ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
I-91 HOLYOKE – WEST SPRINGFIELD
Prepared for
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
February 2009
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
I-91 HOLYOKE – WEST SPRINGFIELD
Final Report
February 2009
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Planners
300 Howard Street P.O. Box 967
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
508-620-2832 508-620-6897 (fax)
www.mstransportationsystemsinc.com
I-91 Holyoke – West Springfield Road Safety Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
RSA PROCESS
3
ANALYSIS
8
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
12
RECOMMENDATIONS
20
APPENDIX
28
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page i
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield 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, the 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 that could affect
the safety risk. During the audit, the RSA team works to identify opportunities for
enhancing safety and to recommend specific enhancements intended to reduce median
cross-over crashes and improve the overall safety along the highway.
An RSA was conducted for the interstate highway (I-91) in Holyoke-West Springfield as
part of this overall effort. The roadway section under study, shown in Figure 1, was
between Interchange No. 13 at Route 5 to Interchange No. 18 although most of the
focus area was south of Interchange No. 16. This section had experienced a number of
median related crashes that included several reported cross-over incidents.
The purpose of this I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield RSA was to assess current safety
conditions and 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
Interchange
No. 18
91
5
Interchange
No. 17
141
Interchange
No. 16
202
Holyoke
5
W. Springfield
Interchange
No. 15
Interchange
No. 14
90
91
5
West Springfield
Interchange
No. 13
Note: Interchange No. 18 (not shown) is 7miles north of No. 17
N
Project Location
W
E
`
S
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
1 : 25,000
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 1
Interchange
No. 18
91
5
Interchange
No. 17
141
Interchange
No. 16
202
Holyoke
5
W. Springfield
Interchange
No. 15
Interchange
No. 14
90
91
5
West Springfield
Interchange
No. 13
Note: Interchange No. 18 (not shown) is 7miles north of No. 17
N
Project Location
W
E
`
S
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
1 : 25,000
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 1
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
RSA PROCESS
In conducting the RSA, the overall procedures outlined in the Median Cross-Over RSA
Guideline Report1 were followed. Some modifications to the process were made 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, detailed crash narratives of the
eleven (11) cross-over crashes, and available record highway plans were provided 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. 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 individuals participated in the I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety
Audit:
Lt. Steven Hughes, State Police
Sam Gregorio, MassHighway, District 2
Bao Lang, MassHighway, District 2
Khyati Parmar, PVPC
Hal Piligian, MassHighway, District 2
Trung Vo, MassHighway, District 2
Robert Fay, MassHighway
Lyris Liautaud, MassHighway
Lt. Lawrence Ashman, State Police
•
Lisa Schletzbaum, MassHighway Safety
Xian Chen, MassHighway
Gary Roux, PVPC
John Donoghue, MassHighway, District 2
Ken Wanar, MassHighway
William Goulet, MassHighway, District 2
Kathryn Cook, MassHighway
William J. Scully, MS Transportation Systems
(RSA Consultant)
RSA Team Meeting
The RSA team meeting took place on June 18, 2008 at the District 2 offices in
Northampton. At the meeting, the RSA consultant provided a brief overview of the RSA
1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc., Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes, Audit Guidelines,
Prepared for MassHighway, October 2007.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 3
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
purpose, a summary of the roadway section’s characteristics and results of the review to
date. The RSA team listed above was present at the meeting. The video record of I-91
taken while driving the corridor was viewed. During and following the video, discussions
related to issues and potential factors that could affect safety along the corridor and
possible solutions to reduce this risk were conducted. The RSA team provided input on
the key items observed in the field and those items that were listed on the RSA Median
Cross-Over Prompt List.
Much of the meeting was discussing observations from the field visits, but also some
historical perspectives by the State Police Representatives. The key items noted during
the meeting included the following:
 The clear zone in the median is open and appeared to be in good condition.
 Signage, in general, seemed to be adequate.
 The spacing between Interchange Nos. 14 and 15 appears to be somewhat
“tight”. This can affect merging and weaving operations.
 High truck volumes were observed.
 The southbound merge area in the vicinity of Interchange No. 16 is a
significant issue. Opportunities to encourage motorists to remain in certain
lanes should be identified.
 Sunglare occurs during certain periods that have a significant effect on
visibility and movement.
 The fatal cross-over crash occurred south of the turnpike interchange – large
open, crossable median – the possibility of a barrier was discussed.
•
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 Administration2 and those
included in training materials3.
2
3
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
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
The basic tasks included:
•
•
•
•
Obtaining and reviewing crash and other traffic characteristic data and
available record plans.
Conducting site reconnaissance and collecting a current record of condition
via photos and video,
Identifying opportunities for enhancement, 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.
ESTIMATED
Exposure
high
medium
high
medium
low
high
Probability
high
high
medium
medium
high
low
low
medium
low
medium
low
low
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY RATING
EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY
(PER AUDIT ITEM)
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
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 5
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
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.
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
•
D: significant risk level
E: high risk level
F: extreme risk level
RSA Field Audit
Field audits were conducted by the RSA team members on or before June 18, 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 completed by District 2 staff is
included in the appendix for background. The field audits showed the following:
ƒ
There are three (3) travel lanes per direction between Interchange No. 13 and
16 – north of Interchange No. 16, two lanes are provided per direction.
ƒ
Speeds are posted at 65 mph.
ƒ
The inside shoulder appears to be 4 feet in width but may be somewhat
narrower in certain areas.
ƒ
The median is primarily a “depressed” median south of Interchange No. 16.
ƒ
From Interchange No 16 to north of Interchange No. 17, the median slopes
relatively steeply down from the higher southbound direction to the
northbound direction. Guardrail is placed at the inside edge of the
southbound direction adjacent to the high speed lane.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 6
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
ƒ
Some pavement rutting was noted south of Interchange No. 16. It was also
noted that in some areas there was a noticeable edge drop-off.
ƒ
Rumble strip exists on inside and outside shoulder.
ƒ
South of the Interchange No. 14 (Mass Turnpike), there is a long downgrade
in the southbound direction to the Interchange No. 13 (Route 5).
ƒ
In general, driving the mainline and merging from on-ramps felt relatively
comfortable with some exceptions. These exceptions included the area
between Interchange No. 15 SB on-ramp to Interchange No. 14 off-ramp; No.
13 NB on-ramp; and the No. 17 SB on-ramp.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 7
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
ANALYSIS
In completing the I-91 RSA in Holyoke and West Springfield, findings were compiled
from the field audits, the review of the data and input provided by team members. The
following sections summarize the results from each of the key components of the
assessment.
The section of I-91 under study is approximately 15 miles in total length although about 7
miles of the total are located between Interchange No. 16 and 18 where the median is
largely not crossable due to guardrail in place and/or thick vegetation. Between
Interchange No. 13 and 16, the roadway cross-section has three lanes per direction
separated by a median. At Interchange No. 16, the highway transitions from three to two
lanes in the northbound direction while adding a third travel lane in the southbound
direction. There are six interchanges within the study section including Interchange No.
14 that connects with the Massachusetts Turnpike. Speed limits are posted at 65 miles
per hour. There is high elevation tower pole lighting provided in the area of Interchange
16. Rumble strips are provided in both the inside and outside shoulders. The strips are
located just off the edge lines. Embedded reflectors (raised markers) are provided in the
lane lines in both directions as well. There are no reflectorized delineator posts provided
along the median in the study section.
The section between Interchange No. 13 in West Springfield (at Route 5) to
approximately the Turnpike overpass is generally characterized as a long (7,300 feet),
fairly straight section of highway on an upgrade from south to north. In this area, there
are 3 lanes per direction and the median width is approximately 60 to 65 feet until close
to Interchange No. 13 where it narrows to between 45 to 50 feet.
As indicated above, Interchange No. 14 provides access to the Turnpike. Field
observations and discussions at the RSA meeting noted the “feel” of closeness and
some driver discomfort between Interchange Nos. 14 and 15 (Lower Westfield Road)
due to the high volume merging and weaving that occurs. The distance between the two
successive ramps is approximately 2,800 feet in the northbound direction and 2,100 feet
in the southbound direction.
There is a lane drop in the northbound direction approaching Exit 16. Motorist guidance
for the lane drop is in the form of two standard roadside lane drop W4-2 signs (one on
each side of the paved way) approximately ½ mile prior to the exit with one reminder
W4-2 sign on the east side of the highway just prior to the exit. The distance between
the Interchange No. 15 northbound on-ramp to the off-ramp for Interchange No. 16 is 1.4
miles.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 8
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
Figure 2 - I-91 Northbound approach to Interchange No. 15 –
Lower Westfield Road
In the southbound direction, the third travel lane is picked up with the on-ramp from
Interchange No. 16. Signage approaching this area indicates an upcoming merge. Field
observations noted mainline motorists shifts to the left approaching the on-ramp
although the shift is unnecessary given the third lane addition. It was also noted at the
RSA meeting that many motorists using the on-ramp tend to shift left into the center lane
immediately upon entering I-91 when that movement is also unnecessary in that
immediate area – again given the addition of the third southbound travel lane. All of this
results in a chain-reaction of lane changing; under utilization of the road capacity in the
immediate area of Interchange No. 16; and added congestion during the peak travel
periods.
Figure 3 - Southbound and Northbound views of open section between Interchange No.
13 (Route 5) and Interchange No. 14 (Turnpike)
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 9
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
The median width (edge line to edge line) for the most part varies from approximately 45
to 66 feet. As indicated previously, the section south of Interchange No. 16 would be
considered depressed or nearly flat. In the area of Interchange No. 16 and points north
until near Interchange No. 18, the northbound and southbound sections are at different
grades (i.e. the southbound direction is higher than the northbound direction). The
median in this area is sloped down from the southbound direction to the northbound
direction. A guardrail is placed at the pavement edge of the inside (high speed) travel
lane in the southbound direction. Closer to Interchange No. 18, the median opens up
again with elevations of each direction being similar. In the area of Interchange No. 18,
the median width is in the range of 60 to 65 feet.
The inside shoulder is mostly four 4 feet in width though in certain stretches varies
between 2 to 4 feet in width. Rumble strips have been installed approximately 6 inches
off the edge line.
Figure 4 – Grade elevation difference NB and SB directions
in vicinity of Interchange No. 16
Based on recent MassHighway traffic counts, the roadway carries on average
approximately 73,000 vehicles per day near Interchange No. 15 with approximately
80,000 vehicles per day near Route 5. Figure 5 illustrates the directional traffic flow on I91, south of Lower Westfield Road. Peak hour peak direction flows are in the range of
3,000 to 3,500 vehicles per hour. Truck data showed that trucks represent 4% of peak
hour traffic and 8% of the daily flows. This approximates 240 trucks during the peak
hours and approximately 5,600 to 6,000 trucks over the course of the day.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 10
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
Data available as part of the MassHighway crash records system indicated that between
2004 and 2007, there were 36 reported crashes related to the median. Of the 36, 31
percent or 11 crashes were identified as cross-median crashes. The 11 cross-median
crashes resulted in personal injuries or fatalities in 64% of the crashes. The one
reported fatal crash occurred in the section south of Interchange No. 14. The total
reported median related crashes were split evenly in the northbound and southbound
direction. There were several areas of concentration related to the cross median
crashes between south of Interchange No. 16 to Interchange No. 14. In most crashes,
the cited cause for the cross-median crashes were either the driver “swerving” (22%) or
failing to stay in proper lane (22%). Speed and other factors were also cited to a lesser
degree. Weather related (27%) resulting in wet road surface were reported in the data.
Figure 5 - Observed Directional Traffic Volumes on I-91
Of note, it is estimated that based on the reported crashes and estimated locations, the
section of highway between about one mile north of Interchange No. 15 to Interchange
No. 13, there were 8.8 median related crashes reported per year. Nine (9) of the eleven
(11) cross median crashes appear to have occurred in this section.
Conditions that were noted in the crash narratives for cross-median crashes varied.
There were no predominant factors or causes for the crashes. Factors or contributing
causes included were inattention, over correcting following a maneuver made possibly in
error, swerving to avoid an obstruction as well as distraction due to cell phone use.
There was also an illegal use of a turn around cited.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 11
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
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 I-91 in the
Holyoke – West Springfield 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 “open” from north of Interchange No. 13 (Route 5)
to just south of Interchange No. 16 with 6:1 slopes or flatter
and considered as easily crossable
E
Median open south of Interchange No. 18 (approx. 1.5 miles)
D
On and off-ramp merge areas at Int. No. 13 and between No.
14 and 15 – appear short
E
Faded pavement markings condition in various locations
D
Evidence of edge drop-off in areas
C
Delineation of median thru reflective posts or imbedded
markers not evident
D
Sun glare in SB direction – south of Int. No. 18 in AM, NB
direction near Int. No. 13 in PM
B
Higher than desirable travel speeds – particularly in section
between No. 13 and 14
B
Int. No. 16 and 17 SB merges are difficult with unnecessary
lane changing
C
Motorists warning of upcoming high volume merges may be
inadequate – this includes northbound lane drop at Exit 16
C
Winter icing occurs particularly near Int. Nos. 17-18
B
The most significant factor on the section of I-91 that was examined is the extent of the
“open”, crossable median that has a width in the range of 60 feet. This is primarily in the
areas of Interchange Nos. 13 to 14 and the section between Interchange 15 and 16.
Closer to Interchange No. 13, the median becomes more narrow. Over the 4 years of
data studied, the there was an annual average of more than eight (8) median entries and
2 to 3 cross-median crashes reported. Given the high I-91 volume, the number of cross
median crashes and a median judged as easily crossable, the “open” median factor was
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 12
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
assigned a high risk factor – ‘E’. The rating would be ‘F’ if all median entry crashes were
taken into account rather than only cross-median crashes. In other words, the
operational and physical characteristics of the highway sections under study are such
that once a motorist makes a mistake or becomes “errant” and enters the median, there
is a good chance that the motorist will cross the median and enter the opposing direction
of flow. Further, the experience suggests a high probability that this type of event could
occur. The “open” median is relatively narrow and flat in addition to being devoid of any
obstruction (i.e. vegetation) that could prevent a crossing. The open median south of
Interchange No. 18 was rated ‘D’ due to infrequent crash experience.
There were other factors that would also contribute to motorists entering the median in
error and possibly crossing the median. These include the level of guidance through
pavement markings (faded) and flexible reflective delineators (not installed). The
assigned risk rating for these factors was ‘D’.
While the inside shoulder has a rumble strip, there was a noticeable edge drop off in
areas which would potentially affect the ability of a motorist recovering and re-entering
the travel way somewhat controlled. This factor was assigned a rating of ‘C’.
There are a number of factors that were identified in relation to the interchanges and
some of the merge zones. There was an indication that the merge or weave areas in
terms of distance between Interchange Nos. 14 and 15 in both directions was less than
desirable. There are 3 on-ramps within a relatively short distance (1.2 miles) between
the two interchanges and like Interchange Nos. 14 to 15; the merge zones appear to be
short and lacking clarity. There is high volume of weaving occurring or high mainline
volumes that entering motorists must merge. This can result in “quick” lane-changing
that could cause a chain of events in a short distance. The median width is
approximately 60 feet wide in this area and “open. A risk rating of ‘E’ was assigned to
this factor.
Related to the southbound merge at interchange 16, the southernmost entrance ramp is
where an additional southbound travel lane is provided. While this should result in a
relatively smooth transition, observations by team members indicated that motorists
entering the highway are changing lanes almost immediately in this zone creating
conflicts with the high volume of southbound approaching mainline traffic. This factor
was rated a ‘C’ in terms of risk.
The northbound lane drop at the Exit 16 off-ramp was noted as a factor as the warning
of the lane drop may not be adequate given the volume and speeds and if a motorist is
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 13
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
“caught” in the right most (exit) lane, it can create a series of lane-changing events. A
risk rating of ‘C’ was assigned for this factor.
While updated data was not available, general observations by the team and regular
observations by the State Police indicated that travel speeds are high and apparently
well above posted speeds in the study section. The high speeds and lane-changing
decisions by motorists have been identified as contributing causes of the median related
crashes. A risk rating of ‘C’ was assigned to this factor.
A sun glare issue was also noted along the study section by several RSA team members
highly familiar with the study section. The most critical spots identified were south of
Interchange No. 18 in the AM peak period and north of Interchange No. 13 during the
PM peak hour. This was assigned a risk rating of ‘B’.
The last factor listed in Table 4 was that the section of I-91 between Interchanges 17
and 18 was identified by the RSA team as icy during the winter. This area of the
highway crosses over the Oxbow/Manhan River in several locations. While there was no
concrete evidence in the available crash data that the crashes in this zone were due to
the icy conditions, the factor was noted given the familiarity of the study section by team
members. A risk rating of ‘B’ was assigned to this factor.
Suggested actions were identified to address these factors intended to reduce the
injuries and fatalities resulting from cross-median crashes and those related to other
median entry crashes as well. Given that this RSA program is focused on cross-median
crashes, the initial action reviewed was the potential installation of a median barrier.
Later in the report a set of recommended actions to address each factor is presented.
•
Consideration of a Median Barrier
One of the more significant actions to be considered is to install median barriers in the
current “open” areas. 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 14
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
 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 I-91 section under study. Figure 6
presents a review of the corridor in relation to the median warrant criteria presented in
the AASHTO RDG4. As can be seen in the diagram, with the median (as measured from
edge line to edge line) ranging from approximately 45 to 66 feet depending on location
and a volume of over 73,000 vehicles on an average day, the intersection of the two
items is in the area of the chart where a barrier can be “considered” to “optional”.
In addition to the chart and related warrant criteria, which is a guideline, further
consideration was given to the following:
ƒ
ƒ
The high volume presents a likelihood of greater number of errant vehicles
entering the median,
A high proportion (31%) of cross-median crashes over the four (4) year
period in the section between Interchange Nos. 13 and 16 and the median
appears to be very crossable.
Consequently, based on the analysis of the data, the field drive-thru and discussion of
the conditions by the RSA team members, it was recommended by the RSA Team that a
median barrier be installed in the sections of this route that are currently open and
“crossable”. The selection of the barrier is discussed in the next section followed by the
complete set of I-91 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)
In deciding on the type of barrier, recommended guidelines in selection are included in
Table 5 taken from the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide5.
4
5
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 15
median width
45-55 feet
80
median width
60-66 feet
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)
Source: AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, Chapter 6, Update 2006
Median Barrier Warrant Analysis
Interstate-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 6
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
TABLE 5
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 Barriers.
In general, the cable (flexible) barrier has its advantages from a cost and aesthetic
perspective, 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.
The alternative types of guardrail were reviewed for potential application on this route.
Considerations included the volume of traffic, relative amount of truck traffic and travel
speeds. Based on these, the most applicable types of guardrail for this route include the
W-beam with strong post or the strong post thrie-beam. These rails are appropriate for
high speed highways and high volumes with a relatively high proportion of truck traffic.
Costs for each are similar. The weak post W-beam and box beam can be eliminated
due to the slope and type of highway. The concrete barrier would generally be
applicable in urban sections with limited median widths available. As a result, the
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 17
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
median barrier options that are valid for consideration for I-91 in this section are the
cable barrier and strong post guard rail.
Maintenance issues are also an important consideration in decisions regarding median
barrier installations. The maintenance issues that are of concern include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Barrier hits per mile
Frequency of hits
Cost recovery
Cable downtime
Repair effect on traffic
Maintaining tension with cable system
Mowing median
Final selection of the barrier type should be based on the costs, the ability to maintain a
recovery zone, likely maintenance or repair requirements, and compatibility with future
planned widening. The key points of the cable barrier or guardrail are summarized
below.
Cable Barrier
While the low tension generic cable system has been in existence for more than 50
years, most of the recent cable system research and installation is focused on the high
tension systems. There are currently six (6) manufacturers with systems approved by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for use under certain conditions. There are
3-rope or 4-rope cable systems as shown in the following two photographs.
This barrier can be installed on slopes of 6:1 or flatter with little constraint on placement.
There are certain systems (Brifen and Gibraltor 4 rope) that have been approved for
slopes as steep as 4:1. The placement of the barrier on the steeper slope is somewhat
more restrictive.
3 Cable CASS System on Route 213
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
4 – Rope Brifen System on I-495
Page 18
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
Guardrail
The guardrail could 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. With the guardrail
placed within several feet of the pavement edge, a clear zone (or recovery area) would
be eliminated at least on one side of the median if guardrail is applied on only one side
of the median. It may also be possible to install a single line of double faced barrier
either a greater distance from the pavement edge or along one side in this specific
project area. This would result in some level of recovery zone maintained in one or both
directions.
Per mile costs of the basic 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 cable barrier, a double faced W-beam guardrail and a double faced thriebeam guardrail. As can be seen, the cable barrier is expected to be the lower cost
option. It should be noted that the estimated costs for the cable barrier are largely based
on recent limited applications in the Commonwealth. Construction costs for cable
installation could be substantially lower based on experience in other parts of the
country. The W-beam rail is a lower cost option compared to the thrie-beam, however,
there is slightly greater deflection with the W-beam.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON PER MILE COSTS
Cable vs. Guardrail
Costs/Mile
Cable
W-beam
Thrie beam
$144,000
$171,000
$213,000
In total, there is approximately a total of three (3) miles of median candidate for barriers.
Costs to implement cable barrier could be approximately $432,000. Using a thrie-beam
rail would cost approximately $639,000.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 19
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
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 I-91 in Holyoke – West Springfield.
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)).
The section of I-91 evaluated in this RSA was noted to have significantly long sections of
open, relatively narrow, flat and crossable medians. The total length in the 15 mile
section (Interchanges 13 to 18) that was in this category was 4.5 miles including south of
Interchange No. 16 where there is an estimated three (3) miles of open median. Given
the high volume, high proportion of cross-median events and risk factor, it is
recommended that a median barrier be installed in these areas. Figures 7 and 8 identify
the approximate proposed barrier locations in this specific section. The guardrail in
place around bridge columns would remain in place. Turnaround areas for authorized
vehicles would also remain but possibly be enhanced for safer use. Due to the width of
the median and taking into account costs, aesthetics, deflection and clear zone factors
and demonstrated benefits, it is recommended that cable barrier be used for this project.
A preliminary total cost is estimated to be $432,000 for the section between
Interchanges No. 13 and 16. For the open median area south of Interchange No. 18
(approx 1.5 miles in length), it is also recommended that a barrier be installed although
this section was assigned a lower rating. Recent crash frequency in this area is low.
Estimated cost for cable barrier in this area is $216,000.
As there were a group of factors identified that relate to motorist guidance,
recommendations include improving the markings at the acceleration lanes – merge
areas, installing flexible reflective delineator posts along the median and adding signage.
The delineator posts are a low cost, short term action that could later supplement the
barrier treatment. While reflectors can be part of the barrier system, it would not be
effective if the barrier is placed near the center of the median.
The major signs recommended include a mix of overhead and large roadside signs.
Overhead signs indicating critical merge areas and the northbound lane drop at Exit 16
are suggested. Large roadside signs for STAY IN LANE at the Exit 16 southbound onramp are recommended. Figure 9 illustrates potential legends while Figure 10 presents
approximate locations of the signs.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 20
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Risk Factor
Risk
Rating
Recommended
Action
Estimated Cost
Median is “open” from north of
Interchange No. 13 (Route 5) to
just south of Interchange No.
16 with 6:1 slopes or flatter and
considered as easily crossable
E
ƒ
Median open south of
Interchange No. 18 (approx. 1.5
miles)
D
ƒ Install cable barrier
On and off-ramp merge areas
at Int. No. 13 and between Nos.
14 and 15 – appear short
E
ƒ Widen shoulder if
feasible (or necessary)
ƒ Extend lanes via
markings
Faded pavement markings
condition in several locations
D
ƒ Install new markings
ƒ Increase markings
maintenance
applications
Evidence of edge drop-off in
areas
C
Estimated
Timeframe
Install cable barrier
between Int. Nos. 13
and 14, Int. Nos. 15
and 16 – total length
approx. 3 miles
$432,000
ƒ
$216,000
ƒ short term
to medium
term
$TBD
$3,000
ƒ long term
ƒ short term
TBD
TBD
ƒ short term
ƒ medium
term
ƒ Add fill and smooth
grade near edge
ƒ Add angled safety edge
TBD
(expect low)
Est. 1-2% of
overall
resurface
project
ƒ short term
short to
medium
term
ƒ long term
Delineation of median is nonexistent or less than desirable
D
ƒ Add delinators –
approx. 158,000 linear
feet
$24,000
ƒ short term
Sun glare in SB direction –
south of Int. No. 18 in AM, NB
direction near Int. No. 13 in PM
B
ƒ Install SUN GLARE
warning signs (3)
$7,500
ƒ short term
Higher than desirable travel
speeds – particularly in section
between Nos. 13 and 14
C
ƒ Increase enforcement
of speed limits and
unsafe motorists
behavior
TBD
ƒ short term
Int. Nos. 16 and 17 SB merges
are difficult with unnecessary
lane changing
C
ƒ Install overhead
warning signs
ƒ Improve markings at
interchanges
$25,000
ƒ short term
TBD
ƒ long term
Motorists warning of upcoming
high volume merges may be
inadequate – this also includes
NB lane drop near Int. 16
C
ƒ Install overhead
warning signs at key
locations (3)
ƒ Install overhead lane
drop sign
$60,000
ƒ short term
$20,000
ƒ short term
Winter icing occurs particularly
near Int. Nos. 17 and 18
B
ƒ increase winter
treatment in this area
TBD
ƒ short term
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 21
I-90 MASS TURNPIKE
Proposed Cable
Barrier - 0.8 Miles
BRUSH HILL ROAD
I-91 Between Brush Hill Road Overpass and Turnpike
BRUSH HILL ROAD
Proposed Cable
Barrier - 0.5 Miles
INTERCHANGE NO. 13
I-91 Between Int. No. 13 and Brush Hill Road Overpass
CONCEPTUAL ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Cable Barrier
Proposed Location for
Cable Median Barrier
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 7
Proposed Cable
Barrier - 1,900 Feet
HOLYOKE MALL
I-91 Between Interchange Nos. 14 and 15
INTERCHANGE NO. 16
Proposed Cable
Barrier - 1.3 Miles
INTERCHANGE NO. 15
I-91 Between Interchange Nos. 15 and 16
CONCEPTUAL ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Proposed Cable Barrier
Proposed Location for
Cable Median Barrier
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 8
CHERRY STREET
ROUTE 202
STAY IN
LANE
1 MILE
EXIT ONLY
SIGN C - I-91 SB at
Interchange No. 16 on-ramp
SIGN A - I-91 NB at
Interchange No. 16
CAUTION
SUN GLARE
EARLY AM
CAUTION
MERGING TRAFFIC
AHEAD
(Alt. - LATE AFTERNOON)
Note: Use of sign SB sourth of Int. No. 18
and NB north of Int. No. 13
SIGN B - see Figure 10 for
proposed locations
Note: See Figure 10 for approximate placem ent
CONCEPTUAL ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Potential Sign Legends
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 9
B
91
Approach to I-91 SB
on-ramp from Route 141
(Interchange No. 17)
B
91
At I-91 SB on-ramp from
Cherry Street - Route 202
(Interchange No. 16)
C
I-91 NB approaching
Exit 16
91
A
CONCEPTUAL ONLY
A - Proposed Sign Location
Note: See Figure 9 for legends
Proposed Location for Signs
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 10
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
In addition to the above, SUN GLARE signs were recommended to be installed in
southbound direction south of Interchange No. 18 and on the northbound direction north
of Interchange No. 13.
Improving the markings at the acceleration lanes also include lengthening the lanes as
well. It is hoped that lengthening can be accomplished through adjusting the markings
rather than needing to also widen the shoulders. This detail would need to be examined
in more engineering detail. Examples of improved deceleration lane markings are
shown in Figure 11. The use of dotted extension lines is suggested. The current
MUTCD illustrates their use for deceleration lanes and weave sections. The updated
MUTCD to be released in 2009 is expected to also show dotted extension lines for
acceleration lanes as an option.
In addition to the markings at the acceleration lanes, overall maintenance of all markings
is needed. It is further suggested that the schedule for regular maintenance of
pavement markings be reviewed and adjusted (if appropriate) with the goal of
maintaining a consistently high level of visibility.
It was noted that there was some edge drop-off on the median. This can affect the
recovery of an errant motorist. It is recommended in the short term that these areas be
filled and smothered to match the pavement surface grade. In the long term, the angled
safety edge treatment should be considered when the highway is scheduled for
resurfacing.
The recurring issue of high travel speeds and driver behavior (i.e. lane changing
decisions) requires an emphasis and increase of enforcement.
In general and not included in Table 7 is the overall need to provide a variety of
information to motorists along the route. This could include advance notice of crash
occurrence or significant congestion as well as educational reminders pertaining to
driver behavior issues. This type of sign program is an important element in the overall
plan to reduce crashes, improve safety and improving driver behavior. This issue and
need should be kept in mind as the ITS traffic monitoring and variable message sign
(VMS) plan for I-91 is advanced in the project area. Depending on the overall ITS plan
for I-91, message boards may be able to provide motorists additional warning of icy
roads during the winter – possibly flashing advisory speeds. In addition, the area
between Interchange No. 17 and 18 may be particularly vulnerable to this condition due
to the mountain range bordering the highway on the west and the river crossings in this
stretch of highway. The effects of these factors may result in lower road temperatures
and less afternoon sun during the winter.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 26
a-Parallel
deceleration lane
b-Tapered
deceleration lane
Neutral
area
Optional
chevron
markings
Channelizing
lines
Theoretical gore
point
Channelizing
lines
Broken lane
markings for
one-half of
full-width
deceleration
lane
Optional
dotted
extension of
lane line
Legend
Direction of
travel
Source: Based on MUTCD Figure 3B-8
Note: Conceptual illustration only
Potential Pavement Markings Off-Ramp Diverge Locations
I-91 Road Safety Audit
Holyoke-West Springfield, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 11
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield Road Safety Audit
Appendix
•
•
•
•
•
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Attendees List
Median Crash Diagram
Crash Data
Traffic Volume Data
Page 28
Road Safety Audit
W. Springfield/Holyoke – I-91
Meeting Location: MassHighway District 2 Office
811 North King Street, Northampton
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
1:15 PM – 2:45 PM
Type of meeting:
Cross Median – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
1:15 PM
Welcome and Introductions
1:30 PM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Cross Median Crashes
1:45 PM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
2:15 PM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using RSA Prompt List as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
2:45 PM
Adjourn for the day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on June 18th participants are encouraged to drive
Interstate 91 in West Springfield and Holyoke from Interchange 13 to Interchange
18 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
I-91 Holyoke-West Springfield - June 18, 2008
MassHighway District 2 Offices, Northampton MA
Attendance List
Name
Agency/Dept.
Email
Bill Scully
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
bscullyjr@mac.com
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassHighway - Safety
lisa.schletzbaum@mhd.state.ma.us
Khyati Parmar
PVPC
kparmar@pvpc.org
Kathryn Cook
MassHighway
kathryn.cook@mhd.state.ma.us
Robert Fay
MassHighway
robert.fay@mhd.state.ma.us
Samuel Gregorio
MHD - District 2 Traffic
samuel.gregorio@state.ma.us
Gary roux
PVPC
gmroux@pvpc.org
Lt. Steven Hughes
State Police/Springfield
413-736-8390
Lt. Lawrence Ashman
JP Northampton/B-6
lawrence.ashman@pol.state.ma.us
Xian Chen
MassHighway
xian.chen@state.ma.us
John Conoghue
MassHighway
john.donoghue@mhd.state.ma.us
Ken Wanar
MassHighway - District 2
ken.wanar@mhd.state.ma.us
Lyris Liautaud
MassHighway
lyris.liautaud@mhd.state.ma.us
Hal Piligian
MassHighway
harold.piligian@mhd.state.ma.us
Trung Vo
MassHighway
trung.vo@state.ma.us
William goulet
MassHighway
Bao Lang
MassHighway
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
bao.lang@mhd.state.ma.us
±
Interstate 91 Median Crashes
TREE T
PLAIN S
1
EASTHAMPTON
NORTHAMPTON ST RE
ET
E
JAR
VIS
AVE
NU
TA
IN
MO
UN
SS
RO
U
SO
TH
AM
N
O
PT
AD
RO
RO
AD
91
RD ST
REET
SOUTH
HADLEY
ET
PLEASANT STRE
LINE ST
R
EET
2
§
¦
¨
SOUTHAMPTON
E
BRAIN
"
)
17
CA
NA
L
ST
R
M
EE
T
AI
N
ST
RE
ET
R
AD
O
COUNT Y
HOLYOKE
"
)
3
16
T
BO
CA
T
STREE
SOUTH
ST
ROAD
ET
RE
4
5
SIM
ARD
6
EE
T
ST
R
DALE S TREE
T
ME
AD
O
W
TR E
ET
MAI
NS
UNTA
IN R O
AD
15
Crash IDs
between 12-21
Type of Median Crash 2004-2007 *
T
EE
"
)
R
ST
Legend
DRI
VE
RY
ME
GO
11
"
)
RO
AD
EAST
MO
Cross Median, Fatal Crash
Cross Median, Non-Fatal Crash
WESTFIELD
Crash IDs
between 22-31
§
¦
¨
90
GR
AN
B
Major Roads
Y
14
Median, Non-Fatal Crash
Interstate
32
PROSPECT AVENU E
Principal Arterial
33
Minor Arterial
34
Collector
Municipal Boundary
R OAD
0.4
0.8
1.2
Miles
1.6
FAIRVIEW AVEN
UE
NUE
L AVE
H HIL
S
U
R
B
R
PE
PI
OKE
HO LYfile
OLDcrash
* 2007
has not yet been closed.
0
CHICOPEE
WEST
SPRINGFIELD
Local
"
)
13
35
AD
RO
36
S
NT
MO
7
8
9
10
CT
PE
S
O
PR
NE
WB
UR
YS
TR
EE
T
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY SAFETY DIVISION
CRASH SUMMARY
I-91
ROADWAY:
NO.
CITY:
1/1/2004
STUDY PERIOD:
CRASH NUMBER
CRASH DATE
TO
12/31/2007
TRAVEL
LIGHT
WEATHER
ROAD
REASON FOR
DIRECTION
CONDITION
CONDITION
SURFACE
RUNNING OFF ROAD LEFT
WEST SPRINGFIELD AND HOLYOKE
LOCATION:
EXIT 14 - EXIT 15
VEHICLE
MEDIAN OR CROSS
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING
CRASH
MOVEMENT
MEDIAN CRASHES
CAUSE
SEVERITY
1
2160797
1/14/2007
NB
Dark - Not Lighted
Cloudy
Dry
Driver was talking on his cell phone, hit the rumble strip and lost control
N/B Travel Lanes to S/B Travel Lanes to Right Side Wooded Area
Cross Median
Cellular Telephone
Property Damage Only
2
1852511
2/27/2005
NB
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Driver attention diverted to passenger, swerved to median, sideswiped another vehicle, crossed the median and was hit by another vehicle
S/B Travel Lane to Median to S/B Travel Lane to N/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Inattention
Non-Fatal Injury
3
2160956
2/14/2007
SB
Daylight
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Snow
Lost control of vehicle on snow covered roadway, hit the guardrail and was struck by another vehicle in the rear
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Property Damage Only
4
2115812
8/21/2006
NB
Dawn
Clear
Dry
Unknown vehicle ran off another vehicle from the roadway
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Median
Median
Operating vehicle in reckless manner
Property Damage Only
5
1915556
1/8/2005
NB
Daylight
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Snow
Vehicle skidded on snowy surface and overturned
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Property Damage Only
6
2010903
6/8/2005
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle changed lanes to an already occupied lane and strike the left rear panel of another vehicle
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property Damage Only
7
2259840
11/12/2007
SB
Dark - Lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle right front tire went flat, lost control and hit the guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Right Breakdown Lane
Median
No Improper Diving
Property Damage Only
8
2131996
11/22/2006
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle tried to elude police, attempted to pass in the breakdown lane, lost control and hit the right rear corner of an another vehicle
Travel Lane to Right Breakdown Lane to Median to Raised Manhole Cover
Median
Exceeded Speed Limit
Non-Fatal Injury
9
2115847
9/24/2006
SB
Dark - Unknown Lighting
Clear
Dry
Lost control of vehicle and overturned
S/B Travel Lane to N/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Exceeded Speed Limit and Alcohol
Non-Fatal Injury
10
2208559
5/10/2007
NB
Dark - Lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle weaved in and out of traffic, struck a vehicle in the rear and overturned
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Exceeded Speed Limit
Non-Fatal Injury
11
2055742
5/30/2006
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Lost control of vehicle and veered sharply into median
S/B Travel Lane to N/B Breakdown Lane to Trees in the Right
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property Damage Only
12
2165801
2/14/2007
SB
Dawn
Snow
Snow
Lost control of vehicle on snow covered roadway
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to the top of the Off-ramp
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Property Damage Only
13
2054702
5/2/2006
NB
Dusk
Cloudy
Wet
Vehicle made a sharp quick turn, lost control and collided with two vehicles
N/B Travel Lane to S/B Right Breakdown Lane
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-Fatal Injury
14
2187929
4/18/2007
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle made a lane change and sideswiped another vehicle
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property Damage Only
15
2096284
7/7/2006
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle tried to merge into traffic from on-ramp, crossed median, attempted to return to N/B, struck a drainage cover and vehicle caught on fire
N/B Travel Lane to N/B Right Guardrail to S/B Travel Lane to Middle Median
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property Damage Only
16
2242062
8/29/2007
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle front end started to shake and hit guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail
Median
No Improper Diving
Property Damage Only
17
2208583
6/8/2007
SB
Dark - Unknown Lighting
Clear
Dry
Vehicle entered a highway from the ramp and rear ended another vehicle
S/B On-Ramp to Travel Lane to Median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane and Alcohol
Non-Fatal Injury
18
2134320
11/17/2006
NB
Dark - Lighted
Rain
Wet
Driver saw another vehicle to skid, applied brakes and hydroplaned on wet surface roadway
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Non-Fatal Injury
19
1851294
2/15/2005
NB
Dark - Lighted
Rain
Wet
Lost control of vehicle on wet roadway
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Non-Fatal Injury
20
1796620
1/8/2005
NB
Daylight
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Snow
Vehicle skidded on snowy surface and overturned
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Property Damage Only
21
2132013
11/30/2006
NB
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Vehicle rear ended another vehicle and hit the guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail
Median
Followed Too Closely
Property Damage Only
22
2055649*
4/12/2006
NB
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Driver made an illegal u-turn, didn't yield to upcoming traffic and collided with another vehicle in the rear
N/B Travel Lane to S/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Failed to yield right of way
Property Damage Only
23
1836162
1/11/2005
SB
Dark - Lighted
Snow
Snow
Vehicle skidded on snow covered surface, fishtailed and overturned
Travel Lane to Median
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Non-Fatal Injury
24
2018401
1/17/2006
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver blacked out and overturned
S/B Travel Lane to N/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Illness
Non-Fatal Injury
25
2259001
10/22/2007
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle swerved to avoid a ladder, overturned, crossed the median and hit another vehicle
S/B Travel Lane to N/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Swerving or avoiding due to object in roadway
Non-Fatal Injury
26
2010174
7/9/2005
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle rear ended another vehicle while attempting to pass it
S/B Travel Lane to N/B Right Breakdown Lane
Cross Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-Fatal Injury
27
2011211
11/17/2005
SB
Dark - Not Lighted
Clear
Dry
Driver attempted to change his radio and lost control of the vehicle
Travel Lane to Right Guardrail to Median Guardrail
Median
Inattention
Property Damage Only
28
2010505
12/17/2005
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle was cut-off by unknown vehicle
Travel Lane to Median Barrier
Median
Swerving or avoiding due to vehicle in roadway
Property Damage Only
29
2189688
4/6/2007
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle weaved in and out of traffic, lost control and skidded into the median
N/B On-Ramp to Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property Damage Only
30
2226166
8/4/2007
NB
Dark - Not Lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle crossed into the lane, struck another vehicle and caused the vehicle to hit the guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-Fatal Injury
31
2018060
1/15/2006
SB
Dark - Lighted
Sleet, Hail, Freezing Rain
Snow
Vehicle skidded on snowy surface
Travel Lane to Median Embankment
Median
Swerving due to slippery surface in roadway
Property Damage Only
32
2118259
10/22/2006
NB
Dark - Not Lighted
Clear
Dry
Driver took his eyes off the road, drifted to the left and overcorrected
Travel Lane to Median to State Highway Sign
Median
Over-correcting/Over-steering
Property Damage Only
33
2258396
11/20/2007
NB
Daylight
Snow
Snow
Vehicle lost traction due to other crashes happening front of him, spin out and hit the guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Right Breakdown Lane
Median
Swerving or avoiding due to vehicle in roadway
Property Damage Only
34
2071516
7/20/2006
SB
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Unknown vehicle made an abrupt lane change, caused another vehicle to brake and hit the guardrail
Travel Lane to Median Guardrail to Travel Lane
Median
Swerving or avoiding due to vehicle in roadway
Non-Fatal Injury
35
2069728
8/1/2006
SB
Dark - Lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle tried to change lanes and struck another vehicle
Travel Lane to Right Side Construction Barrel to Travel Lane to Median
Median
Inattention
Property Damage Only
36
2223930
8/1/2007
SB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver steered aggressively to avoid slower moving vehicles, lost control, crossed the median and crashed head-on into another vehicle
N/B Travel Lane to S/B Travel Lane
Cross Median
Exceeded Speed Limit
Fatal Injury
DAYLIGHT
DAWN
DUSK
DARK - LIGHTED
DARK - NOT LIGHTED
DARK - UNKNOWN LIGHTING
CLEAR
CLOUDY
RAIN
36
20
2
1
7
4
2
21
6
2
3
100%
56%
6%
3%
19%
11%
6%
58%
17%
6%
8%
LIGHT CONDITION
WEATHER CONDITION
TOTAL NO.
ROAD SURFACE
WEATHER CONDITION
MEDIAN OR CROSS MEDIAN
SLEET, HAIL
CRASH SEVERITY
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
DRY
WET
SNOW
MEDIAN
CROSS MEDIAN
FREEZING RAIN
NON-FATAL INJURY
SNOW
FATAL - INJURY
ONLY
NO IMPROPER
EXCEEDED SPEED LIMIT
DRIVING
4
26
3
7
25
11
21
14
1
2
3
11%
72%
8%
19%
69%
31%
58%
39%
3%
6%
8%
FAILURE TO KEEP IN
OPERATING VEHICLE
SWERVING DUE TO SLIPPERY
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
EXCEEDED SPEED LIMIT FAILED TO YIELD
AND ALCOHOL
RIGHT OF WAY
FOLLOWED TOO FAILURE TO KEEP
CLOSELY
IN PROPER LANE
PROPER LANE & ALCOHOL IN RECKLESS MANNER
SWERVING OR AVOIDING DUE TO VEHICLE IN ROADWAY
SWERVING OR AVOIDING DUE TO OBJECT IN ROADWAY
SURFACE IN ROADWAY
OVER-CORRECTING/
ILLNESS
OVER-STEERING
1
1
1
8
1
1
8
3
1
1
1
3%
3%
3%
22%
3%
3%
22%
8%
3%
3%
3%
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
INATTENTION
CELLULAR
TELEPHONE
3
1
8%
3%
* Driver intended to reverse driving direction
2007 CRASH INFORMATION ARE NOT COMPLETE
CRASH SUMMARY IS BASED ON CRASH REPORTS WITH STATE POLICE NARRATIVES
I-91, South of Lower Westfield Road 10/17/2006
Northbound Southbound
Direction
Direction
TOTAL
Start time
12:00 AM
316
252
568
1:00 AM
197
166
363
2:00 AM
175
166
341
3:00 AM
176
205
381
4:00 AM
287
348
635
5:00 AM
652
796
1,448
6:00 AM
1,457
1,931
3,388
7:00 AM
2,512
2,895
5,407
8:00 AM
2,427
2,820
5,247
9:00 AM
2,101
1,915
4,016
10:00 AM
2,053
1,830
3,883
11:00 AM
2,006
1,866
3,872
12:00 PM
2,105
1,990
4,095
1:00 PM
2,100
2,150
4,250
2:00 PM
2,370
2,374
4,744
3:00 PM
2,720
2,593
5,313
4:00 PM
3,142
2,673
5,815
5:00 PM
3,403
2,489
5,892
6:00 PM
2,322
1,884
4,206
7:00 PM
1,616
1,240
2,856
8:00 PM
1,265
1,133
2,398
9:00 PM
1,073
1,126
2,199
10:00 PM
787
707
1,494
11:00 PM
565
516
1,081
Daily Total
37,827
36,065
73,892
Directional Traffic Volumes along I-91, South of Lower Westfield Road,
Holyoke
Tuesday, October, 17, 2006
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Time of Day
PM
PM
10
:0
0
8:
00
PM
6:
00
PM
4:
00
PM
PM
2:
00
AM
12
:0
0
AM
AM
10
:0
0
8:
00
6:
00
AM
4:
00
AM
2:
00
AM
0
12
:0
0
Hourly Volume (Number of
Vehicles)
4,000