ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Route 1 at Merrimac Street City of Newburyport February 15, 2013 Prepared For:
Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
Prepared By:
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Data................................................................................................................................. 2
Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 4
Audit Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements......................................................23
Summary of Road Safety Audit...............................................................................................31
List of Figures
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Site Locus Map (Source: USGS)........................................................................................... 5
Aerial Ortho Photo of Route 1 ramps at Merrimac Street (Source: Pictometry, 4/04/12) ..... 7
Aerial Ortho Photo of Merrimac Street at the Rt. 1 ramps (Source: Pictometry, 4/04/12) .... 9
Existing Weekday Morning and Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Participating Audit Team Members ....................................................................................... 2
Traffic Volume Summary .................................................................................................... 10
Merrimac Street at Route 1 Crash Summary (2008 – 2010) ................................................ 13
Merrimac Street at Route 1 Crash Rates .............................................................................. 15
Merrimac Street at Route 1 southbound off-ramp Operations Analysis Results.................. 16
Merrimac Street at Summer Street Operations Analysis Results ......................................... 17
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ......................................................................................... 19
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ......................................................................................... 20
Merrimac St. at Rt. 1 SB off-ramp Operations Analysis – Recommended Improvements .. 21
Merrimac St. at Summer St. Operations Analysis – Recommended Improvements ............ 22
Potential Safety Enhancement Summary ............................................................................. 32
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. RSA Meeting Agenda RSA Audit Team Contact List Detailed Crash Data Roadway Speed Data Daily and Peak Period Traffic Count Data Crash Rate Calculation Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology and Results Road Safety Audit References Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Background
A Road Safety Audit (RSA) as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is “the
formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an
independent, multidisciplinary team.” An RSA qualitatively estimates and reports on all safety
issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all roadway users. The
“conducting of RSAs at high-crash locations throughout the Commonwealth” is one of the many
strategies noted in the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which was developed in an effort to
reduce the number of crash-related fatalities and incapacitating injuries on roadways within
Massachusetts.
The Merrimac Street intersections with the Route 1 ramps in downtown Newburyport have been
a concern with regards to congestion and safety for some time. According to the Merrimack
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) 2011 Regional Transportation Plan, this
location experienced a total of 23 crashes over a period of three years from 2006 to 2008. For
the approximate 3,049 non-interstate intersection locations within the Merrimack Valley that
experienced crashes during that period, this location is ranked as being number 76 in terms of the
overall crash frequency, without accounting for the rates at which the crashes occur.
Because the Route 1 ramp intersection locations are within the top five percent of crash clusters
in the Merrimack Valley region, it is eligible for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP). MassDOT incorporated the RSA as a requirement for securing Federal funding (HSIP
funds) for safety projects. For these reasons, this location was chosen as the site of an RSA by
the Merrimack Valley MPO to help identify potential short-term and long-term safety
improvements that could be made if HSIP funding is received.
Page 1
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Project Data
The Road Safety Audit was conducted on November 19, 2012 for Merrimac Street at the Route 1
ramps. As shown in Table 1, the audit team was comprised of state, regional, and local agencies
and included professionals from emergency response, engineering, and planning.
Prior to this meeting, MVPC gathered, reviewed, and summarized the most recent pertinent
available information, including: crash data, traffic volume data, and traffic speed data. In
addition to the crash data summaries obtained from the MassDOT/RMV Statewide database,
MVPC also collected the actual crash reports, which show the narratives and crash diagrams,
from the Newburyport police department.
With input and assistance from Newburyport officials, MVPC selected the RSA team and chose
to meet at the City Hall, since it was close to the site. At the pre-audit meeting, MVPC discussed
the process and goals for the RSA, provided handouts of all pertinent information, presented the
existing traffic, speed, and crash data, and discussed any known related planned projects to the
participants in order to provide an introduction to project. The team then began to provide
comments on the safety issues, based on their knowledge of the location. MVPC recorded the
comments.
Following the pre-audit meeting, the team conducted a site visit/audit, during which the previous
specific safety issues and concerns were pointed out by the RSA team and MVPC. Additional
safety issues were identified at the site and recorded by MVPC.
Table 1. Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Tony Furnari
Debbie Cheng
Jon-Eric White
Andrew Port
Geordie Vining
Stephen Bradbury
Thomas Howard
Michael Harvey
Constance Raphael
Sara Timoner
Corey O’Connor
Tony Komornick
Jim Terlizzi
Agency/Affiliation
Newburyport DPS Director
Newburyport DPS
Newburyport City Engineer
Newburyport Planning Director
Newburyport Planning Project Manager
Newburyport Fire Deputy
Newburyport Police Marshall
State Police Officer
MassDOT District 4 Planning Coordinator
MassDOT District 4 Traffic
MassDOT Safety Engineer
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Page 2
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
After the site visit, the RSA participants met in a post-audit meeting and the group discussed
potential countermeasures that had been identified during the RSA and any new countermeasures
that could be thought of during the meeting. The countermeasures, which were recorded by
MVPC, included short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term improvements. At this meeting,
the State DOT was identified as the owner, within the study area, of the Route 1 ramps, Summer
Street, Winter Street, and the portion of Merrimac Street that is under the Route 1 overpass. The
City was identified as the owner of Merrimac Street, beyond the Route 1 ramps. MassDOT
therefore is the responsible party for the improvements and any necessary designs for its
identified roads. Since there is a joint jurisdiction of Merrimac Street, any improvements
involving this roadway will be the joint responsibility of MassDOT and the City.
Page 3
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Project Location and Description
MVPC conducted an inventory of the existing intersection geometry and traffic volumes in May
of 2012. Below is a detailed discussion of the intersection geometrics and traffic control
features, a discussion of the daily and peak hour traffic volumes, a review of the crash data, and
an analysis of the existing operations as well as the operations resulting from recommended
long-term improvements.
Geometrics and Traffic Control
Route 1
Prior to construction of the nation’s interstate highway network system, U.S. Route 1 was the
primary north/south highway that traversed the entire length of the eastern seaboard from Fort
Kent, Maine to Key West, Florida. In Massachusetts, it was and still is routed through the City
of Newburyport. However, since the mid-1930’s, the highway’s routing was taken off of the
City streets and was placed on a roadway that was constructed by the State DOT from a rotary
intersection of State Street and the Newburyport Turnpike at the southern City limits to the
Merrimack River crossing at the northern City limits. MassDOT still owns and maintains that
that section of highway, which is four lanes with two lanes of travel per direction that are
separated by a center median. South of the roadway’s access with High Street, the roadway is
functionally classified as a principal arterial, and north of High Street as an urban minor arterial.
North of High Street, vehicle trips on this section of roadway are made primarily between the
City center and the Town of Salisbury. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour (mph) for
both directions of the roadway.
Route 1A diverges from Route 1 in Boston to the south, traverses through coastal communities
of the North Shore, and then merges with Route 1 in Newburyport to the north. Within
Newburyport, Route 1A is carried on High Street, east of Winter Street, and on Summer and
Winter Streets. Route 1A rejoins and merges with Route 1 at the ramp intersections with
Merrimac Street.
Merrimac Street
Merrimac Street is an east/west two lane roadway, 2.4 miles in length, which runs along the
southern bank of the Merrimack River in Newburyport from Spofford Street near its river
crossing at the Amesbury City line to the west to Market Square in downtown to the east. The
roadway is functionally classified as an urban minor arterial and connects the City of Amesbury
and neighborhoods of Newburyport with the downtown. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph on
Merrimac Street, east of Kent Street. The USGS map of Figure 1, on the next page, presents the
geographic location of Merrimac Street in relation to Route 1.
Page 4
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Figure 1.
Site Locus Map (Source: USGS)
Summer and Winter Streets
Summer and Winter Streets are 30-foot wide, north/south collector roads that parallel and front
Route 1 on either side, between Merrimac Street and High Street. The two roadways, which
carry state Route 1A, are within the state highway layout and make up a one-way couplet, with
traffic allowed to head northbound only on Summer Street, east of Route 1, and allowed to head
southbound only on Winter Street, west of Route 1. Both roads are approximately 1,100 feet in
length and the land uses fronting the roads opposite Route 1 consist of primarily residential uses
with some commercial uses interspersed. Curbside parallel parking is allowed on the side of the
road fronting the homes and businesses. The profiles of Summer and Winter Streets differ from
Page 5
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Route 1 in that they follow the natural grade of the surroundings and have an average slope of
approximately 4 percent between High Street and Merrimac Street. The roads are elevated lower
than Route 1 at their intersections with Merrimac Street where Route 1 passes over Merrimac
Street on a bridge, and they are elevated higher than Route 1 at their intersections with High
Street where Route 1 passes under High Street on its bridge. At locations where Winter and
Summer Streets have similar elevations to Route 1, there are ramps connecting the roads and the
highway. There is an on-ramp from Winter Street onto Route 1 southbound and there is an offramp from Route 1 northbound onto Summer Street. At the roadways’ intersections with
Merrimac Street, there is an off-ramp from Route 1 southbound opposite Winter Street and there
is an on-ramp to Route 1 northbound opposite Summer Street.
Merrimac Street at the Route 1 ramps, Summer and Winter Streets
The limited access highway stretch of Route 1 through Newburyport interchanges with Merrimac
Street in an urban, compact, slip-style ramp system. An off-ramp slips off the southbound
direction of Route 1, near the southern abutment of the Merrimack River crossing bridge, and
intersects Merrimac Street opposite Winter Street. A northbound on-ramp is located on the east
side of Route 1 and begins at its intersection with Merrimac Street opposite Summer Street. A
very short southbound on-ramp to Route 1 exists from Winter Street approximately 300 feet
south of Merrimac Street. On the opposite side of Route 1 is a very short off-ramp from Route 1
northbound onto Summer Street. The aerial orthogonal photograph of Figure 2, on the following
page, shows the Route 1 ramps and how they intersect with Merrimac Street, Winter Street, and
Summer Street.
Merrimac Street is a roadway that is approximately 40 feet in width, curb to curb, as it nears the
Route 1 ramps. As the roadway passes under the Route 1 Bridge, the roadway widens slightly
and is approximately 52 feet wide.
The Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Summer Street are only separated by a distance of
approximately 120 feet, centerline-to-centerline, at their unsignalized intersections with
Merrimac Street.
Although the Route 1 southbound ramp, which is approximately 22-feet wide from curb to curb,
is striped as only one lane, it is used by vehicles stacking side by side as if it is two lanes: an
exclusive right-turn lane for vehicles turning onto Merrimac Street westbound and a shared
left/through lane for vehicles either turning onto Merrimac Street to travel downtown or for
vehicles to travel on straight onto Winter Street (Route 1A), which is directly opposite the ramp,
as shown in Figure 3. On occasion, the ramp will be used by through and right turning vehicles
in one “lane” and by left-turning traffic in the other. Winter Street is approximately 38-feet wide
and is well wide enough to accommodate curbside parking along the west side and to receive
southbound one-way directional traffic for the remainder of the width.
On the other side of Route 1, Summer Street (Route 1A) flares out to a width of 55 feet on its
approach to its intersection with Merrimac Street. Right-turning traffic from Summer Street is
separated from the other movements on the approach by a 6 foot wide by 50 foot long raised
median. The width of this right turn lane is approximately 23 feet. The remaining 26 feet of
Page 6
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Figure 2.
Aerial Ortho Photo of Route 1 ramps at Merrimac Street (Source: Pictometry, 4/04/12)
Page 7
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
pavement width does not have any lane striping, however it is used by vehicles stacking next to
one another as if it is two lanes: an exclusive left-turn lane for vehicles turning onto Merrimac
Street westbound and a through lane for vehicles traveling onto the Route 1 northbound on-ramp,
which is approximately 22-feet wide and is aligned directly opposite where the vehicles are
stacking to travel straight through. It appears that lane striping for an exclusive left-turn lane and
a through lane may have existed at one time, as evidenced by the sign “LEFT LANE MUST
TURN LEFT” (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices1 (MUTCD) R3-7) posted on the left
side of the roadway on its approach to the Merrimac Street intersection.
Traffic at the intersections with Merrimac Street is controlled by two STOP (MUTCD R1-1)
signs posted on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp approach and two that are posted on the
Summer Street approach. Additionally, DO NOT ENTER (MUTCD R5-1) signs are posted on
the opposite side of the STOP sign posts nearest Route 1 facing Merrimac Street to prohibit
traffic from entering the one-way Summer Street or Route 1 southbound off-ramp. On top of the
sign post at the Route 1 southbound ramp, a ONE WAY (MUTCD R6-1) sign reinforces the fact
that the ramp in an off-ramp only and traffic is only heading from the highway to Merrimac
Street. This sign is seen more easily by travelers on Merrimac Street.
In the vicinity of the ramps, the only pavement marking for vehicular traffic on Merrimac Street
is a faded double yellow solid centerline. STOP lines are painted across the Route 1 off-ramp
and Summer Street on their intersection approaches as well. The STOP lines are set back 20- to
25-feet from the roadway edge on Summer Street and 30- to 35-feet on the Route 1 southbound
off-ramp. Faded crosswalks, 7- to 9-feet in width, are painted across both of the Route 1 ramps,
Winter Street, Summer Street, and Merrimac Street, east of Route 1, as shown in Figure 3 on the
next page.
Portland cement concrete sidewalks leading up to the crosswalks exist along both sides of
Merrimac Street, one side of Winter and Summer Streets, and along one side of the northbound
off-ramp leading to the bridge. The concrete walks along all corners of the intersection are in
good to excellent condition.
1
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, USDOT: Federal Highway Administration; Washington, DC; 2009.
Page 8
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Figure 3.
Aerial Ortho Photo of Merrimac Street at the Rt. 1 ramps (Source: Pictometry, 4/04/12)
Page 9
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data was gathered for the study in May of 2012 by means of turning movement
and vehicle classification counts (TMCs) conducted at the Merrimac Street at the Route 1
southbound off-ramp and Winter Street and the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 northbound onramp and Summer Street intersections. The TMCs were conducted during the weekday morning
commuter peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and the weekday evening commuter peak period (4:00
to 6:00 PM). Additionally, automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) were placed on Winter Street, the
Route 1 southbound off-ramp, and Merrimac Street, west and east of the Route 1 ramps.
A review of the traffic count data indicates that traffic volumes increase on Merrimac Street and
throughout the day until late afternoon and then gradually decreases thereafter. Traffic volumes
on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp peak during the morning commuter peak period and then
decrease gradually throughout the day. Peak turning volumes occur at the Route 1 ramp
intersections with Merrimac Street between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning and between 5:00 and
6:00 in the evening. Table 2 presents a summary of the daily and peak hour traffic volumes on
roadways near the ramp intersections.
Table 2. Traffic Volume Summary
Location
Average
Weekday
Daily
Traffic
Volumea
Peak
Hour
Peak
Hour
Traffic
Volumeb
KFactorc
Directional
Distribution
Merrimac Street, east of
Route 1 and Summer Street
15,300
Morning
Evening
928
1,252
6.1
8.2
60% eastbound
51% eastbound
Merrimac Street, west of
Route 1 and Winter Street
10,500
Morning
Evening
707
958
6.7
9.1
51% eastbound
56% eastbound
Summer Street, south of
Merrimac Street
3,300
Morning
Evening
198
293
6.0
8.9
100% northbound
100% northbound
Route 1 southbound offramp, north of Merrimac St
6,900
Morning
Evening
534
517
7.7
7.5
100% southbound
100% southbound
a
Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) volume in vehicles per day (vpd). Peak hour traffic volume in vehicles per hour (vph). c
K-Factor is the percent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour; expressed as a percentage. b
As shown in Table 2, on Merrimac Street, there are approximately 15,300 vehicles per day (vpd)
on the downtown side of Route 1, and 10,500 vpd west of Route 1. Summer Street carries a oneway daily volume of 3,300 vpd. Daily traffic coming from Route 1 southbound onto Merrimac
and Winter Streets is approximately 6,900 vpd.
During both of the commuter peak hours, the flow of traffic predominates in the eastbound
direction as shown in Table 2.
Page 10
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Figure 4 presents the weekday morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts.
Traffic count data is also provided in the Appendix of this study. As shown in Figure 4, there are
approximately 270 vehicles originating from Route 1 to the north and approximately 300
vehicles originating from Merrimac Street to the west that are destined to the downtown during
the weekday morning peak hour. During the weekday evening peak hour, the reverse is true:
there are approximately 320 vehicles destined to Route 1 to the north and approximately 250
destined to Merrimac Street to the west, all of which are originating from the downtown. These
commuting patterns show the importance of downtown Newburyport as an employment center.
Page 11
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
N
Not to Scale
Figure 4.
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
N
Not to Scale
Existing Weekday Morning and Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Page 12
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Crash History
Historical traffic crash data was obtained for the study intersection from MassDOT’s statewide
crash database that was built with crash reports filed by police officers and vehicle operators
between 2008 and 2010 and sent to the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV). That data was
supplemented with data from the actual crash reports during that same period that were obtained
from the Newburyport Police Department. The data was reviewed over this three-year period to
determine crash trends for the intersection. Table 3 presents a summary of the crash report data.
Total
Table 3. Merrimac Street at Route 1 Crash Summary (2008 – 2010)
28
Typea
CM
RE
SV
Severityb
SS
20
5
2
1
71%
18%
7%
4%
Ped
PD
PI
Road Conditionc
F
Dry
0%
79%
21%
0%
82%
Merrimac Street at Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street
13
2
1
0
0
11
5
0
12
16
81%
13%
6%
0%
0%
69%
31%
0%
75%
Merrimac Street at Route 1 northbound on-ramp and Summer Street
5
1
0
0
0
5
1
0
6
6
83%
17%
0%
0%
0%
83%
Merrimac Street at unknown ramp locations
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
17%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
Route 1 over Merrimac Street
0
1
0
1
2
0%
50%
0%
50%
0%
100%
14%
4%
Day
Dusk
Lit
AM
PM
22
0
6
5
23
79%
0%
21%
18%
82%
4
0
14
0
2
1
15
25%
0%
88%
0%
12%
6%
94%
0
0
4
0
2
1
5
0%
0%
67%
0%
33%
17%
83%
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
Winter Street/Route 1 southbound on-ramp at Route 1 southbound
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0%
Ice
Time of
Crash
0%
Route 1 northbound at Route 1 northbound on-ramp
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0%
Wet
Merrimac Street at the Route 1 ramps Total
0
22
6
0
23
4
1
Light Conditiond
0%
0%
100%
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
0%
50%
0%
100%
Source: MassDOT/RMV and the Newburyport Police Department. Un = Unknown in all sections. aCrash Type: CM = cross
movement; RE = rear-end; SV = single vehicle; SS = side swipe; Ped = pedestrian. bSeverity of Crash: PD = Property Damage
Only; PI = Personal Injury; F = Fatality. cRoad Condition is the condition of the roadway surface. (Ice = snowy or icy road
surface). dLight Condition is the ambient light. Lit = Times of darkness with the roadway lit.
According to the review of the data, there were a total of twenty-eight (28) crashes over the
three-year period occurring at the Route 1 ramp interchange with Merrimac Street, or an average
of approximately nine (9) per year.
The intersections of the ramp system were looked at discretely. The location where the greatest
number of crashes occurred is the unsignalized intersection of Merrimac Street with the Route 1
southbound ramp and Winter Street, which experienced 16 crashes, followed by the Merrimac
Street at Summer Street and Route 1 northbound off-ramp unsignalized intersection, which
experienced 6 crashes.
The most predominant types of collisions occurring at those two unsignalized intersections were
angle or cross-movement type, which is a collision type typical for unsignalized intersections.
Page 13
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
More than 80 percent of the collisions at those two unsignalized intersections were angle or
cross-movement types.
Referring to the collision diagrams within the Appendix for the two intersections, one can see
that many of the collisions involve one vehicle traveling straight through on Merrimac Street and
one vehicle proceeding straight from the STOP sign on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp onto
Winter Street or proceeding straight from the STOP sign on Summer Street onto the Route 1
northbound on-ramp. Observations of vehicles making these straight through maneuvers from
the Route 1 southbound off-ramp or from Summer Street during the weekday commuter peak
periods show that the drivers do so aggressively. They do so because of the limited number of
acceptable gaps in traffic on Merrimac Street and the delay that is associated with sitting at the
STOP lines and waiting for a gap to maneuver. The drivers accelerate hard to get through the
intersections with short gaps in Merrimac Street traffic.
Approximately 83 to 94 percent of the total number of crashes at those two locations occurs after
noon, despite only 66 percent of the daily traffic occurs on Merrimac Street after 12:00 PM.
Adverse weather/slippery road conditions or poor lighting do not seem to be major contributing
factors in the reasons for the crashes. Approximately 67 to 88 percent of the total crashes at the
two intersections occur during daylight hours and approximately 75 to 100 percent occur when
the roadway is dry.
There were no collisions between a vehicle and a pedestrian.
Approximately 31 percent of the crashes at the Route 1 southbound off-ramp resulted in personal
injury and approximately 17 percent of the crashes at the Route 1 northbound on-ramp resulted
in injury.
To get an idea of the relative safety of locations, the number of crashes at the roadway and
intersection locations for Merrimac Street and Route 1 were also reviewed against traffic
volumes using those locations and then compared to the rate of crashes for other similar type
facilities. MassDOT reports that for the year 2011, the latest year available, there are a statewide
average rate of 0.61 crashes per million entering vehicles (mev) and a MassDOT District 4
average rate of 0.59 crashes per mev for unsignalized intersections. For urban minor arterial
roadways, there is a statewide average crash rate of 3.72 crashes per million vehicle miles
traveled. Table 4 presents a summary of the crash rates of the unsignalized intersections within
the Merrimac Street and Route 1 ramp system and the Route 1 roadway. The Table compares
those calculated rates to the statewide and MassDOT District 4 rates.
As shown in Table 4, the intersection of Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound off-ramp
and Winter Street has a rate (49 to 54 percent) greater than that of the statewide and District 4
average rate. This may indicate that this intersection has a safety issue that should be addressed.
Page 14
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table 4. Merrimac Street at Route 1 Crash Rates
Location
Merrimac Street
at Winter Street
Merrimac Street
at Summer Street
Route 1 at northbound on-ramp
Winter St./onramp at Route1SB
Route 1 over
Merrimac Street
Merrimac Street
at unknown ramp
3Yr.
Cr.a
Avg
An.
Cr.b
Crash
Ratec
Facility
Type
16
5.3
0.91
6
2.0
0.30
1
0.3
0.09
1
0.3
NA
2
0.7
2.22
2
0.7
NA
Unsignalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
Urban Minor
Arterial
Unsignalized
Intersection
State
Avg.
Rated
D4
Avg.
Ratee
>
St.
Rtf
>
D4
Rtg
% of
State
Rate
0.61
0.59
Y
Y
149%
154%
0.61
0.59
N
N
49%
51%
0.61
0.59
N
N
15%
15%
0.61
0.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.72
NA
N
NA
60%
NA
0.61
0.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
a
Total number of crashes over the three (3) year study period: 2008 – 2010. bAverage number of crashes per year. cCrash rate is
crashes per million entering vehicles (mev) for intersections and crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (vmt) for roadways.
d
Statewide average crash rate is in crashes per mev for intersections and crashes per million vmt for roads. eMassDOT District 4
wide average crash rate is in crashes per mev for intersections and crashes per million vmt for roads. fCrash rate is greater than
statewide average crash rate? Y = Yes, N = No. gCrash rate is greater than MassDOT D4 average crash rate? Y = Yes, N = No.
NA = Data not available.
Page 15
% of
Dist 4
Rate
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Operations Analysis
The operations of the unsignalized intersections of Merrimac Street with the Route 1 southbound
off-ramp and Winter Street and Merrimac Street with Summer Street and the Route 1 northbound
on-ramp were analyzed with the SYNHRO micro simulation computer model, which follows the
methodology presented in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) latest Highway Capacity
Manual2. A summary of the methodology can be found in the Appendix of this study.
Existing Conditions
Tables 5 and 6 present the analysis results for the existing operations of the Merrimac Street’s
unsignalized intersections with the Route 1 ramps. Table 5 below presents the analysis results of
Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street intersection. Operations
analysis sheets are provided in the Appendix of this study.
Table 5. Merrimac Street at Route 1 southbound off-ramp Operations Analysis Results
Peak Hour
Lane Movement/Totala
Volb
V/Cc
ADd
LOSe
Queuef Lengthg
Weekday Morning Merrimac St EB TH/RT
Merrimac St WB LT
Merrimac St WB TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp LT/TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp RT
Intersection
361
51
182
370
164
0.21
0.04
0.11
0.97
0.19
0.0
8.3
0.0
71.2
10.2
25.2
NA
A
NA
F
B
NA
0.1
NA
11.0
0.7
NA
3
NA
275
18
Weekday Evening Merrimac St EB TH/RT
Merrimac St WB LT
Merrimac St WB TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp LT/TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp RT
Intersection
540
107
253
342
175
0.32
0.10
0.15
1.59
0.22
0.0
8.9
0.0
>90.0
10.9
81.3
NA
A
NA
F
B
NA
0.4
NA
21.8
0.8
NA
9
NA
545
21
a
SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; LT = Left-Turn; TH = Through; RT = Right Turn. bVol. = volume of
turning movement in vehicles per hour; cVolume to Capacity ratio. dAverage Control Delay is in seconds per vehicle. eLevel of
Service. f95th percentile queue is in vehicles. gLength of queue is in feet; assumes 25 feet per vehicle. NA = Not applicable.
As shown in Table 5, most of the controlled and turning movements at this unsignalized
intersection operate well. The exception is the left-turning and through movements operating in
one lane from the Route 1 southbound ramp. The movements in this lane group operate at or
over capacity at level-of-service (LOS) F during both the weekday morning and evening
commuter peak hours. The average delay experienced by drivers in this lane during the weekday
peak periods is greater than one minute. The maximum queue, or the 95th percentile queue, on
the Route 1 southbound ramp is calculated to be 545 feet, or approximately 22 vehicles. Peak
period count observations indicate that the actual maximum queue for the Route 1 southbound
2
Highway Capacity Manual, HCM2000; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2000.
Page 16
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
approach is 18 vehicles. Because the observations are less than what is calculated, this may be a
good indication that drivers in vehicles on this approach are choosing to perform their maneuvers
through gaps in traffic on Merrimac Street that are smaller than acceptable for safe operations.
Observations also indicate that drivers are accelerating hard to quickly move straight through
from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp onto Winter Street or from Summer Street onto the Route
1 northbound on-ramp through short gaps in traffic, resulting in some near collisions. Drivers
may be doing this because once they have moved to the head of the queue on those intersection
approaches, they have grown impatient with having to endure the excessive delay and are
heavily influenced by the stack of cars behind them.
Table 6 below presents the analysis results for operations of the unsignalized intersection of
Merrimac Street at Summer Street and the Route 1 northbound on-ramp.
Table 6. Merrimac Street at Summer Street Operations Analysis Results
Peak Hour
Lane Movement/Totala
Volb
V/Cc
ADd
LOSe
Queuef Lengthg
Weekday Morning Merrimac Street EB LT
Merrimac Street EB TH
Merrimac St WB TH/RT
Summer Street NB LT
Summer Street NB TH
Summer Street NB RT
Intersection
93
482
385
46
75
77
0.08
0.28
0.23
0.21
0.36
0.13
1.2
0.0
0.0
37.1
38.0
35.7
4.6
A
NA
NA
D
D
B
0.2
NA
NA
0.8
1.5
0.4
6
NA
NA
20
38
11
Weekday Evening Merrimac Street EB LT
Merrimac Street EB TH
Merrimac St WB TH/RT
Summer Street NB LT
Summer Street NB TH
Summer Street NB RT
Intersection
214
526
618
64
121
108
0.22
0.31
0.36
0.67
1.41
0.20
9.8
0.0
0.0
>90.0
>90.0
13.1
29.9
A
NA
NA
F
F
B
0.8
NA
NA
3.3
9.3
0.7
21
NA
NA
82
232
18
a
SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; LT = Left-Turn; TH = Through; RT = Right Turn. bVol. = volume of
turning movement in vehicles per hour; cVolume to Capacity ratio. dAverage Control Delay is in seconds per vehicle. eLevel of
Service. f95th percentile queue is in vehicles. gLength of queue is in feet; assumes 25 feet per vehicle. NA = Not applicable.
As shown in Table 6, the left-turn and the through movement lanes on the Summer Street
approach operate under capacity at LOS D during the weekday morning peak hour and operate
over capacity at LOS F during the weekday evening peak hour. The average delay for these
movements is calculated to be greater than one minute during the weekday evening peak hour.
The maximum queue on the Summer Street approach is calculated to be 10 vehicles, which is
greater than the peak period count observations that showed the maximum queue for the Summer
Street approach to be actually 4 vehicles. As stated before, this may be because drivers in
vehicles on the Summer Street approach are choosing to perform their maneuvers through gaps
in traffic on Merrimac Street that are smaller than acceptable for safe operations.
Page 17
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Traffic Signal Warrants
To test by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards whether traffic signals are
warranted at the ramp intersection locations, traffic signal warrants analyses were conducted.
The analyses conservatively used the existing traffic volumes over the course of a day obtained
from TMC and ATR data in May. The analysis tested for the following warrants of the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD3):





Warrant 1, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1, Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicle Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume
Warrant 7, Crash Experience Traffic signal warrants analyses were conducted for the Merrimac Street intersection with the
Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street, as presented in Table 7 of the following page,
and for the Merrimac Street intersection with Summer Street and the Route 1 northbound onramp, as presented in Table 8 on the following page.
The traffic volumes for the mainline at the intersections are represented by traffic on both
approaches of Merrimac Street. The volumes for the side street are represented by either traffic
on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp approach or the Summer Street approach, depending on the
intersection location.
Merrimac Street intersection with the Rt. 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street
As shown in Table 7, the Merrimac Street intersection with the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and
Winter Street currently easily meets the peak hour and four hour volume warrants, and one of the
eight-hour volume warrants (Warrant 1, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume). This
location also satisfies the criteria for Warrant 7, since there is an average of five crashes per year
at this location which are correctable by signalization. FHWA states that “The need for a traffic
control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria
{of any of the traffic signal warrants} are met.” Therefore, traffic signal installation is warranted
at this location.
Merrimac Street intersection with Summer Street and the Rt 1northbound onramp
As shown in Table 8, the Merrimac Street intersection with Summer Street and the Route 1
northbound on-ramp also currently easily meets the peak hour and four hour volume warrants,
and both of the eight-hour volume warrants (Warrant 1, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular
Volume, and Warrant 1, Condition B, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic). Therefore, traffic
signal installation is warranted at this location also.
3
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); U.S. DOT, FHWA; Washington, DC; December, 2009.
Page 18
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table 7. Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street
Traffic Volumes(vph)a
Warrants
Major
Minor
Hour
Streetb
Streetc
1Ad
1Be
2f
06:00 AM - 07:00 AM
189
86
No
No
No
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
449
421
No
No
No
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
615
586
Yes
No
Yes
09:00 AM - 10:00 AM
631
592
Yes
No
Yes
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
550
469
Yes
No
Yes
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM
605
446
Yes
No
Yes
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM
706
445
Yes
No
Yes
01:00 PM - 02:00 PM
683
453
Yes
No
Yes
02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
704
463
Yes
No
Yes
03:00 PM - 04:00 PM
789
482
Yes
Yes
Yes
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
758
493
Yes
Yes
Yes
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
868
517
Yes
Yes
Yes
06:00 PM - 07:00 PM
720
518
Yes
No
Yes
07:00 PM - 08:00 PM
518
412
Yes
No
Yes
08:00 PM - 09:00 PM
358
284
No
No
No
09:00 PM - 10:00 PM
253
218
No
No
No
Signal Warrant Met?
Yes
No
Yes
3g
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
This analysis assumes the proposed intersection geometry including 1 lane on the major street approaches and 2
lanes (a left/through lane and a right-turn only lane) on the minor street approach and the 85th percentile speed of
the major street traffic less than 70km/h (40 mph).
a
Vehicles per hour. Taken from TMCs between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 and 6:00 PM for one
weekday in May. Taken from ATRs for remainder of time from the average of four weekday hourly traffic
volumes taken over one week in May.
b
The major street is Merrimac Street and the volume is the total of both approaches to the intersection under
existing traffic volume conditions. As per TMCs, the westbound volume on Merrimac Street at this location
outside of the peak periods is 59 percent of the ATR volume on Merrimac Street, east of the Route 1 ramps.
c
The minor street is the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and the volumes are the approach total under existing traffic
volume conditions.
d
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume, is satisfied for any hour if
the total vehicles per hour on the approaches of the major street is at least 500 and the minor street approach has at
least 200 vehicles. These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day to meet Warrant 1.
e
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume, Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic, is satisfied for any hour
if the total vehicles per hour on the approaches of the major street is at least 750 and the minor street approach has
at least 100 vehicles. These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day to meet Warrant 1.
f
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicle Volume, is met when, for any four hours of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall
above the appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-1 on page 440 of the MUTCD.
g
Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume, is met when, for any one hour of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall above the
appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-3 on page 441 of the MUTCD.
Page 19
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table 8. Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Merrimac Street at Summer Street and the Route 1 northbound on-ramp
Traffic Volumes(vph)a
Warrants
Major
Minor
Hour
Streetb
Streetc
1Ad
1Be
2f
06:00 AM - 07:00 AM
282
70
No
No
No
07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
729
138
No
No
Yes
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
1,098
182
No
Yes
Yes
09:00 AM - 10:00 AM
1,231
218
Yes
Yes
Yes
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
981
223
Yes
Yes
Yes
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM
1,070
254
Yes
Yes
Yes
12:00 PM - 01:00 PM
1,192
253
Yes
Yes
Yes
01:00 PM - 02:00 PM
1,121
229
Yes
Yes
Yes
02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
1,121
248
Yes
Yes
Yes
03:00 PM - 04:00 PM
1,277
262
Yes
Yes
Yes
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
1,217
198
No
Yes
Yes
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
1,412
267
Yes
Yes
Yes
06:00 PM - 07:00 PM
1,232
216
Yes
Yes
Yes
07:00 PM - 08:00 PM
941
153
No
No
No
08:00 PM - 09:00 PM
559
110
No
No
No
09:00 PM - 10:00 PM
351
60
No
No
No
Signal Warrant Met?
Yes
Yes
Yes
3g
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
This analysis assumes the existing intersection geometry including 1 lane on the major street approaches and 2 or
more lanes (a left-turn only lane, a through lane, and a right-turn only lane) on the minor street approach and the
85th percentile speed of the major street traffic less than 70km/h (40 mph).
a
Vehicles per hour. Taken from TMCs between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 and 6:00 PM for one
weekday in May. Taken from ATRs for remainder of time from the average of four weekday hourly traffic
volumes taken over one week in May.
b
The major street is Merrimac Street and the volume is the total of both approaches to the intersection under
existing traffic volume conditions. As per TMCs, the eastbound volume on Merrimac Street at this location
outside of the peak periods is 148 percent of the ATR volume on Merrimac Street, west of the Route 1 ramps.
c
The minor street is Summer Street and the volumes are the approach total under existing traffic volume
conditions.
d
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume, Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume, is satisfied for any hour if
the total vehicles per hour on the approaches of the major street is at least 500 and the minor street approach has at
least 200 vehicles. These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day to meet Warrant 1.
e
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicle Volume, Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic, is satisfied for any hour
if the total vehicles per hour on the approaches of the major street is at least 750 and the minor street approach has
at least 100 vehicles. These thresholds must be satisfied for at least eight hours of the day to meet Warrant 1.
f
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicle Volume, is met when, for any four hours of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall
above the appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-1 on page 440 of the MUTCD.
g
Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume, is met when, for any one hour of the day, plotted traffic volumes fall above the
appropriate curve shown in Figure 4C-3 on page 441 of the MUTCD.
Page 20
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Recommended Improvements
Some of the safety enhancements recommended by the RSA team were analyzed for their impact
to operations of the intersection. Some long-term recommendations include signalizing the
Route 1 ramps at Merrimac Street. Table 9 and 10 present the results of the analysis for those
improvements to the ramp intersections. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis for the
Merrimac Street at Winter Street and the Route 1 southbound off-ramp intersection.
Table 9. Merrimac St. at Rt. 1 SB off-ramp Operations Analysis –
Recommended Improvements
Lane Movement/Totala
V/Cb
Weekday Morning Merrimac St EB TH/RT
Merrimac St WB LT
Merrimac St WB TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp LT/TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp RT
Intersection
0.35
0.11
0.17
0.81
0.12
0.50
13.7
5.6
5.5
38.9
23.5
21.7
B
A
A
D
C
C
9.6
0.7
2.0
10.8
1.6
239
18
49
269
39
Weekday Evening Merrimac St EB TH/RT
Merrimac St WB LT
Merrimac St WB TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp LT/TH
Rt. 1 SB off-ramp RT
Intersection
0.52
0.26
0.22
0.81
0.12
0.58
15.8
12.6
3.7
42.0
25.5
20.9
B
B
A
D
C
C
14.3
2.1
1.2
11.1
1.8
357
52
31
277
46
Peak Hour
ADc
LOSd
Queuee
Lengthf
a
SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; LT = Left-Turn; TH = Through; RT = Right Turn.
Volume to Capacity ratio. cAverage Control Delay is in seconds per vehicle. dLevel of Service. e95th percentile queue is in
vehicles. fLength of queue is in feet; assumes 25 feet per vehicle.
b
As shown in Table 9, with the identified long-term safety improvements of signalization, the
intersection will operate overall at LOS C during both of the weekday commuter peak hours.
With signalization, the maximum queue on the ramp will be halved from approximately 22
vehicles to approximately 11 vehicles. However to reduce the delay and queuing on the ramp,
some delay will be introduced to vehicles on Merrimac Street. At most, an average of 14 to 16
seconds of delay per vehicle will be experienced by the drivers of vehicles heading in the
eastbound direction of Merrimac Street as they approach the Route 1 ramps. The maximum
queue on this approach will be between 10 and 15 vehicles.
Table 10 presents the results of the analysis for the Merrimac Street at Summer Street and the
Route 1 northbound on-ramp intersection.
Page 21
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table 10. Merrimac St. at Summer St. Operations Analysis –
Recommended Improvements
Lane Movement/Totala
V/Cb
Weekday Morning Merrimac Street EB LT
Merrimac Street EB TH
Merrimac St WB TH/RT
Summer Street NB LT
Summer Street NB TH
Summer Street NB RT
Intersection
0.13
0.34
0.28
0.25
0.37
0.05
0.34
Weekday Evening Merrimac Street EB LT
Merrimac Street EB TH
Merrimac St WB TH/RT
Summer Street NB LT
Summer Street NB TH
Summer Street NB RT
Intersection
0.39
0.38
0.52
0.26
0.47
0.07
0.48
Peak Hour
ADc
LOSd
Queuee
Lengthf
1.2
1.8
6.2
37.1
38.0
35.7
9.2
A
A
A
D
D
D
A
0.2
0.8
4.6
2.2
3.3
1.6
5
20
116
55
82
40
7.7
2.1
11.7
34.8
36.7
33.3
12.3
A
A
B
C
D
C
B
2.7
1.2
14.0
2.7
4.6
1.8
67
30
349
68
115
44
a
NB = Northbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; LT = Left-Turn; TH = Through; RT = Right Turn.
Volume to Capacity ratio. cAverage Control Delay is in seconds per vehicle. dLevel of Service. e95th percentile queue is in
vehicles. fLength of queue is in feet; assumes 25 feet per vehicle.
b
As shown in Table 10, a signalized Summer Street and Merrimac Street intersection will operate
overall at LOS B or better during the weekday commuter peak hours. The maximum queue on
the Summer Street approach will be cut in half from approximately 10 vehicles to approximately
5 vehicles. Vehicles heading towards the Route 1 ramps from downtown will be delayed at the
most an average of approximately 12 seconds and the maximum vehicle queue will be
approximately 14 vehicles long.
Page 22
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Audit Observations and Potential Safety
Enhancements
The RSA team identified safety issues at the pre-meeting and also out at the audit site. Potential
safety enhancements were discussed out at the site and at the post audit meeting. Following is a
summary of the identified safety issues and the potential safety enhancements.
 Heavily traveled Merrimac Street has few gaps in traffic for traffic to safely travel
through or turn left from the STOP-sign controlled approaches of the Route 1 ramp
intersections – Audit observations showed a steady stream of traffic on Merrimac Street past
the ramps with Route 1. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, there are at least approximately 500
vehicles per hour (vph) traveling every hour past the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and at
least approximately 1,000 vph every hour traveling past Summer Street between 8:00 AM
and 8:00 PM on a typical weekday. This steady stream of traffic on Merrimac Street is
coupled with a large vehicular demand on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp approach. Also
shown in Table 7 is between that same time period of 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM on a typical
weekday, there are between 400 and 500 vph traveling every hour down the Route 1
southbound ramp heading towards Merrimac Street. Figure 4 shows that at the ramp’s
intersection with Merrimac Street and Winter Street approximately half of those vehicles are
turning left on Merrimac towards downtown and another approximately 15 percent are
heading straight onto Winter Street.
According to TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual, the critical gap, or the minimum gap size,
for traffic to safely turn left from a minor street onto a major street is 7.1 seconds or to travel
straight through a major street at an unsignalized intersection is 6.5 seconds. The capacity
analysis worksheets provided in the Appendix of this Report show that there are
approximately 380 gaps in Merrimac Street traffic that are at least this size for safe leftturning and through maneuvers from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp during the weekday
morning peak hour and only approximately 215 during the weekday evening peak hour.
Given that approximately 350 vph are performing these maneuvers during the weekday
evening peak hour, there are not enough gaps to handle the demand and the result is a backup
of traffic on the ramp with excessive delay to the drivers. When vehicles finally do move to
the head of the queue on the ramp, it was observed that some drivers become impatient and
choose to perform the maneuver in gaps that are smaller than the critical gaps, with vehicles
performing hard accelerations or “gunning it” through those smaller gaps. These hard
accelerations for through traveling vehicles from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp STOP
line and Summer Street were observed during the Road Safety Audit.
As shown in the collision diagrams within the Appendix, the most predominant type of
collisions at the two ramp intersections are the angle-type collisions, involving Merrimac
Street through traveling vehicles and vehicles heading straight from the Route 1 southbound
off-ramp or straight from Summer Street. In fact, eight of the nine collisions involving
vehicles coming from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp were vehicles destined to Winter
Street; this despite the through movement from the ramp accounting for only approximately
15 percent of the total approach volume. All of the angle type collisions at the other
Page 23
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
intersection involve vehicles heading straight from Summer Street onto the Route 1
northbound on-ramp; this despite the through movement from Summer Street accounting for
only approximately 40 percent of all traffic turning from this approach to the intersection.
It was suggested by one of the audit participants that the speed limit be reduced on Merrimac
Street, perhaps from its current 30 mph to 25 mph. However, in order to post a legally
enforceable speed limit, a request to perform a speed study must be made through MassDOT.
The speed study will determine the 85th percentile speed of vehicles, which dictates the
enforceable posted speed limit. There is the likely potential that this study could find that the
85th percentile speed of travelers is greater than the speed limit that is desired. Because of
this procedure, reducing the speed limit on Merrimac Street may not be feasible. Even if
favorable findings result from the study, reducing the speeds of traffic on Merrimac Street
will not increase the capacity with an increase in the number of available gaps for turning. It
will reduce the speed at which vehicles collide, thereby reducing the damage or reducing the
chance for personal injury.
It was also suggested that the Route 1 southbound off-ramp be striped for a shared left-turn/
through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane, since on many occasions, this is the
way that vehicles presently stack, due to
the ramp’s alignment with Winter Street.
Without widening, these lanes can only be
10 feet wide, since the ramp is only
approximately 22 feet wide. However,
with an exclusive right-turn lane, the rightturning vehicles would not be unduly
delayed behind the left-turning and through
traveling vehicles on the left side of the
ramp, if this intersection was to remain
unsignalized. Also, right-turning vehicles
would not be delayed behind through traveling vehicles that stack on the right side of the
ramp. Freeing right-turning vehicles on the ramp will reduce the total vehicle queue, with
not as many backups up the ramp to the Route 1 southbound mainline trunk.
There was a recommendation to prohibit through movements from the Route 1 southbound
off-ramp onto Winter Street and from
Summer Street onto Route 1 northbound onramp. This would require the construction
of one delta shaped traffic island at the base
of Winter Street and one at the base of the
Route 1 northbound on-ramp. The blunt
side of the islands should face Merrimac
Street at both locations and the geometric
configuration of the islands will allow only
vehicles to turn left and right from Merrimac
Street onto Winter Street and onto the Route
Page 24
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
1 northbound on-ramp. However, these two ramp intersection locations are where Route 1A
rejoins with Route 1. Since, within the City of Newburyport, Route 1A is routed on High
Street and then on Winter and Summer Streets to rejoin Route 1, the through movement
prohibition from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and to the Route 1 northbound on-ramp
will require that Route 1A be
rerouted from Winter and Summer
Streets onto other streets that
intersect High Street.
This
rerouting of Route 1A from High
Street
could
perhaps
be
accomplished via Pond Street,
which intersects High Street and
also intersects Route 1 at a
signalized location opposite Low
Street.
In any case, additional
analysis should be conducted to find
out where the diverted traffic can be
safely and efficiently handled.
Short of signalizing the Merrimac
Street ramp intersections with Route 1, the through movement prohibition enhancement
would have the greatest benefit to improving the ramp intersections’ safety by removing the
collisions involving through movements from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp or from
Summer Street. It was further recommended by one of the RSA participants that the base of
the Route 1 northbound on-ramp be striped for two lanes for a short distance before merging
into one lane at some distance before the point where the ramp merges with the Route 1
Bridge. The two lanes will allow Merrimac Street eastbound left-turning and westbound
right-turning vehicles to proceed at the same time onto the ramp.
The thought was entertained of closing down the Route 1 northbound off-ramp to Summer
Street and forcing northbound travelers on Route 1 to access downtown via Pond Street or
the western end of the City via Low Street. While closing this ramp to Summer Street may
reduce the volume of left-turning and right-turning traffic onto Merrimac Street from
Summer Street, it will likely not reduce the volume of the troublesome through traffic from
Summer Street onto the Route 1 northbound on-ramp.
It appears that the best alternative for improving safety in the long-term is to signalize the
Route 1 ramp intersections with Merrimac Street. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, these
intersections easily meet the peak hour, four hour, and eight hour warrants for the installation
of a traffic signal by MUTCD standards. The crash experience warrant at one intersection is
also satisfied. As an alternative, only the Route 1 southbound off-ramp ramp intersection
with Merrimac Street and Winter Street may be signalized, since this is the critical
intersection in terms of capacity and safety. The signal at this ramp would introduce some
larger gaps in traffic on Merrimac Street past Summer Street so the operations and safety of
traffic turning from Summer Street onto Merrimac Street or the Route 1 northbound ramp
will be improved. However, it is preferable that both ramp intersections be signalized with
one controller. Signalization will introduce vehicle queues on Merrimac Street, since traffic
Page 25
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
on Merrimac Street will need to be stopped to allow traffic from the Route 1 southbound offramp or from Summer Street to go. However, Tables 9 and 10 show that these vehicle
queues are manageable. According to the capacity analysis, the longest vehicle queues will
occur during the weekday evening peak period, extending just beyond Strong Street, west of
the ramps and just beyond Market Street, east of the ramps. These maximum queues, which
occur once or twice during the peak hour, will impact traffic turning from the parking lot for
Perry construction company at 120 Merrimac Street, traffic turning from the parking lots at
Country Driving School (6 Market Street) and Pure Bliss Bridal Salon (85 Merrimac Street),
and traffic turning to and from the driveway for Michael’s Harborside restaurant.
Signalization of the Route 1 ramp intersections with Merrimac Street will need to include
some sort of method of preemption in
the event that the drawbridge over the
Merrimac River is opened and traffic
is stopped. Some City officials noted
at the RSA that this may occur up to
every half hour during the summer
time. The bridge openings typically
last approximately five to ten
minutes. In the event of a bridge
opening, traffic will need to be
cleared off of the bridge in the
southbound direction, partially by
way of the Route 1 southbound offramp, then will need to be halted
from proceeding onto the bridge in the northbound direction, by way of the Route 1
northbound ramp, and finally allow Merrimac Street traffic to proceed in both directions
unobstructed.

“Tug of war” or “jockeying” between side-by-side left-turning and through traveling cars
nosing out into Merrimac Street from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp – It was noted by the
City police that on many occasions there is a nosing out of traffic from the Route 1
southbound off-ramp into Merrimac
Street, when traffic on the ramp is
excessively
delayed
due
to
congestion of traffic on Merrimac
Street. Traffic stacked side by side
on the ramp will jockey out further
and further into the Merrimac Street
roadway to gain sight distance and a
priority for turning into a gap of the
traffic stream. However, the result of
this jockeying or tug of war is
sometimes there is a collision
between those vehicles and a through
traveling vehicle on Merrimac Street.
Page 26
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
In the short term, it was suggested that the City police issue more moving violations/citations
for those vehicles coming from the ramp and failing to yield the right-of-way. This may
discourage some drivers from performing this maneuver in the future; however, excessive
delay to vehicles on the ramp will persist.
A mid-term solution of narrowing the ramp, by striping or by geometric modification, was
also suggested to prevent vehicles from stacking side-by-side. This will eliminate the sideby-side jockeying, however, since right-turning vehicles will not be able to bypass through
and left-turning vehicles at the ramp end, vehicle queues will extend even further, up to and
onto the Route 1 southbound mainline.
The greatest relief to the side-by-side jockeying will come by reducing the delay to the
vehicles on the ramp, thereby reducing the impatience of the drivers. The only way that
delay can be significantly reduced to ramp traffic is by the promotion of orderly flow of
traffic with signalized traffic control at the ramp. This could be done in the long-term with
signalization installation at both ramps, or alternatively, just the Route 1 southbound offramp.
 Excessive delay to drivers on the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Summer Street approaches
leads to lack of courtesy and hard acceleration through the intersections – As mentioned
previously, heavily traveled Merrimac Street provides not enough gaps for traffic traveling
through from Summer Street onto the Route 1 northbound on-ramp or traveling through from
the Route 1 southbound off-ramp onto Winter Street, especially during the weekday evening
peak hour. Vehicle queues
result with excessive delay to
drivers on the Summer Street
and Route 1 southbound offramp approaches to Merrimac
Street. When vehicles finally
do move to the head of the
queue on Summer Street or the
ramp, it was observed during
the Road Safety Audit that
some drivers become impatient
and choose to cross Merrimac
Street through small gaps of
traffic, which are smaller than
the critical (minimum) gaps.
To get through those small
gaps to the other side of the road, the drivers of these vehicles perform hard accelerations or
what is otherwise known as “gunning it”. One of the RSA participants also noted that there
is very little eye contact, and therefore very little courtesy, that is exchanged between drivers
when this occurs.
Page 27
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
In the long term, the Route 1 ramp intersections with Merrimac Street should be signalized.
This will reduce the excessive delay to the drivers of vehicles on the Summer Street and
Route 1 southbound off-ramp approaches to Merrimac Street. The ramp intersection signal
control will introduce a sharing of the right-of-way proportional to the vehicular demand on
the major road (Merrimac Street) and the minor road (Summer Street and the Route 1
southbound off-ramp) approaches.
 Sight line from the STOP line on the Summer
Street approach is restricted by the Route 1
bridge piers – Is was observed during the RSA
that the sight line for drivers of left-turning
vehicles at the STOP bar on the Summer Street
approach is severely restricted by the Route 1
bridge piers. The distance at which vehicles
on Merrimac Street can first be seen, without
obstructions, is less than 100 feet. In the
absence of signalizing the ramps, the sight
distance should be improved for the leftturning vehicles on the STOP-sign controlled
approach by adding some distance. This may be achieved by changing the geometry of the
Summer Street approach so that left-turning
vehicles will be placed further away from the
bridge piers. This will require that there is a
narrowing of the approach from the existing
three lanes to two lanes. In place of the existing
exclusive left-turn lane, through lane, and
exclusive right-turn lane will be a shared
left/through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane. This change in geometry will necessitate a
removal of the existing “LEFT LANE MUST TURN
LEFT” (MUTCD R3-7) sign from its post on the
Summer Street approach. The traffic island should
also be removed from the road and the westerly curb should be moved approximately 20 feet
to the east to accommodate this change. The
resultant will be that there is at least approximately
20 feet of sight distance that will be added with this
enhancement. The narrowing of Summer Street
may also result in the loss of one or more curbside
parking spaces, located south of the Merrimac Street
intersection.
Page 28
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Independent of the recommended changes to the geometry of the
Summer Street approach, one of the RSA participants recommended
that MassDOT remove the STOP sign from the post supporting a “(U.S.
Route 1 symbol) NORTH SALISBURY N.H. & MAINE” straight
ahead arrow guide sign and be placed on its own post.
Should the Summer Street intersection with Merrimac Street be signalized, this safety issue is
completely eliminated, since vehicles on the Summer Street approach will not need to look at
traffic flow on Merrimac Street to make decisions on when to perform their turning
movements, but rather base their decisions on the right-of-way assigned by the traffic signal
indications facing the approach. If alternatively just the Route 1 southbound ramp
intersection with Merrimac Street is signalized and not this intersection, this safety issue is
mitigated but not completely eliminated. The drivers of vehicles on the STOP controlled
approach of Summer Street will still need to account for traffic on Merrimac Street, however,
traffic heading eastbound direction of Merrimac Street will be stopped once in a while, which
will provide larger gaps in the traffic stream to turn into. Even when the eastbound traffic is
moving, it will sometimes also be grouped in platoons of vehicles, thereby also providing
some large gaps behind those platoons.
 Long travel distance from the Route 1 southbound off-ramp onto Winter Street – Some RSA
participants noticed that the
STOP bar on the Route 1
southbound off-ramp is set
back quite a distance from
the
Merrimac
Street
intersection. It is measured
as being approximately 14
feet back from the crosswalk
markings. Should a vehicle
on the ramp wait at the
STOP bar to perform a
turning movement onto
Merrimac Street or travel
straight onto Winter Street, it
must travel a greater distance
than normal to do so. Also,
because the STOP bar is set
back so far, the sight line to the west is restricted even more so by a building on the
northwest corner of the intersection.
To improve the corner sight distance and reduce the travel distance through the intersection
from a stopped position, it was recommended that MassDOT move the STOP bar up closer to
the intersection. The MUTCD recommends a minimum distance of 4 feet from the
crosswalk to the STOP bar.
Page 29
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission

Lack of pavement markings to guide traffic through the intersections – The pavement
markings, including roadway
centerlines on Merrimac Street
near the Route 1 ramps, were
noted as being faded, during the
RSA. It was recommended that
the City or MassDOT restripe the
pavement on a more regular basis,
perhaps once or twice a year. It
was further recommended that leftturn lanes be striped under the
bridge to allow left-turning
vehicles (onto Route 1 northbound
or Winter Street) to stack and
allow through traveling vehicles to
bypass them. There is a wide
enough cross-section of Merrimac
Street under the bridge to allow four lanes to be striped: one curbside through lane and one
interior exclusive left-turn lane for each direction of travel.
Page 30
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Summary of Road Safety Audit
All of the safety issues and their potential safety enhancements were discussed in the previous
section. Table 11 provides a summary of the potential safety recommendations that were
discussed by the audit team. The recommendations are categorized in order of safety payoff with
their associated cost, time frame and responsible agency.
Safety payoff estimates are subjective and may be based on the relative percent of crashes that
may be reduced by the enhancement; for example, low (<30%), medium (31% to 70%), and high
(>71%). The time frame is categorized as short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1 to 3 years), or longterm (>3 years). The costs are categorized as low (<$10,000), medium ($10,001 to $50,000), or
high (>$50,001).
Page 31
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Table 11.
Safety Issue
Heavily traveled Merrimac
Street has few gaps in
traffic for traffic to safely
travel through or turn left
from the STOP-sign
controlled approaches of
the Route 1 ramp
intersections
“Tug of war” or “jockeying”
between side-by side leftturning and through
traveling cars nosing out
into Merrimac Street from
the Route 1 southbound
off-ramp
Excessive delay to drivers
on the Rt 1 southbound offramp and Summer Street
approaches leads to lack of
courtesy/hard acceleration
through the intersections
Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety
Payoff
Time
Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Reduce the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph on Merrimac
Low
Short-Term
Low
City and MassDOT
Street, near the Route 1 ramps. (Initiate study for reduction.)
Stripe the Route 1 southbound off-ramp for an exclusive rightLow
Short-Term
Low
MassDOT
turn lane and a shared left-turn/through lane.
Close the Route 1 northbound off-ramp onto Summer Street,
forcing northbound travelers on Route 1 to access downtown
Low
Mid-Term Medium
MassDOT
via Pond Street or the western end of the City via Low Street.
Prohibit through movements from the Route 1 southbound offramp onto Winter Street and from Summer Street onto the
Medium Mid-Term
Low
MassDOT
Route 1 northbound on-ramp. (Reroute Route 1A)
Signalize the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound offHigh
Long-Term
High MassDOT and City
ramp and Winter Street intersection. (1)
Signalize both of the Route 1 ramp intersections. (2)
High
Long-Term
High MassDOT and City
Issue more citations to drivers failing to yield ROW from ramp.
Low
Short-Term
Low
City
Narrow the Route 1 southbound off-ramp to one lane for all
Low
Mid-Term
Low
MassDOT
turning movements to prevent side by side stacking of vehicles.
Signalize the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound offHigh
Long-Term
High MassDOT and City
ramp and Winter Street intersection. (1)
Signalize both of the Route 1 ramp intersections. (2)
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT and City
Signalize the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound offramp and Winter Street intersection. (1)
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT and City
Signalize both of the Merrimac Street and Route 1 ramp
intersections. (2)
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT and City
Low
Mid-Term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Mid-Term
Low
MassDOT
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT and City
High
Long-Term
High
MassDOT and City
Narrow the Summer Street approach from three lanes to two
lanes: a shared left-turn/through lane and a right-turn lane.
Sight line from the STOP
Remove “LEFT LANE MUST TURN LEFT” (MUTCD R3-7) from
lines on the Summer Street its post on the Summer Street approach to the Merrimac Street.
approach is restricted by
Signalize the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound offthe Route 1 bridge piers
ramp and Winter Street intersection. (1)
Signalize both of the Route 1 ramp intersections. (2)
Page 32
Road Safety Audit—Route 1 at Merrimac Street – Newburyport, MA
Prepared by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
Safety Issue
Potential Safety Enhancement
Long travel distance from
Move the ramp STOP bar and STOP sign up closer to
the Route 1 southbound
Merrimac Street for better sight distance and a shorter travel
off-ramp onto Winter Street distance onto Winter Street from a stopped position.
Restripe the pavement markings on a more regular basis,
Lack of pavement
perhaps annually or biannually.
markings to guide traffic
Provide exclusive left-turn lanes on Merrimac Street for the
through the intersections
Route 1 northbound on-ramp and for Winter Street.
Safety
Payoff
Time
Frame
Cost
Responsible
Agency
Medium
Mid-Term
Low
MassDOT
Low
Short-Term
Low
MassDOT or City
Low
Short-Term
Low
MassDOT or City
Repeat potential safety improvements include: (1) Install a traffic signal at the Merrimac Street at the Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street intersection location.
(2) Install traffic signals at both of the Merrimac Street and Route 1 ramp intersection locations.
Page 33
Appendix A. RSA Meeting Agenda Road Safety Audit
NEWBURYPORT – MERRIMAC STREET AT ROUTE 1
AND STOREY AVENUE (ROUTE 113) AT I-95 RAMPS
Meeting Location: Newburyport City Hall,
Conference Room, Second Floor
60 Pleasant Street, Newburyport, MA
Monday, November 19, 2012
1:00 PM – 4:30 PM
Type of meeting:
High Crash Locations – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
1:00 PM
Welcome and Introductions
1:15 PM
Review of Site Specific Material
 Crash, Speed & Volume Summaries – provided in advance
 Existing Geometries and Conditions
1:45 PM
Visit the Sites
 Walk to Merrimac Street at Rt. 1 and Drive to Storey Avenue (Route 113) at I-95
 As a group, identify areas for improvement
3:45 PM
Post Visit Discussion / Completion of RSA
 Discuss observations and finalize findings
 Discuss potential improvements and finalize recommendations
4:30 pm
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
 Before attending the RSA on the 19th, participants are encouraged to drive and/or walk
through Merrimac Street at the Route 1 ramps and drive and/or walk through Storey
Avenue (Route 113) at the I-95 interchange and complete/consider elements on the RSA
Prompt List with a focus on safety.

All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout. Participants are
encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are reminded that the synergy that
develops and respect for others’ opinions are key elements to the success of the overall
RSA process.

After the RSA meeting, participants will be asked to comment and respond to the
document materials to assure it is reflective of the RSA completed by the multidisciplinary
team.
Appendix B. RSA Audit Team Contact List Participating Audit Team Members
Date:
Nov. 19, 2012
Location:
Newburyport City Hall, 60 Pleasant St., Newburyport, MA
Audit Team
Agency/Affiliation or Title
Members
Tony Furnari
Newburyport DPS Director
Debbie Cheng
Newburyport DPS
Jon-Eric White
Newburyport City Engineer
Andrew Port
Newburyport Planning Director
Geordie Vining
Newburyport Planning Proj Mgr
Stephen Bradbury Newburyport Fire Deputy
Thomas Howard
Newburyport Police Marshall
Michael Harvey
State Police Officer
Connie Raphael
MassDOT District 4
Sara Timoner
MassDOT District 4
Corey OConnor
MassDOT Safety
Tony Komornick
MVPC
Jim Terlizzi
MVPC
Email Address
Phone Number
afurnari@cityofnewburyport.com
dcheng@cityofnewburyport.com
jewhite@cityofnewburyport.com
aport@cityofnewburyport.com
gvining@cityofnewburyport.com
sbradbury@cityofnewburyport.com
thoward@newburyportpolice.com
M.Harvey@pol.state.ma.us
connie.raphael@state.ma.us
sara.timoner@state.ma.us
corey.oconnor@state.ma.us
akomornick@mvpc.org
jterlizzi@mvpc.org
(978) 465-4463
(978) 465-4464
(978) 417-1969
(978) 465-4400
(978) 465-4400
(978) 465-4427
(978) 465-4444
(978) 462-7478
(781) 641-8468
(781) 641-8435
(857) 368-9638
(978) 374-0519
(978) 374-0519
Appendix C. Detailed Crash Data Collision Diagrams: Summarized from 2008 to 2010 Crash Data and Reports
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Location· Route 1 Southbound Off-Ramp at Merrimac Street and Winter Street
'
~
~
Time Period· Jan 1 2008 - Dec 31 2010
1
1
I
I
<::)
-::
-!!
~
c:ll
Q::
2
Merrimac
j
J
Street
5
_j
~
Li15
1,4,16
3, 7,8, 10,11
-....-
9{
;!
1
Cl,)
.....
~
·!$
~
Notto Scale
#
DATE
TIME
TYPE
K
I
LIGHT
ROAD
VIOLATIONS
1
1110/08
630PM
Angle
0
0
Dark Lit
Dry
Unknown
2
6/15/08
121PM
Rear-End
0
1
Daylight
Drv
Unknown
3
10/15/08
4:04PM
Angle
0
3
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
4
11/06/08
244PM
Angle
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
5
11/09/08
630PM
Turning Move
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
6
12115/08
143PM
Angle
0
0
Daylight
Drv
Unknown
7
5/23/09
405PM
Angle
0
2
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
8
6/29/09
11 30 PM
Angle
0
2
Daylight
Wet
Unknown
9
7/07/09
11.20 Plv1
HiLFixeJ OLJ.
0
0
Dark LiL
"TvVeL
Uuk.11U WI1
10
7/16/09
807AM
Angle
0
1
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
11
7/21/09
209PM
Angle
0
1
D aylight
Wet
12
8/30/09
240PM
Angle
0
0
Daylight
13
12/15/09
143PM
Angle
0
0
14
1/16/10
1212PM
Angle
0
Angle
Turning Move
Dry
Unknown
(*
Angle
Turning Move
Daylight
Drv
Unknown
0
Daylight
Wet
Unknown
==t:
Side Swipe
Same Direction
~
Side Swipe
Opp. Direction
J
Side Swipe
Lane Change
Rear-End
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
Angle
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
23
24
25
Turning Moves
~
125PM
22
Head On
Unknown
4 00 PM
21
_}
Turning Move
6/05/10
19
Collision Type
Head On
Angle
9130110
20
D
Angle
16
18
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Fixed Object/Parked
--o
---,
_;-
15
17
-
S!mbol Legend
.
Rear End
((•
-+0
~
Rear End
Backing
Single Vehicle Hit Fixed Object
Single Vehicle Ran Off Road
I
'
~
Single Vehicle Pedestrian
COLLISION DIAGRAM
-
Location· Route 1 Northbound On Ramp at Merrimac Street and Summer Street
Time Period· Jan 1I 2008 - Dec 31 I 2010
---
1
::111:1
0
c:
2 :.
0
.
::::::0
....
5I
::111:1
--
Merrimac
Street
\.
r:
1, 5
I
-
9{
'b
~
~
....
1
Cb
as
as
::=o
~
Notto Scale
#
DATE
TIME
TYPE
K
I
LIGIIT
ROAD
VIOLATIONS
1
9!24/08
4 50 PM
Angle
0
0
Daylight
DIY
Unknown
2
10/14/08
145 PM
Angle
0
0
Daylight
DIY
Unknown
3
1/ 17/09
9 17 PM
Angle
0
0
Dark, L it
Dry
Unknown
4
8!24/09
10:00 AM
Rear-End
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
5
9/ 17/09
257 PM
Angle
0
1
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
6
1V09109
4 58 PM
Angle
0
0
Dark L it
DIY
Unknown
7
8
9
10
11
-
S!mbol Legend
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Fixed ObjectJPaf1(ed
--o
Cl
C ollision Type
Head On
_}
---,
Head On
Turning Moves
Angle
___r
Ang le
Turning Move
~
Ang le
Turning Move
Ang le
Turning Move
13
-r
14
==l
Side Swipe
Same Direction
15
~
Side Swipe
Opp. Direction
J
Side Swipe
Lane Change
12
16
17
Rear End
18
19
20
-< <~
21
-+0
22
~
23
24
25
Rear End
Backing
Single Vehicle Hit Fixed Object
Sing le Vehi cle Ran Off Road
1
'
~
Single Vehicle Pedestri an
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Location· Winter Street/Route 1 Southbound On-Ramp at Route 1 Southbound
Time Period· Jan 112008 - Dec 31 12010
~
0
c:
~
-
CP
'GI'
0
~
\
.;a
~
""111::::.
-==:::
:::::.
~
..c::::.
';:S
:::::::.
1
-
~
~
--....
.s
~
Q)
CD
=:a
c:::::.
Q:::
Cl)
9{
Q)
1
3!:
Notto Scale
#
DATE
TIME
TYPE
K
I
LIGHf
ROAD
VIOLATIONS
1
4/02110
1200AM
Rear-End
0
0
Dark Lit
Dry
Unknown
-
D
3
Collision Type
4
Head On
5
7
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Fixed Object/Parked
--o
2
6
S!mbol Legend
_)
Head On
Turning Moves
I
_;-
Angle
Angle
Turning Move
11
~
Angle
Turning Move
12
(*
Angle
Turning Move
14
==*
Side Swipe
Same Direction
15
~
Side Swipe
Opp1 Direction
16
=:;r
Side Swipe
Lane Change
8
9
10
13
17
Rear End
18
19
~ ((~
Rear End
Backing
20
21
-+0
22
~
23
24
25
Single Vehicle Hit Fixed Object
Single Vehicle Ran Off Road
I
'
---IJ{J
Single Vehicle Pedestrian
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Location· Route 1 Northbound at Route 1 Northbound On-Ramp
Time Period· Jan 112008 - Dec 31 12010
--=~
~
~
~
-..;;;
-
~
~
~
::::::.
~
1
Q:::
-:P
D
,..:.
-.-.
"c..
9{
~
1
0
"'~
-
~
Notto Scale
#
DATE
TIME
TYPE
K
I
LIGHf
ROAD
VIOLATIONS
1
12/22108
831AM
Hit Fixed Obi.
0
0
Daylight
Ice
Unknown
-
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Fixed Object/Parked
-~
2
D
3
Collision Type
4
Head On
5
6
S!mbol Legend
_)
Head On
Turning Moves
---,
_;-
Angle
Angle
Turning Move
11
~
Angle
Turning Move
12
(*
Angle
Turning Move
14
==t:
Side Swipe
Same Direction
15
~
Side Swipe
Opp1 Direction
J
Side Swipe
Lane Change
7
8
9
10
13
16
17
18
19
20
.
Rear End
((•
21
-+0
22
~
23
24
25
Rear End
Backing
Single Vehicle Hit Fixed Object
Single Vehicle Ran Off Road
I
'
---IJD
Single Vehicle Pedestrian
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Location· Route 1 bridae over Merrimac Street
Time Period· Jan 1 2008 - Dec 31 2010
1
Merrimac Street
-
"'-=::.
"'-=::.
-=:::::
::::::.
-=:::::
=::a
~
-
~
-c::::..
~
::::::.
-
~
~
~
::::::.
1
~
i
1
...c:::::..
::::=
-...;;:
~
:o.ae:::
rt
2
~
::::::.
~
Q:::::
Q:::::
9{
1
Notto Scale
#
DATE
TIME
TYPE
K
I
LIGHf
ROAD
VIOLATIONS
1
11/22108
247PM
Rear-End
0
0
Daylight
Dry
Unknown
2
12/03/10
421PM
Lane Change
0
0
Darl< Lit
Drv
Unknown
-
D
Collision Type
4
Head On
5
7
8
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Fixed Object/Parked
-~
3
6
S!mbol Legend
_)
---,
Head On
Turning Moves
Angle
____r
Angle
Turning Move
11
~
Angle
Turning Move
12
(*
Angle
Turning Move
9
10
13
14
==t:
Side Swipe
Same Direction
15
~
Side Swipe
Opp. Direction
J
Side Swipe
Lane Change
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
Rear End
((•
-+0
~
Rear End
Backing
Single Vehicle Hit Fixed Object
Single Vehicle Ran Off Road
I
'
~
Single Vehicle Pedestrian
MassDOT/RMV Crash Report Summaries: 2008, 2009, and 2010
MassDOT Crash Report for NEWBURYPORT for the year 2008
Number Total
Total
Crash Crash Crash Crash
of
Nonfatal Fatal Manner of Vehicle Action Prior Vehicle Travel
Vehicles Injuries Injuries Collision to Crash
Number Date Time Severity
Directions
Most Harmful Events Vehicle Configuration
Route 1 northbound on-ramp at Merrimac Street and Summer Street
24Property
Sep- 4:50 damage only
2382872 2008 PM (none injured) 2
14Property
Oct- 1:45 damage only
2488228 2008 AM (none injured) 2
0
0
Sideswipe, V1: Entering traffic
same
lane / V2:Travelling
0 direction straight ahead
V1: Slowing or
stopped in traffic /
V2:Travelling
0 Angle
straight ahead
Road
Distance from
Surface Ambient Weather At Roadway Nearest Roadway X
Y
Condition Intersection Intersection
Condition Light
Coordinate Coordinate
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1:Northbound / V2: Collision with
/ V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Passenger car / V2:Light
truck(van, mini-van, panel,
pickup, sport utility) with only
four tires
Dry
V1: Light truck(van, mini-van,
panel, pickup, sport utility) with
V1:Northbound V1: Not reported / V2: only four tires / V2:Passenger
/ V2:Eastbound Not reported
car
Dry
SUMMER
STREET /
MERRIMACK
Daylight Clear STREET
251115 951522
Rte 1 /
SUMMER
Daylight Clear STREET
251213 951774
Dark MERRIMACK
lighted
STREET /
roadway Clear Rte 1
251095 951536
Route 1 southbound off-ramp at Merrimac Street and Winter Street
10Property
Jan- 6:30 damage only
2406592 2008 PM (none injured) 2
15Jun- 1:21 Non-fatal
2345330 2008 PM injury
15Oct- 4:04 Non-fatal
2392173 2008 PM injury
2
2
06Property
Nov- 2:44 damage only
2396839 2008 PM (none injured) 2
09Property
Nov- 11:57 damage only
2396940 2008 AM (none injured) 2
15Property
Dec- 1:43 damage only
2414225 2008 PM (none injured) 2
0
1
3
0
0
0
V1: Light truck(van, mini-van,
panel, pickup, sport utility) with
only four tires / V2:Light
truck(van, mini-van, panel,
V1: Not reported / V2: pickup, sport utility) with only
Not reported
four tires
Dry
V1: Slowing or
Sideswipe, stopped in traffic /
opposite V2:Travelling
0 direction straight ahead
V1:Not
reported /
V2:Not
reported
V1: Slowing or
stopped in traffic /
V2:Travelling
0 Rear-end straight ahead
V1: Travelling
straight ahead /
V2:Entering traffic
0 Angle
lane
V1: Collision with
V1:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic
/
/ V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
V1: Collision with
V1:Eastbound / motor vehicle in traffic V1: Passenger car / V2:Not
V2:Southbound / V2: Overturn/rollover reported
0 Angle
V1: Travelling
straight ahead /
V2:Travelling
straight ahead
V1: Collision with
V1:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic
/
/ V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
V2:Westbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0 Angle
V1: Slowing or
stopped in traffic /
V2:Travelling
straight ahead
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1:Eastbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0 Angle
V1: Slowing or
stopped in traffic /
V2:Travelling
straight ahead
V1: Collision with
V1:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic
/
/ V2: Collision with
V2:Westbound motor vehicle in traffic
0 Angle
V1: Travelling
straight ahead /
V2:Turning left
V1:Not
reported /
V2:Not
reported
0 Angle
V1: Travelling
straight ahead /
V2:Travelling
straight ahead
Single
vehicle
0 crash
V1: Travelling
straight ahead
V1: Passenger car / V2:Light
truck(van, mini-van, panel,
pickup, sport utility) with only
four tires
WINTER
STREET /
MERRIMACK
STREET
Dry
Daylight Cloudy
251085 951543
Dry
Rte 1 S /
MERRIMACK
Daylight Clear STREET
251095 951536
Dry
MERRIMACK
STREET /
Daylight Clear ROUTE 1
251103 951530
Dry
MERRIMACK
STREET /
Daylight Clear ROUTE 1
251103 951530
Dry
Rte 1 /
MERRIMACK
Daylight Cloudy STREET
251095 951536
MERRIMACK
STREET /
Daylight Clear ROUTE 1
251103 951530
Rte 1 /
MERRIMACK
Daylight Clear STREET
251095 951536
Route 1 ramps at Merrimac Street
Property
29-Jul- 4:45 damage only
2454849 2008 PM (none injured) 2
23Property
Sep- 11:19 damage only
2382886 2008 AM (none injured) 2
0
0
V1: Not reported / V2:Light
truck(van, mini-van, panel,
V1: Not reported / V2: pickup, sport utility) with only
Not reported
four tires
Dry
V1: Light truck(van, mini-van,
panel, pickup, sport utility) with
V1: Collision with
only four tires / V2:Light
motor vehicle in traffic truck(van, mini-van, panel,
V1:Eastbound / / V2: Collision with
pickup, sport utility) with only
V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic four tires
Dry
Route 1 northbound at Route 1 northbound on-ramp
22Property
Dec- 8:31 damage only
2414217 2008 AM (none injured) 1
0
V1:Northbound V1: Collision with curb V1: Passenger car
Ice
Daylight Clear
112
MERRIMACK
STREET
251094 951535
Daylight Clear
112
MERRIMACK
STREET
251094 951535
Route 1 southbound bridge over Merrimac Street
22Property
Nov- 2:47 damage only
2403856 2008 PM (none injured) 2
0
V1: Travelling
straight ahead /
V2:Slowing or
0 Rear-end stopped in traffic
V1: Collision with
V1:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic
/
/ V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
Dry
MassDOT Crash Report for NEWBURYPORT for the year 2009
Crash Crash Crash Crash
Number Date Time Severity
Number Total Total Manner
Vehicle Action Prior to
Nonfatal Fatal of
of
Vehicles Injuries Injuries Collision Crash
Vehicle Travel
Directions
Most Harmful Events Vehicle Configuration
Road
Surface Ambient Weather At Roadway
Condition Light
Condition Intersection
Distance
Distance from
Y
Nearest Roadway from Nearest X
Landmark Coordinate Coordinate
Intersection
Route 1 northbound on-ramp at Merrimac Street and Summer Street
17Property
Jan- 9:17 damage only
2424691 2009 PM (none injured) 2
24Property
Aug- 10:00 damage only
2657893 2009 AM (none injured) 2
17Sep- 2:57 Non-fatal
2523156 2009 PM injury
2
09Property
Dec- 4:58 damage only
2557816 2009 PM (none injured) 2
0
0
1
0
0
V1: Collision with
V1: Entering traffic lane /
motor vehicle in traffic
V2:Travelling straight
V1:Northbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
Angle ahead
V2:Westbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Motorcycle
0
V1: Slowing or stopped in
Rear- traffic / V2:Travelling
V1:Northbound / V1: Not reported / V2: V1: Not reported /
end
straight ahead
V2:Northbound Not reported
V2:Not reported
Dry
Dry
SUMMER
Dark STREET /
lighted
MERRIMACK
roadway Clear STREET
251115 951522
MERRIMACK
STREET Rte
1 / Rte 1
Daylight Clear
0
V1: Travelling straight
ahead / V2:Travelling
Angle straight ahead
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1:Eastbound / / V2: Collision with
V2:Northbound motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Light truck(van, minivan, panel, pickup, sport
utility) with only four tires
/ V2:Passenger car
Dry
MERRIMACK
STREET /
SUMMER
STREET Rte
Daylight Clear 1A N
6
0
V1: Collision with
V1: Entering traffic lane /
motor vehicle in traffic
V2:Travelling straight
V1:Northbound / / V2: Collision with
Angle ahead
V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Light truck(van, minivan, panel, pickup, sport
utility) with only four tires
/ V2:Passenger car
Wet
Dark lighted
roadway Rain
251103 951530
251115 951522
MERRIMACK
STREET /
SUMMER
STREET
251115 951522
Dry
WINTER
STREET /
MERRIMACK
STREET /
SUMMER
Daylight Clear STREET
251085 951543
Wet
MERRIMACK
STREET /
Cloudy SUMMER
Daylight /Rain STREET
Route 1 southbound off-ramp at Merrimac Street and Winter Street
23May- 4:05 Non-fatal
2476030 2009 PM injury
29Jun- 11:30 Non-fatal
2495502 2009 PM injury
2
2
Property
07-Jul- 11:20 damage only
2494252 2009 PM (none injured) 1
16-Jul- 8:07 Non-fatal
2500121 2009 AM injury
21-Jul- 2:09 Non-fatal
2500131 2009 PM injury
2
2
30Property
Aug- 2:40 damage only
2523262 2009 PM (none injured) 2
2
2
0
1
1
0
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Passenger car /
V1:Northbound / / V2: Collision with
V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0
V1: Travelling straight
ahead / V2:Travelling
Angle straight ahead
0
V1: Collision with
V1: Travelling straight
motor vehicle in traffic
ahead / V2:Entering traffic V1:Eastbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
Angle lane
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0
Single
vehicle V1: Travelling straight
crash ahead
V1: Collision with
V1:Southbound guardrail
0
V1: Travelling straight
ahead / V2:Travelling
Angle straight ahead
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Passenger car /
V1:Southbound / / V2: Collision with
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0
V1: Travelling straight
ahead / V2:Travelling
Angle straight ahead
V1: Collision with
motor vehicle in traffic
V1:Eastbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
0
V1: Collision with
V1: Entering traffic lane /
motor vehicle in traffic
V2:Travelling straight
V1:Southbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Passenger car /
Angle ahead
V2:Eastbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Passenger car
V1: Not reported
251115 951522
ROUTE 1 Rte
1 S / WINTER
STREET Rte GILLIS
1A S
BRIDGE
Wet
Dark lighted
roadway Rain
Dry
ROUTE 1 /
MERRIMACK
Daylight Clear STREET
WINTER
STREET Rte 1A
S / RAMPWINTER ST SB
TO RT 1 SB
2
Wet
Daylight Rain
Dry
MERRIMACK
STREET /
WINTER
Daylight Clear STREET
251237 951832
251103 951530
2
WINTER
STREET
251061 951487
251085 951543
MassDOT Crash Report for NEWBURYPORT for the year 2010
Crash Crash Crash Crash
Number Date Time Severity
Number Total Total Manner
Vehicle Action Vehicle Travel
of
Nonfatal Fatal of
Vehicles Injuries Injuries Collision Prior to Crash Directions
Vehicle
Most Harmful Events Configuration
Road
Distance from
Surface Ambient Weather At Roadway Nearest Roadway X
Y
Coordinate Coordinate
Condition Light
Condition Intersection Intersection
Route 1 southbound off-ramp at Merrimac Street and Winter Street
16Property
Apr- 12:12 damage only
2590239 2010 PM (none injured) 2
05Property
Jun- 1:25 damage only
2609469 2010 PM (none injured) 2
30Property
Sep- 4:00 damage only
2652812 2010 PM (none injured) 2
0
0
0
Rearend
V1: Travelling
V1: Collision with
straight ahead
motor vehicle in traffic
/ V2:Travelling V1:Southbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Not reported /
straight ahead V2:Westbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Not reported Wet
V1: Light
truck(van, minivan, panel,
pickup, sport
utility) with only
four tires /
V2:Light
truck(van, miniV1: Travelling
V1: Collision with
van, panel,
straight ahead
motor vehicle in traffic pickup, sport
/ V2:Turning V1:Westbound / / V2: Collision with
utility) with only
left
V2:Westbound motor vehicle in traffic four tires
Dry
0
0
0
0
Angle
MERRIMACK
STREET /
Rain/Clo WINTER
Daylight udy
STREET
251085 951543
Daylight Clear
WINTER
STREET /
MERRIMACK SUMMER
STREET
STREET
Angle
V1: Travelling
V1: Collision with
straight ahead
motor vehicle in traffic V1: Truck/trailer /
/ V2:Travelling V1:Westbound / / V2: Collision with
V2:Passenger
straight ahead V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic car
Dry
Daylight Clear
Rte 1 /
MERRIMACK
STREET
Sideswi
pe,
same
direction
V1: Changing
V1: Collision with
lanes /
motor vehicle in traffic
V2:Travelling V1:Northbound / / V2: Collision with
straight ahead V2:Northbound motor vehicle in traffic
V1: Tractor/semitrailer /
V2:Passenger
car
Dry
Clear/Clo
Daylight udy
ROUTE 1 Rte
1 / SUMMER
STREET
251213 951774
Rearend
V1: Entering
traffic lane /
V1: Collision with
V2:Slowing or
motor vehicle in traffic
stopped in
V1:Southbound / / V2: Collision with
V1: Not reported /
traffic
V2:Southbound motor vehicle in traffic V2:Not reported Dry
Dark lighted Clear/Oth
roadway er
2 WINTER
STREET
251082 951536
251095 951536
Route 1 northbound bridge over Merrimac Street
03Property
Dec- 4:21 damage only
2678438 2010 PM (none injured) 2
0
Winter Street at Route 1 southbound on-ramp
02Property
Apr- 00:00 damage only
2590276 2010 AM (none injured) 2
0
0
Newburyport Police Department Crash Reports for 2008, 2009, and 2010:
Merrimac Street at Route 1 southbound off-ramp and Winter Street
Newburyport Police Department Crash Reports for 2008, 2009, and 2010:
Merrimac Street at Route 1 northbound on-ramp and Summer Street
Newburyport Police Department Crash Reports for 2008, 2009, and 2010:
Route at the Route 1 north/southbound ramps, Route 1 near Merrimac Street
Appendix D. Roadway Speed Data Appendix E. Daily and Peak Period Traffic
Count Data
Hot"r.iiMc::k Val l oy PlAnning Co~m~iuion
TWO CllANNEL WIU:.KLY SUI'IWtY
Startinq:S/14/2012
S.it.. R'lforvnoo; 0 00000000000
Sic.o ID: 0000 000 00000
Locat ion: Mbrt"i~c St E Rt.o I
Olroct.ion1: WESt
TUIO!
....
Di rocti on2: EAST
TU£
I>
LNILN 2
,
"s
•• '
01: 00
02: 00
03 : 00
04:00
20
20
3
2
Ob:OO
06 : 00
07: 00
08: 00
09:00
10: 00
1 1: 00
12:00
13: 00
14 : 00
1S: 00
Ui: 00
17: 00
U :OO
HI : 00
20: 0 0
21:00
2 2 : 00
23: 00
2 4:00
36
23
137
109
281
,.,
'"
680
"'
,., '"
395 S31
344
4>4
bb9
611
...
W£0
THU
LH1L.H2
LN I LN
.. • ....
...,,• "
20
31
6
10
10
31
126
289
>71
466
420
ll
28
7
10
277
"3
670
137
"'
.,,
18!1
2>
10
9
2
6
22
114
317
blb
671
SSl
580
... '"
..,
'" '"
'"
...
,,
... "' ,.. ...... ...'" ...
>as
5U
!IU
S07
S20
SOl
510
505
5)7
603
5l9
U4
524
479
541
580
S92
460
308
262
208
122
540
3U
258
160
.. ..,.
I
File: NP'Tr.~JTri.m.1cE1.prn
City: Nowburyport, ¥..A
County: 289
FRI
SAT
SUN
LN1LH2
LN l LN 2
LN1LN2
•
•
2
"
"
"
----------------------LN 1 Lri 2
Paqu:
590
S03
408
668
284
141
304
116
78
37
,..
514
u•
b41
S03
488
580
b61
49S
S3J
!-119
562
sst
S91
465
570
!)40
339
273
l56
34>
"'
232
103
67
392
61
co
,
.,10
207
ll9
3S
5
,.
8
28
34
151
us
124
218
S24
'"
"' ,.,
cu
436
356
213
116
32
13
22
97
46S
IL6 I I 194
2221 342S
1592 2062
1U9 2181
2064 2388
2053 2238
2046 2102
22$0 240G
229 0 2303
2351 2361
2019 2478
1 S)l 20,9
1361 1311
112 1 884
632 411
20.1
!IGl
S23
S69
614
646
618
651
..
101
J8lb 268l
133
4!1S
L.H1LH2
-----------
10
10
12
II
WI< TOT
S66
S14
6U
634
692
586
402
316
WK AVG
LN I LN 2
"
•• ''
2>
11
8
29
8
...
...
24
37
1.31
116
200
'"
...
398
016
Sll
S11
5<2
"6
685
S1S
545
597
SS9
S2S
601
,,. .,,
S87
Sl9
)8)
340
2a0
1S8
..
590
619
508
327
221
104
'"
••
•••
"
"
"
----------------------------------------------LANE 1
LANK 2
COMBINED
...,~
6103
7128
13231
1 119
1021
15140
7176
'7'141
149 11
1954
870)
16699
1402
1020
0
0
0
29154
U 4!1b
3222
0
0
63209
1
AM Ti-'lllls
lO :00
.tS4
12: 00
10:0()
10:00
10: 00
'"
AM Pooh
10:00
611
'"
Cj3
L>~ I
PM T iti!Ds
18:(10
18:00
li90
16:00
stCI
19:00
6lit
19: 00
18 : 00
19: 00
<68
S9l
692
AM Po ~Sh
L.:s.no 2
AM Ti:J:Gs
PMP.oh
Lo~ 2
5U
PM TU:o s
PM Pcuks
UI :OO
638
..o
10: 00
670
10: 00
611
10:00
'"
'"
10: 00
0
1 227
80Gt
15216
Motr luc:k VoJ l•r Pl.onnl ncr Co~m~luion
TWO CI!ANNt WK.tKLY SUJrtotARY
P.oqa:
St•rtinq:~/14/2012
Siw ADfaranOQ! 0 00000000000
Si~ 10: 000000000000
Location: * rd11111c St. It of Rto
Di rcct.i onl: EAST
Fila: NPT110rr:i.~~~:~cWl. prn
City: No vburypor:t., Mil
Count.)': 2il
0.lNactian2: WKST
WKD
t6
"""
2
LN t LN 2
LN t LN 2
"
--------------------------------------7
44
49
t2
22
28
•2 22
49
12
t2
"
•
•
••
•
12
4
4
Ol:OO
2
2
1
22
•3 ••
3
1
2
3
6'
3
•
4
6
2
8
2
25
6
4
' • •
•
37
22
34
2t
32
25
148
9t
lt3 tOO
t04
98
t23
97
45t 400
112 tOO
" t05 Jtt
236 248
253
274
9St
237 257
20' 238
25'
,., 231 227 ,.,
,
362
3Gl
337
34> 201
••4 300
211 2ll
328
»O
,,.
'"
Ott 20>
318
309
29>
''"
'"
339 312
323
318
410 303
3" 314
"'
"'
445 387
391 339
l40 382
402 362
"'
376 334
405 '"
360
342 389
399 3 92
380 368
"'
404 337
440 349
346 393
423 409
403 372
449 362
388
484 434
385
390
372
442 3St
410
437 316
"'
, '"
, 420 ..4130 "'
48t
428
t Ut
502 407
400 '"
432
no
•••
,, "'
,.,
241
209 '"
212
243
2n
202
'"
"'
"'
•••
140
116 232
176 ,..
199 2>9
631 907
226
70
95
50 166
156
139 173
35> 590
'"
65
23
tOO
192 326
48 '"
•• 3G ,
34
48
t3G 167
---------------------------------------------------------------U!tG
51121
0
0
TUK
TOO:
LN 1 LN
lS
LN1LN 2
01 :00
02:00
THU
t1
LN1LN2
..
t>
I
011:00
OS:OO
06:00
01:00
08:00
08:00
10:00
J I :00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
Jt:OO
20:00
21 :00
2 2 :00
2 3 :00
211:00
l2
18
LNILN2
....
...
..
l!i1
tl41
14'7'1
1261
1421
1610
152 2
1613
J828
t lSO
2001
16!10
.1110
321
..... ... ..
.. .. .. ....
1154
l3
.359
10)1
tU!t
128~
H80
12!19
1450
1475
1489
1542
1501
140.)
99h
168
96
57
25
0823
!1200
101156
102!t9
!itU
!t!l34
11502
...
1646
!0:00
t2:00
,,
12:00
312
09:00
"'
410
09:00
09:00
09:00
331
363
346
354
PM Ti.I!Os
l8:CO
.. t
16:00
11S4
19 :00
Pot~k•
531
18:00
!i60
..... 2
PM Thu•
PM Pool.•
111100
1'7:00
,,.
18:00
1'1:00
439
4.37
L.:na t
Ub
0
0
2:2010
20U'
0
0
42686
817
,,.
Jb4
.
..
..
4S7
33
10: 00
UIIOO
...
..
9l
29
SU11
492!1
LN 1 LN2
113
.108
COM91NKD
PM
LNILN2
il1t AVG
WK lot
21
45
211
46t!i
11128
AM Peak•
L.:~nD 2
AM Ti110•
AM Pa~k~
SUN
..
t1
11
SAT
13
LANE I
LANK 2
L•~ t
AM Tl-~!~a•
FRJ
18
LN1LN2
09:00
!.O!tt
10419
,_c:rluck VJ:Illal Pl.annlncr Comnhdon
WMKX Y SU!flARY
StGrtingtS/14/20 12
Si~ Rafo ronoo : 00 00 000 00 000
Sito TO: 000000000000
~cation: Rt l SO RGmp N of Morrimac
Olroction: SOUtH
Tli<K
..
-
ru•
MOll
..
Filo : l $ bt~Nmorri~c. prn
City: Nowburyport, MA
County: 292
wso
TUU
l6
l1
-
P111qo:
"'"
= ,.
SAT
SUN
WK TOT
-
k'K AVC
...
"
=
""'
""'
----------------------------------------------------------------"•
•
•• •
""
~
1
00: 15
00:30
00:45
01: 00
01: lb
01: 30
01: 45
0 2: 00
02: 15
02::10
02: 4S
OJ: 00
OJ: I b
03:30
03: 45
04: 00
04: 15
04: 30
04: 45
05:00
05: lb
0!1: :10
05:45
06: 00
06: 15
06: 30
06:45
01: 00
07: 15
0'7: 30
07:4!1
08: 00
08: 15
08: 30
08:45
09:00
09: 1s
09:30
09: 4!1
10: 00
10: 15
10: 30
10: 45
ll: 00
11: 15
11: 30
11:45
12:00
pm
om
pm
109
118
120
Ill
98
114
122
II
110
101
108
"
110
120
llb
131
12
8
••'
•
•
9
2
0
2
I
2
'
120
103
111
l2>
126
10 0
109
100
"'
122
11>
l20
l32
112
102
138
112
103
129
111
106
109
129
112
3
0
0
3
1
ll1
'• "'
•
,.
150
Ill
122
125
120
I
2
l03
ll>
l OS
120
10 6
1
13
22
•
2
•
3
5
6
2
3
2
om
108
102
108
l07
123
108
ll1
108
118
.
liS
• "'
3
3
2
2
3
2
0
2
2
I
1
8
11
18
21
28
U2
126
126
124
102
136
107
••
136
10.
148
119
134
145
to>
134
121
114
116
•
1
•
lO
6
3
5
3
pm
106
120
Ill
110
l26
l 09
'"
•• "'
5
3
lSI
16
140
112
124
12b
140
120
134
26
151
l3
141
122
121
121
10 6
I
•
'
l1
12
116
OS
82
I 01
60
04
106
109
161
161
100
149
137
116
99
103
100
66
11
52
52
lOt
115
136
141
l03
06
11
62
50
155
.2
40
30
26
30
25
25
>2
l<6
l2G
l OI
10 6
136
21
30
34
34
19
105
Ill
I3I
lOb
110
10
1
10
03
101
91
142
IS!
t<O
llO
106
129
111
100
110
99
116
uo
113
107
90
15
11
61
62
60
100
115
10 1
!55
163
161
10 2
03
10
61
I ~l
61
60
ll
25
25
16
9
116
163
100
111
107
1 Ol
39
26
TOTALS
5907
6707
AH TilllQ•
9:00
9:00
AM Pcurok•
601
612
At TJ.mo•
l'l: ·~
bOO
ll:t!l
499
PMPo~.h
21
25
•
•
11
I
4S9
4>2
3
I
0
11
1
3
8
8
8
'
0
'l
6938
...
9:00
18:
I~
"'
7440
509
4U
'
10
1
"" '"
"•• .,
538
II
21
20
59
....
496
510
5'17
25
126
IU
248
96
3!.1
110
321
411
529
'"
42l
3"
299
320
214
251
om
pm
II
I 00
110
• "'
'
•
1
5
6
3
2
2
2
'
2
1
0
2
2
2
2
l
•
109
116
llG
110
113
1l1
100
124
114
Ill
122
130
113
109
121
124
Ill
120
103
134
118
120
121
..• ...
6
18
23
31
45
62
01
00
10 2
10 5
"'
110
100
10>
00
"
00
60
62
152
'"
...
••
...
...
..
'"
'"
..
"'
..
121
31
611
135
160
101
160
161
190
7>5
709
610
5 02
665
532
...
lOS
131
•••
429
2 199
9:00
621
'"
204
l16
162
...
ISO
I> I
141
122
10 0
133
106
40
""
90
" "' 22
129
110
..
.
"
•
---------------445
9: 15
l8: :10
560
531
455
12
19
30
20
12
------------------------------
456
4 00
452
410
435
..• ...
• ...
"
.,
...
,.• ...
l8
..,, "'•• ." .. ••.."
" ""
.. " " " ••••
.. ... .... .." ,, ..
,.
.." "'"' .... ...
"
..
.... ....•• "' " •• "'
•
!51
433
40)
41$
30
I
1
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
. ...'"
..•
l2
II
131
1
pm
1
6
121
110
112
140
l 02
121
126
om
II
15
121
pm
0
0
20
111
110
101
2 9191
9:00
305.3
18: I~
20'7!.
6895
...
9:CO
I 0:
I~
518
t&u:rlNck
V.all•r
P1.annlncr Corrnhdon
WHKX Y SUI«'\ARY
StGrtingt5/14/2012
Si~ Raforonoo: 000000000000
Sito TO: OOOOOOCOOOOO
t.oc.at ion: SWIIIIQr St NA S of Morrimac:
Olroction: NORTR
..
P111qo:
Tsummo~Smo~ri~c.prn
Nowburypo~t, MA
Filo:
City:
County: 290
..,.,
SAT
SUN
...
"""'
"
=
""'
""'
----------------------------------------------------------------"" =
••
,, • ••
•
u
'
•
•
"
""
'
" "' •' ••
•
" ' "•• •
"
•
•s
"so '
.,
'
,.••
OJ:
••
.,
.,"
OJ: I
61
16
' 51
eo
""
.,
s
,..
" ' "sa" 5
•••• •• ., • ,,
" ,•' •• •
""
•• ••
" • " • eo
'
" ' ""
•• "'
""T2
••• ., "
,." • ""
"
" " "
"
"••
" 2G
,,n
, '"
,.
"
"
"
,
""
,."
"
"
"
'"
"
"
""
"'
s
21
" ,
,,
"
"
••
21
"
"
,." •• "
" "
"
"
"
•
,
"
'
" '
••
••
'
" ' 11 '
"
• ., '
,., 5l •
,
•
••
•
261
•• ••
••
•
., •
•o
•• ll
------------------------------------------------AH Timo•
s
,.,
Tli<K
~
1
00: 15
00:30
00:45
01: 00
01: lb
01: 30
01: 45
02:00
02: 15
02::10
02: 4S
00
b
03:30
03: 45
04: 00
04: 15
04: 30
04: 45
05:00
05: lb
05: :10
05:45
06:00
06: 15
06: 30
06:45
07: 00
07: IS
0'7: 30
07:4!1
08:00
08: 15
08: 30
08:45
09:00
09: 1
01:30
09: 4!1
10: 00
10:15
10:30
10:45
ll: 00
11: 15
11: 30
Jl:45
12:00
TOTALS
-
ru•
MOt<
At TJ.mo•
PM
Po~Jc.•
pm
3
71
6>
TUU
l6
l1
- ..
6
I
....
2
0
55
61
.. ....
..
..
.. ...
....
..
..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .
....
.. ..
.... .
.... ..
.
60
Sl
b2
S9
46
66
2
69
I
6
2
51
I
55
60
0
0
TO
62
81
63
TO
0
1
I
I
I
I
b9
b
69
11
S6
55
53
59
42
42
..
......
54
S6
bt
24
40
32
24
33
2
3
72
7>
86
69
63
2
0
0
0
63
60
5
16
15
12
37
9
29
19
60
l1
20
12
54
50
63
56
51
31
30
40
21
30
28
29
ll
45
7
5
12
11
6
9
6
68
15
63
55
72
..
....
..
62
70
I
60
TO
I
1
1
0
0
0
29(6
...
1!.:29'1
·~
pm
15
10
7
22
12
0
5
I
T
2
12
10
9
2
0
0
I
0
I
72
0
0
0
3
3
I
I
6
3
S!i.
I
7S
0
2
79
II
6
82
12
15
12
10
70
70
60
13
13
..
..
..
..
..
39
40
5S
67
68
62
32.26
I I : 15
3328
11:00
20>
1):30
282
14:30
2. .
66
66
63
I
I
62
3
2
2
1
55
55
58
..
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
60
59
61
63
I
0
218
214
264
236
225
T
9
6
13
12
58
55
4'1
IGO
30
152
121
31
120
93
90
50
30
261
67
60
296
305
263
20>
310
285
284
223
222
211
214
68
13
52
62
5
220
154
22
....
..
.. ....
32
25
pm
65
62
41
87
249
228
220
223
234
224
2l7
301
211
229
287
210
242
23>
om
....
..
...... ....
....
..
....
... .
..
....
28
37
21
53
.... ..
..
40
57
267
267
2>5
k'K AVC
253
7
T
10
JO
70
-
T
66
12
2
om
62
21
40
33
21
pm
2
I
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
pm
I
0
62
63
WK TOT
6
T
13
ll
14
ll
om
I
I
I
TT
11:1
AM Pcurok•
om
WED
30
23
22
12
50
5I
62
13
29
12
31
26
30
55
6
7
67
7
272
:1605
881
ll: 15
9::1)
261
2S)
1'1:1)
325
0
0
14006
:1281
9:4S
1138
11:15
lb:OO
1088
1~:00
2S4
270
CityITown: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: TMF
Route t NB @ Merrimac St
0
0.0
0.0
.,.
57.5
20.1
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
S~e Code
(978) 374- 051 9
Slart Date
Page No
321
42.S
1U
08:45
0
0.0
0
Voklme
Peak Factor
High klL 6:A5:00 14M
VokJme
0
Peek fa::IOt
187
.,
42.5
..
37JJ
5.7
""
70
20.9
3.2
15
4.5
0.7
4 1.2
75
40.1
30
16.0
5
2.7
26
26
10
2
34.9
5.8
0
0.0
...
0
114
lnlel5ed:ion 08:00AM
v...me
.,._,,
126
755137.6
0
0.0
0.0
n
08:45AM
0
118
0.932
26
26
10
2
: Route1 NBatMerrimacAM
:00000104
:05117/2012
:1
910
3351 84.9
162
0
0.0
0.0
1072 1
15.5
42.1
15.1
7.5
187
S6S
85.9
93
14.1
0
0.0
658
152
28
0
180
...
.
0.730
2162
•a•
1285
358
D.897
08:45AM
152
28
0
180
0.91.
City/Town: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: TMF
Route 1NB @ Merrimac St
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374-0519
S~e Code
S1art Date
Page No
: Route1NBatMerrimacAM
:00000104
:0511 7/ 2012
:2
.--------------.---_~
" ,mr.-~~~~mr---.--~----------,
0:1
In
TOIII
Q!!J~Q!!J
{~
is!~-~•
••- t
"
e
L
~~ ~2i
l
p
-
t11201 Z8:AS1XIAAI
,_
I~·!
g
~;·
,.X
'
~"·
'
0
.~. ~.-..
--
~
.
"•
.....,.
!
~
City!Tcmn: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: TMF
Route l NB@ Merrimac St
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374- 0519
S~e Code
Start Date
Page No
: Route1 NBatMerrimacAM
:00000104
:05117/2012
:1
StanTme
08:00A.U
08:15AM
08:xiA.U
08:45AM
'""
Ctard T'lal
~~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
o:l
0
0
2
0
2
5
35.7
1U
1
3
0
3
7
.....•
20.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
3
2
3
9
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
58.3
15.9
1
8.3
23
"I
31.8
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
•
3).3
t .1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
•
1
1
1
7
1
1
0
1
3
4
121 22.2
9.1
Z7.3
2
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0.0
0.0
77.8
31.8
3
1
8
5
3
8
...
'"I
0
•
8
4D.9
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
S~e Code
(978) 374-0519
Start Date
Page No
CityITown: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: TMF
Route t NB @ Merrimac St
: Route1 NBatMerrimacPM
:00000104
:05117/2012
:1
Start Time
0
0.0
0.0
53.6
...
46A
2U
18.5
~ ._
· --·--
;.:os;os""' ·
"."rom 0400!.~to
lnlel5edlon 05:00PM
v...me
0
0
0.0
.,._,,
05:00
159
12<31 32.5
39.9
5.1
Righ1
213
...
43.6
93
19.0
3.0
24
4.9
0.8
---
48011006
n.1
15.7
.............
- 1- 1 ;:,: R9>t I Tlru I lsft I PedsI .;-:;
w.........
I'Oak 1 "
361
321
52.2
47.8
0
0
102
97
Voklme
Peak FaciOr
High kll 3:<15:00 PM
OS:OOPM
VokJme
0
0
102
97
Peek FaciOt
0
0.0
0.0
U~Sltoc1
SouiCound
Stan Time Peds
517
1
0
0.0
on
0
199
0
......
190
92
33.6
22
121
,.
442
05:30PM
29
32
..,
19.7
15
7
274
2.6
0
5
61
32.3
378
27.3
12.1
.
:1
3118
uernm.o Stroet
.-.....
Tlwu I Le•l Pod• I ;.: r.: l
214
526
71.1
0
0.0
740
28.9
116
70
0
186
., 05:15PM
130
0.846
0
0.0
0.0
1686
446
0.945
51
0
187
0.990
City/Town: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
RAr.ornP.rt Ry: TMF
Route 1NB @ Merrimac St
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name : Route1NBatMerrimacPM
(978) 374- 0519
S~e Code :00000104
St~rt n~tP. : 05117/?01?
Page No : 2
r--------------.----~~~o.~a.----r-~-----------0!1.
In
TQIII
C!!J~C!!!!J
l
-
1712012 S:ASOOPN
,_
,':!;.,~,-,
1_1
g
...........l:;:::t
·-
t..i ~
"
~!!!
'·
~2f
•
-:
••
!
~~·
CityITown: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
RAr.ornP.rt Ry: TMF
Route t NB @ Merrimac St
__
Gto..a. PmJod. Trucks
" ' "_.
Sian Time
"'""!~
04:15
Ail
04:30 Pt.l
04:45PM
101il
.,.-...,
"""
Pedsl T'~
0
0
0
0
0
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name : Route1 NBatMerrimacPM
S~e Code :00000104
(978) 374-0519
st~rt n~t" : 05117/?01?
Page No : 1
0
0
0
0
0
......._
MCI'TiNo Sllcc1
w........
.....
Righi I Tin1
1 r: R;ghll - """"""'
I l.s!ll"" I
•
•'
• •
Peds
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
8
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
..........
t.term..o Stroet
Peds
T.:i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
Tlw
I
0
0
1
0
1
I
leh Pols
3
0
0
7
10
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0.0
0.0
I
T'~
3
0
1
7
11
T.:;
8
1
••
22
2
1
0
Ctard Tolal
~~
0
0.0
0.0
o:l ....
9
22.S
'
35.7
12.$
0
0.0
0.0
"I
2
28.6
35.0
s.o
3
42.9
11i
2
28.6
s.o
0
0.0
0.0
,...•
17.:I
12.5
737
35.0
19 1
471>
I
40
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374-0519
Site Code
Start Date
No
City.'Town: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route 1SB at Merrimac
: ROI.te1SBatMerrimacAM
:00000010
:05117/201 2
:1
Slafllime
GrirdTolal
.op,.d1"
Total%
3 11
30.8
14.8
156
15.4
7A
......
SBr!Time R9't
2~8
3
0.3
0.1
1010
48.2
-·
27.8
16.6
..
~0
3
0.5
...
42
33
90
0
155
oklme
42
081)()
Vollme
Pellk Factor
'1?oh Int. 0800 AM
Pellk Factor
32A
I
32(
78.~
1 5.~
..
..
liT
21.3
4.2
"''
51
78.1 21.5
17
2
0.5
0.1
409 1100.0
19
0.9
0.9
=
11
100.0
11
0.4
0
63
1
90
0
155
0.892
•
4
081l0Aiol
08:45AM
33
'"I
19..5
12
0
57
0 .884
•
4
0.588
125
19.1
5.0
02
5581 ,..
~·
0.0
3U
379
M1
807
1
58
15.3
84.7
""
0
0 .0
19
17
0
08:45N/J
1(6
11
0
..
116
0..817
1216
32l!
0.927
CityITown: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route 1SB at Merrimac
~
-~
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374- 0519
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
l
~-+
h
e
L
-
1712012US:IXIAM
lluc:b (1&1110111
Tli.Cb 4•*
: Route1SBatMerrimacAM
: 0000001 0
: 05117/2012
:2
~ ii
~2i
+i ~
-~
••
•
•
!
I. ~~·
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374-0519
Site Code
Start Date
No
City!Tcmn: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route t SB at Merrimac
: Route1SBatMerrimacAM
:0000001 0
:05117/2012
:1
Stan Tme R9;lt Thru
08:00A.M
08:15AM
08:30,\U
08:.45.\U
""'
2
2
3
0
7
12
1
•3
1
0
2
2
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
18
50.0
26.9
0 .0
0 .0
0
•
33.3
16.7
17 .9
9.0
0
••
•
3
21
2
1
0
1
4
5
38.5
7 .5
0
2
0
3
5
•
61.5
11.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
''I o.g
1U
0.0
0.: 1
1
1
1
1
4
•
33.3
9.0
0
1
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
12
66.7
17.9
0
0.0
0.0
4
1
2
3
5
"
....'"I
•
"•
12
41
67
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
t 60 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374· 0519
Site Code
Start Date
No
CityITown: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route t SB @ Merrimac St.
GrardTolal
Apood1"
Total %
334
32A
12.3
139
13.5
5.1
SrT
5>0
22
2.1
0.8
"8
10321 70.3
...
198
29.7
17.3
7 .3
38.1
Souttoound
l"'l
I PedsI TJ:
I
Stan Time R9''i Th1u loll
Peak Hour From 04:00PM to OS .:AS PM . Peak 1 o11
lnlefsedion 05:00 PM
Vobne
Percent
OS:lS
Vollme
175
33..1
34
75
14.2
18
a1
529
5Q.S
12
2.3
76
2
130
TIYU
...
I
0
0.0
0.0
....
w"""""'
I
lefi Peds
127
... 1100.0
••
2Ui
: Route1SBatMerrimacPM
: 000001 0 t
: 05117/20t 2
:1
1.8
1
833
86.7
13.2
4.7
0.1
0.0
30.8
...,._.,,..
':~._,.._.
M~;es
I 1'.:; Pedsi TJ:
0
0.0
...
21
100.0
21
69.9
107
30.1
58
25
0
83
4
4
I
I
Righi Thru Po:&
.,
13.1
24
I
T~
....
445
0
0.0
512
125
0
149
Peak FaciOr
High 1n1. 05:.15 PM
V"oklme
50
21
Peek Factor
rC: I
141tl
...
o.s69
11
05:30PM
3
161
0.821
n
32
0
05:15PM
05:30PU
104
10
10
24 125
o....
0.525
0
149
0.859
City!Tcmn: Newburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route 1SB @ Merrimac St.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374-0519
SiteCode
Start Date
Page No
: Route1SBatMerrimacPM
:00000101
: 05117/2012
:2
,--------,-.~~-,~------,
~
-~
••
l
~-+
h
e
L
-
1712012 S:oi&:IXI Rot
lluc:b (1&1110111
Tli.Cb 4•*
<---i• •~
~2i
•
+is
-~
••
'·
~~·
!
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830 File Name
(978) 374-0519
Site Code
Start Date
Pacte No
City/Town: NeNburyport
Weather: Sunny, mild
Recorded By: JVT
Route 1SB @ Merrimac St.
: Route1SBatMerrimacPM
:00000101
: 05117/2012
:1
~~~~~~~~~~~~
,
0
os:ooPU
OS:15PU
05:30 Pt.l
OS:ASPM
101il
Giard Tolal
Apood1 "
Total %
'
0
0
0
..,'
•
16.1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
11.1
44.4
16.7
0
0.0
0.0
,
42
-
3
2
0
0
5
37.: 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
20.0
4.2
,
0
0
0
1
4
80.0
16.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
1
0
0
a>~ I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.: 1
0
0
0
1
,'
1
1
0
4
2
3).0
8.3
80.0
333
•
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
5
0
0.0
0.0
10
41.7
5
•1
1
11
I
24
Appendix F. Crash Rate Calculation maSSDOT
~Highway
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
CITY!TOWN : Newburyport
----~~-----------------------
DISTRICT:
4
COUNT DATE:
Yes
UNSIGNALIZED :
May, 2012
SIGNALIZED :
- INTERSECTION DATA MAJOR STREET :
Merrimac Street
MINOR STREET(S):
Winter Street
Route 1 southbound off-ramp
~"
n
LOan....._
.... ....._....._co
North
INTERSECTION
DIAGRAM
-:-:::.... JJ
.......
- .)J\_.t
M11rimac Street
(Label Approaches)
:::::
....
......
N
:!.J
Merrimac Street
+---253
47367~
... _
r1o1
CD CD
-CD
·-c: ...
~CI)
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
APPROACH:
Merrimac St. Merrimac St.
DIRECTION:
EB
WB
SB
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (PM):
540
360
517
"K" FACTOR:
TOTAL# OF CRASHES :
I
0.088
G
I
.
1,417
INTERSECTION ADT ( V) =TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME:
#OF
YEARS :
I
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
Route 1 SB
D
AVERAGE# OF
CRASHES PER YEAR (
16,102
G
A):
5.33
·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
0.91
RATE=
( A* 1,000 ,000)
( v * 365)
Comments:
Project Title & Date:
Newburyport: Merrimac Street at Route 1 Road Safety Audit (12/12)
maSSDOT
~Highway
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
CITY!TOWN : Newburyport
COUNT DATE:
----~~-----------------------
DISTRICT:
4
Yes
UNSIGNALIZED :
May, 2012
SIGNALIZED :
- INTERSECTION DATA MAJOR STREET :
Merrimac Street
MINOR STREET(S):
Summer Street
Route 1 northbound on-ramp
-.
OJ
~"
n
li!!
~
.;.
-t"i
""'
North
INTERSECTION
DIAGRAM
""'
C>
M11rimac Street
(Label Approaches)
~ 322
-296
214 _)
Merrimac Street
526-
...._E;:- ) t (
-
1i0"-
...... T""CO
~~
T""...--
...
CCNC)
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
APPROACH:
DIRECTION:
EB
WB
NB
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (PM):
740
618
293
"K" FACTOR:
TOTAL# OF CRASHES :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
Merrimac St. Merrimac St. Summer St.
I
0.090
D
I
.
INTERSECTION ADT ( V) =TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME:
#OF
YEARS :
I
1,651
D
AVERAGE# OF
CRASHES PER YEAR (
A):
18,344
G
2.00
·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
0.30
RATE=
( A* 1,000 ,000)
( v * 365)
Comments:
Project Title & Date:
Newburyport: Merrimac Street at Route 1 Road Safety Audit (12/12)
Appendix G. Intersection Operations
Analysis Methodology and Results
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Level of Service
A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level of service to traffic facilities
under various traffic flow conditions. Level of service is a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists
and/or passengers. A level of service definition provides an index to the quality of traffic flow in
terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort,
convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from
A to F, with level-of-service (LOS) A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F
representing the worst.
Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such
a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of
week, or period of year.
Signalized Intersections
The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows:

LOS A describes operations with very small delay; most vehicles do not stop at all.

LOS B describes operations with relatively small delay; however, more vehicles stop
than LOS A.

LOS C describes operations with higher delays. Individual cycle failures may begin
to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with delay in the range where the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
failures are noticeable.

LOS E describes operations with high delay values. Individual cycle failures are
frequent occurrences.

LOS F describes operations with high delay values that often occur with oversaturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing
causes to such delay levels.
Unsignalized Intersections
The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:

LOS A represents a condition with little or no delay to minor street traffic.

LOS B represents a condition with short delays to minor street traffic.

LOS C represents a condition with average delays to minor street traffic.

LOS D represents a condition with long delays to minor street traffic.

LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with long delays
to minor street traffic.

LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds
capacity of an approach lane, with extreme delays resulting.
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria used in the capacity analyses are described below.
Signalized Intersections
Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis
methodology of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The capacity analyses for these facilities
measures the average delay to drivers from signal control. This method assesses the effect of
signal type, timing, phasing, progression, vehicle mix, and geometrics on delay. Level-ofservice designations are based solely on the criterion of calculated control delay, also known as
signal delay. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped
delay, and final acceleration delay. Delay can also be a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. Table A-1 summarizes the relationship
between level of service and delay. The tabulated delay criterion may be applied in assigning
LOS designations to individual lane groups, intersection approaches, or to entire intersections.
Table A-1
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Average Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
<=10
>10 and <=20
>20 and <=35
>35 and <=55
>55 and <=80
>80
a
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2000; Exhibit 16-2.
Unsignalized Intersections
The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a procedure
described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The capacity analysis for these facilities
depends on a clear understanding of the interaction between drivers on the minor, or controlled,
approach with drivers on the major street. Gap acceptance models have been developed to
describe this interaction. Level of service is measured in terms of average control delay, or the
delay caused by traffic control, such as a STOP sign. Control delay includes the initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The
average stopped delay for any controlled movement is mathematically a function of the volumeto-capacity ratio for that particular movement. Table A-2 summarizes the relationship between
level of service and expected delay.
Table A-2
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
a
Level of Service
Average Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
A
B
C
D
E
F
<=10
>10 and <=15
>15 and <=25
>25 and <=35
>35 and <=50
>50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2000; Exhibit 17-2.
HCIA Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Winter street & Menimac street
-
~
t
NBL
NBT
Volune (vehlh)
Peal. Hour Factor
Hauo!y flow- (vph)
0
1.00
0
Lane ~urations
$;gnC..trol
~
NBR
"'
S8L
G<ade
lJ
SST
S3R
.,
..j
......
SEL
SET
0
1.00
0
=
1.00
272
r
SER
164
1.00
164
0
1.00
0
303
1.00
303
58
1.00
58
'
\
NWL NWT NWR
"i
"'
()'!(,
98
1.00
98
\
FreE
0%
S1op
()'!(,
0
1.00
0
~
<t
stop
Existing Weekday AM Pt: Hr
51
1.00
51
t
F<ee
0%
182
1.00
182
0
1.00
0
Wafk;ng Sj>eed ~~
Percert Bk.dage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median~veh)
UpsWam s;gnal (ft)
~X. pla1ooo unblod<ed
VC. confticting volume
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2. stage 2 c:onf vol
vCu. unblocked vol
\C, sngte (s)
tC, 2 stage (s
tF (SJ
pO
dA
829
61 6
332
616
645
182
182
361
829
7.1
616
6.5
332
6.2
616
7.1
645
6.5
182
182
4. 1
361
4.2
370
272
0
363
0.97
275
71.2
F
52.5
F
164
0
164
855
0. 19
18
10.2
B
361
0
58
1700
0.21
0
0.0
51
51
0
1155
0.04
3
8.3
A
1.8
182
0
0
1700
0. 11
0
0.0
~.2
"
Dirediolt.l.ane.
Volune Total
Volume Left
Volune Right
cSH
Volune to Capacity
Queue length 95th (ft)
Conlrcl Delay (s )
Lane lOS
AppmachDelay (s)
Approach lOS
lrdersec:tion Sumrray
Average Delay
lntersectio_11.Capaciy Utiization
AnatfSis Period (min)
0.0
25.2
53.0%
15
Merrinact VaOey Planning Commisreadsion
\CU Level ol Senrico
~
Synclvo 6 Report
111912012
HCIA Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Winter street & Menimac street
-
~
NBL
Lane ~urations
s;gn Cootrol
Peal. Hour Factor
Hauo!y flow- (vph)
~
NBT
N8 R
~
~
lJ
S8L
SST
S3R
Stop
G<ade
Volune (vehlh)
t
0
1.00
0
O'll>
0
1.00
0
.j
.... \
SEL
SET
FreE
0%
473
1.00
473
<t
.,
O'll>
75
1.00
75
175
1.00
175
0
1.00
0
S1op
0
1.00
0
267
1.00
267
..
r-
SER
NWL NWT
'I
67
1.00
67
..... \
107
1.00
107
t
F..e
0%
253
1.00
253
0
1.00
0
Wafk;ng Sj>eed ~~
Percert Bk.dage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
None
UPdi:tn ~ vM)
Upstream s;gnal (ft)
pX. platoon unblocked
VC. confticting volume
vC 1, stage t conf vol
vC2. stage 2 c:onf vol
vCu. unblocked vol
\C, sngte (s)
1186
974
506
974
1007
253
253
540
1186
7.1
974
6.5
506
974
7.1
1007
6.5
253
6.2
253
4. 1
540
4. 1
3.5
100
87
4.0
100
226
3.3
100
566
3.5
0
2 14
4.0
65
2 17
3.3
78
786
2.2
100
2.2
90
1034
SB I
342
267
0
2 14
1.59
545
SB2
~.2
tC, 2 stage (s
tF (SJ
pO queue free %
dA capacity (vehlh)
Diredbt. Lane.
Volune Total
Volume Left
:v~
cSH
Volune to Capacity
au... l.e<lglh 95th (ft)
Central Delay (s )
Lane lOS
ApproachOelay (s)
Approach LOS
175
786
0.22
21
328.6~.9
F
221 .0
F
8
1312
SE I NWI NW2
107
53
107
0
0
0
1700 1034 1700
Q.32 0. 10 0 . 15
0
9
0
0.0
a9
0.0
A
0.0
26
lrdersec:tion Sumrray
AveBge Delay
Intersection Capaciy Utiization
AnatfSis Period (min)
8 1.3
63.6%
15
Merrinact VaOey Planning Commisreadsion
iCU Levei oi Service
8
Synclvo 6 Report
111912012
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Merrimac Street & Su m~r Street
--
.-WBL
lane ~urations
$;gnC..trol
F<ee
G<ade
0'!6
0
1.00
0
Volume (vehlh)
Peak Hour Factor
Haurty flow- (vph)
"--
......
-
WBR WBR2
{"
t
~
NBL
'l-
NBT
t-
S1op
Existing Weekday AM Pt: Hr
,..
......
t
S8L
SBT
0
1.00
0
Stop
0'!6
0
1.00
0
.,-
NIIR
ll'l(,
187
1.00
187
198
1.00
198
46
1.00
46
75
1.00
75
77
1.00
77
.j
,.!
- -
S8R SEL2
-;=
....
sa.
'l
\
SER
F<ee
0'!6
0
0
93
1.00
93
1.00
482
1.00
482
0
1.00
0
Walk;ng Sj>eed ~~
Peroert Bk.dage
R;gllt tum ftare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median~veh)
Upstream s;gnal (ft)
pX. f:l'latDon unblocked
VC. confticting volume
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2. stage 2 c:onf vol
\/Cu. unblocked vol
\C, mgte (s)
tC, 2 stage (s
tF (s)
pO queue free %
dA capacity (vehlh)
482
954
1053
482
1068
954
286
385
482
4.1
954
1053
6.5
482
6.2
1068
7. t
954
7.2
6.5
286
6.2
385
4. t
2.2
100
3.6
79
217
4.0
64
209
3.3
87
580
3.5
t OO
118
4.0
100
238
3.3
100
753
2.2
92
1168
1081
WBI
385
Volume Left
0
Volume Right
198
cSH
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.23
au.... Length 95th (ft)
0
Control Delay (s )
0.0
Direcfiolt.l.ane.
Volume Total
Lane lOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
0.0
te l
46
46
0
217
J.21
20
26.0
0
22.7
NB2
75
0
0
209
0.36
38
3 1.6
0
c
NB3
77
0
77
580
0. 13
11
12.2
8
SE I SE2
93
482
93
0
D
D
1168 1700
0.08 0.28
6
0
8.3
0.0
A
1.4
lrder5ec:tion Sumrray
Average Delay
lntersectio_11.Capaciy Utiization
Analysis Period (min)
4.6
7.3'!6
15
Merrimack VaOey Planning Comrrisreadsion
!CU lev!J pi Senrico
~
Synclvo 6 Report
111912012
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Merrimac Street & Summer Street
s;gn
Grade
Volume (vehlh)
Peak Hour Factor
Haurty flow- (vph)
0%
0
1.00
0
ll'l(,
296
322
64
1.00
1.00
1.00
296
322
64
121
1.00
121
108
1.00
108
0
1.00
0
0%
0
1.00
0
0
2 14
1.00
1.00
0
2 14
0%
526
1.00
526
0
1.00
0
Walk;ng Sj>eed ~~
Peroert Bk.dage
R;gllt tum ftare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median~veh)
Upstream s;g,>al (ft)
pX. f:l'latDon unblocked
VC. confticting volume
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2. stage 2 c:onf vol
\/Cu. unblocked vol
\C, mgle (s)
tC, 2 stage (s
tF (s)
pO queue free %
dA capacity (vehlh)
Direcliola.l.ane.
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
au.... Length 95th (ft)
Contra~ Delay (s)
Lane lOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
526
1411
1572
526
1580
141 1
457
618
526
4.1
1411
1572
6.5
1580
7. 1
14"11
7.1
526
6.2
6.5
457
6.2
618
4. 1
2.2
100
1041
3.5
33
96
4.0
0
86
3.3
80
554
3.5
0
0
4.0
100
107
3.3
100
804
2.2
78
962
NB3
SE I
SE2
526
0
0
1700
0.3 1
0
0.0
WBI
618
0
322
1700
0.36
0
0.0
NB I NB2
64
121
64
0
0
0
96
86
0.67 1.41
82
232
97.5 327.1
F
F
0.0 161.2
F
lrdeBedi Dl"' ...,
Average Delay
Intersection Capaciy Utiization
Analysis Period (min)
108
554
0.20
18
13.1
8
21
9.8
A
28
29.ll
51.3%
iCU Levei of Service
A
15
Merrimack VaOey Planning Commisreadsion
Synclvo 6 Report
111912012
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Winter Street & MeiTimac Street
Lane Width
TOial Lost time (s
Lane lJiil. Factor
Frt
At Protedod
Said. Row (prot)
At Permitted
Said. Row (perm}
Vol1111e (vph)
PeaJ<.ho.. factor, PHf
Aq. Row (vph)
RTOR Reduction_j_vph)
Lane Gro141 Row (vph)
Heavy Vehicles !%!
T..nType
Protected Phases
PoonittOO Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green. g (S)
Actuated IJIC Ratio
Ct....,.,., Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (Vph)
vis Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
272
0.95
286
0
0
4%
10
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.96
1653
0.96
1653
98
0.95
103
0
309
2%
Perm
10
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1449
1.00
1449
164
0.95
173
122
51
4%
3
Delay (s)
A
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
16
4.0
1.00
0.98
1.00
2046
1.00
2046
303
0.95
3 19
5
375
2%
12
25.3
26.3
0.29
5 .0
3.0
483
0.24
0.8 1
29.5
1.00
9 .5
38.9
0 .03
0.12
23.4
1.00
0.1
23.5
34.2
c
c
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1641
0.41
58
0.95
61
0
0
8%
2
3
25.3
26.3
0.29
5.0
3.0
423
D
0.0
12
Perm
3
tncremenlal Delay, d2
Level of Service
Awfoach Delay (s)
AwfoachLOS
12
Ramps Signal~ed w/ Existing AM Pk Hr vol.
714
51
0.95
54
0
54
10%
pm+pl
1
6
54.7
55.7
0.62
5 .0
3.0
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
182
0.95
192
0
192
2%
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
6
54.7
55.7
0.62
5.0
3.0
1153
0.0 1 C().1 0
0.06
0.11 0.17
7.6
7.3
0.72 0.72
0.3
0 .1
5.6
5.5
45.6
46.6
0.52
-
5.0
3.0
1059
C0.18
0.35
12.8
1.00
0.9
13.7
A
B
A
13.7
5.5
B
A
12.0
Merrinack Valley Planni~ Commisreadsion
Synchro 6 Report
12121/2012
Queues
7: W inter Street & Merrimac Street
*
~Groql
Lane Grol.!l Row (vphL 389
v/c RaOO
0.80
Control Delay
32.8
Queue Delay
0.0
Tolal Delay
32.8
Quouolenglh 5oth (fl)
205
Quouolonglh 951h..®
259
Internal Unk Dist (ft)
520
TOOl Bay longlh (It)
Base Capacity (vph)
543
Roductn
0
Raductn
0
RACtK:tn
n
Ratio
0.50
Ramps Signal~od w/ Existing AM Pk Hrvol.
)1.)
....
SllR
SET'li!N[
173
0.32
4.2
0.0
4.2
0
39
380
0.34
15.5
0.0
15.6
124
239
228
54
0.18
5.9
0.2
7.1
8
18
1108
0
488
18 1
0
n
0.18
559
0
0
n
0.25
38
n
0.35
T'
'
NWT
!
192
0.17
5.5
2.0
8.5
29
49
44
1153
815
0
n
0.57
S'unm8!y
Morrinack Valley Planni~ Comnisreadsion
Synchro 5 Report
12121/2012
Timings
7 Winter Street & Merrimac Street
~
~
~
Ramps Signalized wl Existing AM Pk Hr vol.
.....
S8T
NWt:
4'
'I
51
f>m+r>t
1
13
1
4.0
2 1.0
24.0
9B
3
4.0
21 0
39.0
433% 4
3.0
0
1
t
I
13
4.0
21.0
51.0
,CPl.
?
Min
2 .3
0.29
O.BO
32.B
0.0
32.B
c
24.0
'
NWT
Min
213.3
0.29
0.32
4.2
0.0
4.2
c
3.0
2
Lag
Ye
C-Max
4B.I3
0.54
0.34
15.5
0.0
15.13
8
15.13
Lead
Yes
None C-Max
55.7
55.7
0.132
0.132
0. 1B
. 17
13.9
13.13
0.2
2.0
7.1
B.l3
I
C~le Length: 90
Actuated c~
~
:o:,le
w:.;:.
Len-g':i
th-:L"
9~
0 --------------------------0ffset: 0 ~), Referenced to phase 2:SET and 13:NWTl , Start of Green, Master Intersection
Natural C~le: 135
Control Type: Actuated-,~C:.:o""
or
;;;:
d:::.
in:.:::
a,:::
te""
d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.....
Maximum vic Ratio: O.BO
Intersection Signal Delay: 1B.O
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1%
A nalysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases:
Intersection LOS: 8
ICU Level of ServiceD
7: Winter Street & Merrimac Street
51.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
Synchro 13 Report
12121/2012
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Winter Street & MeiTimac Street
Lane Width
TOial Lost time (s
Lane lJiil. Factor
12
12
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
12
Frt
At Protedod
Said. Row (prot)
At Permitted
Said. Row (perm}
Vol1111e (vph)
PeaJ<.hoL< factor, PHf
Aq. Row (vph)
RTOR Reduction_j_vph)
Lane Gro141 Row (vph)
Heavy Vehicles !%!
T..n Type
Protected Phases
PoonittOO Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective G reen. g (S)
Actuated IJIC Ratio
C t...,.,.,. Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (Vph)
vis Ratio Prot
267
0.95
281
0
0
1%
Perm
10
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.96
1690
0.96
1690
75
0.95
79
0
360
1%
10
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1478
1.00
1478
175
0.95
184
136
48
2%
Perm
3
3
v/s Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
tncre menlal Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Awfoach Delay (s)
Awfoach LOS
Ramps Signal~ed w/ Existing PM Pk Hr vol.
22.6
23.6
0.26
5 .0
3.0
443
0.2 1
0.81
31.1
1.00
10.9
42.0
0 .03
0.12
25.3
1.00
0.1
25.5
D
36.4
A
D
HCM Vo_,me to Capacity
'~'~
latio
~·~--:0.58:--,
Actuated Cyae Length (s)
oo.o
tnt""""'tion Capacity Utiization
98.3%:- --':
Ana¥s is PeriOd (min)
15
c 1Ua!
Group
Merrinack Valley Planni~ Commisreads ion
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
16
4.0
1.00
0.98
1.00
2096
1.00
2096
473
0.95
498
4
565
1%
12
67
0.95
71
0
0
1%
2
3
22.6
23.6
0.26
5.0
3.0
388
0.0
12
c
46.0
47.0
.52
5.0
3.0
1095
C0.27
0.52
14.1
1.00
1.1
15.8
B
15.8
B
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1787
0.27
517
107
0.95
113
0
113
1%
pm+pl
1
6
57.4
58.4
0.65
5 .0
3.0
440
C0.02
0.15
0.26
8 .5
1.46
0.3
12.6
B
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1881
1.00
1881
253
0.95
266
0
266
1%
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
6
57.4
58.4
0.65
5.0
3.0
1221
0.14
0.22
6.5
0.52
0.4
3.7
A
6.4
A
12.0
Synchro 6 Report
12121/2012
Queues
7: Winter Street & MeiTimac Street
*
~Gnql
'II!
SliT
Lane Grol!l Row (vphL_.. 360
v/c RaOO
0.81
Tala! Delay
38.5
190
Quooe Length 5oth (fl)
Queue Length 951h..®
Internal Unk Dist (ft)
'Zl7
520
......
... '
SETOINLNWT
184
0.35
569
0.51
113
0.39
266
0.22
5.3
0
46
17.6
203
11.5
9
52
5.8
21
31
44
587
0
0
0
0.31
1124
0
492
133
0
0
0.31
1222
769
0
0
0.59
357
228
Ramps Signal~od w/ Existing PM Pk Hrvol.
!
TOOl Bay Leng1h (It)
Base Capacity (vph)
Roductn
Raductn
RedJcln
Ratio
525
0
3()
0
0.73
63
0
0.54
Merrinack Valley Planni~ Comnisreadsion
Synchro 6 Report
12121/2012
Timings
7 Winter Street & Merrimac Street
~
j[ ane Group
Lane Configurations
Volume (v~h)
Turn Tyf>e
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
S8T
4'
5
3
3
4.0
21.0
320
35.13%
3.0
2.0
Min
23.13
0.213
O.B1
37.9
0.13
3B.5
D
27.3
C
Ramps Signalized wl Existing PM Pk Hr vol.
~
~
S8R
SET
NWL.:
NWT
t+
'I
t
,_
175
Perm
4
2
3
3
2
4.0
4.0
21.0 21.0
320 34.0
35.13% 37.B%
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
.....
'
107
"5
f>m+r>t
1
13
13
1
13
4.0
4.0
21.0 21.0
24.0 53.0
213.7% 134.4%
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
Min C-Max None C-Max
23.13 4B.1
5B.4
53.4
0.213 0.53 0.135 0135
0.35 0.51
0.39 022
5.3 17.5 11.2
4.2
0.0
0.1
0.4
1.13
5.3 17.13 11.5
S.B
A
8
8
A
17.13
7.5
8
A
Cycle Length: 90
ActuatedCyo
S ie.o:.Le
c-- n-g7t'h'-:"'
90
"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " '
Offset: 0 (C%), Referenced to f>hase 2:SET and 13:NWT[ , Start of Green, Master Intersection
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum vic Ratio: O.B1
Intersection Signal Delay: 1B.l3
lnter;eotion LOS: 8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 9B.3%
ICU _evel of Service F
Analysis Period min) 15
Splits and Phases:
7: Winter Street & Merrimac Street
34•
:32•
58.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
Synchrc 13 Report
12121/2012
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3 Summer Street & Merrimac Street
~
~
~
....;
N~K
~~ [
~~I
~~K
~I:.[
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1BB1
1.00
1BB1
75
0.95
79
0
79
1900
12
4.0
1.00
O.B5
1.00
1553
1.00
1553
77
0.95
B1
72
9
1900
12
1900
12
1900
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
0
0.95
0
0
0
0
0.95
0
0
0
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.49
903
93
0.95
9B
0
9B
10/o
40/o
20/o
20/o
2llo
~:!,0/o
4
Prot
4
10.2
9.2
10.2 10.2
0.11 0.11
4.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
1BI3
213
0.03 c0.04
9.2
10.2
0. 11
5.0
3.0
1713
0.01
0.25
313.4
1.00
0.7
0.05
35.13
1.00
0.1
35.7
D
~
jMovement
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd Flow (!:!erm)
Volume (vph)
[Eeal<-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
![!OR Reduction (v~;>h)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
I Ieavy Vehicles(%)
Turn Tyf>e
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
~(s)
Level of Service
Apf>roach Delay s)
Approach LOS
Ramps Signalized wl Existing AM Pk Hr vol.
N~l
'I
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
Hl41
0.95
11341
45
0.95
47
0
47
10%
Prot
7
t
~
N~l
t
0.37
313.9
1.00
1. 1
3?. 1~ 0
D
D
313.9
D
.,_
0.0
A
'I
~
~I::: I
.....
\
NWI: NWI
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1BB1
1.00
1BB1
4B2
0.95
507
0
507
1900
12
1900
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
10/o
20/o
t
f>m+r>t
5
2
2
70.B 70.B
71.B 71.B
O.BO O.BO
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
7B2 1501
0.01 c0.27
0.09
0.13 0.34
3.1
2.5
0.313 0.49
0.1
0.5
1.2
1.B
A
A
1.7
A
9.2
0.34
90.0
75.1%
15
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU l evel of Service
f>
NWR!
1900
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
1900
113
4.0
1.00
0.93
1.00
19513
1.00
19513
1B7
0.95
197
27
37B
20/o
40/o
10/o
19B
0.95
20B
0
0
13
130.3
131.3
0.13B
5.0
3.0
1332
0.19
0.2B
5.7
1.00
0.5
A
13.2
A
~ntersection" Sum mary
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Caf>acity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Crkical l ane GrouR
'
~I:.K
\
l
A
B.O
D
Synchro 13 Report
12121/2012
Queues
3 Summer Street & Merrimac Street
~
j[ ane Group
Lane Grou f> Flow (vr>h)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (It)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Car> Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Car> Reductn
Reduced vic Ratio
t
~
Ramps Signalized wl Existing AM Pk Hr vol.
....;
~
'
NBt:
47
0.27
3B.5
0.2
3B.7
25
55
NBT
79
0.37
40.5
0.0
40.5
42
B2
1BI3
NBR
B1
0.33
11.9
0.0
11.9
0
40
SEt:
9B
0.13
1.1
0.2
1.3
0
m5
SET NWT
405
507
0.34 0.29
1.9
5.13
07
0.0
2.13
5.13
1
135
20
1113
44
321
1913
0
13
0
0.213
224
0
0
0
0.35
2513
0
0
0
0.32
10013
510
0
0
0.20
15313
1373
0
0
0.59
13BO
0
137
0
0.31
[fiitersection Summa~
Volume for 95th j:>ercentile -=1ueue is metered by uj:>stream signal.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
'
'
Synchro 13 Report
12121/2012
Timings
3 Summer Street & Merrimac Street
~
j[ ane Group
Lane Configurations
V olum"' (vph)
Turn Tyf>e
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phases
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split ( s)
Total Sj:>lit (s)
Total Split (%)
Yellow Time (s)
A ll-Red Time (s)
LeadiLag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
NBt:
'I
A':i
Prot
7
t
NBT
t
7':i
4
7
4
4.0
4.0
B.O 21.0
13.0
13.0
14.4% 14.4%
3.5
3.0
0.5
2.0
None
9.5
0.11
0.27
3B.5
0.2
3B.7
D
Min
10.2
0.11
0.37
40.5
0.0
40.5
D
2B.9
c
Ramps Signalized wl Existing AM Pk Hr vol.
~
NBR
,_
....;
~
SEt:
SET
t
'I
'
'
NWT
t>
AB2
1B7
77
93
Prot f>m+r>t
4
5
2
13
2
4
13
5
2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
21.0
21.0
21.0 21.0
13.0
27.0
770 50.0
14.4% 30.0% B5.13% 55.13%
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lag
Lead
Yes
Yes
Min None C-Min C-Max
10.2
73.2
71.B 132.2
0.11
O.B1
O.BO 0.139
0.13
0.33
0.34
0.29
11.9
1.1
1.9
5.13
07
0.0
0.0
0.2
11.9
1.3
2.13
5.13
8
A
A
A
5.13
2.4
'
Cycle Length: 90
Actuated C~
yc
'"''le
w:.;:.
Len-g':i
th-:L"
9~
0 --------------------------0ffset: 0 ~), Referenced to phase 2:SETt: and 13:NWT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 135
Control Type: Actuated-C~oy:o.,.
rd
:::
in
:.::
a::::
te~
d;...._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.
Maximum vic Ratio: 0.37
Intersection Signal Delay: B.O
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1%
A nalysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases·
Intersection LOS: A
ICU Level of ServiceD
3 · Summer Street & Merrimac Street
't •2
77•
' o6
50.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
I
J.. .;
27 o
I
o5
f"
I
13o
~
13 o
::1
o7
I
Synchro 13 Report
12121/2012
HCM Sig1alized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3 Summer Street & Merrimac Street
~
+
~
....;
,_
S8L.:
S8T
S8R
SEL.:
SET
1900
12
1goo
12
1900
12
t
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
0
095
0
0
0
0
0.95
0
0
0
2"!.
4
1900
12
4.0
1.00
O.B5
1.00
1599
1.00
1599
10B
0.95
114
9B
113
1%
Prot
4
'I
13.0
13.0
0.14
4.0
12 0
13.0
.14
5.0
12.0
13.0
0.14
5.0
~-0
~-0
~-0
2513
2139
0.04 c0.07
231
0.01
~
[Movement
Lane Configurations
ld.,.al ~low :vphpl)
Lane Widt~
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd Flow ((;!erm)
Volume (vph)
[Eeal<-hour lactor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
[[!OR Recuction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Heavy Vehcles (%)
Turn Tyf>e
r tected Ph ses
Permitted Phases
Actuatea Green, J> (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuatea giC atio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle cXIension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio P·ot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progressio1 Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Apf>roach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
t
N8L.:
N8T
'I
t
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
134
0.95
137
0
137
2"!.
Prot
!Intersection Sum mary
HCM Average Control Delay
CM Volun e to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
[ ntersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Crkical l ane Grouf>
f!
Ramps Signalized wl Existing PM Pk Hr vol.
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1BI33
1.00
1BI33
121
0.95
127
0
127
2"!.
~
N8R
2°/o
JO
A
12.3
0.4B
90.0
9B.3%
15
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
~
.....
\
'
\
1900
·13
4.0
1.00
0.93
1.00
19B2
1.00
19B2
2913
0.95
3"2
30
1321
1%
1900
12
SER
NWL.: N\J\'T NWR!
1900
12
1900
12
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
0
0.95
0
0
0
2%
t+
1900
12
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.30
5135
214
0.95
225
0
225
2"!.
f>m+r>t
5
2
13B.O
139.0
077
5.0
1900
12
4.0
1.00
100
1.00
1BB1
1.00
1BB1
5213
0.95
554
0
554
1%
~-0
~-0
:iO
572 1442
0.05 c0.29
0.213
0.39 0.3B
10.7
3.5
0.139 041
0.4
0.13
2.1
7.7
A
A
3.7
A
1202
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU _evel of Service
1%
13
53.13
54.13
.G 1
50
13B.O
139.0
.77
5.0
c0.31
0.52
10. 1
1.00
113
117
8
117
8
8
B.O
F
Synchrc 13 Report
12121/2012
Queues
3 Summer Street & Merrimac Street
~
j[ ane Group
Lane Grou f> Flow (vr>h)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (It)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Car> Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Car> Reductn
Reduced vic Ratio
NBt:
(37
0.27
35.4
0.3
35.7
34
GB
25B
0
37
0
0.30
t
NBT
127
0.47
40.2
0.0
40.2
(37
115
1BG
272
0
0
0
0.4 7
~
Ramps Signalized wl Existing PM Pk Hr vol.
....;
~
'
NBR
114
0.3'=>
9.5
0.0
9.5
0
44
SEt:
225
0.'>4
B.B
0.3
9.1
1B
mG7
SET NWT
554
G51
0.3B 0.'=>3
2.2 12.1
0.1
O.G
2.B 12.2
2(3
1G2
30
349
44
321
331
0
0
0
0.34
79B
190
0
0
0.37
152B
570
0
0
0.5B
1232
0
45
0
0.55
[fiitersection Summa~
Volume for 95th j:>ercentile -=1ueue is metered by uj:>stream signal.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
Synchro GReport
12121/2012
Timings
3 Summer Street & Merrimac St·eet
~
j[ ane Group
Lane Configurations
Volum"' (vph)
Turn Tyf>e
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Dete)tor Phases
Mininum Initial (s)
Minin urn Split ( s)
Total Sj:>lit (s)
Total Split ("(.)
Yellow Time (s)
All-Red Time (s)
Lead'Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Reo&ll Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Cont·ol Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
t
N8L.:
N8T
'I
t
GA
Prot
7
121
A
7
A
4.0
4.0
B.O 21.0
13.0 13.0
1A.A% 1A.A%
3.5
3.0
0.5
2.0
None
12.4
0.14
0.27
35.4
0.3
35.7
D
Min
13.0
0.14
047
40.2
0.0
40.2
D
27.B
Ramps Signalized wl Existing PM Pk f-r vol.
~
N8R
,_
....;
SEL.:
~
'
SET NWT
'I
t
t>
10B
21A
'>2G
29G
Prot f>m+r>t
A
5
2
2
G
A
5
2
G
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
13.0 34.0 770 43.0
IA.A% 37.B% B5.G% A?.B%
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lag
Lead
Yes
Yes
Min None C-Min C-Max
13.0 139.0 139.0 5A.G
0.14
0.77 0.77 0.131
0.35 0.54
0.3B 0.53
B.B
2.2 12.1
9.5
0.1
O.G
0.0
0.3
9.5
9.1
2.B 12.2
A
A
A
8
4.G 12.2
'
'
Cycle Length: 90
::;l,e~C'
.: Len-g-.t'h~"':L~
9"'
o---------------------------'
Actuated C~yc
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to f>hase 2:SET[ and G:NWT, Start of Green
Natu·al Cycle: 70
Cont·ol Tyf>e: Actuated-..;:
C;:;;
o;;::
or:.;::
d:;.,
in:::,
at.e.o:;
.,d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,
Maxi11um vic Ratio: 0.54
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.G
Intersection LOS: 8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 9B.3%
ICU Level of Service F
Ana~sis Period min) 15
Splits and Phases:
3: Summer Street & Merrimac Street
,.~-
" •2
77•
o5
43.
Merrimack Valley Planning Commisreadsion
Synch ro GReport
12121i2012
Appendix H. Road Safety Audit References Road Safety Audit References
Massachusetts Traffic Safety Toolbox, Massachusetts Highway Department,
www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox.
Road Safety Audits, A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 336. Transportation Research
Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2004.
Road Safety Audits. Institute of Transportation Engineers and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, www.roadwaysafetyaudits.org.
FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 2006.
Road Safety Audit, 2nd edition. Austroads, 2000.
Road Safety Audits. ITE Technical Council Committee 4S-7. Institute of Transportation Engineers,
February 1995.