ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
City of Springfield
April 2014
Prepared for:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
11 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Data................................................................................................................................. 4 Project Location Description ..................................................................................................... 5 Road Safety Audit Observations ...............................................................................................5 Corridor-Wide Observations ............................................................................................................. 10 Location 1: I-91 at I-291 Interchange ................................................................................................ 14 Location 2: I-91 at State Street On-ramp .......................................................................................... 17 Potential Safety Enhancements ...............................................................................................19 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. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Locus Map.............................................................................................................................. 3
Interstate 91 at Exit 9 (Route 20/Route 20A) and at Exit 8 (Interstate 291 ramp) ................. 6 Interstate 91 at Exit 7 (Memorial Bridge ramp) ..................................................................... 7 Interstate 91 at State Street ramp ............................................................................................ 8
Interstate 91 at Exit 6 (Union Street ramp) ............................................................................ 9 List of Tables
Table 1. Table 2. Participating Audit Team Members ....................................................................................... 4 Summary of Potential Safety Enhancements ....................................................................... 20 Page 1
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Background
The Road Safety Audit (RSA) focused on the segment of Interstate 91 Viaduct in Springfield,
Massachusetts, from the I-291/Route 20 interchange to Exit 6. The segment of Interstate 91 experienced
147 crashes in 2009-2011, including 40 injury crashes. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) has determined that the City of Springfield would be eligible to receive funding for
reconstruction of the viaduct under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) if a RSA were
conducted and the proposed design incorporated the safety improvements identified in the RSA. The
RSA was performed in accordance with MassDOT 25% Design Submission guidelines. The RSA study
area is illustrated in Figure 1.
A reconstruction project for the viaduct is underway and is currently at the preliminary design phase
under MassDOT Project #607731. The project will replace the deteriorated sections of the deck of the
viaduct. Construction is expected to begin in the autumn of 2014.
In general, the RSA is intended to identify potential safety improvements that can be evaluated and
included as part of current and/or future design efforts for resurfacing/reconstruction. The short-term,
low-cost potential improvements could be considered by the responsible agency for implementation prior
to reconstruction, as appropriate.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Locus Map
TR
RA
LS
T
EE
CE
NT
STREET
¬
«
20A
LIBERTY
CT STREE
PROSPE
REET
FORD ST
STAF
Figure 1.
§
¨¦
SPRIN
G STR
MAPLE STRE
EET
ET
T
291
LYMAN ST
REET
STRE
STATE
CHESTNUT STREET
CHESTNUT STREET
VERNON
T
STREE
COURT
REET
FREMONT STREET
ET
E
N AVENU
MAIN STREET
STREET
EAST COLUMBUS AVENUE
§
¨¦
91
EN STRE
LUMBUS
WEST CO
AVENU
E
ET
UE
TON ST
AVE
N
HAMPD
ET
20A
NIE
STRE
GRIDIRON
BIR
ET
SS STRE
¬
«
91
T
Y STREE
LIBERT
C ONGRE
T
BOND STREE
§
¨¦
MA IN STREET
REET
HARR ISO
DWIGHT ST
NG
WORTHI
SPRINGFIELD
EAST COLUMBUS AVEN UE
MEMORIAL
BRIDGE
WE ST COLUMBUS AVENUE
M AVENUE
AGAWA
WEST
SPRINGFIELD
AGAWAM
.
£
¤5
Not to
scale.
£
¤5
£
¤5
¬
«147
Source: VHB
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Project Data
The audit team conducted an RSA for the Interstate 91 Viaduct through downtown Springfield,
Massachusetts, on Wednesday, April 23, 2014. The RSA agenda appears in Appendix A. Table 1 lists
the audit team members and their affiliations. Appendix B provides contact information for all team
members.
Prior to the RSA, in order to begin assessing possible safety issues, the team reviewed collision diagrams
and a crash detail summary based on crash records supplied by the Massachusetts State Police for the
corridor. Appendix C provides the detailed crash data for the study area.
Table 1. Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Chris Cignoli
Al Chwalek
Sgt. Stephen Wyszynski
Robert Hassett
Glenn Guyer
Jeff McDonald
Lt. John F. Healy
Jason Dvelis
Don Cooke
Matt Kealey
Ashley Costa
Michael Sutton
Christopher Leone
Bryan Busch
Michael Delaney
David Pelletier
Gary Roux
Bao Lang
Richard Masse
Michael O’Dowd
Joe Panao
Lisa Schletzbaum
Keri Pyke
Natasha Gayl
Mike Tremblay
Agency/Affiliation
City of Springfield – City Engineer
City of Springfield – Department of Public Works
City of Springfield – Police Department
City of Springfield – Fire Department
City of Springfield – Fire Department
Massachusetts State Police
Massachusetts State Police
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
VHB
VHB
VHB
VHB
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB)
CME
FST
AMR
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
MassDOT District 2
MassDOT District 2
MassDOT
MassDOT
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Section
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
Page 4
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
From 2009-2011, 147 crashes were reported along I-91 within the study area. Of the 147 crashes, 64 (or
44%) were rear-end crashes; 40 (27%) were sideswipe crashes, 32 (22%) were single-vehicle crashes; and
11 (7%) were angle crashes. Most crashes (65%) occurred during the daylight hours; however, a
significant number of crashes (47, or 32%) occurred after dark, with an additional 5% of crashes
occurring at dawn or dusk. Most crashes (79%) occurred on a dry roadway surface. Forty (27%) of the
147 crashes resulted in personal injury, and no fatalities were reported.
Project Location Description
The RSA focused on Interstate 91 (I-91) between the Interstate 291 (I-291)/Route 20 ramps and I-91 Exit
6 in Springfield. I-91 is classified as an Interstate Highway under MassDOT jurisdiction. I-91 runs
north-south between Derby Line, Vermont at the Canadian border to the north, and Interstate 95 in New
Haven, Connecticut to the south. Within the study area, I-91 consists of three travel lanes in each
direction, expanding to four travel lanes for acceleration or deceleration lanes at on-ramps or off-ramps.
The study area on I-91 includes the off-ramp to Route 20/Route 20A at Exit 9; the interchange with I-291
at Exit 8, the I-91 northbound on-ramp at East Columbus Avenue and the I-91 southbound off-ramp to
West Columbus Avenue at Exit 7 (the Memorial Bridge ramps), and the off-ramps to East and West
Columbus avenues at Exit 6, in the vicinity of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. Close up
aerial images of these locations are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5.
Road Safety Audit Observations
Based on review of a video recording taken on Tuesday, April 22, 2014 and the team’s prior experience
driving throughout the corridor, the RSA team determined that segment of the I-91 Viaduct through
Downtown Springfield has the following issues that affect safety:







Congestion and travel speeds;
Roadway/interchange/ramp geometry;
Signage;
Pavement Markings;
Drainage;
Lighting; and
Roadway surface.
The following sections describe in more detail the safety issues and potential enhancements determined
during the RSA. Several of these issues require further study and engineering judgment to determine the
feasibility of implementing the improvements to address them.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
I-291 RAMPS
Figure 2: Interstate 91 at Exit 9 (Route 20/Route 20A ramp) and at Exit 8 (Interstate 291 ramp)
EXIT 9
TO RO
U
TE 20
I-91
Not to
scale.
EXIT 8 TO
I-291
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Figure 3: Interstate 91 at Exit 7 (Memorial Bridge ramp)
I-91
EXIT 7
Not to
scale.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Figure 4: Interstate 91 at State Street ramp
STATE STREET
EXIT 6
MEMORIAL BRIDGE
I-91
Not to
scale.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Figure 5: Interstate 91 at Exit 6 (Union Street ramp)
EXIT 6
I-91
Not to
scale.
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Corridor-Wide Observations
The RSA team identified the following safety issues along the I-91 corridor between exits 6 and 9
including roadway geometry, travel speeds, signage, pavement markings, lighting, and drainage.
Observations:
Congestion and Travel Speeds
RSA team members stated that I-91 is often congested within the study area, particularly in the
p.m. peak hour, which may cause rear-end crashes as motorists become frustrated or inattentive
due to stop-and-go traffic, and sideswipe crashes due to vehicles changing lanes while attempting
to travel through the corridor faster. Of the 147 crashes on I-91 within the study area, 37 (or
25%) were attributed to a vehicle that was following too closely. Twelve crashes (8%) were
attributed to driver inattention.
Due to multiple on- and off-ramps on I-91 within the study area, vehicle travel speeds vary
greatly depending on time, location, and travel lane. The speed limit is posted at 50 - 55 miles
per hour (mph); according to RSA team members, vehicles often travel at speeds of 65 mph or
more, when possible (e.g. during off-peak periods) while entering or exiting vehicles are traveling
at speeds at or below the speed limit. Excessive speed can cause rear-end crashes if following
vehicles cannot react in time for a slowing vehicle, or may cause single-vehicle crashes if a
motorist loses control of the vehicle or needs to swerve to swerve rather than brake for slower
traffic. Of the 147 crashes reported in the study area, 23 (or 16%) were attributed to motorists
exceeding the speed limit, traveling too fast for the roadway conditions, or driving recklessly or
erratically.
Public safety officials attending the RSA stated that speed enforcement does occur on I-91when
possible. Public safety officials did state that there are few places for police vehicles to idle and
observe the speed of passing vehicles, making enforcement challenging.
RSA team members expressed concern that advisory
speed limits and construction zone speed limits may be
used during reconstruction efforts. Arbitrators have determined that these speed limits are not enforceable, and as a result the enforceable speed limit would remain
50-55mph, even during construction, when safe travel speeds are lower. RSA team members stated that the I-91 southbound Exit 6 ramp sometimes backs up due to congestion at the intersection of West Columbus Avenue/Union Street. Guide signage is closely spaced
This may cause rear-end crashes as vehicles entering the
and often contains a large amount
ramp may not expect vehicles to be stopped on the ramp.
of information that must be
processed in a short time period.
(Source: Google Maps)
Page 10
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Signage
RSA team members noted that there are many guide signs within the study area, since there are
several exits located within a relatively short section of roadway. Guide signage typically shows
an exit number, a route number and direction, and destination text such as “Westfield” or “Mass
Pike”. Team members suggested that the number of signs may cause motorist confusion as to
which travel lane to be in or when to exit I-91. Guide signs are typically posted overhead, and in
some locations, as many as three signs are posted in one location. The large amount of guide
signage may cause crashes if motorists divert attention from traffic to read the signage.
Pavement Markings
There are several areas where pavement markings are worn or missing within the study area.
Pavement markings that are missing or difficult to see may contribute to sideswipe crashes as
vehicles stray from their travel lanes. Pavement markings that are missing at merge/diverge areas
may cause confusion, as motorists may treat the merge/diverge area as one wide travel lane. A
lack of visible pavement markings may have contributed to the 40 sideswipe crashes that
occurred along the corridor.
Lighting
The lighting on the I-91 corridor is somewhat inconsistent and may be inadequate in some
locations. Of the 147 crashes that occurred at night, 44 crashes were reported to have occurred on
a lighted roadway and three were reported to have occurred on a non-lighted roadway. Team
members noted that some areas of the roadway may not receive adequate lighting, or that lighting
causes glare that may affect motorists. New LED lamps were installed in 2013 (subsequent to the
crash data period reviewed for this RSA), and is generally brighter and covers a smaller area than
the previous lamps, leaving some spots dark and creating glare in others. Team members also
reported that one lamp on the corridor is not functional, creating a section of roadway that is unlit.
Shadows are cast from the corridor’s viaduct on the roads underneath the viaduct. While not in
the study area, these shadows can cause crashes on the surface roadways if not adequately
lighted, as motorists’ eyes take time to adjust to sudden changes in light conditions.
Drainage
RSA participants indicated that there is poor drainage and a lack of drainage infrastructure,
especially on I-91 northbound. Some scuppers are clogged, causing some drainage issues along
I-91. Of the 147 reported crashes in the study area, 22 (or 15%) crashes occurred on a wet
roadway surface, with an additional 3% of crashes occurring on snow and 3% occurring on ice.
Roadway Geometry
Approximately ¾ mile south of Exit 6, I-91 southbound narrows from three lanes to two lanes.
Team members stated that this may potentially cause rear-end crashes, as motorists may not
expect vehicles to be traveling more slowly as they merge due to the lane drop.
Page 11
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Roadway Surface Conditions
RSA team members noted that the roadway surface is
inconsistent. While the roadway is primarily asphalt, it
has been patched with concrete in many locations. This
causes rough, bumpy travel conditions, which may
hinder motorists’ ability to react to nearby traffic.
Additionally, lane lines and edge lines are difficult to see
on the concrete surface, which may cause motorists to
stray from their travel lanes, contributing to sideswipe
crashes.
Team members stated that some crashes may have
occurred due to construction activities due to emergency
repairs on the viaduct. Construction activity presents an
unfamiliar condition to motorists, and may also result in
reduction of travel lanes and slower speeds, which may
increase motorist frustration.
The roadway surface has been
patched with concrete. (Source:
Google Maps)
Potential Enhancements:
1. In the short-term, increase speed enforcement where possible. Consider the use of automated
speed trailers, which display “SLOW DOWN” if a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.
Focus enforcement efforts on off-peak hours, when roadways are less congested and speeds
are excessive.
2. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider providing areas for public safety
officials to idle while conducting speed enforcement along I-91.
3. In advance of roadway reconstruction, ensure that the posted regulatory speed limit reflects a
safe travel speed for traffic during construction.
4. Review signal timing at the intersection of West Columbus Avenue/Union Street to improve
operations at the intersection and reduce queuing onto the off-ramp. If queues continue,
consider providing queue detection on the ramp.
5. Consolidate guide signage where possible to
reduce sign clutter and driver confusion.
Consider the use of diagrammatic guide signage
to convey as much information as necessary to
motorists in a clear and understandable manner.
Consult Chapter 2E of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for examples
and guidance regarding these signs.
Diagrammatic guide signage may be
clearer to motorists than text-based
signage. (Source: MUTCD)
Page 12
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
6. Restripe pavement markings in the short-term to help motorists stay in travel lanes.
7. Use dash lane extension markings in merge/diverge areas to communicate to motorists that
vehicles may be exiting or entering the roadway at these locations.
8. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider the feasibility of providing recessed
pavement markings and/or supplemental reflectors to improve pavement marking visibility
and durability. These treatments may not be appropriate on the viaduct.
9. Evaluate existing lighting conditions in the short-term. Repair or replace any dysfunctional
lamps.
10. Replace any missing lighting fixtures to reduce dark spots along the corridor.
11. Adjust lighting fixtures so that they adequately light the viaduct without dark spots or glare as
part of long-term reconstruction efforts. Lighting should be designed for drivers of all ages.
12. Clean and maintain scuppers to ensure proper drainage along the viaduct.
13. Identify areas where water collects within the study area. As part of long-term reconstruction
efforts, ensure that these areas receive proper drainage facilities to reduce the occurrence of
crashes that occur on wet or icy roadway surfaces.
14. Provide lane drop signage for I-91 southbound to warn motorists that the roadway crosssection narrows from three travel lanes to two south of Exit 6.
15. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider eliminating the need to merge at the lane
drop on I-91 southbound by making the right lane an exit-only lane approaching Exit 3 to the
South End Bridge and narrowing the I-91 southbound cross-section to two lanes immediately
south of the exit. To reduce the impact of weaving maneuvers approaching Exit 3, provide
clear advance warning signage indicating that the right lane is exit-only.
16. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider a deck replacement on the viaduct so
that emergency repairs are not necessary.
Page 13
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Location 1: I-91 at I-291 Interchange
A. Southbound direction
The RSA team identified the following issues with regard to intersection geometry and sight lines at
the I-91/I-291 interchange:
Observations:
Interchange Geometry
The on-ramp from I-291 westbound enters I-91 southbound on the left side of the roadway.
These vehicles do not need to merge with I-91 traffic; however, they are prohibited from taking
Exit 7 to the Memorial Bridge. This restriction is enforced with signage and a double solid white
pavement marking between the left lane and the adjacent lane; however, RSA team members
stated that motorists often disregard the restriction and attempt to shift to the right side of the
roadway to exit at Exit 7. These shifts have caused sideswipe crashes, since vehicles need to shift
lanes three times in a short distance in order to exit. These maneuvers have also caused rear-end
crashes, as motorists may not expect vehicles to illegally shift from the leftmost travel lane.
Sixteen sideswipe crashes and fourteen rear-end crashes occurred on I-91 southbound between
the I-291 interchange and Exit 7. RSA team members indicated that GPS devices may direct
motorists travelling from I-291 to I-91 southbound to use Exit 7, despite the restriction.
RSA team members also noted that trucks are not allowed in the left lane on I-91 once the solid
white line turns to a dashed line, forcing these trucks to shift to the right, merging with traffic that
is often travelling at faster speeds.
Signage and Pavement Markings
RSA team members noted that only one sign is posted along I-91 to alert entering I-291 motorists
of the restriction against using Exit 7. Team members noted that most motorists who attempt to
use Exit 7 are likely aware of the restriction; however, the lack of signage makes it possible that
some motorists are not aware of the restriction. The only sign that is provided is posted on the
same post as speed limit signage, so motorists may not see the restriction.
Team members also noted that “lane merge” signage along the I-91 southbound ramp from I-291
is incorrect; motorists do not need to merge with traffic. This sign may cause confusion, as
motorists may mistakenly believe they must merge with traffic, causing sideswipe crashes with
faster-moving vehicles in the middle travel lanes.
B. Northbound direction
Interchange Geometry
There are two exits in proximity of one another on I-91 northbound. Exit 8, which connects to I­
291, is located just 600 feet south of Exit 9, which connects to Route 20 and Route 20A. Each of
these exits has an “Exit Only” lane on I-91 northbound. Approaching Exit 8, the outside travel
Page 14
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
lane widens, allowing vehicles to form a fourth travel lane, which acts as an “Exit Only” lane. In
addition to the “Exit Only” lane, vehicles may also access Exit 8 (I-291) from the adjacent lane,
or continue northbound. This lane becomes an “Exit Only” lane for Exit 9 (Route 20/Route 20A).
According to team members, this configuration results in sudden lane shifts by motorists who do
not wish to exit at Exit 9. It also causes motorists to slow or stop unexpectedly, resulting in rearend crashes. Six sideswipe crashes and 10 rear-end crashes occurred in the vicinity of Exit 8 and
Exit 9 along I-91 northbound.
Exit 8 also provides access to Dwight Street. RSA team members stated that vehicles sometimes
back up onto the ramp to I-291 due to congestion at the intersection of Dwight Street/Congress
Street.
Signage and Pavement Markings
Due to the proximity of the exits, guide signage
for each exit is posted adjacent to one another.
This may cause motorists to confuse the two exits.
Additionally, there is no advance warning for the
Exit 9 “Exit Only” lane until just north of Exit 8,
giving motorists less than ¼ mile to shift out of
this lane if they do not wish to exit at Exit 8.
There are no pavement markings indicating the
Guide signage for Exit 8 and Exit 9 is
formation of the right “Exit Only” lane to I-291.
located adjacent to one another.
Guide signage indicates that vehicles should form
two lanes as they exit onto I-291, but there is no
striping that would indicate where this lane forms. This may cause motorists to fail to form two
lanes as they approach Exit 9.
Potential Enhancements:
1. Consider enforcing the restriction of vehicles entering I-91 southbound from I-291 to use Exit
7 with additional signage. Consider placing advance signage along the on-ramp.
2. Restripe pavement markings, particularly the double solid line between the left lane (from I­
291) and the adjacent lane, to reinforce that traffic in the left lane must stay in the left lane
until the line becomes dashed.
3. Consider the use of a vertical barrier, such as flexible bollards, to strongly discourage
motorists entering I-91 southbound from I-291 from using Exit 7 or merging with adjacent
traffic.
4. Consider contacting Navteq and other mapping companies to request that vehicles entering I­
91 from I-291 are not directed to Exit 7, as this maneuver is illegal.
Page 15
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
5. Consider adding signs to alert motorists that trucks must merge from the left travel lane into
the adjacent right lane to increase motorist awareness and reduce the occurrence of sideswipe
crashes.
6. Remove “Lane Merge” signage to reduce the occurrence of vehicles attempting to merge
from the left lane on I-91 southbound. Replace with a “Lane Added” sign.
7. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider reconfiguring the interchange to provide
direct access from I-291 to the Memorial Bridge, eliminating the need for I-291 traffic to
illegally use I-91 southbound Exit 7.
8. Confirm that there are two travel lanes that may utilize Exit 8 on I-91 northbound.
9. Replace existing guide signage with diagrammatic guide signage on I-91 northbound
approaching Exits 8 and 9 to guide motorists through the area. Signage should convey that
two travel lanes may exit at Exit 8 and that the outside travel lane turns into an “Exit Only”
lane for Exit 9 downstream of Exit 8.
10. Provide dotted lane markings for the lane that forms on the right side of I-91 northbound
approaching Exit 8 to guide exiting motorists into the interchange.
11. Consider using an I-291 route shield pavement marking along I-91 northbound approach to
Exit 8 to reinforce guide signage and inform motorists that they are in the correct place to exit
to I-291. Consider a similar pavement marking for Route 20 at Exit 9.
12. To reduce backup onto the ramp between I-91 northbound and I-291, coordinate signals on
Dwight Street so that queues do not block the off-ramp.
13. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider alternate ramp configurations, such as
increasing the distance between the exits, to reduce the motorist confusion that is caused by
having two closely spaced ramps.
Page 16
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Location 2: I-91 at State Street On-ramp
The RSA team identified the following issues regarding safety in the vicinity of the State Street onramp to I-91 northbound.
Observations:
Ramp Geometry
The State Street on-ramp intersects I-91
on an upgrade. I-91 is separated from the ramp by a concrete barrier; however, this barrier also blocks the view of oncoming I-91 northbound traffic from entering vehicles, making it difficult to merge onto I-91. This can contribute to rear-end crashes, as ramp traffic must wait at the top of the ramp to wait for a gap in I-91 northbound traffic. This may also cause rear-end crashes along the I-91 mainline if a vehicle merges into traffic without a sufficient gap. Eight rear-end crashes occurred on the ramp or on I-91 in the vicinity of the ramp. A concrete barrier obstructs sight lines of I-91
northbound traffic.
Pavement Markings
RSA team members stated that there appears to be space for an acceleration lane at the top of the
ramp, but there are no pavement markings indicating that an acceleration lane exists. The lack of
markings may cause a perception that there is a short acceleration lane or no acceleration lane at
all, causing motorists to slow or stop as they reach the top of the ramp, making it more difficult to
safely merge onto I-91 northbound and causing rear-end crashes on the mainline.
RSA team members also noted that there are no gore lines separating I-91 mainline traffic and onramp traffic. These gore lines help motorists on the on-ramp to determine the proper place to
merge with mainline traffic, and help to warn mainline traffic that traffic may be entering from
the on-ramp.
Page 17
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Potential Enhancements:
1. Consider providing a dotted lane line to signify an acceleration lane at the top of the State
Street ramp to I-91 northbound to allow vehicles to accelerate and merge safely with mainline
traffic.
2. Consider providing gore lines to warn I-91 northbound vehicles of traffic exiting from the
ramp.
3. Consider the use of a lower barrier between I-91 and the State Street ramp to improve sight
lines for vehicles on the ramp. Ensure that any barrier used is crash-rated.
4. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider options to flatten the top of the ramp to
improve the sight lines for motorists on the ramp.
5. As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider widening I-91 so that a longer, more
defined acceleration lane may be constructed, allowing ramp traffic to merge comfortably
with I-91 mainline traffic.
Page 18
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Potential Safety Enhancements
Short-term enhancements include:

Improve guide signage;

Re-stripe pavement markings;

Clean drainage structures;

Improve lighting;

Add additional signs to reinforce the restriction of I-291 vehicles using Exit 7; and

Provide a marked acceleration lane at the State Street on-ramp.
To enhance the safety of the intersection, the long-term enhancements are to:

Replace the deck of the viaduct to reduce the need for repair;

Add additional light fixtures where necessary;

Add additional drainage fixtures where necessary;

Reconfigure the I-291 interchange to allow direct access to the Memorial Bridge from I-291;

Flatten the top of the State Street on-ramp; and

Widen I-91 northbound north of the State Street on-ramp to facilitate an extended acceleration
lane.
Table 2 summarizes these safety issues, possible enhancements, estimated safety payoff, time frame, cost,
and responsibility. Safety payoff estimates are based on engineering judgment and are categorized as
low, medium, and high. The time frame is categorized as short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1 to 3 years), or
long-term (typically >3 years).
The costs are categorized as low (<$10,000), medium ($10,000 to $50,000), or high (>$50,000). It is the
responsibility of MassDOT to ensure that the designer incorporates the relevant safety enhancements
identified as part of this RSA. The RSA is intended to identify potential safety improvements that can be
evaluated and included as part of the design process. The short-term low-cost potential improvements
could be considered by the responsible agency for implementation prior to reconstruction.
Page 19
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Table 2. Summary of Potential Safety Enhancements
Location
Safety Enhancement
In the short-term, increase speed enforcement where possible.
Consider the use of automated speed trailers, which display
“SLOW DOWN” if a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. Focus
enforcement efforts on off-peak hours, when roadways are less
congested and speeds are excessive.
Corridor-wide
Observations
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider providing
areas for public safety officials to idle while conducting speed
enforcement along I-91.
In advance of roadway reconstruction, ensure that the posted
regulatory speed limit reflects a safe travel speed for traffic
during construction.
Review signal timing at the intersection of West Columbus
Avenue/Union Street to improve operations at the intersection
and reduce queuing onto the off-ramp. If queues continue,
consider providing queue detection on the ramp.
Consolidate guide signage where possible to reduce sign clutter
and driver confusion. Consider the use of diagrammatic guide
signage to convey as much information as necessary to
motorists in a clear and understandable manner. Consult
Chapter 2E of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) for examples and guidance regarding these signs.
Restripe pavement markings in the short-term to help motorists
stay in travel lanes.
Use dash lane extension markings in merge/diverge areas to
communicate to motorists that vehicles may be exiting or
entering the roadway at these locations.
Safety
Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Party
Low
Short-term
Low
Massachusetts State
Police
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Medium
Mid-term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Mid-term
Medium
City of Springfield/
MassDOT
Medium
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Page 20
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Table 2. Summary of Potential Safety Enhancements (continued)
Safety Issue
Corridor-wide
Observations
Safety Enhancement
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider the
feasibility of providing recessed pavement markings and/or
supplemental reflectors to improve pavement marking visibility
and durability. These treatments may not be appropriate on the
viaduct.
Evaluate existing lighting conditions in the short-term. Repair or
replace any dysfunctional lamps.
Replace any missing lighting fixtures to reduce dark spots along
the corridor.
Adjust lighting fixtures so that they adequately light the viaduct
without dark spots or glare as part of long-term reconstruction
efforts. Lighting should be designed for drivers of all ages.
Clean and maintain scuppers to ensure proper drainage along
the viaduct.
Identify areas where water collects within the study area. As part
of long-term reconstruction efforts, ensure that these areas
receive proper drainage facilities to reduce the occurrence of
crashes that occur on wet or icy roadway surfaces.
Provide lane drop signage for I-91 southbound to warn motorists
that the roadway cross-section narrows from three travel lanes
to two south of Exit 6.
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider eliminating
the need to merge at the lane drop on I-91 southbound by
making the right lane an exit-only lane approaching Exit 3 to the
South End Bridge and narrowing the I-91 southbound crosssection to two lanes immediately south of the exit. To reduce
the impact of weaving maneuvers approaching Exit 3, provide
clear advance warning signage indicating that the right lane is
exit-only.
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider a deck
replacement on the viaduct so that emergency repairs are not
necessary.
Safety
Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Party
Medium
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Medium
Mid-term
High
MassDOT
Medium
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Medium
Long-term
Medium
MassDOT
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Page 21
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Table 2. Summary of Potential Safety Enhancements (continued)
Safety
Safety Enhancement
Payoff
Consider enforcing the restriction of vehicles entering I-91 southbound
from I-291 to use Exit 7 with additional signage. Consider placing
Low
advance signage along the on-ramp.
Restripe pavement markings, particularly the double solid line between
the left lane (from I-291) and the adjacent lane, to reinforce that traffic in
Low
the left lane must stay in the left lane until the line becomes dashed.
Consider the use of a vertical barrier, such as flexible bollards, to
strongly discourage motorists entering I-91 southbound from I-291 from Medium
using Exit 7 or merging with adjacent traffic.
Consider contacting Navteq and other mapping companies to request
that vehicles entering I-91 from I-291 are not directed to Exit 7, as this
Low
maneuver is illegal.
Consider adding signs to alert motorists that trucks must merge from the
left travel lane into the adjacent right lane to increase motorist
Low
awareness and reduce the occurrence of sideswipe crashes.
Location 1: I-91 at Remove “Lane Merge” signage to reduce the occurrence of vehicles
Low
I-291 Interchange attempting to merge from the left lane on I-91 southbound. Replace with
a “Lane Added” sign.
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider reconfiguring the
interchange to provide direct access from I-291 to the Memorial Bridge,
High
eliminating the need for I-291 traffic to illegally use I-91 southbound Exit
7.
Confirm that there are two travel lanes that may utilize Exit 8 on I-91
Low
northbound.
Replace existing guide signage with diagrammatic guide signage on I-91
northbound approaching Exits 8 and 9 to guide motorists through the
area. Signage should convey that two travel lanes may exit at Exit 8
Medium
and that the outside travel lane turns into an “Exit Only” lane for Exit 9
downstream of Exit 8. Consider a similar pavement marking for Route
20 at Exit 9.
Provide dotted lane markings for the lane that forms on the right side of
I-91 northbound approaching Exit 8 to guide exiting motorists into the
Low
interchange.
Safety Issue
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Party
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Page 22
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Table 2. Summary of Potential Safety Enhancements (continued)
Safety Issue
Safety Enhancement
Consider using an I-291 route shield pavement marking along I91 northbound approach to Exit 8 to reinforce guide signage and
inform motorists that they are in the correct place to exit to I-291.
To reduce backup onto the ramp between I-91 northbound and
Location 1: I-91 at I-291, coordinate signals on Dwight Street so that queues do not
I-291 Interchange block the off-ramp.
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider alternate
ramp configurations, such as increasing the distance between
the exits, to reduce the motorist confusion that is caused by
having two closely spaced ramps.
Consider providing a dotted lane line to signify an acceleration
lane at the top of the State Street ramp to I-91 northbound to
allow vehicles to accelerate and merge safely with mainline
traffic.
Consider providing gore lines to warn I-91 northbound vehicles
of traffic exiting from the ramp.
Location 2: I-91 at Consider the use of a lower barrier between I-91 and the State
Street ramp to improve sight lines for vehicles on the ramp.
State Street
Ensure that any barrier used is crash-rated.
ramps
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider options to
flatten the top of the ramp to improve the sight lines for motorists
on the ramp.
As part of long-term reconstruction efforts, consider widening I91 so that a longer, more defined acceleration lane may be
constructed, allowing ramp traffic to merge comfortably with I-91
mainline traffic.
Safety
Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Party
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
City of Springfield
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Medium
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT
Medium
Long-term
High
MassDOT
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Page 23
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix A. RSA Meeting Agenda
Road Safety Audit
Springfield, MA
Interstate 91 Viaduct through
Downtown Springfield
Meeting Location: Springfield Department of Public Works
70 Tapley Street, Springfield MA
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
1 PM – 5 PM
Type of meeting:
High Crash Location – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
1:00 PM
Welcome and Introductions
1:15 PM
Review of Site Specific Material
 Crash History, Speed Regulations & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
 Existing Geometries and Conditions
2:00 PM
Site Visit via Google Earth
 Walk the Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield using Google
Maps and Video
 As a group, identify areas for improvement
3:00 PM
Post Visit Discussion / Completion of RSA
 Discuss observations and finalize findings
 Discuss potential improvements and finalize recommendations
5:00 PM
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
 Before attending the RSA on April 23, 2014, participants are encouraged to drive
through the corridor 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
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix B. RSA Audit Team
Contact List
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Participating Audit Team Members
Date:
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Location: Springfield Town Hall 157 Main Street, Springfield, MA
Audit Team Members Agency/Affiliation
E-mail Address
Phone Number
Chris Cignoli
City of Springfield – City Engineer
ccignoli@springfieldcityhall.com
413-750-2808
Al Chwalek
City of Springfield – Department of Public Works
achwalek@springfieldcityhall.com 413-787-6475
Sgt. Stephen
City of Springfield – Police Department
swyszynski@springfieldpolice.net 413-787-6330
Wyszynski
Robert Hassett
City of Springfield – Fire Department
rhassett@springfieldcityhall.com
413-787-6720
Glenn Guyer
City of Springfield – Fire Department
gguyer@springfieldcityhall.com
413-886-5218
Jeffrey.mcdonald@massmail.state.
Jeff McDonald
Massachusetts State Police
413-587-5519
ma.us
Lt. John F. Healy
Massachusetts State Police
john.healy@pol.state.ma.us
413-587-5517
Jason Dvelis
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Jason.dvelis@dot.gov
617-494-2702
Don Cooke
VHB
dcooke@vhb.com
617-924-1770
Matt Kealey
VHB
mkealey@vhb.com
617-924-1770
Ashley Costa
VHB
acosta@vhb.com
617-924-1770
Michael Sutton
VHB
msutton@vhb.com
617-924-1770
Christopher Leone
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB)
leonec@pbworld.com
617-960-4944
Bryan Busch
CME
bbusch@cmeengineering.com
860-290-4100
Michael Delaney
FST
mdelaney@fstinc.com
508-717-5503
David Pelletier
AMR
Dave.pelletier@amr.net
413-846-6100
Gary Roux
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
gmroux@pvpc.org
413-781-6045
Bao Lang
MassDOT District 2
Bao.lang@dot.state.ma.us
413-582-0547
Richard Masse
MassDOT District 2
Richard.masse@state.ma.us
413-582-0507
Michael O’Dowd
MassDOT
Michael.odowd@state.ma.us
857-368-9292
Joe Panao
MassDOT
Joseph.panaojr@dot.state.ma.us
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Section
lisa.schletzbaum@state.ma.us
857-368-9634
Keri Pyke
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
kpyke@hshassoc.com
617-348-3301
Natasha Gayl
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
ngayl@hshassoc.com
617-348-3361
Mike Tremblay
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates
mtremblay@hshassoc.com
617-348-3347
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix C. Detailed Crash Data
\\mawatr\te\11995.06\graphics\FIGURES\Springfield_Aerial.indd p.2
LIBERTY
C T STRE
PROSPE
TREET
CE
NT
RA
LS
TR
FORD S
STAF
T
EE
STREET
¬
«
20A
§
¦
¨
G
SPRIN
STRE
ET
MAPLE STRE
ET
ET
291
LYMAN S
TREET
STRE
STATE
CHESTNUT STREET
CHESTNUT STREET
VERNON
T
STREE
COURT
FREMONT STREET
ET
E
N AVENU
STREET
UE
§
¦
¨
91
OLU
WEST C
E
VENU
MBUS A
T
AVE
N
MAIN STREET
EAST COLUMBUS AVENUE
EN STREE
NIE
HAMPD
BIR
20A
T
N STREE
GRIDIRO
REET
¬
«
91
TREET
ESS ST
§
¦
¨
EET
TY STR
LIBER
C ONGR
T
BOND STREE
MA IN STREET
T
HARR ISO
REE
DWIGHT ST
S
INGTON
WORTH
SPRINGFIELD
EAST COLUMBUS AVENUE
MEMORIAL
BRIDGE
WE ST COLUMBUS AVENUE
M AVENUE
AGAWA
5
£
¤
WEST
SPRINGFIELD
AGAWAM
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,
Inc.
5
£
¤
Figure 1
Locus Map
5
£
¤
147
¬
«
Springfield, Massachusetts
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
#
1
S
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Daylight
Snow
Snow
Driving too fast for conditions
R
R
U
U
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Driving too fast for conditions
D1
1/18/2009 Sunday
8:40 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Snow
Daylight
Snow
Snow
Driving too fast for conditions
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Cloudy
Wet
Swerving to avoid vehicle
21
D2
2
N
1/28/2009 Wednesday
3
N
1/28/2009 Wednesday
1:54 PM Angled
4
N
2/1/2009 Sunday
5
S
3/12/2009 Thursday
7:58 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
22 U
6
S
3/14/2009 Saturday
Sideswipe, Same 2:58 PM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road markings
27
7
S
4/2/2009 Thursday
5:40 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
53
17
Vehicle #1 lost control and crossed over 2 lanes into Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 swerved to avoid another vehicle, lost control, and crashed into the median guardrail
Vehicle #1 slows for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear‐ends Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 attempted to merge into an adjacent lane, and sideswiped Vehicle #1
22
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #2 doesn't notice in time and rear‐
ends Vehicle #1
33
Vehicle #1 merged from left to mid lane, Vehicle #2 approached at high speed, and collided with Vehicle #1
9
S
4/11/2009 Saturday
1:40 PM Angled
Daylight
Rain
Wet
10
N
4/28/2009 Tuesday
3:44 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Swerving to avoid vehicle
11
S
4/28/2009 Tuesday
5:49 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
22
21
12
S
5/5/2009 Tuesday
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Rain
Wet
Visibility Obstructed
34
23
S
4/8/2009 Wednesday
7:00 PM Rear‐End
Sideswipe, Same 12:19 AM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
26
19
R
D5
Vehicle #2 lost control, sideswiped Vehicle #1 and then hit the median guardrail
Exceeded authorized speed limit, Failed to yield right of way
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent, or aggressive manner
8
Comments
D4
Vehicle #1 Lost control and hit the guardrail
24
Sideswipe, Same 8:43 AM Direction
12:22 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Ages
D3
24
20
22
13
S
5/8/2009 Friday
9:00 AM Angled
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Swerving to avoid vehicle
35
42
44
14
N
5/19/2009 Tuesday
11:26 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
40
26
57
Vehicle #1 approaches Vehicle #2 in adjacent lane, pushes Vehicle #2 off exit ramp 7, and flees the scene
Vehicle #1 swerved left to avoid a tractor trailer merging into the lane, and was rear‐ended by Vehicle #2 in the adjacent lane
Vehicle #1 slows to merge with congested traffic, Vehicle #2 rear ends Vehicle #1, Vehicle #3 rear ends Vehicle #2
Vehicle #2 lost visibility due to heavy rain and drifted left, sideswiping Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 swerved to avoid unknown pick‐up truck, losing control and striking Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 then lost control, colliding with Vehicle #3
During heavy traffic, Vehicle #3 rear‐
ended Vehicle #2, pushing it into Vehicle #1
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
15
S
5/21/2009 Thursday
16
S
5/22/2009 Friday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
4:24 PM Rear‐End
10:40 PM Rear‐End
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Daylight
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Dry
Followed too closely
18
61
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
53
51
N
5/28/2009 Thursday
10:47 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Followed too closely
18
N
6/4/2009 Thursday
4:01 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
19
N
6/11/2009 Thursday
4:56 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Followed too closely
S
6/18/2009 Thursday
21
N
7/6/2009 Monday
22
S
7/16/2009 Thursday
23
N
7/20/2009 Monday
24
S
7/22/2009 Wednesday
Sideswipe, Same 3:18 PM Direction
D2
Unknown
17
20
D1
22
U
61
48
40
Rain
Wet
Inattention
84
20
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
25
67
Sideswipe, Same 2:17 PM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
43 U
9:30 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
21
65
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
62
54
Sideswipe, Same 12:45 PM Direction
Comments
D4
D5
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #1
64
21
Daylight
11:50 AM Rear‐End
Ages
D3
26
34
Vehicle #1 slowed to avoid collision with unknown vehicle in front, Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1, Vehicle #3 rear ended Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #2
Vehicles #1 and #2 slow for traffic, Vehicles #3 collides with Vehicle #2, causing Vehicle #2 to collide with Vehicle #1
Vehicles #1 and #2, in the most left and most right lanes respectively, attempted to merge into the center lane simultaneously, colliding with each other. Vehicle #3, due to unrelated incident, spun out of control into Vehicles #1 and #2.
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear ends Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 sideswipes Vehicle #1 and drives away
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 pulled off to the left side of the on‐ramp, drifted right, and scraped Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 swerved to avoid another vehicle, lost control, and hit the median guardrail before spinning around and colliding again.
25
N
7/24/2009 Friday
3:26 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Rain
Wet
Swerving to avoid vehicle
23
26
N
7/29/2009 Wednesday
5:04 PM Angled
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Inattention
32
18
27
S
8/3/2009 Monday
Sideswipe, Same 7:00 AM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Made an improper turn
31
53
28
N
8/7/2009 Friday
4:04 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
27
28
Vehicle #2 changing lanes, hit Vehicle #1 who was stopped for traffic
Vehicle #2 driving in right lane, was sideswiped as Vehicle #1 attempted to take an exit
Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1 who was slowing for traffic
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Sideswipe, Same 4:28 PM Direction
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Failure to keep in proper lane
D1
Ages
D3
29
S
8/29/2009 Saturday
30
N
9/8/2009 Tuesday
3:48 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
31
22
31
N
9/9/2009 Wednesday
9:05 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Physical Impairment
59
28 U
Rain
Wet
Exceeded authorized speed limit
25
67
5:24 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
49
27
9/21/2009 Monday
Sideswipe, Same 2:41 PM Direction
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
9/28/2009 Monday
1:40 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
S
9/11/2009 Friday
33
N
9/17/2009 Thursday
34
N
35
N
36
S
10/3/2009 Saturday
37
S
10/3/2009 Saturday
38
39
N
N
10/16/2009 Friday
10/22/2009 Thursday
Sideswipe, Same 6:30 AM Direction
Sideswipe, Same 6:15 PM Direction
3:20 PM Rear‐End
Sideswipe, Same 11:20 PM Direction
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Daylight
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Rain
Wet
Rain
Wet
Clear
Cloudy
Dry
Dry
Swerving to avoid vehicle
Failure to keep in proper lane
Inattention
Inattention
Comments
D4
U
22
Vehicle #1 stopped for traffic, Vehicle #2 collides with Vehicle #1
33
22
22
51
D5
Vehicle #1 merged right with incomplete vision, forcing Vehicle #2 into the BDL
Vehicles #1 and #2 slowed for traffic, at which point Vehicle #3 collided with Vehicle #2, which was pushed into Vehicle #1
19
Daylight
32
Sideswipe, Same 10:30 AM Direction
U
D2
45
27
Vehicle #1 speeding on ramp, lost control, hitting guardrail before swerving across all lanes into Vehicle #2
Vehicles #1, #2, and #3 stopped for traffic, Vehicle #4 collides with Vehicle #3, causing it to collide with Vehicle #2, causing it to collide with Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 merged unsafely from the right lane into the center lane, sideswiping Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 stopped to avoid contact with the vehicle in front of them, Vehicle #2 collided with Vehicle #1, then Vehicle #3 collided with Vehicle #2
42
31
23
36
Vehicle #1 swerved to avoid a truck, at which point they sideswiped Vehicle #2 before spinning out of control into the guardrail
Vehicle #2 attempted to change lanes, sideswiping Vehicle #1
28
Vehicle #1 stopped at top of on‐ramp due to traffic, Vehicle #2 collided with Vehicle #1, causing Vehicle #2's rear bumper to enter right lane travel space, where Vehicle #3 collided with Vehicle #2
46
57
20
57
Vehicle #2 attempted to exit the highway, sideswiping Vehicle #1 before continuing driving
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
D2
Ages
D3
Comments
D4
D5
40
S
11/17/2009 Tuesday
5:43 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
76
27
41
N
11/19/2009 Thursday
1:35 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
29
21
34
42
N
11/21/2009 Saturday
5:41 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
24
26
53
Vehicle #1 collided with Vehicle #2 due to sudden stop of traffic flow
Vehicle #1 stopped short to avoid collision with broken down vehicle in active BDL, Vehicle #2 collided with Vehicle #1, pushing it into Vehicle #3, which spun onto the shoulder as a result.
Vehicles #1 and #2 stopped for traffic on the on‐ramp, Vehicle #3 collided with Vehicle #2, pushing it into Vehicle #1
42
Vehicles #1 and #2 stop for lane closure, Vehicle #3 collides with Vehicle #2, pushing it into Vehicle #1
43
N
11/23/2009 Monday
9:51 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Followed too closely
21
21
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
44
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
N
11/24/2009 Tuesday
45
N
12/1/2009 Tuesday
46
N
12/8/2009 Tuesday
47
S
12/9/2009 Wednesday
48
N
12/13/2009 Sunday
49
N
12/13/2009 Sunday
50
S
12/17/2009 Thursday
51
N
12/18/2009 Friday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
5:21 PM Rear‐End
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Unknown
Road Surface
Type
Dry
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Followed too closely
D1
19
D2
26 U
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
30
53
Clear
Dry
44
Snow
Snow
Cloudy
Ice
Emotional
Driving too fast for conditions
Driving too fast for conditions
51
11:28 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
11:38 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Ice
Driving too fast for conditions
45
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Followed too closely
27
9:43 AM Rear‐End
Sideswipe, Same 12:40 PM Direction
5:23 AM Single Vehicle Crash
6:08 PM Rear‐End
4:55 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Dry
Followed too closely
Ages
D3
Comments
D4
43
38
50
24
Vehicle #1 stopped short for unknown reasons, and was rear ended by Vehicle #2. Vehicle #2 was hit by Vehicle #3 and Vehicle #3 was hit by Vehicle #4
Vehicle #2 stopped short to avoid hitting the vehicle in front of her, and was hit from behind by Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 attempted to switch lanes due to construction, Vehicle #2 deliberately speeds up and collides with Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 lost control due to conditions and hit the guardrail
Vehicle #1 skidded on an ice patch and flipped over into a ditch
52
35
D5
Vehicle #1 hit an ice patch and struck the right edge barrier
Vehicles #1 and #2 stop for traffic, Vehicle #3 collides with Vehicle #2, pushing it into Vehicle #1
38
38
25
Vehicles #1, #2, #3, and #4 stopped for traffic, Vehicle #5 hit Vehicle #4, pushing it into Vehicle#3 which was pushed into Vehicle #2, which was 48 pushed into Vehicle #1
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
52
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
N
1/28/2010 Thursday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
9:40 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Daylight
Road Surface
Type
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Ice
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
Driving too fast for conditions
D2
Ages
D3
Comments
D4
D5
Vehicle #1 lost control due to conditions and collided with a concrete wall
48
Sideswipe, Same 2:35 PM Direction
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
48
31
2/11/2010 Thursday
9:38 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
73
26
Vehicle #2 merged onto the highway, and proceeded to switch lanes into Vehicle #1, who spun around Vehicle #2 as a result of the contact.
Vehicle #1 stopped due to other crashes, and was hit by Vehicle #2
S
2/14/2010 Sunday
2:19 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Cloudy
Wet
Unknown
21
56
S
2/27/2010 Saturday
8:08 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Clear
Dry
Swerving to avoid a vehicle
21
57
N
3/8/2010 Monday
Sideswipe, Same 8:28 AM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Swerving to avoid a vehicle
41
35
Vehicle #1 crashed, and was abandoned
Vehicle #1 swerved out of the way of a passing pick‐up truck and lost control, crossing all lanes and hitting a barrier
Vehicle #2 swerved to the right before losing control and spiraling left and colliding with the front of Vehicle #1
53
S
54
N
55
2/3/2010 Wednesday
5:45 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Swerving to avoid a vehicle
26
3/17/2010 Wednesday
10:20 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
34 R
3/18/2010 Thursday
11:51 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
58
S
3/11/2010 Thursday
59
N
60
N
61
N
3/21/2010 Sunday
5:05 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Clear
Dry
62
S
3/29/2010 Monday
2:07 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Rain
Wet
63
S
3/30/2010 Tuesday
1:02 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Unknown
Driving too fast for conditions
Driving too fast for conditions
R
23
R
48
Vehicle #4 swerved to take an exit, causing Vehicle #2 to collide with Vehicle #3, after which Vehicle #1 19 collided with Vehicle #2.
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 slows for traffic, Vehicle #2 collides with Vehicle #1 from behind
Vehicle #1 lost control due to unknown reasons, colliding with the guardrail before coming to a stop perpendicular to traffic in two lanes
R
27
25
Vehicle #1 loses traction, hitting the guardrail twice on exit 6 off‐ramp
Vehicle #1 loses control, spins out and strikes the median
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
64
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
S
4/1/2010 Thursday
65
N
4/4/2010 Sunday
66
N
4/12/2010 Monday
67
N
4/17/2010 Saturday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Sideswipe, Same 3:05 PM Direction
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Daylight
Clear
Road Surface
Type
Dry
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road markings
37
37
Sideswipe, Same 12:08 PM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
35
82
Dry
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road markings
56
Vehicle #1 made an unsuccessful lane change and struck the barriers, Vehicle#2 took evasive action
Vehicle #1 lost control and crossed all lanes into the guardrail, spun around and collided with the guardrail again
Vehicle #1 clipped the front of Vehicle #2 while switching lanes
8:16 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
11:03 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Sideswipe, Same 9:00 PM Direction
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Cloudy
Dry
Unknown
26
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
46
48
42
21
Unknown
70
S
5/11/2010 Tuesday
9:35 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Clear
Dry
Operating Defective Equipment
71
S
5/19/2010 Wednesday
Sideswipe, Same 4:19 PM Direction
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Failed to yield right of way U
72
S
6/2/2010 Wednesday
Sideswipe, Same 11:15 PM Direction
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Unknown
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
75
N
6/13/2010 Sunday
76
S
6/23/2010 Wednesday
18
Exceeded authorized speed limit
4/23/2010 Friday
6/12/2010 Saturday
Vehicle#2 tries to illegally switch lanes, knocking the back of Vehicle #1 and causing it to spin out into the guardrail and roll
Dry
N
S
D5
Clear
69
74
Comments
D4
Daylight
4/18/2010 Sunday
6/8/2010 Tuesday
Ages
D3
12:39 PM Angled
S
S
42
D2
Vehicle #1 loses control, falling to the ground and skidding several hundred feet, Vehicle #2 follows suit to avoid collision with Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 approaches construction zone cone taper, changing lanes due to lack of other options, at which point contact with Vehicle #1 was made.
68
73
D1
Sideswipe, Same 5:12 PM Direction
22
45
19
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Swerving to avoid a vehicle U
Daylight
Cloudy
Wet
8:10 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
No Improper Driving
Failure to keep in proper lane
25
9:55 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Unknown
Dry
Exceeded authorized speed limit
37
12:52 PM Rear‐End
Vehicle #1 ran out of gas, and was hit by Vehicle #2 during a traffic jam
Vehicle #1 clipped the front of Vehicle #2 while switching lanes, Vehicle #2 spun out of control, and was hit by Vehicle #3
19
Vehicle #2 attempted to merge onto the highway, and struck Vehicle #1
33
63
48
23
35
59
Vehicle #1 swerved to avoid contact with another vehicle and was hit by Vehicle #2 after losing control
Vehicle #1 braked hard to avoid a merging vehicle, causing Vehicles #2, 3, 4, 5 to rear end each other and 25 Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 lost control, crossed all lanes, and crashed into the barrier
Vehicle #1 was traveling at a high speed in a construction zone, and hit the crash cushion
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
77
S
6/28/2010 Monday
78
N
7/4/2010 Sunday
79
N
7/4/2010 Sunday
80
N
7/7/2010 Wednesday
81
N
7/8/2010 Thursday
82
N
7/14/2010 Wednesday
83
N
7/19/2010 Monday
84
N
7/29/2010 Thursday
85
S
7/29/2010 Thursday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Other improper action
29
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Unknown
Dry
Other improper action
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Followed too closely
45
46
Daylight
Clear
Dry
45
69 U
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Followed too closely
Failure to keep in proper lane
52
35
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
31
19
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
34
23
Vehicle #1 breaked sharply, and Vehicle #2 swerved and hit Vehicle #1
52
Vehicle #1 was traveling at a high speed and hit the median guardrail when it tried to change lanes. Vehicle #2 then hit Vehicle #1.
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Exceeded authorized speed limit
U
U
23
U
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
20
44
8/2/2010 Monday
8:30 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Unknown
Dry
Followed too closely
35
64
9/3/2010 Friday
4:11 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Followed too closely
56
29
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
22
50
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
51
29
N
7/30/2010 Friday
87
N
88
N
89
N
9/29/2010 Wednesday
8:25 PM Rear‐End
90
N
9/29/2010 Wednesday
9:24 PM Rear‐End
D5
Dry
9:56 AM Rear‐End
86
Comments
D4
Unknown
Daylight
5:40 PM Rear‐End
Ages
D3
61 U
4:49 PM Single Vehicle Crash
4:50 PM Rear‐End
D2
Dry
Clear
5:15 PM Rear‐End
Sideswipe, Same 4:35 PM Direction
Sideswipe, Same 12:50 PM Direction
D1
An Unknown Vehicle changed lanes and side swept Vehicle #1. Unknown Vehicle fled the scene. Vehicle #1 drifted into the curb on the left side of the road and then side swept the guardrail.
Vehicle #1 merged onto the highway and hit Vehicle #3, which rear ended Vehicle #2
Vehicle #2 struck the rear of Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 and Vehicle #3 stopped for traffic, but Vehicle #1 struck the rear of Vehicle #3 which struck the rear of Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 tried to merge into the left lane and struck Vehicle #2
Vehicle #2 was moving into the left lane when it hit Vehicle #1
Daylight
5:15 PM Rear‐End Driver Contributing Code
Type
Failure to keep in proper lane
Sideswipe, Same 7:40 AM Direction
10:20 PM Rear‐End
Road Surface
Type
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
45
Vehicle #2 was stopped, and Vehicle #1 was approaching from behind. Driver #1 was looking over her shoulder, and crashed into Vehicle #2
Vehicle #2 failed to keep a safe distance away from Vehicle #1, causing Vehicle #2 to rear end Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, and Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 stopped for traffic, Vehicle #1 was attempting to change lanes and hit Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, and Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
91
N
10/14/2010 Thursday
Sideswipe, Same 9:15 AM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
92
N
10/16/2010 Saturday
Sideswipe, Same 4:45 PM Direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
55 U
93
S
11/1/2010 Monday
7:04 AM Rear‐End
Dusk
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
49
94
95
N
N
11/3/2010 Saturday
11/21/2010 Sunday
8:35 PM Rear‐End
4:28 PM Single Vehicle Crash
96
N
11/22/2010 Monday
4:10 PM Angled
97
N
11/24/2010 Wednesday
5:50 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Daylight
Daylight
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
98
S
11/24/2010 Wednesday
8:59 PM Rear‐End
99
S
11/28/2010 Sunday
5:16 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
1:35 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Daylight
Unknown
68 U
D5
46
Vehicle #1 stopped due to a closed left lane, and Vehicle #2 came to a stop next to Vehicle #1. Vehicle #3 rear ended both Vehicle #1 and #2.
Followed too closely
Dry
Operating Defective Equipment
28
Clear
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
59
43
Unknown
Dry
Followed too closely
52
21
Clear
Dry
Visibility Obstructed
64
32
Cloudy
Dry
Followed too closely
57
29
Unknown
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
48
Clear
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
57
36
S
12/4/2010 Saturday
101
N
12/6/2010 Monday
102
S
12/12/2010 Sunday
8:10 PM Angled
Dark ‐ roadway not lighted
Rain
Wet
Other improper action
31
23
103
N
12/17/2010 Friday
5:55 PM Angled
Dark ‐ lighted roadway
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
63
47
Clear
Comments
D4
36
100
Sideswipe, Same 12:55 PM Direction
Ages
D3
Vehicle #1 was traveling in the middle lane when an Unknown Vehicle hit the rear of Vehicle #1. The Unknown vehicle fled the scene. Vehicle #1 was traveling in the right lane when Vehicle #2 changed lanes and hit Vehicle #1
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic and was rear ended by Vehicle #1
Dry
Clear
38
D2
59
Vehicle #1 suffered from a broken left front tie‐road, causing Driver #1 to lose control and strike the barrier.
Vehicle #1 hit Vehicle #2 while merging on the highway, and then Vehicle #2 rammed into Vehicle #1 and pushed it down the road.
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, and Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1.
Vehicle #1 broke down and Driver #1 left it unattended to make a phone call. Vehicle #2 came around a corner and rear ended Vehicle #2 because it was in the dark.
Vehicle #2 struck the rear of Vehicle #1.
75
Vehicle #1 lost control and hit the barrier on the right and left side of the ramp.
Vehicle #3 tried to get in the right lane but side swept Vehicle #2. Vehicle #1 tried to avoid Vehicle #2 but rear ended Vehicle #3.
Vehicle #1 struck the attenuator, blocking it from Driver #2 view, causing Vehicle #2 to hit the attenuator and flip over. Vehicle #1 cut in front of Vehicle #2 while changing lanes and hit the front of Vehicle #2 Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
104
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
S
105
S
106
S
1/3/2011 Monday
1/6/2011 Thursday
1/18/2011 Tuesday
5:40 PM Rear‐End
Weather Light Condition Condition Road Surface Driver Contributing Code
Type
Type
Type
Type
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Followed too closely
Clear
Dry
5:38 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Cloudy
Dry
Followed too closely
20
Daylight
Snow
Snow
Swerving due to slippery surface
46
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
10:33 AM Single Vehicle Crash
D1
49
107
N
1/25/2011 Tuesday
1:15 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Clear
Wet
Inattention
52
108
S
2/21/2011 Monday
1:45 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Cloudy
Wet
Running off road
22 U
109
N
2:27 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
32
45
3/3/2011 Thursday
D2
3/17/2011 Thursday
Sideswipe, same 7:50 AM direction
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
111
S
3/29/2011 Tuesday
5:03 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Cloudy
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
28 U
112
S
4/1/2011 Friday
9:19 AM Angled
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
20
26
113
S
4/22/2011 Friday
Sideswipe, same 7:16 AM direction
Daylight
Unknown
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
23
52
114
S
5/12/2011 Thursday
Sideswipe, same 5:32 PM direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
65
65
115
N
5/16/2011 Monday
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Driving too fast for conditions
48
116
S
5/26/2011 Thursday
7:44 AM Angled
117
N
5/29/2011 Sunday
1:42 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
65
Unknown
Dry
Physical Impairment
23
Vehicle #1 lost traction and slid out to right while rolling over, coming to a stop in the breakdown lane
An Unknown vehicle tried to merge and forced Vehicle #1 into the guardrail. Unknown vehicle fled the scene.
Vehicle #1 slows for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear‐ends Vehicle #1
45
N
51 U
32
D5
Vehicle #1 and #2 stopped for traffic, Vehicle #3 rear‐ended Vehicle #2, Vehicle #2 rear‐ended Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 spun out of control due to snow and ice, hit the Median Guardrail
55
110
Comments
D4
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear‐ended Vehicle #1
41
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
10:55 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Ages
D3
39
An Unknown vehicle possibly struck Vehicle #1 which pushed Vehicle #1 into Vehicle #2 into the Jersey Barrier. Unknown Vehicle fled the scene.
An Unknown vehicle tried to merge and forced Vehicle #1 into the guardrail. Unknown vehicle fled the scene.
Vehicle #1 illegally changed lanes and cut off Vehicle #2, causing Vehicle #2 to strike the guardrail
Vehicle #1 changed lanes, struck vehicle #3, was sent across three lanes into the off‐ramp, and was rear‐
ended by Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 tried to stop for traffic, hit the guardrail, bounced off and hit Vehicle #2, then hit the guardrail again
Vehicle #1 lost control because of the rainy wet road conditions and crashed into the jersey barrier
Vehicle #1 stalled in traffic, causing Vehicle #2 to swerve around Vehicle #1 and strike the guardrail
Vehicle #1 swerved to the left and hit the guardrail
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
6:19 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
25
28
12:50 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Made an improper turn
64
26
8:29 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Dusk
Cloudy
Dry
Illness
47
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
D2
118
N
6/10/2011 Friday
119
S
6/16/2011 Thursday
120
N
7/2/2011 Saturday
121
N
7/11/2011 Monday
3:07 PM Angled
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Running off road
61
24
122
N
7/15/2011 Friday
3:01 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
40
32
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
42
123
124
125
126
N
N
N
S
7/19/2011 Tuesday
7/23/2011 Saturday
7/24/2011 Sunday
8/9/2011 Tuesday
3:00 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
2:30 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
5:15 AM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Sideswipe, same 3:05 PM direction
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Rain
Ages
D3
Comments
D4
D5
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #1 rear‐ended Vehicle #2
An Unknown Vehicles actions causes Vehicle #1 to swerve into the right lane, and Vehicle #2 attempts to move into the left lane, but rear‐ends Vehicle #1
Driver #1 had a seizure, lost control of the vehicle, and struck the median guardrail
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, causing Vehicle #2 to swerve to the left, hit the guardrail, and the skid across the road to hit Vehicle #1. Both spun out of control and landed in a ditch off road
Vehicle #1 merged left and struck Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 rapidly cut across the road to exit and hit the traffic attenuator
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
24
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
22 U
Vehicle #1 rear ended Vehicle #2, kept driving, rear ended Vehicle #3, kept driving, rear ended Vehicle #4, kept driving, side swept Vehicle #5, and then came to a stop
An Unknown vehicle stopped suddenly, causing Vehicle #1 to rear‐
end the Unknown vehicle. Unknown vehicle fled the scene.
23 U
An Unknown vehicle switched lanes and struck Vehicle #1, forcing Vehicle #1 into the jersey barrier. Unknown vehicle fled the scene.
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
52
127
S
8/12/2011 Friday
5:25 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Other improper action
42
45
128
S
8/23/2011 Tuesday
7:00 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
22
24
129
N
8/23/2011 Tuesday
2:09 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ roadway not lighted
Cloudy
Dry
Fatigued/Asleep
21
30 U
75
U
22
Vehicle #1, 2, and 3 slowed for traffic, and Vehicle #4 rear ended Vehicle #3, which struck the rear of Vehicle #2, which struck the rear of Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 attempted to pull over due to vehicle problems, and was rear ended by Vehicle #2
Driver #1 fell asleep at the wheel and Vehicle #1 hit the guardrail.
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
9/7/2011 Wednesday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
Sideswipe, same 5:47 PM direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Made an improper turn
22 U
D2
130
S
131
S
9/23/2011 Friday
3:22 PM Rear‐End
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Other improper action
80
25
132
N
9/26/2011 Monday
Sideswipe, same 7:49 AM direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
79
65
133
N
10/17/2011 Monday
9:52 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Other improper action
38
134
N
10/26/2011 Wednesday
1:18 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
41
35
55
135
N
10/28/2011 Friday
3:20 AM Single Vehicle Crash
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Snow
Ice
Driving too fast for conditions
136
N
10/31/2011 Monday
Sideswipe, same 5:49 AM direction
Dark ‐ roadway not lighted
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield right of way
137
S
11/2/2011 Wednesday
138
S
11/9/2011 Wednesday
139
S
11/11/2011 Friday
Comments
D4
A large metal ladder fell off of Vehicle #2, and Vehicle #1 hit the ladder and spun out of control into the guardrail
Vehicle #1 was struck by a light pole that fell from it's foundation on the side of the road
Vehicle #1 hit some ice on the road and caused him to loose control and and crash into the barrier
Vehicle #1 accidently went on an exit ramp. When trying to get back on the highway, Vehicle #1 side swept Vehicle #2
54
Cloudy
Dry
No improper driving
19
Sideswipe, same 8:27 PM direction
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Other improper action
80
22
Sideswipe, same 5:36 PM direction
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
48
70
D5
An unknown vehicle turned to the right and sideswipe Vehicle #1. Unknown vehicle fled the scene. Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1.
Vehicle #1 cut in front of Vehicle #2 and struck the front of Vehicle #2, causing Vehicle #1 to hit the cement barriers
32
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
11:57 PM Single Vehicle Crash
Ages
D3
42
31
Driver #1 lost control of her vehicle and hit the left side guardrail and then hit the jersey barrier
Vehicle #1 ran out of gas and stopped, which caused Vehicle #2 to rear end Vehicle #1. Vehicle #3 swerved to avoid Vehicle #2 and sideswipe Vehicle #4.
Vehicle #1 sideswipes Vehicle #2 causing it to lose control and strike the concrete barrier
Crash Data Summary Table
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009‐December 2011
#
Direction Crash Date Crash Day
m/d/y
140
S
11/11/2011 Friday
141
N
11/23/2011 Wednesday
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
10:16 AM Rear‐End
Weather Light Condition Condition
Type
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
D2
Ages
D3
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Distracted
51
36
4:39 PM Rear‐End
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Cloudy
Wet
Other improper action
61
60
32
Dark ‐ Lighted Roadway
Clear
Dry
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, negligent or aggressive manner
28
22
51 U
Dusk
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
69
48
142
N
12/8/2011 Thursday
Sideswipe, same 5:04 PM direction
143
S
12/8/2011 Thursday
5:27 PM Rear‐End
144
S
12/22/2011 Thursday
8:37 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
145
S
12/22/2011 Thursday
8:20 AM Rear‐End
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Glare
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road markings
Dawn
Clear
Dry
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road markings
62
45
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane
66
24
146
S
12/23/2011 Friday
Sideswipe, same 7:10 AM direction
147
S
12/30/2011 Friday
Sideswipe, same 3:55 PM direction
23
25
30
62
Comments
D4
45
D5
Vehicle #1 stopped for traffic, and Driver #2 became distracted by her children which caused Vehicle #2 to rear end Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1, 2, and 3 stopped for traffic, and Vehicle #4 rear ended Vehicle #3, which struck the rear of Vehicle #2, which struck the rear of Vehicle #1
An Unknown Vehicle sideswipe Vehicle #1, causing Vehicle #2 to rear end Vehicle #1. Vehicle #1 then struck Vehicle #3. Unknown Vehicle fled the scene.
Vehicle #1 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #2 rear ended Vehicle #1.
Vehicle #2 slowed for traffic, Vehicle #1 did not see Vehicle #2 due to the sun glare and rear‐ended Vehicle #2
Vehicle #1 made an illegal lane change and hit Vehicle #2
Vehicle #2 made an illegal lane change from the left lane to the middle lane and side swept Vehicle #1
Vehicle #1 made an illegal lane change from the left lane to the middle lane and hit Vehicle #2
Crash Data Summary Chart
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009 ‐ December 2011
Crash Month
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
14%
9%
8%
5%
8%
8%
7%
5%
4%
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
12%
12%
N
D
7%
O
Crash Day of Week
25%
21%
20%
15%
16%
15%
15%
13%
11%
10%
10%
5%
0%
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Crash Time of Day
30%
27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
11%
7%
11%
12%
10%
6%
5%
3%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2am‐
4am
4am‐
6am
0%
6am‐
8am
8am‐
10am
10am‐ 12pm‐
12pm 2pm
2pm‐
4pm
4pm‐
6pm
6pm‐
8pm
8pm‐
10pm
10pm‐ 12am‐
12am
2am
Crash Manner of Collision
50%
43%
40%
30%
27%
22%
20%
8%
10%
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear‐End
Angled
Sideswipe,
same
direction
0%
0%
Sideswipe,
opposite
direction
Head on
0%
0%
Rear to Rear Unknown
Page 1 of 3
Crash Data Summary Chart
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009 ‐ December 2011
Crash Light Condition
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
65%
30%
Daylight
1%
2%
2%
Dawn
Dusk
Dark ‐
lighted
roadway
0%
Dark ‐
Dark ‐
roadway not unknown
lighted
roadway
lighting
0%
0%
Other
Unknown
Crash Weather Condition
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
56%
14%
14%
12%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Crash Road Surface
100%
80%
79%
60%
40%
15%
20%
3%
3%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Dry
Wet
0%
Sand, mud, Water
dirt, oil, (standing,
gravel
moving)
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
Crash Driver Age
28%
30%
25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
17%
12%
9%
8%
6%
5%
2%
1%
70‐79
80+
2%
0%
15‐20
21‐29
30‐39
40‐49
50‐59
60‐69
Unknown Redacted
Page 2 of 3
Crash Data Summary Chart
Interstate 91 ; Springfield, MA
January 2009 ‐ December 2011
60%
Crash Direction
54%
46%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Northbound
Southbound
Page 3 of 3
Road Safety Audit
Interstate 91 Viaduct through Downtown Springfield
Prepared by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix D. Additional Information I-91 Viaduct Deck Replacement Project
Project Description
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) has been retained by the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation Highway Division (MassDOT) to assess the traffic impacts associated with the I-91
Viaduct Deck Replacement project proposed by MassDOT. Under the proposed construction staging
plan, traffic will be managed during the deck replacement through a staged approach of working in the
median during one stage and working in the outer lanes during the second stage. This approach requires
working with existing cross-sectional width constrains in the areas of the I-291/I-91 interchange and
on/off ramps. The I-291westbound ramp to I-91 southbound would be constructed during Stage 1 subphases specific to the ramp reconstruction. The I-291 eastbound ramp from I-91 northbound would be
constructed during Stage 2 sub-phases specific to the ramp reconstruction. The construction duration is
estimated to be 2 to 3 years.
Within the study area I-91 currently provides for a three (3) lane cross section (per direction) with varying
shoulder widths. Analysis of traffic volumes and origin-destination information indicate two (2) lanes
each bound, resulting in four (4) lanes of traffic (2 NB/2 SB) will be able to adequately process the
anticipated through (regional) and I-91/I-291 traffic demand. Proposed ramp closures related to the work
would require local users destined for downtown Springfield to be detoured to or from I-91 at the limits
of the work zone and use local roadways to reach their destination.
During Stage 1, two (2) lanes of travel will occur in the right lane and breakdown lane providing a work
area of the median and left lane in both directions. The deck replacement of the median and left lanes
will be completed during this stage. The work area will provide four 11’ travel lanes, 2 northbound/2
southbound on their respective sides with a minimum offset of 0.5’ to the barrier. As mentioned
previously, the proposed cross sections are a byproduct of the existing bridge width constraints as well as
the necessity to provide an overlap area so that the required barriers can be removed and reset when the
travel lanes are changed over between major construction stages. The primary area of concern
southbound is in the area of the I-291 interchange and adjacent Route 20 connector ramp. The required
width can be achieved by overbuilding, removal of ramp delineation guardrail, and additional pavement
in select areas prior to the deck replacement. As noted previously, several local ramp restrictions will
occur due to an inability to provide for sufficient acceleration/deceleration distances during construction.
Therefore the only ramps within the work area to remain accessible during Stage 1 are the I-291 ramps.
The deck replacement of the I-291 westbound ramp to the I-91 southbound will also be constructed
during Stage 1. The I-291 ramp deck replacement will be constructed in two (2) sub-phases, Stage 1B and
Stage 1C. During Stage 1B a single travel lane (16’ lane with 1.0’ shoulders) will be provided on the right
with an approximately 22’ wide work area on the left side of the ramp. Stage 1C is the opposite with the
travel lane on the left and the work area on the right. There will be overlap between work areas to help
provide the necessary work area width to complete the deck replacement.
During Stage 2, two (2) lanes of travel will be provided on the newly constructed median area and left
lane with a work area of the right lane and breakdown lane. The deck replacement of the right and
breakdown lane will be completed during this stage. The work area will provide four 11’ travel lanes, 2
northbound/2 southbound on their respective sides with a minimum offset of 0.5’ to the barrier. As noted
above, the only ramps within the work area to remain accessible during Stage 2 are the I-291 ramps.
The deck replacement of the I-291 eastbound ramp from I-91 northbound will also be constructed during
Stage 2. The ramp deck replacement will be constructed in two (2) sub-phases, Stage 2A and Stage 2B.
During Stage 2A a single travel lane (16’ lane with 1.0’ shoulders) will be provided on the right with an
approximately 20’ wide work area on the left. Stage 2B is the opposite with the travel lane on the left and
the work area on the right. In select areas, overlap between work areas will occur to help provide the
necessary work area to complete the deck replacement. A cross sectional width of about 38’ provides a
constraint on the travel lane width through a portion of the curve, therefore during Stage 2B, the larger
curve radius, the travel lane width will be reduced to provide the necessary work area.
As mentioned, the proposed staging plan will necessitate some ramp closures within the study area. The
following ramps will be closed for the duration of the construction period:





I-91 Northbound On-ramp from East Columbus Ave/Union Street
I-91 Northbound On-ramp north of State Street
I-91 Southbound On-ramp from Route 20
I-91 Southbound Off-ramp to Columbus Ave/Downtown Springfield/Boland Way (Exit 7)
I-91 Southbound Off-ramp to Union Street (Exit 6)
The Road Safety Audit (RSA) conducted as part of this project examines the crash history within the
limits of the I-91 Viaduct to identify patterns and address any existing deficiencies that could help
prevent crashes during the construction period and into the future.