Intersection Intersection 

Road Safety Audit Road Safety Audit

Pemberton Borough Pemberton Borough

Burlington County Burlington County

April 2008 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- i - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – HANOVER STREET 

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 4 

3.0 CONCLUSIONS 14 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Audit Team 

APPENDIX B – Maps 

APPENDIX C – Traffic Data 

APPENDIX D – Checklist 

APPENDIX E – Response Sheet 

Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 1 - 

INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – HANOVER STREET, PEMBERTON 

BOROUGH 

1.0 BACKGROUND 

This document represents the final report for the Hanover Street 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 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 2 - 

corridor study process; the required steps of an audit; presentation of the site issues 

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 five intersections along CR 616 (Hanover Street) in 

Pemberton Borough in Burlington County, New Jersey, see Appendix B. CR 616 runs 

from New Egypt in Ocean County to NJ 73 in Mount Laurel. The study area begins at 

the intersection of Mary Street, goes through the intersections of Antis Street, CR 678 

(Elizabeth Street), Pemberton Street and ends at the intersection of Jane Street for a 

distance of approximately a quarter mile. Hanover Street, functionally classified as an 

Urban Collector, runs in a north-south direction in the study area. Hanover Street is two 

lanes along the study area and parking is permitted in sections along the curb. The 

speed limit in the study area is 25 MPH, but varies in other sections. 

There are several major roads that connect with CR 616 to the west of the study area in 

Mount Laurel, Medford, Southampton, and Pemberton Townships. In Mount Laurel 

Township, CR 616 connects with NJ 73, CR 607, and CR 603. In Medford Township CR 

616 connects with Holly Medford Road and CR 641, CR 681, US 206, and CR 643 in 

Southampton Township. In Pemberton Township, west of the study area, CR 616 

connects with CR 530. East of the study area CR 616 connects with several major 

roads in Pemberton and New Hanover Townships. It connects with CR 668, CR 669, 

CR 545, CR 680, CR 667, and CR 665. 

The five roads that intersect with Hanover Street along the study area all form “T” 

intersections. Mary, Antis, Pemberton, and Jane Streets are all two lanes, with one in 

each direction. These are local roads that provide access to the adjacent residential 

areas and run for short distances. Elizabeth Street (CR 687) connects with Hanover 

Street at a signalized intersection in the middle of the study area. CR 687, which is 

functionally classified as an urban collector, runs in a west-east direction for a distance 

of 2.89 miles. Originating at Hanover Street in Pemberton Borough in the west and 

traveling east and connecting to CR 530 (Pemberton Mill Road). At the Hanover Street 

intersection, Elizabeth Street is two lanes westbound – dedicated left and right-turn 

lanes and one lane eastbound. 

The land use along Hanover Street in the study area is mixed-use – residential, 

commercial, community use, and parking. United Methodist Churchand Grace 

Episcopal Churchare both located along Hanover Street in the study area. There are 36 

parcels along the east side of Hanover Street, 21 are single family detached houses, 12

are commercial uses, and 3 are community uses. There are 24 parcels on the west side 

of CR 616; 9 are single family detached houses, 11 are commercial uses, and 4 are 

parking facilities. 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 3 - 

The NJ Transit Bus Route 317, Philadelphia to Asbury Park serves Pemberton 

Borough. It travels on Hanover Street between CR 530 and Elizabeth Street and travels 

the length of Elizabeth Street to the CR 530 Bypass. The route 317 bus serves a 

number of commercial shopping centers, Burlington County Community College, the 

McGuire Air Force Base, and connects with other transit routes. The route 317 bus 

makes 9 northeast bound and 7 southwest bound trips per weekday. 

The Burlink B1 Shuttle serves the Pemberton Borough area, providing access to the 

Beverly River Line Rail Station. The Burlink B1 Shuttle makes 12 eastbound and 12 

southwest bound trips per weekday. 

Traffic volume recorded in 1995 on Elizabeth Street west of the study area shows an 

average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 7,272 vehicles while south of CR 530 on 

Hanover Street volumes for the same year were 4,770 vehicles; see Appendix B for 

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

intersection of Hanover and Elizabeth Streets. These showed that the morning peak 

hour is between 6:30 AM and 7:30AM and afternoon peak hour is between 3:30 PM and 

4:30 PM; see Appendix C. The through movements on Hanover Street are the 

dominant movements in the morning and afternoon peak hours. From Elizabeth Street 

there is a heavy right-turn movement on to northbound Hanover Street during the 

morning and afternoon peak. 

1.3 Crash Data 

According to New Jersey Department of Transportation crash database there were 26 

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. 

Of the reportable crashes, there were 8 crashes in 2004 (31%); 10 crashes in 2005 

(38%); and 8 crashes in 2006 (31%). When analyzing crash frequency by month, May 

had the highest number of crashes with 7 (27%), October was next with 4 crashes. 

Crashes occurred in every month of the year with 7 months having only 1 crash. 

Rear-end (10), angle (5), and struck parked vehicle (3) crashes represented 68% of the 

26 reportable crashes. Rear-end (38%), angle (19%) and pedestrian (4%) were higher 

than 2006 New Jersey statewide county road averages of 30.32%, 18.09% and 1.89%, 

respectively. There were no fatal crashes during the study period. There were 22 (85%) 

property damage only crashes and 4 injury crashes of varying levels of severity. In an 

analysis of roadway surface conditions during the occurrence of crashes, 77% occurred 

on dry road surface. Eighty-five percent of the crashes occurred during daylight hours. 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 4 - 

2.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following represents the findings and recommendations of the Hanover Street Road 

Safety Audit. Shaded areas represent recommended strategies requiring low level 

of effort for implementation with high potential safety benefits. 

Street Name Signs 

 

 

Issue

• The street name signs are too small and difficult to read by motorists. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Upgrade street name signs to the current MUTCD standards. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Painted Curbs 

 

Issue

• Sections of curb are painted yellow to indicate “no parking” areas. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Repaint using red paint according to the current MUTCD and supplement with the 

appropriate “No Parking” signs. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 5 - 

Sidewalks 

 

 

Issue

• Sidewalk from Jane Street to Pemberton Street is uneven on both sides of Hanover Street 

• Sidewalk uneven past the Baptist Church on the west side of Hanover Street to the 

intersection of Elizabeth Street. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Repair or replace sidewalk as appropriate for the safety of pedestrians.

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium High 

Bicycle Amenities 

 

 

Issue

• No bicycle amenities present in the study area. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Install “Share the Road” signs near St. John Street and Mary Street.

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 6 - 

Jane Street Intersection 

 

Issue

• Tight turning radius from Hanover Street northbound onto Jane Street. 

• Utility pole on the south side of the intersection is inches from the curb. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Install “One-Way” sign at Jane Street this will inform drivers that there is no on-coming 

traffic and hugging the curb is not necessary to make the turn. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Crosswalk at Jane Street is faded. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Re-stripe crosswalk. 

County contract will repaint in the Spring of 2008.

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High

Issue

• On the west side of Hanover Street opposite Jane Street there is a curb ramp leading into the 

road without a crosswalk. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Add a crosswalk across Hanover Street at the intersection with appropriate signage. 

County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 7 - 

Between Jane and Pemberton Streets 

Issue

• Curbside parking spaces are only 5 feet wide on both sides of Hanover Street. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Prohibit parking where the curb lane of the street is less than 8 feet wide. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Pemberton Street Intersection 

 

 

 

Issue

• No stop bar on Pemberton Street. 

• Tree located south of the intersection on Hanover Street obstruct sight distance of motorists 

looking south from Pemberton Street. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Add a stop bar at the Hanover Street approach on Pemberton Street in accordance with 

AASHTO standards. 

• Add a reflective stripe along stop sign post. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 8 - 

Pemberton Street Intersection, continued 

Issue

• “Neighborhood Watch” sign is mounted on “Stop” sign post. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Relocate “Neighborhood Watch” sign. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 

Issue

• Crosswalk pavement markings are faded. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Repaint and replace crosswalk pavement marking using continental style.

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High

South of Pemberton Street Intersection 

 

 

 

Issue

• Existing school speed limit flashing sign is redundant given that the posted speed limit is the 

same. 

• There are no speed limit signs northbound in the study area from Mary Street to Jane Street. 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 9 - 

South of Pemberton Street Intersection, continued 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace the existing flashing school limit signs with dynamic message signs that reflect the 

posted speed limit and advise drivers of their current speed. 

County will need to prepare an interlocal services agreement with Pemberton Borough to 

modify the existing school speed limit assemblies and use the existing power supply.

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium High 

Issue

• The school is no longer located in the vicinity and advance “school crossing” signs are still 

in place. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace the advance “school crossing” signs to “pedestrian crossing” signs. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• The crosswalk across Hanover Street is signed for school crossing. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace “school crossing” sign with a pedestrian crossing beacon over the roadway. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Medium High 

Issue

• On Sunday mornings, it is difficult for pedestrians to cross at the mid-block crosswalk at the 

Baptist Church. Motorists do not yield for pedestrians at the crosswalk. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

Replace existing crosswalk with continental style striping to enhance visibility. Add sawtooth “yield” pavement markings in both directions at the crosswalk. Add regulatory sign 

“yield to pedestrian in crosswalk.”

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 10 - 

Boyd Pharmacy Driveway 

 

 

Issue

• The driveway is too close to the Elizabeth Street intersection, this causes conflicts between 

entering/exiting customers and motorists at the intersection and traveling along Hanover 

Street. 

• The driveway has a narrow apron. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Extend the apron for the driveway and prohibit egress from the driveway at all times and 

restrict all left-turn movements into the parking lot during peak morning and afternoon 

periods; 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 

or

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Convert the driveway on Hanover Street to right-in/right-out only and utilize the access on 

Jarvis Street and Pemberton Street for all other movements.

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 11 - 

Elizabeth Street Intersection 

 

 

 

Issue

• Crosswalks are two lines and have limited visibility. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Upgrade all crosswalks at the intersection to the continental style. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• The south crosswalk does not have a curb ramp on the west side of Hanover Street. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Construct curb ramp. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 12 - 

Elizabeth Street Intersection, continued 

Issue

• The stop bar for the right-turn lane on Elizabeth Street is too close to the intersection to 

allow pedestrians to begin crossing before a vehicle begins to turn right. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Move back stop bar as appropriate. This will also give pedestrians waiting to cross Hanover 

Street a lead enhancing their visibility. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Prohibiting right-turns on red signal for northbound Hanover Street at the intersection 

exacerbates congestion and can potentially cause aggressive driving given the congestion at 

the intersection during peak periods. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Replace the current “No Turn on Red” sign with a dynamic message sign which prohibits 

turns on red only during the protected left-turn phase at the southbound approach. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• Southbound left-turn stacking lane is only 150 feet. The through lane cannot be developed 

because it is mixed with parked vehicles at the curb. Traffic coming over the crest of the hill 

is channeled into the left-turning lane by the curbside parking. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Remove 3 parking spaces on the southbound side of Hanover Street and extend the left-turn 

lane back to 200 feet to accommodate current vehicular volumes. 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Parking is currently a concern of Pemberton Borough. At specific times existing parking lots 

around the study area maybe underused therefore the Borough is encouraged to coordinate 

with property owner for joint use agreements.

Issue

• Trucks turning right from Elizabeth Street do so across the double yellow line into 

oncoming traffic. The corner radius is too small for large trucks. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Remove one parking space on the northbound side of Hanover Street to increase the taper 

and alleviate the conflict. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 13 - 

Elizabeth Street Intersection, continued 

Issue

• Motorists park illegally in the taper for the southbound receiving lane, south of the 

intersection. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Crosshatch the tapers and install “No stopping and standing” signs to assist in channelizing 

the southbound traffic. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Between Elizabeth and Antis Streets 

 

Issue

• Parking/shoulder pavement markings are faded. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Restripe as necessary. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low High 

Issue

• At Antis Street there is no break in the pavement parking/shoulder pavement marking on 

Hanover Street for the intersection. 

Possible Improvement Strategies 

• Remove pavement marking from across the intersection. 

 

Level of Effort Potential Safety Benefit 

Low Medium 
Intersection Road Safety Audit - Hanover Street March 2008

- 14 - 

3.0 CONCLUSION

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. 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 

Hanover Street, Pemberton Borough - Road Safety Audit 

Audit Team

Name Organization 

Rosemarie Anderson Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Chief Joseph Conlin Pemberton Borough 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 

Ray Reeve New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety 

APPENDIX B 

Maps 

Elizabeth St

W. Hampton St

N. Pemberton Rd

Pointville Rd

Ft. Dix Rd 

Hanover St 

687

616

630

530

SRI 03000616

Mile 18.07

Hanover Street

Delaware Valley

Regional Planning Commission

March 2008

 Road Safety Audit

Study Area

B u r l i n g t o n C o u n t y

P e m b e r t o n 

B o r o u g h

P e m b e r t o n T o w n s 

Elizabeth St

W. Hampton St

N. Pemberton Rd

Pointville Rd

Ft. Dix Rd 

Hanover St 

687

616

630

530

SRI 03000616

Mile 18.07

Hanover Street

Delaware Valley

Regional Planning Commission

March 2008

 Road Safety Audit

Traffic Volume

B u r l i n g t o n C o u n t y

P e m b e r t o n 

B o r o u g h

P e m b e r t o n T o w n s 

DVRPC Traffic Count

AADT (Year) !(

22,858 (06)

4,770 (95)

463 (97)

7,272 (95)

25,645 (06)

6,169 (95)

APPENDIX C 

Traffic Data 

CR 687 Elizabeth St

1258 / [435]

23 / [34]

Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts AM & [PM]

SCHEMATIC NOT TO SCALE

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

March 2008

Peak Hours

AM: 6:30 - 7:30

PM: 3:30 - 4:30

CR 616

Hanover St

224 / [188]

114 / [57]

288 / [729]

109 / [170]

Intersection Crash Summary

NJDOT Crash Database2004 - 2006

COLLISION TYPERear End 10Right Angle 5Struck Parked Vehicle 3Same Direction Side Swipe 2Backing 2Left Turn/U Turn 1Fixed Object 1Pedestrian 1Non-fixed Object 1Total 26LIGHT CONDITIONDay 22Night 2Dusk 1Dawn 1Total 26SURFACE CONDITIONDry 20Wet 6Total 26SEVERITYFatal 0Major Injury 0Moderate Injury 1Minor Injury 3Property Damage Only 22Total 26

Intersection of Hanover Street and Elizabeth Street, and Vicinity Pemberton Borough, New Jersey 

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Intersection Crash Summary, 2004 - 2006CR 616 Hanover St (MP 18.0 - MP 18.24), and CR 687 Elizabeth St (MP 0.00)Pemberton Borough, New Jersey

YEAR COLLISION TYPE PREDOMINANT DRIVER ACTIONS2004 8 31% Rear End 10 38% Driver Inattention 11 42%

2005 10 38% Right Angle 5 19% None 11 42%

2006 8 31% Struck Parked Vehicle 3 11% Following Too Closely 2 8%

Total 26 100% Same Direction Side Swipe 2 8% Unsafe Speed 1 4%

Backing 2 8% Backing Unsafely 1 4%

MONTH Left Turn/U Turn 1 4% Total 26 100%

Jan 1 4% Fixed Object 1 4%Feb 1 4% Pedestrian 1 4% SURFACE CONDITION

March 3 12% Non-fixed Object 1 4% Dry 20 77%

April 1 4% Total 26 100% Wet 6 23%

May 7 27% Total 26 100%

June 1 4% SEVERITY

July 1 4% Fatal 0 0% TIME OF DAY (SUMMARY)August 2 8% Major Injury 0 0% Midnight to 5:59 AM 2 8%Sept 3 12% Moderate Injury 1 4% AM Peak Period (6 - 8:59 AM) 1 4%

Oct 4 15% Minor Injury 3 12% Midday (9AM - 3:59 PM) 14 54%

Nov 1 4% Property Damage Only 22 85% PM Peak Period (4 - 6:59 AM) 8 31%Dec 1 4% Total 26 100% 7PM - Midnight 1 4%

Total 26 100% 26 100%

LIGHT CONDITION

DAY OF WEEK Day 22 85%

Monday 6 23% Night 2 8%

Thursday 5 19% Dusk 1 4%

Tuesday 4 15% Dawn 1 4%

Wednesday 4 15% Total 26 100%

Friday 3 12%

Sunday 2 8%Saturday 2 8%Total 26 100%

Jane St

CR 616 Hanover St

Antis St

CR 687 Elizabeth St

SCHEMATIC NOT TO SCALE

Total Crashes = 26

Pedestrian Crashes = 1

2

1 = # crashes

Rear End

Angle

Crash Type 

Legend

Same Direction 

Sideswipe

Hit Fixed Object X

Backing

Other

Possible Miscoding

“Backing”

X

1

1

2

X

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

Hit Pedestrian

1

1

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

March 2008

1

1

1

1

3

Road Safety Audit

Pemberton Township

CR 616 Hanover Street and 

CR 687 Elizabeth Street

Intersection

Collision Diagram

Crash Data Years 2004-2006

Hit Non-fixed 

Object

1

1

Struck Parked 

Vehicle

X

Left Turn

CRASH SUMMARY

County Road 616 MP 18.07 at County Road 687(Elizabeth ST) 

Pemberton Borough, Burlington County

01/01/2004 THRU 12/31/2006

TOTAL CRASHES: 7

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

Fatal 0 0.00% At Signalized Intersection 7 100.00% 100.00%Injury 1 14.29% 29.16% At Unsignalized Intersection 0 0.00%Property Damage 6 85.71% 70.57% Between Intersections 0 0.00%Total 7 Railroad Crossing 0 0.00%

Total 7

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

Same Dir.-Rear End 2 28.57% Dry 4 57.14%Same Dir.-Sideswipe 2 28.57% 11.45% Wet Surface 3 42.86% 19.67%Angle 2 28.57% 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 0 0.00% Other 0 0.00%

Backing 0 0.00% Total 7Encroachment 0 0.00%Overturned 0 0.00% LIGHT COUNT % OF TOTAL 2006 Average **

Fixed Object 1 14.29% 11.89% Day 6 85.71% 70.25%Animal 0 0.00% Dusk 0 0.00%

Pedestrian 0 0.00% Night 1 14.29%

Pedalcycle 0 0.00% Dawn 0 0.00%

Non - Fixed Object 0 0.00% Unknown 0 0.00%

Railcar - Vehicle 0 0.00% Total 7

Unknown 0 0.00%Other 0 0.00%Total 7Note:

** These columns indicate the number of fatal crashes in each accident category.Source: New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Safety Programs, March 2008

APPENDIX D 

Checklist 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Hanover Street Intersection Road Safety Audit 

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? 

 

7 

Turn Lanes 

Do the turning lanes have sufficient 

storage? 

 
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 616 and 

CR 678 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? 

 

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 616 and 

CR 678 

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? 

 

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.)? 

 

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? 

 

1 

Signage

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.)? 

 

TRANSIT

Item # Description Check Comments

1 

Buses 

Are bus stops located at or near the 

intersection of CR 616 and CR 678? 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? 

 

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 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Hanover Street - Intersection Road Safety Audit 

Response Sheet 

ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Street Name Signs • The street name signs are too 

small and difficult to read by motorists. 

• Upgrade street name signs to 

the current MUTCD standards. 

Painted Curbs • Sections of curb are painted 

yellow to indicate “no parking” areas. 

• Repaint using red paint 

according to the current MUTCD and supplement with the appropriate “No Parking” signs. 

Sidewalk • Sidewalk from Jane Street to 

Pemberton Street is uneven on both sides of Hanover Street 

• Sidewalk is uneven past the 

Baptist Church on the west side of Hanover Street to the intersection of Elizabeth Street. 

• Repair or replace sidewalk as 

appropriate for the safety of pedestrians. 

Bicycle Amenities • There are no bicycle amenities 

present. 

• Install “Share the Road” 

signs near St. John Street and Mary Street. 
ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Jane Street Intersection • Tight turning radius from 

Hanover Street northbound onto Jane Street. 

• Utility pole on the south side 

of the intersection is inches from the curb. 

• Install “One-Way” sign at 

Jane Street this will inform drivers that there is no oncoming traffic and hugging the curb is not necessary to make the turn. 

• Crosswalk at Jane Street is 

faded. 

• Re-stripe crosswalk. County contract will repaint in the Spring of 2008.

• On the west side of Hanover 

Street opposite Jane Street there is a curb ramp leading into the road without a crosswalk. 

• Add a crosswalk across 

Hanover Street at the intersection with appropriate signage. 

County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.

Between Jane and Pemberton Streets • Curbside parking spaces are 

only 5 feet wide on both sides of Hanover Street.

• Prohibit parking where the 

curb lane of the street is less than 8 feet wide. 
ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Pemberton Street Intersection • No stop bar on Pemberton 

Street. 

• Tree located south of the 

intersection on Hanover Street obstruct sight distance of motorists looking south from Pemberton Street. 

• Add a stop bar at the 

Hanover Street approach on Pemberton Street in accordance with AASHTO standards. 

• Add a reflective stripe along 

stop sign post. 

• “Neighborhood Watch” sign is 

mounted on “Stop” sign post. 

• Relocate “Neighborhood 

Watch” sign. 

• Crosswalk pavement markings 

are faded. 

• Repaint and replace 

crosswalk pavement marking using continental style. 

South of Pemberton Street Intersection • Existing school speed limit 

flashing sign is redundant given that the posted speed limit is the same. 

• There are no speed limit signs 

northbound in the study area from Mary Street to Jane Street. 

• Replace the existing flashing 

school limit signs with dynamic message signs that reflect the posted speed limit and advise drivers of their current speed. 

County will need to prepare an interlocal services agreement with Pemberton Borough

• The school is no longer located 

in the vicinity and advance “school crossing” signs are still in place. 

• Replace the advance “school 

crossing” signs to “pedestrian crossing” signs. 
ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

South of Pemberton Street Intersection (continued) • The crosswalk across Hanover 

Street is signed for school crossing. 

• Replace “school crossing” 

sign with a pedestrian crossing beacon over the roadway. 

• On Sunday mornings, it is 

difficult for pedestrians to cross at the mid-block crosswalk at the Baptist Church. Motorists do not yield for pedestrians at the crosswalk.

• Replace existing crosswalk 

with continental style striping to enhance visibility. Add saw-tooth “yield” pavement markings in both directions at the crosswalk. Add regulatory sign “yield to pedestrian in crosswalk.” 

Boyd Pharmacy Driveway • The driveway is too close to 

the Elizabeth Street intersection, this causes conflicts between entering/exiting customers and motorists at the intersection and traveling along Hanover Street. 

• The driveway has a narrow 

apron. 

• Extend the apron for the 

driveway and prohibit egress from the driveway at all times and restrict all left-turn movements into the parking lot during peak morning and afternoon periods; or

• Convert the driveway on 

Hanover Street to right in/right out only and utilize the access on Jarvis Street and Pemberton Street for all other movements. 
ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Elizabeth Street Intersection • Crosswalks are two lines and 

have limited visibility. 

• Upgrade all crosswalks at the 

intersection to the continental style. 

• The south crosswalk does not 

have a curb ramp on the west side of Hanover Street. 

• Construct curb ramp County will inventory ADA ramps throughout the county and address as appropriate.

• The stop bar for the right-turn 

lane on Elizabeth Street is too close to the intersection to allow pedestrians to begin crossing before a vehicle begins to turn right. 

• Move back stop bar as 

appropriate. This will also give pedestrians waiting to cross Hanover Street a lead enhancing their visibility. 

• Prohibiting right-turns on red 

signal for northbound Hanover Street at the intersection exacerbates congestion and can potentially cause aggressive driving given the congestion at the intersection during peak periods 

. 

• Replace the current “No 

Turn on Red” sign with a dynamic message sign which prohibits turns on red only during the protected left-turn phase at the southbound approach. 
ISSUES Solution Decision Agree/Reject Planned Completion Date Comments

Elizabeth Street Intersection (continued) • Southbound left-turn stacking 

lane is only 150 feet. The through lane cannot be developed because it is mixed with parked vehicles at the curb. Traffic coming over the crest of the hill is channeled into the left-turning lane by the curbside parking. 

• Remove 3 parking spaces on 

the southbound side of Hanover Street and extend the left-turn lane back to 200 feet to accommodate current vehicular volumes. 

• Motorists park illegally in the 

taper for the southbound receiving lane, south of the intersection. 

• Crosshatch the tapers and 

install “No stopping or standing” signs to assist in channelizing southbound traffic. 

Between Elizabeth and Antis Streets • Parking/shoulder pavement 

markings are faded. 

• Restripe as necessary. 

• At Antis Street there is no 

break in the pavement parking/shoulder pavement marking on Hanover Street for the intersection.

• Remove pavement marking 

from across the intersection.
Title of Report: INTERSECTION ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – HANOVER STREET, 

PEMBERTON BOROUGH

 

Publication No.: 08027

Date Published: April 2008 

Geographic Area Covered: 

The study area consists of a section of Hanover Street (CR 616) from Jane Street to Mary 

Street in Pemberton Borough, Burlington County, New Jersey. Included in the study area is the 

signalized intersection of Elizabeth Street (CR 687). 

Key Words: 

Road, safety, audit, potential, fatalities, injuries, reportable, crashes, pedestrians, 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 Hanover Street (CR 

616) 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

Pemberton Borough Pemberton Borough

Burlington County Burlington County

April 2008 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL 

PLANNING COMMISSION

Hanover Street Hanover Street