ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 6 SANDWICH
Prepared for
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
June 2009
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
MAJOR HIGHWAY MEDIAN
CROSS-OVER CRASHES
ROUTE 6 SANDWICH
June 2009
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Prepared by
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Consultant Engineers and Planners
300 Howard Street P.O. Box 967
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Tel: 508-620-2832 Fax: 508-620-6897
www.mstransportationsystemsinc.com
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
RSA PROCESS
3
ANALYSIS
8
SUMMARY OF RSA FINDINGS/POTENTIAL ACTIONS
12
RECOMMENDATIONS
20
APPENDIX
24
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page i
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Introduction
Lane departure crashes are one of the primary fatal crash types in Massachusetts. The
Commonwealth exceeds the national average for the proportion of fatal lane departure
crashes and was designated a lead state in lane departure crashes by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The
Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) conducted a study of the problem
and found that during 2002-2004, lane departure crashes accounted for 25 percent of all
injury crashes and nearly half, 46 percent, of all fatal crashes.
As part of the effort in implementing the safety plan and specifically reducing lane
departure crashes, the MassHighway is completing a Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review
Project specifically focused on median crossing (or median cross-over) crashes on its
major highways. Road safety audits are a formal safety performance examination on
existing or future roadways by an independent audit team. These specific audits are
being conducted in locations where cross-over experience has been or has the potential
to be of concern and where the RSA team has judged that factors exist that could affect
the safety risk. During the audit, the RSA team works to identify opportunities for
enhancing safety and to recommend specific enhancements intended to reduce median
cross-over crashes and improve the overall safety along the highway.
A RSA was conducted as part of this project for a section of Route 6 in Sandwich and
Figure 1 shows the corridor section under study. It encompassed Interchanges Nos. 2
to 4. The distance examined was approximately 6.4 miles in length.
The purpose of this Route 6 Sandwich RSA was to identify current conditions on the
highway section under study that could potentially affect safety risk and to recommend a
set of actions to address the identified safety factors. Recommendations contained in
this report reflect the overall consent of the RSA team and do not necessarily reflect the
official views of MassHighway.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 1
6
6A
130
Interchange 2
Interchange 3
6
130
Interchange 4
N
Project Location
W
S
Route 6 Road Safety Audit
Sandwich, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
E
1 : 25,000
Framingham, Massachusetts
FIGURE 1
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
RSA Process
The general process outlined in the guideline1 was essentially followed although with
some minor variations incorporated in the overall procedure. These were due in part to
the project location being a high speed, high volume section of an access controlled
highway. With these characteristics, there are limited areas to safely stop and gather as
a group along the section without potentially hindering traffic flow or the safety of the
project. Given the RSA team size (noted below) and general character with the corridor,
the team members who visited the site prior to the team meeting did so either
individually or in smaller groups. A video recording of a drive-thru in both directions was
collected by the RSA consultant and used at the meeting to review conditions as a
group. Background material and plans were transmitted to the RSA consultant to
compile and review prior to the initial RSA team meeting. Crash and traffic volume data
were transmitted to RSA team members prior to the meeting as well. Once the initial
RSA team meeting was conducted, the RSA consultant gathered the input, completed
the analysis and prepared a draft document for team members to review. Data including
summary crash records for the 2004-2007 period, five (5) detailed crash descriptions of
cross-over crashes, and available record highway plans were obtained and reviewed by
the RSA consultant.
•
RSA Team
The following individuals participated in the Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit:
George Russell, Sandwich Fire
Kaiyan Jiang, MassHighway, Design
Bonnie Polin, MassHighway, Safety
Timothy White, FHWA
Bill Travers, MassHighway District 5
Lynn Gourley, SPD
Paul Tilton, Sandwich DPW
Priscilla Leclerc, Cape Cod Commission
Lisa Schletzbaum, MassHighway, Safety
Management Unit
Xian Chen, MassHighway
Erin Kinahan, MassHighway, District 5
Sam Jensen, Town of Sandwich
Mike Miller, Sandwich Police
William J. Scully, MS Transportation Systems
(RSA Consultant)
Team members represented various agencies, disciplines and expertise.
•
RSA Meeting
A meeting was held on October 16, 2008 at the Sandwich Town Hall. At the meeting,
the RSA consultant provided a brief overview of the RSA purpose, a summary of the
roadway section’s characteristics and the results of the review to date in terms of
geometry, volume and crash data researched and the field visit observations. The RSA
1
MS Transportation Systems, Inc., Road Safety Audits, Median Cross-Over Crashes, Audit Guidelines,
Prepared for MassHighway, October 2007.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 3
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
team members listed above were present at the meeting. The regional planning staff
presented some information illustrated in aerial maps, additional discussions related to
the possible factors related to the cross-median crashes and possible solutions to
prevent or alleviate similar characteristics in the future. The RSA team provided input on
the background supporting data, key items observed in the field and those items that
were listed on the RSA Median Cross-Over Prompt List.
Following brief summary introduction, the key items noted at the meeting included the
following:
 Interchange No. 2 is a major issue, as a combination of Route 6 horizontal
and vertical alignments creates a potentially uncomfortable driving condition
for motorists.
 The merge and deceleration lanes at all the interchanges in the study section
appear short and the geometry of all the interchange ramps is “tight”.
 Speed is a major issue in the study section.
 The Route 6 interchanges are listed as priorities in the long range plan.
 It was also noted that some highways in the country including parkways that
have “tight” or narrow geometry appear to guide motorists in a positive
manner using certain design features (Baltimore – Washington Parkway was
cited as an example).
 There is an apparent issue with the “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround”.
There are a relatively high number of them including immediately prior to or
after the interchange ramps. Problems include unauthorized use of the
turnarounds. It was also mentioned at the meeting that driving directions
provided by such sources as Google can actually lead to misuse of the
turnaround by directing motorists.
 Signage along the route may be aged – many signs appear “worn”.
Vegetative growth also obstructs some signs.
 A major point made by several RSA members is that the route experiences
some drainage problems with ponding occurring in some areas. It was noted
that the cross-slope seems flat with water remaining on the pavement
surface.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 4
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Following the RSA meeting, the RSA consultant compiled the information, completed the
analysis and circulated the draft report to team members.
•
Analysis Procedures
As previously indicated, the RSA analysis generally followed the procedure described in
the previously referenced Guideline with some variations and also took into
consideration the methods published by the Federal Highway Administration2 (FHWA)
and those included in FHWA training materials3. The basic tasks included:
•
Obtaining and reviewing crash and other traffic characteristic data and
available record plans.
•
Conducting site reconnaissance and collecting a current record of condition
via photos and video,
Identifying potentially hazardous issues, and
Identifying and evaluating potential actions to address the noted issues.
•
•
In assessing the issues identified by the RSA Team, the relative seriousness and
potential risk relative to crash frequency and severity were determined. Using the
guidelines of FHWA as input and considering characteristics of this specific RSA, the
relative frequency criteria and severity criteria were identified and are presented in Table
1 and Table 2, respectively.
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY RATING
ESTIMATED
Exposure
high
medium
high
medium
low
high
Probability
high
high
medium
medium
high
low
low
medium
low
medium
low
low
EXPECTED CRASH FREQUENCY
(PER AUDIT ITEM)
5 or more crashes per year
FREQUENCY
RATING
Frequent
1 to 4 crashes per year
Occasional
Less that 1 crash per year, but
more than 1 crash every 5 years
Infrequent
Less than 1 crash every 5 years
Rare
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
2
3
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA SA-06-06,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
Federal Highway Administration, Resource Center, Road Safety Audits Mini-Workshop, Jeffrey Shaw, PE,
PTOE, presented to New England ITE Section, September 19, 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 5
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
TABLE 2
SEVERITY RATING
Typical Crashes Expected
(per audit item)
Expected Crash Severity
High-speed crashes; head on and
rollover crashes
Moderate-speed crashes; fixed
object or off-road crashes
Crashes involving medium to low
speeds; lane changing or
sideswipe crashes
Crashes involving low to medium
speeds; typical of rear-end or
sideswipe crashes
Probable fatality or
incapacitating injury
Moderate to severe injury
Severity
Rating
Extreme
High
Minor to moderate injury
Moderate
Property damage only or
minor injury
Low
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
Taking into consideration both frequency and severity, the relative risk of a particular
audit item was rated. The risk ratings are shown in Table 3. For each safety issue
identified, the potential seriousness of the issue as well as possible mitigation measures
have been indicated.
TABLE 3
CRASH RISK ASSESSMENT
Frequency
Rating
Low
Frequent
Occasional
Infrequent
Rare
C
B
A
A
Severity Rating
Moderate
High
D
C
B
A
Source: FHWA RSA Training Workshop
Crash Risk Ratings:
A: minimal risk level
B: low risk level
C: moderate risk level
•
Extreme
E
D
C
B
F
E
D
C
D: significant risk level
E: high risk level
F: extreme risk level
RSA Field Audit
Field audits were conducted by RSA team members prior to the RSA meeting held on
October 16, 2008. The field audits included several drive-thrus in each direction of travel
as well as through the interchanges. A Prompt List developed for median cross-over
RSA’s was used for guidance. The Prompt List is included in the Appendix. The
following were noted during the audit:
•
There are two travel lanes per direction on Route 6.
•
Speed limit signs were noted as 55 mph posted.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 6
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
•
Speeds seem to be in the 60 to 70 mile per hour range.
•
The median in Sandwich is a mix of open, grass or heavily treed. There are
also segments where guardrail has also been installed – close to the edge of
pavement.
•
The inside shoulder is very narrow – less than one foot not including the
berm.
•
Rumble strips do not exist in either the inside or outside shoulder.
outside shoulders are similar in width to the inside shoulder.
•
The overall pavement markings appeared in average condition (i.e. partially
faded) at the time of the field audit.
•
There is no lighting of the highway or interchanges in the study section.
•
The pavement surface appears to be adequate.
•
Catch basins are located within the shoulders.
•
The acceleration-deceleration lanes appear to be shorter than desirable.
•
It was noted that the parking area located on the westbound direction east of
Interchange No. 2 has its acceleration lane extend to just before the
deceleration lane for the exit ramp.
•
The “open” median areas are in the vicinity of the interchange and for the
most part, are relatively flat and crossable.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
The
Page 7
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions
Route 6 in Sandwich and the rest of the Cape is a major highway that provides eastwest movement. On the Cape it runs from the Sagamore Bridge to Provincetown. It is a
fully controlled access highway from Bourne to Dennis (Interchange No. 9). Figures 2
through 4 present photographs that depict the current conditions along the study section.
Figure 2 – The narrow inside shoulder with berm
The roadway in this area consists of two (2) travel lanes per direction. The roadway has
narrow inside and outside shoulders in the range of one (1) foot. Rumble strips do not
exist in either the inside and outside shoulders. There is also a berm along much of the
inside shoulder within the study section. The alignment is varying but can be
characterized as “gentle”. It was noted that the speed limits are posted at 55 miles per
hour (mph). The median where considered open (measured from edge line to edge line)
is approximately 52 feet at minimum. Depending on location, it increased up to
approximately 75 feet near Interchange No. 3. The median becomes narrower in many
locations along the study section but these areas are heavily vegetated, significant
topography and/or have guardrail in place. For much of the median in the project area,
there is guardrail installed at or near the edge of pavement – generally alternating
between the eastbound and westbound side. The length of the “open” median in the
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 8
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
study section is approximately 1.3 miles in total combining four distinct areas.
general, the areas where the median is open, the topography is fairly flat.
In
There are a number of “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround” provided along the
section. Some are located in the immediate area of interchanges. A regulatory “NO
LEFT” sign is posted at most of these turnarounds.
There are three interchanges in the study section. Interchange No. 2 is at Route 130.
The interchange with Quaker Meeting House Road is Interchange No. 3 and Interchange
No. 4 is at Chase Road. The spacing between interchanges is one mile or more.
A parking area exists just prior to Exit 2 in the westbound direction. The acceleration
lane leaving the parking area ends just prior to the deceleration lane for Exit 2.
Figure 3 – Route 6 Eastbound just
approaching Exit 2 Ramp
Figure 4 – Route 6 Westbound - view
of median opening
A review of available safety data was completed as part of this RSA. The review of data
included crash data reported for the full years of 2004 to 2007 and a partial year for
2008. The summary table and spot map are included in the appendix. Key aspects
noted in the data included the following:
 A total of 74 median related crashes reported from January 2004 through August
2008 or approximately 16 crashes per year.
 Of the total, 5 or 7% were cross-median.
 Four of the five reported cross-median crashes resulted in personal injuries.
 The one fatal crash was reported to have occurred near Interchange No. 4 but
was not a cross median crash.
 There was also a crash not included in the provided crash table but noted by a
RSA team member that occurred approximately 700 east of Interchange No. 4
and resulted in a personal injury.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 9
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
 Of the total reported median related crashes, 43% occurred under dark
conditions.
 It is approximated that the cross-median crashes occurred in the vicinity of
Interchange No. 2 and Interchange No. 3.
 Almost two-thirds of the reported median related crashes were initiated in the
eastbound direction.
 There were 24 or approximately 32% of the total median related crashes that
occurred under rain/snow or wet surface conditions.
 High speeds were cited in sixteen (16) crashes or 22%.
Figure 5 – Open Median with Isolated Vegetation
The traffic volumes observed on Route 6 in this section generally exceed 64,350 on an
average summer weekday. Figure 6 depicts the volume measured in July 2005 between
Interchange Nos. 2 and 3. One can see from the chart that directional volumes are
similar throughout the day. The peak hour (two-way) volumes are higher in the
afternoon approaching 4,600 vehicles in each direction. Historical truck traffic count
data were obtained from MassHighway that showed a 5% truck percentage of the total
volume for both the peak hour and daily periods, respectively. Based on the July 2005
volume, this amounts to approximately 230 peak hour truck trips and about 3,200 over
the day.
In summary, the RSA has identified a number of physical and operational characteristics
as being a potential contributing factor to the safety issues although each with varied
levels of seriousness.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 10
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
The next section will discuss the key issues or factors identified by the RSA team and
the potential actions to consider for addressing them.
Figure 6
Route 6 Sandwich Traffic Volume
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 11
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Summary of RSA Findings/Potential Actions
Based on the field review, the review of crash data and discussions among the RSA
team members, the issues related to the safe operating conditions of the Route 6 in the
Sandwich area were identified. There were a number of factors or issues of concern that
were identified as potentially having an effect on the risk and these are listed in Table 4
along with the assigned risk rating.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF FACTORS THAT POTENTIALLY AFFECT
THE RISK OF SAFETY RELATED EVENTS
Factor or Issue
Risk Rating
Areas of open, crossable median
E
Lack of or minimal width shoulders (both inside and
outside) with berms
High speeds
E
“Authorized Vehicle Only” turnaround locations and
i
Drainage problem – ponding occur in several areas
D
C
D
Short acceleration-deceleration lanes and inadequate
signage
D
Driver guidance – signs worn and obstructed
C
As shown in Table 4, there are a number of risk factors that have been identified by the
RSA team that could potentially contribute to cross-median crashes and other safety
risks in the study section. The most substantive factor is the unprotected, open median.
In this segment, the median width is approximately 50 feet in certain areas. The
locations of the “open” median vary in terms of both location, length of clear area as well
as the characteristics of the clearing (i.e. isolated trees or shrubs, complete clearing). A
risk rating of ‘E’ was assigned to this factor.
Throughout the entire study section, the inside shoulders are narrow (i.e. no more than 2
feet including the berm). In areas where the median is open and crossable, the lack of
an adequately wide insider shoulder prevents the installation of motorist warning devices
such as rumble strips. The lack of width or warning reduces the possibility of a “errant”
motorist recovering without entering the median. Given that portions of the study section
median is crossable, a risk rating of ‘E’ was assigned to this factor.
It was noted that high speeds are a factor in the study section. While posted speeds are
55 mph, typical speeds were noted to be in the range of 60-70 mph. Although only 7%
of the median related crashes were designated as “cross-median”, speed was
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 12
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
specifically cited as a contributing factor in approximately 22% of the total number of
crashes. A risk rating of ‘D’ was assigned to this factor.
There are a number of “Authorized Vehicles Only” turnaround in existence in the study
section. Field audits identified six in the 6.4 mile study section with three in the
immediate area of the interchanges. The others exist between Interchange No. 2 and
No. 4. Some of the turnarounds were signed in only one direction. As shown in other
study areas, the misuse of these turnarounds by the general public can lead to crossmedian events. A risk rating of ‘C’ was assigned to this factor.
Drainage problems were noted in the study section. There were 24 crashes that
occurred under wet surface conditions. This factor was assigned a rating of ‘D’.
Inadequate acceleration – deceleration lanes can contribute to the median related and
cross-median crashes as lane changing (sometimes quick, inappropriate) occurs in
these areas. The markings for the acceleration/deceleration lanes were found to be less
than ideal and a rating of ‘D’ was assigned to this factor.
The final factor noted by the RSA team for the study section was the level of or condition
of driver guidance (i.e. signage) approaching interchanges. This included signs
obscurred by vegetation, signs in below average conditions or an insufficient number of
signs. This combined with inadequate deceleration lanes can contribute to quick lane
changing and potential median entries. The median is generally open in the more
immediate area of the interchanges. A risk rating of ‘C’ was assigned to this factor.
Suggested actions identified are intended to reduce all crashes on the Route 6 and/or
reduce the severity of the crashes were identified based on the specific issue. The
following paragraphs include discussion pertaining to the issues and the potential
actions to consider for implement. Given that this RSA program is focused on crossmedian crashes, median barriers were first evaluated. Additional actions are outlined
later in the report.
•
Consideration of a Median Barrier
One of the more significant actions to be considered is to install median barriers in the
current “open” areas. A barrier can be considered when there is a higher than desirable
chance or a greater risk for median cross-over crashes to occur and that have or could
result in fatalities and/or a high proportion of injury related crashes. In addition, a barrier
could be considered when the consequences or severity of a crash without a barrier are
worse than if the barrier were in place.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 13
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Factors that generally come into play in deciding on whether a median should be
installed involve the following:
 High volumes and speeds
 Truck volumes and mix
 Narrow median
 History of cross-median crashes
 High risk of catastrophic event
These items have been reviewed relative to the Route 6 section under study. Figure 8
presents a review of the corridor in relation to the median warrant criteria presented in
the AASHTO RDG4. As shown in Figure 7, there are two analysis points relating to
different median widths. As can be seen in the diagram, the open median (as measured
from edge line to edge line), located near Interchange No. 2 is approximately 50 feet and
a volume of over 64,000 vehicles on an average day, the intersection of the two items is
in the area of the chart where a barrier can or should be “considered”. In the vicinity of
Interchange Nos. 3 and 4, the median width is 60 to 70 feet wide. The resulting
intersection of volume and median width occurs in the area of “barrier optional”.
While the RSA team noted key characteristics of concern and factors that potentially
contribute to crashes such as the condition of the interchange acceleration=deceleration
lanes and speeds along the highway, it was generally agreed that the gaps or “open”
sections of the median should be closed. The high volume (>60,000 during the
Summer), evidence of cross-median crashes and the resulting severity support the
recommendation.
Consequently, based on the analysis of the data, the field drive-thru and discussion of
the conditions by the RSA team members, it was suggested that a median barrier, be
installed in the sections of this route that are open and crossable. The selection of the
barrier is discussed in greater detail in the next section followed by the complete set of
Route 6 RSA recommendations.
A. Barrier Selection
Once a decision is made to install a barrier, the type must be determined. There are a
number of barrier types that can be considered in addressing the median cross-over
crashes. These include the following:
♦
♦
♦
♦
4
Weak post W-Beam
Box Beam
Generic Low Tension Cable
High Tension Cable Barrier
♦ Strong post W-Beam
♦ Thrie Beam
♦ Concrete (Jersey)
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,
Washington, D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 14
80
median width
50 +/- feet
near Int. 2
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(thousands)
70
median width
60-70 feet
near Int. 3
BARRIER
RECOMMENDED
60
BARRIER
CONSIDERED
50
40
BARRIER
OPTIONAL
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
MEDIAN WIDTH
(feet)
60
70
ADT - 64,000+
Source: AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, Chapter 6, Updated 2006
Median Barrier Warrant Analysis
Route 6 Road Safety Audit
Sandwich, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 7
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
In deciding on the type of barrier, there are a number of criteria suggested in the
AASHTO Roadside Design Guide5. These criteria used in selecting a barrier type are
included in Table 5.
TABLE 5
CRITERIA FOR BARRIER SELECTION
Criteria
Comments
1. Performance Capability
Barrier must be structurally able to contain and redirect
design vehicle.
Expected deflection of barrier should not exceed available
deflection distance.
Slope approaching the barrier and distance from traveled
way may preclude use of some barrier types.
2. Deflection
3. Site Conditions
4. Compatibility
5. Cost
6. Maintenance
A. Routine
B. Collision
C. Material Storage
D. Simplicity
7. Aesthetics
8. Field Experience
Barrier must be compatible with planned end anchor and
capable of transitioning to other barrier systems (such as
bridge railings).
Standard barrier systems are relatively consistent in cost,
but high-performance railings can cost significantly more.
Few systems require a significant amount of routine
maintenance.
Generally, flexible or semi-rigid systems require
significantly more maintenance after a collision than rigid
or high-performance railings.
The fewer different systems used, the fewer inventory
items/storage space required.
Simpler designs, besides costing less, are more likely to
be reconstructed properly by field personnel.
Occasionally, barrier aesthetics are an important
consideration in selection.
The performance and maintenance requirements of
existing systems should be monitored to identify problems
that could be lessened or eliminated by using a difference
barrier type.
Source: AASHTO, Roadside Design Guide, 2002, Chapter 5 Roadside Barriers.
Based on extensive research and trials over the past five years, the high tension cable
barrier system has become more prominent in the U.S. The cable (flexible) barrier has
its advantages from a cost and aesthetic perspective, over the various guardrail systems
or concrete barrier. The median slope and/or recovery area also affects the use and
placement of any barrier including guardrail.
5
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide, Washington,
D.C., 2002, Chapter 6 Update 2006.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 16
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
In addition to the cable barrier systems, the alternative types of guardrail were reviewed
for potential application on this route. Considerations included the volume of traffic,
relative amount of truck traffic and travel speeds. Based on these, the most applicable
types of guardrail for this route include the W-beam with strong post or the strong post
thrie-beam. These rails are appropriate for high speed highways and high volumes with
a relatively high proportion of truck traffic. Costs for each are somewhat similar though
the thrie-beam has a higher cost. The weak post W-beam and box beam can be
eliminated due to the slope and type of highway. The concrete barrier would generally
be applicable in urban sections with limited median widths available. As a result of this
review, it was determined that the median barrier options that are most valid for
consideration for Route 6 in this section are the cable barrier and strong post guard rail.
However, given the relative shortness of each “open” section, guardrail may be the most
appropriate barrier to install. The one exception could be east of Interchange No. 2
where a longer section (approx. one mile) could be addressed if connecting the two
short sections. This action would involve some clearing of existing vegetation.
In general, maintenance issues are also an important consideration in decisions
regarding median barrier installations. The maintenance issues that are of concern
include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Barrier hits per mile
Frequency of hits
Cost recovery
Cable downtime
Repair effect on traffic
Maintaining tension with cable system
Mowing median
Final selection of the barrier type should be based on the costs, physical condition of the
median, the ability to maintain a recovery zone, likely maintenance or repair
requirements, and compatibility with future planned pavement widening. The key points
of the cable barrier and guardrail systems are summarized below.
Cable Barrier
While the low tension generic cable system has been in existence for more than 50
years, most of the recent cable system research and installation is focused on the high
tension systems. There are currently six (6) manufacturers with systems approved by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for use under certain conditions. Research
on these types of barriers is ongoing. There are 3-rope or 4-rope cable systems as
shown in the following two photographs.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 17
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
This barrier type can be installed on slopes of 6:1 or flatter with little constraint on
placement. There are certain systems (eg. Brifen and Gibraltor 4 rope) that have been
approved for slopes as steep as 4:1 as of this writing. While cable barriers have been
shown to be cost-effective, there is ongoing research regarding its use and installation
that may affect its cost. The designer is strongly encouraged to review the most up to
date design standards and practices being used around the country prior to determining
the final design and installation costs.
Guardrail
The guardrail could be placed in the median where slopes are 10:1 or flatter as well as
at the edge of a steep slope or where minimal recovery zones exist. With the guardrail
placed within several feet of the pavement edge, a clear zone (or recovery area) would
be eliminated at least on one side of the median if guardrail is applied on only one side
of the median. In some locations where the topography of the median is fairly flat such
as on Route 6 in Sandwich, it may be possible to install a single line of double faced
barrier a greater distance from the pavement edge in this specific project area.
3 Cable CASS System on Route 213
4 – Rope Brifen System on I-495
Estimated per mile costs of the basic types of median barrier treatment to be considered
for this route are summarized in Table 6. Shown in the table are estimated per mile
costs of installing a cable barrier, a double faced W-beam guardrail and a double faced
thrie-beam guardrail. While noting the above discussion pertaining to cable barrier final
design and costs, a current planning cost of $144,000 per mile was determined taking
into account the past installations in Middleborough and Methuen. As can be seen, the
cable barrier is expected to be the lower cost option. The W-beam rail is a lower cost
option compared to the thrie-beam, however, there is slightly greater deflection with the
W-beam.
In this project location, four relatively short, distinct open areas were identified for
installing a barrier that total 1.3 miles.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 18
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
The sections are relatively short and guardrail may be the most appropriate barrier for
this study section. The thrie-beam guardrail would cost approximately $277,000. The
W-beam cost would be approximately $222,000.
If the two short sections east of Interchange No. 2 were connected resulting in a total
length of approximately 1 mile, cable barrier could be used with an approximate cost of
$144,000 for that specific location. Guardrail could be used in the other two open areas
at an estimated cost of $149,000.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON PER MILE COSTS
Cable vs. Guardrail
Costs/Mile
Cable
$144,000
W-beam
$171,000
Thrie beam
$213,000
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 19
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Recommendations
As a result of the RSA analysis and team input, a set of recommendations have been
identified and are summarized in Table 7. These actions are intended to reduce the
chance of cross-median crashes, reduce the severity of all crashes and improve the
overall safety condition of this section of Route 6 in Sandwich.
Identified in the table in addition to the risk factor and recommended action are the
estimated costs and potential timeframe (i.e. short (0-1 year), medium (1-3 years) and
long (>3 years)).
The major recommendation for the Route 6 section in Sandwich is to install a median
barrier in the section. Figure 8 illustrates graphically the locations. This action is
recommended to be a medium-term action given the narrowness of the median, the
potential of entering the median in the study section and it being a relatively low cost
action.
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Risk Factor
Risk
Rating
Recommended
Action
Estimated
Cost
Estimated
Timeframe
Areas of open, crossable
median
E
ƒ Install barrier in open areas (1.3
miles total)
$277,0001
ƒ Medium term
Lack of shoulders (both inside
and outside) with berms
E
ƒ Create 4 foot inside shoulders
TBD
ƒ Long term2
High speeds
D
ƒ Increase enforcement
TBD
ƒ Short term
“Authorized Vehicle Only”
turnaround locations and
misuse
C
ƒ Optimize location and
consolidate turnarounds
ƒ Use alternative signage for
restricted use
TBD
ƒ Medium term
Drainage problem – ponding
occur in several areas
D
Short accelerationdeceleration lanes and
inadequate signage
D
Driver guidance – signs worn
and obstructed
C
$2,000
ƒ Short term
ƒ Rehab. surface
TBD
ƒ Medium to
Long term
ƒ Provide shoulders
ƒ Extend accel-decel lane
markings
ƒ Provide adequate and
regulating (YIELD) signage
TBD
ƒ Long term2
TBD
$2,000
ƒ Long term2
ƒ Short term
$5,000
ƒ Medium term
TBD
$10,000
$22,000
ƒ Short term
ƒ Short term
ƒ Long term2
ƒ Install new warn signs
approaching Interchange No. 2
ƒ Clear/trim vegetation
ƒ Install delineator posts
ƒ Install rumble strips – inside
shoulder
1 Assumes four (4) short sections of thrie-beam guardrail
TBD – to be determined
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
2 Would be done as part of major rehabilitation project
Page 20
Section - East of
Interchange No. 2
(potentially 1 mile)
Potential barrier
installation area
Install barriers
0.3 miles
Section - Immediately
west of Interchange No. 3
(approx. 0.3 miles)
Install barriers
0.4 miles
Section - Immediately
west of Interchange No. 4
(approx. 0.4 miles)
Proposed Barrier Location
Route 6 Road Safety Audit
Sandwich, Massachusetts
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
NOT TO SCALE
Framingham, Massachusetts
Figure 8
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
The major actions related to addressing several of the safety factors on Route 6 in
Sandwich involve:
•
Widening the shoulders particularly the inside shoulder in relation to median
entry crashes (The widening of the shoulders allows for the installation of rumble
strips as well).
•
Improving the pavement surface and cross-section to address the drainage
condition.
•
Widening and lengthening the deceleration and acceleration lanes.
While these three actions are highly positive and based on input from RSA team
members would be expected to effectively improve safety in the study section.
However, they are high cost options that involve widening the existing cross-section in
each direction of approximately 28 feet to approximately 38 feet that includes providing a
4 foot inside shoulder and 10 foot outside shoulder. The wider outside shoulder allows
for improving the acceleration-deceleration lanes. Potential markings for these acceldecel lanes are included in the Appendix. The addition of a rumble strip to the inside
shoulder is estimated to cost $22,000 but cannot be done until the shoulder is widened.
This set of actions would also include a resurfacing with further adjustments to drainage
systems. More detailed engineering analysis is required to adequately determine the
costs for these actions, however, using a range of $200 to $300 per foot for each
direction and assuming the entire 6.4 mile study section is addressed would result in an
order of magnitude cost range of $6.8M to $10.1M per direction.
The RSA team noted that signage in the vicinity of the interchanges was inadequate or
had some issues such as visibility restricted due to vegetation over growth. Trimming
vegetation is a short term action that can be implemented at low cost. In addition, it may
be appropriate to install reminder warning signs (roadside or overhead) in relation to
approaching merging traffic. The most significant location appears to be Interchange
No. 2.
Signs such as that shown in Figure 9 could be considered for installing approximately
one half mile prior to the interchange in the eastbound direction and ¾ mile in the
westbound direction (prior to merge from parking area).
Flexible, reflective delineator posts can be installed along the median edge in the short
term to increase the visibility of the median and driver guidance. It is a relatively low
cost ($10,000).
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 22
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
MERGING
TRAFFIC
XXXX FEET
Approximate location on approach to Interchange No. 2 –
one half mile in eastbound direction and ¾ mile in
westbound direction
Figure 9
Merge Warning Sign
In terms of the “Authorized Vehicles Only turnaround”, the locations should be reviewed
and optimized. Several are currently located in the immediate vicinity of interchanges
where driving direction can be reversed through the interchange. At the same time,
there may be long sections of highway where no turnarounds exist and may be
desirable. Coordination between the highway department and State police should be
carried out to determine the most effective locations. The signage for the turnaround
currently indicates a “NO LEFT TURN”.
It may be more prudent to indicate
“AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY” as well as the associated fine that can be assigned
for misuse.
The final suggestion includes increased enforcement of speeds and inappropriate lane
changing in this section.
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Page 23
Route 6 Sandwich Road Safety Audit
Appendix
•
•
•
•
•
•
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
RSA Meeting Agenda
RSA Meeting Attendees
Median Crash Diagram
Crash Summary Data
Traffic Volume Data
Samples of Lane Markings
Page 24
Road Safety Audit
Sandwich – Route 6
Meeting Location: Jan Sebastian Drive Building Meeting Room
16 Jan Sebastian Drive, Sandwich
Thursday, October 16, 2008
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Cross Median – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
11:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
11:15 AM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Cross Median Crashes
11:30 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume Summaries– provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
12:00 PM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using RSA Prompt List as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
12:30 PM
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on October 16th participants are encouraged to drive
Route 6 in Sandwich and complete/consider elements on the RSA Prompt List with
a focus on safety factors affecting cross median crashes.
• All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout. Participants
are encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are reminded that the
synergy that develops and respect for others’ opinions are key elements to the
success of the overall RSA process.
• After the initial RSA meeting, participants will be asked to comment and respond
to the document materials to assure it is reflective of the RSA completed by the
multidisciplinary team.
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT MEETING
Route 6 Sandwich - October 16, 2008
Town Offices, Sandwich MA
Attendance List
Name
Agency/Dept.
Email
Bill Scully
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
bscullyjr@mac.com
Lisa Schletzbaum
MassHighway - Safey
lisa.schletzbaum@mhd.state.ma.us
George Russell
Sandwich Fire
grussell@townofsandwich.net
Kaiyan Jiang
MassHighway, Design
kaiyan.jiang@mhd.state.ma.us
Bonnie Polin
MassHighway, Safety
bonnie.polin@mhd.state.ma.us
Xian Chen
MassHighway
xian.chen@mhd.state.ma.us
Timothy White
FHWA
timothy.a.white@fhwa.dot.gov
Erin Kinahan
MassHighway, District 5
erin.kinahan@mhd.state.ma.us
Bill Travers
MassHighway, District 5
bill.travers@mhd.state.ma.us
Sam Jensen
Town of Sandwich
sjensen@townofsandwich.net
Lynn Gourley
SPD
lgourley@townofsandwich.net
Paul Tilton
Sandwich DPW
ptilton@townofsandwich.net
Mike Miller
Sandwich Police
mmiller@townofsandwich.net
Priscilla Leclerc
Cape Cod Commission
pleclerc@capecodcommission.org
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
MA
IN
ST
±
Route 6 Median Crashes
TU PPER ROAD
RE
ET
CR
AN
R
BE
RY
1
H
2
IG
4
H
3
AY
W
ER
WAT
Crash IDs
between 7 - 20
)
"
S TR
5
EE T
6
£
¤
6
6A
"
)2
21
23
Crash IDs
between 28 - 40
22
24 25
TY
UN
D
41
SANDWICH
Cross-Median, Non Fatal Crash
45 46
)
"
US
E
RO
AD
130
HO
Median, Non Fatal Crash
Crash IDs
between 53 - 65
47
48
49
51
TI
N
EE
52
ER
M
Interstate
"
)4
50
G
Major Roads
OA D
CH AS E R
QU
AK
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
0.6
0.9
D
OA
MR
0.3
OA D
* 2007 & 2008 crash files have not yet
been closed.
IT R
Municipal Boundary
A
KH
PIN
U
COT
Local
0
JON ES LA
NE
A
RO
42 43 - 44
Type of Median Crash 2004 - 2008 *
Median, Fatal Crash
CO
Legend
D
27
OL
"
)3
26
Miles
1.2
FARMERSV ILLE
RO
AD
G
AT
RE
H
IL
L
RO
AD
66
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY SAFETY DIVISION
MEDIAN-RELATED CRASH SUMMARY
ROADWAY:
STUDY PERIOD:
CITY:
Route 6
TO
8/31/2008 1
CRASH DAY
TIME OF DAY
TRAVEL
DIRECTION
1/1/2004
WEATHER
CONDITION
ROAD
SURFACE
Exits 2 - 4
REASON FOR
RUNNING OFF ROAD LEFT
VEHICLE
MOVEMENT
MEDIAN OR CROSS
MEDIAN CRASHES
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING
CAUSE
CRASH
SEVERITY
NO.
CRASH NUMBER
1
1900323
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
9:15 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle 1 tried to avoid a roll of carpet falling from the rear of vehicle 2 and lost control of vehicle
Right travel lane into median then across all EB lanes
Median
Other improper action
Property damage only
2
1993564
Friday, September 16, 2005
6:20 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy/Fog, smog
Wet
Driver not found on the scene. The investigation determined that the vehicle went off the left side of the roadway and struck the guardrail
Left travel lane into median guardrail then across all EB lanes
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
3
1900354
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
6:55 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Both vehicles speeding making several sharp lane changes, vehicle 1 hit vehicle 2
Left travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
4
1900203
Saturday, January 17, 2004
9:15 PM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle struck the median guardrail twice for unknown reason
Left travel lane into median then across all WB lanes
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
5
1806913
Sunday, April 25, 2004
2:20 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy
Dry
MV1 tried to avoid truck bedliner laying on the left lane then swerved suddenly to right causing MV2 on the right lost control of the vehicle
Right travel lane into median guard rail
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
6
1806914
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
3:15 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
Lost control of vehicle on wet roadway
Right travel lane into median then across all EB lanes
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
7
2114441
Saturday, June 24, 2006
12:00 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy/Clear
Wet
Driver traveled at a speed greater than reasonable
Right travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Property damage only
8
2053966
Friday, March 31, 2006
6:25 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Operator 1 stated unknown vehicle cut him off
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property damage only
9
1887969
Thursday, September 16, 2004
1:48 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle 1 tried to make a U-turn at the emergency turnaround
Right travel lane into median turnaround
Median
Inattention
Property damage only
10
2068893
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
11:35 AM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Lost control of vehicle for no apparent reason
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
11
2237525
Monday, October 01, 2007
10:00 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Cross-Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
12
1869639
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
2:20 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
MV2 tried to take the median cut out, this is a clearly posted no left turn area
EB left travel lane across median into WB left travel lane
Vehicle 2 stopped for a mattress in the roadway and vehicle 1 was unable to stop in time. Vehicle 1 struck the rear end of vehicle 2 causing vehicle 2 to cross the
median into W/B
EB left lane across median into WB right travel lane
Cross-Median
Following too close
Non-fatal injury
13
1806906
Thursday, February 05, 2004
1:10 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle tried to merge into traffic from on-ramp and lost control of vehicle
Right travel lane into median
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Non-fatal injury
14
1888644
Friday, October 15, 2004
2:55 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle 1 change to left lane and struck vehicle 2. Vehicle 2 enters the median and rolled over
Left travel lane into median
Median
Made an improper turn
Non-fatal injury
15
2198087
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
2:10 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy
Wet
Vehicle skidded on wet surface
Right travel lane into median
Median
Swerving or avoiding due to slippery surfaceProperty damage only
16
2261723
Friday, November 16, 2007
3:30 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
MV1 lost control of vehicle due to a patch of standing water on the roadway
Right travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
17
2334541
Saturday, May 31, 2008
9:12 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy
Dry
Driver swerved to avoid a deer and lost control of vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
18
2314365
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
1:05 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
No operator on scene. Lost control for unknown reason
Left travel lane into median guard rail then bounce back onto BDL guard railMedian
Not reported
Property damage only
19
2275776
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
4:30 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle was being pursued by Plymouth & State police as stolen motor vehicle. The front tires of vehicle deflated and lost control
Right travel lane into median guardrail
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
20
2332030
Friday, April 18, 2008
11:54 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Operator 1 stated he got hit by a dark colored pickup truck and went off the road
Right lane into median guardrail then across all EB lanes into right guard railMedian
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
21
1993717
Monday, October 17, 2005
2:30 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator does not recall events, witnesses observed, speeding & weaving
Left travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
22
2114583
Saturday, September 23, 2006
5:15 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver lost control of vehicle and went into the median. The driver doesn't remember anything
Left lane into median then spun back into the right shoulder
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
Property damage only
23
1807192
Friday, July 23, 2004
12:20 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator 1 stated that the vehicle on the right was traveling too close to his lane causing him to veer off into the median
Left travel lane into median
Median
24
1890564
Saturday, December 18, 2004
9:35 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
Witnesses stated vehicle 2 struck vehicle 1 from behind at approximately 90-100+ MPH
Right travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
Operating vehicle in a reckless, careless
manner
Non-fatal injury
25
1885859
Friday, January 21, 2005
10:20 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Driver lost control hit snowbank on left side, flipped over and hit tree
Right travel lane into median
Median
Operating vehicle in a reckless, careless
manner
Non-fatal injury
26
1900315
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
4:15 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle was cut-off by unknown vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Non-fatal injury
27
2275217
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
12:00 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
OUI Alcohol
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
28
2053963
Friday, March 31, 2006
3:15 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle2 in right lane moved into left lane occupied by vehicle1 which caused vehicle1 to skid into median
Left travel lane into median
Median
Unknown
29
1806907
Friday, February 06, 2004
11:40 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Cloudy/Snow
Snow
Driver lost control of vehicle for unknown reason
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Property damage only
30
2053982
Sunday, April 02, 2006
10:00 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Wet
MV1 swerved and lost control of the vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Property damage only
31
2134029
Monday, December 04, 2006
8:30 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Cloudy/Snow
Wet
Vehicle swerved to avoid collision with another vehicle and lost control of vehicle
EB left travel lane across median and across all WB lanes into right guardrailCross-Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Non-fatal injury
32
2228945
Friday, August 24, 2007
4:55 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Operator veered onto left soft shoulder when attempting to get into left lane, lost control
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
33
2229449
Saturday, September 01, 2007
8:29 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle was cut-off by unknown vehicle
Right travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
34
2301224
Friday, March 28, 2008
2:16 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
Driver lost control of vehicle for unknown reason
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
35
2226246
Saturday, July 28, 2007
6:12 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator looked in rear view mirror too long
Left travel lane into median guard rail then rolled over 5 times
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
36
2265301
Thursday, December 13, 2007
5:28 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Snow/Sleet, hail
Snow
Driver lost control of vehicle due to heavy snow
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
37
2332088
Thursday, May 15, 2008
10:29 PM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle 1 tried to cut across the left lane and entered the median
WB right travel lane across median into EB left travel lane
Cross-Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
38
2224480
Thursday, July 26, 2007
1:11 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator stated she became dizzy and lost control of vehicle
Left travel lane into median across all WB lanes into right guardrail
Median
Not reported
Not reported
39
2274371
Saturday, January 12, 2008
3:17 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
No operator on scene
Left travel lane into median guard rail then across all WB lanes
Median
Not reported
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
Property damage only
40
1890582
Thursday, December 23, 2004
4:25 PM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Cloudy
Wet
Vehicle 2 lost control, was struck by vehicle1 in right lane and struck tree in median
Left travel lane into right travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
41
1928713
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
1:30 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Driver lost control of vehicle for unknown reason
Right travel lane into median
Median
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
Non-fatal injury
42
2220005
Monday, April 02, 2007
6:40 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Rain
Wet
Operator 1 attempted to pass another vehicle and hydro-planed into standing water at fog line
Left travel lane into median
Median
Other improper action
Property damage only
43
1928463
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
9:42 AM
Eastbound
Not reported
Clear/Cloudy
Wet
Operator 1 attempted to pass vehicle 2 and lost control of vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
44
1993764
Thursday, July 07, 2005
10:45 PM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Witness stated that operator 1 lost control of vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded Authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
45
2114435
Monday, June 19, 2006
12:00 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
No operator on scene, keys were in the ignition. Due to speed and other unknown reasons vehicle skidded left, sideways, and off the roadway.
EB right travel lane across median and across all WB lanes
Cross-Median
46
2053981
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Operator 1 drives off roadway for unknown reason
Left travel lane into median
Not reported
Not reported
Disregarded traffic signs, signals, road
markings
Non-fatal injury
47
2051704
Monday, January 23, 2006
8:00 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Snow/Sleet, hail
Snow
Operator 1 lost control of vehicle due to weather conditions
Left travel lane into median then across all EB lanes
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
48
1887820
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
11:30 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Vehicle's front tire blew out
Right travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
Operating vehicle in a reckless, careless
manner
Property damage only
4:30 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Median
Property damage only
49
1928953
Saturday, June 18, 2005
1:42 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Fog, smog/Cloudy
Dry
Witnesses stated vehicle 1 went onto the left dirt median several times, before she lost control
Left travel into median across back all EB lanes
Median
50
1888014
Friday, September 24, 2004
2:20 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator 1 stated that she hit an object a few miles prior in the roadway, causing her vehicle to lose control
Right travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Non-fatal injury
51
2114506
Saturday, August 05, 2006
5:55 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver was not paying attention and lost control of vehicle
Right travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
52
2236072
Saturday, September 15, 2007
7:35 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Rain
Wet
MV1 lost control of vehicle due to wet roadway surface in heavy rain
Left travel lane into median then across all EB lanes
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
53
2114558
Friday, September 08, 2006
6:18 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver changed lane to an already occupied lane and strike the left side of another vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
54
1993889
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
7:58 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear/Other
Dry
Driver was not paying attention to the roadway conditions and lost control of vehicle
Right travel lane into median
Median
Glare
Property damage only
55
2161782
Monday, February 12, 2007
2:20 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver swerved to avoid a illegally parked vehicle in the left travel lane, causing him to lose control of vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
56
2157497
Friday, February 16, 2007
8:50 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Witness stated that the vehicle passed him at a high rate speed of approximately 90MPH and traveled into the median
Left travel lane into median then across all EB lanes into right shoulder
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Fatal injury
57
2365644
Thursday, August 14, 2008
2:30 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator 1 stated that a tractor trailer was changing lanes and forced her vehicle off the road
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
58
2347295
Thursday, July 10, 2008
9:07 AM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Vehicle's right rear tire blew out
Right travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
59
2275720
Friday, January 25, 2008
12:00 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
No operator on scene. Lost control for unknown reason
Ramp across both travel lanes into median guardrail
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
60
2051657
Saturday, January 07, 2006
1:35 AM
Westbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle tried to merge into traffic from on-ramp and lost control of vehicle due to speeding
Ramp across both travel lane into median guardrail
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Property damage only
61
2274373
Friday, January 18, 2008
8:05 AM
Westbound
Daylight
Cloudy/Rain
Wet
Vehicle struck a puddle and lost control
Left travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Property damage only
62
1997366
Friday, December 09, 2005
8:17 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Snow
Snow
Driver traveled at a speed greater than reasonable for ice&snow covered road
Right travel lane into median then into BDL
Median
Driving too fast for conditions
Property damage only
63
1885724
Thursday, July 08, 2004
7:45 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver attempted to pass a minivan, but was struck by the minivan and caused it to veer to the left and into the median
Left travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Non-fatal injury
64
1719869
Sunday, January 04, 2004
4:00 AM
Westbound
Daylight
Cloudy
Dry
Operator was on the phone and lost control of her vehicle
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Not reported
1890682
Monday, December 27, 2004
Vehicle skidded on snowy surface
Right travel lane into median
65
3:40 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Snow
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
66
2188518
Thursday, April 12, 2007
3:15 PM
Eastbound
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Vehicle passed over a puddle in heavy rain causing it to hydroplane, swerved right then fish-tailed left into the median
Left travel lane into median rolled over then across all EB lanes
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Non-fatal injury
67
1801508 *
Friday, February 06, 2004
11:58 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Snow
Slush
Lost control of vehicle on wet roadway
EB right travel lane across median into WB left travel lanes
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Property damage only
68
1900349 *
Saturday, June 05, 2004
1:40 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Lost control of vehicle and rolled into the median
Right travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Non-fatal injury
69
1928799 *
Thursday, May 12, 2005
5:25 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver lost control of the vehicle and went into the median
Left travel lane into median
Median
Exceeded authorized speed limit
Property damage only
70
1993492 *
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
8:25 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Rain
Wet
Drive lost control of vehicle due to rain storm
Left travel lane into median
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
71
1993701 *
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
8:05 AM
Eastbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Operator 2 took his eyes off the road and ran into vehicle 1 that was slowing down for solar glare, and ended in the median
Left travel lane into median
Median
Inattention
Non-fatal injury
72
2114660 *
Friday, October 13, 2006
2:55 AM
Eastbound
Dark -not lighted
Clear
Dry
Vehicle 2 drove through the debris causing vehicle 2 to go off of the road
Right travel lane into median guardrail
Median
Failure to keep in proper lane
Non-fatal injury
73
2219824 *
Friday, March 16, 2007
3:05 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Sleet, hail
Slush
Driver lost control due to the weather conditions
Right travel lane into median
Median
No improper driving
Property damage only
74
2321853 *
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
1:49 PM
Westbound
Daylight
Clear
Dry
Driver tried to past an unknown vehicle in the dirt on the left hand side and lost control in the dirt
Right travel lane into median
Median
Not reported
Non-fatal injury
* Crashes that were not able to be located
1
Sandwich
LOCATION:
LIGHT
CONDITION
This summary contains only those records contained in the RMV database as of September 8, 2008
Ice
TOTAL NO.
74
TOTAL NO.
LIGHT CONDITION
WEATHER CONDITION
DAYLIGHT
DARK NOT LIGHTED
NOT REPORTED
CLEAR
CLOUDY
RAIN
SNOW/SLEET
41
32
1
46
8
10
8
2
55%
43%
1%
62%
11%
14%
11%
3%
FATAL CRASH
DRY
WET
1
50
17
7
1%
68%
23%
9%
DRIVING TOO
FAST FOR
CONDITIONS
DISREGARDED TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, ROAD MARKINGS
MEDIAN OR CROSS MEDIAN
CRASH SEVERITY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
NOT REPORTED
ONLY
4
30
FOG,SMOG,SMOKE
ROAD SURFACE
SNOW/ SLUSH
MEDIAN
CROSS MEDIAN
NON-FATAL INJURY
69
5
39
74
93%
7%
53%
41%
TOTAL NO.
FAILURE TO KEEP IN
PROPER LANE
OPERATING VEHICLE IN A
RECKLESS, CARELESS
MANNER
EXCEEDED
AUTHORIZED SPEED
LIMIT
NO IMPROPER
DRIVING
13
3
11
9
1
22
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
74
18%
4%
15%
12%
1%
30%
7%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
3%
5%
DRIVER CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
MADE AN
NOT REPORTED
IMPROPER TURN
2007 & 2008 CRASH INFORMATION IS NOT COMPLETE
CRASH SUMMARY IS BASED ON ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED CRASH REPORTS WITH POLICE NARRATIVES
SWERVING OR AVOIDING DUE TO SLIPPERY SURFACE
FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSE
UNKNOWN
GLARE
INATTENTION
OTHER IMPROPER
ACTION
RT-6, Between Exits 2 & 3 07/27/2005
Eastbound Westbound
Direction
Direction
TOTAL
Start time
12:00 AM
297
161
458
1:00 AM
140
128
268
2:00 AM
102
74
176
3:00 AM
71
100
171
4:00 AM
193
262
455
5:00 AM
400
718
1,118
6:00 AM
1,133
1,345
2,478
7:00 AM
1,799
1,708
3,507
8:00 AM
2,032
1,873
3,905
9:00 AM
1,846
2,028
3,874
10:00 AM
2,102
2,070
4,172
11:00 AM
2,181
2,211
4,392
12:00 PM
2,147
2,030
4,177
1:00 PM
1,968
1,974
3,942
2:00 PM
2,082
2,088
4,170
3:00 PM
2,259
2,364
4,623
4:00 PM
2,247
2,367
4,614
5:00 PM
2,250
2,241
4,491
6:00 PM
1,978
1,789
3,767
7:00 PM
1,545
1,373
2,918
8:00 PM
1,283
1,087
2,370
9:00 PM
1,055
892
1,947
10:00 PM
808
607
1,415
11:00 PM
476
477
953
Daily Total
32,394
31,967
64,361
Eastbound Direction
Westbound Direction
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Time of Day
PM
:0
0
PM
10
00
8:
00
PM
PM
6:
00
4:
00
2:
0
:0
12
PM
PM
AM
0
AM
:0
10
00
8:
00
AM
AM
6:
00
AM
4:
00
2:
:0
0
AM
0
12
Hourly Volume (Number of Vehicles)
Directional Traffic Volumes along RT 6, Between Exits 2 & 3, Sandwich
Wednesday, July, 27, 2005
a-Parallel
deceleration lane
b-Tapered
deceleration lane
Neutral area
Optional
chevron
markings
Channelizing
lines
Theoretical gore
point
Channelizing
lines
Broken lane
markings for
one-half of
full-width
deceleration
lane
Optional
dotted
extension
of lane
line
Legend
Direction of
travel
Source: MUTCD
Potential Pavement Markings Off-Ramp Deceleration Lanes
NOT TO SCALE
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts
Neutral area
Optional chevron
markings
Theoretical gore
point
Broken or dotted lane line
markings for full length of
acceleration/deceleration lane
Channelizing
lines
Legend
Direction of
travel
Source: MUTCD
Example of Channelizing Line Applications
for Entrance-Exit (Weave) Ramp Markings
NOT TO SCALE
MS Transportation Systems, Inc.
Framingham, Massachusetts