ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Route 5 & 10 (Greenfield Rd) / Route 116 (Conway Rd)
Route 5 & 10 (Greenfield Rd) / North Main Street
Route 116 (Sunderland Rd) / Sugarloaf Street
Town of Deerfield
March 2011
Prepared For:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Prepared By:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Data ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 2
Audit Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements........................................................ 4
Route 5/10 (Greenfield Road) at Route 116 (Conway Road) ............................................................. 4
Route 5/10 at North Main Street ......................................................................................................... 7
Route 116 (Sunderland Road) at Sugarloaf Street............................................................................... 9
Summary of Road Safety Audit ............................................................................................... 12
List of Appendices
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Audit Team Contact List
Detailed Crash Data
Additional Information
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Locus Map .............................................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Participating Audit Team Members ....................................................................................... 1
Potential Safety Enhancement Summary ............................................................................. 13
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Background
The three intersections included in this Roadway Safety Audit (RSA) have previously been identified as
hazardous locations in Franklin County or are eligible for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Low Cost Fix Intersection Safety Program. The purpose of a RSA is to identify potential safety issues and
possible opportunities for safety improvements considering all roadway users. The FHWA defines a Road
Safety Audit as the formal safety examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an
independent, multidisciplinary team. For this RSA the safety audit team includes representatives from the
Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT), the Town of Deerfield Police, Fire, EMS, and Administrative Departments and Stantec.
Stantec’s role is to facilitate the meetings, compile the team’s observations and ideas to improve safety,
and effectively outline the team’s program for safety improvement.
Project Data
The three locations in Deerfield audited on February 9, 2011 are:
•
Route 5/10 (Greenfield Road) at Route 116 (Conway Road) and the South Deerfield Fire Station;
•
Route 5/10 at North Main Street and the Mill Village Road; and
•
Route 116 (Sunderland Road) at Sugarloaf Street and Sugarloaf Street Extension.
The RSA was initiated through FRCOG, the Town of Deerfield and MassDOT. MassDOT engaged
Stantec as the facilitator, and FRCOG scheduled the audit. The Invitation and Agenda are included in
Appendix A. The participating team members and their affiliations are listed in Table 1, and their contact
information is provided in Appendix B. MassDOT collected crash data from their records and requested
copies of those and any additional crash records from the Deerfield Police Department. This information
was compiled by MassDOT and furnished to the team in advance of the audit. This crash data is provided
in Appendix C. An audit includes a field visit to each location “sandwiched” between meetings. One
meeting started the day, noting all safety related observations. Another meeting immediately followed the
site visits. At this second meeting, the team’s thoughts on safety measures to mitigate the safety issues
were recorded. Aerial photos were useful in focusing the team’s attention to individuals’ points.
Table 1. Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Gary Stokarski
Bonnie Polin
Daryl J. Amaral
Bao Lang
Stacy Metzger
David Zamotski
Harold Eaton, Jr.
Agency/Affiliation
So. Deerfield Fire Department
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Section
MassDOT – Projects
MassDOT – District 2 Traffic
Franklin Regional Council of Governments
Deerfield EMS
Deerfield Highway
Page 1
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Audit Team Member
Michael Wozniakewicz
Bernard Kubiak
Lisa Schletzbaum
John Hillman
Promise Otaluka
David DeBaie
Agency/Affiliation
Deerfield Police
Deerfield Town Administrator
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Section
MassDOT – District 2 Traffic
Federal Highway Administration – MA Division
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Project Location and Description
This RSA focuses on three intersections involving Routes 5/10 and/or Route 116. The study intersections,
inclusive of all legs of each intersection, are:
• Route 5/10 (Greenfield Road) at Route 116 (Conway Road) and the South Deerfield Fire Station
Driveway;
• Route 5/10 at North Main Street and Mill Village Road; and
• Route 116 (Sunderland Road) at Sugarloaf Street and Sugarloaf Street Extension.
Route 5/10, classified as an Urban Principal Arterial, operates in a north-south orientation in the study
area. Route 5/10 lays parallel to and less than 1,000 feet east of Interstate 91 at Exit 25. Route 116, also
classified as an Urban Principal Arterial, has an alignment through the study area that includes two 90
degree angles. Route 116 operates east-west where it forms an interchange with I-91 Exit 25 and
intersects Route 5/10 to the east. Route 116 (Conway Road) has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, west of
its intersection with Route 5/10. Route 116 is also designated on the same north-south roadway as Route
5/10 south of their intersection. This combined Route 5/10 /116 is about 1.2 miles in length. Near I-91
Exit 24, Route 5/10 continues south and Route 116 again assumes an east-west alignment as Sunderland
Road. About 1 mile to the east, Route 116 is intersected by Sugarloaf Street, an Urban Minor Arterial.
North Main Street, also an Urban Minor Arterial, intersects Route 5/10 approximately 1.4 miles north of
the Route 116 (Conway Street) intersection. These intersection locations are shown on the locus map in
Figure 1.
Route 5/10 is under MassDOT jurisdiction and the speed limit in both directions is 45 mph through the
Route 116 (Conway Road) and North Main Street intersections. North Main Street, which has a 35 mph
speed limit, is under Town jurisdiction. Mill Village Road is owned by the Town of Deerfield.
Route 116 is under the jurisdiction of MassDOT. The speed limit on Route 116 immediately west of
Route 5/10 and approaching the Sugarloaf Street intersection is 40 mph. Sugarloaf Street is under
MassDOT authority and the speed limit is 35 mph. Sugarloaf Street Extension is in the vicinity of the
intersection and under the authority of the Town of Deerfield.
Page 2
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Figure 1.
Locus Map
Page 3
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Audit Observations and Potential Safety
Enhancements
Route 5/10 (Greenfield Road) at Route 116 (Conway Road)
Observations
Due to proximity to Interstate 91, significant tractor
trailer truck volume runs through the intersection of
Route 5/10 and Route 116 (Conway Road) and the
other study intersections. The Yankee Candle store
and warehouse facilities north and south of the
intersection contribute to trucks and traffic in general.
Nearby schools produce short periods of heavy flow
but limited pedestrian activity. The site has occasional
pedestrians but no sidewalks or crossing facilities at
the signalized intersection. Motorcycles are frequently
observed and have been noted to be undetected by the
loop in the eastbound left turn lane. Emergency
vehicles on the westbound and northbound approaches
are served by a signal preemption system. As
described previously the speed limit is 45 mph on
Route 5/10 and 30 mph on Route 116 west of the
intersection.
The intersection of Route 5/10 (Greenfield Road) and Route 116 (Conway Road) includes a fourth leg,
namely, the driveway serving the South Deerfield Fire Department. The fire station driveway and the
Route 116 approach are slightly offset; that is, these approaches do not “line up.” The signalized
intersection operates with multiple lanes on all approaches, including a right turn lane on all but the
northbound approach. The right lane on the eastbound approach is short and angles to the south. On the
southbound approach three lanes, including a right turn lane, facilitate access to I-91.
The eastbound right turn lane appears to be too short. As a result, left turning and thru vehicles block a
right turning vehicle from entering its lane, which contributes to inefficient movement from this approach.
The northbound left turn lane is quite long as it extends back to and through the adjacent intersection to
the south. Vehicles entering the left turn lane “late” often merge in front of others who entered “early”.
The traffic signal heads are supported by a pair of strain poles and a span wire that hangs diagonally from
the southeast to the northwest corners of the intersection. Under this type of signal support system,
aligning the signal heads with the lanes can be difficult. The RSA team observed poor signal head
alignment on several approaches. Eastbound right-turning vehicles must look left to see their signal head.
As witnessed from emergency vehicles on the fire station driveway many do not look for the signal or for
Page 4
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
other traffic that would be coming from the fire station driveway. Given the existing angle of the stop line
there may be no signal within the cone of vision for these right turning vehicles.
On the northbound approach, the team noted that left turning vehicles quickly lose sight of the left turn
signal and travel most of the way through the intersection without view of the signal. This may have
contributed to the propensity for northbound left turn crashes. The protected -permitted signal phasing
may also contribute to these left turn crashes. Northbound through traffic also has been observed to
continue after the red signal has been illuminated. This may occur because one head is very close to the
stop line and the other is on the far left of the left lane within a 5-section head. It is also possible that
vehicles lose sight of the signal head when traveling behind a truck.
On the southbound approach, the 5-section head is also located to the left of the left turn lane and the
“LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN •” sign is missing. This sign normally appears over a left lane where
left turns are protected when the left arrow is illuminated and permitted when the green ball is
illuminated. The nearest signal is about 0.4 miles to the south on Route 5/10 at Elm Street and no signal
coordination exists.
Other observations include:
•
The distance from the stop line to the point where a northbound vehicle would turn left is
unusually long.
•
Eight of the 14 recorded crashes involved the northbound left-turn movement. Half of these
involved rear-end collisions and half were crashes with opposing southbound vehicles.
•
GPS misdirection occurs in this area as reported by a team member. Some drivers have been
misdirected to the South Deerfield Fire Station Driveway.
•
Directional signs and DO NOT PASS signs are clustered on the southbound approach.
•
There is a seasonal roadside vegetable stand on the north side of Route 116 between this
intersection and the I-91 northbound ramp which results in vehicles parking along the highway.
•
There are a mix of LED and incandescent signal heads. The LED heads have greater visibility
and last longer.
Safety Enhancements
1. Add near-side right signal head for better visibility for
cars following trucks on the northbound approach.
(Photo A1)
2. Relocate the northbound facing 5-section signal head
over the lane line between the left and through lane
(swap locations with SB 5-section head).
Photo A1 Northbound Signal Heads
Page 5
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3. Check through traffic clearance interval lengths: confirm use of 4 second yellow and 2 second all
red intervals for phases 2 & 6 in response to through vehicles running red light. Note ITE formula
throughout intersection.
4. Evaluate increasing the minimum green time for higher speed Route 5/10 approaches.
5. Check left turn clearance interval lengths: Phases 1& 5 are programmed for 3 second yellow and
1 second all red; evaluate 4 second yellow and 2 second all red as programmed for phases 2 & 6
to avoid different clearance times for left turn.
6. Extend double yellow centerline and move stop line on
northbound approach to reduce travel distance required to
turn left.
7. As long term plan in conjunction with reconfiguration of
intersection / modifying stop line locations, consider
replacement of the existing 2-pole signal support system
with 3 or 4 pole system to improve visibility of signals and
improved stop line location.
8. Replace left turn arrow with “LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN •” sign on the southbound
approach. (Photo A2)
Photo A2 Southbound Signal Head
9. Add far-side left signal head to enable visibility through the
northbound left turn.
10. Evaluate coordination with the signal at Elm Street, which is less than 0.4 miles away.
11. Remove left turn arrow and add “I-91 AHEAD” markings to northbound left lane south of the
Conway Street intersection to encourage early (not late) entry.
12. Realign eastbound right lane to be more parallel to the left lane; eliminate the painted island and
increase the offset of the edge line from the edge of the road to improve alignment with signal
head.
13. Consider modifying the raised island on eastbound
approach to better align with westbound approach.
14. Relocate left-most signal head for eastbound direction
closer to center of eastbound left/through lane. (Photo A3)
15. Evaluate addition of backplates to all approaches.
16. Replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs—Greens:
EB, WB, NB left arrow and one green ball; Yellows: All.
Photo A3 Eastbound Signal Heads
Page 6
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
17. Contact GPS system providers about misdirections. (Note this issue has been resolved.)
18. Check/adjust loop sensitivity for motorcycle detection on eastbound approach.
19. Evaluate modifying the No Passing Zone to move DO NOT PASS sign back from the intersection
and away from directional signage on the southbound roadway.
( Photo A4)
Photo A4 Southbound Directional Signs
Photo A5 Southbound Warning Signs
20. Evaluate elimination of intersection ahead graphic warning sign or separation of this sign and the
fire station ahead warning sign. (Photo A5)
21. Increase length of eastbound right-turn lane by moving
the edgeline to more effectively queue left and right
turns. (Photo A6)
Photo A6 Eastbound Right Turn Lane
Page 7
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Route 5/10 at North Main Street
Observations
Route 5/10 operates as a two-lane roadway through this
intersection, and the intersecting roads are single-lane
approaches. While the Route 5/10 roadway is straight, the
westbound North Main Street and eastbound Mill Village
Road roadways are curved coming into the intersection.
Truck usage is high due to the warehouse off Mill Village
Road. Pedestrians are also seen on this roadway entering the
intersection. Due in part to the 45 mph speed limit on Route
5/10 and the compactness of the intersection and the absence
of street lighting, advance recognition of the intersection is
difficult. Small street signs exacerbate the issue.
Other signing issues were observed by the RSA team. On
Route 5/10, a sign indicates a farm stand on North Main Street but that sign is too close to the intersection
to be read and reacted to prior to arriving at the intersection. On the westbound North Main Street
approach, the warning sign indicating a STOP AHEAD has lost its reflectivity and the sharp curve into
the Route 5/10 intersection is marked only by one arrow sign. The curve is lit with highway lighting. On
the eastbound approach, the directional signing is on the near side, left of the approach. This sign location
contrasts with the far side-right location for westbound traffic. These directional signs for the eastbound
and westbound approaches are mounted on the same pole. Also, a cluster of signs is mounted on the same
post supporting a STOP sign on the raised island on the North Main Street approach. The street signs
located on the southeast corner are small in size.
Other team observations include:
•
The double yellow centerline on the north leg of the intersection terminates too far back from the
intersection.
•
Sight distance on the minor approaches is inadequate from the stop line; drivers must stop and
then move ahead to get adequate sight distance.
•
During the 1980s the intersection was reconfigured and a flashing beacon was removed from the
intersection. The utility pole on the northeast corner was installed after the intersection was
reconfigured.
•
Crash history shows more crashes occur involving southbound traffic (7 of 10) and/or turns into
or out of Mill Village Road (3 of 10).
Page 8
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Safety Enhancements
1. Add street lighting using the pole on the northeast corner
to improve driver recognition of intersection.
2. Evaluate utility of flashing beacon if highway lighting not
possible or ineffective in reducing crashes.
3. Add supplemental signs with street names below
INTERSECTION AHEAD warning signs.
Photo B1 Street Signs
4. Replace street signs with larger-letter signs. (Photo B1)
5. Farm stand sign is too close to intersection on the
northbound approach does not allow a safe turn. ( Photo
B2) Move sign back approximately 250 feet south of
intersection and increase font size.
6. Check warrants for left turn lanes on Route 5/10 (obtain
counts). If warranted, determine if sufficient paved width
exists to add a left turn lane by restriping.
Photo B2 Farm Stand Sign
7. Add chevrons and remove arrow sign on sharp curve
where roadway approaches Rte 5/10. (Photo B3)
8. Replace faded STOP AHEAD warning sign.
B3)
(Photo
9. Remove reflector cluster sign on nose of island because
it is redundant with the KEEP RIGHT sign. Lower the
KEEP RIGHT sign to avoid overlapping shape with
STOP sign. (Photo B4)
10. Extend double yellow centerline on the north leg.
Photo B3 North Main Street - North/West
bound Lane
11. Consider ITS application to alert drivers on Route 5/10 of
vehicles on minor approaches to mitigate inadequate sight
distance.
Photo B4 Sign Cluster on North Main
Street Island
Page 9
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Route 116 (Sunderland Road) at Sugarloaf Street
Observations
The Route 116 (Sunderland Road) at Sugarloaf Street
intersection includes a fourth leg, Sugarloaf Street
Extension. The southbound Sugarloaf Street approach is
curved. Ninety feet back from the intersection, the
Sugarloaf Mountain Road intersects Sugarloaf Street on
the curve. Two other driveways to a parking lot are also
located on the east side of Sugarloaf Street, with the
nearest of these approximately 200 feet back from the
intersection. The northbound approach to the
intersection on Sugarloaf Street Extension is
characterized by a steep grade, which hides the
approaching vehicle from the southbound driver’s view
at the stop line. Three approaches, all but the single lane
northbound approach, include a left turn lane and a
second lane for through and right-turning vehicles.
Route 116 carries a significant percentage of trucks
destined for I-91. With multiple hospitals nearby, the
corridor also frequently serves emergency vehicles.
Buses operate through the intersection along Route 116 to Sugarloaf Street. Sugarloaf Street is an
alternate route to South Deerfield Village, Route 5/10 and I-91 northbound. There is a bus stop on
Sugarloaf Street just north of Sugarloaf Mountain Road. The area is favored by bicyclists who regularly
meet at the adjacent parking lot shown in the photo. Pedestrians are served by a sidewalk from the village
to Sugarloaf Mountain Road. (Photo C1)
The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal system. The
traffic signal heads are supported by two strain poles and a
span wire between the northeast and the southwest corners. On
the southbound approach there is a signal visibility restriction
due to the curve; greater advance visibility of the traffic signal
heads is required. At the stop line there is no signal head
within the extension of the left lane lines. The signal heads at
the northbound approach appear to be mounted with less than
8 feet of horizontal separation. All of the yellow signal
indications and more than half of the green signal indications
are illuminated with incandescent bulbs. The traffic signal
Photo C1 Sidewalk and Bus Stop on East
operation includes somewhat puzzling phasing for the
Side of Sugarloaf Street
northbound and southbound approaches. The northbound
phase only occurs when vehicles are on that approach. Sometimes that happens when the southbound
phase starts and sometimes the northbound phase begins after the southbound phase has already started.
The intersection approaches are influenced by solar glare.
Page 10
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Other observations include:
•
Rear-end crashes occur on Route 116 (4 of 12); angle
crashes are a more frequent occurrence involving
vehicles entering northbound or southbound (5 of 12).
•
Westbound traffic facing a red signal indication will
frequently roll rather than stop and turn right onto
Sugarloaf Street.
•
Street signs and lettering are small. (Photo C2)
Photo C2 Small Street Name Signs Southeast Corner
Safety Enhancements
1. Evaluate phasing. Obtain counts and determine if
operation is capacity constrained. If not, evaluate
alternate signal phasing, which would serve these
northbound and southbound approaches consecutively(
split phasing), not concurrently.
2. If consecutive (“split”) phasing is to be programmed,
add arrow lenses to affirm unopposed turns.
3. Evaluate the addition of backplates to the signal heads.
Consider additional wind loads.
4. Check signal phasing clearance interval lengths.
Photo C3 Signal Head/Alignment Lane on
Sugarloaf Street
5. Check if relocation of the head over the southbound
left turn lane provides adequate advance visibility.
Otherwise, consider adding a signal head to the strain
pole to the left of the southbound approach. (Photo C3)
6. Trim trees on the southwest corner.
7. Extend the sidewalk on Sugarloaf Street to Sunderland
Road (east of intersection) where participants identified
a path has been worn.
8. Replace street signs with large lettering.
Photo C4 Signal Heads - Northbound
Approach
9. Replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs—Greens on northbound and southbound approaches;
Yellows on all approaches.
10. Confirm the horizontal spacing of the northbound signal heads is at least 8 feet. (Photo C4)
Page 11
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Summary of Road Safety Audit
Each safety issue and potential safety enhancement discussed during the audit has been listed on the
following Table 2. For each safety issue, the potential safety enhancement is described; its potential
safety payoff is estimated based on groupings shown below, as are the estimated time frame for
completion, and the estimated construction cost. The responsible agency is also listed with MassDOT as
the default entry given its jurisdiction but responsibility is subject to any existing or future maintenance
agreements with the Town of Deerfield. There are no known conceptual design plans in progress for
these locations, otherwise the potential safety enhancements that have been incorporated into the design
would be identified.
Safety payoff estimates are subjective and may be based on the relative percent of crashes that may be
reduced by the enhancement based on known and documented crash reduction factors, if available, or
estimated crash reduction based on a stated source [for example, low (<30%), medium (31% to 70%), and
high (>71%)]. The time frame is categorized as short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1 to 3 years), or longterm (>3 years). The costs are categorized as low (<$10,000), medium ($10,001 to $50,000), or high
(>$50,001).
Page 12
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Table 2. Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Location
Rte 5/10 (Greenfield
Rd) @ Route 116
(Conway Rd)
Safety Issue
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff Time Frame
Add near-side right signal head for better
Low
Short-term
visibility for cars following trucks.
Relocate 5-section head over the lane line
between the left and through lane.
Low
Short-term
(Swap location with SB 5-section head.)
NB cars running red signal
Check clearance interval lengths: Confirm
use of 4 second yellow and 2 second All
Low
Short-term
Red for Phases 2 & 6. Note ITE formula.
Evaluate increasing minimum green for
Low
Short-term
higher speed Route 5/10 approaches
Replace left turn arrow with “Left Turn
Missing SB sign
Low
Short-term
Yield on Green” ball sign.
Add far-side left signal head to enable
Mid
Short-term
visibility through northbound left turn.
Relocate 5-section head over the lane line
between the left and through lane.
Mid
Short-term
(Swap location with SB 5-section head.)
Check clearance interval lengths: Phases
1 & 5 programmed for 3 second yellow
and 1 second All Red; evaluate 4 second
Mid
Short-term
yellow and 2 second All Red as
NB left turn signal visibility /
programmed for Phases 2 & 6.
NB left turn crashes
Move stop line and centerline markings on
NB approach toward intersection to
Mid
Short-term
reduce distance for left turn. Avoid
reducing visibility of overhead signals.
For long term, consider reconfiguring
intersection and replacement of two-pole
angle type signal support system with 3 or
Mid
Long-term
4 pole system to improve visibility of
signals and stop line location.
SB rear end crashes
Consider dilemma detection on Rte 5/10.
Low
Mid-term
Cost
Responsible Agency
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Mid
MassDOT
Mid
MassDOT
Page 13
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Location
Safety Issue
SB rear end crashes
Corridor delay
NB left turn bay is long
EB rights ignore WB lefts /
EB signal head location
Signal head visibility
Rte 5/10 (Greenfield
Rd) @ Route 116
(Conway Rd)
GPS misdirection
EB motorcycle detection
SB sign clusters
EB queuing
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff Time Frame
Evaluate increasing minimum green time
Low
Short-term
for higher speed Route 5/10 approaches
Evaluate coordination with signal at Elm
Low
Short-term
Street (less than 0.4 miles away).
Add markings “I-91 AHEAD” and remove
left turn arrows south of Conway Street to
Low
Mid-term
encourage early (not late) entry to lane.
Realign EB right lane to be parallel to left
lane at stop line; eliminate painted island
Low
Short-term
and increase edge line offset.
Consider modifying raised island on
eastbound approach to reduce eastbound
Low
Long-term
and westbound approach offset.
Relocate leftmost signal head closer to
Low
Short-term
center of eastbound left/ through lane.
Evaluate addition of backplates to all
Low
Short-term
approaches. Consider wind loads.
Replace incandescent bulbs with LEDsGreens: EB, WB, NB left arrow and one
Low
Short-term
ball; Yellows: All
Contact GPS system providers to correct
Low
Completed
improper directions.
Check / adjust loop sensitivity (left lane).
Low
Short-term
Evaluate No Passing Zone to separate
Low
Short-term
DO NOT PASS & directional signs.
Evaluate greater separation of
intersection ahead and fire station ahead
Low
Short-term
warning signs or consider eliminating
intersection ahead warning sign.
Increase length of EB right turn lane by
moving edge line to more effectively
Low
Short-term
queue lefts and rights.
Cost
Responsible Agency
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Mid
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Mid
MassDOT
Mid
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Low
MassDOT
Page 14
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Location
Safety Issue
Minimal advance
recognition of intersection.
( Thirty years ago beacon
removed)
Small street name signs
Rte 5 & 10
(Greenfield Rd) /
North Main Street
Farm stand sign
No turn lanes on Rte 5/10
Inadequate signing on
North Main Street
approach.
Centerline termination on
SB approach
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Mass DOT – Install;
Town of Deerfield Power
Town – Monitor
crashes;
MassDOT - Install
Add street lighting using pole on northeast
corner.
Mid
Mid
Mid
Consider flashing beacon if street lighting
is ineffective in reducing crashes.
Mid
Long
Mid
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Mid
Mid
Mid
MassDOT
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT – Install;
Town of DeerfieldMaintain
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Mid
Mid
Mid
MassDOT
Low
Short
Low
Low
Short
Low
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Add supplemental signs with street names
below intersection ahead warning sign.
Consider ITS application: Alert Route 5/10
drivers to a vehicle on minor approach.
Replace with larger letter signs
Sign located too close to intersection on
northbound approach to allow safe turn.
Move back sign to approximately 250 feet
south of intersection.
Check warrants for left turn lanes
(obtain counts). If warranted, determine if
sufficient paving exists to add lane by
restriping
Add chevrons and remove arrow sign on
sharp curve where roadway turns into Rte
5 /10.
Replace faded STOP AHEAD warning
sign.
Remove reflector cluster sign on nose of
island because it is redundant with keep
right sign. Lower Keep Right sign to avoid
overlapping shape with STOP sign.
Extend double yellow centerline on north
leg.
MassDOT – Install;
Town of DeerfieldMaintain
MassDOT – Install;
Town of DeerfieldMaintain
Page 15
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Location
Safety Issue
Invisible northbound
vehicles
Potential Safety Enhancement
Evaluate phasing. Obtain counts and
determine if operation is capacity
constrained. If not, evaluate alternate
signal phasing which would serve the
northbound and southbound approaches
consecutively and not concurrently.
Safety Payoff Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short
Mid
MassDOT
Low
Short
Mid
MassDOT
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short
Mid
MassDOT
Trim trees on southwest corner.
Low
Short
Low
Town of Deerfield
Pedestrians and bicycles
Extend sidewalk on Sugarloaf Street to
Sunderland Road (east of intersection)
Low
Long
Mid
MassDOT
Small street signs
Replace street signs with large lettering.
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT – Install;
Town of DeerfieldMaintain
Lesser visibility of signals
Replace incandescent bulbs with LCD’sBoth greens on northbound and
southbound and one on westbound
approach; Yellows on all approaches.
Low
Short
Mid
MassDOT
Low
Short
Low
MassDOT
Signal for northbound traffic
does not always turn green
when southbound turns
green.
Solar glare due to east west
alignment
Rear end crashes
Rte 116 (Sunderland Signals are not visible
Rd) / Sugarloaf
sufficiently in advance on
Street
southbound approach due
to curve
Vegetation on southwest
corner.
NB signal head spacing
If consecutive (“split”) phasing to be
programmed, add arrow lenses to affirm
unopposed turns.
Evaluate addition of backplates to signal
heads. Consider additional wind loads.
Check signal phasing clearance interval
lengths: confirm standard timings are OK
6 seconds for major street (4/2) and 5
seconds for minor street (4/1)
Check if relocation of head over left turn
lane provides adequate advance visibility.
Consider adding signal head to strain pole
to left of southbound approach.
Confirm the horizontal spacing of the
northbound signal heads is at least 8 feet.
Page 16
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Appendix A. RSA Meeting Agenda
Page 17
The Massach
husetts De
epartmen
nt of
nsportatio
on (MasssDOT) and
d the Franklin
Tran
Regiional Cou
uncil of Governme
ents (FRCO
OG)
Cordially invite you to participate in
na
Ro
oad
d Sa
afetty
Au
udiit
Your partic
u
cipation in the R
Road Saffety
Audit (RSA) is criti
d
ical to th
he proceess The Feederal Highwaay Administraation defines a Road Safety Audit
(RSA) as the formall safety examination of an existing or fu
uture road
or inteersection by an independent, multidiscip
iplinary team.. The
purpose of a RSA iss to identify potential safetty issues and possible
opporttunities for sa
afety improveements consid
dering all road
dway
nclude repressentatives fro
om the
users. RSA participaants should in
FRCOG
G, and MassD
DOT as well ass representatives from locaal police,
fire, an
nd Department of Public Works.
Wed
dnesday
y, Febru
uary 9th, 2011
9:00
0 AM – 1
12:30 PM
M
Three intersectionss will be the focus of the RSA in Deerfieeld and
consist of the follow
wing:
• Route 5/10
0 at Route 116
6 (Conway Street);
• Route 5/10
0 at North Maain Street; and
d
• Route 116 at Sugarloaf Street.
These three interseections have previously beeen identified as
hazard
dous locations in Franklin County. The RSA will consiist of a
review
w of crash datta and trends,, existing road
dway volumees, an on‐
site vissit and conclu
ude with a wo
orking session
n. Design imp
provements
identiffied through this process may be eligible to receive grant
ng for implem
mentation.
fundin
Pleasee R.S.V.P. to Stacy Metzgerr at smetzger@
@frcog.org
or call (413) 774‐11
194 x109
Road Safety Audit
Deerfield, MA
Meeting Location: South Deerfield Fire Station
84 Greenfield Road, Deerfield, MA
Wednesday, February 9th, 2011
9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Hazardous Locations – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
9:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
9:15 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Images and Aerial Photographs
10:00 AM
Visit the Sites
• Visit each of the intersections
o Route 5/10 at Route 116 (Conway Street);
o Route 5/10 at North Main Street; and
o Route 116 at Sugarloaf Street.
• As a group, identify areas for improvement
11:30 AM
Post Visit Discussion / Completion of RSA
• Discuss observations and finalize findings
• Discuss potential improvements and finalize recommendations
12:30 PM
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on February 9th, participants are encouraged to visit the
intersections and complete/consider elements on the RSA Prompt List with a focus
on safety.
• All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout. Participants
are encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are reminded that the
synergy that develops and respect for others’ opinions are key elements to the
success of the overall RSA process.
• After the RSA meeting, participants will be asked to comment and respond to the
document materials to assure it is reflective of the RSA completed by the
multidisciplinary team.
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Appendix B. RSA Audit Team Contact List
Page 18
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Appendix C. Detailed Crash Data
Page 20
Road Safety Audit—Deerfield
Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Appendix D. Additional Information Page 21
Appendix F. Road Safety Audit References
Road Safety Audit References
Massachusetts Traffic Safety Toolbox, Massachusetts Highway Department,
www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox.
Road Safety Audits: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 336. Transportation Research
Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004.
Road Safety Audits. Institute of Transportation Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org.
FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 2006.
Road Safety Audit, 2nd edition. Austroads, 2000.
Road Safety Audits. ITE Technical Council Committee 4S-7. Institute of Transportation Engineers,
February 1995.