Category Archives: Safety

Marijuana shops opt out ballot & ATM questions

Both our town election on 3/27 and our annual town meeting (ATM) on April 24 we will be voting to determine whether Medfield should allow or ban marijuana stores.

The following materials were put together by residents Carol Read, a Public Health/Prevention Specialist, and Cathy Callaghan, a Nurse Practitioner, both with lots on knowledge about the issues.

I will personally be voting to ban marijuana businesses from our town, as pot shops downtown or anywhere in town would send the wrong message to our children, namely that use by them is OK.  The data is too clear as to the damage that marijuana use does to our children, by increasing their risks of problems later in life.  Adolescent brains are not fully formed until their mid-twenties, and we owe it to our children to give them as much protection until then as we can.

Vote YES on March 27th to STOP POT SHOPS in Medfield What does the new law really mean? Last November, Massachusetts voters approved the Recreational use of marijuana law (Question 4) that legalized adult (21 years and older) personal use, possession and growing of marijuana for recreational purposes. Medical use of marijuana is a separate law*. In addition to legalizing adult personal use The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016) also legalized all marijuana related businesses in 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth automatically. What are “marijuana businesses”? Pot shops: Shops sell smoke-able plant marijuana products, edible products including candy, brownies, cookies and sodas with highly potent THC levels. Commercial growing and production sites: Staff grows hundreds of marijuana plants, extract THC oils from the plants to make highly potent THC smoke-able products and use oils to make edible products including candy, cookies, and brownies. Does Medfield have to allow pot shops and grow sites? Although Medfield was one of 90 towns in the Commonwealth that voted against the law our town will very soon be “open” to pot shops unless we vote to “opt-out”. The Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group that writes marijuana ballot questions nationwide specifically put an “opt-out” provision in our law requiring the expensive and time consuming steps of an “opt- out” by the voters. Medfield residents CAN vote to “opt- out” The Medfield BOS unanimously voted to prohibit marijuana businesses by adding an “opt-out” question to the town election ballot on March 27th and added “opt-out” warrant articles that will prohibit marijuana businesses for Town Meeting on April 24th. Voting YES to “opt-out” at the town election and at town meeting will STOP POT SHOPS in Medfield. Vote YES to STOP POT SHOPS for youth health and safety: Keeping pot shops out of Medfield will prevent youth access to highly potent marijuana candy, brownies and cookies and sodas that are packaged to attract youth. Edible products make up nearly 60% of Colorado’s marijuana industry; emergency departments are routinely treating children who have ingested edible products with 90 + % THC levels (compared to 20% in a typical joint) Vote YES to STOP POT SHOPS to prevent youth use increases: Youth marijuana use in Washington State has risen since legalization among 8th and 10th graders; Colorado past- month (30 day) marijuana use rates among the population ages 12 and older are the highest in the nation. Youth in legalized recreational states report significant declines in their perception of harm from using marijuana. Vote YES to STOP POT SHOPS to protect our services and resources: Pot shops and grow sites require extensive inspection of operational security as well as testing of all products for mold and contaminates. The cost of these requirements would outrun the potential revenue Medfield would take in from marijuana businesses. Vote YES to STOP POT SHOPS will prevent our public safety and health inspection resources being shifted to the security, monitoring and inspection of marijuana businesses. Vote YES to STOP POT SHOPS to preserve Medfield’s character. Medfield places the highest value on our family friendly culture, working hard to support our town services and schools and to preserve open space, protect the health of our senior population and promote businesses that align with these goals. Many of our neighboring communities Westwood, Norwood and Walpole are also voting to “opt-out” of marijuana businesses. Will the “opt-out” change adult personal use? Voting YES to “opt-out” of pot shops will NOT change adult person use. As of December 15th recreational personal use, possession and home growing is legal in Medfield for anyone 21 years and older. It is legal in Medfield to: (1) Grow up to 12 marijuana plants in a home (6 plants per adult) (2) Possess up to 10 ounces of marijuana (about 600 joints) in a home. (2) Personally possess and transport 1 ounce of marijuana (about 60-75 joints) (3) Give away up to 1 ounce of smoked marijuana, including 5 grams of marijuana concentrate (oils) which are used to make brownies, cookies and candy. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this information. Carol Read, Public Health/Prevention Specialist and Cathy Callaghan, Nurse Practitioner *This new law follows the voter approved the Medical use of marijuana law in 2012 which legalized the medical use of marijuana for all age residents with a doctor recommendation.20170303-cr-medfield-opt-out-letter-3-3-2017-with-photos_page_2

Transfer Station closed tomorrow

Transfer Station sign - Copy

The DPW has announced that the Transfer Station will be closed tomorrow in recognition of Veterans Day.

Town control over speed limits

State-House-smaller_1 (1)

One part of the recently signed Municipal Modernization Act gives towns greater rights with respect to setting speed limits.  Previously the town had limited control over what the speed limit would be, because the town had to set speed limits at what 85% of the drivers were going, which was usually higher than the town wanted.  this is the new provision:

Local Speed Limits / Safety Zones (Sections 193-194)
Provides municipalities with flexibility around the establishment of speed limits. Cities and towns can now establish a speed limit of 25 MPH on any roadway inside a thickly settled or business district on any way that is not a state highway. It also allows for the creation of designated safety zones on, at, or near any way in the city or town that is not a state highway, and with the approval of MassDOT if the same is a state highway.  Such safety zones would have a posted speed limit of 20 MPH.

Energy Committee from 2/11


Town can save $34,740/year by buying our streetlights, and switching to LED streetlights.  The selectmen said we want the town meeting to make the decision, but let’s not wait a whole year and lose that much money in the interim.

We save money, we get better, safer lighting too – it’s a no-brainer.


MEC Meeting Minutes-February 11, 2016

Attendance: Andrew Seaman, Lee Alinsky, Cynthia Greene, Pete Peterson, Maciej Konieczny, Fred Davis, Marie Nolan

  1. January 13 meeting minutes accepted with additions.
  2. High School Students – not in attendance.
  3. Energy Manager’s Report
    1. WWTP Solar – Could start generating next week. PV system will be accepted by Town 3/1/16. On wait list for SRECs.
    2. 60 kW system is being considered for Public Safety Building. Roof weight and conduits sized for this system. Dore & Whittier drawing up plans. About a 7 to 9-year payback with SRECs. Options include having it done by GC or going out to bid later. Building construction estimated to be done October 7, 2016. Awaiting word on expansion of SREC program before moving forward with these plans.
    3. LED streetlights – Revised analysis provided by Fred D and Andrew S. Fixtures and installation costs $104,864 ($88,677 after incentives). Results in savings of $34,740/year including utility incentives and installation. Simple payback of 2.6 years to replace all 347 lamps with new LED fixtures after purchasing old HID fixtures for $1. Andrew confirmed $1 price from Eversource, offer good until April after Town Meeting. If Medfield did not purchase streetlights, likely replace with high sodium fixtures like existing on as need basis. Concluded best to replace all 347 streetlight all at once. Westwood used this approach with grant money from Green Communities. Andrew S. will investigate adding line item for streetlight purchase in this year’s capital budget or adding a warrant article. If wait one year, then forgo the $34,000 savings for one year. Streetlights are mounted on Verizon poles. Town owns arm and lamp itself. LED light warranty is 10 years. Money could be set-aside annually in reserve fund to pay for replacement in 15 years.
  4. Solarize Massachusetts’ status – Marie N. presented proposal at last week’s Selectmen’s meeting.   The program received endorsement by them and a letter of support was written. Andrew S. is to submit application with attachments to Mass CEC tomorrow. It could take 4-6 weeks to learn whether application is accepted.
  5. Community Shared Solar – similar to virtual net metering. Lee A. described the renewable Mass based program and will present possible projects for Medfield residents to consider at a future meeting.
  6. Next steps for Green Communities: MEC presented at Warrant Committee and Hospital Reuse Committee. Warrant committee will vote on stretch code article at their February 23rd MEMO meeting cancelled due to snow. Andrew S. scheduled to present at Permanent Planning & Building Committee but he may be on leave at the time. COA meeting to be scheduled. Recommended that at least I MEC member joins Andrew S at these meetings. Other community groups to present at: Lions, New in Towne, Medfield Green, and Legion. Andrew S will develop 5-year Energy Plan pending stretch code approval at Town Meeting. Press Release to be written on town energy-related initiatives. Looking into a possible writer to interview Andrew S.
  7. MMA Annual Meeting, Energy Session attended by Fred D. – Reported out the remarks made by the ISO-New England representative and the MA Energy Commissioner.   General sentiment was that new natural gas pipelines are not needed in the state.   Also reported at the meeting that over half (155) of MA towns are designated Green Communities.

Next month’s meeting – tentatively scheduled for March 17, 2016. Location and date to be confirmed.


Stress & mental health big student issues

MHS sigh

This article is from the Medfield Press.

At the Medfield Cares About Prevention (MCAP) meeting this morning, that focused on the high levels of student stress and mental health issues noted in the MetroWest Adolescent Health Survey, Jeff Marsden, the Superintendent, said that the full survey will be released after the March 9 presentation on the data to parents.  Seeing in the data the high numbers of our kids that are contemplating suicide requires us, as a town, to respond.


  • Posted Feb. 29, 2016 at 2:22 PM


    Medfield often receives praise for its small-town community atmosphere and strong school system, but similar to other towns in the region, more Medfield adolescents are experiencing stress, feelings of sadness, and suicidal thoughts, according to the most recent MetroWest Adolescent Health Survey administered in 2014.

    In addition to stress-related data, parents and community members at large will have a chance to learn what other important information the survey revealed about Medfield students at a special presentation at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 9 in the Medfield High School auditorium.

    Speakers will be Susan Cowell, head of the Wellness Department for Medfield Public Schools, and Christi Barney, RN, MSN, a mental health expert from Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, who will talk about the unique signs of adolescent stress and share strategies parents can use to help their children.

    “On the positive side, the survey showed a decline in cigarette and marijuana use, however, the uptick in areas related to mental health are very concerning,” said Cowell, who has overseen student participation in the biennial survey since it was first administered in 2006.

    Other areas of concern based on survey findings include:

  • Bullying/cyberbullying
  • Distracted driving
  • Sleep deprivation
  • High-risk alcohol use
  • Unhealthy weight loss and body image
  • Use of e-cigarettes (“vaping”)

“Medfield is not alone in trying to address student stress and related mental health issues – it’s a problem affecting youth across the MetroWest region and beyond,” said Cowell. “We also know mental health issues are on the rise in college-aged adults too.”

Medfield Superintendent of Schools Jeff Marsden said, “It is critical that all of us – the school community and greater Medfield community – become more aware of the issues impacting the health of our youth and identify ways we can work together to support them. Our presentation on March 9 will be an important step in the right direction.”

The MetroWest Adolescent Health Survey, developed by the MetroWest Health Foundation, is part of a long-term initiative to monitor trends in health and risk behaviors. Based on 2014 responses, more than 40,000 students in grades 6 through 12 from 25 towns took the anonymous survey.

According to Cowell, with a few exceptions, Medfield’s local data reflects the regional data. Regional data on all health topics surveyed among high school students can be found at

Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal


A traffic signal is needed at the Rte. 27 intersection with South Street, because of traffic volumes and backups, per a January 19 letter from traffic engineers hired by Chief Meaney to study the need, summarizing their recent study.  The traffic signal is projected to cost about $200,000.

Reportedly, however, Mike Sullivan says Chief Meaney is considering whether to ask the town meeting to proceed with that traffic signal or one for the intersection of Rte. 27 and West Street, which has a high number of accidents, many of which have been serious due the speeds of the vehicles.

The letter appears below and as a more readable PDF is here  20160119-mcmanus-town of medfield_route 27 (spring street) at south street_signal memo (2…

300 Myles Standish Boulevard | Suite 201 | Taunton, MA 02780
p 508-823-2245| f 508-823-2246
mcmahon a
Joseph W. McMahon, P.E. Joseph J. DeSantis, P.E., PTOE
John S. DePalma William T. Steffens Casey A. Moore, P.E.
Gary R. McNaughton, P.E., PTOE

John J. Mitchell, P.E. Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
R. Trent Ebersole, P.E. Matthew M. Kozsuch, P.E. Maureen Chlebek, P.E., PTOE
Corporate Headquarters: Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
Serving the East Coast from 13 offices throughout the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Florida

January 19, 2016

Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr. Medfield Police Department 110 North Street
Medfield, MA 02052

Route 27 at South Street ‐ Medfield, MA

Dear Chief Meaney:
McMahon Associates has completed a traffic warrant analysis at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring
Street/High Street) at South Street in Medfield, Massachusetts. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate existing traffic conditions at the intersection and to determine if a traffic signal is
warranted. Our assessment is based on a review of current traffic volumes, accident data, and
anticipated traffic growth over a 10‐year period. This study examines and documents future
conditions under unsignalized and signalized scenarios.

The study area is composed of the two intersections of Route 27 with South Street, which are offset
intersections approximately 600 feet apart. The study area intersections are displayed in the
attached Figure 1. The southerly intersection of Route 27 (High Street) and South Street is
currently signalized, while the northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street
is unsignalized, with free‐flowing traffic on Route 27 and stop control on South Street.

Route 27 (Spring Street/High Street) is a two‐way, two‐lane urban principal arterial under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction. Route 27 is approximately 30 feet in width providing one‐foot wide shoulders
on either side of the roadway and generally runs in the north‐south direction through the Town of
Medfield. Route 27 currently has a posted speed limit of 40 miles an hour in the study area.

Both segments of South Street are two‐lane, two‐way urban minor arterials also under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction, which runs in the east‐west direction through the Town of Medfield. The two
segments of South Streets have shoulder widths varying from one to three feet on either
side, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour in the study area.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 2 of 9

Route 27 (High Street) at South Street
At the southerly intersection with South Street, Route 27 (High Street) provides a through lane and
exclusive right turn lane on the southbound approach, and a through lane and exclusive left turn
lane on the northbound approach. South Street is approximately 40 feet in width and provides a
single multi‐use lane on the eastbound approach with shoulder widths ranging from one to three feet
on either side. There is a crosswalk located across the southbound approach at the intersection,
which spans across Route 27 and provides connectivity between the sidewalk on the eastern side of
Route 27 and the northern side of South Street. There is also a raised island present on the
southbound approach to facilitate the channelized right turn lane. The intersection of Route 27
(High Street) at South Street is currently signalized in all directions and provides an exclusive
pedestrian phase.

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street
The northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is approximately 25 feet in
width at its intersection with South Street, providing one‐foot shoulders on either side. South
Street is approximately 75 feet wide at its intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street), with no
shoulders on either side of the roadway. South Street is currently under stop control at the
intersection, while Route 27 (Spring Street) is free‐flowing in the north‐south direction. There
are currently no crosswalks present at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South
Street. However, there is an existing portion of sidewalk on the southeastern corner of the
intersection which provides connectivity to the intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South

Sight Distance
A field review of the available sight distance was conducted at the South Street westbound approach
at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street). Route 27 (Spring Street) has a posted speed limit
of 40 miles per hour in both directions. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) publication, A Policy on Geometric Design, 2011 Edition, defines
minimum and desirable sight distances at intersections. The minimum sight distance is based on the
required stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles traveling along the main road and the desirable
sight distance allows vehicles to enter the main street traffic flow without requiring the mainline
traffic to slow to less than 70% of their speed and is referred to as intersection sight distance
(ISD). According to AASHTO, “If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is
at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have
sufficient time to anticipate and avoid collisions.” The following table summarizes the sight
distance standards for the various speeds.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 3 of 9

Table 1
Sight Distance Requirements

Approach      Movement

Speed (MPH)

Required (ft)

Measured (ft)

Required (ft)

Measured (ft)

Meets Requirements

South Street WB at Route 27 (Spring Street)

Left (South)         40               305                 500+                445              500+

40               305                 500+                445              500+

For the westbound approach of South Street, there is over 500 feet of sight distance in either
direction along Route 27 (Spring Street). Based on the above mentioned requirements for stopping
sight distance and intersection sight distance with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour, the
South Street approach at the intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street) provides sufficient
available sight distance.

Existing Traffic Volumes
To assess peak hour traffic conditions, manual turning movement counts were conducted at the study
area intersections on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. The traffic counts were conducted during the
weekday morning peak period from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the weekday afternoon peak period from 4:00
PM to 6:00 PM. The traffic counts are summarized in 15 minute intervals and are attached. The
resulting 2015 unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.

In addition, Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data was collected for a 24‐hour period from Tuesday,
November 10, 2015 through Wednesday, November 11, 2015 on both Route 27 (Spring Street) and South
Street to determine the hourly distributions of traffic for the traffic signal warrant analysis.

MUTCD Signal Warrants
Signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized intersection based on procedures
outlined in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD
establishes nine criteria, referred to as warrants, for the installation of traffic signals. The
manual states that satisfaction of these warrants does not in itself require the installation of a
traffic signal. However, a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more of the
warrants are met. The analyses performed for this report are based on the criteria for the eight‐
hour, four‐hour, and peak hour volume warrants, as well as the pedestrian volume and crash
experience warrants.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 4 of 9

Eight‐hour, four‐hour and peak hour signal warrant analyses were performed using existing traffic
volumes at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street. The results of the signal
warrant analyses are attached, and a summary of the results are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Signal Warrant Summary

Intersection                         Eight‐Hour      Four‐Hour     Peak Hour     Pedestrian
Route 27 (Spring Street)

Crash Experience

at South Street                             Yes                   Yes                  Yes
No                   No

As seen in Table 2, the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street meets the peak
hour, four hour traffic signal warrants (Warrant 2 and 3), and the eight‐hour traffic signal
warrant (Warrant 1), but does not meet the pedestrian warrant (Warrant 4), or crash experience
warrant (Warrant 7).

For the eight‐hour vehicular volume signal warrant (Warrant 1) to be met, minimum vehicular volumes
for the major street and minor street, found in Table 4C‐1 of the MUTCD, must be exceeded for one
of two volume conditions. Per MUTCD methodology, the 70% factor lowering the volume thresholds
required for satisfying the warrants is applicable to this intersection because of the 40 mph
posted speed limit. A summary of the results of the eight‐hour warrant are presented below in Table

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 5 of 9

Table 3: Eight‐Hour (Warrant 1) Signal Warrant Summary


Northbound Volume

Southbound Volume

Existing 2015 Total Major Street Volume

Minor Street Volume

Condition 1 Met1

Condition 2 Met2

6:00 AM                 819                         306                         1125
33                       no                        no
7:00 AM                1388                       640                         2028
143                     yes                       yes
8:00 AM                1100                       588                         1688
132                     yes                       yes
9:00 AM                 649                         501                         1150
99                       no                        yes
10:00 AM                485                         421                          906
111                     yes                       yes
11:00 AM                469                         512                          981
141                     yes                       yes
12:00 PM                 486                         475                          961
142                     yes                       yes
1:00 PM                 488                         487                          975
137                     yes                       yes
2:00 PM                  593                         773                         1366
279                     yes                       yes
3:00 PM                  581                         934                         1515
302                     yes                       yes
4:00 PM                  674                        1007                        1681
276                     yes                       yes
5:00 PM                  702                        1010                        1712
218                     yes                       yes
6:00 PM                  581                         882                         1463
215                     yes                       yes
7:00 PM                 369                         452                          821
130                     yes                       yes

1 Ma jor street volume greater than 350 vehicles pe r hour and minor street volume greater than 105
vehicles pe r hour. 2 Ma jor street volumes greater than 525 vehicles pe r hour and minor street
volume greater than 53 vehicles pe r hour.
****Spe ed Limit is 40 mph on Route 27 (Spring Street)

As seen in Table 3, both Conditions 1 and 2 of the eight‐hour signal warrant were satisfied during
ten consecutive hours, which surpasses the necessary eight‐hour signal warrant requirements. Based
on the results of the eight‐hour signal warrant and MUTCD criteria, the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection is warranted. In addition, the results of four‐ hour and peak hour
warrants also support the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.

Accident Summary
Crash data for the study area intersection was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) for the most recent three‐year period available. This data includes
complete yearly crash summaries for 2011, 2012, and 2013. A summary of the crash data is attached.

The signalized intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South Street had a total of 11 crashes
reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.44 crashes per
million entering vehicles at the intersection. This value is lower than the average crash rates of
0.80 and 0.89 for signalized intersections statewide and in MassDOT District 3, respectively. It
should also be noted that the majority of the crashes were rear‐end type crashes resulting in
property damage, which are typical at a signalized intersection.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 6 of 9

The unsignalized intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street had a total of nine
crashes reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.37
crashes per million entering vehicles. This is lower than both the statewide and MassDOT District 3
averages for unsignalized intersections of 0.60 and 0.66 crashes per million entering vehicles,
respectively. The majority of the crashes that occurred at the intersection were angle or rear‐end
collisions; however, there were two crashes that were head‐on collisions. All of the reported
crashes resulted in property damage and there do not appear to be any trends related to weather or
time of day.

A background growth rate of one percent per year was identified in order to forecast increases in
traffic volumes on the study area roadways and intersections for our future analyses based on
information provided by the Town of Medfield. This rate captures growth associated with general
changes in population and accounts for other small developments in the vicinity of the study area
and is consistent with similar traffic studies completed in this area in recent years. No
additional developments or other roadway projects were identified to be included in the future
traffic analysis. The resulting 2025 Unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 for the
weekday morning and weekday afternoon.

As a basis for this assessment, intersection capacity analyses were conducted using Synchro
capacity analysis software for the study area intersection under the 2015 Existing, 2025
Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized conditions. The analysis was based on procedures contained in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Capacity analysis summaries are attached. A discussion of the
evaluation criteria and a summary of the results of the capacity analyses are presented below.

Level‐of‐Service Criteria
Operating levels of service (LOS) are reported on a scale of A to F with A representing the best
conditions (with little or no delay) and F representing the worst operating conditions (long
delays). In an urbanized area, LOS D is typically considered adequate.

Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study area intersections to evaluate the 2015
Existing conditions, as well as 2025 Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized peak hour traffic
conditions. Based on our analysis, the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic occurs between 7:15
AM and 8:15 AM for the weekday morning, and 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM for the weekday afternoon peak
periods. The results of the capacity analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5 below for the morning
and afternoon peaks, respectively.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 7 of 9

Table 4: Morning Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized



LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)       EB         L                F      155.9    1.28      F      213.6
1.41      F       81.8     1.06
at South Street                                R                A        3.8      0.12      A
0.1      0.05      A        0.6      0.05
NB       L                B       10.2     0.14      B       10.6     0.16      E       76.9
T                F      227.1    1.44      F      293.1    1.59      F      271.9    1.51
SB         T                C       33.4     0.92     D       53.7     1.02      F       67.8
R                A        0.1      0.10      A        0.1      0.11      A        0.8      0.11


F      134.1    1.44      F      179.4    1.59      F      148.1    1.51

Route 27 (Spring Street)    WB      L                F     1175.1   3.24      F     2097.3   5.17
D       39.0     0.68
at South Street                                R                D       28.3     0.11     D
34.7     0.15      B       11.4     0.09
NB       TR             A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A       11.8
SB         LT              C       18.2     0.06      C       21.2     0.08      A        8.1

1 Level‐of‐Service


B       10.3     0.78

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 8 of 9

Table 5: Afternoon Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized


Movement LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)      EB    L                  B       12.2     0.36      B       12.5
0.39      E       79.0     0.75
at South Street                           R                 A        0.0      0.02      A
0.0      0.02      A        0.7      0.02
NB   L                  B       10.8     0.31      B       11.8     0.34      B       10.4     0.20
T                 C       34.8     0.94      E       61.3     1.05      B       14.3     0.61
SB    T                  B       15.8     0.75      C       20.6     0.83      B       13.6
R                 A        0.4      0.30      A        0.5      0.33      A        1.2      0.34


B       18.1     0.94      C       28.6     1.05      B       15.6     0.75

Route 27 (Spring Street)   WB  L                  F     1250.2   3.53      F     2116.2   5.39
F       94.1     1.04
at South Street                           R                 C       15.7     0.05      C       17.2
0.07      B       15.2     0.08
NB   TR               A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A        6.7
SB    LT               B       10.2     0.02      B       10.7     0.03      B       16.1     0.86

1 Level‐of‐Service


C       21.0     1.04

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

As seen in Tables 4 and 5, the proposed signal at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at
South Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS B during the weekday morning peak hour and at
overall LOS C during the weekday afternoon peak hour. During the weekday morning peak hour, the
westbound and southbound movements are expected to improve in operations compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on the level of service. During the weekday afternoon peak hour, the
westbound right and southbound movements are expected to improve compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on level of service. The implementation of a signal at the
intersection will potentially improve the operations of the South Street westbound approach. In
addition, the potential implementation of a dedicated northbound right turn lane on the Route 27
(South Street) approach, as shown in Figure 4, is expected to improve operations at the
intersection. The implementation of a traffic signal in combination with northbound right turn lane
modifications on Route 27 (Spring Street/South Street) would potentially involve Right‐of‐Way

Based on the MUTCD traffic signal warrants, accident data, and sight distance measurements, it is
recommended that a two‐phase actuated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Route
27 (Spring Street) at South Street. A traffic signal will provide significant operational
improvements to the South Street westbound approach while maintaining adequate operations for Route
27 (Spring Street/South Street).  A traffic signal concept plan for the intersection of

Chief Robert E. Meaney
January 19, 2016
Page 9 of 9

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is shown in Figure 4. The preliminary construction cost to
install a signal at this intersection is approximately $200,000. This estimate does not include
costs related to potential roadway widening on the eastern side of the northbound approach on Route
27 (South Street), which will allow for more efficient traffic operations at the intersection. In
addition, the potential right‐of‐way or land acquisition costs have not been accounted for in this

Based on the existing traffic volumes, accident history, and signal warrant analysis, it is
recommended that an actuated and coordinated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of
Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street. The signal warrant analysis concludes that the
intersection volumes adequately satisfy the peak hour, four‐hour, and eight‐hour warrant
requirements. The capacity analysis indicates that signalizing the intersection will minimize
delay, and allow the intersection to operate at a LOS B and C during the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours. Under the future unsignalized conditions, motorists on South Street
will continue to experience long delays in the LOS F range during both peak hours. By installing a
signal, these motorists will experience much more acceptable levels of service.

We trust that our review and recommendations have provided you with the appropriate technical
information to finalize a decision on this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you
require any further information.
Very truly yours,
Phil Viveiros, P.E., PTOE Project Manager
Figure 1 – Study Area Map
Figure 2 – 2015 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Volumes Figure 3 – 2025 Future Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 4 – Traffic Signal Concept Plan
Traffic Count Data Signal Warrant Backup
Synchro Analysis Reports

Gas line exploded

This email just now from Kris –

There was a gas line explosion in the road at South and Philip. This line was currently undergoing work by the Gas Company. There are flames visible at the site. Both Medfield Police and Fire are at the scene. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

Traffic in that area is being detoured.

Kristine Trierweiler
Assistant Town Administrator