* Disclaimer - If ad is a click thru and you are having problems please click on link to download latest version of flash player.Flash Player

ON THE WEBSITE:

• STAR CLOVERS: Treking into the 4-H future
• 2010 HOOPS CHALLENGE: Play for the glory
• VIDEO: Jogger killed by plane
• STUDY: Too many invasive tests being given
• PATH TO THE DRAFT: Diary of Ricky Sapp

Advanced Search
You are not logged in. | Login | Register

Log in to TheTandD.com

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Road conditions play a role in deadly roads

 Sunday, August 17, 2008

Leave a Comment | Default | Large

THE ISSUE: Road conditions

OUR OPINION: S.C. has room to brag, but down side of road study illustrates Orangeburg’s problem

Orangeburg annually ranks among the counties with the highest fatality rates. Thankfully, this year has seen a slight decline in deaths, with 19 fatalities through Aug. 10 compared to 26 a year ago.

As the second largest county in the state in land area, Orangeburg has all the ingredients to make its roads and highways dangerous: the most interstate miles of any county; other major highways such as U.S. 301, 601, 321; miles and miles of rural paved roads, and a wealth of unpaved routes. As much as use of seat belts and driving habits play a role in the fatality rate, so do the conditions of roads and highways.

The Reason Foundation annually reports on conditions. The 17th Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems by University of North Carolina at Charlotte Emeritus Transportation Professor David Hartgen, released recently, measures the condition of all state-owned roads and highways from 1984 to 2006. The study calculates the effectiveness and performance of each state in 12 different categories, including pavement condition, bridge condition, traffic fatalities, congestion, highway maintenance costs and administrative costs.

The study tells a story for Orangeburg County and South Carolina.

On the plus side, South Carolina ranked sixth in overall performance and cost-effectiveness. In last year’s rankings, South Carolina was second overall.

South Carolina has the fifth largest state-owned highway system at 41,621 miles. It ranked best on receipts per mile of responsibility (first), capital disbursements per mile of responsibility (second), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (second), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (fifth) and administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (fifth).

The state ranks 10th in urban interstate condition. But, on the down side, South Carolina is 33rd in urban interstate congestion, with 50 percent congested.

South Carolina ranks 24th in deficient bridges — 23.32 percent of the state’s bridges are deemed structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

As for where things get particularly telling for Orangeburg County, note that South Carolina is 44th in the nation in fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles. The state ranks 34th in rural interstate condition, reporting a sharp increase in rural interstates in poor condition, from 0 percent in poor condition in 2005 to 2.24 percent in poor condition in 2006. This corresponded to a 15-mile increase in poor mileage.

The general condition of I-95 and I-26 in Orangeburg County is OK, but anyone traveling the highways would suggest there is a great need for improvements, particularly on 95, and certainly would question the findings on rural interstate congestion. With the logistics centers planned in the county, both interstates stand to become even more congested, and maintaining good road conditions with the presence of many more trucks and large vehicles will be challenge.

On the plus side, as South Carolina so often finds itself ranked behind its neighbors in many measures of quality, North Carolina is ranked 23rd in overall performance and cost-effectiveness — and that is an improvement from 31st a year ago. And if it’s any consolation here, its rural interstates are in worse condition, ranked 40th.

To subscribe to the print edition of The Times and Democrat, click here.

 
Leave a Comment
The following comments are reader submitted. They do not represent the views of The T&D or Lee Enterprises.



» Post a comment Thanks for your comment! Once approved, your comment will appear on the site.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here To Sign in

Click here to get an account
it's free and quick
Please note: The Times and Democrat provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.




More Opinion