trends in north carolina’s county road conditions, 1998-2004 · 2004-12-10 · trends in pavement...

Trends in North Carolina’s County Road Conditions, 1998-2004

By

David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor of Transportation Studies

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Charlotte, North Carolina 28223

December 8, 2004

A Report

Prepared for the

John Locke Foundation

200 West Morgan, Suite 200

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Copyright © 2004 by the author

Permission is given to copy and reproduce by electronic or paper with appropriate credit.

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Professor David T. Hartgen, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, under a grant from the John Locke Foundation, http://www.johnlocke.org. Kory Swanson, Vice President of John Locke Foundation,provided administrative guidance for the study. M. Greg Fields, a graduate student in geography at UNC Charlotte, assisted in the preparation of the data files, maps, and tables; his assistance is gratefully acknowledged. The North Carolina Department of Transportation provided access to the pavement condition files used in this analysis. The Federal Highway Administration provided data on North Carolina’s bridges. The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor or these agencies or individuals. About the Author David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. is Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he established the Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies and now teaches and conducts research in transportation policy. He is the author of about 324 papers and reports on a wide variety of topics in transportation policy and planning, is US Editor of the international journal Transportation, and is active in professional organizations, particularly the Transportation Research Board. He is a frequent media interviewee in local and national publications. Before coming to Charlotte in 1989 he was a Transportation Planner with the New York State Department of Transportation and a policy analyst at the Federal Highway Administration. He holds engineering degrees from Duke University and Northwestern University, has taught at SUNY Albany, Union University, Syracuse University and lectures widely. He is an Adjunct Scholar at the John Locke Foundation. He can be contacted at [email protected], or by telephone at 704-687-4308. His website is http://www.geoearth.uncc.edu/Dhartgen.htm.

2

http://johnlocke.org/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.geoearth.uncc.edu/Dhartgen.htm

Contents

Abstract 4 I. Introduction 5

A. Issues 5 B. Methodology 5

II. Findings 9 A. Overall Trends 9 B. Pavement Condition 10 1. Trends in Pavement Condition 10 2. Trends by County 11 3. Geography of Trends 13 C. Lane Widths 18 1. Trends in Narrow Lanes 18 2. Trends by County 19 3. Geography of Trends 20 D. Shoulder Widths 23 1. Trends in Narrow Shoulders 23 2. Trends by County 23 3. Geography of Trends 24 E. Bridge Decks 27 1. Trends in Bridge Deck Condition 27 2. Trends by County 27 3. Geography of Trends 28 III. Conclusions and Recommendations 30

A. Conclusions and Discussion 30 B. Recommendations 31

1. Policy Actions 32 2. Funding Actions 33 3. Technical Steps 35

Appendices 37 A. NC Road Conditions by County 38 B. NC Roads with Narrow Lanes by County 40 C. NC Roads with Narrow Shoulders by County 42 D. NC Bridge Decks in Poor or Worse Condition by County 44 E. NC Road Mileage and Bridges by County 46

3

Trends in North Carolina’s County Road Conditions, 1998-2004

Abstract: A uniformly high-quality road system is critical to North Carolina’s economic health and to the efficient activities of its citizens, businesses and visitors. This study reviews the condition of state-owned roads in each of North Carolina’s 100 counties over the period 1998-2004, and bridge decks from 1998 to 2002. Four indices of road and bridge status (poor-rated pavement, narrow lanes, narrow shoulders, and poor-rated bridge decks) are computed for each county and for the state’s 14 highway divisions. The source of the data is the state’s detailed road and bridge inventories. The geographic patterns of the 100 county ratings are then examined. North Carolina’s percentage of poor-pavement mileage worsened from 7.92 percent in 1998 to 8.87 percent in 2002, then improved slightly to 8.19 percent in 2004. Over the 6-year period, the mileage of poor-condition pavements is increasing at a rate about 93 miles per year. The percentage of narrow lanes has only marginally improved since 1998, and the percentage of narrow shoulders has worsened. Only the percentage of poor-rated bridge decks has substantially improved. The State’s 100 counties vary widely in condition, with counties in the western mountainous regions reporting significantly higher percentages of narrow lanes and narrow shoulders. Pavement conditions also vary widely. The percentage of poor pavements varies from a low of 0.0 percent in Yancey County to a high of 27.2 percent in Ashe County. Pavement conditions were also worse in the state’s western counties in 1998, but weather problems (Hurricane Floyd in 1999) resulted in recent deterioration of roads on the eastern side of the state. Changes in pavement rating procedures have made comparative changes in county conditions difficult to determine. The percentage of narrow lanes varies from a low of 39.9 percent in Mecklenburg County to a high of 93.0 percent in Alleghany County. The percentage of narrow shoulders varies from a low of 0.4 percent in Stokes County to a high of 71.3 percent in Surry County. On the other hand, bridge conditions appear to be more uniform throughout the state and have less variation: the percentage of poor bridge decks varies form a low of 0.0 percent in 6 counties to a high of 11.9 percent in Hoke County. The study concludes that highway funding formulas in conjunction with varying terrain have resulted in geographically unequal system. Specific policy goals should be established to improve the inequities in the state’s road system by 2010 and that present funding formulas should be revised to achieve those goals.

4

I. Introduction

A. Issues: North Carolina has the second-largest state-owned road system in the US, almost 79,000 miles. A study in 2000 for the John Locke Foundation1 using data from 1998 showed that the system was in quite poor shape on key indicators. Almost 8 percent of pavements were rated in poor condition, 17 percent of shoulders were narrow, 74 percent of the system had less than 11-ft lanes, and 35 percent of bridges were rated ‘deficient’. Road conditions were also found to vary widely across the state’s 100 counties, with the western and piedmont counties generally faring worse than eastern counties on most indicators. A more recent national comparison of road statistics put North Carolina in the bottom fifth of state road systems nationwide,2 and showed a slow but steady slide in the condition of North Carolina’s road system over the past decade. Data on the highest functional classes (Interstate and rural primary) also show sharp deterioration in recent years. Clearly, North Carolina is losing the battle on road conditions. In response, the State has taken some initial actions to increase road maintenance funds and has recently issued a long-range plan calling for major shifts toward maintenance.3 However, no recent assessment of conditions by county has been conducted, so it is not possible to determine whether conditions are deteriorating everywhere, or whether some areas of the state are holding their own on key indicators. Hurricane Floyd in 1999 in eastern counties and Hurricanes Charles and Ivan in 2004 in western counties may also have substantially worsened roads. The purpose of this analysis is to update the earlier study by gathering and reporting on road conditions for each county and determining how conditions in each county have changed since 1998. Specifically, the goal of the analysis is to:

1. Determine the condition of state-owned roads in each of the 100 counties; 2. Determine changes in condition over time, and the reasons for these changes; 3. Recommend actions to reduce or reverse the deterioration of the system and

remove inequities. B. Methodology The method used in this analysis is a straightforward summary of county-level information from large data files maintained by NCDOT. These files contain information

1 Hartgen D. On the Road Again: Performance, Needs and Funding Options for North Carolina’s Highways. Policy Report for the John Locke Foundation, Raleigh NC 27601, October 2000. On the web at http://www.johnlocke.org. 2 Hartgen, D. The Looming Crisis in Highway Condition: Comparative Performance of State Highway Systems, 1984-2002, Report prepared for the John Locke Foundation, Raleigh NC 27601, February 2004. On the Web at http://www.johnlocke.org. 3 Charting a New Direction for NCDOT: North Carolina’s Long-Range Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC 27699, September 2, 2004. Available at http://www.ncdot.org/planning/statewideplan.

5

http://www.johnlocke.org/


http://www.ncdot.org/planning/statewideplan

on the condition and characteristics of the NC State-owned highway system and state and local highway bridges, for various years. The primary data sources are:

1. North Carolina’s Highway Design Manual,4 containing standards for lane widths, shoulder widths and other highway and bridge criteria. This manual is used to determine criteria for three key “cut points”:

• Poor-condition roads: roads rated less than 50 on NCDOT’s biennial pavement condition surveys;

• Narrow lanes: roads with lane widths less than 11 feet. Although some modern roads (such as some subdivision roads) are occasionally built to less than 22-ft widths (<11-ft lanes), roads widened or improved would normally be widened out to 12-ft lane widths.

• Narrow shoulders: shoulders less than 4 feet in width. Although some roads, particularly in mountainous areas and within municipalities, might be constructed with less than 4-ft shoulders or with curb-and-gutter cross-sections, a 4-ft shoulder width is generally considered the minimum for most construction.

2. North Carolina DOT’s Biennial Pavement Condition Survey, containing

information on pavement condition and repair costs, lane widths, and shoulder widths for each road section. The survey covers 72,293 miles (year 2002) and 73,196 miles (year 2004) of state-owned road, but excludes the Interstate system5. The source of the 1998 data is prior summaries prepared by the author, 2002 data transmitted by NCDOT,6 and NCDOT’s website-posted 2004 condition survey7. The data is in MS Excel format, organized by road section, within route number, within county, within DOT Division. This file was then mined to isolate the data elements of interest:

• Overall road condition score, based on a 100-0 rating developed from observing the incidence and severity of several distress symptoms, primarily cracking, rutting, bleedings, and joint condition.

• Repair costs, estimated by NCDOT based on the condition rating, section length, and number of lanes. These are based on NCDOT’s

4 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Design Manual, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC 27706, January 1,1978, as revised through 2002. 5 The pavement condition of the Interstate System is measured using a different measure, pavement smoothness (International Roughness Index), which is reported annually to the Federal Highway Administration. 6 Correspondence from Mr. Matt Adams, Maintenance/Operations Staff Engineer for NCDOT Division 10, to Prof. David T. Hartgen, UNC Charlotte, March 8, 2004, and corresponding CD-ROM. 7 NC Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, 2004 Pavement Condition Survey, posted July 2004. On the NCDOT website, http://www.dot.state.nc.us. Data was obtained from the revised database posted September 5, 2004.

6

http://www.dot.state.nc.us/

assessment of the most appropriate repair for the section, and unit costs for repairs drawn from recent NCDOT contract work records.

• Lane widths and shoulder widths, as measured in the field. These data were then categorized based on the standards noted above and summarized. It is important to understand what the pavement condition survey does not cover. First, it does not cover Interstates, which are surveyed using a different methodology based on pavement roughness. Second, the survey covers just state-owned roads, not most municipal streets, although State-numbered routes through municipalities are included. This means that for a given county the survey contains mostly information on roads OUTSIDE municipalities, in the ‘donut’ areas surrounding the cities and towns, but not in the municipalities themselves or the Interstate system in those counties that have Interstate roads. The survey is therefore not a complete inventory of all roads in each county, but rather an inventory of the mostly “suburban” and “rural” roads in each county and those few state-owned roads that go through urban areas. Between 1998 and 2002, several potentially important methodological changes were made to the NCDOT pavement condition survey that may impact the comparisons described below.8 One important change was to remove the prior survey’s ratings from the field rating sheets. Before 2002 the road ratings for the prior survey were provided to the raters for reference in the field. However, beginning in 2002, ratings from the prior survey were not provided to the raters. This change was made to ensure that ‘in-the-field’ assessments were not being biased up or down by knowledge of prior scores, a bias known as a ‘testing effect.’ However, the suppression of prior scores also might lead to wider variations in ratings and possibly some wide swings in the ratings of individual sections. Secondly, several changes were made in the scoring of cracking distress and other symptoms. While not as radical, these changes might also affect the over-time variability of the ratings. Another issue is the accuracy of other data on the file. For instance, in reviewing the 2004 data on NCDOT’s website in early September 2004, we noted large inconsistencies in the reported mileage for several counties, changes that more than doubled the reported mileage from prior years and therefore seemed unlikely to be accurate. These inconsistencies were brought to the attention of the NCDOT, which then undertook a complete review of the website data and made subsequent revisions to individual records in 8 counties.9 It is this ‘correct’ file (as of September 5, 2004)10 which is the basis

8 Personal conversation between D. Hartgen and J. Blackwelder, Pavement Engineer, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, August 19, 2004. 9 Major changes to Ashe, Burke, Granville, Guilford, Lincoln, Person, Randolph and Surry County data. Posted on the NCDOT website September 5, 2004. 10 The assistance of NCDOT’s Pavement Management Section, particularly Mary Opperman, is appreciated in reviewing and revising this file.

7

8

of this report. However, given the pervasiveness of the corrections to just one key data item (section length), the possibility that other errors remain cannot be discounted.

3. North Carolina’s 2002 Bridge Inventory, as compiled by the Federal Highway Administration from information submitted by NCDOT. This file, the latest available, contains data on the condition of the bridge decks for each of the 22,244 bridges in the state. It is conducted every other year by NCDOT inspectors, following carefully prescribed rating methods and a detailed field manual. The source of the file is a transmittal from the Federal Highway Administration11 which provided the data in MS Access format. The bridge inventory was then mined to isolate the data elements of interest:

• Bridge deck, substructure, and superstructure condition data, as determined from the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges12, were extracted from the total data file. Bridge condition is measured on a 9-point scale, on which bridges rated 4 or less are described as being in poor condition.

• The extracted bridge data were sorted by county, based on county FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standards) codes and NCDOT Division (NCDOT administrative region within the state).

Once obtained, the 2002 and 2004 data described above were then summarized and merged with similar information from 1998. Comparisons by county were then prepared in MS Excel format. Most counties showed slight increases in total mileage and total bridge counts; a few showing declines were investigated and the data were revised or retained. Analysis of the data was straightforward. Key statistics (percentages of poor pavement, lane width, shoulder width and bridge decks) were computed for 1998, 2002 and 2004. The relative ranking (1-100) of each county on the 4 key indicators for 2004, 2002 and 1998 was then determined, along with changes in each index for each county. Tables, maps, graphics, and text were then prepared describing the findings.

11 Transmittal from Ann Shemaka, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, to Prof. David T. Hartgen, July 9, 2004 with corresponding CD-ROM. 12 Federal Highway Administration, Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Report FHWA-PD-96-001, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, December 1995. p. 38-39.

II. Findings A. Overall Trends: The following table summarizes the overall finding of the study. The overall ‘percent poor’ for each statistic for North Carolina is: Table II.1: Overall Trends in NC State-Owned Road Condition, 1998-2004

Statistic 1998 2002 2004 Trend Percent poor pavement 7.92 8.87 8.19 Worse Percent narrow lanes 73.9 73.5 72.9 Slightly better Percent narrow shoulders 16.8 15.9 19.8 Worsening Percent poor bridge decks 4.15 3.11 - Much better

These findings are interpreted as follows:

• From 1998 to 2002, the percentage of poor pavement on North Carolina’s state-owned roads worsened by almost 1 percent, from 7.92 percent to 8.87 percent. Conditions improved slightly to 8.19 percent in 2004. Over the 6-year period the State’s poor-condition road mileage is increasing at about 93 miles per year.

• The percentage of roads with narrow lanes improved slightly, from 73.9 percent in 1998 to 72.9 percent in 2004. But since the number of miles surveyed increased, the number of miles with narrow lanes (less than 11 ft) actually increased by 2564 miles.

• From 1998 to 2004 North Carolina lost ground in reducing the backlog of narrow- shoulder roads. The percentage of roads with narrow shoulders (less than 4 feet) increased from 16.0 percent to 19.8 percent from 1998 to 2004. Some of this increase may be due to revised measurements of shoulder widths, and in increasing mileage of ‘subdivision’ roads with curbs and gutters.

• The percentage of bridges with poor-rated decks (4 or less on the federal 9-point rating scale) improved substantially, from 4.15 to 3.11 percent, or about 189 bridges. The following table provides more detail on these overall trends.

9

Table II.2: Details on Overall Trends, 1998-2004

Item 1998 2002 2004 Change, 98-04 Miles Surveyed 68643.75 72292.93 73195.56 + 4551.81Bridges Surveyed 21241 22244 NA + 1003 Poor Pavement, Miles 5433.91 6410.97 5993.71 + 559.80 Poor Pavement, Percent 7.92 8.87 8.19 + 0.27 Narrow Lanes, Miles 50771.56 53163.28 53335.77 + 2564.21Narrow Lanes, Percent 73.96 73.54 72.87 -1.09 Narrow Shoulders, Miles 11000.38 11511.49 14521.14 + 3520.76Narrow Shoulders, Percent 16.03 15.92 19.84 +3.81 Poor Bridge Decks, Number 811 692 NA - 189

Poor Bridge Decks, Percent 4.15 3.11 NA - 1.04

In summary, the State’s road system worsened on 2 of 4 key indicators, and improved slightly on another. On only one indicator (bridge deck condition) was a significant improvement reported. B. Pavement Condition

1. Trends in Pavement Condition From 1998 to 2004, the percentage of poor roads in the NC state highway system increased by about ¼ percent, from 7.92 percent to 8.19 percent. This corresponds to an increase of poor mileage at the rate of about 93 miles per year. The percentage of roads in good condition increased from 63.00 to 65.74 percent, and the percentage of roads in fair condition declined by over 3 percent, from 29.08 to 26.07 percent. Figure II.1 shows the overall trends. The State’s fair-condition mileage has fallen and its good-condition mileage increased. Comparing 1998 to 2002, more mileage slid into the ‘poor’ category, but between 2002 and 2004 this ominous trend seems to have been reversed. The figure shows that the State is having trouble keeping up with the slowly increasing backlog of poor-condition roads, even while it expands the road system and re-surfaces other roads to ‘good’ condition. Time will tell whether the most recent trend of improving poor-pavement mileage holds up.

10

Figure II.1: State-Owned Roads by Pavement Condition, 1998-2004

7.92

29.08

63.00

8.87

27.79

63.34

8.19

26.07

65.74

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

% Roads-PoorCondition

% Roads-FairCondition

% Roads-GoodCondition

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

oad

Mile

s

1998 2002 2004

2. Trends by County The State’s 100 counties vary widely in percentage of poor pavement. Although the overall statewide percentage of poor pavement in 2004 was 8.19 percent, North Carolina’s counties vary from as low as 0.00 percent poor pavement (in Yancey County) to as high as 27.15 percent poor pavement in Ashe County. The Appendices provides a detailed listing of all 100 counties and their ratings. Over the past 6 years there has also been a significant shift in the location of poor-condition roads. Tables II.3 and II.4 show the top 10 and bottom 10 counties, in terms of the percentage of poor roads, for 1998, 2002 and 2004. In 1998 most of the top-rated counties were from eastern North Carolina. But of the top 10 counties in 1998, only three held that honor in 2004, and only one (Hoke) was in the top 10 in all three years. And several counties that were rated in good condition in 1998 (Greene, Pitt) showed very large ‘tumbles’ in their rankings in just four years. Conversely, several top-rated counties in 2002 (Rutherford, Lee) jumped significantly from lower ranks just four years earlier. By 2004, the top 10 included several newcomers from the middle of the state.

11

Table II.3: Top 10 Counties in Road Condition, 1998-2004 1998 2002 2004 RANK (1-100)

County Pct Poor

County Pct Poor

County Pct Poor

1 Granville 0.05 Dare 0.00 Yancey 0.002 Wilson 0.09 Anson 0.92 Richmond 0.103 Greene 0.37 Moore 1.12 Caswell 0.39 4 Pitt 0.49 Robeson 1.75 Wilson 0.425 Hoke 0.53 Hoke 1.39 Hoke 0.596 Scotland 0.66 Rutherford 1.61 Montgomery 0.667 Davie 0.98 Halifax 2.11 Lee 0.738 Robeson 1.04 Lee 2.15 Alleghany 0.789 Beaufort 1.10 Carteret 2.19 Randolph 0.96

10 Moore 1.11 Wilson 2.22 Scotland 1.16 (Newcomers in RED) A similar but geographically ‘flipped’ pattern is also apparent for the worst-rated counties (see Table II.4). In 1998, most of the bottom 10 counties were located in western North Carolina, and Rowan County reported the highest percentage of poor-condition roads in the State at 27.68 percent (Rowan was also the worst-rated county in 1996)13. By 2002, the bottom-rated county was Forsyth, and Rowan had improved to 48th statewide. Of the bottom 10 counties in 1998, 5 remained in the bottom 10 in 2002, but 5 improved and several (Rowan, Burke, Swain. Davidson) improved substantially. By 2004, the bottom 10 list contained both western and eastern North Carolina counties. Table II.4: Bottom 10 Counties in Road Condition, 1998-2004 Rank 1998 2002 2004

County Pct Poor

County Pct Poor

County Pct Poor

100 Rowan 27.68 Forsyth 31.01 Ashe 27.1599 Burke 26.17 Macon 29.34 McDowell 25.1798 Macon 25.22 Graham 28.39 Pamlico 21.9497 Alamance 23.70 Clay 27.06 Bertie 20.7596 Ashe 23.59 Alamance 22.93 Sampson 20.1595 Orange 20.90 Ashe 22.68 Mitchell 18.2894 Graham 20.85 Pamlico 21.30 Duplin 18.0393 Jackson 20.76 Duplin 20.65 Nash 17.3692 Swain 20.13 Catawba 20.51 Greene 17.1291 Davidson 19.75 Jackson 19.32 Stokes 17.06

(Newcomers in RED) 13 Douglas J. Orr and Alfred W. Stuart, Eds. North Carolina Atlas, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC, 2000, p. 205.

12

13

3. Geography of Trends The wide variation in the condition of roads in North Carolina, and the large changes in the condition of a number of counties in just 6 years is not geographically random. Figures II.2, II.3 and II.4 show this data for 1998, 2002 and 2004. Figure II.2 shows that in 1998 the large variation in condition was east-west correlated, with eastern counties generally in considerably better shape than the western counties. Numerous explanations have been suggested for this wide difference and its geographic pattern, including soils and terrain, weather and climate, construction materials, differences in funding formulas, and politics, to name just a few. In our earlier assessment of condition, written in 2000,14 we expressed concern about this pattern and called for its redress over time through a concerted effort to make conditions more uniform throughout the state. However, Figure II.3 shows that just 4 years later, in 2002, the strong geographic east-west pattern in road condition had largely disappeared, with many more counties in the eastern side of the state now rated below the state average. The later data show a mixture of good-condition and poor-condition counties throughout the state, but also some very sharp changes. A number of counties on the eastern shore and coastal plain previously rated in good condition were rated poor. These include (particularly) Brunswick, New Hanover, Duplin, Onslow, Jones, Crave, Beaufort, Hyde, and Northampton. At the western end of the state, some counties (Rutherford) worsened substantially while others improved (Swain, Alleghany). In the middle of the state several counties improved (Rowan, Davidson) while others worsened (Harnett). This pattern was largely repeated in 2004. Figure II.4 is similar in pattern to the 2002 map in that it shows a wide band of eastern NC counties on the coastal plain that now have greater than 10 percent poor pavement. But there also some important exceptions: several mountain counties (Cherokee, Graham, Macon) showed substantial improvements from 2002 to 2004, while several eastern counties (Currituck, Washington, Sampson) worsened substantially. Analysis of trends over the 6-year period reveals disturbing variations. Some counties reported wide swings in the percentage of poor roads over the 6 year period. For instance, the following table shows some of the largest changes: Table: II.5: Counties Reporting Large Changes in Percent Poor Pavement County 1998 (rank) 2002 (rank) 2004 (rank)Alleghany 7.83 (61) 15.59 (83) 0.78 (8)Bertie 1.54 (17) 16.55 (87) 20.75 (97)Carteret 1.26 (11) 2.19 (9) 9.90 (63)Chowan 1.42 (13) 2.75 (16) 11.19 (72)Forsyth 11.52 (78) 31.01 (100) 8.12 (49)Granville 0.05 (1) 15.87 (84) 10.55 (69)New Hanover 1.36 (12) 18.77 (90) 10.32 (67)Pitt 0.49 (4) 9.40 (56) 11.96 (74)Rowan 27.68 (100) 7.15 (48) 9.07 (56)Rutherford 13.59 (83) 1.61 (6) 1.81 (16) Worsened Improved

14 Hartgen, 2000, op. cit. (see footnote 1).

3.85

1.04

5.26

2.027.03

5.91

3.67

1.1

7.38

5.91

5.94

5.5

12.813.02

3.81

4.64

1.54

1.11

7.667.95

1.89

6.77

0.49

12.95

1.43

7.6

3.43

19.75

13.59 5.63

8.99

4.35

8.55

10.02

20.13

3.6

0.05

3.45

27.68

25.22

26.17

1.26

1.43

5.67

2.55

20.76

1.57

1.6

2.83

19.19

10.48

1.48

17.59

9.34

9.97

5.3

23.7

423.59

17.56

11.52

11.13

2.87

3.77

20.9

0.53

6.33.5

9.42

9.38

10.44

0.09

13.8418.97

4.7211.05

5.93

4.85

0.66

13.02

8.07

11.11

20.85

2.35

7.13

0.98

0.37

5.49

8.51

6.44

6.73

15.06

6.96

2.41

7.83

11.89

9.84

14.23

1.36

1.42

8

6 3

2

4

15

7

9

12

11

13

1410

3.85

1.04

5.26

2.027.03

5.91

3.67

1.1

7.38

5.91

5.94

5.5

12.813.02

3.81

4.64

1.54

1.11

7.667.95

1.89

6.77

0.49

12.95

1.43

7.6

3.43

19.75

13.59 5.63

8.99

4.35

8.55

10.02

20.13

3.6

0.05

3.45

27.68

25.22

26.17

1.26

1.43

5.67

2.55

20.76

1.57

1.6

2.83

19.19

10.48

1.48

17.59

9.34

9.97

5.3

23.7

423.59

17.56

11.52

11.13

2.87

3.77

20.9

0.53

6.33.5

9.42

9.38

10.44

0.09

13.8418.97

4.7211.05

5.93

4.85

0.66

13.02

8.07

11.11

20.85

2.35

7.13

0.98

0.37

5.49

8.51

6.44

6.73

15.06

6.96

2.41

7.83

11.89

9.84

14.23

1.36

1.421

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

Figure II.2: Percentage of Road Miles in Poor Condition, 1998


1998 - 7.92%2002 - 8.87%2004 - 8.19%

1998 - 7.92%2002 - 8.87%2004 - 8.19%

NC Averages

NC Averages

NC DOT Divisions are outlined in blackand labeled in black ovals.


Cartography by Greg Fields


Source: NC DOT

Source: NC DOT

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Road Miles in Poor Condition0.00 to 3.003.00 to 5.005.00 to 7.927.92 to 10.0010.00 to 20.0020.00 to 27.70

0 40 80 120

Miles


14

6.74

1.76

20.15

4.0713.32

8.58

8.6

9.79

18.03

4.56

0.96

13.26

9.866.75

16.58

7.28

20.75

1.63

1.532.41

2.67

10.04

11.96

6.19

8.89

4.72

8.14

3.87

1.81 12.6

9.1

15.34

6.04

17.36

6.83

14.64

10.55

3.94

9.07

10.89

7.98

9.9

3.05

0.66

4.93

13.59

0.1

2.36

16.74

7.87

2.7

5.52

17.06

5.2

25.17

1.52

9.27

0.3927.15

8.87

8.12

12.93

9.28

9.7

8.91

0.59

14.566.06

13.01

10.28

5.53

0.42

10.963.63

15.127.64

21.94

1.58

1.16

11.9

0

2.11

13.55

10.07

2.55

6.47

17.12

15.89

5.75

0.73

6.54

16.69

5.84

4.32

0.78

10.39

18.28

16.73

10.32

11.19

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

12

11

13

14


1998 - 7.92%2002 - 8.87%2004 - 8.19%

NC Averages


Cartography by Greg FieldsSource: NC DOT

15

0 40 80 120

Miles


On the other hand, other counties were stable in condition over the 6-year period: Table II.6: Counties Reporting Stable Road Conditions County 1998 (Rank) 2002 (Rank) 2004 (Rank)Ashe 23.59 (96) 22.68 (95) 27.15 (100)Avery 15.06 (86) 11.73 (70) 16.69 (88)Chatham 4.64 (38) 5.42 (35) 7.28 (45)Guilford 6.77 (54) 8.21 (51) 10.04 (64)Wilson 0.09 (2) 2.22 (10) 0.42 (4) These patterns suggest that a variety of complex trends are occurring in the conditions of North Carolina’s road system. The overall trend appears to be worsening conditions, brought on by a mixture of weather and climate, system age, traffic, and lower expenditures. However, on top of this overall trend are patterns of accelerated deterioration (most visible in the eastern coastal plain counties) exacerbated by major weather events, but system improvements (most visible in several mountain counties) and possibly changes in scoring procedures. Several explanations are possible for these wide variations and, perhaps even more important, the wide swings in condition for some counties. Among the possible explanations are:

• Repair efforts and funding differences. State funding formulas for secondary roads and for contract resurfacing are based partially on road repair needs, which are based partially on condition. In theory, these formulas ‘push’ funds toward those counties that have the worst-condition roads, and once allocated to counties the funds (presumably) would be then spent on those roads needing work the most. This might explain some of the improvements in some low-rated counties (they would have received relatively more funds), and some worsening in the better-condition counties (they would have received relatively less funds). But it would not explain the improvements in some ‘good condition’ counties or continued declines in other poor-condition’ counties. Time lags from the collection of data (1998) to its subsequent use in funding allocations (state fiscal year beginning 2000) and actual application to the pavement (2000 and 2001), combined with the relatively small size of the program, make it unlikely that the changes in condition in 2002 would have been caused by major repairs.

• Weakening overall state funding. Separate from repair strategies, several studies have found that North Carolina is not spending enough on repairs and maintenance of its road system. This concern was a major theme of the recently released Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan.15 This factor might be the cause of an overall underlying downward shift in state road condition.

• Maintenance and repair practices. Possibly, some Divisions have maintenance and repair strategies (project selection, materials, soils) or other circumstances that allow them to manage and maintain their road systems better, or conversely that lead to declines.

15 NCDOT, 2004, op.cit.

16

• System age or traffic. Differences in system age, traffic volumes, truck traffic or other factors may lead to sharp declines in some counties but minimal changes in others. On the other hand, the above figures show that some of the state’s most urban counties also have relatively good roads, suggesting that they might get more attention, are stronger, or perhaps just have newer roads.

• Hurricane Floyd and other weather events. The pattern of the condition changes between 1998 and 2002, particularly those in the eastern counties, suggests that major weather events such as Hurricane Floyd in 1999 resulted in major changes in the condition of roads that have still not yet been redressed. But obviously, these events would not explain sharp declines in some western counties.16

• Condition rating methods. NCDOT road ratings are conducted by its 14 divisions, which use field crews assigned to each county. Raters from the NCDOT’s divisions and counties first attend training sessions and then ‘field rate’ sections for practice. After training, each team then returns to its division and conducts the rating during the January-March time period. Results are then transmitted to the Main Office where they are edited and posted on NCDOT’s website in the summer, about 4-6 months after the surveys. The basic rating method involves a careful ‘drive-along’ of each pavement section, identifying the magnitude and severity of numerous distress symptoms such as cracks, ruts, bleeding, potholes, etc. The information is recorded on rating sheets that show each section’s characteristics, but not the prior year’s ratings. After traversing the section, which may range from a very short (0.1 mile) to long (3-5 mile) length, the rating team judges the magnitude and severity of each distress symptom and then proceeds to the next section. Sometimes the section is re-driven to check the assessment. Data sheets are then transmitted to the main office in Raleigh, where the data is entered into databases and the overall road rating is then developed. The main office also field checks some ratings, particularly those of new crews. Although structured and rule-based, the method is essentially subjective regarding the rating team’s judgment of the magnitude and severity of distress. After the 1998 ratings were published, several reviews were made of possible variations in the scoring methods used by the road rating teams in different NCDOT Divisions. The possibility of wide variations in the procedures used by the individuals doing the scoring, which would lead to different ratings for a road depending on the scorer, raises the question of whether the whole rating system used by the NCDOT is accurate and consistent over time and is robust enough to be used for allocating funds. Table II.7 sheds some light on these possibilities by reviewing the poor-pavement data by NCDOT Division. Divisions on the eastern side of the state (Divisions 1-6) worsened steadily in road conditions during the 6-year period, while Divisions on the western side (Divisions 7-14) generally improved. However, one west-side Division (11, northwest corner) also worsened. This pattern suggests that perhaps weather-related factors such as Hurricane Floyd in 1999 may have precipitated the deterioration in roads in eastern NC which continued after 1999 and may even be accelerating today.

16 In September 2004 the state’s western counties were hit with very large flooding problems from Hurricanes Frances and Ivan. Data collected in 2006 will, presumably, determine if these events had a similar impact on western North Carolina roads.

17

Table II.7: NC Division Roads in Poor Condition, 1998, 2002, and 2004 1998 2002 2004 Change,

1998-2004 Division Miles

Poor %

Poor Miles Poor

% Poor

Miles Poor

% Poor

Miles Poor

% Poor

1 276.17 6.24 443.20 9.63 637.96 13.54 361.79 7.302 94.05 2.09 431.10 9.07 626.87 13.10 532.82 11.013 292.93 5.69 770.59 14.43 812.16 15.18 519.23 9.494 280.79 4.93 368.07 6.19 474.03 7.86 193.24 2.935 179.69 3.26 386.46 6.58 445.06 7.47 265.37 4.216 112.61 1.97 270.37 4.59 267.62 4.49 155.01 2.527 501.76 10.94 543.68 11.16 408.38 8.21 -93.38 -2.738 222.69 3.64 181.78 2.82 123.45 1.89 -99.24 -1.759 792.67 17.65 606.97 12.85 399.97 8.43 -392.7 -9.2210 478.03 10.26 361.16 7.52 366.35 7.69 -111.68 -2.5711 419.83 9.41 600.74 12.44 524.57 10.63 104.74 1.2212 757.08 14.23 553.90 9.89 321.3 5.66 -435.78 -8.5713 575.13 13.66 317.73 7.03 247.48 5.39 -327.65 -8.2714 450.48 11.90 575.22 14.07 338.51 8.06 -111.97 -3.84

Total

5433.91

7.92 6410.97 8.87 5993.71

8.19

559.80 0.27

(Divisions worsening in RED) The sharp east-west patterning of improvements and declines seems to have accelerated between 2002 and 2004, suggesting that good-condition roads were also weakened, putting them at risk for further deterioration in later years. C. Lane Widths

1. Trends in Narrow Lanes Figure II.5 summarizes the overall statewide trends for narrow lanes. Statewide, about 72.87 percent of the state-owned highway system has lane widths that are less than 11 feet in width, about a 1-percent improvement over 1998. According to the NCDOT Highway Design Manual,17 the general standard for lane widths for state-owned roads is 22 feet, or 11-ft lanes for most 2-lane roads. While the Manual allows for 20-ft roads (10-ft lanes) on some local roads and collectors, this is permitted only for roads with design speeds of 30 mph or less, most of which would be subdivision streets. For roads with higher design speeds, the standard of 22 feet applies except for low-volume (less than 400 daily traffic) roads. Higher functional classes (arterials and above) generally require 24-ft pavements (12-ft lanes). North Carolina has a large state-owned highway system in which most roads are in the lower functional classes. In addition, much of the system is on old alignment placed many years ago, before higher speeds and larger vehicle sizes became common. Therefore, the fact that almost ¾ of the system has less than 11 ft lanes should not be particularly surprising. On the other hand, it is well known in traffic safety that narrow rural lanes are a key factor leading to higher accident rates. Although it is clearly 17 NCDOT, Highway Design Manual, op.cit.

18

impractical for North Carolina to adopt a rigorous 11-ft or 12-ft rule for all lane widths, there should also be a concerted effort to widen narrow roads over time. That is why the small change in the state’s lane width data is so disappointing. Over the past 6 years, the state has made only minimal progress in reducing the percentage of narrow lane roads on the state-owned system. Indeed as Table II.2 showed the actual mileage of less-than-11-ft roads has actually increased even though the percentage has fallen slightly. Figure II.5: Trends in Narrow Lanes, Narrow Shoulders and Bridge Decks

73.96

16.03

4.15

73.54

15.92

3.11

72.87

19.84

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

% Narrow Lanes % Narrow Shoulders % Bridge Decks Poor

Per

cent

of T

otal

Roa

d M

iles

or T

otal

Brid

ge

1998 2002 2004

2. Trends by County

Contrary to the findings on pavement condition, the lane widths of North Carolina’s state-owned road system have shown little change over the past 6 years. Table II.8 and II.9 show the rankings of the top 10 and bottom 10 counties, in terms of the percentage of narrow lanes, for 1998-2004. Looking first at the best-rated counties, Table II.8 shows that the counties with the lowest percentage of narrow lanes are primarily the urban counties and some coastal counties. Recalling that the state road system consists of roads outside of municipalities (in the ‘donuts’ of urban counties), more rapidly growing urban counties such as Mecklenburg would more likely have newer roads in the suburban ‘donut ring’ areas between the municipalities and the county boundary, and these roads would more likely to have been built to wider widths. On the other hand, coastal counties typically have fewer topographical variations that would preclude wider roads being built initially. The bottom 10 counties with the highest percentage of narrow lanes (Table II.9) are exclusively western mountain counties, reflecting the difficulty and expense of building 22-ft roads in that terrain. The variation in percentage of narrow lanes is about a factor of 2, from a low of 41 percent in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) to a high of 93 percent in Alleghany County, in northwest mountainous North Carolina.

19

There has been very little change in the ratings of these counties over the past 6 years. The tables show that with just a few exceptions the counties rated best or worst in 1998 have essentially the same ratings in 2002 and 2004. Although the individual ranks have shifted slightly, 9 of the top 10 counties and 9 of the bottom 10 counties are the same in 1998, 2002 and 2004. Table II.8: Narrow Lanes – Top 10 Counties: Lowest Pct with < 11-ft Lanes

Rank

1998 County

% Narrow Lanes

2002 County

% Narrow Lanes

2004 County

% Narrow Lanes

1 Mecklenburg 42.74 Mecklenburg 41.25 Mecklenburg 39.89 2 Cumberland 47.65 New Hanover 42.61 New Hanover 40.94 3 Dare 48.92 Dare 45.68 Dare 45.43 4 New Hanover 49.70 Cumberland 48.42 Cumberland 46.74 5 Durham 56.25 Forsyth 55.99 Forsyth 54.20 6 Brunswick 58.21 Brunswick 56.85 Brunswick 57.28 7 Guilford 58.64 Durham 58.94 Durham 59.11 8 Forsyth 58.99 Guilford 59.13 Guilford 60.63 9 Carteret 62.00 Carteret 61.25 Carteret 61.01

10 Scotland 63.51 Martin 63.25 Wilson 61.07 (Newcomers in RED) Table II.9: Narrow Lanes – Bottom 10 Counties: Highest Percent with < 11-ft Lanes

Rank

1998 County

% Narrow Lanes

2002 County

% Narrow Lanes

2004 County

% Narrow Lanes

100 Alleghany 92.64 Alleghany 92.89 Alleghany 93.00 99 Ashe 92.17 Ashe 92.30 Ashe 90.88 98 Yancey 90.51 Mitchell 88.90 Mitchell 88.87 97 Yadkin 88.02 Macon 88.65 Macon 88.63 96 Macon 87.78 Wilkes 88.14 Yancey 88.24 95 Mitchell 87.32 Yancey 87.95 Clay 87.21 94 Franklin 87.20 Yadkin 87.42 Polk 87.12 93 Wilkes 87.16 Polk 87.40 Franklin 86.66 92 Alexander 86.78 Clay 87.33 Wilkes 86.58 91 Clay 86.37 Alexander 86.95 Alexander 85.48

(Newcomers in RED)

1. Geography of Trends As noted above, the geographic pattern of this data is readily apparent from Figures II.6, Figure II.7 and Figure II.8, which show the distribution of counties by percentage of narrow lanes in 1998, 2002 and 2004. For each year, there is a strong tendency for the state’s western mountainous counties to have a higher percentage of narrow lanes. But the relationship is not perfect since some eastern-shore counties, particularly in the northeast, also have a high percentage of narrow lanes. Over time, the geographic pattern of the state’s narrow lane mileage has been remarkably stable. Only a few counties have changed their percentages of narrow lanes between 1998 and 2004, and these changes were generally less than 2 percentage points.

20

69

66.92

83.36

62.1765.79

57.28

69.22

75.67

75.86

78.13

76.46

62.5

86.5866.8

67.52

68.86

74.07

72.01

71.6478.61

46.74

60.63

65.38

80.46

68.79

81.55

72

65.96

81.84 74.79

80.12

82.15

39.89

63.37

74.64

85.32

76.89

80.2

66.44

88.63

83.11

61.01

61.44

69.83

86.66

78.12

64.41

79.85

76.42

79.81

82.48

62.2

78.81

84.25

82.06

81.52

79.72

78.7490.88

71.42

54.2

78.7

84.38

73.62

79.59

73.01

78.5345.43

82.74

81.59

84.06

61.07

68.768.69

75.2173.15

77.55

85.05

61.85

80.7

88.24

77.98

68.28

59.11

74.32

66.18

82.56

75.02

85.48

67.25

83.2

83.43

83.35

87.12

93

72.26

88.87

87.21

40.94

79.75

2

1

4

57

9

8

6 3

10

12

11

13

14

71.71

71.63

82.9

75.3865.61

58.21

71.03

78.84

76.79

79.97

76.4

64.26

87.1674.11

65.26

71.97

72.95

73.03

75.7980.1

47.65

58.64

67.14

81.46

71.66

81.25

71.49

66.89

80.6 76.85

78.27

81.46

42.74

68.47

74.79

85.0375.71

81.04

66.9

87.78

81.45

62

67.25

71.82

87.2

78.64

67.94

79.81

75.9

80.91

81.09

64.85

81.06

83.74

83.28

84.27

79.5

77.9792.17

71.64

58.99

78

85.6

73.68

78.67

75.74

79.04 48.92

80.83

81.52

82.93

69.5

70.2869.27

74.3874.08

78.28

88.02

63.51

79.42

90.51

76.56

67.91

56.25

79.3

67.49

83.79

72.15

86.78

70.64

83.73

81.98

82.56

86.29

92.64

75.62

87.32

86.37

49.7

77.361

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

Figure II.6: Percentage of Road Miles with Narrow Lanes (< 11 ft. wide), 1998


NC Averages

NC Averages





Source: NC DOT

Source: NC DOT21

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Road Miles with Lane Widths < 11 ft.0.00 to 50.0050.00 to 65.0065.00 to 73.9673.96 to 80.0080.00 to 90.0090.00 to 100.00

0 40 80 120

Miles


1998 - 73.96%2002 - 73.54%2004 - 72.87%

1998 - 73.96%2002 - 73.54%2004 - 72.87%

69

66.92

83.36

62.1765.79

57.28

69.22

75.67

75.86

78.13

76.46

62.5

86.5866.8

67.52

68.86

74.07

72.01

71.6478.61

46.74

60.63

65.38

80.46

68.79

81.55

72

65.96

81.84 74.79

80.12

82.15

39.89

63.37

74.64

85.32

76.89

80.2

66.44

88.63

83.11

61.01

61.44

69.83

86.66

78.12

64.41

79.85

76.42

79.81

82.48

62.2

78.81

84.25

82.06

81.52

79.72

78.7490.88

71.42

54.2

78.7

84.38

73.62

79.59

73.01

78.5345.43

82.74

81.59

84.06

61.07

68.768.69

75.2173.15

77.55

85.05

61.85

80.7

88.24

77.98

68.28

59.11

74.32

66.18

82.56

75.02

85.48

67.25

83.2

83.43

83.35

87.12

93

72.26

88.87

87.21

40.94

79.75

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

12

11

13

14


1998 - 73.96%2002 - 73.54%2004 - 72.87%

NC Averages



22

0 40 80 120

Miles


Some of the apparent stability in these ratings may be due to measurement procedures. During the road rating process NCDOT crews may not spend time measuring lane widths and shoulder widths, particularly if there has been no change to the geometry of the road since the last survey. Since survey crews are provided with data on number of lanes and pavement width as part of the survey process, there would be no reason to re-measure pavement widths unless there had been a change in geometry. These considerations mean that the likelihood is high that road widths would not generally be changed during surveys. D. Shoulder Widths

1. Trends in Narrow Shoulders Overall, the percentage of roads with narrow shoulders worsened between 1998 and 2004. The percentage of roads with narrow shoulders – less than 4 feet – worsened substantially, from 16.03 percent in 1998 to 19.84 percent in 2004. We were unable to identify the basis for this abrupt change. Conversations with NCDOT indicate that no specific directions or highlights were provided to field crews regarding shoulder widths.18 If the changes had been caused by some road widenings (taking footage from the shoulders) then one would have expected to see a change in the land width statistics as well. However, the largest changes in narrow-shoulder mileage occurred primarily in urban counties (Mecklenburg, Wake, Guilford, Cumberland, and Buncombe), suggesting that the increase in narrow-shoulder mileage was the result of increased suburban subdivision mileage (which often has narrow shoulders) and perhaps re-coding of urban sections based on their ‘curb and gutter’ designs that have no shoulders.

2. Trends by County The following tables (Table II.10 and Table II.11) show the top 10 and bottom 10 counties, in terms of percentage of narrow shoulders, in 1998, 2002 and 2004. As with narrow lane widths, the percentage of narrow shoulders varies widely across the state’s 100 counties, from as little as 0.38 percent in Stokes County to as high as 71.23 percent for Surry County. Table II.10: Narrow Shoulders – Top 10 Counties (Least Pct with <4 ft Width)

Rank 1998 County

% NarrowShoulders

2002County

% NarrowShoulders

2004 County

% NarrowShoulders

1 Stokes 0.13 Stokes 0.12 Stokes 0.38 2 Sampson 1.11 Sampson 1.07 Caswell 2.53 3 Pamlico 1.37 Lee 1.61 Pamlico 3.01 4 Lee 1.50 Craven 1.67 Sampson 3.23 5 Craven 2.02 Carteret 1.72 Pender 4.59 6 Rockingham 2.29 Pamlico 1.75 Hoke 4.99 7 Richmond 2.48 New Hanover 2.13 Lee 5.22 8 Caswell 2.55 Caswell 2.46 Beaufort 5.23 9 New Hanover 2.73 Beaufort 2.48 Craven 5.38

10 Hoke 2.76 Hoke 2.55 Hyde 5.87 (Newcomers in RED)

18 Conversation with J. Blackwelder, NCDOT Pavement Management Section, September 16, 2004.

23

24

However, the counties have varied little in percentage of narrow shoulders over time. The tables show that the top10 and bottom10 counties have changed only slightly, with 9 of the top 10 and 9 of the bottom 10 being the same from 1998 to 2004. Table II.11: Narrow Shoulders – Bottom 10 Counties (Highest Pct with <4 ft Width)

Rank 1998 County

% NarrowShoulder

2002County

% NarrowShoulder

2004 County

% Narrow Shoulder

100 Surry 74.47 Surry 70.56 Surry 71.3299 Alleghany 71.84 Alleghany 64.48 Alleghany 63.2998 Avery 65.76 Avery 63.14 Avery 61.6697 Clay 61.00 Mitchell 58.20 Clay 58.5596 Macon 53.67 Clay 57.98 Mitchell 58.1795 Forsyth 52.28 Yancey 50.04 Forsyth 54.3394 Watauga 51.82 Macon 49.10 Yancey 51.7293 Yancey 51.40 Wilkes 46.75 Macon 51.5492 Catawba 51.06 Watauga 45.49 Wilkes 47.6791 Mitchell 50.08 Madison 45.25 Catawba 47.66

(Newcomers in RED) There has also been a significant shift upward in the percentage of narrow-shoulder roads in some of the top-rated counties. Although the county rankings themselves have not changed significantly, the percentage of narrow shoulders appears to have been re-calculated higher, possibly as a result of more careful measurement in the field. Interestingly, counties in the bottom 10 list have not shown the same trends. This data suggests that the apparent worsening of narrow shoulders between 2002 and 2004 is caused by more careful measurement in both urban and rural counties, along with increased suburban subdivision mileage in large urban counties.

3. Geography of trends Figures II.9, II.10 and II.11 show the geographic distribution of counties by percentage of narrow shoulders in 1998, 2002 and 2004. These maps show clearly that the ‘narrow shoulder’ problem is largely one associated with the western counties, probably related to the steeper terrain and the difficulty of adding wider shoulders or building roads with adequate shoulders. With just one exception (Forsyth), all of the counties with higher percentages of narrow shoulders are located in the western mountainous region of the state. However, some western counties (Haywood, Henderson, Rutherford) also reported better-than average ratings. And a few counties on the eastern side of the state reported worse-than average results. These findings suggest that the ‘narrow shoulder’ problem, while largely terrain-related, may also suffer from inaccurate measurement and some errors in reporting, and from increasing narrow-shoulder mileage in urban counties. Narrow shoulders are known to be a significant factor in accident severity and frequency, particularly on rural roads. On curves and in mountainous terrain, adequate shoulder widths provide a margin of safety in reducing the frequency of accidents and their severity when they do occur. North Carolina’s high fatal accident rate – 30% above the national average – may be partially attributed to the fact that so much of the road system does not have these margins of safety built in.

10.22

8.02

1.11

8.213.8

15.09

12.71

2.8

3.1

12.12

17.91

4.73

45.1220.43

2.02

4.11

9.59

12.69

5.8836.65

10.44

5.49

9.73

13.68

10.17

42.28

2.29

8.26

7.48 13.12

10.09

15.04

29.23

8.28

33.82

74.475.97

44.81

38.03

53.67

40.99

3.74

17.16

14.28

5.75

48.85

2.48

13.54

8.09

14.87

39.21

8.44

0.13

46.08

24.55

9.91

6.05

2.5540.71

51.06

52.28

12.97

7.71

4.91

4.77

2.76

8.11 16.3

35.07

7.86

10.76

3.15

19.846.44

5.28.35

1.37

6.91

3.78

51.82

51.4

6.99

17.97

17.43

11.18

4.46

4.85

24.63

6.28

1.5

14.38

65.76

14.7

17.04

71.84

13.37

50.08

61

2.73

5.471

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

11.31

8.48

1.07

6.373.49

18.52

11.16

2.48

4.32

10.36

15.69

4.23

46.7518.5

1.67

7.16

8.21

12.69

5.7833.65

8.41

4.27

8.8

11.94

10.15

38.2

4.73

11.39

7.23 19

9.22

14.03

23.71

8.64

31.33

70.56

5.81

42.69

34.72

49.1

35.58

1.72

17.24

18.27

5.88

43.87

3.8

11.83

7.58

13.42

37.21

7.68

0.12

45.25

22.87

9.48

5.47

2.4636.82

44.5

45.16

13.12

6.95

4.47

4.39

2.55

8.3914.71

31.46

7.1

8.75

4.33

16.875.94

5.177.7

1.75

7.05

5.45

45.49

50.04

6.67

19.3

13.8

11.39

4.07

4.58

16.04

5.78

1.61

13.44

63.14

14.3

15.85

64.48

11.79

58.2

57.98

2.13

4.33

2

4

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

1

Figure II.9: Percentage of Road Miles with Narrow Shoulders (< 4 ft. wide), 1998


NC Averages

NC Averages





Source: NC DOT

Source: NC DOT

25

1998 - 16.80%2002 - 15.92%2004 - 19.84%

1998 - 16.80%2002 - 15.92%2004 - 19.84%

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Road Miles with Shoulders < 4 ft.0.00 to 5.005.00 to 10.0010.00 to 15.9215.92 to 25.0025.00 to 50.0050.00 to 70.57

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Road Miles with Shoulders < 4 ft.0.00 to 5.005.00 to 10.0010.00 to 16.8016.80 to 25.0025.00 to 50.0050.00 to 74.50

12.79

10.94

3.23

8.274.59

20.63

18.63

5.23

7.29

11.56

17.23

15.34

47.6720.06

5.38

8.94

10.7

14.92

5.8741.1

28.87

15.72

14.69

15.01

12.12

40.55

7.79

14.91

8.37 20.17

13.57

15.64

43.02

12.73

34.25

71.32

8.58

43.25

38.86

51.54

37.56

7.59

20.88

20.21

7.29

43.84

7.29

14.79

8.99

17.41

38.04

10.58

0.38

47.4

24.95

11.87

10.57

2.5338.56

47.66

54.33

16.71

11.08

8.24

7.78

4.99

8.917.09

33.1

11.01

13.88

12.44

21.3414.56

8.58.1

3.01

11.73

8.67

45.22

51.72

8.62

21.95

25.72

14.38

6.72

6.1

16.86

8.67

5.22

13.65

61.66

13.77

16.56

63.29

15.69

58.17

58.55

23.57

6.25

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

12

11

13

14


1998 - 16.80%2002 - 15.92%2004 - 19.84%

NC Averages



26

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Road Miles with Shoulders < 4 ft. 0.00 to 5.005.00 to 10.0010.00 to 19.8419.84 to 25.0025.00 to 50.0050.00 to 72.00

E. Bridge Decks 1. Trends in Deck Condition

For this statistic, 2002 is the latest year available. Overall, North Carolina has made considerable progress in reducing its percentage of poor-deck bridges. From 1998 to 2002 the state’s percentage of bridges with poor decks (those rated 4 or less on the federal 9-point bridge condition rating scale) improved from 4.15 percent to 3.11 percent.

2. Trends by County The following tables show the top 10 and bottom 10 counties, in terms of percentage of poor bridge decks, for 1998 and 2002. Overall, the 100 counties vary considerably, but not as much as on other statistics. In 1998, the top 10 counties all reported no bridges with decks in poor condition, and the worst-condition county, Stokes, reported 14.4 percent of bridges with poor-condition decks. For 2002, the counties range from 0.0 percent (6 widely scattered counties) to 11.90 percent in Hoke County, east of Fayetteville. Table II.12: Bridge Decks – Top 10 Counties (Least Pct in Poor Condition)

1998 Rank

County

% Poor Decks

2002 Rank

County

% Poor Decks

1998 Rank

1 Beaufort 0.00 1 Polk 0.00 1 1 Clay 0.00 2 Lenoir 0.00 1 1 Gates 0.00 3 Clay 0.00 1 1 Jones 0.00 4 Gates 0.00 1 1 Lenoir 0.00 5 Washington 0.00 66 1 Lincoln 0.00 6 Currituck 0.00 99 1 Pamlico 0.00 7 Surry 0.26 18 1 Perquimans 0.00 8 Rutherford 0.28 12 1 Pitt 0.00 9 Mecklenburg 0.30 11 1 Polk 0.00 10 Pitt 0.44 1

(Newcomers in RED) Table II.13: Bridge Decks – Bottom 10 Counties (Highest Pct in Poor Condition)

1998 Rank

County

% Poor Decks

2002Rank County

% Poor Decks

1998 Rank

100 Stokes 14.38 100 Hoke 11.90 37 99 Currituck 13.04 99 Hertford 8.93 97 98 Caswell 13.00 98 Caswell 8.16 98 97 Hertford 12.50 97 Wilkes 8.14 80 96 Rowan 12.27 96 Bladen 7.94 95 95 Bladen 11.86 95 Cumberland 7.82 71 94 Forsyth 10.42 94 Tyrrell 7.69 81 93 Robeson 10.42 93 Pamlico 7.69 1 92 Stanly 10.40 92 Harnett 7.14 76 91 Watauga 9.95 91 Granville 7.10 72

27

28

3. Geography of Trends Figures II.12 and II.13 show how the geography of bridge deck condition has changed over the past several years. One obvious trend is that the number of counties with more than 7.5 percent poor decks has declined dramatically – from 21 counties in 1998 to just 8 in 2002. Also, the distribution of poor-deck condition is not as geographically concentrated as pavement condition, lane widths or shoulder widths: poor-condition counties (those worse than the state averages) and good-condition counties (those better than the state averages) are scattered throughout the state. Perhaps surprisingly, the western counties seem to have a lower percentage of poor-condition bridge decks than the Piedmont and eastern counties, but the tendency is slight and there are many exceptions. The overall impression of the bridge deck data is that the state is making progress in reducing the problem, and that the geographic differences are much less striking compared with pavement, lane width or shoulder width problems. How can the state’s poor-deck bridges be so uniformly distributed? The answer lies in the bridge rating process and in federal funding based on it. Bridge rating is conducted using a national rating method developed after several major bridge disasters in the 1960’s. All states are required to inspect each of the nation’s 594,000 bridges at least biennially, using a standard national rating procedure based on detailed inspection of bridge superstructure, substructure and deck features. The rating assigns a 1-9 score to each bridge feature. In addition, bridges features are also evaluated for load-carrying capability and functional adequacy relative to its road characteristics. Each bridge is then determined to be ‘deficient’ or ‘adequate’ based on both the functional and structural ratings. After rating, each bridge’s data are then submitted to the federal government for processing. Federal law allocates funds from the National Bridge Rehabilitation and Repair (NBRR) program on the basis of each state’s “cost to repair deficient bridges,” which is calculated using cost-per-square-foot statistics multiplied by the total square footage of each state’s ‘deficient bridges’. Because the states are so short of repair funds, most of these dollars go to repair 'deficient bridges'. So, the procedure ‘closes the loop’ between bridge inspection and funding, requiring uniform bridge rating by all states, allocating funds on that basis, and spending the funds on identified bridge repair needs. The result is that the funds available tend to be spent on the bridges most in need; as those bridges are improved, next year’s funds then go to other bridges. Over time, the system ‘self-corrects’ by identifying poor-condition bridges and repairing them wherever they are in the state. Thus, over time the counties throughout the state tend to get equal attention.

8.41

10.42

1.42

11.864.84

8.02

3.71

0

2.17

3.04

4.19

1.72

7.553.45

3.55

4.35

3.49

9.47

8.111

5.83

5.12

0

4.38

6.67

2.05

4.14

9.03

0.28 1.81

0.72

5.56

0.12

2.69

2

0.88

5.92

9.63

12.27

4.44

3.52

1.41

6.55

6.33

4.1

1.3

7.41

3.49

0

1.73

0.53

2.11

14.38

3.5

1.08

9.28

3.16

138.54

1.8

10.42

10.4

2.91

0

4.31

2.5

7.697.14

1.07

5

3.89

2.73

2.40.93

12.50

0

0.57

5.98

9.95

2.86

0

0.85

3.7

4.72

5.61

4.84

13.04

5.08

2.38

0

8.66

7.41

0

2.11

4.35

0.67

0

4.08

2.785

2

4

1

36

8

7

9

10

12

11

13

14

8.41

10.42

1.42

11.864.84

8.02

3.71

0

2.17

3.04

4.19

1.72

7.553.45

3.55

4.35

3.49

9.47

8.111

5.83

5.12

0

4.38

6.67

2.05

4.14

9.03

0.28 1.81

0.72

5.56

0.12

2.69

2

0.885.92

9.63

12.27

4.44

3.52

1.41

6.55

6.33

4.1

1.3

7.41

3.49

0

1.73

0.53

2.11

14.38

3.5

1.08

9.28

3.16

138.54

1.8

10.42

10.4

2.91

0

4.31

2.5

7.69 7.14

1.07

5

3.89

2.73

2.40.93

12.50

0

0.57

5.98

9.95

2.86

0

0.85

3.7

4.72

5.61

4.84

13.04

5.08

2.38

0

8.66

7.41

0

2.11

4.35

0.67

0

4.08

2.785

2

4

1

36

8

7

9

10

12

11

13

14

Figure II.12: Percentage of Bridges with Decks in Poor/Worse Condition, 1998

Figure II.13: Percentage of Bridges with Decks in Poor/Worse Condition, 2002

1998 - 4.15%2002 - 3.11%

1998 - 4.15%2002 - 3.11%

NC Averages

NC Averages





Source: NC DOT

Source: NC DOT

29

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Bridges with Decks in Poor Condition0.00 to 0.500.50 to 2.002.00 to 4.154.15 to 7.507.50 to 10.0010.00 to 14.40

0 40 80 120

Miles

% Bridges with Decks in Poor Condition0.00 to 0.500.50 to 2.002.00 to 3.113.11 to 7.507.50 to 10.0010.00 to 11.91

III. Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Summary and Discussion • North Carolina’s road conditions are worsening. Data on two of the State’s key

road indices – pavement condition and shoulder widths – show that the system is worsening over time. Data on pavement width show essentially no change.

• North Carolina’s 100 counties vary widely in road condition. Comparative data for the state’s 100 counties show that state-owned roads are not equal in condition everywhere, but vary widely. On the 4 indices reviewed, some counties rate very highly, with essentially no or little sub-standard conditions, while other counties exhibit very high percentages of sub-standard conditions. The following table summarizes the range of county averages, relative to the overall state averages, for the 4 indices reviewed.

Table III.1: Summary of the Variation in County Road Conditions, 2004

Statistic Top Value (County)

Average Bottom Value (County)

Percent Poor Pavement

0.0 (Dare)

8.87 27.15 (Ashe)

Percent Narrow Lanes

39.89 (Mecklenburg)

72.87 93.00 (Alleghany)

Percent Narrow Shoulders

0.38 (Stokes)

19.84 71.23 (Surry)

Percent Poor Bridge Decks*

0.00 (6 Counties)

3.11 11.90 (Hoke)

*2002 data • The percentage of poor-pavement roads is worsening, and the mileage of poor-

rated roads is increasing at the rate of about 93 miles per year. • In 1998, the state’s pavement condition was considerably worse in the western

counties than in eastern counties. However, by 2002, many eastern counties had declined sharply in condition while western counties modesty improved. By 2004, eastern counties dominated the poor-condition listing.

• A primary factor leading to recent road deterioration appears to have been Hurricane Floyd in 1999. In the years following, road deterioration in eastern counties has accelerated. The result is a somewhat more uniform geographic distribution of county poor-pavement road condition. However, major hurricanes in 2004 in the western counties may have re-worsened their roads.

• Changes in road rating procedures, and possibly coding errors, have clouded comparisons over time. As a result, the state’s road condition data cannot be used confidently for fund allocation.

30

• The percentage of roads with narrow lanes is improving very slowly, but since more mileage is being added to the system, the number of narrow-lane miles is increasing.

• The percentage of roads with narrow lanes varies widely by county. Urban counties and eastern counties typically have the lowest percentage of roads with narrow lanes, while the state’s western mountainous counties typically have the highest percentages. These patterns have changed little over the past 6 years.

• The percentage of roads with narrow shoulders is worsening, partially because of revised measurements of shoulder widths in both rural and urban counties, and partially because mileage of narrow-shoulder subdivision roads is increasing in urban counties.

• The percentage of roads with narrow shoulders also varies widely by county, with strong east-west differences. Western mountainous counties generally have a much higher percentage of roads with narrow shoulders than eastern or Piedmont counties.

• North Carolina’s bridge deck conditions are improving. North Carolina is making progress in reducing the percentage of bridges with poor decks. This trend is consistent with other information showing that the state’s percentage of deficient bridges, while still high compared to national averages, is improving.

• North Carolina’s counties vary somewhat in bridge condition, but not nearly as much as in pavement condition, lane width, or shoulder width. Variations in condition are geographically scattered.

• The likelihood is great that the state’s highway funding formulas, in conjunction with varying terrain, have resulted in the geographic inequalities in the present road system.

B. Recommendations The overall finding of this study – that the state road system is worsening – has been well documented in several recent assessments. The state is to be commended in taking initial steps, through the Moving Ahead program and more recently through the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan, to increase funding for road maintenance to deal with this issue. However, the second primary finding – that the state’s road system is unequal geographically on key indicators – is not as widely recognized. The implications of such a finding are substantial since they bear on the economic health of the state. Without equal road system conditions, some regions of the state are competitively disadvantaged through reduced access and limited competition for growth. Some regions also bear the higher costs of slower travel times, increased vehicle operating costs, and increased accident rates that come with narrow lanes and shoulders and poor pavement condition.

31

Therefore, the following recommendations are made to address these issues: 1. Policy Actions Adopt as state policy a goal to have an equal-quality road system in all regions of

the state. The current situation – in which large regions of North Carolina have substandard lane widths, shoulder widths, and road conditions – is intolerable and would not be permitted for other services such as health or education.

Set targets for road condition equity and a time to achieve them. The

recommended targets for percent poor pavement, lane width and shoulder width are: Table III.2 Recommended Target Goals for NC Road Condition

Statistic Present Range Recommended Target

By When?

Percent poor pavement

0% to 27 % All counties have less than 10% poor pavement

2007

Percent narrow lanes

39.9% to 93.0% All counties (Primary roads) have less than 30% narrow lanes

2010

Percent narrow shoulders

0.4% to 71.2% All counties (Primary roads outside urban areas) have less than 30 % narrow shoulders

2010

Percent poor bridge decks

0.0% to 11.9% All counties have less than 5 % of bridges with poor-rated decks

2010

Whatever targets are eventually set, it must be understood that achieving the targets throughout the state will not easy. North Carolina’s road system has evolved over a long period of time, from at least the 1920s, and its current status reflects the difficulties of providing adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, and capacities in widely varying terrains. The state’s road funding formulas (see below) are not presently based on performance targets. Therefore, the targets for more uniform conditions should provide both the necessary time and the requisite funding to make reasonable progress without unduly hampering needs in other dimensions.

Conduct a thorough audit of the state’s road condition surveys. This study has

found such wide variations in condition statistics for counties that a thorough audit of the procedures used to collect such data is called for. Since this data is presently used

32

for allocation of secondary system road funds to counties, it must be accurate and reliable.

‘Close the loop’ between condition ratings and spending. Several states, notably

Montana, have recently adopted policies that require that highway funds being allocated to counties on the basis of road condition be spent on specific sections or highway that are in various condition levels. Such a requirement for North Carolina allocations would ensure that funds are targeted where they are intended.

2. Funding Actions

• End the diversion of highway funds to non-pavement needs. About 25 percent of North Carolina’s highway funds are currently diverted to non-pavement uses such as driver education, policing functions and others, and some non-highway uses such as transit. The time has come to substantially cut back such diversions and use the highway funds for highway purposes.

• Restructure the formulas for funding major highway funding categories. The

goal of the highway program should be to provide North Carolinians everywhere with good-quality roads and highway accessibility, within funding constraints. Implicit in this goal is the understanding that the state’s highway system should be approximately equal in performance throughout the state. North Carolina uses a variety of funding formulas to distribute highway funds; these formulas are summarized in Table III.3. Some of these allocations are set in state law (Intrastate, TIP, and Urban Loop), but most are recommended formulas developed by the NCDOT. As the table shows, most of these formulas do not allocate funds on the basis of need or road status, but rather on sized-based measures such as miles, lane-miles or population. For instance, Secondary Maintenance funds are presently allocated to counties on the basis of paved miles and unpaved miles. Urban Maintenance funds are allocated to Divisions on the basis of urban lane-miles and Division population. Only Contract Resurfacing funds, a relatively small portion of the total, are allocated partially on the basis of pavement needs (50 percent), and road condition is a part of this formula since pavement needs are computed from data on road condition. The effect of these present formulas is that the differing condition levels of the system in different regions of the state are not considered, yet they play a major role in repair costs.

Allocation formulas for maintenance and repair should be carefully reviewed and updated. Specifically, within each road fund, carefully review the formula structure, comparing the funds distributed with the condition of the system. Generally, the formulas should primarily reflect pavement work needs in three categories:

Poor-condition roads (0-49 in the DOT rating system) Fair-condition roads (50-79 rating ) Good-condition roads (80+ rating)

33

Table III.3: North Carolina Highway Allocation Formulas, FY 04-0519 Fund Amount: Distribution To Basis of Allocation 1. Intrastate and TIP (except Urban Loops)

7 “Distribution Regions”, $1,074,000,000

1st 90% completion: - Miles to complete (25%) - Population (50%) - 1/7th each (25%) Last 10% completion: - Population (66%) - 1/7th each (34%)

2. Urban Loops Specific named routes (e.g. I-485), $198,000,000

Discretional, annually based on project status

3. Primary System Maintenance

$53,962,000: Divisions $66,591,000: Divisions

Primary system lane-miles Specific activities

4. Secondary System Maintenance


(after $5M specific activities) 92%: paved road mileage 8%: unpaved road mileage Specific activities and winter maintenance

5. Urban System Maintenance


Urban system lane-miles (50%) Urban population (50%) Specific activities

6. Bridge Maintenance $45,500,000: Divisions Inspection, # of deficient structures, timber structures, school bus loading

7. Flexible Maintenance $50,214,000: Divisions $ 28,000,000: 1/7th to each Div $ 16,713,000: Paved lane-miles $ 5.5 M: Signal maintenance

8. NC Moving Ahead $360,000,000: Divisions Division 2-yr candidate lists 9. Contract Resurfacing $157,208,000: Divisions

then: Primary ($50.4 M) Secondary ($66.4M) Urban ($40.4 M)

Pavement needs (50%) Tot system paved lane-miles (37.5%) Population (12.5%) - Counties, per above formula -

For each road condition group, allocation should be to counties on the basis of lane-miles at various condition levels. Funds for good-condition and fair-condition roads should be explicitly allocated since it is critical that these roads be maintained in good condition lest they deteriorate in the future. Other factors in the allocations (population, mileage) should be deleted.

19 Sources: NC Board of Transportation, Recommended Allocation of Highway Maintenance Appropriations: FY 2004-2005, Item S-1, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, July 8, 2004; NC Board of Transportation, Recommended Allocation of Highway Maintenance Appropriations: FY 2004-05, Contract Resurfacing, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, August 5, 2004; transmittal from C. Martin, NCDOT, September 22, 2004.

34

• Road funds do not need to be increased. We are not calling for road funds to be increased. North Carolina has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation, at 24.4 cents, and an increase would put the state at a disadvantage economically and burden its citizens, businesses, and visitors. Moreover, a recently completed study of the cost-effectiveness of the major highway improvements20 indicated that if the state’s major highway capital improvements between 1990 and 2003 were targeted to the most worthy projects (based on cost per vehicle-mile served), then nearly $2.5 billion would have been saved over the past 13 years. These funds could have been diverted to maintenance needs without increasing the overall highway budget. NCDOT has recently called for a similar future increase in maintenance funds in its Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan,21 but does not recommend a source of funds. In our view, those funds should come from the least cost-effective projects on the capital side of the program.

3. Technical Steps

In addition to these basic policy steps, the underpinnings of the highway program need to be strengthened in a number of ways. Specifically: • Revise and tighten up the condition survey. If the biennial pavement condition

survey is to be the basis or road fund allocation it must be accurate and reliable. In addition to the recommended audit above, we suggest that procedures for conducting the survey be tightened and controls be increased. Survey records should be checked more thoroughly by main office reviews and adjacent-county ‘double-surveying’ at county borders. The needs for and basis for the detailed collection of distress data should be reviewed; unless there is a ‘requirement’ that specific treatments be applied to specific sections, the data may be too detailed for its purpose (need estimation). The survey should also be put into easy-to-access map form using the NDCOT’ geographic information systems. The description codes for shoulder width and curb-and-gutter should be clarified for rural versus urban sections. Finally, consideration should be given to a simpler annual survey that would provide data on conditions more rapidly; the recent experiences of Hurricanes Floyd in 1999 and Frances and Ivan in 2004 demonstrate the importance of up-to-date knowledge in preventing road deterioration.

• Connect pavement condition data and work records. The NCDOT should devise a

means of recording the locations of work done on the system, both in the TIP and through routine maintenance, thereby ‘capturing’ changes in the condition of the system as they occur.

• Determine the relationships between pavement condition and when to invest.

The NCDOT should research the connections between pavement deterioration, condition, capacity and ‘optimum investment timing, and provide a ‘schedule’ of

20

Hartgen, D. Cost-Effectiveness of Major North Carolina Highway Projects. Study for the John Locke Foundation, Raleigh, NC. May 27, 2004. Available at http://www.johnlocke.org. 21 NC Department of Transportation, Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan, op.cit.

35


investment time for each road section. This could be done as an extension of the HERS-ST22 modeling system recently developed by the federal government.

• Develop ways to fast-forward the bridge condition data. In our review we found

that the availability of the state bridge condition data was substantially slower than the pavement condition data. The NCDOT should review ways to make its bridge condition data more easily and more rapidly accessible for use.

• Re-measure lane width and shoulder width data. In reviewing the data for 1998,

2002 and 2004 we found numerous examples of seemingly inexplicable changes, particularly in urban areas. When we asked about this, we were told that no explicit instructions were provided that would account for these changes. This makes us suspicious that both the pavement width and lane width data may not be accurate. The NCDOT should take steps to re-measure this data to ensure its accuracy. At the very least, a distinction should be made between urban curb-and-gutter sections, which are typically narrower with no shoulders, and rural sections.

• Conduct research on the rates and causes of deterioration. Knowledge of

pavement deterioration is fundamental to predicting highway repair needs in the future. However, the state appears to have developed little if any information about how rapidly pavements decay in North Carolina and the causes of this decay. Amazingly, the state’s recent Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan used national deterioration rates based on data from the 1962 Road Test, and a road deterioration package over 15 years old, even though North Carolina has its own detailed data on road conditions on individual road sections going back some 20 years and the federal government had developed modern needs estimation packages specifically for state use. We recommend that the NCDOT conduct research to evaluate these issues using both its extensive data bases on pavement conditions, the federally-funded Strategic Highway Research Program pavement sites in the state, and the Highway Economic Requirements System.

In summary, this study has found considerable variation in the condition of the North Carolina highway system on 4 key performance measures. When such differences exist in other spheres, such as education or health, the state takes action to redress the inequities. The highway system is no less important to the economic well being of the state and its citizens. It is our hope that this study will engender the necessary reviews, audits and revisions that will be needed to once again make North Carolina the "Good Roads State” everywhere.

22 Federal Highway Administration, HERS-ST v 2.0 Software and Documentation, USDOT, Washington DC 20590, 2003.

36

37

Appendices

Appendix A: NC Road Conditions, 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch %199 Yancey 24.33 63 8.07 17.91 34 5.36 0.00 1 0.00 -24.33 -62 -8.07153 Richmond 10.88 18 1.57 22.14 18 2.97 0.74 2 0.10 -10.14 -16 -1.4733 Caswell 21.43 36 4.00 39.27 46 7.06 2.21 3 0.39 -19.22 -33 -3.61195 Wilson 0.60 2 0.09 16.06 10 2.22 3.18 4 0.42 2.58 2 0.3393 Hoke 2.30 5 0.53 6.25 5 1.39 2.68 5 0.59 0.38 0 0.06123 Montgomery 34.65 46 5.67 16.21 14 2.56 4.11 6 0.66 -30.54 -40 -5.02105 Lee 30.42 52 6.44 10.39 8 2.15 3.52 7 0.73 -26.90 -45 -5.715 Alleghany 25.06 61 7.83 55.69 83 15.59 2.81 8 0.78 -22.25 -53 -7.04

151 Randolph 88.75 50 5.94 44.23 17 2.80 15.45 9 0.96 -73.30 -41 -4.98165 Scotland 3.59 6 0.66 17.73 20 3.14 6.33 10 1.16 2.74 4 0.49185 Warren 27.74 42 5.30 22.92 28 4.09 8.68 11 1.52 -19.06 -31 -3.7895 Hyde 18.05 60 7.66 8.97 23 3.71 3.74 12 1.53 -14.31 -48 -6.12197 Yadkin 28.11 40 4.85 33.05 33 5.27 10.26 13 1.58 -17.85 -27 -3.27125 Moore 10.98 10 1.11 11.48 3 1.12 16.72 14 1.63 5.74 4 0.52155 Robeson 16.80 8 1.04 19.26 4 1.16 29.26 15 1.76 12.46 7 0.72161 Rutherford 126.01 83 13.59 15.99 6 1.61 18.11 16 1.81 -107.90 -67 -11.77109 Lincoln 74.08 76 11.11 23.33 21 3.22 15.80 17 2.11 -58.28 -59 -9.0027 Caldwell 8.90 19 1.60 37.53 41 6.38 14.12 18 2.36 5.22 -1 0.7621 Buncombe 80.66 62 7.95 63.26 40 5.93 26.07 19 2.41 -54.59 -43 -5.54181 Vance 30.74 57 7.13 9.98 11 2.25 11.24 20 2.55 -19.50 -37 -4.5851 Cumberland 23.41 20 1.89 70.74 36 5.64 33.46 21 2.67 10.05 1 0.7839 Cherokee 50.19 74 10.48 84.68 86 16.03 14.92 22 2.70 -35.27 -52 -7.7765 Edgecombe 10.15 14 1.43 43.36 38 5.85 22.74 23 3.05 12.59 9 1.6271 Gaston 174.86 89 18.97 40.38 29 4.31 34.46 24 3.63 -140.40 -65 -15.3557 Davidson 265.07 91 19.75 98.14 44 6.99 54.64 25 3.87 -210.43 -66 -15.887 Anson 26.69 29 3.45 7.22 2 0.92 30.88 26 3.94 4.19 -3 0.4817 Bladen 15.87 21 2.02 32.29 26 4.00 33.63 27 4.07 17.76 6 2.05149 Polk 8.15 23 2.41 43.06 69 11.69 16.72 28 4.32 8.57 5 1.92101 Johnston 83.44 48 5.91 58.23 25 3.83 70.78 29 4.56 -12.66 -19 -1.3597 Iredell 91.27 59 7.60 75.01 37 5.85 61.08 30 4.72 -30.19 -29 -2.8869 Franklin 18.69 24 2.55 19.70 13 2.55 38.38 31 4.93 19.69 7 2.38113 Madison 43.04 67 9.34 55.68 65 10.89 27.37 32 5.20 -15.67 -35 -4.14115 Martin 7.58 16 1.48 16.64 19 2.98 31.92 33 5.52 24.34 17 4.0389 Henderson 69.13 73 10.44 86.37 71 11.92 40.92 34 5.53 -28.21 -39 -4.913 Alexander 42.30 64 8.51 58.60 68 11.30 30.22 35 5.75 -12.08 -29 -2.7629 Camden 12.80 55 6.96 17.89 57 9.57 11.27 36 5.84 -1.53 -19 -1.12119 Mecklenburg 87.41 65 8.55 72.00 47 7.10 59.68 37 6.04 -27.73 -28 -2.5255 Dare 9.05 30 3.50 0.00 1 0.00 16.23 38 6.06 7.18 8 2.56179 Union 174.46 81 12.95 117.69 52 8.40 87.94 39 6.19 -86.52 -42 -6.7659 Davie 4.18 7 0.98 11.16 12 2.47 29.70 40 6.47 25.52 33 5.49143 Perquimans 18.72 53 6.73 13.31 31 4.44 20.48 41 6.54 1.76 -12 -0.1947 Columbus 42.73 35 3.85 41.82 22 3.57 79.47 42 6.74 36.74 7 2.8983 Halifax 24.08 27 3.02 17.26 7 2.11 56.27 43 6.75 32.19 16 3.72173 Swain 42.61 92 20.13 15.53 45 7.00 15.40 44 6.83 -27.21 -48 -13.2937 Chatham 41.12 38 4.64 53.35 35 5.42 73.90 45 7.28 32.78 7 2.6473 Gates 33.45 75 11.05 38.91 73 12.13 24.71 46 7.64 -8.74 -29 -3.4145 Cleveland 210.37 90 19.19 152.70 79 13.37 90.54 47 7.87 -119.83 -43 -11.3223 Burke 182.25 99 26.17 30.52 27 4.05 61.00 48 7.98 -121.25 -51 -18.2067 Forsyth 110.12 78 11.52 306.29 100 31.01 81.76 49 8.12 -28.36 -29 -3.40157 Rockingham 33.86 28 3.43 50.29 32 4.75 89.10 50 8.14 55.24 22 4.7019 Brunswick 46.35 47 5.91 86.56 61 10.46 71.24 51 8.58 24.89 4 2.68183 Wake 70.62 32 3.67 123.37 39 5.89 184.08 52 8.60 113.46 20 4.9335 Catawba 164.20 87 17.56 203.88 92 20.51 89.20 53 8.87 -75.00 -34 -8.6985 Harnett 13.80 15 1.43 106.26 64 10.70 91.80 54 8.89 78.00 39 7.45135 Orange 143.57 95 20.90 118.38 85 15.89 67.96 55 8.91 -75.61 -40 -11.99

Poor (<50) Poor (<50) Poor (<50) Poor (<50)1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004

38

Appendix A: NC Road Conditions, 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch %Poor (<50) Poor (<50) Poor (<50) Poor (<50)

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004

159 Rowan 281.84 100 27.68 76.28 48 7.15 96.45 56 9.07 -185.39 -44 -18.6187 Haywood 39.81 66 8.99 40.70 54 8.58 44.05 57 9.10 4.24 -9 0.111 Alamance 198.74 97 23.70 201.69 96 22.93 81.95 58 9.27 -116.79 -39 -14.43

145 Person 15.92 26 2.87 41.33 42 6.83 57.77 59 9.28 41.85 33 6.41107 Lenoir 26.42 33 3.77 58.12 49 7.93 72.02 60 9.70 45.60 27 5.9313 Beaufort 8.08 9 1.10 21.58 15 2.72 78.19 61 9.79 70.11 52 8.68193 Wilkes 123.36 80 12.81 128.36 74 12.24 107.63 62 9.86 -15.73 -18 -2.9531 Carteret 5.04 11 1.26 9.09 9 2.19 40.55 63 9.90 35.51 52 8.6481 Guilford 104.16 54 6.77 134.05 51 8.21 167.16 64 10.04 63.00 10 3.2763 Durham 15.61 22 2.35 52.84 50 8.01 67.37 65 10.07 51.76 43 7.72187 Washington 22.16 68 9.38 17.60 43 6.99 26.53 66 10.28 4.37 -2 0.90129 New Hanover 6.85 12 1.36 87.44 90 18.77 48.18 67 10.32 41.33 55 8.95139 Pasquotank 33.46 79 11.89 38.17 77 13.04 33.22 68 10.39 -0.24 -11 -1.4977 Granville 0.37 1 0.05 116.32 84 15.78 77.54 69 10.55 77.17 68 10.50111 Macon 130.12 98 25.22 162.04 99 29.34 60.59 70 10.89 -69.53 -28 -14.3425 Cabarrus 104.55 84 13.84 95.71 72 11.99 84.44 71 10.96 -20.11 -13 -2.8841 Chowan 3.35 13 1.42 6.59 16 2.75 27.45 72 11.19 24.10 59 9.77189 Watauga 47.78 82 13.02 70.15 88 17.34 51.46 73 11.90 3.68 -9 -1.12147 Pitt 5.08 4 0.49 101.94 56 9.40 129.39 74 11.96 124.31 70 11.47191 Wayne 58.62 45 5.63 121.70 66 11.26 136.00 75 12.60 77.38 30 6.97167 Stanly 84.92 77 11.13 68.54 53 8.56 103.41 76 12.93 18.49 -1 1.80175 Transylvania 30.11 69 9.42 33.44 59 9.80 44.80 77 13.01 14.69 8 3.60133 Onslow 39.09 44 5.50 139.18 89 18.30 101.43 78 13.26 62.34 34 7.76141 Pender 45.43 56 7.03 77.06 67 11.27 91.66 79 13.32 46.23 23 6.2975 Graham 47.24 94 20.85 66.39 98 28.39 32.63 80 13.55 -14.61 -14 -7.3099 Jackson 90.86 93 20.76 89.35 91 19.32 64.90 81 13.59 -25.96 -12 -7.17177 Tyrrell 10.44 51 6.30 16.48 60 10.37 23.40 82 14.56 12.96 31 8.26171 Surry 33.92 31 3.60 123.73 75 12.33 144.04 83 14.64 110.12 52 11.0491 Hertford 19.08 39 4.72 55.57 78 13.05 64.91 84 15.12 45.83 45 10.41131 Northampton 23.08 37 4.35 58.56 63 10.65 85.70 85 15.34 62.62 48 10.9953 Currituck 14.08 43 5.49 10.10 24 3.79 43.72 86 15.89 29.64 43 10.4149 Craven 25.40 34 3.81 101.05 81 14.42 120.19 87 16.58 94.79 53 12.7711 Avery 36.39 86 15.06 31.78 70 11.73 44.74 88 16.69 8.35 2 1.6343 Clay 29.34 85 14.23 60.02 97 27.06 36.80 89 16.73 7.46 4 2.51103 Jones 8.80 25 2.83 47.40 82 14.50 54.61 90 16.74 45.81 65 13.91169 Stokes 131.46 88 17.59 115.10 80 14.16 137.42 91 17.06 5.96 3 -0.5379 Greene 1.63 3 0.37 40.02 55 8.79 77.01 92 17.12 75.38 89 16.75127 Nash 103.90 72 10.02 111.46 62 10.54 185.06 93 17.36 81.16 21 7.3461 Duplin 81.53 58 7.38 239.63 93 20.65 209.47 94 18.03 127.94 36 10.65121 Mitchell 24.18 70 9.84 11.37 30 4.38 49.79 95 18.28 25.61 25 8.44163 Sampson 73.68 41 5.26 140.72 58 9.75 290.18 96 20.15 216.50 55 14.9015 Bertie 8.48 17 1.54 96.96 87 16.55 122.45 97 20.75 113.97 80 19.21137 Pamlico 13.60 49 5.93 51.90 94 21.30 54.91 98 21.94 41.31 49 16.02117 McDowell 49.97 71 9.97 64.09 76 12.41 134.15 99 25.17 84.18 28 15.209 Ashe 116.31 96 23.59 120.45 95 22.68 149.51 100 27.15 33.20 4 3.57

TOTALS 5433.91 na 7.92 6410.97 na 8.87 5993.71 na 8.19 559.80 0 0.27AVERAGES 54.34 64.11 59.94 5.60

39

Appendix B: NC Roads with Narrow Lanes (< 11 ft.), 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch % 119 Mecklenburg 436.73 1 42.74 418.34 1 41.25 394.28 1 39.89 -42.45 0 -2.86129 New Hanover 249.58 4 49.70 198.46 2 42.61 191.19 2 40.94 -58.39 -2 -8.7655 Dare 126.44 3 48.92 121.10 3 45.68 121.74 3 45.43 -4.70 0 -3.4951 Cumberland 590.39 2 47.65 607.72 4 48.42 586.31 4 46.74 -4.08 2 -0.9267 Forsyth 563.75 8 58.99 552.95 5 55.99 545.56 5 54.20 -18.19 -3 -4.7919 Brunswick 456.90 6 58.21 470.24 6 56.85 475.54 6 57.28 18.64 0 -0.9363 Durham 373.02 5 56.25 388.92 7 58.94 395.31 7 59.11 22.29 2 2.8781 Guilford 902.37 7 58.64 965.52 8 59.13 1009.47 8 60.63 107.10 1 1.9931 Carteret 247.38 9 62.00 254.77 9 61.25 249.82 9 61.01 2.44 0 -1.00195 Wilson 485.46 24 69.50 490.12 24 67.70 461.45 10 61.07 -24.01 -14 -8.4365 Edgecombe 475.76 18 67.25 477.05 13 64.36 457.62 11 61.44 -18.14 -7 -5.82165 Scotland 342.88 10 63.51 359.94 11 63.75 338.54 12 61.85 -4.34 2 -1.6617 Bladen 591.93 43 75.38 542.95 22 67.24 514.08 13 62.17 -77.85 -30 -13.21115 Martin 331.04 12 64.85 352.76 10 63.25 359.87 14 62.20 28.83 2 -2.65133 Onslow 456.54 11 64.26 485.39 12 63.83 477.96 15 62.50 21.42 4 -1.76127 Nash 709.99 22 68.47 708.89 20 67.03 675.62 16 63.37 -34.37 -6 -5.10153 Richmond 472.13 21 67.94 483.49 14 64.93 481.18 17 64.41 9.05 -4 -3.53147 Pitt 690.96 17 67.14 716.19 16 66.07 707.31 18 65.38 16.35 1 -1.76141 Pender 424.12 14 65.61 452.09 17 66.14 452.84 19 65.79 28.72 5 0.1757 Davidson 897.79 15 66.89 929.35 18 66.23 931.24 20 65.96 33.45 5 -0.9359 Davie 288.53 19 67.49 296.63 15 65.66 303.73 21 66.18 15.20 2 -1.30159 Rowan 681.09 16 66.90 715.65 21 67.07 706.25 22 66.44 25.16 6 -0.4683 Halifax 590.45 40 74.11 565.30 29 69.24 557.11 23 66.80 -33.34 -17 -7.32155 Robeson 1161.87 29 71.63 1130.78 26 68.03 1115.28 24 66.92 -46.59 -5 -4.71105 Lee 333.66 26 70.64 328.71 25 67.91 325.31 25 67.25 -8.35 -1 -3.3949 Craven 435.14 13 65.26 467.23 19 66.67 489.37 26 67.52 54.23 13 2.2575 Graham 153.86 20 67.91 160.12 27 68.47 164.41 27 68.28 10.55 7 0.3771 Gaston 638.46 23 69.27 657.21 31 70.11 652.82 28 68.69 14.36 5 -0.5825 Cabarrus 530.88 25 70.28 540.41 23 67.69 529.13 29 68.70 -1.75 4 -1.5885 Harnett 689.25 31 71.66 691.60 30 69.66 710.49 30 68.79 21.24 -1 -2.8837 Chatham 637.88 34 71.97 677.71 28 68.91 698.93 31 68.86 61.05 -3 -3.1147 Columbus 795.94 32 71.71 833.04 33 71.08 813.61 32 69.00 17.67 0 -2.71183 Wake 1367.57 27 71.03 1468.34 32 70.15 1482.13 33 69.22 114.56 6 -1.81123 Montgomery 438.61 33 71.82 452.88 37 71.65 437.20 34 69.83 -1.41 1 -1.9835 Catawba 669.84 30 71.64 709.81 35 71.39 717.97 35 71.42 48.13 5 -0.2295 Hyde 178.67 47 75.79 173.06 36 71.50 174.59 36 71.64 -4.08 -11 -4.16157 Rockingham 705.01 28 71.49 755.51 34 71.38 788.21 37 72.00 83.20 9 0.50125 Moore 725.67 37 73.03 740.01 38 72.51 740.29 38 72.01 14.62 1 -1.02139 Pasquotank 212.89 44 75.62 227.20 50 77.60 230.93 39 72.26 18.04 -5 -3.3793 Hoke 327.25 46 75.74 335.54 42 74.55 331.86 40 73.01 4.61 -6 -2.7373 Gates 224.34 39 74.08 243.68 46 75.96 236.65 41 73.15 12.31 2 -0.93107 Lenoir 515.75 38 73.68 543.05 40 74.05 546.46 42 73.62 30.71 4 -0.0715 Bertie 402.33 36 72.95 433.88 41 74.06 437.07 43 74.07 34.74 7 1.11181 Vance 341.85 62 79.30 344.62 54 77.79 327.20 44 74.32 -14.65 -18 -4.98173 Swain 158.32 42 74.79 166.05 43 74.86 168.20 45 74.64 9.88 3 -0.15191 Wayne 800.73 52 76.85 814.98 45 75.43 807.35 46 74.79 6.62 -6 -2.0653 Currituck 185.19 35 72.15 196.62 39 73.79 206.36 47 75.02 21.17 12 2.8691 Hertford 300.73 41 74.38 320.03 44 75.15 322.78 48 75.21 22.05 7 0.8313 Beaufort 577.68 60 78.84 630.74 61 79.53 604.63 49 75.67 26.95 -11 -3.1761 Duplin 848.74 51 76.79 898.54 49 77.43 881.24 50 75.86 32.50 -1 -0.94103 Jones 235.84 48 75.90 249.67 47 76.39 249.35 51 76.42 13.51 3 0.52151 Randolph 1141.59 49 76.40 1212.08 48 76.84 1235.85 52 76.46 94.26 3 0.0677 Granville 512.03 45 75.71 572.77 52 77.71 564.93 53 76.89 52.90 8 1.18137 Pamlico 179.65 57 78.28 195.09 65 80.08 194.04 54 77.55 14.39 -3 -0.73

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004 Below Std. Below Std. Below Std. Below Std.

<11ft <11ft <11ft <11ft

40

Appendix B: NC Roads with Narrow Lanes (< 11 ft.), 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch %

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004 Below Std. Below Std. Below Std. Below Std.

<11ft <11ft <11ft <11ft

109 Lincoln 510.51 50 76.56 562.32 51 77.68 584.51 55 77.98 74.00 5 1.4299 Jackson 344.25 58 78.64 368.44 63 79.66 373.19 56 78.12 28.94 -2 -0.52101 Johnston 1129.37 66 79.97 1182.79 53 77.71 1212.77 57 78.13 83.40 -9 -1.84177 Tyrrell 130.93 61 79.04 124.26 56 78.17 126.22 58 78.53 -4.71 -3 -0.5221 Buncombe 812.57 67 80.10 830.69 55 77.89 850.02 59 78.61 37.45 -8 -1.50167 Stanly 594.99 55 78.00 630.05 58 78.70 629.20 60 78.70 34.21 5 0.7033 Caswell 417.50 54 77.97 435.36 57 78.30 449.37 61 78.74 31.87 7 0.77169 Stokes 605.85 72 81.06 639.86 59 78.70 634.81 62 78.81 28.96 -10 -2.25135 Orange 540.34 59 78.67 592.99 62 79.61 606.87 63 79.59 66.53 4 0.921 Alamance 666.67 64 79.50 703.39 64 79.96 704.34 64 79.72 37.67 0 0.2141 Chowan 183.08 53 77.36 194.02 70 81.02 195.71 65 79.75 12.63 12 2.3945 Cleveland 887.08 70 80.91 922.13 69 80.71 918.54 66 79.81 31.46 -4 -1.1027 Caldwell 443.53 65 79.81 472.17 66 80.27 478.18 67 79.85 34.65 2 0.0587 Haywood 346.55 56 78.27 377.24 60 79.49 387.74 68 80.12 41.19 12 1.857 Anson 626.13 71 81.04 634.28 67 80.39 629.10 69 80.20 2.97 -2 -0.84

179 Union 1096.99 76 81.46 1127.10 68 80.44 1142.76 70 80.46 45.77 -6 -0.99189 Watauga 291.43 63 79.42 328.59 71 81.21 348.83 71 80.70 57.40 8 1.28185 Warren 440.96 87 84.27 461.97 77 82.38 464.03 72 81.52 23.07 -15 -2.7597 Iredell 976.36 74 81.25 1048.40 73 81.76 1056.07 73 81.55 79.71 -1 0.31187 Washington 192.62 78 81.52 208.12 80 82.60 210.51 74 81.59 17.89 -4 0.07161 Rutherford 747.56 68 80.60 810.20 72 81.38 816.92 75 81.84 69.36 7 1.24117 McDowell 417.36 83 83.28 433.00 84 83.84 437.41 76 82.06 20.05 -7 -1.22131 Northampton 432.30 77 81.46 450.39 75 81.91 458.93 77 82.15 26.63 0 0.6939 Cherokee 388.40 73 81.09 432.48 74 81.86 455.06 78 82.48 66.66 5 1.3979 Greene 370.51 86 83.79 383.78 87 84.32 371.43 79 82.56 0.92 -7 -1.23175 Transylvania 258.48 69 80.83 282.23 81 82.74 284.87 80 82.74 26.39 11 1.9123 Burke 567.14 75 81.45 621.71 79 82.54 635.57 81 83.11 68.43 6 1.67143 Perquimans 232.90 84 83.73 247.57 78 82.50 260.60 82 83.20 27.70 -2 -0.5329 Camden 151.73 80 82.56 154.82 82 82.85 160.77 83 83.35 9.04 3 0.79163 Sampson 1162.24 81 82.90 1202.37 83 83.33 1200.20 84 83.36 37.96 3 0.4611 Avery 198.04 79 81.98 222.55 76 82.12 223.58 85 83.43 25.54 6 1.4589 Henderson 549.39 82 82.93 610.88 86 84.28 622.45 86 84.06 73.06 4 1.13113 Madison 385.85 85 83.74 431.42 88 84.37 443.80 87 84.25 57.95 2 0.52145 Person 475.09 89 85.60 508.01 85 83.99 525.16 88 84.38 50.07 -1 -1.23197 Yadkin 510.24 97 88.02 547.85 94 87.42 551.95 89 85.05 41.71 -8 -2.97171 Surry 801.52 88 85.03 856.18 89 85.33 839.39 90 85.32 37.87 2 0.293 Alexander 431.49 92 86.78 450.78 91 86.95 449.33 91 85.48 17.84 -1 -1.30

193 Wilkes 839.23 93 87.16 924.53 96 88.14 944.89 92 86.58 105.66 -1 -0.5869 Franklin 640.28 94 87.20 671.34 90 86.74 675.32 93 86.66 35.04 -1 -0.54149 Polk 292.29 90 86.29 322.00 93 87.40 336.89 94 87.12 44.60 4 0.8343 Clay 178.12 91 86.37 193.71 92 87.33 191.79 95 87.21 13.67 4 0.84199 Yancey 272.77 98 90.51 294.09 95 87.95 298.49 96 88.24 25.72 -2 -2.26111 Macon 452.85 96 87.78 489.60 97 88.65 493.23 97 88.63 40.38 1 0.85121 Mitchell 214.50 95 87.32 230.95 98 88.90 242.04 98 88.87 27.54 3 1.559 Ashe 454.47 99 92.17 490.13 99 92.30 500.41 99 90.88 45.94 0 -1.285 Alleghany 296.65 100 92.64 331.76 100 92.89 333.86 100 93.00 37.21 0 0.37

TOTALS 50771.56 na 73.96 53163.28 na 73.54 53335.77 na 72.87 2564.21 0 -1.09AVERAGES 507.72 531.63 533.36 23.92

41

Appendix C: NC Roads with Narrow Shoulders (< 4 ft.), 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch % 169 Stokes 0.95 1 0.13 0.95 1 0.12 3.05 1 0.38 2.10 0 0.2533 Caswell 13.63 8 2.55 13.68 8 2.46 14.42 2 2.53 0.79 -6 -0.02137 Pamlico 3.09 3 1.37 4.26 6 1.75 7.52 3 3.01 4.43 0 1.64163 Sampson 15.26 2 1.11 15.48 2 1.07 46.56 4 3.23 31.30 2 2.13141 Pender 24.41 16 3.80 23.88 11 3.49 31.58 5 4.59 7.17 -11 0.7993 Hoke 11.74 10 2.76 11.49 10 2.55 22.67 6 4.99 10.93 -4 2.23105 Lee 6.83 4 1.50 7.78 3 1.61 25.25 7 5.22 18.42 3 3.7213 Beaufort 19.85 11 2.80 19.63 9 2.48 41.80 8 5.23 21.95 -3 2.4349 Craven 12.87 5 2.02 11.72 4 1.67 39.01 9 5.38 26.14 4 3.3795 Hyde 13.86 27 5.88 13.98 26 5.78 14.30 10 5.87 0.44 -17 -0.0179 Greene 21.13 21 4.85 20.85 21 4.58 27.43 11 6.10 6.30 -10 1.2441 Chowan 12.52 24 5.47 10.38 17 4.33 15.35 12 6.25 2.83 -12 0.7959 Davie 18.66 18 4.46 18.40 13 4.07 30.83 13 6.72 12.17 -5 2.2669 Franklin 41.73 26 5.75 45.53 29 5.88 56.79 14 7.29 15.06 -12 1.54153 Richmond 16.71 7 2.48 28.31 12 3.80 54.47 15 7.29 37.76 8 4.8161 Duplin 33.67 12 3.10 50.18 16 4.32 84.71 16 7.29 51.04 4 4.1931 Carteret 14.08 14 3.74 7.15 5 1.72 31.08 17 7.59 17.00 3 3.85135 Orange 31.61 20 4.77 32.73 19 4.39 59.30 18 7.78 27.69 -2 3.01157 Rockingham 21.73 6 2.29 50.04 22 4.73 85.29 19 7.79 63.56 13 5.5073 Gates 25.09 43 8.35 24.69 40 7.70 26.21 20 8.10 1.12 -23 -0.25107 Lenoir 32.79 22 4.91 32.79 20 4.47 61.14 21 8.24 28.35 -1 3.3217 Bladen 63.77 40 8.21 51.42 31 6.37 68.41 22 8.27 4.64 -18 0.07161 Rutherford 68.34 34 7.48 71.99 37 7.23 83.52 23 8.37 15.18 -11 0.8991 Hertford 20.35 23 5.20 22.01 23 5.17 36.46 24 8.50 16.11 1 3.3077 Granville 39.89 28 5.97 42.84 28 5.81 63.01 25 8.58 23.12 -3 2.61109 Lincoln 46.03 33 6.99 48.29 32 6.67 64.63 26 8.62 18.60 -7 1.633 Alexander 30.52 30 6.28 29.95 27 5.78 45.55 27 8.67 15.03 -3 2.39

165 Scotland 19.80 15 3.78 30.79 24 5.45 47.46 28 8.67 27.66 13 4.89177 Tyrrell 13.22 39 8.11 13.33 42 8.39 14.30 29 8.90 1.08 -10 0.7837 Chatham 35.97 17 4.11 70.46 36 7.16 90.78 30 8.94 54.81 13 4.83103 Jones 24.78 38 8.09 24.78 38 7.58 29.34 31 8.99 4.56 -7 0.901 Alamance 47.97 29 6.05 48.11 25 5.47 93.38 32 10.57 45.41 3 4.52

115 Martin 41.85 44 8.44 42.84 39 7.68 61.20 33 10.58 19.35 -11 2.1415 Bertie 51.90 45 9.59 48.1 41 8.21 63.16 34 10.70 11.26 -11 1.12155 Robeson 126.98 37 8.02 140.89 44 8.48 182.41 35 10.94 55.43 -2 2.92187 Washington 17.76 36 7.86 17.90 35 7.10 28.40 36 11.01 10.64 0 3.14145 Person 41.99 35 7.71 42.06 33 6.95 68.98 37 11.08 26.99 2 3.37101 Johnston 168.44 54 12.12 157.71 51 10.36 179.46 38 11.56 11.02 -16 -0.56197 Yadkin 39.52 32 6.91 44.17 34 7.05 76.11 39 11.73 36.59 7 4.82185 Warren 51.47 47 9.91 53.16 49 9.48 67.56 40 11.87 16.09 -7 1.9685 Harnett 95.42 49 10.17 100.75 50 10.15 125.22 41 12.12 29.80 -8 1.95195 Wilson 20.58 13 3.15 31.38 18 4.33 94.01 42 12.44 73.43 29 9.30127 Nash 81.85 42 8.28 91.41 45 8.64 135.67 43 12.73 53.82 1 4.4547 Columbus 111.28 50 10.22 132.51 53 11.31 150.82 44 12.79 39.54 -6 2.5787 Haywood 42.05 48 10.09 43.74 48 9.22 65.68 45 13.57 23.63 -3 3.48143 Perquimans 39.46 63 14.38 40.33 62 13.44 42.75 46 13.65 3.29 -17 -0.7429 Camden 27.01 64 14.70 26.73 65 14.30 26.56 47 13.77 -0.45 -17 -0.9389 Henderson 67.20 52 10.76 63.39 46 8.75 102.78 48 13.88 35.58 -4 3.12181 Vance 46.23 53 11.18 50.48 54 11.39 63.30 49 14.38 17.07 -4 3.2071 Gaston 52.81 31 6.44 55.68 30 5.94 138.41 50 14.56 85.60 19 8.13147 Pitt 94.52 46 9.73 95.44 47 8.80 158.87 51 14.69 64.35 5 4.9527 Caldwell 72.80 60 13.54 69.59 57 11.83 88.54 52 14.79 15.74 -8 1.2557 Davidson 107.11 41 8.26 159.89 55 11.39 210.53 53 14.91 103.42 12 6.65125 Moore 123.48 55 12.69 129.53 59 12.69 153.39 54 14.92 29.91 -1 2.23

<4ft <4ft <4ft <4ftBelow Standard Below Standard Below Standard Below Standard

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004

42

Appendix C: NC Roads with Narrow Shoulders (< 4 ft.), 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted by 2004 Ranking)

FIPS County # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles # Miles Rank % Miles Ch Miles Ch Rank Ch % <4ft <4ft <4ft <4ft

Below Standard Below Standard Below Standard Below Standard1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998-2004

179 Union 175.64 61 13.68 167.28 58 11.94 213.16 55 15.01 37.52 -6 1.33133 Onslow 29.93 19 4.73 32.18 14 4.23 117.33 56 15.34 87.40 37 10.62131 Northampton 78.30 66 15.04 77.17 64 14.03 87.39 57 15.64 9.09 -9 0.60139 Pasquotank 34.92 59 13.37 34.52 56 11.79 50.13 58 15.69 15.21 -1 2.3181 Guilford 71.84 25 5.49 69.71 15 4.27 261.82 59 15.72 189.98 34 10.23149 Polk 57.21 69 17.04 58.39 68 15.85 64.02 60 16.56 6.81 -9 -0.48167 Stanly 95.05 57 12.97 105.03 60 13.12 133.62 61 16.71 38.57 4 3.7553 Currituck 61.43 77 24.63 42.74 69 16.04 46.37 62 16.86 -15.06 -15 -7.7755 Dare 40.81 68 16.30 39.01 66 14.71 45.79 63 17.09 4.98 -5 0.79151 Randolph 261.89 72 17.91 247.56 67 15.69 278.44 64 17.23 16.55 -8 -0.6845 Cleveland 157.11 65 14.87 153.36 61 13.42 200.33 65 17.41 43.22 0 2.53183 Wake 220.24 56 12.71 233.57 52 11.16 398.83 66 18.63 178.59 10 5.9183 Halifax 158.36 75 20.43 151.02 73 18.50 167.34 67 20.06 8.98 -8 -0.37191 Wayne 132.71 58 13.12 205.32 75 19.00 217.77 68 20.17 85.06 10 7.05123 Montgomery 85.03 62 14.28 115.46 72 18.27 126.51 69 20.21 41.48 7 5.9319 Brunswick 117.42 67 15.09 153.21 74 18.52 171.25 70 20.63 53.83 3 5.5365 Edgecombe 116.37 70 17.16 127.78 71 17.24 155.50 71 20.88 39.13 1 3.7225 Cabarrus 142.67 74 19.84 134.71 70 16.87 164.38 72 21.34 21.71 -2 1.5075 Graham 40.56 73 17.97 45.13 76 19.30 52.86 73 21.95 12.30 0 3.98129 New Hanover 10.72 9 2.73 9.92 7 2.13 110.09 74 23.57 99.37 65 20.84117 McDowell 120.10 76 24.55 118.10 77 22.87 133.00 75 24.95 12.90 -1 0.4063 Durham 100.53 71 17.43 91.03 63 13.80 172.03 76 25.72 71.50 5 8.3051 Cumberland 96.02 51 10.44 105.61 43 8.41 362.13 77 28.87 266.11 26 18.43175 Transylvania 108.66 80 35.07 107.30 80 31.46 113.96 78 33.10 5.30 -2 -1.96173 Swain 70.49 79 33.82 69.50 79 31.33 77.19 79 34.25 6.70 0 0.4323 Burke 274.14 85 40.99 268.01 83 35.58 287.24 80 37.56 13.10 -5 -3.4339 Cherokee 184.78 83 39.21 196.58 85 37.21 209.87 81 38.04 25.09 -2 -1.179 Ashe 198.18 84 40.71 195.53 84 36.82 212.33 82 38.56 14.15 -2 -2.14

159 Rowan 367.18 82 38.03 370.44 82 34.72 413.09 83 38.86 45.91 1 0.8397 Iredell 491.72 86 42.28 489.80 86 38.20 525.06 84 40.55 33.34 -2 -1.7321 Buncombe 339.04 81 36.65 358.86 81 33.65 444.41 85 41.10 105.37 4 4.45119 Mecklenburg 221.98 78 29.23 240.43 78 23.71 425.28 86 43.02 203.30 8 13.797 Anson 340.25 87 44.81 336.86 87 42.69 339.30 87 43.25 -0.95 0 -1.5699 Jackson 207.67 90 48.85 202.91 88 43.87 209.43 88 43.84 1.76 -2 -5.01189 Watauga 183.26 94 51.82 184.09 92 45.49 195.46 89 45.22 12.20 -5 -6.60113 Madison 211.51 89 46.08 231.38 91 45.25 249.69 90 47.40 38.18 1 1.3335 Catawba 446.04 92 51.06 442.49 89 44.50 479.11 91 47.66 33.07 -1 -3.40193 Wilkes 428.75 88 45.12 490.39 93 46.75 520.27 92 47.67 91.52 4 2.56111 Macon 272.40 96 53.67 271.18 94 49.10 286.80 93 51.54 14.40 -3 -2.13199 Yancey 154.19 93 51.40 167.32 95 50.04 174.95 94 51.72 20.76 1 0.3267 Forsyth 449.97 95 52.28 445.96 90 45.16 546.90 95 54.33 96.93 0 2.05121 Mitchell 122.65 91 50.08 151.18 97 58.20 158.44 96 58.17 35.79 5 8.1043 Clay 125.12 97 61.00 128.61 96 57.98 128.75 97 58.55 3.63 0 -2.4511 Avery 157.18 98 65.76 171.09 98 63.14 165.23 98 61.66 8.05 0 -4.115 Alleghany 229.51 99 71.84 230.29 99 64.48 227.21 99 63.29 -2.30 0 -8.54

171 Surry 686.29 100 74.47 707.93 100 70.56 701.67 100 71.32 15.38 0 -3.15TOTALS 11000.38 na 16.03 11511.49 na 15.92 14521.14 na 19.84 3520.76 0 -0.11

AVERAGES 110.00 115.11 145.21 5.11

43

Appendix D: NC Bridge Decks in Poor or Worse Condition, 1998 and 2004(Sorted by 2002 Ranking)

FIPS County No. Rank Percent No. Rank Percent Ch No. Ch Rank Ch % 149 Polk 0 1 0.00 0 1 0.00 0 0 0.00107 Lenoir 0 1 0.00 0 2 0.00 0 1 0.0043 Clay 0 1 0.00 0 3 0.00 0 2 0.0073 Gates 0 1 0.00 0 4 0.00 0 3 0.00187 Washington 2 66 5.00 0 5 0.00 -2 -61 -5.0053 Currituck 3 99 13.04 0 6 0.00 -3 -93 -13.04171 Surry 3 18 0.88 1 7 0.26 -2 -11 -0.62161 Rutherford 1 12 0.28 1 8 0.28 0 -4 0.00119 Mecklenburg 1 11 0.12 3 9 0.30 2 -2 0.18147 Pitt 0 1 0.00 1 10 0.44 1 9 0.4487 Haywood 3 16 0.72 2 11 0.47 -1 -5 -0.25175 Transylvania 2 21 1.07 1 12 0.51 -1 -9 -0.5621 Buncombe 8 20 1.00 7 13 0.86 -1 -7 -0.1461 Duplin 5 34 2.17 2 14 0.87 -3 -20 -1.30199 Yancey 6 41 2.86 2 15 0.95 -4 -26 -1.9097 Iredell 8 31 2.05 4 16 1.02 -4 -15 -1.03117 McDowell 1 22 1.08 3 17 1.03 2 -5 -0.0545 Cleveland 5 27 1.73 3 18 1.04 -2 -9 -0.69191 Wayne 3 29 1.81 2 19 1.10 -1 -10 -0.71105 Lee 2 35 2.38 1 20 1.10 -1 -15 -1.28111 Macon 13 62 4.44 3 21 1.12 -10 -41 -3.3271 Gaston 3 19 0.93 4 22 1.13 1 3 0.20121 Mitchell 1 15 0.67 2 23 1.32 1 8 0.65195 Wilson 5 39 2.73 3 24 1.38 -2 -15 -1.35115 Martin 6 32 2.11 2 25 1.47 -4 -7 -0.6379 Greene 3 64 4.84 1 26 1.59 -2 -38 -3.2539 Cherokee 1 13 0.53 3 27 1.60 2 14 1.07103 Jones 0 1 0.00 1 28 1.64 1 27 1.64113 Madison 9 48 3.50 5 29 1.67 -4 -19 -1.831 Alamance 9 44 3.16 5 30 1.72 -4 -14 -1.4337 Chatham 10 59 4.35 5 31 1.92 -5 -28 -2.43145 Person 3 42 2.91 2 32 1.92 -1 -10 -0.99135 Orange 10 58 4.31 5 33 1.93 -5 -25 -2.38101 Johnston 10 43 3.04 7 34 1.95 -3 -9 -1.09173 Swain 3 30 2.00 3 35 2.00 0 5 0.0035 Catawba 5 28 1.80 6 36 2.01 1 8 0.2113 Beaufort 0 1 0.00 3 37 2.03 3 36 2.0323 Burke 10 49 3.52 6 38 2.10 -4 -11 -1.4215 Bertie 3 46 3.49 2 39 2.15 -1 -7 -1.34133 Onslow 2 26 1.72 3 40 2.27 1 14 0.5541 Chowan 1 40 2.78 1 41 2.33 0 1 -0.45127 Nash 9 38 2.69 8 42 2.34 -1 4 -0.35141 Pender 6 64 4.84 3 43 2.36 -3 -21 -2.48153 Richmond 8 78 7.41 4 44 2.38 -4 -34 -5.0389 Henderson 13 53 3.89 8 45 2.40 -5 -8 -1.5055 Dare 2 77 7.14 1 46 2.44 -1 -31 -4.70197 Yadkin 1 14 0.57 5 47 2.54 4 33 1.97151 Randolph 18 57 4.19 11 48 2.55 -7 -9 -1.6499 Jackson 4 23 1.30 8 49 2.56 4 26 1.26143 Perquimans 0 1 0.00 1 50 2.56 1 49 2.56165 Scotland 7 73 5.98 3 51 2.59 -4 -22 -3.40183 Wake 27 52 3.71 21 52 2.63 -6 0 -1.0827 Caldwell 8 47 3.49 6 53 2.64 -2 6 -0.8595 Hyde 6 83 8.11 2 54 2.67 -4 -29 -5.44

Poor or Worse Poor or Worse Poor or Worse

1998 2002 CHANGEDecks Decks Decks

44

Appendix D: NC Bridge Decks in Poor or Worse Condition, 1998 and 2004(Sorted by 2002 Ranking)

FIPS County No. Rank Percent No. Rank Percent Ch No. Ch Rank Ch % Poor or Worse Poor or Worse Poor or Worse

1998 2002 CHANGEDecks Decks Decks

25 Cabarrus 6 36 2.40 7 55 2.76 1 19 0.3631 Carteret 1 24 1.41 2 56 2.78 1 32 1.37163 Sampson 3 25 1.42 6 57 2.84 3 32 1.42179 Union 13 61 4.38 9 58 2.97 -4 -3 -1.4163 Durham 16 51 3.70 13 59 3.02 -3 8 -0.6783 Halifax 6 45 3.45 6 60 3.31 0 15 -0.13109 Lincoln 0 1 0.00 6 61 3.53 6 60 3.535 Alleghany 3 33 2.11 5 62 3.62 2 29 1.5129 Camden 2 78 7.41 1 63 3.85 -1 -15 -3.56129 New Hanover 4 54 4.08 4 64 3.88 0 10 -0.2049 Craven 5 50 3.55 7 65 4.12 2 15 0.57185 Warren 9 88 9.28 4 66 4.12 -5 -22 -5.1581 Guilford 45 68 5.12 38 67 4.19 -7 -1 -0.9375 Graham 1 17 0.85 5 68 4.20 4 51 3.35157 Rockingham 11 56 4.14 12 69 4.44 1 13 0.31167 Stanly 18 92 10.40 8 70 4.49 -10 -22 -5.9159 Davie 6 70 5.61 5 71 4.55 -1 1 -1.06125 Moore 16 89 9.47 9 72 4.66 -7 -17 -4.80181 Vance 5 63 4.72 5 73 4.72 0 10 0.00189 Watauga 22 91 9.95 12 74 5.13 -10 -17 -4.833 Alexander 6 67 5.08 6 75 5.22 0 8 0.1311 Avery 11 86 8.66 7 76 5.34 -4 -10 -3.32159 Rowan 34 96 12.27 16 77 5.52 -18 -19 -6.76123 Montgomery 10 74 6.33 9 78 5.59 -1 4 -0.749 Ashe 24 85 8.54 16 79 5.71 -8 -6 -2.8365 Edgecombe 11 75 6.55 12 80 6.12 1 5 -0.43139 Pasquotank 2 59 4.35 3 81 6.12 1 22 1.7757 Davidson 38 87 9.03 26 82 6.15 -12 -5 -2.88131 Northampton 5 69 5.56 6 83 6.32 1 14 0.7647 Columbus 19 84 8.41 15 84 6.47 -4 0 -1.94169 Stokes 22 100 14.38 10 85 6.54 -12 -15 -7.8469 Franklin 5 55 4.10 8 86 6.56 3 31 2.4619 Brunswick 13 82 8.02 11 87 6.79 -2 5 -1.23155 Robeson 30 93 10.42 20 88 6.87 -10 -5 -3.547 Anson 18 90 9.63 13 89 6.88 -5 -1 -2.7567 Forsyth 67 94 10.42 48 90 7.04 -19 -4 -3.3877 Granville 10 72 5.92 12 91 7.10 2 19 1.1885 Harnett 9 76 6.67 10 92 7.14 1 16 0.48137 Pamlico 0 1 0.00 4 93 7.69 4 92 7.69177 Tyrrell 2 81 7.69 2 94 7.69 0 13 0.0051 Cumberland 20 71 5.83 29 95 7.82 9 24 1.9917 Bladen 14 95 11.86 10 96 7.94 -4 1 -3.93193 Wilkes 29 80 7.55 31 97 8.14 2 17 0.5833 Caswell 13 98 13.00 8 98 8.16 -5 0 -4.8491 Hertford 7 97 12.50 5 99 8.93 -2 2 -3.5793 Hoke 1 37 2.50 5 100 11.90 4 63 9.40

TOTALS 881 na 4.15 692 na 3.11 -189 na -1.04AVERAGES 8.81 6.92 -1.89

45

Appendix E: NC Road Mileage and Bridges, 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted Alphabetically by County)

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998 2002 CHANGE1998-2004 1998-2002

Total Miles Total Miles Total Miles Ch in Miles Total No. Total No. Change inFIPS County DOT Div # Miles # Miles # Miles # Miles Bridges Bridges Bridges

1 Alamance 7 838.54 879.66 883.56 45.02 285 290 53 Alexander 12 497.25 518.46 525.67 28.42 118 115 -35 Alleghany 11 320.23 357.14 358.97 38.74 142 138 -47 Anson 10 772.62 789.03 784.44 11.82 187 189 29 Ashe 11 493.1 531.03 550.60 57.50 281 280 -111 Avery 11 241.58 270.99 267.99 26.41 127 131 413 Beaufort 2 732.72 793.12 799.02 66.30 146 148 215 Bertie 1 551.49 585.82 590.11 38.62 86 93 717 Bladen 6 785.22 807.52 826.87 41.65 118 126 819 Brunswick 3 784.91 827.19 830.21 45.30 162 162 021 Buncombe 13 1014.42 1066.52 1081.38 66.96 797 814 1723 Burke 13 696.33 753.19 764.71 68.38 284 286 225 Cabarrus 10 755.36 798.38 770.22 14.86 250 254 427 Caldwell 11 555.75 588.20 598.82 43.07 229 227 -229 Camden 1 183.78 186.87 192.89 9.11 27 26 -131 Carteret 2 398.97 415.94 409.49 10.52 71 72 133 Caswell 7 535.48 556.00 570.69 35.21 100 98 -235 Catawba 12 934.99 994.28 1005.29 70.30 278 299 2137 Chatham 8 886.3 983.50 1014.98 128.68 230 261 3139 Cherokee 14 478.99 528.31 551.73 72.74 188 187 -141 Chowan 1 236.67 239.48 245.41 8.74 36 43 743 Clay 14 206.22 221.81 219.91 13.69 69 70 145 Cleveland 12 1096.42 1142.51 1150.91 54.49 289 289 047 Columbus 6 1109.94 1172.01 1179.15 69.21 226 232 649 Craven 2 666.75 700.76 724.83 58.08 141 170 2951 Cumberland 6 1238.94 1255.19 1254.53 15.59 343 371 2853 Currituck 1 256.67 266.45 275.09 18.42 23 22 -155 Dare 1 258.44 265.12 267.95 9.51 28 41 1357 Davidson 9 1342.13 1403.17 1411.76 69.63 421 423 259 Davie 9 427.54 451.76 458.92 31.38 107 110 361 Duplin 3 1105.22 1160.42 1161.72 56.50 230 230 063 Durham 5 663.2 659.83 668.75 5.55 433 430 -365 Edgecombe 4 707.4 741.20 744.86 37.46 168 196 2867 Forsyth 9 955.63 987.57 1006.60 50.97 643 682 3969 Franklin 5 734.27 774.01 779.24 44.97 122 122 071 Gaston 12 921.71 937.36 950.34 28.63 321 354 3373 Gates 1 302.84 320.79 323.51 20.67 40 43 375 Graham 14 226.57 233.84 240.78 14.21 118 119 177 Granville 5 676.31 737.10 734.74 58.43 169 169 079 Greene 2 442.2 455.15 449.88 7.68 62 63 181 Guilford 7 1538.94 1632.80 1665.08 126.14 879 906 2783 Halifax 4 796.69 816.49 834.04 37.35 174 181 785 Harnett 6 961.77 992.85 1032.90 71.13 135 140 587 Haywood 14 442.77 474.58 483.94 41.17 417 425 889 Henderson 14 662.46 724.79 740.51 78.05 334 334 091 Hertford 1 404.29 425.87 429.16 24.87 56 56 093 Hoke 8 432.09 450.09 454.54 22.45 40 42 295 Hyde 1 235.73 242.05 243.72 7.99 74 75 197 Iredell 12 1201.68 1282.30 1294.92 93.24 391 394 399 Jackson 14 437.73 462.54 477.69 39.96 308 313 5101 Johnston 4 1412.26 1522.07 1552.28 140.02 329 359 30103 Jones 2 310.72 326.84 326.28 15.56 60 61 1105 Lee 8 472.34 484.04 483.75 11.41 84 91 7107 Lenoir 2 699.94 733.33 742.29 42.35 115 114 -1

46

Appendix E: NC Road Mileage and Bridges, 1998, 2002, and 2004(Sorted Alphabetically by County)

1998 2002 2004 CHANGE 1998 2002 CHANGE1998-2004 1998-2002

Total Miles Total Miles Total Miles Ch in Miles Total No. Total No. Change inFIPS County DOT Div # Miles # Miles # Miles # Miles Bridges Bridges Bridges109 Lincoln 12 666.85 723.89 749.60 82.75 174 170 -4111 Macon 13 515.88 552.28 556.51 40.63 293 269 -24113 Madison 14 460.79 511.36 526.75 65.96 257 299 42115 Martin 13 510.47 557.72 578.60 68.13 285 136 -149117 McDowell 1 501.14 516.44 533.05 31.91 93 292 199119 Mecklenburg 10 1021.82 1014.13 988.54 -33.28 843 1012 169121 Mitchell 13 245.65 259.78 272.36 26.71 150 152 2123 Montgomery 8 610.74 632.11 626.06 15.32 158 161 3125 Moore 8 993.64 1020.62 1028.04 34.40 169 193 24127 Nash 4 1036.99 1057.64 1066.13 29.14 335 342 7129 New Hanover 3 502.22 465.79 467.03 -35.19 98 103 5131 Northampton 1 530.67 549.89 558.62 27.95 90 95 5133 Onslow 3 710.47 760.42 764.69 54.22 116 132 16135 Orange 7 686.86 744.88 762.54 75.68 232 259 27137 Pamlico 2 229.49 243.62 250.22 20.73 53 52 -1139 Pasquotank 1 281.51 292.79 319.59 38.08 46 49 3141 Pender 3 646.38 683.50 688.32 41.94 124 127 3143 Perquimans 1 278.17 300.07 313.23 35.06 37 39 2145 Person 5 555.01 604.88 622.41 67.40 103 104 1147 Pitt 2 1029.17 1084.01 1081.83 52.66 219 226 7149 Polk 14 338.72 368.43 386.68 47.96 180 178 -2151 Randolph 8 1494.18 1577.49 1616.32 122.14 430 432 2153 Richmond 8 694.92 744.66 747.10 52.18 108 168 60155 Robeson 6 1622.04 1662.13 1666.61 44.57 288 291 3157 Rockingham 7 986.15 1058.42 1094.81 108.66 266 270 4159 Rowan 9 1018.08 1067.07 1063.00 44.92 277 290 13161 Rutherford 13 927.5 995.58 998.16 70.66 359 359 0163 Sampson 3 1401.96 1442.92 1439.80 37.84 211 211 0165 Scotland 8 539.91 564.62 547.34 7.43 117 116 -1167 Stanly 10 762.83 800.59 799.49 36.66 173 178 5169 Stokes 9 747.37 813.05 805.50 58.13 153 153 0171 Surry 11 942.58 1003.33 983.78 41.20 342 384 42173 Swain 14 211.69 221.81 225.34 13.65 150 150 0175 Transylvania 14 319.77 341.11 344.28 24.51 187 195 8177 Tyrrell 1 165.64 158.97 160.73 -4.91 26 26 0179 Union 10 1346.73 1401.13 1420.26 73.53 297 303 6181 Vance 5 431.07 443.03 440.26 9.19 106 106 0183 Wake 5 1925.29 2093.27 2141.09 215.80 728 798 70185 Warren 5 523.25 560.77 569.22 45.97 97 97 0187 Washington 1 236.29 251.96 258.01 21.72 40 40 0189 Watauga 11 366.96 404.64 432.27 65.31 221 234 13191 Wayne 4 1042 1080.50 1079.53 37.53 166 182 16193 Wilkes 11 962.81 1048.95 1091.35 128.54 384 381 -3195 Wilson 4 698.5 723.96 755.65 57.15 183 217 34197 Yadkin 11 579.7 626.72 648.98 69.28 176 197 21199 Yancey 13 301.38 334.38 338.26 36.88 210 210 0

TOTALS 68643.75 72292.63 73195.56 4551.81 21241 22244 1003AVERAGES 686.44 722.93 731.96 45.52 212 222.44 10.03

47

trends in north carolina’s county road conditions, 1998-2004 · 2004-12-10 · trends in pavement...

Documents