This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
01/16/2024 04:38 PMIf it seems like there has been an increase in motor vehicle accidents at the redesigned Exit 58 on- and off-ramps, you may be right.
According to data from the Guilford Police Department, accidents at the ramps are occurring at a higher rate than previously documented, along with a corresponding increase in accidents with injuries. Though town officials requested the state Department of Traffic (DOT) place a traffic signal at the ramp when construction was originally undertaken in 2021, the state did not respond to those requests.
Town officials are now gathering information and seeking help from state legislatures to have the DOT take another look at the hazardous intersection.
Across 2021 and 2022, the DOT did an improvement project that added a left turn lane for those entering onto the Exit 58 on-ramp for I-95 south. Before that, anyone seeking to take that left turn had no choice but to block the vehicles behind them due to the road width, which often caused significant backups for those traveling north on Route 77.
For travelers exiting off I-95 south, the issue has not been addressed by the project, according to town officials, as travelers utilizing that ramp must negotiate an extremely difficult task of crossing multiple lanes of traffic, high vehicle speeds, a longer backup for those who have the priority of taking the left onto I-95 north, as well as limited sightlines.
Two heavily used commuter lots on either side of Route 77 compound the issue, adding to the confusion at this intersection.
Town Engineer Janice Plaziak said she and other town officials were perplexed by the state’s decision to ignore Guilford’s request for a traffic signal. Plaziak said that the project's designer documented several issues during the planning stages that would indicate a signal at the intersection was necessary.
A 2019 report by Tighe & Bond, the engineering/design firm hired for the town's portion of the project, included a traffic study that recommended installing a traffic signal.
[“A review of the preliminary design report for the project included a traffic study of the intersections of Rte. 77 and Exit 58 ramps for I-95. (This report is dated November 2019, by Tighe & Bond, the engineering/design firm hired by the town for their portion of the project, which was essentially sidewalk placement). Improvements were designed and built into the existing ramp for I-95 Northbound. The study also resulted in a recommendation by our design engineers for a signal to be included at the I-95 Southbound ramps. Per the traffic study, 4 out of 9 Warrants were meet at this intersection so we recommended a signal be installed for traffic safety as well as pedestrian safety. CT DOT’s response in April 2020 was that the project would not include a new signal, we redesigned the sidewalk layout to accommodate these requirements from CT DOT. Crashes, as well as peak hour volumes, indicate a signal is warranted.”] <-- Waiting on some clarification from Ben. This graf will change.
Warrants are an industry term that determines whether a specific project requires a traffic signal. Warrants are specific potential impacts that are federally mandated via the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which the Connecticut DOT adheres to.
Though at least four warrants were cited by the designer as potential red flags, according to Plaziak, the DOT addressed none, and no reasoning was supplied on why the DOT decided to forgo a traffic signal.
According to MUTCD criteria, defined and published by the Federal Highway Administration’s 2009 version, specifically, Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals,
“The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
•Warrant 1-Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
•Warrant 2-Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
•Warrant 3-Peak Hour
•Warrant 4-Pedestrian Volume
•Warrant 5-School Crossing
•Warrant 6-Coordinated Signal System
•Warrant 7-Crash Experience
•Warrant 8-Roadway Network
•Warrant 9-Intersection Near a Grade Crossing”
Town officials maintain they are still unclear why the DOT did not follow its own guidelines for this project. According to Plaziak, given the location of the intersection and surrounding roadway network, Tighe & Bond determined that Warrants 1 through 3 and 7 should have been tested as part of the study, which the DOT did not act on.
According to Chief of Police Christopher Massey, though hesitant to quantify the level of hazard at the intersection, the data does reflect an increase in accidents. Massey emphasized that multiple factors contribute to any given roadway’s danger, adding that though a traffic signal may be a solution, it is just one of several potential solutions that the DOT could consider.
“There is certainly a crash history there. It is a very busy intersection. You would expect that there would be a higher number of crashes there. There are a number of crashes there involving the off-ramp as well as the two commuter lots there,” Massey said. “It is something we want to try and get some eyes on it to see if there is anything that can be done to make it safer for those traveling through the area.”
Regarding why a traffic signal was not part of the original planning, Massey said the amount of time required to propose, plan, fund, and then implement a project can sometimes make a project obsolete by the time it is completed.
“For issues involving just a town road, those issues typically go through the local traffic authority, with the support of the town engineer for any technical expertise that needs to go into the decision-making process, the department of public works needs to be consulted, and all that takes time. When it involves a state road project, there are even more entities to work through," Massey said. "The way a roadway is designed at the time it is actually placed will change over time. Population changes [and] traffic flow patterns are affected by new housing developments and new businesses, so very rarely is it a one-and-done situation in this type of project where you can do something at a particular location and say, ‘Well, this is done forever.’ These projects take years to implement. By the time a concern is heard, pushed through the appropriate entities, and all of the back work is done, like the traffic counts, the studies, the surveys…and then it gets to the funding stage, it can really take a while. Also, there might not be one solution to this whole thing. A traffic light is just one option…there are a number of different things to take into account, especially at this particular intersection. It’s not as easy as just slapping up a traffic light.”
Massey added, “The important thing is that we keep things moving and keep working together to do as much as we can to improve safety on the roads. Hopefully, with everyone working together, we can come up with a plan that will make the situation safer. We certainly appreciate everyone’s hard work on this issue.”
According to a spokesperson for the DOT, their decision to forego a traffic signal was based on data they had collected.
“The lead engineer on this project has since retired from state service but according to our files, during the design phase (January 2020) CTDOT engineers expressed concern that a signal could cause safety issues due to the proximity to the driveways and the northbound ramp. At that time, CTDOT recommended that a signal not be installed at the Route 77 and I-95 southbound ramps in Guilford.”
According to the DOT, “the recommendation to not install a traffic signal followed The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration. CTDOT worked with the town on ways to keep pedestrians safe, minimize the number of crossings on Route 77, and maintain the crosswalk near the school. CTDOT undertook several improvements, such as:
*Replace existing “Stop” and “Stop Ahead” signs on the I-95 southbound off-ramp with larger signs to provide additional warning to motorists.
*Trim tree limbs, clear brush, and relocate existing signs in vicinity of the I-95 southbound interchange to improve sight distances for vehicles approaching the intersection, as well as visibility to pedestrians.
*Where needed, reinstall existing pavement markings on the off-ramp and on Route 77 between the I-95 northbound ramps and emergency signal to provide additional guidance to motorists.“