ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 146 SUTTON
Prepared for
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
March 2009
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 146 SUTTON
Final Report
March 2009
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Consultant Engineers and Planners
300 Howard Street P.O. Box 967
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Tel: 508-620-2832 Fax: 508-620-6897
www.mstransportationsystemsinc.com
Route 146 Sutton Road Safety Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
RSA PROCESS
3
ANALYSIS
9
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
12
RECOMMENDATIONS
17
APPENDIX
20
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page i
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
INTRODUCTION
Lane departure crashes are one of the primary fatal crash types in Massachusetts. The
Commonwealth exceeds the national average for lane departure crashes and was
designated a lead state in lane departure crashes by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The Massachusetts Highway
Department (MHD) conducted a study of the problem and found that during 2002-2004,
lane departure crashes accounted for 25 percent of all injury crashes and nearly half, 46
percent, of all fatal crashes.
As part of the effort in implementing the safety plan and specifically reducing lane
departure crashes, the MassHighway is completing a Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review
Project specifically focused on median crossing (or median cross-over) crashes on its
major highways. Road safety audits are a formal safety performance examination on
existing or future roadways by an independent audit team. These specific audits are
being conducted in locations where cross-over experience has been or has the potential
to be of concern and where the RSA team has judged that factors exist and safety risk
could be affected. The team works to identify opportunities for enhancing safety and to
recommend specific enhancements that may be implemented to reduce median crossover crashes and improve the overall safety along the highway.
A RSA was conducted for the Route 146 in Sutton as part of this overall effort. The
roadway section under study, shown in Figure 1, lies between Boston Road and the
Interchange at Main Street (Northbridge), a distance of approximately 4 miles. This
section had experienced a fatal cross-median crash.
The purpose of this RSA was to assess current safety characteristics on the Route 146
highway section under study and to recommend a set of actions to enhance the safety
along the highway section under study. Recommendations contained in this report
reflect the overall consent of the RSA team and does not necessarily reflect the official
views of MassHighway.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 1
Millbury
146
Boston
Road
Central
Turnpike
Sutton
Central
Turnpike
Purgatory
Road
146
Main Street
Northbridge
- study section
N
Project Location
W
E
S
Route 146 Road Safety Audit
Sutton, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
- Interchange
1 : 25,000
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 1
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
RSA PROCESS
The procedure outlined in the Median Cross-Over RSA Guideline Report1 was followed
with minor variations to account for the high speed, high volume and access controlled
features of the facility being reviewed. The process included identifying RSA team
members; conducting field visits; holding a RSA team meeting and then assessing the
data and findings from the field visits and meetings to render recommended actions for
MassHighway to consider. The RSA consultant received and reviewed data including
recent traffic volume data, summary crash records for the 2004-2007 period, detailed
crash reports of cross-over crashes, and available record highway plans. Field visits
were conducted by the RSA team members. A video recording of the sections under
study was taken by the RSA Consultant. The site visits were completed prior to the RSA
team meeting that was held on August 21, 2008 at the MassHighway District 3 offices.
At that meeting, the RSA consultant provided a brief overview of the RSA purpose, a
summary of the roadway section’s characteristics and results of the review to date. The
RSA team provided input and discussed the key items noted in the field and that were
listed on the RSA Median Cross-Over Prompt List. Issues and concerns were noted.
Following the RSA meeting, the RSA consultant compiled the information, completed the
analysis and circulated the draft report.
•
RSA Team
The following were members of the Route146 Sutton Road Safety Audit:
One Hwang, MassHighway
John Hebert, Sutton Selectmen
Kevin Krasnecky, CMRPC
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC
Mark Johnson, MassHighway
Sgt. John Hackett, MSP
•
Bonnie Polin, MHD Safety Mngt Unit
Eric Nascimento, MassHighway
Mark Brigham, Sutton Highway Dept.
Lisa Schletzbaum, MHD Safety Mngt Unit
Trooper Bob Johnson, MSP
William J. Scully, MS Transportation systems
(RSA Consultant)
RSA Team Meeting
The RSA team meeting took place on August 21, 2008 at the District 3 offices in
Worcester. The team included engineers, planners and representatives from the State
Police barrack that has jurisdiction of Route 146 in Sutton. Representatives from
1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc., Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes, Audit Guidelines,
Prepared for MassHighway, October 2007.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 3
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
MassHighway (Boston and District), along with two officials from the local community
also attended the meeting. The team members contact information is included in the
Appendix.
As stated previously, overall characteristics and conditions of the study section were
presented. The team viewed photos and a video recorded during the field audit and
discussed conditions as well as potential safety opportunities for enhancement.
A number of items were raised at the meeting based on the field audits and general
familiarity of the corridor. Key items resulting from the meeting were as follows:
 The Sutton Police Department provides assistance to the Massachusetts
State Police with speed management enforcement in the study section.
 Observed speeds are in the range of posted speeds and not a major issue
according to both the State Police and Town.
 The roadway surface for much of the section was noted in need of repair.
 The northern section of the corridor near Boston Road includes a more
narrow median with a guardrail. The guardrail is in a depressed area of the
median and appears to be lower than needed in relation to the pavement
surface.
 The Route 146 corridor is a location for a large number of animal crossings
and “deer hits”.
 The locations of and identification of the “authorized vehicle” turnarounds are
less than ideal. The one just north of the Main Street northbound on-ramp is
a particularly difficult one to use due to poor visibility.
 Water ponding has been observed in certain areas of the corridor, particularly
north of Central Turnpike.
 A relatively short section of fence is in place for the median south of
Purgatory Road (see Figure 2). The purpose of the fence was unknown.
 The open median between the Purgatory Road interchange to just north of
the Central Turnpike interchange was noted as relatively flat and crossable.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 4
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
Figure 2 – Location of median south of Purgatory road
where fence is located for several hundred feet.
Another issue identified at the RSA meeting was in relation to the combination of
horizontal and vertical alignment of the section beginning approximately ¾ miles south of
Central Turnpike continuing to Purgatory Road. The issue centers on the southbound
downgrade between the Central Turnpike and Purgatory Road interchange which also
contains a horizontal curve towards the end of the grade. The general consensus of the
RSA team was that in the southbound direction, the downgrade combined with the
horizontal curve and cross slope provides for some driver discomfort and creates a
greater risk to enter the median. The median in this specific area is open and
approximately 60 to 66 feet in width, but with the southbound direction slightly higher
than the northbound direction combined with the horizontal curve and the existing cross
slope, the risk of a motorist crossing the median becomes somewhat greater.
•
Analysis Procedures
The RSA analysis generally followed the procedure described in the previously
referenced Guideline with some variations. It also took into consideration the methods
published by the Federal Highway Administration2 and those included in FHWA training
materials3. The basic tasks included:
•
2
3
Obtaining and reviewing crash and other traffic characteristic data and
available record plans of the highway.
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA SA-06-06,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Federal Highway Administration, Resource Center, Road Safety Audits Mini-Workshop, Jeffrey Shaw, PE,
PTOE, presented to New England ITE Section, September 19, 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 5
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
•
•
•
Conducting site reconnaissance and collecting a current record of condition
via photos and video,
Identifying opportunities for enhancement, and
Identifying and evaluating potential actions to address noted issues and
opportunities.
The RSA Team assessed the issues with respect to their crash frequency and severity.
Table 1 presents the definitions for frequent, occasional, infrequent, and rare frequency,
and Table 2 presents the definitions for extreme, high, moderate, and low severity.
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY RATING
ESTIMATED
EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY
(PER AUDIT ITEM)
Exposure
high
medium
high
medium
low
high
Probability
high
high
medium
medium
high
low
low
medium
low
medium
low
low
5 or more crashes per year
FREQUENCY
RATING
Frequent
1 to 4 crashes per year
Occasional
Less that 1 crash per year, but more
than 1 crash every 5 years
Infrequent
Less than 1 crash every 5 years
Rare
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
TABLE 2
SEVERITY RATING
Typical Crashes Expected
(per audit item)
Expected Crash Severity
Severity
Rating
High-speed crashes; head on and
rollover crashes
Moderate-speed crashes; fixed
object or off-road crashes
Crashes involving medium to low
speeds; lane changing or
sideswipe crashes
Crashes involving low to medium
speeds; typical of rear-end or
sideswipe crashes
Probable fatality or
incapacitating injury
Moderate to severe injury
Extreme
Minor to moderate injury
Moderate
Property damage only or minor
injury
Low
High
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 6
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
The relative risk of a particular audit item reflects both its frequency and severity. Table
3 presents the definitions for minimal, low, moderate, significant, high, and extreme risk.
The RSA team appraised each safety issue in terms of its potential seriousness.
TABLE 3
CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT
Frequency
Rating
Frequent
Occasional
Infrequent
Rare
Severity Rating
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
C
B
A
A
D
C
B
A
E
D
C
B
F
E
D
C
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
Crash Risk Ratings:
A: minimal risk level
B: low risk level
C: moderate risk level
•
D: significant risk level
E: high risk level
F: extreme risk level
RSA Field Audit
Field audits were conducted by the RSA team members on or before August 21, 2008.
In general, the field visits included “drive-throughs” in each direction of the study section
noting physical conditions and the “feel” of the driver. The Prompt List developed as part
of the RSA process was used as a guide. The prompt list is included in the appendix for
background information. The RSA field audits took place by team members prior to the
RSA team meeting. The field audits identified the following:
ƒ
Two (2) travel lanes per direction are provided.
ƒ
Speed limit signs were noted - at 65 miles per hour (mph) south of the
Central Turnpike interchange and 55 mph beginning just south of the Central
Turnpike interchange ramps to the north until approaching the traffic signal at
Boston Road. A speed limit of 40 mph is posted in the northbound direction
on the immediate approach to the signal.
ƒ
Pavement markings are faded or worn out in many locations in the overall
section.
ƒ
The pavement surface has a large number of areas where it is cracked or
rutted. A “dip” in the surface exists in southbound direction just after the
Smith Road overpass.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 7
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
ƒ
There were numerous areas noted where substantial amounts of grass and
weeds were growing in the shoulder and gore areas.
ƒ
Rumble strips exist in both the inside and outside shoulders of the roadway.
ƒ
Flexible, reflective delineator posts line both sides of the median in both
directions although some posts were missing. There were no imbedded
pavement markers (reflectors) observed.
ƒ
The median is open for the most part except the section beginning
approximately 3,400 feet south of Boston Road and continuing northerly
where a thrie-beam double faced guardrail has been installed.
ƒ
Commercial land uses and a number of driveways directly connecting to
Route 146 were noted between Central Turnpike and Boston Road.
ƒ
The highway includes a noticeably steep downgrade (from north to south)
between the Central Turnpike interchange and the Purgatory Road
interchange.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 8
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
ANALYSIS
Route 146 in the Sutton study area is a divided highway with two lanes per directions.
The study section begins on the north at the Boston Road intersection, which is
signalized and includes additional turn lanes. From that location to the south, there is a
narrow median with a guardrail placed in or near the center. Approximately 3,400 feet
south of Boston Road, the median widens out and becomes open (i.e. no barrier).
There are three grade separated interchanges located within the study section including
at Central Turnpike; the interchange at Purgatory Road; and the interchange with Main
Street (Northbridge) at the southern end of the study section. In the section between
Boston Road and Central Turnpike, there are numerous businesses in existence that
have direct access to Route 146. With the median on Route 146, this direct access is
restricted to right in-right out. South of the Central Turnpike interchange, the highway
becomes fully access controlled with no direct connections to abutting land uses.
The alignment of the highway can generally be characterized as having a variable
vertical alignment with a number of large radius horizontal curves. The most noticeable
grade and horizontal curve is located between the Purgatory Road interchange and
Central Turnpike as shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 illustrates the curve near the bottom of
the grade. Figure 5 illustrates the northbound direction approaching the top of the grade
near Central Turnpike.
Central Turnpike
interchange
beginning of downgrade
in southbound direction
SB downgrade, horizontal
curve and cross slope
affects driver comfort
Purgatory Road
Interchange
Figure 3 - Approaching the Central Turnpike interchange in the northbound direction.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 9
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
The area between the Central Turnpike and Purgatory Road interchanges, on the
southbound downgrade of Route 146, has been identified as an area of concern. Based
upon observation during the RSA, and the drive through the project area, it is
recommended that superelevation improvements be investigated as short-term fixes,
until such time as a complete resurfacing of the roadway and other geometric
improvements, if necessary, are considered.
Figure 4 - Southbound curve approaching Purgatory Road exit
Figure 5 - Approaching the Central Turnpike interchange in the northbound
direction.
The median width varies between 60 feet and more than 100 feet with the exception of
the section close to Boston Road. Inside shoulders are established along the route with
a width 4 to 6 feet. Rumble strips are present within both the inside and outside
shoulders. Reflective flexible delineator posts are present along both sides of the
median. There is physical evidence of several median entries along the section.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 10
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
Speeds are posted at 55 miles per hour from just south of the Central Turnpike
interchange to the north towards Boston Road. South of this area, speeds are posted at
65 miles per hour. A 40 mph speed limit exists immediately south of Boston Road in the
northbound direction.
Based on the recent MassHighway traffic counts, the roadway carries on average
37,000 vehicles per day in the study section. Figure 6 illustrates the directional volume
over the course of the day for the section south of Central Turnpike. As can be seen in
the diagram, peak hour flows (two way) are approximately 3,000 vehicles. There are
noticeable, directional peaks observed in the AM (northerly flow) and PM (southerly flow)
peak hours. Truck data indicated that over the course of a day, truck volume was 9% of
the daily flow and 5% in the peak hour.
Figure 6 – Route 146 Hourly Traffic Volume Over Course of Weekday
Data available as part of the MassHighway crash records system indicated that between
2006 and 2007, there were 10 median related crashes reported in the study section. Of
the 10, two crashes (20%) were identified as cross-median crashes. One of the crossmedian crashes resulted in a fatality while the second reported cross-median crash
resulted in an injury. There was some discussion at the RSA meeting of a second
fatality, however, there was no confirmation of that event. In most crashes, the cited
causes for the median related crashes were either the driver “swerving” or failing to stay
in proper lane. Three crashes occurred under rain or snow conditions. Of the total (10)
reported median related crashes, they were split evenly northbound and southbound.
Most of the crashes occurred under daylight conditions.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 11
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
Based on the field review, the review of crash data and the discussion among the RSA
team members, potential issues related to the safe operating conditions of the Route
146 in the Sutton area were identified by the RSA team. There were a number of factors
or issues of concern that were identified as potentially having an effect on the risk and
these are listed in Table 4 along with the assigned risk rating.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF FACTORS THAT POTENTIALLY AFFECT
THE RISK OF SAFETY RELATED EVENTS
Factor or Issue
Risk Rating
So
thbo
nd c north
r e prior
to P rgator
in terms
of s per
Open
median
of Purgatory
Road
– averages
60 ele
- 66 ation
feet
wide and judged crossable
E
Open median south of Purgatory Road - >70 feet wide judged
as crossable
D
Southbound curve prior to Purgatory Road – grade,
superelevation
E
Guide signage indicating roadway curves is not provided
C
Pavement condition is below average with cracking and rutting
noticeable - grass is growing in the shoulder, gore areas and
near the travel lanes
C
Animal crossing potential was noted as high
B
Guardrail just south of Boston Road in median is at a height
lower than required
A
The turnaround for “authorized vehicle” in NB direction north of
Main Street entry is difficult to see and safely enter
A
Pavement markings are faded
C
Edge drop off is substantial in spots, particularly noticed in the
northbound direction
B
A “dip” in surface exists in the road southbound just after Smith
Road overpass
B
Drainage issue was noted in NB direction – high speed lane and
some ponding in shoulders
B
The most significant factor on the Route 146 corridor under study is the open median.
This factor is more relevant north of the Purgatory Road interchange where the median
width varies between 60 and 66 feet. This section, between Purgatory Road and just
north of the Central Turnpike interchange, is a distance of 2.4 miles and the median for
the most part in this section was judged by the RSA team as having a high probability of
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 12
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
crossing. Based on the frequency, moderately high traffic volumes and likely severity,
this factor was assigned a risk rating of ‘E’.
South of Purgatory Road, the median becomes wider with varying topography and
vegetation that makes it more difficult to cross. The open median factor in this section of
the study section was given a risk rating of ‘D’.
Related to the risk of crossing the median in the Route 146 section north of Purgatory
Road is the vertical and horizontal alignment. This particularly exists in the southbound
travel as the motorist is traveling down the grade (>5%) before entering a horizontal
curve approaching the Purgatory Road exit. The RSA team judged the curve as more
difficult due to the grade and cross slope and this factor was assigned a risk rating of ‘E’.
The remaining factors pose less risk pertaining to median crossings and were assigned
ratings of’ A’ to ‘C’. These included:
ƒ
Signage is not provided at the curve to guide or warn the motorist (i.e. chevron
signs) and under the current geometric conditions and lack of in pavement
markers, could be a more substantive contributing factor for median entries. A
rating of ‘C’ was assigned.
ƒ
Pavement surface condition has cracks and ruts. Grass was growing in
numerous locations in the shoulder or gore areas. The surface condition, while
not directly resulting in median entries and crossings, can result in short notice or
quick lane changing. This which can affect traffic movement by other vehicles in
the immediate area causing a chain reaction type of an effect potentially “forcing”
a vehicle to enter the median. Again, north of Purgatory Road, the median was
determined to be highly crossable. This factor was assigned a risk rating of ‘C’.
ƒ
The dip in the southbound surface at Smith Road was assigned a rating of ‘B’.
ƒ
The inside edge drop off can prevent potential recoveries by motorists that have
entered the median. This factor was rated a ‘B’.
ƒ
In addition to signage either missing or sparse to begin with, the faded condition
of the pavement markings can hinder the guidance of motorists, particularly
during non-light conditions or bad weather. This was assigned a risk rating of ‘C’.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 13
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
ƒ
It was noted by RSA team members that this corridor had a high level of
animal (i.e. deer) crossings. This event can also cause quick lane changing
and contribute to motorists entering the median. A risk rating of ‘B’ was
assigned to this factor.
ƒ
There have been drainage issues noted in the corridor. In some areas,
ponding within the shoulder was identified. While this factor may not directly
cause median entries, it can be a contributing factor once a motorist leaves
the travel lane. A rating of ‘B’ was assigned to this factor.
ƒ
The final factor identified relates to the existing guardrail that is placed in the
median in close proximity to Boston Road. As noted previously, it is located
in a depressed area of the median, which results in the height of the rail in
relation to the pavement surface being lower than required. While not
causing motorists to enter the median, an errant vehicle in this location that
goes airborne has a greater possibility of going over the rail and entering the
opposing direct of flow. This factor was assigned a rating of ‘A’.
Suggested actions intended to reduce the injuries and fatalities resulting from crossmedian crashes and those related to other types of crashes as well were identified.
Given the overall objective of the Median Cross-Over RSA program, consideration of a
median barrier was the initial action evaluated. An overall set of recommendations that
address each of the risk factors is presented later in the report.
•
Consideration of a Median Barrier
One of the more significant actions to be considered in the corridor is to install a median
barrier in the current “open” areas. A barrier can be considered when there is a higher
than desirable chance or a greater risk for median cross-over crashes to occur and that
have or could result in fatalities and/or a high proportion of injury related crashes. A
barrier could also be considered when the consequences or severity of a crash without a
barrier are worse than if the barrier were in place.
Factors to consider in deciding on whether a median should be installed are as follows:
 High volumes and speeds
 Truck volumes and mix
 Narrow median
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
 History of cross-median crashes
 High risk of catastrophic event
Page 14
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
These items have been reviewed relative to the Route 146 section under study. Figure
7 presents a review of the corridor in relation to the median warrant criteria presented in
the AASHTO RDG4. Two sections of Route 146 have been evaluated in terms of the
criteria. North of the Purgatory Road interchange with the median (as measured from
edge line to edge line) approximately 60 to 66 feet at minimum and a volume of over
37,000 vehicles on an average day, the intersection of the two criteria is in the area of
the chart where a barrier can be “optional”. South of Purgatory Road, areas were the
median is wider (i.e. >70 feet), the point of intersection would fall to the right of the chart.
While taking into account the barrier warrant criteria, which is a guideline, further
consideration was given to additional characteristics in concluding whether a barrier
should be installed. These included driver comfort and differences in elevation between
northbound and southbound directions.
Consequently, based on the analysis of the data, the field drive-thru and discussion of
the conditions by the RSA team members, it was concluded that a median barrier should
be considered in the Route 146 study section north of Purgatory Road through the
Central Turnpike interchange.
4
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 15
80
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(thousands)
70
South of Purgatory Road median width >70 feet
BARRIER
RECOMMENDED
60
BARRIER
CONSIDERED
50
BARRIER
OPTIONAL
40
30
North of Purgatory Road
median width 60-66 feet
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
MEDIAN WIDTH (feet)
Median Barrier Warrant Evaluation
Route 146 Road Safety Audit
Sutton, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 7
70
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
Recommendations
As a result of the RSA analysis and team input, it was concluded that a median barrier
be installed in a portion of the study section. In addition to the barrier, a set of
recommendations have been identified to address the risk factors noted earlier in the
report. These are summarized in Table 7. These actions are intended to eliminate the
chance of cross-median crashes as well as the severity of all crashes and improve the
overall safety condition of this section of Route 146 in Sutton.
Identified in the table in addition to the risk factor and recommended action are the
estimated costs and potential timeframe (i.e. short (0-1 year), medium (1-3 years) and
long (>3 years)).
In terms of the open median sections, it is recommended that a median barrier be
installed in the section north of the Purgatory Road interchange. This would be for a
distance of approximately 2.4 miles. At $144,000 per mile, a cable barrier would result
in an estimated cost of $345,600 for this action. This would likely be a medium term
action.
South of the Purgatory Road interchange where the median was judged as less
crossable, it is recommended that the median be better defined and “highlighted” by
pavement markings and reflective posts.
As indicated previously, the southbound direction between the Central Turnpike and
Purgatory Road interchanges was identified as an area of concern. Based upon
observations during the RSA, and the drive through the project area, it is recommended
that superelevation improvements along with signage and markers be investigated as
short-term fixes, until such time as a complete resurfacing of the roadway and other
geometric improvements, if necessary, are considered.
With the surface condition exhibiting extensive cracking, some rutting and grass/weeds
growing in the shoulder areas, it is recommended that the roadway section be scheduled
for resurfacing/rehabilitation as soon as feasible. As part of this action, a number of
factors can be addressed at the same time including installing recessed pavement
markers, installing new reflective flexible posts, eliminating any ponding that takes place,
fixing the “dip” in the southbound direction after the bridge over Smith Road, as well as
correcting the superelevation noted previously.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 17
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Risk Factor
Risk
Rating
Recommended
Action
Open median north of Purgatory Road –
averages 60 - 66 feet wide and judged
crossable
E
ƒ
ƒ
Open median south of Purgatory Road >70 feet wide judged as crossable
D
Southbound curve prior to Purgatory
Road – grade, superelevation
Guide signage indicating roadway curves
is not provided
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Timeframe
install barrier – approx.
2.4 miles
$345,600
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
install new reflective
posts along median in
entire study section
$6,000
ƒ
short term
E
ƒ
investigate superelevation
improvements as short
term fix
TBD
ƒ
short term
C
ƒ install chevron signs in
SB direction at curve
ƒ install reflective,
flexible posts along
median
medium
term
$2,000
ƒ short term
see above
ƒ short term
Pavement condition is below average
with cracking and rutting noticeable –
grass is growing in the shoulder, gore
areas and near the travel lanes
C
ƒ mill and resurface
highway – approx. 4.8
miles
$7.6M
ƒ medium to
long term
Animal crossing potential was noted as
high
B
ƒ install fence along
ROW – 2 sides approx.
38,000 ft
$950,400
ƒ medium to
long term
Guardrail just south of Boston Road in
median is at a height lower than required
A
ƒ fill median, reinstall
guardrail
TBD
ƒ short term
The turnaround for authorized vehicles in
NB direction north of Main Street entry is
difficult to see and safely enter
A
ƒ relocate/redefine
authorized vehicle
turnaround
ƒ improve identification
of turnarounds in
section
TBD
ƒ short term
TBD
ƒ short term
ƒ Install new markings
ƒ Install slotted lane
markers
$40,000
ƒ short term
Pavement markings are faded
C
TBD
ƒ medium
term
Edge drop off is substantial in spots,
particularly noticed in the northbound
direction
B
ƒ regrade where needed
TBD
ƒ short term
A “dip” in surface exists in the road
southbound just after Smith Road
overpass
B
ƒ address during
resurfacing
TBD
ƒ medium to
long term
Drainage issue was noted in NB direction
– high speed lane and some ponding in
shoulders
B
ƒ address during
resurfacing
TBD
ƒ medium to
long term
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 18
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
The preliminary estimated cost to resurface the highway in both directions between the
Central Turnpike interchange and the Main Street interchange including the above
mentioned items is $7.6M. This cost includes the slotted markers, reflective posts and
new pavement markings, rumble strip as well as a minor widening of the paved inside
shoulder.
The location, condition and identification of turnarounds for authorized vehicles should
be given some attention. The location of the turnaround just north of the Main Street
interchange has poor visibility and is difficult to safely enter from the northbound
direction. This turnaround could be relocated further north to a location that is easier to
navigate. In addition, consideration could be given to providing signs at the turnarounds
that specifically indicate “Official Use Only” and/or what fine would be incurred if a
motorist is cited for violating this regulation.
Finally, the animal crossing factor can be addressed by installing a fence along the ROW
and eliminating the openings that enable wildlife to reach the highway. Standard fencing
installed along both sides of the ROW in the freeway section (approx. 3.6 miles per
direction) is estimated to cost $950,400.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 19
Route 146 Sutton Safety Road Audit
Appendix
•
•
•
•
•
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Attendance List
Median Crash Diagram
Crash Data
Traffic Volume Data
Page 20
Road Safety Audit
Sutton – Route 146
Meeting Location: MassHighway District 3 Office
403 Belmont Street, Worcester
Thursday, August 21, 2008
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Cross Median – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
11:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
11:15 AM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Cross Median Crashes
11:30 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash, Speed, and Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
12:00 PM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using RSA Prompt List as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
12:30 PM
Adjourn for the day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on August 21st, participants are encouraged to drive
Route 146 in Sutton between exits 4 and 8 and complete/consider elements on the
RSA Prompt List with a focus on safety factors affecting cross median crashes.
• All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout. Participants
are encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are reminded that the
synergy that develops and respect for others’ opinions are key elements to the
success of the overall RSA process.
• After the initial RSA meeting, participants will be asked to comment and respond
to the document materials to assure it is reflective of the RSA completed by the
multidisciplinary team.
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT MEETING
Route 146 Sutton - August 21, 2008
MassHighway District 3 Offices, Worcester MA
Attendance List
Name
Agency/Dept.
Email
Bill Scully
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
bscullyjr@mac.com
Sgt. John Hackett
MSP
John.Hackett@msp.state.ma.us
Trooper bob Johnson
MSP
robert.Johnson@msp.state.ma.us
Mark Johnson
MassHighway
Mark.Johnson@mhd.state.ma.us
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan
CMRPC
Sujatha@cmrpc.org
Kevin Krasnecky
CMRPC
Kkrasnecky@cmrpc.org
Eric Nascimento
MassHighway
Eric.Nascimento@mhd.state.ma.us
One Hwang
MassHighway
One.Hwang@mhd.state.ma.us
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassHighway, Safety Management
Lisa.Schletzbaum@mhd.state.ma.us
John Hebert
Sutton Selectmen
Mark Brigham
Sutton Highway Dept.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Mbrigham@Town.Sutton.ma.us
ET
±
Route 146 Median Crashes
TRE
"
)
PLE
A
EE
T
ST
R
AI
N
AD
WE
S
RO
IN
PROV IDEN CE ROAD MA
ET
RE
FE RRY ST RE
NR
OA
D
2
ST
AD
RO
CE
1
Y
MILLBURY
EN
V ID
E
DL
DU
TM
O
PR
SA N
TS
8
ET
BO
ST
O
GRAFTON
N
SI
3
GL
4
N
TE
SUTTON STREET
14
UE
EN
AV
O
ST
AD
U
RO
Y
AR
ET
BO
RO
6
IK E
UR NP
R AL T
T
N
E
C
SB
ET
ST R E
HILL
DG
E
AL
AD
I
BR
UX
R
NT
CE
PI
RN
U
T
RO
7
CD
"
)
KE
A
RO
5
D
SUTTON
NORTHBRIDGE
)
"
BE
NS
O
146
"
)
6
N
RO
6
PU
RG
ATO
RY
RO
AD
NO
R
TH
M
AI
N
T
EE
Minor Arterial
OA D
Municipal Boundary
0.75
7
ING
WH IT
Collector
MA
IN
* 2007 crash file has not yet been
AM
R
Median, Non-Fatal Crash
5
ST
RE
E
closed. T
8
"
)
Local
4
Miles
1
DOUGLAS
KY D
Principal Arterial
ROA D
R
UG
CH A
Cross Median, Non-Fatal Crash
"
)
LAC
MAN
Interstate
OA D
Major Roads
Cross Median, Fatal Crash
0.5
R
Type of Median Crash 2004-2007 *
0.25
ET
DOUGLAS ROAD
Legend
0
S T RE
ST
MAIN
LB
GI
OA
S
T
EE
TR
UXBRIDGE
AD
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY SAFETY DIVISION
CRASH SUMMARY
ROUTE 146
ROADWAY:
NO.
1
2
3
CITY:
1/1/2004
STUDY PERIOD:
CRASH NUMBER
2188789
2115431
2266827
TO
CRASH DATE
02/26/07
04/06/06
12/02/07
12/31/2007
LOCATION:
SUTTON
N/A
TRAVEL
LIGHT
WEATHER
ROAD
REASON FOR
VEHICLE
MEDIAN OR CROSS
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING
CRASH
DIRECTION
CONDITION
CONDITION
SURFACE
RUNNING OFF ROAD LEFT
MOVEMENT
MEDIAN CRASHES
CAUSE
SEVERITY
NB
SB
SB
Daylight
Snow
Daylight
Clear
Dark-lighted roadway
Snow
Median
Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery
surface, vehicle, object, non-motorist in roadway,
etc.
Non-fatal injury
Dry
Vehicle with activated emergency lights approached breaking traffic and crashed into rear of vehicle causing that vehicle
to crash into the median barrier and into another vehicle.
SB Travel Lane to median barrier and then into another vehicle in left lane.
Median
No improper driving
Non-fatal injury
Snow
Vehicle was passing a sand truck and drifted toward it, operator swerved to the left to avoid truck and spun into guardrail
in median.
SB Travel Lane to median
Median
failure to keep in proper lane
Property damage only
Snow
Driver lost control of vehicle and spun out into median barrier because of snow and ice on the roadway.
NB Travel Lane into median barrier
4
2165889
03/05/07
SB
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Driver applied break peddle all the way to the floor at intersection steering car into the left turning lane to avoid stopped
traffic in the right travel lane, then struck the median barrier.
SB right travel lane to turning lane and into median barrier
Median
Operating defective equipment
Non-fatal injury
5
2217783
06/15/07
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle was cut off by unknown vehicle and forced into median.
NB Travel Lane across median to SB travel lane, coming to rest in SB BDL
Cross median
No improper driving
Property damage only
6
2230270
05/14/07
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver became nervous when traffic began to break ahead. Driver then stepped on the gas instead of the break, lost
control of the vehicle and crossed the median.
NB Travel Lane across median to Sb travel lane
Cross median
failure to keep in proper lane
Fatal injury
7
2292969
11/14/07
NB
Daylight
Clear
Dry
TT drifted left, struck median guardrail and over turned into the median.
NB Travel Lane to median
Median
failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
8
2278248
06/21/07
SB
Dark- roadway not lighted
Rain
Wet
Operator lost control of vehicle on wet road surface veered into median, vehicle then rolled over onto roof.
SB Travel Lane to median, vehicle then rolled onto roof in median
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Non-fatal injury
9*
2161224
02/26/07
NB
Dark-lighted roadway
Cloudy
Wet
Vehicle slide from right lane into median guardrail.
NB Right Lane into median guardrail, then back across both NB lanes hitting BDL guardrail
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
Dry
TT unable to break for lane closure resulting in a turn into the median guardrail and a rollover. 7 of 10 breaks out of
adjustment and 1 non operational.
SB Travel Lane to median
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Non-fatal injury
10*
2176131
11/03/06
SB
Daylight
Clear
* Unable to be located to a specific location
LIGHT CONDITION
TOTAL NO.
ROAD SURFACE
WEATHER CONDITION
DAYLIGHT
DARK - NOT LIGHTED
DARK-LIGHTED
CLEAR
CLOUDY
RAIN
SNOW
DRY
WET
10
7
1
2
5
2
1
2
6
2
2
100%
70%
10%
20%
50%
20%
10%
20%
60%
20%
20%
DRIVING TOO FAST
FAILURE TO KEEP IN
FOR CONDITION
PROPER LANE
SWERVING OR AVOIDING DUE TO WIND, SLIPPERY SURFACE, VEHICLE, OPEJECT, NON-MOTORIST IN ROADWAY,
ETC.
MEDIAN OR CROSS MEDIAN
MEDIAN
CROSS MEDIAN
CRASH SEVERITY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
NON-FATAL INJURY
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
FATAL - INJURY
ONLY
NO IMPROPER DRIVING
OPERATING DEFECTIVE EQUIMPENT
8
2
3
6
1
2
3
1
1
3
80%
20%
30%
60%
10%
20%
30%
10%
10%
30%
2007 CRASH INFORMATION IS NOT COMPLETE
CRASH SUMMARY IS BASED ON ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED CRASH REPORTS WITH STATE POLICE NARRATIVES
SNOW
Daily Directional Traffic Volumes
Route 146, Sutton
RT-146, South of Central Turnpike, 5/11/2005
Northbound Southbound
Direction
Direction
TOTAL
Start time
12:00 AM
139
136
275
1:00 AM
122
74
196
2:00 AM
78
64
142
3:00 AM
97
66
163
4:00 AM
169
126
295
5:00 AM
642
305
947
6:00 AM
1,409
954
2,363
7:00 AM
1,770
1,233
3,003
8:00 AM
1,417
1,018
2,435
9:00 AM
1,093
894
1,987
10:00 AM
886
732
1,618
11:00 AM
853
840
1,693
12:00 PM
946
898
1,844
1:00 PM
910
961
1,871
2:00 PM
986
1,082
2,068
3:00 PM
1,249
1,366
2,615
4:00 PM
1,250
1,532
2,782
5:00 PM
1,362
1,700
3,062
6:00 PM
1,013
1,279
2,292
7:00 PM
832
907
1,739
8:00 PM
624
715
1,339
9:00 PM
501
535
1,036
10:00 PM
432
348
780
11:00 PM
262
280
542
Daily Total
19,042
18,045
37,087
Directional Traffic Volumes along RT-146, South of Central Turnpike,
Sutton
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Northbound Direction
Southbound Direction
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Time of Day
PM
:0
0
PM
10
PM
8:
00
PM
6:
00
PM
4:
00
PM
2:
00
:0
0
AM
12
:0
0
AM
10
AM
8:
00
AM
6:
00
AM
4:
00
2:
00
:0
0
AM
0
12
Hourly Volume (Number of
Vehicles)
2,000