HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-22 Proposed Eaglewood Shops Dev Peer Review Response-Traffic VHB I
I
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
Services
101 Walnut Street
j P.O.Box 9151
Watertown,NM 02471-9151
617 924 1770
FAX 617 924 2286
Memorandum To: Ms.Julie Parrino Date: February 9,2004
Community Development&Services
Director
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Cc: Ken Cram-VAI
Karl Dubay-MHF
Project No.: 08475
From: Patrick T.Dunford,P.E. Re: Proposed Eaglewood Shops Development
Project Manager Peer Review Responses—Traffic
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.(VHB)has reviewed the additional traffic-related comments provided
by the peer reviewer for the above-mentioned project. The comments were presented in a letter
memorandum from MHF Design Consultants dated December 23,2003. VHB has discussed the
general content of the MHF memorandum and offers the following responses:
PETERS STREET SOUTHBOUND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
VHB has conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the potential benefits of adding an exclusive
southbound right-turn lane on Peters Street. As requested by VAI,the capacity analyses and relevant
queue results have been summarized in Table 1.
As indicated in the traffic study, this intersection is projected to operate over capacity under future
conditions with or without the project. This location is planned to be included in a four-signal system
on Route 114 to be developed as mitigation for the nearby Eaglewood Shops project. The benefits from
that work should be most prevalent on Route 114,and generally would not serve as capacity
enhancing measures. As can be seen in Table 1, the addition of an exclusive southbound right-turn
lane is not expected to significantly improve the operations at this location,which would remain
operating above capacity. Furthermore,the queues would still extend beyond the site driveway.
FEB
\\\03175\does\memos\Traf peer response 2-9-04Ax
Date: February 9,200-1 2
Project No.: 08175
TABLE 1
CAPACITY AND QUEUE ANALYSIS
2008 Build
2008 Build (with Right-turn Lane)
Movement VIC' Dela b LOS` V/C Dela LOS
Weekday PM
Route 1.14 Eastbound
Left 1.22 + F 1.22 + F
Thru/Right 0.80 31 C 0.80 31 C
Route 114 Westbound
Left 0.75 10 A 0.75 10 A
Thru/Right 1.09 44 D 1.09 44 D
Haverhill Street Northbound
Left 0.92 78 E 0.50 26 C
Thru/Right 1.02 75 E 1.02 75 E
Peters Street Southborind
Left 1.77 + F 1.77 + -F
Thru 0.72 32 C 0.39 25 C
Right n/a n/a n/a 0.33 24 C
Overall 1.37 62 E 1.37 59 E
Peters Street Sonthbound Qtieties: Leff_ Thru Left Thm Right
A ritrabte:Stor a S5' 175' 85` 175. 75j
Average 121' 213' 121'' 12[1' 3'
95�hPereeixtile 237'c 327,
Saturday Midda
Rotite 114 Eastbound
Left 1.36 + F 1.36 + F
Thru/Right 0.72 27 C 0.72 27 C
Route 114 Westbound
Left 0.73 14 B 0.73 14 B
Thru/Right 1.01 27 C 1.01 27 C
Haverhill Street Northbound
Left 1.52 + F 0.26 24 C
Thru/Right 0.81 38 D 0.81 38 D
Peters Street Sonthbound
Left 1.37 + F 1.37 + F
Thru 1.02 75 E 0.37 25 C
_ Right n/a n/a n/a 0.66 31 C
Overall 1.36 68 E 1.28 54 D
Peters Street Sots#hbound Qtieues Left Thrri Left Thru Right
Available.Qizeue Storage $5' 175` 85' 175' 5'
Average Queue 171' 278' 171' 146' 59'
95'.h Percet'tzle Qie3ze
a.V/C=volume to capacity ratio
b.Delay=Average Delay in seconds per vehicle
c. LOS=Level of Service
+ Delay exceeds 120 seconds.
\\\03475\docs\mem0s\Tra1 peer respoase 2-9-04.doc
i
Date: February 9,2004 3
Project No.. 08475
The addition of an exclusive southbound right-turn lane would require that one of the signal strain
poles at the northwest corner of the intersection be relocated. Further,it would preclude potential
landscape measures envisioned for this location along the Peters Street site frontage. Given that a
right-in/right-out driveway is already proposed from the site directly onto Route 114,which indicates
that minimal,if any,site traffic would contribute to the southbound right-turn movement, this level of
mitigation would be disproportionate to the project's impacts
PETERS STREET CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The goal of the proposed improvements on Peters Street is to provide sufficient width on Peters Street
departing from the signalized intersection to allow vehicles to by-pass traffic waiting to turn left from
blocking northbound Peters Street through-traffic. Therefore,the measures are not intended to alter
the existing nature of the roadway. Specifically, the intent is to maintain the single departing through-
lane from the signalized intersection that exists today. VHB believes that the pavement markings as
shown will function effectively for these purposes. However,this design could be refined to provide a
solid-white edge line delineating a shoulder area between the signal and the site driveway. Due to the
existing access driveways at the shopping area across the project site,the provision of a delineated left-
turn storage area is not feasible.
Based on discussions with the Planning Board,the corner radii of the Peters Street driveway have been
modified as shown on the site plans.
SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS
Sight distance analysis,in conformance with guidelines of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)'was performed for the site driveway. Speed observations
indicate that traffic travels at approximately 30 mph along Peters Street and at approximately 35 mph
along Route 114. These speeds were used to calculate the required stopping sight distance(SSD)and
the intersection sight distance(ISD) at the proposed site driveways.
SSD is the distance required for a vehicle approaching an intersection from either direction to perceive,
react and come to a complete stop before colliding with an object in the road,in this case the exiting
vehicle from a driveway. In this respect,SSD can be considered as the minimum visibility criterion for
the safe operation of an unsignalized intersection.
ISD,on the other hand,is based on the time required for perception,reaction and completion of the
desired critical exiting maneuver once the driver on a minor street approach(or driveway)decides to
execute the maneuver. Calculation for the critical ISD includes the time to(1) turn left,and to clear the
half of the intersection without conflicting with the vehicles approaching from the left;and(2)upon
turning Ieft or right, to accelerate to the operating speed on the roadway without causing approaching
vehicles on the main road to unduly reduce their speed. In this context,ISD can be considered as a
desirable visibility criterion for the safe operation of an unsignalized intersection. Table 2 summarizes
the sight distance analysis.
'A policy on the Geometric Design of Highway and Streets American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,2001.
\\\0&175\docs\memos\Traf peer response 2-944.doc
Date. February 9,2004 4
Project No.: 08475
TABLE 2
SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY
Stopping Sight Distance(feet) Intersection Sight Distance (feet)
Location Required' Measured" Required' Measured"
Peters Street Driveway
To/from north 200 >800 335 170
To/from soWh 200 170` 335 170`
Route 114 Driveway
To/froin east 250 375 335 375
To/ gin ivest n/a n/a n/a n/a
a. Based on standards established in A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials,2001. Based on speed of 30 mph on Peters Street and 35 mph on Route 114.
b. From field measurements taken by VHB.
C. Distance from driveway to Route 114/Peters Street signalized intersection.
d. Right-turns only.
As can be seen in Table 2,the right-turn in/out driveway on Route 114 meets the required stopping
and intersection sight distance requirements. Due to the proximity of the Peters Street site driveway to
the Peters Street/Route 114 intersection,the sight distance requirements to and from the south of the
driveway are technically not satisfied. However,traffic arriving from the south will either be arriving
at lower speeds due to the presence of the signal or turning maneuvers or will be able to see the
driveway from south of the intersection since no obstacles or road geometry impede the visibility.
Consequently,the only true requirement currently not met by the CVS driveways involves the
intersection sight distance to the north of the Peters Street driveway. The visibility in this direction is
obstructed by vegetation along the westerly side of the roadway. Without the vegetation,almost all of
which is located within the town right-of-way,the intersection sight distance requirements should be
exceeded. CVS will work closely with the town and the adjacent church to trim the obstructing
vegetation. It should be noted,nevertheless, that the stopping sight distance,which is the most critical
to the safety of the driveways,are adequate in all directions. A graphic showing the intersection sight
distance sight lines is provided attached to this document. On that graphic,a cross-hatched area is
shown where vegetation may have to be cut back as noted above.
Additionally,the landscape plans have been modified to place the proposed fieldstone walls at the
Peters Street entrance further from the roadway. These walls are envisioned to be built utilizing stones
from the existing wall,and they will be constructed to remain being lower than the height required to
provide adequate sight distance(3.5 feet). Thus,these walls should not impact sight distance at the
proposed driveway.
MISCELLANEOUS
In addition to the comments provided by the peer reviewer,VHB also noticed a small error in the CVS
traffic study. This error involves the volume of traffic entering the Proposed CVS driveway at the
Peters Street during the evening peak hour. The 2008 Build evening peak traffic volume network
should indicate 30 left-turning vehicles and 15 right-turning vehicles at this location instead of 10. A
revised Figure depicting these changes is included in the Appendix. A revised intersection capacity
analysis at this location for the evening peak hour was also conducted and is presented in Table 2. As
can be seen in the table,the differences are minimal and the overall conclusions remain valid.
\\\08475\d0es\mem0s\Tra!peer response 2-9-04.doc
Date: February 9,2004 5
Project No.: 08475
TABLE 2
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Location Peak Hour 2008 Build(Study) 2008 Build(Revised)
Demand' Delay' LOS` Demand Delay LO5
Peters Street at Weekday Evening 40 18 C 40 19 C
CVS Drive Saturday Midday 55 35 D 55 35 D
a. Demand of crA*ral movement.
b. Average delay per vehicle in seconds.
C. LOS=Level•of-Service.
The capacity analysis worksheets for the revised analysis are included in the Appendix. The capacity
analysis worksheet for the Route 114/CVS Driveways for the Saturday midday peak hour,which was
missing in the traffic study appendix,has also been included.
\\\68175\docs\memos\Traf peer response 2-9-0.4.doc
Date: February 9,2004 6
I Toject No.: 08475
ATTACHMENTS
+ Peer Review Comments
« Capacity Analysis Worksheets
+ Revised Peters Street Access Plan
• Intersection Sight Distance
• Revised 2008 Build Traffic Volume Networks
\\\OM75\does\memos\Traf peer response 2.9-04.dcK _
Date: February 9,2004 7
Project No.: 08475
• Peer Review Documents
\\\D8475\does\memos\Traf peer response 2-9-04.doc
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: CVS/Pharmacy
Location: Salem Turnpike(Route 114)&Peters Street,Map 24 Lot 81
Listed Owner: Peters Street Realty Trust,LLC
c/o Eagle Tribune Publishing Co.
100 Turnpike Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: (same as listed owner)
Applicant's Engineer: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)
101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02471
Latest Plan Revision Date: December 23,2003 Review Date: December 31,2003
MHF Design Consultants,Inc. (MHF) is providing an engineering review of the Site Plan for
CVS/Pharmacy referenced above for the Town of North Andover.
This review is conducted in accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw,Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Policy and standard engineering
practice. In addition,the traffic work and related offsite roadway improvements are being reviewed(under
separate memorandum)by Vanasse and Associates,Inc. (VAI). Together,the MHF and VAI reviews are
considered to be the Review for this project. We have received the following revised drawings and
documents for review:
• Site Plans(C-0 through C-10 and SV-1 revised 12/03)
• Response to Site Review Comments Memo from VHB to Ms.Griffin(dated 12/23/03)
• Drainage/Stormwater Management Report(unstamped)revised 12/03
Note that no new information or revised plans have been provided for review regarding
signage,lighting,or building; thus we have maintained any comments pertaining to those
items.
Z
I
1. NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAWS
Section 6 Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
1. The Building Elevations indicate proposed building signage. No freestanding or ground signs are
proposed on the plans—the applicant should confirm that with a plan note,or add it to the plans.
2. The proposed wall signage needs specifications for colors,materials,lighting,etc. Per 6.5.1,
internally lit signs are not allowed. Projecting signs per 6.3.15 (>12")are not allowed per 6.5.12.
3. The rear elevation Drive Thru sign may have a typo("Exit'instead of"Enter"),albeit the text is
difficult to read.
4. The Board should refer to the Building Inspector regarding interpretation of the following: (a)
Sign limit measurements of 6.3.19 pertaining to the surrounding use of materials and colors; (b)
per 6.6.1),we assume that the CVS/Pharmacy is one integral tenant,as separate identifiable
tenants are not listed. Therefore,the maximum number of signs allowed is one primary and one
secondary,which are both assumed to be wall signs(no freestanding or ground signs proposed);
(c) supplementary accessory signs as they relate to the Bylaw;(d)percentage calculations as
required in 6.6.D.1,which should be provided on the plans.
Section 7.3 Dimensional Requirements--Yard(Setbacks)
1. The provided street frontage in the Plan table and the graphical setback shown along the abutting
church sideline need to be corrected and/or adjusted .
Section 7.4 Building Height
I. We recommend that the Layout Plan table indicate the building height in feet per 2.27 of the
Bylaw,and the Elevations be dimensioned for both height and ceiling height(per required sign
area calculations).
Section 8.1 Parking
1. Please evaluate if the snow storage area can be moved off the paved parking spaces and onto the
proposed grass areas.
Section 8.3.5 Supplementary Regulations-Site Plan Review—Information Required
a) A copy of the Special Permit Application Form was not provided or reviewed.
c) The Architectural Plans submitted need to be stamped.
e.ii) Abutting Map/Lot and Tax Map data should be properly annotated for all abutters across the ROW
(no certified abutters list was provided);general ground surface type is not annotated.
e.iv) The proposed construction easement for the wall needs to be verified by the abutter,and the
easement include maintenance as well as construction and be either dimensioned or have a future
2
deed reference note. Also,any approval conditions notes(if any)regarding variances by the BOA
should be included.
e.viii/ix)Refer to miscellaneous building-related comments above. Please address any rooftop-mounted
IIVAC or other visible systems.
e.x) Please clarify on the plans what is proposed for sidewalks and/or crosswalk improvements on
Route 114 and Peters Street,to accommodate access. Please also address possible site access
between the Pharmacy and the abutting Church and Eagle Tribune building(which may appear to
be truly advantageous,even if these are not ADA accessible). Refer to e.xxiii requirements below.
e.xii) Please indicate details and location of the retaining wall fencing proposed.
e.xiii) Please label where the curb material transitions occur at the entrances.
e.xv) Please verify adequate sight distance regarding the fieldstone wall work at the Peters Street
entrance,and supplement landscape note 13 accordingly.
e.xvi) The location and grading of the durnpster and associated loading areas may be a prominent
element of this site as viewed from the abutting Eagle"Tribune facility. At least it could be rotated
to be accessed from the direction of one-way travel from the rear,which will also provide better
visual screening from the Rte 114 entrance.
e.xvii) Refer to Section 8.4 comments below. In addition,the loose cut sheets provided do not match the
specified fixtures on the lighting plan(all details should be shown on the lighting plan). No pole
or base details were provided.
e.xix) The following comments are offered by VAI.
Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VA1) has received the December 23, 2003 response
rnernorandtan front VHB. VAl is in the process of reviewing the material contained
within.
VAI's concern is the operation of the Peters Street driveway. The vehicle queues from
the signal at Salem Turnpike (Route 114) will extend beyond the proposed CVS site
driveway. VHB indicated that additional analyses ivere performed assuming Peters
Street was widened to include all exclusive right-turn lane and the vehicle queues would
still extend beyond the site driveway. No capacity analyses or queue results ►vere
included in the December 23,2003 memorandum. These should be provided.
V11B included a conceptual off-site mitigation plan for Peters Street. V1IB indicates that
the exact limits of this plan(referenced as Concept 1, dated November 18, 2003) will be
determined as the plan is developed further. Ott this concept, VHB proposes to remove
the existing concrete island and widen Peters Street to provide for a 26 foot (ft) wide
eastbound lane and tsvo 12 ft~vide west bound lanes. No pavement striping is shown for
the 26 ft wide east bound lane. Additional pavement markings and signs are needed to
indicate the through travel way, as well as the area which is designed to be a storage
area for left turns into the CVS driveway. A revised plait should be prepared, shown in,
conjunction with the updated site plaits.
3
i
i
Is the proposed site driveway to Peters Street to have 20 ft radii or 30 ft radii?
VAI had requested that sight distances be reviewed. The VHB memorandum indicates
that the sight lines will be ,provided as a supplement to the December 23, 2003
memorandum.
e.xx) The applicant has indicated that the MHD permit application has not yet been filed with the State,
as specifically required for this Site Plan submission and NAPB review. We understand that the
corridor issues are of great concern to the Town,notwithstanding other filings that are currently
under MHD review in this immediate area. Refer to the VAT comments for further information.
e.xxiii The Applicant has issued a statement regarding architectural consistency,which no review action
is being offered. However,the required Community Impact Analysis includes pedestrian
movement,which needs to be discussed with the Board.
Section 8.4 Screening and Landscape Requirements
1. The plant list table should also specify the minimum required tree heights.
2. The applicant should provide confirmation of meeting the landscape strip requirements of 8.4.4.
3. The lighting requirements of 8.4.5 (shielding at property lines)do not appear to be met. The
lighting plan does not indicate the property lines,and the intensity levels shown appear to be very
excessive onto abutting properties. Also,consideration should be given to not relying solely on
wall-paks to provide area lighting,especially facing abutting properties.
11. ADDITIONAL GENERAL COMMENTS
Layout&Materials Plan and Details
2. Please elaborate on the retaining wall detail(what does versalok"standard"finish and color mean,
including approved equal?).
3. Traffic from Rt.114 entering site would be directed head-on into out-bound traffic from drive-
through;and may also be blocked by truck accessing compactor. Please evaluate why the
compactor unit couldn't be mirrored to face the other way,which would allow for a landscaped
area to channel traffic more safely—this area could also improve safety signage.location,entrance
aesthetics,visual screening,etc. It would also help in allowing the required 10-foot separation
between the transformer pad and building,which is not provided.
Grading and Drainage Plan&Details
1. Temporary slope stabilization details should be provided.
i
i
2. Please discuss why guardrail is not specified along the rear of the site at critical locations.
3. Please label the existing contours around the site limits.
5. You may wish to consider placing the roof drain outlets towards the Route 114 side of the building
and directly into the StormTech system(which usually can be accommodated and also is clean
water)—this can eliminate 5 manholes and 150-feet of pipe with a slight adjustment to the rear
CB.
9. The grade difference between the door exist slab and DMII Al &A2 appears excessive. The
grading behind the dumpster crosses over the hay bale barrier. Grading at HC spaces exceeds 201b
maximum allowed by ADA. Grading of driveway and entrance from Peters Street appears to be
excessive(7%)and is not provided with a leveling area at intersection--if the low point near end
of driveway were elevated and/or relocated,them the driveway grade could be considerably
reduced. Please evaluate the limits of the proposed retaining wall—could it be shortened at the
northeast corner and possibly eliminated in other sections where it is approximately merely I-foot
in height?
11. The design includes a final outlet connection to the existing drainage system on Rt. 114.This
requires review and approval by Mass Highway.
Utility Plan &Details
2. DPW usually requests a minimum 10-foot horizontal separation between all parallel utilities—
please address.
3. The sewer/drainage pipe crossings appear to be touching or have only 6"of separation. Grading
should be shown with the sewer design,as it is extremely difficult to evaluate the design with no
grading shown on the sewer plan. One typical example is the SMH2 Rim callout as 189.4 where
the grading plan on another sheet indicates %2 foot lower grade. SMHI may need to be identified
and detailed as a drop SMH. A sewer connection detail will need to be provided.
Landscape Plan&Details
1. Landscape Note#7 should be revised to reflect the responsibility to obtain Town approval in
addition to owner approval regarding plant substitutions,if any are proposed.
2. Also,no typical landscape planting details were provided.
III. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER QUALITY REPORT
I. The 24"drain pipe shown from the detention facility to the connection in Rt. 114 is unexplainably
large.The drainage calculations show that a 15"pipe would be adequate. Although there is no
regulation against over-sizing a pipe,in this case it is an issue because there are pipes connecting
at DMH C3 at difficult angles.
2. It is not clear what the designers are using for an estimated high groundwater elevation/depth. On
page 4 of the Soil Assessment Form a depth of 10 feet is shown without any mottling or
5
groundwater,while on sheet 6 a depth of 36 inches is shown to mottles/groundwater. This would
indicate that 36" is the depth for design purposes. The 36" depth would mean the Stormtech
system is 6'into the groundwater,while the 10'depth would mean the Stormtech system is
approximately 1'above the groundwater. The designers should clarify how the groundwater
elevation was determined and which depth they are using for drainage design. Although
Stormwater Policy requires 2'separation from groundwater, 1'is acceptable in this case,because
no infiltration is expected in the calculations.
3. The Stormtech system seems excessively large.This is an issue because the system is rather close
to the building(Stormwater Policy recommends 20',but we concur that separations to building
slabs could be less than 20' but usually attempt to provide at least 10'). A cursory evaluation of
the detention basin calculations indicate that by adding another orifice configuration in the control
outlet,the system could be reduced significantly in size with balanced calculations,and still meet
all the flow mitigation requirements. This will provide significant construction and maintenance
cost reductions.
It is recommended that the applicant provide written responses to the issues and comments contained in this
review by MHF and the traffic review prepared under separate cover by VAL We trust that this review
efficiently serves the Planning Board in their review and consideration of the proposed application.
Reviewed by: Date:
Karl R. Dubay,P.E.,Senior Project Manager
6
Date: February 9,2004 8
Project No.: 08475
• Capacity Analysis Worksheets
\\\Om75\dots\memos\Traf peer response 2-9-04.doc
Queues Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build Evening Peak Hour
A
Lane Configurations 0
1/0 m "(�h 245 945 25t16U 10310 �11 230 r
Lane Group Flow(vph) 258 1042 263 1668 157 632 126 434
(T( Wtr��'T y11y ,
Cc5_ _'x�eF,F���., �..r..,. P.:: p {e..'�5..: .:i,-�3.. � � -_., .. ..-..r..:tom TAS',T.'^�.. �.. •Y-.� .. - -. i. .,.t. ... _.-;...,Y��,":a
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
mow';:
Detector Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8
Minimum Split (s)_-.. 11.0 15.0 15.0 48.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
3n•'r � a �: -� --a�c-� �- °"gym �:'� - .. 9 �'"s � "�,^,* � `� i-
�..�'
Total Split(%) w12% 42% 19%
.., 49% 39% 39%(1 39% 39%
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0� 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Queue Length 50th (ft) -153 222 60 -123 95 377 -121 213
Internal Link Dist (ft) 319 720 146 135
r
95th Up Block Time (%) 3% ri 31% 24%ry 47% 34%
s�„*^" :� - "�• - x ' vim'- ''"' �^ .s,.-. ,^,"-� ,� � :C�^' � �r f � � e ec.. y ,�Z 50th Bay Block Time%
Queuing Penalty(veh) 4 24 192 29 114
tIN
Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 79 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL, Start of Green
Control Type;Actuated-Coordinated
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 15: Rte 114 & Peters
' -1401 02 04
MENNEEffin-
06 ' 05 1 08
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
i
i
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build Evening Peak Hour
o�1tht �sT B sS
Lane Configurations I tT 1 0
)dealfiow(uphpl} 1900 1900, 1900 1900> 190a 1900900iJ000 190 130090C%
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12
Total Lost `4 0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
frt
Fit Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00
Said 'Flow(pots ' F � �,1728 3432e t,.; ;X F1' {34�3� z °72j e ram. r 164 7
Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.11 1.00
Satd Flovu.(Eerm) 4 242 ..F 343 t � 11 k-SIM-0� x04, 1r729
Volume v h 245 945 45 s 250 1560 25 130 310 215 115 230 "- 5~.( p ) 165
Adj. Flow(vph) 258 995 47 263 1642 26 157 373 259 126 253 181
Lane GroupFoivph)Nw r258 042 0 = 231668` .0 1030
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3%
Turn
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 y
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.45� 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.30 0.11 c0.49 0.36 0.25
v/c Ratio 1.22 0.804 0.75 1.09 0.92 1,02 1.77 0.72
3
__�--
Progression Factor 0.95 0.94 0.30 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay(s) 178.3 30.7 9.8 44.2 77.7 74.6 431.8 31.6
r
Approach Delay (s) 60.0� 39.5 75.2 121.6
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.37
Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.3% ICU Level of ServiceG
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 2
VANASSLVL7-FF51
�8 �T L.AN�
Queues Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Built!w/Mit Evening Peak Hour
Lane Configurations r t r
VolumeMh), '. _ ;:.
Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 1042 263 1668 157 632 126 253 181
Turn, 1 e K m f t Perri 3 Peet a ,a 'a P nd, ntm Fr *
Protected [P]hases 1 fi 5 2 4 8
Perrn�tte f?taSeS 1 Y fi�3 $ fi .SENT i.
RM-.,_
'r
Detector Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8 8
6 0` 06e0
111i� i�trillm frtitial {s) 60 . 0,� FrO ; �.d,0,:' 6� ... ° _ 0 .� .. .
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 15.0 15.0 48.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Total Split(%} 12% 42%f 19% 49% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 �1.0 1.0 1.0
IN
L�ad/l ageacLad Lag t a � -, .,.
Lead Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Re�all�lo �,� N'one�Cvnrd' f�lih� Coard .�Vnn� N_one...- I O e� Nnrie None r ��° .�
Queue Length 50th (ft) - 153 222 60 -123 78 377 -121 120 3..
Quel�e Legg#h 95th (fEJ{ #309 196 r�i46 m60 130 #334a 1f23 `1$9 ..,., 48
Internal Link Dist (ft) 319 720 146 135
95th Up Block Time (%) 3% 24% 47% 23%
t r
50th Bay Block Time%
Queuing Penalty(veh) 4 192 29 29
° MW
Cycle Length: 100 _
v.���:r- �. ._:.. .` ��..c.'e ur,,_..;xs, ��; ��2.;a ��•,y_ ,w:� .T�s`° ,s� ���:s�� .�aar...�..,,_...-.�T.. '?`�.
Offset: 79 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL, Start of Green
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
f Vomm�ex o �� � �y�!r
M.. ��
K, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
d'a k,�95t .,'yd: -_.e - T- r."_. —d -:.=:,� ._
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 15: Rte 114 & Peters }
01 o2 i o4
itOEM
06 s5 08
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build w/Mit Evening Peak Hour
B B 1 DIB ` rT B B B
utiA -=a.,-�e� -_ »...
Lane Configurations ' -� ' 19 0 190 �
dad ipw(vphpl) 1`900 r 190Q 1bb 1900 y 1900 V 1900= 0 I9Q0 x100 19Q0 19}
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12
4
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95r° 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00
09 .1
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satc( Flcw{at � ,_. 7�� 5 �711" 3 1281766 " 1694 185} 15
Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Satdi 24323113 . E 88�176� 24 " 4`
_. M ,.._ _.
Volume (vph) 245 945 45 250 1560 25 130 310 215 115 230 165
ea r# co �F.i 9womQ 95w0� U 90 95� 0 9Q 83b 83 03059 091, 0
Adj. Flow(vph) 258 995 47 263 1642 26 157 373 259 126 253 181
LaGrottpFlow(upf)u258 1t40� 2666 f0157624 126 253 1$1j
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3%
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 37.0 44.0 44.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.45 0,45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.30 0.11 c0.49 0.36 0.14
v/c Ratio 1.22 0.80 �0.75 1.09 0.50 1.02 1.77 0.39 0.33
Progression Factor 0.95 0.94 0.30 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay(s) _ 178.3 30.7 9.8 44.2 26.1 74.6 __ 431.8 24.6 24.0
Approach Delay(s) 60.0 39.5 64.9 116.0
P ,
< �s
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.37
A ,a ems. Q ' 5 t,I S h
Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.3% ICU Level of Service G
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 2
VANASSLVt_7-FF51
i
Queues Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour
- .�- I
Lane Configurations '� ' ,
�Voiurrie(a�}� 325 � i 81 Q1 7 3�� �10 245 . .
,<.r"_..A N<,.�. _.._r �.s�"3 ';. .,-r ,. _ z:_. '.tr.. n. .,,.�_.a.�ti .s.. - r�
Lane Group Flow(vph) 374 977 215 1302 93 575 167 689
TLIr1�T�„�E� " •. :'�" *l?t7l�ptfx�' �-��. .-� Pe-rrrl���Ss, -� � errri -y x'�� `� � � ;
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Detector Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8
Minimum Split(s) 11.0 15.0 13.0 48.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Yo1a�Spli��s}�-,��y� �L,�9��"'-, �d;�; ,•< (���z0 �52�_0' 52��� �a��"� �� .��
Total Split{%}^ 16% 43% 13% 41% 43% 43% 43%° 43%
All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 r 1.0
t_ea�/L�g*y
�...F-�'c-.1'Z......�. _:_+--;� - �<.-.=:'.-....:-:C....'i�We�.. �.m...,�,. �'�.`x�.'[c_�a rE ,r...,e ....�.L.,_ ...-. _:: -, '-• _✓-S.O_' ...P`" ..r.:�_� ..
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Reca1]Moct� �� ��I�oneC�o�i �Non��Cao�d��.J�l4r�e �1•to��None.? .N_orle,, r: ,� .� _��` � ��
Queue Length 50th (ft) -330 299 28 --126 -101 370 -171 278
Internal Link Dist (ft) 322 720 146 145
95th Up Block Time (%) 53% 8% 26% 41% 57% 32% V
rm,a_ _�-13ay.
50th Bay Block Time%
Queuing Penalty(veh) 112 40 12 220 63 176
� ._
Cycle Length: 120 -
gr`et�at'
Offset: 95 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:1/VBTL and 6:EBTL, Start of Green
myM ..� 1 i 7 ,.
r. fir_..-�.r___d "a .,- ._ x. —-'-_----.._--
Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
-
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 15: Rte 114 &Peters }
01 m2 `I o4
�6 rIff" a5 08
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal FI4 (vp�tpl) , 100 " r1,9fl0 9n0 9'4}C3t1bQE 941900r =9E}0 1900 1900 1,_90
Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
,� 1 00� U9� n0 0005 1 `Op 091
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Fit Permitted 0.12 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.17 1.00
S, } o cry ) t21$_ 364Raw
06 �1;6
Volume^(vph) }~ 325 810 40 185 1100 20 75 305 1 _...
60 150 245 375
Adj. Flow(vph) 374 931 46 215 1279 23 93 377 198 167 272 417
a .
Heavy Vehicles (°/a) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 44.0 44.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0
�-
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
v/s Ratio Prot cO.17 0.29 0.07 c0.38 0.32 0.41
v/c Ratio 1.36 0.72 0.73 1.01 1.52 0.81 1 X 1 M
Progression Factor 0.92 0.79 0.29 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Delay(s) 234.9 27.0 14.5 26.6 338.9 38.1 245.4 74.7
„ � �., .
Approach Delay(s) 84.6 24.9 80.0 108.0 _
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio _ 1.36
Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.1% ICU Level of Service G
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 2
VANASSLVL7-FF51
Queues Proposed CVS North Andover
15: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build w/Mit Saturday Midday Peak Hour
-A I i
aria Bl ` 8ff 'B
Lane Configurations ` tT+ t -
Volume(upt) ' . 3210 185 1100 75 ,305 15Q 245 375 :: . __.
Lane Group Flow (vph) 374 977 215 1302 93 575 167 272 417
Turn.Type3 . pm+pt 'pni�pt
Protected Phases 1 6 5` 2 4... 8
Detector Phases 1 6 5 2 - 4 4 8 8 8
_ ,����-��6;(1'��'���6 0 �� ��,z -��s�• ��
Minimum Split(s) 11.0 15.0 13.0 48.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Total Split (%) 16%° 43%° 13% 41% 43 43% 43% 43% 43%
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
FtecailMode Nome Coord None Coor�f None.=,Noe �fone; NorteNbllk'_ .._ ._ ._ .�:. _ �• x
Queue Length 50th (ft) -330 299 28 -126 48 370 -171 146 59
Queue Length 951h (tt) .#499 iii
Internal Link Dist (ft) 322 720 146 145
95th Up Block Time (%) 53% 8% 41% 57% 23% 6%
-
50th Bay Block Time %
Queuing Penalty(veh) 1312 40 220 63 39 12
T U• -
Cycle Length: 120
•3 •lam --5�-:-.�-'��tG�u..�"�" � ..�., �i:2,.u�... �.h 'w,� �������...�h'y`�,�c_.� ';5,`".k.,,�i �;�"'"'..�,..� �� ,v
Offset: 95 (79%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL, Start of Green
Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated _
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 15: Rte 114&Peters }
01 o2 '1 m4
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
S(5 i<-r L A 1%,Jf-
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
1 5: Rte 114 & Peters 2008 Build w/Mit Saturday Midday Peak Hour
"� - /' �►
v e, e _g - B9: UIIB N8 13 E3 S
Lane Configurations r
Weat Floww(u pl}5.' f '!900 z 900 f1900' 90 -1 J00900 900 900._. 90 1900 19D0 1,900
Lane Width 11` 11 11 N 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 12 12
Tot;1'Lo3 tide� :, $,.. : � .... Oh --k4,0 4 0 r 4s010 F4 Q
i.., . .. .- ... ..
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Fit Permitted 0.12 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Volume (vph) 325 810 40 185 1100 20 75 305 160 150 245 375
Adj. Flow(vph) 374 931 46 215 1279 23 93 377 198 167 272 417
93� �575
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1Ca 2% 2% 2%
Perim PYrY
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 47.0 44.0 44.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
tetra cue i n s 5 5 0 SAC 5,0 �u ..,.x. 5 0 5 a -5.ETA@
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.29 0.07 c0.38 0.32 0.15
v/c Ratio 1.36 0.72 0.73 1.01 0.26 0.81 1.37 0.37 0.66
Progression Factor 0.92 0.79 s �0.29 0.20* K 1-1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00
Delay(s) 234.9 27.0 14.5 26.6 24.3 38.1 245.4 25.4 31.2
Approach Delay(s) 84.6 24.9 36.2 71.2
E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28
ME
ff9A0AX
Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.2% ICU Level of Service G
p . R
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 2
VANASSLVL7-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
30: CVS Drive & Peters 2008 Build Evening Peak Hour
I t
— .
Lane Configurations '+
St n Con rbl ¢ mot zFxee `, Freese x g
Grade 0% 00 0%
Volumet7Yt} � t5 30 570 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
XM,W,
���� ..-
Median storage vehf)) .
vGcQltctolttret)� 4 < 9 w
�.._:- s�a1.� .. �+.,... ,eF�. s., :+. �_�.ti, _._ .�.".�^; _?:. ,'r�. .s.....'"
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
tC (
single s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
g
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
cM capacity(veh/h) _ 172 541 1020
`�Z,Ob"`°F a
QUIT
Volume Left 16 36 0 0
cSH 299 1020 1700 1700
rn
x� 9 .
Queue Length (ft) 13 3 0 0
Lane LOS C A _
pto c, tal y 'sh0
Approach LOS C
nwisillulzIllmi
Average Delay 0.9
MWAUM
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
29: CVS Drive & Peters 2008 Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour
--* �*\ t �►
OR
Lane Configurations I t
SiEC ►aro� Slap ; Wr Freece
Grade 0% 0% v0%
101
Peak Hour Fa_}ctor j� 0.92 0.9�22 0.81% 0.81 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
=a►'3E; EE�t ft i..e: w..-.._�..��`.�5� �' _��=rc'�a .�. �_ _ ": �. � �'C�`s :., ..:�: C"�.'�.,- �.��.:�', � ...t-�
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
-z.
cM capacity(veh/h) 94 371 796
�A,r�.z. .�5�zc.�'�`=�'.-.°r..,_= .�,..-�F`..�-,��5'-'�S'r.� � ���';'�.:}.... s ���a.. _ __ .-.�N.. r���.�` .:. �'�'�;,e T,.�T-'�'`�� ...".<_ ....__. "ti'. �aro•�_�r,�-..:�
E � i
-
Volume Left 22 62 0 0
cSH 180 796 1700 1700
Queue Length (it) 34 6__.._. _0 0
Lane LOS D A
Approach LOS D
3r
Average Delay 1.6 _
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed CVS North Andover
4: Rte 1 1 4 & CVS Drive 2008 Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour
Lane Configurations tt 0
* *-.. - 3, v' t- r a -'=+.na csxt �^�^,•.^�:,s^-zu�� -�". _ —g-'
Sign Gont(0.`''
Grade 0% 0%° 0%
Volurn:e {vehlh)
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92
04 flowsrate
Pedestrians
LaneIdth
Walking Speed (tt/s)
Percent�toeage ' °' -
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
F
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
to
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free / _ _
cM capacity(veh/h) 338 25 281
Volume Total 675 675 1171 632 49 -
Volume Right 0 0 0 47 49
Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.40 0.69 0.37 0.17
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20..5
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 20.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B
1/15/2004 Synchro 5 Report
ACF Page 1
VANASSLVL7-FF51
Date: February 9,2004
Project No.: 08475
I
• Revised 2008 Build Traffic Volume Networks
\\\08475\does\rnemos\Trd peer response 2-4-04.doc
i
Id DK45 Graphics Freres GM-NET.&xq
S� Existing Signal
C9
M
N
T 40
l
1 r'
V7 O
N CO
CvS
Site
LALO
L a A L 165
4-230
Peters Street 4) 115 4) IY 4 $5 1
S
130� �O �
310—! 570—1
215� 0010
N LA
Up
� r �
en
1
t r'
00
r Q
r
CVS
Site
o
v o cColln �—375
*-245
Peters street 150 L 20
S � � -+---735
7&-1 i " 50j
305—► 600—�
160 o`ODo a C%r
Y"T
2008 Build Figure 4
Traffic Volumes