HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-03 Traffic Analysis 10 5,
Cl LA_I F.}C.ZR
5 &MMA FAY, SP0 FFOR D & THORN 0 1 KE, I NC.
=I LAY 7 =-EA
ENGINEERS
Icic'i_nb".v4e'A� 10Z ';PR;NCI BOX 8GP_
L.FXiNf7 TON. 4 1 02 l;?3 III_-n n7 'A
i6171 Rf5_14�_3Cx)
July 29, 1M
Mr . 3en Osgood
Osgood Assoc iains
P.O. Pox 534S
North Andover , MA 01845
subbed ; ApIlysin of proposQ_pne7yjy inbound drive and rs- evajwi�jon of
alterna�ive 0MC121P&D site use
D13r Ben;
As cequested, Fay, Spofford & ThOrAdUe, Inc, has prepared this Intl to
suWle"Rt Oul 001fic impact study entiKed Proposed Qs goad Mills Conjoyinjwn
Development, North Andover , mas3acbu5et�s
Tie 19 ,
cOmplakion of"the. study, two issup, have arisen:
0 What are the revised 11raffic impants associated with an
alter Ave use o land a-8--M4r-TRO,
Z 4"� 1)? It is FW
understanding OfEice/R D option
marketable, the sUe would be developed to accommodate a Wal of
275,000 gross square feet Of R&D use, rather than the 100,000
grass square feet assumed in our June, 1985 traffic impact
report. The additional space would cope from a new building Lhak
could be constructed on the site under cor-rent zoning.
0 Descuibe the implicaltiono of the ycoposed one-wa, inbound roaiwny
from Main Street to the Gagood mill site, The Sohn
AROVA IOTA t
the prapose6 one-way enhance
tQ 4he QS90001 Mills CundOminiUM complex . The interLncvion of the
proposed entrance with Main strevE would continme to serve two-way
traffic from an adjacent municipal parking lot in addition to the
inbound Osgood Mills Condominium traffic .
issue 1* Mat are the rvvi5ad traf&c impacts associated wi --h an
alternative use of Lbe land as ofrice/RSD?
As an alLernatiVe to residential use, the addition of 175,000 gross sqvaEa
feet Of "f ice&Q5eacch anA develOpment MD) space to We 100,000 gloss
square feet of office/researvh and development space assumed in SST,g jonEL
report significantly increases (he potential for adverse nrarfic impants ja
the area. Ine table below suan5riyeu the differences in pcojected Waffic
Ex:sitc+'S
Mr , Ben Osgood
duly 29, 19a5
Page 2
volumes between the office/K D alternative described in our dune traffic
impact. report and the revised alternative which has been just brought to our
attention:
Revised Trarric Pr,ojec K ons - Osgood Mills Site
Residential Use AiternaVve Office use (old from June re+:port) A
Total Average Daily Traffic � 94�_tri�s (600 )
AM Peak Huu r
inbound - 13 trips (117 ) 303
outbound 61 trips ( 6 ) 28
ToUal .
PM leak Hour
Inbound - 61 trips (14) U
outbound - 31 trips
Total - 92 tei�s (102) ~248
* €?xcludes trips from Davis and Furber Mill Complex, which will generate the
#sulk of -teaffic from the Mill Complex area.
As can be seers by examining the table above, the office/R&D option would
generate from 2.5 to 4 times as much traffic as the residential option dQring
peak traffic hours; over 1.5 times as reach traffic an a daily basis . While
the impacts of such an increase in traffic have not been analyzed on an
intersection by intersection basis, it is We to assume t_hab the traffic
levels of sery We calaulaked for the office/R&D option in the June report Will
worzen with the revised Office/R&D development assumption.
in addition to the higher level of vehicle trip making that would re;gilt
from the alternative use of the site as 275 ,000 gross square feet of
ofrice/ahn, such a use would add Muck traffic to local residential streets
uuch as Elm and aster Streets. Depending on the type of office/R&D
development tenant attracted, trues traffic could conceivably constitute up to
5 percent of total daily traffic from the site. Truck Mimes with the
proposed condominium complex option ace peo jected to be less than I percent.
The addition of true traffic under t;he Office/R&D option would be detrimeatal
to both street maintenance and pedestrian safety, and would increase the level
of noise in the peojecL impact area.
Given the potentially higher traffic volumes and higher truck traffic
expected from OR off ice/QD option, from an overall t<raEf is impact
standpoint, residential use of the Osgood dills site clearly is preferable to
the alternative office/R&D use.
Mr. Ben Osgood
JOY 29, 19S5
Page 3
issue 2: Dqqcuibe_the_iqyjicaniqnq of the proposed One-wa:4 d
...........
rondwinfrom Main Street to the osguod Mill
At the pcesent time, Ube roadway in question ia closed to traffic north of
the munLcipal parking lot . Traffic to and from the municipal lot would snare
the portion of the roadway adjacent to Main Meet with the condominium
residents , At issue is whether, thQ WaLing roadway is suitable for Qse as a
one-way eqtoance to the proposed COndWiniUm complex. The roadway, at its
intersection with Main Street, is 24 feet wide and adequate to serve two-vay
traCfic between the municipal parking lot and main Street. To the north,
beyond the mDnLcipal parking lot access point, the proposed ons-way Osgood
Mills site entrance driveway variez in width from 13 feet to 17 feet . This
narrow width would he substandard for two-way traffic, but is adequate for
one-way traffic . The pavement condition of the drive as it appooaches the
Osgood Mill KQ is good. However, the following improvements are recommended
if the roadway is to be used as a one-way antrance:
0 Rebuild the bridge culvert approaching the site (which you have
already agreed upon ) ;
0 Prune the Was encroaching upon the roadway;
0 PCovtde adequate lighting adjacent to the roadway;
0 Install infoimabional/regulatory signs (just north of the
municipal lot, install a sign to the right of the proposed roadway
designating the road for 'Osgood Mill RezideaU5/Entrance Only'.
This should be supplemented with a sign 'Slow - 10 KpH4 . A
standard 'Do Not Enter" sign shouLd be placed on the Osgood Mill
property side at the point on the driveway where vehiaje2 might
decide to use the roadway as an exit. To ensure that the entrance
in us& by condominium residents only, it may also be desirabie to
install a card-actuated access gate at the Osgood Mills pruperty
line. if installed, the card WeTt box should be located on the
inbound side of the gate to ensure one-way inbound usage only) ; and
0 Limit the use of the proposed one-way entrance to passenger cars
and light trucks .
If implemented as suggested above, PST strongly recommends such an
entrance because it would:
0 Significantly reduce (by appaoximstely 43 percent or 400 tripa per
day -- 52 trips during the PH peak hour ) the Osgood Mills
Condominium traffic impact on residential streets such as Wa(er
and Elm Streets;
0 Allow for better vehicular access to the condominium complex by
the residents and by emecgency vehicle,. Left turns from Mail)
Street into the proposed entrance, based on an evaluatLon of
Ia•.ara.._o�.3 Y,.oriaai = 'ac
MV , Ben Osgood
July 29, 1985
PagQ 4
traffic gaps on Main Street., can be made with lithe delay to
either main street traff Ec or condominium traffic.
o Guacantee that its use is limited to Osgood dills condoyinium
residen4} and emergency vehicles only.
In auu June traffic impact repoct, FST projected 77 PM peak Mac inbound
trips at the proposed one-;gay entrance with condominium complex traffic added
to the background traffic , of these gips, 25 were trips inbound to the
municipal parking lot; the remaining 52 trips were assumed to be condo&nium
resident trips. - A recent traffic count of the municipal lot found that: our
projection for the municipal lot was conservative homewhat high) . only 5
vehicle gips to the lot were made during the afternoon peak hoar (4:00 to
5 : 00 PM) and 14 trips outbound €rom Lbe lot during the afternoon peak hour,
lower than the volume of trip-making that had boon projected in our ceport.
if you, or the Town of North Andover , have any queskions on the preceding
analysis, please do nok hesUate to contact me or DT . Rodney ploy cdQ Q this
off Ece. We since rely appzeciat_e the opportunity to be of service Eo Osgood
Associates, Inc.
Sincerely
PAY, SPOPPORD S THORNDIKE, INC.
Sy
ary L. Hebert.
Senior Engineer/planner
Oi,H: rbd; gh
QA,403 A--104