ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Route 126 Downtown Corridor
(Lincoln Street to Irving Street)
Town of Framingham
October 2012
Prepared For:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Prepared By:
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
101 Walnut Street/P.O. Box 9151
Watertown, MA 02471-9151
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
RSA Process................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 3
Relevant RSA Data ..................................................................................................................... 5
Audit Observations ................................................................................................................... 14
Potential Safety Enhancements ...............................................................................................31
Summary of Road Safety Audit...............................................................................................35
List of Appendices
Appendix A: RSA Meeting Agenda Appendix B: RSA Audit Team Contact List Appendix C: Intersection Descriptions Appendix D: Detailed Crash Data Appendix E: Additional Information Appendix F: Road Safety Audit References List of Figures
Figure 1. Locus Map.............................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables
Table 1 - Participating Audit Team Members ........................................................................................... 2
Table 2 – Roadway Functional Classifications .......................................................................................... 3
Table 3 – Major Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................. 5
Table 4 - Traffic Volume Summary........................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 – Intersection Crash Rates ............................................................................................................ 7
Table 6 – Intersection Crash Summary: 2009-2011 .................................................................................. 8
Table 7 - Existing Signs........................................................................................................................... 25
Table 8 – Estimated Time Frame and Cost .............................................................................................. 31
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary.................................................................................. 36
Page i
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Background
Defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a “formal safety performance examination
of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team”, a road safety
audit (RSA) investigates safety issues and identifies potential safety improvements. The Commonwealth
of Massachusetts through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires a RSA for
HSIP-eligible locations in order to receive safety-related funding. The outcome of an RSA can be
evaluated and included as part of any future or current design process. Any short-term, low-cost potential
improvements should be considered by the responsible agency for implementation prior to any significant
reconstruction efforts.
The Route 126 corridor in downtown Framingham has routinely been in the Commonwealth’s Top 200
High Crash Location listing. The corridor includes a vehicle cluster of crashes ranked third, a pedestrian
cluster ranked ninth and a bicycle cluster that is significant enough to qualify for HSIP funding. The
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has requested an RSA be performed along this
corridor prior to advancing a design that has been submitted. A 25% design has been completed for a
State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) for 2013 and is in the final stages of review by
MassDOT. Safety improvements that are identified as a result of this RSA may be incorporated into the
75%, 100% or Final design plans. Town Engineering and Public Works departments could implement the
short-term, lower cost safety measures prior to any major re-construction efforts covered by the STIP
design. MassDOT and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and/or the
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR) may also be able to implement some
measures to improve safety and delays along the corridor.
RSA Process
An RSA was conducted on October 16, 2012 along the Route 126 corridor in downtown Framingham
from Lincoln Street through Irving Street, with pre- and post-audit meetings held at the Memorial
Building (Town Hall), which is within the RSA limits. The specific agenda for the day may be found in
Appendix A. In total, 22 team members participated in the road safety audit, and as indicated in Table 1,
representatives were present from State, Regional and Local agencies and included a cross-section of
engineering/planning, operations, and enforcement expertise. A complete list of contact information for
the participants may be found in Appendix B.
Prior to the day of the RSA, MassDOT compiled crash data for the audit area intersections using Crash
Reports from January 2009 through December 2011 obtained from the Town of Framingham. From this
data, Collision Diagrams were prepared and the crash history was summarized in tabular and chart
format. This material in addition to Special Speed Regulations was distributed to all RSA invitees. A
detailed discussion of crash history along the corridor is provided herein and all backup crash data are
included in Appendix D.
A pre-audit meeting was held on the morning of the RSA prior to the site walk with all participants to
review the materials provided by MassDOT. Participants were reminded the RSA was a collaborative
Page 1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
effort to ensure a thorough understanding of the corridor deficiencies and safety concerns. As an active
discussion, participants provided an initial list of specific issues and concerns.
Armed with the list of the participant’s issues and concerns and the Safety Review Prompt List provided
by MassDOT, the audit team walked the corridor to point out the safety issues identified in the
pre-meeting and expand the list to include additional items. Following the site walk, participants held a
post-meeting to discuss potential short-term and intermediate/long-term countermeasures for each safety
concern. It was noted whether the intermediate/long-term countermeasures are addressed in the current
25% STIP design project.
Table 1 - Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Agency/Affiliation
Alison Steinfeld
Framingham Com – Econ Development
Erika OliverJerram
Framingham Com – Econ Development
Daniel Nau
Framingham DPW
Bill Sedewitz
Framingham DPW
Jeremy Marsette
Framingham DPW-Engineering
Gary Daugherty
Framingham Fire
Steve Cronin
Framingham Police
Bonnie Polin
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Management Unit
Larry Cash
MassDOT Highway Division Project Management
Paul Nelson
MassDOT Planning
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Highway Division Safety Management Unit
Neil Boudreau
MassDOT Highway Division Traffic
Joe Frawley
MassDOT Highway Division, District 3 Traffic
Michael Bruce
MassDOT Highway Division, District 3 Traffic
Seth Asante
Boston MPO
Sarah Kurpiel
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
Mike Wasielewski
BETA
Ken Petraglia
BETA
Don Cooke
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
Dave Greenberg
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
Peter Pavao
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
Erin Thompson
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc
Page 2
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Project Location and Description
Framingham is a Massachusetts municipality with a population of 68,318 (2010 US Census) located in
Middlesex County some 20 miles west of Boston. Route 126 provides a vital north-south link for
communities to access other regional roadways (including Route 9 and I-90/MassPike), shopping centers,
businesses and educational facilities. The RSA focused on an approximately 2000-foot section of
Route 126 referred to as Concord Street and/or Hollis Street within the study area, through the downtown
Framingham area (See Figure 1). Key intersections along the corridor include the signalized intersection
of Concord Street (Route 126) and Lincoln Street, a traffic circle at Concord Street (Route 126) and
Union Avenue, the signalized intersections of Concord Street (Route 126) at Howard Street and Concord
Street/Hollis Street (Route 126) at Waverly Street (Route 135) and the unsignalized intersection of Hollis
Street (Route 126) at Irving Street. Other key side streets within the RSA area include Clinton, Sanger,
Frederick, Kendall and Park Streets. There is an active railroad crossing on Concord Street, between
Howard Street and Waverly Street (Route 135). Detailed descriptions of intersections are provided in the
Appendix.
All roadways within the audit limits are town-owned and maintained. The functional classification of
each roadway within the audit area is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 – Roadway Functional Classifications
Street
Classifications
Concord Street (Route 126)
Urban Principal Arterial
Lincoln Street
Urban Collector
Clinton Street
Local
Sanger Street
Local
Frederick Street
Local
Union Avenue
Urban Minor Arterial
Kendall Street
Local
Park Street
Local
Howard Street
Urban Collector
Waverly Street (Route 135)
Urban Principal Arterial
Hollis Street (Route 126)
Urban Principal Arterial
Irving Street
Urban Collector
Regulated speed limits in the audit area are relatively low at 25mph on Concord Street, Waverly Street
and Irving Street, and 30mph on Lincoln Street, Union Avenue and Hollis Street.
Page 3
\\vhb\proj\Wat-TS\11587.08\graphics\FIGURES\Locus Plan.indd p1 10/18/12
Lin
co
ln
Str
ee
t
io n
Un
ue
en
Av
Stre
et
Church
Con
cord
Police
Department
Town
Hall
126
Salvation
Army
Train
Station
135
Ho
llis
Str
eet
eet
y Str
l
r
e
Wav
0
175
Irv
in
gS
tre
et
350 Feet
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Locus Map
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Figure 1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Key businesses along the corridor include St. Michael’s Church and a physical therapy/chiropractic center
at the intersection of Lincoln Street, Framingham Town Hall at the intersection Union Avenue, and the
Salvation Army on the corner of Concord Street and Howard Street. In the immediate vicinity of the audit
area is the Framingham Police Department, Framingham Public Library, a regional charter school, and
the MetroWest Medical Center and Framingham Union Hospital located on Lincoln Street. There is an
MBTA Commuter Rail Station approximately 230 feet west of the intersection of Concord Street/Hollis
Street and Waverly Street (Route 135).
Relevant RSA Data
Corridor Characteristics
The cross-section of Concord Street varies within the project area with details provided in Table 3.
Travel lanes are generally adequate at 11 to 14 feet in width and on-street parking is 8 feet wide.
Sidewalks are provided throughout the audit area, varying from 6 feet to 12 feet in width. Curb ramps
and/or cut-thrus are provided at all crosswalks but are not constructed to current Architectural Access
Board (AAB)/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
Table 3 – Major Roadway Cross-Section
Street
Width
Travel Lanes
On-Street Parking
Lincoln Street
40’
One lane, each direction
WB: Yes
EB: Yes, but restricted within 200’ of
Concord Street
Concord Street,
between Lincoln Street
and Union Avenue
40’
One lane, each direction
NB: Yes, south from mid-block crosswalk
SB: Yes, south from Clinton Street
Union Avenue
42’
One lane, each direction
NB: Yes, north of crosswalk
SB: Yes
Concord St, between
Union Avenue and
Waverly Street
50’
Two lanes, each direction
Yes, except between Park Street and
Howard Street
Howard Street
Waverly Street
Hollis St, between
Waverly & Irving Sts
East: 40’ East: one lane each direction
West: 28’ West: two approach lanes
East: three approach lanes, one
East:48’ departure lane
West: 43’ West: two approach lanes, one
departure lane
Northbound: two-three lanes
55’-80’
Southbound: two lanes
Irving Street
34’
One lane, each direction
Hollis Street, south of
Irving Street
52’
One lane, each direction
East: Yes, both sides
West: No
No
SB: Yes
NB: restricted within 100’ of Waverly St
NB: No
SB: restricted within 120’ of Hollis Street
Yes
WB=westbound, EB=eastbound, NB=northbound, SB=southbound
Page 5
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Crosswalks are present at every side street and across Concord Street/Hollis Street at: Lincoln Street, in
between Clinton Street and Sanger Street, at Frederick Street, on the north side of Union Avenue, on the
north side of Park Street, on either side of Howard Street, on either side of Waverly Street, and on the
south side of Irving Street. Crosswalks are marked by two-12” white parallel lines with 12 to 18 inch
yellow perpendicular lines, two to four feet on centers. Unsignalized crosswalks on Concord Street from
Union Avenue to the north have pedestrian warning signage at the crosswalk. Unsignalized crosswalks
on Concord Street/Hollis Street south of Union Avenue have in-roadway regulatory signage.
Railroad and Bus Facilities
The corridor experiences a significant amount of pedestrian activity and associated pedestrian-related
crashes due to the number of businesses/services provided along the corridor and the presence of the
transit facilities. A train station is located along Waverly Street, approximately 230 feet west of the
intersection of Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street. Using the tracks on a typical weekday,
there are two CSX freight trains, twenty-one eastbound Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) Commuter Rail trains and twenty westbound MBTA Commuter Rail trains. On the weekends,
there are still two CSX freight trains, and eighteen MBTA Commuter Rail trains (nine eastbound and nine
westbound).
There are two bus stops located on either side of Concord Street, just north of the Howard Street
intersection. These bus stops serve six different MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA)
routes, with each route stopping in the range of 12-15 times per weekday. During the weekends, the
number of stops is greatly reduced with only two routes operating with approximately five stops per
weekend day.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data was collected for the STIP design in March 2010 and are detailed in Table 4. The
relatively high volumes, especially during peak periods, and associated congestion along Concord/Hollis
Street (Route 126) and the related driver frustration can have an effect on crash history in this corridor.
Table 4 - Traffic Volume Summary
Location
Concord Street
(north of train
tracks)
Concord Street
(south of
Clinton Street)
Irving Street
1
2
3
4
Average
Weekday
Daily
Traffic
Volume1
Average
Weekday
daily
Truck
Volume2
%
Average
Weekday
Daily
Trucks
17,800
575
3.2
14,690
147
1.0
8,145
158
1.9
Peak
Hour
Peak
Hour
Traffic
Volume3
K4
Factor
Directional
Distribution
Peak
Hour
Truck
Volume
AM
985
5.5
61% Northbound
39
PM
1,155
6.5
63% Northbound
40
AM
855
5.8
56% Northbound
13
PM
895
6.1
53% Northbound
6
AM
485
6.0
55% Westbound
11
PM
620
7.6
59% Westbound
5
Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) volume in vehicles per day (vpd).
Based on the classification counts, approximately 11% of the vehicles were not classified. This volume has not been added to
the volume listed above and a higher percentage may be a truer representation of truck usage of these roadways.
Peak hour traffic volumes in vehicles per hour (vph).
K-Factor is the percent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour: expressed as a percentage.
Page 6
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
It should be noted that daily volumes were collected on Wednesday and Thursday and therefore may have
missed substantial car carrier traffic associated with the ADESA Boston auctions, typically on Fridays
and every other Tuesday and Thursday.
Crash History
Historical crash data was obtained from the Framingham Police Department for the study intersections
from January 2009 through December 2011 and are provided in the Appendix. The intersection of
Concord Street/Hollis Street (Route 126) at Waverly Street (Route 135) is ranked third on the
Commonwealth’s Statewide Top Crash Locations. There is a larger pedestrian cluster ranked ninth in the
Commonwealth that begins south of the audit area near Gordon Street and extends through the traffic
circle at Union Avenue. This same area is also a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) bicycle
cluster.
A tool to measure the relative safety of an intersection is the comparison of a calculated crash rate with
the State and District average. Using standard MassDOT formulas, Table 5 summarizes the crash rates, in
the unit of crashes per million entering vehicles, calculated for the audit area intersections. The current
official statewide crash rate is 0.81 for signalized intersections and 0.61 for unsignalized intersections.
District 3 average (The MassDOT District designation for Framingham) crash rate for signalized
intersections is 0.90, and is 0.66 for unsignalized locations.
Table 5 – Intersection Crash Rates
Crash
Rate
Intersection
Control
Compared to
State Rate
Compared to
District Rate
Concord Street at Lincoln Street
0.81
Traffic Signal
Same
Below
Concord Street at Clinton Street
0.44
Uncontrolled
Below
Below
Concord Street at Union Avenue
1.26
Traffic Circle
Above
Above
Concord Street at Howard Street
0.71
Traffic Signal
Below
Below
Concord Street/ Hollis Street at
Waverly Street
2.20
Traffic Signal
Above
Above
Hollis Street at Irving Street
1.11
Stop-controlled
Above
Above
Intersection
As shown in the above table, three of the audit area intersections are above both the State and District
average. Crash trends and contributing factors to the collisions can be identified through the analysis of
the Crash Reports. The Collision Diagrams MassDOT prepared prior to the RSA were used to perform an
in-depth analysis of the reported crashes. Table 6 summarizes the crashes by type, severity, time-of-day,
pavement conditions and lighting conditions. Following the table is a breakdown of the crashes for trends
and possible contributing factors.
Page 7
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 6 – Intersection Crash Summary: 2009-2011
Concord Street at
Lincoln Street
Concord Street at
Sanger Street and
Clinton Street
Concord Street at
Frederick Street
Concord Street at
Union Avenue
Concord Street at
Kendall Street and Park
Street
Concord Street at
Howard Street
Concord/Hollis St at
Waverly Street
(Route 135)
Hollis Street at
Irving Street
2009
9
4
2
12
5
8
31
10
2010
6
3
3
7
4
9
24
9
2011
8
4
6
16
6
4
31
7
Total
23
11
11
35
15
21
86
26
7.67
3.67
3.67
11.67
5
7
28.67
8.67
11
3
3
4
3
3
30
2
Head-on
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
Rear-end
7
5
1
15
5
8
23
10
Sideswipe, same direction
3
2
6
14
2
8
16
10
Single vehicle crash
1
-
1
1
-
-
3
-
Non Motorist (Bike, Pedestrian)
1
1
-
1
2
2
9
3
Fatal injury
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-fatal injury
7
2
4
8
3
5
29
5
Property damage only (none injured)
16
9
7
27
12
16
57
21
Weekday, 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM
1
2
-
3
1
2
4
3
Weekday, 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
3
1
3
3
-
1
12
6
Saturday, 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM
1
-
-
1
1
-
-
-
Weekday, other time
15
6
5
24
11
13
44
14
Weekend, other time
3
2
3
4
2
3
26
3
Dry
14
8
7
29
13
17
66
25
Wet
9
3
3
4
-
3
14
1
Snow
-
-
-
2
1
1
2
-
Ice
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
Sandy/Other
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
Not reported
-
-
1
-
-
-
2
-
Daylight
17
9
9
24
13
17
39
17
Dusk
1
-
-
2
-
1
8
1
Dark – Lighted Roadway
5
2
2
9
2
3
39
8
Year
Average
Collision Type
Angle
Crash Severity
Time of Day
Pavement Conditions
Lighting Conditions
Page 8
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Concord Street at Lincoln Street - From January 2009 through December 2011, there were
twenty-three reported crashes at the signalized intersection of Concord Street at Lincoln Street.
The majority (11) of crashes were angle-collisions, six of which occurred at the Dunkin Donuts
driveway. Two of the angle collisions involved a vehicle running a red light. The second most
frequent type of crash was rear-end collisions. One was the result of a driver slowing for a
pedestrian in a crosswalk. The traffic signal equipment at this location is post-mounted (i.e., no
overhead indications), with a combination of 8-inch and 12-inch indications, and provides for
pre-timed operation. The combination of poor signal head visibility (post-mounted/8-inch
indications), less than optimal operation (pre-timed) and proximity of the active Dunkin Donuts
driveway seem to be key contributing factors. Further, the proximity of activity at Clinton Street
(see discussion below) could also be impacting the number of crashes reported at this location.
Seven of the collisions resulted in a personal injury and four of them were from angle collisions
at Dunkin Donuts. A number of the crashes occurred outside of typical peak periods, this along
with the number of injury-related crashes could indicate vehicle speed along the corridor during
non-congested periods may be a contributing factor, although the majority did occur during the
hours of 2-6PM. There were three sideswipe collisions; one involving a parked car by a driver
with possibly poor vision. The pavement was wet for nine of the crashes, five of which resulted
in injury.
Five crashes occurred during the night and one was at dawn, possibly indicating there is not
sufficient lighting in the area.
Three crashes were ‘hit and run’ and three out of the forty-five drivers were not known to have a
valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher since not all hit and run
drivers could be identified.
 Concord Street at Clinton Street and Sanger Streets - The unsignalized 3-way intersections of
Concord Street at Clinton and Sanger Streets had eleven reported crashes in a three-year period.
The majority of crashes were rear-end collisions, one involving a southbound vehicle slowing for
a pedestrian in a crosswalk and the other four involving northbound vehicles. Both crashes
resulting in personal injury were rear-end type collisions. It appears the proximity of the
signalized intersection at Lincoln Street with the lack of traffic control (signage and markings) at
Clinton Street may be a contributing factor. Further, high activity (vehicular and pedestrian)
levels at Clinton Street (especially during Christa McAuliffe Regional Charter Public school
peaks) also seem to be a contributing factor with the majority of crashes occurred between
10AM-2PM.
There was one collision involving a bicycle and another where parked car was sideswiped. Speed
and/or poor lighting may also be contributing factors as a number of crashes occurred outside of
the typical peak periods. Nine of the crashes occurred during daylight hours and eight were on
dry pavement. Lastly, two crashes were ‘hit and run’ and one driver involved did not have a valid
driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher since not all hit and run
drivers could be identified.
 Concord Street at Frederick Street - There were eleven reported crashes at the unsignalized 3­
way intersection of Concord Street and Frederick Street from 2009 through 2011. The majority of
Page 9
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
the crashes were sideswipe, same direction collisions. Four of the six sideswipes involved a
parked vehicle, and another involved a car exiting a parking space. The relatively narrow cross
section of Frederick Street, in combination with the allowance of parking on both sides of the
street in close proximity to Concord Street (Route 126) appears to be a contributing factor.
There were three angle collisions that can be contributed to drivers not waiting for an acceptable
gap in traffic. Another collision was between a vehicle and a parking meter. There were no
pedestrian or bicycle reported crashes at this location. Four of the crashes resulted in personal
injury. Lastly, five crashes were ‘hit and run’. All identified drivers held a valid license but it is
not known if any of the ‘hit and run’ drivers do.
 Concord Street at Union Avenue - The traffic circle intersecting Concord Street at Union
Avenue, including Union Avenue to Proctor Street, experienced thirty-five crashes in a three-year
period. The majority of crashes was rear-end and sideswipe type collisions.
Two rear-end collisions occurred as a driver slowed for a pedestrian within a crosswalk, another
as a driver attempted to maneuver into a parking space. Four rear-end collisions were on the
Union Avenue approach to the traffic circle. Six other rear-end collisions occurred either on the
Concord Street departure or within the circle. One pedestrian was struck within the crosswalk on
Proctor Street.
Four sideswipe collisions involved a parked vehicle, two occurred as a driver maneuvered from a
parking space, and most happened within the traffic circle.
Of the four angle collisions, one was a result of a driver failing to stay within the roadway and
striking a parked vehicle on Proctor Street. The single vehicle crash was a moped flipping over as
a result of the operator striking the curb.
It appears the lack of definitive and clear traffic control devices (i.e., signage and markings) and
potential visibility issues at the circle are contributing to rear-end and pedestrian-related
collisions. The provision of parking within the circle at this high destination location appears to
be contributing to the sideswipe collisions.
There were eight reported personal injuries, including the struck pedestrian and operator of the
moped. Speed and/or lighting may be contributing factors to the crashes as a number of the
crashes occurred outside of the typical peak periods. About one-third of the crashes happened
when it was dark or near-dark. There is only one street light in the immediate vicinity of the
intersection on the east side of Concord Street.
Seven of the crashes were ‘hit and run’ and seven of the seventy drivers involved did not have a
valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher since not all hit and run
drivers could be identified.
 Concord Street at Kendall and Park Streets - There were fifteen crashes at the 3-way
unsignalized intersections of Concord Street with Kendall Street and Park Street. The majority of
crashes were rear-end, sideswipe and angle type collisions. All rear-end collisions occurred at the
crosswalk north of Park Street. Two of the five rear-end crashes involved drivers slowing for a
Page 10
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk, potentially associated with the current MWRTA bus stops
and unsignalized crosswalk on Concord Street at Park Street.
Two of the five sideswipe collisions involved a parked car. Two of the three angle collisions
involved a vehicle exiting a parking space. The current close proximity of allowed, legal parking
to the crosswalks and intersections limit sight lines at these locations.
Two pedestrians were struck during the day and one was not within a marked crosswalk. Snow
and/or ice may have contributed to an unknown type of angle collisions and a driver rear-ending a
parked vehicle.
Eleven of the crashes were during off-peak weekday hours, indicating speed may be a
contributing factor under lighter traffic volume periods Personal injury resulted from three of the
crashes, two of which are pedestrian-related.
Lastly, three crashes were ‘hit and run’ and three out of the twenty-eight drivers involved did not
have a valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher since not all hit
and run drivers could be identified.
 Concord Street at Howard Street - The 4-way signalized intersection of Concord Street at
Howard Street experienced twenty-one crashes from 2009 through 2011. The majority of crashes
were rear-end and sideswipe type crashes, with a notable number of angle crashes as well. It
should be noted that nearly one-third of the crashes occurred in the northbound direction.
One of the eight rear-end collisions involved a vehicle slowing for a pedestrian crossing within a
crosswalk. Four of the eight sideswipe collisions involved a parked vehicle. There was on
bicyclist related crash where the driver was not cited for improper driving. One pedestrian was
struck while crossing outside of a marked crosswalk at dusk. Four crashes occurred when the
pavement was either wet or snowy, two of which were ‘hit and run’ occurring during the night,
and another was the struck pedestrian at dusk.
Of note at this location is the lack of clear lane use control on Howard Street and in combination
with the geometry of Howard Street and the lane assignments, the westbound through movement
is skewed across the intersection which may be contributing to the rear-end, sideswipe and angle
crashes involving side street movements. The close proximity to the controlled commuter rail
grade crossing is also contributing to crashes at this location.
Seventeen crashes occurred during daylight conditions. Seventeen of the crashes also occurred
under dry pavement conditions. Personal injury resulted from six of the crashes: including both of
the pedestrian-related crashes, the bicycle crash, and a red-light running—related angle collision.
Lastly, five crashes were ‘hit and run’ and three out of the forty drivers involved did not have a
valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher since not all hit and run
drivers could be identified.
Page 11
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Concord Street/Hollis Street (Route 126) at Waverly Street (Route 135) - From January 2009
through December 2011, there were 86 crashes at the 4-way signalized intersection of Concord
Street/Hollis Street and Waverly Street.
The majority of reported crashes at this extremely busy and complicated intersection was angled
or rear-ends type crashes. There were also five head-on collisions. The head-on collisions and ten
of the angle collisions were between a left-turn vehicle and an opposing thru vehicle within the
signalized intersection. Eight of these left-turn collisions occurred in the north-south direction,
with seven between a southbound left-turning vehicle and a northbound through vehicle, and the
remaining seven occurred in the west-east direction. Ten angle collisions occurred at a driveway,
indicating the need for better access management in close proximity to the intersection. Of the
remaining thirteen angle collisions, two were caused by a driver running a red light and another
occurred when a driver slowed for a crossing pedestrian. Four rear-end collisions occurred when
a driver slowed for a crossing pedestrian, three of which were on the Concord Street southbound
approach. Eleven of the twenty-three rear-end collisions occurred on the eastbound Waverly
Street approach. One driver may have been under the influence and another inadvertently stepped
on the gas.
Current signal phasing, clearance intervals and signal indication visibility could be contributing to
these angle and head-on crashes. Pedestrians frustrated with long wait times or simply
disregarding signal indications also seem to be a factor. It is likely the current railroad pre­
emption and its inefficient operation contribute to a number of crashes at this location.
There were sixteen reported side-swipe collisions. The reasons leading to the sideswipe crashes
include improper lane changes, turning movements from the wrong lane, and wide vehicle turns.
There were nine incidences where a pedestrian or bicyclist was struck by a vehicle, six resulting
in personal injury. In at least six of the instances, the pedestrian or bicyclist was at-fault. There
were five additional collisions resulting from a vehicle slowing for a pedestrian. In three of those
instances, the pedestrian was either not in a marked crosswalk or was crossing against the traffic
light. Two of the three single-vehicle crashes were drivers turning onto the railroad tracks
because either their passenger or their GPS directed them there. Overall, there were twenty-nine
crashes that resulted in personal injury.
Eighteen crashes (all angle or rear-end) occurred when pavement conditions were not dry,
indicating lack of traction may have contributed to the crashes. It was dark or near-dark when
more than half of the collisions happened. This includes seven of the instances when a pedestrian
or bicyclist was struck, 3 rear-end collisions when a driver slowed for a pedestrian, and both
occurrences of a vehicle turning on to the railroad tracks. There is street lighting on all
approaches to the intersection; however, it may need to be enhanced.
Lastly, sixteen crashes were ‘hit and run’ and sixteen out of the one hundred sixty five drivers
involved did not have a valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed drivers could be higher
since not all hit and run drivers could be identified.
 Hollis Street at Irving Street - There were 26 crashes at the 3-way unsignalized intersection of
Hollis Street at Irving Street. The data shows that the majority of crashes were rear-end and
Page 12
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
sideswipe type crashes. It was reported that five of the crashes resulted in personal injury. Three
crashes involved pedestrians (two were not in a crosswalk and one appeared to be intoxicated)
and three more crashes involved vehicles slowing down for a pedestrian crossing the intersection
within a crosswalk. Five crashes (one rear-end and four sideswipe) involved parked vehicles and
two other sideswipe collisions involved vehicles exiting a parking space.
It appears that the extensive amount of pavement, the horizontal curve of Hollis Street, lack of
access management in proximity to the intersection and long pedestrian crossings contribute to
crashes at this location.
Twenty-five of the crashes occurred under dry pavement conditions. The roadway was wet during
a collision that involved a vehicle striking another vehicle while backing from a parking space.
Half (four out of eight) of the crashes occurring during night-conditions were pedestrian-related,
potentially indicating poor lighting.
Personal injury resulted from five of the crashes: one head-on, three pedestrian-related, and one
rear-end resulting from a medical emergency. Lastly, five crashes were ‘hit and run’ and five out
of the fifty drivers involved did not have a valid driver’s license. The number of unlicensed
drivers could be higher since not all hit and run drivers could be identified.
In summary, the audit area has experienced a significant number of angle, rear-end, and sideswipe-type
collisions in a three-year period, with nearly one-third of the crashes (63 out of 228) resulting in personal
injury. Other notable summaries include:
 Approximately 35% of crashes (83 out of 228) occurred at night or at dusk/dawn.
 Fifteen percent of crashes (34 out of 228) involved a pedestrian or bicyclist, where a pedestrian or
bicyclist was struck in nineteen of those instances.
 Almost half of the pedestrian, bicycle or pedestrian-related crashes (16 out of 34) occurred at
night or at dusk/dawn.
 One-third of the pedestrian, bicycle or pedestrian-related crashes (10 out of 34) involved a
pedestrian crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or against the traffic light, or a bicyclist not
adhering to motor vehicle law.
 Approximately 10% of crashes (24 out of 228) involved a parked car or a vehicle maneuvering
to/from a parking space.
 Approximately 20% of crashes (46 out of 228) were ‘hit and run’.
 Almost 10% of drivers involved (38 out of 450) were not known to have a valid license.
The lack of clear and consistent traffic control, poor roadway lighting, off-peak vehicle speeds, pedestrian
indifference and on-street parking appear to be the biggest contributory factors.
Page 13
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Audit Observations
At the pre-audit meeting held prior to the site walk, materials provided by MassDOT were reviewed and
participants provided an initial list of specific issues and concerns. Armed with issues and concerns and
the Safety Review Prompt List provided by MassDOT, the audit team walked the corridor to point out the
safety issues identified in the pre-meeting and expand the list to include additional items.
Geometric Design
 Speed - The speed limits within the audit area are 25 to 30 mph. Due to the congestion along the
corridor throughout much of the day, traffic generally flows at speeds beneath the speed limit. As
noted by Town safety personnel, higher speeds along the corridor during off-peak hours may be
contributing to late-night crashes. The majority of pedestrian-related crashes (twelve out of
nineteen) occurred during off-peak hours, which could be an indication pedestrians are
misjudging the speed of approaching vehicles before crossing the street, generally outside of a
marked crosswalk, potentially in combination with poor lighting at night.
 Roadway alignment and cross-section – Concord Street (Route 126) is generally straight within
the audit area. The roadway does bend at the intersection with Union Avenue but all approaches
are straight approaching the traffic circle. Alignment and cross-section concerns include the
following:
o The horizontal curve on Hollis Street, south of Irving Street, limits sight-distance for
turning traffic and pedestrians when combined with the on-street parking.
o Waverly Street crosses Concord Street/Hollis Street (Route 126) at a slight-skew but is
straight and fairly flat, as are all roadways within the audit area. Concord Street has a
varying cross-section.
o On-street parking and existing buildings at the back of sidewalk limit sight distance for
vehicles entering Concord Street/Hollis Street from minor side streets and driveways
between Clinton Street and Park Street.
o The horizontal curve and on-street parking on Hollis Street limit the sight-distance for
vehicles exiting the Tedeschi store on the southwest corner of Route 126 and Waverly
Street. At least four rear-end type crashes can be contributed to the front vehicle breaking
for a pedestrian crossing in this location.
o Travel lanes on Concord Street are typically 11-12 feet wide. Due to on-street parking
through much of the corridor, there is little shoulder area for bicyclists to use. Many
bicyclists were observed riding on the sidewalk.
 Intersections
o Concord Street at Lincoln Street and Clinton Street - To avoid the congestion on Concord
Street between Union Avenue and Waverly Street, drivers will use Lincoln Street and
Clinton Street to by-pass that portion of downtown. This results in drivers making a
Page 14
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
quick left-turn onto Clinton Street after making the right-turn off Lincoln Street. Despite
signage on the northbound approach to Lincoln Street, drivers on Concord Street
routinely queue from the traffic signal through the Clinton Street intersection. There
were four rear-end crashes at Clinton Street that may have been a result of northbound
drivers stopping short to let a southbound vehicle to turn left onto Clinton Street. Also,
just north of Lincoln Street, there have been numerous crashes at the Dunkin Donuts
driveway on Concord Street that may be able to be resolved with better site access.
o Concord Street at Sanger Street – Sanger Street connects Concord Street to
establishments along Pearl Street, including the Boys and Girls Club, the MetroWest
Performing Arts Center and the Danforth Museum of Art. There were two angle-type
collisions at this intersection where the lack of a stop sign may have contributed to the
crash.
o Concord Street at Frederick Street – Frederick Street is approximately thirty-four feet
wide with on-street parking permitted on both sides of the street which reduces the
available pavement width for travel. There is a truck exclusion sign posted for vehicles
over 2 ½ tons though this street is used frequently by heavy vehicles. There is a 24-hour
truck exclusion on record with MassDOT for Grant Street and Bishop Street, roadways
parallel to Concord Street, but not for any of the cross streets connecting Concord Street
to Grant Street and/or Bishop Street. The narrowness of the street combined with the onstreet parking on both Concord Street and Frederick Street makes turning movements
difficult for many vehicles, forcing vehicles to cross the double-yellow centerline on
Concord Street to complete maneuvers. There are 3 reported side-swipe with parked car
crashes, two side-swipe collisions, and 2 angle-type collisions over a three-year period.
Photo 1: Frederick Street
o Concord Street at Union Avenue – The southbound Concord Street approach into the
traffic circle has some deflection into the intersection and a splitter island sufficient for
pedestrian refuge. The Union Avenue eastbound approach and the Concord Street
northbound approach do not have any deflection to decrease the speed of entering
vehicles. The intersection is lacking proper yield signage and yield pavement markings.
The wide circulating roadway and tangential approach entries make it difficult for a
driver to know who has the right-of-way. The substandard geometry encourages higher
speeds; endangering pedestrians attempting to cross the street
Page 15
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Landscaping within the area should be routinely inspected and trimmed as needed to
ensure adequate sight-lines for pedestrians and drivers. During the walk, it was apparent
by participants the vegetation in front of Town Hall blocks the visibility of pedestrians
crossing Union Avenue from north to south. On-street parking is permitted within the
traffic circle. There is no lane-use signage on the northbound approach to inform drivers
the left-lane is for Union Avenue and the right-lane is to continue on Concord Street.
There have been several side-swipe collisions at this location, half of which involve a
parked car. Large vehicles approaching the intersection on Concord Street northbound
and making the left-turn to Union Avenue often use both lanes to complete the maneuver.
Photo 2: Looking north on Concord Street at traffic circle
Especially during periods of heavy congestion, vehicles will make u-turn movements
around the splitter islands instead of using the traffic circle, to either access parking
spaces or reverse direction to circumvent the queue. When the railroad gates are down
and at various times throughout the day, southbound Concord Street traffic extends
beyond the traffic circle. Southbound drivers have been observed entering the traffic
circle and blocking the circulating traffic, causing additional queuing on the other
approaches.
There is a pedestrian desire line across Concord Street just south of the traffic circle at
Union Avenue where there is no marked crosswalk. Numerous pedestrians have been
observed crossing midblock or directly through the center of the traffic circle.
Page 16
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
o Concord Street at Kendall Street and Park Street – Kendall Street is restricted to right­
in/right-out movements only and Park Street is one-way away from Concord Street. Leftturns are also not permitted onto Park Street from northbound Concord Street. While
there have been no recent reported crashes related to a left-turn movement, the inroadway turn restriction sign needs to be removed for snow-plow operations and do not
provide advanced warning of the restrictions.
Photo 3: Looking north on Concord Street from Park Street
There were five collisions in this section of Concord Street involving a parked vehicle or
a vehicle maneuvering to/from a parking space. The narrow travel lanes and frequent
southbound congestion can be a contributing factor to these types of crashes.
Four rear-end collisions and one incident of a vehicle striking a pedestrian occurred at the
unsignalized crosswalk on Concord Street at Park Street. The length of the crossing, the
southbound vehicle queue from the Howard Street traffic signal and any staged MWRTA
busses increase pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic.
Page 17
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Photo 4: Concord Street crosswalk at Park Street
There is also a left-turn restriction to Howard Street for Concord Street southbound.
Advanced signage at Park Street indicates drivers should turn right onto Park Street to
reverse direction, but does not advise the motorist that this turn is also for destinations on
or via Howard Street. While there have been no reported side-swipe collisions, motorists
in the left-hand lane to turn left onto Howard Street may suddenly swerve right, or turn in
front of another vehicle once realizing the need to turn right instead.
Photo 5: Concord Street southbound advanced signage
o Concord Street at Howard Street – The through movement from Howard Street
eastbound is required to make a shift of approximately 12 feet due to the alignment of the
approach and departure with no guidance from signage or pavement markings. There are
pavement markings and signage denoting the lane usage on the eastbound approach yet it
has been observed that drivers will make double-right turns. Neither the double-right nor
misalignment seems to contribute to the crash history at this location.
Page 18
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Photo 6: Howard Street, eastbound approach
There is significant delay for the eastbound Howard Street and southbound Concord
Street approaches due to the traffic signal phasing. During rail pre-emption the traffic
signal will not service the exclusive pedestrian phase. Pedestrians, many from the
Salvation Army, were routinely observed not obeying the traffic signals during rail pre­
empt and all other times throughout the day.
Looking south on Concord Street, drivers can see three sets of traffic signal indications in
close proximity to one another: at Howard Street, prior to the railroad tracks, and at
Waverly Street. There are times when these three sets of traffic signals convey different
indications. Seeing a green signal indication further south when the signal is yellow or
red at Howard Street may contribute to red-light running and rear-end collisions.
Photo 7: Looking southbound on Concord Street from Kendall Street o Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street – The traffic signal seems to be
inadequately timed for the traffic volumes observed. While many of the crashes at this
intersection involve pedestrians, many other angle and rear-end type collisions might be
Page 19
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
attributed to inappropriate yellow and/or red clearance intervals. Motorists were routinely
observed queuing over the railroad tracks on the southbound Concord Street approach
when the traffic signals were red instead of stopping at the stop line north of the tracks.
The westbound approach on Waverly Street has a relatively short left-turn lane that is
routinely blocked by queued through vehicles. The SUV next to the white car in the
photo below is on the painted channelizing gore area, indicating the demand for the leftturn lane exceeds the available storage.
Photo 8: Waverly Street, westbound approach
While most pedestrian push buttons ADAcompliant type, they are not within the current
MUTCD restrictive distances from the curb
ramp openings, which are 6-feet from curb and
5-feet from crosswalk. In addition, the push
button to cross Waverly Street from the
northwest corner is also located adjacent to
curb along the back of walk and is inaccessible
for physically handicapped pedestrians.
Photo 9: Inaccessible Button
Photo10: Pedestrian Gate
There have been no reported crashes/injuries
pertaining to drivers or pedestrian
circumventing the railroad gates when they are
down. As the gates may be down for minutes
prior to the trains arrival, pedestrian have ample
time to cross the tracks and routinely been
observed skirting around the single-bar gates
prior to the trains arrival. There is a fence on
the westerly side of Concord Street running
along the northerly side of the tracks that
possibly could be repositioned to discourage
undesired pedestrian activity.
Page 20
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
o Hollis Street at Irving Street – There is an abundance of activity at this location. While
the expanse of pavement makes pedestrian crossing long, the wide intersection provides
room for turning vehicles to store within the intersection while waiting for a gap to
complete the turn. Pedestrians have routinely been observed crossing Hollis Street on the
north side of the Irving Street, where no crosswalk is present. This behavior and the wide
intersection may be contributing to the six crashes involving a pedestrian at this location.
Photo 11: Hollis Street, looking north
There is a DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign on the northbound approach to
Irving Street and some drivers have been observed treating it as a stop sign. The crash
data does not show this to be a contributing factor. More often, northbound vehicles
queue past Irving Street from the traffic signal at Waverly Street, particularly during train
pre-empt. Because of the queue, drivers wishing to turn right off of Irving Street are
blocked and queue on Irving Street. Impatient drivers have been observed crossing the
Photo 12: View of Hollis Street from Irving Street
Page 21
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
double-yellow center line on Irving Street to by-pass the queued vehicles to make both
left and right turns. There were three reported side-swipe collisions on this approach that
may have been influenced by these occurrences.
Other drivers have been observed using the Tedeschi parking lot to avoid the traffic
signal at Waverly Street and the Town has been approached by the abutter to address the
issue.
In addition, the intent of the ‘LEFT LANE FOR LEFT TURN’ sign also on the
northbound approach to Irving Street is unknown as it is a single lane approach.
Photo 13: View of Irving Street from Hollis Street
 Auxiliary Lanes – There are not many auxiliary lanes, or dedicated turn lanes, within the audit
area. The southbound right-turn lane and northbound left-turn lane on Concord Street at Lincoln
Street are not long enough to accommodate queued vehicles however drivers were observed
stacking two-by-two in the wider approach lanes. The eastbound left-turn lane on Waverly Street
(Route 135) was extended in recent years to better accommodate vehicle queues. The westbound
left-turn lane on Waverly Street is often blocked by queued through vehicles. Drivers have been
observed crossing the gore area to access the left-turn lane. Due to the proximity of Irving Street
to Waverly Street there is not enough stacking room for all movements on Hollis Street
northbound, creating congestion and driver frustration on Irving Street.
 Clear zones and crash barriers – Being a low-speed urban environment, there are little roadway
departure occurrences and preventions. There have been two recorded instances of drivers
turning onto the rail road tracks just north of Waverly Street that may have been prevented with
better roadway definition. There is vertical curb along the corridor with sidewalks on both sides
of each roadway. There was one occurrence of a vehicle leaving the roadway on Proctor Street
and striking a parked vehicle. There have been no reported incidents of a vehicle leaving the
roadway and striking a pedestrian. Trees, street lights, and signage are located approximately 18”
from the travelled way. One vehicle backed into a parking meter post while maneuvering into a
parking space.
Page 22
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Pavement Conditions – It appears the
roadway was repaved in recent years
though there are obvious trench patches.
There are some potholes, usually near
utility structures. Pavement is warped on
the southbound Concord Street approach
to Waverly Street and chipping and
cracking in the vicinity of the tracks.
There were five reported side-swipe
crashes in this area but it was not noted on
the police crash whether the uneven
pavement contributed to the lane
violations. There is significant pavement
cracking on the northeast corner of
Concord Street and Waverly Street and the
sidewalk is damaged. This may be a
result of larger vehicles having difficulty
negotiating the right-turn from Waverly
Street westbound to Concord Street
northbound. On several site visits there
was standing water in the gutter line and at
wheelchair ramps along the corridor. This
is partially due to a trench patch, but also
may be a result of improper roadway
grading. Since there is on-street parking
along the majority of the corridor, it is
unlikely standing water contributed to
crashes.
Photo 14: Utility patches
Photo 15: Alligator cracking
Photo 16: Ponding water Photo 17: Pavement rutting
Page 23
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Lighting – There is minimal street lighting along the corridor and with many abutting businesses
being closed at night, the area is dark after hours. Approximately one-quarter of the crashes
occurred during nighttime conditions, many of which involved a pedestrian, often crossing
outside of a crosswalk
Traffic Control Device
 Signs – There are several non-compliant signs along the corridor, a few inappropriate signs, and
at least one that is not visible by approaching drivers. Other signs are wordy and might be
difficult to understand the intent. Yield signs are missing from the traffic circle. See Table 7 for
examples. There is a lack of advanced crosswalk warning signs along the corridor. Sanger Street
does not have a stop sign, though there is evidence of a broken sign post where one may have
been. The adjacent handicap parking space could be in conflict with the sign location. On the
Waverly Street approaches to Concord Street, there are signs restricting signs during rail pre­
empt. Particularly on the westbound approach, turning drivers may not be able to see if the gates
are down prior to turning. The lack of proper signage and/or providing non-compliant signage can
lead to driver confusion and lack of adherence, decreases awareness of conflicting movements
and provide insufficient warning of an atypical situation.
 Pavement Markings - Where present, pavement markings are in good condition except where
trench patches or other pavement work have eradicated the markings. There is no stop line on
Sanger Street, possibly contributing to the reported angle collisions. The stop line for the
southbound Concord Street approach to Waverly Street is prior to the railroad tracks and there is
not one at the crosswalk. This may be intentional as the traffic signal is phased such that no
vehicles should be stopped between the railroad tracks and Waverly Street, but vehicles were
routinely observed stopping at the crosswalk and queuing over the tracks. There were two
reported rear end crashes on this approach but both are attributed to the front vehicle stopping for
a pedestrian. There is one recorded angle-collision caused by a driver running the red light in the
southbound direction. Crosswalks are 12” white parallel lines with 12 to 18 inch yellow
perpendicular lines, two to 4 feet on centers. At the traffic circle at Union Avenue, the dotted
white extension lines of the circulating roadway are missing. Given the substandard geometry of
the traffic circle, yield line markings may assist entering motorists with yielding to circulating
traffic. Additional pavement markings on the Concord Street northbound approach to Union
Avenue would benefit roadway users in selecting the correct lane for their destination, potentially
reducing the number of sideswipe collisions. To increase visibility of pavement markings at night
and durability, reflectorized thermoplastic or polyurea markings should be considered over paint,
despite a somewhat higher installation cost.
Page 24
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 7 - Existing Signs
Location
Sign
Explanation
Location
Concord
Street
northbound
at
Clinton Street
The MUTCD-compliant
sign is 24”x30” with
black lettering on a
white background
Concord Street
southbound
at
Sanger Street
All
approaches to
traffic circle,
located in
splitter islands
This sign does not
meet the MUTCD
requirement for Yield
signs at the edge of
the circulating roadway
for each approach
Concord Street
northbound
at
Union Avenue
Various
Locations
Signs are not
permanent, need to be
moved for snowplowing, and are not
always located within
the marked crosswalk
Waverly Street
eastbound
at
Hollis Street
This sign, and its
companion in the
opposite direction,
requires reading
comprehension and
the train may not be
visible to drivers prior
to turning.
Sign
Explanation
There is no crossing on
Concord Street in this
location. Sign needs to
be moved to the
crosswalk at Frederick
Street or removed
Location
Sign
Explanation
Frederick
Street
Does not properly
indicate which streets
have a truck exclusion
Pedestrian Crossing
sign blocked by tree
and taxi signage
Various
Locations
Signs are not
permanent and need to
be moved for snowplowing. There is no
permanent turn
restriction signage
Several
sidewalk
locations
Though bi-lingual, signs
require reading
comprehension.
Also,enforcement of the
restriction is lax since
bicyclists lack a safer
route
Concord Street
southbound
at
Park Street
Sign does not indicate
drivers must use this
right for Howard Street;
placement not sufficient
for lane-change
manuevers
Hollis Street
northbound
at
Irving Street
Some drivers have
been observed treating
this sign as a STOP
sign
Hollis Street
northbound
at
Irving Street
Hollis Street is a singlelane approach and
therefore this sign is
confusing
Page 25
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Traffic Signals – There are three signalized intersection within the audit area. Refer to Appendix
C for additional information regarding the existing conditions of each intersection.
o Concord Street at Lincoln Street - The traffic signal at Concord Street and Lincoln Street
has all post-top mounted traffic signal heads and outdated and non-MUTCD compliant
yellow/red pedestrian indications. It has been observed that pedestrians rarely activate the
exclusive pedestrian phase. Two reported crashes can be attributed to a pedestrian
crossing Concord Street during a vehicle phase. Rear-end collisions and those caused by
a driver running red light might be due to the signal heads being at the periphery of the
driver’s cone-of-vision since the indications are on the edge of the roadway instead of
located directly over the travel lane. Several of the traffic signal indications are also 8”
lenses, further reducing conspicuity. The pre-timed nature of the traffic signal creates
unnecessary delay during off-peak conditions. Drivers have been observed crossing the
DYCL on the northbound Concord Street approach to access the left-turn lane when the
through movement has an extensive queue. It is unlikely the current traffic signal
controller could accommodate vehicle detection or time-of-day plans.
o Concord Street at Howard Street - Noted operational deficiencies at the signalized
intersection of Concord Street at Howard Street include drivers making a double-right
from Howard Street eastbound, pedestrians crossing against the traffic light and the
traffic signal not cycling to the exclusive pedestrian phase during railroad pre-empt. The
controller will also not hold a pedestrian call placed just prior to or during pre-empt to
service following the pre-empt operations. There appears to be excessive vehicle delay
during pre-empt and normal signal operation that might be alleviated with better timing
plans, reducing driver and pedestrian frustrations and correcting some of the undesirable
behavior. The existing traffic signal controller is capable to accommodating time-of-day
plans and could likely be upgraded to incorporate adaptive control features, which would
automatically adjust timings based on vehicle demand.
o Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street – Similar to Concord Street at Howard
Street, this intersection could benefit from better traffic signal timings to accommodate
current traffic volumes. The existing traffic signal controller is capable to accommodating
time-of-day plans and could likely be upgraded to incorporate adaptive control features,
which would automatically adjust timings based on vehicle demand. While improper
yellow and red clearances may be contributing to rear-end and angle collisions, another
factor may be frustrated drivers trying to ‘beat the light’ so they don’t have to wait
another cycle. Allowing the traffic signal to cycle to other phases during the rail pre­
empt, and adjusting the pre-empt exit timing may also reduce driver and pedestrian
frustration. It was noted that this may result in the eastbound left-turn and westbound
right-turn on Waverly Street to be protected-only movements to reduce the amount of
vehicles turning during rail pre-empt, despite existing signage prohibiting the turns.
Page 26
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Roadway Activity
 Pedestrians – With several group homes,
the Salvation Army and two methadone
clinics in the area there are many
disenfranchised pedestrians as well as
inattentive/impaired pedestrians. Pedestrian
accommodations are not uniform at the
signalized intersections, which may
contribute to a lack of understanding how
they function. Crosswalks at unsignalized
locations have sufficient pavement
markings and many have in-road warning
signs, but do not necessary align with
pedestrian desire lines. Many of the crashes
along the corridor can be attributed to
pedestrians crossing outside of a marked
crosswalk or at signalized marked
crosswalk during a conflicting vehicle
phase. Poor corridor lighting and long
crossings increase the pedestrian
vulnerability to vehicles.
Photo 18: Crossing against traffic signal
Photo 19: Crossing outside marked crosswalk
Photo 20: Desire Line not within marked crossing
Page 27
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 On-Street Parking – Improper (unmarked spaces or marked spaces too close to crosswalks and
intersections) on-street parking has been observed throughout the audit area. This does not appear
to be caused by a lack of available parking, but rather spaces not marked in front of the business a
motorist is destined for. In the photo below, two vehicles are not parked within the designated
parking lane, despite there being ample available parking on the next block.
Photo 21: Parked vehicles not within marked spaces
There is a parking space on Concord Street in front of the Boston Church of Christ, south of
Clinton Street that is marked differently than the rest of the corridor. There is a handicap sign in
the lawn prior to the space, but it is confusing as to whether the parking space is handicap only.
There is a marked handicap space on the corner of Concord Street at Sanger Street. The sign is
mounted to the abutting building. The space is awkwardly located between the pedestrian curb
ramp and a utility pole, and the Sanger Street approach stop line is in the middle of the space.
Throughout the corridor, parked vehicle and maneuvers to/from parking space account for many
of the reported crashes.
 Bicyclists – There is a fair amount of bicycle activity in the downtown, particularly among the
immigrant population. Bicyclists are not allowed on the sidewalk and despite bi-lingual signage
stating so, many ride on the sidewalks. Narrow travel lanes, heavy congestion and high-turnover
on-street parking create an environment bicyclists tend to shy from. Other bicyclists have been
observed riding in the street, but facing traffic instead of riding with traffic.
Photo 22: Riding on Sidewalk
Photo 23: Riding against Traffic
Page 28
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Public Transit – The commuter rail station and MWRTA bus stops draw pedestrians to the area
for transportation to other regions. The corridor becomes grid-locked during rail pre-emption,
which happens over 40 times per day. The proximity of the crossing to Waverly Street
(Route 135) creates an internal storage area issue. The traffic signal is phased such that no vehicle
should be stopped where the pick-up truck is in the photo below, yet vehicles routinely stop past
and queue over the tracks.
Photo 24: Vehicle stopped within Internal Clearance
The bus shelters are located far enough from the curb line to not present a sight restriction.
However, because of the multiple bus routes servicing the stops, several busses will stack in front
of the shelters, with the northbound lead bus encroaching into the crosswalk traversing Concord
Street just north of Park Street. This reduces visibility of pedestrians and may be contributing to
the crashes occurring at the crosswalk.
Photo 25: Limited Pedestrian Visibility
Page 29
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Emergency Vehicles – The traffic signal systems at Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly
Street and Concord Street at Howard Street are equipped with emergency pre-emption to
facilitate movements for emergency vehicles through the intersections. Rail pre-emption
overrides all emergency vehicle pre-empts, and due to corridor gird-lock during rail pre-empt,
emergency vehicle response time is impacted. The traffic signal system at Concord Street at
Lincoln Street is not equipped with pre-emption capabilities and the current controller is unlikely
able to accommodate the required equipment. Police vehicles have no issues negotiating the
traffic circle at Union Avenue but some fire apparatus must make wide turns. Emergency
apparatus in route to Framingham Union Hospital from neighborhoods and communities south of
Route 135 can be inhibited by traffic congestion and queuing throughout the circle.
 Commercial Vehicles - As indicated previously in this report, there is significant commercial
traffic along the corridor. A vehicle auction yard (ADESA Boston) is located off Irving Street,
generating an abundance of car-carriers and other auto-transport vehicles on Concord Street and
Union Avenue. In addition to these vehicles and others using the corridor as a thoroughfare, local
businesses are serviced by delivery vehicles. While most businesses have access off the major
roadways, loading/unloading is often done in parking lanes or in travel lanes, particularly on
Hollis Street between Waverly Street and Irving Street, and on Waverly Street, east of Hollis
Street. This decreases the sight distance for motorists and pedestrians and reduces roadway
capacity, both possible increasing the frustration level for all users.
Photo 26: Numerous Heavy Vehicles
Photo 27: Undesirable Unloading
Environmental Considerations
A handful of rear-end type collisions occurred on wet or snowy pavement by drivers following too closely
for conditions. Town personnel commented that lack of snow storage area impacts on-street parking and
snow banks can decrease available sight lines and increase the difficulty of several turning movements.
Page 30
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Potential Safety Enhancements
Following the site walk, participants returned to the meeting room to review the safety issues identified
previously and to recommend potential countermeasure improvements. Knowing the corridor is currently
under design through the STIP process; participants were challenged to come up not only with long term
(greater than 1 year) improvements that could be incorporated into the larger project, but also to identify
immediate (less than 60 days), short-term (2-6 months) or intermediate (6 months – 1 year) improvements
that could be implemented before the reconstruction efforts. All discussed improvements were
categorized by time frame: immediate, short-term, intermediate, and long-term. Improvements associated
with the STIP project were identified separately. Improvements related to such items as signal timing,
striping, signage, and curb use were often assigned dual designations as they represented something that
could be addressed in the near term (as appropriate and as available resources make possible) as well as
part of the STIP project.
Enhancements were also assigned a cost category, as identified in Table 8.
Table 8 – Estimated Time Frame and Cost
Time Frame
Immediate
< 60 days
Short-term
2-6 months
Intermediate
6 months-1 year
Long-term
> 1 year
Cost
Low
Medium
High
<$10,000
$10,000-$50,000
> $50,000
Recommended Countermeasures
There are a variety of enhancements or countermeasures, which could be evaluated and applied to
improve the safety concerns along the Route 126 downtown Framingham audit area. The following
countermeasures suggested by audit participants can be applied at various locations within the corridor.
 Replace regulatory and warning signage and provide more destination/way finding signage –
Regulatory signage (e.g. STOP signs) provides traffic control, lane use, turn restrictions and
assigns right-of-way. Lack of yield and stop signs could be contributory factors in anglecollisions. Side-swipes and head-on collisions may be the result of poorly marked lane use and
turn restriction signs. Warning signs alert motorists to a change in roadway conditions, such as a
side street, unsignalized crosswalks or other potential conflicts. There are route markers for Route
126 along the corridor and guide signage at the intersection of Concord Street/Hollis Street at
Waverly Street. Additional signage for the northbound Concord Street approach to Union
Avenue to assist motorists in selecting the correct lane for their destination could help reduce the
number of collisions occurring within the traffic circle and on the approach. Another location
where destination signage would be beneficial in the southbound Concord Street approach to Park
Street to illustrate the left-turn restriction at Howard Street and the need for motorist to loop
around the Downtown Common to perform the movement. Signage is generally a short-term and
low cost strategy to reduce crash frequency.
Page 31
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Examples of recommended regulatory and warning signage are as follows:
o Stop sign at Sanger Street
o Yield signs on all approaches to traffic circle at Union Avenue
o Crosswalk warning signs at the crosswalks located across Concord Street and/or Hollis
Street at Clinton Street, Frederick Street, Park Street and Irving Street.
o Overhead or permanent side-mount left-turn restriction signage at Kendall Street, Park
Street and Howard Street.
o Overhead lane-use signage on the northbound approach of Concord Street to Union
Avenue, the eastbound approach of Howard Street to Concord Street, and the
northbound approach of Hollis Street to Waverly Street.
 Provide additional pavement markings/remark existing cross-sections – Because the corridor is
wide with on-street parking on both sides, signage can get lost in the “clutter”. Pavement
markings can reinforce allowed movements. Pavement marking arrows within the travel lanes on
the northbound approach to Union Avenue can reinforce the left lane must turn to Union Avenue
and the right lane must continue north on Concord Street.
There appears to be sufficient pavement width in some areas to add or extend turn lanes,
specifically on both Concord Street approaches to Lincoln Street and both Waverly Street
approaches to Concord Street. Pavement marking additions and changes are generally short-term
and low cost possibilities to reduce crash frequency.
 Improve traffic control at Concord Street and Union Avenue – The STIP design currently
replaces the traffic circle with a traffic signal to be coordinated with the other traffic signals along
the corridor. An alternative design of a modern roundabout was presented in the Functional
Design Report for the project, but was not selected as the preferred design. At the Public Hearing
for the project, it was apparent there is a divide within the community between roundabout and
traffic signal supporters. Even if it is ultimately decided to replace the traffic circle with a traffic
signal, there are short-term, lower cost improvements that can be considered by the Town in the
interim to improve safety. Yield signs and yield markings at the entrances to the circle will better
define right-of-way since the existing geometry lacks deflection that would naturally slow
entering vehicles. Visually reducing circulating pavement width and entry/exit lanes with
additional pavement markings may slow vehicle speeds, increasing gaps for opposing movements
and pedestrians. Better lane use/destination signage for the northbound Concord Street approach
may help alleviate side-swipe collisions. Restricting parking within the intersection could
increase pedestrian visibility and reduce the number of conflicts with vehicles pulling in and out
of the parking spaces. Enforcement to keep southbound Concord Street vehicles from entering the
circle when traffic is queued back from Howard Street allows Concord Street northbound leftturns to Union Street, and Union Street left-turns to Concord Street to be maintained during
periods of congestion.
Page 32
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
 Retime existing traffic signals and/or upgrade equipment - Red-light running, angle collisions
and rear-end crashes can sometimes be attributed to inadequate vehicle and pedestrian phasing
and yellow, red and pedestrian clearance intervals. Existing timings should be evaluated against
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standard formulas and adjusted for site-specific
needs. Long MAX green times add needless delay to the other movements at signalized
intersections, especially at pre-timed locations like Concord Street at Lincoln Street. Locations or
approaches without vehicle detection should be evaluated to determine if detection could be
provided with the existing traffic signal controller. Proper operation of existing vehicle detection
at other signalized locations should be verified to optimize efficiency. Efficient signal timings not
only reduce driver frustration but lower carbon emissions and reduce turn-lane length needs.
Timing adjustments can be done in the short-term for low cost.
Red-light running, angle collisions and rear-end crashes can also sometimes be attributed to
poorly placed traffic signal indications. Post-mounted signals are at the edge of a driver’s coneof-vision and may be missed. Overhead traffic signal heads that are not directly over the lane
they control can lead to driver confusion on protected/permissive left-turn movements. This
corridor does not have pedestrian signal heads that include countdown timers. Countdown timers
provide pedestrians an indication on whether they feel there is still sufficient time to cross during
the phase, potentially reducing jay-walking during a conflicting phase by impatient pedestrians.
Providing uniform pedestrian push buttons throughout the corridor simplify identification for
pedestrians. With an upgrade to equipment, pedestrian push buttons can be relocated to more
appropriate and compliant locations. These recommended yet high cost enhancements are
included in the STIP design.
 Minimize delays due to train crossing – The current method for railroad pre-emption activated
by eastbound MBTA trains results in significant delays for motorists and pedestrians. It consists
of the conductor needing to get out of the train to manually activate the pre-emption, which often
starts well before loading and unloading is complete and the train arriving at the intersection.
Long-term and more costly alternative solutions could include grade-separation or redesigned
track detection/pre-emption systems. Near term, medium cost plans could include discussions
with Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR) in an attempt to reduce the dwell
time between when the conductor pushes the pre-emption and when the train leaves the station.
Without changes to train operations, delays could be minimized for some movements by
adjusting the HOLD period operations at the adjacent traffic signals. For example, there is not
significant cross traffic on Howard Street during rail pre-emption. The traffic signal could be
adjusted to allow the intersection to cycle between the Howard Street movements and the
exclusive pedestrian phase during train pre-emption. Similar modifications should be made for
the Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street intersection. Timing and control adjustments
such as these can be done for low cost.
 Enhance pedestrian safety and compliance – The Town of Framingham has been in discussions
with MWRTA on relocating the bus stops on Concord Street between Park Street and Howard
Street to side streets. This would solve the issue of stacked busses blocking visibility of
pedestrians in the crossing at Park Street. Bus stops and/or crosswalks could be relocated in the
Page 33
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
interim such that the busses stack after the crosswalk, allowing crossing pedestrians and motorists
better visibility of each other.
Another countermeasure to increase pedestrian visibility is providing curb extensions, or “bulb­
outs” at unsignalized crosswalks. This allows pedestrians and drivers better visibility of each
other prior to the pedestrian stepping off the curb. Curb extensions also shorten the crossing
distance, reducing the amount of time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic. Along these lines,
tightening intersection geometry with smaller corner radii also reduces crossing distance and
pedestrian exposure. Curbline modifications are medium cost countermeasures but could be
incorporated in the STIP design.
An overall review of current marked and legal on-street parking should be conducted. Evaluation
of current on-street parking in proximity to crosswalks and intersections will allow enhancement
of sight lines and reduce pedestrian-related crashes in these locations.
Short-term and low cost options include periodically checking and replacing/trimming
landscaping along and within the roadway if it encroaches on sight-distance. Additional lighting
will also increase the visibility of pedestrians by drivers and is included in the STIP design.
Given the identification of a relatively large population of low-income, disenfranchised or foreign
speaking residents within the audit area, consideration should be made to provide increased
education and community outreach to the affected community to achieve a better understanding
of pedestrian and bicyclist rules and policies.
 Evaluate and redesign of current curb-use – Illegal or poorly designated curb-use can result in
an increase in angle, sideswipe and pedestrian crashes. A notable number of these types of
crashes were recorded along the corridor related directly to current curb-use designations.
An overall review of current marked and legal on-street parking should be conducted. Evaluation
of current on-street parking in proximity to crosswalks and intersections will allow enhancement
of sight lines and reduce angle and pedestrian-related crashes in these locations. Proper location
of on-street parking, and appropriate parking restrictions along the corridor may also reduce
sideswipe and angle crashes.
Deliveries and unloading by commercial vehicles to businesses along the corridor impacts onstreet parking maneuvers and traffic flow. Most buildings have access from an alleyway or back
parking lot. A delivery management plan, and enforcement of the plan, can help reduce the
congestion along the corridor, which may reduce driver frustration.
 Increase corridor lighting - Approximately one-quarter of the crashes occurred during nighttime
conditions, many of which involved a pedestrian, often crossing outside of a crosswalk. Providing
additional and more adequate lighting along the corridor will increase crosswalk and pedestrian
visibility. Better nighttime lighting may reduce side-swipe collisions with parked cars and
provide better visibility of street signs and traffic signals. Lighting could be installed as part of
the STIP project and can range from medium to high cost depending on the desired lighting levels
and style of poles and fixtures.
Page 34
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Summary of Road Safety Audit
Recommendations for improving safety along the Concord Street (Route 126) corridor are summarized in
Table 9 and are categorized based on estimated safety payoff, time frame and cost for implementation.
The responsible party for further action has been identified as well.
Safety payoff estimates are subjective on the relative percent of crashes that may be reduced by the
enhancement. For major improvements crash reduction factors are many times available to assess the
safety payoff, however, for many minor enhancements a more subjective evaluation is needed. To provide
a general assessment of how a recommended enhancement would impact crash occurrences,
countermeasures have been assigned a Low, Medium, or High value on a subjective basis using
engineering judgment as it relates to potential crash reduction.
Countermeasures detailed in Table 9 involve Engineering, Maintenance, Enforcement, Educational and/or
Behavioral modifications that start with corridor-wide considerations and continue with site and locationspecific items for consideration.
Selected countermeasures have been identified as potentially immediate, short-term or intermediate
(typically Town responsibility) and/or as part of the STIP project (Designer responsibility).
Consideration should be made as to the appropriateness of inclusion in the STIP corridor project of
countermeasures as the project advances to final design. Costs for such inclusions are indicated (with an
*) to indicate that these can be funded through the STIP process.
As noted above, improvements related to such items as signal timing, striping, signage, and curb use were
often assigned dual designations as they represented something that could be addressed in the near term
(as appropriate and as available resources make possible) as well as part of the STIP project.
Page 35
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Potential Countermeasure
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Corridor-wide Issues
Lack of Bicycle Accommodations
Disenfranchised/Impaired
Pedestrians
Evaluate need for designated bike lanes
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate the ability to provide wider outside
travel lanes
Low
PR
*
Designer
Community outreach re. bicycle rules of the
road
Low
LT
Unknown
Town
Implement uniform crosswalk treatment at
both signalized and unsignalized
intersections
Low
PR
*
Designer
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Community outreach re. pedestrian
safety/behavior
Low
LT
Unknown
Town
Enhance AAB/ADA Accessibility
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide Advanced signage for Crosswalks
Low
ST
Low
Town
Place crosswalks at desire lines
1
1
Substandard Pedestrian
Accommodations
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 36
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Evaluate appropriateness of exclusive vs
concurrent phasing at signalized locations
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Provide uniform APS push buttons along
corridor
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide improved delineation of legal
spaces
Low
ST
Low
Town
Re-designate curb usage
Low
PR
*
Designer
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
High
PR
*
Designer
Implement multiple time-of-day
plans/Adaptive Control
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Inadequate Street Lighting
Provide enhanced lighting
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Missing/Non-Compliant signage
Install/replace signage
Low
ST
Medium
Town
Safety Issue
Illegal or improper On-Street
Parking
Potential Countermeasure
Evaluate traffic signal timing
Heavy Traffic Congestion
Provide enhanced Traffic Control at Union
Ave
2
3
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 37
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Create Delivery Management plan
Low
ST (Town) enforcement
PR (Designer) – review
loading zones
Medium (ST)/
* (PR)
Town (ST)/
Designer (PR)
Outreach to business community
Low
ST (Town)
PR (Designer) – review
loading zones
Low (ST)/
* (PR)
Town (ST)/
Designer (PR)
Ensure TIP enhancements provide storage
for snow banks that don’t encroach on
turning movements
Low
PR
*
Designer
Locate street furniture and landscaping to
provide sufficient width for sidewalk plows
Low
PR
*
Designer
Medium
PR
Medium
Designer/Town/
Abutter
Evaluate Yellow & Red Timings
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
3
Town /Designer
Evaluate traffic signal timing
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
3
Town /Designer
Potential Countermeasure
Friction from Delivery Vehicles
Impacts related to Snow Removal
Concord Street at Lincoln Street
Angle-collisions at Dunkin Donuts
Evaluate site access/egress
driveway
Red-light Running
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 38
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Unsignalized Church Driveway
within intersection
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Provide High-mount, overhead indications
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Increased enforcement
Medium
ST
Medium
Town
Discuss with Church potential closing of
driveway
Low
ST
Low
Town /Church
Discuss with Church potential restriction of
driveway to right-in/
right-out operation
Low
ST
Low
Town /Church
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Upgrade pedestrian signal heads to current
standards
Low
PR
*
Designer
Upgrade push button type and location to
meet current standards
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate signal timings to reduce queue
length
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Low
PR
*
Designer
Potential Countermeasure
Signalize driveway
3
3
Poor Pedestrian Indications
NB Concord Street Vehicles
Crossing DYCL for left-turn
Enhance vehicle detection
3
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 39
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Potential Countermeasure
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Concord Street at Clinton Street
Evaluate enhanced traffic control at
intersection
NB Concord Street Vehicle
Queue Blocks Clinton Street
Access/Egress
Inconsistent/Non-Compliant
On-Street Parking Markings
Medium
PR
*
Designer/Town
Install compliant DO NOT BLOCK signage
Low
IM
Low
Town
Provide DO NOT BLOCK pavement
markings
Low
ST
Low
Town
Provide SB left-turn lane to alleviate SB
lane blockage
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide signage/markings consistent with
MUTCD compliant and overall corridor curb
use
Low
IM (Signage)
ST (Markings)
Low
Town
Concord Street at Sanger Street
No Stop Sign
Install stop sign
Low
IM
Low
Town
Erroneous Crosswalk
Warning Sign
Remove sign
Low
IM
Low
Town
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 40
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Potential Countermeasure
Awkward Handicap Parking
Space
Consider relocating/re-designating space
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
3
Concord Street at Frederick Street
Tight-turning Movements/Narrow
Street
Evaluate benefits of restricting on-street
parking in vicinity of intersection with
Concord Street
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Poor Sight-Distance from
Frederick Street
Evaluate modifying Frederick Street oneway away from intersection
Medium
IT
Unknown
Town to evaluate
circulation patterns
Replace sign with one stating trucks are
restricted on Grant Street and Bishop
Street
Low
ST
Low
Town
Enforce restrictions
Low
IT
Medium
Town
Trucks Ignoring Truck Restriction
3
Concord Street at Union Avenue
Evaluate enhanced traffic control at
intersection
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Add MUTCD-compliant Yield
signs/markings
Medium
ST
Low
Town
Poor Traffic Control
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 41
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Medium
IT
Low
Town
Evaluate removal of parking within the
circle
Low
IT
Low
Town
Consider re-designating curb use
Low
IT
Low
Town
Evaluate enlarging splitter island to
increase difficulty of maneuver
Low
IT
Medium
Town
Enforcement
Low
IM
Medium
Town
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Low
IM
Low
Town
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Low
IM
Low
Town
Potential Countermeasure
Consider restriping circle to be more like
traditional modern roundabout
3
3
Parking within Circle
Illegal U-turns Around Splitter
Islands
Southbound Concord Street
Congestion
Evaluate enhanced traffic control at
intersection
Provide DO NOT BLOCK signage and/or
pavement markings for Concord Street
southbound
Provide crosswalk on south side of
intersection
3
3
Poor Pedestrian Safety
Trim landscaping to improve visibility
4
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 42
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Low
IM
Low
Town
Evaluate location of current crosswalk
across Union Avenue
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Provide signage to warn pedestrians of
conflicting vehicles (“Look”)
Low
IM
Low
Town
Medium
ST
Low
Town
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer/
MWRTA
Potential Countermeasure
Relocate existing crosswalk signage for
better visibility
Poorly defined Concord Street
Northbound Lane Use
Provide signage and markings to illustrate
allowed movements
Concord Street at Kendall Street
Non-Permanent Left-Turn
Restriction Signage
Evaluate installation of permanent signage
Low
3
Concord Street at Park Street
Non-Permanent Left-Turn
Restriction Signage
Evaluate installation of permanent signage
Poor Pedestrian Visibility at Bus
Stops and Crosswalks
Evaluate relocation of MWRTA bus stops
to side-street
3
3
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 43
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Consider staging busses elsewhere
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer and
MWRTA
Consider relocating crosswalk behind bus
stacking
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Enhance visibility of crosswalk with signage
and markings
Low
IM
Low
Town
Consider restricting parking on approaches
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Potential Countermeasure
3
Provide curb extensions/bulb-outs
Long (Distance) Pedestrian
Crossings
3
3
Concord Street at Howard Street
Non-Permanent Left-Turn
Restriction Signage
Install permanent signage
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide better advanced signage
Low
ST
Low
Town
Evaluate allowing left-turns
Low
PR
*
Designer
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 44
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Adjust Dwell period phasing; allow
exclusive pedestrian phase to be activated
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate exit phase to better clear out
queue
Low
PR
*
Designer
Consider servicing pedestrian phase if
actuated prior to or during pre-empt
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
3
Town /Designer
Poor Eastbound Through-Lane
Alignment
Provide pavement marking tracks
Low
ST
Low
Town
Eastbound approach being used
as double right
Evaluate lane assignments
Low
ST (Town)
PR (Designer)
Medium (ST)
*(PR)
Town (ST)
Designer (PR)
Visibility of multiple sets of signal
heads
Consider optically programmable or
geometric louvers at Waverly Street
intersection
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Safety Issue
Traffic Congesting during Rail
Pre-emption
Potential Countermeasure
3
Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street
Heavy Traffic Congestion during
Rail Pre-emption
Adjust Dwell period phasing; allow other
movements to occur
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate exit phase to better clear out
queue
Low
PR
*
Designer
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 45
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Medium
ST
Low
MassDOT/
Designer
Redesign Track Detection/Pre-emption
System
Medium/High
LT
High
MassDOT/
Designer
Consider grade separation of RR if other
countermeasures do not yield adequate
safety improvements
Medium/High
LT
High
MassDOT
Evaluate protected-only Rte 135 EB left
and WB right-turns
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate Yellow & Red Timings
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Evaluate Traffic signal timing
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Low
PR
Medium
IT/PR
Potential Countermeasure
Work with MBCR to reduce pre-empt time
Vehicle Stacking between Rail
Crossing and Route 135
Several Angle & Rear-end
Collisions
Provide dynamic no turns signs to
illuminate during pre-empt
Provide far-side indications for protectedpermissive left-turn phases
Red Light Running
Evaluate Yellow & Red Timings
3
3
Designer
Low(IT)/*(PR)
3
Town /Designer
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 46
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Evaluate traffic signal timing
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Provide optically programmable/geometric
louvers on SB approach
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate need for SB stop line at Waverly
Street crosswalk
Low
PR
*
Designer
Emphasize stop bar prior to tracks
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Improve corner radii for larger vehicles
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate need for warning signs for wide
turns
Low
IT
Low
Town
Evaluate lane use signage
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Consider enhanced destination signage
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide high-mount street name signs
Low
PR
*
Designer
Potential Countermeasure
3
3
Wide Vehicle Turns
Lane Use Confusion
3
3
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 47
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Proximity of Rail Crossing to
Intersection
Potential Countermeasure
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Upgrade gates to four-quadrant
Medium
LT
High
MassDOT
Provide better delineation between edge of
roadway and tracks.
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Eliminate need to cross tracks
Medium
LT
High
MassDOT
Extend fencing to reduce crossing
availability
Medium
IT
Medium
MassDOT
Community outreach re. proper pedestrian
behavior and RR safety
Low
ST
Unknown
MassDOT
Community outreach re. pedestrian
safety/behavior
Low
LT
1
Unknown
Town
*
Designer
Consider “Look” pavement markings for
pedestrians
Pedestrians Crossing Tracks at
Station/Disregarding Controls at
Intersection
3
Hollis Street at Irving Street
Long (Distance) Pedestrian
Crossings
Tighten intersection geometrics to shorten
crossings
Medium
PR
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 48
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Low
PR
*
Designer
Provide enhanced traffic control for
crossings
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate provision of median refuge to
break up crossing distance
Medium
IT
Medium
Town
Increase Lighting to enhance pedestrian
visibility
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Evaluate opportunity to provide two
approach lanes on Irving Street
Medium
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /Designer
Evaluate enhanced traffic control
Medium
PR
*
Designer
Enforce DO NOT BLOCK
Low
IM
Medium
Town
Remove sign
Low
IM
Low
Town
Potential Countermeasure
Provide advanced and in-roadway warning
signs
Long (Distance) Pedestrian
Crossings
Consider restriction of parking on horizontal
curve to increase pedestrian visibility
Excessive Queuing on Irving
Street and Multiple Right-Turn
Movements from Single Lane
Left Lane for Left Turn Sign
3
3
3
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 49
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Table 9 - Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Friction from Commercial Vehicle
Parking
Tedeschi Cut-Through Traffic
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Consider enhanced destination signage
Low
PR
*
Designer
Evaluate restriping NB approach to two
lanes
Low
IT/PR
Low(IT)/*(PR)
Town /designer
Create and Enforce Delivery Management
Plan
Low
ST (Town) enforcement
PR (Designer) – review
loading zones
Medium (ST) *(PR)
Evaluate Loading Zones
Low
PR
*
Designer
Erect ‘No Standing’ signs on Irving Street
Low
ST
Low
Town
Discuss with Tedeschi break-way chain in
parking lot
Low
IT
Low
Town w/ Tedeschi
Discuss with Tedeschi speed Hump in
parking lot
Low
IT
Low
Town w/ Tedeschi
Discuss with Tedeschi closure of cut-thru
ability while maintaining fire access
Low
IT
Medium
Town w/ Tedeschi
Potential Countermeasure
3
Town (ST)/
Designer (PR)
1 Town currently seeking grant from the State
2 Partially addressed in December 2012/Remaining to be addressed in Spring 2013
3 Subject to results of evaluation/availability of Town resources
4 Completed December 2012
* Cost of improvement to be included as part of the overall TIP design and construction cost.
Time Frame Codes: IM = Immediate (<60 days)
ST = Short Term (2-6 months)
IT = Intermediate (6 months – 1 year)
PR = TIP Project
LT = Long Term (>1 year)
Page 50
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix A: RSA Meeting Agenda Page A1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix B: RSA Audit Team Contact List
Page B1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix C: Intersection Descriptions Page C1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
This Appendix includes a description of the existing conditions for the major intersection along the audit
corridor to supplement the information provided in the main body of the report. The term “general
purpose lane” refers to travel lane where all available movements are permitted. If there is a single lane
on an approach to an intersection, left-turn, right-turn, and through movements are permitted unless
otherwise restricted. If an approach has two general purpose lanes, the left-hand lane is for left-turn and
through movements and the right-hand lane is for through and right-turn movements.
Concord Street (Route 126) at Lincoln Street
Lincoln Street intersects Concord Street at the northerly limit of the audit area from the west, forming a
three-legged intersection controlled by a traffic signal system. On-street parking is prohibited on Concord
Street until 250 feet south of Lincoln Street. On-street parking is allowed on both sides on Lincoln Street
until 200 feet from Concord Street, where it is prohibited on the south side of the street in order to provide
for an exclusive right-turn lane at the intersection. Concord Street southbound has a 70-foot marked
exclusive right-turn lane. Concord Street northbound has a 90-foot marked exclusive left-turn lane. There
is no lane-use signage on any approach of this intersection. The Lincoln Street approach provides an
exclusive left-turn and exclusive right-turn lanes for approximately 100 feet. There is a church driveway
on the east side of Route 126 within the confines of the intersection that is not included as part of the
traffic signal but it does receive an indication when the exclusive pedestrian phase is actuated. Sidewalks
and crosswalks are provided along all approaches of the intersection.
The traffic signal is post-mounted and is a pre-timed two-phase operation with an actuated exclusive
pedestrian phase. Traffic signal heads are painted yellow and there are no backplates. Traffic signal posts
appear to be painted aluminum with transformer bases. The controller cabinet is post-mounted. Traffic
signal heads are equipped with light-emitting diode (LED) modules and are a combination of 8-inch and
12-inch indications. Pedestrian push buttons are ADA-compliant but are not Accessible Pedestrian Signal
(APS) type. The exclusive pedestrian phase is indicated by solid red and yellow indications on each
approach, which is no longer a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) compliant
method. This intersection is not equipped with emergency vehicle pre-emption. Traffic operations at this
location during peak hour operate at an acceptable level of service but there are significant vehicle queues
for northbound Concord Street in both morning and evening peak periods and for southbound Concord
Street during the evening peak.
Concord Street (Route 126) at Union Avenue
Union Avenue intersects Concord Street from the northwest approximately 1,000 feet south of Lincoln
Street to form a three-legged traffic circle. At the traffic circle, the Concord Street northbound left-lane
enters the traffic circle to access Union Avenue and the right-lane continues north on Concord Street.
Concord Street southbound and Union Avenue each provide a single entry lane. The center island of the
traffic circle is approximately 35 feet in diameter, with an additional 4-foot truck apron. The circulating
pavement width is approximately 25 feet. There are small splitter islands on the west and south, and a
substantial splitter island on the north that provides pedestrian refuge. There is minimal signage for the
traffic circle. There are sidewalks along all approaches of the intersection and crosswalks are provided
prior to the traffic circle on the Union Street approach and the Concord Street southbound approach.
Traffic operations at this location during peak hour operate at an acceptable level of service but the
Page C2
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
southbound Concord Street vehicle queue is over 400 feet during the evening peak, extending past
Frederick Street. The southbound queue is also extensive during railroad pre-empt.
Concord Street (Route 126) at Howard Street
Howard Street intersects Concord Street from the east and west to form a four-way signalized intersection
approximately 500 feet south of Union Avenue. The east leg of Howard Street enters the intersection at an
approximately 85 degree angle. The westbound approach of Howard Street is restricted to right-turn only
movements. The eastbound approach of Howard Street consists of a shared left-turn/through lane and an
exclusive right-turn lane. Because of the geometry of Howard Street and the lane assignments, the
westbound through movement is skewed across the intersection. Concord Street is approximately 58 feet
wide at this intersection. The northern leg of Concord Street consists of four general purpose lanes and
bus stops (only designated by bus shelters, no signage) on both side of the street. In the southern
direction, there are no right-turns movements (one-way street) and there is a R3-2 (“No Left Turns”
graphic) attached to R1-6 (“YIELD TO PEDS”) in-roadway sign and on a far-side traffic signal post. If
vehicles need to take a left onto Howard Street, they do so by skirting around the Downtown Common,
taking Park Street to Franklin Street to Howard Street. Therefore the southbound approach is two through
lanes. The southern leg of Concord Street consists of four general purpose lanes and parking lanes on both
sides of the street. The northbound approach consists of a through lane (no left-turns onto the one-way
street) and a shared through/right-turn lane. The parking on the east side of Concord Street (alongside the
northbound traffic) stops a few feet prior to the stop line and is within 20 feet of the crosswalk. Similarly,
the parking on the west side of the street is within 20 feet of the crosswalk. Parking should be restricted
within 30-feet on the approach to a signalized intersection per the MUTCD. There are sidewalks and
crosswalk on all approaches.
This traffic signal is fully-actuated with an exclusive pedestrian phase and is controlled by the traffic
signal at the intersection of Concord Street/Hollis Street and Waverly Street. There are two mast-arms at
this location with high-mount signal heads, equipped with backplates, for both Concord Street
approaches. Traffic signal heads for the Howard Street approaches are post-top and side-of-pole mounted.
All vehicular traffic signal heads have 12” indications and are equipped with LED modules. All
equipment, except for the controller cabinet, is painted black and the posts have transformer bases.
Pedestrian signal heads are outlined HAND/MAN indications, which are no longer MUTCD-compliant.
Pedestrian push buttons at this location are ADA-compliant and APS-type, but not all are located with
MUTCD-compliant distances from the crosswalks. This location is equipped with emergency vehicle pre­
emption capabilities and has a railroad pre-empt operations plan. Upon railroad pre-empt, the traffic
signal clears Concord Street northbound prior to the track gates closing. While the gates are down, the
traffic signal rests in the Howard Street phase. Traffic operations at this location during peak hour operate
at a modest level of service. The northbound Concord Street vehicle queue in the morning peak period
extends to Waverly Street. During the evening peak, the southbound Concord Street vehicle queue
extends to Union Avenue and the eastbound Howard Street vehicle queue extends the length of the
Commons.
Page C3
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Concord Street/Hollis Street (Route 126) at Waverly Street (Route 135)
Waverly Street intersects Concord Street/Hollis Street from the east and west to form a four-way
signalized intersection. The westbound approach of Waverly Street consists of an exclusive left-turn lane,
a through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane and a single departure lane. The eastbound approach of
Waverly Street consists of an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane, and a wide
departure lane that tapers down to a general travel lane and wide shoulder in front of the MBTA train
depot. The southbound approach of Concord Street consists of two general purpose lanes. Approximately
45 feet to the north of the intersection, rail road tracks cross over Concord Street. The stop line for this
approach is approximately 140 feet prior to the intersection to prevent queuing conflicts on the train
tracks. The northbound approach of Hollis Street consists of an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive
through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane. There are sidewalks and crosswalks along all
approaches.
The traffic signal is fully-actuated with protected-permitted left-turn movements on Waverly Street and
protected-only left-turn movement for Hollis Street. Pedestrian movements are concurrent with the flow
of traffic. There is a tethered span-wire assembly at this location with high-mount indications for all
approaches, with supplemental posts. There is also a mast arm prior to the railroad tracks where vehicles
are supposed to stop on red. All but two high-mounted traffic signal heads are equipped with backplates.
All vehicular traffic signal heads have 12 inch indications and are equipped with LED modules. All
equipment, except for one post assembly, is painted black and the posts have transformer bases.
Pedestrian signal heads are outlined HAND/MAN indications, which are no longer MUTCD-compliant.
Pedestrian push buttons at this location are ADA-compliant and APS-type, but not located with
MUTCD-compliant distances from the crosswalks. This location is equipped with emergency vehicle pre­
emption capabilities and has a railroad pre-empt operations plan. Upon railroad pre-empt, the traffic
signal clears Concord Street southbound prior to the track gates closing. While the gates are down, the
traffic signal rests in the Waverly Street phase. There is a surveillance camera at this location that
periodically does not work due to bandwidth problems. Traffic operations at this location during peak
hours operate at a poor level of service. The northbound Hollis Street vehicle queue in the morning peak
period extends past Irving Street, almost to Gordon Street, and in the evening peak period extends through
Irving Street. The southbound Concord Street vehicle queue during the evening peak is metered by the
traffic signal at Howard Street. The Waverly Street eastbound through-right vehicle queue is
approximately 500 feet during both peak periods, blocking access to the exclusive left-turn lane. The
Waverly Street westbound through-right vehicle queue during both peak periods extends past South Street
and blocks access to the exclusive left-turn lane.
Hollis Street (Route 126) at Irving Street
At the southern limit of the audit area, Irving Street intersects Hollis Street from the southeast to form a
three-legged unsignalized intersection. Irving Street consists of a general purpose approach lane, and a
wide departure lane. The southbound approach of Hollis Street provides a shared left-through lane and an
exclusive through lane that is dropped through the intersection. The northbound approach of Hollis Street
consists of a single general purpose. The Irving Street approach is “STOP” controlled, while Hollis Street
is uncontrolled. There are sidewalks along all approaches and crosswalks on the southeast and southern
legs on the intersection. The parking along Hollis Street is within 20 feet of the crosswalk. The MUTCD
Page C4
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
restricts parking at unsignalized intersections within 20 feet of a crosswalk. This intersection is
approximately 200 feet south of the Concord Street/Hollis Street at Waverly Street intersection, with only
approximately 150 feet of storage between the intersections. The Irving Street approach operates poorly
most of the day because of the traffic volume on Hollis Street and the queued vehicles from the traffic
signal at Waverly Street. This is especially true during the evening peak period when vehicle delay is in
excess of 200 seconds per vehicle.
Page C5
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix D: Detailed Crash Data Page D1
•
•
IJJfl!lE!~
J?.Q[
~~ghway ~ivision
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CITYffOWN :
Efom\rctan
\" 1~
REGION:
PREPARED BY:
\.PU\S Sf/l1<'J\N3 Sf.
ROADWAY NAMES:
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
A\B\5l2D,X11 Z
\ .-d\JA~
DATE PREPARED:
--L.J..>...u..:...w.
~A-':"T'-*:-'=-'-'----
....:...·--~~,l!..-.ll....l~~~~~s....;tc:rfj::.£=.--l---*"ffi.B/\~~ffi<~;:,....A;~ll...L1
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
\\CPl. \tjltE.
__________
~
North
SYMBOLS
TYPES OF CRASH
.. ~
Moving Vehicle
® .,..
________
_.t
_.,.............,.1
-.o
__.~
--:-+'x:-rP
Backing Vehicle
Non-lnvolved Vehicle
--4
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
Bicycle
Animal
~
~
Pedestrian
..I
<S
"CS
Angle
Turning Move
..
=v=:
-
SEVERITY
H"ead OQ
cs•
Rear End
Sideswipe
Out of Control
0
Injury Accident
o·
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Hollis St (Rte 126) / Irving St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
#
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
1 2/10/09
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Light Condition
Type
Weather
Condition
Type
Road Surface
Type
Tuesday
8:54 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Wednesday
Thursday
Saturday
Tuesday
10:52 PM
7:35 AM
2:19 PM
7:39 PM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Sideswipe, opposite direction
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
6 5/14/09
Thursday
12:10 AM
Head on
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
7 9/13/09
Sunday
3:50 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
8 9/29/09
Tuesday
5:14 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dusk
Cloudy
9 11/10/09 Tuesday
10 12/8/09 Tuesday
8:02 PM
11:54 AM
Single Vehicle Crash
Rear-end
11 1/14/10
Thursday
9:25 AM
12 1/14/10
Thursday
13 4/30/10
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
D1
Ages
D2
D3
36
48
47
46
39
32
16
26
20
42
22
39
Dry
No Improper Driving
Followed too closely
Followed too closely
Failed to yield to right of way
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
28
unk
Dry
Unknown
47
50
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Made an improper turn
29
30
64
74
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
22
36
5:34 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
43
30
Friday
2:58 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
50
48
14 6/2/10
Wednesday
7:34 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
36
unk
15 9/5/10
Sunday
11:38 AM
Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
37
16 11/9/10
Tuesday
5:40 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Wet
Inattention
25
32
17 11/26/10 Friday
5:50 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
34
31
18 12/9/10
3:10 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
47
25
1:06 PM
Rear-end
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Unknown
88
28
Wednesday
Tuesday
Tuesday
Friday
7:06 PM
1:25 PM
4:41 PM
5:05 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Rear-end
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Followed too closely
Other improper action
No Improper Driving
56
21
46
28
38
30
unk
Wednesday
24 7/6/11
25 8/12/11 Friday
26 11/14/11 Monday
1:45 PM
8:48 AM
6:34 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Unknown
History Heart/Epilepsy/Fainting
No Improper Driving
73
44
67
unk
46
unk
2
3
4
5
2/25/09
3/19/09
4/4/09
4/7/09
Thursday
19 12/13/10 Monday
20
21
22
23
1/5/11
3/15/11
5/10/11
7/1/11
Five out of fifty operators was unlicensed.
Five out of twenty six crashes were hit & run crashes.
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
Clear
Comments
D4
Veh #1 crossed into the northbound
lane
Hit & run crash. Veh #2 changing
lanes
Veh #2 passing Veh #1 as Veh #1
opened door
Veh#1 hit a pedestrian (Pedestrian not
in crosswalk)
Veh #1 entering Tedeschi's by
crossing Hollis St from Irving St
Vehicle slowed to allow pedestrian to
cross in crosswalk
Veh #1 passing Veh #2 as Veh #2
opened door
Veh #1 parked and an unk veh struck
the rear bumper; hit & run crash
Veh #1 attempted to make a turn into
Tedeschi's and struck the Pedestrian
in a morotrized wheelchair on the
sidewalk
Veh #2 attempted to back out of
parking spot striking Veh #1
Vehicle slowed to allow pedestrian to
cross in crosswalk
Veh #1 parallel parking
Vehicle slowed to allow pedestrian to
cross in crosswalk
Veh#1 hit a pedestrian (Pedestrian not
in crosswalk & appeared intoxicated)
Hit & run crash
A unk veh came along his left hand
side and struck his mirror
Operator had a seizure
Hit & run crash
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Hollis St (Rte 126)/ Irving St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
20%
15%
15%
12%
12%
10%
8%
12%
8%
8%
12%
8%
4%
5%
4%
0%
0%
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
40%
31%
30%
10%
19%
15%
20%
15%
8%
4%
8%
0%
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
38%
19%
19%
15%
8%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
50%
38%
40%
35%
30%
20%
12%
8%
10%
4%
4%
0%
0%
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Hollis(Rte 126)_Irving
Rear-end
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
Head on
9/26/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Hollis St (Rte 126)/ Irving St; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
65%
31%
Daylight
0%
4%
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
0%
0%
Other
0%
Unknown
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
0%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
0%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
4%
Rain
Cloudy
15%
Snow
81%
Clear
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
96%
Dry
4%
0%
0%
Wet
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
CRASH DRIVER AGES
40%
31%
30%
24%
24%
20%
10%
7%
2%
4%
4%
60-69
70-79
2%
0%
15-20
Hollis(Rte 126)_Irving
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
80+
9/26/2012
SYMBOLS
•
~lJ.E.::.:...fRQ.l [
® .,.
________
_.,.t
Highway Division
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CITYffOWN:
[llAI'IINtr-f/,1/to/1
0/f:.>
REGION:
ROADWAY NAMES:
PREPARED pY:
l.IAreRLY ~"t--r /g.r J~) l C,Ncon.s!J/Hdcl.IJ Srsee-er
Z..tJ01- 2.0 It
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
__.,.~
Bicycle
---.'x.?P
Animal
c()IVC,o/?,0
SrArto,./
ft"TM:: /ltws~
ft&41AJ
~
~~
,....
I;'
-
'~8
51ATltW
v
r-;: ~0
{@
-~) J~
s,r
s7RtE'i'
z..z.
Sl
A/AIL..$
-­
H8
II.(
k,~
~~
=::a
/
(.7+.~
<
@
H>l<
I!@J6'1S'
~3,@
J~
I
$._
~!},3/~
fv1,,..,,. >
Out of Control
1$
-- - -
__J~ ='G
/b
(
Sideswipe
........
c;-
'
T
-l
Fatal Accident
Whv£R.L"r' )ri(Ecr
J~1
}~
lf'l
=v=:
1::5.
o::s
0
Rear End
-J
f7h.tif {l<r JJT)
...,..,_
Turning Move
..
Ill
0
Injury Accident
_,
1~~~ licAc.JO
PAiZICI#b-
~v£Rlf
Angle
(Rt. 12b)
lJf4
tJUJ
~
+..__
-
/Jfl¥1/tT,A'?t,.r.- 0~ ~T0/2 f/cf/ICU:- 5
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
---.+
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
-t-0
DATE PREPARED:
1114
Pedestrian
__.,. r::::::;;;::]
SEVERITY
TYPES OF CRASH
Head On
Moving Vehicle
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
LJtJuo/1..
Sioi?£
l'
Hbl
f/DL.u > f~R(c-T
(R:r.
IZ'J
&
@~t
(k
15!")
Crash Data Summary Table
Hollis St/Concord St (Rte 126)/ Waverley St (Rte 135); Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
1
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
Saturday
1/3/09
2
1/3/09
Saturday
10:30 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
3
4
1/13/09
1/19/09
Tuesday
Monday
4:36 PM
4:09 AM
Rear-end
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Daylight
Clear
Road Surface
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Type
Dry
No Improper Driving
Operating Vehicle in erratic, reckless,
careless, negligent, or aggressive
Dry
manner
Sand, mud, dirt,
oil, gravel
No Improper Driving
Wet
No Improper Driving
5
2/8/09
Sunday
10:53 AM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Made an improper turn
49
40
6
2/13/09
Friday
3:46 PM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Other improper action
23
22
7
8
9
2/20/09
3/2/09
3/8/09
Friday
Monday
Sunday
9:15 PM
9:40 PM
11:47 PM
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Dry
Dry
Wet
Made an improper turn
Inattention
Other improper action
29
22
18
23
unk
43
10
3/15/09
Sunday
7:00 AM
Rear-end
Dawn
Wet
Followed too closely
43
19
11
3/18/09
Wednesday
8:02 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Dry
43
12
13
4/8/09
4/9/09
Wednesday
Thursday
1:25 PM
5:15 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Daylight
Cloudy
Clear
Dry
14
15
16
4/21/09
4/27/09
5/9/09
Tuesday
Monday
Saturday
1:34 PM
7:57 PM
12:08 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Dusk
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Dry
Dry
Dry
Unknown
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
Failed to yield to right of way
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
No Improper Driving
Inattention
17
5/15/09
Friday
9:45 PM
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
18
6/26/09
Friday
1:20 AM
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Wet
19
6/26/09
Friday
2:36 PM
Angle
Daylight
Cloudy
20
7/2/09
Thursday
12:35 PM
Rear-end
21
7/10/09
Friday
10:30 PM
Head on
Daylight
Dark - roadway not
lighted
22
7/25/09
Saturday
8:13 PM
Rear-end
23
8/18/09
Tuesday
12:26 PM
24
25
26
9/11/09
9/27/09
9/30/09
Friday
Sunday
Wednesday
27
28
29
10/6/09 Tuesday
10/14/09 Wednesday
10/15/09 Thursday
#
30
31
32
33
34
11/9/09
12/27/09
1/4/10
1/26/10
3/3/10
Monday
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Time of Day
3:04 PM
Manner of Collision
Type
Sideswipe, same direction
Light Condition
Type
Daylight
Weather
Condition
Type
Clear
Rain
D1
55
Ages
D2
D3
unk
57
42
unk
31
30
38
51
60
56
30
53
unk
Dry
Rain
Wet
Visibility Obstructed
32
30
Clear
Dry
34
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
39
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
18
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Other improper action
50
unk
5:20 PM
11:30 PM
7:25 PM
Head on
Head on
Rear-end
Daylight
Cloudy
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Inattention
No Improper Driving
24
26
21
unk
6:41 PM
12:18 AM
4:08 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Angle
Head on
Dusk
Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dusk
Cloudy
Dry
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
No Improper Driving
61
22
53
26
76
Dusk
Dark - lighted roadway
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Dusk
Clear
Rain
Clear
Cloudy
Cloudy
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Other improper action
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
Unknown
53
32
39
90
44
Hit & run crash
Stopped to let pedestrian cross road;
hit & run crash
Veh #1 exiting driveway & hit car in
traffic
Veh #1 exiting driveway & hit car in
traffic
Operator attempted an improper u-turn
Hit & run crash
Vehicle 2 followed too closely
Veh #1 slowing down for pedestrians
in the road
Veh #1 had green left turn arrow and
struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk
Hit & run crash
Hit traffic light pole
unk
Angle
Head on
Rear-end
Angle
Angle
Hit & run crash
56
26
No Improper Driving
18
Operating Vehicle in erratic, reckless,
careless, negligent, or aggressive
manner
24
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
46
4:40 PM
9:34 PM
12:30 AM
1:44 PM
5:43 PM
32
Comments
D4
25
87
36
56
18
46
42
21
Hit & run crash; veh stopped to allow a
pedestrian cross the road
Veh #1 made a right turn too wide and
crossed the double yellow lines
Veh #2 made a left from the wrong
lane
Veh #1 backed up slightly to allow
space to change lanes
Both lights were green because of
police signal pre-emption
Operator stopped to let pedestrians
cross at the crosswalk
Veh #1 had a unsecured right side
door that swung open and struck Veh
#2; hit & run crash
Bicyclist (who was at fault) cut in front
of a stopped car
Hit & run crash
Intoxicated pedestrian ran into vehicle
path
Operator #2 claims to have pulled
ahead too early and struck rear of Veh.
#1
35
36
3/4/10
3/30/10
Thursday
Tuesday
1:38 PM
4:36 PM
Angle
Angle
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Rain
Dry
Wet
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
53
50
unk
61
37
6/1/10
Tuesday
9:02 PM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
68
23
38
39
40
6/20/10
6/28/10
7/4/10
Sunday
Monday
Sunday
11:30 PM
12:05 AM
10:26 PM
Angle
Angle
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
Inattention
Followed too closely
22
28
32
44
35
41
41
42
7/21/10
7/25/10
Wednesday
Sunday
7:07 PM
8:30 AM
Angle
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Inattention
Followed too closely
72
22
32
41
43
7/28/10
Wednesday
9:25 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Inattention
22
44
8/14/10
Saturday
9:05 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Clear
Dry
49
47
45
46
47
48
8/17/10
8/28/10
9/14/10
9/18/10
Tuesday
Saturday
Tuesday
Saturday
10:04 PM
8:55 AM
1:50 PM
3:00 AM
Head on
Angle
Rear-end
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Inattention
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
Failed to yield to right of way
Followed too closely
No Improper Driving
21
59
31
47
33
50
23
unk
49
50
10/15/10 Friday
10/28/10 Thursday
4:07 PM
7:45 AM
Angle
Angle
Daylight
Dawn
Clear
Rain
Dry
Wet
Visibility Obstructed
Failed to yield to right of way
23
40
43
52
51
52
11/9/10 Tuesday
11/22/10 Monday
4:40 PM
9:47 PM
Rear-end
Head on
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Wet
Dry
No Improper Driving
No Improper Driving
29
23
43
53
54
55
56
11/29/10
12/20/10
12/23/10
1/31/11
Monday
Monday
Thursday
Monday
7:42 PM
4:10 PM
7:05 PM
7:09 AM
Sideswipe, same opposite
direction
Angle
Angle
Rear-end
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
oil, gravel
Dry
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
Failed to yield to right of way
Inattention
unk
42
27
25
unk
21
51
65
57
58
59
60
61
62
2/6/11
2/13/11
2/17/11
3/1/11
3/13/11
3/13/11
Sunday
Sunday
Thursday
Tuesday
Sunday
Sunday
8:40 PM
5:21 PM
10:41 PM
9:25 AM
1:50 PM
8:18 PM
Angle
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
roadway lighting
Dark - roadway not
lighted
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
Daylight
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Dry
Dry
Driving
Dry
Dry
Dry
35
22
29
27
43
52
21
unk
unk
49
21
41
63
4/4/11
Monday
8:45 PM
27
53
64
4/23/11
Saturday
9:48 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same opposite
direction
21
20
65
66
5/20/11
5/29/11
Friday
Sunday
12:25 PM
10:56 AM
Single Vehicle Crash
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Wet
Unknown
Unknown
No Improper Driving
No Improper Driving
Inattention
No Improper Driving
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Wet
Failed to yield to right of way
Daylight
Daylight
Cloudy
Clear
Dry
Dry
Unknown
Cellular telephone
unk
24
67
6/4/11
Saturday
12:46 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
25
68
69
70
71
6/13/11
6/15/11
7/12/11
8/7/11
Monday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
1:30 PM
5:27 PM
8:02 PM
12:05 AM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Head on
Dusk
Daylight
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
Dry
Dry
Dry
Wet
Visibility Obstructed
Visibility Obstructed
Made an improper turn
Over-correcting/over-steering
19
47
32
45
72
73
74
8/18/11
8/21/11
8/30/11
Thursday
Sunday
Tuesday
11:17 AM
2:33 AM
4:30 PM
Angle
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Cloudy
Clear
Clear
Rain
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Followed too closely
Failed to yield to right of way
50
64
23
Hit & run crash; struck bike rack on
front of bus
Veh #1 traveled through gap in traffic
in thru lane to hit Veh #2 in LTL
Veh #2 failed to stop for red arrow
Hit & run crash; Veh #2 disregarded
red light
Possible OUI
Passenger told driver to take a right
turn. Operator turned onto RR tracks
& struck a mechanical/electrical box.
Operator #2 inadvertently stepped on
gas pedal
Hit & run crash
Due to steep hill, drivers visibility was
obstructed
Veh #2 stopped to allow pedestrian to
cross
Pedestrian ran into traffic
Hit & run crash; Veh #1 & #2 both
stopped to turn left. Veh #2 then
decided to go straight, hitting Veh #1
and fled
Traffic signal was flashing red in all
directions at time of crash
Hit & run crash
Hit & run crash
Veh # 2 was in blind spot of Veh #1
29
Veh #1 hit Veh #2 which causes Veh
#2 to hit Veh #3
Veh #1 did not look for conflicting
traffic
Hit & run crash; bicyclist attempted to
cross street in crosswalk but not aware
if traffic had a red or green light
38
44
Veh #1 proceeded through intersection
with green light when it struck
pedestrian
When light turned red Veh #1 backed
up to get out of intersection striking
pedestrian in electric wheelchair
25
56
21
39
40
56
Veh #1 made an illegal U-turn
Veh #1 (ambulance) had lights and
siren activated when Veh #2 crossed
in front
75
76
77
9/9/11
9/11/11
9/16/11
Friday
Sunday
Friday
9:59 PM
5:01 AM
7:58 AM
Angle
Head on
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
78
9/28/11
Wednesday
7:33 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
79
80
10/3/11 Monday
10/27/11 Thursday
12:00 PM
10:31 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Dry
Snow
81
82
83
10/30/11 Sunday
11/10/11 Thursday
12/10/11 Saturday
8:03 PM
10:19 PM
10:49 PM
84
85
86
12/12/11 Monday
12/16/11 Friday
12/20/11 Tuesday
8:56 AM
9:12 PM
11:20 AM
Angle
Rear-end
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same opposite
direction
Rear-end
Rear-end
Daylight
Dark - lighted roadway
Dark, unknown
roadway lighting
Dark - lighted roadway
Dark - lighted roadway
Cloudy
Snow
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing Rain
Rain
Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Sixteen out of one hundred sixty five drivers was unlicensed.
Sixteen out of eighty six crashes were hit & run crashes.
Three of eighty six crash reports were not properly submitted to the RMV and therefore are incomplete.
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department
Failed to yield to right of way
Failed to yield to right of way
markings
19
48
31
20
26
41
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
No Improper Driving
88
80
19
61
Slush
Wet
Dry
Followed too closely
Followed too closely
49
46
56
37
68
69
Dry
Dry
Dry
Unknown
Physical Impairment
Followed too closely
unk
34
53
unk
68
27
Veh traveled through red traffic signal
Operator was following directions of
GPS & drove onto train tracks.
Damaged RR junction box
45
61
Veh #2 (tractor trailer) was completing
a wide right turn
66
Hit & run crash; tractor trailer making
wide turn
Operator #2 OUI
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Hollis St/Concord St (Rte 126)/ Waverley St (Rte 135); Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
12%
9%
8%
7%
9%
10%
9%
9%
7%
6%
5%
J
F
M
A
8%
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20%
16%
16%
10%
Monday
Tuesday
14%
12%
Wednesday
Thursday
12%
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
30%
28%
19%
20%
20%
19%
10%
10%
0%
5%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
40%
34%
29%
30%
16%
20%
10%
10%
7%
3%
0%
0%
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear-end
Hollis_Concord(Rte 126)_Waverly(Rte 135)
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
4 of 5
Head on
9/28/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Hollis St/Concord St (Rte 126)/ Waverley St (Rte 135); Framingham, MA
41%
Daylight
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
2%
2%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
66%
21%
10%
0%
0%
Unknown
0%
Other
0%
1%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
Severe
Crosswinds
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
1%
Snow
Cloudy
1%
Clear
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7%
2%
Rain
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
45%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
78%
16%
Dry
Wet
1%
0%
Snow
Ice
2%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
CRASH DRIVER AGES
40%
30%
30%
21%
16%
20%
10%
15%
8%
5%
1%
3%
70-79
80+
0%
15-20
21-29
Hollis_Concord(Rte 126)_Waverly(Rte 135)
30-39
40-49
50-59
5 of 5
60-69
9/28/2012
•
':!~'Ef!~!
P.Q[
.,~ighway
Qivision
.
COLLISION DIAGRAM
00\f\\CCtCfD
CITY/TOWN :
~!..I.......Wt:.A~l\~,~-~~
REGION:
DATE PREPARED:
~a..sr;p.AXJz
PREPARED BY:
l.J\li-\N C'Cl{'(lD S'f. /\-QNN<f) Sf. ROADWAY NAMES:
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
JP\hleR-l 2\£B- tmM'CB( AJ11 \\££7.\ VJ:£ ~?:2!)
!h
.
.­
~
.
l8 i :tj).
-
I
__.. ,18
®f
--~~
' l.
., . , I
l .a.. .lt..
j~®¥:
':sl ~
j2.
03~
(D.
~
<<<...,.
___
-+t
I
-+D
-+I~
___.,.cf<6
--:-+'!\!()
,7
~
TYPES OF CRASH
'
Moving Vehicle
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
Bicycle
Animal
SEVERITY
HeadOI)
___J ~
+.__
Pedestrian
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
b,17
~8
SYMBOLS
-----
.I,,~ ~
~
j_(J .lb,a':
b5
,
22.
@~ l::!­
, ~n
I
4-14-\4­
(!) ../
-
~ ~~ ~
_H:::Mporosr.
1 _I JlU I
ld I
..,
Turning Move
.
=v=:
-
'=S:
1:5
Angle
=•
Rear End
Sideswipe
Out of Control
0
Injury Accident
0
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St. (Rte 126) / Howard St.; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
#
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Light Condition
Type
Weather
Condition
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
Ages
D2
D3
Comments
D4
Veh #1 backed veh up in order to
make a wider right turn
1 4/22/09
Wednesday
1:34 PM
Rear-end
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
No Improper Driving
33
53
2 7/2/09
3 8/7/09
Thursday
Friday
10:15 PM
10:02 AM
Rear-end
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Daylight
Clear
Wet
Dry
Inattention
Unknown
25
39
21
46
Tuesday
Friday
Friday
Friday
Tuesday
11:08 AM
3:03 PM
10:13 AM
3:52 PM
1:00 PM
Rear-end
Angle
Sideswipe, opposite direction
Rear-end
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Followed too closely
No Improper Driving
Inattention
Distracted
Followed too closely
21
74
57
76
25
25
57
unk
22
27
9 1/25/10
10 5/24/10
Monday
Monday
6:25 PM
4:30 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Angle
Dusk
Daylight
Rain
Clear
Wet
Dry
No Improper Driving
No Improper Driving
61
34
unk
11 5/30/10
Sunday
7:10 PM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
No Improper Driving
26
23
12 6/1/10
13 7/17/10
Tuesday
Saturday
11:22 PM
7:23 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Water
(standing,
moving)
Dry
Veh #1 hit a pedestrian crossing the
road (not in crosswalk)
Hit & run crash
Emergency veh traveling SB in NB
travel lane
43
unk
unk
unk
Hit & run crash; hit a parked car
Hit & run crash; hit a parked car
14 7/26/10
Monday
1:00 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
28
27
15 9/4/10
Saturday
2:30 PM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
61
35
16 10/7/10
Thursday
12:23 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
Unknown
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
49
50
Monday
Tuesday
Friday
Saturday
11:25 AM
9:06 AM
3:40 PM
10:04 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Snow
Clear
Clear
Dry
Snow
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Unknown
No Improper Driving
Unknown
45
unk
17
unk
66
unk
36
unk
8:46 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Fatigued/asleep
36
55
4
5
6
7
8
17
18
19
20
9/1/09
9/4/09
9/18/09
10/30/09
12/15/09
12/13/10
1/25/11
5/6/11
7/16/11
21 11/29/11 Tuesday
Three out of forty three drivers were unlicensed.
Five out of twenty one crashes were hit and run crashes.
Three of twenty one crash reports were not properly submitted to the RMV and therefore are incomplete
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
Hit & run crash
Veh #1 stopped to allow a pedestrian
to cross at crosswalk
Hit a biclylist
Veh hit parked ambulance
Veh ran red light
Operator opened car door into moving
traffic
20
26
Hit & run crash
Operator momentarily fell asleep &
caused crash
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St. (Rte 126) / Howard St.; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
19%
20%
14%
15%
10%
19%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
F
M
5%
5%
10%
5%
0%
J
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A
M
S
O
N
D
24%
14%
10%
5%
Tuesday
5%
Wednesday
38%
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
30%
0%
A
19%
40%
10%
J
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
24%
Monday
20%
J
24%
14%
10%
14%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
38%
40%
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
29%
30%
24%
20%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Concord(Rte126)_Howard
Rear-end
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
9/28/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St. (Rte 126) / Howard St.; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
81%
Daylight
0%
5%
Dawn
Dusk
14%
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
71%
0%
0%
Unknown
0%
Other
0%
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
Rain
Snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
5%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
10%
Cloudy
14%
Clear
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
81%
10%
Dry
Wet
5%
0%
Snow
Ice
5%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
CRASH DRIVER AGES
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
38%
18%
12%
15%
3%
15-20
Concord(Rte126)_Howard
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
9%
60-69
6%
70-79
0%
80+
9/28/2012
£2Q[
•~;y!lli!~
I ~fghway Dfv~ion
•
COLLISION DIAGRAM
fro~
CITYfTOWN :
DATE PREPARED:
MP..tc
REGION:
AlGUSf 30.X)J2
L.J\l~N
PREPARED BY:
cc::N:Ci<D Sf. /'f.fNffi\ \ Sf. ~ PfR'h Sf.
~\)/\~ m\-QC..\£}1\t£R Al1j
ROADWAY NAMES:
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
\t£'~ St)\\(£ ~
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
t
\.~
~ ~l ,
~
North
ll-,32.
f
~
KENDC\\l. ST.
lr--r--­
_ - - - ' - - - - - - - - - -1
I­
I­
1­
I~
P~S\.
I ll l L q I I
1--:
~---------------------L:-4~®
SYMBOLS
TYPES OF CRASH
lllo4
Moving Vehicle
®
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
--------~
--+t
---+ 1------1
---+0
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
----.cY<6
---:-+fv\0
Bicycle
-
Animal
HeadOQ
_J ~
+..---­
Pedestrian
~I
<s
'CS
Angle
Turning Move
.
=v=: -
SEVERITY
c:s•
Rear End
Sideswipe
Out of Control
0
Injury Accident
0
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Kendall St/ Park St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
#
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Light Condition
Type
Weather
Condition
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
Ages
D2
D3
1 2/21/09
2 3/6/09
Saturday
Friday
10:40 AM
9:11 AM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Followed too closely
Other improper action
27
74
30
unk
3 3/28/09
Saturday
2:23 PM
Angle
Daylight
Clear
Dry
47
26
9/28/09
9/28/09
1/16/10
2/26/10
8/2/10
Monday
Monday
Saturday
Friday
Monday
7:15 AM
2:30 PM
12:28 PM
2:17 PM
6:56 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Snow
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Snow
Dry
Inattention
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
No Improper Driving
No Improper Driving
Unknown
No Improper Driving
55
52
54
46
43
47
27
unk
59
unk
9 9/8/10
Wednesday
11:29 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Clear
Dry
10 2/25/11
Friday
12:00 AM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Snow
11 3/4/11
Friday
3:12 PM
Angle
Daylight
12 6/15/11
13 8/17/11
Wednesday
Wednesday
12:06 AM
1:45 PM
14 8/18/11
Thursday
15 9/5/11
Monday
4
5
6
7
8
53
Ice
Followed too closely
19
Swerving or avoiding due to wind,
slippery surface, vehicle, object, nonmotorist in roadway, etc.
unk
Clear
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
38
24
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Unknown
37
unk
unk
unk
3:51 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
52
9:41 AM
Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
Three out of twenty eight drivers were unlicensed.
Three out of fifteen crashes were hit & run crashes.
One of fifteen crash reports were not properly submitted to the RMV and therefore are incomplete.
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
25
26
Comments
D4
Veh #1 stopped at the crosswalk for a
pedestrian
Veh #1 hit a parked car
Veh #1 struck Veh #2 while attemping
to back into a parking spot
Hit & run crash
Veh stopped at the crosswalk for a
pedestrian
Veh #2 struck the rear of Veh #1
(legally parked car)
Veh #1 attempted to merge into traffic
from parking spot
Hit & run crash; crash occurred when
vehicle changed lanes
Hit & run crash; hit parked car
Pedestrian crossing the street (not at
crosswalk)
Hit a pedestrian that was crossing in
crosswalk
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Kendall St/ Park St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
27%
20%
20%
20%
7%
7%
J
F
M
0%
0%
A
M
0%
J
J
A
S
0%
0%
0%
O
N
D
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
27%
27%
20%
20%
7%
0%
Monday
0%
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
40%
30%
20%
27%
33%
20%
13%
7%
10%
0%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
33%
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
27%
27%
13%
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear-end
Concord(Rte 126)_Kendall_Park
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
9/28/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Kendall St/ Park St; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
87%
Daylight
0%
0%
Dawn
Dusk
13%
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
80%
13%
0%
Other
0%
Unknown
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
0%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
0%
Snow
0%
Rain
Cloudy
7%
Clear
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
87%
0%
Dry
Wet
7%
7%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
CRASH DRIVER AGES
29%
30%
19%
20%
10%
29%
14%
5%
5%
0%
0%
0%
15-20
21-29
Concord(Rte 126)_Kendall_Park
30-39
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
60-69
70-79
80+
9/28/2012
..
'}JJ
!1!t?t~-!!2Q~[
~
Divi~ion
•
; ighway
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CITYfTOWN :
flt"J!iffita'!J
DATE PREPARED:
Mite.
REGION:
PREPARED BY:.
A\B\Sf A..A1\2. l.JUPt\ S\.
ROADWAY NAMES:
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
.)
North
---
SYMBOLS
TYPES OF CRASH
Moving Vehicle
«<•.,.
________
__.~
--.1 ............... 1
--.o
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
HeadOQ
_J ~
+..-
Pedestrian
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
--.c?<6
Bicycle
--."t\7P
Animal
SEVERITY
Turning Move
...
=v=:JJol
-
<s:
tS
Angle
cs ..
Rear End
Sideswipe
Out of Control
o·
Injury Accident
0
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Union Ave/ Proctor St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
#
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
Light Condition
Type
Weather
Condition
Type
Road Surface
Type
Driver Contributing Code
Type
D1
Ages
D2
D3
1 1/23/09
Friday
3:06 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Unknown
28
39
2 1/29/09
Thursday
8:40 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Clear
Snow
29
49
3 2/13/09
4 2/23/09
Friday
Monday
3:20 PM
9:46 AM
Angle
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Inattention
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
Followed too closely
45
46
59
29
Comments
D4
Veh #1 parked, drivers door struck
Veh #2
Not clear if crash occurred in traffic
circle or on Concord St
Veh #2 attempted to get into the left
lane and cut Veh #1 off
Hit & run crash; Not clear if crash
occurred in traffic circle or on Concord
St
Veh #2 trying to pass Veh #1
5 4/9/09
6 4/13/09
7 6/17/09
Thursday
Monday
Wednesday
1:20 AM
6:47 AM
2:17 PM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Followed too closely
Failed to yield to right of way
No Improper Driving
8 6/27/09
Saturday
11:19 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Cloudy
Dry
33
9 7/8/09
Wednesday
7:52 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
52
Operating Vehicle in erratic, reckless,
careless, negligent, or aggressive
manner
15
10 9/20/09
Sunday
12:00 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Inattention
39
31
11 10/20/09 Tuesday
6:23 PM
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
34
31
12 11/17/09 Tuesday
11:56 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Visibility Obstructed
21
13 5/30/10
14 6/1/10
Sunday
Tuesday
11:30 PM
3:50 PM
Rear-end
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Rain
Dry
Wet
27
25
39
unk
15 6/18/10
Friday
8:18 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Followed too closely
No Improper Driving
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
57
36
16 7/14/10
Wednesday
11:25 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Followed too closely
61
31
17 9/15/10 Wednesday
18 11/19/10 Friday
11:35 AM
8:16 AM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Unknown
34
39
unk
24
19 2/3/11
Thursday
10:50 PM
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Dark, unknown
roadway lighting
Snow
Snow
No Improper Driving
35
unk
20 2/11/11
21 3/12/11
Friday
Saturday
4:04 PM
2:15 PM
Angle
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Cloudy
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Inattention
25
27
21
20
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Thursday
2:45 PM
1:59 PM
7:32 PM
11:35 AM
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Dusk
Daylight
Rain
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Wet
Dry
Dry
Dry
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Unknown
No Improper Driving
Followed too closely
33
60
34
60
unk
52
unk
23
26 6/3/11
27 6/14/11
Friday
Tuesday
10:43 PM
1:38 PM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
No Improper Driving
Unknown
29
66
63
58
28 7/13/11
Wednesday
12:26 AM
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Unknown
unk
unk
Hit & run crash; hit parked car
29 7/13/11
30 8/5/11
Wednesday
Friday
3:00 PM
5:41 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Dry
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Unknown
42
unk
41
unk
Operator pulling out of a parking space
Hit & run crash
22
23
24
25
3/14/11
3/30/11
4/25/11
4/28/11
Clear
Clear
22
51
40
unk
36
unk
Operator of moped struck the curb
which caused the vehicle to flip over
Veh #1 conducted a wide left turn onto
Union Ave
Veh #1 exiting parking space and
pulling out onto Concord St
Hit a pedestrian in crosswalk
Hit & run crash
Veh #2 parked, drivers door struck
Veh #1
Veh #1 stopped for a crossing
pedestrian on Concord St
Hit & run crash; Crash occurred in
traffic circle
unk
52
Hit & run crash
Veh #1 turning left onto Proctor & Veh
#2 going to make a wider turn due to
the size of his truck
Crash occurred in traffic circle
Veh #1 turned onto Proctor St,
accelerated and failed to stay in
roadway, jumping curb and striking
Veh #2 (parked)
Hit & run crash
31 8/24/11
32 12/2/11
2:46 PM
3:52 PM
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Dusk
33 12/27/11 Tuesday
5:25 PM
Rear-end
34 3/28/09
35 7/23/10
9:19 AM
6:06 AM
Rear-end
Angle
Wednesday
Friday
Saturday
Friday
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Inattention
Inattention
35
38
31
37
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Wet
Followed too closely
36
35
Daylight
Daylight
Dry
Dry
Inattention
No Improper Driving
39
58
39
48
Clear
Clear
Seven out of seventy drivers during this time period were unlicensed.
Seven out of thirty five crashes were hit & run crashes.
Two of thirty five crash reports were not properly submitted to the RMV and therefore are incomplete
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
Vehicle attempting to back into parking
space
Crash occurred at crosswalk on Concord
St
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Union Ave/ Proctor St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
20%
17%
14%
15%
10%
11%
11%
11%
6%
6%
6%
3%
5%
6%
6%
N
D
3%
0%
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
26%
23%
14%
11%
Monday
11%
Tuesday
Wednesday
9%
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
6%
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
40%
30%
20%
34%
20%
20%
17%
9%
10%
0%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
50%
43%
37%
40%
30%
14%
20%
10%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear-end
Concord(Rte 126)_Union_Proctor
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
3 of 4
9/28/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/ Union Ave/ Proctor St; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
69%
23%
6%
0%
Daylight
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
3%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
0%
0%
Unknown
0%
Other
0%
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
Rain
Snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
3%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
11%
Cloudy
11%
Clear
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
74%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
83%
11%
Dry
Wet
6%
0%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
CRASH DRIVER AGES
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
24%
12%
14%
9%
2%
15-20
21-29
Concord(Rte 126)_Union_Proctor
30-39
40-49
50-59
4 of 4
60-69
0%
0%
70-79
80+
9/28/2012
•
COLLISION DIAGRAM ciTY/TowN:
FrrmuxtcrD
DATE PREPARED:
MP..tt.
REGION:
PREPARED BY:
ROADWAY NAMES:
CQ.QJ<[) Sf/FkFD£~(\( Sf.
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED:
~w
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
-
""
L\ffi-\ft(B.\tfR 6\1.1
\ CCPl S!\_G_ ~ffi
t
North
I
I.
SYMBOLS
-­ ______ .,..
TYPES OF CRASH
Moving Vehicle
HeadOq
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
Angle
Turning Move
Pedestrian
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
.. 1
..
Bicycle
Animal
Rear End
Sideswipe
-
c:s
tS
c:s ...
Out of Control
SEVERITY
0
Injury Accident
·o
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St (Rte 126) and Frederick St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
Tuesday
1 5/5/09
2 8/29/09 Saturday
#
Time of Day
Manner of Collision
Type
1:43 PM
3:50 PM
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Light Condition
Type
Daylight
Daylight
Weather
Condition
Type
Rain
Rain
Road Surface
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Type
Wet
Failed to yield to right of way
Dry
Made an improper turn
D1
30
21
Ages
D2
D3
19
53
25
Comments
D4
Hit & run crash; backing vehicle hit
parking meter
Hit & run crash; hit a parked car
Veh #1 opened his drivers side door
into the passenger side of Veh #2
Hit & run crash
3 1/10/10
4 5/1/10
Sunday
Saturday
2:51 AM
4:10 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Sideswipe, same direction
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
Unknown
Unknown
unk
unk
5 7/2/10
6 1/28/11
7 4/4/11
Friday
Friday
Monday
1:35 PM
12:37 PM
6:08 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Angle
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Wet
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
46
24
36
31
unk
31
8 7/5/11
Tuesday
1:52 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Clear
Dry
58
41
Veh in a parking spot, attempting to
get into traffic
Tuesday
9 9/6/11
10 12/23/11 Friday
5:15 PM
12:00 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Rain
Clear
Wet
Dry
No Improper Driving
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Unknown
11
unk
unk
unk
Hit & run crash; hit a parked car
Hit & run crash; hit a parked car
11 12/29/11 Thursday
5:00 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Unknown
Unknown
Followed too closely
19
62
Five out of eleven crashes are hit & run crashes.
One of eleven crash reports were not properly submitted to the RMV and therefore are incomplete
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
77
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St (Rte 126) and Frederick St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
20%
18%
18%
18%
18%
15%
9%
10%
9%
9%
5%
0%
0%
F
M
0%
0%
0%
O
N
0%
J
A
M
J
J
A
S
D
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
27%
18%
9%
9%
9%
0%
Monday
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
27%
Tuesday
Wednesday
45%
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
36%
9%
9%
0%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
55%
27%
9%
9%
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Concord(Rte 126)_Frederick
Rear-end
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
9/28/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St (Rte 126) and Frederick St; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
82%
18%
Daylight
0%
0%
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
64%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
64%
27%
0%
0%
Other
Severe
Crosswinds
Unknown
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
0%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
Rain
Cloudy
Clear
0%
Snow
9%
0%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
27%
Dry
Wet
0%
0%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
CRASH DRIVER AGES
30%
20%
25%
19%
19%
13%
13%
6%
10%
6%
0%
0%
15-20
Concord(Rte 126)_Frederick
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
60-69
70-79
80+
9/28/2012
•
•
':!~IJ!q~-![2Q[
~
Div~ic;m
jighway
COLLISION DIAGRAM
CITY/TOWN : _
REGION:
.
M'Bt'.
ROADWAY NAMES:
A\rlusr 2CJ, x:n2
DATE PREPARED:
_......
f m.,..\!1
.!.....!!..1...
\DJ""'if
i'-"'-'-\Y\
xl ...........__ __
L.JUAN
PREPARED BY:
corr:ffi sr /SF:i'G~ S\... /C\ \NICN S\ .
W\re! ACA- ~ 2\Jll
TIME PERIOD ANAL VZED:
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
t
L
North
c~~~ON
--sr.------- --
-- --- --- Js
......_.
~ ~d<;
II
I
SYMBOLS
________.,.
---+ I :s;;::: I
---+0
---+<Y<6
TYPES OF CRASH
Moving Vehicle
Head OQ
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
Angle
Pedestrian
Turning Move
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
Rear End
Bicycle
Animal
Sideswipe
-
<s:
"tS
cs ..
Out of Control
~EVERITY
0
Injury Accident
0
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St (Rte.126)/Sanger St./Clinton St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
1 3/11/09 Wednesday
2 3/18/09 Wednesday
Tuesday
3 7/7/09
4 9/28/09
5 1/15/10
6
7
8
9
3/8/10
6/12/10
1/13/11
1/14/11
10 2/26/11
11 8/31/11
Time of Day
5:51 PM
1:55 PM
1:00 PM
Manner of Collision
Type
Rear-end
Rear-end
Angle
Light Condition
Type
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Monday
Friday
9:45 PM
1:40 PM
Rear-end
Angle
Monday
Saturday
Thursday
Friday
11:46 AM
5:17 PM
8:55 AM
9:00 AM
Saturday
Wednesday
8:52 PM
6:56 PM
#
Weather
Condition
Type
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Road Surface
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Type
Dry
Followed too closely
Dry
Inattention
Dry
No Improper Driving
D1
51
58
20
Ages
D2
D3
39
52
43
19
unk
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Daylight
Clear
Wet
Dry
Followed too closely
Inattention
51
18
37
63
Single Vehicle Crash
Rear-end
Sideswipe, same direction
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
No Improper Driving
Failed to yield to right of way
Inattention
No Improper Driving
37
35
29
40
19
35
35
unk
Angle
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Followed too closely
64
39
32
46
One of twenty nine drivers was unlicensed.
Two of eleven crashes were hit & run crashes.
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department
Clear
Clear
Clear
Cloudy
Comments
D4
37
Stopped for pedestrian in crosswalk
Hit & run crash
18
Bicylcist hit front of Veh #1's bumper
23
34
Hit a parked car
Hit & run crash
31
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St (Rte.126)/Sanger St./Clinton St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
27%
27%
9%
J
F
9%
M
0%
0%
A
M
9%
J
9%
J
9%
A
0%
0%
0%
O
N
D
S
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
27%
18%
18%
9%
9%
0%
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
36%
40%
Thursday
Friday
Sunday
27%
18%
18%
10%
0%
Saturday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
30%
20%
18%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
0%
0%
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
45%
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
10%
18%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear-end
Concord(Rte 126)_Sanger_Clinton
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
9/26/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St (Rte.126)/Sanger St./Clinton St; Framingham, MA
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
82%
18%
Daylight
0%
0%
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unknown
0%
Other
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
Rain
Cloudy
Clear
9%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
80%
73%
18%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Snow
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
73%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
60%
40%
27%
20%
0%
0%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
0%
Dry
Wet
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
CRASH DRIVER AGES
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
41%
15%
15-20
11%
21-29
Concord(Rte 126)_Sanger_Clinton
11%
30-39
15%
7%
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
60-69
0%
0%
70-79
80+
9/26/2012
•
•
!}JJ!!!t!!~~QQI
~~ighway
Divjsion
COLLISION DIAGRAM
FIG~~
CITY/TOWN :
DATE PREPARED:
M~
REBION:
ROADWAY NAMES:
TIME PERIOD ANALVZED:
PREPARED BY:
A\N\fl z::l ,2012
L.JUAN
· <:QffiRO ST. /UNCPlN ST. /. F£ARl ST.
:Jm~ z:o::1- LECEMB:RZJ11
SOURCE OF CRASH REPORTS:
l t"!Couv
- _sr
SYMBOLS
TYPES OF CRASH
Moving Vehicle
® .,..
________
---.~
---.1~1
-.o
-.<Y<6
--:-+'x:?\0
Backing Vehicle
Non-Involved Vehicle
HeadOq
___J ~
---...____
Pedestrian
Parked Vehicle
Fixed Object
Bicycle
Animal
SEVERITY
•t
Turning Move
•
=v=:
-
c:s:
cs
Angle
cs ..
Rear End
Sideswipe
Out of Control
0
Injury Accident
0
Fatal Accident
Crash Data Summary Table
Concord St(Rte. 126)/Lincoln St/Pearl St; Framingham, MA
January 2009 - December 2011
Crash
Date
Crash Day
m/d/y
1 1/20/09 Tuesday
Time of Day
11:05 AM
Angle
Light Condition
Type
Daylight
Friday
10:00 PM
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
3 3/25/09
4 4/30/09
5 5/18/09
Wednesday
Thursday
Monday
4:20 PM
2:34 PM
5:59 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Rear-end
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Clear
Clear
Dry
Dry
Dry
Made an improper turn
Unknown
No Improper Driving
unk
19
33
77
38
unk
6 11/7/09 Saturday
7 11/20/09 Friday
6:23 PM
10:15 PM
Rear-end
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Daylight
Rain
Dry
Wet
Distracted
Failed to yield to right of way
45
62
28
61
8 11/25/09 Wednesday
10:07 AM
Rear-end
Daylight
Rain
Wet
66
41
9 12/28/09 Monday
10 1/20/10 Wednesday
3:21 PM
8:16 AM
Angle
Sideswipe, same direction
Daylight
Daylight
Cloudy
Clear
Wet
Dry
Followed too closely
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
No Improper Driving
20
42
49
unk
11 4/18/10
12 4/27/10
Sunday
Tuesday
7:03 AM
4:03 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Angle
Dawn
Daylight
Rain
Rain
Wet
Wet
Inattention
Failed to yield to right of way
38
85
21
13 6/12/10
Saturday
11:40 AM
Angle
Daylight
Rain
Dry
22
52
14 7/1/10
Thursday
9:36 PM
Single Vehicle Crash
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
Inattention
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
15 7/9/10
16 4/1/11
Friday
Friday
3:17 PM
1:48 PM
Angle
Angle
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Rain
Dry
Wet
89
26
64
30
17 4/13/11
Wednesday
6:16 AM
Angle
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Failed to yield to right of way
Failed to yield to right of way
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
road markings
Veh #1 went through a red light
Hit & run crash
Veh hit a pedestrian (under the
influence of medication) in the
crosswalk
Veh #1 turning into Dunkin Donuts
Veh #1 backed up into Veh #2 when
light turned green
Veh drove over the low median curb,
hit a traffic light pole
Veh #1 attempted to turn into Co-Op
bank parking lot
Veh #2 turning into Dunkin Donuts
29
71
Veh #1 went through a red light
18 7/9/11
19 8/8/11
Saturday
Monday
1:57 AM
3:47 PM
Rear-end
Rear-end
Dark - lighted roadway Rain
Daylight
Clear
Wet
Dry
37
33
19
24
20 8/12/11
21 9/20/11
22 11/1/11
Friday
Tuesday
Tuesday
3:15 PM
11:12 AM
8:01 PM
Sideswipe, same direction
Angle
Angle
Daylight
Daylight
Daylight
Clear
Rain
Clear
Dry
Wet
Dry
Driving too fast for conditions
Followed too closely
Failure to keep in proper lane or
running off road
Failed to yield to right of way
Unknown
48
54
25
56
56
19
Veh #1 turning into Dunkin Donuts
Both stated they had green light
6:36 PM
Angle
Dark - lighted roadway Clear
Dry
No Improper Driving
53
42
Veh #1 turning into Dunkin Donuts
Three out of fourty fiver drivers were unlicensed.
Three out of twenty three crashes were hit & run crashes.
Summary based on Crash Reports obtained from the Framingham Police Department.
D1
27
Ages
D2
D3
72
32
48
Comments
2 3/20/09
23 11/23/11 Wednesday
Manner of Collision
Type
Weather
Condition
Type
Clear
Road Surface
Driver Contributing Code
Type
Type
Dry
Failed to yield to right of way
Disregarded traffic signs, signals,
Dry
road markings
#
41
D4
Veh #2 leaving Dunkin Donuts
Hit & run crash; possible OUI
Operator may be suffering from vision
problems (did not see parked car)
Hit & run crash
43
Veh #1 turning into Dunkin Donuts
Veh #1 stopped to let a pedestrian
cross
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/Lincoln St/Pearl St; Framingham, MA
CRASH MONTH
25%
22%
22%
20%
13%
15%
10%
9%
9%
9%
4%
5%
4%
4%
0%
4%
0%
0%
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
CRASH DAY OF WEEK
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
22%
22%
17%
13%
13%
9%
4%
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
CRASH TIME OF DAY
40%
35%
30%
20%
22%
17%
13%
13%
10%
0%
0%
6-10AM
10-2PM
2-6PM
6-10PM
10-2AM
2-6AM
CRASH MANNER OF COLLISION
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
52%
26%
13%
9%
0%
Single
Vehicle
Crash
Rear-end
Concord(Rte 126)_Lincoln_Pearl
Angle
Sideswipe, Sideswipe,
same
opposite
direction
direction
2 of 3
0%
0%
0%
Head on
Rear to
Rear
Unknown
9/26/2012
Crash Data Summary Tables and Charts
Concord St(Rte. 126)/Lincoln St/Pearl St; Framingham, MA
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CRASH LIGHT CONDITION
74%
22%
Daylight
4%
0%
Dawn
Dusk
Dark Lighted
Roadway
0%
0%
0%
0%
Dark Roadway
not lighted
Dark unknown
roadway
lighting
Other
Unknown
CRASH WEATHER CONDITION
0%
0%
Other
0%
Unknown
0%
Blowing
sand, snow
0%
Severe
Crosswinds
0%
Fog, Smog,
Smoke
0%
Sleet, Hail,
Freezing
Rain
Rain
Cloudy
4%
Snow
39%
Clear
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
57%
CRASH ROAD SURFACE
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
61%
39%
Dry
Wet
0%
0%
Snow
Ice
0%
0%
Sand,
Water
mud, dirt, (standing,
oil, gravel moving)
0%
0%
0%
Slush
Other
Unknown
CRASH DRIVER AGES
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
21%
21%
17%
12%
7%
15-20
21-29
Concord(Rte 126)_Lincoln_Pearl
30-39
40-49
50-59
3 of 3
10%
60-69
7%
70-79
5%
80+
9/26/2012
Top Crash Intersections 2008-2010 RANK
13
FRAMINGHAM
CONCORD STREET
WAVERLEY STREET
ROUTE 126
ROUTE 135
Legend
MassDOT District 3
RPA MAPC
EPDO 190
Number of Fatal Crashes 0
Number of Injury Crashes 25
Number of Non-Injury Crashes 65
Total Crashes 90
il
Crash Locations 2008-2010
~ Local Roads
A/
All Functional Classification Except Local Roads
Top Crash Intersections
massDOT MaJ.Qchusetts Department of Transportation
Top Crash Intersections 2008-2010 RANK
107
FRAMINGHAM
CONCORD STREET
UNION AVENUE
ROUTE 126
Legend
MassDOT District 3
RPA MAPC
EPDO 117
Number of Fatal Crashes 0
Number of Injury Crashes 15
Number of Non-Injury Crashes 42
Total Crashes 57
e
Crash Locations 2008-2010
~ Local Roads
/'V
All Functional Classification Except Local Roads
~
Top Crash Intersections
massDOT MaSSilchusetts Department of Transporta11on
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix E: Additional Information o Safety Review Prompt List
o Speed Regulations
Page E1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Appendix F: Road Safety Audit References Page F1
Road Safety Audit— Route 126 Downtown Corridor - Framingham
Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Road Safety Audit References
Massachusetts Traffic Safety Toolbox, Massachusetts Highway Department,
www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox.
Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 336. Transportation Research
Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004.
Road Safety Audits. Institute of Transportation Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org.
FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 2006.
Road Safety Audit, 2nd edition. Austroads, 2000.
Road Safety Audits. ITE Technical Council Committee 4S-7. Institute of Transportation Engineers,
February 1995.
Page F2