Lane. Prepared by. and. Prepared for

Transcription

1 Lane Departure Road Safety Audit for Interstate 290 through Worcester, Massachusetts Prepared by Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission and University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program Prepared for Massachusetts Highway Department Federal Highway Administration

2 1.0 Introduction to Road Safety Audits & Lane Departure Crashes in Massachusetts 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. Specific objectives of an RSA include, but are not limited to the following: Minimizing the risk and severity of road crashes that may be affected by the existing or future roadway at a specific location or nearby network; Improving the awareness of safe design practices which are likely to result in safety benefits based upon potential safety concerns. Although RSA s have been employed in other countries for some time, they are being fully embraced across the United States as a low cost opportunity to make significant safety improvements at any number of stages ranging from project development and planning through existing operation. Furthermore, RSA s have proven to be effective on projects of all shapes and sizes. The RSA program here in the Commonwealth presents a unique and exciting opportunity for improvements in roadway safety. The RSA program in Massachusetts is being implemented in accordance with the Commonwealth s role as a lead state in preventing run-off the road (lane departure) crashes and in conjunction with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Lane departure crashes are a notable problem area for Massachusetts, especially for crashes with high injury severities. Between 2002 and 2004, lane departure crashes accounted for nearly 20 percent of all crashes in Massachusetts and approximately one-quarter of crashes involving an incapacitating injury. Almost one-half of fatal crashes between 2002 and 2004 were lane departure crashes. As the crash severity increases, so too does the percent of crashes that is lane departures as shown in Figure 1. All Massachusetts Crashes, Massachusetts Incapacitating Injury Crashes, Massachusetts Fatal Crashes, % 24.5% 46.2% Lane Departure Crashes Other Crashes Figure 1 Relationship between Lane Departure Crashes and Injury Severity In an effort to combat the lane departure problem, a strategy was developed for the SHSP to identify hot spot lane departure locations, perform road safety audits and implement low-cost comprehensive countermeasures. The following report summarizes the findings of a RSA focused on lane departure crashes (LD-RSA) along Interstate 290 (I-290) through Worcester, Massachusetts. Page 2

3 2.0 Background Material for Interstate 290 I-290 is a 20 mile segment of highway that stretches from Auburn, Massachusetts to Marlborough, Massachusetts. I-290 connects the Massachusetts Turnpike (I- 90) through downtown Worcester, Massachusetts and bends east towards Marlborough, Massachusetts before ending at Interstate 495. Worcester is the second largest city in New England, located in Worcester County, with a population estimated to be over 175,000 in Within Worcester, I-290 extends approximately 7 miles and has 12 exits which provide access to facilities such as the Worcester Regional Airport, the Amtrak/Commuter Rail Station, local colleges, and other major roads (Interstates and state routes). Three of the twelve exits are westbound exit/eastbound entrance only, three are eastbound exit/westbound entrance only, and one has no westbound entrance. The cross section for I-290 varies from three up to a maximum of five lanes in each direction at various points as it passes through downtown Worcester. A sample cross-section for I-290 is shown in Figure 2, Figure 2 Interstate 290 in Worcester and a summary of major characteristics, including crash summaries, is presented in Figure 3. The LD-RSA for I-290 was held on November 28, 2007 at the CMRPC offices in Worcester, Massachusetts. In total, 12 team members participated in the road safety audit as listed in Table 1, and as indicated representatives were present from Federal, State, Regional and Local agencies including a cross-section of engineering/planning, education, and enforcement expertise. Members of the lane departure road safety audit team were encouraged to visit I-290 prior to the meeting to familiarize themselves with the roadway attributes and characteristics. A copy of the meeting agenda and instructions, as well as a packet of pertinent information was distributed to RSA meeting invitees prior to the meeting; this information is included in the Appendix of this report. Table 1 Participating Audit Team Members Audit Team Members Bonnie Polin Neil Boudreau One Hwang Lisa Schletzbaum Sylvia Hertl Tim White Ken Petraglia Mark Johnson Joe Frawley Dan Nicoloro Kevin Krasnecky Michael Knodler Agency/Affiliation Massachusetts Highway Department Safety Management Unit Massachusetts Highway Department Traffic Engineering Section Massachusetts Highway Department Highway Design Massachusetts Highway Department Safety Management Unit Massachusetts Highway Department Safety Management Unit Federal Highway Administration Beta Group, Inc. Massachusetts Highway Department District 3 Traffic Engineering Massachusetts Highway Department District 3 Traffic Engineering Massachusetts State Police Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission University of Massachusetts Amherst Page 3

4 In WB direction the area after the merge with I-190 becomes 5 lanes prior to a middle lane drop Combined horizontal and vertical curve East toward I-495 Dual exit 19 & 20 in EB direction Vertical curve (downgrade EB) with fairly straight alignment ATR Location #3 Sept Core area of downtown Worcester which is serviced by a series of closely spaced interchanges, including exits 13, 14, 15, and 16 ATR Location #2 Aug Cluster of lane departure crashes. Tangent section of roadway following / leading curves with in an area with limited concrete median or roadside barriers Horizontal curve with enhanced delineation ATR Location #1 Sept Southwest to Auburn and MassPike (I-90) As may be expected there is a high level of adjacent development and visual activity throughout the corridor Figure 3 Major Characteristics for Interstate 290 through Worcester Page 4

5 Additional information regarding crashes, volumes, and speed limits were summarized during the course of the meeting as follows. Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) traffic count data was provided for both the eastbound and westbound directions from three different ATR studies, which are summarized in Table 2. As shown the ADT varies from the core of downtown Worcester as compared to the study location just south of downtown. Through downtown the ADT exceeds 125,000, with a slightly higher eastbound volume. During peak periods there are over 10,000 vehicles on I-290. Table 2 Summary of Observed Traffic Volumes along Route 24 Interval ATR Location #1 I-290 North of Hope Ave. September 2007 ATR Location #2 I-290 at East Central Street August 2007 ATR Location #3 I-290 at Lincoln Street September 2007 Start time EB WB TOTAL EB WB TOTAL EB WB TOTAL 12:00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 AM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM :00 PM Daily Totals Page 5

6 Observed travel speeds and speed limits are a concern on along I-290. On either side of Worcester, I-290 is posted at 65 mph, with actual travel speeds likely in excess of that value based upon anecdotal accounts of RSA team members present; however through the existing curvature and the core of downtown Worcester, the posted speed limit is 50 mph. This reduction, as well as driver s recognition of it, and adherence to it, is discussed in greater detail later in this report. The actual speed regulations for I-290 through Worcester are summarized in Table 3. Table 2 Summary of Speed Regulations for I-290 in Worcester Eastbound Westbound Beginning at the Auburn line Beginning at the Shrewsbury line 0.51 miles at 65 mph 1.45 miles at 65 mph 4.87 miles at 50 mph 4.88 miles at 50 mph 1.46 miles at 65 mph 0.51 miles at 65 mph Ending at the Shrewsbury line Ending at the Auburn line MassHighway compiled, and distributed I-290 crash data. There were 371 reported crashes along I-290 in Worcester between 2005 and Of these crashes, 29 percent (109 crashes) were lane departure crashes (plotted in Figure 3), and 6 percent were work zone crashes; the frequency of work zone crashes is not surprising given both the magnitude and duration of construction along this corridor. A comprehensive summary of the 371 crashes is included within the Appendix; however, some of the key observations include the following: o 65 percent of all crashes occurred during daylight conditions, and 26 percent occurred at night. By comparison, 51 percent of lane departure crashes occurred at night. o Considering all crashes, the predominant crash pattern was rear-end crashes (48 percent) followed by single vehicle crashes (25 percent), and sideswipes in the same direction (17 percent). 94 percent of the lane departure crashes involved a single vehicle. o For lane departure crashes, 36 and 26 percent of crashes involved a median barrier or guard rail, respectively. o Lane departure crashes tended to be more severe as 60 percent involved an injury (59 percent) or fatality (1 percent). Amongst all crashes, 30 percent involved an injury (29 percent) or fatality (1 percent). o A variety of driver contributing codes were included for lane departure crashes: failure to keep proper lane (26 percent), driving too fast for conditions (17 percent), exceeding authorized speed limit (13 percent), operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless manner (9 percent), over correcting / over-steering (7 percent), and unknown or not reported (18 percent). Additional resources made available to the team during the audit meeting included field videos from several drives along I-290 which were used in aiding discussion of specific roadway elements. Also available were possible resources including the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the related National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 500 series reports. Page 6

7 3.0 Characterization of Major Traffic Safety Challenges Following a brief introduction to the RSA process in general, the meeting participants were asked to summarize and characterize potential safety considerations along I-290 through Worcester. The initial characterization of the major safety considerations focused on several key elements. An initial topic of conversation was related to speeds throughout the corridor. Of specific concern was the reduction in speed (65 to 50 mph) that occurs on both ends of this segment. The Massachusetts State Police had sent a letter requesting enhanced signage or other measures which would alert drivers to the speed reduction. These sentiments were echoed by many of the RSA team members in attendance. Coupled with this concern over reductions were the anecdotal reports of off-peak speeds which were reported in the range of 80 to 85 mph. A second major concern in the westbound direction was the overall 5-lane cross-section and merging / weaving once I-190 joins in to I-290. Specifically cited was the wide cross-section with worn pavement markings, as well as the fact that the downstream lane drop is a merge of two middle lanes. Also noted was the perceived panic which some drivers experience resulting in drivers attempting to move right, immediately after the merge occurs to access the next downstream exit. The existing work zones and construction, which have been ongoing for some time, were discussed; however, it was reported that major construction is scheduled for completion in the spring of Traffic spills back on to I-290 from some of the exit ramps. The safety concern was attributed to the adjacent surface intersections that were not equipped to process the existing traffic. A specific example mentioned was Exit 18 where an intersection two blocks from the interchange (Salisbury Street) queues enough to impede the exiting right-turn traffic from I-290. The traveling conditions along I-290 vary considerably throughout the course of the day and across days of the week. This is particularly true in light of the current construction and associated work zones. Some concern was raised about how this information is related to drivers. It is relevant to note that there are overhead variable message signs (see Figure 4) at both ends of this corridor which are operated by the traffic operations center out of Boston. Merging from some of the area on-ramps was discussed. A specific example mentioned was the on-ramp from Grafton Street (Exit 14) that has a high jersey barrier, which obstructs visibility of traffic streams, both entering and main line, from one another (see Figure 5). Another cited on-ramp was from East Central Street where drivers nervous about weaving attempt to do so as quickly as possible, often before it is safe. Other significant factors mentioned at the outset of the meeting included the following: o A clogged catch basin near Vernon Street; o Condition of existing pavement markings and signage; o Overall pavement conditions; o Condition of cobblestones and/or markings for on-ramps; and o Condition of crash cushions for off-ramps. Figure 4 Current VMS Figure 5 On-ramp from Grafton Street Page 7

8 4.0 Summary of Short Term Recommendations for I-290 through Worcester The formal review of potential safety concerns along I-290 was completed by the entire audit team. Following identification of a potential safety issue, the dialogue focused on possible countermeasures with some preliminary discussion regarding the feasibility of implementation (timeframe and cost) as well as the potential payoff of safety benefits. Given the potential for an immediate impact, there was an added focus on short term (less than 1 year) and low cost (less than $10,000) improvements that could be implemented quickly resulting in a positive safety impact. Unlike other roadways being evaluated as part of the Massachusetts LD-RSA process, some of the opportunities for I-290 are limited because of its Interstate classification. Additionally, it may be expected that associated costs for recommended strategies may be higher again because of the Interstate classification. For example, routine maintenance may cost more in this application because of the challenges and requirements for completing this along the Interstate. Based partly in response to concern from the Massachusetts State Police, the Massachusetts Highway Department previously reviewed opportunities that would enhance communication of the changing roadway environment to drivers on either side of this roadway segment. In particular, there was a desire to alert drivers of the speed reduction and curvature. A summary of the complete changes, which includes the proposed changes as well as discussion regarding other alternatives that were deemed not applicable, is included in the Appendix. Some of the proposed signage scheduled to be added in the spring of 2008 is shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 Proposed Signage for Interstate 290 Page 8

9 A majority of the remaining short-term recommendations were related to general maintenance and included some of the following tasks: Replace worn or damaged signage (e.g. Exit 19 WB sign was downed at time of field visit); Repair glare paddles that are damaged around horizontal curve near I-190; Reapply pavement markings that are currently very worn through/north of downtown area and consider exploring higher quality markings based upon benefit/cost analysis; Repair loose cobblestones in the area near several on-ramps; Inspect crash cushions at off-ramps including sand barrels that were broken open (EB in downtown area) at the time of the field visit; and Inspect and repair catch basin near Vernon Street which floods the nearby by ramp in the eastbound direction. Some other short term recommendations that should be considered are listed below. Enhance signage near Grafton Street on-ramp that would alert drivers of oncoming traffic. Please note that longer-term strategies should possibly be considered here as the limited sight distance could be problematic. Examples may include installation of a device that separates traffic streams until sight distance for the weave is provided. Identify opportunities to utilize and expand upon the ITS infrastructure that is in place. From a safety perspective, the most recognizable safety benefit would be communication of dynamic roadway conditions to drivers (i.e., congestion ahead, crash ahead, etc.). Consider modifications at adjacent surface streets that would help prevent vehicles from queuing on to the I-290 mainline. Many different types of modifications have the opportunity to result in potential improvements to safety along I-290. A specific example is the proposed signal timing modifications at Lincoln Square. 5.0 Summary of Additional I-290 Countermeasures Although an emphasis was placed upon short term and low cost improvements that could be carried out immediately, the focus of the team was not limited to those constraints. The following section details countermeasures discussed by the team, which are reflective of all costs and timeframes and includes both general (entire corridor) and specific safety opportunities. Please note that with respect to the timeframe, there are some unknown variables that must be further explored. Several definitions exist for low, mid, and high cost as well as for short, mid and long term implementation timeframes. For purposes of this report, low cost improvements will be under $10,000, mid costs will be under $50,000, and high costs will be above $50,000. From a timeframe perspective, short term will refer to implementation timeframes less than 1 year, while mid and long term will refer to countermeasures that will take 1 to 3, and greater than 3 years, respectively. Page 9

10 Potential Safety Issue Communicating changing conditions to drivers, specifically, speed reduction & curvature Interchange improvements Possible Countermeasures Continue with proposed signage recommended by MassHighway (see Appendix for details). After the signage is added, an evaluation should be completed to determine its effectiveness, which may result in the identification of other safety opportunities. Explore ways of improving operations at these intersections where congestion problems have been reported and consider how this may tie in with current/proposed developments. Implementation Timeframe & Cost Short Term & Low Cost Short Term & Low Cost Potential Safety Payoff High Low Solutions of all timeframes, costs, and safety payoffs are possible Photos Concrete medians barriers Add median barrier reflectors. Short Term & Low Cost Low Sight distance at Grafton Street on ramp to I-290EB Enhance signage near Grafton Street on-ramp that would alert drivers of oncoming traffic. Short Term & Low Cost Low Driver behavior issues Explore expanded partnerships with HSD for education and enforcement support regarding high speed, aggressive driving and road rage, distracted driving, and tailgating. Short Term & Low/Mid Cost Mid/High Page 10

11 Potential Safety Issue Possible Countermeasures Implementation Timeframe & Cost Potential Safety Payoff Photos Drainage and pavement concerns Repair poor pavement areas (e.g. through / north of downtown). Perform catch basin inspection to improve current drainage, specifically the I-290 EB catch basin near Vernon Street. Long Term & High Cost Short Term & Low Cost Mid/High Low/Mid Markings & delineation Improve pavement markings through/north of downtown and evaluate highly reflective and durable pavement markings using a benefit /cost analysis. Mid Term & Mid/High Cost High Expand ITS related activity Integrate ITS technology such as cameras and variable message signs, which can be employed for monitoring (operations or crashes), driver feedback regarding congestion, or weather conditions. Long Term & High Cost Mid/High Merge from I-190 with I-290WB Consider alternative to eliminate confusing center lane merge, and provide a more orderly flow through 5-lane cross-section where unnecessary weaves are made. Short Term & Low Cost; however actual improvement will be long-term Low Page 11

12 6.0 Discussion As previously noted, the opportunities for safety improvements for I-290 may be somewhat restrictive or expensive as compared to other roadways. Nevertheless, it is important to note that for the safety improvement opportunities described in the previous sections: 1) many treatments are both low cost and short term; and 2) there is a complimentary nature of many of the safety strategies in that one improvement may address multiple safety issues. Please note that although this document provides a series of specific recommendations which warrant short term implementation, it should be noted that the approach towards improved safety is dynamic in nature and warrants revisiting over time. It is also worth noting that some of the modifications may already be in the process of implementation. For example, proposed signage is scheduled for spring 2008; some of this may be included as part of current construction, and the remainder should be considered moving forward. Several additional topics that were discussed at the audit meeting and warrant consideration. Some discussion was focused upon the closure and/or consolidation of on-ramps, such as the two on-ramps from Grafton Street. As another example, it was noted that the Vernon Street ramp was closed during construction, and it was also noted that Belmont Street to I-290WB is a high rear-end crash location. In the end, it was believed that existing volumes were too high for such closures; however perhaps these could be explored with any long-range plans in the future. Another element discussed related to interchanges was the I-290 EB split at I-190, and in particular the weave from the Lincoln Street on ramp. There was a suggestion to add a lane from the ramp and continue it through. This may be considered, moving forward. Success stories were woven in to the discussion as well. Two safety aspects that were cited included the curve delineation as well as the improved roadway lighting. There was some discussion at the RSA meeting regarding what lessons could be learned from the major construction effort undertaken on I-290. It may be worth developing a brief report which reflects upon the work zone practices and their impacts; this which may be useful in developing future work zones across the Commonwealth. Page 12

13 7.0 Appendix: Distributed RSA Meeting Materials Materials provided to RSA team members in advance of the meeting included the following: 1. Agenda 2. RSA and Lane Departure Introduction 3. Crash Data Summary 4. Geo-Located Crash Map 5. LD-RSA Checklist 6. MassHighway Letter Detailing Proposed Signage Page 13

14 Road Safety Audit for Worcester I-290 Meeting Place: Central Mass Regional Planning Commission 35 Harvard Street, Worcester Wednesday, November 28, :00 11:00 AM Type of meeting: Attendees: Please bring: Lane Departure Road Safety Audit Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team Thoughts and Enthusiasm!! 9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions 9:15 AM Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Lane Departure Crashes 9:30 AM Review of Site Specific Material Crash & Volume provided in advance Existing Geometries and Conditions Video and Images 10:00 AM Completion of RSA Identification of Safety Concerns using checklists as a guide Identification of Possible Countermeasures 11:00 AM Adjourn for the Day but the RSA has not ended Instructions for Participants: Before attending the RSA on November 28th participants are encouraged to drive I-290 within Worcester, MA and complete/consider elements on the RSA advisory checklist with a focus on safety factors affecting roadway departure 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. Page 14

15 Introduction to Road Safety Audits & Lane Departure Crashes in Massachusetts 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. Specific objectives of an RSA include, but are not limited to the following: Minimize the risk and severity of road crashes that may be affected by the existing or future roadway at a specific location or nearby network; Improve the awareness of safe design practices which are likely to result in safety benefits based upon potential safety concerns. Although RSA s have been employed in other countries for some time, they are being fully embraced across the United States as a low cost opportunity to make significant safety improvements at any number of stages ranging from project development and planning through existing operation. Furthermore, RSA s have proven to be effective on projects of all shapes and sizes. The RSA program here in the Commonwealth prevents a unique and exciting opportunity for improvements in roadway safety. The RSA program in Massachusetts is being implemented in accordance with the Commonwealth s role as a Lead State in preventing run-off the road (lane departure) crashes and in conjunction with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Lane departure crashes are a notable problem area for Massachusetts, especially for crashes with higher injury severities. Between 2002 and 2004, lane departure crashes accounted for nearly 20 percent of all crashes in Massachusetts and approximately one-quarter of crashes involving an incapacitating injury. Almost one-half of fatal crashes between 2002 and 2004 were lane departure crashes. As the crash severity increases, so does the percent of crashes that are lane departures as shown in the figure below. All Massachusetts Crashes, Massachusetts Incapacitating Injury Crashes, Massachusetts Fatal Crashes, % 24.5% 46.2% Lane Departure Crashes Other Crashes In an effort to combat the lane departure problem, a strategy was developed for the SHSP to identify hot spot lane departure location, perform road safety audits and implement low-cost comprehensive countermeasures. Page 15

16 Page 16

17 Page 17

18 Page 18

19 Page 19

20 Page 20

21 GEOMETRIC DESIGN Issue Comment A. Speed (Design Speed; Speed Limit & Zoning; Sight Distance; Overtaking Are there speed-related issues along the corridor? Please consider the following elements: Horizontal and vertical alignment; Posted and advisory speeds Driver compliance with speed limits Approximate sight distance Safety passing opportunities B. Road alignment and cross section With respect to the roadway alignment and crosssection please consider the appropriateness of the following elements: Functional class (Urban Principal Arterial) Delineation of alignment; Widths (lanes, shoulders, medians); Sight distance for access points; Cross-slopes Curbs and gutters Drainage features C. Intersections For intersections along the corridor please consider all potential safety issues. Some specific considerations should include the following: Intersections fit alignment (i.e. curvature) Traffic control devices alert motorists as necessary Sight distance and sight lines seem appropriate Vehicles can safely slow/stop for turns Conflict point management Adequate spacing for various vehicle types Capacity problems that result in safety problems D. Auxiliary lanes Do auxiliary lanes appear to be adequate? Could the taper locations and alignments be causing safety deficiencies? Are should widths at merges causing safety deficiencies? Page 21

22 E. Clear zones and crash barriers For the roadside the major considerations are clear zone issues and crash barriers. Consider the following: Do there appear to be clear zones issues? Are hazards located too close the road? Are side slopes acceptable? Are suitable crash barriers (i.e., guard rails, curbs, etc.) appropriate for minimizing crash severity? Barrier features: end treatments, visibility, etc. F. Bridges and culverts (if necessary) Are there specific issues related to bridges and culverts that may result in safety concerns? G. Pavement (Defects, Skid Resistance, and Flooding) Is the pavement free of defects including excessive roughness or rutting, potholes, loose material, edge drop-offs, etc.) that could result in safety problems (for example, loss of steering control)? Does the pavement appear to have adequate skid resistance, particularly on curves, step grades and approaches to intersections? Is the pavement free of areas where flooding or sheet flow of water could contribute to safety problems? In general, is the pavement quality sufficient for safe travel of heavy and oversized vehicles? H. Lighting (Lighting and Glare) It is important to consider to the impacts of lighting. Some specifics include the following: Is lighting required and, if so, has it been adequately provided? Are there glare issues resulting from headlights during night time operations or from sunlight? Page 22

23 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Issue Comment I. Signs Signage is a critical element in providing a safe roadway environment. Please consider the following: Are all current signs visible? Are they conspicuous and clear? Are the correct signs used for each situation? Are signs visible (consider both night and day)? Does the retroreflectivity or illumination appear satisfactory? Are there any concerns regarding sign supports? J. Traffic signals Although the focus of this RSA are lane departures, this does present an opportunity for us to consider any traffic signals. Specifically: If present, do the traffic signals appear to be designed, installed, and operating correctly? Is the controller located in a safe position? (where it is unlikely to be hit, but maintenance access is safe) Is there adequate sight distance to the ends of possible vehicle queues? K. Marking and delineation Is the line marking and delineation: appropriate for the function of the road? consistent along the route? likely to be effective under all expected conditions? (day, night, wet, dry, fog, rising and setting sun, oncoming headlights, etc.) Are centerlines, edgelines, and lane lines provided? If not, do drivers have adequate guidance? Page 23

24 ROADWAY ACTIVITY Issue With respect to roadway activity please consider safety elements related to the following: Pedestrians Bicycles Public transportation vehicles and riders Emergency vehicles Commercial vehicles Slow moving vehicles Comment ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Issue Comment Weather & Animals From an environmental perspective it is important to consider any potential impacts. Most notably is likely to be the impacts of weather or animals, including: Possible effects of rain, fog, snow, ice, wind on design features. Has snow fall accumulation been considered in the design (storage, sight distance around snowbanks, etc.)? Are there any known animal travel/migration routes in surrounding areas which could affect design? Page 24

25 Page 25

26 Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Page 28