Elm Street Cross Walks Report
INSERT COVER GRAPHICS
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page i Table of Contents PAGE 1.0 Introduction ..........................
.......................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ...........................................................................................
......................... 1 3.0 Crosswalk Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................. 3 4.0 Bedford Terrace .................................
............................................................................. 6 4.1 Current Issues ....................................................................................................
.......... 6 4.2 Recommended Improvements ...................................................................................... 7 5.0 Prospect Street (John M. Greene Hall) ..........................
.............................................. 11 5.1 Current Issues ............................................................................................................ 11 5.2
Recommended Improvements .................................................................................... 13 6.0 Henshaw Avenue ...................................................................
....................................... 16 6.1 Current Issues ............................................................................................................ 16 6.2 Recommended
Improvements .................................................................................... 18 7.0 Round Hill Road/College Lane .................................................................
.................... 21 7.1 Current Issues ............................................................................................................ 21 7.2 Recommended Improvements
.................................................................................... 22 8.0 Harrison Avenue ...........................................................................................
................ 25 8.1 Current Issues ............................................................................................................ 25 8.2 Recommended Improvements ...................
................................................................. 26 9.0 Other Recommendations .............................................................................................
28 9.1 Additional Crosswalk ................................................................................................... 28 9.2 Crosswalk Arrow Signs ..........................................
..................................................... 28 9.3 Monitoring Success .....................................................................................................
28 9.4 Evaluate a Lowered Posted Speed Limit ..................................................................... 29 10.0 Summary ....................................................................
................................................... 30
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures PAGE Figure 1 Pedestrian Circulation
Patterns and Conflicts: Landscape Master Plan ............... 2 Figure 2 Bedford Terrace Improvements ......................................................................... 10 Figure
3 Prospect Street (John M. Greene Hall) Improvements ....................................... 15 Figure 4 Henshaw Crossing Improvements ................................................................
..... 20 Figure 5 Round Hill Road /College Lane Improvements .................................................. 24 Figure 6 Harrison Improvements .....................................................
................................. 27 Figure 7 Elm Street Crossings Safety Improvements – Cost Summary ............................ 30
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 1 1.0 Introduction In response to ongoing safety concerns,
recent fatalities and crashes, and continued maintenance problems, Smith College is undertaking an effort to evaluate improvement options for six crosswalks on Elm Street and College
Lane in the heart of its campus. This effort recognizes the importance these crossings play in the daily lives of thousands of Smith students, faculty and staff, while acknowledging
that Elm Street is a marked state route with thousands of vehicles traveling every day. Rather than seeking blunt solutions to safety problems, Smith has decided to carefully evaluate
this corridor of crosswalks and consider a variety of possible options in a comprehensive manner. However, time is of the essence as the current safety problems will not resolve themselves.
Therefore, Smith intends to take action this year to improve deficiencies and make walking across Elm Street a safe and possibly welcoming activity. It is important to recognize the
role that Elm Street plays in daily life at Smith. This roadway cuts through the heart of the historic campus, connecting primarily residential areas to the north with primarily academic
areas to the south. Many students must cross Elm Street several times a day in their normal activities of going to class, attending student events and recreation, dining, studying, and
returning to sleep. Route 9 in the stretch between Harrison Street and downtown Northampton is an active living environment with students, bicyclists, buses, school children, deliveries,
parking and through traffic. This mix of activity generally contributes to a slower driving environment where motorists and pedestrians interact regularly, giving a sense of vitality
and urbanity to a road that quickly becomes less dense and more rural to the west of campus. Unfortunately, this mix of activity is also a source of potential conflicts, and regardless
of the presence of crosswalks and warning signs, fatal crashes have occurred. In 2000, Smith responded to these safety concerns by installing crosswalk improvements at five crossings
within the ½ mile stretch of campus that spans Elm Street. A combination of new pavement markings, stamped pavement, curb extensions and new warning signs contributed to a heightened
awareness of the crosswalks and a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Nonetheless, crashes have continued to occur, particularly at the Henshaw crosswalk, which today leads to the
Campus Center – a locus of student activity every day. The current effort attempts to look more broadly at the safety concerns of this corridor by understanding the operation of each
crosswalk from the perspective of the pedestrian. Only by beginning to understand the pedestrian experience can planners, designers and engineers begin to see how conflicts with vehicles
occur. Therefore, the methodology employed during this study was not a quantified evaluation of “performance,” “warrants,” or “compliance.” Rather, a comprehensive look at six variables
which affect pedestrian safety and behavior was undertaken at each crosswalk. The results of this assessment are documented below, leading directly to recommended improvements in the
corridor. It is Smith’s hope that many of the most important improvements can be installed this coming summer. 2.0 Background Smith College has long dealt with the mix of vehicle and
pedestrian traffic through the heart of its campus. A 1997 landscape master plan mapped primary pedestrian circulation patterns on the campus (see Figure 1) as well as key conflict points,
and these patterns continue today. Other than the main east-west walkway within the campus south of Elm Street, the crossing of Elm Street at John M. Green hall has some of the highest
pedestrian volumes on campus, which explains the pedestrian signal that has been in place for many years.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 1 Pedestrian Circulation Patterns and Conflicts:
Landscape Master Plan
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 3 A more recent 2007 parking study for Smith College
identified a number of issues with the crosswalks along Elm Street. Among the study’s observations were the following: All crosswalks should be reviewed for realignment and handicap
access Several sidewalks are in states of disrepair, including Elm Street west of Henshaw Avenue Side-street crossings have poor pedestrian visibility Drivers coming out of driveways
are endangered by on-street parked cars that block their visibility, especially on Elm Street. Driveways, which are prevalent around campus (there are 14 along the south side of Elm
Street), cause regular conflict between vehicles and pedestrians Drivers are more concerned with oncoming traffic than non-motorized users On-street parking perpetuates this conflict/danger
by blocking visibility (specifically at College Lane and the driveway located between Haven House and and Hopkins House) The study recommended that “pedestrian crossings need to be improved
and more clearly defined due to the high volume of pedestrian activity on and around campus” and proposed a number of improvements, including: Enhance pedestrian crossings of Elm Street
at Round Hill Road and Henshaw Avenue in order to provide increased visibility, especially in early morning and nighttime (i.e. implement automated flashers) Driveway at King House-close
one of these curb cuts to improve bike and pedestrian safety on this stretch of Elm Street Driveway between Haven and Hopkins-designate as one-way entrance from Elm Street to improve
bicycle (and vehicular) safety along Elm Street Driveway between College Hall and Fine Arts-investigate feasibility of providing access for service and delivery vehicles off Green Street
via Hubbarb House Driveway to improve safety of all users on Elm Street Make Neilson Drive accessible only by authorized vehicles since this is a major pedestrian route Smith has begun
to address these concerns and implement some of these recommendations. However, it has become clear that a more focused study of crosswalk safety and performance was necessary. Therefore,
the current study was undertaken to finalize a list of improvements targeted to the crosswalks where most vehicle-pedestrian conflict occurs. 3.0 Crosswalk Evaluation Methodology The
approach to evaluating each of the six crosswalks of concern along Elm Street attempts to look comprehensively at all of the factors that might influence pedestrian behavior and safety
during the entire walking experience – not only during the portion of a walking trip that crosses Elm Street. Specifically, there are six factors evaluated by Smith’s consultant: Connectivity;
Safety; Accessibility;
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 4 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Traffic Engineering Elements; Landscaping and Aesthetics;
and Convenience 3.1 Connectivity Smith’s walkway and sidewalk system should provide overall connectivity. This means a continuous network with frequent street-crossing opportunities
that do not require pedestrians to travel out of their way to reach destinations. Where pedestrians reach a crossing, a clear series of design characteristics have been evaluated by
the consultant: Clarity: The crosswalk should make it obvious to motorists that pedestrians can be expected to cross, and pedestrians should be guided to the designated crosswalk; Predictability:
Crosswalk placement should be predictable, and should increase in proximity to downtown and key destinations where more pedestrians can be expected to cross; Visibility: Crosswalks should
be clearly marked, signed, and illuminated so that motorists and pedestrians are visible to each other; Permanence: Crosswalks should be well-maintained and permanent elements of the
transportation network. Thermoplastics, inlay tape or regular painting aid this standard, with materials changes where appropriate, given weather conditions. Limited Exposure: There
should be limited conflicts with turning traffic, and crossing distances should be reasonably short or made shorter through the incorporation of curb extensions or pedestrian refuges;
Clear Crossing: The crosswalk should be free of all obstacles or hazards and is accessible to all users. Snow clearance, especially at curb ramps, is essential to wintertime pedestrian
activity. 3.2 Safety To maximize safety, optimal vehicle speeds should be 20 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit of no greater than 25 MPH. Where this goal is not achievable on
portions of roads such as Elm Street (Route 9), advisory speeds can be posted. Sight distance and sight lines are another consideration. Vehicles parked near crosswalks can create sight
line restrictions. A minimum no-parking zone of 20-feet on the near and far side of a crosswalk is recommended at all intersection legs. Ensuring adequate lighting is another crucial
element in providing adequate pedestrian safety. Lighting should be at regular intervals along a roadway to provide a uniform level of light, and should be present at all crosswalks
to maximize pedestrian visibility. Road design elements such as shorter blocks, narrower rights of way, curb extensions at intersections, less frequent curb-cuts, and driveways that
give visual emphasis to the continuation of the sidewalk are a few basic design elements that can minimize pedestrian risk exposure. Turning options should be minimized for vehicles
along key pedestrian routes. 3.3 Accessibility The needs of all users should be accounted for at pedestrian facilities. This means ensuring that all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements are met and that the needs of
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 5 individuals with mobility limitations are given proper
consideration. This is particularly critical in curb ramp and driveway design. Facilities that are in compliance with ADA also result in more accommodating facilities for able users.
3.4 Traffic Engineering Elements Traffic elements such as traffic and crosswalk signal design, curb ramp treatments, and signal timings should be designed with pedestrians in mind and
should maximize convenience, comfort, and safety levels. Cycle lengths should be minimized so that pedestrians do not have to wait an unreasonably long time to cross. The use of concurrent
and protected pedestrian crossing phases where feasible is preferred over push-button actuated pedestrian phases that usually cause significant delays to pedestrians, frequently resulting
in non-compliance with signal indications due to long waits. Any concurrent phase should also have a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). 3.5 Landscaping and Aesthetics Aesthetics play
an important role in supporting pedestrian environments. Sidewalks and plazas should be visually appealing and physically inviting. Appealing streetscape design can be an effective means
of announcing the uniqueness of the walking environment, giving motorists clear visual cues to increase their vigilance. 3.6 Convenience Crossing desire lines are directly influenced
by the connections leading to them. Therefore, all sidewalks and walkways should be well maintained, safe, and well-lit. They should be sufficiently broad to comfortably handle the expected
pedestrian traffic peaks. Signage should be adequate to lead individuals, especially those unfamiliar with the campus, to all major destinations. Superior pedestrian levels of service
along connecting routes between major origins and destinations should be emphasized. Each of the factors above have been considered in the evaluation of each of the six crosswalk studied.
Findings are summarized below, followed by specific recommendations for each crossing. Scale conceptual drawings of the improvements have been developed, as well as planning-level cost
estimates. Based on this information, and in close coordination with the City of Northampton, Smith will attempt to prioritize which improvements should be brought to final design and
implemented this year.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 6 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 4.0 Bedford Terrace Overview Bedford Terrace and
Elm Street form a signalized Tintersection with crosswalks and pedestrian signal indication on all three approaches. The intersection is significant to pedestrians in two important ways:
1) it is the primary crossing from several residence halls, the Alumnae House and Stoddard Hall to the Fine Arts Center, with continuing connections into the majority of core campus
destinations; and 2) this is the first pedestrian crossing west of the State Street intersection – a distance of over 600-feet. To the east of the intersection, the vehicular right-of-way
increases significantly to ___-feet to accommodate eastbound storage lanes at the next signal. This environment is difficult to cross safely on foot. Nonetheless, many pedestrians regularly
cross this section of roadway between Stoddard and College Halls. Providing a safe crossing in this mid-block area would be helpful in the long term, though a more effective immediate
term strategy would be to make the crossings at Bedford and State more accommodating. 4.1 Current Issues While Bedford Terrace has full signalization with walk phases for pedestrians,
certain operational and infrastructure limitations reduce its utility for pedestrians. Signal Operation Pedestrians crossing Bedford Terrace have a mixed-message. While a “Walk” indication
is shown when Elm Street traffic receives a green indication – permitting a “concurrent” crossing parallel to Elm Street traffic flow – the indication times out and displays “Don’t Walk”
after 14 seconds. Yet 2 seconds later, the “Walk” indication returns, leaving a very inconsistent message for pedestrians walking along the north side of Elm Street. Pedestrians crossing
Elm Street will receive a crossing indication “concurrent” to Bedford Terrace traffic when a car stops on Bedford Terrace to wait for a green – triggering this “actuated” approach. However,
pedestrian pushbuttons are also present for walkers to press when a car is not present. Unfortunately, this mixed message encourages non-compliance with the push-button actuation and
the Elm Street pedestrian signal indications. This is because pedestrians will encounter a “Walk” indication frequently due to cars driving on Bedford, so they don’t need to push the
button. However, when a car is not present, the “Walk” will not come up, and it is not clear whether the button has been pressed by another pedestrian. Many wait for the “Walk” to cross
Elm Street – only to eventually just cross when there is a gap in traffic. In winter conditions, the low level of pushbutton actuations
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E is accentuated by the difficulty get to the button. During a single 5 actuation was observed even though
45 pedestrians crossed Elm Street. Thirty crossed during a “Walk” phase, but Drainage Two of the four Elm Street crosswalk landings demonstrate poor drainage conditions due to the compromised
design of the existing curb extensions, which incorporate mid surface drainage at the origina and drainage. These ramps require constant snow, ice and debris maintenance all year long
to prevent ponding and slippery walking conditions. design does not elevate safety and accommodation benefit a curb extension is intended to provide. Accessibility All crosswalk approaches
are out of compliance with current Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) regulations because all crosswalk ramps lack detectable warning devices for the visually-impaired.
The southwestern ramp for crossing Elm Street is not a ramp at all but rather a part of the driveway to the Fine Arts Center loading dock, which is not compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Besides being a safety threat due to the conflict with driveway traffic, this alignment is particularly problematic for snow clearance, as driveway plowing always
blocks the crosswalk landing. Crosswalk Condition As will all of the Elm Street crosswalks in this corridor, the condition of the crosswalk materials is starting to deteriorate, with
pavement cracking at seams and cracking of plasticized crosswalk materials evident. Embedded reflectors ha been maintained, but no major cracking of paving is evident near them. 4.2
Recommended Improvements In general, this intersection is not perceived to be a major problem for the Smith community as no pedestrian-related crashes have been reported and this view
fails to recognize the intersection’s role in the Elm Street corridor. Located 600 the State Street crossing – twice the recommended crosswalk spacing in pedestrian activity zones –
the Bedford Terrace intersection is an important confluence of desire lines not only across Elm but to and from downtown Northampton. The prevalence of block between Bedford and State
suggests the crossing desire from downtown to the core campus is high, especially given the orientation of downtown destinations on the northern side of Elm and the difficulty and delay
of crossing both West and State streets on the southern side of Elm. However, Bedford Terrace is not a prominent or welcoming Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. of climbing onto
ice and snow that has not been cleared to 5-minute observation window, only one pushbutton 15 crossed during the “Don’t Walk” phase. original curbline as opposed to proper subterranean
catch basins Furthermore, the curb extension waiting pedestrians to sidewalk elevation, reducing some of the AAB) have not anecdotal complaints are rd pedestrians crossing ampus pedestrian
crossing when • Page 7 mid-ramp l very low. However, 600-feet from midblock
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 8 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. viewed by walkers approaching it. By making this
crossing more appealing to pedestrians, midblock crossings to the east can be minimized. As the first crossing since State Street, this location serves as a gateway to both the Smith
campus as well as a corridor of frequent pedestrian crossings that continues to the west for a quarter mile. For drivers from the east, it is important to establish appropriate driver
response patterns to pedestrians, which can be difficult given that many motorists have just left the downtown and feel a sense of “escape” from pedestrians. Fortunately, the grade of
the uphill keeps vehicle speeds lower as they approach Bedford Terrace. However, drivers from the west treat Bedford Terrace as the end of this pedestrian corridor, especially since
the roadway widens significantly with a storage lane for the State Street signal. Coupled with a downhill grade, eastbound driver caution lessens at Bedford Terrace. Given the broader
importance of the Bedford Terrace crossings for pedestrian safety in the Elm Street corridor, plus the immediate design and maintenance issues, a number of recommended improvements are
proposed.. Signal Operations The signalized crossings of Elm are pre-timed to occur in coordination with the State Street signal when actuated by a pedestrian or a waiting car on Bedford
Terrace. During peak commuting hours, this actuation occurs on nearly every signal cycle. For eastbound motorists, this is not a consequential delay as the delay at State Street is greater.
For westbound motorists, this actuation represents a delay for some portion of the approaching cars, however no significant operational or queuing problems have been reported as a result
of frequent peak hour actuations. Given the unpredictable “Walk” indication presented by the current actuated signal operation, this signal is a prime candidate for a predictable “Walk”
indication by removing the actuation and putting the Bedford Terrace and concurrent walk phases on recall – at least between the hours of 7am and 10pm. Regular crossing indications are
the primary means of encouraging pedestrians to comply with signals and to promote safe driving and walking behavior. Due to the coordinated signal system, this change would also introduce
little vehicular delay and no decrease in vehicular levels of service. Recommendation: Convert the actuated signal phase to full recall. Estimated Cost: N/A The use of a leading pedestrian
interval (LPI) would be appropriate at this “T” intersection. A LPI incorporates a delayed green indication for vehicles in order for the “Walk” phase to initiate first for a few seconds.
This establishes pedestrian priority over vehicles by moving pedestrians first and into the crosswalk zone before turning vehicles can approach, necessitating a yield. Since this operation
generally occurs today, the LPI can be very short (2-3 seconds) while still providing a greater sense of security to pedestrians, especially those crossing to the south with Bedford
Terrace traffic approach from behind. Recommendation: Implement a LPI for both crossing phases. Estimated Cost: N/A, unless signal controller needs upgrading.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 9 Improved Markings The existing crosswalk markings
are adequate but deteriorating. These markings can be restriped in place with reflective thermoplastic to significantly improve their visibility to motorists and legibility to pedestrians.
The length of every 8-foot crossing bar should be extended towards the center of the intersection by at least 8 more feet to create a 16-foot designated crossing area. Restriping should
occur after the re-paving proposed below. Recommendation: Restriping in thermoplastic Estimated Cost: $5 per 1-foot by 1-foot patch installed, or $4,400 to cover 55 bars, 16-feet long
No signing changes are recommended for this intersection. Reconstruction of Curb Extensions and ADA Compliance The existing curb extensions are difficult to keep clear of debris and
ice, requiring constant maintenance by Smith personnel. Furthermore, their design keeps pedestrians at street grade, rather than the higher sidewalk elevation, eliminating a significant
benefit for safety and security that curb extensions are intended to provide by elevating pedestrians in plain view of motorists. Both curb extensions should be removed. While a properly
run signal with “Walk” phases regularly appearing on recall provides good without curb extensions, replacing the with a proper design has the added crossing distance for pedestrians
This allows the “Walk” indication to remain operating longer while Walk” phase by the same amount – further encouraging pedestrian indications. Therefore, the removal of the existing
curb extensions of new curb extensions as suggested in Figure 2. This design requires the placement of detectable warning strips on each ramp and the installation of a catch basin and
lateral storm drain connection on Bedford Terrace. The entire intersection should be re-paved with new markings installed as indicated. As part of the curb extension replacement, the
curb cut to the Fine Arts Center driveway should be reconstructed to continue the Elm Street sidewalk across the driveway in concrete at sidewalk grade and slope with only a standard
driveway lip at the curb face. A new ADA compliant wheelchair ramp must be constructed for the crosswalk. This will necessitate the relocation of the signal post at this location approximately
4 feet to the east.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 10 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Recommendation: Reconstruction of two curb extensions
and the FAC driveway Estimated Cost: $6,000 per curb extension; $8,000 for catch basin and lateral; $2,000 for signal relocation; $3,000 for sidewalk/driveway reconstruction; and $8,000
for grind, overlay and vehicular pavement markings. Total cost: $27,000 Figure 2 Bedford Terrace Improvements Roadway Re-Striping Figure 2 also demonstrates that bicycle lanes can be
added to Elm Street east of the intersection, while shared street markings, or “sharrows” can be added to the west. Extending the bicycle accommodation that exists west of Henshaw through
to downtown Northampton is a critical part of improving safety for the numerous cyclists that use the road today as well as a great means to slow vehicle traffic and encourage more bicycling.
Recommendation: Install bicycle accommodation on Elm Street Estimated Cost: (For the entire corridor from State Street to Henshaw) 1,100 x 7 linear feet of bike lane, 650 feet of SWL
for the storage lane, and 1,300 of yellow center line at $2 per linear foot for reflective thermoplastic markings, or approximately $10,000.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E 5.0 Prospect Street ( Overview The crossing at Greene Hall serves as the primary pedestrian crossing
on campus, conveying thousands of students each day between the core of the residential complex and the core of the academic campus. This historic location, framed by distinctive Smith
buildings and a ceremonial gateway, has long had a traffic signal in place strictly to accommodate the heavy pedestrian volume. The signal is actuated by pedestrian pushbuttons on each
crosswalk approach, and coordinated with the Bedford and State Street signals in order to maintain vehicle progression in this quarter-mile stretch of Route 9. Because there is no other
available actuation of the pedestrian phase and vehicle traffic is otherwise shown a gr rates of the pushbutton are very high and compliance with the crossing indications is also very
high. The crosswalk does not connect directly between the Northrop/Gillett House walkway and the central campus driveway – likely because the driveway is still used by vehicles accessing
the core campus. Therefore, the southern crosswalk landing is immediately east of the driveway mouth. 5.1 Current Issues This crossing has worked very safely for Smith and the City for
many y confluence of vehicular, pedestrian and PVTA bus activity, compliance with signal indications is very high with few safety concerns. Unfortunately, key aspects of the intersection
design are inadequate and unsafe, and these should be addressed. Driveway Design The historic use of the campus driveway at this location has always accommodated both cars and pedestrians.
Pedestrians outnumber vehicle movements on this driveway by several factors. However, the driveway is designed for vehicles an pedestrians – especially at its interface with the sidewalk
and street. Since the sidewalk is the same material as the driveway and roadway (bituminous concrete), pedestrian space is not well from vehicular paths. Only the physically cu and the
colored markings of the crosswalk provide any separation that signals the presence of pedestrians to drivers. At the mouth of the driveway, this distinction is absent – especially since
the existing crosswa result, a space heavily dominated by pedestrians is subject to occasional motorists who have no visual cues to suggest they don’t have the right of way. Nelson\Nygaard
Consulting Associates Inc. John M. Greene Hall) it is green indication, pedestrian actuation years. Due to the and not curbed and separated space of the sidewalks crosswalk does not
lead directly to the driveway. As a • Page 11 een ears. well-distinguished rbed lk
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 12 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Crosswalk Design The existing crosswalk does not the
pedestrian desire line during actuation of the pedestrian “Walk” phase. Instead, the crosswalk starts on the centerline of the walkway to the north but angles eastward to land east of
the driveway mouth. Ostensibly, this design was installed to separate the pedestrian landing from the vehicular driveway, but that goal is not accomplished because the driveway spans
the crosswalk landing. The goal of separating vehicles from pedestrians is especially confusing since vehicular movement is stopped during the “Walk” phase, so no conflict exists (given
that the driveway only accommodates one The prominence and importance of this crossing to the Smith community is not matched by the design of the crosswalk. At a width of 8 noticeable
from the driver’s perspective. The additional red stamped another 10-feet to the crossing area, but the the visual impact is mostly appreciated by pedestrians – adding little to the
awareness of a dr Drainage As noted at the Bedford Terrace crossings, the single curb extension on the northern curb is prone to obstruction by debris, snow and ice, as well as ponding.
Furthermore, it does not elevate a pedestrian to sidewalk level. approach, most pedestrians are observed to wait on the sidewalk, not the curb extension. The southern crosswalk approach
is shared by the driveway lip, resulting in an unprotected swale area that is subject to ponding and snow & ice accumulation. Signal Operation During most times of the day, at least
one pedestrian is waiting to cross Elm Street at this crossing during every potential “Walk” phase actuation. However, the crossing is only actuated by use of the pushbuttons. Therefore,
i observe some pedestrians pressing the button habitually – regardless of whether it has been pressed already – and other not pressing the button at all on the assumption that another
waiting pedestrian has or will. While this operation is not simplicity, the signal has a very high compliance rate and overall safety. Inc. align with ring one-way traffic into campus.)
8-feet, the crossing bars are barely stamped-asphalt borders add driver at 30mph or more. At this crosswalk it is common to an ideal situation for clarity and
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 13 Crosswalk Condition Similar to other crossing in
this corridor, the pavement markings and seams are showing signs of aging and cracking. However, the crosswalk is largely intact. 5.2 Recommended Improvements While safety complaints
are low at this location, a number of simple improvements can be made to greatly improve the pedestrian experience while reducing vehicular delay. Signal Operations Given the high rate
of actuation calls throughout both peak hours and the entire day, this signal virtually operates on recall (providing a pedestrian crossing indication every possible signal cycle). During
daylight hours, when the signal does not activate is typically when waiting pedestrians assume that others have already pressed the pushbutton. A guaranteed crossing indication is a
great pedestrian convenience that also promotes even higher compliance with signal indications. A guaranteed regular red indication is also a safety benefit because regular drivers will
expect to find a red signal at a predictable rate. Therefore, this signal should be switched from pushbutton actuation to full recall, at least between the hours of 7am and 10pm. Recommendation:
Convert the actuated signal phase to full recall. Estimated Cost: N/A Pavement Markings A number of factors contribute to recommending that the length of the crosswalk bars be extended
significantly at this crossing: a high volume of pedestrians; a wide zone between vehicular stop bars; a number of pedestrian origins/destinations including the driveway, the residential
House walkway, sidewalks to the east and west on both sides of Elm, John M. Green Hall and the bus stop; and the need to warn entering motorists that the driveway and sidewalk is shared
by pedestrians. Therefore, the crossing bars should be extended to 20-feet long from their current 8-foot length. They should be placed parallel to the direction of vehicular travel
to minimize wear. Installation should occur after the repaving recommended below. Recommendation: Restriping in thermoplastic Estimated Cost: $5 per 1-foot by 1-foot patch installed,
or $1,700 to cover 17 bars, 20-feet long As part of this pavement marking project, restriping of the Prospect Street crosswalk at Elm would ideally be installed. Eight foot, international
standard crossings in thermoplastic are estimated to cost an additional $2,000 without new paving.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 14 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Driveway Redesign The driveway entrance today is
designed more like a street than a simple driveway treatment. This is contrary to its primary use by pedestrians, not vehicles. Therefore, the driveway should be rebuilt to be no wider
than the width of the existing stone gateway pillars. A key complementary component for this redesign should be a curb extension that narrows the Elm Street crossing (see Figure 3).
This will have a number of benefits, including a well-defined crosswalk approach, a consistent grade at sidewalk elevation, a clear indication of the pedestrian nature of the driveway
to any entering motorists, and a prominent aesthetic treatment for this historical gateway to the Smith campus. The treatment can incorporate concrete or other surface materials to de-emphasize
the vehicular nature of this driveway while still maintaining necessary vehicular access through a widened curb ramp. By bringing the pedestrian space towards the travel lanes and installing
corner bollards on the curb extension, any vehicles seeking to enter the driveway will have to slow significantly to make the turn, enhancing pedestrian safety while also giving a clear
cue to waiting pedestrians that a vehicle is about to enter the driveway. A side benefit of the curb extension’s reduced crossing distance will be the opportunity to reduce the length
of the “Flashing Don’t Walk” cycle, allowing traffic to have more green time. Recommendation: Install a defined driveway treatment with curb extension. Estimated Cost: $16,000 for two
catch basins and laterals; $10,000 for curb extension and driveway reconstruction; and $8,000 for grind and overlay. Total cost: $34,000 Drainage As with the Bedford Terrace curb extensions,
the northern curb extension at this location does not function well from a drainage perspective, and its pedestrian accommodation is lacking. It is also served by a catch basin that
that is behind the curbline. We recommend that a new curb extension be installed. Recommendation: Remove and replace curb extension. Estimated Cost: $6,000 for curb extension; $8,000
for new catch basin and lateral; $2,000 for new inlet to existing catch basin. Total cost: $16,000
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 15 Figure 3 Prospect Street (John M. Greene Hall) Improvements
Roadway Re-Striping As mentioned in the recommendations for Bedford Terrace, Elm Street in this section has sufficient cross-section for sharrows to the east of the crosswalk, and full
bike lanes can be added to the west to tie into the existing bike lanes that terminate east of Henshaw. Recommendation: Install bicycle accommodation on Elm Street Estimated Cost: (see
Bedford Terrace)
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 16 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6.0 Henshaw Avenue Overview The unsignalized pedestrian
crossing at Henshaw is an important crossing between several residential houses and the core of the academic campus. With the opening of the student center immediately south of this
crossing, it sees pedestrian volumes on par with Bedford Terrace. Unfortunately, this crosswalk has been the site of several pedestrian crashes as well as two fatalities. While the crossing
is wellsigned and well-marked with curb extensions on both approaches, it continues to be a site of much conflict between cars and pedestrians, as can be casually observed on almost
any day. Yielding rates are very high, yet it is easy to find drivers who do not yield. Student distraction is often cited as a cause for many of the conflicts, with many students anecdotally
occupied by their thoughts, music or discussions. However, it is highly unlikely that students do not realize they are entering the street when crossing Elm – rather, it is likely that
they are very accustomed to intersection operations and do not need to slow or even turn their heads to understand whether a car is a threat and yielding or not. This attitude is a reaction
to the relative safety of the crosswalk, where most drivers avoid students, even if they are not technically yielding. Unfortunately, it is this confidence in the safety of the crossing
that may lead to crashes when an inexperienced or unobservant driver does not yield. Another often cited factor at this crossing is the generally higher vehicle speeds coming from the
west as opposed to the east. With a wider cross-section, no signals and fewer on-street parked cars, drivers from the west often approach the higher pedestrian volumes of the Henshaw
crossing with greater speed than is desirable for pedestrian safety. 6.1 Current Issues A number of minor factors may contribute to the lower safety of this crossing as compared to other
unsignalized crossings on Elm Street. While some of these are summarized below, the most prominent difference is the high volume of pedestrians at this location versus any other unsignalized
crosswalk on Elm Street. Without a signalized crossing, pedestrians rely on motorists to yield. At low pedestrian volume crossings, pedestrians will almost always make certain that approaching
vehicles have yielded before crossing. At Henshaw, when a pedestrian approaches the crossing, vehicles have often already yielded or are traveling slow in reaction to earlier pedestrians.
Therefore, pedestrians can often cross with no hesitation. Unfortunately, that behavior is not always safe. Advanced Signing Many advanced warning signs exist on both vehicular approaches
to the intersection, but all of these signs are placed behind the on-street parking lane. While their placement is high enough to avoid direct sightline obstruction, the parked cars
serve to limit the prominence
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E of these signs. Furthermore, the signing is not consistent with current standards and gives a somewhat
confused message about where the crosswalk will be encountered. The crossing is lacking both an advanced yield sign as well as a far side crosswalk sign for each vehicular approach.
Crossing Markings As noted earlier, the crosswalk designs in this corridor are visually appealing, however the 8 red stamped paving do not stand out to drivers traveling at 30mph until
they are close to the required deceleration point for yielding. Unless there is a queue of yielding traff vehicles approach this crosswalk from the west at a relatively high rate of
speed. Clearer and larger crosswalk markings would help define this facility better for motorists. Drainage As with other crossings on this corridor, the existing curb extensions are
prone to debris, snow and ice accumulation in the walking path, and they do not elevate the pedestrian to to sidewalk level. The ice and slush accumulation in the wintertime is significant
and a constant maintenance hassle for Smith personnel. Smith ha supplemental drains at the curbline to help relieve the constant ponding that occurs during rain and melting snow. The
size of these curb extensions at this location due to the mid street parking to the east and west along the southern curb as well as to the east along the northern curb, the curb extensions
do not pose a significant break in the row of parked cars on Elm Street. This helps to reduce the visual warning cues pedestrians. Solar Glare During the morning hours, drivers from
the west encounter direct solar glare during several months of the year. While the general southeasterly orientation of this stretch of Route 9 cannot avoid this issue, during certain
times of the year it is a greater problem. During the mid sun’s location appears to confront drivers on Elm at least one mile to the west near the Northampton High School. Therefore,
drivers have already lowered visors and become accustomed to the glare. However, during a brief period in both the fall and in the spring, drivers will encounter direct solar glare only
after rounding the curve at Round Hill Road. The small stretch between Round Hill and Prospect is the most east orientation of Route 9 between here and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Inc. fused r 8-foot long crosswalk bars surrounded by ns has had to install a pair of is particularly problematic mid-block configuration. With onstreet to drivers by not allowing a
clear view of waiting e mid-winter months, the ve , l east-west • Page 17 traffic,
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 18 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Main Street in Florence center. Drivers will be
responding to the glare and adjusting visors at a point when their attention to the crosswalk should be highest. 6.2 Recommended Improvements Due to the recent crash history at this
location and several observed safety concerns, the Henshaw crossing should be targeted for safety improvement as soon as possible. The following improvements should be installed as soon
as possible. Signing While a clear attempt has been made over time to provide extra warning signs in advance of this crosswalk, the signs provide a mixed message with no clear distinction
of where a driver should yield to pedestrians. Furthermore, their placement is not in a driver’s line of sight. Therefore, it is recommended that all existing advanced crosswalk warning
signs be removed, retaining only the crosswalk warning signs that are directly on the curb extensions (ideally, these would be moved to the curbline as they are somewhat of an obstruction
to pedestrians in their current location on the curb extension). Then a second set of crosswalk warning signs should be placed on the sidewalk near each curb extension, facing in the
opposite direction to give a second warning sign bracing the crossing to all motorists. Finally, advanced yield signs should be placed 30-feet in advance of each crosswalk at the point
of new advanced yield markings, as recommended below. Recommendation: Remove existing advanced warning signs; install supplemental crosswalk warning signs; install advanced yield signs
Estimated Cost: $1,000 Pavement Markings To emphasize the visibility and importance of this crossing to drivers, the crosswalk bars should be lengthened from their current length of
8-feet to 20-feet. Advanced yield markings, or “shark’s teeth” should be placed on each vehicular approach 30-feet from the ends of the new crosswalk bars at the location of the advanced
yield signs signs (above). Finally, the “No Parking” regulation in advance of the crosswalk in each vehicular direction should be converted to a “No Stopping” regulation and extended
to the 30-foot advanced yield location, necessitating the removal of one parking space in each direction. The parking lane in this area should receive yellow diagonal markings to emphasize
the new regulation. All markings should be installed after the re-paving recommended below. Recommendation: Install new crosswalk bars, and advanced yield markings in reflective thermoplastic;
install yellow diagonal striping in “No Stopping” areas.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 19 Estimated Cost: $5 per 1-foot by 1-foot patch installed,
or $1,700 to cover approximately 17 bars, 20-feet long, plus $300 to install eight 4’ x 2’ advanced yield triangles; $300 for yellow paint stripes. Total cost: $2,300 Curb Extensions
Given the need to emphasize this unsignalized crossing for motorists, new physical treatments are necessary. While specialized countermeasures such as warning lights, in-pavement lights,
and automatic pedestrian detection have been considered at this location, these treatments are generally best suited to stand-alone crossings in environments where pedestrians are concentrated
on one corridor. However, Henshaw operates as part of a pedestrian crossing system at Smith College and should ideally operate in a traditional fashion as other crossings in the corridor
do. Therefore, extreme countermeasures that would treat this crossing differently differently than other crossings are discouraged. Recognizing the effect that the recommended changes
at College Lane/Round Hill (below) will have, vehicle speeds approaching Henshaw from the west are expected to be lower and overall driver awareness of pedestrian crossing activity in
the corridor is expected to be heightened. Therefore, it is recommended that this intersection remain a more standard mid-block crossing with curb extensions, which reflects the character
of Elm Street better, provides good warning to drivers, and expands the pedestrian sidewalk environment. However, it is important that the current curb extensions be removed and reconstructed.
Not only is the current design prone to maintenance issues, pedestrians are not elevated to sidewalk height at the crossing, reducing the visibility benefits curb extensions are intended
to have. Furthermore, the curb extensions should be lengthened significantly to clear on-street parking more effectively and emphasize the pedestrian approach for motorists to see walkers
easily (see Figure 4). Recommendation: Remove and reconstruct curb extensions Estimated Cost: $3,000 for removal; $1,000 for signing; $8,000 for grind and overlay; $8,000 for curb extensions;
$15,000 for 3 catch basins and laterals. Total cost: $35,000
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 20 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 4 Henshaw Crossing Improvements
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E 7.0 Round Hill Road/College Lane Overview Round Hill Road is the furthest west crossing in the core
Smith campus area. As a result, it is generally the first place eastbound drivers encounter regularly crossing pedestrians and the last place where westbound drivers have to yield to
pedestrians. In general, this means that vehicle speeds are higher and drivers are anxious to avoid the delay These conditions, coupled with lower pedestrian volumes than at Henshaw,
Prospect or Bedfor are likely what led to the installation of a pedestrian Unfortunately, the lighted crosswalk is no longer functional and the curb extensions suffer from the same maintenance
problems as other curb extensions in this c crosswalk location is somewhat displaced from a stronger pedestrian desire line to the east at College Lane. The crossing of College Lane
is essentially the perpendicular crossing to the Round Hill crosswalk at the intersection of primary Elm Street sidewalk, but several factors contribute to this being a facility that
warrants improvement. During the evaluation of these two crosswalks it became evident that they have help define an important campus gateway on both Elm Street and College Lane. With
the recommended changes, these crossings can have the dual effect of defining a corridor of enhanced pedestrian priority through Smith’s campus as well as a gateway to Smith – especially
given the proximity to Smith’s Admissions Office. 7.1 Current Issues While reported safety issues are low at both of these crossings, the attractiveness and perceiv safety of these crossings
appears to be otherwise occur with better crossing protection. Crosswalk Alignment The Elm Street crossing at Round Hill Road is placed in a location that appears to serve only one of
several pedestrian desire lines across Elm Street in the vicinity of College Lane. As situated, the crosswalk best serves pedestrians walking along Elm and seeking to cross to the other
side during a trip between Paradise Road and the Davis Center. However, many other desire lines are not well met, including between the core campus and Admissions Office and the Davis
Center, College Lane and the Friedman Complex, and others. In particular, the southern crossing terminates in a T intersection wi Street sidewalk, directly serving no points beyond.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. tbound expect to . of yielding. Bedford, pedestrian-actuated lighted crosswalk in 2004. corridor. Furthermore, the Elm with Round Hill/College
Lane. It is directly aligned with a more clearly defined his low, leading to lower crossing volumes than might sire – such as r Hills Hills Chapel, the with the Elm • Page 21 orridor.
the potential to historical perceived
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 22 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates The College Lane crosswalk is well serving pedestrians
on the Elm Street sidewalk, but two notable features contribute to some safety concern. First, the crosswalk is immediately north of a better on the other side of two ornamental gateway
pillars. Northbound College Lane drivers accustomed to the superior crosswalk treatments south of this crossing do not get the same visual cues when approaching, plus their view pedestrians
is obstructed by the pillars. Secondly, the separation between the crosswalk and Elm Street is significant over 50-feet from the roadway. Northbound vehicles queuing to enter Elm Street
often block this crosswalk, while southbound accelerate down College Lane when they come to the crossing. Pavement Markings Round Hill’s current 8-foot crosswalk bars surrounded by a
combined 10-feet of red stamped paving is attractive, as noted earlier. However, it is especially unnoticeable to most cars traveling over 30mph, and most vehicles are approaching or
exceeding the speed limit of 35mph at this crossing. Furthermore, this crosswalk is the most deteriorated on the corridor, likely due to the broken in-pavement lights and their associated
housings. College Lane’s crosswalk has 12 they are painted with 4-inch lines, minimizing their visibility. This stands in contrast to the next crosswalk to the south of the historic
gatew approaches 30-feet in length with speed bumps in the travel lanes. Drainage As with all of the curb extensions in this corridor, both extensions at the Round Hill crossing experience
debris, snow and ice accumulation and ponding. 7.2 Recommended Improvements The improvements below are not only designed to improve the safety of the Round Hill and College Lane crossings.
They are also intended to improve the overall appeal of these facilities for crossing Elm Street and College Lane. Ultimately, the recommendations are realizing the role this location
should be playing both for pedestrian safety along the entire corridor as well as for establishing a more prominent gateway to Smith’s historic campus. Inc. well-placed for better-marked
crosswalk of vehicles turning from Elm Street are beginning to rlier. 12-foot bars, however gateway pillars, which stop bars and yellow cilities d – set back
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 23 Raised Intersection A raised table device should
be installed at the intersection of College Lane and Elm Street. This device will have a number of benefits, including: reduced traffic speeds, greatly enhanced awareness of pedestrians,
improved pedestrian safety, better accommodation of pedestrian desire lines, a clear message for eastbound motorists to reduce speeds in the corridor, and a signature treatment to emphasize
the gateway to Smith that this intersection represents. The raised device can be designed with 12-foot or greater aprons for an operating speed of 30mph, though 25mph is recommended
for better pedestrian crash safety. These devices are regularly installed on emergency dispatch routes throughout the country with no adverse impacts on response times or vehicle maintenance
– largely due to their length, which avoids exaggerated up then down movement. As shown in Figure 5, the long section would provide a single up then down vehicular response. More importantly,
the size of the table has two significant benefits for pedestrians: 1) the table can be extended to encompass the College Lane crosswalk, providing a safe crossing by elevating pedestrians
and slowing cars; and 2) the table provides new crossing opportunities of Elm Street, accommodating many more desire lines than the existing crosswalk. While a raised intersection treatment
is a dramatic
change in the existing streetscape, in operation, tables become an excellent means of maintaining vehicle movement while ensuring pedestrian safety – and they are an aesthetic roadway
treatment appropriate for noteworthy locations such as schools. Recommendation: Remove crosswalk and install raised intersection Estimated Cost: Curb extension removal; new drainage
& curbing; raised roadbed; markings & signing. Total Cost: $70,000 The final design of this table should include textured paving on the table surface, approach warning markings and signing,
appropriate drainage structures on Elm Street (four new catch basins with laterals), new sidewalk connections to the Elm Street sidewalks, and bollards or marker signs to protect pedestrian
approaches from turning vehicles (see Figure 5).
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 24 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 5 Round Hill Road /College Lane Improvements
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E 8.0 Harrison Avenue Overview The Harrison crosswalk is located the west of the Round Hill crosswalk,
a gap that is over three times the distance between any of the other crosswalks evaluated in this study. As a result of its isolation, it experiences relatively high vehicle speeds in
both directions. It also has significantly lower crossing volumes than any of the other crosswalks in the corridor to its east. Compared to most mid-block unsignalized crosswalks in
Northampton, this crossing is ver curb extensions, international standard cros Unfortunately, its curb extensions experience the same drainage problems of other curb extensions on this
corridor. 8.1 Current Issues Drainage The principal problem with this crossing is the accumulation of debris, ice, snow and puddles as a result of the poor curb extension design. This
problem is more acute because the crosswalk is not regularly maintained by Smith personnel, so obstacles obstacles in a pedestrian’s walking path remain much longer. Location and Alignment
While Harrison is approximately half and Forbes Avenue, the gap is a significant jump from the crosswalk spacing east of Round Hill. This gap has left the greater pedestrian density
and crossing demand of the residential houses at Paradise Road without a nearby marked crossing of Elm Street. The crossing mostly serves movement across Elm Street and gives nearly
direct access to Harrison and Franklin Streets. However, it’s placement is set-back from the curbline of each intersecting street, reducing the visibility of a crossing pedestrian to
motorists turning across the crosswalk from either side street. This placement is also an indirect movem for pedestrians traveling from Harrison to Franklin, though that volume is low.
The intersection geometry is regular with the exception of Franklin Street away from the crosswalk. speed turn from westbound Elm than might otherwise be appropriate for a small residential
street – threatening any pedestrians using the Harrison crossing and then continuing west across Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. a quarter mile to iences very well crossing
bars, and crosswalk warning signs. rincipal trian’s half-way between the next crosswalks at Round Hill p ranklin movement Street, which angles Franklin has a large mouth onto Elm Street,
enabling a hi Franklin with their back to traffic. • Page 25 y well-designed, with sing Road higher
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 26 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Signing This crossing has inconsistent crosswalk
warning signing, similar to westbound Elm before Henshaw. While the crosswalk warning sign at the crossing is appropriate, another crosswalk warning sign is placed before the crossing
where an advanced yield sign would be more appropriate. 8.2 Recommended Improvements While the Harrison crossing is perceived to be of lower priority on Elm Street, its need to provide
safe pedestrian and vehicle interactions should not be diminished. The current design is adequate, but key factors should be improved to aid the safety of pedestrian crossings. Signing
One of the simplest measures to increase driver awareness of the possibility of pedestrian crossings at this location is to install appropriate warning signing. The school zone crossing
warning sign to the east should be removed, and an advanced pedestrian yield sign should be installed 30-feet in advance of the crosswalk on both approaches. Two additional crosswalk
warning signs should be installed on the sidewalk at each curb extension, facing the opposing direction to present all drivers with a pair of warning signs bracing the crosswalk. Recommendation:
Install two crosswalk warning signs and two advanced yield signs Estimated Cost: $750 Pavement Markings As with other crossings in this corridor, the 8-foot long crosswalk bars should
be extended towards the side streets by as much as another 8-feet to aid with their visibility from higher speed cars on Elm. Advanced yield “shark’s teeth” should also be installed
30-feet before the crossing at the advanced yield signs. For the eastbound approach, this may have to be extended just west of the far Harrison curb. All pavement markings should be
installed after the re-paving recommended below. Recommendation: Install new crosswalk bars and advanced yield markings in reflective thermoplastic Estimated Cost: $5 per 1-foot by 1-foot
patch installed, or $1,700 to cover approximately 17 bars, 20-feet long, plus $300 to install eight 4’ x 2’ advanced yield triangles. Total cost: $2,000 As part of this pavement marking
project, restriping of the Frankling Street crosswalk at Elm would ideally be installed. Eight foot, international standard crossings in thermoplastic are estimated to cost an additional
$1,500 without new paving.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 27 Curb Extensions To address the ongoing maintenance
and clearance problems with the curb extensions, both should be removed and replaced with full curb extensions and subterranean drainage. While the crossing is disturbed, it would be
beneficial to extend the curb extension west to reduce the mouth of Franklin and reduce the turn radius onto it from the east in order to slow speeds across that crosswalk (see Figure
6.) Similarly, the southern curb extension should be extended into Harrison to narrow its mouth as much as possible. Recommendation: Remove and replace curb extensions Estimated Cost:
$3,000 for removal; $8,000 for installation of new curb extensions; $18,000 for new catch basins and laterals; $8,000 for repaving and pavement markings. Total cost: $37,000 Figure 6
Harrison Improvements
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 28 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 9.0 Other Recommendations Several supporting measures
are recommended for consideration. 9.1 Additional Crosswalk As discussed during the evaluation of the Harrison crossing, an additional crosswalk between Round Hill and Harrison would
better serve denser pedestrian origins while more gradually increasing the gap between Elm Street’s crosswalks west of the core campus. A logical location is at Paradise Road – preferably
on the west side of the intersection both to minimize the number of roads pedestrians would cross traveling between dorm complexes as well as to minimize the number of left-turn movements
from the higher-speed Elm Street that would cross a crosswalk. The design of the crosswalk would likely be similar to that of Harrison, though a crossing island is acceptable. 9.2 Crosswalk
Arrow Signs The crosswalk warning signs that have been placed on curb extensions along the corridor today are excellent, as they incorporate a highly visible warning color and shape
as well as the state crossing law warning. An added component that could be retrofitted is a downward angle arrow sign that clear points to the crosswalk. These small sign blades help
emphasize that this is not a general warning sign but rather an indication of a specific crosswalk at the sign. The City of Northampton also is investigating the installation of a lighted
downward arrow bar along the angled face of a sign (see image). This solarpowered device from Street Smart Signs, Inc. is an excellent modification for any unsignalized crosswalk. The
downward pulsing light emphasizes the crosswalk location and compliments the crosswalk arrow sign. Such treatments are ideal for stand-alone crossings that need extra emphasis. In the
denser pedestrian environment along Elm Street, passive measures and a good street design are always the best approach for increasing motorists’ awareness of pedestrians. Nonetheless,
this specialized treatment could be added to the Harrison, Round Hill/College Lane and Henshaw crossings after the recommended improvements above are installed. 9.3 Monitoring Success
One of the most critical parts of a good pedestrian safety installation is to measure the effects of the change by monitoring performance before and after the change is complete. For
any improvement conducted in this sensitive corridor, pedestrian volume counts should be conducted at each crosswalk, and daily vehicle volume counts should be taken at a couple points
in the corridor. Automatic tubes can easily record vehicle volumes. Pedestrian volumes should be recorded by hand for at least 2-hour intervals in the AM and PM peaks as well as midday.
Other studies are recommended, including before and after speed and yield studies. Ultimately the success of an installation can be judged by any changes in the volume or attitude of
the users it affects. By recording before and after data, Smith and the City will have data to address concerns about delays, safety, diverted traffic and overall community acceptance
of
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. • Page 29 changes. This data also helps establish the validity
of these treatments for use in other locations facing similar pedestrian safety issues. 9.4 Evaluate a Lowered Posted Speed Limit Based on the monitoring results of “after” speed studies
in this corridor, it may be appropriate to apply for a reduced posted speed limit in the corridor. Speed studies to date may not justify lowering the 35 and 30 MPH postings in the corridor,
however after the installation of the recommended improvements – particularly the raised intersection at Round Hill/College Lane – there is a strong likelihood that the 85th percentile
observed speed will be below 30 MPH, warranting an application to MassHighway to reduce the posted speed to 30 MPH or lower. Smith should work in cooperation with the City of Northampton’s
Department of Public Works to accurately monitor speeds and assess whether a formal study and application should be submitted after improvements are complete. If the current eastbound
speed limit of 35 MPH can be reduced to 30 MPH in advance of Round Hill Road, a highly effective treatment to help emphasize the importance of lower speeds is the active speed radar
warning sign. The latest devices are solar-powered and display a vehicle’s actual speed on a highintensity yellow LED sign below the posted speed limit sign. When the posted speed limit
is exceeded, the LED color switches to a flashing red pattern, warning the driver to slow down.
E l m S t r e e t C r o s s w a l k S a f e t y S t u d y S M I T H C O L L E G E Page 30 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 10.0 Summary Figure 7 below summarizes the capital
cost estimate for each recommended improvement, along with estimates for design fees, construction management, and a project contingency. Recognizing the importance of this corridor
and the enormous benefits a corridor-wide approach to pedestrian safety will have, the entire improvement package is recommended to be installed simultaneously during the summer months.
The long-term cost benefit of emphasizing this critical pedestrian zone to motorists will benefit Smith, the City, and its residents for years to come. Figure 7 Elm Street Crossings
Safety Improvements – Cost Summary Crosswalk Crosswalks Recommended Improvements Capital Cost Est. Bedford Terrace 2 Change Signal Operation -full recall n/a Restripe in thermoplastic
-longer stripes $ 4,400.00 Reconstruct curb extensions, new pavement overlay & markings $ 27,000.00 Roadway restriping (Bike accommodation) -State Street to Henshaw $ 10,000.00 John
M. Greene 1 Change Signal Operation -full recall n/a Restripe in thermoplastic -longer stripes $ 1,700.00 Prospect Street crosswalks $ 2,000.00 Reconstruct driveway and construct curb
extension (South side) $ 34,000.00 Reconstruct curb extensions (North side) $ 16,000.00 Henshaw Avenue 1 Install new supplemental warning signs $ 1,000.00 Restripe in thermoplastic &
install advance yield markings (shark teeth) $ 2,300.00 Reconstruct curb extensions $ 35,000.00 Round Hill/College Lane 2 Install raised intersection $ 70,000.00 Harrison Avenue 1 Install
new supplemental warning signs $ 750.00 Restripe in thermoplastic & install advance yield markings (shark teeth) $ 2,000.00 Franklin Street crosswalk $ 1,500.00 Reconstruct curb extensions
$ 37,000.00 Summary Total Estimate Total Capital Costs $ 244,650.00 Design Cost (15%) $ 36,697.50 Construction Management $ 24,000.00 Contingency (20%) $ 61,069.50 Subtotal $ 366,417.00
Item Other Costs Additional Crosswalk at Paradise Road Construct new curb extensions, catch basins, thermoplastic paint & signs $ 24,000.00 Additional Crosswalk Signage -Arrows Add arrows
to each crosswalk sign -28 maximum $ 1,000.00 Lower Posted speed limit Speed study, MHD request and signing $ 2,500.00 Speed Limit/Radar Sign Install Electronic (Solar) Speed Limit/Radar
speed indicator sign $ 5,000.00 Monitoring Pre and Post project evaluation $ 4,000.00 Full Project $ 402,917.00