Category Archives: Transportation

Office hours issues

office hours sign

Issues that came up this AM at my selectman office hours:

First, a Castle Avenue resident told me that there is a telephone pole that was in the middle of the cul-de-sac that broke off and needs replacement, and he is hoping it can be replaced 15-16′ to the West, out of the asphalt. It is a pole that hosts a guy wire to another pole, now leaning. Also, he abuts the rear of 93-95 North Street and he said that property floods after heavy rains and it takes 3-4 days to dry out at times.

Second, I had discussions with a resident about the town buying their land, how a price might get determined, timing, and their capital gain tax issues.

Third a resident wants to create a dog park in town where dogs can run off leash. I encouraged her to get in touch with the Animal Control Study Committee, and I put her in touch with them. She also had concerns over trucks parked on North Street in front of Nosh N Grog to make deliveries.  She also suggested parking meters – I told her how happy I was that we had a parking problem, because it means things are going on, and I mentioned that a parking study is coming soon, so we will have data from which to make decisions.  I also recounted how Wellesley was always tight on parking when I would commute home at night, until Blue Ginger closed, and now they have plenty of parking.  We now have a similar restaurant effect at night downtown.

Lastly, I discussed senior housing with another resident who hopes for sale price point of $350-500K (with deeded owner profit limitations), preferences for Medfield residents, and town staff assistance in writing a warrant article for the annual town meeting.

Advertisements

Autominous vehicles will be our town’s future

I can imagine that autominous vehicles will be in our town’s future, and will eventually be the buses we do not have now.  It could be a great way to solve linkage issues and transportation for seniors, maybe to link the remote Medfield State Hospital site to the downtown, and maybe the school buses of our future.

AV minibus

The Humble Microbus May Become the Leading Edge of the AV Revolution

http://www.routefifty.com/smart-cities/2017/10/microbus-autonomous-vehicles-maymobility/141698/

Walpole MBTA parking gone

I was contacted today about why the parking lot at the Walpole train station closed.  While I knew nothing about the situation, I was willing to reach out to the Walpole Town Administrator’s office.

I was told by the Walpole Town Administrator’s office that:

  1. the parking lot had never been properly permitted;
  2. it was shut down by the owner to be paved; and
  3. Walpole is not expecting that it will re-open as public parking, as going forward they are told that the owner will apparently be using it for parking commercial vehicles and for work to be done on his nearby building.

Rte. 27 roundabouts?

Medfield has a few intersections that could perhaps benefit from roundabouts, and I am especially thinking of ones along Rte. 27.  Click the title to see the article online.

A Chat With the Mayor of Roundabout City, USA

Why is Carmel, Indiana, planning to build as many as 40 more roundabouts on top of its existing 102?

Carmel’s 100th roundabout, opened this year. (City of Carmel)

 

In Carmel, driving around in circles isn’t a symptom of being lost; it’s a way of life. Despite its small size, the Indiana city has more roundabouts than any other burg in the U.S. Much of that has to do with its Republican mayor, Jim Brainard, who has seemingly waged a campaign to pave all of Carmel with these traffic-calming, accident-reducing rings.

Given that Carmel installed its hundredth roundabout this November—and has since debuted two more—CityLab thought it’d be good to query Brainard about his roundabout obsession. Here’s the (slightly condensed) interview:

What initially got you interested in roundabouts?

I first encountered roundabouts during a graduate-school trip to England. I watched how efficiently traffic flowed through the intersections. Drivers were yielding to traffic and to bikes and pedestrians. No unsightly traffic signals and no long lines or congestion. It made me wonder why the U.S. had not built more roundabouts.

Will Carmel ever have enough roundabouts?

We plan to add 28 more in 2017 and 2018 and then our long-range plans also have several more. All told, we probably have another 35 to 40 roundabouts to build before we finally are finished.

What do you think is a common misconception about roundabouts?

The most common misconception is that motorists will be so confused by the rules of roundabouts that they will make mistakes and the roundabouts will become unsafe. But the facts prove otherwise. At most all times of the day, motorists simply slow down as they approach a roundabout. They look to the left, and they yield to traffic that is already in the roundabout. It is that simple.

Studies show a 90 percent reduction in fatal accidents, 80 percent reduction in accidents with serious injury, and 40 percent reduction in all accidents at these intersections when a roundabout replaces a traffic signal. When there are accidents, they are typically low impact, at an angle (rather than a deadly T-bone crash), and result in mostly minor damage.

City of Carmel

What do you think is their most unheralded benefit?

The thing most people don’t know is how much money is saved by converting traffic signals into roundabouts. Our city engineer’s office has found that on average, roundabouts in Carmel have cost $250,000 less to build than signalized intersections and they are much less expensive to maintain than signalized intersections, saving our taxpayers $5,000 per intersection per year in electricity costs.

And because we have eliminated most all of our traffic jams, we spend much less time sitting in traffic and idling our engines, which is saving about 24,000 gallons of gas per year per roundabout, based on federal highway studies, which also leads to reduced vehicular emissions and improved air quality. With 102 roundabouts and the cost of gasoline at $2 a gallon, the public is saving about $4.9 million per year.

Do you expect the Trump administration to have an impact on Carmel in terms of infrastructure, climate change, or any other issues you’ve been passionate about?

I have heard that our president-elect is planning to boost spending in infrastructure, and that is a good thing for cities across the nation. It is important that local and state governments spend their money wisely by not building sprawl that is environmentally or financially unsustainable. The funds should be spent on repairs, safety improvements, public transit, and completing existing highway grids. Many of our roundabout projects—and other projects—have benefited from federal support over the years. We have a number of projects on our long-term plans that would be excellent candidates for that.

On climate change, I am hopeful that we continue to improve our drinking water, air quality, and work toward energy independence thereby avoiding costly involvement in maintaining the Middle East oil supply. There are multiple reasons to support the reduction of fossil fuel usage that will improve our quality of life and make our country more resilient and safer.

Image

Reps support town’s grant application for parking study

Emmy Hahn THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE, BOSTON 02133-1053 Program Coordinator, MA Downtown Initiative 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Emmy Habn, November 28, 2016 As the elected delegation from Medfield, we are writing to support the Town's application for Downtown Technical Assistance through the !viassachusetts' Downtown Initiative Program. The funding requested will support the Town's preparation of a parking management plan to accommodate recent and potential new growth in their downtown area. In 2014, the Town of Medfield retained the services of McMahon and Associates ta· prepare an evaluation of the existing parking supply in the town. The study indicated that wbile there was not a current parking problem, with further development of existing buildings, the Town's parking capacity would soon be maximized. Downtown Medfield has experienced significant turnover in business tenants recently and these updates have created a need for additional parking. In February, the Town of Medfield held an Open House public meeting to engage the community and receive input from residents. Though much of the feedback was positive, the community identified four rnajor challenges that need to be remedied: 1. Traffic congestion is extreme; 2. Drivers operating in a manner dangerous to pedestrians and other vehicles; 3. Lack of Downtown parking; 4. Pedestrians are not safe. The Town of Medfield is requesting $15,000 to perform updates to the existing parking conditions, examine parking requirements and land use for parking spaces, analyze a downtown buildout, and hold a number of public meetings to engage the community. Downtown Medfield has the space to expand and there is strong public support for pursing new parking strategies. The town is open to shared public/private parking, zoning tweaks, lot reconfiguration, and new parking structures. We respectfully request your full support of this important funding application. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns. Yours in service, ~~ Shawn C. Dooley State Representative State Representative Cc: Medfield Board of Selectmen Micbael Sullivan, Medfield Town Administrator Sarah Raposa, Medfield Town Planner James E. Titnilty State Sen at or

Millis to close/detour Dover Road 10/12 – 12/19

millis

This email this afternoon from Mike Sullivan –

We just found out yesterday by accident that Millis plans to close or detour traffic off Dover Road starting Tuesday October 12 until December 19 in order to replace a water main. With about 8,000 cars a day using Dover Road and West St. the implications for traffic delays and backups in Medfield, particularly along Route 109 are potentially severe. I met with the Police and Fire Chiefs, the Director of Public Works and Kris this morning to see what we could do to ameliorate the situation. We have set up a meeting for 1;00 P.M. tomorrow at the Medfield Town Hall with The Millis Fire Chief, acting Police Chief and acting Public Works Director to discuss this. We have learned that, initially, traffic in Millis will be detoured from Dover Road along Bridge St (Millis’s Bridge St. not ours) to Route 109 and also from Route 109 along Bridge St (again Millis’s Bridge St.) to Dover Road, as the construction is will start at Route 109 and Dover Road. The is will certainly create problems initially, but what we also need to deal with is how traffic will be handled when construction reaches Bridge Street in Millis and proceeds eastward towards Medfield. At least we hope we will have time to address that situation in advance, unlike what we have to address next week. We will let you know how we make out tomorrow, but Medfield should expect some problems from these detours, given the heavy volumes of traffic on both Route 109 and Dover Road/West St. Mike

Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal

Hannah-Adams-Rte-27-South150

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

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

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


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

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

January 19, 2016
DRAFT

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

Route 27 at South Street ‐ Medfield, MA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1
Sight Distance Requirements

Approach      Movement

Speed (MPH)

SSD
Required (ft)

SSD
Measured (ft)

ISD
Required (ft)

ISD
Measured (ft)

Meets Requirements

South Street WB at Route 27 (Spring Street)

Left (South)         40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes

Right
40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes
(North)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2: Signal Warrant Summary

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

Crash Experience

at South Street                             Yes                   Yes                  Yes
No                   No

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

For the eight‐hour vehicular volume signal warrant (Warrant 1) to be met, minimum vehicular volumes
for the major street and minor street, found in Table 4C‐1 of the MUTCD, must be exceeded for one
of two volume conditions. Per MUTCD methodology, the 70% factor lowering the volume thresholds
required for satisfying the warrants is applicable to this intersection because of the 40 mph
posted speed limit. A summary of the results of the eight‐hour warrant are presented below in Table
3.

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

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

Hour

Northbound Volume

Southbound Volume

Existing 2015 Total Major Street Volume

Minor Street Volume

Condition 1 Met1

Condition 2 Met2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4: Morning Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

Movement

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

Route 27 (High Street)       EB         L                F      155.9    1.28      F      213.6
1.41      F       81.8     1.06
at South Street                                R                A        3.8      0.12      A
0.1      0.05      A        0.6      0.05
NB       L                B       10.2     0.14      B       10.6     0.16      E       76.9
0.56
T                F      227.1    1.44      F      293.1    1.59      F      271.9    1.51
SB         T                C       33.4     0.92     D       53.7     1.02      F       67.8
0.96
R                A        0.1      0.10      A        0.1      0.11      A        0.8      0.11

Overall

F      134.1    1.44      F      179.4    1.59      F      148.1    1.51

Route 27 (Spring Street)    WB      L                F     1175.1   3.24      F     2097.3   5.17
D       39.0     0.68
at South Street                                R                D       28.3     0.11     D
34.7     0.15      B       11.4     0.09
NB       TR             A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A       11.8
0.78
SB         LT              C       18.2     0.06      C       21.2     0.08      A        8.1
0.64

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

B       10.3     0.78

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

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

Table 5: Afternoon Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

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

Route 27 (High Street)      EB    L                  B       12.2     0.36      B       12.5
0.39      E       79.0     0.75
at South Street                           R                 A        0.0      0.02      A
0.0      0.02      A        0.7      0.02
NB   L                  B       10.8     0.31      B       11.8     0.34      B       10.4     0.20
T                 C       34.8     0.94      E       61.3     1.05      B       14.3     0.61
SB    T                  B       15.8     0.75      C       20.6     0.83      B       13.6
0.48
R                 A        0.4      0.30      A        0.5      0.33      A        1.2      0.34

Overall

B       18.1     0.94      C       28.6     1.05      B       15.6     0.75

Route 27 (Spring Street)   WB  L                  F     1250.2   3.53      F     2116.2   5.39
F       94.1     1.04
at South Street                           R                 C       15.7     0.05      C       17.2
0.07      B       15.2     0.08
NB   TR               A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A        6.7
0.57
SB    LT               B       10.2     0.02      B       10.7     0.03      B       16.1     0.86

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

C       21.0     1.04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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