongst County roads and City Streets.

Table 1: 2006 Georgia Route Mileage

State Route MileageCounty Road MileageCity Street MileageTotal Mileage
18,065.69 84,117.71 14,502.01 116,685.41

Methodology

For the development of the 5 Percent Report for Georgia, crash data for the years 2003 - 2006 was considered. Two separate lists of locations were developed, one for Intersections and the other for Sections. The decision was made to separate the lists due to the fact that the selection criteria for identifying the two types of locations would be very different, as well as how the remedies would differ. GDOT has traditionally developed lists of high crash locations while making the distinction between intersections and sections as well. The methodologies differed slightly for the two lists because Georgia has somewhat limited intersection traffic count data. Traffic counts for vehicles entering and exiting intersections are not currently available at all intersections. Despite the limited availability of intersection traffic counts, Georgia still keeps an inventory of all routes On-System and Off-System and location references for all of these crashes as well. This means that the 5 Percent Report is a representation of ALL routes in Georgia, not just those routes currently state maintained as specified in the 5 Percent Report directives.

An initial run of all of Georgia's statewide crash data for all intersections and one mile sections was made using the following criteria:

The decision was made to limit the lists to locations having at least five (5) crashes per year simply due to the sheer volume of locations that had fewer crashes. From an economic standpoint it did not seem possible to address every single roadway location, so a line had to be drawn somewhere. The resulting list of locations was then further screened as indicated in the following section.

The overall methodology selected to determine those locations with the most severe safety needs was a Severity Rate method. This method is a combination of traditional Rate Quality Control and EPDO (Equivalent Property Damage Only) methods. The EPDO method gives higher priority to locations that experience greater severity in terms of injury and fatal crashes as recommended by the 5 Percent Report guidelines. The EPDO crash rate was determined by comparing the number of serious crashes to the number of vehicles passing through a segment in the case of highway sections or by comparing the number of serious crashes to the total number of crashes in the case of intersections. Next the Rate Quality Control Method was applied to the EPDO crash rate, or Severity Rate as it will be referred to throughout the remainder of this document. For the Rate Quality Control method, a critical rate was calculated for each location. This method applies a statistical test to determine whether the Severity Rate for a spot or segment of roadway is higher than expected due to normal variations in crashes from year to year. This statistical test assumes the number of crashes at a location will vary according to a Poisson distribution. If the actual Severity Rate at each location was greater than the critical rate for that particular Functional Classification, then it can be said that the high Severity Rate at the location cannot be explained by a random variation in crashes and therefore must be due to a hazardous condition at the location. If the actual Severity Rate was greater than the critical rate, then that location was identified as having high potential for safety improvements.

Calculations

Sections: For the Sections listing, one (1) mile sections were considered with intersection crashes excluded. All sections had to have at a minimum one of the following: 1 fatal crash OR 8 serious injury crashes OR Average Daily Traffic (ADT) greater than 4,000. This second screening of locations was needed, again just due to the large number of locations identified and screened for the four (4) year period. Because the guidelines indicated an emphasis on fatal and serious injury crashes, minimums were established for these so as not to exclude them from further analysis. It was next observed that the average ADT for all crash locations statewide in Georgia was approximately 4,000 Vehicles per Day (VPD). It was then decided to calculate a Severity Rate for all of the remaining locations that met the aforementioned criteria. Since a rate method was used, it was necessary to eliminate as many low traffic volume locations as possible since these would skew the rate calculations. For example, a location with only a few severe crashes along with an extremely low traffic volume would have an extremely high Severity Rate. This would generate a list of locations that would hardly be categorized as having the most severe safety needs upon further inspection. The Severity Rate was calculated per 100 Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) Traveled for each one (1) mile section with the fatal crashes and serious injury crashes weighted differently. The number of fatal crashes was weighted times 10 and the number of severe injury crashes times 6. The weighting factors were loosely based on National Safety Council (NSC) figures which compare the cost of a serious injury crash versus a property damage only crash.

A Severity Rate was determined for all Sections statewide meeting the minimum criteria:

SR = Severity Rate per 100 MVM

A Statewide Severity Rate was developed for each Functional Classification (See Table 2):

SRfc = Severity Rate by Functional Classification

A Critical Severity Rate was next calculated for each one (1) mile section based on the appropriate Functional Classification as follows:

k = A probability constant: Typical values used are either k=1.645 for a 95% confidence level or k=3.291 for a 99.95% confidence level. The k=3.291 was used for this report.
M = Vehicle exposure per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
SRfc = Severity Rate by Functional Classification
SRc = Critical Severity Rate

Table 2: Statewide Crash Severity Rates by Functional Classification (Sections)

Sections Fatal Crashes Serious Injury Crashes Total
Crashes		 VMT Statewide Severity Rate (100 MVM)
01-Rural-Interstate Principal Arterial 401 692 22,812 42,567,020,000 19.19
02-Rural-Principal Arterial 359 680 16,481 27,754,515,000 27.64
06-Rural-Minor Arterial 547 994 25,130 31,562,195,000 36.23
07-Rural-Major Collector 682 1,388 29,496 27,727,305,000 54.64
08-Rural-NFA Minor Collector 176 373 7,521 15,807,300,000 25.29
09-Rural-Local 423 1,150 27,692 32,349,175,000 34.42
11-Urban-Interstate Principal Arterial 481 1,655 109,533 78,991,345,000 18.66
12-Urban Freeway and Expressway 49 194 14,078 10,284,920,000 16.13
14-Urban Principal Arterial 335 978 68,312 49,584,555,000 18.60
16-Urban-Minor Arterial Street 538 1,674 92,543 62,492,355,000 24.67
17-Urban-Collector Street 161 529 26,969 18,828,195,000 25.43
19-Urban-Local 312 1,180 61,093 50,736,195,000 20.11
Totals 4,464 11,487   448,685,075,000 25.31

Lastly a Safety Index was computed by dividing the Severity Rate for each location by the corresponding Functional Classification based Critical Severity Rate for each location. Those locations with a Safety Index greater than 1.0 were considered for the final report listing. A Safety Index greater than 1.0 means that the Severity Rate for a particular section is more than the appropriate Critical Severity Rate, or there were a statistically significant number of severe crashes at that location. The final report represents the 5% with the highest Safety Indexes greater than the Critical Severity for that particular Functional Classification and therefore had a high potential for safety improvement.

Intersections: For the Intersections listing, it was necessary to use a slightly different methodology due to the lack of availability of intersection crash rates. Essentially, the same methodology was used as for Sections except instead of comparing the number of fatal and serious injury crashes to the total number of vehicle miles traveled; these were compared to the total number of crashes at the intersection.

All intersections had to have at a minimum of one of the following: 1 fatal crash OR 6 serious injury crashes OR mainline ADT greater than 4,000. A second screening of locations was needed again, just due to the volume of locations identified for the four (4) year period. Because the guidelines indicated an emphasis on fatal and serious injury crashes, minimums were established for these so as not to exclude them from further analysis. Next a Severity Rate per total number of crashes at each intersection was determined with the fatal crashes and serious injury crashes weighted differently. While the result is not a rate in the traditional sense, it could still be loosely defined as a "rate" in that it is the number of severe crashes per total crashes per intersection. Fatal crashes were weighted times 10 and severe injury crashes times 6. Again, the weighting factors were loosely based on National Safety Council (NSC) figures which compare the cost of a serious injury crash versus a property damage only crash.

A Severity Rate was determined for all Intersections statewide meeting the minimum criteria:

SR = Number of Severe Crashes per Intersection (a "rate" of severe crashes per intersection)

A Statewide Severity "Rate" was developed for each Intersection Functional Classification (See Table 3):

SRfc = Severity Rate by Functional Classification

A Critical Severity "Rate" by Functional Classification was determined as follows:

k = A probability constant: Typical values used are either k=1.645 for a 95% confidence level or k=3.291 for a 99.95% confidence level. The k=3.291 was used for this report. A higher value of k results in fewer locations exceeding their Critical Severity Rates, but will provide a higher degree of confidence that the locations are truly warranted.
X = Total Number of Crashes at subject Intersection
SRfc = Severity Rate by Functional Classification
SRc = Critical Severity Rate

A Critical Severity Rate was next calculated for each intersection based on the appropriate Functional Classification.

Table 3: Statewide Crash Severity Rates by Functional Classification (Intersections)

Intersections Killed Serious Statewide
Severity "Rate"
(Per Total Crashes)
01-Rural-Interstate Principal Arterial 0 0 0.00
02-Rural-Principal Arterial 165 404 2.75
06-Rural-Minor Arterial 200 569 2.26
07-Rural-Major Collector 131 442 2.35
08-Rural-NFA Minor Collector 22 86 2.34
09-Rural-Local 93 381 2.27
11-Urban-Interstate Principal Arterial 7 19 1.07
12-Urban Freeway and Expressway 0 12 0.81
14-Urban Principal Arterial 320 1618 1.01
16-Urban-Minor Arterial Street 302 1854 1.00
17-Urban-Collector Street 81 496 0.94
19-Urban-Local 213 1312 1.08
Totals 1534 7193 1.22

Lastly a Safety Index was computed by dividing the Severity Rate for each intersection by the corresponding Functional Classification based Critical Severity Rate for each intersection. Those intersections with a Safety Index greater than 1.0 were considered for the final report listing. A Safety Index greater than 1.0 means that the Severity Rate for a particular intersection is more than the appropriate Critical Severity Rate, or there were a statistically significant number of severe crashes at that location. The final report represents the 5% with the highest Safety Indexes greater than the Critical Severity for that particular Functional Classification and therefore had a high potential for safety improvement. It should be understood that just because a site has a Severity Rate higher than the Critical Rate that is not absolutely a crash-prone site or "hazardous". It simply means that for a confidence level of 99.95% (k=3.291) then a typical (non-hazardous) site would be expected to have a crash rate lower than calculated 99.95% of the time and higher than calculated 0.05% of the time.

Crash Data

GDOT currently collects crash data for ALL routes in Georgia, both On-System and Off-System. An attempt is made to assign a location to each crash. For the years 2003-2006 a location was assigned to more than 95% of the crashes (See Table 4). A "locate" means that the location described on the crash report by the law enforcement officer is referenced to a point in the GDOT Roadway Inventory database. Such a methodology is more commonly referred to as a Linear Referencing System. This means GDOT assigns a County, Route Type, Route Number, Route Suffix to each route segment. This information combined with a mile point uniquely identifies a location on any roadway in Georgia. While GDOT is quite successful at assigning a location to each of its crashes, the information is only as accurate as the information provided by law enforcement via the crash report. The number of crashes GDOT is able to locate is also constrained by the information contained within its Roadway Inventory. It is often difficult to assign a location to a crash if the road names stored in the inventory are missing or differ significantly from the names used in the field. To improve the incidence of matches, over time GDOT has developed an alternate listing of road names that when conflated with the road names in the GDOT Roadway Inventory has allowed for a high rate of matching.

Table 4: Percentage of Crashes Located by Year

Year Number of Crashes in Database Crashes Located Percentage of Crashes Located
2003 332,321 318,903 95.97%
2004 342,932 328,005 95.65%
2005 347,652 331,788 95.44%
2006 344,769 328,892 96.84%
2007 81,210 18,320 99.99%

Georgia processes more than 300,000 crash reports annually. These represent both On-System and Off-System crashes with a total property damage value of at least $500. Reports are received and processed daily. The current retention schedule requires that ten (10) years of crash data plus the current year be stored. 2006 represents the most recent year of complete and located crash data with approximately 23% of the data for 2007 received to date located.

Figure 1: 2007 Georgia Highway Sections & Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs (Minimum of 5%). This Figure supplements Tables 5 & 6.

Table 5: 2007 Georgia Highway Sections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs (Minimum of 5%)

County Name Crossroad 1 Crossroad 2 Potential Remedies Estimated Costs Implementation Impediments Comments
Chatham CROSSGATE RD (CR 9) NO NAME AUGUSTA RD Potential remedies include red light running cameras and the addition of protected left turn phases.  A review of the existing striping and signage would be appropriate. MEDIUM COST
$300,000 		Dense urban development may make widening or adding turn lanes impossible.  Speeds may also be an issue. This location is in a very urban setting. 
Clayton ROCK CUT RD (CR 142) OAK LN THURMAN RD The terrain is mountainous with numerous curves.  Edgeline delineation/enhancement with wide striping or RPMs are potential.  Reviewing locations for enhanced signing is appropriate. MEDIUM COST
$500,000 		Lack of shoulders may make addition of guardrail impossible.  Snow removal may make retaining RPMs and edgeline delineators difficult. This section of roadway is popular with motorcycles for racing and speed is a problem.  Better enforcement would be helpful, but is beyond GDOT control.
Cobb FRANKLIN RD (CR 1132) COBB PKWY DELK IND BLVD Add median, turn lanes, and sidewalks. 4-Lane Divided with turn lanes and sidewalk. HIGH COST
Estimated cost of this project is $1.8Million.  		Currently not funded. Not aware of status with CITY OF Marietta.
Cobb BURNT HICKORY RD (CR 859) E NEW SALEM COMMON DEVONWOOD TRL Not recommended because of challenges. CITY OF Marietta may have other desires. UNKNOWN Major challenges dealing with National Park Service.  Historical resources may be present. City of Marietta – not known if any improvements planned in this area.
Cobb PAPER MILL RD (CR 1139) TERRELL MILL DR CHATT RIVER NATIONAL PARK Bridge Replacement/ Possible Rehab only. HIGH COST
Estimated cost of this project is $2.7 Million. Funded SPLOST project.		 May need to stop project at National Park Service, but there are geometric issues there. Desired Section if GDOT improvements made:  3-lane section or 2-lane section with turn lanes developed at Intersections.  Would include some geometric improvements and an urban shoulder with curb & GUTTER.
Cobb CALLAWAY RD (CR 4394) HICKS RD GREENRIDGE DR Currently a Cobb County project to add a TWLTL where possible between Austell Road and Powder Springs Road. Addition of 3-lane section in missing stretches.  Maintain existing bridge. HIGH COST
Estimated cost of this project is $2.2 Million. Funded SPLOST project.		 NONE Desired Section if GDOT improvements made:  3-lane section or 2-lane section with turn lanes developed at intersections.  Would include an urban shoulder with curb & gutter.
Dekalb YOUNG RD (CR 700) COVINGTON HWY SCARBROUGH DR This section of roadway already has an improvement project underway.  Hall County is designing the project and will acquire the ROW.  GDOT will fund construction and build it. HIGH COST
$20,000,000 		Very difficult environmental challenges in this area.  These issues are being addressed as part of the EA. This section is a very narrow, winding roadway.  Because of the environmental issues, even short term improvements are not possible.
Douglas SKYVIEW DR (CR 99) MARKHAM RD COBB CO LINE Review striping and marking.  Red light running cameras and evaluation of protected left turn phases. MEDIUM COST
$300,000 		NONE This section of roadway is very urban.  It is adjacent to the Mall of Georgia.
Fayette BANKS RD (CR 38) HOLLY HILL RD SR 54 CHECK/VERIFY SIGNAL TIMING  AND APPROACH SIGNING LOW COST
$500		 NONE WILL CHECK SIGNAL TIMING
Gwinnett INDIAN TRL IND PKWY (CR 1911) INDIAN TRAIL RD MITCHELL RD Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett OAKBROOK PKWY (CR 690) MICROMERITIC DR GREATER ATL CH SCH Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett MALL OF GA BLVD (CR 6446) GRAVEL SPRINGS RD MALL ENTRANCE Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett TAYLOR RD (CR 115) LAWRENCEVILLE SUWANEE QUINTON PL Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett LIVE OAK PKWY (CR 5229) OAKBROOK PKWY JIMMY CARTER BLVD Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett HERRINGTON RD (CR 544) SILVER MOSS WAY GREASON DR Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Gwinnett GRAVES RD (CR 569) DAWSON BLVD ESQUIRE PL Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Hall CALVARY CH RD (CR 715) POPLAR SPRINGS RD MILEPOST 1.0 Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none We have contacted local government and advised them of these locations.
Houston HATCHER RD (CR 147) RESORT DR ELMORE DR TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, HATCHER AT  ELMORE APPEARS TO BE  PROBLEM INTERSECTION (OFF SYSTEM) PREVIOUS LEFT TURN LANE ON HATCHER RD EASTBOUND RECOMMEND TO ADD. MEDIUM COST
$200,000		 OFF SYSTEM INTERSECTION SUGGEST STATE AIDE/COUNTY CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRJ TO ADD LANE ON HATCHER.  UNSURE OF LOCAL FUNDING DOLLARS CONTACT HOUSTON COUNTY FOR REVIEW.
Lumpkin SR 11 MILEPOINT 6.7 MILEPOINT 7.7 Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. low cost
$10,000		 none none
Lumpkin SR 52 (ELLIJAY HWY) CHESTATEE RIVER MOUNTAIN RIDGE DR Review for appropriate signing and marking related to curves, advisory speed and advanced intersection warning. LOW COST
$10,000		 none none
Pickens CHURCH ST (SR 53) GORDON CO LINE DAVIS RD W requested project for edgeline rumble strips. LOW COST
$6,000		 none Many horizontaL & vertical curves through section. All but 2 ACcidents were single vehicle, project requested in 12/2005 as part of safety action plan
Rockdale IRIS DR (CR 444) KLONDIKE RD PARKER RD placement of stop bars, edge line, centerline and RPM’s on 10 roads in Rockdale County, and 8 intersections in the City of Conyers. MEDIUM COST
$364,750.00 (50/50 split GDOT & Rockdale County)		  NONE REQUESTED IN MAR-2007 AS PART OF GDOT OFF_SYSTEM SAFERTY PROGRAM (PI NO. 0008530)
Rockdale GEES MILL RD (CR 157) GLENN RD GEES MILL BUSINESS PKWY placement of stop bars, edge line, centerline and RPM’s on 10 roads in Rockdale County, and 8 intersections in the City of Conyers. MEDIUM COST
$364,750.00 (50/50 split GDOT & Rockdale County)		  NONE REQUESTED IN MAR-2007 AS PART OF GDOT OFF_SYSTEM SAFERTY PROGRAM (PI NO. 0008530)
Spalding NORTHSIDE DR  (CR 280) SEAGO DR N HILL ST TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, NORTHSIDE AT NORTH HILL ST APPEARS TO BE PROBLEM INTERSECTION (OFF- SYSTEM) RECOMMEND REQURIES STRUCTURE PURCHASE AND CROSS STREET, INCLUDE SIGNAL STUDY FOR ALIGNMENT OF N HILL. HIGH COST
$800,000		 COMMERCIAL AREA, ALIGNMENT REQUIRES STRUCTURE PURCHASE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY RELOCATION. CHECK SITE CONTACT SPALDING CO RECOMMENDS SIGNING AND MARKING PROJECT.
Walker JOHNSON RD (CR 264) MISSION RIDGE RD HURTT RD reconstruction to 12 foot lanes and improve shoulders HIGH COST
$1.5 million (Does not include ROW or utilities)		 local support majority of collisions were single vehicle
Whitfield BROOKER DR (CR 115) UNDERWOOD RD ROBERTS DR reconstruction to 12 foot lanes and improve shoulders HIGH COST
$1.25 million (Does not include ROW or utilities)		 local support majority of collisions were single vehicle
Whitfield BETHEL CHURCH RD (CR 118) UNDERWOOD RD MILEPOINT 2.1 reconstruction to 12 foot lanes and improve shoulders HIGH COST
$2 million (Does not include ROW or utilities)		 local support majority of collisions were single vehicle

Table 6: 2007 Georgia Highway Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs (Minimum of 5%)

County MAINLINE Route INTERSECTION Description Potential Remedies Estimated Costs Implementation Impediments Comments
Barrow Barrow SR 81 CHARLES FLOYD RD (SR 81) at TANNERS BRIDGE RD (CR 410) IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED NONE This intersection was signalized in October, 2004.  The improvements included the addition of full pedestrian accomodations and the installation of advanced flashing beacons.  Also, a project to construct a Type B median break was completed during the reporting period.
Chatham Chatham SR 204 ABERCORN ST (SR 204) at EISENHOWER DR (CS 1192-07) IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED  NONE This intersection was improved by the addition of ACCELERATION lane on SR 365 southbound.  This allows for the traffic entering SR 365 from CR 1461 to cross the northbound lanes and then safely start traveling southbound upgrade.  The traffic has time to reach a safe speed before merging into traffic.
Clayton Clayton SR 314 W FAYETTEVILLE RD (SR 314) at LAURANCEAE WAY (CR 1070) Raise profile of SR 314 and remove vegetation to increase the sight distance on Wesley Ave approach. MEDIUM COST 
$225,000		  NONE ADA Ramps, sidewalks are needed, Restriping on crosswalks and stop bars and a minor sight distance problem on the Wesley Ave Approaching SR 314.
Dekalb Dekalb CR 666 NORRIS LAKE DR (CR 666) at PLEASANT HILL RD (CR 5163) Sight Distance from the Norris Lake Stop Bar to the North and South on Pleasant Hill is over 500 feet. Stop signs should be upgraded to 36 inch signage, Stop bars should be restriped. MEDIUM COST 
$225,000		 Humphries Road at Pleasant Hill Road: Sight Distance should be improved to the South of the Intersection by brush removal and to the North by moving two subdivision signs. Stop signs should be upgraded to 36 inch signage, Stop bars should be restriped. Also, there is a "Coming Soon" Sign for a convenience store and retail shopping on the North East Leg of The intersection Humphries Road side. This Intersection is Stop controlled on the East (Humphries Road) and West legs of the intersection, Norris Lake Drive and Humphries Road.  Pleasant Hill is a Thru condition with a 45 mph speed limit.
Dekalb Dekalb CS 693-05 CHAMBLEE DUNWOODY RD (CS 693-05) at CUMBERLAND DR (CS 697-05) There is no advance warning of Cumberland Drive on Chamblee Dunwoody Road. Chamblee Dunwoody Road to the North has a hill with fair sight distance.  There are no ADA crosswalks or Wheelchair ramps at this location.  Excessive speeds approaching Cumberland Drive were noticed. HIGH pedestrian traffic was also noted. MEDIUM COST
$225,000		 NONE This intersection is Stop Controlled on the Cumberland Drive leg.
Fayette Fayette SR 54 SR 54 at HUIET RD (CR 111) SIGNAL DESIGN AND TE STUDY WORKING LOW COST
$60,000-$80,000 IN HOUSE		 HEAVY OVERHEAD UTILITIES LOCATED ON ALL CORNERS OF INTERSECTION. DEVELOPING INTERIM SIGNAL DESIGN
Floyd Floyd SR 53 CALHOUN HWY (SR 53) at BURLINGTON RD (CR 159) IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED none signalized intersection Safety project  completed, STP-0003-00(786)
Floyd Floyd SR 20 SHORTER AVE (SR 20) at COKER DR (CR 647) reconstruct, realign intersection, add turn lanes HIGH COST
$1.75 to $2 million		 local support, Right of Way, Utilities signalized intersection, realignment of Coker will require acquisition of a business
Fulton Fulton CR 138 SPALDING DR (CR 138) at NESBIT FERRY RD (CR 156) STP-957(9) Newton County is listed in the GDOT Construction Works Program to improve SR 212 from Oak Hill Road to Bethany Road.  The project will include realignment of this intersection to provide improved sight distance from Oak Hill Road.  The project is currently shown with a let date of Oct 07.  This segment of SR 212 has also been recommended for a reduced speed limit (45 MPH) The recommendation has been approved and a work order issued to install new signs. HIGH COST
R/W = $1.15M
Const = $ 3.41M		 Implementation impediments are being address in Plan Development Process Anticipated that the enhancements provided in the project will address the most severe safety needs of the intersection.
Fulton Fulton SR 42-SP MCDONOUGH BLVD (SR 42-SP) at MORELAND DR (CS 1495-03) SR 119 re-location from SR 119 to SR 21. medium cost
Estimated $175,000		 None anticipated. Programmed project CSSTP-0006-00(962) will improve route and intersection.
Fulton Fulton SR 139 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR DR (SR 139) at ADAMSVILLE DR (CS 2886-03) Recreation center at Adamsville Dr needs to move the driveway west to their property line and add left turn lane at this intersection. MEDIUM COST
$195,000		 RECREATION CENTER MAY BE RELUCTANT TO COMPLY. GDOT has requested that the recreation center reconstruct the existing driveway to accommodate the proposed signal at SR 139 @ Boulder Park Ave.
Fulton Fulton SR 141 PEACHTREE RD (SR 141) at KINGSBORO RD (CS 437-03) County needs to raise Kingsboro Rd profile to match SR 141 and widen Kingsboro Rd for better sight distance and turning movements. high cost
$750,000		 county may not consider high priority. Existing ramps need to be upgraded for ADA Compliance.
Fulton Fulton SR 3 NORTHSIDE DR (SR 3) at SIMPSON ST (CS 1912-03) State Project is set to let which includes this intersection for improvements. HIGH COST
PART of $12 MILLION CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT.		  NONE State Project is set to let which includes this intersection for improvements.
Fulton Fulton SR 92 CAMPBELLTON FAIRBURN HWY (SR 92) at RIDGE RD (CR 1374)  install traffic signal. MEDIUM COST
$225,000		  NONE currently being permitted for a traffic signal
Newton Newton SR 162 SR 162 at SMITH STORE RD (CR 20) A safety project has been programmed for this intersection to address the horizontal alignment issues, to provide auxiliary lanes (left and Right turn lanes) and to signalize. medium cost 
$250,000		  NONE This is intersection is skewed “T” type geometric configuration without any auxiliary lanes and it is located in a part of Newton County that is experiencing a tremendous growth spurt.
Paulding Paulding SR 61 VILLA RICA HWY (SR 61) at MAYFIELD ROAD (CR 277) MAYFIELD/NEBO ROADS INTERSECT SR 61 AT THE PEAK OF A VERTICAL HILLCREST. TO ENHANCE SIGHT DISTANCE THE GRADE OF SR 61 WILL NEED TO BE LOWERED. THE INTERSECTION MAY QUALIFY FOR SAFETY FUNDS. high cost
$2 million		 local support, Right of Way, Utilities SINCE 2004, ADDITIONAL SIGNS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND MODIFIED TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF THIS INTERSECTION. PROJECT NO. CSSTP-0007-00(864) IS PROGRAMMED TO RECONSTRUCT SR 61 THROUGH THE CORRIDOR INCLUDING THIS INTERSECTION, Advanced flashing beacons have been installed
Polk Polk SR 1 MARTHA BERRY HWY (SR 1) at CHEROKEE RD (CR 5) reconstruct and realign CR HIGH COST
$750,000 to $1 million		 local support, Right of Way, Utilities  NONE
Spalding Spalding SR 3 MLK JR PKWY (SR 3) at KALAMAZOO DR (CR 42) PROTECTED ONLY LEFT  TURNS NB, SB LOW COST
$500		 NONE IMPLEMENTED IN 2005 ACCIDENTS REDUCED FROM 21 IN 2005 TO 7 IN 2006.  THE 2007 DATA UNAVAILABLE
Walker Walker SR 2 BATTLEFIELD PKWY (SR 2) at CHATTANOOGA VALLEY RD (SR 193) IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED IMPROVEMENT COMPLETED none signalized intersection, good goemetrics, no recommendations for project

Discussion

The final 5 Percent Report for the State of Georgia consisted of 19 Intersection locations and 27 Section locations. There were a total of 383 intersection locations that met the criteria for the report. There were a total of 538 section locations that met the criteria for the report. It is very important to remind the reader that the listing of locations in this report represent the "locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs of public roads in Georgia as mandated by Section 148(c)(1)(D) of Title 23 USC". Because the listing includes ALL public roads for Georgia there is a very fine line between one location showing up in the listing while another does not. This coupled with the very imprecise science of crash reporting in general makes for a very dynamic listing of locations. For example, the addition of a single severe crash at a couple of locations that met the reporting criteria might displace one or more of the locations listed in the final report. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned not to try and use this report as a list of "most dangerous" locations in Georgia, but simply a listing of locations exhibiting safety needs based on the aforementioned criteria. Georgia's final 5 Percent Report has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section of each district and appropriate safety funds requested as needed.

Contact Information

Norm Cressman
Safety Program Manager
Georgia Department of Transportation
935 East Confederate Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30316
404.635.8131
Norm.Cressman@dot.state.ga.us

Definitions

Off-System Routes are those routes that are not owned or maintained by Georgia DOT.

Crash Rate is defined as the crash count divided by exposure. The exposure is typically referred to as the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The exposure is calculated by multiplying the AADT by the number of days in the year (365) and the total section length.

The Critical Crash Rate Method was used to screen the high crash locations by utilizing a confidence interval which can be fine tune to address the needs of the program. If a segment has an actual crash rate that exceeds the critical crash rate, then it is highly likely that the location has a potential safety deficiency.

The Critical Severity Rate is a statistically derived number, greater than the average rate, which serves as a screening measure to identify locations where crash occurrence is higher than should be expected for a given facility type and for which safety measures should be considered. The 5 Percent Report methodology represents those road sections and intersections in Georgia where the Severity Rate was higher than the Critical Rate between 2002 and 2004.

Statistical Significance is the state whereby the probability that a relationship (as shown by a correlation coefficient or a difference between two means) could have come about by chance alone, is below a given low level such as below 5 percent (0.05).

Report Guidance

 

Office of Operations FHWA Safety Home