HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-17 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (115) DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
6 Cameron Road
Andover, MA 01810
978-664-2205
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy FROM:Dermot J. Kelly, PE, PTOE
Dundee Properties, LLC DJK Associates, Inc.
PO Box 3099 6 Cameron Road
Andover, MA 01810 Andover, MA 01810
SUBJECT: 102 Peters Street
North Andover, MA
Response to Peer Review Comments
REF:822-Mem7-RtoC
DATE:August 28, 2013
Response To Comments
Dermot J. Kelly & Associates, Inc. (DJK) has completed a response to the Vanasse &
Associates, Inc. (VAI) Traffic Engineering Peer Review comments dated August 26, 2013 which
reviewed the following documents:
Special Permit – Site Plan Review Application, submitted by Peters Street Associates,
LLC c/o Jeffrey D. Sheehy for 102 Peters Street;
Proposed Site Plan, 102 Peters Street, North Andover, Mass.; Andover Consultants Inc.;
December 13, 2011; last revised February 27, 2012;
Traffic Impact Analysis, 102 Peters Street, North Andover, MA; Dermot J. Kelly
Associates, Inc.; December 28, 2011;
Response to Comment, 102 Peters Street, North Andover, MA; Dermot J. Kelly
Associates, Inc.; August 14, 2013; and
Parking Accumulation Study, 102 Peters Street, North Andover, MA; Dermot J. Kelly
Associates, Inc.; August 22, 2013.
The above documents were prepared for the proposed redevelopment of the parcel of land
located at 102 Peters Street in North Andover, MA. Each comment is repeated below and the
proponent response follows each comment.
Comment #1: The study area evaluated in the August 14, 2013 traffic assessment is sufficient to
allow for an assessment of Project-related impacts on the transportation infrastructure.
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 2
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
Comment #2: The data collection and seasonal adjustment (none required) were completed in
accordance with standard Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning practices,
and we are in agreement with the resulting values.
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
Comment #3: An inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area was not
conducted as a part of the August 2013 assessment. A review of the roadway network
serving the Project site indicates that sidewalks are provided along the west side of
Turnpike Street but are not currently provided along Peters Street. A marked
crosswalk is provided for crossing the west leg of Peters Street at its intersection with
Turnpike Street, with pedestrian traffic signal equipment, timing and phasing provided
as a part of the traffic signal system at the Turnpike Street/Peters Street intersection.
Formal bicycle facilities are not currently provided within the immediate study area;
however, Turnpike Street appears to provide sufficient width (combined travel lane and
shoulder, where provided) to support bicycle travel in a shared travelled-way
configuration, with a number of the signalized intersections along the corridor
providing bicycle detection. Peters Street does not appear to provide sufficient width
on a consistent basis to support bicycle travel.
Response: Pedestrian and bicycles data was collected as part of the traffic counts and
were produced in the appendix of the August 14, 2013 Memorandum. For
example, on page 11/42, the pedestrian and bicycles data is clearly shown and
is labeled in the title of the page.
Comment #4: An inventory of public transportation services within the study area was not conducted
as a part of the August 2013 assessment. The Town of North Andover is served by
public transportation services provided by the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit
Authority (MVRTA) (fixed route bus service). MVRTA bus Routes 33, North Andover,
and Route 33A, North Andover Shuttle, provide service along Peters Street and
Turnpike Street, with Route 33A travelling along Peters Street and past the Project site
to the Andover YMCA.
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
9/3/13; 2 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 3
Comment #5: An evaluation of motor vehicle crashes occurring at the Turnpike Street/Peters Street
intersection was not completed as a part of the August 2013 assessment and would
have been helpful in evaluating the crash history along Peters Street proximate to the
Project site and the associated driveway. A review of the MassDOT motor vehicle
crash history for the intersection for the 3-year period 2009 through 2011 indicated a
total of 20 crashes were reported at the intersection, or approximately seven (7)
crashes per year. The majority of these crashes involved property damage only and
were reported as angle or rear-end type collisions, a pattern which is typical at
signalized intersections. A further review of the data indicated that seven (7) crashes
involved a vehicle travelling eastbound on Peters Street, two (2) of which occurred on
the approach to Turnpike Street proximate to the Project site.
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
Comment #6: The Applicant’s engineer did not indicate the basis for the establishment of the traffic
volume increase that was used; however, given that the study area is limited to the
Turnpike Street/Peters Street intersection and the fact that historic traffic growth in the
area has not exceeded 1.0 percent, the methodology used to develop the 2018 No-Build
condition traffic volumes results in a reasonable projection for planning purposes and
to evaluate Project-related impacts on the transportation system.
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
Comment #7: We are in agreement with the methodology that was used to develop the anticipated
traffic characteristics of the Project and the resulting values, and we are in general
agreement with the trip distribution pattern that was used to assign Project-related
trips to the roadway network.
A review of trip rates for a day care center provided by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)1 and assuming 39 students resulted in trip estimates for the Project
that were comparable to those resulting from the observed data from the Tewksbury
facility.
Response: The average of ITE based data indicates 29 vehicle-trips per hour (vph) during
the morning peak hour, 28 vph during the evening peak hour and 154 vehicle-
trips hour (vpd). The DJK August 14, 2013 Memorandum is based on 40 vph,
28 vph and 180 vpd for the morning and evening peak hours and over the
course of the day, respectively. Comparing the DJK traffic generation with the
ITE data indicates that the DJK traffic is 38% higher than the ITE data during
the morning peak hour and 17% higher over the course of the day.
1Trip Generation, 9th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 2012.
9/3/13; 3 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 4
Comment #8: The traffic operations analysis was completed using the appropriate methodologies and
we are in agreement with the analysis results. It is clear from the analysis and
observations of operating conditions at the Turnpike Street/Peters Street intersection
that vehicle queues on the Peters Street eastbound approach regularly block the
driveway to the Project site, the frequency and duration of which are expected to
increase in the future as traffic volumes at the intersection increase independent of the
Project.
Response: No additional response necessary at this time.
Comment# 9: While we agree with the intent of the suggested improvements and the goal of assigned
drop-off/pick-up windows for students, the proximity of the driveway to Turnpike
Street, the existing and projected future traffic volumes at the intersection, and the
operation of the traffic signal system do not allow for such measures to be implemented
in a practical manner and leave no margin for flexibility should a parent/caregiver
arrive early or late.
Response: The early or late arrival of a single parent/caregiver would have a negligible
effect on the operation of the traffic signal system and the implementation of
the suggested improvements and the assigned drop-off/pick-up window for the
preschool students.
Comment# 10: The left-turn movement from Turnpike Street northbound to Peters Street westbound
currently serves 232 vehicles during the weekday morning peak-hour and 188 vehicles
during the weekday evening peak-hour. A left-turn phase and arrow are provided for
this movement during which these vehicles proceed unimpeded from Turnpike Street
onto Peters Street while vehicles on Peters Street in front of the Project site are
stopped at a red signal indication. The presence of a single vehicle waiting to turn into
the Project site would cause vehicles to back into the intersection and increase the
potential for rear-end collisions given the combination of the volume of left-turning
vehicles and the short distance between Turnpike Street and the Project site driveway.
Response: In addressing this comment, there are three issues to consider:
The proposed mitigation, DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION
(DRIVEWAY) sign and/or DO NOT BLOCK pavement markings,
The westbound Peters Street vehicles passing on the right and
The actual number of vehicles that utilizes the left-turn phase from Route
114 northbound.
The Proposed Mitigation - If eastbound Peters Street vehicles obey the DO
NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) sign and/or DO NOT BLOCK
pavement markings, then left turn entering vehicles will not have to stop on
9/3/13; 4 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 5
Peters Street and westbound Peters Street vehicles will not back-up into the
Salem Turnpike intersection because of a left turn entering vehicle.
Westbound Peters Street Vehicles Passing on the Right – Westbound
through vehicles have been observed passing on the right to pass a waiting left
turn entering vehicle.
The actual number of vehicles that utilizes the left-turn phase from Route
114 northbound – The Salem Turnpike/Peters Street intersection operates
with a 120 second cycle or 30 cycles per hour. The Peters Street
eastbound/westbound phase utilizes 40 second (33%) of the cycle, the Salem
Turnpike northbound left turn phase utilizes 20 second (17%) of the cycle, the
northbound left/through/right phase utilizes the 40 to 60 seconds (33%-50%)
depending on if the southbound left turn phase is utilized. The above noted
traffic volumes of 232 and 188 vph equate to approximately 8 and 6 vehicles on
average per cycle during the morning and evening peak hours with 5 to 4
vehicle per cycle utilizes the northbound left turn phase (assuming the
southbound left-turn phase is utilized). There is 125 feet between the
centerline of the Site Drive and the westerly curb line of Salem Turnpike or
sufficient space to stack 6 vehicles.
Consequently, during the morning peak hour when there are 5 vehicles per
cycle, traffic will not back-up into the Salem Street intersection even if the
Peters Street eastbound vehicles disobey the DO NOT BLOCK
INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) sign and pavement markings and a westbound
vehicle does not pass on the right.
Similarly, during the evening peak hour when there are 4 vehicles per cycle,
traffic will not back-up into the Salem Street intersection even if the Peters
Street eastbound vehicles disobey the DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION
(DRIVEWAY) sign and pavement markings and a westbound vehicle does not
pass on the right.
Furthermore, the projected number left turn entering vehicles which would also
turn left from Salem Turnpike northbound are 1 vehicle every 6 to 10 phases
during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. Over the course of
the morning and evening peak hours, 83% and 90% of the cycles will not
contain any left turn entering vehicles in the Salem Turnpike northbound left-
turn phase.
Comment# 11: In addition, assuming that vehicles obey the “Do Not Block Intersection” provision, the
result would be sluggish intersection operations at the Turnpike Street/Peters Street
intersection resulting from the delay in traffic approaching the signal created by the
gap in the vehicle queue on the approach, a condition that could result in premature
9/3/13; 5 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 6
termination of the “green” signal indication for the Peters Street eastbound approach
and both increased motorist delay and queuing.
Response: The proponent does not agree with the above assertion regarding the sluggish
operation of the intersection. There is approximately 100 feet from the Peters
Street eastbound approach stop line and the beginning of the DO NOT BLOCK
pavement markings. The DO NOT BLOCK pavement markings cover
approximately 30 feet along Peters Street. Once the eastbound approach
traffic signal turns green, the eastbound vehicles behind the DO NOT BLOCK
pavement markings will fill in the 30 foot gap prior to the vehicle immediately
ahead of it gets started. The number of vehicles processed during the green
phase for Peters Street eastbound approach will be the same with or without
DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) sign and/or DO NOT BLOCK
pavement markings.
Comment# 12: A review of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) “Access Management Manual”
suggests that driveways on the approach side to a signalized intersection should be
located outside of the functional area of the intersection in order to allow sufficient
offset to accommodate vehicle queuing from the intersection and for the driveway to
function in a safe and efficient manner. The TRB recommends that the corner
clearance for driveways on an approach to a signalized intersection should at least be
equal to the largest expected vehicle queue on the approach for both safety and to
maintain the operation of the traffic signal system. It is apparent from the traffic
operations analysis that vehicle queues on the Peters Street eastbound approach
regularly extend past the Project site driveway.
Response: The application of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) “Access
Management Manual” is not appropriate to the project parcel located at 102
Peters Street.
Comment# 13: A review of parking demand data for a day care facility published by the ITE2 indicates
that the peak parking demand period typically occurs during the afternoon pick-up
period and generally between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. For a 39 student day care facility,
the calculated 85th percentile parking demand (typical design value) using the ITE data
is approximately 13 spaces, which exceeds the available parking at the Project site (11
spaces). Similar calculations performed using the number of staff or the size of the
facility as the independent variables results in calculated parking demands of
approximately 7 to 10 spaces, respectively. Based on the ITE parking demand data,
which encompasses data from between 29 and 39 observation sites, it would appear
that the number of parking spaces provided (11) would just meet the projected demand
with little or no reserve capacity.
2Parking Generation, 4th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, D.C.; 2010.
9/3/13; 6 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 7
Response: The proponent does not agree with the above comment. The ITE Parking
Generation data was inappropriately applied to the proposed project in several
areas:
1. The Day Care portion of the Parking Generation manual is reproduced in
the appendix of this Memorandum. Peak Parking Demand for Day Care
Centers are separated by size of building, number of students and
employees. Under the size of building, the Peak Parking Demand is listed
as 8:00 - 9:00 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM without any notation of which period
is the peak. Under number of student, the Peak Parking Demand is listed
only as 4:00 - 6:00 PM with no reference to the morning peak period.
Under number of employees, the Peak Parking Demand is listed as 9:00 -
10:00 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM, again without any notation of which period is
the peak, i.e. higher. More importantly, the proposed project will operate
with most arrivals occurring over a two hour 7:00 to 9:00 AM morning time
period and all departures occurring over a four hour 2:00 to 6:00 PM
afternoon time period, consequently the peak parking demand period will
occur during the 7:00 to 9:00 AM morning time period.
2. The referenced data is between 10 and 25 years old and was collected in
states such as California, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas
Washington, Oregon and New Jersey. The average size of the building,
average number of students and average number of employees of the ITE
data is 150%, 220% and 400% of the proposed project. Local data recently
obtained from a similar project is more appropriate to be applied to the
proposed project.
3. If the Parking Generation manual were to be applied, a more appropriate
application to the Parking Generation manual would be to evaluate the
average parking supply based on size of building, number of students and
number of employees. As noted in the appendix of this report, based on 29
studies the average parking supply ratio is 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet, 0.2 spaces per student and 1.5 spaces per employee. Applying these
ratios to the proposed project would yield an average parking supply of 8
spaces. [(3.5 spaces/1,000 square feet x 2.745 square feet = 9.6 spaces) +
(0.2 spaces/student x 39 students = 7.8 spaces) + (1.5 spaces/employee x
4 employees = 6.0 spaces)]/3 = 7.8 spaces.
4. The most appropriate manner to evaluate the peak parking demand for the
proposed project at 102 Peters Street is to inventory a similar site located
nearby which was completed and presented in the August 22, 2013 Parking
Accumulation Study. The above comment totally ignored that study. That
study observed a maximum peak parking demand of 7 spaces when 58
students signed-in during the day of the survey. Adjusting the observed
maximum peak demand to the proposed project would indicate that the
peak parking demand would be 5 spaces. The proposed project has 11
spaces which exceed the maximum peak demand by 4 to 6 spaces which
9/3/13; 7 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 8
would provide a “margin of flexibility should a parent/caregiver arrive early
or late.”
Comment #14: Independent of the parking demands of the Project, the parking layout is confining in
that it only offers a single circulating aisle which does not afford the ability of vehicles
to queue to exit while maintaining unimpeded access to parking. It is clear from the
traffic operations analysis that vehicles will queue past the Project site driveway from
the Turnpike Street/Peters Street intersection as well as within the Project site. A
vehicle queue of 1 to 2 vehicles waiting to exit the Project site would limit the number
of functional parking spaces available within the Project site. The confined nature of
the parking layout combined with the short approach distance to Peters Street are not
conducive to high turnover parking events such as those that occur during drop-
off/pick-up periods at a school or day care.
Response: The Site Plan has already been approved by the Planning Board for a
commercial office/medical office development project in terms of parking lot
design and layout and the plan meets all dimensional requirements of the Town
of North Andover.
Regarding queuing of traffic exiting the site and its impact to the overall
circulation of the parking lot and access/egress to/from each parking stall, the
volume of traffic exiting the site is 19 vph (approximately 1 vehicle every 3
minutes) and 15 vph (1 vehicle every 4 minutes) during the morning and
evening peak hours, respectively. The calculated queues for the exiting traffic
is less than one vehicle, however, given the observed queuing along Peters
Street eastbound, it can be expected that the exiting queue from the Site Drive
will be limited to a duration of the 120 seconds which is traffic signal cycle at
Salem Turnpike intersection. This will especially occur if the DO NOT BLOCK
INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) sign and/or DO NOT BLOCK pavement
markings are permitted. Given the average flow rates of 1 vehicle every 3
minutes and 1 vehicle every 4 minutes during the morning and evening peak
hours, respectively, it is expected that the normal queue of vehicles will be 0 to
1 vehicles with an occasional queue of two vehicles to account for non-random
nature departure of vehicles. A queue of 1 vehicle would impact the access to
the first parking space located east of the Site Driveway. A queue of two
vehicles would impact the access to the second and third parking spaces
located east of the Site Driveway. These parking spaces should be assigned
for employee parking to maximize the efficiency of the parking lot.
This completes the proponent Response to the VAI Traffic Engineering Peer Review comments.
9/3/13; 8 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
DJK
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. Jeffrey Sheehy
August 28, 2013
Page 9
APPENDIX – ITE Parking Generation
9/3/13; 9 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
LandUse:565
DayCareCenter
Description
Adaycarecenterisafacilitywherecareforpreschool-agedchildrenisprovided,normallyduringthe
daytimehours.Daycarefacilitiesgenerallyincludeclassrooms,offices,eatingareasandplaygrounds.
Somecentersalsoprovideafter-schoolcareforschool-agechildren.
DatabaseDescription
Thedatabaseconsistedofamixof19suburbanand21urbanlocations.Parkingdemandratesatthe
suburbansitesweresimilartothoseaturbansitesand,therefore,thedatawerecombinedandanalyzed
together.
•Averageparkingsupplyratio:3.5spacesper1,000squarefeet(sq.ft.)grossfloorarea(GFA)(29
studysites),0.2spacesperstudent(29studysites)and1.5spacesperemployee(29studysites).
Forallbuttwoofthestudysites,theonlycountstakenwerebetween7:00and9:00a.m.andbetween
4:00and6:00p.m.
StudySitesNears
Alhambra,CA(1988);Chattanooga,TN(1990);Nashville,TN(1991);Bragg,NC(1992);Eustis,VA
(1992);Riley,KS(1992);Tacoma,WA(1992);HappyValley,OR(2002);Evesham,NJ(2003)
4th EditionSourceNumber
1133
InstituteofTransportationEngineers [166]ParkingGeneration,4thEdition
9/3/13; 10 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
LandUse:565
DayCareCenter
AveragePeakPeriodParkingDemandvs.1,000sq.ft.GFA
Ona:Weekday
Demand
WeekdayPeakPeriod
ParkingDemand
.m.
.ft.GFA
t/)
25
I~u 20I •
.c I
•
~
15
••
I
...:.•
"C
I
•••
Q)
10 •••
~'-I ••
(tI
i •••••
Q.
5 ••
I
•
II
I
Q.
I
o -+------
--...•....•.•.-_.--.1---------,..-----.--.---1----.--------.-j
o 2 46
x =1,000 sq.ft.GFA
•ActualDataPoints
8 10
InstituteofTransportationEngineers
[167]ParkingGeneration,4thEdition
9/3/13; 11 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
LandUse:565
DayCareCenter
AveragePeakPeriodParkingDemand VS.Students
Ona:Weekday
•Statistic PeakPeriodDemand
PeakPeriod
4:00-6:00p.m.
NumberofStudvSites
39
AveraaeSizeofStudvSites
85students
AveraQePeakPeriodParkinaDemand
0.24vehiclesoerstudent
StandardDeviation
0.09
CoefficientofVariation
38%
95%ConfidenceInterval
0.21-0.26vehiclesperstudent
Ranae
0.09-0.51vehiclesoerstudent
85thPercentile
0.33vehiclesperstudent
33rdPercentile
0.19vehiclesoerstudent
WeekdayPeakPeriod
ParkingDemand
100 200
x =Students
t/)
(1)
CJ.c
~
"C
(1)
~r.-
eo
Q.
II
Q.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
o
_p =nL3D)L::5
R2=0.72
•
•
•
300
•ActualDataPoints --FittedCurve ----AverageRate
InstituteofTransportationEngineers [168]ParkingGeneration,4thEdition
9/3/13; 12 of 13
822 RtoC VAI
LandUse:565
DayCareCenter
AveragePeakPeriodParkingDemand vs.Employees
Ona:Weekday
Demand
WeekdayPeakPeriod
ParkingDemand
90
80 1 P =1.19x +1L70R2=086 "..,-i
60 +--------~------------+!;;i,-~Z---+---..-----.50 L----·---,.,-~·'
40 J---~-~__u30-------~
20~'~
I •••
10l--...•+-o +u·---r
o20
,H ••~
80
.--.---..---.-----.------,
6040
+------
x =Employees
•ActualDataPoints --FittedCurve ----AverageRate
InstituteofTransportationEngineers [169]ParkingGeneration,4thEdition
9/3/13; 13 of 13
822 RtoC VAI