Intersection Intersection 

Road Safety Audit Road Safety Audit

Evesham Township, Township, 

Burlington County Burlington County

April 2008 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION

Maple Avenue & Main Street Maple Avenue & Main Street
Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an 

interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and 

coordinated planning to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley 

region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as 

well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester 

and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance and 

services; conducts high priority studies that respond to the requests and demands of 

member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents 

to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of 

the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way 

communication and public awareness of regional issues and the Commission. 

 

Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image 

of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole, while the 

diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. 

DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of 

transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The 

authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not 

represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. 

DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and 

activities. DVRPC’s website may be translated into Spanish, 

Russian, and Traditional Chinese online by visiting 

www.dvrpc.org. Publications and other public documents can be 

made available in alternative languages or formats, if requested. 

For more information, please call (215) 238-2871.
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- i - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MAPLE AVENUE AND MAIN STREET – INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 

1.0 BACKGROUND 1 

1.1 The Audit 1 

1.2 Overview of the Study Area 2 

1.3 Crash Data 3 

2.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 

3.0 CONCLUSIONS 12 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Audit Team 

APPENDIX B – Maps 

APPENDIX C – Traffic Data 

APPENDIX D – Checklist 

APPENDIX E – Response Sheet 
 

 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 1 - 

MAPLE AVENUE AND MAIN STREET INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

1.0 BACKGROUND 

This document represents the final report for the Maple Avenue/Main Street Intersection 

Road Safety Audit. This project represents a step towards the implementation of the 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Regional Safety Action Plan. 

Improving the design and operation of intersections is a priority area for both 

engineering and enforcement disciplines as documented in the Plan. DVRPC has been 

coordinating with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to address corridors on 

the District 6 Safety Plan since fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2008, intersection road 

safety audits are being conducted in New Jersey under Transportation Safety Planning 

in DVRPC’s planning work program. The New Jersey road safety audits concentrate on 

intersections located on county and/or local roads. Implementation of improvement 

strategies identified through this process may be eligible for Local Federal Safety funds. 

Whereas, the goal of this project is to improve and promote transportation safety on the 

region’s roadways while maintaining mobility, the main objective is to address the safe 

operation of the roadway and ensure a high level of safety for all road users. The road 

safety audit program is conducted to generate improvement recommendations and 

countermeasures for roadway segments demonstrating a history of, or potential for a 

high incidence of motor vehicle crashes. The emphasis is placed on identifying low cost, 

quick turnaround safety projects to address the issues where possible but will not 

exclude the more complex projects. 

1.1 The Audit 

A road safety audit (RSA) is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an audit team. Road safety audits can be used on any size 

project, from minor maintenance to mega-projects. There are eight major steps involved 

in conducting a road safety audit but these can be simplified in a three step process – 

identify the corridor/intersection and audit team; conduct the RSA and report on the 

findings; and follow-up on RSA findings where feasible. Major benefits of road safety 

audits include – it is a proactive tool, not solely dependent on crash data; a planning tool 

to identify safety issues to be considered in improvement projects; can determine if the 

needs of all road users are adequately met; adaptable to local needs and conditions; 

and recommendations can be implemented in small stages as time and resources 

permit. 

Prior to the road safety audit activities on site, DVRPC collected, reviewed, and 

analyzed relevant data (video of roadway under different conditions, traffic volume data, 

turning movement counts, maps, aerial photographs, and crash data). Using the crash 

data, collision diagrams were produced which showed the crashes and types for 

locations where they occurred. 

The Road Safety Audit was conducted on March 12, 2008. The day began with a PreAudit meeting that involved the definition of road safety audit and how it differs from the 

corridor study process; the required steps of an audit; presentation of the site issues 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 2 - 

and an exchange of ideas and knowledge of the roadway. A video showing the site 

under night time conditions was also shown. The field view followed where the audit 

team made up of state and local officials and other stakeholders walked the site and 

identified transportation safety issues. See Appendix A for the list of audit team 

members. The post-audit meeting followed and was spent discussing the findings from 

the field view, identifying strategies to address issues and determining priorities. 

1.2 Overview of the Study Area 

The study area consists of the signalized intersection of East Main Street (CR 620) and 

Maple Avenue (CR 607) and vicinity; see Appendix B the study area map. 

CR 620, which is functionally classified as an urban minor arterial, runs in an east-west 

direction at the study area. It provides direct access to NJ 73 to the west of the study 

area. East of the study area CR 620 connects with several major roads, including CR 

619 (Willow Bend Road), CR 623 (Taunton Boulevard), CR 541 (Stokes Road), CR 534 

(Oakshade Road), and CR 648 (Willow Grove Road). 

CR 607, which is functionally classified as an urban minor arterial, runs in a north-south 

direction at the study area. It provides direct access to NJ 73 south of the study area. 

North of the study area CR 607 connects with several major roads, including NJ 70, CR 

674 (Greentree Road), CR 616 (Church Street), and CR 612 (Elbo Lane). 

In the study area both roadways are two lanes, with one lane in each direction. Maple 

Avenue between the E. Main Street intersection and NJ 70 has three lanes, one lane in 

each direction and a two way left-turn lane. At the intersection the E. Main Street 

eastbound approach has two lanes, a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared right-turn 

and through lane. The westbound approach has three lanes with dedicated right and 

left-turn lanes and a through lane. Maple Avenue northbound and southbound 

approaches has two lanes each, a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared right-turn and 

through lane. 

The signal is timed for protected/permissive left-turns from E. Main Street. The speed 

limit at the intersection is 30 MPH but changes to 35 MPH on Maple Avenue away from 

the intersection. Each roadway has narrow shoulders beyond the intersection. 

The land use immediately surrounding the study intersection is commercial. There are 

commercial uses situated on each corner of the intersection. The commercial buildings 

on three of the four corners are located along the road with no setbacks. These 

buildings provide driveway access and parking in the rear of the structure leading up to 

the intersection. A 7-11 Convenience Store is located on the northeast corner of the 

intersection and provides parking in the front of the building along with two 

entrance/exits within the intersection approach. The area surrounding the study location 

has a mix of commercial, residential, and community land uses. 

The NJ Transit Bus Route 406 which travels from Philadelphia to Marlton/Berlin serves 

the study area. The Route 406 bus travels on NJ 70 to Maple Avenue and turns left onto 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 3 - 

E. Main Street at the study intersection. The route 406 bus provides access to Berlin 

Circle Plaza, Virtua Hospital, The Garden State Park in Cherry Hill, the Walter Rand 

Transportation Station, and Center City Philadelphia. The bus route makes 39 

eastbound and 19 westbound trips per weekday. 

Congestion

This area is extremely congested during peak periods but especially so for the 

afternoon peak. During field observations traffic was backed up on northbound Maple 

Avenue for over a quarter mile from the study intersection and from NJ 70 almost to the 

study intersection as well. Transportation Improvement Program project DB # 567 

Route 73/70, Marlton Circle Elimination is scheduled for construction in FY 2008 and 

2009. As described in DVRPC 2008 TIP – “The Marlton Circle, at the intersection of 

Route 70 and Route 73, will be eliminated; a grade-separated interchange (Route 73 

over Route 70) will be constructed. The primary objective is to improve traffic flow and 

thereby reduce congestion on Route 73 and Route 70 through the intersection.” Due to 

the location of the study intersection in relation to the NJ 70/NJ 73 intersection many 

motorists will chose to use Maple Avenue to access NJ 70 and other roadways during 

construction. This will exacerbate not only congestion in this area but also identified 

safety issues. 

No average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes were available for Maple Avenue or 

Main Street in the study area, but NJ 73 showed AADT of 38, 977 vehicles south of NJ 

70 and 58,565 vehicles north of NJ 70 in 2006. In the same year, volumes of 28,287 

west of NJ 73 and 37,747 east of NJ 73 were recorded for NJ 70; see Appendix B for 

Traffic Volume Map. Turning movement counts were taken in January 2008 for the 

study intersection. These showed that the morning peak hour is between 8:00 AM and 

9:00AM and afternoon peak hour is between 4:15 PM and 5:15 PM; see Appendix C. 

The through movement on northbound Maple Avenue and westbound Main Street are 

the dominant movements in the morning and in the afternoon peak hour the dominant 

movements are eastbound Main Street and southbound Maple Street. The left-turn 

movements are high during the afternoon peak from all approaches except northbound 

Maple Avenue. Westbound Main Street also has heavy turn movements. 

1.3 Crash Data 

According to New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) crash database there 

were 34 reportable crashes between 2004 and 2006 in the study area. Reportable 

crashes are crashes which may result in a fatality, injury, and/or property damage of five 

hundred dollars or more. A comprehensive analysis of the crash data is shown in 

Appendix C. Also available in this appendix is a Crash Summary developed by NJDOT 

Bureau of Safety Programs highlighting crashes which occurred in the intersection box. 

Of the reportable crashes, there were 14 crashes in 2004 (40%); 10 crashes in 2005 

(30%); and 10 crashes in 2006 (30%). When analyzing crash frequency by month, 

June had the highest number of crashes with 7 (21%), August and November were next 

with 5 crashes each. Crashes occurred in every month of the year except February and 

July. 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 4 - 

Rear-end (14), and angle (12) crashes represented 76% of the 34 reportable crashes. 

Rear-end (41%) and angle (35%) were higher than 2006 New Jersey Statewide County 

Road Averages of 30.32% and 18.09%, respectively. There were no fatal crashes 

during the study period. There were 27 (79%) property damage only crashes and 7 

injury crashes of varying levels of severity. Nineteen of the thirty-four crashes occurred 

between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM. In an analysis of roadway surface conditions during the 

occurrence of crashes, 71% occurred on dry road surface. Seventy-three percent of the 

crashes occurred during daylight hours. 

 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 5 - 

2.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following represents the findings and recommendations of the Maple Avenue/Main 

Street Intersection Road Safety Audit. Shaded areas represent recommended 

strategies requiring low level of effort for implementation with high potential safety 

benefits. 

Signs 

 

 

 

Issue

• “Evesham Fire Rescue” sign mounted on lane designation sign support on the westbound 

approach of Main Street is too low. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Relocate sign and mount according to the MUTCD standards (bottom of the sign at least 7 

feet from the ground). 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• “No Parking” sign on eastbound side of Main Street west of the intersection is faded and 

mounted too low. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace existing sign and mount according to MUTCD standards. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 

Issue

• “No Parking to Corner” sign located on the southbound side of Maple Avenue is faded. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace existing sign and add additional “No Parking” signs as appropriate on both 

roadways in the vicinity of the intersection. 

County in coordination with the township will examine existing parking ordinances and 

address as appropriate.
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 6 - 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 

Issue

• “One-way” and “Do Not Block Driveway” signs located in driveways west of the 

intersection on the westbound side of Maple Avenue are too low and placed in the county 

right of way by others. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Remove signs. The “One-way” should be reinstalled for the driveways outside the county 

right-of-way. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Street name signs for side streets are small and in some cases are faded. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Place street name signs with size and font type in accordance with the MUTCD. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Street name sign post at the corner of Oak Avenue is leaning. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Re-install sign post and orient street name plates that they are visible to motorists. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• “No Parking” signs are mounted on posts that are not breakaway. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Re-install signs using breakaway post. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 7 - 

Curb Ramp 

 

 

 

Issue

• Pedestrian ramp on the northeast corner doesn’t connect with the crosswalk. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Relocate pedestrian ramp to allow roadway crossing in the crosswalk. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Traffic signal pole is in the pedestrian ramp on the southwest corner. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Relocate the traffic signal pole. It also blocks pedestrian movement on the sidewalk. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium High 

Issue

• Bollard is located in the pedestrian ramp on the northeast corner. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• The municipality should remove the bollard from the curb ramp. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 8 - 

Sidewalk 

 

 

 

Issue

• Concrete planters are located in the sidewalk west of the intersection on the westbound side 

of Main Street. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Remove the planters from the sidewalk. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

Cable and other wires are tripping hazard on the sidewalk on the northbound side of Maple 

Avenue. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Bury the wires underground. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Traffic signal pole on the southwest corner of the intersection blocks the sidewalk. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Relocate the traffic signal pole. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium High 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 9 - 

Pavement Markings 

 

 

 

Issue

Crosswalks are faded in areas and should be made more visible. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Repaint crosswalks and upgrade to continental style. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Bicyclists 

 

Issue

• There are no bicycle amenities at the intersection or in the vicinity. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Install “Share the Road” signs on the roadways leading to the intersection.

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 10 - 

Intersection Design 

 

 

 

Issue

• Intersection is skewed and buildings intrude on the sight distances for turning traffic – 

compromise crosswalk. 

• Intersection is currently congested and is expected to become more congested during the 

construction phase of the scheduled elimination of the Marlton Circle. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Signal timing changes: 

• Add protected/permissive left-turn phase for all approaches and retime the signal to 

accommodate volumes. Possible strategy – Add northbound and eastbound left-turn 

phases (for northbound Maple Avenue a 3 to 5 seconds left turn phase; for eastbound 

Main Street a 3 to 12 seconds left-turn phase); following the termination of the 

northbound lead left allow the southbound thru to be initiated while the southbound leftturn continues; establish a “No Turn on Red”; install a NTOR blank out sign or create an 

overlap for the westbound right-turn to run simultaneously with the southbound protected 

left-turn phase. 

• Install pedestrian countdown signals on all of the approaches. 

• Install a pedestrian lead prior to the initiation of the Maple Avenue Right-of-Way. 

• Install backplates on the Main Street traffic heads. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

And

• Consider an additional approach lane for northbound Maple at NJ 70 to improve operation 

of both intersections. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium/High High 

(Depends if ROW acquisition is required) 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 11 - 

Issue

• Driveways are too close to the intersection. Left-turns from these driveways are potentially 

unsafe considering they are crossing multiple lanes of traffic. From the collision diagram 

there are a number of crashes associated with the 7-11 convenience store driveways. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Prohibit left-turns from the 7-11 driveways on Maple Avenue and Main Street. 

NJDOT approval of a local ordinance and county resolution will be required prior to the 

implementation of the prohibitions.

• In the longer term, modify the driveway for right-turns only.

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High

Transit 

 

Issue

• NJ Transit bus serves this intersection, stops are not indicated. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Sign existing bus stops for the information of the motorists and the safety of the passengers 

getting on or off the buses. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Maple Avenue/Main Street – Intersection Road Safety Audit Report March 2008

- 12 - 

3.0 CONCLUSION

As discussed earlier, the road safety audit program is conducted to generate 

improvement recommendations and countermeasures for roadway segments 

demonstrating a history of, or potential for a high incidence of motor vehicle crashes. 

The safety issues identified during the audit and documented in this report along with 

recommended strategies should improve the overall safety of the study area. Existing 

congestion issues identified along with the potential congestion associated with the 

construction phase of the Marlton Circle elimination project needs to be addressed in 

the short term. Many of the strategies identified can be implemented through routine 

maintenance. The full impact of the improvement strategies will be realized when they 

are combined but time and budget constraints may dictate when remedial strategies are 

implemented. 

Engineering strategies alone will not eliminate the traffic safety issues identified along 

the corridor. Therefore, enforcement and education are necessary components to 

address the human behavioral aspects to effectively reduce the number of crashes 

occurring. Policy or legislative issues may be involved in addressing safety concerns, 

engaging the appropriate stakeholders are important. Coordination and collaboration is 

the key to making the roadway safer for all users.
APPENDIX A 

Audit Team 

Maple Avenue/Main Street, Evesham Township - Road Safety Audit 

Audit Team

Name Organization 

Rosemarie Anderson Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

William Hoffman Federal Highway Administration 

Harry Klatt Burlington County Engineering Department 

Officer Bruce LaCarte Evesham Township Police Department 

Martin Livingston Burlington County Engineering Department 

Regina Moore Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Kevin Murphy Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Marhaba Omer New Jersey Department of Transportation 

William Ragazine Cross County Connection Transportation Management 

Association 

Ray Reeve New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety 

Chris VanBrunt Burlington County Engineering Department 

APPENDIX B 

Maps 





APPENDIX C 

Traffic Data 

CR 607 Main St

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

February 2008

Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts AM & [PM]

Peak Hours

AM: 8:00 - 9:00

PM: 4:15 - 5:15

SCHEMATIC NOT TO SCALE

91 / 141

586 / 731

20 / 40

 21 / 2

2

2

0

6 / 2

7

6

13

7 / 1

9

4

CR 6

2

0 M

a

ple Av

e

28 / [121]

156 / [532]

13 / [73]

129 / [87]

406 / [187]

104 / [130]

 10 / [23] 635 / [487] 47 / [89]

 16 / [29] 345 / [527] 38 / [181]

Intersection Crash Summary

NJDOT Crash Database2004 - 2006

COLLISION TYPERear End 14Right Angle 12Same Direction Side Swipe 3Left/U Turn 3Opposite Dir / Head-On 1Fixed Object 1Total 34LIGHT CONDITIONDay 25Night 8Dusk 1Total 34SURFACE CONDITIONDry 24Wet 9Snowy 1Total 34SEVERITYFatal 0Major Injury 1Moderate Injury 0Minor Injury 6Property Damage Only 27Total 34

Intersection of Main Street and Maple Avenue Evesham Township, New Jersey 

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Intersection Crash Summary, 2004 - 2006CR 620 Main St (MP 0.45 - MP 0.52), and CR 607 Maple Ave (MP 0.2 - MP 0.24)Evesham Township, New Jersey

YEAR COLLISION TYPE PREDOMINANT DRIVER ACTIONS

2004 14 40% Rear End 14 41% Driver Inattention 17 50%2005 10 30% Right Angle 12 35% Failure to Yield Right-Of-Way 7 21%2006 10 30% Same Direction Side Swipe 3 9% None 6 17%Total 34 100% Left/U Turn 3 9% Failed To Obey Traffic Control Device 1 3%

Opposite Dir / Head-On 1 3% Improper Turning 1 3%

MONTH Fixed Object 1 3% Physical Obstructions (viewing, etc) 1 3%

Jan 2 6% Total 34 100% Unknown 1 3%Feb 0 0% Total 34 100%March 3 9% SEVERITYApril 3 9% Fatal 0 0% SURFACE CONDITIONMay 2 6% Major Injury 1 3% Dry 24 71%June 7 21% Moderate Injury 0 0% Wet 9 26%

July 0 0% Minor Injury 6 18% Snowy 1 3%

August 5 15% Property Damage Only 27 79% Total 34 100%

Sept 2 6% Total 34 100%Oct 2 6% TIME OF DAY (SUMMARY)Nov 5 15% LIGHT CONDITION Midnight to 5:59 AM 3 9%Dec 3 9% Day 25 73% AM Peak Period (6 - 8:59 AM) 2 6%Total 34 100% Night 8 24% Midday (9AM - 3:59 PM) 13 38%

Dusk 1 3% PM Peak Period (4 - 6:59 AM) 12 35%

DAY OF WEEK Total 34 100% 7PM - Midnight 4 12%

Friday 5 15% 34 100%Monday 8 24%Saturday 2 6%Sunday 2 6%Tuesday 5 15%Thursday 7 21%Wednesday 5 15%Total 34 100%

CR 

620

Main

St

CR 607 Maple Ave

SCHEMATIC NOT TO SCALE

Total Crashes = 34Pedestrian Crashes = 0

Road Safety Audit

Evesham Township

CR 607 Maple Ave and 

CR 620 Main St

Intersection

Collision Diagram

Crash Data Years 2004-2006

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

February 2008

CR 607 Maple Ave

= # crashes 1

Crash Type 

Legend

Rear End

Angle

Same Direction Sideswipe

Left Turn

X

Opposite Direction Sideswipe

Hit Fixed Object

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

X

1

Left Turn

1 1

1

1

1

2

1

1

CR

620

Main

St

2

2

CRASH SUMMARY

County Road 607 MP 0.45 at County Road 620 (East Main ST) 

Evesham Township, Burlington County

01/01/2004 THRU 12/31/2006

TOTAL CRASHES: 6

SEVERITY COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average INTERSECTION COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average **

Fatal 0 0.00% At Signalized Intersection 6 100.00% 100.00%Injury 2 33.33% 29.16% At Unsignalized Intersection 0 0.00%Property Damage 4 66.67% Between Intersections 0 0.00%Total 6 Railroad Crossing 0 0.00%

Total 6

COLLISION TYPE COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average ** SURFACE CONDITION COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average **

Same Dir.-Rear End 2 33.33% 30.32% Dry 6 100.00% 77.54%Same Dir.-Sideswipe 0 0.00% Wet Surface 0 0.00%Angle 2 33.33% 18.09% Snow 0 0.00%Head On 0 0.00% Ice 0 0.00%

Parked Vehicle 0 0.00% Unknown 0 0.00%

Left Turn / U Turn 1 16.67% 7.89% Other 0 0.00%

Backing 0 0.00% Total 6Encroachment 1 16.67% 0.46%Overturned 0 0.00% LIGHT COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average **

Fixed Object 0 0.00% Day 4 66.67%

Animal 0 0.00% Dusk 0 0.00%

Pedestrian 0 0.00% Night 2 33.33% 25.49%

Pedalcycle 0 0.00% Dawn 0 0.00%

Non - Fixed Object 0 0.00% Unknown 0 0.00%

Railcar - Vehicle 0 0.00% Total 6

Unknown 0 0.00%Other 0 0.00%Total 6Note:

** These columns indicate the number of fatal crashes in each accident category.Source: Bureau of Safety Programs, New Jersey Department of Transportation

APPENDIX D 

Checklist 

CHECKLIST 

Audit Team Member 

GENERAL ISSUES

Item # Description Check Comments

Do drainage items seem to be 

adequate? 

1 

Drainage 

Are drainage items clear of debris? 

2 

Landscaping 

Is landscaping in accordance with 

guidelines (sight distance, clearances 

etc.) 

 

Are boxes, poles, and/or posts located 

in a safe position? 

3 

Public 

Utilities 

Do the above items interfere with sight 

distance? 

 

4 

Access 

Management 

Are there locations at and near the 

intersection where access management 

is problematic? 

 

5 

Lighting 

Is lighting needed in the vicinity of the 

intersection? 

 

ALIGNMENT AND CROSS SECTION

Item # Description Check Comments

Are sight distances adequate for the 

speed of traffic approaching the 

intersection? 

1 

Visibility 

Is adequate sight distance provided at 

intersection? 

 

Are there any sections of the 

intersection which may cause driver 

confusion such as: 

 

a. Is alignment of roadway clearly 

defined? 

 

b. Are crossroads or hidden driveways 

properly signed along corridor? 

 

c. Are bicycle lanes clearly defined? 

2 

Driver 

expectation 

d. Do streetlight and tree lines conform 

with the road alignment? 

 
3 

Widths 

Are all the traffic lanes and roadway 

widths adequate? 

 

INTERSECTIONS

Item # Description Check Comments

Are there any roadside objects nearby 

which would intrude on driver’s line of 

sight? 

1 

Location 

Are the intersections adequate for all 

vehicular movements? 

 

Are pavement markings and intersection 

control signing satisfactory? 

2 

Controls 

Are there any pedestrian signals? 

Is the intersection appropriately signed? 

Are there advance warning signs 

indicating the intersection? 

 

3 

Signage 

Are signs appropriately located and of 

the appropriate size? 

 

Is the intersection layout obvious to all 

users? 

 

Is the alignment of curbs satisfactory? 

Are turning radii and tapers appropriate? 

4 

Layout 

Are there driveways located at or near 

the intersections? 

 

5 

Visibility, 

and Sight 

Distance 

Is sight distance adequate for all 

movements and all users? 

 

Are there bus stops located near the 

intersections? 

6 

Transit 

a. If so are the bus stops near side or 

far side? 

 

Do the turning lanes have sufficient 

storage? 

7 

Turn Lanes 

Are there locations where a left-turn lane 
is needed? 

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Item # Description Check Comments

Are traffic signals operating correctly? 

(Example clearance time) 

1 

Signal 

Operation 

Should there be left-turn signal 

protection for the approaches? 

 

Are traffic signals clearly visible to 

approaching motorists? 

 

Are signal heads adequately placed not 

to cause driver confusion? 

 

Are the signals post mounted, wire 

mounted, or mast arm mounted? 

 

Are “signal ahead warning” signs 

needed? 

 

Is the number of signal heads 

adequate? 

 

Are the signal heads too small for 

motorists to notice? 

 

2 

Signal heads 

and Visibility 

Are the signals hard to see due to sun 

glare? 

 

PEDESTRIANS

Item # Description Check Comments

1 

Land Use 

Factors 

Are there schools or other pedestrian 

generators nearby? 

 

Are sidewalks continuous throughout the 

corridor? 

 

Are the sidewalks in good conditions 

(uneven, cracked, etc.)? 

 

2 

Sidewalks 

Are the sidewalks wide enough to 

accommodate persons using mobility 

aides? 

 

Are crosswalks provided at the 

intersection? 

3 

Facilities at 

CR 607 and 

CR 620 

intersection 

Are the pedestrian ramps adequate? 
Are there pedestrian signals located at 

intersection? 

 

Is the intersection clearly delineated for 

the visually impaired? 

 

Is there adequate drainage at the 

intersection? 

 

Are crosswalks clearly marked? 

Is the speed limit appropriate for all road 

users? 

 

Is there on street parking that would 

impede pedestrian visibility? 

 

Are there safety concerns for pedestrian 

crossings midblock? 

 

Are the pedestrian ramps adequate for 

midblock crosswalk? 

 

4 

Area near the 

CR 607 and 

CR 620 

intersection 

Is the midblock crosswalk along CR 616 

visible to motorists? 

 

Is the sidewalk adequately lit for 

pedestrians to see and feel safe? 

 

Are there dark places or hiding places 

which represent a personal security 

issue? 

 

5 

Lighting 

Are the pedestrian crosswalks 

adequately lit for pedestrians and 

motorists? 

 

Are pedestrians waiting to cross visible 

to motorists? 

 

Can pedestrians see approaching 

vehicles? 

 

6 

Visibility and 

Sight 

Distance 

Are there temporary or permanent 

obstructions near crosswalks (parked 

vehicles, vegetation, fences, etc.) 

 
BICYCLISTS

Item # Description Check Comments

Are there share the road signs posted? 

Is the road surface of suitable quality for 

bicyclists? 

 

Are parked vehicles an obstruction to 

bicyclists? 

 

TRANSIT

Item # Description Check Comments

1 

Buses 

Are bus stops located at or near the 

intersection of CR 620 and CR 607? Or 

along Maple Avenue and Main Street? 

 

ON STREET PARKING

Item # Description Check Comments

Are there time parking restriction signs 

posted? 

 

Does parking obstruct through lane 

traffic? 

 

Is parking located at the edge of 

intersections which could cause conflict 

for right-turning traffic? 

 

1 

Parking 

Does parking obstruct vehicular or 

pedestrian movement? 

 

SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, DELINEATION AND LIGHTING

Item # Description Check Comments

Are there signs missing from key 

locations? 

 

Are signs easy to understand? 

Are the correct signs used for each 

situation, and is each sign necessary? 

 

Are signs effective for all likely 

conditions (i.e. day, night, oncoming 

headlights, etc.)? 

 

1 

Signage

Is there sign clutter at the intersection? 
Are all necessary regulatory, warning, 

and direction signs in place? Are they 

conspicuous? 

 

Are they redundant? 

Are traffic signs in their correct locations, 

and properly positioned with respect to 

lateral clearance and height? 

 

Are signs placed so as to restrict sight 

distance, particularly for vehicles? 

 

Do signs supports conform to 

guidelines? 

 

Does existing pavement markings need 

to be re-painted? 

 

Do raised pavement markers need to be 

installed at the approach of the 

intersection? 

 

2 

Pavement 

Markings 

and 

Delineation

Are pavement markings easily visible 

and effective for all likely conditions (i.e. 

at night, day, inclement weather etc.)? 

 

PAVEMENT

Item # Description Check Comments

1 

Pavement 

defects 

Is the pavement free of defects (i.e. 

excessive roughness, potholes) which 

could result in safety problems? 

 

2 

Ponding 

Is the pavement free of areas where 

ponding may occur resulting in a safety 

problem? 

 
APPENDIX E 

Response Sheet 

CR 607 and CR 620 Intersection Road Safety Audit Response Sheet 

INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Signs • “Evesham Fire Rescue” sign 

mounted on lane designation sign support on the westbound approach of Main Street is too low. 

• Relocate sign and mount 

according to the MUTCD standards (bottom of the sign at least 7 feet from the ground). 

• “No Parking” sign on 

eastbound side of Main Street west of the intersection is faded and mounted too low. 

• Replace existing sign and 

mount according to MUTCD standards. 

• “No Parking to Corner” sign 

located on the southbound side of Maple Avenue is faded. 

• Replace existing sign and 

add additional “No Parking” signs as appropriate on both roadways in the vicinity of the intersection. 

County in coordination with the township will examine existing parking ordinances and address as appropriate.

• “One-Way” and “Do Not 

Block Driveway” signs located in driveways west of the intersection on the westbound side of Maple Avenue are too low and placed in the county right of way by others. 

• Remove signs. The “One 

way” signs should be reinstalled for the driveways outside the county right-ofway. 
INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Signs (continued) • Street name signs for side 

streets are small and in some cases are faded. 

• Place street name signs with 

size and font type in accordance with the MUTCD. 

• Street name sign post at the 

corner of Oak Avenue is leaning. 

• Re-install sign post and 

orient street name plates that they are visible to motorists. 

• “No Parking” signs are 

mounted on posts that are not breakaway. 

• Re-install signs using 

breakaway post. 

Curb ramp • Pedestrian ramp on the 

northeast corner does not connect with the crosswalk. 

• Relocate pedestrian ramp to 

allow roadway crossing in the crosswalk. 

• Traffic signal pole is in the 

pedestrian ramp on the southwest corner. 

• Relocate the traffic signal 

pole. 

• Bollard is located in the 

pedestrian ramp on the northeast corner. 

• The municipality should 

remove the bollard from the curb ramp. 

County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.
INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Sidewalk • Concrete planters are located 

in the sidewalk west of the intersection on the westbound side of Main Street. 

• Remove the planters from 

the sidewalk. 

• Cable and other wires are 

tripping hazard on the sidewalk on the northbound side of Maple Avenue. 

• Bury the wires underground. 

• Traffic signal pole on the 

southwest corner of the intersection blocks the sidewalk.

• Relocate the traffic signal 

pole. 

Pavement Markings • Crosswalks are faded in areas 

and should be made more visible. 

• Repaint crosswalks and 

upgrade to continental style. 
INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Intersection Design • Intersection is skewed and 

buildings intrude on the sight distances for turning traffic – compromise crosswalk. 

• Intersection is currently 

congested and expected to become more congested with the pending elimination of the Marlton Circle. 

• Signal timing changes: 

• Add protected/permissive 

left-turn phase for all approaches and retime the signal to accommodate volumes. Possible strategy – Add northbound and eastbound left-turn phases (for northbound Maple Avenue a 3 to 5 seconds left turn phase; for eastbound Main Street a 3 to 12 seconds left-turn phase); following the termination of the northbound lead left allow the southbound thru to be initiated while the southbound left-turn continues; Establish a “No turn on Red”; install a NTOR blank out sign or create an overlap for the westbound right-turn to run simultaneously with the southbound protected left-turn phase. 
INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Intersection Design (continued) 

• Install pedestrian 

countdown signals on all of the approaches. 

• Install a pedestrian lead 

prior to the initiation of the Maple Avenue Right of Way. 

• Install backplates on the 

Main Street traffic heads. 

Consider an additional approach lane for northbound Maple at NJ 70 to improve operation of both intersections. 

• Driveways are too close to the 

intersection. Left-turns from these driveways are potentially unsafe considering they are crossing multiple lanes of traffic. From the collision diagram there are a number of crashes associated with the 7-11 convenience store driveways.

• Prohibit left-turns from the 

7-11 driveways on Maple Avenue and Main Street. 

NJDOT approval of a local ordinance and county resolution will be required prior to the implementation of the prohibitions.In the longer term, modify the driveway for right-turns only. 

Bicyclists • There are no bicycle amenities 

at the intersection or in the vicinity. 

• Install “Share the Road” 

signs on the roadways leading to the intersection. 
INTERSECTION ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Transit • NJ Transit bus serves this 

intersection, stops are not indicated. 

• Sign existing bus stops for 

the information of the motorists and the safety of the passengers getting on or off the buses. 
Title of Report: INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – MAPLE AVENUE & MAIN

STREET, EVESHAM TOWNSHIP

 

Publication No.: 08028

Date Published: April 2008 

Geographic Area Covered: 

The study area consists of the signalized intersection of East Main Street (CR 620) and Maple 

Avenue (CR 607) and vicinity in Evesham Township, New Jersey. 

Key Words: 

Road, safety, audit, potential, fatalities, injuries, reportable, crashes, issues, strategies, 

coordination, engineering, enforcement, education, stakeholders, prioritize, intersection, speed 

limit, traffic volumes, stakeholders, audit team, breakaway, geometry, pavement markings, 

signs, traffic signals, crosswalk, sidewalk, curb ramp. 

 

ABSTRACT: This is a documentation of the process and findings of the Maple Avenue (CR 

607) and Main Street (CR 620) Intersection Road Safety Audit (RSA) undertaken by Delaware 

Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). The goal of the audit is to generate 

improvement recommendations and countermeasures for intersections demonstrating a history 

of, or potential for a high incidence of motor vehicle crashes. The emphasis is placed on 

identifying low cost, quick turnaround safety projects to address the issues where possible. This 

project represents a step towards implementation of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission (DVRPC) Regional Safety Action Plan. Improving the design and operation of 

intersections is a priority area for both engineering and enforcement discipline as documented in 

the Plan. Improvement strategies may be eligible for Local Federal Safety Funds for 

implementation. The report details safety issues identified by the audit team at the study 

location and remedial strategies to address them. 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

190 North Independence Mall West 

8th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 

Phone: 215-592-1800 

Fax: 215-592-9125 

Internet: www.dvrpc.org

Contact: 

Rosemarie Anderson, Manager, Office of Safety and Security Planning 

215-238-2832 randerson@dvrpc.org

Regina Moore, Transportation Engineer 

215-238-2862 rmoore@dvrpc.org

Kevin Murphy, Senior Transportation Planner 

215-238-2864 kmurphy@dvrpc.org 
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION

190 North Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106

P: 215-592-1800

F: 215-592-9125

www.dvrpc.org
Intersection Intersection 

Road Safety Audit Road Safety Audit

Evesham Township, Township, 

Burlington County Burlington County

April 2008 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION

Maple Avenue & Main Street Maple Avenue & Main Street

Intersection Intersection 

Road Safety Audit Road Safety Audit

Evesham Township, Township, 

Burlington County Burlington County

April 2008 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION

Maple Avenue & Main Street Maple Avenue & Main Street