ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 2 PHILLIPSTON
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
March 2009
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 2 PHILLIPSTON
FINAL REPORT
March 2009
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
300 Howard Street, P.O. Box 967
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
508-620-2832 508-620-6897 (fax)
www.mstransportationsystemsinc.com
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
RSA PROCESS
2
ANALYSIS
8
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
11
RECOMMENDATIONS
20
APPENDIX
24
MS Transportation System, Inc.
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
INTRODUCTION
Lane departure crashes are one of the primary fatal crash types in Massachusetts. The
Commonwealth exceeds the national average for lane departure crashes and was
designated a lead state in lane departure crashes by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD) conducted a study of the problem and found that during 2002-2004,
lane departure crashes accounted for 25 percent of all injury crashes and nearly half, 46
percent, of all fatal crashes.
As part of the effort in implementing the safety plan and specifically reducing lane
departure crashes, MassHighway is completing a Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review
Project specifically focused on median crossing (or median cross-over) crashes on its
major highways. Road safety audits are a formal safety performance examination on
existing or future roadways by an independent audit team. These specific audits are
being conducted in locations where cross-over experience has been or has the potential
to be of concern and where the RSA team has judged that factors exist and safety risk
could be affected. The team works to identify opportunities for enhancing safety and to
recommend specific enhancements that may be implemented to reduce median crossover crashes and improve the overall safety along the highway.
An RSA was conducted on Route 2 in Phillipston as part of this overall effort. The
roadway section under study, shown in Figure 1, was essentially within the town limits
between Interchange No. 18 and Interchange No. 19 a distance of approximately 2½
miles. It encompasses the section of highway that is primarily a two lane section but
also includes a short section where the route transitions from the 4 lane divided highway.
E x it 1 8
R o u te 3 2
R o u te 2 0 2
R o u te 2 A
E x it 1 7
E x it 1 9
P h illip s to n
Project Location
Figure 1
The purpose of this Route 2 Phillipston RSA is to assess current safety characteristics
on the highway section under study and to recommend a set of actions to enhance the
safe operation of the highway section under study. Recommendations contained in this
report reflect the overall consent of the RSA team and do not necessarily reflect the
official views of MassHighway.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 1
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
RSA PROCESS
In conducting the RSA, the overall procedures outlined in the Median Cross-Over RSA
Guideline Report1 with some modifications given the characteristics of the facility being
reviewed. The process included identifying RSA team members; conducting field visits;
holding a RSA team meeting and then completing an assessment of the data and
findings from the field visits and meetings to render recommended actions for
MassHighway to consider. Data including recent traffic volume data, summary crash
records for the 2004-2007 period, narrative crash reports of cross-over crashes, and
available record highway plans were obtained and reviewed by the RSA consultant.
Field visits were conducted by the RSA team members. A video recording of the
sections under study was taken by the RSA Consultant. The site visits were completed
prior to the RSA team meeting that was held on July 1, 2008 at the State Police barracks
in Athol. At that meeting, the RSA consultant provided a brief overview of the RSA
purpose, a summary of the roadway section’s characteristics and results of the review to
date. The RSA team provided input and discussed the key items noted in the field and
that were listed on the RSA Median Cross-Over Prompt List. Issues and concerns were
noted. Following the RSA meeting, the RSA consultant compiled the information,
completed the analysis and circulated the draft report.
•
RSA Team
The following were members of the Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit:
Bonnie Polin, MassHighway, Safety
Ashish Patel, MassHighway, Highway Design
Alex Normandin, MassHighway
Andrew Hirshfield, MassHighway
Sgt. Paul Wosny, Mass State Police
Captain Turner, Mass State Police
Sam Gregorio, MassHighway, District 2
William Goulet, MassHighway, District 2
•
Timothy White, FHWA
Brian Doherty, MRPC
George Snow, MRPC
John Donoghue, MassHighway, District 2
Bao Lang, MassHighway, District 2
Hal Piligian, MassHighway, District 2
Lisa Schletzbaum, MassHighway, Safety
William J. Scully, MS Transportation
Systems (RSA Consultant)
RSA Team Meeting
The RSA team meeting took place on July 1, 2008 at the State Police offices in Athol.
Represented were MassHighway (Boston and District), Montachusett Regional Planning
Commission (MRPC), the Federal Highway Administration as well as the State Police.
1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc., Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes, Audit Guidelines,
Prepared for MassHighway, October 2007.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 2
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
As stated previously, overall characteristics of the study section were presented at the
meeting. A video and pictures were reviewed and a discussion of the potential safety
concerns and potential actions followed. The key items resulting from that meeting
included the following:
 Speeding is a problem on the section,
 Passing is prohibited with the “qwick kurb” in place,
 Without the ability to pass, the “car following” issue and congestion becomes
more significant resulting in the following characteristics:
¾ leads to higher speeds once the multi-lane section is reached in
eastbound direction,
¾ motorists trying to “beat the queue” in the westbound direction
before the lane drop, and
¾ less than desirable spacing between vehicles on two lane
section.
 Difficult to enforce travel speeds in the two-lane section as there is
inadequate room to safely park and observe as well as stop a motorist;
 Breakdowns or crashes create a major problem with moving traffic past site;
 There was a general sense that the westbound transition from the four-lane
divided to two-lane undivided roadway segments may not be adequately
treated in terms of advance notice to oncoming motorists, the Interchange 19
westbound on-ramp merge and the official cross-over lane. (Note: For a
number of years, there was a movement towards extending the four (4) lane
section west to Athol and Orange. However, a number of reasons including
projected traffic volumes, costs and environmental constraints appear to have
halted that view2).
 While the majority of road users are likely to be familiar with the route, there
is a significant amount of motorists during tourist season and on weekend
(i.e. infrequent or new travelers) less familiar with the highway conditions.
While there may be less volume on the road during the weekend, speeds
seem to be higher.
2
MassHighway, Route 2 Improvement Project, Single Environmental Impact Report, EOEA #11870,
Orange, Athol & Phillipston, MA, December 2008.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 3
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
 As was noted in the field audits, the existing variable message sign (VMS)
message is difficult to read during daylight hours.
 There are numerous types of signs in the 4 to 2 westbound direction
transition zone.
 It was also noted at the meeting that a significant number of wildlife crossings
occur in the corridor and affect the travel safety.
•
Analysis Procedures
As previously indicated, the RSA analysis generally followed the procedure described in
the previously referenced Guideline with some variations and also took into
consideration the methods published by the Federal Highway Administration3 and those
included in training materials4. The basic tasks included:
•
Obtaining and reviewing crash and other traffic characteristic data and
available record plans.
•
and collecting a current record of condition via photos and video,
•
Identifying potentially hazardous issues, and
•
Identifying and evaluating potential actions to address the noted issues.
In assessing the issues identified by the RSA Team, the relative seriousness and
potential risk relative to crash frequency and severity were determined. Using the
guidelines of FHWA as input and considering characteristics of this specific RSA, the
relative frequency criteria and severity criteria were identified and are presented in Table
1 and Table 2, respectively.
Taking into consideration both frequency and severity, the relative risk of a particular
audit item was rated. The risk ratings are shown in Table 3. For each safety issue
identified, the potential seriousness of the issue as well as possible mitigation measures
have been indicated.
3
4
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA SA-06-06,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Federal Highway Administration, Resource Center, Road Safety Audits Mini-Workshop, Jeffrey Shaw, PE,
PTOE, presented to New England ITE Section, September 19, 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 4
Route 2 Phillipston Road Safety Audit
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY RATING
ESTIMATED
EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY
(PER AUDIT ITEM)
Exposure
high
medium
high
medium
low
high
Probability
high
high
medium
medium
high
low
low
medium
low
medium
low
low
5 or more crashes per year
FREQUENCY
RATING
Frequent
1 to 4 crashes per year
Occasional
Less that 1 crash per year, but more
than 1 crash every 5 years
Infrequent
Less than 1 crash every 5 years
Rare
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
TABLE 2
SEVERITY RATING
Typical Crashes Expected
(per audit item)
High-speed crashes; head on and
rollover crashes
Moderate-speed crashes; fixed
object or off-road crashes
Crashes involving medium to low
speeds; lane changing or
sideswipe crashes
Crashes involving low to medium
speeds; typical of rear-end or
sideswipe crashes
Expected Crash Severity
Probable fatality or
incapacitating injury
Moderate to severe injury
Severity
Rating
Extreme
High
Minor to moderate injury
Moderate
Property damage only or minor
injury
Low
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
TABLE 3
CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT
Frequency
Rating
Frequent
Occasional
Infrequent
Rare
Severity Rating
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
C
B
A
A
D
C
B
A
E
D
C
B
F
E
D
C
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
Crash Risk Ratings:
A: minimal risk level
B: low risk level
C: moderate risk level
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
D: significant risk level
E: high risk level
F: extreme risk level
Page 5
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
•
RSA Field Audit
Field audits were conducted by the RSA team members on or before July 1, 2008. In
general, the field visits included “drive-throughs” in each direction of the study section
noting physical conditions and the “feel” of the driver. The Prompt List developed as part
of the RSA process was used as a guide. The prompt list is included in the appendix for
background. The field audits showed the following:
•
Generally the drive along the main route section feels comfortable. However, when
entering Route 2 EB and exiting Route 2 in the WB direction at Exit 18, the turning
felt “tight”.
•
The pavement surface is in good condition.
•
Rumble strips exist in the inside and outside shoulders.
•
Guardrail is placed on the right side of the roadway along the entire length at the
pavement edge.
•
With the guardrail in place on the outside of the roadway in the two-lane section,
there is no recovery zone or “escape” area for motorists except for the 8+ foot wide
outside shoulder.
•
It was noted that the “qwick kurb” and rumble strip on the inside edge could alert the
motorist upon beginning to cross the median but the qwick kurb and posts may also
serve as a distraction.
•
It was noted that the qwick kurb installation has helped reduce cross-median crashes
but more extensive treatment is required to eliminate these types of crashes.
•
The variable message sign in place in the westbound direction at the lane drop is
difficult to see during the daylight hours.
•
Transverse rumble strips exist right at the beginning and on the section of the
westbound lane drop.
•
There is an “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround” right at the point where the
roadway changes between a two-lane and four-lane divided highway.
The
turnaround is 44 to 48 feet in length.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 6
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
•
East of the “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround”, there is a median that increases
in width to 100 (west to east) and is “open”. This open median extends from the end
of median east past the interchange to the tree line a distance of 0.8 miles. It is
1,300 feet to the interchange overpass. A number of crashes were reported to have
occurred in the area of Interchange No. 19 including a fatality.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 7
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
ANALYSIS
In completing the RSA of Route 2 in Phillipston, findings were compiled from the field
audits, the review of the data input provided by team members. The following sections
summarize the results from each of the key components of the assessment.
The Route 2 section in Phillipston that was included in the RSA median cross-over
program is a section that is at an end of a four-lane divided highway transitioning to a
two-lane undivided highway that remains access-controlled. The section being evaluated
runs from Interchange No. 19 to No. 18 traveling east to west. Up until early 2007, the
two lane section was simply a two lane roadway with a centerline striping (i.e. no median
barrier) and passing or no-passing zones demarcated. Completed in the Spring of 2007,
the roadway section was modified to provide a slightly wider median section where
“Qwick-Kurb” was installed and reflector posts were incorporated as shown in Figures 4
and 5. The current median is six (6) feet in width measured edge line to edge line.
Figure 2 – Westbound Approach to Exit 19
Figure 3 – Approaching the Transition
Figure 4 – Qwick kurb with Post Installation
Figure 5 – Looking to the East
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 8
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
The roadway section also includes an outside paved shoulder of approximately 8 feet in
width with a W-beam guardrail placed along the outside edge of road in both directions.
The travel lanes are 12 feet in width.
The area where the road transitions from two-lanes per direction to one lane is in close
proximity to Interchange 19. In the westbound direction, the on-ramp merge occurs
within the transition from 2 to 1 lane. The merge or acceleration lane is also short.
Figure 6 illustrates these characteristics. In addition, an “Authorized Vehicles Only
turnaround” exists in this location that may further complicate traffic movement in this
specific area.
2-lane section
westbound
lane drop
westbound on-ramp
merge
authorized vehicles only
turnaround
Interchange 19
Westbound Transition Zone Characteristics
Figure 6
A traffic count conducted in December 2006 east of Route 2A and 202 showed that the
roadway carries approximately 19,800 vehicles per day. The closest permanent count
stations located in the vicinity of the project section showed that December volumes are
2 to 7% below the average month and 6 to 17% below the peak volumes. Adjusting to
average month using a 1.05 factor results in 20,800 vehicles per day. Truck data from
count stations on Route 2 in Fitchburg and Leominster indicate peak hour truck rates (%
of ADT) of 6 to 7 percent and daily truck rates of 8 to 9 percent. Based on a daily
volume of 20,800 vehicles (two-way) and assuming an 8% truck percentage results in
1,660 truck trips over the course of the day on this section of Route 2.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 9
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
Figure 7
Route 2 Traffic Volumes
Data available as part of the MassHighway crash records system indicated that from
2004 through a portion of 2007, there were 10 reported crashes in this section that were
classified as cross-median crashes. The 10 cross-median crashes resulted in fatalities
or personal injuries in all but two of the crashes. There were three (3) fatal cross-median
crashes reported. There were a number of cross-median crashes reported in this
section after the median and posts were installed. Conditions that were noted in the
crash reports varied. There were no predominant factors or causes for the crashes.
Included were fatigue, inattention or driving improperly. Swerving to avoid wildlife was
noted at the RSA meeting as well. Neither weather nor light conditions appears to be a
problem cited in the crash report.
As illustrated in Figure 8, an electronic VMS sign was installed just prior to the transition
section. However, the messages on the existing sign can not be easily read during
daylight hours. Figure 9 shows the existing “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround”. Its
entrance is from the westbound high speed lane at a location where the westbound
direction transitions from two (2) lane to one (1) lane. The turnaround is approximately
48 feet in length from one edge line to the other edge line.
Figure 8 - Existing VMS sign – difficult to read
in daylight
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Figure 9 – Existing “Authorized Vehicles Only
turnaround” located in the transition section
Page 10
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
Based on the field review, the review of crash data and discussions among the RSA
team members, the issues related to the safe operating conditions of the Route 2 in the
Phillipston area were identified. There were a number of factors or issues of concern that
were identified as potentially having an effect on the risk and these are listed in Table 4
along with the assigned risk rating.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF FACTORS THAT POTENTIALLY AFFECT
THE RISK OF SAFETY RELATED EVENTS
Factor or Issue
Risk Rating
Median is narrow (6 feet) and crossable
E
Short westbound transition & warning from the 4-lane to 2-lane section
C
Westbound ramp merge from Exit 19 to Route 2 appears to be short and
comes within the transition zone – authorized vehicles only turnaround
within zone as well
D
Visibility of electronic variable message sign (VMS) is inadequate during
daylight hours
C
Adequacy of transition warning including placement of signs not sufficient
C
No areas or room for enforcement
D
Observed speeds exceed the posted speeds
D
No areas to pass slower moving vehicles
B
There is a general failure of motorists to YIELD at on-ramps to Route 2
D
Delineator posts are damaged frequently and require constant
maintenance
B
Markings and warnings at interchange ramp acceleration and deceleration
lanes less than optimum combined with what appears to be short lanes
C
Wildlife crossings are numerous particularly during the spring and fall
periods
C
While actions were taken in the past several years to improve safety on this western
section of Route 2, there remain high risk factors. Most notably is the still relatively
narrow 6 foot wide median in which the “qwick-kurb” has been installed with delineator
reflective posts. This appears to have been effective in improving guidance and visibility
particularly at night. However, the qwick-kurb is mountable and consequently, the
median remains crossable. There were, in fact, several cross-median crashes reported
in2007 when the qwick-kurb was installed. The number of cross-median crashes, the
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 11
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
likelihood of severe injury, together with limited “escape” areas and/or recovery zones, a
rating (‘E’) was assigned to the existing median condition.
The westbound transition from the four (4) lane section to the two (2) lane section was
noted as a factor that can affect driver behavior. Motorists familiar with the route may
attempt to pass to the head of the vehicle group to avoid any “delays” or slow movement
on the two lane section where passing is impossible. Those not as familiar with the
route may not realize soon enough the reduction in lanes and speeds as well as the
merging of traffic from the on-ramp at Interchange No. 19. A risk rating of ‘C’ was
assigned to the transition warning factor. The ramp merge also appears to be short
within the transition zone. A risk rating of ‘D’ was assigned for the merge.
The existing VMS is not emitting sufficiently to be seen during daylight hours. The
condition of the VMS as well as the location of advanced warning of the transition zone
was assigned a ‘C’. In addition to the lane reduction WB merge and the inadequate
warning, the “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround” is located within this area with
access from the high speed lane.
The observed speeds on the study section were observed to be higher than posted.
However, it is difficult to enforce or have appropriate police presence on the two lane
study section as there are no areas or room for vehicles to safely park and observe. If a
motorist is stopped, there is a perceived inadequate amount of room for safety given the
curbed median and limited shoulder width. Risk rating factors of ‘D’ were assigned to
these two factors.
In the two lane section under study, there is no area for vehicles to pass slower moving
vehicles. This can lead to vehicles “following to close” reducing the ability or time to
react in the event something occurs (i.e. slowdown, animal darting, etc.) that can then
contribute to undesirable vehicle maneuvers. A risk factor of ‘B’ was assigned. In
addition to speeding and other driver behavior noted above, it was also noted that there
is a tendency of motorists failing to YIELD to Route 2 traffic. A rating of ‘D’ was
assigned to this factor as it can influence vehicle movement significantly in the area of
the interchanges.
The “qwick kurb” with the high visibility delineator posts has been a noted improvement
but in addition to not preventing the median crossings, a number of posts are severely
damaged or eliminated when struck by vehicles. While there may be some posts
missing, there generally remains a large number to guide the motorists along the
section. A ‘B’ risk rating was assigned to this factor.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 12
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
It was noted that at Interchange 18 in particular, that the warnings of the interchange
ramps and the acceleration-deceleration lane markings were less than optimum and
appeared to be short. A risk rating of ‘C’ was assigned to this factor.
Finally, the area was noted by RSA team members as experiencing a large amount of
wildlife crossings that contribute to both median crossing and non-crossing type vehicle
crashes and a rating of ‘C’ was assigned to this factor.
In summary, all of the factors have some potential effect on risk depending on the factor
or the location where the potential issue exists. Several of these factors identified are
centered in the characteristics of the westbound transition section. Improved advance
warning and smoothing the flow in this section can reduce the risk of an event in this
area as a short way onto the two-lane section but does not address the issues of
speeding, driver frustration and behavior or an errant vehicle on the main segment away
from the interchanges. As noted above, there is an 8 foot shoulder, however, it is
bermed with guardrail installed at its edge reducing its “effective” width a bit. It is difficult
at best and not advisable for enforcement to take place from the shoulder as currently in
place.
The review of the crash data shows that the reported cross-median crashes resulted in
serious events (82% either fatal or injury crash). Based on discussions among RSA
team members including the maintenance engineer, there is regular replacement of the
delineation posts providing some evidence that the actual number of cross-median
events is likely much higher than reported. Given the objective of this specific RSA
program is to evaluate the cross-median crashes and safety risk, the initial action
considered was whether a median barrier should be installed. Later in the report,
additional actions are also outlined to enhance the safety conditions.
•
Consideration of a Median Barrier
One of the more significant actions to be considered is to install a permanent median
barrier in the current “open” area. A barrier can be considered when there is a higher
than desirable chance or a greater risk for median cross-over crashes to occur and that
have or could result in fatalities and/or a high proportion of injury related crashes. In
addition, a barrier could be considered when the consequences or severity of a crash
without a barrier are worse than if the barrier were in place.
Factors that generally come into play in deciding on whether a median should be
installed involve the following:
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 13
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
 High volumes and speeds
 Truck volumes and mix
 Narrow median
 History of cross-median crashes
 High risk of catastrophic event
These items have been reviewed relative to the Route 2 section under study. Figure 10
presents a review of the corridor in relation to the median warrant criteria presented in
the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (RDG)5. As can be seen in the diagram, with the
median (as measured from edge line to edge line) is approximately 6 feet and a volume
of over 20,000 vehicles on an average day, the intersection of the two items is in the
area of the chart where it borders a barrier being “recommended” or “optional”.
In addition to the chart and related warrant criteria, which is a guideline, further
consideration was given to the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The ease at which a motorist is able to cross the “qwick-kurb” median in
this section.
The high travel speeds on this section.
The high probability of a severe consequence of a crash if it occurs on
this section.
Consequently, based on the analysis of the data, the field drive-thru and discussion of
the conditions by the RSA team members, it is suggested that a median barrier be
installed in this section of Route 2. The selection of the barrier is discussed in the next
section followed by the complete set of Route 2 RSA recommendations.
A. Barrier Selection
There are a number of barrier types that can be considered in addressing the median
cross-over crashes. These include the following:
♦
♦
♦
♦
Weak post W-Beam
Box Beam
Generic Low Tension Cable
High Tension Cable Barrier
♦ Strong post W-Beam
♦ Thrie Beam
♦ Concrete (Jersey type or modified)
In deciding on the type of barrier, recommended guidelines in selection are outlined in
the AASHTO RDG. This information is included in the Appendix.
5
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 14
80
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(thousands)
70
BARRIER
RECOMMENDED
60
BARRIER
CONSIDERED
50
40
BARRIER
OPTIONAL
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MEDIAN WIDTH
(feet)
Analysis of Median Barrier Warrant
Route 2 Road Safety Audit
Phillipston, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 10
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
From a cost and aesthetic perspective, the cable (flexible) barrier is generally considered
to have its advantages over the various guardrail systems or concrete barrier. The
median slope and/or recovery area also affects the use and placement of any barrier
including guardrail. However, in this specific situation, only a minimal widening of the
roadway may be feasible and therefore, median barrier that allows for minimal deflection
is required to avoid encroaching on opposing flow.
The alternative types of barrier were reviewed for potential application on this route.
Considerations included the volume of traffic, potential median width relative amount of
truck traffic, travel speeds and deflection requirements. Based on these considerations,
the weak post beams and cable barriers are not appropriate. The most applicable types
of guardrail for this route include the W-beam with strong post or the strong post thriebeam. These rails are appropriate for high speed highways and high volumes with a
relatively high proportion of truck traffic. Costs for each are similar though slightly higher
for thrie-beam. Estimated deflection distances for these systems are estimated at 1 to 4
feet depending on the barrier. In addition, the concrete barrier that one typically
observes in urban sections that have limited median width, may also be applicable as an
option in this location due to narrow existing median width and the limits or constraints to
widening. As a result, the median barrier options that appear to be most valid for
consideration for Route 2 in this section are the strong post guard rail or the concrete
barrier. For safety reasons and considering the roadway characteristics, the thrie-beam
would appear to be more appropriate guardrail than the W-beam in this case given the
median width, level of deflection, high speeds and high number of trucks.
Maintenance issues are also an important consideration in decisions regarding median
barrier installations. The maintenance issues that are of concern for this location
include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Barrier hits per mile
Frequency of hits
Cost recovery
Repair effect on traffic
Final selection of the barrier type should be based on the costs and likely maintenance
or repair requirements. The key points of the options are summarized below.
Guardrail can be placed in the median where slopes are 10:1 or flatter as well as at the
edge of a steep slope or where minimal recovery zones exist. The median in this Route
2 study section would be flat. The double faced thrie beam is a common barrier used in
the median on major highways due to its strength, design and deflection characteristics.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 16
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
It is considered a semi-rigid barrier. Estimated deflection for the thrie beam is 1 to 3 feet.
A double faced thrie-beam would be designed to have approximately 2 to 4 feet on each
side of the barrier.
The concrete barrier is rigid barrier system. The Jersey shape or the F-shape barriers
are typically utilized. The concrete barrier has been proven in terms of effectiveness and
low maintenance. It has a substantially higher installation cost when compared to the
other barrier types. It can be slip-formed, precast or cast-in-place. Installing the
concrete barrier should include 4 foot shoulders on each side. At minimum, this would
result in a 4 foot widening of the roadway section.
Installing the concrete barrier will potentially require some amount of widening of the
section. The widening may also be necessary with the guardrail although the extent
could be somewhat less. It may be feasible to install the double faced thrie-beam within
the existing 6 foot median and avoid widening. This would leave approximately two foot
clearances on each side of the barrier. This may not be ideal and would require further
review by the Department design engineers.
If the road were to be widened to accommodate more clearance for the median barrier, it
is suggested that the widening be sufficient to also accommodate increasing the outside
shoulders from 8 to 10 feet that would enhance the safety for motorists stopped in the
shoulder for breakdown or enforcement reasons.
Figure 11 compares the current cross-section of the Route 2 section under study with
the potential cross-section with a concrete barrier. Included in the widening were wider
outside shoulders as well. In total, it is estimated that the road section would need to be
widened by approximately 8 feet to install a permanent concrete barrier. Again, this
could be comparable if thrie-beam rail were used.
Per mile costs of the two types of median barrier treatment to be considered for this
route are summarized in Table 6. Shown in the table are estimated per mile costs of
installing a double faced thrie-beam guardrail and a concrete barrier. At 2 miles, the
approximate cost for installing the barrier only is estimated to be $426,000 for the
guardrail and $1.32M for the concrete barrier. Roadway widening and other actions
would add further to the cost. As can be seen, the guardrail is expected to be
significantly lower cost option. However, maintenance costs for the concrete barrier
would tend to be lower in the long term.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 17
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 6
COMPARISON PER MILE COSTS
Guardrail vs Concrete Barrier
(not including road widening)
Costs/Mile
Thrie Beam
Concrete Barrier
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
$213,000
$660,000
Page 18
Shoulder
8'
Travel Lane
12'
Median
6'
Travel Lane
12'
Shoulder
8'
46'
Existing Cross-Section with Qwick Kurb
Shoulder
10'
Travel Lane
12'
4'
Median
2'
4'
Travel Lane
12'
Shoulder
10'
54'
Cross-Section with Concrete Barrier
CONCEPTUAL ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Cross-Section
Route 2 Road Safety Audit
Phillipston, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 11
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
Recommendations
As a result of the RSA analysis and team input, a set of recommendations have been
identified and are summarized in Table 7. These actions are intended to eliminate the
chance of cross-median crashes as well as reduce the severity of all crashes and
improve the overall safety condition of this section of Route 2 in Phillipston.
Identified in the table in addition to the risk factor and recommended action are the
estimated costs and potential timeframe (i.e. short (0-1 year), medium (1-3 years) and
long (>3 years)).
A major recommendation is to install a permanent barrier in the median which will likely
be a longer term action as this type of action would probably apply in other sections of
Route 2 west of this route section. A permanent barrier in this section would be either
the thrie beam or concrete (Jersey or F-shape) type barrier system to minimize the
deflection and the amount of route widening that would be necessary to install. Installing
this type of a barrier would require consideration of the emergency or official business
use cross-overs at an adequate number of locations. In total, approximately 2 miles of
barrier would be installed. Under the current condition, the barriers would have to stop at
locations where Route 2 passes over local roads unless the bridges are widened.
Based on the assumed unit cost, the estimated implementation cost of the thrie beam
option is $426,000 while concrete barrier would be $1.32M. Including a planning level
cost estimate for road widening, the total cost of installing a permanent barrier in this
section could be between $2.0M and $2.9M depending on the type of barrier used. If
the study section is to remain a two lane section in the long term, then it is further
recommended that periodic passing zones be considered in the reconstruction plan.
Short-term actions include improving the signage and surface treatment to provide better
advance warning of the transition of going from 2 lanes to a single lane in the westbound
direction. This would include signage at least ½ mile prior to the lane drop and
preferably an initial warning at the top of the vertical grade west of Interchange 19. The
actions also include additional transverse rumble strips in the westbound direction prior
to the lane drop. The existing VMS sign needs to be replaced with up to date technology
to improve its visibility. It may also be possible to use the sign for other messages in
addition to the road transition message.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 20
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ROUTE 2 PHILLIPSTON RSA
Risk Factor
Median is narrow (6 feet) and
crossable
Risk
Rating
E
ƒ
C
ƒ
Short westbound transition &
warning from the 4-lane to 2-lane
section
ƒ
ƒ
Recommended
Action
Install permanent barrier with
roadway widening
provide additional static
signage located ½ mile east
of transition
increase number of transverse
rumble strips prior to lane drop
construct “Authorized Vehicles
Only turnaround” lane
ƒ Modify pavement markings to
better indicate acceleration
lane
ƒ Lengthen WB merge lane
ƒ Install YIELD sign on WB onramp
Estimated
Cost
$2.0-2.9M
Estimated
Timeframe
ƒ Medium to
long term
$2,000
ƒ
short term
$5,000
ƒ
short term
$10,000
ƒ
short term
$1,000
ƒ short term
TBD
$500
ƒ short term
ƒ short term
TBD
ƒ medium
term
Westbound ramp merge from Exit
19 to Route 2 appears to be short
and comes within the transition
zone
D
Visibility of electronic variable
message sign (VMS) is inadequate
during daylight hours
C
ƒ Install new VMS with up to
date technology
Adequacy of transition warning
including placement of signs not
sufficient
C
ƒ provide the initial warning
signs well in advance of Exit
19 – possibly at the top of the
vertical curve
$10,000
No areas or room for enforcement
D
ƒ locate and provide areas for
enforcement personnel to pull
off highway
TBD
ƒ medium
term
Observed speeds exceed the
posted speeds
D
ƒ increase enforcement
TBD
ƒ short term
No areas to pass slower moving
vehicles
B
ƒ provide periodic passing lanes
ƒ increase maintenance
TBD
ƒ long term
ƒ short term
There is a general failure of
motorists to YIELD at on-ramps to
Route 2
D
ƒ improve signage and marking
to enhance visibility
ƒ increase enforcement
$4,000
ƒ short term
TBD
ƒ short term
ƒ short term
Delineator posts are damaged
frequently and require constant
maintenance
B
ƒ Posts will not be necessary
when permanent barrier is
installed
see above
ƒ long term
Markings at interchange ramp
acceleration and deceleration
lanes less than optimum combined
with short lanes
C
ƒ improve markings
See above
ƒ short term
Wildlife crossings are numerous
particularly during the spring and
fall periods
C
ƒ install fencing
ƒ add supplemental notice to
motorists possibly with the
VMS installation
$900,000
$3,000 (static
signs after onramps)
ƒ long term
ƒ short term
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 21
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
Other short-term delineation improvements are included in the recommendation
including improved signage and markings for acceleration-deceleration lanes, ensure
YIELD signs are in place, advance reminders of upcoming exit ramps (i.e. Exit 18
westbound off-ramp and improved conditions that will safely allow increased
enforcement.
Also, it is suggested that a short “turn off” lane with reflectors for the “Authorized
Vehicles Only turnaround” in the westbound direction be considered. A conceptual
illustration is shown in Figure 12. The short turn lane (that could be a non-bituminous
surface) for official use removes these “slowing down” vehicles from the high speed lane
particularly important in this transition zone where the WB direction is dropping a lane as
well as accommodating merging traffic from Interchange No. 19. However, care must
be taken in the design so that “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround” (i.e. police, MHD
maintenance) users can identify the turnaround and at the same time be clear that it is
clearly understood the turnaround is only for official use. This may be accomplished by
improved signage.
For improving enforcement, areas where pull off areas can be constructed should be
identified and implemented along the route.
The final recommendations involve actions pertaining to wildlife. Installing fencing to
reduce wildlife crossings is a long term recommendation.
In the short term,
supplemental signage in order to increase motorist awareness along the route can be
implemented.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 22
Provide Lane for Allowing
Authorized Vehicles Only to
Safely Leave High Speed Lane
and Enter Turnaround
150 ft
Route 2 Westbound
50 ft
Existing Authorized
Vehciles Only Turnaround
Legend
- double reflector marker posts
eg. reflector post
CONCEPTUAL ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Alternative Authorized Vehicles Only
Turnaround Treatment
Route 2 Road Safety Audit
Phillipston, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 12
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
Appendix
•
•
•
•
•
•
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Attendance List
Median Crash Diagram
Crash Summary Data
Traffic Volume Data
Criteria for Barrier Selection
Page 24
Road Safety Audit
Phillipston – Route 2
Meeting Location: MassHighway District 2 Office
811 North King Street, Northampton
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Cross Median – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
11:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
11:15 AM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Cross Median Crashes
11:30 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
12:00 PM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using RSA Prompt List as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
12:30 PM
Adjourn for the day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on July 1st, participants are encouraged to drive Route 2
in Phillipston from exit 18 – exit 19 and complete/consider elements on the RSA
Prompt List with a focus on safety factors affecting cross median crashes.
• 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 initial 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 MEETING
Route 2 Phillipston - July 1, 2008
State Police Office, Athol, MA
Attendance List
Name
Agency/Dept.
Email
Bill Scully
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
bscullyjr@mac.com
Bonnie Polin
MHD
bonnie.polin@state.ma.us
Ashish Patel
MHD
ashish.patel@mhd.state.ma.us
Alex Normandin
MHD
alex.normandin@mhd.state.ma.us
Andrew Hirshfield
MHD
andrew.hirshfield@mhd.state.ma.us
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassHighway Safety
lisa.schletzbaum@mhd.state.ma.us
Sgt. Paul Wosny
Mass State Police
paul.wosny@pol.state.ma.us
Tim white
FHWA
timothy.a.white@fhwa.dot.gov
Brian Doherty
Montachusett RPA
bdoherty@mrpc.org
George Snow
MRPC
gsnow@mrpc.org
John Donoghue
MHD
john.donoghue@mhd.state.ma.us
Bao Lang
MHD
bao.lang@mhd.state.ma.us
Hal Piligian
MHD
harold.piligian@mhd.state.ma.us
Sam Gregorio
MHD
samuel.gregorio@state.ma.us
William Goulet
MHD
william.goulet@state.ma.us
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
±
Route 2 Median Crashes
AD
"
)
TR
AI
PS
LI
PH
IL
G
RO
KI
N
ET
ON
RO AD
ST ON
PL
L
L
ROYA
TE
M
2A
"
)
AV
EN
U
2
TEMPLETON
3
HI
G
H
LA
ND
1
E
18
ATHOL
£
¤
6
4
202
19
8 9
5
STAT E ROAD
7
PHILLIPSTON
Legend
Major Roads
Interstate
Cross Median, Non-Fatal Crash
Principal Arterial
Median, Non-Fatal Crash
Minor Arterial
Municipal Boundary
Collector
H
AT
Cross Median, Fatal Crash
BALDWINSVILLE ROAD
Type of Median Crash 2004-2007 *
OL
RO
AD
Local
* 2007 crash file has not yet been closed.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
PETERSHAM
"
)
Miles
0.4
T
PE
ER
AM
SH
RO
AD
10
IO
TR
PA
TS
RO
AD
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY SAFETY DIVISION
CRASH SUMMARY
ROADWAY:
RT 2
STUDY PERIOD:
NO.
CITY:
1/1/2004
CRASH NUMBER
TO
CRASH DATE
12/31/2007
LOCATION:
PHILLIPSTON
N/A
TRAVEL
LIGHT
WEATHER
ROAD
REASON FOR
VEHICLE
MEDIAN OR CROSS
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING
CRASH
DIRECTION
CONDITION
CONDITION
SURFACE
RUNNING OFF ROAD LEFT
MOVEMENT
MEDIAN CRASHES
CAUSE
SEVERITY
1
2242100
08/17/07
EB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Fallen asleep, crossed the roadway and hit the guardrail
E/B Travel Lane to W/B Guardrail to E/B Guardrail
Cross Median
Fatigued/Asleep
2
2094346
07/16/06
WB
Dawn
Clear
Dry
Fallen asleep and crossed the median
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Right Shoulder Construction Barrels to W/B Breakdown Lane
Cross Median
Fatigued/Asleep
Non-Fatal Injury
3
1975061
06/28/05
EB
Dark - Unknown Lighting
Cloudy
Dry
Driver swerved in and out of traffic, hit another vehicle and overturned
E/B Travel Lane to W/B Breakdown Lane
Cross Median
Wrong side or wrong way
Non-Fatal Injury
4
2203583
04/05/07
WB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle crossed the center line and hit another vehicle head-on
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Fatal Injury
5
2188097
03/25/07
EB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle crossed the center line and hit another vehicle head-on
E/B Travel Lane to W/B Breakdown Lane
Cross Median
Over-correcting/over-steering
Non-Fatal Injury
6
1957762
10/16/05
WB
Dark - Not Lighted
Cloudy
Wet
Driver was talking on his cell phone, crossed median and crashed head-on into another vehicle
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Cellular Telephone
Fatal Injury
7
2165871
03/06/07
EB
Daylight
Clear
Ice
Vehicle hit a patch of ice, lost control and overturned
E/B On-Ramp to Median
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Non-Fatal Injury
8
2010330
07/21/05
WB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle veered off the road and crossed the median
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Right Shoulder Tree
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-Fatal Injury
9
2108421
09/13/06
WB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Fatal Injury
10
2010187
10/15/05
WB
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Vehicle entered unprotected median, swerved to the right and overturned
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Embankment to E/B Trees to W/B Bridge Embankment
Unknown vehicle swerved to the E/B lane, another unknown vehicle swerved to the W/B lane to avoid other vehicle,
caused another vehicle to brake abruptly and rear ended by a vehicle behind him
W/B Travel Lane to E/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Property Damage Only
11
2010282
09/24/05
EB
Dark - Not Lighted
Clear
Dry
Suspected imparied driving
Cross Median
No Improper Driving
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless,
negligent or aggressive manner
DAYLIGHT
DAWN
DARK - NOT LIGHTED
DARK-UNKNOWN LIGHTING
CLEAR
CLOUDY
RAIN
DRY
WET
11
7
1
2
1
9
2
1
8
2
1
100%
64%
9%
18%
9%
82%
18%
9%
73%
18%
9%
DRIVING TOO FAST
FAILURE TO KEEP IN
FOR CONDITION
PROPER LANE
LIGHT CONDITION
E/B Travel Lane to W/B Travel Lane, then back to E/B Breakdown Lane
WEATHER CONDITION
Non-Fatal Injury
Property Damage Only
ROAD SURFACE
TOTAL NO.
MEDIAN OR CROSS MEDIAN
MEDIAN
CROSS MEDIAN
CRASH SEVERITY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
NON-FATAL INJURY
ICE
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
FATAL - INJURY
ONLY
OPERATING VEHICLE IN ERRATIC, RECKLESS, CARELESS, NEGLIGENT OR AGGRESSIVE MANNER
FATIGUED/ASLEEP
CELLULAR
WRONG SIDE OR WRONG WAY
TELEPHONE
OVER-CORRECTING
NO IMPROPER
DRIVING
OVER-STEERING
1
10
2
6
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
9%
91%
18%
55%
27%
9%
27%
9%
18%
9%
9%
9%
9%
2007 CRASH INFORMATION ARE NOT COMPLETE
CRASH SUMMARY IS BASED ON CRASH REPORTS WITH STATE POLICE NARRATIVES
RT-2, East of rtes 2A & 202 12/14/2006
Eastbound Westbound
Direction
Direction
Start time
12:00 AM
30
85
1:00 AM
13
52
2:00 AM
38
41
3:00 AM
50
33
4:00 AM
175
40
5:00 AM
476
135
6:00 AM
840
305
7:00 AM
1,053
453
8:00 AM
767
414
9:00 AM
613
429
10:00 AM
548
482
11:00 AM
486
465
12:00 PM
593
504
1:00 PM
625
521
2:00 PM
595
651
3:00 PM
660
938
4:00 PM
653
993
5:00 PM
616
958
6:00 PM
402
638
7:00 PM
228
510
8:00 PM
165
421
9:00 PM
161
343
10:00 PM
132
238
11:00 PM
75
199
Daily Total
9,994
9,848
TOTAL
115
65
79
83
215
611
1,145
1,506
1,181
1,042
1,030
951
1,097
1,146
1,246
1,598
1,646
1,574
1,040
738
586
504
370
274
19,842
Directional Traffic Volumes along RT-2, East of Rtes 2A and 202,
Phillipston
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Eastbound Direction
Westbound Direction
1,000
800
600
400
200
Time of Day
PM
:0
0
PM
10
PM
8:
00
PM
6:
00
PM
4:
00
PM
2:
00
:0
0
AM
12
:0
0
AM
10
AM
8:
00
AM
6:
00
AM
4:
00
2:
00
:0
0
AM
0
12
Hourly Volume (Number of
Vehicles)
1,200
Route 2 Phillipston Cross-Over RSA
CRITERIA FOR BARRIER SELECTION
Criteria
Comments
1. Performance Capability
Barrier must be structurally able to contain and redirect
design vehicle.
Expected deflection of barrier should not exceed available
deflection distance.
Slope approaching the barrier and distance from traveled
way may preclude use of some barrier types.
2. Deflection
3. Site Conditions
4. Compatibility
5. Cost
6. Maintenance
A. Routine
B. Collision
C. Material Storage
D. Simplicity
7. Aesthetics
8. Field Experience
Barrier must be compatible with planned end anchor and
capable of transitioning to other barrier systems (such as
bridge railings).
Standard barrier systems are relatively consistent in cost,
but high-performance railings can cost significantly more.
Few systems require a significant amount of routine
maintenance.
Generally, flexible or semi-rigid systems require
significantly more maintenance after a collision than rigid
or high-performance railings.
The fewer different systems used, the fewer inventory
items/storage space required.
Simpler designs, besides costing less, are more likely to
be reconstructed properly by field personnel.
Occasionally, barrier aesthetics are an important
consideration in selection.
The performance and maintenance requirements of
existing systems should be monitored to identify problems
that could be lessened or eliminated by using a difference
barrier type.
Source: AASHTO, Roadside Design Guide, 2002, Chapter 5 Roadside Barrie
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.