Littleton Transportation Planning and Traffic Study 43D Priority Development Sites

Transcription

1 Littleton Transportation Planning and Traffic Study 43 Priority evelopment Sites Prepared for: The Town of Littleton in cooperation with Prepared by:

2 xecutive Summary Study Objectives The Littleton Transportation Planning and Traffic Study was prepared to evaluate traffic impacts and possible mitigation strategies associated with the Town's two M.G.L. h. 43 Priority evelopment Sites: the reuse of the IM (former Hewlett Packard) site located at 55 King Street and the potential development of the isco property located on Great Road at its intersection with Russell Street. This study was prepared by S Group under a contract with Massevelopment and the Town of Littleton and was funded through a state 43 grant, awarded to the Town by the State's Intergency Permitting oard. The purpose of the study was to evaluate traffic/transportation impacts and develop a set of transportation improvement alternatives for the Route 119 and Route 110 corridors in the study area in order to accommodate the re-occupation of the former HP site by IM and the potential development of the isco property in the future. s the two sites are within 1/4 mile of each other, the expected impacts on the common adjacent roadways was a concern to the Town and IM. This study seeks to evaluate traffic impacts on the area roadways when these two major traffic generators are fully built out and occupied and then identify and evaluate traffic improvement options to mitigate potential traffic impacts. xisting onditions The existing traffic conditions were documented and evaluated. etailed traffic volume counts, roadway geometric data, and intersection capacity analyses were performed as part of the existing conditions evaluation. In addition, safety analyses were performed for the study area intersections using crash data from the Town of Littleton Police epartment and the Massachusetts Highway epartment (MassHighway). The most recent three years of data (2005 to 2007) show that none of the study area intersections has a crash rate greater than the MassHighway istrict 3 average, which includes the Town of Littleton. Previous years (2004 to 2006) did show higher rates for the intersections at Great Road (Route 119) / King Street (Route 110) and Great Road (Route 119) / I-495 Northbound Ramps. Under existing conditions, the signalized intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110) operates at an overall Level of Service (LOS) during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Six of the twelve unsignalized intersections operate at 43 Priority evelopment Sites i

3 a failing LOS (LOS or ) due to higher volumes on Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110). uture Traffic Projections uture No uild baseline conditions were determined by projecting traffic five years into the future at an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. Next, trips from the re-occupancy of the IM site were estimated from IT Trip Generation rates and assigned to the study area based on routes developed from the zip codes of IM employees relocating to the Littleton site. These volumes were added to the roadway network to result in the future No uild traffic volumes. Working with the Town, three possible alternatives were identified for the isco properties for evaluation. The preferred types of uses and potential densities were determined based on existing site constraints related to wastewater flow limitations. These are as follows: 1) Office 640,000 S (previously approved) 2) Lifestyle enter (all retail) 320,000 S 3) Mixed Use 200 rooms hotel, 200,000 S office space, 48,000 S retail Vehicle-trips from each of the potential uses were generated and added to the existing volumes on the roadway network to develop future uild condition traffic volumes. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for each development option. Without any mitigation, the signalized intersection at Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) operates at a failing LOS under each of the proposed development alternatives. In addition, critical movements at thirteen of the fifteen unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at a failing LOS for one or more of the three scenarios.. valuation riteria Proposed improvements were identified and analyzed for each of the development options for the isco site. set of criteria were developed that represented the goals of the Town and the development of the two Priority evelopment Sites. These criteria, listed below, were used to evaluate the proposed improvement alternatives. elay/levels of Service onnectivity/ccess Pedestrian / icycle ccess Vehicle Safety nvironmental Impacts butter Impacts / Takings Schedule ost 43 Priority evelopment Sites ii

4 Recommendations ased on the above criteria, short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations were given to improve the overall operations in the study area for the future re-occupancy of the IM site and potential development of the isco site. These recommendations include: Short-Term 1) Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110) a) Re-stripe King Street to provide three westbound lanes. b) Provide protected/permitted signal phases for left-turn movements c) Install bicycle loop detection on all approaches. 2) onstruct a traffic island and curb extension to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance at King Street (Route 110) and Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street 3) onsolidate and narrow commercial drives with wide curb cuts for improved access management. Medium-Term 1) Re-stripe Great Road (Route 119) from King Street (Route 110) to the I-495 Southbound Ramps to provide for a four-lane cross section. 2) onstruct a modern roundabout at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and I- 495 Southbound Ramps. 3) Install a traffic signal or a modern roundabout at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps. 4) Implement a shuttle bus service from the IM / isco sites to the MT itchburg Line ommuter Rail Station in Littleton. Work with MT to improve the frequency and arrival/departure times during the morning and evening commuting hours. Long-Term 1) Widen the bridge on Great Road (Route 119) that runs over I-495 to accommodate four travel lanes, a minimum 4-foot bicycle lane in each direction, as well as 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. Work with MassHighway to ensure this bridge-widening project is added to the state and region s transportation improvement program. 43 Priority evelopment Sites iii

5 Table of ontents List of Tables v List of igures v hapter 1: Introduction ackground Site Information Study Objectives / Purpose Study Methodology Public Participation... 2 hapter 2: xisting onditions Study rea Major Study rea Roadways Study rea Intersections Transportation Issues Pedestrian / icycle acilities Transit acilities Park & Ride Traffic ata ollection Traffic ata Processing ccident nalysis xisting onditions apacity nalysis hapter 3: uture Traffic Projection uture No-uild aseline onditions IM Re-Occupancy Improvements to Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) Growth Rate and ackground evelopments uture uild onditions lternative evelopment Scenarios Trip Generation nalysis Trip istribution Patterns uture uild ondition apacity nalysis hapter 4: Recommendations Mitigation Options Proposed Improvements Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) a Traffic Signal Improvement Re-stripe xisting Pavement b Traffic Signal Improvement Widen xisting Pavement for dditional Lanes c Roundabout Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps a Re-stripe for Two Lanes b oordinated Traffic Signals c Roundabout Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps a Re-stripe for Two Lanes b oordinated Traffic Signals c Roundabout valuation riteria apacity nalysis: uild ondition with Mitigation Recommendations Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term iv 43 Priority evelopment Sites

6 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry... 7 Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry (cont.)... 8 Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry (cont.)... 9 Table 2: Traffic Volume Summary Table 3: Summary of ccident ata Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata Table 4: Level of Service esignations Table 5: xisting onditions apacity Table Signalized Table 6: xisting onditions apacity Table Unsignalized a Table 7: Trip istribution Summary Table 8: uture No uild onditions apacity Table Table 8 cont d: uture No uild onditions apacity Table Table 9: lternative evelopment Scenarios Table 10: Project Trip Generation lternatives Table 11: Trip istribution Summary Table 12: uture uild ondition apacity Table Table 12 cont d: uture uild ondition apacity Table Table 13: Mitigation Improvements valuation riteria Table 14: uture uild with Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) Table 15: uild w/ Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps Table 16: uild w/ Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps List of igures igure 1: Project Location Map... 5 igure 2: xisting Sidewalks in the Study rea igure 3: Historical Traffic ata igure 5: 2008 xisting onditions fternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes igure 6: 2013 uture No uild Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes igure 7: 2013 uture No uild Weekday fternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes igure 8: Peak Hour Vehicle-Trips omparison of lternatives igure 9: 2013 uture uild Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 10: 2013 uture Weekday fternoon uild Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 11: 2013 uture uild Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 12: 2013 uture uild Weekday fternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 13: 2013 uture uild Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 14: 2013 uture uild Weekday fternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lternative igure 15: Widen Great Road (Route 119) for dditional Lanes igure 16: Typical ross Section on Great Road Providing Two pproach Lanes in each irection igure 17: Proposed Signal at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps igure 18 (at left): Proposed Roundabout at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps igure 19 (above): Proposed Signal at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps igure 20: Proposed Roundabout at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps igure 21: Proposed Primary and Secondary Shuttle us Routes Priority evelopment Sites v

7 hapter 1: Introduction The Town of Littleton has contracted with Massachusetts evelopment inance gency (Massevelopment) to provide a traffic/transportation analysis of two important commercial development sites in the town which is being funded through a grant from the State through the M.G.L. hapter 43 program. The sites, which have been designated Priority evelopment Sites (PS) are: the IM site located at 55 King Street (Route 110); and the isco System property located on Great Road (Route 119). S Group was retained by Massevelopment to analyze impacts on the traffic network as a result of the full re-occupancy of the IM site and the potential development of the isco property, and to identify and evaluate future transportation improvements in the King Street and Great Road corridors. 1.1 ackground Site Information The isco property was permitted in 1987 for office use, but even with repeated extensions of these permits it has remained undeveloped to date. The site abuts I-495 on the north side of Great Road and has excellent access to the regional highway network. lthough currently zoning at the site is Industrial, the Town has expressed some interest in considering alternate development scenarios. The IM site is located at 550 King Street, on the northeast corner of Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110), and has been vacant since This site was previously occupied successively by igital quipment orporation, Intel, and Hewlett Packard. The re-occupancy by IM is currently underway and it is expected that within 18 months, 2,200 employees will be located at this site. In addition, approximately another 1,000 employees are expected at the nearby Westford site. 1.2 Study Objectives / Purpose The objectives of the study were to (1) analyze existing conditions; (2) consider three alternative uses of the isco property and evaluate their traffic impacts along with those of the IM site at full occupancy; (3) identify measures to improve pedestrian and bicycle use; (4) and identify potential traffic mitigation measures within the study area. The purpose of the study was to develop a set of transportation improvement alternatives for the Route 119 and Route 110 corridors in the study area in order to accommodate the re-occupation of the IM site and the potential development of the isco property on Great Road (Route 119). 43 Priority evelopment Sites 1

8 This study seeks to (1) evaluate traffic impacts on the area roadways when these two major traffic generators are fully built out and occupied and (2) identify traffic improvement options to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the development on the two sites. 1.3 Study Methodology This study involves the collection and analysis of traffic volume data, review of existing conditions, projection of future traffic volumes, evaluation of alternative development scenarios for the isco site, and development of evaluation criteria to assess different improvement alternatives. The major tasks include: ollection of traffic volume and roadway data Review of previous studies to establish a historical baseline ollection and analysis of crash data Intersection capacity analysis under existing conditions evelopment of 2013 baseline traffic volumes including full occupancy of the IM facility valuation of alternative development scenarios for the isco site evelopment of mitigation measures Recommendations for transportation improvements in the study area. 1.4 Public Participation Throughout this study, public meetings were held under the joint auspices of the oard of Selectmen and the Planning oard in order to discuss the findings and recommendations at various points in the process. meeting with Town officials, Massevelopment, and some stakeholders, including representatives from IM, was held prior to the start of the study to discuss and ultimately determine the study area and refine the objectives and the scope of work. The first public meeting was held on ecember 8, 2008 to discuss development alternatives for the isco site and evaluation criteria for mitigation measures. t this meeting, the Town also affirmed its transportation vision and goals contained in the Master Plan. The second public meeting was held on ebruary 5, 2009 to discuss existing condition findings such as traffic volumes, safety analysis, and intersection capacity analysis. lso discussed at this meeting were future traffic conditions with the full occupancy of the IM site, as well as projected trips associated with each of the isco site development alternatives. The third public meeting will be held on March 30, 2009 to discuss alternative recommended transportation improvements in the study area and evaluate their benefits and impacts. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 2

9 hapter 2: xisting onditions 2.1 Study rea The two Priority evelopment Sites (PSs), isco and IM, are located on Great Road north of I-495 and at 550 Great Road, respectively. The study area encompasses intersections along Great Road and King Street which are in the vicinity of the PSs and will be used by vehicles going to/from the site. In conjunction with the Town, the study area has been identified to be along Great Road, from eaver rook Road in the north to Powers Road in the South, and along King Street, from aldwin Hill Road in the west to armstead Way in the east. 2.2 Major Study rea Roadways The study area is serviced by several major roadways including Interstate 495, Route 119, and Route 110. These roadways offer regional and local access to the PSs as well as accommodate traffic through Littleton ommon. Interstate 495 is a limited access highway that begins at I-95 in the northeast, travels southwest approximately until its intersection with I- 90, then travels southeast until its termination in southeastern Massachusetts, near the ape. xit 31 on I-495 forms two half-clover leaf interchanges with Route 119. The northbound and southbound ramps are not signalized and currently motorists experience delays at these intersections during the peak hours when traffic is heavy on Route 119. Great Road (Route 119) at the I-495 Southbound Ramps. Great Road (Route 119) generally runs in a north-south direction from the oncord rotary to the south to orge Village Road (Route 225) in Groton to the north. Great Road is under the jurisdiction of the State and is classified as an urban principal arterial: a roadway that services statewide travel as well as major traffic movements within urbanized areas or between suburban centers *. *Massachusetts Highway epartment Project evelopment & esign Guide 43 Priority evelopment Sites 3

10 King Street (Route 110) generally runs in an east-west direction. This roadway runs from Route 4 in helmsford to the east to yer Road to the west. rom Great Road to yer Road in the west, King Street is classified as an urban principal arterial. To the east, from Great Road to helmsford, King Street is classified as an urban minor arterial: a roadway which links cities and towns in rural areas and interconnect major arterials within urban areas *. Great Road and King Street intersect in Littleton ommon, creating a four-way signalized intersection, which is under state jurisdiction. t this intersection, crosswalks are provided across all four approaches. urrently, both the King Street eastbound and westbound approaches provide exclusive left-turn lanes, while both Great Road approaches provide two approach lanes: one left-turn and through lane and one right-turn and through lane. The results of the field inventory for the local roadway network are outlined in Table 1. This table provides information about the roadways, including lane and shoulder widths, lane usage, traffic control, sidewalk availability, and land use. 2.3 Study rea Intersections This section provides an overview of the existing traffic conditions in the study area. The study area involves intersections along Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110), two state-maintained arterial roadways that run through Littleton and provide access to both Priority evelopment Sites. The intersections studied are those shown along the corridor that would be primarily impacted by the traffic generated by the two PSs: Great Road at Powers Road Great Road at Shaker Lane Great Road at Meetinghouse Road/Stevens Road Great Road at I-495 Northbound Ramps Great Road at White Street Great Road at I-495 Southbound Ramps Great Road at Russell Street/isco rive Great Road at eaver rook Road King Street at armstead Way King Street at Meetinghouse Road King Street at Great Road King Street at Goldsmith Street/Stevens Street King Street at Jennifer Street King Street at White Street King Street at aldwin Hill Road *Massachusetts Highway epartment Project evelopment & esign Guide 43 Priority evelopment Sites 4

11 The existing conditions at each of these study area intersections have been identified through field visits to obtain roadway geometry data such as width, lane use, traffic controls, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In addition, turning movement counts were obtained for each study area intersection and automatic traffic recorders (TRs) were placed at key locations in the study area. The data were then used to perform an existing condition analysis. The following sections will review the existing traffic conditions. The shaded area in igure 1 highlights the study area. This figure also shows the locations of the IM and isco sites. igure 1: Project Location Map 43 Priority evelopment Sites 5

12 2.4 Transportation Issues The existing roadway network in the study area currently has several deficiencies, as listed below. The amount of traffic that travels on the local network causes congestion and delays, particularly during weekday peak commute hours. The existing pedestrian facilities including sidewalks and crosswalks are limited in their usability. In most locations throughout the local Vehicles queue on Great Road southbound. network, a sidewalk is only available on one side of the roadway, if at all. There is limited bicycle accommodation throughout the local roadway network. There is no public transportation or shuttle bus service. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 6

13 Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry Intersection pproach Lane Width (ft) Shoulder Width (ft) No. of Lanes Traffic ontrol** Sidewalk Land Use Great Road (Rt. 119) / eaver rook Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 11 ft 1 Unsignalized None Residential Road Great Road (Rt. 119) S 12 ft 11.5 ft 1 eaver rook Road W 17 ft - 1 Great Road (Rt. 119) / Russell Street / isco riveway Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 7 ft* 1 Unsignalized None Residential / ommercial Great Road (Rt. 119) S 13.5 ft 2.5 ft* 1 Russell Street 16 ft - 1 Great Road (Rt. 119) / I-495 Southbound Ramps isco riveway W 18 ft - 1 Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 11 ft* 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk along West side of Great Road Great Road (Rt. 119) S 21 ft 1 ft 1 I-495 S Off-Ramp L 16 ft 2 ft 1 I-495 S Off-Ramp R 15 ft 2 ft 1 Great Road (Rt. 119) / White Street Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 10.5 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk along West side of Great Road extend to White Street Great Road (Rt. 119) / I-495 Northbound Ramps *used as a bypass lane **unsignalized intersections have side (minor) streets under stop-control Great Road (Rt. 119) S 12 ft 13 ft 1 White Street 12 ft - 1 Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 11 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk along West side of Great Road Great Road (Rt. 119) S 12 ft 10 ft* 1 I-495 N Off-Ramp R 20 ft 2 ft 1 I-495 N Off-Ramp L 19 ft 2 ft 1 Residential / ommercial 43 Priority evelopment Sites 7

14 Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry (cont.) Intersection pproach Lane Width (ft) Shoulder Width (ft) No. of Lanes Traffic ontrol** Sidewalk Land Use Great Road / IM riveway Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 1 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk ommercial along West side of Great Road Great Road (Rt. 119) S 11 ft 1 ft 2 Parking Lot 13 ft - - IM riveway W 12 ft - 2 Great Road (Rt. 119) / King Street Great Road (Rt. 119) N 12 ft 1 ft 2 Signalized 5 ft sidewalk ommercial (Rt. 110) along West side of Great Road Great Road (Rt. 119) S 11 ft 1 ft 2 King Street (Rt. 110) 13 ft 1.5 ft 2 5 ft sidewalk along North side of King Street King Street (Rt. 110) W 11 ft 1 ft 2 Great Road (Rt. 119 / Rt 2) / dams Great Road (Rt. 119 / 17 ft 1 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk ommercial Street / Stevens Street Rt 2) N Great Road (Rt. 119) S 12 ft 1 ft 1 dams Street N 24 ft - 1 Stevens Street SW ( one way ) 22.5 ft Parking Spaces 1 available on both sides Great Road (Rt. 119 / Rt 2) / Shaker Great Road (Rt. 119 / 20 ft 1 ft 1 Unsignalized None Residential Lane Rt 2) N Great Road (Rt. 119 / Rt 2) S 14 ft 1 ft 1 Great Road (Rt. 119 / Rt 2) / Powers Road *used as a bypass lane **unsignalized intersections have side (minor) streets under stop-control Shaker Lane 20 ft 1 ft 1 Great Road (Rt. 119 / 11.5 ft 0.5 ft 2 Signalized None Residential Rt 2) N Great Road (Rt. 119 / 11.5 ft 0.5 ft 2 Rt 2) S Powers Road W 11 ft 0.5 ft 2 43 Priority evelopment Sites 8

15 Table 1: Summary of xisting Intersection Geometry (cont.) Intersection pproach Lane Width (ft) Shoulder Width (ft) No. of Lanes Traffic ontrol Sidewalk Land Use King Street (Rt. 110 / Rt. 2) / King Street 13 ft 1 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk on Residential aldwin Hill Road / private driveway both sides King Street W 12.5 ft 1 ft 1 aldwin Hill Road N 14 ft - 1 Private driveway S 15 ft - - King Street (Rt. 110 / Rt. 2) / White King Street 13 ft 2 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk on Residential Street both sides King Street W 13 ft 2 ft 1 King Street (Rt. 110 / Rt. 2) / Jennifer Street King Street (Rt. 110 / Rt. 2) / Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street King Street (Rt. 110) / Meetinghouse Street White Street S ft - 1 King Street 14.5 ft 3 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk along south side of King Street ommercial/ Residential King Street W 14 ft - 1 Jennifer Street N 11.5 ft - 1 King Street 32 ft 2 ft 1 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk ommercial/ Residential King Street W 12 ft 0.5 ft 2 Goldsmith Street N 18 ft 0.5 ft 2 King Street 11 ft 1 ft 2 Unsignalized 5 ft sidewalk along north side of King Street King Street W 11 ft 1 ft 2 Meetinghouse Street N (one-way) 27.5 ft* - 1 King Street (Rt. 110) / IM riveway King Street 20 ft 1 ft 1 Unsignalized 6 ft sidewalk along north side of King Street King Street W 20 ft 4 ft 1 IM riveway S 12.5 ft - 1 King Street (Rt. 110) / armstead Way King Street 12 ft 3.5 ft 1 Unsignalized 6 ft sidewalk along north side of King Street *includes parking lane **unsignalized intersections have side (minor) streets under stop-control King Street W 12.5 ft 5 ft 1 armstead Way N 12.5 ft - 1 ommercial/ Residential ommercial ommercial / Residential 43 Priority evelopment Sites 9

16 2.5 Pedestrian / icycle acilities xisting pedestrian amenities in the study area are in the form of sidewalks, crosswalks, and an exclusive pedestrian phase at the Great Road (Route 119) / King Street (Route 110) signalized intersection. In most locations, sidewalks are provided along one side of the street, and the average sidewalk width is 5 feet. In the study area, sidewalks are located along the west side of Great Road from Russell Street to Stevens Street; along the west side of Great Road, from Meetinghouse Street to approximately 1/3 mile south of the cton Toyota automobile dealership; along the north side of King Street from Great Road east to armstead Way; on the south side of King Street from Goldsmith Street to Jennifer Street; and along both sides of King Street, west of Jennifer Street. There are several issues with the existing pedestrian facilities in the study area. These include: 1. Missing links and discontinuities in the sidewalk, especially in Littleton ommon, force pedestrians to walk on the roadway / shoulder. 2. There are several locations where wide curb cuts increase pedestrianvehicle conflicts, particularly in the locations of dams Street, and along the north side of King Street (Route 110) near Littleton ommon. No sidewalk connecting to crosswalk at Littleton ommon. 3. With the exception of the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110), none of the crosswalks are controlled by traffic signals. The crosswalks consist mainly of two parallel pavement markings 10 feet apart which are not as visible as the ladder type of crosswalk. 4. t some locations, pedestrians have to use wide and unprotected crosswalks. or example, the crosswalk on King Street (Route 110) near Goldsmith Over 70-foot long crosswalk near King Street at Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street. Street / Stevens Street intersection is over 70-feet long with no pedestrian refuge and several travel lanes and conflicting vehicular movements. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 10

17 igure 2: xisting Sidewalks in the Study rea No dedicated bicycle facilities were identified in the study area. icyclists are currently expected to share the existing roadway with motorized vehicles. In some locations, the shoulder is over 4 feet wide enough to accommodate the bicyclists however in most locations, the bicyclists and vehicles must share the travel way. Signs encouraging the use of bicycles are absent. 2.6 Transit acilities The Massachusetts ay Transportation uthority (MT) provides commuter rail service on the itchburg rail line from North Station in oston to itchburg, with a stop in Littleton. This station stop is located on orster Street, which is approximately two miles from Littleton ommon. There is currently limited service to/from Littleton to accommodate the "reverse" commute. uring the morning hours, for commuters traveling westbound to the study area, the first train does not arrive in Littleton until 9:42M, with the next train approximately one hour later at 10:40 M. In comparison, in the eastbound direction, trains reach the Littleton station beginning at 6:13M and run approximately every 30 minutes until 7:50M. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 11

18 or those commuters wishing to travel eastbound during the evening commute, the first train does not leave Littleton until 7:02PM, followed by a 7:52PM departure. ven with improvements to the reverse commute schedule, transit commuters may be limited as the town currently has no bus service that connects Littleton ommon to the train station or to any neighboring towns. Traveling outbound to the west during the evening peak hour, trains arrive in Littleton beginning at 5:27PM and run approximately every minutes. dditional commuter rail information can be found in the ppendix. 2.7 Park & Ride The State s Office of Transportation Planning (OTP) is currently researching locations for Park & Ride facilities near xits 30 and 31 on I-495. Possible locations include those that meet specific qualifications, as outlined by OTP, including proximity to the interchange, high visibility from an arterial street, a lot with 50 or more spaces, and land use where the peak traffic does not conflict with typical commuter parking traffic. In Littleton, several sites were examined that met this criteria, including Saint nne s hurch at 75 King Street and the existing IM site at 550 Great Road. Saint nne s hurch is located approximately two-thirds of a mile from xit 30 on I-495 and the parking lot has approximately 280 spaces. The lot has entrances on both King Street and Mill Street. The existing IM site was identified as a possible location due to its proximity to the I- 495 xit 31 interchange. In addition, it has one favorable lot that is located close to the site drive on Great Road, but located some distance from the building. If a Park & Ride is built on the IM site, this would provide additional public transit facilities in the study area. 2.8 Traffic ata ollection Traffic volume data were collected in ecember 2008 throughout the study area. 48-hour automatic traffic recorder tubes (TRs) were placed at key locations to record traffic volumes, speed, and vehicle classification from Wednesday ecember 10 to Thursday ecember 11. The TRs were placed at the following four locations: Great Road (Route 119), north of Russell Street Great Road (Route 119), south of Robinson Road King Street (Route 110), west of aldwin Hill Road King Street (Route 110), east of armstead Way Table 2 displays the average weekday daily and peak hour traffic volumes. In addition, turning movement counts were performed at the study area intersections (identified above) during weekday morning (7:00-9:00M) and afternoon (4:00-6:00PM) peak hours on Thursday ecember 11, Priority evelopment Sites 12

19 Table 2: Traffic Volume Summary aily irectional Volumes a Location Great Road (Route 119) (North of Russell Street) Great Road (Route 119) (South of Robinson Road) King Street (Route 110) (ast of armstead Way) King Street (Route 110) (West of aldwin Hill Road) Weekday Volume a a Measured in vehicles per day b Measured in vehicles per hour for both directions astbound / Northbound Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes b Westbound / Southbound Morning fternoon Traffic ata Processing The raw traffic count data were adjusted in order to ensure that the existing traffic volumes represented the peak season traffic volumes for the study area. This involved several steps, beginning with first determining the peak hour for each of the study area intersections. Next, the volumes were balanced across groups of nearby intersections to provide a more streamlined data set. The next step was to review the seasonal adjustment factors from the Massachusetts Highway epartment (MassHighway) and to compare the factors for the month of ecember to the peak months of the year. In the month of ecember, during which the counts were conducted, the latest weekday seasonal factor for the year 2007 is The average seasonal factor during the peak months, from pril to October, was calculated to be 0.92, which is 5 percent higher than that of ecember. Therefore, the traffic counts were adjusted by 5 percent in order to reflect traffic volumes in the peak months. The next step was to compare the current data with historic data in the corridor. The intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110) has been the subject of several studies in the past. ata from eight studies were compiled and evaluated in order to determine trends and compare historical data to the 2008 count data. The studies reviewed included:. Townwide Study, March 1987 Meetinghouse ommons*, October 1993 Meetinghouse ommons*, ugust 1994 unctional esign Report, Route 119/I-495 Interchange, July 1997 ndrew rossing*, ugust 1999 ndrew rossing*, October 1999 Orchard Square*, May Priority evelopment Sites 13

20 Safety and Operational Improvements at Selected Intersections (SOISI) Study, TPS, 2007 *Traffic Impact Study or ssessment report igure 3 shows a chart of the total traffic entering the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110) during the weekday afternoon peak hour for each of these historical studies, as well as for the 2008 traffic counts. The final set of point data is for the 2008 traffic counts, with the addition of the 5 percent seasonal variance, plus the addition of the projected IM volumes at anticipated full occupancy. igure 3: Historical Traffic ata 43 Priority evelopment Sites 14

21 s can be seen in igure 3, the intersection volumes dropped from 1987 to lthough there was then an increase in traffic between 1994 and 1997, the volumes generally held steady through to In 2007, there was another decrease in traffic volumes; this was due to the IM (former HP) site being unoccupied. s noted above, the final set of data points show the 2008 adjusted counts, with the addition of the fully occupied IM traffic volumes. It can be seen that the traffic volumes are comparable to the historical counts, prior to the vacancy of the IM site. igures 4 and 5 show the balanced 2008 existing condition peak hour traffic volumes. etailed raw traffic volume data are contained in the ppendix. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 15

22

23

24 2.10 ccident nalysis ccident data for the study area intersections were obtained from MassHighway and from the Littleton Police epartment for the most recent three years on record ( ). The crash data for each of the study area intersections was compared between MassHighway and the Police epartment and the highest total for each year was used for analysis. rash rates were calculated for each study area intersections, as shown in Table 3. These rates represent the number of accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection and are used as a means to measure the relative safety at a particular location. Rates that are higher than the average warrant a closer review to determine the causes of the crash and also to identify the appropriate counter-measure to improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. MassHighway has determined the average accident rate in 2008 in istrict 3 (which includes the Town of Littleton) to be 0.84 for signalized intersections and 0.79 for unsignalized intersections. The data from the years 2004 to 2006 showed that the crash rates were higher than the istrict average at two locations: Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) and Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber. The new data which reflect the most recent crash records available, from 2005 to 2007, show that there were fewer total crashes at both of these intersections, and as a result, the crash rate is now lower than the MassHighway istrict average. lassifications of accidents at study area intersections are summarized in Table 3. rash Rate worksheets are contained in the ppendix. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 18

25 Table 3: Summary of ccident ata Great Road (Route 110) at Powers Road Severity Property amage Injury Hit and Run Not Reported ollision Type Rear nd ngle Head On Other Time Road ondition Season 6am-10am 10am-4pm 4pm-7pm 7pm-6am ry Wet Snow/Ice Other ec-eb Mar-May Jun-ug Sep-Nov Great Road (Route 110) at Meetinghouse Road / Stevens Road Great Road (Route 110) at White Street Light aylight awn/usk ark (Unlit) ark (Lit) Unknown 1 1 Total verage MH rash Rate a a per million entering vehicles, as defined by the Massachusetts Highway epartment 43 Priority evelopment Sites 19

26 Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata Great Road (Route 110) at Russell Street Great Road (Route 110) at eaver rook Road King Street (Route 119) at Meetinghouse Road Severity Property amage Injury Hit and Run Not Reported 1 1 ollision Type Time Road ondition Season Light Rear nd ngle Head On Other 6am-10am 10am-4pm 4pm-7pm 7pm-6am ry Wet Snow/Ice Other ec-eb Mar-May Jun-ug Sep-Nov aylight awn/usk ark (Unlit) ark (Lit) Unknown 1 1 Total verage MH rash Rate a a per million entering vehicles, as defined by the Massachusetts Highway epartment 43 Priority evelopment Sites 20

27 Severity Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata King Street (Route 119) at Great Road (Route 110) ollision Type Time Road ondition Season Light Property amage Injury Hit and Run Unknown Rear nd ngle Head On Other 6am-10am 10am-4pm 4pm-7pm 7pm-6am ry Wet Snow/Ice Other ec-eb Mar-May Jun-ug Sep-Nov aylight awn/usk ark (Unlit) ark (Lit) Unknown King Street (Route 119) Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street King Street (Route 119) at Jennifer Street Total verage MH rash Rate a a per million entering vehicles, as defined by the Massachusetts Highway epartment 43 Priority evelopment Sites 21

28 Table 3 cont'd: Summary of ccident ata King Street (Route 119) at White Street King Street (Route 119) aldwin Hill Road Severity Property amage 1 1 Injury Hit and Run Unknown 1 1 ollision Type Time Rear nd ngle Head On Other 6am-10am 10am-4pm 4pm-7pm 7pm-6am Road ondition ry Wet Snow/Ice Other Season ec-eb Mar-May 1 1 Jun-ug 1 Sep-Nov 1 Light aylight awn/usk ark (Unlit) ark (Lit) 1 Unknown Total verage MH rash Rate a a per million entering vehicles, as defined by the Massachusetts Highway epartment 1 1 The results of this analysis reveal that each of the intersections shown above exhibit accident rates below the district averages. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 22

29 2.11 xisting onditions apacity nalysis Measuring existing and projected future traffic volumes quantify traffic flow within a given study area. To assess quality of flow, capacity analyses were conducted at study area intersections. The capacity analyses provide a standardized indication of the ability of intersections to accommodate traffic demands placed upon them. primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of Levels of Service (LOS) to traffic facilities under various traffic flow conditions. nalyses were conducted using methods defined in the Highway apacity Manual 2000 (TR, 2000) for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The concept of Level of Service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists. Level of Service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. In so doing, Level of Service provides an index to quality of traffic flow. Six Levels of Service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations, from to, with LOS representing the best operating conditions and LOS representing the worst. Since the Level of Service of a traffic facility is a function of traffic flows placed upon it, an intersection may operate at a wide range of Levels of Service, depending on time of day, day of week, or period of year. The average delay per vehicle approaching an intersection is used to quantify the Level of Service at a particular intersection. This is discussed briefly below, and LOS designations are defined in Table 4. verage delay measures the mean stopped delay experienced by vehicles entering an intersection during the design period. verage delay is measured for each individual turning movement that must yield the right of way, and for the intersection as a whole, if signalized (including through vehicles that experience no delay). 43 Priority evelopment Sites 23

30 Table 4: Level of Service esignations elay (sec/veh) ategory Unsignalized Signalized LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Source: Transportation Research oard, Highway apacity Manual, National Research ouncil, The capacity analyses have been performed to determine how the existing roadway network and intersections handle existing traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Synchro traffic analysis software package (Version 6), which is based on the 2000 HM methodology, was employed to evaluate operating conditions at all signalized and unsignalized intersections. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results of the peak hour capacity analyses for the signalized and unsignalized study area intersections, respectively. or the unsignalized intersections, only the critical movements are shown. ll traffic count data can be found in the ppendix. Table 5: xisting onditions apacity Table Signalized Intersection Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Morning Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) Great Road (Route 119) at Powers Road Powers Road W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Priority evelopment Sites 24

31 Table 6: xisting onditions apacity Table Unsignalized a Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec per vehicle) elay (sec per vehicle) Intersection LOS LOS King Street (Route 110) at armstead Way armstead Way N L King Street (Route 110) at Meetinghouse Road Meetinghouse Road N L King Street (Route 110) at Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street Goldsmith Street N L King Street (Route 110) at Jennifer Street Jennifer Street N L King Street (Route 110) at White Street White Street S L King Street (Route 110) at aldwin Hill Road aldwin Hill Road N L Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane Shaker Lane L >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber I-495 Northbound Ramps W L >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at White Street White Street L >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps I-495 Southbound Ramps L >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive Russell Street L Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road eaver rook Road W L >120 >120 a The Synchro software was not able to provide results for the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and dams Street / Stevens Street / Meetinghouse Street due to the geometry of the intersection. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 25

32 s can be seen in Table 5, under existing conditions, the signalized intersection at Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) currently operates at LOS during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The signalized intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and Powers Road currently operates at LOS during both peak hours. Table 6 shows that under existing conditions, critical movements at six of the twelve unsignalized intersections operated at failing conditions (LOS ) during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. These intersections include: Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane Shaker Lane L Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber I-495 N Ramps W L Great Road (Route 119) at White Street White Street L Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps I-495 S Ramps L Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive Russell Street L Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road eaver rook Road W L In addition, the intersection at King Street (Route 110) at Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street operates at LOS during the weekday afternoon peak hour. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 26

33 hapter 3: uture Traffic Projection 3.1 uture No-uild aseline onditions In order to evaluate traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, future No-uild ondition traffic volumes were examined to provide a baseline condition for comparison. The future No uild condition assumes full IM occupancy of the site and also traffic conditions without the development of the isco property. The No-uild ondition traffic volumes were projected for the year 2013 based on existing traffic volume data. uture No-uild ondition traffic volume projections generally consist of background growth, and traffic generated from specific proposed developments in the study area. S Group has also taken into consideration the proposed signal timing and phasing improvements by MassHighway at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110). Typically, background growth is a function of future land development, increased economic activity, and changes in travel patterns IM Re-Occupancy The existing IM facility located at 550 King Street currently has about 200 employees, only about 10 percent of the expected full occupancy of 2,200 seated employees. IM has other employees assigned to the Littleton location who mainly work from home or come to the office occasionally. IM anticipates that the facility will reach full occupancy over the next 18 months as it consolidates its offices and locates the employees to this site and also at the other facility in Westford. Trips associated with the IM facility were generated using Land Use ode 760 Research and evelopment enter in the IT Trip Generation manual. The trips were then distributed and assigned to the roadway network. xisting IM facility, looking north from armstead Way. The trip distribution pattern for the IM facility was based on zip codes of all 2,200 employees who will relocate to the site, the existing regional and local roadway networks, and the routes they are most likely to use. The local patterns were determined 43 Priority evelopment Sites 27

34 more precisely based on the locations of the three drives and the layout of the parking lots for the site. Table 7 outlines the trip distribution pattern for the IM re-occupancy. Table 7: Trip istribution Summary Roadway irection To/rom Percent of Total I-495 ast 20% I-495 West 30% Great Road North 5% Great Road South 20% King Street ast 15% King Street West 10% Total 100% Improvements to Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) MassHighway has proposed improvements to the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110), including new signal timing and phasing, as well as the installation of new mast arms. No roadway geometric improvements are being proposed be MassHighway at the time. The new timing and phasing improvementswere used in the future analysis Growth Rate and ackground evelopments ata obtained from the entral Transportation Planning Staff (TPS) were used to develop a growth rate that would project existing traffic volumes to the future. ased on annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the current year (2008) and future projections (2030), an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was calculated. The future baseline traffic volumes were developed by applying the growth rate of 1.5 percent, compounded over 5 years, to the balanced existing traffic volumes. Then the projected full occupancy IM trips were added, as well as traffic from The Learning xperience daycare center, which is located at 206 Great Road and is expected to open in Other project developments in the Town that have not yet been fully defined are assumed to be covered by the 1.5 percent annual growth rate. Table 8 summarizes the results of the future No uild peak hour capacity analyses for the study area intersections. ll traffic count data can be found in the ppendix. The resulting 2013 uture No uild traffic volumes are displayed in igures 6and Priority evelopment Sites 28

35

36

37 Table 8: uture No uild onditions apacity Table Intersection Signalized Intersections Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Great Road (Route 119) at Powers Road Powers Road W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Unsignalized Intersections a King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 1 King Street (Route 110) at armstead Way King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 2 King Street (Route 110) at Meetinghouse Road King Street (Route 110) at Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street King Street (Route 110) at Jennifer Street King Street (Route 110) at White Street King Street (Route 110) at aldwin Hill Road Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane 2013 No uild ondition Morning Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) 37.1 > IM rive 1 S L armstead Way N L IM rive 2 S L Meetinghouse Road N L Goldsmith Street N L 43.7 >120 Jennifer Street N L White Street S L aldwin Hill Road N L Shaker Lane L 50.7 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at IM rive 3 IM rive 3 W L >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber I-495 Northbound Ramps W L >120 >120 a The Synchro software was not able to provide results for the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and dams Street / Stevens Street / Meetinghouse Street due to the geometry of the intersection. Table 8 cont d: uture No uild onditions apacity Table 43 Priority evelopment Sites 31

38 Intersection Unsignalized Intersections Great Road (Route 119) at White Street Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road 2013 No uild ondition Morning Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec LOS per vehicle) White Street L >120 I-495 Southbound Ramps L >120 >120 Russell Street L >120 >120 eaver rook Road W L >120 >120 Under the future No uild conditions, nine of the fifteen intersections are projected to operate at a failing LOS (LOS or ). These movements are as follows: King Street (Route 110) at Goldmith Street / Stevens Street The Goldsmith Street northbound left movement will operate at LOS during the morning peak hour and at LOS during the afternoon peak hour. King Street (Route 110) at Jennifer Street The Jennifer Street northbound left movement is expected to operate at LOS during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane It is expected that the Shaker Lane eastbound left movement will operate at LOS during both peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at IM rive 3 The IM rive 3 westbound left is expected to operate at LOS during both peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber The I-495 northbound left is will to operate at LOS during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at White Street It is expected that the White Street eastbound left-turn movement will operate at LOS during both peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps The I-495 Southbound Ramps eastbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive The Russell Street eastbound left movement will operate at LOS during both peak hours. Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road It is expected that under the future No uild condition, the eaver rook Road westbound left-turn movement will operate at LOS during both peak hours. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 32

39 3.2 uture uild onditions lternative evelopment Scenarios ased on discussions with the Town, three development scenarios for the isco property were evaluated with respect to traffic impacts in the study area. The limiting factors in sizing the potential development options were water use and wastewater flows. ased on the existing site constraints, the site was previously permitted for a 640,000 S office development, which was expected to have a wastewater flow of 48,000 gallons per day. Using this as a maximum threshold for wastewater capacity, the Metropolitan rea Planning ouncil (MP) provided calculations for reallocating the wastewater flows to different uses. etails for these calculations are provided in the ppendix. fter evaluating the various uses, the Town agreed upon the following three alternative development scenarios: a) The previously-approved office development, b) n all-retail lifestyle center, and c) mixed-use development, consisting of hotel, office, and retail space. The size of each of the development scenarios, based on the wastewater capacity limits, are shown below in Table 9. Table 9: lternative evelopment Scenarios lternative Use Size lternative 1 Office uilding Office 640,000 S lternative 2 Lifestyle enter Retail/Restaurant 320,000 S lternative 3 Mixed Use Hotel Office Retail/Restaurant 200 rooms 200,000 S 48,000 S Trip Generation nalysis To estimate trip generation characteristics for each of the proposed options, the Institute of Transportation ngineers (IT) Trip Generation Manual (8 th ed., 2008) was employed. Trips generated by the proposed office building in lternative 1 were estimated using IT Land Use ode (LU) 710 General Office uilding. In lternative 2, LU 820 Shopping enter was employed. lternative 3 used a combination of Land Uses including LU 310 Hotel, LU 710 General Office uilding, and LU xisting driveway to isco property built in anticipation of project completion. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 33

40 820 Shopping enter. Table 10 summarizes the projected trip generation for each of the proposed development scenarios. igure 8 shows a chart comparing the peak hour volumes generated by each of the development options. igure 8: Peak Hour Vehicle-Trips omparison of lternatives 43 Priority evelopment Sites 34

41 Table 10: Project Trip Generation lternatives Weekday Morning Peak Weekday fternoon Total aily Trips Hour (vehicle-trips) Peak Hour (vehicle-trips) nter xit Total nter xit Total Weekday lternative 1 Office uilding Proposed 640,000 S Office uilding a ,571 lternative 2 Lifestyle enter Proposed 320,000 S Shoppng enter b ,387 14,464 lternative 3 Mixed Use Proposed 200-room Hotel c ,634 Proposed 200,000 S Office uilding a ,275 Proposed 48,000 S Shopping enter b ,214 Total Proposed Mixed Use ,123 a based on IT Land Use ode 710 General Office uilding b based on IT Land Use ode 820 Shopping enter c based on IT Land Use ode 310 Hotel s can be seen from Table 10, during the morning peak hour the office use generates the highest number of trips while the retail use generates the least morning peak hour traffic. uring the afternoon peak hour, the all-retail option generates almost twice as many vehicle trips as the trips from either the office and mixed use options. On a daily basis, the all-retail option under lternative 2 Lifestyle enter, generates the greatest daily number of vehicle trips and therefore has the greatest impact on the roadway network Trip istribution Patterns Trip generation results quantify the number of new trips associated with any proposed development. In order to assess the impacts related to these additional traffic volumes, trips must be distributed onto the roadway network. The additional trips generated to and from the site for lternative 1 Office uilding were assigned to the roadway network based on US ensus Journey to Work data for the Town of Littleton. This pattern is similar to the distribution pattern used for anticipated IM traffic. lternative 2 trips were distributed on the roadway network based on existing traffic volumes and travel patterns and the existing roadway network. Those trips generated for lternative 3 were distributed using a combination of these two methods. Trip distribution patterns for the office and retail uses are outlined below in Table Priority evelopment Sites 35

42 Table 11: Trip istribution Summary Roadway irection To/rom Percent of Total Office Percent of Total Retail I-495 ast 20% 20% I-495 West 30% 20% Great Road North 5% 15% Great Road South 20% 15% King Street ast 15% 15% King Street West 10% 10% Goldsmith Street South N/ 5% Total 100% 100% xpected new additional traffic volumes generated by each of the options (see Table 10) have been distributed accordingly and are presented in the ppendix. Year 2013 uild condition peak hour traffic volumes consist of the addition of new project generated trips to the No uild peak hour traffic volumes. These volumes, for each of the three development options, are shown in igures 9 to Priority evelopment Sites 36

43

44

45

46

47

48

49 3.2.4 uture uild ondition apacity nalysis The results of the capacity analyses for the three proposed options are shown below in Table 12. Similar to the analysis of existing conditions, the Synchro traffic analysis software package (Version 6) was employed to evaluate all intersections. The ppendix contains the intersection capacity analysis worksheets. s can be seen in Table 12, under the future uild condition capacity analysis, it is expected that the signalized intersection at Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) will operate at LOS and, respectively, during the morning and afternoon peak hours under both lternatives 1 Office and 3 Mixed Use. It is expected that this intersection will operate at LOS during the afternoon peak hour for lternative 2 Lifestyle enter. Table 12 also shows that thirteen of the fifteen unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS or under one or more of the lternative development options during either the morning or afternoon peak hour, as follows: King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 1 uring the afternoon peak hour, the IM rive 1 southbound left movement will operate at LOS under lternatives 1 and 3 and at LOS under lternative 2. King Street (Route 110) at armstead Way uring the afternoon peak hour, under all three lternatives, the armstead Way northbound left movement will operate at LOS. King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 2 uring the afternoon peak hour, the IM rive 2 Southbound left movement will operate at LOS under lternatives 1 and 3 and at LOS under lternative 2. King Street (Route 110) at Goldmith Street / Stevens Street The Goldsmith Street northbound left movement will operate at LOS during the morning and afternoon peak hours under lternative 1. Under lternatives 2 and 3, this movement will operate at LOS and, respectively, for the morning and afternoon peak hours. King Street (Route 110) at Jennifer Street Under lternative 1, the Jennifer Street northbound left movement is expected to operate at LOS during the morning peak hour and LOS during the afternoon peak hour. Under lternatives 2 and 3, this movement will operate at LOS during both peak hours. King Street (Route 110) at White Street uring the morning peak hour, the White Street southbound left movement will operate at LOS under lternatives 1 and 3. Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane It is expected that the Shaker Lane eastbound left movement will operate at LOS for all three lternatives during both peak hours, except for lternative 3 during the morning peak hour, when it will operate at LOS. The following six intersections are expected to operate at LOS during both the morning and afternoon peak hours for all three lternatives: Great Road (Route 119) at IM rive 3 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber Great Road (Route 119) at White Street Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road 43 Priority evelopment Sites 43

50 Table 12: uture uild ondition apacity Table 2013 uild ondition lternative uild ondition lternative 1 - Office Lifestyle enter fternoon Peak Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour Hour elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) Intersection Signalized Intersections Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall > > >120 > >120 >120 >120 > uild ondition lternative 3 Mixed Use fternoon Peak Morning Peak Hour Hour elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) > >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at Powers Road Powers Road W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Unsignalized Intersections a King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 1 IM rive 1 S L King Street (Route 110) at armstead Way armstead Way N L King Street (Route 110) at IM rive 2 IM rive 2 S L King Street (Route 110) at Meetinghouse Road Meetinghouse Road N L King Street (Route 110) at Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street Goldsmith Street N L 51.8 > > >120 a The Synchro software was not able to provide results for the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and dams Street / Stevens Street / Meetinghouse Street due to the geometry of the intersection. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 44

51 Table 12 cont d: uture uild ondition apacity Table 2013 uild ondition lternative uild ondition lternative 1 - Office Lifestyle enter fternoon Peak Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour Hour elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) 2013 uild ondition lternative 3 Mixed Use fternoon Peak Morning Peak Hour Hour elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) Intersection Unsignalized Intersections cont d King Street (Route 110) at Jennifer Street Jennifer Street N L King Street (Route 110) at White Street White Street S L King Street (Route 110) at aldwin Hill Road aldwin Hill Road N L Great Road (Route 119) at Shaker Lane Shaker Lane L >120 > > >120 Great Road (Route 119) at IM rive 3 IM rive 3 W L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps / Littleton Lumber I-495 Northbound Ramps W L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at White Street White Street L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps I-495 Southbound Ramps L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at Russell Street / isco rive Russell Street L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 Great Road (Route 119) at eaver rook Road eaver rook Road W L >120 >120 >120 >120 >120 > Priority evelopment Sites 45

52 hapter 4: Recommendations 4.1 Mitigation Options This section provides an overview of transportation goals and objectives used to develop mitigation options for the study area. ccording to the Town of Littleton's 2001 Master Plan, the stated goals for transportation circulation include: minimizing the impact of regional traffic, accommodating peak hour traffic through Littleton as quickly as possible thereby lessening congestion; improving safety at locations where safety is deficient; designing and implementing circulation, sidewalk and other streetscape improvements for Littleton ommon. The elements of the mitigation options considered are based on the Town s vision as outlined in the following goals: Identify deficiencies under existing conditions ccommodate transportation needs associated with the IM re-occupancy and development of the isco property Improve pedestrian access by providing continuous sidewalks ncourage use of bicycles through wide roadway shoulders and sensitive loops at signalized locations Provide a pedestrian connection between the isco site and other locations to the south side of the I-495 highway. nhance the use of alternative transportation modes including shuttle bus service to the MT commuter rail station. 4.2 Proposed Improvements ased on the transportation goals outlined above, several improvement options were considered at the study area intersections. s noted earlier, the side streets experience poor levels of service as traffic volumes increase on the main streets, howevertraffic volumes on the side streets however are not high enough to warrant traffic signals. The traffic signal at the intersection of Great Road and Powers Street is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS in the future under all three lternatives. ue to the projected intersection operations under the future uild conditions, three major intersections that require improvements have been identified: Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110); Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 N Ramps; and Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 S Ramps. These are the intersections that would experience the greatest impacts due to their proximity to the two Priority evelopment Sites. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 46

53 It is important to also provide pedestrian and bicycle accommodation along Great Road (Route 119) in the vicinity of the Priority evelopment Sites. urrently, the bridge along Great Road (Route 119) that runs over I-495 has a limited width, therefore these accommodations cannot be met. The bridge is not scheduled to be rebuilt in the near future, but when this reconstruction becomes a possibility, it is important to provide adequate width for both pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. Therefore all future improvement options include a four-foot (minimum) bicycle accommodation as well as 6-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Great Road. Under the signalized improvement, crosswalks pedestrian heads and push buttons would be provided to increase pedestrian safety. Three major mitigation scenarios were evaluated as applicable to the three major study intersections. These options are outlined below. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 47

54 4.2.1 Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) The future build analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at poor levels of service due to an increase in traffic volumes. The constrained operations are seen mostly on the north and southbound approaches along Great Road. Three improvements have been analyzed for this intersection, which include traffic signal improvements with the existing pavement layout, traffic signal improvements with roadway widening, and the incorporation of a roundabout at this intersection a Traffic Signal Improvement Re-stripe xisting Pavement This improvement option incorporates traffic signal improvements within the existing pavement layout. y reassigning the lane configuration, critical movements such as the Great Road northbound and southbound left turns would have an exclusive lane for this use. In addition, the signal timing would be modified to include protected phases for these movements b Traffic Signal Improvement Widen xisting Pavement for dditional Lanes This improvement option is to widen the existing pavement layout in order to provide an additional lane on the east side of Great Road. This would accommodate three northbound approach lanes (left, through, and through/right) and two northbound receiving lanes along Great Road. igure 15: Widen Great Road (Route 119) for dditional Lanes 43 Priority evelopment Sites 48

55 This option also includes a 4-foot shoulder for bicycle accommodation on both sides of Great Road and King Street for all approaches. In addition, sidewalks are proposed along both sides of Great Road and along the north side of King Street. lthough this could be achieved within the existing right-of-way and permanent easement, it will impact the park at Littleton ommons and operations at the gas station located at the northeast corner of Great Road and King Street c Roundabout This improvement option involves the elimination of the existing signals and the incorporation of a four-legged roundabout at this location. The roundabout requires two lanes on all of the approaches and also for circulation within the roundabout. The area needed to fit this minimum alignment extends beyond the limits of the existing right-ofway Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps s with the intersection at Great Road and King Street, the intersection at Great Road and the I-495 Northbound Ramps are projected to operate poorly under the future uild condition. Three improvement options have been considered for this location a Re-stripe for Two Lanes This improvement option is to provide two approach lanes on Great Road (Route 119) but to maintain the current unsignalized traffic control at both Ramps. This would allow for vehicles traveling straight to pass by those queuing for the southbound left-turn movements. igure 16 shows the proposed cross-section with two approach lanes on Great Road, as well as 5-foot bicycle lanes and 6-foot sidewalks. igure 16: Typical ross Section on Great Road Providing Two pproach Lanes in each irection 43 Priority evelopment Sites 49

56 4.2.2.b oordinated Traffic Signals This option involves two approach lanes on Great Road (Route 119), as in the previous option, but also involves signalizing the intersection. Under this improvement option, two lanes would be provided for the westbound offramp left-turn movement. This would allow for greater capacity at the intersection. These traffic signals would have to be coordinated with those located at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps (if signalized) in order to ensure orderly progression between them. igure 17: Proposed Signal at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps c Roundabout This option involves the construction of a two-lane modern roundabout at the intersection of Great Road and the I-495 Northbound Ramps. The proposed modern roundabout has a higher capacity and can process more traffic than the signalized option. It would therefore provide for ease of traffic flow, as well as provide advantages such as increased safety, lower travel speeds, and lower maintenance costs. igure 18 (at left): Proposed Roundabout at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps It is projected that the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and the I-495 Southbound Ramps will operate poorly under the future uild condition. Similar to the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps, three proposed improvement options have been considered that will enhance the operations at this intersection. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 50

57 4.2.3.a Re-stripe for Two Lanes s with the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps, this improvement option would provide two approach lanes on Great Road (Route 119). The existing unsignalized traffic control would remain at the intersection b oordinated Traffic Signals The signalization of Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps would incorporate two left-turn lanes for the eastbound off-ramp left-turn movement. s mentioned previously, this signalized intersection would be coordinated with the intersection at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps. igure 19 (above): Proposed Signal at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps c Roundabout modern two-lane roundabout would be constructed under this option at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps. This proposed roundabout, like that located at the Northbound Ramps, would enable a higher capacity at the intersection. The advantages would be similar, including increased safety, lower travel speeds, low energy cost, and lower maintenance costs. igure 20: Proposed Roundabout at Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Southbound Ramps dditionally, the consideration of a roundabout at this location would allow for the relocation of the isco driveway as the fourth leg of the 43 Priority evelopment Sites 51

58 roundabout. This would involve construction through wetlands which would have to be replicated at the location of the abandoned driveway. 4.3 valuation riteria matrix has been developed in order to weight the benefits and drawbacks for each option. The evaluation criteria are as follows: 1) elay/levels of Service represents operating conditions at the intersections. positive impact (+) signifies LOS or better. negative impact ( ) represents a failed intersection operation (LOS or ). 2) onnectivity/ccess evaluates how each improvement option would enhance access to the PSs as well as improve the connectivity between the sites and other locations in Littleton ommon. 3) Pedestrian / icycle ccess evaluates how the improvement option would benefit pedestrians and bicyclists in the study area. 4) Vehicle Safety compares the relative safety records of signalized, unsignalized, and roundabout intersections. 5) nvironmental Impacts consider impacts on wetland resources and open space. 6) butter Impacts / Takings examines if the particular improvement option would result in land takings. 7) Schedule: shorter schedule or duration to complete a particular improvement option is reviewed positively. Short-term projects such as re-striping fall into this category. Roadway improvements that include extensive construction have a longer duration for design, permitting, and construction and hence are viewed negatively under this criteria. 8) ost: ach improvement alternative has a cost associated with its implementation. positive evaluation represents those projects with a lower cost for design and construction. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are outlined below in Table Priority evelopment Sites 52

59 Intersection Table 13: Mitigation Improvements valuation riteria Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps Mitigation Improvement Signalized, revised traffic patterns, existing pavement Signalized, revised traffic patterns, widen pavement elay/los onnectivity / ccess Pedestrian / icycle ccess Vehicle Safety Pedestrian / icycle Safety nvironmental Impacts Land Takings Schedule ost Roundabout Unsignalized, two travel lanes each direction Signalized, two travel lanes each direction Roundabout Unsignalized, two travel lanes each direction Signalized, two travel lanes each direction Roundabout positive impact negative impact no impact 4.4 apacity nalysis: uild ondition with Mitigation apacity analyses were conducted along the corridor for each mitigation alternative under all three development scenarios (office, lifestyle center, and mixed use). s with each of the previous analyses, the Synchro traffic analysis software package (Version 6) was employed for all intersections. Tables 14 to 16 show the results of each of the capacity analyses. The ppendix contains the intersection capacity analysis worksheets. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 53

60 Table 14: uture uild with Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) Mitigation 1 Signal, xisting Pavement a Mitigation 2 Signal, Widen Pavement a Mitigation 2a Signal, Widen Pavement, oordinate with Ramps Morning Peak fternoon Peak Morning Peak fternoon Peak Morning Peak fternoon Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour elay elay elay elay elay elay (sec per (sec per (sec per (sec per (sec per (sec per LOS veh) LOS veh) LOS veh) LOS veh) LOS veh) LOS veh) Intersection Scenario 1 - Office Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall >120 > Mitigation 3 - Roundabout Morning Peak Hour elay (sec per LOS veh) fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec per LOS veh) Scenario 2 Lifestyle enter Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall > > > > Scenario 3 Mixed Use Great Road (Route 119) at King Street (Route 110) King Street King Street W Great Road N Great Road S Overall > Priority evelopment Sites 54

61 Table 15: uild w/ Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Northbound Ramps Mitigation 2 Signal, 2 lanes each Mitigation 3 - Roundabout direction Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) Intersection Scenario 1 - Office Littleton rive I-495 N Ramps W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Scenario 2 Lifestyle enter Littleton rive I-495 N Ramps W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Scenario 3 Mixed Use Littleton rive I-495 N Ramps W Great Road N Great Road S Overall Table 16: uild w/ Mitigation apacity Table Great Road (Route 119) at I-495 Southbound Ramps Mitigation 2 Signal, 2 lanes each Mitigation 3 - Roundabout direction Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour fternoon Peak Hour elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec elay (sec LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) LOS per veh) Intersection Scenario 1 - Office I-495 S Ramps Great Road N Great Road S Overall > Scenario 2 Lifestyle enter I-495 S Ramps Great Road N Great Road S Overall Scenario 3 Mixed Use I-495 S Ramps Great Road N Great Road S Overall Priority evelopment Sites 55

62 4.5 Recommendations The re-occupancy of the IM site and future development of the isco property would result in a significant increase in traffic volumes in the study area. In the previous section, several improvement options were identified to alleviate the anticipated impacts. Using the evaluation criteria listed above, a number of these improvements are being recommended for further development, which are divided into short-, medium-, and longterm actions Short-Term These recommendations can be implemented in the near future, and require no major changes to existing roadway geometry. 1) Great Road (Route 119) and King Street (Route 110) a) Re-stripe King Street to provide three westbound lanes. b) Provide protected/permitted signal phases for left-turn movements c) Install bicycle loop detection on all approaches. 2) King Street (Route 110) and Goldsmith Street / Stevens Street a) onstruct a traffic island and curb extension to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance. If possible, include this improvement in the contract for the already proposed Goldsmith Street reconstruction. 3) nhance the pedestrian environment by consolidating and narrowing commercial drives with wide curb cuts Medium-Term These recommendations require major roadway geometry changes and should be implemented concurrently with the development of the isco property. 1) Re-stripe Great Road (Route 119) from King Street (Route 110) to the I-495 Southbound Ramps to provide for a cross section with four travel lanes. 2) onstruct a modern roundabout at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and I- 495 Southbound Ramps. 3) Install a traffic signal or a modern roundabout at the intersection of Great Road (Route 119) and I-495 Northbound Ramps. 4) onstruct 6-foot sidewalks along Great Road and King Street, where missing, to provide a continuous pedestrian route. 5) Implement a shuttle bus service from the IM / isco sites to the MT itchburg Line ommuter Rail Station in Littleton. Work with MT to improve the frequency and arrival/departure times during the morning and evening commuting hours. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 56

63 change in the schedule could be achieved when the itchburg rail line is rebuilt by the MT. igure 21 shows the proposed primary and secondary shuttle bus routes. igure 21: Proposed Primary and Secondary Shuttle us Routes Long-Term This recommendation assumes a greater time frame and major bridge construction. 1) Widen the bridge on Great Road (Route 119) that runs over I-495 to accommodate four travel lanes, a minimum 4-foot bicycle accommodation in each direction, as well as 6-foot sidewalks on both sides. Work with MassHighway to ensure this bridge-widening project is added to the state and region s transportation improvement program. 43 Priority evelopment Sites 57