Functional Design Report

Pleasant Street (Route 5) & Conz Street

Northampton, MA

July 2011
Prepared for: Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division, District 2 Office 811 North King Street Northampton, MA 01060

Submitted by: Nitsch Engineering 186 Lincoln Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02111

Nitsch Engineering Project #8126.02

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 Study Area............................................................................................................................................. 2 Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Seasonal Adjustment and Background Growth .................................................................................... 7 Crash Data ............................................................................................................................................ 8 MUTCD Signal Warrants ....................................................................................................................... 9 Road Safety Audit ................................................................................................................................. 9

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Geometric Layout ................................................................................................................................ 10 Level of Service Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 17 Capacity Analysis Results ................................................................................................................... 17 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 20

4 5

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 21 TECHNICAL APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................. 22

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Traffic Data Summary........................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Crash Data Summary ........................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3 Crash Rate ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 4 MUTCD Signal Warrants Summary...................................................................................................... 9 Table 5 Level of Service for Intersections........................................................................................................ 17 Table 6 Level of Service Summary 2011 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 17 Table 7 Level of Service Summary 2021 No Build ....................................................................................... 18 Table 8 Level of Service Summary 2021 Build ............................................................................................. 19 Table 9 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Locus ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2 2011 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3 2011 Existing Heavy Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 Unsignalized & Signalized Intersection Configuration ....................................................................... 12 Figure 5 Roundabout Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6 Roundabout Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 7 Roundabout Alternative 3 .................................................................................................................. 15

INTRODUCTION

Nitsch Engineering has prepared this Functional Design Report (FDR) to review existing traffic operations and to propose design alternatives for the intersection of Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street in Northampton, MA. The intersection falls within the purview of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), District 2, and the agency oversees its operations and maintenance. The intersection of Conz Street and Pleasant Street (Route 5) in Northampton was among MassDOTs Top 1000 Crash Locations from 1997 1999. Shortly thereafter, the City of Northampton solicited planning assistance from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) which issued the Pleasant Street Safety Transportation Study in June 2005. The study found that during the three-year period from 1999 to 2001, the intersection had a crash rate of 1.66 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev) which was significantly higher than the statewide average of 0.66 acc/mev. The study concluded that the overall safety of the intersection would increase with the installation of a traffic signal or a modern roundabout to provide greater traffic control and operation within the intersection. MassDOT has begun the process of implementing improvements to this intersection by authorizing Nitsch Engineering to proceed with engineering analysis and the preparation of this FDR. Figure 1 shows the project locus and the surrounding area. Figure 1 Project Locus

-1-

2 2.1

EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area

Roadways Pleasant Street (Route 5) is a two-lane roadway that extends in the north-south direction along the easterly side of Northampton. It runs parallel to Interstate 91 and provides access to I-91 at exits 18 and 20. The roadway is functionally classified as a rural minor arterial and its maintenance falls under the jurisdiction of MassDOT. Conz Street is a local roadway that extends in the northeast-southwest direction along the easterly side of Northampton. The roadway connects Pleasant Street (Route 5) with Main Street (Route 9) and South Street (Route 10) and therefore carries heavy volumes from these routes to I-91. Intersection The intersection of Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street is currently unsignalized. Conz Street intersects Pleasant Street (Route 5) at a 45-degree angle to form a Y-shaped intersection. A STOP sign controls traffic from Conz Street while Pleasant Street (Route 5) experiences unrestricted movement. The gas station driveway and the car wash driveway do not have any traffic control; however, they yield to through traffic on Pleasant Street (Route 5). The Conz Street approach consists of one 14-foot travel lane in each direction. Bi-directional travel is separated by a double yellow centerline. A single white edge line separates the traveled way from a 2-foot shoulder in both directions. There is no crosswalk on the Conz Street approach. The pavement is in good condition with no visible cracks or potholes. Pavement markings are slightly faded but visible. A posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) was observed on Conz Street, 300 feet from the intersection, in the westbound direction. Additionally, speed data collected at the intersection indicates that vehicles travelling eastbound (towards the intersection) have an 85th percentile speed of 29 mph, and vehicles traveling westbound have an 85th percentile speed of 34 mph. View of Conz Street at Route 5 intersection. Sidewalks are absent on both sides of the roadway. The nearest driveway is approximately 100 feet from the stop line. Pleasant Street (Route 5) south of the intersection consists of one 20-foot travel lane in each direction with a large grass median separating the northbound and southbound lanes at the intersection. Bi-directional travel is separated by a double yellow centerline. A single white edge line separates the traveled way from a 2-foot shoulder in both directions. A crosswalk is present approximately 150 feet south of the stop line. The pavement is in good condition with minor cracks. Pavement markings are slightly faded but visible. There is no speed limit posted on this approach in either direction; View looking south on Pleasant Street. however, the speed zone regulation indicates that the roadway has a -2-

speed limit of 35 mph. Speed data collected at the intersection indicates that vehicles traveling northbound have an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph. Sidewalks are absent on both sides of the roadway. Approximately 200 feet south of the intersection, a guardrail starts to separate Pleasant Street (Route 5) from adjacent properties due to the rising elevation of Pleasant Street (Route 5). Pleasant Street (Route 5) north of the intersection also consists of one 20-foot travel lane in each direction with a large grass median separating the northbound and southbound lanes at the intersection. A double yellow centerline separates bi-directional travel, and a single white edge line separates a 2-foot shoulder from the traveled way. There is no crosswalk on this approach. A grass strip separates the shoulder from a 4-foot wide sidewalk on the east side of the roadway. The pavement is in moderate condition with minor cracks. Pavement markings are faded but visible. Similar to the northbound approach, the speed zone regulation is 35mph but there is no posted speed limit in either direction. Speed data collected at View looking north on Pleasant Street at the intersection. the intersection indicates that vehicles have an 85th percentile speed of 39 mph. The evening or PM peak hour is the worst peak hour for traffic with approximately 1700 vehicles on Pleasant Street (Route 5) and 600 vehicles on Conz Street. Traffic from Conz Street has to wait for a significant period of time before finding an appropriate gap in Pleasant Street (Route 5) traffic. There are minimal pedestrian facilities at the intersection and bicyclists have to share the road with motor vehicles due to the narrow shoulder. The goal of this FDR is to analyze the existing traffic operations and recommend geometric changes that would not only improve vehicular flow, but also provide suitable space for pedestrians and bicyclists. 2.2 Traffic Volumes

Nitsch Engineering coordinated a data collection effort at the study intersection, which included Turning Movement Counts (TMC), Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data, speed data, and vehicle classification data. Precision Data Inc., our Subconsultant for data collection, performed the manual TMCs on Thursday, May 18, 2011. The TMCs were collected from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM to capture the morning or AM peak hour of traffic and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM to capture the evening or PM peak hour of traffic. The ATR, speed, and vehicle classification data were collected for a 48-hour period from Wednesday, May 17, to Thursday, May 18, 2011. The data were collected on Conz Street and the Pleasant Street northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) approaches. Table 1 provides a summary of the traffic data collected.

-3-

Table 1 Traffic Data Summary

Automatic Traffic Recorder Data Location Peak Hour of Traffic Volumes (Turning Movement Counts) Average Daily Traffic (vpd) 8,930 12,898 K1 factor 9% 9% Directional Distribution 54% EB 53% NB 85 Percentile Speed (mph)
th

Percentage of Heavy Vehicles (% of vehicles with 4 or more axles) 0.9% WB, 0.8% EB 0.5%NB, 0.5% SB

Pleasant Street (Route 5) & Conz Street On Conz Street On Pleasant Street (Route 5) North On Pleasant Street (Route 5) South

AM Peak: 8:00-9:00 AM PM Peak: 4:30-5:30 PM -

34 WB, 29 EB 39 NB, 39 SB

20,224

9%

50% NB

39 NB, 39 SB

0.8% NB, 0.7% SB

1 K-factor indicates the percentage of daily traffic flowing during the peak hour

As seen from Table 1, the peak hours of traffic at the intersection are from 8:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Approximately 9% of the daily traffic flows during the peak hour which is within the anticipated range of 7 to 11%. The directional distribution is approximately 50% in each direction on both Conz Street and Pleasant Street (Route 5), indicating that the same route is used in both directions for morning and evening commutes. Heavy vehicles with four or more axles comprised less than 2% of all traffic on both Conz Street and Pleasant Street (Route 5). Pedestrian and bicycle volumes at the intersection were minimal with five pedestrians observed during the morning peak hour and five bicyclists observed during the evening peak hour. Figure 2 shows the 2011 existing traffic volumes and Figure 3 shows the 2011 existing heavy vehicle volumes at the intersection.

-4-

2.3

Seasonal Adjustment and Background Growth

Seasonal Adjustment MassDOT collects traffic volume data at various count stations across the state to study the monthly variation in traffic on roadways that fall under MassDOT jurisdiction. Standard engineering practice is to compare collected traffic volumes for a study with the nearest MassDOT station to establish variation from average traffic volumes. Based on the 2007 weekday seasonal adjustment traffic data1, average traffic volumes on Rural Arterials in May are higher than the average month. Additionally, we reviewed the following stations located in Northampton for seasonal adjustment data: Station 11 Routes 5 and 10, South of Hatfield T.L. Station 2436 Route I-91 between Routes 5 and 9

Traffic volumes at these locations indicate that traffic volumes during the month of May are higher than the average month by 4 7%. MassDOT recommends an adjustment factor of 0.91be multiplied to actual count data to reflect average month traffic volumes. In order to remain conservative with the traffic analyses, we did not adjust the traffic counts collected for this study. Background Growth MassDOT also records traffic volumes at stations over multiple years to establish the growth rate in the area and to identify regional shifts in traffic. There are five MassDOT count stations in Northampton near the study intersection; however, only one station had data from 2000 to 2009 that indicated traffic trends in the area: Station 0011L, Rte. 5 and 10, 0.8 km south of Hatfield T.L. Based on the volumes at this station, there was a 1% annual decline in traffic volumes from 2000 to 2008, followed by an increase of approximately 4% from 2008 to 2009. Additionally, comparing traffic volumes from 2011 to the counts collected for the PVPC Transportation Study at the same intersection in 2005 also indicated a general decline. We anticipate that traffic growth in the area will remain minor, if any, based on the negative trends observed in the past. To remain conservative, we used a 0.5% background growth annually to project 10-year design volumes. In this FDR, the base year of traffic analyses is 2011, and therefore the 10-year design horizon is the year 2021.

1 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 2007 Statewide Traffic Data Collection and madtcomp09.xls

-7-

2.4

Crash Data

In order to identify potential safety deficiencies at an intersection, we reviewed crash data for the three latest years for which data is available. MassDOT provided us with data from February 2008 to December 2010 at the study intersection. The data was provided in the form of collision diagrams, crash records, and bar graphs based on the type, roadway conditions, and driver characteristics, which are included in the Technical Appendix of this report. Table 2 provides a summary of the crash data provided by MassDOT.
Table 2 Crash Data Summary
Number of Crashes Total Location Pleasant Street (Route 5) & Conz Street Total Year 2008 2009 2010 14 11 8 33 11 11 Avg. per Year AN
a

Type Peak RE
b

Percent During Wet/Icy Dark/Night Ped

d

HO

Other

Hours 6 5 3 42% 6 3 4 40% 2 3 1 18% 50% 9% 63% 7% 27% 50% 14% 27% 38%

a: AN Angle or cross-movement crash; b: RE Rear end crash; c: HO Head On Crash; d: Ped Crashes involving a pedestrian; e: Other sideswipe, single vehicle crashes, and crashes where type is unreported. Source: MassDOT crashes from February 2008 to December 2010.

As seen from Table 2, the intersection experienced a total of 33 crashes from 2008 to 2010. Of these, 42% were angle or cross-movement crashes and 40% were rear-end crashes. Angle crashes are the most common type of crashes observed at unsignalized intersections and usually occur when drivers accept short gaps in opposing traffic. Similarly, rear-end crashes occur owing to short driver reaction time and are attributable to the unsignalized operation and high speeds at the intersection. The severity of crashes was not indicated in the crash reports. A majority of the crashes occurred during peak hours when heavy volumes are experienced. In general, the total number of crashes from 2008 to 2010 decreased by approximately 50%. This could be a result of altered driver behavior or a general reduction in traffic volumes at the intersection. We computed a crash rate at the intersection to compare it to District 2 and Statewide averages. Table 3 provides a comparison of the crash rate at this intersection with the 2008 District 2 and Statewide averages.
Table 3 Crash Rate
Intersection Pleasant Street (Route 5) & Conz Street Crash Rate 1 (acc/mev ) 1.55
2

District 2 Crash Rate (acc/mev) 0.83

Statewide Crash Rate (acc/mev) 0.82

1: acc/mev Accidents per million entering vehicles; 2: Computed Value; 3: Source: MassDOT

-8-

The crash rate at the intersection was 1.55 acc/mev, which is significantly higher than the District 2 average of 0.83 acc/mev and the Statewide average of 0.82 acc/mev at unsignalized intersections. The proposed geometric design should be aimed at reducing the crash rate at the intersection without adversely affecting traffic operations. 2.5 MUTCD Signal Warrants

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) outlines eight warrants that are used to verify the need for a traffic signal at an intersection. Even though meeting one or more warrants alone is not justification for a signal, the warrants provide an indication of suitability of a traffic signal based on traffic volumes, crash rates, pedestrian gaps, and traffic flow. For the intersection of Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street, we applied the available 2011 traffic volumes to verify Warrants 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume), 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume), and 3 (Peak Hour). Table 4 provides a summary of the results.
Table 4 MUTCD Signal Warrants Summary
Warrant Met? Warrant #1A Pleasant Street (Route 5) & Conz Street Warrant #1B Warrant #1
(Combined A&B)

Warrant #2

Warrant #3

Warrant #4
(Pedestrian Volume)

Warrant #5
(School Crossing)

Warrant #6
(Coordinated Signal System)

Warrant #7
(Crash Experience)

Warrant #8
(Roadway Network)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Source: MUTCD 2009, Section 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies

As seen from Table 4, the intersection meets all of the warrants based on traffic volumes (Warrants 1 3). Since the 2021 design year volumes would be higher than the 2011 traffic volumes based on the assumption of 0.5% annual increase, the warrants would continue to be met under 2021 conditions. Based on these results, we analyzed a traffic signal at the intersection alongside other design alternatives. 2.6 Road Safety Audit

A Road Safety Audit (RSA) culminated our review of existing conditions, which we conducted in compliance with MassDOTs guidelines for design improvements at the study intersection. The RSA was conducted on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 and was attended by Nitsch Engineering engineers, MassDOT District 2 traffic and safety officials, and City of Northampton traffic, safety, and emergency officials. A list of safety issues for this intersection included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lack of traffic control at the intersection; The acute angle at which Conz Street approaches the intersection; Multiple driveway accesses within the intersection; Lack of a specific northbound left turning lane onto Conz Street; Lack of clear directional and warning signs; and Lack of clear pavement markings and specifically the absence of crosswalks at the intersection. -9-

Nitsch Engineering prepared an RSA report that explains the above issues in greater detail as well as proposing enhancements to address each of the issues. While most of the enhancements require short- to medium-term implementation periods, we identified two enhancements as long-term enhancements involving higher costs: realigning the Conz Street approach to improve the STOP control for vehicles turning onto Pleasant Street southbound and reconstructing the intersection with a roundabout or traffic signal. All of the safety enhancements would be undertaken as part of the intersection redesign and many of the short-term enhancements may be initiated by MassDOT prior to completion of the design as resources allow.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The goal of the current project is to design an optimal configuration of the intersection of Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street that will improve traffic flow, maintain access and egress to properties surrounding it, and provide accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. Proposed improvements to the geometric layout would also involve cold plane and overlay of the existing pavement and modification of pavement markings and signage. The following describes the improvements proposed as part of this project as they relate to intersection operation. 3.1 Geometric Layout

Nitsch Engineering has analyzed the following design alternatives to analyze future year traffic operations at the study intersection: 1. Unsignalized Intersection This configuration would be similar to the existing conditions with modified lane configuration, where Conz Street traffic would operate under a STOP control. 2. Signalized Intersection The intersection would be signalized with timing for all the approaches, including the Gas Station/Car Wash approach. 3. Roundabout Intersection The intersection would be redesigned as a roundabout. Traffic entering the roundabout would yield to circulating traffic. Unsignalized Intersection The following are the geometry changes in the unsignalized configuration of the intersection when compared to the existing and no-build conditions: 1. The proposed unsignalized configuration would consist of one left-turn and one through lane on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound approach and two general-purpose lanes on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound approach. The Conz Street eastbound approach would consist of one shared left/through lane and one right-turn lane and the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway would consist of one general-purpose lane in the westbound direction. 2. The Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound left-turn lane and the Conz Street eastbound right-turn lane would be storage lanes to increase capacity and minimize delays. 3. The Pleasant Street (Route 5) approaches would operate as the unrestricted movements and Conz Street and the Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway would operate under STOP control. 4. The configuration would also consist of 4-foot shoulders on each side of Pleasant Street that could be used as bicycle lanes and 5-foot wide sidewalks on all the approaches. -10-

The unsignalized intersection alternative can be accommodated within the existing MassDOT highway layout lines and would not require additional land taking. Compared to the existing conditions, this alternative would provide additional capacity in the form of an auxiliary through lane on Pleasant Street (Route 5), a storage lane for Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound left turns, and a storage lane for Conz Street westbound right turns. Increasing capacity would improve traffic operations on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street right turn movements, but left and through moving vehicles from the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway and the Conz Street approach would continue to experience very long delays as they wait for gaps in the Pleasant Street (Route 5) traffic. The unsignalized intersection alternative can accommodate WB-67 truck turns similar to the existing conditions. WB-67 trucks are tractor trailer vehicles with an overall length of 73.5 feet. MassDOT and the City have agreed that any geometric modifications to the intersection should be designed to accommodate this vehicle. Pedestrian improvements would include crosswalks at all approaches; however, pedestrians would be required to wait for gaps in traffic to cross the roadway as they do under the existing conditions. Signalized Intersection The proposed signalized configuration would consist of the following geometric and signal phasing features: 1. One left-turn and one through lane on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound approach and two generalpurpose lanes on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound approach. The Conz Street eastbound approach would consist of one shared left/through lane and one right-turn lane and the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway would consist of one general-purpose lane in the westbound direction; 2. The Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound left-turn lane and the Conz Street eastbound right-turn lane would be storage lanes to increase capacity and to minimize delays; 3. The Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound left-turn lane would operate as a protected movement; 4. The Conz Street eastbound right-turn movement would overlap with the Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound left-turn movement to increase efficient use of green time; 5. An exclusive pedestrian phase would stop all vehicular movements to help pedestrians cross the intersection; and 6. The configuration would also include 4-foot shoulders on each side of Pleasant Street that could be used for bicycle accommodation and 5-foot wide sidewalks on all the approaches. The signalized intersection alternative can be accommodated within the existing MassDOT highway layout lines, but would require some land takings or permanent easements to install vehicle detectors on the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway. Unlike the existing conditions and the unsignalized intersection alternative, this alternative would provide adequate time to clear vehicles on all approaches. Long queues would be limited to the cycles when pedestrians activate the exclusive pedestrian phase, which would stop all vehicular phases; however, we anticipate this to be a limited occurrence as there were few pedestrians observed during peak hours under the existing conditions. The exclusive pedestrian signal phase is an improvement when compared to the existing conditions or the unsignalized intersection alternative. The signalized intersection alternative can accommodate WB-67 truck turns similar to the existing conditions. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed lane configuration for the unsignalized and signalized intersection alternatives (pedestrian crosswalks not shown).

-11-

Figure 4 Unsignalized & Signalized Intersection Configuration

-12-

Roundabout Intersection We reviewed four roundabout configurations as part of the FDR. Alternative 1 has the following configuration: Fifty-five-foot island diameter; Uniform 10-foot apron to enable truck turns; One 15-foot circulating lane throughout the roundabout; and Five-foot wide sidewalks along the outer edges of the roundabout. Alternative 1 would have a uniform 105-foot inscribed diameter. This alternative would not require any land takings and can be accommodated within the MassDOT highway layout lines; however, the biggest vehicle that this design can accommodate is a WB-50 which is smaller than the WB-67 design vehicle. Traffic operations would improve on Conz Street and the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway because left turning traffic would have to find gaps in only one direction of traffic compared to gaps in two-way traffic under the existing conditions. The conflict between the left-turns from Pleasant Street (Route 5) northbound and through vehicles on Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound would persist. Similarly, the conflicts between the right-turns from Conz Street eastbound and the through vehicles on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound movement would persist, thus affecting traffic operations under this alternative. Crosswalks for pedestrians would be provided across all approaches. Pedestrians would still be required to wait for gaps in oncoming traffic as they do under current conditions; however, vehicle speeds would be significantly reduced due to the geometric configuration of the roundabout. Figure 5 is a schematic illustration of the general appearance of a one-lane roundabout.
Figure 5 Roundabout Alternative 1

-13-

Alternative 2 has the following configuration: Fifty-five-foot island diameter; Uniform 10-foot apron to enable truck turns; One 15-foot circulating lane throughout the roundabout; An additional 15-foot continuous lane from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound; and Five-foot wide sidewalks along the outer edges of the roundabout. Alternative 2 would have a 105-foot inscribed diameter on three sides of the roundabout with an additional 15-foot lane to allow free movement of vehicles from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound. The additional lane from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5) would require some land takings or permanent easements on the Conz Street approach. Similar to Alternative 1, the largest vehicle that this design can accommodate would be a WB-50. Traffic operations under Alternative 2 would be better than the existing conditions and Alternative 1 because of the continuous lane from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5). Similar to Alternative 1, pedestrians would be provided with crosswalks at all approaches (not shown in schematic below). Figure 6 illustrates the general characteristics of a modified one-lane roundabout.
Figure 6 Roundabout Alternative 2

-14-

Alternative 3 has the following configuration: Fifty-five-foot island diameter; Uniform 10-foot apron to enable truck turns; One 15-foot lane scored with cement concrete (or similar material) to discourage vehicular travel but provide space for truck turns on the easterly and northerly sides of the island; One 15-foot circulating lane throughout the roundabout; An additional 15-foot continuous lane from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5) southbound; and Five-foot wide sidewalks along the outer edges of the roundabout. Alternative 3 would have a 135-foot inscribed diameter. This alternative would require land takings or permanent easements of a small portion of the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway and the Conz Street approach. Compared to existing conditions and Alternative 1 (single lane), this design would have better operations because of the continuous lane from Conz Street to Pleasant Street (Route 5). Compared to Alternative 2, this design would be able to accommodate the larger WB-67 truck turns. Pedestrians would be provided with crosswalks at all approaches (not shown in schematic below).
Figure 7 Roundabout Alternative 3

-15-

Alternative 4 has the following configuration: Fifty-five-foot island diameter; Uniform 10-foot apron to enable truck turns; Two 15-foot circulating lanes throughout the roundabout; Two entry lanes (with storage lanes) from Pleasant Street (Route 5) NB, Pleasant Street (Route 5) SB, and Conz Street; and Five-foot wide sidewalks along the outer edges of the roundabout. Alternative 4 would have a uniform 135-foot inscribed diameter. This alternative would require land takings or permanent easements of adjacent property near the intersection. Similar to Alternative 3, this design would be able to accommodate a WB-67 truck. Due to the inclusion of two continuous travel lanes around the entire roundabout and the double lane approaches on Pleasant Street and Conz Street, Alternative 4 would have the best traffic operations among the alternatives considered but would also require the most space outside of the MassDOT highway layout lines. Pedestrians would be provided with crosswalks at all approaches, but generally would require more time to cross the intersection compared to the other alternatives due to the increased pavement width at each approach. The following section provides a more detailed and quantitative evaluation of the alternatives using various metrics as the basis for comparison. See Table 8 for a summary of the level of service, volume to capacity ratio, and delay time associated with the six alternatives described above.

-16-

3.2

Level of Service Criteria

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream. Six levels of LOS are used to describe the quality of traffic flow for any type of facility controls with LOS-A representing the best operating conditions and LOS-F representing the worst operating conditions. Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis methodology of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The methodology for signalized intersections assesses the effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression, vehicle mix, and geometrics on average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between level of service and average control delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 5 Level of Service for Intersections
Signalized Intersections Level of 1 Service A B C D E F
1

Unsignalized Intersections
1

Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) 0 to 10 >10 to 20 >20 to 35 >35 to 55 >55 to 80 Over 80

Level of 1 Service A B C D E F

Stopped Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) 0 to 10 >10 to 15 >15 to 25 >25 to 35 >35 to 50 Over 50

Reference: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB

3.3

Capacity Analysis Results

We performed traffic analyses to evaluate traffic operations under existing and future year conditions. A summary of the capacity analysis results depicting volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, vehicle delay, level-of-service (LOS), and vehicle queue is provided in Tables 6 8. Table 6 summarizes the intersection operations under current 2010 traffic volumes for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The analysis worksheets are provided in the Technical Appendix of this report. Table 6 Level of Service Summary 2011 Existing Conditions
2011 AM PEAK HOUR
NAME MOVEMENT V/C1 DELAY2 LOS3 95th Q4 V/C1

2011 PM PEAK HOUR

DELAY2 LOS3 95th Q4

Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway
1

Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB L Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LT Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection

0.32 0.04 0.71 0.84 >1.0

9.6 1.3 211.5 32.7 ++ ++

A A F D F

34 3 65 226 ++

0.61 0.04 >1.0 >1.0 >1.0

16.1 1.1 ++ ++ ++ ++

C A F F F

105 3 ++ ++ ++

Volume to Capacity Ratio; 2 Vehicle Delay, measured in seconds; 3 Level Of Service; 4 95th Percentile Queue; ++: very high values; L=Left; T=Through; R=Right

Under the existing conditions, we modeled the intersection with additional turn lanes in the eastbound and northbound directions because site observations indicated that drivers used the wide approaches as two lanes. As seen in Table 6, there are no queues on the Pleasant Street (Route 5) approaches during the morning or evening -17-

peak hours; however, vehicles turning left from the Conz Street approach and the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway experience long queues and delays during both the morning and evening peak hours. Nitsch Engineering has performed the traffic analysis of the study intersections for the future year No-Build condition. The No-Build condition represents the traffic operation at the intersections with volumes projected to 2021 based on a 0.5% per year background growth rate. Under the 2021 No-Build condition, the intersection would remain unsignalized. Table 7 summarizes the intersection alternatives under the 2021 No-Build condition. The analysis worksheets are provided in the Technical Appendix of this report. Table 7 Level of Service Summary 2021 No Build
2021 AM PEAK HOUR
NAME MOVEMENT V/C
1

2021 PM PEAK HOUR

4

DELAY

LOS

95th Q

V/C

DELAY2

LOS3

95th Q4

Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway
1

Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB L Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LT Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection

0.32 0.05 0.65 0.84 >1.0

9.7 1.4 210.5 32.6 ++ ++

A A F D F

35 4 57 226 ++

0.56 0.03 >1.0 >1.0 >1.0

14.6 0.8 ++ ++ ++ ++

B B F F F

88 2 ++ ++ ++

Volume to Capacity Ratio; 2 Vehicle Delay, measured in seconds; 3 Level Of Service; 4 95th Percentile Queue; ++: very high values; L=Left; T=Through; R=Right

As seen in Table 7, the intersection would operate at similar LOS and with similar delays under the 2021 No-Build condition, when compared to the 2011 existing conditions. The Conz Street approach and the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway would continue to have significant queuing during the peak hours, especially the PM peak hour, if no geometric or operational improvements are made at the intersection. Nitsch Engineering analyzed the three design alternatives discussed previously, a modified unsignalized intersection, a signalized intersection, and a roundabout (four alternatives), under the 2021 Build condition at the intersection, to review traffic operations and present the pros and cons of each alternative. Table 8 summarizes the intersection alternatives under the 2021 Build condition. The analysis worksheets are provided in the Technical Appendix of this report.

-18-

Table 8 Level of Service Summary 2021 Build

2021 AM PEAK HOUR
NAME MOVEMENT V/C
1

2021 PM PEAK HOUR

4

DELAY

LOS

95th Q

V/C

DELAY2

LOS3

95th Q4

Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Unsignalized) Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Signalized) Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Roundabout, Alternative 1) Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Roundabout, Alternative 2) Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Roundabout, Alternative 3) Pleasant Street (Route 5) at Conz Street & Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway (Roundabout, Alternative 4)
1

Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB L Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB L Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB TR Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LT Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB LTR Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LTR Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection

0.32 0.05 0.69 >1.0

9.7 2.0 27.5 ++ ++

A A D F

36 4 142 ++

0.56 0.03 >1.0 >1.0

14.6 0.9 111.2 ++ ++

B A F F

89 2 1081 ++

0.66 0.60 0.71 0.15 0.34 0.46 0.59 0.84 0.58 0.74 0.26

19.9 7.7 24.8 24.6 11.4 27.4 15.4 9.9 10.5 10.8 14.1 -

B B C C B C B B B B B

394 584 291 33 36 77 506 122 210 47

0.80 0.52 0.76 0.12 0.51 0.44 0.75 0.85 >1.0 >1.0 0.27

35.1 6.0 29.9 38.2 19.5 41.3 22.7 9.2 45.8 157 15.8 -

D A C D B D C B D F B

605 512 473 36 76 94 595 850 1600+ 50

Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB LTR Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LT Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB LTR Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LT Conz St. EB R Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection Pleasant St. (Route 5) NB LTR Pleasant St. (Route 5) SB LTR Conz St. EB LTR Gas Station/Car Wash Driveway WB LTR Intersection

0.74 0.56 0.03 0.34 0.23

13.4 10.4 11.0 3.2 14.1 -

B B B A B

344 113 4 0 39

0.74 >1.0 0.04 0.41 0.24

8.7 37.5 12.5 3.2 15.9 -

B D B A B

365 741 6 0 42

0.73 0.52 0.03 0.34 0.20

12 9.8 10.8 3.0 13.5 -

B B B A B

318 99 4 0 36

0.73 0.94 0.04 0.40 0.22

8.7 23.3 12.3 2.9 15.1 -

B C B A B

345 518 6 0 39

0.48 0.25 0.30 0.16

8.5 8.5 5.2 10.2 -

B B B B

122 30 33 17

0.45 0.45 0.43 0.16

8.4 9.2 6.3 9.8 -

B B B B

112 70 58 17

Volume to Capacity Ratio; 2 Vehicle Delay, measured in seconds; 3 Level Of Service; 4 95th Percentile Queue; ++: very high values; L=Left; T=Through;R=Right

As seen in Table 8, the intersection of Conz Street and Pleasant Street (Route 5) would operate at acceptable levels of service and queues under the signalized intersection alternative and the roundabout Alternatives 3 and 4. -19-

Under these Alternatives, all approaches would operate at LOS D or better, which is representative of moderate traffic conditions per MassDOT standards. The modified unsignalized intersection would continue to operate at LOS F with shorter queues when compared to the No-Build condition, because providing an auxiliary through lane on Pleasant Street (Route 5) SB and storage turning lanes on Pleasant Street (Route 5) NB and Conz Street EB approaches increases capacity. The roundabout Alternatives 1 and 2 would operate at better levels of service compared to the 2021 No-Build condition, but would continue to experience long queues, especially during the PM peak hour. A comparison of the alternatives in terms of initial cost, operations, and maintenance costs are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Evaluation of Alternatives
Capital Cost Modified STOP control Traffic Signal Roundabout Alternative 1 Roundabout Alternative 2 Roundabout Alternative 3 Roundabout Alternative 4 Pedestrian & Bicycle Accommodations Energy Use Traffic Operations Maintenance Cost

Low

Medium

High

It must be noted that the summary of traffic operations at the signalized intersection, as shown in Table 8 and Table 9, are reflective of cycles when the exclusive pedestrian phase is activated and the vehicular phases are stopped to process the pedestrian phase. We anticipate that the traffic operations would be better than projected for a majority of the times when the pedestrian phase is not activated. The analyses output for the 2021 Build conditions are included in the Technical Appendix. 3.4 Environmental Impacts

Based on a review of the MassGIS database and preliminary discussions with the Northampton Conservation Commission staff, it appears that there are no environmental resource areas within 200 feet of the project location. The alternatives discussed within this report should not require the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Northampton Conservation Commission. The project is located approximately 500 feet north of a flood control levee which is partially controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Discussions with the Corps have concluded that official Corps review and approval is most likely not warranted given the limited scope of the project. Nitsch Engineering does not anticipate that any of the design alternatives discussed above will impact the existing levee structure; however, the Corps has requested the opportunity to informally review the 25% design plans when complete.

-20-

CONCLUSIONS

The intersection of Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street experiences substandard traffic operations given the heavy volumes on Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Conz Street. Other issues include confusing access to the Gas Station/Car Wash driveway, a very high crash rate when compared to the statewide and District 2 averages, and limited pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. Nitsch Engineering identified the deficiencies at the intersection through an RSA and developed six alternatives that would provide operational and geometric improvements over the existing conditions. The six alternatives reviewed include a modified Unsignalized Intersection, a Signalized Intersection, and four Roundabout Alternatives with varying diameters and entry and exit lane configurations. Both the City of Northampton and MassDOT District 2 staff have indicated that the preferred design should be capable of accommodating a WB-67 vehicle and therefore Roundabout Alternatives 1 and 2 would be eliminated. Roundabout Alternative 4 provides the best operational characteristics but would require significant right-of-way acquisition and impacts to adjacent abutters and would likely be the most costly to construct. The Unsignalized Intersection is the least costly and has no impact to right-of-way but does not adequately address the operational deficiencies of the intersection. Therefore, from the six alternatives, Nitsch Engineering concludes that either the Signalized Intersection or Roundabout Alternative 3 would be the most desirable design.

-21-

Section Number A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

2011 Turning Movement Counts Seasonal Adjustment Data and Background Growth Data Crash Rate Data and Worksheets Signal Warrant Analysis Capacity Analysis of Existing Year 2011 Capacity Analysis of Design Year 2021 No Build & Build Alternatives

-22-