ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
Route 1 (Washington Street) at George Street
Plainville, MA
August 24, 2015
Prepared For:
MassDOT
Prepared By:
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
600 Unicorn Park Drive
Woburn, MA 01801
Road Safety Audit
Route 1 (Washington Street) at George Street, Plainville, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Data ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Location and Description .............................................................................................. 4
Road SafetyAudit: Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements ................................. 6
Summary of Road Safety Audit ............................................................................................... 13
List of Appendices
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Audit Team Contact List
Detailed Crash Data
RSA Procedure
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Locus Map .............................................................................................................................. 3
Route 1 (Washington Street) at George Street ....................................................................... 5
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Participating Audit Team Members ....................................................................................... 2
Potential Safety Enhancements Summary ............................................................................ 14
Background
The Federal Highway Administration defines a Road Safety Audit (RSA) as the formal safety
examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary
team. The purpose of an RSA is to identify potential safety issues and possible opportunities for
safety improvements considering all roadway users. MassDOT’s RSA procedures are defined in
Appendix D.
The four-way intersection of Route 1 (Washington Street) at George Street in the Town of
Plainville operates under two-way STOP-sign control. George Street intersects Route 1 from the
east and west at an approximate 70 degree angle. The intersection had been determined by the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to be on the top 5% high crash list for
the Boston Region MPO (2008 to 2010) making a Road Safety Audit (RSA) a requirement prior
to issuance of an access permit for a proposed 248 unit apartment complex to be located further
south on the east side of Route 1.
The intersection is located approximately 1.7 miles south of the Route 1/I-495 interchange and
approximately 0.5 miles north of the signalized intersection of Route 1 and Route 106. The
study intersection is shown on Figure 1, Locus Map.
In response to the high incidence of crashes at this intersection, MassDOT requires that this RSA
be prepared to identify safety issues and enhancements that may be implemented in conjunction
with the development of the proposed residential development, Liberty Square, or as
improvements associated with future public and private development projects.
Project Data
The RSA meeting was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in Level Design Group’s Conference
Room at 249 South Street in Plainville. The audit team members and their affiliations that
participated in the RSA meeting for the intersection of Route 1 at George Street are listed in
Table 1.
Page 1
Table 1.
Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team Member
Agency/Affiliation
David Posner
MassDOT Safety
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Safety
Ed Feeney
MassDOT District 5 Traffic Operations
Barbara Lachance
MassDOT District 5 Traffic Operations
Guoqiang Li
Southeastern Regional Planning and Development District
Chris Yarworth
Plainville Land Use
Allegra Almeida
Plainville Zoning Board
Chief Jim Alfred
Plainville Police Department
Chief Justin Alexander
Plainville Fire Department
David Beauvais
Plainville Highway Foreman
Jamie Daniele
Plainville Resident
Diana C. Green
Plainville Resident
Robert Michaud
MDM Transportation Consultants
Dan Campbell
Level Design Group
Ken Cram
Bayside Engineering
The project locus is shown in Figure 1.
Page 2
Project Locus
Figure 1
Locus Map
The RSA meeting agenda is provided in Appendix A and the audit team contact information is
provided in Appendix B.
Prior to the actual RSA meeting on Tuesday June 23, 2015, the audit team was provided with a
collision diagram and crash data at the intersection of Route 1 at George Street (contained in
Appendix C). Before attending the RSA, the participants were encouraged to conduct their own
site review of the intersection to become familiar with the safety issues to be discussed.
The intersection collision diagram was developed from a review of crash records provided to
Bayside by the Plainville Police Department. The records cover the period from 2010 through
Page 3
April 2015 during which time a total of 23 crashes were reported at the intersection. The great
majority of crashes were of two types: approximately 61 percent (14 of 23) were the angle type
accident and approximately 13 percent (3 of 23) were the rear-end type, representing 74 percent
(17 of 23) of all crashes. There were no fatalities and approximately 22 percent (5 of 23) of the
crashes involved personal injury. In general, many of the crashes occurred during daylight hours
(78 percent) under clear weather and dry road surface conditions. This information was
reviewed by the team at the meeting in conjunction with aerial photography and street level
views afforded by Google Street View.
Project Location and Description
Route 1 (Washington Street)
Washington Street is a four-lane, Rural Major Arterial under the jurisdiction of MassDOT.
Washington Street traverses the study area in a general north/south direction through Plainville.
Additional turn lanes are provided at major intersections. Travel lanes are generally separated by
a double yellow centerline and white broken lane lines. Marked shoulders are also provided.
The speed limit on Washington Street in the vicinity of the site ranges from 40 to 55 miles per
hour (mph). Land use along Washington Street in the study area consists of primarily
commercial uses.
Route 1 and George Street
George Street intersects Route 1 from the east and west at approximate 70 degree angle to form
this four legged unsignailzed intersection. The Washington Street approaches each consist of
two general purpose lanes. The George Street approaches each consist of a single lane,
permitting all movements. George Street operates under STOP-sign control. There are no
sidewalks or crosswalks in the vicinity of the intersection and the pavement markings on George
Street are worn and faded. Land use in the area consists of wooded land, residential homes and
commercial properties.
Page 4
Figure 2 Route 1 (Washington Street) at George Street
Page 5
Road Safety Audit:
Observations and Potential Safety Enhancements
After the audit team participated in the RSA site visit on June 23, 2015, the audit team members
returned to the conference room at Level Design Group and a group discussion was held on the
various safety issues that were observed to have an impact on the intersection safety. The safety
issues that were observed and discussed include the following, in no particular order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Speed on Route 1
Intersection alignment
Pavement markings
STOP Sign Running
Pavement condition
Sight distance/visibility
Courtesy crashes
Traffic flow on Route 1
Signage
Deer Strikes
Each of the safety issues listed above is described in more detail in the following paragraphs
along with the potential enhancements discussed during the RSA.
Observed Safety Issue # 1- Speed on Route 1:
The Route 1 southbound is on a
downgrade approaching George
Street from the south and levels
out north of the intersection.
Vehicles were observed to be
travelling at high rates of speed
on Route 1, higher than the
posted speed limit of 55 miles
per hour (mph) going downhill.
It is noted that travelling
northbound, north of Route 106,
Route 1 Southbound Approaching George Street
there is no posted speed limit
sign. It was noted that there is a
sign for northbound flow in the area of Route 106, but the sign is down. While none of the
reported crashes were attributed directly to speed, speeding on Route 1 was identified as a
primary safety concern.
Page 6
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Install new Speed Limit sign to replace the downed sign, ensuring proper placement and
meeting current retro-reflectivity requirements.
2.
Implement variable message speed limit signs to alert speeding motorists to their travel
speed in order to slow them down.
3.
Enforce the posted speed limit. Enforcement of the speed limit will cause drivers to be more
cognizant of the surroundings.
4. Install median islands on Route 1 approaching George Street. This will cause drivers to slow
down approaching the intersection.
Observed Safety Issue # 2 – Intersection Alignment:
As stated, George Street
currently intersects Route 1 from
the east and west at an angle of
approximately 70 degrees. The
George Street approaches are
under STOP-sign control. As
observed during the site visit,
left-turning vehicles tended to
cross
the
double-yellow
centerline in order to ‘square-up’
the approach for better visibility.
Fourteen (14) of the reported
twenty-three (23) crashes were
angle type collisions where the
existing George Street skew may
be a contributing factor.
Aerial View of Route 1 and George Street
The Plainville DPW indicated
that another issue with the intersection occurs during the winter as a result of the alignment and
the grades at the intersection. Snow plowing equipment, during a snow storm will not make a
right-turn from Route 1 northbound to George Street eastbound. Additionally, the Fire Chief
indicated that large emergency response vehicles are required to slow down when making rightturns, and at this intersection, are required to slow down further due to the alignment of the
intersection.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
Page 7
1. Re-align the George Street approaches to the intersection with pavement markings and
perhaps scored concrete to align vehicles wishing to turn left to ‘square-up’ at the approach.
As the George Street approaches currently intersect at an angle drivers have some difficulty
looking to the left in order to make the desired movement (turns left, go through or turn
right).
2. A resident suggested that the George Street westbound approach to Route 1 be closed. This
would reduce traffic volume and create fewer vehicle conflicts in the intersection.
3. Construct a barrier, such as a non-traversable median, on Route 1, restricting turn movements
to right-turns only. This would reduce vehicle conflicts in the intersection through the
prohibition of left-turns.
Observed Safety Issue # 3 – Pavement Markings:
During the site walk, the existing
pavement
markings
were
observed to be faded or worn.
Also, the white broken lane lines
extend through the intersection,
taking away from the definition
of the intersection.
Additionally,
the
pavement
markings are designed to let
vehicles know where to be when
making
various
turning
STOP Bar on George Street Eastbound Approach
maneuvers. It was reported at
the RSA Site Walk that vehicles
turning left from Route 1 tend to ‘cut the corner’, which in effect causes the vehicle to cross the
centerline on George Street.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Replace faded and worn pavement markings. Restriping will help the conspicuity of the
intersection.
2. Stripe intersection according to MassDOT and MUTCD standards.
Page 8
Observed Safety Issue # 4 – STOP Sign Running:
One of the crashes involved a
vehicle travelling eastbound on
George Street toward Route 1, not
stopping and causing an angle
collision in the intersection (Crash
No. 19). There is currently a
single STOP sign on the southwest
corner facing the George Street
approach. Further to the west,
approximately 150 feet, are STOP
Sign Ahead signs on both sides of
George Street. On the George
George Street Eastbound Approach
Street westbound approach, there
are STOP signs in both the
northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersection facing George Street. Further to the east,
approximately 150 feet, are STOP Sign Ahead signs on both sides of George Street.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. To increase visibility, install an additional STOP sign on the George Street eastbound
approach in the northwest corner of the intersection.
Observed Safety Issue # 5 – Pavement Condition:
Poor pavement condition was
also noted during the site visit.
In several places, cracking was
noticed. There is also evidence
of ‘rutting’ in the northbound
Route 1 right-hand travel lane
along with a noticeable ‘dip’ in
the same travel lane south of
George Street. While none of
the crashes were attributable to
this specific concern, this issue
was identified as a safety
concern.
Rutting/Cracking in Route 1 Northbound Travel Lane
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Mill and overlay Route 1 and provide full, partial depth repairs as needed in the vicinity of
George Street and replace pavement markings accordingly. This will provide a proper
driving surface for motorists.
Page 9
Observed Safety Issue # 6 – Sight Distance/Visibility:
A number of factors at the
intersection inhibit sight distance and
intersection visibility. These include:
(1) existing growth in all corners of
the intersection except the southwest
corner, (2) a telephone pole in the
southeast corner of the intersection;
and, (3) snowbanks (resulting from
winter snow-plowing). Travelling
along Route 1 northbound and
southbound, it is difficult to discern
the George Street intersection
Looking south from George Street Westbound
approaches. Drivers unfamiliar with
the intersection may not know that
the intersection exists. There is also a southbound warning sign blocked by a utility pole. Again,
while none of the crashes were solely attributable to this specific concern, it may have been a
contributing factor.
Widening George Street to provide exclusive turn lanes was discussed as a potential
improvement. However, the existing traffic volume data does not show a need for exclusive
lanes and with the addition of exclusive turn lanes, sight lines for vehicles making right-turns
would be blocked by vehicles making left-turns.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Trim growth at the intersection within the right-of-way (ROW) to improve sight lines.
2. Add Intersection Ahead sign on Route 1 southbound (left-hand side) approaching George
Street with a “George Street” placard beneath the sign. This will serve to provide drivers
with additional information relative to the approaching intersection.
3. Relocate the southbound Intersection Ahead warning sign to a location that is not blocked by
a utility pole (approximately 180 feet further south). Add a “George Street” placard beneath
the sign to again provide drivers with information relative to the approaching intersection.
4. On the existing intersection Ahead sign on Route 1 northbound, add a “George Street”
placard beneath the sign to again provide drivers with information relative to the approaching
intersection.
5. Modify Intersection Ahead signs to include flashing lights to further enhance and alert
drivers to the upcoming intersection.
Page 10
6. Add an overhead flashing beacon to alert drivers to the intersection location and to proceed
with caution.
Observed Safety Issue # 7 – Courtesy Crashes:
Audit team members discussed
and noted on the intersection
Crash Data Summary Table that
the intersection experienced a
high number of “courtesy”
crashes. That is, crashes
resulting when a driver (who is
not involved in the crash) stops
to allow another driver to enter
the roadway who then hits or is
hit by a third vehicle who did
not see the on-coming vehicle.
Route 1 at George Street looking North
These types of crashes appear
to be common due to the
intersection alignment of the intersection. As indicated, fourteen (14) of the twenty-three (23)
reported crashes were angle collisions.
Measures to eliminate left-turns were discussed during the meeting. Among the measures
considered was to construct a median along Route 1. A median would change access to
developments, local streets and driveways along Route 1 to right turn in/out only. Additionally,
provisions would need to be made to safely accommodate U-turn maneuvers.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Close George Street at the intersection. This eliminates the courtesy type crash at the
intersection. There may be wetland and property impacts to provide appropriate cul-de-sacs.
2. Construct a median along Route 1 to prohibit left-turns. Prohibition of left-turns would
reduce the number of vehicle conflicts and eliminate the left-turn crashes at the intersection.
3. Install NO LEFT TURN SIGNS on the George Street approaches to prohibit left-turns and
reduce vehicle conflicts.
4. Modify the George Street approaches to prohibit or discourage left-turns.
Page 11
Observed Safety Issue # 8 – Traffic Flow on Route 1:
Audit team members reported
that due to the location of George
Street and the Dunkin Donuts
driveway to the south, drivers
tend to “juggle” or switch lanes.
This occurs when a motorist in
the inside lane is stopping to
make a left-turn into Dunkin
Donuts or George Street. When
this occurs, the through motorist
weaves to the right to by-pass the
vehicle that is stopped or
Route 1 Northbound Approaching George Street
stopping to make the left-turn and
then weaves back into the lefthand lane in the vicinity of George Street or further north. Two of the reported four crashes
involved northbound through vehicles with southbound left-turns and an unknown third vehicle
which could have caused the through vehicle not to be able to see the left-turning vehicle.
Also, there is a potential situation where there are two vehicles on Route 1 northbound and
southbound waiting to make left-turns into George Street (opposing one another). Each vehicle
blocks the others view in attempting to see the corresponding through movement in the outside
lane.
Lastly, vehicles travelling from George Street westbound (east of Route 1), destined to the
Dunkin Donuts (approximately 200 feet to the south) are a concern. Vehicles have to accelerate
from a stop to travel the 200 feet and interlace with vehicles on Route 1 southbound.
All these movements require motorists to be aware of turning vehicles while maneuvering at
high speeds.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Widen Route 1 to provide an exclusive left-turn lane. Add appropriate diagrammatic lane
assignment signage. This would put left-turning vehicles into an exclusive area and
eliminate the “juggle” of vehicles as well as increase sight-distances for vehicles travelling
through the intersection.
2. Relocate Dunkin Donuts Driveway to George Street.
“juggling” lanes south of George Street.
This would eliminate vehicles
Page 12
Observed Safety Issue # 9 – Signage:
While at the RSA site walk, it
was noted that some signs
could be placed in better
locations for motorists benefit,
particularly the George Street
street name signs. At least one
crash potentially/partially is
attributable to the street name
sign locations (driver turning
left from right lane).
George Street STOP Sign with Name Sign on Same Post
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Review location of street and regulatory signs and move to locations where they are more
visible. This will provide motorists with additional intersection location information relative
to the location of the intersection.
Observed Safety Issue # 10 – Deer Strikes:
Three of the crashes recorded since 2010 involved deer strikes.
Potential Safety Enhancements:
1. Install Deer Crossing signs to alert motorists for the potential of deer in the road.
Summary of Road Safety Audit
The RSA team identified several safety issues and potential safety enhancements for the
intersection of Route 1 at George Street, based on the on-site field observations, the meeting
discussion and a review of the available data. The safety improvements, as is typical, vary from
low cost quick fixes to significant improvements with higher costs and a long range time frame
to implement. Table 2 lists each safety issue and potential safety enhancement discussed during
the audit. For each safety issue, the potential safety enhancement is described; its potential
safety payoff, the estimated time frame for completion, the estimated construction cost, and the
responsible agency are noted. Safety payoff estimates, categorized as low, medium or high, are
subjective and based on engineering judgment and past experience. The time frame is
categorized as short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1 to 3 years), or long-term (>3 years). The costs
are categorized as low (<$10,000), medium ($10,001 to $50,000), or high (>$50,001).
Page 13
Road Safety Audit
Route 1 (Route 1) at George Street, Plainville, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2 Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Install New Speed Limit Sign
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Implement Variable Message Speed
Limit Signs
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Enforce the posted speed Limit
Low
Short-term
Low
Town of Plainville
Install median islands on Route 1
Low
Long--term
High
MassDOT
Medium
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Close George Street westbound at
Route 1
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Construct a median barrier on Route
1
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Replace faded and worn pavement
markings.
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Stripe intersection according to
MassDOT requirements
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
STOP Sign Running
To increase visibility, install an
additional STOP sign on the George
Street eastbound approach
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/Town of
Plainville
Pavement Condition
Mill and Overlay Route 1 in the
vicinity of George Street
Medium
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT/
Speed on Route 1
Potential Safety Enhancement
Re-align the George Street
approaches with pavement
markings
Intersection Alignment
Pavement Markings
Page 14
Road Safety Audit
Route 1 (Route 1) at George Street, Plainville, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2 Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Sight Distance/Visibility
Courtesy Crashes
Traffic Flow on Route 1
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Trim Growth at Intersection
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Add Intersection Ahead Sign on lefthand side of Route 1 southbound
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Relocate the southbound
Intersection Ahead warning sign to
a location that is not blocked by a
utility pole
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
On the existing intersection Ahead
sign on Route 1 northbound, add a
“George Street” placard
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Modify Intersection Ahead signs to
include flashing lights
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Add an Overhead Flashing Beacon
Medium
Mid-term
Medium
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Close George Street westbound at
Route 1
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Construct a median barrier on Route
1 to prohibit left-turns
High
Long-term
High
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Install No Left Turn signs on George
Street approaches
High
Short-term
Low
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Modify George Street approaches to
prohibit left-turns
High
Long-term
Low
MassDOT/Town of
Plainville
Widen Route 1 to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane
Low
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Relocate Dunkin Donuts Driveway
to George Street
Low
Long-term
High
MassDOT
Page 15
Road Safety Audit
Route 1 (Route 1) at George Street, Plainville, MA
Bayside Engineering, Inc.
Table 2 Potential Safety Enhancement Summary
Safety Issue
Potential Safety Enhancement
Safety Payoff
Time Frame
Cost
Responsible Agency
Signage
Review location of street and
regulatory signs
Low
Short-term
Low
Developer/MassDOT
Deer Strikes
Install Deer Crossing signs
Low
Short-term
Low
MassDOT
Page 16
Appendix A. RSA Meeting Agenda
Appendix B. RSA Audit Team Contact List
Participating Audit Team Members
Date:
June 23, 2015
Location: Level Design Group Conference Room
249 South Street, Plainville
Audit Team
Members
Agency/Affiliation
Email Address
Phone
Number
David Posner
MassDOT Safety
David.posner@state.ma.us
617-866-0725
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassDOT Safety
Lisa.schletzbaum@state.ma.us
857-368-9634
Ed Feeney
MassDOT District 5
Traffic Operations
Edward.feeney@state.ma.us
508-884-4242
Barbara Lachance
MassDOT District 5
Traffic Operations
Barbara.lachance@state.ma.us
508884-4260
Guoqiang Li
Southeastern Regional
Planning and
Development District
gli@srpedd.org
508-824-1367
Chris Yarworth
Plainville Land Use
cyarworth@plainville.ma.us
508-244-8936
Allegra Almeida
Plainville Zoning Board
Aemesq@comcast.net
508-699-2233
Chief Jim Alfred
Plainville Police
Department
Jalfred@plainville.ma.us
508-277-9113
Chief Justin
Alexander
Plainville Fire Department jalexander@plainville.ma.us
508-695-5252
David Beauvais
Plainville Highway
Foreman
Fax: 508-699-3897
508-699-2071
Jamie Daniele
Plainville Resident
jamiedaniele@yahoo.com
508-699-1483
Diana C. Green
Plainville Resident
dianaallengreen@gmail.com
508-695-2660
Robert Michaud
MDM Transportation
Consultants
Rmichaud@mdmtrans.com
508-303-0370
Dan Campbell
Level Design Group
dcampbell@leveldg.com
508-695-2221
Ken Cram
Bayside Engineering
kcram@baysideengineering.com
781-932-3201
Appendix C. Detailed Crash Data
Appendix D. RSA Procedure
RSA Procedure
The designer will obtain, review and summarize the most recent pertinent available
information, including: crash data, traffic volumes, and traffic speed data. Note that the
crash data summaries from MassDOT Statewide database are not adequate and that
the actual crash reports (including narratives and diagrams), from the police department
reporting the crash data, are critical to a successful audit. The actual crash reports
should be used to prepare collision diagrams and crash analyses. Details of the crash
analyses must be clear because they will be used as the “before” information when an
evaluation is performed on the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Other relevant
information regarding the location may include, but is not limited to: traffic volumes
(including pedestrians and bicycles if available), speed/citation data, available roadway
plans, traffic reports and/or signal timings and phasing information (if appropriate).
With input and assistance from the community and/or MassDOT District, the designer
will select the RSA team, date, time and location. The team should represent
engineering (local and MassDOT), planning, enforcement (local or state police,
depending upon jurisdiction), emergency response (fire, ambulance or police that
respond to crashes in the project area), MassDOT’s Safety Management Unit, Regional
Planning Agency, maintenance (local department of public works or MassDOT
maintenance depending upon jurisdiction). Additional members may include
representatives of: Town/City Planning Department, Public Officials, or others. The
date, time and location will also require input from the local community and MassDOT. It
is best for the meetings to take place in close proximity to the project location to save
time and be more efficient.
An email invitation should be sent to all RSA team participants and include an
attachment with the pertinent available information. (See attached for suggested text of
email invite and a copy of a sample agenda).
At the pre-audit meeting, the designer will provide handouts of all pertinent information.
It will be the responsibility of the designer to facilitate the audit, take notes and photos
and then prepare the report in a timely manner. The RSA participants will meet (preaudit meeting) to discuss the process and goals for the RSA. The designer will present
the existing traffic data and any known related planned projects to the participants in
order to provide an introduction to project. General comments, issues and concerns will
be solicited about the subject location. Following the pre-audit meeting, the team will
conduct a site visit (audit), during which specific issues and concerns will be pointed out
by the RSA team (and/or designer) and recorded by the designer. As a minimum, the
designer should use the safety review prompt list (see attached) as a reference to
ensure that a comprehensive list of safety issues is discussed at the audit site visit.
After the site visit, the RSA participants will meet (post-audit meeting) and the designer
will facilitate a group discussion, which would confirm that a complete list of safety
issues and potential countermeasures had been identified during the RSA and
countermeasures have been identified. The countermeasures may include short-term,
intermediate-term, and long-term improvements and the responsibility for the
improvements will be identified. It should be noted that recommendations should be
comprehensive and may include engineering, maintenance, enforcement, educational
and behavioral countermeasures. If plans are already underway, the plans will be
discussed and reviewed to determine whether or not the existing concerns and issues
have been adequately addressed.
A RSA Report, based on MassDOT’s report template (see attached), would be prepared
describing the deficiencies and countermeasures identified during the RSA.
Countermeasures which were not discussed during the RSA may be included, if they
are found to be appropriate. Potential countermeasures which do not conform to
MassDOT or FHWA standards would be noted as such in the report.
The RSA Report preparation will require the following submissions:
• A Draft Report (the designer will submit, via email, to the participants within 5
days of the audit),
• participants should reply with comments within 5 business days of receipt of
Draft report,
• a Final Draft Report (the designer will submit via email, to the
community/MassDOT for review, within 5 business days after comment period),
• approval to finalize by entity with jurisdiction (road owners) and
• a Final Report (within 5 days of receipt of comments) in both hard copy and
electronic format.
Post RSA Procedure
The designer should work with the roadway owner (community / MassDOT District) on
implementing the short-term low cost improvements/maintenance items that can be
done prior to the completion of the design process. These should be detailed in the
Functional Design Report (including specifically what was done and when the work was
completed). In addition, attempts should be made to incorporate all medium and long
term countermeasures into the design. Any recommendations that cannot be
incorporated into the design should clearly be explained in the Functional Design
Report.
MassDOT intends to perform evaluations on the effectiveness of countermeasures used
as a result of RSAs. The “before” analysis will be based on the detailed crash analyses
presented in the RSA. An “after” study may be performed by MassDOT or others once
three years’ worth of crash data have been obtained. This will enable the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts to develop state-specific crash reduction factors.