Conference 7.286::maynard

Beware that at the intersection of 117 and 27, near PK, the traffic light
will give permission to turn right from eastbound 117 while simultaniously
giving permission for northbound Rt. 27.

I consider this a BUG.

As it turns out, you are supposed to obey the yield signs without regard to
what the signals say.  A green light, in this case, means "look out, stupid,
or you will be broadsided by someone else that has a green light also!" The
only reason they red-light the right turn at all seems to be because of the
crosswalk.  (The high school is nearby.)

This is less than intuitive.

    
    Speaking of less-than intuitive, that same intersection (117/27)
    had the new light installed with the usual Mass. advance green for
    left turn stupidity.  Why is it so hard to have a left-turn arrow
    put onto traffic lights in this state??  That's still a dangerous
    intersection heading north on 27, turning west on 117, as well.

    Re: .2
    
    What's worse, the 117/27 traffic light has a "sometimes" delayed
    green.  I've had the southbound traffic head straight for me when
    making a left turn onto 117 several times, just after the northbound
    light turned green.  I think it does this at night, or based on
    the presence of cars in the northbound turn lane at some instant.
    In any case, I *always* wait to see if the southbound traffic starts
    before I move out into their path.  Yes, why the *@#$% can't
    we get left-turn arrows in this state?  I have a hint:  There is
    no *effective* state-wide traffic control agency, as in almost every
    other state.  Every town gets to decide how to interpret the "rules"
    in their own way, and bid for their own contractors.  I think the
    people beleive it would infringe on their rights to have state-wide
    control of such things--- part of our "independent" heritage!!
                --tom
    

 Those intersections have been bad since I can't remember when at least
    for 15 years, maybe more.  Its going to be interesting to see how
    the traffic handles the new one-way downtown streets once the work
    is completed.
    
                             Mark
    

re: left turn arrows

The problem is that there is no accepted convention (in Massachusetts, anyway)
for indicating that there is left turn precedence.  A green arrow means
that traffic is allowed to pass that way, not that that direction
has the right of way.  Note that Jeff's complaint about the east to south
turn off 117 to 27 is about just this.
Other places blink the green arrow to indicate turn precedence, but
blinking green means "standing green, but subject to change for emergency
traffic or pedestrians" (in other words, no scheduled cross traffic).
What we could have is a RED arrow, stopping left turns from 27 to 117
when straight-through traffic is enabled on 117, but red arrows are
not a widely accepted convention either, and that wouldn't directly
solve the precedence on green question.

Give us back the rotary.

- tom]

    Well, they put a real live left turn arrow at the intersection of
    27 and 62 near the store 24, and people in the left turn lane still
    don't realize that they have the right of way.  It always takes
    a minute or so for the person in front to wake up an realize that
    (s)he can make a left turn.

re .-1

That's because the left turn arrow is only present on the overhead signal.
The duplicate signal at the right side of the intersection just shows 
green.  If the first driver in line is watching the right-side signal, 
instead of getting a stiff neck by watching the overhead one, he/she will 
indeed not see the left turn arrow.

I go through that intersection several times daily, and I STILL get fooled 
about half the time.

The problem is that left arrow means turns are allowed, not necessarily
protected.  Since convention in Massachusetts does not guarantee
that left turns on a green arrow are exclusive (that is, that oncoming
traffic is blocked), people will normally wait to see what happens
even when they do see the arrow.
The best rule?  Know your intersections, but never trust the other
fellow's lights.

- tom]

Re .3:

I assume that the distributed (ir-)responsibility is as you say in Mass.
However, in a number of cases recorded in the Hudson Daily Sun/Marlboro
Examiner of complaints about local intersections on state highways, the
local officials were always heard to whine, "We're all ready to go -
we're waiting for the state to _____" (fill in the blank).  I think
the state has to do some of the work on in such cases, and they have
an backlog.  So, it is perhaps worse than you imagine.

I think an example was when something was wrong with the light outside
HL at the intersection of Rt 85 and the I290 extension.  Even though
Hudson had DPW people that were trained the fix the problem, the state
had to do the work.  I may not have all the facts right, but I definitely
remember the problem.  After all, those newspapers have so little real
news to report on, they give excruciating detail when something serious
like a broken traffic light crops up.
				/AHM
P. S.  Aspirin to the Astronauts, Tom.

                If I am remembering correctly, the State has some
        juristiction over all traffic lights on public roads in the
        state, not just on routes.
                
                I'm basing this on knowledge of an intersection in
        Framingham that the townspeople (and the town officials) fought
        for and got lights installed. The lights were used for about a
        month when they were put on flashing, and they have been that
        way now for at least ten years! (If you know Framingham, I'm
        talking about Saxonville Square.) None of the roads in that
        intersection are routes. The reason they are on flashing is
        because the cycle for those lights was a disaster in moving
        traffic and the people who must approve the pattern of the
        lights (the state) wouldn't approve a pattern that was sane for
        that intersection (it is a complex pattern).
                
                /s/     Bob

    		Another good intersection is the intersection where
    	railroad st. (I think that's the name) joins main st. accross
    	from the main st. lot at the mill. There is a stop sign there
    	that ought to have "only kidding" stenciled on it. I for one
    	have almost gotten broadsided a few times by morons ignoring
    	the sign.

    Beware of the old                                    
    cruiser_in_the_woods_by_the_golf_course_on_27_with_no_lights_on
    trick

Are you suggesting that the cruiser in the woods is a road hazard, or is it,
perhaps, that you are warning us that MORGAN::EMERSON_P is a road hazard...

    re .13 Neither, but some of the people I've observed (read passed
    me like my car was up on blocks) on that stretch of road, hopefully
    will get the hint...

    	How'bout the "ski jump" on Walnut street, where the _new_
    pavement from the renovation meets the old? Good for front end
    alignments!
    

           About the state......
                 the less of my money they get and the less control
    they have over me the better. They take from the rich(towns) and
    give to the poor(towns). 'Course this Robin Hood theory fails to
    deal with politics. Who gets what back isn't so simple and a lot
    is lost in the process. And once they get it away from you then
    the want to tell you what to do with it when they give it back.
    Which brings me to Maynard traffic issues.
                  The state funded alot of the downtown road work.I
    always liked the traffic pattern. You had to study it a bit but
    you could always get where you wanted to go and usually park.
    For an hour in the afternoon you wanted to avoid it. Now it's rotten
    all the time and thanks to all the wonderful state regulations many
    convenient parking spaces were eliminated. To close to this curb,to
    close to that. They couldn't just put it back the way it was.  
                           Crossing the downtown streets now is horrible.
    I tried to do it not too long ago with a toddler, and infant in
    stroller. Rather than our old cowpath layout (route of least
    resistance)  you now have to walk halfway down the street in the wrong 
    direction to get to a cross walk. 
                           And for all their handicap access attemps I 
    still had trouble getting the stroller over the humps. The rules and 
    regulations just don't allow for common sense.
                           Then look out cause the one way arrangement has 
    turned Downtown into a circular race track. So they've made it faster 
    to get out of Maynard,not safer. And in the process have destroyed 
    much of what made Downtown feel like an integral part of the community.
    I miss the old personality. It feels like a friend has died.
                           What happens when the intersection at Rte.27 
    and 111 (McD's) in Acton, and from shop.center in Stow,  backs up 
    all the way into Maynard? So much for the speedy exit from Maynard.
    The new condos and DEC plant on Rte 62 should clog up that route
    too. Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?
                           And who hired the architect? Must have been 
    trained to design California malls. They certainly "mauled" Maynard.
    I never noticed that the sidewalks were crowded,only the streets. Now the
    sidewalks are wider and the streets narrower. HUH?
                           Talking to my townie neighbors ,and living
    here, there is a general feeling of lack of control over our
    environment. It feels better to blame DEC than to blame ourselves
    for inaction. There does seem to be a wave of energy and intrest
    forming among young families who are now feeling established. We've
    settled into the routine of family and work and now we have motivation
    to shape the community. Better late than never.
                            I like to think modern medicine may be able
    to keep me alive for another 100 years and I will still be around
    to watch them tear out and redo downtown Maynard again. 
                            Oh yeah, think the cars go to fast on your
    street? Want to reduce the speed limit? The state will require a
    traffic study. You monitor how fast people drive on the street take
    the average speed and that's how you determine the speed limit.But,
    but,but what if the average driver is going to fast? Too bad.
                           I grew up in Bolton. Want to talk about not 
    being able to afford to live where you grew up?
    
                                  HOLTORF
    

    One result of making the streets narrower and the sidewalks wider
    -- kids now ride their bikes and skateboards on the sidewalks! 
    Can't say as I blame them -- they're great for that.  Unfortunately,
    the sidewalks are for pedestrians.
    
    And what are they doing on the corner of Walnut and Main?  Except
    for the obvious removal of parking places?
    
    I read somewhere that all the plans for downtown were approved
    something like 8 years ago and just implemented now when the funds
    came through.  I used to attend town meetings when my kids were
    in school, but I don't remember anything like that.  Can someone
    out there confirm this?
    
    Thanks.
    

    
    Re: .17    If your talking about the Walnut/Main work, this is
    suppossedly part of the "green belt" that was to run along
    the Assabet River as a type of open space park area for the
    residents to enjoy.  I remember one of the original town
    master plans where this was proposed when I was working
    on a special environmental project.  
    
      It is similar to the Conservation Comm. trying to acquire land.
    Several years ago, for several years they were shot down on
    acquiring funds for land purchase.  Now all of a sudden, "its
    important" and the Commission got funding a couple of years
    back.  However, land prices are up and land minimal.
    
      The town had its chance several years ago, and now people
    are crying.  Well, maybe its still not too late.  Its good
    to see the Neighborhood Preservation group in place, if
    they work with the Conservation and Planning Comm. maybe
    something will finally be accomplished.
    
       A long winded answer I agree.
    
                                             Mark
    

Personally, I don't see a major problem with the way the downtown was 
re-configured.  Ok, it's a pain to always have to go one way, usually 
not the way I want to go.  The same as you had old ways of doing 
things, you have to develop new ones.

I live and work in town, so I don't have to come in 27, 117 or 62, I 
just deal with in-town traffic.  I don't have a problem driving 
through town.  

Most of the time I walk to downtown stores, but when I drive I have 
not had a problem parking.  I won't find a spot on the street in front 
of the store, but I can find one with-in a comfortable walk.

Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe it is because I have been here only a 
few years and was not 'vested' in the way it was.

I've been meaning to bring this up for discussion for about a week and
a half now.  That was the day my wife and I heard a pretty serious accident
at 4 a.m. up on rte 27.  This wasn't, by any means, the first time we've
heard an accident.  It probably won't be the last.  It was, however, 
particularly jolting because we were just laying there in bed (we had just
re-settled our 1 year old daughter) and the windows were open and all was
quiet and then BOOM! CRUNCH! CRASH! ... in the middle of which my wife heard
some screaming.  

The police and rescue squads were there within a minute, and I don't know what
happened to the parties involved.  I certainly hope they were all OK, and
though I don't know the details of the accident it's pretty easy to guess
what happened, because it's happened so many times before.

We live at the corner of Parmenter Ave. and Walcott St., so we're 1 block
from the point where rte 27 does a ~145 degree curve, just before the 
Concord St. intersection.  But, Acton St. starts right in the middle of the
curve, so to someone traveling North who doesn't know 27 well (or isn't paying
close attention) the main road appears to go straight.  Here's what usually
happens:

Vehicle A traveling North on 27 comes over the hill at the Nason St. 
intersection, usually traveling about 30 mph, fails to observe the signs 
that indicate the main road curves to the right and the DO NOT ENTER and 
ONE WAY signs on Acton St..  Vehicle B is traveling South on 27 at something
close to 30 mph.  Vehicle A either notices too late that the main road is 
curving and attempts to correct his course too late, or barrels right on toward
Acton St.  In either case, vehicles A and B meet nearly head-on (sometimes A
"only" sideswipes B) at something close to a combined 60 mph.

I would think that if the end of Acton St. next to Cumberland Farms was
entirely closed off (e.g. some sort of embankment erected, with large
arrows indicating that the road curves), these accidents would be almost
eliminated.  The negative impact of such an action would be that the folks
who use that piece of Acton St. to get onto 27 would instead have to use the 
Concord  St. intersection (which is no picnic itself).

Anybody else have any suggestions?  Andybody know what official/department
I should speak to about this?  I'm sure it's been mentioned a zillion times
before.  It's a shame that folks keep getting injured up there, when it
would appear there are some simple steps that could be taken to minimize
the risks.

re .20:

I know of a similar intersection that was rebuilt as follows:

The roads that correspond to Acton St from 27 to the Acton-Concord St.
intersection, and Concord St from 27 to the Acton-Concord St. intersection were
eliminated, and a new road was built from the intersection to the middle of the
curve of the main road.

Of course this would mess up that little park, and also you have the problem
that Concord St. continues on the other side of 27, as well as that little
street that exits onto Acton St. so this is probably not an acceptible solution.

-Mike

    Why not just close off the road (action street) at the Cumberland farm.
    As far a Maple street they still can exit on to concord steet. By the
    short street from concord to Maple a one way out.
    
    		   |---	one way
      C.F.       \ |
      block    ___\^|________
      off---->/     | Action St.
    ---------/--\   |
    		 \  |Concord ST	
    	     RT27 \ |
    		   \|_________________________________
    		    |

    
        As of a year and a half ago; the plan by the state was to make
    the now route 27 going out of Maynard  one-way (west) Acton Street
    will become the in route (27) coming into Maynard. Since I live off
    of Acton Street I rank this right up there with toxic waste dump
    at the DTS facility that the state has not taken care of.
    
    bc

re: .22

Yup, that's exactly what I think should be done.  Put a hill (or just some
guard rails) on the end of Acton St to close it off and make it very obvious to
everyone that 27 curves to the right and doesn't go straight.

re: .23

You're kidding, right?  When is this supposed to be done (or started)?
Who (aside from some highway contractors) would be in favor of such a plan?

    
    ref .24
    
      This was proposed by the state Highway several years ago; about
    1984; I will have to go back through my files to dig out specifics.

    	I see, over the weekend, or this morning?, that someone apparently
    failed to negotiate the turn from Nason St., on to Main St westbound,
    narrowly missed a small tree, scraped the lamppost, and reconfigured
    one of the park benches in front of the Masonic Bldg. Hope noone got
    hurt..
    
    Will
    

Yes, I know this is a late reply, but I passing by Acton St. going north on Rt 27
I noticed something that may explain why some people don't bend to the right with
RT 27, but think that it goes straight ahead at that point in the road.

First, drivers are taught to look down the road a little bit, not to keep their
attention focued on the 25 feet in front of their cars. This is a good thing
generally.

Now a driver comes up the hill, and keeping their eyes up and looking ahead sees
"STOP" signs ahead of them. The natural tendency is to drive up to them and to
stop there. Why else would those stop signs be there unless someone proceeding
in that direction of travel by expected to stop. Therefore it implies allowable
travel with those signs posted for the people can travel north on that end of 
Acton Street.

Those do not enter, wrong way signs are just lost when you sight the more 
familiar and more pavlovian stop signs. If that end of Acton Street was only one
way, as has been proposed, than the need for the confusing stop signs would be
eliminated, and a possible distraction eliminated. Closing it to any travel onto
Rt 27 from the offending end and placing Jersey barriors is the only way to stop
people thinking they can proceed up that street.


For the people who believe that they should be protected from any traffic and
that it's those "other people over there" who should put up with any traffic or
benefits of free travel I have a couple of things to say;

One is, maybe it is your turn and spare the "we never bargained for this" stuff.

Second is, such a change would be a return to the old Rt 27. I've got maps that
show Acton Street as Rt 27.

john

    At Acton's Town Meeting last night it was voted NOT to install a
    traffic light at the intersection of High Street and Powdermill Road.
    

    Actually, the vote was not to bond $48 K to fund the installation
    (which would cost much more than that.  Digital and other local
    businesses have kicked in money and, if the agreement with Wendy's
    goes through, Wendy's would kick in another $15K reducing the
    actual required funding to $33 K).
    
    Given that the Town operates from a bottom line budget and given
    that money was used this year for expenses not anticipated last year
    (a prime example is the $50 K for the ladder truck lease), I would
    not be surprised if a light found its way to that intersection in the
    next year or so.  There are those on the Board of Selectmen and on
    staff who feel the potential avoidance of an average of 10 accidents
    per year is worth the investment.
    
    By the way, this is only my opinion; I DON'T know this is definately
    being considered.  Past actions of both School and Town, however,
    indicate that if the purse-string-holders believe a need exists, they
    will find funding in places it doesn't appear to exist.  (Merriam is
    an example for the Schools.)
    
    David

    RE: .29  by REDHWK::DHILL 
    
    >There are those on the Board of Selectmen and on staff who feel the
    >potential avoidance of an average of 10 accidents per year is worth the
    >investment.
    
    We had an average of almost one accident a week at Central St. and
    Mass. Ave. in West Acton and it took us years to get a light put in.  
    I guess if we had a Wendy's on one corner and a Digital on the other, 
    we would've gotten one a lot sooner, whether we needed it or not.
    

    
    what's the point to your response!
    
    bc

    RE: .31  by LANDO::CANSLER 
    
    >what's the point to your response!
    
    If you're talkin' to me, the point was the fact that the selectmen were
    concerned about ten accidents a year near a Digital facility, but
    comparitively unconcerned about an intersection in West Acton that had
    an accident rate more than four times as high.
    

    
      My aren't we teste; no doubt you have had some one injured at this
    intersecton; but there are a lot of these in this area; I was just
    wanting to know, you sounded in like digital and other businesses should 
    be held accountable for traffic control, when it should be the towns 
    responsibility; if the towns don't want the increase in traffic they
    should not allow the business to build larger buildings.
     
    other sites : Concord and 27, nasson and summer streets, brooks
    and summer; concord and summer, 117 and 27.

>    wanting to know, you sounded in like digital and other businesses should 
>    be held accountable for traffic control, when it should be the towns 
>    responsibility;

  It's not that simple. Businesses such as Digital, Wendy's, etc. generate a
huge volume of traffic. They should bear part of the responsibility for traffic
control. It took decades before MA towns came to their senses and began asking
that new and expanding businesses help pay for traffic improvements in the
vicinity. (NH began doing this over 20 years ago.)

> if the towns don't want the increase in traffic they
> should not allow the business to build larger buildings.
     
  A town can't simply tell businesses they can't expand. If it does, it must
be prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars on litigation. Only the
wealthiest towns can afford to bear this expense. And stopping develpment
doesn't stop increases in traffic, because developments in adjoining towns in-
crease the traffic load.
  As a practical matter, towns can't prevent an increase in traffic, so they
must either spend money to deal with it (hopefully with businesses bearing some
of the cost) or accept a higher accident rate.
  By the way, accidents don't impose a huge financial burden on towns. Of course
the emergency service people must respond to accidents, but much of this is
charged back to the victims. This is one reason why towns are slow to spend
their own money on traffic safety improvements.