ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 213 METHUEN
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
May 2008
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 213 METHUEN
May 2008
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
300 Howard Street P.O. Box 967
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
508-620-2832 508-620-6897 (fax)
www.mstransportationsystemsinc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
1
RSA Team
RSA Process
4
4
RSA Field Audit
8
Analysis/Discussion
11
Summary of RSA Findings
15
Appendix
30
Agenda
Prompt List
Traffic Volume Data
Cross-Over Crash Data
Barrier “hit” Record
FHWA Approval Letters
Existing and Proposed route Survey Cross-Section Info
Route 213 sign Replacement Project Sheets
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page i
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Introduction
Lane departure crashes are one of the primary fatal crash types in Massachusetts. The
Commonwealth exceeds the national average for the proportion of fatal 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 (MassHighway) 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 Commonwealth’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) and specifically reducing lane departure crashes and the number of highway
fatalities, MassHighway is completing a Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review Project
focused on median crossing (or median cross-over) crashes on its major access
controlled highways. Road Safety Audits are a formal safety performance examination
on existing or future roadways by an independent audit team. These audits are being
conducted to identify any roadway deficiencies that may exist and to recommend
specific countermeasures that may be implemented to reduce median cross-over
crashes and enhance overall safety along the highway.
A RSA was conducted for the Route 213 Connector in Methuen as part of this project.
This highway connects I-93 (Interchange No. 48) with I-495 (Interchange No. 47). While
the entire route was reviewed, under particular focus was the roadway section between
Interchange No. 5 with I-495 and the Route 213 Interchange No. 3 (Howe Street). This
section had experienced a number of median cross-over crashes, over the past several
years including a fatal crash. In December 2005, a quick action project in response to
several cross-over crashes included installing a 3-strand cable median barrier on this
portion of the road section in each direction. However, subsequent to the installation, a
relatively large number of crashes (barrier-hits) have occurred in this section although
the cross-over crashes were eliminated.
The purpose of this Route 213 Methuen RSA is therefore, to evaluate both the recent
installation of the median barrier as well as consider decisions for the remaining portions
of the route. Exhibit 1 indicates the project location relative to the larger highway system
while the aerial photographs shown on the subsequent two pages highlight the roadway
sections under this examination. The recommendations contained in this report reflect
the overall consent of the RSA team and do not necessarily reflect the official views of
MassHighway.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 1
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 2
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Int 4
Int 3
Int 1
Int 5
Int 2
Route 213 Connector RSA Project Area
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 3
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
RSA Team
The following individuals participated in of the Route 213 Methuen Road Safety Audit:
Brett Loosian, MHD District Maintenance
Timothy White, FHWA
Neil Boudreau, MHD Highway Safety
David Phaneuf, MHD Boston
Bonnie Polin, MHD Safety Management
Unit
Michael Galvin, MHD Boston
Lisa Schletzbaum, MHD Safety Management
Unit
Major Kevin J. Kelly, Mass State Police
John Gregg, MHD District Traffic
Chris Neaves, MHD District Projects
Frank Suszynski, MHD District Projects
William J. Scully, MS Transportation Systems
(RSA Consultant)
RSA Process
The general process outlined in the guideline1 was essentially followed although with
some variation that are described in the following sections. Exhibit 2 presents the
overall audit process that was contained in the guidelines. Data including summary
crash records for the 2004-2007 period, four (4) detailed crash reports of cross-over
crashes, and available record highway plans were obtained and reviewed by the RSA
consultant. In addition, maintenance repair records related to the cable barrier since its
installation were provided by MassHighway. Field visits were conducted by the RSA
team members. A video was recorded while driving the roadway by the RSA
Consultant. The site visits were completed prior to a RSA team meeting.
•
RSA Meeting
A meeting was held on December 6, 2007 at the MassHighway District 4 Office. At the
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 listed previously was present at the meeting. Approximately half of the team
members had conducted a field visit prior to the meeting. District personnel are very
familiar with the route under study. The video record of the Route 213 Connector taken
while driving the corridor was viewed. During and following the video, discussions
related to the ongoing issues and possible solutions occurred. The RSA team provided
input on the key items observed in the field and those items that were listed on the RSA
Median Cross-Over Prompt List. Following the RSA meeting, the RSA consultant
compiled the information, completed the analysis and circulated the draft report to team
members. Members of the RSA team met again on April 6, 2008 to review the draft
recommendation and discuss final barrier options and cost implications.
1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc., Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes, Audit Guidelines,
Prepared for MassHighway, October 2007.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 4
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Step 1
Select Team
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
interdisciplinary members
3-6 members
ensure "fresh" look
Step 2
Confirm with District
ƒ
ƒ
RSA locations
audit schedule
ƒ
coordinate TMPs,
team
Step 3
Research Background
Material
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Step 6
Complete Audit Evaluation
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
design criteria
alignments
visibility
median characteristics
shoulder/off-road conditions
Step 7
Draft Audit Report
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
crash reports
as-built plans
traffic data (volumes, speeds)
photos, aerials
be concise
identify team members
summarize problems/issues
identify potential actions
circulate to RSA team
Step 8
Meeting with Agency
ƒ
discuss results and recommendations
Step 4
Pre-Audit Meetings
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
explain procedure
review background material
finalize field schedules
review prompt list
Step 9
Finish Report/Submit to
Agency
ƒ
finalize the draft report and submit
Step 5
Conduct Field Visits
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
observe different conditions
record site conditions
photo log
conduct drive-thrus
use prompt list
Source: MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes
Audit Guidelines, October 2007
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Exhibit 2
Road Safety Audit Process
Median Cross-Over Crashes
Page 5
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
•
Analysis Procedures
As previously indicated, the RSA analysis generally followed the procedure outlined in
Exhibit 2 with some variations and took into consideration the methods published by the
Federal Highway Administration2 and those included in training materials3. Tasks
included:
•
Obtaining and reviewing crash and other traffic characteristic data and
available record plans.
•
Conducting site reconnaissance and collecting a current record of condition
via photos and video,
•
identify potential hazardous issues, and
•
Identify and evaluate potential actions to address the noted issues.
While the steps shown in Exhibit 2 provided overall guidance, a number of variations
were incorporated as the RSA was conducted. This was due in part to the project
location being a high speed, high volume section of access controlled highway. With
these characteristics, there are limited areas to safely stop and gather along the section
without potentially hindering traffic flow or the safety of the RSA team. One difference
was the number of people involved in the project. Rather than an RSA team of 3-6 as is
generally recommended in the FHWA guidelines, it was felt that more people who were
familiar with the highway section may provide critical input early on. Consequently, there
were 12 people involved in the Route 213 RSA. With the team size and general
character with the corridor, the team members who visited the site prior to the team
meeting did so either individually or in small groups. A video recording of a drive-thru in
both directions was collected by the RSA consultant and used at the meeting to review
conditions. Since it was decided that there would not be stopping on the highway, a
traffic control (TMP) was not required. Background material and plans were transmitted
to the RSA consultant to compile and review prior to the initial RSA team meeting.
Information was transmitted to RSA team members prior to the meeting as well. The
meeting occurred after team members had visited the project site. Once the initial
meeting was conducted, the RSA consultant gathered the input completed the analysis
and prepared draft documents for team member review. Prior to finalizing the report, the
RSA team met again to review and reach consent on the recommendations.
2
3
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA SA-06-06,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Federal Highway Administration, Resource Center, Road Safety Audits Mini-Workshop, Jeffrey Shaw, PE,
PTOE, presented to New England ITE Section, September 19, 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 6
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
In assessing the issues identified by the RSA Team, the relative seriousness and
potential risk relative to crash frequency and severity were determined. Using the
guidelines of FHWA4 as input and with some adjustments for this specific RSA, the
relative frequency criteria and severity criteria was identified and is presented in Table 1
and Table 2.
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY RATING
ESTIMATED
Exposure
high
medium
high
medium
low
high
Probability
high
high
medium
medium
high
low
low
medium
low
medium
low
low
EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY
(PER AUDIT ITEM)
5 or more crashes per year
FREQUENCY
RATING
Frequent
1 to 4 crashes per year
Occasional
Less that 1 crash per year, but
more than 1 crash every 5 years
Infrequent
Less than 1 crash every 5 years
Rare
TABLE 2
SEVERITY RATING
Typical Crashes Expected
(per audit item)
Expected Crash Severity
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
Severity
Rating
Extreme
High
Minor to moderate injury
Moderate
Property damage only or
minor injury
Low
Taking into consideration both frequency and severity, the relative risk of a particular
audit item was rated. The risk ratings are shown in Table 3. For each safety issue
identified, the potential seriousness of the issue as well as possible mitigation measures
have been indicated.
4
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 7
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 3
CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT
Frequency
Rating
Low
Frequent
Occasional
Infrequent
Rare
Crash Risk Ratings:
C
B
A
A
Severity Rating
Moderate
High
D
C
B
A
A: minimal risk level
B: low risk level
C: moderate risk level
Extreme
E
D
C
B
F
E
D
C
D: significant risk level
E: high risk level
F: extreme risk level
RSA Field Audit
Field visits were conducted by the RSA team members between November 29 and
December 6, 2007. In general, the field visits included a number of “drive-thrus” in each
direction 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 for this
specific study location is included in the appendix. The field visits showed the following
in no order of importance:
ƒ
A 3-strand cable (straight line) barrier was put in place from I-495 (Exit 5) to
Exit 3 on each side of the median.
ƒ
The cable is installed less than a few feet off pavement edge (maybe 1
foot+/-),
ƒ
The inside shoulder is about one to two feet in width with minimal offpavement leveling area provided (another 1 foot +/-) before a downslope
begins.
ƒ
No rumble strip exists on the inside edge of the pavement.
ƒ
On the November 28, 2007 field visit, it was noted that there were 3 recent
hits on the barrier in the WB direction and 4 hits in the EB direction.
(subsequent visits showed that most repairs to these locations had been
completed).
ƒ
One EB “hit” was noted in the field opposite the end of ramp/merge area from
the Exit 3 EB on-ramp,
ƒ
Another EB “hit” was noted in the area just before the spilt for the I-495 north
and south on ramps.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 8
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
ƒ
A rumble strip is in place on the outside shoulder in both directions.
ƒ
The median appears relatively narrow (i.e. 50 feet or less). (Plans were
subsequently checked and verified a width between 40 and 50 feet).
ƒ
The median is depressed and grassed – there appears to be drainage
structures in the center of the median (plans checked subsequently and
verified drainage).
ƒ
The current pavement markings and surface are in good condition.
Resurfacing within the past few years is apparent (this was later verified by
Department).
ƒ
There is no recovery zone in the median of the road section between Exits 3
and 5.
ƒ
There is no barrier between Exits 1 and 3. This road section typically includes
the same width median, grass and slope as in the section east of Interchange
No. 3.
ƒ
A significant edge drop off along median, particularly in the westbound
direction, was apparent west of Exit 3.
ƒ
Major exit guide signs for Interchange No. 4 indicate exits are in ½ mile
(westbound) and 1/3 mile (eastbound between exits 3 and 4).
ƒ
There are no reflectors imbedded in the pavement for lane or edge markings.
ƒ
Reflectors are generally on cable barrier posts but not on every one.
The following photographs illustrate some the conditions observed on Route 213 as part
of this RSA.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 9
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Cable barrier installed just off pavement on both sides of median. Above is
section of barrier that was struck in westbound direction in the vicinity of
Interchange No. 3 (November 28, 2007).
Cable barrier knockdown before Interchange No. 4 in eastbound direction
(November 28, 2007).
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 10
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Analysis/Discussion
Once the plans and traffic data were obtained and the field visits and RSA meeting
conducted, the RSA analysis was completed. The following paragraphs briefly
summarize the information obtained during the RSA and the key items resulting from the
analysis.
The Route 213 Connector is approximately 17,000 feet in total length between I-93 and
I-495. The median length under study is approximately 15,000 feet (approx. Station 30
to Station 180). The section between Interchange Nos. 3 (Howe Street) and 5 (I-495),
where the cable barrier was previously installed, is approximately 7,500 feet long. The
roadway which has two travel lanes per direction carries between 55,000 and 62,000
vehicles per day. Speeds are posted at 55 miles per hour (mph) although generally
observed travel speeds appear to be in the range of 60 to 65 mph. In general, travel
lanes are 12 feet in width. The inside shoulder is approximately one (1) foot in width
while the outside shoulder is a full (8 to 10 feet) width. In addition to the two end points
(I-93 and I-495), there are three full interchanges within approximately 2 miles. The
distance between Interchange Nos. 3 and 4 is less than one-half mile.
The existing depressed median ranges in width but is generally between 40 to 50 feet
along much of its length. The median is open, grassed with slopes away from the
pavement at slightly steeper slopes than 1:6. In general, a closed drainage system runs
along the center of the median. The AASHTO guidelines5 include warrant criteria to
determine if barrier installation should be considered in a particular location. The most
current AASHTO guidelines for a median barrier installation are shown in Exhibit 3. The
present guidelines show that a barrier in this location should be considered given the
median width and volume levels 55,000 to 62,000 ADT on the Route 213 connector.
The guidelines have been under examination as part of ongoing research.
When the median barrier was not in place in the eastern section (between Exits 3 and
5), there were a number of cross-over crashes. At least three cross-over crashes
occurred in this section between September 2004 and February 2005. These three
were reported to have occurred in the vicinity of Exit 4 (Pleasant Valley Street). A fourth
cross-over crash was reported in early 2006 without the specific location identified. Since
the median barrier was installed in late 2005 between Exits 3 and 5, it has been
assumed that this 4th crash occurred west of Exit 3. The detailed reports and narrative
descriptions of the crashes are included in the Appendix.
5
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide, Washington,
D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 11
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
80
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(thousands)
70
BARRIER
RECOMMENDED
60
BARRIER
CONSIDERED
50
40
BARRIER
OPTIONAL
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
MEDIAN WIDTH
(feet)
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
50
60
70
Exhibit 3
Median Barrier Criteria
Roadside Design Guide
Chapter 6 Update 2006
Page 12
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Reasons provided by operators for crossing the median varied with no meaningful trends
identified. Whatever the reason that was indicated by an operator for losing control, it
does not take much to cross the median on Route 213 given the speeds and width of the
median.
In addition to being a high volume, high speed highway with a “narrow” median, a
number of other characteristics are likely to also contribute to the safety conditions and
crash experience that has occurred on the Connector. One noted characteristic is the
close spacing of Interchanges Nos. 3 to 5. The close spacing influences the level of
lane changing maneuvers and speed variations.
The high tension cable system installed on Route 213 in late 2005 was the Trinity CASS
TL-3 system between Interchanges No. 3 (Howe Street) and No. 5 (I-495). The cost for
installation including the end treatments was $363,079.40. Of the total cost, $141,600
was for materials only. It was installed along both sides of the median in close proximity
of the pavement edge (within 1-2 feet) due to the grades of the foreslope not meeting the
1:6 criteria. Posts for this installation were driven and set at 16 feet spacing.
The installation of the median barrier in the eastern section has successfully eliminated
the median cross-over crashes and reduced the severity of the crashes in this section of
road. However, the placement of the barrier being within 1 to 2 feet of the pavement
edge does not provide the errant motorist any forgiveness or chance to recover before
striking the barrier. Several of the recent hits observed in the field visits have occurred
in close proximity of the on-ramps and merge areas that are likely to be creating
significant lane changing. The cable barriers are a flexible type of barrier in which
motorists tend to not be redirected back onto the roadway but contained within the
barrier with the expected maximum deflection will be between 11 to 12 feet. The cable
barriers are typically installed as far away from the travel way as possible taking into
account the total width of the median and the potential deflection. However, with the
current barrier placement on Route 213 within one to two feet from the paved area, there
is the distinct possibility of motorists protruding into the high speed lane once stopped as
the inside shoulder is also 1 to 2 feet in width. In other words, a motorist that hits the
barrier in its current location within a few feet of the paved area may not totally leave the
travel way even with some deflection in the barrier.
Again, while the barrier installation has virtually eliminated median cross-over crashes
on Route 213, there has, been an increase in the total number of reported crashes on
the roadway. Since the barrier was installed through November 2007, there were 47
recorded hits in approximately 2 years time based on maintenance records. Not all of
these recorded maintenance hits have been reported as crashes. Some of the reports
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 13
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
had little information while one was
identified
as
possible
snowplow
damage. The hits have affected in
some cases a single post to as many as
18 posts and cable. Total costs for
repairs including labor and materials for
this nearly two year period was $68,970.
The hits are occurring in both directions
of travel. One area of concentration has
been in close proximity of the
Interchange No. 3 eastbound on-ramp.
In this location, the acceleration lane
may be somewhat short and quickly
approaches the Interchange No. 4
eastbound deceleration lane.
Other states that have utilized cable barriers have identified annual maintenance costs
of approximately $7-10,000 per mile. According to officials with the Missouri DOT,
these cost includes repair, traffic control and periodic re-tensioning. Converting the two
year MassHighway repair costs for the Route 213 section that has the cable barrier in
place to an annual dollar per mile ($24,285), shows that it significantly exceeds the
experience in other States by more than double. It would appear that most of this can
be attributed to the placement of the barrier in relation to the pavement and having a
minimal width inside shoulder.
Recent crash data (post-median barrier) indicates that the number of crashes are
trending up on Route 213 from 2006 to 2007. The data does, however, show that most
of the injury related crashes during this time period have occurred in the section west of
Exit 3. As discussed above, one cross-over crash has been reported in 2006-2007.
Finally, it was noted by the RSA team members that the crashes into the Route 213
barrier (average 23.5/year in both directions based on maintenance hit records) require
the closure of the high speed lane for a period of time to repair the barrier largely due to
its placement. With high volume levels experienced on Route 213, this can create
problems for the repair team and significant congestion and delays to motorists and
potentially affect the I-495 and/or I-93 operations. This issue becomes exacerbated with
the high frequency of hits.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 14
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Summary of RSA Findings
Based on the field review, the review of crash data and discussions among the RSA
team members, the issues related to the safe operating conditions of the Route 213
Connector in Methuen were identified. While a positive action was taken in late 2005 by
MassHighway by installing the barrier to eliminate cross-over crashes, the particular
placement of the cable barrier has led to a new set of problems including higher crash
frequency, high repair costs and motorists delays during repair periods. A number of
items were identified as potentially contributing to safety issues although each with
varied levels of seriousness. These major ones include:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
slope of median is steeper than 1:6,
existing cable barrier too close to the pavement in the eastern section,
narrow inside shoulder,
no barrier in the western section of the Connector, and
close spacing of interchanges affect lane changing.
In addition to the above, the horizontal alignment in areas such as in the WB direction
near Exit 2 felt somewhat uncomfortable in the “drive-thru”. The risk rating incorporated
a qualitative assessment that considered the reported frequency of crashes, the
potential severity of a crash if one occurs and a judgment of the risk level that a
particular issue or deficiency could contribute to a vehicle leaving the travel lane, not
being able to recover and then crossing the median. An overall summary listing of the
issues identified as part of this RSA are shown in Table 4 along with the assigned risk
rating and actions to consider.
Suggested actions were identified that were intended to either improve upon actions
previously taken, reduce all crashes on the Route 213 Connector and/or reduce the
severity of the crashes were identified based on the specific issue. The following
paragraphs include discussion pertaining to the issues and the potential actions to
consider for implement.
A. Route Section Summary
•
Route 213 Connector – West Section (between Exit 1 and 3)
The west section does not presently have a barrier in place at this time as shown in the
following photograph. The depressed median width in this section is generally between
40 and 50 feet similar to the eastern section. Recent survey data on the corridor shows
the median grades to be slightly steeper than a 1:6 slope. In addition, it was noted that
in this western section, there were several locations where a significant existing edge
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 15
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF SAFETY ISSUES
Safety Issue
Risk Rating
Preliminary Suggestions
Narrow median with no barrier on
western section
E
ƒ
Cable barrier installed too close to
pavement on eastern section (btwn
Exits 3-5)
E
ƒ Remove existing barrier and reinstall
further away from paved area
Slope of median > 1: 6 – affects
recovery along entire routes
C-D
ƒ One option is to add fill and regrade
the existing median
Narrow inside shoulder provided
that affects warning and recovery
potential
D-E
ƒ Provide a consistent inside shoulder
of at least 2 feet in width
ƒ Install rumble strip
ƒ Consider a striped strip
ƒ Install imbedded markers
Inside edge has significant drop off
on west section
B
ƒ Provide more fill and regrade
ƒ consider installing the angled safety
edge
“quick” off to Exit 4 WB from I-495
C
ƒ Provide additional advance warning
to motorists exiting I-495
Inadequate warning of I-495 lane
split affects lane change
C
ƒ Provide advance signage
immediately after Exit 4 on-ramp
with clear indication of lane usage
Interchange spacing too close
between exits 3 and 5
WB curve at Exit 2 feels
uncomfortable and differential with
EB section may affect opposing
motorists
C-D
C
Install cable barrier on west section
ƒ Add safety warning signs
ƒ Consider reduction in posted speed
ƒ Improve delineation with posts,
signage or markers
drop off from the pavement existed. Combining the 1) lack of inside shoulder 2) the
foreslope being steeper than 1:6 and 3) the edge drop off, the section has the high
probability of an errant vehicle unable to recover safely. With the above noted
conditions, the generally observed speeds (i.e. 60-65 mph) and the narrow median width
(40-50 feet), the potential for median cross-over crashes is high. As noted previously,
the reported cross-over crash discussed previously is presumed to have occurred in the
west section as it was reported after the cable barrier had been installed in the eastern
section. The crash report was not specific as to the exact location.
In addition, the drive-thru in the westbound direction in the vicinity of Exit 2 felt slightly
uncomfortable through the curve. This could be due to a number of factors including the
combination of the curve radius, the amount of super-elevation in place, the differential
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 16
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Median without barrier on western section of Route 213.
in elevation between the eastbound and westbound surfaces and/or the level of motorist
guidance through this section.
Using the AASHTO recommended criteria for median barriers, the combination of route
volumes and median width, a barrier is warranted as shown in Exhibit 4. However, there
are other actions that could be considered as well, although the potential effect of each
option will vary in its ability to prevent or reduce median cross-over crashes by
themselves. The options for the west section include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Install median barrier in an appropriate location away from
the pavement edge.
Provide a consistent inside shoulder with a minimum of 2 feet
(ideally 4 feet),
Install rumble strip within the wider inside shoulder,
Consider imbedded reflectors along the edge line,
Flatten out the grade of the median to 1:6 or flatter, and
Install delineators in westbound direction on curve near
Interchange No. 2
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 17
80
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(thousands)
70
BARRIER
RECOMMENDED
60
BARRIER
CONSIDERED
50
40
BARRIER
OPTIONAL
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
MEDIAN WIDTH
(feet)
Median Barrier Warrant Analysis
Route 213 Road Safety Audit
Methuen, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Exhibit 4
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
•
Route 213 Connector East Section (between Exit 3 and 5)
In the east section, the surface and median conditions are similar to the western section.
In response to a series of cross-over crashes that occurred in 2004 and 2005, cable
median barriers were installed in this section. As noted previously, the barrier was
installed on both sides of the median in close proximity to the pavement surface as the
grade of the median was steeper than a 1:6 slope. However, the barrier placed within 2
feet of the pavement edge combined with a narrow shoulder has contributed to a high
frequency of crashes and a greater level of repairs than would normally be expected.
Given the characteristics of the eastern section of Route 213, the actions listed above for
the west section would, therefore, also apply to the east section of the Connector with
the existing barrier placement being modified to be further from the roadway.
Some of the noted actions would be considered singularly while several would need to
be combined. For example, for rumble strips to be installed on the inside shoulder, the
shoulder needs to be widened to at least a consistent two (2) foot width, preferably four
(4) feet. Installing a new barrier or relocating the existing barrier does not require
widening the inside shoulder, though it may require regrading the slope of the median.
In contrast to the western section, the eastern section of the Connector appears to
experience more substantive issues related to lane changing and speed variation due to
the close spacing of the three interchanges. Speeds are currently posted at 55 mph so
further reduction doesn’t appear achievable nor be effective. Field drive-thru identified
potential problems with inadequate advance warning to motorists and abrupt lane
changes, both of which could contribute to lane departure crashes. Consequently,
additional signage and other safety measures could be considered in addressing these
issues.
B. Barrier Selection
In deciding on the type of barrier, recommended guidelines in selection are included in
Table 5 taken from the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide6. The cable barrier that was
installed in the east section of the Route 213 Connector is a Trinity CASS TL-3 cable
system. This type of system has been used on medians that typically have a slope of
1:6 or flatter in addition to having sufficient width to accommodate the maximum
deflection (approx. 12 feet) assuming posts set at 16 to 20 feet apart. Some states have
installed similar systems on 1:5 slopes (Missouri) as well as locations with narrower
medians but shorter post spacing (Rhode Island).
6
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 19
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 5
CRITERIA FOR BARRIER SELECTION
Criteria
Comments
1. Performance Capability
Barrier must be structurally able to contain and redirect
design vehicle.
Expected deflection of barrier should not exceed available
deflection distance.
Slope approaching the barrier and distance from traveled
way may preclude use of some barrier types.
2. Deflection
3. Site Conditions
4. Compatibility
5. Cost
6. Maintenance
A. Routine
B. Collision
C. Material Storage
D. Simplicity
7. Aesthetics
8. Field Experience
Barrier must be compatible with planned end anchor and
capable of transitioning to other barrier systems (such as
bridge railings).
Standard barrier systems are relatively consistent in cost,
but high-performance railings can cost significantly more.
Few systems require a significant amount of routine
maintenance.
Generally, flexible or semi-rigid systems require
significantly more maintenance after a collision than rigid
or high-performance railings.
The fewer different systems used, the fewer inventory
items/storage space required.
Simpler designs, besides costing less, are more likely to
be reconstructed properly by field personnel.
Occasionally, barrier aesthetics are an important
consideration in selection.
The performance and maintenance requirements of
existing systems should be monitored to identify problems
that could be lessened or eliminated by using a difference
barrier type.
Source: AASHTO, Roadside Design Guide, 2002, Chapter 5 Roadside Barriers.
The barrier currently installed on Route 213 includes driven posts spaced at 16 feet. As
discussed by the RSA team7, there are a few cable barrier systems that have been
developed and approved to date for slopes up to 1:4 with TL-3 ratings and certain
placement criteria.
From a cost and aesthetic perspective, the cable (flexible) barrier has its advantages
over the various guardrail systems or concrete barrier. The median slope and/or
recovery area also affects the use and placement of any barrier including guardrail. With
regard to the cable barrier, the RSA team has discussed two primary cable alternatives
noted below. In addition to the cable barrier systems, team members also suggested
that guardrail be considered in the evaluation. The alternative types of guardrail were
7
Note: includes systems manufactured by Brifen and Gibraltor.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 20
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
reviewed for potential application on this route. Considerations included the volume of
traffic, relative amount of truck traffic and travel speeds. Based on these, the most
applicable types of guardrail for this route include the W-beam with strong post or the
strong post thrie-beam. These rails are appropriate for high speed highways and high
volumes with a relatively high proportion of truck traffic. Costs for each are similar.
Based on the high volume, high speed and narrowness of the median and inside
shoulder, the strong post thrie-beam was selected as the preferred rail alternative for this
project location. This type of rail for the median is also consistent with MassHighway
practices along most of its major highways including the interstate system.
Consequently, the barrier options being considered include the follow:
¾ Option 1 - Modifying the existing median grade to a flatter slope of 1:6 minimum
from the paved area and reuse the existing Trinity CASS (TL-3) system installed
in the eastern section. Only one barrier run would be re-installed and it would
ideally be located in the more critical side of the median along its length. It is
possible under this option to limit the regrading of the median to the one side
where the barrier will be placed.
¾ Option 2 - Minimizing the work on the existing median and install the Brifen TL-4
4-rope Wire Rope Safety Fence (WRSF) or an equivalent8 barrier system that is
approved for a 1:4 slope. This option would require removing the existing Trinity
CASS cable barrier system in the east section and storing it until finding another
location to reuse the material.
¾ Option 3 - The guardrail option to be considered for this study is the modified
thrie-beam with strong posts. This rail can be installed within a few feet of the
paved area due to its short deflection distance. Similar to Option 2, the existing
cable barrier would be removed and stored. Given the median slope, a single
line on one side of the median that uses double sided rail was selected under this
option for analysis and comparative purposes. Alternatively, two runs of single
side rail could be installed with higher costs than the single run double sided
option assuming the same roadway sections were treated.
In all options, the entire route is recommended to be addressed. For the purpose of this
RSA, implementation has been assumed for the section between Station 30 and Station
180. The first option would require median work for approximately 15,000 feet but could
8
Note: Gibraltor manufacturers a similar cable barrier system. Both have been approved by FHWA for
certain conditions. Approval letters are in the Appendix.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 21
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
reuse the existing cable and posts currently in use in the eastern section. For analysis
purposes, 13,000 feet of the cable and 20 terminal end sections were assumed to be
reused in Option 1. Regardless of the options, all the existing cable in the eastern
section would need to be removed. Option 1 would require an estimated additional
2,000 feet +/- of cable and an estimated five (5) additional end units. Under Option 1,
modifying (regrading) the median is required at least on the one side where it is to be
installed to provide a 1:6 slope. The initial cost estimate completed by the District
assumed the entire median is addressed which is preferred by the District staff. The
regrading effort could be reduced significantly from the initial estimate prepared by the
District office if only the side of the median where the barrier would be placed is
regraded. The current system includes driven posts. Sockets (or sleeves) could also be
used for the posts. While the initial costs to install the posts with sleeves would be
greater, the repair time and associated costs would be lower based on experience in
other states. With a single line installed, the placement of the cable barrier with posts
spaced at 16 feet could be approximately one foot from the center of the drainage ditch
for the roadway. This would effectively be approximately 19 feet from the edge of
pavement on the side the barrier is placed. This location would be expected to
significantly reduce the number of “hits” and associated repairs.
Order of magnitude costs for regrading the median along the entire length on both sides
was originally estimated at $200,000. A more detailed cost estimate completed by
District 4 staff confirmed this cost. Removing the existing barriers is estimated to cost
$105,900 which would be similar under each option. The re-installation costs of the
Trinity TL-3 barrier in new locations along the entire route are estimated at $236,000.
This includes both the reuse of 13,000 feet of cable and posts and the estimated 2,000
feet of new cable and related posts. The total estimated cost for Option 1, including
contingency costs (10%) is estimated to be $768,500.
Option 2 makes use of the Brifen TL-4 4-rope Wire Rope Safety Fence (WRSF) system
(or its equivalent) that has been approved for slopes of 1:4 and meeting the test level 3
(TL-3) criteria. Costs for the Brifen system based on recent MassHighway experience
and a more detailed estimate completed by the District 4 staff are estimated at $868,600
including the 10% contingency. This option includes removal of the existing barrier
system. The cost also includes drainage maintenance an improvements included in
Option 1. One advantage of this system is that major work on flattening the median
would be eliminated. In addition, the existing Trinity CASS TL-3 system could potentially
be reused by MassHighway elsewhere in the State where the median slopes are flatter
than the Methuen location at the current time.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 22
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
According to the FHWA approval (see attached approval letter), using the Brifen system
on a 4:1 slope requires it to be installed no further than four (4) feet down a slope
steeper than 6:1 from its “break point” and no closer than 10 feet from the bottom of the
drainage ditch. While the need to regrade the median is unnecessary under Option 2, it
should be noted that its installation on slopes steeper than 6:1 is likely to require
placement no more than 4 feet from the “break point” in slope moving away from the
paved surface. Based on general conditions of Route 213, it is estimated that placement
would be within approximately 6 feet from the existing edge of pavement. As such,
maximum deflection of 6 feet is required. To achieve this, post spacing of a Brifen type
system would be approximately 5 feet. With shorter post spacing, more posts are
necessary. Whether posts are socketed or not, in its costs for this system will tend to be
greater than the existing CASS system due to more posts and it is a 4 rope system.
However, reusing the existing system will necessitate median grading work. One further
note, if at sometime in the future the inside should is widened – the “break point” will
likely shift and could require relocating the Brifen type system. The FHWA approval
letter with the test details is in the Appendix.
Cable barrier systems in general are less costly to install and maintain than rail systems,
however, the existing Methuen barrier needs to be relocated to achieve this advantage.
Other cited advantages of the cable barrier systems are the aesthetics as well as
minimal visibility loss to a driver. A disadvantage of the barrier system when compared
to the rail is that once hit, the cable section(s) need to be immediately repaired including
redriven posts and retensioning. While the costs to install or reinstall the cable barrier
systems is significant, there should also be a corresponding reduction in repair costs and
congestion delay costs with better placement when compared to the current condition.
This is due to the presumed lower frequency of barrier “hits” and times when travel lanes
must be closed to accommodate the repairs time.
The guardrail option (Option 3) would still require removal of the existing cable barrier
but would not necessarily require modifying the median slope or require widening of the
inside shoulder. The rail could be placed within a foot or two of the existing edge of
pavement. The guardrail, in general, does potentially affect visibility, however, there
should not be a negative effect on this route. A disadvantage in locations of high snow
potential and being located in close proximity to pavement surface could be snow
storage and its possible encroachment in the travel lane. Noted advantages of the
guardrail is the minimum deflection expected and that the integrity and effectiveness of
the rail is largely maintained even after being struck.
This contrasts with the cable barrier which when hit must be repaired quickly. Vehicles
would be redirected back into the travelway, but if not under control, this could potentially
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 23
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
result in a serious incident with the likelihood of injury or fatal consequences. If this
occurs, the highway would be temporarily closed or at least reduced in throughput
capacity for a period of time. The preliminary cost estimate to implement the guardrail is
$990,000 including removing the existing cable and a 10% contingency fee.
Table 6 summarizes the major installation elements of the barrier options including the
estimated costs.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL BARRIER OPTIONS
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Option 1 CASS
System with
median regrading
Work item
Median work
$198,000
Median drainage work
Option 2 – 1:4
Approved type
system– no
median work
$0
2
Option 3 Thrie-beam
Guardrail
$0
$91,000
$91,000
$105,000
$105,000
$105,000
Reinstall existing barrier
$170,000
$0
$0
Install new barrier
$66,000
$525,000
$695,000
Misc., safety controls
$68,600
$68,600
$100,000
Contingency at 10%
$69,900
$79,000
$90,000
$768,5001
$868,6003
$990,0003
Removal
of
existing
barrier
Total (rounded)
$0
1 Assumes only half the median is regraded.
2 Drainage maintenance work can also be completed under Option 2 though is could be done as a
separate project at another time. However, if it was going to be done, it would appear reasonable to do it
when the barrier is being installed.
3 Note: the inventory value of the CASS system put in storage is estimated at (est. at $100,000).
A planning level comparison of the three (3) barrier options is summarized in Table 7.
Of the three barrier options, the two cable options appear to be more cost-effective
compared to the guardrail with implementation costs estimated to be $175,000 or more
lower than installing the guardrail. With better placement than exists today, the repair
and routine maintenance costs of the cable barrier should not be a major factor
compared to the guardrail. Based on several factors such as implementation timeframe,
cost estimates, considering the width of the median, the FHWA approval guidelines and
the future work on Route 213 that could include the shoulder widening, Option 1 appears
to be the most appropriate barrier alternative for this specific location at this time.
Option 1 is the recommendation of the RSA team.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 24
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL
BARRIER OPTIONS
Criteria
Option 1 CASS
System with
median regrading
Option 2 – 1:4
Approved type
– no
median work
Option 3
Thrie-beam
Guardrail
No work required
No work required
Cost
requires
modification
$768,500
$868,600
$990,000
Maintenance
minimal
minimal
moderate
Routine
periodic
retensioning
required
immediately
periodic
retensioning
required
immediately
placed no more
than 4 feet from
slope of
breakpoint - 6-8
ft from edge of
pavement
periodic
replacement of rail
not likely needed
immediately
placed at 2 feet of
pavement edge
Median slope
Repair
Placement
placed at 1 feet
from center of
drainage ditch –
19 ft off edge of
pavement
C. Non-Barrier Actions
Non-barrier actions were also identified and examined consistent with the issues listed
previously in Table 4. These types of actions beyond the barrier installation were
identified and evaluated from an “enhance safety” perspective and/or to further reduce
some of the crash types that have occurred. These additional actions are related to
addressing deceleration lane movements and conflicts, and lane changing related
crashes. They also are designed to improve visibility and overall guidance to motorists.
The items and approximate costs of these actions are shown in Table 8. These actions
are not all essential nor need to be all done at once if deemed appropriate. Most, if not
all, actions are complimentary to the barrier installation.
The most significant item in terms of costs would be the reconstruction and/or widening
of the inside shoulder to obtain a consistent minimum width of two feet. It would consist
of between 30,000 and 34,000 ft of road work (both directions). This action is not
essential with the relocation and new installation of the cable barrier or installing the
guardrail. Based on the available record plans it would in all likelihood be required in
order to install rumble strips. A more thorough engineering evaluation including field
survey would be recommended to determine the level of capability and reconstruction
necessary.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 25
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF OTHER SUGGESTIONS
FOR CONSIDERATION
Notes
Preliminary
Estimated Cost
Provide a consistent, two (2) foot
$714,4001
Potential Action
Improve, widen inside shoulder
inside shoulder (4 foot desired)
Install rumble strip on inside
Requires wider inside shoulder
$8,500
shoulder
Construct angled safety edge
Provides
opportunity
for
errant
Typically 1% to 2%
vehicle to recover and re-enter
of resurfacing cost
roadway. Also, minimizes further
erosion and edge raveling – short
term action could add fill
Install imbedded reflectors along
Edge line: 1 every 20 feet
$34,000
edge line and travel lane line
Lane line: 1 every 35 feet
$19,400
Install flexible delineators
On curve in WB direction near Exit 2
– approximately 1,500 feet
Advance warning of I-495 and
“Pleasant Valley Street” exit
$1,500
Add
supplemental
roadside
guide signage (3 locations)
Replace overhead guide sign at
Station 161+60
Route 495 On-Ramp Lane Use sign
on Route 213 EB just past the Exit 4
on-ramp – similar actions planned as
part of MHD project
$9,000
$7,600
1 – does not include concrete barrier during construction or other TMP related items, assumes box widening -34,000 ft.
While rumble strips have been shown to be an effective safety tool, if the inside shoulder
had to be widened to the fullest extent, then the cost-effectiveness at this time would
come into question at this time. Particularly since the barrier installation along the full
length of the corridor is intended to prevent the cross-over crashes. When the roadway
is next scheduled for a major rehabilitation/reconstruction, the inside shoulder and
rumble strip could be addressed at that time when a lower incremental unit cost would
be expected.
The angled safety edge is an action that would not prevent a vehicle from crossing the
median, but would maintain the edge of the roadway so that an errant vehicle could
potentially recover and re-enter the roadway. Research shows that an edge drop-off of
4 inches or more can create hazard and prevent a vehicle from recovering and reentering the roadway. The angled edge (at 30 degrees) provides a increased chance in
a motorist recovering and re-entering the travel way. The technique is relatively new
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 26
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
and continues to be under evaluation. Its cost is relatively small as part of an overall
construction or resurfacing project (guidelines9 suggest one to two percent of resurfacing
project costs). The negative is that the edge must be done at the time of resurfacing and
cannot be completed separately as a stand alone action. In the short term, an interim
measure would be to add fill as part of regular maintenance of the route in the areas that
the drop-off is excessive.
The imbedded, reflectorized markers along the edge line is a relatively low cost
($34,000) action that could be accomplished within the existing shoulder area. The
marker would provide enhanced guidance to motorists, particularly at night, along the
edge which would be beneficial as the effectiveness of the reflectors in the cable posts
will be significantly reduced when the cable is moved away from the pavement edge.
An added item for the curve near Interchange No. 2 in the Westbound direction is to
install flexible reflective delineators to provide more information to motorists. This would
be for approximately 1,500 feet. It is estimated to cost $1,500.
The final action relates to improved guide signage. These would be in relation to the
Pleasant Valley interchange and the necessary lane designations on the approach to the
I-495 on-ramps. The first sign would be an additional roadside sign on the I-495
westbound off-ramp to Route 213 providing earlier notice of the Exit 4 off-ramp. A
second suggestion was to replace the existing overhead sign in the eastbound direction
at Station 161+60 with a new sign that shows lane designations. The existing sign
simply indicates I-495 is ½ mile away and does not provide adequate information to the
motorist. By the time lane designations are shown or inferred by an existing overhead
sign at 185+35, it is late in the decision process of the driver. The RSA Team became
aware of a separate sign project planned for Route 213. Plans were obtained and
specifically reviewed in relation to the issues identified in this Road Safety Audit. The
proposed additional signs proposed for the section between Pleasant Valley Street
(Interchange 4) and I-495 (Interchange 5) were determined to 1) be a substantial
improvement over existing signage and 2) would address the issues identified. The sign
sheets from the 100% Design Plans are included in the Appendix.
Finally, two supplemental roadside signs should be considered in the eastbound
direction prior to Interchange No. 3 (approx. between Stations 75+00 and 80+00) to
provide greater advance warning. These would indicate: 1) “I-495 – 2 miles” and 2)
“Pleasant Valley Street – Exit 4”.
9
Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6: A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road
Collisions, Washington, D.C., 2003.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 27
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
D. Recommendations
Based on a review of the issues, the potential actions and factors such as the ease of
implementation, cost, the relative contribution to the identified problem and risk rating, a
set of recommended actions were developed. These are shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF SAFETY ISSUES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
Risk
Recommended
Safety Issue
Rating
Actions
Narrow median with
no barrier on western
section
E
ƒ
Install cable barrier
on west section
ƒ
High
Cable barrier installed
close to pavement on
eastern section
(between Exits 3-5)
E
ƒ
Remove existing
barrier and reinstall
further away from
paved area
ƒ
Slope of median > 1:
6 – effects recovery
along entire routes
C-D
ƒ
Add fill and
regarded
Narrow inside
shoulder provided that
affects warning and
recovery potential
D-E
ƒ
Inside edge has
significant drop off on
west section
B
“quick” off to Exit 4
WB from I-495
Inadequate warning of
I-495 lane split affects
lane change
Interchange spacing
too close between
exits 3 and 5
WB curve at Exit 2
feels uncomfortable
and differential with
EB section may affect
opposing motorists
Estimated
Timeframe
Costs
ƒ
Short term
$352,050
High
ƒ
Short term
$416,450
ƒ
High
ƒ
Short term
included in
above costs
Program
eventually
reconstruction
Install rumble strip
ƒ
Low
ƒ
Long term
cost out at
later date
ƒ
Install angled edge
as part of
reconstruction
ƒ
Low
ƒ
Long term
cost out at
later date
when
programmed
C
ƒ
Add supplemental
roadside sign
ƒ
High
ƒ
Short term
low – part of
separate
sign contract
C
ƒ
Replace existing
overhead sign at
Sta. 161+60 with
lane designation
sign
ƒ
High
ƒ
Short term
low – part of
separate
sign contract
C-D
ƒ
Add supplemental
signage (2
roadsides)
ƒ
High
ƒ
Short term
low – part of
separate
sign contract
C
ƒ
Install imbedded
markers along
edge line – both
directions – in this
section and the
entire route
Install flexible
delineators along
length of curve
ƒ
Moderate to
high
ƒ
Medium
term –
should be
done when
barrier
relocated
$34,000
ƒ
Moderate
ƒ
ƒ
Priority
$1,500
Note: Costs do not include traffic control that may be necessary.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 28
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
While a number of actions are identified as high priority, the most important is
addressing the barrier. It is recommended the existing barrier installation be modified
including relocated further from the pavement surface. It is further recommended that
cable barrier be used rather than guardrail. In terms of barrier type, it is recommended
that a cable barrier system be installed in the median along the connector’s entire length
as discussed herein. This requires the existing barrier to be removed and reset.
Following review of the options and more detailed review of construction costs as well as
possible future improvements, the RSA team is recommending that for the Route 213
Connector project, the existing Trinity CASS system with driven posts be used. The use
of this system will require re-grading the median to restore the original constructed slope
of 6:1. The total estimated cost for this action is $768,500.
Once the barrier is relocated on the eastern section, imbedded reflectors are
recommended to be installed along the edge lines throughout the route in both directions
as the barrier posts with reflectors would be well away from the roadway as well as
downgrade. Flexible delineator posts are a cost-effective option to embedded reflectors
for added guidance, particularly in the short term at a lower cost. Although it is
recognized that cost-effective benefits result from the rumble strip installation, the inside
shoulder must be fully addressed to accommodate the strip. Given the high cost of
widening as a stand alone action, it is recommended that this widening and rumble strip
be completed as part of a future (long term) overall reconstruction or rehabilitation
project. The angled edge could be addressed at that time as well. The new or
supplemental signage will be addressed by a separate sign project scheduled for 2008
or 2009.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 29
Route 213 Methuen Median Cross-Over RSA
Appendix
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
RSA Meeting Agenda
Prompt List
Traffic Volume Data
Cross-Over Crash Data
Barrier “hit” Record
FHWA Approval Letters
Existing and Proposed Route Survey
Cross-Section Information
¾ Route 213 Sign Replacement
Project Sheets
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 30
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
RSA Meeting Agenda
Road Safety Audit
Methuen – Route 213
Meeting Location: MassHighway District 4 Office
519 Appleton Street, Arlington
Thursday, December 6, 2007
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Type of meeting:
Cross Median – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
10:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
10:15 AM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Cross Median Crashes
10:30 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
11:00 AM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using RSA Prompt List as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
12:00 PM
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on December 6th participants are encouraged to drive
Route 213 in Methuen 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.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Prompt List
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Road Safety Audit Prompt List
Lane Departure – Median Cross Over Incidents
Route:__213________
Section ID:___________
Direction of Travel:_______________
Municipality:____Methuen_________________________________
Date of Field Audit:___11/29/07 & 12/04/07
RSA Manager:__W. Scully______________________
Prompt List
Issues to be Considered
General Topics
What is the approximate length of section under study?
17,000 feet in total, approx 7,500 ft has barrier installed
How many lanes in direction?
2
Are the general characteristics of the section generally consistent or do they vary?
Does the alignment affect the "readability" or "feel" of alignment (i.e. driver recognition) by driver?
Road Section
Comments
consistent
in spots - near Exit 2 EB felt different
Is crash location or specific area of concern on upgrade, downgrade or level area?
Is crash area on an inside or outside of horizontal curve?
varies - near on ramps and lane change areas
Does superelevation exist in curve section?
What is the differential (i.e. vertical dist.) between directional road sections, if any?
Any noted drainage or ponding areas in section or crash area?
Road
Alignment
and
Cross Section
Are there any sudden changes in the highway alignment that could affect the driver?
How wide is inside shoulder?
generallty little except near Exit 2
not noticeable
no
narrow - maybe 1 foot +/-
What is the slope of the shoulder
Does rumble strip exist in inside shoulder?
Shoulders
no
How far is rumble strip from edge line and is this effective?
n/a
Are there drainage grates in shoulder?
not generally , CBs were noted to exist more on ramps
Does type or condition of drain stucture create driving hazard?
Is there an edge drop off at median? How much in terms of inches?
Speed
What is the typical observed speed of drivers in that location?
conditions not good in places - should have no effect on thru traffic
between exists 1 & 3
high 60-65 mph
Does typical speed in section "feel" comfortable to driver?
How wide is median?
less than 50 - old plans indicate close to 40 feet
Is median depressed, flat or mounded? General topography should be noted.
What is slope of depressed median?
Medians
slope appears greater than 1:6
Are there any scattered obstructions (i.e. trees, light poles) in the median?
Is there any clear "flat" recovery area adjacent to shoulder?
MassHighway
depressed - slope appears greater than 1:6
no - drainage in center of median
none between exits 3 and 5
Is clear zone or clear area too narrow to accommodate recovery?
in theory - recovery area could accommodate between Exits 1 and 3
Can clear area or clear zone be widened? Or do constraints exist?
no -currently limited by width of median, drainage system and locations of lanes
RSA Major Highway Median Cross-Over Prompt List
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Road Safety Audit Prompt List
Lane Departure – Median Cross Over Incidents
Route:__213________
Section ID:___________
Direction of Travel:_______________
Municipality:____Methuen_________________________________
Date of Field Audit:___11/29/07 & 12/04/07
RSA Manager:__W. Scully______________________
Prompt List
Issues to be Considered
General Topics
What guide signs exist indicating exit ahead?
typical advance (1 mile) but 1/3 mile between Exits 3 and 4
Is the distance that these signs are installed from the exit adequate?
Signage
Is the sign legend clear/understandable to driver?
not in every situation i.e. EB Exists 3 to 4, WB I495 to Exit 4)
EB approach to I495 lane use - feels too late
Are there any signs or items on the roadside that might distract the driver?
Interchanges
Comments
not in every situation i.e. EB Exists 3 to 4, WB I495 to Exit 4)
Are these signs/items unwarranted or unclear?
Is the exit visible from a safe distance?
Merging
Is the merging distance long enough to merge properly?
short between Exit 3 on ramp and Exit 4 off-ramp
Does adequate deceleration lane in terms of length exist?
Does merge-diverge area appear to negatively affect the driver movement in crash area?
Are the lane and edge markings in adequate condition?
Markings
markings were adequate at time of field visit
Do the travel lanes have the in pavement reflectors placed along the lane lines? If so, note condition.
no
Does the inside edge line have embedded reflectors? If so, note condition.
no
In areas of horizontal curves, are chevron warning signs or delineators in place?
Signs
Markings
it may
signs not needed, cable posts have reflectors on them
and
Is the signage in good condition?
Signage
yes
Is the reflectivity in good condition? How is visibility at night?
Are there any lights illuminating signage?
no
Are there any advance warning signs indicating you are approaching a curve?
Are they aligned to be visible from a distance?
Is the pavement surface in below average condition? Could it have contributed to crash?
Physical
Pavement
Does the pavement surface drain adequately or are there areas of ponding?
Are there changes in the surface type in area of crashes?
Design
Lighting
surface condition is good
no
some change from inside shoulder to travel lane - doesn't appear to be significant
Is the pavement section adequately skid resistant?
Are there any light poles illuminating areas?
no
Are these lights working?
n/a
Would lighting be helpful in this location?
Other
MassHighway
Do oncoming headlights affect motorist visibility?
maybe near exit 2
RSA Major Highway Median Cross-Over Prompt List
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Traffic Volume Data
Hourly Traffic Volumes - Route 213 Corridor in Methuen
213 West of I-495 (June 22, 2005)
Start time
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
213 West of I- 213 West of I495 (June 22, 495 (June 22,
2005) - EB
2005) - WB
TOTAL
274
210
484
159
148
307
104
79
183
91
81
172
161
149
310
538
567
1105
1510
1290
2800
1909
1997
3906
1768
2005
3773
1487
1691
3178
1465
1657
3122
1613
1753
3366
1750
1846
3596
1792
1749
3541
2036
1939
3975
2169
2474
4643
2400
2478
4878
2485
2499
4984
1877
2043
3920
1553
1578
3131
1488
1329
2817
1309
957
2266
798
641
1439
409
413
822
Daily Total
31145
31573
62718
213 West of Rte 28 August 21, 2006)
213 West of 213 West of
Rte 28
Rte 28
(August 21, (August 21,
Start time
2006) - EB 2006) - WB
12:00 AM
309
184
1:00 AM
209
134
2:00 AM
165
92
3:00 AM
164
109
4:00 AM
227
231
5:00 AM
577
874
6:00 AM
1348
1653
7:00 AM
1707
2401
8:00 AM
1688
2245
9:00 AM
1467
1610
10:00 AM
1416
1529
11:00 AM
1512
1515
12:00 PM
1652
1681
1:00 PM
1561
1817
2:00 PM
1878
1815
3:00 PM
2172
2117
4:00 PM
2647
2101
5:00 PM
2766
2265
6:00 PM
2138
1698
7:00 PM
1519
1423
8:00 PM
1233
1195
9:00 PM
1018
845
10:00 PM
737
561
11:00 PM
572
429
Daily Total
30682
30524
213 East of Rte 28 (June 20, 2007)
TOTAL
493
343
257
273
458
1451
3001
4108
3933
3077
2945
3027
333
3378
3693
4289
4748
5031
3836
2942
2428
1863
1298
1001
61206
Start time
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Daily Total
213 East of 213 East of
Rte 28 (June Rte 28 (June
20, 2007) - EB20, 2005) - WB TOTAL
245
206
451
146
144
290
111
90
201
96
96
192
188
200
388
587
735
1322
1405
1424
2829
1764
2224
3988
1719
2283
4002
1491
1856
3347
1613
1796
3409
1748
1813
3561
1840
1914
3754
1785
1875
3660
2042
2132
4174
2365
2342
4707
2733
2499
5232
2805
2552
5357
2215
1973
4188
1658
1676
3334
1471
1360
2831
1291
1075
2366
782
726
1508
456
434
890
32556
33425
65981
3000
2500
213 West of I-495 (June 22, 2005) - EB
213 West of I-495 June 22, 2005) - WB
213 West of Rte 28 (August 21, 2006) - EB
213 West of Rte 28 (August 21, 2006) - WB
213 East of Rte 28 (June 20, 2007) - EB
213 East of Rte 28 (June 20, 2007) - WB
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
R.R. X-ING #STA.
5212
5021
5023
ROUTE/STR CITY/TOWN LOCATION
RTE.213
RTE.213
RTE.213
Source: MHD route book
METHUEN
METHUEN
METHUEN
EAST OF RTE.28
WEST OF RTE.28
WEST OF RTE.I-495
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
50,500
2005
STA.
54,800
5212
5021
5023
56,600
50,300
43,800
2004
63,500
53,200
55,100
55,700
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Cross-Over Crash Data
RT 213 MEDIAN CRASH ANALYSIS
FROM 2006 TO 2007
LIGHT CONDITION
ALL CRASH TOTAL
DARK - ROADWAY
DAYLIGHT
NOT LIGHTED
13
100%
9
4
69%
31%
WEATHER CONDITION
CLOUDY
CLEAR
RAIN
NOT REPORTED
10
1
1
1
77%
8%
8%
8%
ROAD SURFACE
DRY
WET
12
1
92%
8%
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
WESTBOUND
EASTBOUND
9
1
NOT REPORTED
3
69%
8%
23%
MANNER OF COLLISION
SINGLE VEHICLE
SIDESWIPE
CRASH
SAME DIRECTION
12
1
92%
8%
FIRST HARMFUL EVENT LOCATION
SHOULDER
MEDIAN
ROADWAY
NOT REPORTED
UNPAVED
8
1
1
3
62%
8%
8%
23%
FIRST HARMFUL EVENT
MOTOR VEHICLE
TREE
GUARDRAIL
MEDIAN BARRIER
IN TRAFFIC
8
1
3
1
62%
8%
23%
8%
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
EXCEEDED AUTHORIZED
FAILURE TO KEEP
SPEED LIMIT
IN PROPER LANE
NOT REPORTED
1
1
11
7%
36%
36%
CRASH SEVERITY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
NON-FATAL
ONLY
INJURY
7
5
1
54%
38%
8%
NOT REPORTED
AD
RO
CD
725
93 S
B
STA
TE
INT
ER
1,450
ET
2,900
Feet
MS
TR E
2,175
HA
EET
ET
P
A
LE
SA
R
EE
LA
W
R
ST
BE
NT
AL
L
TS
RE
T
AC
E
ST
RE
R EET
ET
EAST S T
NC
K
HI
AY
W
H
G
RA
MP
METHUEN
PLEASANT VALLEY STREET
Route 213 2006-2007 Median Related Crashes
BR
AD
EE
D
OA
0
PEL
O
EL
R
LR
AI
R
ST
W
LAWRENCE
21
O
RT
11
3
T
Municipal Boundary
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Six of the thirteen crashes that were identified
were able to be mapped. Crash years 2006
and 2007 have not yet been closed. Only
represents crashes that were able to be
located and those that involved running off
the road left, crossing the median/centerline,
or striking the median barrier.
EE
Interstate
Major Roads
Route 213 Median Barrier Installed
Median Related Crashes
Legend
BT
R
ST
3W
AN
SW
-R
T
±
495
LO
T
RE
RE
93
T
NS
SO
LS
T
ER
E
AT
ST
CK
ST R
495
STATE
T
IN
INTE R
S TR E E
HO WE
JA
PA R
K
INT
E
TAT
E RS
ET
Y
WA
T
Included below are copies of the narratives from the State Police crash report forms.
These four crashes all involved crossing the median into the opposing lanes which took
place prior to the installation of the cable .
September 26, 2004:
VEH 1 TRAVELING ON RT 213 EAST AT UNKNOWN SPEED. FOR SOME
UNKNOWN REASON, VEH 1 VEERED TO THE LEFT ACROSS THE MEDIAN,
ACROSS THE WESTBOUND LANES OF RT 213 COMING TO REST UP AGAINST
AN EMBANKMENT TO THE RIGHT OF THE BDL ON RT 213 EAST. WITNESS
CALLED SP ANDOVER AND ADVISED THAT THE OPERATOR HAD EXITED
THE VEHICLE, CLIMBED ON HIS HOOD, HOPPED OVER THE FENCE, AND
FLED ON FOOT. A SEARCH OF THE AREA WAS NEGATIVE. NUMEROUS
ATTEMPTS WERE MADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE OWNER OF VEH
1. THE OWNER OF VEH 1 NEVER RESPONDED TO MY REQUESTS. DUE TO
THE RELATIVELY MINOR DAMAGE TO VEH 1 AND THAT FACT THAT VEH 1
WAS REGISTERED IN NH, NO FURTHER ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO
DETERMINE WHO WAS THE OPERATOR. CASE CLOSED.
February 26, 2005
VEHICLE # 1 TRAVELING IN LEFT LANE OF ROUTE 213 WEST IN METHUEN.
VEHICLE #2 TRAVELING IN RIGHT LANE OF ROUTE 213 EAST. VEHICLE #1
TRAVELING AT LEAST 85 MPH IN THE POSTED 55 MPH. VEHICLE #1 LOSES
CONTROL AND SWERVES PARTIALLY INTO THE MEDIAN DUE TO THE
EXCESSIVE SPEED. THE OPERATOR THEN SWERVED TO THE RIGHT AND
REENTERED ROUTE 213 WEST. THE OPERATOR AGAIN LOST CONTROL AND
SWERVED BACK TO THE LEFT, CROSSED THE GRASS MEDIAN, AND
STRUCK VEHICLE #2. VEHICLE #1 STRUCK VEHICLE #2 WITH SUCH FORCE
THAT VEHICLE 1 WAS COMPLETELY SPLIT IN HALF. THE FRONT END OF
VEHICLE #1 CAME TO REST IN THE TRAVEL WAY, WHILE THE REAR END
CAME TO REST IN THE MEDIAN. OPERATOR VEHICLE #1 REMOVED FROM
THE VEHICLE BY METHUEN FIRE AND TRANSPORTED TO LAWRENCE
GENERAL HOSPITAL. OPERATOR VEHICLE #2 TRANSPORTED TO HOLY
FAMILY HOSPITAL WITH MINOR INJURIES. BOTH VEHICLES REMOVED BY
MARTINEAU'S TOWING. OPERATOR VEHICLE #1 ISSUED CITATION M1010164
FOR OPERATING NEGLIGENTLY SO AS TO ENDANGER, MARKED LANES
VIOLATION, AND SPEEDING.
November 23, 2004
Vehicle #1 traveling in left lane of Rte 213 east bound at approximately 60 mph. Vehicle
#2 traveling in right travel lane at operator stated speed of 65 mph. Operator of vehicle
#2 is on her cell phone and loses control of her vehicle striking vehicle #1. Vehicle 31
subsequently travels into median area, rolls over and comes to final rest on its side in
westbound lanes of traffic. Operator of vehicle #1 is ejected from vehicle and is found in
median area. Vehicle #2 travels into median area and strikes drainage cover. Operator
of vehicle #1 is transported to Lawrence General Hospital and then transferred to Beth
Israel Hospital where he died during surgery. Tpr. Pultar of Accident Reconstruction
and Analysis conducts Kinematics Analysis of accident scene. Operator of vehicle #2 is
be cited for marked lanes 89-4A, speeding 90-17, impeded operation 90-13 and Negligent
operation of motor vehicle resulting on death 90-24 G(b). *********Accident
Reconstruction Report to follow*********
January 6, 2006
VEHICLE 1 WAS TRAVELING IN THE LEFT TRAVEL LANE OF ROUTE 213
WEST IN METHUEN. VEHICLE 1 LOST CONTROL AND TRAVELED ACROSS
THE MEDIAN AND THE TWO EASTBOUND LANES. VEHICLE 1 CAME TO A
STOP AFTER STRIKING THE GUARDRAIL ON THE EASTBOUND SIDE. THE
OPERATOR OF VEHICLE 1 SUFFERED MINOR INJURIES AND WAS
TRANSPORTATED TO HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL BY METHUEN FIRE/RESCUE.
THE OPERATOR OF VEHICLE 1 STATED THAT AN UNKNOWN VEHICLE HAD
CUT HER OFF, CAUSING THE CRASH. THERE WERE NO WITNESS’S TO THE
CRASH.
MSP COMPSTAT
ROUTE 213
01/01/07 – 11/18/07
CRASHES ROUTE 213: Year-to-Date
ROUTE:
213
213
213 E
213 N
213 S
213 W
TOTAL
2006
1
5
20
1
2007
3
30
2
29
64
26
53
% CHANGE
-100%
-40%
50%
-100%
*
12%
21%
CRASHES ROUTE 213: By Month
MONTH
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
TOTAL
2006
8
6
1
10
4
6
3
5
1
5
4
53
2007
4
4
10
4
2
7
12
6
5
6
4
64
% CHANGE
-50%
-33%
900%
-60%
-50%
17%
300%
20%
400%
20%
0%
21%
MSP COMPSTAT
ROUTE 213
01/01/07 – 11/18/07
CRASHES ROUTE 213: SubClass by Year
SUBCLASS
Crash - MV PDO
Crash - MV PI
TOTAL
2006
42
11
53
2007
53
11
64
CRASHES ROUTE 213: Personal Injury Crashes
DATE
DAY
TIME
11/13/2007
8/23/2007
7/18/2007
7/2/2007
6/6/2007
4/24/2007
4/3/2007
3/20/2007
3/9/2007
2/25/2007
2/4/2007
10/31/2006
10/8/2006
9/3/2006
6/12/2006
6/9/2006
4/9/2006
4/5/2006
4/1/2006
2/18/2006
2/2/2006
1/6/2006
Tue
Thu
Wed
Mon
Wed
Tue
Tue
Tue
Fri
Sun
Tue
Tue
Sun
Sun
Mon
Fri
Sun
Wed
Sat
Sat
Thu
Fri
20:10
07:05
16:09
22:04
16:35
15:15
08:10
12:20
17:10
18:59
15:00
08:45
17:02
03:50
21:48
16:50
15:36
19:00
23:00
01:15
13:30
14:30
MANNER
OF COLL
NUMBER
OF VEHS
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ROUTE
213 E
213 W
213 E
213 W
213 W
213 E
213 W
213 E
213 W
213 E
213 E
213
213
213
213 E
213 E
213 W
213 W
213 E
213 W
213 W
213 W
SUMMARY
RT 213 East, Exit 2
RT 213 West, West of BROADWAY
RT 213 East & RAMP - RT 213 EB TO RT 495 NB
RT 213 West & INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 West &RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 93 SB
RT 213 East, East of Exit 2
RT 213 West, at RT 93
RT 213 East, 0 of INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 West from 495N
213 East, Exit 4
213 East, Mile Marker Exit 2
213, 100 YD West of Exit 2
Route 213 under rt. 93
RT 213, North of RT 93
RT 213 E Exit 2
RT 213 E Intersecting HOWE ST
RT 213 W
RT 213 W
RT 213 E Intersecting RT 113
213@ RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 93 NB:
213W: West Of: @ RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 28:
213W: Closest Reference:
There is no data to indicate any of the above crashes involved head-on collisions or side-swipe opposite direction
collisions.
Crashes for which there is no collision data are primarily those at which the State Police assisted local police departments
and therefore did not complete the crash report in RAMS.
MSP COMPSTAT
ROUTE 213
01/01/07 – 11/18/07
CRASHES ROUTE 213: Property Damage Crashes (No head-on or side-swipe opposite direction collisions)
DATE
DAY
TIME
11/13/2007
11/12/2007
11/3/2007
10/28/2007
10/25/2007
10/12/2007
10/11/2007
10/8/2007
10/3/2007
9/28/2007
9/27/2007
9/19/2007
9/16/2007
9/14/2007
8/29/2007
8/21/2007
8/14/2007
8/14/2007
8/13/2007
7/25/2007
7/25/2007
7/23/2007
7/20/2007
7/16/2007
7/12/2007
7/6/2007
7/6/2007
7/2/2007
7/2/2007
6/29/2007
6/27/2007
6/22/2007
6/16/2007
6/3/2007
6/3/2007
5/9/2007
5/8/2007
4/17/2007
4/7/2007
3/30/2007
3/29/2007
3/28/2007
Tue
Mon
Sat
Sun
Thu
Fri
Thu
Mon
Wed
Fri
Thu
Wed
Sun
Fri
Wed
Tue
Tue
Tue
Mon
Wed
Wed
Mon
Fri
Mon
Thu
Fri
Fri
Mon
Mon
Fri
Wed
Fri
Sat
Sun
Sun
Wed
Tue
Tue
Sat
Fri
Thu
Wed
10:20
11:16
18:35
16:20
14:15
13:10
14:58
03:35
09:04
13:45
11:00
18:00
08:44
06:45
15:00
15:22
18:00
19:07
21:30
19:25
02:00
13:33
23:35
16:10
08:20
10:50
07:30
07:58
18:01
23:35
17:19
21:10
12:51
01:00
18:45
12:22
22:06
17:40
10:53
18:48
14:55
12:46
MANNER
OF COLL
NUMBER
OF VEHS
2
2
1
2
4
1
5
2
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
SUMMARY
RT 213 East, To 495 NB
RT 213 West, West of PLEASANT VALLEY ST
RT 213 East & BROADWAY
RT 213 East, @ the Loop
RT 213 East & PLEASANT VALLEY ST
RT 213 East, Ramp to Exit 4
RT 213 East, Exit 4
RT 213 West, PLEASANT VALLEY ST RAMP
RT 213 West, @ Rte 28
RT 213
RT 213 East & PLEASANT VALLEY ST
RT 213 E Exit 3,
RT 213 East & RAMP - RT 213 EB TO RT 495 NB
RT 213 East
RT 213 East & BROADWAY
RT 213 West & RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 93 SB
RT 213, Ramp to 495N
RT 213, Ramp to 495N
RT 213 East RAMP TO 495 (N)
RT 213 West & RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 93 SB
RT 213 East, West of Exit 2
RT 213 East, Exit 4
RT 213 West, East of Exit 3
RT 213 West, East of Exit 3
RT 213 East
RT 213 West & INTERSTATE 93 South
RT 213 East Exit 3,
RT 213 & RAMP - RT 213 WB TO HOWE ST
RT 213 East, AT 495
RT 213 West & INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 East, 495
RT 213 West Howe St Ramp
RT 213 West & INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 East West of Exit 113
RT 213 West, Ramp to 93 S
RT 213 East & HOWE STREET
RT 213 West & BROADWAY
RT 213 East Exit 5,
RT 213 East & INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 West Exit 4/ loop
RT 213 West WEST OF RT 495
RT 213 West
3/22/2007
3/22/2007
3/20/2007
3/16/2007
3/9/2007
2/18/2007
2/15/2007
2/9/2007
1/24/2007
1/12/2007
1/1/2007
11/14/2006
11/12/2006
11/9/2006
11/1/2006
10/22/2006
10/21/2006
10/13/2006
8/31/2006
8/20/2006
8/20/2006
8/11/2006
8/11/2006
7/22/2006
7/11/2006
7/8/2006
6/23/2006
6/9/2006
6/3/2006
6/3/2006
5/24/2006
5/7/2006
5/5/2006
5/3/2006
4/29/2006
4/12/2006
4/9/2006
4/6/2006
4/5/2006
4/5/2006
4/4/2006
3/8/2006
2/26/2006
2/14/2006
2/13/2006
2/10/2006
1/28/2006
1/27/2006
1/26/2006
1/25/2006
1/25/2006
1/15/2006
1/9/2006
Thu
Thu
Tue
Fri
Fri
Sun
Thu
Fri
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Sun
Thu
Wed
Sun
Sat
Fri
Thu
Sun
Sun
Fri
Fri
Sat
Tue
Sat
Fri
Fri
Sat
Sat
Wed
Sun
Fri
Wed
Sat
Wed
Sun
Thu
Wed
Wed
Tue
Wed
Sun
Tue
Mon
Fri
Sat
Fri
Thu
Wed
Wed
Sun
Mon
21:17
17:35
14:47
22:15
07:50
05:25
07:20
14:40
08:50
21:30
06:10
17:50
10:20
18:10
08:50
17:30
07:40
06:55
12:07
09:11
21:00
22:23
00:26
11:35
17:10
02:19
07:32
09:05
23:25
17:40
16:15
08:00
13:30
06:30
11:40
11:30
18:04
02:35
17:30
17:06
21:51
11:22
15:10
07:05
23:00
13:15
11:15
16:14
17:35
04:52
04:50
03:05
15:10
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
RT 213 West & RAMP - RT 213 WB TO RT 93 SB
RT 213 West & INTERSTATE 93
RT 213 East & RAMP - RT 213 EB TO RT 495 NB
RT 213 West, 3
RT 213 West, 1/4 East of Exit 2
213 West, WEST/ WEST OF RT495
213 South, West of Exit 4
213 West, East of exit 3
213 West, Exit 4/ Pleasant Valley
Rte 213 South, North of Rte 213
RTE 213 East, Exit 3
Rte 213 EB Exit 4
Rt. 213, on ramp from 495 S
213 West, RT 28
RTE 213 East, Ramp to RTE 495 South
ROUTE 213
RTE 213 East, Ramp from RTE 28
ROUTE 213 East, Exit 4
213 West, 1/4 mile East of Exit 3/ HOWE ST
213 West, East of Exit 3
Rte 213 EB Eeast of 495
ROUTE 213 East, West of I - 495
213 East, East of Exit 2
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213 W ramp to 93 S
RT 213 East, PRIOR TO EXIT #4
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213 E
METHUEN: RT 213 W NEAR HOWE ST.
METHUEN: Intersection of Rt 213 and Rt 93
METHUEN: RT 213 E
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213 W PRIOR TO EXIT 3
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213 W S Intersecting RT 93
METHUEN: RT 213 E
METHUEN: RT 213 W
METHUEN: RT 213
Intersection of RT 213 & RAMP - RT 213 W TO HOWE ST
RT 213 W Intersecting RAMP - RT 213 EB TO RT 495 S
RT 213 E METHUEN
METHUEN: 213E:
213W: On/Off Ramp: @ RAMP - RT 213 W TO RT 93 N
METHUEN: 213N:
METHUEN: 213W: East Of: THE LOOP
METHUEN: 213W: On/Off Ramp: RT 28
METHUEN: 213E: AT RT 93 RAMP
METHUEN: 213W: East Of: @ BROADWAY: East of x-2
METHUEN: 213E: Closest Reference: @ INTERSTATE 93:
213 E: Closest Ref: @ RAMP - RT 213 E TO RT 495 S
METHUEN: 213W: West Of: @ BROADWAY:
213E: On/Off Ramp: @ RAMP - RT 28 TO RT 213 EB
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Barrier “hit” Record
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT FOUR
HIGH TENSION CABLE GUARDRAIL
City/Town
Route
Direction
Type/Description
Application
Post spacing
Lengths
Date of Installation
Installed by:
Number of Accident History:
Accidents MHD Location No.
1
AccRec. A
2
3
4
AccRec. B
AccRec. C
EWO 1 - Loc 3
Methuen
213
EB & WB
CASS/Trinity Highway Safety, Inc.
both sides of 40' median
16' 6" O.C.
10 runs, 5 each direction, 3036' longest run
Completed 12/22/05 (approx 1 1/2 weeks)
DeLucca Fence Co., Inc.
Cumulative Total
Price
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
Date:
Scope:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
12/16/05
approx. 3 several posts hit
possible plow damage
DeLucca Fence
$
700.00
$
700.00
$
1,500.00
$
2,200.00
$
200.00
$
2,400.00
12/18/05
6 posts, 6 caps, 6 straps, 12 spacers, Re-tension cables
vehicle hit - accident report
DeLucca Fence
01/03/06
1 post (out of alignment)
possible plow damage
DeLucca Fence
02/26/06
1 post (10 caps, 20 spacers)
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
5
6
7
EWO 1 - Loc 2
EWO 1 - Loc 4
EWO 1 - Loc 6
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
04/01/06
9 posts (18 spacers, 9 caps)
Route 213 East - 150' West of Exit 5A
Operator Identified - M. Perry
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
4/22/2006 (date reviewed)
8 posts (16 spacers,10 caps)
Route 213 West - opposite Ramp from I-495 S
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Date:
4/27/2006 (date reviewed)
3 end posts, 3 line posts, 1 cable assembly (6 spacers, 3
caps)
Route 213 East - 500' West of Exit 4
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
8
9
EWO 1 - Loc 1
EWO 1 - Loc 5
Route 213 East - 1/4 mile West of Exit 4
Vehicle hit - accident report (winter conditions); Operator
identified - J Quinlan
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
4/27/2006 (date reviewed)
4 posts
Route 213 West - 1/4 mile East of Exit 3
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
05/03/06
4 line posts, 14 caps & straps, 28 spacers
Route 213 West - 1/3 mile East to Exit 3
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
1,000.00
$
3,400.00
$
1,200.00
$
4,600.00
$
4,500.00
$
9,100.00
$
1,200.00
$
10,300.00
$
1,000.00
$
11,300.00
Price:
10
EWO 1 - Loc 7
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
11
12
13
14
15
EWO 1 - Loc 8
EWO 1 - Loc 9
EWO 1 - Loc 10
AccRec. D
AccRec. E
1,000.00
$
12,300.00
$
4,500.00
$
16,800.00
$
1,000.00
$
17,800.00
$
1,000.00
$
18,800.00
$
1,000.00
$
19,800.00
$
2,000.00
$
21,800.00
05/07/06
5 line posts (20 spacers, 10 caps), 4 terminal posts w/sail
plate & 1 CRP upper post
Route 213 West - 0.3 miles East of Exit 3
Operator Identified - G. Zuniga
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
5/11/2006 (date reviewed)
1 line posts (12 spacers, 16 caps)
Route 213 West - 400' East of Exit 3
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
5/24/2006 (date reviewed)
3 line posts (6 spacers, 3 caps)
Route 213 West - 100' West of I-495 Overpass
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
5/25/2006 (date reviewed)
3 line posts (6 spacers, 3 caps)
Route 213 West - 1/2 mile East of Exit 3
no acc report
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
7/25/2006 (date reviewed)
10 line posts, 20 spacers, 14 caps & 12 straps
Route 213 East - 300' West of Exit 4
Operator Identified - T. McDuffie
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
10/12/2006 (date reviewed)
8 line posts, 16 spacers, 8 caps & straps
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
16
17
18
19
20
AccRec. F
EWO 2 - Loc 1 W
EWO 3 - Loc 2aW
EWO 2 - Loc 2 W
EWO 3 - Loc 2bW
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
Route 213 West - 0.25 Mile East of Exit 3
Operator identified - K. Stoddard
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
12/19/2006 (date reviewed)
6 line posts, 12 spacers, 6 caps & straps
Route 213 East - 200' East of Exit 3
Operator identified - K. Toto
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
1,500.00
$
23,300.00
$
1,500.00
$
24,800.00
$
1,800.00
$
26,600.00
$
1,000.00
$
27,600.00
$
1,400.00
$
29,000.00
1 post with soil plate
Route 213 W - before Pleasant Valley O/P at Departure End
Anchor Repair
DeLucca Fence
$
750.00
$
29,750.00
9 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - 150' West of I-495 Overpass
No accident report
DeLucca Fence
3 line posts & appurtenances
Adjacent to EWO 2 - Loc 2 W
DeLucca Fence
6 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - 600' West of I-495 Overpass
DeLucca Fence
21
22
23
24
25
26
EWO 3 - Loc 2cW
EWO 2 - Loc 3 W
EWO 3 - Loc 3aW
EWO 2 - Loc 4 W
EWO 2 - Loc 1 E
EWO 2 - Loc 2 E
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
1 line post & appurtenances
Route 213 W - 0.25 miles East of Exit 4 O/P
Also Known as Loc 5W
DeLucca Fence
$
425.00
$
30,175.00
$
1,200.00
$
31,375.00
$
900.00
$
32,275.00
$
1,200.00
$
33,475.00
$
1,900.00
$
35,375.00
3 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - 150' West of Exit 4 Overpass
DeLucca Fence
4 line posts & appurtenances
Adjacent to EWO 2 - Loc 3 W
DeLucca Fence
4 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - 300' East of Howe Street Overpass
DeLucca Fence
1 line post & appurtenances
Route 213 E - Beginning of Howe Street Overpass
DeLucca Fence
5 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 E - 0.30 Mile East of Exit 3
Repair made by:
Price:
27
28
29
30
EWO 2 - Loc 3 E
EWO 2 - Loc 4 E
EWO 2 - Loc 5 E
EWO 2 - Loc 6 E
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
31
32
EWO 3 - Loc 6W
Loc 8W
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
DeLucca Fence
$
1,400.00
$
36,775.00
$
2,300.00
$
39,075.00
$
750.00
$
39,825.00
$
850.00
$
40,675.00
$
3,560.00
$
44,235.00
2,400.00
$
46,635.00
9 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 E - 1/4 Mile West of Exit 4
DeLucca Fence
Reset Top Cable & incidental work
Route 213 E - 150' West of Exit 4
DeLucca Fence
2 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 E - 150' East of Pleasant Valley Street O/P
DeLucca Fence
7/25/2006 (date reviewed)
18 line posts, 36 spacers, 18 straps & caps
Route 213 E - 0.30 Mile West of Exit 4
ARP forwarded this repair to Contract for payment. Price
is reflective of AccRec Bid
DeLucca Fence
04/10/07
13 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 West - West of Ex 4 Off ramp & East of Ex 4 O/P
DeLucca Fence
$
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
33
34
35
36
37
Loc 9W
EWO 3 - Loc 7E
EWO 3 - Loc 8E
EWO 3 - Loc 9E
EWO 3 - Loc 10E
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Est. Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
6 posts w-soil plates, 14 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - West of Exit 4 O/P
Through Accident Recovery
DeLucca Fence
4,000.00
$
50,635.00
$
1,000.00
$
51,635.00
$
425.00
$
52,060.00
$
510.00
$
52,570.00
$
900.00
$
53,470.00
$
600.00
$
54,070.00
3 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 W - West of Exit 4 O/P
Through Accident Recovery
DeLucca Fence
1 line post & appurtenances
Route 213 E @ Exit 4 O/P
DeLucca Fence
1 line post & appurtenances
Route 213 E - East of Exit 4 O/P
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
03/23/07
3 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 E - West of Route 113 Bridge
Also Known as Loc 7 W
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price
04/04/07
3 line posts & appurtenances
Route 213 E - West of I-495 O/P
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
DeLucca Fence
38
Run II WB "A"
Date:
EWO 4 - Loc 1
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
39
40
Run II WB "B"
Date:
EWO 4 - Loc 2
Scope:
4-DEL-7914
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
Run III EB "A"
Date:
EWO 4 - Loc 5
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
41
Run III EB "B"
Date:
EWO 4 - Loc 7
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
7/24/2007, 9/21/07, 11/15/07
6 Complete Post Assemblies (w-1 Reflectorized Cap) & 1
additional Reflectorized cap
From Guide Sign "Route 213 Ends 1-1/2 Mile" to Loop
Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial Bridge);
Approximately 200-Ft West of the Start of Run
Scoped by CJL, DAMAGED 3 TIMES
DeLucca Fence
$
1,400.00
$
55,470.00
$
1,800.00
$
57,270.00
$
425.00
$
57,695.00
07/24/07
9 Complete Post Assemblies (w-2 Reflectorized Caps) &
3 additional spacers
From Guide Sign "Route 213 Ends 1-1/2 Mile" to Loop
Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial Bridge);
Approximately 100-Ft West of Overhead Sign "Exit 3 1/2
Mile"
Scoped by CJL, Follow-Up with ARP
DeLucca Fence
07/24/07
1 Complete Post Assembly (w- Black Cap) & 1 additional
Reflectorized cap.
From Loop Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial
Bridge) to Pleasant Valley Street Overpass (@ MM
3.382); Approximately 350-Ft East of Start of run
Scoped by CJL
DeLucca Fence
07/24/07
5 Complete Post Assemblies (w-2 Reflectorized Caps) &
3 additional spacers
From Loop Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial
Bridge) to Pleasant Valley Street Overpass (@ MM
3.382); Approximately 250-Ft West of End of run
Scoped by CJL
42
Run V EB "A"
Repair made by:
Price:
DeLucca Fence
Date:
Scope:
07/24/07
1 Complete Post Assembly w-Reflectorized Cap
From Turn-Around to I-495 Overpass; Immediately West
of End of run
Scoped by CJL
NOT REPAIRED
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
43
Run I EB "A"
EWO 4 - Loc 4
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
44
Run III EB "C"
EWO 4 - Loc 6
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
46
Run IV EB - Loc A
Date:
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
47
Run II WB "C"
Date:
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
1,100.00
$
58,795.00
$
-
$
58,795.00
$
950.00
$
59,745.00
$
950.00
$
60,695.00
$
-
$
60,695.00
10/15/07
4 Complete Post Assemblies & appurtenances
From Howe Street Overpass (@ MM 2.09) to Guide Sign
"Route 213 Ends 1-1/2 Mile;" 400-Ft East of Howe Street
Overpass
Scoped by DFC
DeLucca Fence
09/12/07
2 Complete Post Assemblies & 3 Additionals Caps
From Loop Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial
Bridge) to Pleasant Valley Street Overpass (@ MM
3.382); Approximately 800-East of Start of Run
Scoped by CJL
DeLucca Fence
10/28/07
6 Complete Post Assemblies & appurtenances, Splice
cable, Retension & related work
From Pleasant Valley Street Overpass (@ MM 3.382) to
Turn-Around; 300-Ft East of Pleasant Valley Overpass
Scoped by JMF
Emergency Repair - DeLucca Fence through ARP
11/15/07
EWO 4 - Loc 3
Scope:
Location:
Comment:
Repair made by:
Price:
M
5 Complete Post Assemblies & appurtenances
From Guide Sign "Route 213 Ends 1-1/2 Mile" to Loop
Connector Overpass (Buglione Memorial Bridge) - 100'
West of "Exit 3 - 1/2 Mile" OHS
Scoped by DFC
DeLucca Fence
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CONTROL COSTS FOR REPAIR COSTS
ACC REC A
Assume 1 MSP Detail = 320.00
ACC REC B
2 Arrows @ $25.00 Each Day = 50.00
ACC REC C
3 Signs (16 SF Each) @ 20.00 (split over 6 trips) = 120
ACC REC D
1 Safety Setup = $110.00
ACC REC E
Total = $ 600.00
ACC REC F
EWO 1
EWO 2
EWO 3
EWO 4
s:/d4/mnt/hwy mnt/guardrail/cable guardrail
$
1,100.00
$
61,795.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
600.00
600.00
600.00
600.00
600.00
600.00
1,500.00
625.00
625.00
825.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
62,395.00
62,995.00
63,595.00
64,195.00
64,795.00
65,395.00
66,895.00
67,520.00
68,145.00
68,970.00
$
7,175.00
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
FHWA Approval Letters
Memorandum
INFORMATION: Cable Barrier Considerations
Date: July 20, 2007
From:
Jeffrey A. Lindley
Associate Administrator
In Reply Refer To: HSSD
To:
Division Administrators
Subject:
Cable roadside and median barriers may be the most versatile and forgiving barrier systems
available for reducing the severity of run-off-road crashes. However with growing use of
cable barrier systems over the last decade the increasing variations in the number of cables,
cable heights, post spacing, cable pre-stretch, cable tensioning, slope placement, length
between anchorages, placement on curves, soil conditions/footing design, and other factors
have led to confusion. This memorandum addresses these issues and, although it does not
contain all the answers, it offers points to consider when dealing with these issues. It also
discusses recently completed research as well as ongoing work that will lead to objective
guidance for cable barrier design and placement. An attachment to this memorandum
provides links to Web sites with additional cable barrier information.
It should be noted that crash testing of any roadside features to the NCHRP Report 350
criteria and the subsequent FHWA acceptance is only a starting point when specifying
hardware. Highway agencies should be selective in their choice of hardware and carefully
review the FHWA acceptance letters for conditions and cautions that they should consider
when designing roadside features. The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide is also a source of
information that designers should use to help select and design barrier installations.
The FHWA acceptance letters on cable barrier systems may be seen on our Web site at:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/longbarriers.htm. In the drop-down
menu select Cable Barrier and click on “Search by Keyword.”
Number of Cables and Cable Height: The original US generic three-cable system has been
joined by proprietary systems with three and four cables. The additional cable on proprietary
systems either enhances TL-3 performance or, if used to increase the overall height of the
barrier, can allow for TL-4 performance. The Web site referenced above can be used to
identify systems by test level as well as by number of cables. Four cable systems should use
an end anchor which provides for a separate anchor connection for each cable, or that has
2
been crash tested at the trailing end. Recent research by the National Crash Analysis Center
(NCAC) has shown that adding a fourth cable to the generic three-cable design increases the
likelihood that the cable barrier will catch a broader spectrum of vehicles (ref 1). It should be
noted that there is a variety of spacings across the various cable barrier system designs.
Current efforts are considering whether these spacings will be adequate to accommodate the
larger pick-up truck defined in the proposed update to NCHRP Report 350 (ref 2).
Post Spacing: Cable barrier systems have been tested and accepted with post spacing
ranging from 6.5 feet to 32.5 feet. In general, deflection distance is known to increase with
longer spacing between posts. What is not known, but strongly suspected, is that longer post
spacing may also affect the propensity for vehicles to penetrate the cable barrier, i.e., by
underride or traveling between cables. The FHWA recommends that highway agencies
specify the post spacing when cable barrier systems are bid. The conventional range for
cable post spacing is 6.5 to 15 feet.
High Tension Cable Systems: Tensioning the cables after installation improves the
performance of the system by reducing deflection and increasing the potential to capture the
impacting vehicle. In high tension systems, cables are tensioned on the order of 5 times
greater than in conventional cable systems. Performance problems have been noted when
anchor blocks have been too small to accommodate the increased load. Sometimes this does
not become apparent until cooler weather further increases the tension to the point where
anchor blocks or individual post foundations are pulled out of the ground. Specifications
should be included and followed that provide for anchor block masses adequate to
accommodate the expected loads. The installation temperature is also a critical factor.
Highway agencies should specify a minimum tension at a discreet installation temperature,
and plan follow up inspections to ensure the desired tension is maintained. If possible, the
temperature of the cable itself, rather than the ambient temperature, should be specified.
Cable Pre-Stretch: Pre-stretched cables have advantages including reduced dynamic
deflection by reducing the “play” between the individual wire strands in the bundle that
forms the cable prior to installation.
Slope Placement: The effectiveness of a cable barrier system is influenced by its placement
on the side slope and the directions from which it can be hit. Some agencies have placed
cable barriers on slopes as steep as 1V:4H if within 4 feet of the break point and others have
considered it possible to place the cable barrier anywhere on roadside slopes 1V:6H or
flatter. A NCAC study on median cable barrier placement on slopes completed in April 2007
found that placement 4 feet from the center of a v-shape median with 1V:6H side slopes
increased the likelihood that mid-sized vehicles would underride the barrier (ref 2). This
report notes that placement of the barrier one foot from the bottom of the ditch is, however,
generally acceptable on slopes as steep as 1V:6H. [W-beam guardrail should be placed on
slopes no steeper than 1:10 and caution should be taken on considering such installations on
slopes as steep as 1:6.]
3
A second NCAC report nearing completion analyzed the effectiveness of various placement
positions across medians from 16-42 feet wide, side slope ranging from 1V:10H to 1V:4H,
for v-shaped and flat bottom cross sections across impact angles from 5 to 25 degrees, speeds
of 50 to 100 k/hr, and small and mid-sized passenger cars and pick-up trucks (ref 3). The
results of the vehicle dynamics analyses documented in this report suggest that there may be
limited placement options for many 3 and 4 cable barrier designs that will provide the
likelihood of capturing a broad range of vehicles.
Placement on Horizontal Curves: Cable barriers on the inside of horizontal curves can be
expected to have increased deflection. Reducing the post spacing may be an effective
countermeasure, but objective criteria have not yet been established. High tensioned cable
systems should be considered for severe curvilinear alignments.
Soil Conditions/Footing Design: For those cable systems that use a concrete footing for
their posts, quality control of the footing concrete and reinforcement can be critical.
Although the barrier performance may only be slightly affected if the footings pull out of the
soil upon impact, the benefit of the extra cost of footings is lost if they have to be replaced
after an impact.
Cable Splices: It is important to ensure that splice hardware provides for connections that
are superior in strength to the cable itself. Obviously, if the splice fails the benefit of the full
cable tension may be compromised. Manufacturer’s recommendations from the maker of the
splice hardware should be followed.
Dynamic Deflection: The “design deflection” noted in each FHWA acceptance letter is the
minimum deflection distance that should be provided to fixed object hazards and is based on
the test using the 2000P (4400 pound) pickup truck. The deflection distance recorded in
FHWA letters is also related to the length of the test installation. For example, if a 300-foot
long barrier system is tested and the “design deflection” recorded, the actual deflection under
similar impact conditions will be greater if the barrier length between tiedowns exceeds
300 feet. Future crash test criteria will specify a minimum installation length for test sections
on the order of 600 feet to better determine the deflection that can normally be expected.
For additional information on cable barrier design and testing, please contact Mr. Nicholas
Artimovich of the Headquarters Office of Safety Design at nick.artimovich@dot.gov or
Mr. Frank Julian of the Resource Center (Atlanta) Safety and Design Team at
frank.julian@dot.gov. Please also note the broad range of information available on the
Web sites referenced in the attachment.
Attachment
FHWA:HSSD:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:6/12/07
REVISED: Per Counsel’s Office:dp:7/19/07. REVISED: McDonough/Lupes: 7/20/07
File: s://directory folder/nartimovich/CableMemo0625
cc: HSSD (Reader, HSA; Chron File, HSSD; N.Artimovich, HSSI
M.McDonough, HSSD; E.Rice, HSSD)
USEFUL LINKS
As noted in the memo, research is underway to provide additional guidance on a number of
cable barrier topics. Until that work is done, designers may want to review the details found
in the report “A Review of Cable/Wire Rope Barrier Design Considerations” by Dr. Dean
Alberson, et al, of Texas Transportation Institute. That 2003 report is available on the
internet at http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002025.pdf .
The AASHTO Technology Implementation Group, or TIG Web site
(http://tig.transportation.org/?siteid=57&pageid=1031) includes useful links to numerous
current design, construction, and maintenance issues, as well as in-service performance
evaluations from six States.
The FHWA Corporate and Research Technology Web site on Cable Barriers
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/crt/lifecycle/cable.cfm
The TRB 2007 paper “Performance Evaluation of Low-Tension Three-Strand Cable Median
Barriers.” Summary of the National Crash Analysis Center study using finite element
modeling and full scale crash testing to investigate the problem of median cable barrier
underride. Report to be distributed by the FHWA this summer.
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=802649
Commercial site that includes over 40 links to cable barrier research and policy.
http://www.gsihighway.com/research.htm
The following reports will be completed in the near future:
Ref 1: “Performance Evaluation of Low-Tension, Three-Strand Cable Median Barriers on
Sloped Terrains,” prepared by NCAC under FHWA contract DTFH61-02-X-00076, April
2007.
Ref 2: NCHRP Project 22-14(2) report – Proposed Update to NCHRP Report 350.
Ref 3: “Analyses of Placement Effects on Cable Barrier Systems for Varying Median Cross
Sections,” prepared by NCAC under FHWA contract DTFH61-02-X-00076, June 2007.
May 9, 2006
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
In Reply Refer To:
HSA-10/B82-B1
Mr. Derek W. Muir
Group Managing Director
Hill & Smith Ltd.
Springvale Business and Industrial Park
Bilston, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV14 0QL
Dear Mr. Muir:
In your April 11, 2006, letter, you requested the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA’s)
concurrence that your TL-4 four-rope Brifen Wire Rope Safety Fence (WRSF) would be
acceptable as a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 test
level 3 (TL-3) traffic barrier when placed as described below on a side slope as steep as
1V: 4H.
On that same date, your representatives, Dr. Richard McGinnis and Mr. Jerry Emerson, met
with Messrs. Artimovich and Powers of my staff and provided them copies of three test reports
prepared by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) entitled "NCHRP Report 350,
“Modified” Test 3-11 Full-Scale Crash Evaluation of a 111-Meter TL-4 (4-Rope) Wire Rope
Safety Fence Installed on a 1V: 4H Sloped Median,” (SwRI test no. BCR-2); "NCHRP Report
350, Test 3-10 Full-Scale Crash Evaluation of a 111-Meter TL-4 (4-Rope) Wire Rope Safety
Fence Installed on a 1V: 4H Sloped Median,” (SwRI test no. BCR-5); and "NCHRP Report
350, Test 3-10 Full-Scale Crash Evaluation of a 111-Meter TL-4 (4-Rope) Wire Rope Safety
Fence Installed on a 1V: 4H Sloped Median,” (SwRI test no. BCR-4).
In my March 27, 2005, letter to you (acceptance letter B-82B), the FHWA accepted the Brifen
4-rope TL-4 WRSF as a NCHRP Report 350 TL-4 traffic barrier. This TL-4 design consists of
four separate cables, the bottom three of which are interwoven between posts and the top cable
is set in a 101-mm deep x 22-mm wide slot cut into the top of each post. Cable heights
measured from the ground directly beneath the cables were 480 mm, 630 mm, 780 mm, and
930 mm, respectively. The S-shape posts, 100-mm x 55-mm x 4.55-mm thick, manufactured
from ASTM A-36 steel, were spaced on 3.2-m centers.
Three tests were conducted with the TL-4 WRSF installed in a 9.8-m (32-feet) wide depressed
median with 1V: 4H side slopes. For the first test, the barrier was located 3.7 m (12 feet) up
the slope from the ditch bottom and the test vehicle crossed the ditch bottom and started up the
2
backslope before impacting the barrier. For the second and third tests (NCHRP Report 350
tests 3-10 and 3-11) the barrier was located down the foreslope, 1.2 m (4 feet) from the edge of
pavement.
The first test was a modified 3-11 test in which a 1998 Ford Crown Victoria weighing 1,750 kg
(3,859 lb) was directed into the median at a 25° angle and 103.1 km/hr (64.1 mph), went down
the slope, across the ditch bottom [located 4.9 m (16 ft) from edge of pavement] and 3.7 m
(12 feet) up the far side of the ditch where it then impacted the backside of the WRSF [located
8.5 m (28 ft) from edge of pavement] at a 26.5° angle at 95.6 km/hr (59.4 mph). The vehicle
deflected the barrier 2.2 m (7.3 ft) laterally and was safely contained and redirected by the
WRSF. Cables were tensioned to 20.0 kN (4500 lb) based on the ambient temperature of
29 degrees Celsius (84 degrees Fahrenheit). Although the barrier in this test was located 3.7 m
(12 feet) beyond the ditch bottom, a subsequent analysis prepared by Dr. McGinnis and based
on additional data obtained from the SwRI test indicated that the Crown Victoria would have
been captured by the WRSF if the barrier had been installed closer to the ditch bottom. After
reviewing the bumper trajectory data and the crash test video, my staff agreed that the barrier
would likely perform satisfactorily with a minimum 3.0-m (10-foot) offset from the ditch
bottom. Enclosure 1 is the test summary sheet for the first test.
The use of a non-standard test vehicle for the first test was intended to replicate the FHWAsponsored crash test of a Ford Crown Victoria sedan into a standard 3-rope US cable barrier
that was conducted on April 23, 2004 at the Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory by the
National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC). In that test, the cable barrier was located 1.2 m
(4 feet) up from the ditch bottom in a median with 1V: 6H side slopes. The test vehicle’s front
suspension compressed when it struck the backslope, allowing the bumper to slide underneath
the bottom cable. The vehicle then underrode the barrier and continued up the slope with no
redirection. A second test conducted by NCAC with a Crown Victoria impacting at the same
speed and angle but with the generic cable barrier offset from the ditch bottom by only 0.3 m
(one foot) was successful.
The second Brifen test was a standard NCHRP Report 350 3-10 test with the TL-4 WRSF
located 1.2 m (4 ft) down the 1V: 4H slope from the edge of pavement. A 1998 Suzuki Swift
weighing 907 kg (2,000 lb) impacted the WRSF at a 21.1-degree angle at 101.3 km/hr
(62.9mph). The maximum dynamic deflection of the barrier was 1.2 m (4.0 ft), and the vehicle
was safely contained and redirected by the WRSF. Cables were tensioned to 18.7 kN (4200 lb)
based on the ambient temperature of 32 degrees Celsius (90 degrees Fahrenheit). Enclosure 2
is the test summary sheet for this second test.
The third Brifen test was a standard NCHRP Report 350 3-11 test with the WRSF again
located 1.2 m (4 ft) down the 1V: 4H slope from the edge of pavement. A 1998 Chevrolet
C2500 3/4-ton pickup truck weighing 2,139 kg (4,717 lb) impacted the WRSF at a 24.1 degree
angle at 101.4 km/hr (63.0 mph). The maximum dynamic deflection of the barrier was 2.7 m
(9.0 ft) caused by the rear of the vehicle rotating into the barrier while the vehicle was airborne.
The maximum deflection of the barrier caused by the front of the vehicle was 2.3 m (7.6 ft).
The vehicle was contained and safely redirected by the barrier. Cables were tensioned to
24.7 kN (5550 lb). The ambient temperature immediately prior to this test was 14 degrees
Celsius (48 degrees Fahrenheit). Enclosure 3 is the test summary sheet for the third test.
3
Based on the test results summarized above, your TL-4 Brifen WRSF is acceptable as a TL-3
traffic barrier when placed no farther than 1.2 m (4 feet) down a 1V: 4H slope (for adjacent
traffic impacts) and no closer than 10 feet from the ditch bottom for opposite-side impacts.
Although the WRSF tested above was the Brifen WRSF TL-4 four-rope system which was
successfully tested with the single unit truck on a flat slope, transportation agencies using this
design on a 1V: 4H slope should understand that only TL-3 vehicles were used in the crash
tests. On such slopes, it is possible that TL-4 vehicles and larger may not be captured or
contained by the barrier.
I strongly agree with your recommendation that usage be closely monitored through in-service
evaluation, since three crash tests alone cannot predict the performance of any traffic barrier
for every conceivable combination of barrier type, site conditions, vehicle size, shape, weight,
and impact angle and speed. Because the NCHRP Report 350 testing was developed to
address a worst practical case scenario, there is always a possibility that some vehicular
penetrations will occur when anything less than a high-performance TL-5 or TL-6 barrier is
used.
Sincerely yours,
/original signed by/
John R. Baxter, P.E.
Director, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety
3 Enclosures
Table 4.1 – Summary of Test Results and Conditions
IMPACT
15
General Information
Test Agency................................
Southwest Research Institute
Test Number ................................
BCR-2
Test Date................................02/28/2006
Test Category ..............................
3-11
Test Article
Type ............................................
Longitudinal Barrier
Installation Length ......................
111 m (365 ft)
Nom. Barrier Height ...................
930 mm (36.5 in)
Type of Primary Barrier .............
Wire Rope Safety Fence, 4-Rope
Soil
Stable, Dry – Highly Compacted
Test Vehicle
Type ............................................
Special
Designation................................
Special
Model ...........................................
1998 Ford Crown Victoria
Mass (kg) ................................1750
Inertial Mass(kg) .........................
1750
Dummy Mass (kg) ......................
NA
Gross Static Mass (kg) ................
1750
0.20 SEC
0.40 SEC
0.60 SEC
Impact Conditions
Test Article Deflection
Speed (km/hr) .............................
95.6
Dynamic ......................................
2.2 m (7.3 ft)
Angle (degrees)...........................
26.5
Permanent ................................0 m (0 ft)
Exit Conditions
Vehicle Damage
Speed (km/hr) .............................
59 (calculated)
Exterior
Angle (degrees) ...........................
11
CDC ............................................
11LFEW5
Occupant Risk Values
VDS ............................................
11-LFQ-3
Impact Velocity (m/s)
Interior
x-direction............................
3.6
OCDI ...........................................
LF0000000
y-direction............................
-0.7
Max. Deform. (mm) ...................
0
Ridedown Accelerations (g’s)
x-direction............................
-5.8
y-direction............................
6.7
Post Impact Vehicular Behavior (limited to events <2.000 seconds)
Maximum Roll Angle (degrees) ......................
-34.9 @ 1.212 sec.
Maximum Pitch Angle (degrees) .....................
-14.3 @ 0.435 sec.
Maximum Yaw Angle (degrees) .....................
38.6 @ 2.000 sec.
Table 4.1 – Summary of Test Results and Conditions
IMPACT
17
General Information
Test Agency................................
Southwest Research Institute
Test Number ................................
BCR-5
Test Date................................03/01/2006
Test Category ..............................
3-10
Test Article
Type ............................................
Longitudinal Barrier
Installation Length ......................
111 m (365 ft)
Nom. Barrier Height ...................
930 mm (36.5 in)
Type of Primary Barrier .............
Wire Rope Safety Fence, 4-Rope
Soil
Stable, Dry – Highly Compacted
Test Vehicle
Type ............................................
Small car
Designation................................
820C
Model ...........................................
1998 Suzuki Swift
Mass (kg) ................................907
Inertial Mass(kg) .........................
907
Dummy Mass (kg) ......................
75
Gross Static Mass (kg) ................
982
0.10 SEC
0.20 SEC
0.35 SEC
Impact Conditions
Test Article Deflection
Speed (km/hr)..............................
101.3
Dynamic ......................................
1.2 m (4.0 ft)
Angle (degrees) ...........................
21.1
Permanent................................0 in (0 m)
Exit Conditions
Vehicle Damage
Speed (km/hr)..............................
74 (calculated)
Exterior
Angle (degrees) ...........................
11
CDC ............................................
11LFEW5
Occupant Risk Values
VDS ............................................
11-LFQ-2
Impact Velocity (m/s)
Interior
x-direction ............................
3.5
OCDI ...........................................
LF0000000
y-direction ............................
-3.7
Max. Deform. (mm) ...................
0
Ridedown Accelerations (g’s)
x-direction ............................
-9.0
y-direction ............................
10.3
Post Impact Vehicular Behavior (limited to events <2.000 seconds)
Maximum Roll Angle (degrees) ......................
-8.2 @ 1.705 sec.
Maximum Pitch Angle (degrees) .....................
-4.0 @ 0.376 sec.
Maximum Yaw Angle (degrees)......................
-99.3 @ 2.000 sec.
Table 4.1 – Summary of Test Results and Conditions
IMPACT
17
General Information
Test Agency................................
Southwest Research Institute
Test Number ................................
BCR-4
Test Date................................03/01/2006
Test Category ..............................
3-11
Test Article
Type ............................................
Longitudinal Barrier
Installation Length ......................
111 m (365 ft)
Nom. Barrier Height ...................
930 mm (36.5 in)
Type of Primary Barrier .............
Wire Rope Safety Fence, 4-Rope
Soil
Stable, Dry – Highly Compacted
Test Vehicle
Type ............................................
¾ Ton Pickup
Designation................................
2000P
Model ...........................................
1998 Chevy C2500
Mass (kg) ................................2139
Inertial Mass(kg) .........................
2139
Dummy Mass (kg) ......................
NA
Gross Static Mass (kg) ................
2139
0.30 SEC
0.60 SEC
0.90 SEC
Impact Conditions
Test Article Deflection
Speed (km/hr) .............................
101.4
Dynamic ......................................
2.7 m (9.0 ft)
Angle (degrees) ...........................
24.1
Permanent ................................0 m (0 ft)
Exit Conditions
Vehicle Damage
Speed (km/hr) .............................
71 (calculated)
Exterior
Angle (degrees) ...........................
8
CDC ............................................
11LFEW4
Occupant Risk Values
VDS ............................................
11-LFQ-2
Impact Velocity (m/s)
Interior
x-direction............................
2.7
OCDI ...........................................
LF0000000
y-direction............................
-2.8
Max. Deform. (mm) ...................
0
Ridedown Accelerations (g’s)
x-direction............................
-5.9
y-direction............................
8.2
Post Impact Vehicular Behavior (limited to events <2.000 seconds)
Maximum Roll Angle (degrees) ......................
16.8 @ 0.679 sec.
Maximum Pitch Angle (degrees) .....................
-3.2 @ 1.983 sec.
Maximum Yaw Angle (degrees) .....................
32.9 @ 0.592 sec.
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
In Reply Refer To:
HSA-10/B137C
July 12, 2006
Mr.Bill Neusch
President, Gibraltar
320 Southland Road
Burnet, Texas 78611
Dear Mr. Neusch:
In your June 22, 2006, letter, you requested the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA’s)
concurrence that your TL-4 cable barrier system would be acceptable as a National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 test level 3 (TL-3) traffic
barrier when placed as described below on a side slope as steep as 1V: 4H. At that time, you
also provided staff members with preliminary test results. On July 11, Mr. Powers received a
test report prepared by KARCO Engineering, LLC, entitled “Crash Test Report for Gibraltar
TL-4 Cable Barrier System Installed on a 4:1 Sloped Median” and dated June 12, 2006.
In my letter dated September 9, 2005, the FHWA accepted a modified Gibraltar cable barrier
system as a TL-4 design. This design consisted of three, 3/4-inch diameter 3 X 7 posttensioned galvanized steel cables supported by steel C-posts 3.25 x 2.5 x 0.15-inches thick and
7-ft long. These posts were driven to a depth of 3.5 feet and installed on alternate sides of the
cables. The 3 cables are locked in place by a 7/16-inch diameter x 24-inch long galvanized
steel hairpin and lock plate that fits inside each post. For your TL-4 design, the bottom,
middle, and top cable heights are set at 20 inches, 30 inches, and 39 inches, respectively.
A total of four tests were conducted with the TL-4 Gibraltar cable installed in a 7.3-m (24-feet)
wide depressed median with 1V: 4H side slopes. For the first test, the barrier was located
2.7 m (9 feet) up the slope from the ditch bottom and the test vehicle crossed the ditch bottom
and started up the backslope before impacting the barrier. For the remaining tests (NCHRP
Report 350 tests 3-10 and 3-11), the barrier was located down the foreslope, 1.2 m (4 feet)
from the edge of pavement. For the first two tests, all line posts were on 30-foot centers.
The first test was a modified 3-10 test in which a Geo Metro weighing 874 kg (1926 lb) was
directed into the median at a 25° angle and 104.7 km/hr (65.1 mph), went down the slope,
across the ditch bottom [located 3.7 m (12 ft) from edge of pavement] and 2.7 m
(9 feet) up the far side of the ditch where it then impacted the backside of the cable [located
8.5 m (21 ft) from edge of pavement] at 97.5 km/hr (60.6 mph). The vehicle deflected the
barrier 1.5 m (4.9 ft) laterally and was safely contained and redirected by the Gibraltar cable.
2
Enclosure 1 is the summary sheet for this test.
The second test was a standard NCHRP Report 350 3-11 test, with the Gibraltar cable, again
with a 30-foot post spacing, located 1.2 m (4 ft) down the 1V: 4H slope from the edge of
pavement. A Chevrolet C2500 3/4-ton pickup truck weighing 2,038 kg (4,494 lb) impacted the
barrier at a 25-degree angle at 98.7 km/hr (61.3 mph). The maximum dynamic deflection of
the barrier was not reported. Although the barrier contained the vehicle, cable deflection
allowed the pickup truck to impact the backslope of the ditch and it subsequently overturned as
it was being redirected by the cable. This test clearly demonstrated that adverse terrain behind
a barrier can cause significant instability when barrier deflection allows an impacting vehicle to
reach it, even when the barrier itself prevents penetration. Enclosure 2 is the test summary
sheet for this test.
The third test was a repeat of the failed test, but the post spacing was reduced to 20 feet, and a
heavier test vehicle was used, specifically a Dodge Ram 1500 weighing 2222 kg (4898 lbs).
This is the new vehicle currently proposed for use in the draft Report 350 update. Impact
conditions were 25 degrees and 97 km/h (60.3 mph). In this test, the pickup truck was
contained and redirected upright with a maximum cable deflection of 2.6 m (8.6 ft). Test
results are shown in Enclosure 3.
The final test was a standard NCHRP Report 350 3-10 test with the Gibraltar cable again
located 1.2 m (4 ft) down the 1V: 4H slope from the edge of pavement. A Geo Metro
weighing 919 kg (2,026 lb) impacted the barrier at a 20-degree angle at 101.6 km/hr (63.2
mph). The maximum dynamic deflection of the barrier was 1.4 m (4.7 ft), and the vehicle was
safely contained and redirected by the cable. Enclosure 4 is the test summary sheet for this
test.
Based on the test results summarized above, your TL-4 Gibraltar cable design is acceptable as
a TL-3 traffic barrier when placed no farther than 1.2 m (4 feet) down a 1V: 4H slope (for
adjacent traffic impacts) and no closer than 9 feet from the ditch bottom for opposite-side
impacts. This offset may be decreased to 8 feet based on computer simulation done by the
National Crash Analysis Center on the generic cable barrier and on our review of the vehicle
position at that point in your test, provided the maximum down-slope offset remains at 4 feet.
Although the tested design was your TL-4 system (successfully tested previously with the
single unit truck on a flat slope), transportation agencies using this design on a 1V: 4H slope
should understand that it has been tested only to TL-3 when installed on such a slope. Thus, it
remains possible that the single-unit TL-4 truck may not be captured or contained by the
barrier when installed on a 4:1 slope.
Sincerely yours,
/original signed by John R. Baxter/
John R. Baxter, P.E.
Director, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety
4 Enclosures
DATA SHEET NO. 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TEST NO. P26133-01 (MODIFIED 3-10)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TEST AGENCY
KARCO ENGINEERING
TEST NO.
Modified 3-10
DATE
06/12/06
TEST ARTICLE
TYPE
Gibraltar Cable Barrier System
INSTALLATION LENGTH (m)
91.44 m (300 ft.)
SIZE AND/OR DIMENSION OF KEY ELEMENTS ¾ in 3 X 7 cable on 30 ft. post spacings
SOIL TYPE AND CONDITION
4:1 slope (upslope 25°)
TEST VEHICLE
820C
TYPE
Production
DESIGNATION
3-10
MODEL
Geo Metro
MASS (CURB)
799 kg (1762 Ibs)
MASS (TEST INERTIAL)
812 kg (1790 Ibs)
DUMMY(s) MASS
75 kg (165 lbs)
GROSS STATIC WEIGHT
874 kg (1926 Ibs)
IMPACT CONDITIONS
104.7 km/h (65.08 mph)
SPEED (km/h)
97.51 km/h (60.60 mph) at impact
ANGLE (Deg.)
25
IMPACT SEVERITY (kJ)
34.8
EXIT CONDITIONS
SPEED (km/h)
N/A*
ANGLE (Deg.)
N/A*
OCCUPANT RISK VALUES
FLAIL SPACE VELOCITY (m/sec)
X-DIRECTION
5.2
Y-DIRECTION
0.8
THIV (optional)
RIDEDOWN ACCELERATION (g’s)
X-DIRECTION
-7.4
Y-DIRECTION
-4.3
PHD (optional)
ASI (optional)
0.84
TEST ARTICLE DEFLECTIONS (m)
DYNAMIC
1.50 m (4.92 FT.)
PERMANENT
N/A
VEHICLE DAMAGE
EXTERIOR
VDS
1-FR-4
CDC
01RDMN6
INTERIOR
OCDI
FR0000000
POST-IMPACT VEHICULAR BEHAVIOR
MAXIMUM ROLL ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM YAW ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM PITCH ANGLE (Deg.)
22.7
-41.0
6.7
* Vehicle remained in contact with the cable barrier for the duration of the event.
13
TR-P26133-A
DATA SHEET NO. 6
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TEST NO. P26133-02 (Test 3-11)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TEST AGENCY
KARCO ENGINEERING
TEST NO.
3-11
DATE
06/12/06
TEST ARTICLE
TYPE
Gibraltar Cable Barrier System
INSTALLATION LENGTH (m)
91.44 m(300 ft.)
SIZE AND/OR DIMENSION OF KEY ELEMENTS ¾ in 3 X 7 cable on 30 ft. post spacings
SOIL TYPE AND CONDITION
4:1 slope
TEST VEHICLE
2000P
TYPE
PRODUCTION
DESIGNATION
3-11
MODEL
2500
MASS (CURB)
2210 kg (4872 Ibs)
MASS (TEST INERTIAL)
2038 kg (4494 Ibs)
DUMMY(s) MASS
N/A
GROSS STATIC WEIGHT
N/A
IMPACT CONDITIONS
SPEED (km/h)
98.65 km/h (61.31 mph)
ANGLE (Deg.)
25
IMPACT SEVERITY (kJ)
89.5
EXIT CONDITIONS
SPEED (km/h)
N/A*
ANGLE (Deg.)
N/A*
OCCUPANT RISK VALUES
FLAIL SPACE VELOCITY (m/sec)
X-DIRECTION
3.3
Y-DIRECTION
5.4
THIV (optional)
RIDEDOWN ACCELERATION (g’s)
X-DIRECTION
-15.1
Y-DIRECTION
10.4
PHD (optional)
ASI (optional)
0.49
TEST ARTICLE DEFLECTIONS (m)
DYNAMIC
PERMANENT
N/A
VEHICLE DAMAGE
EXTERIOR
VDS
1-L&T-6
CDC
01RDGN2
INTERIOR
OCDI
FS0100000
POST-IMPACT VEHICULAR BEHAVIOR
MAXIMUM ROLL ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM YAW ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM PITCH ANGLE (Deg.)
258.7
-49.3
35.5
* Vehicle rolled over on the cable barrier.
28
TR-P26133-A
DATA SHEET NO. 10
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TEST NO. P26133-03 (Test 3-11)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TEST AGENCY
KARCO ENGINEERING
TEST NO.
3-11
DATE
06/14/06
TEST ARTICLE
TYPE
Gibraltar Cable Barrier System
INSTALLATION LENGTH (m)
92.9 m(305 ft.)
SIZE AND/OR DIMENSION OF KEY ELEMENTS ¾ in 3 X 7 cable on 20 ft. post spacings
SOIL TYPE AND CONDITION
4:1 slope(down slope 25°)
TEST VEHICLE
2270P
TYPE
Production
DESIGNATION
3-11
MODEL
RAM 1500
MASS (CURB)
2194 kg (4836 Ibs)
MASS (TEST INERTIAL)
2222 kg (4898 Ibs)
DUMMY(s) MASS
N/A
GROSS STATIC WEIGHT
N/A
IMPACT CONDITIONS
SPEED (km/h)
97.05 km/h (60.32 mph)
ANGLE (Deg.)
25
IMPACT SEVERITY (kJ)
144.7
EXIT CONDITIONS
SPEED (km/h)
N/A*
ANGLE (Deg.)
N/A*
OCCUPANT RISK VALUES
FLAIL SPACE VELOCITY (m/sec)
X-DIRECTION
2.7
Y-DIRECTION
8.3
THIV (optional)
RIDEDOWN ACCELERATION (g’s)
X-DIRECTION
-3.6
Y-DIRECTION
-3.9
PHD (optional)
ASI (optional)
0.35
TEST ARTICLE DEFLECTIONS (m)
DYNAMIC
2.61 m (8.58 ft.)
PERMANENT
N/A
VEHICLE DAMAGE
EXTERIOR
VDS
1-FR-2
CDC
01RDEN2
INTERIOR
OCDI
FS0000000
POST-IMPACT VEHICULAR BEHAVIOR
MAXIMUM ROLL ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM YAW ANGLE (Deg.)
MAXIMUM PITCH ANGLE (Deg.)
23.8
-44.3
-17.9
* Vehicle remained in contact with the cable barrier for the duration of the event.
44
TR-P26133-A
DATA SHEET NO. 14
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR TEST NO. P26133-04 (Test 3-10)
GENERAL INFORMATION
TEST AGENCY
OCCUPANT RISK VALUES
KARCO ENGINEERING
FLAIL SPACE VELOCITY (m/sec)
TEST NO.
3-10
X-DIRECTION
2.8
DATE
06/16/06
Y-DIRECTION
4.9
TEST ARTICLE
THIV (optional)
TYPE
Gibraltar Cable Barrier System
RIDEDOWN ACCELERATION (g’s)
INSTALLATION LENGTH (m)
91.44 m (300 ft.)
¾ in 3 X 7 cable on 30 ft. post
i
4:1 slope (upslope 25°)
X-DIRECTION
-4.8
Y-DIRECTION
-5.6
SIZE AND/OR DIMENSION OF KEY ELEMENTS
SOIL TYPE AND CONDITION
PHD (optional)
TEST VEHICLE
820C
ASI (optional)
TYPE
PRODUCTION
TEST ARTICLE DEFLECTIONS (m)
0.63
DESIGNATION
3-10
DYNAMIC
1.43 m ( 4.70 FT.)
MODEL
Geo Metro
PERMANENT
N/A
MASS (CURB)
858 kg (1892 Ibs)
VEHICLE DAMAGE
MASS (TEST INERTIAL)
845 kg (1862 Ibs)
EXTERIOR
DUMMY(s) MASS
75 kg (165 lbs)
VDS
1-FR-2
GROSS STATIC WEIGHT
919 kg (2026 Ibs)
CDC
01RRGN8
IMPACT CONDITIONS
INTERIOR
SPEED (km/h)
101.63 km/h (63.16 mph)
ANGLE (Deg.)
20
IMPACT SEVERITY (kJ)
39.3
OCDI
FS0000000
POST-IMPACT VEHICULAR BEHAVIOR
EXIT CONDITIONS
MAXIMUM ROLL ANGLE (Deg.)
37.6
SPEED (km/h)
N/A*
MAXIMUM YAW ANGLE (Deg.)
-34.3
ANGLE (Deg.)
N/A*
MAXIMUM PITCH ANGLE (Deg.)
4.4
*Test vehicle exit conditions occurred beyond the view of the overhead cameras.
61
TR-P26133-A
May 15, 2003
Refer to: HSA-10/B-119A
Mr. Rodney A. Boyd
Trinity Highway Safety Products Division
P.O. Box 568887
Dallas, Texas 75356-8887
Dear Mr. Boyd:
In his March 31 letter to Mr. Richard Powers of my staff, your representative, Mr. Don Johnson,
requested formal Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acceptance of a modified version of
the wire rope traffic barrier called the Cable Safety System (CASS) that was originally accepted
for use on the National Highway System (NHS) in my May 13, acceptance letter B119. Whereas
the original design used a 3-m post spacing, the modified design used a 5-m spacing for all the
CASS line posts. Included with the second letter were copies of a Texas Transportation Institute
report dated March 2003, entitled “NCHRP Report 350 test 3-11 of TRINITY Cable Safety
System (CASS) with 5m Post Spacing” and videotapes of the crash test.
The CASS barrier remained as described in my original acceptance letter, consisting of three
19 mm diameter, pre-stretched 3 x 7 strand steel cables. Mounting heights were 530 mm,
640 mm, and 750 mm above the ground and each cable was tensioned to 24kN using turnbuckles
attached to swaged threaded fittings on each end. These cables were supported by 1600-mm
long, galvanized 100 x 50 x 4 mm C-channels driven into a Report 350 standard soil. As shown
on Enclosure 1, the upper central section of the post web was removed to accept the cables,
which are kept separated in a vertical plane by the insertion of plastic spacer blocks, a stainless
steel strap, and a plastic cap over the top of each post. In this modified version, the posts were
set on 5-m centers rather than 3-m apart as in the initial test. A 2000-kg pickup truck impacted
the CASS barrier at 99.4 km/h near the mid-point of a 100-meter long test installation at an
impact angle of 25.7 degrees. As seen on the test summary sheet (Enclosure 2), all Report 350
evaluation criteria were met. The cable rail deflected 2.8 meters with the 5-m post spacing.
Thus, the CASS barrier, as described above, meets NCHRP Report 350 evaluation criteria as a
test level 3 barrier and may be used on the NHS as either a roadside or median barrier when such
use is acceptable to the contracting agency. Since it is a proprietary product, the provisions of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 635.411 apply to its use on Federally funded
projects, except exempt non-NHS projects. The need to use crashworthy (or shielded) terminals
emphasized in my May 13 letter for the 3-m post spacing design applies to the 5-m post spacing
layout as well.
2
This Acceptance Letter shall not be construed as authorization or consent by the FHWA to use,
manufacture, or sell any proprietary device for which ownership may be in question. All FHWA
acceptances are based primarily on staff review of the crashworthiness characteristics of the
proposed device and we are neither prepared nor required to become involved in issues
concerning patent law. Patent issues, if any should arise, are to be resolved by the applicant.
Sincerely yours,
(original signed by Michael S. Griffith)
Michael S. Griffith
Acting Director, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety
2 Enclosures
1 in = 25.4 mm
1 ft = 0.305 m
7
Details of CASS post.
0.000 s
20
General Information
Test Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test Article
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Installation Length (m) . . . . .
Material or Key Elements . . .
0.193 s
Texas Transportation Institute
400001-TCR2
01/31/03
Guardrail
Trinity Cable Safety System (CASS)
101.9
3 Wire Ropes Supported By C-Channel
Mild Steel Support Posts
Soil Type and Condition . . . . Standard Soil, Dry
Test Vehicle
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production
Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000P
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 Chevrolet 2500 Pickup
Mass (kg)
Curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2075
Test Inertial. . . . . . . . . . . . 2050
Dummy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A
Gross Static . . . . . . . . . . . 2050
0.483 s
Impact Conditions
Speed (km/h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Angle (deg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exit Conditions
Speed (km/h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Angle (deg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Occupant Risk Values
Impact Velocity (m/s)
x-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
y-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THIV (km/h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ridedown Accelerations (g's)
x-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
y-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PHD (g’s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ASI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Max. 0.050-s Average (g's)
x-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
y-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
z-direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99.4
25.7
77.4
9.5
2.5
3.3
14.0
-4.4
5.2
6.3
0.36
-2.3
3.0
-1.9
1.208 s
Test Article Deflections (m)
Dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Permanent . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Working Width . . . . . . . . . . .
Vehicle Damage
Exterior
VDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maximum Exterior
Vehicle Crush (mm) . . . . .
Interior
OCDI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Max. Occ. Compart.
Deformation (mm) . . . . . . .
Post-Impact Behavior
(during 1.0 s after impact)
Max. Yaw Angle (deg) . . . . . .
Max. Pitch Angle (deg) . . . . .
Max. Roll Angle (deg) . . . . . .
Summary of results for test 400001-TCR2 (CASS w/5 m spacing), NCHRP Report 350 test 3-11.
2.80
0.11
3.40
11FL1
11FLEW1
100
LF0000000
None
33.4
6.9
18.1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Existing and Proposed Route Survey
Cross-Section Information
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Route 213 Sign Replacement
Project Sheets