VillageHill Northampton State Hospital Phase One Report Final-2002
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc i Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The Village at Hospital Hill - Phase One Report
Table of Contents
PHASE ONE REPORT CIRCULATION LIST
1.0 MEPA SCOPE, SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE, CAC COMMENTS, AND RESPONSES 1-1
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Project Summary 2-1
2.2.1 Project Description and Location 2-1
2.2.2 Project Alternatives 2-3
2.3 Changes Since the Environmental Notification Form 2-3
2.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-5
2.4.1 Transportation and Air Quality 2-5
2.4.2 Historic Resources 2-6
2.4.3 Water Supply/Wastewater 2-6
2.4.4 Wetlands, Wildlife, and Stormwater 2-6
2.5 Format of Phase I Report 2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Project History 3-1
3.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions 3-2
3.4 Need for the Proposed Project 3-3
3.5 Alternatives Examined During the Planning Process 3-3
3.6 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans 3-6
3.7 Program Components 3-7
3.7.1 Full Build 3-7
3.7.2 Phase I 3-10
3.8 Sustainable Design Elements 3-12
3.9 Project Permitting 3-14
3.9.1 State Permits and Agency Actions 3-14
3.9.2 Local Permits 3-15
4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Proposed Project 4-1
4.1.2 Study Methodology 4-3
4.1.3 Study Area 4-4
4.2 Existing Conditions 4-4
4.2.1 Study Area Roadway Network 4-5
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc ii Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 4-10
4.2.3 Existing Public Transportation 4-13
4.2.4 Existing Bicycle Facilities 4-17
4.2.5 Safety 4-17
4.3 Future Conditions 4-22
4.3.1 Planned and Ongoing Roadway Improvement
Developments 4-22
4.3.2 Background Traffic Growth 4-24
4.3.3 Site-Generated Traffic 4-26
4.3.4 Trip Distribution and Assignment 4-29
4.3.5 Build Traffic Volumes 4-34
4.3.6 Traffic Increases 4-34
4.4 Traffic Operations Analysis 4-39
4.4.1 Methodology 4-40
4.4.2 Analysis of Results 4-42
4.5 Mitigation 4-48
4.5.1 Non-Project-Related Mitigation 4-48
4.5.2 Project-Related Mitigation 4-55
4.5.3 Mitigation Schedule 4-60
4.5.4 Traffic Study Conclusion 4-63
4.6 Air Quality Mesoscale Analysis 4-63
4.6.1 Intersection Selection 4-63
4.6.2 Emissions Calculations (MOBILE5ah) 4-64
4.6.3 Mesoscale Analysis Conclusion 4-64
4.7 Mitigation Measures and Conclusions 4-65
4.7.1 Build Conditions 4-65
4.7.2 Construction Impacts 4-65
5.0 HISTORIC RESOURCES 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Overview of Memorandum of Agreement 5-1
5.3 Feasibility Studies 5-5
5.3.1 Introduction 5-5
5.3.2 Feasibility Studies 5-6
5.4 Stabilization of Old Main 5-8
5.4.1 Plans of Old Main 5-10
5.4.2 Summary of Stabilization Analysis 5-10
5.4.3 Summary of Interim Stabilization Program 5-13
5.4.4 Future Study 5-17
5.5 Historic Resources in the Project Area 5-17
5.5.1 Introduction 5-17
5.5.2 Phase I Development 5-18
5.5.3 Full Build 5-20
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc iii Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.6 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts 5-20
6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Existing Water Source and Distribution System 6-1
6.3 Project Water Supply System Evaluation 6-2
6.3.1 Proposed Phase I and Full Build Plans 6-2
6.3.2 Water Demand Determination 6-2
6.3.3 Water System Pressures 6-6
6.3.4 Fire Flow Considerations 6-6
6.3.5 Conclusions of the Water Distribution System Analysis 6-6
6.4 Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment 6-7
6.5 Project Wastewater Collection 6-7
6.5.1 Wastewater Flow Determination 6-7
6.5.2 Wastewater Collection System Capacity 6-9
6.5.3 Conclusions of the Wastewater Collection System Analysis 6-10
7.0 WETLANDS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER 7-1
7.1 Wetland Resources 7-1
7.1.1 Vegetated Wetlands 7-1
7.1.2 200-Foot Riverfront Area 7-7
7.1.3 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 7-7
7.2 Wetland Impacts 7-7
7.2.1 Full Build 7-7
7.2.2 Phase I 7-9
7.3 Mitigation of Phase I Wetland Impacts 7-9
7.4 Rare and Endangered Species 7-11
7.5 Stormwater Management Plan 7-14
7.5.1 Overview 7-14
7.5.2 Methodology 7-14
7.5.3 Existing Conditions 7-17
7.5.4 Proposed Conditions 7-19
7.5.5 Comparison of Peak Runoff without Stormwater
Management Facilities 7-22
7.5.6 Stormwater Management Facilities 7-24
7.5.7 Comparison of Peak Runoff without Stormwater
Management Facilities 7-25
7.5.8 Massachusetts Stormwater Policy 7-27
7.5.9 Construction Impacts / Mitigation 7-30
7.5.10 Phase 1 Impacts 7-31
8.0 MITIGATION OF PHASE I IMPACTS 8-1
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc iv Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
8.1 Transportation 8-1
8.1.1 Non-Project-Related Mitigation 8-1
8.1.2 Project-Related Mitigation 8-4
8.1.3 Mitigation Schedule 8-9
8.1.4 Traffic Study Conclusions 8-12
8.2 Historic Resources 8-12
8.3 Water Supply and Wastewater 8-12
8.4 Wetlands, Wildlife, and Stormwater 8-12
8.5 Construction 8-13
9.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 9-1
9.1 Agency and Organization Comments 9-1
9.2 Public Comments 9-32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 USGS Locus Map 2-2
Figure 3-1 Existing Conditions 3-4
Figure 3-2 Illustrative Site Plan 3-8
Figure 4-1 Site Location Map 4-2
Figure 4-2 Study Area Intersections 4-11
Figure 4-3 2001 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes 4-14
Figure 4-4 2001 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes 4-15
Figure 4-5 Existing Transit Service 4-16
Figure 4-6 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities 4-18
Figure 4-7 2006 No-Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes 4-27
Figure 4-8 2006 No-Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic
Volumes 4-28
Figure 4-9 Local Travel Routes 4-30
Figure 4-10 Residential Trip Distribution 4-32
Figure 4-11 Commercial Trip Distribution 4-33
Figure 4-12 Weekday Morning Project-Generated Trips 4-35
Figure 4-13 Weekday Evening Project-Generated Trips 4-36
Figure 4-14 2006 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4-37
Figure 4-15 2006 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4-38
Figure 4-16 Conceptual Safety Improvement Plan – Earle at Grove
Street and Texas Road 4-49
Figure 4-17 Existing Pedestrian Facilities – Route 10 4-51
Figure 4-18 Proposed Pedestrian Facilities – Route 10 4-52
Figure 4-19 Typical Cross Section – Route 10 4-54
Figure 5-1 Existing Site Plan 5-11
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc v Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Figure 5-2 Building Construction Diagram 5-12
Figure 5-3 Typical Floor Plan, Exterior Conditions 5-14
Figure 5-4 Typical Floor Plan, Interior Conditions 5-15
Figure 5-5 Temporary Stabilization Measures 5-16
Figure 6-1 Water Distribution System 6-3
Figure 6-2 Water Distribution System to Ice Pond Site 6-4
Figure 6-3 Sanitary Sewer System 6-8
Figure 7-1 Delineated Wetland Resource Areas 7-2
Figure 7-2 Wetland Series Photographs 7-3
Figure 7-3 Wetland Series Photographs 7-5
Figure 7-4 Wetland Series Photographs 7-6
Figure 7-5 Flood Hazard Areas 7-8
Figure 7-6 Estimated Habitat of Rare Wetlands Wildlife 7-12
Figure 7-7 Existing Conditions – Stormwater Management Plan 7-18
Figure 7-8 Proposed Conditions – Stormwater Management Plan 7-20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Northampton State Hospital Citizens Advisory Committee 1-3
Table 3-1 Required State Permits and Agency Actions 3-14
Table 3-2 Required Local Permits and Approvals 3-15
Table 4-1 Existing Roadway Traffic-Volume Summary 4-10
Table 4-2 Intersection Accident Summary – 1997 Through 1999 4-20
Table 4-3 Trip-Generation Summary, Northampton State Hospital
Redevelopment – Phase I 4-29
Table 4-4 Residential Trip-Distribution Summary 4-31
Table 4-5 Commercial Trip-Distribution Summary 4-31
Table 4-6 Traffic-Volume Increases Weekday Morning Peak Hour 4-34
Table 4-7 Traffic-Volume Increases Weekday Evening Peak Hour 4-39
Table 4-8 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 4-41
Table 4-9 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 4-42
Table 4-10 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary –
Weekday Morning Peak Hour 4-43
Table 4-11 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary –
Weekday Evening Peak Hour 4-44
Table 4-12 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary –
Weekday Morning Peak Hour 4-45
Table 4-13 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary –
Weekday Evening Peak Hour 4-46
Table 4-14 Mitigation Schedule 4-61
Table 4-15 Mesoscale Analysis Summary 4-65
Table 5-1 Buildings Considered for Retention and Redevelopment by
Dietz & Company 5-7
Table 6-1 Projected Water Demand 6-5
76601\Phase I Report\TOC.doc vi Table of Contents
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 6-2 Total Projected Wastewater Flows 6-9
Table 6-3 Wastewater Collection System Capacity and Project
Wastewater Contribution 6-10
Table 7-1 Runoff Curve Numbers (CN) 7-16
Table 7-2 Rainfall Values Based on Storm Frequency 7-16
Table 7-3 Existing Land Use Summary 7-19
Table 7-4 Proposed Land Use Summary 7-22
Table 7-5 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater
Management Facilities – 2-Year Storm 7-22
Table 7-6 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater
Management Facilities - 10-Year Storm 7-23
Table 7-7 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater
Management Facilities - 100 -Year Storm 7-23
Table 7-8 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management
Facilities - 2-Year Storm 7-26
Table 7-9 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management
Facilities - 10-Year Storm 7-26
Table 7-10 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management
Facilities - 100-Year Storm 7-27
Table 8-1 Mitigation Schedule 8-10
Table 9-1 Agency and Organization Comment Letters 9-1
Table 9-2 Public Comment Letters 9-33
APPENDICES
Appendix A Traffic Data; Air Quality
Appendix B Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix C Arrowstreet Report
Appendix D Photographs of Buildings Proposed for Retention and
Demolition as Part of Phase I
Phase One Report Circulation List
76601\Phase I Report\Circ List PhI.doc 1 Circulation List
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
PHASE ONE REPORT CIRCULATION LIST
Secretary Bob Durand
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg
1 Prince Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Attn: Mary Jane Bacon
Representative Peter Kocut
Massachusetts State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
DEP/Western Regional Office
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
State House West – 4th floor
436 Dwight Street
Springfield, MA 01103
MHD – District #2
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
811 North King Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Massachusetts Historical Commission
The State Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
26 Central Street
West Springfield, MA 01089
City of Northampton
Mayor’s Office
City Hall, 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Attn: The Honorable Clare Higgins
City of Northampton
Conservation Commission
City Hall, 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
City of Northampton
Planning Board
City Hall, 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
City of Northampton
Board of Health
City Hall, 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
City of Northampton
Department of Public Works
125 Locust Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Northampton State Hospital CAC
c/o The Mayor’s Office, Room 12
City Hall, 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Division of Capital Asset Management
Attn: Elizabeth Bent
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Northampton Historical Commission
Memorial Hall
240 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Northampton Housing Authority
49 Old South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
The Greater Northampton
Chamber of Commerce
99 Pleasant Street
Northampton, MA 01060
MassBike/Pioneer Valley
279 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Clark Avenue Condominium Association
53 Clark Avenue, #4
Northampton, MA 01060
76601\Phase I Report\Circ List PhI.doc 2 Circulation List
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Save Old Main
P.O. Box 201
Leeds, MA 01053
South Street Neighborhood Alliance
310 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Marsha and George Bailey
250 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Rita M. Bleiman
16 Hampton Terrace
Northampton, MA 01060
Barbara B. Blumenthal
39 Chapel Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Joycelyn Borowski
374 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Richard Butcher Jr.
314 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Eleanor E. Cook
44 Rust Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
Martha Ebner
8 Rust Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
Laura and Paul Facteau
212 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Nancy E. Fish
236 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Peter Fulvi and Kenneth Stafford
206 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Dorothy Green
2 Cornelia Street, Apt. 602
New York, NY 10014
Edward Hagelstein
171 Nonotuck Street
Florence, MA 01062
Gretchen J. Hendricks, Ph.D.
53 Clark Ave. #12
Northampton, MA 01060
Holly Keith
53 Clark Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
Mr. & Mrs. Daryl G. LaFleur
244 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Marilyn Marks
38 Creamery Road
Great Barrington, MA 01238
Tris Metcalfe
Metcalf Associates
142 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Wendy Sinton
124 Willow Street
Florence, MA 01062
Tom Riddell
Smith College
College Hall
Northampton, MA 01063
Donna M. Taylor and Daniel J. Musante
45 Rust Avenue
Northampton, MA 01060
June M. Turcotte
P.O. Box 1065
Northampton, MA 01060
Carol Varsano
29 Stoddard Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Kate Weigand and Nancy Whittier
361 South Street
Northampton, MA 01060
1.0 MEPA Scope, Special Review Procedure,
CAC Comments, and Responses
76601\Phase I\1-MEPA.doc 1-1 MEPA Scope, Special Review Procedure,
CAC Comments and Responses
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
1.0 MEPA SCOPE, SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE, CAC COMMENTS,
AND RESPONSES
On October 15, 2001, MassDevelopment, an agency of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB), jointly submitted to the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs an Environmental Notification Form (ENF), entitled “The Village at
Hospital Hill.” The project entails the redevelopment of Northampton State Hospital, or
“NSH.” With the ENF, MassDevelopment and TCB requested that the Secretary establish a
Special Review Procedure for the proposed project.
On November 30, 2001, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate on the
Environmental Notification Form, establishing a comprehensive Scope for the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the full project described in the ENF.
In that Certificate, the Secretary responded to the request of the proponent that a Special
Review Procedure be established, permitting Phase I to proceed following the submission
and review of a Phase I Report, “which will be tantamount to a Single EIR.” In the same
Certificate, the Secretary established the Scope both for the Phase I Report, and for the
separate Draft and Final EIRs to be prepared after the Phase I Report.
Also on November 30, 2001, the Secretary issued a Certificate establishing a Special
Review Procedure, identifying the issues to be addressed in the Phase I Report, and further
stipulating that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) for the project be expanded to
include three new members from affected neighborhoods. This was done, and a listing of
the CAC members is provided in Table 1-1.
The CAC has long been a part of redevelopment planning for NSH. The prior role of the
CAC is described in Section 3.0. The CAC was briefed during the preparation of the ENF,
and has been closely involved, in a review capacity, during preparation of this Phase I
Report. The proponents and their consultant team met with the CAC several times to
describe the issues under study for the Phase I Report, and on March 22, 2002, the
proponents distributed a draft of the Phase I Report to the CAC for a formal thirty-day
review. The CAC met on three occasions with the proponents and the consultant team to
discuss the draft Phase I Report, and on April 22, 2002 issued a Comment Letter on the draft
Phase I Report.
The CAC Comment Letter has been filed with the Secretary, and as provided in MEPA
regulations, a copy of the CAC Comment Letter is provided in this Phase I Report. The
proponents have benefited from the review carried out by the CAC, and have responded to
comments by the CAC, either later in the body of the Report, which has been adjusted to
respond to the CAC Comment Letter, or in italics, immediately following the CAC
comment.
76601\Phase I\1-MEPA.doc 1-2 MEPA Scope, Special Review Procedure,
CAC Comments and Responses
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The pages that follow contain:
(i) A listing of the CAC members (Table 1-1);
(ii) A copy of the Certificate of the Secretary on the ENF;
(iii) A copy of the Certificate of the Secretary establishing a Special Review Procedure;
(iv) A copy of the CAC Comment Letter; and
(v) A copy of the CAC comments, with responses (in italics) by the proponents.
76601\Phase I\1-MEPA.doc 1-3 MEPA Scope, Special Review Procedure,
CAC Comments and Responses
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 1-1 Northampton State Hospital Citizens Advisory Committee
Committee Member Affiliation
Mayor Mary Clare Higgins
Committee Chairperson
Mayor, City of Northampton
Kenneth Landon Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Reverend R. Leroy Moser Alliance for the Mentally Ill
David Modzelewski Department of Mental Health
Vacant Franklin/Hampshire Private Industry
Council
Harriet Diamond Grove Street Neighborhood
Alan Sax Hampshire Community Action
Commission
Suzanne Beck Northampton Chamber of Commerce
Bruce Fogel, Esq. Northampton Chamber of Commerce
Charles DeRose Northampton Development Corporation
Edward Skroski Northampton Development Corporation
John W. Horner Northampton Housing Partnership
Rita Bleiman
Ward 4 City Councilor
Northampton Industrial Affairs Council
Robert E. Starr Northampton Labor Council
Daniel Yacuzzo Northampton Planning Board
Jami Albro-Fisher Route 10 Neighborhood
Joseph Blumenthal Route 66 Neighborhood
Joanne Campbell Valley Community Development
Corporation
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 1
NOTE TO READERS: THE FOLLOWING PAGES PRESENT THE CAC
COMMENTS, VERBATIM. THE PROPONENTS PROVIDE A RESPONSE
FOLLOWING EACH COMMENT, IN ITALICS. THE PHASE I REPORT
HAS ALSO BEEN AMENDED TO REFLECT THE COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES.
The Village at Hospital Hill
3/22/02 Draft Phase One Report (EOEA #12626)
Citizens Advisory Committee Comments
The NSH/Village at Hospital Hill (“Village”) Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”) has completed
its review of the 3/22/02 Draft Phase One Report (“Report”). The CAC continues to endorse the
Village master plan. It was impressed with the thoughtfulness and quality of the Report, its research
and analysis, and its mitigation measures.
The CAC has the following comments on the report, and requests the necessary revisions to address
these comments.
Phase one can be separated from the entire build out
A new access road to the Village is a critical part of the final build-out project to minimize impacts
on the surrounding neighborhoods. In comparison to the existing road capacity immediately
surrounding the Village, Phase One, will generate a small enough amount of additional traffic,
dispersed in a number of different directions, that existing access is not constrained. Because
access to the new development comes from a number of different directions, the impacts on
existing neighborhoods are negligible. Design and site plan review, which will be performed by
the Planning Board during local permitting, are adequate to prevent significant impacts during
Phase One.
The CAC is pleased to note that no aspect of Phase One will preclude the two realistic options for
an eventual access road. The location of the access road shown on schematic build-out plan is one
of the strongest features of the design. This layout would improve circulation patterns for both
existing transportation needs and the new Village at Hospital Hill, would minimize new traffic
impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and would create visibility for the Village from Route 10,
providing the Village with a signature presence on both Route 66 and Route 10. If wetlands or
other considerations, however, make this access infeasible, there is nothing in the phase one plan
which would prevent an alternate access road from the Earle/Grove intersection
Locating the access road will be a high priority for MassDevelopment and TCB as
they move forward in the EIR phase.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 2
Transportation
The CAC concurs with the project proponent that improving the visibility of the Earle/Grove
intersection will allow the intersection to accommodate Phase One development. This intersection
currently has safety and visibility problems, but it is not near capacity limits. Improving visibility
will make the intersection safer, without creating the increased truck and vehicular traffic that the
intersection realignment will create. A realigned intersection, as part of the full build out access
road, should be tied to the full build out and the Earle/Route 10 intersection signalization.
The CAC is pleased that the project proponent has committed to prepare 100% design plans for the
realigned Earle/Route 10 intersection and signalization as part of their Phase One mitigation. We
agree that their proposed phasing (proceeding beyond the 25% plan stage only after MHD approval
of the preliminary plans) allows the project to be listed in the TIP and eventually receive state and
federal funding for construction.
The CAC agrees that the design of the final Earle or Earle/Grove Access Road to the Village cannot
proceed until the project proponent, working with the City, agrees on the final access road layout
as part of the EIR process. Ultimately, the CAC wants the Earle/Grove intersection to be replaced
with a new access road or substantially upgraded, well beyond the scope of the planned safety
improvements. MassDevelopment has committed to fund design for a substantial upgrade,
including sidewalks, within three years if decisions on layout for the final access road have been
delayed beyond that time.
MassDevelopment has every expectation that the access road decisions will be
made in the near future, but has agreed to the request that it proceed with the
design of permanent Earle/Grove street intersection improvements, including
sidewalk, within three years if for some unanticipated reason the access road
decision is delayed beyond that time.
The CAC also agrees that even though sidewalks are currently needed on Earle Street from Route
10/Easthampton Road to Grove Street, it does not make sense to provide these sidewalks until the
ultimate layout of Earle Street or a new access road has been determined.
Based on the above, we request that, as part of Phase One, the project proponent make a legal
commitment, as part of the Phase One report, to fund the full redesign of the Earle/Grove
intersection and for Earle Street sidewalks if there is no agreement on a new access road alignment
and design within three years.
MassDevelopment has made the commitment as stated above. It is a key
mitigation commitment, made as part of its filing with the Secretary, and
MassDevelopment considers it to be legally binding. It will be incorporated into a
Section 61 Finding when the EIR has been prepared.
In the meantime, the CAC is pleased that the City and the project proponent are committed to
improve pedestrian access, including improving access to sidewalks on Route 66 and beginning
some of the improvements to allow the rail trail to downtown to proceed.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 3
The proponent should enhance their Transportation Demand Management program with several
concrete steps, including:
1. Agree to dedicate, at no charge, several parking spaces for shared community cars (e.g.
Zipcar) and provide a small park-and-ride parking lot, both of which would be available for
project residents and for others, to reduce in-bound city traffic.
Site design will incorporate both these features.
2. Acknowledge that the proponents’ local Special Permit application will expand the detailed
strategy creating steps that will realistically be expected to reduce trips 25% from a more
traditional suburban project (required as a condition of any future Special Permit for this
project).
Special Permit applications will be required to provide details as to how the
required 25% trip reduction will be achieved.
3. The proponent should commit that the Village at Hospital Hill Landowners’ Association
(which will have to be created anyway to manage off-road stormwater facilities and possibly
other community amenities and infrastructure) will join the Route 9 Transportation
Management Association, or such successor agency or equivalent agency as the CAC or the
Northampton Planning Board may approve in the future, with dues adequate to fund on-
going TMA services for Village tenants. The proponent should provide a model for this,
with a clear commitment of adequate funding to make the process a success. Said model
could provide an alternative method of ensuring permanent TMA membership for tenants.
MassDevelopment has committed to provide proportionate funding for the Route 9
Transportation Management Agency (TMA), as development proceeds, to support
the efforts of the TMA agency, or a successor thereof, to continue to work for trip
reduction measures in the vicinity of the Village at Hospital Hill.
MassDevelopment will discuss with businesses reduction requirements, and where
appropriate will encourage such businesses to take the place of MassDevelopment
in supporting the Route 9 TMA Agency as responsibility for the site transitions from
the public sector to the private sector. More detail on this approach will be
provided in the EIR.
The proponent’s offer to perform post-development traffic analysis and intersection timing
adjustments will allow a greater understanding of actual traffic impacts. The commitment for
adjustment of signal timings should extend six months beyond the issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy issued for projects permitted under this phase of the development.
MassDevelopment has agreed to this recommendation.
The CAC applauds the proponents’ commitment to provide an internal non-motorized path
network and to develop it in tandem with Phase 1. The proponent should be clear that the network
will be redesigned to maintain its integrity as the master plan gets refined with actual lots and
building layouts.
The path network will be incorporated into site design as it proceeds.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 4
The proponent should explain why the traffic consultant does not show or project any
redistribution of existing West Street/Route 66 automobile or truck traffic to Earle/Grove as a result
of the Phase 1 Earle/Grove intersection improvements.
The traffic improvements made as part of Phase I are considered to be safety
improvements, and do not alter the capacity of the Earle/Grove intersection.
Therefore, no redistribution of traffic was made. The improvements, while
facilitating turns through the intersection and improving sight lines, are not
designed to accommodate larger trucks (tractor trailers). Larger commercial trucks
will be directed to use Route 66 and Earle Street (north of Grove Street) to access
commercial properties at the site under Phase I redevelopment. See also CAC
comment, above, first paragraph in the Transportation section.
Historical/Site Plan Issues
The former State Hospital site contains numerous dramatic specimen trees that reflect the site’s
history and are one of its greatest assets and amenities. Proponent should be more specific to
identify their strategy to save specimen trees. At a minimum, they should commit to showing all
specimen trees in all developed areas on their site plan, with an analysis of the type, size and
condition of each tree, so that the developer and Planning Board understand when trees will be lost
and can consider alternatives.
Specimen trees will be shown on site plans, with type, size and condition, so that
the future of those trees may be considered during the site plan review.
While the future of Old Main is not part of Phase One, Massachusetts Historical Commission, as
well as many local residents, have requested that the developer analyze building conditions and
consider stabilizing the ongoing deterioration during the Phase One process. The CAC is extremely
pleased with the quality of the Arrowstreet report and accepts the premise that stabilization should
be delayed until the completion of the reuse analysis and the full build out draft EIR.
MassDevelopment expects to have sufficient information this summer to be in a
position to make reasoned decisions regarding which portions, if any, of Old Main
may be productively reused and where interim stabilization should take place.
The CAC understands that a market/reuse feasibility study will be completed on the Old Main
Complex by September 15, 2002 and any buildings or portions thereof deemed to be reusable will
be temporarily stabilized, if necessary, before winter. If the study is not completed by September
15, 2002, the developer should meet with the CAC to discuss next steps for the Old Main
Complex.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 5
The CAC specifically recommends that, if full reuse of the Old Main Complex is not realistic, that
in the full build out EIR the project proponent consider and address the possibility of reusing
portions of Old Main, including :
1. The front wall façade of the Administration, 1 South, and 1 North wings of Old Main, but
not necessarily any other portions of these wings. These facades represent the strongest
character defining features, and the most aesthetically pleasing portions, of the entire
hospital complex and are the features that can most make the entire Planned Village main
complex area a living urban village.
2. The North Infirmary and South Infirmary Buildings. These buildings represent extremely
attractive and character defining buildings.
3. The Auditorium and Olander Cafeteria, which have great reuse potential.
MassDevelopment will take the CAC’s recommendations for retention and reuse
into consideration as it considers the results of the additional engineering and
market evaluations now under way.
The CAC notes that Northampton’s Zoning creates two options for review of the design of new
construction: case-by-case review of every new construction project by the Planning Board or
Planning Board approval of design standards that will then apply to all buildings. Prior to applying
for a local special permit, the project proponent should work with the Planning Board to determine
which method will best enhance the character defining features of the former State Hospital
campus and create a vision for the village. This discussion does not need to be included with the
Phase One Report.
This comment expresses the objective that in proceeding through Site Plan Review,
construction at NSH shall “enhance the character defining features of the former
State Hospital campus” and “create a vision for the village.” Generally, the
proponents consider that there is a qualitative difference between the Main
Complex, north of Prince Street/Route 66, and the Memorial Complex, south of
Prince Street/Route. 66. In the Main Complex, the “village” aspect of NSH
redevelopment is particularly germane, with the retention of many buildings and
fine trees, and the integration of residential, commercial, and light retail into the
existing character of NSH. In the Memorial Complex, NSH possessed a more
industrial character, with coal delivery, power generation, and laundry at the
bottom of the hill, as well as residential structures at the top of the hill. The
transition between the Main Complex and the Memorial Complex will remain of
concern, but the Master Plan generally envisions that as redevelopment proceeds,
the Main Complex and Memorial Complex will remain different in character.
In approaching the question of design standards or design for particular buildings,
the proponents will consider as an example the Northampton Central Business
District design standards. The proponents will expect filings for the Main Complex
to address such issues as building height, façade composition, and window, door,
and façade details/articulation. Design for the Memorial Complex will likely be to
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 6
a more industrial standard, consistent with recognition of the transition as stated
above.
These general points will be further explored with the Planning Board and CAC
during preparation of the EIR.
The CAC also notes that the proponent will need to address the zoning special permit standards,
which also will assist in the full environmental analysis of the project:
1 Project density and design will ensure that the project serves as a pedestrian-scale mixed
village, and not an automobile oriented collection of independent uses. This includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
A. Maintaining a village appearance and feel on existing gateway(s) to the Northampton by
using buildings to frame the streetscape and avoiding holes in the urban streetscape
fabric.
B. Ensuring that housing and village uses are designed to maximize pedestrian circulation
within the project and connecting to surrounding areas, both through the design of
circulation systems and through the design and layout of land uses.
C. Using building designs and design guidelines to create a compatible and attractive
urban village.
D. By using retail, institutional and other land uses to keep the urban village tightly focused
and walkable, and maintain a focus on gateway(s) to Northampton and respect
surrounding land uses.
See the previous response.
Other
Consistent with the Secretary’s certification, the Phase One Report should provide more detail on
how the project will ensure green buildings and energy efficient development.
The proponent will work with Phase I developers to assist them in finding
opportunities to incorporate green architecture elements such as those espoused by
the LEED certification program into their designs and operations and will invite
review against those principles during Site Plan Review and Special Permitting. In
response to this comment, an expanded discussion of sustainable design elements
has been included in Section 3.8.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 7
Detailed and Minor Comments
1. Table 4-1: All the information shown in this table should be projected for the 2006 Build
Conditions tables.
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 of the Phase I Report summarize projected traffic volumes for
the morning and evening peak hours at key roadway locations in the project
vicinity for the future year No-Build and Build conditions.
2. Elaborate showing trip distribution within the Village.
Figures 4-12 and 4-13 of the Phase I Report depict in detail the distribution of site-
generated traffic at each of the driveways serving the Village. This trip tracing is
based on regional patterns described in Section 4.0 (Figures 4-10 and 4-11) of the
report, and the projected placement of commercial, residential and ancillary retail
uses within the Village as depicted in the Master Plan.
3. Existing drainage deficiencies at Earle Street should be explained.
During the CAC review of the Draft Phase I Report, an Earle Street resident
expressed concern about the condition of Earle Street pavement, the water and
sewer lines in it, and surface water drainage across it. The project team further
explored these issues. While the sewer line has capacity to serve Phase I needs,
the condition and capacity of the sewer line will be further investigated for the
build-out. The water line in Earle Street is a 6-inch pipe which has experienced
several breaks and is thus in line for replacement by the City in the ordinary
course. The pavement surface will be investigated to see whether replacement or
overlay is called for, as part of site development along Earle Street, and as part of
all the foregoing issues, the drainage design will be upgraded to improve on
existing conditions.
4. Note that the rail trail right-of-way is now owned by the city (assuming it is 4/18/2002 City
Council vote).
The City Council unanimously voted to purchase the property in the first of two
necessary votes; the final vote is scheduled for May 2, 2002.
5. Add Senator Stan Rosenberg and Representative Peter Kocot as CAC ex-officio members.
The additions have been made.
6. Note (section 3.2) that open space will soon be conveyed to Dept. of Food and Ag.
The revision has been made.
7. Replace Florence Street with Florence Road (throughout report).
The requested change has been made.
CAC Comments: Village at Hospital Hill Phase One Report—Page 8
8. Table 4-1: Note that Route 10 is South Street northeast of the river and Easthampton Road
southwest of the river.
The text and graphics have been changed.
9. Describe the mixed-income and Department of Mental Health housing aspects of the
project in the project description.
The Project Description has been modified to provide the requested description.
In closing, the CAC wishes to express the importance of Phase I to the economic vitality of the City
of Northampton, endorses the Phase I plan, and recommends the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
expedite an approval.
The project team has found it a pleasure to work with the CAC and looks forward
to further interaction during preparation of the EIR.
2.0 Project Summary
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-1 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 Introduction
The Village at Hospital Hill is a joint public-private redevelopment project, which has
resulted from years of effort by the Commonwealth, the City of Northampton, elected
officials, advocates, and concerned citizens, to provide a forward-looking, economically
viable use for the core campus of NSH, situated on a prominent hilltop west of downtown
Northampton, Massachusetts. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs file number for
this project is 12629.
2.2 Project Summary
2.2.1 Project Description and Location
The proposed project is the redevelopment of a portion of the former NSH, which now
includes approximately 50 buildings on 124 acres of land on both sides of Prince Street
(Route 66) in Northampton, Massachusetts, see Figure 2-1. This Phase I Report concerns
the development of up to 109 dwelling units1 and up to 152,000 square feet (s.f.) of
commercial space. Phase I is the first component of a Master Plan for the NSH site, which
contemplates an ultimate build-out of approximately 476,000 s.f. of mixed-use commercial
space, comprising a mix of retail, office, light industrial, and research & development/multi
media space as well as space for live-work studios, a child care center, a possible
community center/ museum area and the development of a 60-80 unit assisted living facility
for seniors. The Master Plan also includes 207 residential units, 100 of which would be
single-family homes and 107 of which would be mixed-income rental housing. Fifty
percent of the residential units will be designated as affordable.
In view of the size and complexity of the site, the Master Plan contemplates that build-out
will occur over a period of years. In developing the Master Plan, the ratio of commercial to
residential space received considerable attention, and this ratio has remained unchanged.
To the extent feasible, the timing of these components will be described in the EIR,
although much of the project will of course be market-driven and timing of individual
components cannot necessarily be projected in advance. As described in the Certificates of
the Secretary (Sections 1.1 and 1.2), Phase I is being advanced at this point in order to move
1 The ENF projected up to 109 units. The most recent site plan projects that this number will be reduced
to 100 units, of which up to 27 of these units will be at the “Ice Pond site,” a separate location
approximately one mile west of the main site. The impacts of placing up to 27 units at the Ice Pond site
are separable from the impacts of developing the NSH campus, and are described in section 3.7, below.
Traffic and infrastructure analyses were done for the originally projected 109 units, hence the analysis in
this Phase I Report is conservative.
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-3 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
the project from its long period of gestation and study into tangible progress while planning
and environmental analysis of the potential impacts of Full Build proceed.
Following review of the Phase I Report, Draft and Final EIRs will be prepared for the full
build-out of the site, as contemplated by the Master Plan.
2.2.2 Project Alternatives
The concept of a planned village program presented in the Master Plan was adopted by the
City of Northampton in 1993 and provides the vision for the development of the site.
Within this overall program, evaluation of alternatives focuses on potential impacts, and
ways to minimize or mitigate them. The alternatives fall into the following categories:
Historic. Opportunities to reuse existing structures that have been identified as contributing
to the National Historic Register designation of NSH.
Traffic. Opportunities to minimize and mitigate traffic impacts. Ways to minimize
vehicular trips to the site, and minimize impacts on neighborhoods of increased traffic.
Wetlands. Avoidance of wetland resources identified on the site and compliance with state
and local wetland protection laws and regulations.
Site layout. Interior layout and circulation routing on the site, to maintain the campus-like
character of the setting and to create a harmonious, well-planned community of residential,
retail, and commercial components.
2.3 Changes Since the Environmental Notification Form
Since the filing of the ENF, the following changes have been made to Phase I:
Residential Units. The overall Phase I program will remain at a maximum of 109
residential units. Design schemes for Phase I currently envision only 100 residential units
(73 on the main campus and 27 on the Ice Pond site) but all transportation and
infrastructure calculations have been completed using the conservative value of 109
residential units, as reported in the ENF.
South Employees’ Home. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and
Northampton Historical Commission urged that a way be found to reuse the South
Employees’ Home (Building 13). MassDevelopment and TCB have further considered the
feasibility of incorporating the building into the reuse program and have determined that it
will be feasible to retain it, converting it into eleven apartments.
Power Plant. MassDevelopment has learned that retention of the Power Plant (Building 38),
located on Earle Street at the southeast edge of the site, would be exceedingly costly, and
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-4 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
that the chimney, the most prominent component of that structure, would in any event have
to be removed. It has therefore been determined that the Power Plant must be demolished.
Ox Barn. The City requested that the Ox Barn and Red Barn be demolished or stabilized as
part of Phase I, based upon the City’s concern that the buildings are a fire hazard.
MassDevelopment and TCB considered this request and agreed that the Ox Barn is in very
poor condition and can be demolished as part of Phase I. However, the Red Barn is in no
imminent threat of collapse and its reuse potential will be evaluated as part of the Full Build
analyses.
Phase I development envelope. Working with the City, MassDevelopment has determined
that the Phase I development envelope on the south campus should be expanded to include
the majority of the area fronting on Earle Street and southeast of the “airplane buildings”
and a larger area fronting Route 66 (Chapel Street). The amount of Phase I commercial
development will not be increased above the 152,000 s.f. presented in the ENF; the
expanded development envelope will permit increased flexibility in marketing the site,
enhancing the ability of MassDevelopment and the City to identify and attract potential
users for the site.
Memorial Complex Building C, 10 Chapel Street, and 12 Chapel Street. As noted above,
the proposed development parcels for Phase I have been expanded to give flexibility for
potential developers and to be responsive to the commercial market. As such, the Phase I
parcel expansion at Chapel Street includes 10 and 16 Chapel Street and Memorial Complex
Building C. These buildings were identified for demolition as part of the Master Plan and
this effort has been moved forward to Phase I.
Onsite wetland. An area of the site north of Grove Street has been flagged as wetland. This
will be taken into account in ongoing planning for the build-out of the site. No Phase I
activities are contemplated to occur at this location.
Improvements to the Earle Street/Grove Street Intersection. The ENF presented a
conceptual plan for the reconstruction of the intersection of Earle Street and Grove Street
and the adjacent former railroad underpass abutments. Upon further study, it has been
determined that more limited improvements (lowering of overpass abutments and
intersection reconfiguration) will result in adequate capacity for existing traffic plus that
associated with Phase I. Large trucks will remain unable to use this route to access Route
10 and will need to approach the site via Route 66. The conceptual plan remains an
alternative under consideration for provision of enhanced access to the site as part of the
Full Build program.
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-5 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
2.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
2.4.1 Transportation and Air Quality
A traffic analysis has been prepared for Phase I redevelopment, in compliance with the
Scope and the guidelines set forth by the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOEA/EOTC) for preparation of
a Traffic Impact Assessment. The study area for the analysis was expanded beyond that
presented in the ENF, as required by the Scope. Existing conditions were developed, based
upon a program of traffic counts. Existing safety problems were evaluated by comparing
accident rates against statewide averages. A future No-Build condition (2006) was
established by increasing the Existing Condition by known other projects “in the pipeline,”
and adding a background growth rate. Trips generated by Phase I development were added
to the future No-Build, so that the future Build and No-Build conditions might be compared.
Based on the results of the capacity analyses, the majority of study area intersections
operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
periods. The one exception is the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10, which
currently operates at LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour. Under future Build
conditions, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F.
The analysis identifies a number of mitigation measures that address traffic and safety needs
that exist independent of Phase I redevelopment, as well as those measures required to
offset impacts of added Phase I traffic. These measures include safety improvements for the
intersection of Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road,; pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements along the Route 10 corridor including sidewalk improvements and
extensions, bike lanes, and pedestrian crossings; traffic signal timing/phasing enhancements;
construction of a new sidewalk along Earle Street from Grove Street to Route 66; and
provision of design for a new signal at Earle Street at Route 10. MassDevelopment and the
City will jointly seek state funding for installation of the signal at Earle Street;
MassDevelopment will also monitor traffic and safety characteristics of this intersection
during Phase I redevelopment to provide additional supporting data to MassHighway for
review purposes.
MassDevelopment, working in collaboration with The Community Builders, is further
committed to implementing a comprehensive Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program
to manage and minimize traffic generation from the site, and encourage carpooling,
walking, bike use and mass transit by residents, tenants, employers, and visitors of the
Phase I redevelopment.
In accordance with the Secretary’s Certificate on the ENF, the Phase I redevelopment
transportation evaluation provides a definitive listing of mitigation actions, responsible
parties, funding sources and implementation schedule. For further details, please see
Section 4.0, Transportation and Air Quality.
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-6 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The air quality analysis determined that emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the study area increase slightly for the Build condition as
compared to the No-Build condition. Consequently, pursuant to the State Implementation
Plan under the federal Clean Air Act as amended, the proponent is required to implement a
TDM plan to minimize traffic increases. The TDM plan summarized above and presented
in Section 4.5 fulfills this requirement.
2.4.2 Historic Resources
Phase I of the development proposes the retention and reuse of six historic buildings,
including the South Employees’ Home, which was originally slated for demolition in the
Master Plan and ENF.
Phase I also calls for the demolition of eleven buildings, nine of which are historic. These
buildings include the Power Plant, 10 and 12 Chapel Street, Memorial Complex Building C,
and the Ox Barn, all discussed above, as well as four wood frame buildings presented in the
Master Plan and ENF.
The proponent undertook an analysis of stabilizing the former Main Building complex
(referred to as “Old Main”) as part of the Phase I analysis. Section 5.4 relates the findings of
that analysis; MassDevelopment has decided to defer any expenditure on interim
stabilization until the results of Arrowstreet’s study of building renovation feasibility and
cost, and the updated market study are available (expected in the summer of 2002).
MassDevelopment will proceed, for public safety reasons, to fence off the porte-cochere at
the central entrance of Old Main and the Dining Hall addition to Three North.
2.4.3 Water Supply/Wastewater
As set forth in the ENF, Northampton’s water supply and wastewater treatment capacity are
sufficient to accommodate the needs of both Phase I and the Full-Build. All plumbing
fixtures will be low-flow, in compliance with the State Building Code. The only issue
identified in the Scope for analysis is the capacity of water and sewer mains to convey water
supply to the site and wastewater from the site.
An engineering analysis has been conducted of the capacity of water and sewer mains. It
has been found that existing water mains are adequate to serve both Phase I and Full-Build
needs, including fire flow requirements. Sewer main capacity exists to convey wastewater
generated by Phase I; capacity to serve the Full-Build will be further evaluated for the EIR.
2.4.4 Wetlands, Wildlife, and Stormwater
The NSH campus has been inspected for wetlands, as well as the area between the site and
Route 10 to the south. One on-site resource area has been flagged, and two off-site
wetlands, of which one is south of Grove Street and one is between Earle Street and the
Mill River.
76601\Phase I Report\2-ProjectSum.doc 2-7 Project Summary
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Phase I is not expected to alter any wetland resource area, with the possible exception of
Riverfront Area (for improvements to Earle and Grove Street) during Phase I. An
Abbreviated Notice of Intent for Resource Area Delineation will be filed in the near future
to secure Conservation Commission review of the wetland boundaries, and any Notice of
Intent required for Phase I will be filed as design proceeds.
Wetlands on the Ice Pond site are being delineated by TCB, and site planning and
Conservation Commission approvals for development of single-family homes on that site
will proceed separately. No issues with respect to the Ice Pond site were raised in the
comments or the MEPA Scope.
A conceptual stormwater design has been prepared for the NSH campus. It complies with
the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy. Six detention basins are proposed, four
on the north campus (north of Route 66) and two on the south campus (south of Route 66).
The design of the basins will meet two critical standards: prevention of an increase in the
peak rate of runoff, and removal of 80 percent of total suspended solids from stormwater.
Since the site at present has no stormwater detention or treatment facilities, the proposed
design should significantly improve runoff water quality.
2.5 Format of Phase I Report
This Phase I Report was prepared in response to the Secretary’s Certificates establishing the
Special Review Procedure and the Scope for the EIR. It follows the outline established by
MEPA regulations for EIRs. Section 3.0 presents a detailed description of the project,
focusing on Phase I but also describing the Full Build at a master planning level of detail.
Sections 4.0 through 7.0 address, respectively, transportation and air quality, historic
resources, water supply and wastewater, and wetlands, wildlife and stormwater. Section
8.0 is a presentation of mitigation measures for Phase I impacts, as developed by Sections
3.0 through 7.0. Section 9.0 presents all comments filed on the ENF and responses to those
comments.
3.0 Project Description
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-1 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Introduction
This project description commences with a brief introduction to the planning process that
has lead to the Master Plan and the Phase I project. It presents a baseline of existing
conditions, and recites certain factors – alternatives, need, and consistency with local and
regional plans – required by MEPA regulations. Section 3.7 identifies in detail the
components of the overall Master Plan, and the components of Phase I that are proposed for
commencement following review of this Phase I Report. Section 3.8 discusses sustainable
design elements of the project, which are of particular interest to the proponent, the City,
and EOEA. Section 3.9 describes the permitting path that Phase I will follow.
3.2 Project History
From its inception in the 1850s until the last patients departed in 1993, NSH was a major
treatment center for the mentally ill. At its peak, the campus consisted of 538 acres of land
and approximately 970,000 s.f. of building, housed approximately 2,000 patients, and
employed some 500 persons. Since the closure of the facility, the City of Northampton and
the Commonwealth have sought to determine how the site and its buildings might be
reused. The campus/complex is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places.
Through legislative initiative (Chapter 86 of 1994), reuse planning proceeded, with the
establishment of a CAC, evaluation of historic issues, implementation of site cleanup
requirements, and master planning. In 1995, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was
entered into with the MHC providing for a sequenced evaluation of reuse opportunities
prior to any demolitions taking place.
Opportunities for the conveyance of peripheral lands to be used for agricultural,
recreational, conservation, affordable housing, and municipal purposes were identified, and
a process for the transfer of the remaining land (126 acres) and approximately 880,000 s.f.
of building space to a private developer or developers was laid out by the Massachusetts
Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO), then the owner of the facility. (Note:
DCPO was renamed DCAM in approximately 1999. To avoid confusion, the term DCAM
is used hereinafter). In 1997, an ENF was filed for the implementation of the above
program. The 1997 ENF requested a waiver of certain MEPA requirements to permit the
transfer of parcels to the public for purposes as described above. The waiver was granted
(EOEA11047) and approximately 70 acres have been or will soon be conveyed to the City
of Northampton, the Northampton Housing Authority, and the Department of Food and
Agriculture.
Since 1997, redevelopment planning has proceeded. In response to a Request for
Proposals, a redevelopment team led by TCB was designated. Working with the CAC, City
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-2 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
of Northampton, and state officials, TCB developed a Master Plan that has been accepted as
the basis for redevelopment of the hospital. The Master Plan envisions a full build-out of
approximately 476,000 s.f. of mixed-use commercial space, comprising a mix of retail,
office, light industrial, and research & development/multi media space as well as space for
live-work studios, a child care center, a possible community center/ museum area and the
development of a 60-80 unit assisted living facility for seniors. The Master Plan also
includes 207 residential units, 100 of which would be single-family homes and 107 of
which would be mixed income rental housing. Overall, the goal of the residential
components of the development will to establish a diverse, mixed-income community. This
includes a mix of housing types (50 percent rental and 50 percent homeownership) as well
as a mix of affordable and market rate housing (50 percent each). Further, the project
proponent is committed to make best efforts to insure that clients of the Massachusetts
Department of Mental Health occupy 15 percent of the units that get developed.
In view of the size and complexity of the site, the Master Plan contemplates that build-out
will occur over a period of years. Redevelopment will proceed incrementally, with
infrastructural needs being met in pace with the growth of demand. Front-end costs
(remediation, utilities, selective demolition) will require use of public funding as available.
MassDevelopment, which is structured to facilitate state support of redevelopment
undertakings, has assumed responsibility for the site from DCAM, which has a more
generalized set of responsibilities for all state-owned land.
In order to move the redevelopment out of the planning process and into the funding and
implementation stage, MassDevelopment and TCB, working with Northampton and the
CAC, decided to move forward with a Phase I of the project, comprised of up to 109
dwelling units and up to 152,000 s.f. of commercial space (86,000 s.f. of general office,
47,000 s.f. of light industrial, and 19,000 s.f. of specialty retail). While the implementation
of Phase I will take several years and will overlap with implementation of the Full Build, it
is important to obtain early environmental clearance for Phase I to proceed, so that
applications for housing assistance may be placed in the funding queue, and that sites may
be offered to potential commercial developers, who would otherwise locate elsewhere. In
addition, early commencement is a critical factor of the MassDevelopment financial
participation on site development, since the project is one that must be self-sustaining, and
early costs (evaluation, design and engineering, infrastructure, traffic mitigation) must be
borne by the proceeds of development.
3.3 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The Village at Hospital Hill, located at the site of the former NSH, sits atop a hill just west
of downtown Northampton. As shown on Figure 2-1, Route 66 bisects the site and Route
10 runs just south of the site. From southern portions of the site there is an expansive view
of the Holyoke and Mount Tom Ranges with the Connecticut River running between. The
Ice Pond site is located approximately one mile west of the main campus along Route 66.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-3 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Specific information about existing transportation conditions, historic resources, water and
wastewater infrastructure, and wetlands, wildlife and stormwater conditions at the site is
presented in Sections 4.0 through 7.0 of this Phase I Report. In general, while the main site
was once a working hospital campus, today it shows the effect of years of neglect. The
buildings are in various states of disrepair, vegetation has returned to a wild state, and roads
and paths through the campus are cracked and riddled with potholes.
The Ice Pond site is currently wooded and is bisected by two power line easements. Rocky
Hill Pond sits in the eastern corner of the site. Figure 3-1 is a 1997 aerial photograph
showing the existing conditions at both the main site and the Ice Pond site.
3.4 Need for the Proposed Project
The need for the proposed project is, quite simply, that NSH represents an enormous
opportunity for moving forward, and conversely, an enormous risk in not moving forward.
As planning has proceeded and peripheral properties have been split off, put into
conservation, recreation, agriculture, municipal purposes and affordable housing, the
central campus has remained, on a beautiful piece of land, high above Northampton, with
extraordinary views of Northampton and the Connecticut River Valley, with the Holyoke
Range on the horizon. NSH has the potential to be a singular engine for economic
development, centrally located in Massachusetts with good access to the major economic
centers of the New England states. Further, it will create a vibrant and attractive mixed-use
community with jobs, housing, and modest amounts of specialty retail, in close proximity to
the educational, cultural, and civic resources of Northampton. Conversely, without a
coherent and pragmatic development plan, NSH will become increasingly blighted, its
assets will deteriorate and decay, and it will become a public safety hazard. The public-
private partnership established through the planning process, after years of hard work,
represents a critical opportunity to capitalize on the opportunities the site offers, and move
the project forward, away from the risks of inaction.
3.5 Alternatives Examined During the Planning Process
In 1981, with the closure of the Old Main complex, the City, the Department of Mental
Health (DMH), and DCAM started examining the future of surplus land and buildings at the
State Hospital campus. During an extensive public process many alternatives were
considered. These included a no build scenario, a mixed-use village on the historical
campus, a new jail, a recreation area on a portion of the Burts Pit Road agricultural land,
suburban style housing, and a combination of open space and industrial development on
the agricultural parcels. The planning process only considered the empty buildings and the
farmland, not the remainder of the hospital complex that, in the early 1980s, was still
thriving and expected to remain open indefinitely. At the conclusion of this planning
process, the community reached several areas of agreement, as follows.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-5 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
First, the community agreed that most of the farmland should remain forever agricultural. It
was decided that suburban style housing would consume valuable farmland with little
public benefit. The decision not to use agricultural land for recreation was more
controversial, but, ultimately, the community concluded that prime farmland was
irreplaceable and that there were other opportunities in the City for additional recreation
areas. As a result, the community strongly supported legislation that transferred most of the
farmland to the Department of Food and Agriculture, gave the city an Agricultural
Preservation Restriction on this land, and provided long-term lease to the Smith Vocational
Agricultural High School to manage the land.
Second, the community agreed that a portion of the surplus land could accommodate a
new jail. There was no serious or sustained opposition to the Hampshire County
Corrections Facility, which is now located on former NSH land.
Lastly, the community decided that the main campus should be reused as a mixed-use
commercial/residential village.
In 1993, with the final closure of the hospital (excepting the DMH offices and outpatient
services) and in consideration of the growing state interest in selling closed DMH and
Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) facilities, the City, with DMH and DCAM
participation, restarted reuse planning for the hospital campus. The City developed a
master plan for the campus with extensive citizen and board participation and again
considered many alternatives. These included a no build scenario, a mixed-use village on
the historical campus, a new high school on the main campus, suburban style housing on
the main campus, and a combination of open space and industrial development on the
agricultural parcels.
At the conclusion of this planning process, the Planning Board, City Council, and the
involved public reached a clear consensus. The agreed upon points are summarized below
and are reflected in the disposition legislation.
1. Suburban housing, in any large amount, was rejected because it would consume a
large amount of land, stress city services, and not serve any greater public purpose.
This decision was made with the knowledge that suburban style housing would be
the easiest model for development and the model that would most easily bear its
own development costs.
2. Use of the main campus for a high school was rejected because such a use would
consume much of the campus’ mixed use potential and because the existing high
school could be rehabilitated to serve future needs.
3. Use of high visibility agricultural land for an industrial park was rejected as
inappropriate and out of character for the City.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-6 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4. Converting the main campus to open space was seen to be a waste of the most
valuable economic and new urbanism opportunity available to the city. It was
agreed that developing the main complex as a new village would both create a
boom to the city’s economy and add value to the surrounding neighborhoods and
to downtown.
5. All of the land historically used as farmland, including the parcel opposite the jail
and the community gardens, should be maintained as farmland.
6. Three parcels of the hospital land should be used for community recreation, an
historic park, and a river greenway.
7. A forested out-parcel (the Ice Pond site) was deemed appropriate for medium
density housing to fulfill housing needs and to provide the developer with
development funds.
3.6 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans
As described above, the City of Northampton, along with many others, has expended great
effort in determining the most appropriate use(s) for former state hospital lands. The mixed-
use development envisioned by this project reflects the City’s many years of planning.
Below is a detailed description of the local planning process followed by a summary of the
project’s consistency with the regional plan.
In 1985, when the process of disposing of and redeveloping the NSH site started in earnest,
a CAC was established. In part, the purpose of the CAC was to ensure that the needs and
desires of the surrounding community were an important piece of the process for any future
reuse or redevelopment of the campus. Since that time, the Commonwealth and the City of
Northampton have undertaken a number of studies to assess the redevelopment
opportunities at the site.
On April 8, 1993, the Northampton Planning Board adopted the Northampton State
Hospital Plan as an element of the Northampton General Plan. The Northampton Planning
Board initiated this study to ensure that the reuse of the campus was consistent with the
goals of the community. The plan codified and expanded the earlier planning process.
In 1994, after the passage of legislation authorizing the disposition of the site, a new CAC
was convened which was made up of representatives from the Northampton Chamber of
Commerce (two seats), the Northampton Development Corporation, the Alliance for the
Mentally Ill (two seats), the Northampton Labor Council, the Northampton Housing
Partnership, the Valley Community Development Corporation, the Hampshire Community
Action Commission, the Department of Mental Health, the City Council Industry
Committee, the Franklin/Hampshire County Private Industry Council, and the Mayor of the
City of Northampton. The CAC reviewed, approved, and had considerable input into the
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-7 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Request for Proposals that was issued for the use and redevelopment of the site. The CAC
also approved selection of TCB as the site developer and the Master Plan developed by TCB
for the site.
At the time, the site was subject to zoning overlay districts that encouraged a mix of
commercial and residential development and open space preservation. The overlay
districts were the result of a two-year process during which the Northampton Office of
Planning and Development and the Northampton Planning Board sponsored numerous
public hearings and forums and collected input from the Mayor’s Office, City Councilors,
City boards, the CAC, and from numerous residents. The City recently completed
amending the zoning to create a new Planned Village zoning district. The CAC voted
unanimously (October 2001) to endorse the zoning amendments that support
redevelopment of NSH.
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s 1997 “Valley Vision” outlines regional goals
and objectives. The current project embodies many of those goals and objectives including
discouraging suburban sprawl, protecting community character, promoting a balance of
jobs and housing, encouraging mixed uses, redeveloping vacant and underutilized urban
buildings and properties, promoting adaptive reuse of historic buildings, promoting a
diversity of housing types, balancing urban development with creation of parkland and
open space, and directing development to areas served by infrastructure.
3.7 Program Components
A description of the Full-Build development is presented below, followed by a description
of the Phase I project.
3.7.1 Full Build
The Village at Hospital Hill Master Plan at Full Build incorporates commercial and
residential development and is shown on the Illustrative Site Plan included as Figure 3-2.
The development will have the capacity for approximately 476,000 s.f. of mixed-use
commercial space. It is estimated that this program could generate up to 889 jobs at a floor
area-to-jobs ratio of approximately 500 s.f. for each job. This is a relatively conservative
ratio by industry standards. Included is a mix of retail, office, light industrial, and research
& development/multimedia space as well as space for live-work studios, a child care center,
a possible community center/museum area, and the development of a 60-80 unit assisted
living facility for seniors. The plan also includes 207 residential units, 100 of which would
be single-family homes and 107 of which would be mixed-income rental housing. The
housing goal will be roughly 50 percent market rate and 50 percent affordable to create a
diverse, mixed income community.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-9 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Village Center
The master plan envisions a Village Center that would be located at the intersection of
Route 66 and the present entrance to the campus. The area of the site south of Route 66,
known as the Memorial Complex, represents predominately commercial uses including:
office, research and development, light industrial, and retail. These uses are most
appropriate for this site based on their need for easy accessibility and proximity to Route 66
and Route 10. Build out is expected at a pace driven by local real estate market demand.
The area of the main campus just north of Route 66 will have a more mixed-use character.
This part of the development will include new construction plus the rehabilitation of several
existing buildings to serve as office space and apartments. As currently proposed, there will
also be approximately 45 newly constructed multifamily rental units (both market and
affordable), approximately 20 single-family home lots, and an assisted living facility.
Depending on market conditions and final assisted living design, it may be possible to
create additional commercial space along the Main Street.
Northern Residential Hamlet
North of the Village Center, where the former Main Building now sits, will be primarily
residential. The Final Master Plan calls for an estimated 58 single-family home sites, 40
multifamily rental units, community buildings, commercial activity, and active links to the
extensive community open space system and park system that abut the property. Twenty-
one larger “estate” lots, facing onto the Mill River open space system will provide highly
attractive housing sites, and 37 lots of various smaller sizes will provide housing
development opportunities for a mix of income levels. Although additional analysis must
be undertaken, the Master Plan contemplates the retention and rehabilitation of
approximately 25 percent of the historic structures - those in the best condition and which
lend themselves to reuse. The proponent is also committed to fully evaluating whether it is
feasible to preserve and reuse all or a portion of the former Main Building (“Old Main”). A
feasibility analysis, including structural, mechanical, and financial, will be undertaken as
part of the EIR process.
Ice Pond Area
The Ice Pond area is located approximately one mile west of the main site along Route 66.
This site will be developed as an approximately 27-building lot cluster development for
single-family homes that will be served by public water and sewer. Development on this
parcel will be limited to the southwestern portion of the site in order to: 1) avoid power
lines that bisect the site, 2) not encroach on wetland resource areas located on the eastern
and northern portions of the site, and 3) to maximize the amount of open space on the site.
The development will include a mix of market rate and affordable homes. Similar to all
new development at Hospital Hill, construction will include design covenants to ensure
coherent and complimentary development.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-10 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
New Roadway Connector
Prior studies of the NSH redevelopment have suggested the need for a connector roadway
between Route 66 and Route 10 to alleviate traffic pressures on the downtown area and
surrounding residential streets, and to support additional traffic associated with the
development. As part of the master planning effort for the NSH redevelopment, a new
connector roadway is envisioned that would bisect the southern campus, creating a link
between the Route 10 and Route 66 corridors. The proponent understands the importance
of this connection. The siting of this road is dependent upon a number of important factors
that require further analysis, including site gradients and wetlands. Development of this
roadway alignment will be undertaken during the Full Build EIR process
3.7.2 Phase I
The current Phase I plan is for approximately 152,000 s.f. of commercial/industrial
development and up to 109 residential units; as shown on Figure 3-3. The area north of
Prince Street will be developed as a mixed-use area and will include multi-family housing,
single-family housing, some retail, and at least one moderately sized office building. Three
of the existing hospital dormitory buildings, the former Nurses’ Home, Male Attendants’
Home and the South Employees’ Home, are programmed for historic renovation into office
space and apartments. The area south of Prince Street will be developed for light industrial
use and office space. This area is expected to include the redevelopment of the existing
Laundry Building, the G Recreation Building, and one of the Memorial Complex cruciform
buildings, Building F. Two single family housing sites, one office building, and one light
industrial building will also be developed south of Prince Street.
The Ice Pond site development described above will also be completed as part of Phase I.
Roadway Improvements
Roadway improvements associated with Phase I of the NSH redevelopment are focused on
the Earle Street corridor and on improving existing deficiencies along this route.
Specifically, mitigation efforts focus on the intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street.
The existing alignment at this location contributes to safety deficiencies, which are
compounded by bridge abutments that reduce sight distance from both Earle Street
approaches. Potential improvements at this location entail realigning the northbound and
southbound Earle Street approaches to create a standard four-way intersection, and
lowering the bridge abutments to grade to eliminate the sight barriers and sharp turn from
Grove onto Earle.
Another important focus of improvements is the Route 10 at Earle Street intersection. A
traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted, which indicates that a traffic signal is currently
(although marginally) warranted at this location. The results of the capacity analysis
indicate that under future conditions, the intersection will operate with long delays for turns
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-12 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
onto Route 10. Signalization of the Earle Street and Route 10 intersection will address
existing and future-year operational needs of the Earle Street corridor, which will serve as
an important link to Route 66 for general traffic, as well as the hospital site. Signalization
may also have the added benefit of reducing travel speeds along Route 10 north of Earle
Street.
Other traffic mitigation being considered in the vicinity of the project area is a signal
enhancement project currently being pursued by the City of Northampton for the
Downtown. In addition, the City is studying potential Route 10 corridor safety
improvements including enhanced pedestrian crossings, speed/radar signs, curb extensions,
and a bike lane. The proponent is working closely with the City to identify opportunities to
cooperatively realize proposed improvements to the Route 10 corridor.
3.8 Sustainable Design Elements
The proponent is committed to incorporating environmentally sustainable planning and
systems into the formulation of their designs, within the limits of the approved Master Plan.
As noted in the Secretary’s Certificate on the ENF, reuse of existing buildings avoids the
environmental impacts associated with new construction materials and disposal of existing
building materials and is, in itself, a “green building” strategy. New project elements will
also provide opportunities for implementation of green architecture elements.
The proponent will encourage developers to incorporate sustainable design element and to
seek LEED certification for their buildings. LEED (which stands for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) is a voluntary program of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).
It establishes a rating system for buildings based on the environmental performance of the
entire building over the course of the building’s life. The rating system includes a scorecard
for assigning points to various “green” building elements such as selection of a sustainable
site, water efficiency, energy efficiency, selection of materials, indoor environmental
quality, and innovation and design process. Out of a possible 69 points, different levels of
certification are awarded for the incorporation of greater numbers of green building
elements serving to increase the level of a building’s environmental sustainability.
Certification is first awarded with the accumulation of 26-32 points for basic certification,
33-38 points for the “silver” level, 39-51 points for “gold,” and 52 or more for “platinum.”
The USGBC conducts LEED training workshops to review the economic benefits of green
building elements and to enable proponents to design their own buildings in accordance
with sustainable design principles, or a proponent may engage a LEED-accredited
professional to assist in the design of the building and the preparation of the application.
The certification process includes an initial $500 fee for registering a project and receiving
access to information about the program. The USGBC recommends registering a project
early in its development to allow opportunity for its review and input into the design. Later,
a $1,500 fee is charged for review of the certification application. In campus settings,
buildings that share systems, such as heating and cooling systems, may be registered as one
project, whereas buildings that are not systemically connected would be registered
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-13 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
individually. Information about projects that have been certified is available for review of
potentially transferable models.
The USGBC is presently engaged in a pilot program to explore the concept of LEED
Certification for recycled buildings. The pilot program, LEED-EB™, may be reviewed on-line
at http://www.usgbc.org. Elements of the proposed certification, still in the development
stage, go beyond the level of controls that the proponents would seek to impose on
developers at NSH (e.g., while maintaining an entirely smoke-free environment may be
“correct” in a number of ways, the proponents do not propose to impose that as a condition
of development at Hospital Hill). For this and similar reasons, the proponents do not
consider that LEED certification should be mandatory.
The Secretary’s Certificate includes a list of potential elements of a sustainable design
program, including measures relating to energy conservation, use of recycled and
recyclable materials, and incorporation of recycling infrastructure, and water conservation,
each of which is incorporated into the LEED program. Elements of the LEED program that
will be incorporated into the design of the Village at Hospital Hill, regardless of whether
LEED certification is sought, include:
1. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Negative impacts on water and air quality will
be reduced through the control of erosion on site.
2. Urban Redevelopment. In redeveloping the former hospital site, the Village at
Hospital Hill is preserving undeveloped “greenfields” and the natural resources
supported therein.
3. Alternative Transportation. The development encourages the use of alternative
transportation through several measures including designating parking spaces for
shared community cars and connecting the site to community bike and walking
paths. Refer to Section 4.0 for a complete discussion.
4. Reduced Site Disturbance. The Village at Hospital Hill has been designed to
conserve existing natural areas so as to preserve habitat and promote biodiversity.
5. Stormwater Management. As described in Section 7.0, stormwater management
systems at the site have been designed to limit disruption of natural water flows by
minimizing stormwater runoff and increasing on-site infiltration.
6. Water Use Reduction. Water efficiency will be maximized through the use of low-
flow fixtures and through the minimization of potable water use for irrigation.
7. Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning. Fundamental building elements
and systems will be designed, installed, and calibrated to operate as intended.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-14 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
8. Storage and Collection of Recyclables. The reduction of waste generated by
building occupants will be facilitated through recycling programs.
9. Building Reuse. Inherent in the Village at Hospital Hill concept is the reuse of
several of the original hospital buildings. As mentioned above, building reuse
conserves material and cultural resources, reduces waste, and reduces the impact of
caused by new construction.
10. Construction Waste Management. Solid waste created during demolition and
construction phases of the project will be reused or recycled to the greatest extent
possible.
This listing is compiled from information obtained at the U.S. Green Building Council
website referenced above.
The proponent will work with Phase 1 developers to assist them in finding opportunities to
incorporate green architecture elements such as those espoused by the LEED certification
program into their designs and operations and will invite review against those principles
during Site Plan Review and Special Permitting.
3.9 Project Permitting
3.9.1 State Permits and Agency Actions
The state permits and agency actions required for Phase I of the project are listed below.
Table 3-1 Required State Permits and Agency Actions
Permit Agency Comments
Minor Sewer Connection
Permit
Department of Environmental
Protection
Required for connection to sewers
Air Quality Control
Notification
Department of Environmental
Protection
Required prior to construction or
demolition
Beneficial Use
Determination
Department of Environmental
Protection
For on-site reuse of recycled
building materials
Land Transfer from DCAM to
MassDevelopment
DCAM Transfer pending
Land transfers Transfers by developer entity
to TCB and other entities
Particulars of real property
transactions yet to be determined.
76601\Phase I Report\3-ProjectDesc.doc 3-15 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3.9.2 Local Permits
The local permits and approvals required for Phase I of the project are listed below. These
are permits and approvals that are or may be required to be obtained by MassDevelopment,
TCB, and/or other commercial or residential developers, as planning proceeds.
Table 3-2 Required Local Permits and Approvals
Permit Agency Comments
Preliminary Subdivision Plan Northampton Planning Board Required of all planned
subdivisions
Definitive Subdivision Plan
Approval
Northampton Planning Board Required of all planned
subdivisions
Site Plan Approval Northampton Planning Board Required of all planned
developments
Special Permit Northampton Planning Board
Demolition, Renovation
and/or Building Permit
Northampton Building
Inspector
Required prior to demolition,
renovation or building work
Trench Permit Northampton Department of
Public Works
Required in order to have utilities
marked
Sewer Entrance Permit Northampton Department of
Public Works
Required for connection to the
municipal sewer system
Water Entrance Permit Northampton Department of
Public Works
Required for connection to the
municipal water system
Backflow Prevention Permit Northampton Department of
Public Works
Required for the water system
Cross Connection Program
Order of Conditions Northampton Conservation
Commission
Required under the Wetlands
Protection Act and local ordinance
for construction activities planned
in jurisdictional wetland areas
4.0 Transportation and Air Quality
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-1 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.0 TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY
4.1 Introduction
This section presents a transportation impact and access evaluation for the proposed Phase I
redevelopment of the NSH campus. The evaluation includes existing traffic operations in
the project area, assesses incremental impacts on area roadways under future year
conditions with and without the project, and identifies physical roadway improvements that
address project-related traffic impacts.
A mesoscale air quality analysis was performed for the project since the vehicle trips per
day (tpd) of 3,165 generated by the project exceeds the 3,000 tpd Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) threshold for a mesoscale analysis. The
analysis includes both an estimate of the volatile organic carbon (VOC) emissions
associated with all project-related vehicle trips and a demonstration that the VOC emissions
associated with the preferred alternative will be less than those from the No-build case in
both the short and long term; in the case where hydrocarbon emissions from the preferred
alternative are expected to be greater, the analysis includes identification and review of all
reasonable and feasible reduction/mitigation measures. Prior to proceeding with the
analysis, consultation with the DEP was conducted for guidance as well as confirmation of
the study area
4.1.1 Proposed Project
The Phase I redevelopment of the NSH consists of a mixed-use development comprised of
residential units and commercial space. Specifically, the residential portion of the
development consists of 19 single-family homes and 52 apartments, the majority of which
are proposed on the northern side of the main campus. Two single-family homes are also
proposed on the southern portion of the campus, with direct access onto Laurel Street. Up
to 27 single-family homes are proposed on the Ice Pond parcel located further west of the
main campus along Route 66. The remainder of the Phase I development consists of
152,000 s.f. of commercial space, including office, light manufacturing, and ancillary retail
space. The project site is displayed in Figure 4-1.
Phase I access is proposed via three driveways onto Route 66, with single driveways onto
Prince Street and Earle Street. The main driveway serving the project site will be located in
the general vicinity of the existing four-way intersection of the main campus driveways and
Route 66. The northbound and southbound approaches to this location will serve as the
principal commercial and residential access points to the redeveloped campus. A third
driveway is proposed on Route 66, east of this location which, under Phase I will serve a
single commercial use. The Prince Street driveway will serve the single-family homes
proposed under Phase I of the development. The final driveway, located on Earle Street
will serve commercial uses at that location.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-3 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.1.2 Study Methodology
This traffic impact and access study (TIAS) has been prepared in accordance with guidelines
set forth by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive Office of Transportation
and Construction (EOEA/EOTC) for preparation of a Traffic Impact Assessment. This TIAS
builds upon the preliminary TIAS submitted as part of the expanded ENF for this project,
and provides expanded analysis and mitigation discussion that is responsive to the
Secretary’s Certificate on the ENF, as well as comments issued on the ENF by the City of
Northampton, the CAC, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC), and various
citizens.
In response to the Secretary’s Certificate on the Expanded ENF, and associated comments
by various individuals and agencies, the Phase I TIAS expands analysis presented in the
preliminary TIAS in several important ways as follows:
Expanded Study Area. In addition to the fourteen intersections presented in the
preliminary TIAS, four additional intersections are included in the evaluation of
impact. The study are has been expanded with the view of quantifying impacts
related to travel between the Florence section of Northampton and the site, and the
signalized “gateway” intersection of Old South Street and Conz Street. This brings
the total number of intersections studied to eighteen.
Localized Trip Distribution. Vehicle travel patterns presented in the preliminary
TIAS have been modified to better reflect local travel trends between the Florence
section of Northampton and the site. Impacts to various neighborhoods north of the
site quantified on the basis of these revised patterns.
Mitigation Commitments. The development team has further refined costs,
timetables, responsible parties, and funding sources for various transportation
improvements that address Phase I redevelopment impacts, as well as programmed
improvements by the City that will address pedestrian/safety improvements in the
study area. In accordance with the Secretary’s Certificate on the ENF, the
framework for a monitoring program has also been established for Phase I
redevelopment.
This TIAS is conducted in several stages. The first phase documents existing conditions in
the transportation study area including an inventory of roadway geometry, observed traffic
volumes, and historic accident characteristics. Next, future year traffic conditions are
forecast that account for other planned area development projects, planned transportation
improvement projects, normal area growth, and project-related traffic increases. The third
phase quantifies operating characteristics of study intersections to identify existing and
future year deficiencies for which improvements are warranted. Specific attention is given
to the incremental impacts of the proposed project. Finally, mitigation measures are
identified that address specific existing deficiencies and future-year Phase I-related traffic
impacts.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-4 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.1.3 Study Area
Prior transportation studies1 of the reuse of the NSH have focused on roadways and
intersections that have been identified as critical locations by the City of Northampton. This
present analysis expands on the study area scope of prior studies and as requested in the
Secretary’s Certificate on the ENF to include a nu mber of locations along the Burts Pit Road
and Florence Road corridors. The study area includes Route 9, Route 66, and Route 10
adjacent to the project site and the following intersections:
• Route 9 (Elm Street/Main Street) at Route 66 (West Street)
• Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
• Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
• Route 10 (South Street) at Earle Street
• Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
• Grove Street at Laurel Street
• Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Grove Street
• Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Laurel Street
• Burts Pit Road at Prince Street and Laurel Street
• Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Prince Street
• Route 66 (Prince Street) at Earle Street
• Old South Street at Conz Street
• Burts Pit Road at Clement Street
• Burts Pit Road at Florence Road
• Route 66 (Rocky Hill Road) at Florence Road
• Prince Street at site driveway
• Route 66 (Prince Street) at site driveways
• Earle Street at site driveway
4.2 Existing Conditions
As a basis for quantifying the transportation impacts of the project, the existing roadway
system and the existing traffic operations of study area roadways were reviewed. This
chapter describes the existing traffic characteristics and operations of roadways and
1Traffic Impact and Access Study; Northampton State Hospital Campus, Northampton, Massachusetts;
Earthtech, Inc.; February 1997.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-5 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
intersections within the study area. Sections of this chapter present an overview of the data
collection program, existing traffic volumes, and safety issues.
4.2.1 Study Area Roadway Network
The study area roadways and intersections are described briefly in this section. A general
description of the physical roadway and intersection features is provided. The study area
includes roadways under jurisdiction of either the City of Northampton or MassHighway, as
noted below.
Roadways
Route 9 (Main Street)
Route 9 (Main Street) is an arterial roadway that runs in a general east/west direction
through Northampton from the Hadley town line in the east to the Williamsburg town line
in the west. Within the study area, Route 9 is under jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton. In the study area, Route 9 consists of one 12-foot travel lane per direction.
Additional turning lanes are provided at signalized intersections. Metered parking is
provided along both sides of Route 9, east of Route 10. West of Route 10, on-street parking
is prohibited. The posted speed limit along Route 9 is 25 miles per hour (mph) within the
study area. Sidewalks are provided along the northern and southern sides of the roadway.
Land use in the vicinity of the study area is a mix of commercial, residential, and religious
uses.
Route 66 (Chapel Street)
Route 66 (Chapel Street) is a city-maintained local arterial that generally travels in an east-
west direction and is the principal travel route to the site, bisecting the NSH campus.
Within the study area Route 66 provides one approximate 12-foot lane of travel in each
direction. The posted speed limit along Route 66 varies between 25 and 30 mph. Land use
along the corridor is primarily residential, institutional, and agricultural. As noted under
Future Conditions, the Route 66 corridor will be upgraded in the near future through a
MassHighway-sponsored contract.
Route 10 (South Street)
Route 10 (South Street) is a north-south arterial roadway. South of Earle Street, Route 10 is
under MassHighway jurisdiction; north of Earle Street, Route 10 is under local jurisdiction.
Route 10 provides access between downtown Northampton and towns to the south
including Easthampton and Southampton. In the study area Route 10 provides one travel
lane in each direction with curbside parking available along portions of the roadway. The
posted speed limit varies between 25 and 35 mph within the study area. Land use in the
vicinity of the study area is a mix of residential and commercial uses.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-6 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
State Street
State Street is a local roadway that travels in a north-south orientation between Route 9 in
the south and Stoddard Street in north. State Street is often used as an alternative travel
route towards the Route 5 and Route 10 corridors north of the downtown area, via local
east-west roadways north of Route 9. State Street provides one lane of travel in each
direction. In the vicinity of the Route 9 corridor, State Street provides metered parking on
the westbound side of the roadway. Land use along the corridor is primarily commercial
and residential uses. A sidewalk is provided along the eastern side of the roadway.
Earle Street
Earle Street is a local roadway that generally travels in a northeast-southwest orientation
between Route 10 in the south and Route 66 in the north. Earle Street provides one travel
lane in each direction. At the intersection with Grove Street and Texas Road, there is a jog
in Earle Street that accommodated a rail line crossing, resulting in a doglegged intersection.
Earle Street abuts the southern boundary of the NSH southern campus.
Grove Street
Grove Street is a local roadway with an east-west orientation between Texas Road in the
east, and Route 66 in the west. Grove Street provides one lane of travel in each direction.
Land use along the Grove Street corridor is entirely residential. The posted speed limit
along Grove Street is 30 mph.
Laurel Street
Laurel Street is a local roadway that travels in a north-south orientation between Grove
Street in the north and Prince Street in the south. Laurel Street provides one lane of travel
in each direction. Land use along the Laurel Street corridor is entirely residential. The
speed limit along Laurel Street is 30 mph.
Burts Pit Road
Burts Pit Road is a local roadway that travels in an east-west orientation between Route 66
in the east and Sylvester Road in the west. Burts Pit Road provides one lane of travel in
each direction. Land use along the corridor is a mix of residential homes and farm land.
The speed limit along Burts Hill Road is 30 mph.
Intersections
Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 66 (West Street)
Route 9 (Main Street) meets Route 66 (West Street) to form a three-way intersection under
traffic signal control. The eastbound Main Street approach consists of one through lane and
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-7 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
a shared through/right-turn lane. The westbound Main Street approach consists of an
exclusive left-turn lane and one through lane. The northbound West Street approach
consists of an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The traffic signal
operates as a fully actuated three-phase signal. Sidewalks are present along both sides of
Route 9 and Route 66, with a crosswalk provided across West Street.
Route 9 (Main Street) at Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
Route 9 (Main Street) meets Route 10 (South Street) and State Street at a four-way dog-
legged intersection under traffic signal control. The eastbound Main Street approach
provides an exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right-turn lane.
The westbound Main Street approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane, a general-
purpose lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane. The northbound South Street approach
provides a shared left-turn/through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. A delta island
separates northbound travel flows. The southbound State Street approach provides a shared
left-turn/through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The traffic signal at this location
operates as a four-phase, fully actuated signal. Sidewalks are present on both sides of Route
9 and Route 10, with a sidewalk provided along the eastern side of State Street only.
Crosswalks are provided along all intersection approaches.
Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
Route 10 (South Street) meets Old South Street at a three-way intersection under traffic
signal control. The northbound South Street approach consists of one through lane and an
exclusive right-turn lane. The southbound South Street approach consists of an exclusive
left-turn lane and one through lane. The westbound Old South Street approach consists of
an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The traffic signal operates as a
fully actuated three-phase signal. Sidewalks are present along all both sides of all
intersection approaches, with crosswalks provided across every approach. Traffic signs
along South Street direct motorists to use Old South Street to access Route 5 and Interstate
91 (I-91).
Old South Street at Conz Street
Old South Street meets Conz Street to form a three-way intersection under traffic signal
control. The northbound Conz Street approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane and a
through lane, while the southbound Conz Street approach provides a through lane and an
exclusive right-turn lane. The eastbound Old South Street approach provides exclusive left-
and right-turn lanes. The traffic signal at this location operates under a four-phase signal
operation, with a lead phase given to northbound traffic on Conz Street.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-8 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Burts Pit Road at Clement Road
Burts Pit Road meets Clement Road to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
eastbound and westbound Burts Pit Road approaches provide one general-purpose travel
lane in each direction. The Clement Road approach provides one shared left-turn/right-turn
lane, which is under STOP-sign control. Land use in the vicinity of this intersection is
entirely residential.
Burts Pit Road at Florence Road
Burts Pit Road meets Florence Road to form a four-way, unsignalized intersection. All four
intersection approaches are general-purpose travel lanes. This intersection is under four-
way, STOP-sign control, with STOP signs recently installed on the north and southbound
Florence Road approaches to enhance safety at this location. Land use in the vicinity of this
intersection is entirely residential.
Route 66 (Rocky Hill Road) at Florence Road
Route 66 meets Florence Road to form a four-way intersection under traffic signal control.
This location has been recently upgraded, previously operating under STOP-sign control on
the northbound and southbound Florence Road approaches. All four intersection
approaches provide one general-purpose travel lanes. The traffic signal at this location
operates in a two-phase signal cycle.
Route 10 (South Street) at Earle Street
Route 10 (South Street) meets Earle Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection.
The northbound South Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The
southbound South Street approach consists of a shared through/right-turn lane. The
eastbound Earle Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-
sign control.
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
Earle Street meets Grove Street and Texas Road to form a four-way, skewed, unsignalized
intersection. The northbound approach of Earle Street is offset from the southbound
approach by approximate 70 feet to the east. Both the Grove Street and Texas Road
approaches provide a general-purpose lane, and are under STOP-sign control. Two
abutments that previously held an elevated rail crossing are present in the northeast and
southwest quadrant of the intersection, resulting in constrained sight lines from the Earle
Street northbound approach.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-9 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Grove Street at Laurel Street
Grove Street meets Laurel Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection. The
eastbound Grove Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The
westbound Grove Street approach consists of a shared through/right-turn lane. The
southbound Earle Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-
sign control.
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Grove Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Grove Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection.
The eastbound Chapel Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The westbound
Chapel Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The northbound Grove
Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Laurel Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Laurel Street to form a four-way, unsignalized intersection.
Both the eastbound and westbound Chapel Street approaches provide a general-purpose
lane. The northbound and southbound Laurel Street approaches provide a general-purpose
lane and are under STOP-sign control.
Burts Pit Road and Prince Street at Laurel Street
Burts Pit Road and Prince Street meet Laurel Street to form a three-way, unsignalized
intersection. The eastbound Burts Pit Road approach consists of a through/right-turn lane.
The westbound Prince Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The
northbound Laurel Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under
YIELD-sign control.
Route 66 (Chapel Street) at Prince Street
Route 66 (Chapel Street) meets Prince Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection.
The eastbound Chapel Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The
westbound Chapel Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The southbound
Prince approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
Route 66 (Prince Street) at Earle Street
Route 66 (Prince Street) meets Earle Street to form a three-way, unsignalized intersection.
The eastbound Prince Street approach consists of a through/right-turn lane. The westbound
Prince Street approach consists of a shared left-turn/through lane. The northbound Earle
Street approach consists of a shared left- and right-turn lane under STOP-sign control.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-10 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes were recorded at various study area intersections and along study area
roadways in September and November 2001. Traffic data were collected by means of
manual turning movement counts (TMCs) and automated traffic recorder (ATR) counts. This
data was supplemented by counts conducted as part of prior traffic studies2,3 for other area
developments. In all instances, mainline traffic flows along study area corridors have been
calibrated to reflect observed growth within the region, and balance with data collected in
2001. Traffic counts were scheduled to occur subsequent to the opening of the temporary
Oxbow Bridge, across Route 5, south of the project area. Prior to this opening, traffic
volumes were diverted from Route 5 to Route 10, within the study area, resulting in
increased traffic along this corridor, as discussed in subsequent sections. The traffic count
locations are shown in Figure 4-2.
Daily traffic volumes were collected along Route 10 (South Street), north of Old South
Street; Route 66 (West Street), west of Earle Street; and Earle Street, north of Route 10. A
summary of existing daily traffic volumes is provided in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Existing Roadway Traffic-Volume Summary
Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday Evening Peak Hour
Location
Weekday
Daily
Volume
(vpd)a
Volume
(vph)b
Percent
of Daily
Trafficc
Predominant
Flow
Volume
(vph)
Percent
of Daily
Traffic
Predominant
Flow
Route 10,
north of Old
South Street
19,586 1,370 7.0 52% NB 1,505 7.7 61% SB
Route 66, west
of Earle Street
5,591 490 8.8 79% NB 525 9.3 65% WB
Earle Street,
north of South
Street/Eastham
pton Road
2,916 228 7.8 52% NB 324 11.1 51% SB
Source: ATR counts conducted in September and November 2001.
aTwo-way daily traffic expressed in vehicles per day.
bTwo-way peak-hour volume expressed in vehicles per hour.
cThe percent of daily traffic that occurs during the peak hour.
dNB=northbound, SB=southbound, EB=eastbound, WB=westbound.
2Summary of Improvement Scenarios – Signal at Main Street/South Street/State Street; Fuss & O’Neill; July 7,
2000.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-12 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
As presented in Table 4-1, daily traffic flows along Route 10 are approximately 19,600
vehicles per day (vpd) on weekdays. Traffic flow during peak hours is approximately 1,370
vehicles per hour (vph) on a weekday morning and 1,505 vehicles on a weekday evening.
Peak-hour directional flow is approximately 52 percent split northbound during the
weekday morning peak hour, and 61 percent split southbound during the weekday evening
peak hour.
Daily traffic flow along Route 66 is approximately 5,600 vpd, with peak-hour traffic-flow
approximately 490 vph during the weekday morning peak and 525 vph during the weekday
evening peak. Directional flow during peak hours ranges from 79 percent split eastbound
and 65 percent split westbound during the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
periods, respectively. This directional split indicates heavy directional flow towards the
downtown Northampton and regional commuter routes during the morning peak, with
opposite patterns exhibited during the evening peak.
Daily traffic flow along Earle Street is approximately 2,990 vpd, with peak-hour flow
ranging between approximately 230 vph during the weekday morning peak hour and 325
vph during the weekday evening peak hour. Peak-hour directional flows are fairly even,
with 52 percent of traffic split northbound during the weekday morning peak hour and 51
percent split southbound during the weekday evening peak hour.
Seasonal Adjustment
In order to determine whether seasonal adjustment factors should be applied to data
collected in September and November 2001, MassHighway continuous count data were
examined. MassHighway collects continuous count data at a number of counting stations
within Northampton including:
• Station 11: Route 5 and Route 10, south of the Hatfield town line
• Station 2405: Route I-91, north of King Street interchange
• Station 2425: Route I-91, between Route 9 and Damon Road
• Station 2436: Route I-91, between Route 5 and Route 9
Based on a review of the most recent years of traffic data available for each location,
September traffic data, for all four locations exhibited traffic volumes that exceeded average
annual conditions. September traffic volumes ranged between 1 and 6 percent higher than
average annual conditions, with the four locations exhibiting, on average, September traffic
volumes 3 percent higher than average annual conditions. November traffic data exhibited
volumes that are, on average, 1 percent higher than average annual conditions. This may
be due in part to lower traffic volumes during summer months when college related traffic
is not traveling area roadways.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-13 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
While MassHighway data indicates that September and November 2001 data is likely
higher than average annual conditions, no seasonal adjustment factor had been applied to
reduce observed traffic volumes, in order to allow for a conservative evaluation of existing
and future traffic operations.
Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
Manual turning movement counts were performed at study area intersections during the
weekday morning peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and the weekday evening peak period
(4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) in September and November 2001. These time periods represent the
critical impact periods associated with both residential and commercial activity due to the
concentration of commuter related activity. Existing peak-hour traffic volumes are shown in
Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4.
4.2.3 Existing Public Transportation
The study area is served by a number of public transportation bus routes operated by the
PVTA, as displayed on Figure 4-5. Each of these routes stops at the Academy of Music bus
stop located at the intersection of Route 9 and Route 10 in downtown Northampton. PVTA
buses are equipped with bicycle racks as part of the PVTA Rack & Roll program, allowing
passengers to use the PVTA service to transport them to an area more conducive to cycling.
The majority of bus routes that serve the downtown area do not charge a fare. Fares on
routes that charge are one dollar or less, with some fares only in place during summer
months when school is not in session. The following describes specific site routes, peak-
hour headways, and service availability.
• Route 39: Smith/Hampshire/Mt. Holyoke. The PVTA Bus Route 39 provides service
between downtown Northampton, Hadley, and South Hadley. Stops are provided
at Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, and a number of residential
complexes along the route. Peak-hour headways are approximately one hour, with
more limited service provided on the weekend.
• Route 40: Minuteman Express Northampton/Amherst. The PVTA Bus Route 40
provides service between downtown Northampton and the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst. Peak-hour headways area approximately one half-hour.
Weekend service is not provided along this route.
• Route 41: Northampton/Easthampton/HCC. The PVTA Route 41 provides service
between downtown Northampton, Easthampton, and Holyoke via the Route 10 and
Route 141 corridors. Connections are provided at the Easthampton Town Hall,
Williston Academy, Riverside Industries, and Holyoke Community College. Peak-
hour headways are approximately one hour, with weekend service provided on
Saturday only.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-17 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• Route 42: Northampton/Williamsburg. The PVTA Route 42 bus route provides
service between downtown Northampton and Main Street in Williamsburg. Key
stops along the route are the VA Hospital, Cooley Dickinson Hospital, and Smith
College. Peak-hour headways along the route are approximately one hour, with
more limited Saturday and Sunday service.
• Route 43: Northampton/Hadley/Amherst. The PVTA Route 43 bus service provides
service between downtown Northampton and downtown Amherst via Route 9.
Service is provided to a number of stops including the Hampshire Mall, Amherst
College, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Peak-hour headways are
approximately twenty minutes. More limited service is also provided on Saturday
and Sunday.
• Route 44: Florence Heights via King Street and Bridge Road. The PVTA Route 44
bus service provides connections between downtown Northampton, Florence
Heights, and the Hampshire Plaza. Peak-hour headways along this route are
approximately one hour, with service also provided on Saturday and Sunday.
4.2.4 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Two bicycle paths, the Northampton Bike Path and the Norwottuck Rail Trail, serve the City
of Northampton. The Northampton Bike Path is a 1.75-mile paved path that travels along a
section of Norwottuck Rail Trail right-of-way between State Street and North Main Street.
There is currently a plan to extend the Northampton Bike Path westward through Look Park
into the Town of Williamsburg, as well as extending the path to Easthampton past the
Northampton State Hospital site.
The Norwottuck Rail Trail is an approximate nine-mile long bike path that connects
Northampton to the neighboring towns of Hadley and Amherst. The trail generally follows
the alignment of Route 9, providing bicyclists a dedicated travel route separate from the
heavily traveled Route 9 corridor. The bike path provides a bridge over the Connecticut
road with its western terminus at Damon Road in Northampton.
Existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City of Northampton are displayed in
Figure 4-6.
4.2.5 Safety
In order to identify incident trends and/or safety deficiencies in the study area, crash data
were requested from the City of Northampton Police Department and MassHighway. At
the time of report preparation, the latest available crash data were obtained from
MassHighway, which is a compilation of data received from the local level. This data has
been utilized in this analysis.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-19 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Accident data for each location were researched to determine the type of incident, severity,
and roadway conditions for each incident. In addition, crash rates were determined for
each location. These rates quantify the number of crashes per million entering vehicles and
provide a basis for comparing reported crash rates to statewide averages. MassHighway
statewide crash rates for signalized and unsignalized intersections are 0.89 and 0.67,
respectively. A summary of the incident data is provided in Table 4-2 and is described
below.
The location that exhibited the greatest number of incidents over the three-year period was
the intersection of Route 66 with Florence Road. A total of 19 incidents were reported at
this location, resulting in a crash rate that exceeded the state average. Recent
improvements to this intersection, including installation of a traffic signal, are expected to
enhance future traffic operations at this location.
The intersection of Route 9 (Main Street) with Route 10 (South Street) and State Street
exhibited a total of 16 incidents over the three-year period. The majority of crashes was
either rear-end or angle type, resulting in property damage only. The crash rate analysis
indicates that this location exhibits a rate below the state average.
The intersection of Burts Pit Road with Florence Road exhibited 11 incidents over the three-
year period, resulting in an average crash rate of 1.05, exceeding the state average.
However, 8 of the 11 incidents occurred in 1998, when the City changed this location from
a two-way STOP control to a four-way STOP control. Based on conversations with the
DPW, driver unfamiliarity may have been a contributing factor to the high number of
incidents at this location during that time. The following year, the total number of incidents
was reduced to 2.
Three other study area locations exhibited crash rates that exceeded state averages: Earle
Street at Grove Street and Texas Road, Route 66 at Grove Street, and Route 66 at Laurel
Street. All three locations exhibited crash rates that exceeded 1.00. Based on a review of
accident data at these locations, each location averaged between approximately 1 and 3
accidents per year. However, the relatively low number of vehicles processed through
these locations results in crash rates that exceed the state average. The majority of incidents
at these locations were of the angle type, indicating collisions between vehicles turning
from the minor approach onto the major roadway.
As described in more detail in Future Conditions, MassHighway is currently planning to
upgrade the Route 66 corridor, including the intersections of Route 66 with both Grove
Street and Laurel Street. These improvements will entail improvements to both locations,
including the realignment of Grove Street to allow for a standard T-type intersection at its
juncture with Route 66. These improvements are expected to enhance safety at these
locations.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-20 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-2 Intersection Accident Summary – 1997 Through 1999
Location
Rte. 9/
Rte. 10
Rte. 9/
Rte. 66
Rte. 10/Old
South St.
Old South St./
Conz St.
Rte. 10/
Earle St.
Earle St./
Grove St./
Texas St.
Grove St./
Laurel St.
Laurel St./
Burts Pit Rd.
Accident Rate 0.52 0.47 0.37 0.47 0.06 1.01 0.00 0.00
Year:
1997 4 4 2 2 1 0 0 0
1998 6 4 2 2 0 0 0 0
1999 6 3 5 5 0 4 0 0
Total 16 11 9 9 1 4 0 0
Type:
Angle 7 8 0 0 0 4 0 0
Rear-End 8 1 6 8 1 0 0 0
Head-On 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown/Other 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0
Total 16 11 9 9 1 4 0 0
Severity:
Property Damage Only 10 8 3 1 0 2 0 0
Personal Injury 6 3 5 8 0 2 0 0
Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Total 16 11 9 9 1 4 0 0
Conditions:
Clear 10 9 6 6 0 1 0 0
Rain 4 1 3 2 1 3 0 0
Snow/Ice 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fog 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 16 11 9 9 1 4 0 0
Time:
7:00 to 9:00 AM 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
4:00 to 6:00 PM 3 2 3 1 0 1 0 0
Remainder of Day 11 8 5 8 1 1 0 0
Total 16 11 9 9 1 4 0 0
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-21 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-2 (cont.) Intersection Accident Summary – 1997 Through 1999
Location
Clement St./
Burts Pit Rd.
Rte. 66/
Grove St.
Rte. 66/
Laurel St..
Rte. 66/
Prince St..
Rte. 66/
Earle St.
Burts Pit Rd./
Florence St.
Rte. 66/
Florence St.
Accident Rate 0.41 1.16 1.62 0.00 0.25 1.05 1.47
Year:
1997 0 1 5 0 2 1 6
1998 1 5 2 0 0 8 3
1999 1 0 1 0 0 2 10
Total 2 6 8 0 2 11 19
Type:
Angle 0 2 7 0 0 5 7
Rear-End 0 0 0 0 1 3 12
Head-On 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Unknown/Other 2 3 0 0 0 2 0
Total 2 6 8 0 2 11 19
Severity:
Property Damage Only 0 4 4 0 1 5 7
Personal Injury 2 2 4 0 0 6 12
Fatality 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 6 8 0 2 11 19
Conditions:
Clear 2 2 6 0 2 6 14
Rain 0 2 0 0 0 4 3
Snow/Ice 0 2 1 0 0 1 0
Fog 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 2 6 8 0 2 11 19
Time:
7:00 to 9:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 3 2
4:00 to 6:00 PM 1 1 3 0 0 1 4
Remainder of Day 1 4 4 0 2 7 13
Total 2 6 8 0 2 11 19
The intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road exhibits safety
deficiencies due to the substandard roadway geometry and resulting limited sight lines at
this location. The presence of bridge abutments at two intersection approaches results in
the northbound and southbound Earle Street approaches being offset by over 100 feet, and
compromises sight lines from both locations. As part of the proposed mitigation package
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-22 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
for the Phase I redevelopment, MassDevelopment is committed to designing and
constructing improvements to enhance safety at this location as discussed in subsequent
sections.
For the remaining study area intersections, there were significantly fewer incidents reported
over the three-year period. In most remaining instances, 1 or less incidents per year were
reported on average, with corresponding crash rates less than 0.50 in all instances.
4.3 Future Conditions
Evaluation of the project impacts requires the establishment of a future baseline analysis
condition. This section estimates future roadway and traffic conditions with and without
the project.
To determine the impact of site-generated traffic volumes on the roadway network under
future conditions, baseline traffic volumes in the study area were projected to a future year
condition. Traffic volumes on the roadway network at that time, in the absence of the
project (that is, the No-Build condition), would include existing traffic, new traffic due to
general background traffic growth, and traffic related to specific development by others, and
currently under review at the local and/or state level. Consideration of these factors
resulted in the development of No-Build traffic volumes. Anticipated site-generated traffic
volumes were then superimposed upon these No-Build traffic-flow networks to develop
future Build conditions.
The following sections provide an overview of planned roadway improvements in the study
area, the future No-Build traffic volumes, and projected Build traffic volumes.
4.3.1 Planned and Ongoing Roadway Improvement Developments
Based on consultation with the City of Northampton’s Planning Department and DPW, as
well as MassHighway’s District 2 Office, a number of proposed and ongoing roadway
improvement projects were identified within the study area. Each of these projects is
described below.
Downtown Northampton Traffic Signal Improvement
The City of Northampton has approved traffic signal improvements that would modify the
existing signal timing and phasing at a number of intersections along the Main Street
corridor. These improvements are intended to allow the existing traffic signal equipment to
operate more efficiently by coordinating the existing traffic signals to operate as one
interconnected signal system. Within the study area, the intersections of Main Street with
South Street and State Street, and the intersection of Main Street with West Street and Elm
Street would be affected. Proposed signal timing and phasing modifications were obtained
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-23 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
from the traffic impacts assessment prepared for these improvements.4 The initial phase of
this improvement is state funded and includes new traffic controller units to be installed
within the next one to two years. Future No-Build and Build condition traffic analyses
assume these improvements are in place by year 2005.
Oxbow Bridge Improvements
MassHighway is currently replacing the Oxbow Bridge, located on Route 5, south of the
project site. Phase I of the project, which entails construction of a temporary bridge
adjacent to the permanent bridge is complete, with the temporary bridge opening in late
August 2001.
Prior to the opening of this bridge, traffic destined for I-91 to the north was diverted from
Route 5 to Route 10, within the study area. This increase in traffic heightened resident
concerns related to increased traffic volume and vehicular speed along the Route 10
corridor. As described in the Mitigation section, improvements have been identified and
funded that address pedestrian and bicycle safety along Route 10. These measures will be
built by the City’s DPW using, in part, CDBG funds.
Based on consultation with MassHighway, it is expected that the construction of the
replacement Oxbow Bridge will be advertised in the winter of 2001. It is expected that this
project will be complete prior to completion of Phase I redevelopment.
Route 66 Improvement Project
MassHighway will be constructing roadway improvements along the Route 66 corridor
within the study area. Improvements are scheduled to occur in three phases. Phase I
entails improvements to two bridges, and installation of a traffic signal at Florence Road.
Based on conversations with MassHighway, traffic flow will be maintained along Route 66
throughout the construction schedule. Phase I construction is expected to be complete by
the end of 2002.
Phase II of the Route 66 improvements involved reconstruction of a portion of the Route 66
corridor, between Wilson Road and Main Street in the center of Northampton. The overall
goal of the Phase II project is to upgrade the alignment of Route 66 in this area to
MassHighway design standards, and to enhance pedestrian amenities, including provision
of sidewalks and crosswalks at select locations. The project entails widening the existing
roadway to maintain a 32-foot wide roadway section throughout this stretch of Route 66. A
number of intersections will be realigned during Phase II of this project as follows.
4Ibid.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-24 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• Within the study area, the intersection of Route 66 with Grove Street will be
modified. Specially, the northbound Grove Street approach will be realigned to
meet Route 66 at a typical T-type intersection. A proposed granite curb island will
separate northbound and southbound traffic flows along Grove Street at this
location.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Laurel Street will be upgraded to provide
pedestrian walkways along both sides of Laurel Street, south of Route 66 and the
east side of Laurel Street, north of Route 66. In addition, sidewalks will be provided
on the south side of Route 66.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Prince Street will also be realigned to allow for a
typical T-type intersection at this location. A granite curb island would separate
northbound and southbound traffic flows along Prince Street.
• The intersection of Route 66 with Earle Street will be modified. Earle Street
currently splits approximately 120 feet south of Route 66, with a large delta island
separating traffic flows to and from the east from traffic flows to and from the west.
As part of this improvement project, the northbound Earle Street approach will be
realigned to form a standard T-intersection. Separate left-turn lanes and right-turn
lanes will be provided from Earle Street.
Phase III of the Route 66 project will involve upgrading the corridor between Wilson Road
and the Westhampton town line.
South Street Pedestrian Improvements
The City of Northampton has committed to upgrading pedestrian crossings along the Route
10/South Street corridor through funds set aside for the City for this purpose, as well as
through CDBG funds. A detailed discussion of these improvements is provided in the
Section 4.5 and Section 8.0, Mitigation.
4.3.2 Background Traffic Growth
Background traffic includes demand generated by other planned projects in the area as well
as demand increases caused by historic area growth trends. Area growth trends account for
general increases in traffic not attributable to a specific development and are determined
using historical data. Both planned development projects and area growth trends were
used to develop future year traffic volumes.
Historical Area Growth
Determination of an appropriate annual growth rate in area traffic over the five-year
planning horizon was achieved through examination of historical traffic data for the region.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-25 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of growth trends in area traffic, data from
three different sources were examined as described below.
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Daily traffic volumes were obtained from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for a
number of locations within the City of Northampton. Traffic data was available for the last
twenty years at a number of locations within the City. Based on a review of traffic data at
count locations proximate to the study area, little to no growth was observed. Average
annual growth at all locations proximate to the site was below one percent per year.
MassHighway Count Data
Continuous count data collected by MassHighway at five locations in Northampton
between 1991 and 2000 were examined to determine the average rate of growth. Based on
a review of daily traffic volumes at all five locations, all but one location exhibited an
annual growth rate of less than 1 percent. On average, the five locations actually exhibited
a minor decrease in traffic volume over the available years of data.
Prior Traffic Studies
While daily traffic volumes collected by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and
MassHighway allow for direct comparison daily traffic volumes between available years of
data, a more reliable estimate of background growth can be achieved through comparison
of peak-hour traffic volumes. Traffic data collected in 2001 as part of this study were
compared to data collected as part of prior area studies. Peak-hour comparisons were made
for a total of five of the eleven study area intersections. Based on a review of this data,
during the last five years peak-hour traffic volumes have exhibited a minor decrease during
the weekday morning peak, and an increase of less than 1 percent during the weekday
evening peak.
Based on a review of these three data sources, little to no growth in area traffic has been
observed within the study area during the last five years. However, in order to account for
general background growth, a 1 percent general background growth rate has been applied
to area traffic over the five-year planning horizon.
Site-Specific Growth
Based on consultation with the City of Northampton Planning department, there are a
number of small residential developments proposed and/or approved within the study area.
Due to the size of these projects, which vary between 8 and 34 units, traffic studies were
not prepared for any of these developments. The peak-hour trip generation for these
subdivisions is expected to be on the order of 1 vehicle trip every two minutes, or less. Any
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-26 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
additional traffic associated with these subdivisions is accounted for within the background
growth rate.
The Planning Department also indicated that an 87-unit condominium development is
proposed off Burts Pit Road, north of the project site. A traffic study was also not available
within the analysis period of this Phase I report. However, given the proximity of this
development to the study area, and the number of units proposed, traffic increases that
could potentially be generated by this development were specifically incorporated into
future No-Build conditions by applying industry standard trip rates and local travel patterns
to the project.
No-Build Traffic Volumes
The 2006 weekday morning and weekday evening No-Build traffic-volume networks are
displayed in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. These volumes were derived by adding background
growth (historical area growth and development-related growth) to the existing traffic
volumes.
4.3.3 Site-Generated Traffic
The proposed Phase I redevelopment program consists of 109 residential units (42 single-
family homes and 67 apartments) and 152,000 s.f. of commercial space. The proposed
commercial space is comprised of a mix of office, light industrial space, and ancillary retail
space. The traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated using trip rates
published in the ITE Trip Generation manual5 for LUC 210 – Single-Family Detached
Housing, LUC 220 – Apartment, LUC 110 – General Light Industrial, LUC 710 – General
Office Building, and LUC 814 – Specialty Retail Center, the most appropriate categories for
this development. Table 4-3 presents the trip-generation estimate for Phase I
redevelopment.
The trip-generation estimates for the project are provided for the weekday morning and
weekday evening peak hours, which traditionally correspond to the critical impact periods
for residential and commercial-related developments due to the concentration of commuter-
related traffic. As indicated in Table 4-3, the Phase I development program is expected to
generate 289 trips during the weekday morning peak (194 entering and 95 exiting) and 344
trips during the weekday evening peak (121 entering and 223 exiting). On a daily basis,
the proposed Phase I development is expected to generate 3,166 trips (1,583 entering and
1,583 exiting).
5Ibid 1.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-29 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-3 Trip-Generation Summary, Northampton State Hospital Redevelopment – Phase I
Single Family Homesa Apartmentsb Commercialc Total New
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
Entering 12 6 176 194
Exiting 36 31 28 95
Total 48 37 204 289
Weekday Evening Peak Hour
Entering 33 37 51 121
Exiting 19 18 186 223
Total 52 55 237 344
Source: ITE Trip Generation manual, Sixth Edition, 1997.
a ITE LUC 210 trip equation applied to 20 on-site and 22 off-site single-family homes
b ITE LUC 220 trip equation applied to 67 apartments.
c ITE LUC 110 trip generation applied to 47,000 s.f. of industrial space; ITE LUC 710 trip equation
applied to 86,000 s.f. of office space; ITE LUC 814 trip equation applied to 19,000 s.f. of retail
space.
4.3.4 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Development of the Build traffic-volume networks requires that site-generated traffic
volumes previously described be assigned to area roadways based on projected regional
distribution patterns. Two separate trip-distribution patterns were formulated for Phase I of
this project, to account for the residential and commercial-related traffic.
The directional distribution of residential traffic arriving to and departing the site is a
function of a number of variables, including the employment characteristics of the towns
surrounding the development, existing travel patterns along area roadways, and the
efficiency of the roadways leading to the site. The trip distribution patterns for the
residential portion of Phase I of the project are based on U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data
for residents of the City of Northampton. Based on feedback received from Northampton
residents during the ENF comment period, specific trip-distribution patterns have been
refined to reflect local routes likely to be utilized by both residential and commercial-
related development traffic. More specifically, the distribution was modified to reflect local
resident preferences to use local streets connecting the Florence area of Northampton to the
site. Local travel routes likely to be utilized by vehicles traveling to and from the project
site are displayed in Figure 4-9.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-31 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Trip-distribution patterns for the commercial portion of the development were also based on
U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data for employees of Northampton and likely travel routes to
and from the project site. Trip-distribution patterns for both the residential and commercial
components of the Phase I redevelopment are displayed in Figures 4-10 and 4-11. Trip-
distribution patterns for both the residential and commercial components of the Phase I
development are summarized in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
Table 4-4 Residential Trip-Distribution Summarya
Route (To/From) Trip Distribution (Percent)
Route 9, east of the site 40
Old South Street (to I-91) 23
Route 10, south of the site 6
Route 66, west of the site 2
State Street 9
Florence Road, north of site 10
Clement Street, north of site 10
Total 100
aSource: U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data for residents of the City of Northampton.
Table 4-5 Commercial Trip-Distribution Summary
Route (To/From) Trip Distribution (Percent)
Route 9, east of the site 21
Route 9, west of site 7
Old South Street (to I-91) 17
Route 10, south of the site 20
Route 66, west of the site 11
State Street 4
Florence Road, north of site 10
Clement Street, north of site 10
Total 100
aSource: U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data for employees of the City of Northampton.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-34 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Using the trip-generation and distribution estimates project-related trips were assigned to
the roadway network. Figures 4-12 and 4-13 display the project-generated trips at each
study area intersection approach for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
hours.
4.3.5 Build Traffic Volumes
Future Build condition traffic volumes were determined by adding project-specific traffic to
the 2006 No-Build scenario. Figures 4-14 and 4-15 present the 2006 Build networks for the
weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours.
4.3.6 Traffic Increases
To further illustrate incremental traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment, a
summary of Existing, No-Build and Build traffic volumes for key roadways in the site
vicinity is presented in Tables 4-6 and 4-7. These locations include the primary corridors
serving the site – Route 66, Route 10, and Route 9 – as well as several streets that host
residential uses immediately adjacent to the site – Burt’s Pit Road, Earle Street, Grove Street,
and Laurel Street.
Table 4-6 Traffic-Volume Increases Weekday Morning Peak Hour
Location Existing
Volumes
No-Build
Volumes
Build
Volumes
Volume Increase
No-Build to Build
Route 66 (Chapel Street) west of Grove Street 460 485 540 45
Grove Street, west of Earle Street 135 155 181 26
Route 10 (South Street) east of Earle Street 1,035 1,100 1,189 89
Route 9 (Main Street) west of South Street 1,625 1,715 1,753 38
Route 66 (West Street) west of Main Street 755 805 858 53
Earle Street north of Grove Street 130 135 226 91
Burt’s Pit Road west of Laurel Street 190 220 275 55
Laurel Street north of Chapel Street 45 60 75 15
Laurel Street south of Chapel Street 45 60 70 10
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-39 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-7 Traffic-Volume Increases Weekday Evening Peak Hour
Location Existing
Volumes
No-Build
Volumes
Build
Volumes
Volume Increase
No-Build to Build
Route 66 (Chapel Street) west of Grove Street 370 385 446 61
Grove Street, west of Earle Street 175 200 228 28
Route 10 (South Street) east of Earle Street 1,295 1,380 1,484 104
Route 9 (Main Street) west of South Street 1,745 1,845 1,892 47
Route 66 (West Street) west of Main Street 810 860 923 63
Earle Street north of Grove Street 120 125 227 102
Laurel Street north of Chapel Street 75 100 116 16
Laurel Street south of Chapel Street 80 100 110 10
As summarized in Table 4-6, projected morning peak hour traffic increases on primary
roads serving the site range from approximately 89 vehicles on Route 10 (east of Earle
Street) to 38 vehicles on Route 9 in the downtown area. The Earle Street corridor north of
Grove Street (just south of Route 66) will realize an increase of approximately 91 vehicles,
principally the result of having a large commercial tract with direct access to this portion of
Earle Street. Increases on secondary roads range from 55 vehicles on Burt’s Pit Road to less
than 30 vehicles on laurel Street and Grove Street (one vehicle every two minutes on
average).
Similar trends are noted for the weekday evening peak hour, as summarized in Table 4-7.
Projected increases are just over 100 vehicles on Route 10, followed by Route 66 (63
vehicles), and Burt’s Pit Road (65 vehicles). The Earle Street corridor north of Grove Street
(just south of Route 66) will realize an increase of approximately 102 vehicles, principally
the result of having a large commercial tract with direct access to this portion of Earle Street.
Increases on Grove Street and Laurel Street are less than 30 vehicles (one vehicle every two
minutes on average).
4.4 Traffic Operations Analysis
Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area.
To assess quality of flow, roadway capacity analyses were conducted under Existing, No-
Build, and Build traffic-volume conditions. Capacity analyses provide an indication of how
well the roadway facilities serve the traffic demands placed upon them.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-40 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.4.1 Methodology
Levels of Service
A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level of service to traffic facilities
under various traffic-flow conditions.6 The concept of level of service is defined as a
qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their
perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition provides an index
to quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations
from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing
the worst.
Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it,
such a facility may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of
day, day of week, or period of year.
Signalized Intersections
The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows:
• LOS A describes operations with very low control delay; most vehicles do not stop
at all.
• LOS B describes operations with relatively low control delay. However, more
vehicles stop than LOS A.
• LOS C describes operations with higher control delays. Individual cycle failures
may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
• LOS D describes operations with control delay in the range where the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
failures are noticeable.
• LOS E describes operations with high control delay values. Individual cycle failures
are frequent occurrences.
6The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the December
1997 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board;
Washington, DC; 1998.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-41 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• LOS F describes operations with high control delay values that often occur with
over-saturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing causes to such delay levels.
Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis
methodology of the 1997 Update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.7 This method
assesses the effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and
geometrics on delay. Level-of-service designations are based on the criterion of control or
signal delay per vehicle. Control or signal delay is a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, and fuel consumption, and includes initial deceleration delay approaching the
traffic signal, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Table 4-8
summarizes the relationship between level of service and control delay. The tabulated
control delay criterion may be applied in assigning level-of-service designations to
individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or to entire intersections.
Table 4-8 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersectionsa
Level of Service Control (Signal) Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
A ≤10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F >80.0
aSource: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition; Transportation Research
Board; Washington, D.C.; 1998; page 9-7.
Unsignalized Intersections
The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:
• LOS A represents a condition with little or no control delay to minor street traffic.
• LOS B represents a condition with short control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS C represents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic.
7Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition; Transportation Research Board; Washington,
DC; 1998.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-42 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• LOS D represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long
control delays to minor street traffic.
• LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity
of an approach lane, with extreme control delays resulting.
The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a
procedure described in the December 1997 update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.
Level of service is measured in terms of average control delay. Mathematically, control
delay is a function of the capacity and degree of saturation of the lane group and/or
approach under study and is a quantification of motorist delay associated with traffic control
devices such as traffic signals and STOP signs. Control delay includes the effects of initial
deceleration delay approaching a STOP sign, stopped delay, queue move-up time, and final
acceleration delay from a stopped condition. Definitions for level of service at unsignalized
intersections are also given in the December 1997 update to the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual, Special Report 209. Table 4-9 summarizes the relationship between level of
service and average control delay.
Table 4-9 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersectionsa
Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle)
A ≤10.0
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 151 to 2.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F >50.0
aSource: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Third Edition; Transportation Research
Board; Washington, D.C.; 1998; page 10-25.
4.4.2 Analysis of Results
Level-of-service analyses were conducted for 2001 Existing, 2006 No-Build, and 2006 Build
conditions for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection
capacity analyses are summarized in Tables 4-10 through 4-13. The following is a summary
of level-of-service analyses for the intersections within the study area.
Based on the results of the capacity analyses, the majority of study area intersections
operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-43 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
periods. The one exception is the intersection of Earle Street with Route 10, which
currently operates at LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour. Under future Build
conditions, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F. Specific measures intended to
address project-related impacts are described under project mitigation.
Signalized Intersections
The signalized intersection analysis was conducted using the SYNCHRO computer model,
which is based on the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual procedures and is officially
sanctioned by the EOEA/EOTC. The results are summarized in Tables 4-10 and 4-11
below.
Table 4-10 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Morning Peak
Hour
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb LOSc V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
Main Street at South
Street and State Streetd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.69
0.89
0.93
0.75
0.80
28
51
39
37
37
C
D
D
D
D
0.83
0.69
0.92
0.80
0.84
31
49
43
50
40
C
D
D
D
D
0.87
0.69
0.92
0.80
0.85
33
51
43
50
41
C
D
D
D
D
Main Street at Elm Street
and West Streetd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.69
0.61
0.37
0.60
18
10
14
14
B
A
B
B
0.49
0.70
0.54
0.57
19
13
35
20
B
B
D
C
0.50
0.76
0.55
0.60
19
14
36
21
B
B
D
C
South Street at
Old South Street
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.74
0.86
0.81
0.82
26
23
20
22
C
C
C
C
0.69
0.90
0.87
0.85
26
27
25
26
C
C
C
C
0.83
0.92
0.88
0.89
33
30
28
30
C
C
C
C
Conz Street at
Old South Street
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.74
0.37
0.33
0.58
20
7
17
15
B
A
B
B
0.63
0.42
0.38
0.58
17
9
18
15
B
A
B
B
0.66
0.46
0.40
0.59
17
9
18
15
B
A
B
B
Route 66 at
Florence Road
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.46
0.09
0.51
0.37
0.49
9
8
8
7
8
A
A
A
A
A
0.49
0.14
0.52
0.36
0.51
10
8
8
7
8
A
A
A
A
A
aVolume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
cLevel of service.
d2006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned signal timing and phasing improvements.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-44 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-11 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Evening Peak Hour
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb LOSc V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
Main Street at South
Street and State Streetd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.75
0.97
1.02
0.85
0.91
39
59
57
44
49
D
E
E
D
D
0.82
0.85
1.00
0.87
0.88
39
54
59
57
50
D
D
E
E
D
0.86
0.87
1.00
0.87
0.89
41
56
59
57
51
D
E
E
E
D
Main Street at Elm Street
and West Streetd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.74
0.62
0.35
0.64
19
10
16
15
B
B
B
B
0.57
0.68
0.52
0.63
20
11
35
21
C
B
D
C
0.58
0.73
0.55
0.65
21
12
36
22
C
B
D
C
South Street at
Old South Street
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.86
0.77
0.83
0.82
26
21
20
22
C
C
C
C
0.92
0.80
0.86
0.86
32
23
22
25
C
C
C
C
1.02
0.80
0.86
0.90
47
23
22
30
D
C
C
C
Conz Street at
Old South Street
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
0.54
0.55
0.44
0.55
15
8
18
13
B
A
B
B
0.57
0.58
0.47
0.58
16
9
19
14
B
A
B
B
0.64
0.60
0.48
0.60
17
10
19
15
B
A
B
B
Route 66 at
Florence Road
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.27
0.50
0.43
0.43
0.45
11
12
7
7
8
B
B
A
A
A
0.28
0.55
0.45
0.43
0.49
11
13
7
7
9
B
B
A
A
A
aVolume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
cLevel of service.
d2006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned signal timing and phasing improvements.
Under existing conditions, the all four signalized study area intersections operate at LOS D
or better during both the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak periods. Future
signal timing and phasing improvements at signalized locations results in little to no
reduction in overall level of service between Existing and No-Build conditions. Project-
related impacts at signalized locations are minimal, resulting in no change to overall level
of service, an overall delay increases of five seconds or less.
Unsignalized Intersection Results
The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to evaluate the unsignalized study
intersections. The results of the analysis are presented in Tables 4-12 and 4-13 below.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-45 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-12 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Morning Peak
Hour
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb LOSc V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
Route 10 at Earle Street Eastbound
Northbound
0.39
0.06
23
8
C
A
0.50
0.06
29
8
D
A
0.78
0.10
67
9
F
A
Earle Street Northbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.01
0.15
7
10
A
A
0.01
0.16
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.27
8
11
A
B
Earle Street Southbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road
Eastbound
Southbound
0.01
0.05
8
10
A
A
0.00
0.06
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.10
8
11
A
B
Earle Street at Commercial
Drive
Eastbound
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.02
9
7
A
A
Route 66 at Earle Street Westbound
Northbound
0.03
0.13
8
11
A
B
0.03
0.13
8
12
A
B
0.04
0.16
8
13
A
B
Route 66 at Commercial
Drive
Westbound
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
8
12
A
B
Route 66 at Main Drive Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
8
0
0
11
A
A
A
B
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
8
0
0
11
A
A
A
B
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.14
8
8
13
15
A
A
B
B
Route 66 at Prince Street Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.17
7
12
A
B
0.00
0.19
8
12
A
B
0.00
0.26
8
14
A
B
Prince Street at Site Drive Eastbound
Southbound
0.01
0.01
7
9
A
A
0.01
0.01
7
9
A
A
0.01
0.01
7
9
A
A
Burts Pit Road at
West Site Drive
Eastbound
Southbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.01
7
9
A
A
Laurel Street at
Burts Pit Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.00
0.02
8
9
A
A
0.00
0.03
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.04
8
10
A
B
Burts Pit Road at
Clement Street
Eastbound
Southbound
0.11
0.09
8
10
A
A
0.11
0.10
8
10
A
A
0.12
0.14
8
11
A
B
Burts Pit Road at
Florence Road
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.25
0.12
0.44
0.26
10
9
11
10
A
A
B
A
0.31
0.14
0.48
0.29
11
9
12
10
B
A
B
B
0.32
0.15
0.49
0.32
11
9
12
11
B
A
B
B
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-46 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-12 (cont.) Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Morning
Peak Hour
Route 66 at Florence Road Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.02
0.01
0.65
0.50
7
8
23
19
A
A
C
C
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Route 66 at Grove Street Westbound
Northbound
0.00
0.05
8
11
A
B
0.01
0.04
8
11
A
B
0.01
0.04
8
12
A
B
Route 66 at Laurel Street Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.04
7
8
11
11
A
A
B
B
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.06
7
8
12
12
A
A
B
B
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.08
7
8
12
12
A
A
B
B
Grove Street at Laurel Street Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.03
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.04
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.05
7
9
A
A
a Volume-to-capacity ratio.
b Average stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
c Level of service.
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the majority of unsignalized study area
intersections currently operate at LOS D or better and are projected to operate at LOS D or
better under future No-Build and Build conditions. The one exception is the intersection of
Earle Street with Route 10. Under existing conditions, eastbound traffic on Earle Street
operates at LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour, with the movement projected to
operate at LOS F during both peak hours under future No-Build conditions, independent of
the Phase I redevelopment. Review of existing travel patterns indicates that Earle Street is
increasingly used by residents as a local “bypass” to the downtown area to access Route 10.
This has resulted in increased delays, particularly for left-turn movements onto Route 10
from Earle Street during peak hours. Phase I is expected to add only 34 vehicles per hour
(approximately one vehicle every two minutes) to the critical left-turn movement in the
morning and 64 vehicles per hour (approximately one vehicle every minute) to the critical
left-turn movement in the evening. Section 4.5 and Section 8.0 present specific measures to
address future traffic operations at this location.
Table 4-13 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Evening Peak
Hour
2001 Existing
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb LOSc V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
Route 10 at Earle Street Eastbound
Northbound
0.59
0.05
36
9
E
A
0.71
0.05
52
10
F
A
>12
0.07
>80
10
F
A
Earle Street Northbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.01
0.16
8
10
A
A
0.01
0.18
8
10
A
B
0.02
0.25
8
11
A
B
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-47 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-13 (cont.) Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary – Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Earle Street Southbound at
Grove Street and Texas Road
Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.11
8
10
A
B
0.01
0.12
8
10
A
B
0.01
0.27
8
12
A
B
Earle Street at Commercial
Drive
Eastbound
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
0.00
9
8
A
A
Route 66 at Earle Street Westbound
Northbound
0.05
0.06
8
10
A
B
0.05
0.02
8
10
A
B
0.06
0.12
8
13
A
B
Route 66 at Commercial
Drive
Westbound
Northbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.07
8
12
A
B
Route 66 at Main Drive Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
8
0
0
11
A
A
A
B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
8
0
0
11
A
A
A
B
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.17
8
8
12
14
A
A
B
B
Route 66 at Prince Street Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.11
8
11
A
B
0.00
0.13
8
11
A
B
0.00
0.17
8
12
A
B
Prince Street at Site Drive Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.03
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.03
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.09
8
9
A
A
Burts Pit Road at West Site
Drive
Eastbound
Southbound
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
8
9
A
A
Laurel Street at Burts Pit
Road
Westbound
Northbound
0.00
0.05
7
10
A
A
0.00
0.08
7
10
A
A
0.00
0.09
8
10
A
A
Burts Pit Road at Clement
Street
Eastbound
Southbound
0.05
0.20
8
10
A
B
0.05
0.22
8
10
A
B
0.05
0.24
8
11
A
B
Burts Pit Road at Florence
Road
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.23
0.36
0.53
0.57
11
12
15
15
B
B
B
C
0.25
0.40
0.58
0.62
11
13
16
17
B
B
C
C
0.27
0.48
0.63
0.65
12
15
19
19
B
B
C
C
Route 66 at Florence Road Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.02
0.04
0.85
0.77
8
8
59
35
A
A
F
E
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Route 66 at Grove Street Westbound
Northbound
0.01
0.07
8
11
A
B
0.01
0.07
8
11
A
B
0.01
0.10
8
12
A
B
Route 66 at Laurel Street Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.06
8
7
12
11
A
A
B
B
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.07
8
7
12
12
A
A
B
B
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.08
8
8
13
12
A
A
B
B
Grove Street at Laurel Street Eastbound
Southbound
0.00
0.14
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.06
7
9
A
A
0.00
0.06
8
10
A
A
a Volume-to-capacity ratio.
b Average stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
c Level of service.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-48 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.5 Mitigation
Measures are identified that address existing transportation deficiencies, as well as projected
deficiencies resulting from general background growth and project-related traffic increases.
These measures are categorized as non-project-related mitigation (measures that address
deficiencies that exist independent of Phase I redevelopment) and project-related mitigation
(measures required to offset project-related traffic increases). The nature, timing, and
implementation of specific mitigation actions needed to support Phase I redevelopment has
been refined through a consultative process involving the City of Northampton, CAC input,
MassDevelopment, and TCB.
4.5.1 Non-Project-Related Mitigation
Based on the results of the transportation analysis, a number of existing transportation
deficiencies currently exist within the study area. Future growth in area traffic, independent
of the proposed development is expected to further exacerbate these existing deficiencies.
In an effort to enhance the existing transportation system, a number of mitigation solutions
are identified to improve traffic operations and/or safety within the study area. The costs,
timetables, responsible parties, and funding sources for these improvements are defined
under the mitigation schedule section that follows.
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
The results of the transportation analysis indicate that safety deficiencies currently exist at
the intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. This condition is
attributable to the substandard roadway geometry at this location, principally the offset of
the northbound and southbound Earle Street approaches. In addition, bridge abutments at
this location, which previously housed an elevated rail line across Grove Street, results in
limited sight distance from both Earle Street approaches
While traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment can be adequately
accommodated within available capacity at this intersection, the proponent recognizes that
safety deficiencies exist which require mitigation independent of the proposed
development. Proposed improvements at this location entail removal of the existing bridge
abutments, which will significantly improve sight distance for both vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. In addition, it is recommended that this intersection be regraded to further improve
safety at this location. A Conceptual Improvement Plan for the intersection is presented in
Figure 4-16.
Based on discussions with the City of Northampton DPW, a future bike path is planned
along the former rail line (the “Manhan Rail Trail”), which will bisect the realigned
intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. The removal of the existing
bridge abutments and regrading of the intersection to enhance safety at this location is
consistent with the design of this bike path, which envisions an at-grade bike path crossing,
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-50 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
requiring the removal of the bridge abutments. The future location of this bike path is also
depicted on Figure 4-16.
Proposed improvements at this location will vastly improve sight lines within the
intersection and enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety. These improvements may
also address interim safety needs for traffic diversion from the Route 66 corridor once
reconstruction of that corridor is underway by MassHighway in the near future.
Further discussion with the City’s DPW will be required to refine the design plan for Earle
Street and Grove Street and Texas Road. MassDevelopment recognizes the longer-term
value of fully realigning the intersection to provide standard geometry and will pursue this
option more fully as part of the EIR for the Full Build program. Refinements to the currently
proposed safety improvements at the intersection will be undertaken as part of the local
review and approval process for Phase I redevelopment.
MassDevelopment has every expectation that an alignment alternative for a connector road
to the campus will be determined in the near future as part of the upcoming EIR effort.
Nevertheless, MassDevelopment has agreed to the CAC request that it proceed with the
design of permanent Earle/Grove intersection improvements, including sidewalk, within
three years if for some unanticipated reason the access road decision is delayed beyond that
time.
Route 10 Corridor Enhancements
The City of Northampton has been working with residents to identify and implement
appropriate pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along the Route 10 (South Street) corridor
that address long-standing safety concerns. MassDevelopment has participated in a
consultative process involving the Mayor’s office, the City’s DPW, the City’s planning office
and the CAC that has resulted in a set of clearly defined (and funded) actions to be taken by
the City to build additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the uniquely residential
portion of the Route 10 corridor. These improvements will not only improve the physical
infrastructure serving pedestrians and bicyclists who travel along Route 10, but are likely as
well to reinforce the 30 MPH speed limit that exists along this stretch of Route 10.
Motorists traveling north from the Easthampton vicinity along higher speed, wider lane
sections of Route 10 south of the Mill River will be transitioned to the residential portion of
Route 10 by narrower travel lanes, curbside parking, and clearly visible pedestrian
crossings, together providing visual cues to the driver of the residential, slower speed nature
of travel in this area. The enhancements will build on existing pedestrian infrastructure
along the Route 10 corridor as depicted in Figure 4-17. These improvements are shown in
Figure 4-18 and are as follows:
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-53 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• Side-Street Crosswalks. The City has committed to providing painted crosswalks
across each side street that intersects Route 10 between Old South Street and Earle
Street, and where applicable to provide necessary adjustments to curbing to ensure
obstructions to pedestrian movement are eliminated.
• Route 10 Crosswalks. The City has committed to a pedestrian crosswalk across
Route 10 at Olive Street, a location cited by area residents as an active crossing
location. In addition, the City is evaluating an additional crosswalk in the vicinity of
the South Park Terrace/Cahillane Dodge section of Route 10. The precise location
of the crossing is still under review by the City.
Through a separate funding mechanism, a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
the City will undertake additional pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along Route 10.
The specific engineering details are currently under review to determine the specific
materials and placement of pedestrian/bicycle improvements that are possible within the
available CDBG budget that has been committed by the City to leverage the State Hospital
redevelopment and its required permits. Additional infrastructure to be built using CDBG
funding is as follows:
• Sidewalk Extension. The existing sidewalk on the west side of Route 10 currently
terminates in the vicinity of Charles Street. The sidewalk will be extended to the
Mill River Bridge to provide continuity to a new Route 10 crosswalk in that area.
• Bike Lanes. The Route 10 corridor will be re-striped between the Munroe Street
and South Park Terrace to include bike lanes and associated signs on both sides of
the road. Where width allows, curbside parking will also be striped alongside the
bike lanes. The bike lanes and curbside parking lanes are expected to significantly
reduce the effective/perceived crossing distances of Route 10, as well as more
clearly communicating to the motorist pedestrian/bicycle presence along Route 10.
This may result in reducing travel speeds along this section of Route 10. A typical
cross-section of the Route 10 corridor with bike lanes and parking is depicted in
Figure 4-19.
Pending further engineering review of costs, the City is also considering the possibility of
designing the new Route 10 crosswalks at Olive Street to include a “bump-out” (whether
painted or raised curb) to reduce effective/perceived crossing distance across Route 10.
Earle Street at Route 10
A traffic signal warrant analysis indicates that a traffic signal is currently warranted (although
only marginally) at this location under existing conditions. The results of the capacity
analysis indicate that under future conditions, independent of project related traffic, the
intersection of Earle Street with Route 10 will operate at LOS F, with peak-hour delays
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-55 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
occurring on the eastbound Earle Street approach at this location. This is consistent with
the finding that Earle Street is used by local residents as an increasingly popular “by-pass” to
the downtown area for access to Route 10, particularly from the Florence section of
Northampton. Under future Build conditions, traffic operations will remain at LOS F, with
eastbound traffic on Earle Street experiencing delays (specifically for left turns).
While installation of a traffic signal at this location is warranted independent of project-
related traffic increases, the fact that warrants are met based on MassHighway criteria does
not guarantee that MassHighway will endorse signalization initially. The process for signal
installation involves community petition to MassHighway with supporting technical
data/reports and a preliminary (“25 percent”) design plan. Warrants are one measure that
MassHighway considers before allowing signalization; safety-related characteristics are
another factor. In this case, warrants are only marginally met (within 10 vehicles per hour
of minimum thresholds) and the intersection crash rate is below statewide averages – both
trends that suggest that MassHighway may initially require monitoring of the intersection
over time prior to endorsing signalization. Incremental traffic associated with Phase I
redevelopment is likely to be less than one vehicle per minute for critical left-turns, and
only during commuter hours – levels that are not likely to independently drive a need for
immediate signalization of the intersection. In fact, actual increases will occur over time as
elements of Phase I come on line, which may only occur over a two to seven year period.
In recognition of Northampton’s desire to address future needs at this intersection,
MassDevelopment is committed to working with the City of Northampton to advance plans
to signalize Earle Street at Route 10. To this end, MassDevelopment commits to funding
the 25 percent design of the traffic signal and associated engineering analysis at this
location so that this improvement can be recommended for inclusion on the State
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). It is through this process that funding for
implementation of this improvement may be achieved. MassDevelopment will also fund
complete design plans to MassHighway standards following inclusion of the project on the
State’s TIP.
In addition to committing 25 percent plans and engineering analysis for the intersection,
MassDevelopment will also monitor the operational and safety characteristics of the Earle
Street at Route 10 intersection following occupancy of its first commercial building to
determine the need for interim corrective measures that may be needed prior to
signalization. The framework of this monitoring program is described in more detail under
the Monitoring Program section.
4.5.2 Project-Related Mitigation
The following section describes specific mitigation measures, which are recommended to
offset project-related impacts on area roadways. The measures include a combination of
transportation design elements and TDM techniques, aimed at reducing the number of
SOVs traveling to and from the project site.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-56 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Site Driveway Design and Internal Site Circulation
The proposed Phase I redevelopment calls for construction of a number of driveways onto
the Route 66, Prince Street and Earle Street corridors. All site driveways will be constructed
to provide necessary corner radii to accommodate emergency vehicles turning into the site.
In addition, all site driveways will be designed to ensure that the required sight distance to
and from the drive location is maintained in both directions. Existing and proposed
vegetation should be regularly trimmed and signs and other appurtenances placed to ensure
that adequate sight distance is maintained at all times. Finally, it is recommended that a
STOP sign and painted STOP lines be installed to control exiting vehicle flows at driveway
locations.
MassDevelopment is currently coordinating driveway design for the primary site entrance
on Route 66 with the City and MassHighway to ensure compatibility of the design with
ongoing reconstruction of Route 66. The specific location and design of the remaining site
driveways will be determined in part by individual tenant requirements, and will be
designed to meet the City’s standards and requirements as part of the local review and
approval process.
MassDevelopment and TCB will also provide sidewalks on all new roads as part of the
subdivision process. MassDevelopment and TCB will also provide an internal non-
motorized path network to take bicycles and pedestrians from the Manhan Rail Trail,
through Memorial Complex, the Main Complex, and to the agricultural lands along the Mill
River both as part of the subdivision process and the special permit approval. This system is
shown in the approved master plan and (with whatever relocations are needed in the
detailed design process), will be in the final project. This path system will be developed in
tandem with the Phase I redevelopment of the project.
Earle Street Corridor
As Phase I redevelopment occurs, MassDevelopment is committed to upgrading Earle Street
from Route 66 to Grove Street and Texas Road to include pedestrian sidewalks along the
site frontage. This upgrade will provide a continuous connection to new sidewalks being
built along Route 66, which in turn lead to the downtown area and existing transit stops
served by the PVTA. Reconstruction of the Earle Street corridor along the site frontage will
occur as commercial tenants are secured and site construction commences. This proposed
sidewalk complements, and does not replace, the planned system of non-motorized paths
that are being planned within the site and is consistent with the potential longer-term layout
for the Earle Street corridor as depicted in the Master Plan.
The portion of Earle Street between Grove Street/Texas Road and Route 10 has been
identified in meetings of the CAC as a candi date for new sidewalks based on existing
pedestrian needs – independent of Phase I redevelopment. Phase I redevelopment is not
expected to generate additional pedestrian activity along this portion of Earle Street;
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-57 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
however, it is possible that longer-term build out of the redevelopment (beyond Phase I
redevelopment) may generate some demand between Route 10 and the site.
MassDevelopment will evaluate in more detail possible “Connector Road” alternatives
between Route 10 and the site, including pedestrian/bicycle connections along this future
connector.
Signal Timing Improvements
MassDevelopment is committed to timing/phasing adjustments as required to ensure
optimal operation of signalized intersections in the study area. These locations include the
Old South Street signals at South Street (Route 10) and at Conz Street; and the downtown
signals located at West Street (Route 66) and Elm Street (Route 9), and South Street (Route
10), Main Street (Route 9), and State Street. Implementation of those adjustments will be
conducted in coordination with the City and MassHighway as a measure to offset project-
related traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment. The schedule for
implementation is to be based on size, type and occupancy of buildings and will be
conducted within one year of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy issued for
projects permitted under this phase of redevelopment. For planning purposes,
MassDevelopment anticipates that timing improvements will be triggered by cumulative
commercial development of 50,000 s.f. or greater. A specific implementation schedule will
be identified in further consultation with the City of Northampton as part of the local
approval process.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
MassDevelopment and TCB as joint developers of the Village at Hospital Hill will
implement a comprehensive TDM program that promotes the use of alternative modes of
travel, and that reduces the dependence on SOVs.
The scope and effectiveness of the TDM program is expected to grow over time as
commercial components of the redevelopment come on line, employment levels increase,
and as planned area pedestrian projects such as the adjacent Manhan Rail Trail are realized.
A fundamental component of the TDM program will be participation in the Route 9 TMA,
which offers a host of TDM programs to its group of corporate and institutional members.
By pooling employees of individual commercial and institutional employers, the Route 9
TMA is able to increase the viability and success of certain TDM measures.
A summary of proposed TDM measures proposed is provided below.
Proposed TDM Strategies
MassDevelopment working in concert with TCB has identified the following strategies that
will be incorporated into the TDM plan for the NSH redevelopment.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-58 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
TMA Membership. MassDevelopment, when leasing property, will encourage individual
commercial tenants to become a member of the Route 9 TMA, and is considering this as a
provision of the lease agreements with these tenants. When selling property,
MassDevelopment will work with the City’s Planning Department to encourage and
facilitate participation in the Route 9 TMA by businesses acquiring property at the Village at
Hospital Hill. MassDevelopment has committed to provide proportionate funding for the
Route 9 Transportation Management Agency (TMA), as development proceeds, to support
the efforts of the TMA agency, or a successor thereof, to continue to work for trip reduction
measures in the vicinity of the Village at Hospital Hill. MassDevelopment will discuss with
businesses reduction requirements, and where appropriate will encourage such businesses
to take the place of MassDevelopment in supporting the Route 9 TMA Agency as
responsibility for the site transitions from the public sector to the private sector. More detail
on this approach will be provided in the EIR.
To maximize the benefits of regional TDM planning, MassDevelopment is committed to
working through the Route 9 TMA, rather than establishing independent programs limited
to The Village at Hospital Hill. At this juncture, MassDevelopment estimates that its
commitment to support the Route 9 TMA will cost approximately $5,000 per year. As a
member of the Route 9 TMA, MassDevelopment will coordinate strategies and programs
offered by the TMA including the following:
• Participation in area transportation events such as the Transportation Fair, Bicycle
Commute Week, and other promotional events offered by the TMA.
• Production and dissemination of TDM marketing materials and newsletters.
• Linkages to the TMA’s web site.
• Completion of employee surveys.
• Participation in transportation coordinator training.
• Participation in the guaranteed-ride-home program.
• Participation in ride-matching programs.
• Commuter choice benefits.
Commuter choice benefits are programs offered by individual employers that assist
employees with their commuting costs. Employers are offered a range of options to
subsidize transportation costs and take advantage of the tax deductions associated with
these subsidies. In addition, employers can offer employees the option of using pre-tax
income to offset the cost of commuting.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-59 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
On-Site Transportation Coordinator. As a landlord, MassDevelopment or its professional
property manager will work with individual tenants to designate an individual to serve as
the on-site ETC. MassDevelopment will also encourage other commercial landowners to
identify on-site ETCs. The role of this individual is to oversee the promotion and
implementation of TDM programs and will serve as the chief liaison with the Route 9 TMA,
and with building employees and state and city agencies, as required.
Public Transit Marketing Information. MassDevelopment and TCB are committed to
encouraging employees and residents of the Village at Hospital Hill to travel by transit as an
alternative to drive-alone commuting. To achieve this goal, MassDevelopment and TCB
will make information on transit alternatives available at various on-site locations including
commercial and residential areas, and other public places. MassDevelopment will
recommend that information related to public transit be incorporated into employee
orientation material for the various property tenants.
Carpool/Vanpool Program. As another alternative to public transit use, MassDevelopment
will strongly encourage the use of carpools and vanpools by employees working within the
development. Through membership in the Route 9 TMA, employers will be provided with
in-house ride-matching services for employees, coordinating with other employers to match
employees located either in the building or the vicinity. All employers within the Village at
Hospital Hill development will be encouraged to provide employees with information
regarding the Route 9 TMA and CARAVAN for Commuters and their ridesharing-related
services. These services include ride matching for carpools and vanpools via CARAVAN’s
databases, arrangements for the leasing of vehicles, and other services provided to promote
TDM strategies.
Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. In conjunction with the ride-matching
programs outlined above, one of the stronger incentives to foster the use of carpools or
vanpools is the provision of preferential parking on site. A number of employees may
chose to take advantage of the opportunity to park at a dedicated, convenient location
through the use of carpooling or vanpooling. MassDevelopment will designate a limited
number of parking spaces in convenient spaces to be reserved for carpools and vanpools for
employees at the Village at Hospital Hill. Roadways within the development will be city
owned streets; parking lots within the development will be privately owned.
MassDevelopment will encourage private developers to reserve spaces within the private
parking lots.
On-Site Transit Pass Sales. MassDevelopment and TCB will encourage transit use by
employees and residents of the development. Employers will be encouraged to make
transit passes available to employees. MassDevelopment will work with on-site retail users
to make transit passes available publicly. MassDevelopment will coordinate this effort with
the Route 9 TMA.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-60 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Guaranteed-Ride-Home Program. MassDevelopment is committed to implementing a
guaranteed-ride-home program that will serve to facilitate use of carpool and vanpool
services by employees of the development. Participants who choose to vanpool or carpool
will be assured that a ride home will be provided should they have to return home for
personal or work-related reasons and cannot use their normal ride. The Route 9 TMA
provides a guaranteed-ride-home program for TMA members.
Bicycle Storage. On-site bicycle storage will be provided for both employees and residents
of the Village at Hospital Hill. In addition, MassDevelopment will encourage commercial
tenants and landowners to include on-site shower and locker facilities to encourage the use
of bicycles by employees of the development. MassDevelopment will distribute
information related to the PVTA ‘Rack and Roll’ program, which allows commuters to
utilize both bicycle and transit as a means of commuting to work. Bicycle racks will be
provided at convenient locations, proximate to employment centers on-site.
Transit Connection to the Site. The Village at Hospital Hill is located approximately one
mile from the nearest PVTA bus stop, located at the Academy of Music in downtown
Northampton. MassDevelopment, in coordination with the Route 9 TMA, will work with
the PVTA to determine the feasibility of including the Village at Hospital Hill as a stop on
the regional transit routes currently serving the area, such as the routes serving the Cooley
Dickinson Hospital. As future commercial and residential development of the project site
proceeds and a critical mass of potential transit users is formed, MassDevelopment will
continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement transit service to the site.
Support for Car Sharing. Due to increased costs associated with car ownership and
increasing environmental awareness, car sharing is gaining in popularity. Zipcar, a
Cambridge-based company, places cars in publicly accessible places and offers them for
rent on an hourly basis. Based on discussion with the Route 9 TMA, the use of Zipcar is
under review as a potential TDM alternative for its members. While membership is
required to use these vehicles and a per-mile cost is assessed, this service is rapidly
growing. MassDevelopment supports the car-sharing initiative as well as the availability of
rental car services in the area. This service provides an alternative option for transit,
bicycle, or other non-automobile commuters who have the need for a car during the
business day. MassDevelopment agrees to dedicate, at no charge, several parking spaces for
shared community cars such as Zipcar, which would be available for project residents and
employees to reduce inbound city traffic. The site design will incorporate this feature.
4.5.3 Mitigation Schedule
Table 4-14 summarizes each of the committed mitigation measures that will be
implemented by MassDevelopment and by the City within the timeframe of Phase I
redevelopment. These measures include the responsible party, estimated cost, and
implementation schedule. The timing of mitigation is such that the mitigation will be
available as needed, to address the impact of concern.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-61 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-14 Mitigation Schedule
Improvement Cost Responsible Party Schedule
Earle Street, Texas Street,
Grove Street Safety
Improvements
$70,000 MassDevelopment Prior to occupancy of first
commercial building
Earle Street Sidewalk
Route 66 to Grove Street
$70,000 MassDevelopment Concurrent with
development of Earle Street
frontage
Route 10 Pedestrian
Improvements
CDBG
Funds
City of Northampton
DPW
Completion date Fall 2003
Optimize Traffic Signal Timing
(Up To Four Locations)
$10,000 MassDevelopment Phased schedule; wWithin
one year of final certificate
of occupancy of first
commercial buildingfor each
commercial building(s) –
Triggered by cumulative
development of at least
50,000 s.f.
Transportation Demand
Management
$5,000
Annually
MassDevelopment
TCB
Upon occupancy of first
commercial building
Earle Street/Grove Street
Design Plans – Long-Range
Alignment Option (Including
Sidewalks)
$30,000 MassDevelopment Within 3 years, pending
decision on status of final
access road alignment
Route 10/Earle Street Signal
Design/Permits
$30,000 MassDevelopment 25% Design by fall 2003;
final design following TIP
funding
Monitoring Program $5,000Annu
ally
MassDevelopment Annually, following
occupancy of first
commercial building
Downtown Signal
Improvements
TIP Chapter
90 Funds
City of Northampton
DPW
Ongoing; new controller
units by fall 2003
Monitoring Program
In accordance with the MEPA scope on the ENF, MassDevelopment has developed the
general framework of a transportation monitoring program that will measure actual
performance characteristics of the Phase I redevelopment over time. This monitoring
program will be used as a tool to report status of mitigation commitments made in this
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-62 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Phase I Report and/or Section 61 Finding, fine-tune mitigation commitments as necessary to
address actual Phase I transportation impacts, and provide supporting technical basis for
future signalization of the Earle Street/Route 10 intersection. The objectives of the
monitoring program are two-fold.
• To quantify actual traffic-generation characteristics (both peak hour and daily) for
comparison to projected traffic levels; and
• To quantify performance characteristics of the TDM program for the site, including
employee/tenant mode shares, vehicle occupancy rates, bicycle use, etc. This
portion of the monitoring program will be used to determine baseline performance
of the TDM program, and will serve as a basis for fine-tuning or adjusting the
program to encourage alternative travel modes.
The specific provisions (time periods, seasons, days of week, etc.) and protocols for
administration of the annual monitoring/reporting program will be developed in more detail
as part of the local review/approval process. The monitoring/reporting program will help
the proponents and the City determine whether the traffic mitigation is functioning as
intended, and will permit adjustments in location, focus, or strategy to be identified as
actual conditions become apparent and are compared with conditions as projected at this
time. The framework of the program is envisioned as follows:
• Annual Reporting. The monitoring program will be administered under the
direction of MassDevelopment, with reporting to appropriate City of Northampton
officials (for instance, the Planning Director). Annual reporting will be conducted
for a period of up to two years following occupancy of each commercial and/or
residential building. Annual reporting will also cite the status of committed
mitigation actions identified in this Phase I report and/or the Section 61 Finding for
the development.
• Employee/Tenant Survey. Administration of an employee/tenant survey annually to
measure transit use, carpooling, car-sharing, bicycle use, and participation in
programs offered through the Route 9 TMA. This will include reporting of
employer/tenant participation in programs offered by the Route 9 TMA.
• Trip-Generation Surveys. Collection of peak-hour TMCs and ATRs at site driveways
during a typical weekday. Observed trip generation will be compared to levels
calculated for actual building use, density, and employment using standard trip rates
published by the ITE.
• Route 10/Earle Street Monitoring. Collection of peak-hour TMCs and ATRs, and
manual recording of observed peak-hour vehicle delays and queuing for a typical
weekday. Accident records for the intersection will also be reviewed for the latest
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-63 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
available one-year period. The data will be used to determine corrective measures
that may be needed prior to signalizing the intersection.
4.5.4 Traffic Study Conclusion
As documented in this study, at the majority of study area intersections, project-related
traffic will be adequately accommodated within existing area infrastructure. On the basis of
capacity along area roadways, no specific mitigation measures are required to
accommodate project-related traffic.
Proposed mitigation as described above is recommended in order to enhance pedestrian
and vehicular safety within the study area. Overall, this mitigation plan addresses the
incremental impact of the project, as well as identifying appropriate safety-related design
improvements that may be implemented by others to address existing deficiencies. With
these improvements in place, safe access and egress to the development can be provided
and the development can be safely constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding
transportation system.
4.6 Air Quality Mesoscale Analysis
A mesoscale analysis was performed to assess the total volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
associated with motor vehicle emissions from the project. A mesoscale analysis predicts the
change in regional emissions due to the project. The total vehicle pollutant burden was
estimated for the No-Build and Build cases for the future year 2006 based on the traffic
analysis performed by Vanasse and Associates, Inc. presented above.
For each case modeled, the EPA MOBILE5ah computer program was used to estimate
motor vehicle emissions on the roadway network. Emissions data calculated by the
MOBILE5ah model are based on motor vehicle operations typical of peak periods. The
Commonwealth’s statewide annual Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) program was
included, as well as the state specific vehicle age registration distribution.
4.6.1 Intersection Selection
Intersection selection criteria for a mesoscale analysis is typically based on a Level of
Service (LOS) D where the project increases traffic volumes by 10 percent or greater, or if
the intersection operates at LOS E or F and the project degrades the location.
Based on these criteria one intersection meets these thresholds for the mesoscale analysis:
Route 10 at Earle Street. The traffic volumes and LOS calculations presented in the traffic
analysis form the basis of the air quality study.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-64 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
4.6.2 Emissions Calculations (MOBILE5ah)
For each case modeled, the EPA MOBILE5ah8 computer program was used to estimate
motor vehicle emissions on the roadway network. Emissions data calculated by the
MOBILE5ah model are based on motor vehicle operations typical of peak periods. The
Commonwealth’s statewide Annual Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) Program was
included, as well as state specific vehicle age registration distribution. The MOBILE5ah
inputs are based on the latest guidance issued by DEP9 regarding updated inputs to the
model. MOBILE5ah input parameters are listed in the modeling protocol provided at the
end of Appendix A. In addition, emission calculations are presented for the VOC Build and
No-Build scenarios.
The mesoscale analysis predicts the change in regional emissions due to the project. This is
accomplished by multiplying changes in traffic flow (in vehicle miles traveled10) by an
emission factor (grams per vehicle mile traveled).
4.6.3 Mesoscale Analysis Conclusion
Results of the mesoscale analysis depicted in Table 4-15 show an increase in daily VOC
emissions for the 2006 Build condition for Phase 1. The 2006 Build condition results in an
increase in AM and PM VOC emissions of approximately 1.1 pounds per day. Traffic
mitigation measures designed to minimize the increase are discussed in Section 4.5.2 of the
report to minimize the increase.
8 MOBILE5ah is an EPA computer model that calculates emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides
of nitrogen form gasoline and diesel fueled highway motor vehicles
9 MADEP: March 27, 1998 memorandum for MOBILE5ah inputs for performing microscale and mesoscale analysis.
10 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – the average daily traffic multiplied by the roadway link length.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-65 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 4-15 Mesoscale Analysis Summary
Pollutant Time Units Existing Build No-Build
Build minus
No-Build
VOC AM Peak grams/hr 293.4 351.1 317.3 33.8
pounds/hr 0.64 0.78 0.70 0.08
pounds/day1 9.14 11.14 10.0 1.14
PM Peak grams/hr 367.0 435.500 396.000 39.5
pounds/hr 0.80 0.96 0.88 0.1
pounds/day1 11.42 13.72 12.58 1.14
NOx AM Peak Grams/hr 459.7 470.9 425.6 45.3
pounds/hr 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.1
pounds/day1 14.58 14.86 13.42 1.44
PM Peak Grams/hr 575.1 584.000 531.100 52.9
pounds/hr 1.26 1.3 1.2 0.1
pounds/day1 18.0 18.28 16.86 1.42
1Pounds per day estimated by multiplying hourly peak value by TRB factor.
4.7 Mitigation Measures and Conclusions
4.7.1 Build Conditions
As is required when the mesoscale results show an increase in emissions from the Build to
No-Build conditions, the proponent has identified and reviewed all reasonable and feasible
reduction/mitigation measures to compensate for the increase in emissions associated with
the 2006 Build scenario. Please refer to Section 4.5.2 for a complete list of proposed
mitigation measures.
4.7.2 Construction Impacts
The construction contractor(s) will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan
(CMP), prior to the commencement of construction. The plan will address potential air,
noise, and traffic impacts and hours of operations and will provide a plan to eliminate,
minimize, or mitigate these impacts. The construction contractor(s) will be bound to the
terms of the CMP. Typical controls that may be incorporated into a CMP are listed below.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-66 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts associated with construction activities may generate fugitive dust, which
could result in localized increases in airborne particulate levels. Fugitive dust emissions
from construction activities will depend on such factors as the properties of the emitting
surfaces (e.g., moisture content and area of exposed soil or debris), meteorological
variables, and construction practices employed.
To reduce emission of fugitive dust and minimize impacts on the local environment, the
construction contractor will adhere to a number of strictly enforced mitigation measures.
These include:
♦ Wetting agents will be used regularly to control and suppress dust for exposed areas.
♦ Water will be applied during active building demolition operations and while trucks are
being loaded with demolition debris.
♦ All trucks transporting debris to or from the site will be fully covered.
Construction practices will be monitored to ensure that unnecessary transfers and
mechanical disturbances of loose materials are minimized. Surrounding streets will be
cleaned throughout the demolition and foundation construction period to minimize dust
accumulations. Any other off-site construction debris will be removed as soon as observed.
Noise
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize the noise generated by construction
activities.
Mitigation measures will include:
♦ A proactive program to ensure compliance with the City of Northampton noise
ordinance.
♦ Using mufflers on all construction equipment including ongoing maintenance of intake
and exhaust systems.
♦ Muffling enclosures on continuously running equipment, such as air compressors and
welding generators.
♦ Replacing specific construction operations and techniques by less noisy ones where
feasible (e.g., mixing concrete off-site instead of on site).
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 4-67 Transportation and Air Quality
Vanasse Associates, Inc.
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
♦ Scheduling equipment operations to keep average levels low, to synchronize noisiest
operations with times of highest ambient noise levels, and to maintain relatively
uniform noise levels.
♦ Turning off idling equipment.
♦ Locating noisy equipment as far as possible from sensitive areas.
Construction Activity Schedule
The hours of operation for demolition and construction activities are typically limited to
7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with occasional exemptions approved on a case-by-case basis for
special conditions. For example, if street closure were required for a particular activity,
evening work may be required to minimize traffic impacts. This will be coordinated with
the City and project site abutters in order to minimize impact on vehicular and pedestrian
traffic and abutter operations. Where specific conditions warrant it, extended or truncated
working hours may be utilized, recognizing that in some circumstances, neighborhood
impacts may be lessened by an early start or early cessation of construction, and also that
the duration of construction impacts may generally be lessened by longer working hours.
5.0 Historic Resources
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-1 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.0 HISTORIC RESOURCES
5.1 Introduction
NSH is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The National Register
listing was the result of a long and thorough process by the MHC to document and
nominate historically and architecturally significant state hospitals and state schools
throughout Massachusetts. The MHC consulted with DCAM and the City of Northampton
extensively on the nomination over two years, culminating in the hospital being listed in
the National Register on July 25, 1994 as a contributing complex to a Multiple Property
Submission of state hospitals and state schools.
Concurrent with the National Register listing, DCAM was in the process of closing the
facility and considering reuse options for the property. By August 1993 the last patients
departed the NSH campus and DCAM commenced consultation with the MHC to draft a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that would assure that historic preservation was
considered in future planning and disposition efforts. The two-year negotiation of the MOA
resulted in a final MOA being signed between DCAM and the MHC on August 10, 1995.
This section of the Phase I Report provides an overview of the status of compliance with the
MOA stipulations to date, reviews historic resources within the Phase I and Full Build
project areas, discusses stabilization of the former Main Building complex (referred to as the
“Old Main” complex), and outlines potential project impacts to historic resources and
proposed mitigation.
5.2 Overview of Memorandum of Agreement
The MOA outlined seven stipulations intended to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate adverse
project impacts to NSH. The stipulations are summarized below with a description of the
status of DCAM’s compliance with each and include updates since the ENF was filed in
October 2001.
Stipulation I - Northampton State Hospital Campus
Stipulation I outlines DCAM’s and MHC’s combined understandings about NSH and
describes broad historic preservation planning principles to guide redevelopment of the
campus.
Stipulation I is comprised of two parts, A and B. Part A outlines DCAM’s and MHC’s
understandings regarding the campus, including what constitutes contributing and non-
contributing properties, a listing of character-defining elements, and acknowledges that the
past uses of the campus may change in the near future as new uses may be found for the
buildings formerly used for mental health purposes.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-2 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Part B outlines three historic preservation planning principles to be incorporated into reuse
options for the campus: 1) preservation of character-defining features of the contributing
buildings and landscapes is to be encouraged; 2) if it is determined that it is not feasible to
preserve all of the features, preserving portions of the character-defining features of
contributing buildings is to be examined and encouraged; and 3) rehabilitation of
contributing buildings and new construction should be consistent with recommended
approaches in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Stipulation II - Marketing Plan
Stipulation II defines a detailed process for development, review, and distribution of a
marketing plan for the campus by DCAM. The marketing plan was to include, among other
things, a description of character-defining elements of the campus and information on
potential tax benefits. The stipulation provides opportunities for review and comment by
the MHC.
DCAM did develop a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) in 1996 and a draft marketing plan
in 1997, both of which were provided to the MHC for review and comment. The final RFP
and marketing plan were amended in response to MHC’s feedback and were distributed to
a wide mailing list, including contacts offered by the MHC.
Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP in October 1997, copies of which
were provided to the MHC. After extensive review of the submissions by DCAM, The
Community Builders (TCB) team was provisionally designated the preferred developer of
the campus on December 7, 1998. TCB’s proposal called for the retention and
rehabilitation of approximately 25 percent of the buildings on the campus.
Stipulation II of the MOA notes that following consultation with the MHC, for buildings or
landscapes for which there was no preservation submission that is feasible and acceptable
to DCAM, then they or the buyer of the property can proceed with demolition of buildings
or rehabilitation with new construction that does not conform to the Standards, following
completion of photographic recordation and documentation outlined in Stipulation V (see
below). The stipulation also notes that if a building or landscape does not generate
preservation interest in the initial marketing effort and is not demolished prior to the
commencement of a subsequent formal marketing effort, DCAM will make reasonable
efforts to support the development of the property in a manner consistent with the
principles listed in Stipulation I.B.
DCAM marketed the NSH property with a marketing plan and RFP that were reviewed by
the MHC. The marketing plan and RFP established a good faith effort to encourage historic
preservation principles. While the designated developer does not propose preservation of
100 percent of the contributing buildings and landscapes, TCB’s proposal was considered
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-3 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
by DCAM and the CAC to be responsive to the historic preservation principles outlined in
the RFP.
Stipulation III - New Construction
Stipulation III directs DCAM to encourage new buildings and landscapes that are
sympathetic or compatible with the character-defining attributes of the campus, and
provides specific guidance to that effect. This stipulation also endorses the Design
Guidelines provided in the City’s Zoning Code.
The NSH site is within a newly adopted NSH zoning district, Planned Village District,
which encourages a mix of commercial and residential development and open space
preservation. The Planned Village District standards are summarized below.
1. Project density and design will ensure that the project serves as a pedestrian-scale
mixed village and not as an automobile-oriented collection of independent uses.
This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
A. Maintaining a village appearance and feel on existing gateway(s) to
Northampton by using buildings to frame the streetscape and avoid holes in the
urban streetscape fabric.
B. Ensuring that housing and village uses are designed to maximize pedestrian
circulation within the project and connect to surrounding areas, both through
the design of circulation systems and through the design and layout of land uses.
C. Using building designs and design guidelines to create a compatible and
attractive urban village.
D. Using retail, institutional, and other land uses to keep the urban village tightly
focused and walkable, maintain a focus on gateway(s) to Northampton, and
respect surrounding land uses.
2. The project, including any concurrent road improvements, will not decrease the
LOS of any area roads or intersections below the existing conditions and shall
consider the incremental nature of development on the LOS. In reviewing projects
the Planning Board shall look at other projects permitted or planned for the Pioneer
Valley zone and consider the cumulative impacts. If requested by an applicant, the
Planning Board may accept in-lieu-of payments to fund a project's proportional
share of necessary improvements to mitigate off-site traffic impacts, including
provision of public transit and pedestrian or bicycle paths, in lieu of requiring off-
site improvements, when it finds that such payments, in conjunction with funds
from other projects or sources, will be used to fund improvements to mitigate traffic
impacts;
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-4 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3. Landscaping, new buildings, parking, lighting, and other improvements in the
Planned Village District must be designed and maintained to minimize the visual
intrusion to the surrounding area and to preserve and enhance the existing
"campus" layout or be designed to create a new compact and coherent village or
campus center appearance. The Planning Board shall find that this criterion is met
if:
A. Construction will cause no more than minimal disturbance of existing ridge-
lines and hilltops and will, to the extent possible, preserve existing specimen
trees and other desirable natural features.
B. All permanent mechanical equipment is screened from public view and from
views from surrounding properties and ways.
C. The design and appearance of proposed new buildings, renovations of existing
buildings, and other improvements are designed for visual compatibility within
the site and the surrounding area; or private covenants are established for the
development that require adequate architectural controls sufficient to ensure
compatibility within the site and surrounding area in the design, construction,
and maintenance of improvements. Generally, buildings should be a minimum
of two stories in height.
4. All feasible measures to mitigate on-site and off-site traffic impacts must be taken,
including measures to facilitate access to existing or likely public transit and to
existing or likely off-site pedestrian and bicycle paths.
5. Development must be designed to insure easy access to surrounding parcels in the
Pioneer Valley and to the surrounding open space.
Stipulation IV - Exempted Activities
Stipulation IV provides a detailed list of construction activities that are unlikely to affect
character-defining attributes of the campus and are thus exempted from further review by
the MHC. These activities include, among others, demolition or alteration of non-
contributing structures, new construction on Parcels C, D, and E, and new construction 40
feet or less in height on Parcels B (south of Grove Street), F, J, and the eastern half of K.
To date, no demolition, construction, or other exempted activities have been undertaken
that fall under this stipulation.
Stipulation V - Photographic Recordation
Stipulation V provides guidelines for recordation of the campus, prior to the demolition of
any contributing building, substantial new construction, or other major changes to the
landscape.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-5 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
DCAM undertook the recordation project in consultation with the MHC in 1999 and 2000.
The final recordation package was submitted to the MHC in 2000. In addition, an archival
copy of the recordation package was submitted to the City of Northampton in March 2002.
Stipulation VI - Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
Stipulation VI directs DCAM to encourage any designated developer to seek the
rehabilitation investment tax credit.
The proponents are currently exploring use of the tax credit for rehabilitation of contributing
buildings on the campus. The proponents will continue consultation with the MHC
regarding this issue.
Stipulation VII - Coordination with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
Stipulation VII provides DCAM with direction to coordinate State Register review with other
state and federal review requirements. DCAM is directed to provide a copy of the MOA to
any project proponent, which is then on notice to comply with review procedures under
the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The MOA is to be included in any documentation
submitted to any federal and/or state agency along with the MHC’s written comments
concerning the project, which shall be used to document a good faith effort to consult with
the MHC regarding historic preservation. The stipulation notes that the MHC, DCAM, and
interested parties agree that if the procedures in this MOA are fulfilled in compliance with
the MOA, the MHC’s comments will provide that, even if there is an adverse impact or
effect on the historic resources, all reasonable, prudent, and feasible means and actions
required to mitigate such adverse impact or effect have taken place under said laws and this
MOA and that it is in the public interest to proceed with the project.
Per Stipulation VII, a copy of the MOA has been included with this Phase I Report
(Appendix B). It was also included with the ENFs filed in 2001 by MassDevelopment and
in 1997 by DCAM. In addition, per the MOA, a copy of the MHC’s written comments on
the ENF are included in Section 9.0.
5.3 Feasibility Studies
5.3.1 Introduction
The proposed project is divided into two phases for the purposes of this environmental
review, Phase I and the Full Build. A detailed description of the proposed project can be
found in section 3.7. This section summarizes feasibility studies undertaken to date and
outlines further studies to be completed as part of the environmental analyses for the Full
Build.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-6 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.3.2 Feasibility Studies
In the spring of 1999, TCB commissioned Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. to undertake
an analysis of the complex, to further understand the feasibility of retaining and
rehabilitating the existing NSH buildings. The complete analysis is included in the Hospital
Hill Master Plan (TCB 1999) and is summarized below.
Initially, Dietz & Company conducted a survey of the site. The purpose of the survey was
to identify buildings that were the most likely candidates for retention. The survey resulted
in a preliminary recommendation of key buildings worthy of further investigation. Dietz &
Company then toured key buildings and prepared schematic layouts for three typical
buildings, following which a general contractor prepared preliminary construction cost
estimates for alternative office and residential use. The survey also identified several
residential structures on the grounds which might lend themselves to reuse, but whose
current location conflicted with the emerging Master Plan. Several area house movers were
contacted and TCB obtained preliminary cost estimates for relocating the structures to a
more suitable residential location within the Hospital Hill development. TCB also
consulted with other developers who might be interested in purchasing a portion of the
property for renovation of existing structures. An assisted living developer with historic
renovation experience and several commercial retail and office developers and non-profit
community groups looked at the site. With the exception of a few structures on the south
campus (the G Recreation Building, the Power Plant, and the Laundry Building), outside
developers did not find the Hospital Hill offerings to be attractive candidates for reuse.
Redeveloping the structures, even utilizing historic tax credits, was unanimously rejected by
these companies as being cost prohibitive given the buildings’ level of deterioration.
An important task of the feasibility study was to consider a number of criteria in identifying
buildings suitable for reuse. The first criterion was the suitability of a building for
conversion to modern, non-institutional uses. Many of the Hospital Hill buildings,
especially the ones in the main complex to the north, and the Memorial Complex to the
south, are massive masonry structures that do not lend themselves to easy reconfiguration.
Load-bearing interior masonry walls prevent the large, clear span interior spaces preferred
by modern office layouts, and severely inhibit the efficient layout of the spaces for
apartment use. Eliminating these interior walls, and providing alternative structural support
to meet building code would be prohibitively expensive.
A second criterion was building condition. Many of the structures within the complex are
severely deteriorated. Roofs, windows, and even some structural elements exhibit serious
neglect and decay. Replacing these elements, and meeting modern building code and
historic rehabilitation standards, would add significantly to the cost of redevelopment.
The third and most important criterion was economic feasibility. To test this criteria, Dietz
& Company and an experienced rehabilitation contractor examined the redevelopment
costs for three prototypical properties: Building 14 – Nurses’ Home; Building 15 – Male
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-7 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Attendants’ Home; and Building 8 – Memorial Complex Building E. In each case the
architect and contractor toured the building. Then the architect tested several prototypical
designs for apartments, office and mixed use, and the contractor prepared detailed
preliminary cost estimates for redevelopment according to market standards. The cost was
then compared to a rule of thumb construction cost estimate provided by the contractor to
determine how rehabilitation would compare to new construction.
The 1999 analysis concluded that, without taking into consideration the additional costs
associated with demolition and site preparation, the cost of rehabilitation might be
uncompetitive compared to new construction. These cost estimates, based on prevailing
wage and union labor rates were significantly above comparable market costs on a square
foot basis for both rehabilitation and new construction. According to the 1999 analysis,
construction costs would be approximately $120/s.f. for rehabilitation and would need to
be in the range of $75-$80/s.f. in order to be able to produce a cost competitive product.
Following preliminary review and analysis, a number of structures at Hospital Hill were
identified as worthy of further, detailed consideration for retention and redevelopment. The
structures are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Buildings Considered for Retention and Redevelopment by Dietz & Company
MHC
Building No.
Building Name Possible Reuse
Building Retention
7 Memorial Complex Building D Office
8 Memorial Complex Building E Office
10 Memorial Complex Building F Office
14 Nurses’ Home Apartments
15 Male Attendants’ Home Offices
38 Power Plant Industrial
39 Laundry Industrial
40 Store House Mixed Use
48 Recreation/Kitchen Retail
58 Coach Barn Mixed Use
Five of the buildings (10, 14, 15, 39, 48) proposed for retention in the original feasibility
study are proposed for reuse as part of Phase I (see Section 5.5 for more discussion on
Phase I). One is proposed for demolition (Building 38). The remaining four buildings (7, 8,
40, 58) will be considered for reuse as part of the Full Build.
The Dietz & Company analysis also examined Old Main and determined that serious
obstacles existed to its preservation, among them:
• the sheer size of the complex;
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-8 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• the dilapidated and unsafe condition of the structure;
• the required costly gut renovation and replacement of building utility systems;
• the inflexibility of the building layout and materials; and
• the location of building complex relative to other intended uses in the overall
Master Plan.
The Dietz & Company analysis was used to develop the Master Plan, which did not
recommend reuse of the Old Main complex. However, strong public sentiment for
examining the feasibility of retaining the building complex has prevailed throughout the
NSH public review process. In light of this, MassDevelopment retained Arrowstreet, Inc. of
Somerville, MA to undertake a more detailed reuse analysis of the building complex.
Recognizing that the 1999 market analysis is no longer current, MassDevelopment also
commissioned an updated market analysis as part of the reuse study. In addition, as
requested by the Secretary, MassDevelopment directed Arrowstreet to analyze the
feasibility of interim stabilization of the Old Main complex, to avoid further deterioration
due to weather, pending the conclusions of their further analysis. Arrowstreet’s analysis is
described in the following section and the narrative portion of their study is included in
Appendix C. A copy of their report, with plans and photographs, is on file in the
Northampton Planning Department and on the website www.northamptonplanning.org.
5.4 Stabilization of Old Main
Arrowstreet undertook a thorough analysis of the Old Main complex to determine what
interim measures would be required to stabilize the building while a more thorough reuse
study is undertaken. Arrowstreet accomplished the following tasks:
• Researched available archives to locate building plans for the various structures and
developed a composite plan for the entire Old Main complex;
• Completed a visual examination of the condition of the buildings that constitute the
Old Main complex, including the exterior envelope, interior spaces, structure,
building systems, and utility services; and
• Developed strategies and a budget estimate for temporary building stabilization
measures that could be undertaken to prevent further deterioration of the structure.
Arrowstreet confirmed to MassDevelopment that the Old Main complex is in extremely
poor condition. The damage to the buildings is extensive and severe. Years of neglect and
abandonment to the elements have already collapsed floors in some areas of the building.
The problems stem from breaches in the normally weather-tight building envelope. Rain,
wind, and freezing temperatures are furthering the decay of the buildings. The rate of
damage depends on the age and type of construction.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-9 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
This section summarizes Arrowstreet’s findings, including the tasks and costs associated
with interim stabilization. Arrowstreet has been further engaged to evaluate the work
necessary to rehabilitate Old Main for occupancy and reuse and the costs that might be
associated with that work. Concurrently, MassDevelopment has commissioned an updated
market study to determine what opportunities might exist for reuse of Old Main. The results
of those studies are expected to be available in the summer of 2002.
MassDevelopment has considered with care Arrowstreet’s findings on the tasks and costs
associated with interim stabilization. Measures identified to halt further deterioration of the
structure include temporary patches to the roof and exterior walls, temporary bracing of
collapsed or failing roofs and floors, and security fencing to protect the public. The
preliminary budget estimate for the work is approximately $870,000.
The study also concluded the following:
• There are no visible indications, such as major cracks, bulging masonry walls, or other
signs of structural distress, that would indicate the exterior masonry walls or roofs are in
danger of imminent failure.
• Given the severity of the damage to date, it is unlikely that continued deterioration over
the next 6 to 12 months will result in substantially more work or higher costs if a later
decision is made to rehabilitate the buildings.
This means that the decision to implement immediate stabilization measures to protect the
building can be deferred until the results of the forthcoming studies analyzing the
permanent rehabilitation of the structures are complete. The potential outcomes of the
studies are one of two: either, a viable reuse program can be identified for all or part of Old
Main and a targeted stabilization program can be put in place while regulatory review is
completed and financing is arranged, or, no viable reuse program can be identified for any
of Old Main, and the responsible action will be to proceed with plans for its demolition
and reuse of the site. MassDevelopment has concluded that in either event, the immediate
expenditure of $870,000 is not justified based on the conclusions of the Arrowstreet study.
MassDevelopment will implement elements of the interim stabilization recommendations
that identify a concern for public safety, namely, the porte-cochere at the central entrance of
Old Main and the Dining Hall addition to Three North. The porte-cochere is in extremely
poor condition due to roofing failure and localized collapsing. The southeast column
appears to be rotating away from the building and a large vertical crack has appeared
through the archway. The structure will be fenced off from the public. If the porte-cochere
were to be rehabilitated as part of a reuse scheme for the building, this element would need
to be rebuilt in its entirety, due to its severe state of deterioration. Please see Appendix C
for the text of the Arrowstreet study.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-10 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.4.1 Plans of Old Main
Arrowstreet developed for its study a composite plan of Old Main. Figure 5-1 is an overall
plan view of the complex. Figure 5-2 is a more detailed plan, showing the original (1856)
Kirkbride building, and six additions, constructed in the period 1900-1935.
5.4.2 Summary of Stabilization Analysis
The following are the key findings of Arrowstreet’s study on stabilization of the Old Main
complex:
1. The central, and oldest, part of the Old Main complex is in the worst condition.
Water entering the building has weakened the wood framed floors and caused some
floors to collapse.
2. The North and the South patient wards of the Kirkbride building also contain areas
where the floors have collapsed.
3. The more recently constructed parts of the building, wards Four North and Four
South and the North and South Infirmaries, have concrete floor structures that have
withstood the elements better than the earlier structures.
4. Water infiltration has extensively damaged the interior finishes, including cracking
or spalling plaster walls and ceilings throughout the building. Floors and floor
finishes are severely damaged at many points.
5. All the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems have been
abandoned and are not serviceable.
6. The roof has extensive leaks due to failed flashing and missing or damaged slate
tiles. Holes and skylight openings have also allowed water into the building.
7. There are extensive areas of collapsed or failing floors, roofs, and ceilings
throughout the building.
8. The exterior walls require substantial repairs, repointing, and flashing due to water
penetration.
9. All windows and doors require replacement. Restoration of the existing windows is
impractical given the extent of damage and the likely presence of hazardous
materials.
Arrowstreet also noted that previous studies of the buildings at NSH concluded that
asbestos and lead paint are present at the Old Main complex.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-13 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Arrowstreet found that despite the substantial damage throughout the complex, most of the
building failures are localized conditions. The most dramatic damage has occurred around
the central (and oldest) portion of the building, where most of the floors have failed and the
roof is leaking substantially. Finally, Arrowstreet reported that based on the field
observations, there are no evident signs, such as major cracking or bulging of the masonry
walls, which would suggest imminent catastrophic failure of the major walls or roofs of the
structures. While Arrowstreet did find that without intervention there is near certainty of
continued deterioration of the buildings, Arrowstreet also reported that deferral of interim
stabilization over the next year is unlikely to significantly impact either the existing
condition of the structure or the cost of work that would be required, should a decision to
restore and reuse Old Main be forthcoming. Figure 5-3, Typical Floor Plan Exterior
Conditions, shows the most prominent exterior problems at Old Main (for simplicity,
conditions for all stories, including roof, are shown on the first floor plan base). Figure 5-4,
Typical Floor Plan Interior Conditions, shows the most prominent interior problems at Old
Main (again, conditions for all stories, including roof, are shown on the typical floor plan
base).
5.4.3 Summary of Interim Stabilization Program
Arrowstreet next developed a set of recommendations for temporary measures to halt water
penetration into the buildings and shore deteriorated areas to prevent further collapse.
These included the following general steps:
1. Patch holes and openings in roofs and flashings.
2. Drain standing water from the roof of the Olander Building. Patch roofs and restore
drainage system.
3. Brace floors and roofs where structural framing is severely damaged.
4. Enclose damaged areas such as the porte-cochere and the Dining Hall addition to
Three North with fencing to protect the public.
5. Seal windows, doors, and other openings in the walls from the weather.
Figure 5-5 illustrates the temporary stabilization measures identified by Arrowstreet.
Arrowstreet concluded that a preliminary budget estimate for the temporary stabilization
measures above would be approximately $870,000.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-17 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.4.4 Future Study
The next portion of Arrowstreet’s study will investigate the work that would be required to
restore all or a portion of the complex for permanent reuse. Based on the evidence to date,
Arrowstreet foresees the following work that would be required to restore all or portions of
the building:
• An extensive testing program, including destructive testing of hidden conditions,
will be required by code to evaluate the extent of floor, wall, and roof deterioration
throughout the structure.
• Repair of the collapsed areas will require major reconstruction of floor and roof
framing.
• Any proposed reconfiguration of the existing load bearing masonry walls will
require structural reframing and may also require additional bracing to meet current
code requirements.
• Extensive repair of the building envelope includes replacing large areas of slate
roofing and rebuilding or repointing masonry walls.
• Doors and windows are severely deteriorated and not likely to be salvageable.
• Existing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems will need to
be completely replaced.
• All interior finishes will have to be replaced.
• Upgrades to building thermal insulation and vapor barriers may be required to meet
current code requirements.
• Rehabilitation efforts will also need to incorporate costs to abate the asbestos and
lead paint that have been identified in the building.
5.5 Historic Resources in the Project Area
5.5.1 Introduction
This section summarizes the historic resources within the project area and enumerates those
buildings proposed for retention and rehabilitation and those proposed for demolition as
part of Phase I. The buildings are identified in the Phase One Development Program
(Figure 3-3). In addition, photographs of each of the structures proposed for retention or
demolition are included in Appendix D.
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-18 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
5.5.2 Phase I Development
The Phase I development program, as described in this report, includes 100 dwelling units
and up to 152,000 s.f. of office/R&D/light industrial space. The Phase I program calls for
the retention and rehabilitation of six buildings, all of which are contributing structures to
the NSH National Register district. Phase I proposes the retention and redevelopment of:
Building 10 – Memorial Complex Building F
Building 13 – South Employees’ Home
Building 14 – Nurses’ Home
Building 15 – Male Attendants’ Home
Building 39 – Laundry
Building 48 – Memorial Complex Kitchen/Recreation Building
Five of the six buildings proposed for reuse in Phase I were identified as worthy of retention
in the feasibility studies undertaken for the Master Plan. The number of buildings proposed
for retention in Phase I has been amended slightly from that outlined in the ENF. At that
time, the South Employees’ Home (Building 13) was proposed for demolition. However,
the MHC and Northampton Historical Commission urged that a way be found to reuse the
South Employees’ Home. TCB and MassDevelopment have further considered the
feasibility of incorporating the building into the reuse program and have agreed to convert it
into eleven apartments. The overall Phase I program will remain at 100 residential units.
In addition, Phase I proposes the demolition of eleven existing buildings, of which nine are
contributing structures to the National Register district. The buildings proposed for
demolition in Phase I are:
Building 9 – Memorial Complex Building C
Building 11 – Memorial Complex A.P. (non contributing)
Building 22 – Residence
Building 23 – Residence
Building 32 – 16 Chapel Street
Building 38 – Power Plant
Building 42 – Storage Barn
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-19 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Building 47 – Memorial Complex Building G (non-contributing)
Building 52 – 10 Chapel Street
Building 56 – Horse Barn/Grounds Shop
Building 63 – Ox Barn
Seven of the contributing buildings (Buildings 22, 23, 42, 56, 32, 52, and 63) are all wood
frame structures and several are in extremely poor condition. One exception is Building 56
which is in fair condition, but is located within the Phase I residential development parcel
and its reuse cannot be accommodated by the proposed plans for the parcel. The reuse of
the barn is not compatible with the proposed small lot single-family residential
development that surrounds it. While current plans propose demolition, the proponent will
revisit its potential reuse in the context of the overall Phase I plan as it advances.
The number of buildings proposed for demolition in Phase I has been amended from that
outlined in the ENF. The South Employees’ Home has been removed from the list, as it will
now be retained and reused, and the Ox Barn (Building 63), 10 and 16 Chapel Street
(Buildings 32 and 52), Memorial Complex Building C (Building 9), and the Power Plant
(Building 38) have been added to the list.
The City requested that the Ox Barn and Red Barn be demolished or stabilized as part of
Phase I, based upon the City’s concern that the buildings are a fire hazard. TCB and
MassDevelopment considered this request and agreed that the Ox Barn is in very poor
condition and can be demolished as part of Phase I. However, the Red Barn is in no
imminent threat of collapse and its reuse potential will be evaluated as part of the Full Build
analyses.
As discussed in previous sections, the proposed development parcels for Phase I have been
expanded to give flexibility for potential developers and to be responsive to the commercial
market. As such, the Phase I parcel expansion at Chapel Street includes 10 and 16 Chapel
Street and Memorial Complex Building C. These buildings were called for demolition as
part of the Master Plan and this effort has been moved forward to Phase I. As part of the
Phase I studies and at the request of the CAC, TCB undertook an analysis of relocating the
Chapel Street residences. It was concluded that the cost of relocating, deleading, and
rehabilitating the structures far exceeded the cost of building new housing. TCB has agreed
that prior to their demolition, they will offer the houses for $1.00 for relocation by an
outside party. TCB will encourage that the reuse of the buildings be undertaken by a not-
for-profit organization. (e.g., Habitat, Valley Community Development Corporation).
The Power Plant (Building 38) was originally proposed to be retained and reused as part of
Phase I. However, additional analyses undertaken as part of conceptual development of the
site have revealed that the selective demolition necessary to reuse the building, including
76601\Phase I Report\5-Historic.doc 5-20 Historic Resources
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
asbestos abatement, boiler and piping removal, and stack demolition, while protecting the
basic building structure, is estimated at $790,000. This estimate does not include any costs
associated with rehabilitating the structure. The complete demolition of the structure is
estimated at $420,000, with substantial savings gained from demolition by cranes and
excavators instead of hand labor necessary to complete the selective demolition tasks. Neither
potential developers of the building nor the project proponent are interested in assuming the
high costs associated with selective demolition.
5.5.3 Full Build
The boundaries of Phase I of the project have been carefully chosen to avoid Old Main
(Buildings 2-3) and its subsequent additions (Buildings 5, 6, 41, 44, 45). While preliminary
analysis has concluded that the reuse of the building is neither economically prudent nor
feasible, the project proponent has agreed to undertake further, more detailed analysis to
determine if all or a portion of the structure can be feasibly reused. This structural,
architectural, and economic analysis will be undertaken as a component of the Full Build
environmental review process.
5.6 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
The Phase I development has been planned to comply with the spirit and intent of the
stipulations outlined in the MOA. As a result of careful analysis and planning, including
reconsideration of the South Employees’ Home originally slated for demolition, six
buildings are proposed to be retained and reused in Phase I.
The project proponent also undertook an analysis of stabilizing Old Main as part of the
Phase I analysis. Section 5.4 relates the findings of that analysis; MassDevelopment has
decided to defer any expenditure on interim stabilization until the results of Arrowstreet’s
study of building renovation feasibility and cost, and the updated market study are available
(expected in the summer of 2002). MassDevelopment will proceed, for public safety
reasons, to fence off the porte-cochere at the central entrance of Old Main and the Dining
Hall addition to Three North.
6.0 Water Supply and Wastewater
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-1 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
6.0 WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER
6.1 Introduction
The Northampton water system is supplied from three reservoirs: the 25 million gallon
capacity West Whately Reservoir, the 350 million gallon capacity Mountain Street
Reservoir, and the 750 million gallon capacity Francis P. Ryan Reservoir. The City’s water
system also includes two gravel packed wells that are typically operated in the summer
during peak flow periods. The City’s water system is currently unfiltered and disinfected
using gas to solution chlorination systems located at three different locations. Sodium
hydroxide and zinc orthophosphate are applied to the water to raise pH and inhibit
corrosion. The City’s average daily demand is approximately 3.6 million gallons per day
(mgd), and maximum daily demand is approximately 4.6 mgd. The permitted withdrawal
rate is 4.77 mgd. The City is currently in the design stage for a drinking water filtration
plant (bench testing is ongoing). Construction is anticipated to begin in 2003, and the plant
is planned to be online in 2005.
Average daily projected water use of Phase I is 41,820 gallons per day (gpd), and average
daily projected use at Full-build is 98,660 gpd. Based on discussions with the Northampton
Department of Public Works (see also City of Northampton’s November 21, 2001 comment
NOR.01 in Section 9.0), the City’s water supply is adequate to supply both Phase I and the
Full-build.
Northampton’s wastewater is treated at the municipal plant on Hockanum Road. The
treatment plant is an activated sludge plant, which provides secondary treatment for 4.5
mgd (average daily flow). Design capacity is 8.7 mgd. The City expanded the plant in
1999 (diffused air process, gravity belt thickener, sludge storage tanks.) It has no present
plans for further expansion. There is an ongoing program to address Infiltration and Inflow,
with full-time staff, and regularly conducts leakage repair and lining of problematic
segments of pipe.
Projected average daily wastewater generation from Phase I is 41,820, and projected
generation at Full-build is 98,660 gpd. Northampton has confirmed (see also City of
Northampton’s November 21, 2001 comment NOR.01 in Section 9.0) that the City’s
wastewater treatment capacity is adequate to meet the needs of both Phase I and the Full-
build
6.2 Existing Water Source and Distribution System
The Northampton water system is supplied from the West Whately, Mountain Street, and
Francis P. Ryan Reservoirs via two transmission mains. The Ryan Reservoir spillway
discharges into the West Whately Reservoir, and flow from the West Whately Reservoir
discharges to the Mountain Street Reservoir via a gravity flow main and brook. A 4.1-mile
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-2 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
long, 20-inch diameter main carries water to Northampton from the Mountain Street
Reservoir, and a 3.7-mile 36-inch main carries water from the Ryan Reservoir.
The water distribution system in the vicinity of the NSH property is shown in Figure 6-1.
The proposed reconstruction of Route 66 includes the replacement of these water mains
with a 12-inch diameter main. In addition to the municipal water mains in Route 66 and
adjacent streets, there is another existing 12-inch water main that crosses under the Mill
River, connects to a 16-inch water main on Federal Street and serves the property from the
north. The 12-inch main extends southerly through a network of mains on the property,
crossing Route 66 and connects with the 10-inch main in Grove Street. Also included in
the proposed improvements to Route 66 is the extension of a 12-inch diameter water main
west past the Ice Pond site as shown in Figure 6-2.
The Northampton Department of Public Works water distribution system computer model
was utilized to determine water system capacity and ability to handle the proposed Phase I
and Full Build development scenarios. Figure 6-1 shows the critical water mains in the
vicinity of the NSH property used in the water distribution system analysis.
6.3 Project Water Supply System Evaluation
Proposed Phase I and Full Build conceptual development plans were utilized to determine
estimated average day, maximum day, and peak hour water demands based on population
and type of water use. The Northampton water distribution system model was utilized to
determine the system capacity under average day, maximum day, and peak hourly water
demands. Available fire flows were also determined for both Phase I and Full Build
development conditions.
6.3.1 Proposed Phase I and Full Build Plans
The Phase I Development Project consists of up to 109 residential units and 152,000 square
feet of commercial development. Twenty-seven of the residential units are proposed for the
Ice Pond site. The remainder of the residential units and all of the commercial space will
be located on hospital property, primarily on the south side of Route 66.
The Full Build development consists of 207 residential units, 476,000 s.f. of commercial
development and a 75,000 s.f. assisted living facility for the elderly with 60 to 80 units.
6.3.2 Water Demand Determination
The water demand estimates are based on the projected occupancy of the dwellings and the
staffing of the commercial space. For the purposes of developing preliminary estimates of
the average water demand from the residential units, a per capita water consumption of 100
gallons per day has been used. This is a common consumption rate for planning purposes.
The consumption rate for the commercial space is 20 gallons per day per employee. For
the purpose of calculating water demand, the area designated as assisted living (75,000 s.f.)
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-5 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
was subtracted from the total commercial area (551,000 s.f.) for a total of 476,000 s.f. of
commercial development for the Full Build phase. For the assisted living dwelling units it
was assumed that one person would occupy each unit and for the other dwelling units it
was assumed that three persons would occupy each unit. Evaluation of real water demand
data for the Northampton water system for 1997 to 2000 indicated a maximum day to
average day demand peaking factor of 1.6. A peak hour to average day demand factor of
2.5 was selected based on water systems with similar capacities. Based on these
consumption rates, demand factors, and the extent of the Phase I and Full Build
development, the estimated average day, maximum day, and peak hourly water demands
are presented in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Projected Water Demand
Land Use Quantity Residents or
Employees
Per Capital
Water
Consumption
(gpcd)
Estimated
Average Daily
Water
Consumption
(gpd)
Phase I – Village at Hospital Hill
Residential 109 single family
dwelling units
327 residents 100 32,700
Commercial 152,000 s.f. 456
employees
20 9,120
Total Average Day Water Consumption = 41,820
Total Maximum Day Water Consumption (PF=1.6) = 66,912
Total Peak Hour Water Consumption (PF=2.5) = 104,550
Full Build – Village at Hospital Hill
Residential 207 single family and
mixed-income rental
dwelling units
621 residents 100 62,100
Commercial 476,000 s.f. 1,428
employees
20 28,560
Commercial 80 assisted living
dwelling units (75,000
s.f.)
80 residents 100 8,000
Total Average Day Water Consumption = 98,660
Total Maximum Day Water Consumption (PF=1.6) = 157,856
Total Peak Hour Water Consumption (PF=2.5) = 246,650
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-6 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
6.3.3 Water System Pressures
The impacts of the proposed development were evaluated using the Northampton water
distribution model. System pressures were analyzed under maximum and peak water
demand conditions for both Phase I and Full Build. The water distribution system was
modified to include the proposed water main modifications on Route 66 and critical water
mains located on the NSH property. As shown in Figure 6-1, it was assumed that water
would be drawn from two nodes, one located on the NSH property just north of Route 66
and the other located on the NSH property just south of Route 66. The model was run
using maximum day and peak hour water demands for both Phase I and Full Build by
simulating 50 percent of the maximum day and peak hour water demand on each node.
Water system pressures under worst-case scenario (Full Build under peak water demands)
ranged between 76 psi and 89 psi. This indicates that the water system has sufficient
capacity to supply the worst-case scenario water demand while still maintaining an
adequate system pressure (typically 70 psi to 100 psi). The predicted water pressures are
significantly higher than the minimum residual of 35 psi that is required by the State under
non-fire flow conditions.
6.3.4 Fire Flow Considerations
Because the precise location, construction type, and activity type for each building have not
yet been determined, the issue of fire flows was addressed by determining the available
flow, rather than the fire flow required by the proposed buildings. Fire flow availability was
calculated using the Northampton water distribution system model under maximum day
water demands. Available fire flows are typically determined by imposing the maximum
possible water demand at one location while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi
throughout the remainder of the distribution system under maximum day flow conditions.
Results of the fire flow analysis under maximum day water demands for Phase I and Full
Build indicate that the available fire flow is in excess of 3500 gpm. The available fire flow,
as modeled, is adequate for the proposed project under the worst-case scenario water
demand.
6.3.5 Conclusions of the Water Distribution System Analysis
The proposed Phase I and Full Build development do not include upgrades or the
construction of additional municipal water main. Evaluation of the water distribution
system indicates that the infrastructure, with the proposed Route 66 upgrades, has sufficient
capacity to supply the proposed Phase I and Full Build water demands and fire flows.
Phase I and Full Build construction of water utilities will be limited to onsite pipelines to
serve the proposed facilities.
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-7 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
6.4 Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines in the vicinity of the NSH are shown in Figure 6-
3. The hospital property is currently served by an 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer on the
Prince Street hill, which increases in diameter to 12 inches in West Street at the base of the
hill, and to 14 inches at Paquette Avenue. The 14-inch line connects to an inverted 10-inch
siphon under the Mill River which then connects to a 12-inch diameter pipe that discharges
into an 18-inch interceptor sewer on the east side of the river. A second 8-inch sanitary
sewer line extends North of the NSH Property and connects to the intersection of a 30-inch
and 36-inch trunk line on the North side of the Mill River. The proposed improvements to
Route 66 also include the extension of an 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer west past the Ice
Pond site as shown in Figure 6-2.
6.5 Project Wastewater Collection
Proposed Phase I and Full Build plans were utilized to determine estimated average day,
and peak wastewater flows based on population and type water use. The wastewater
collection system was evaluated to determine the system capacity under average day, and
peak wastewater flows. Available wastewater flow capacity within the existing collection
system was determined for both Phase I and Full Build.
6.5.1 Wastewater Flow Determination
The estimated average sanitary sewage loads are based on the estimated average water
consumption. Although sanitary sewage loads from domestic sources are often less than
the estimated water consumption due to uses that do not contribute to wastewater flow,
such as watering lawns and washing cars, a conservative approach for estimating average
daily sanitary sewage flows neglects these losses. Therefore, the estimated average daily
wastewater flows for new sewers, with negligible groundwater infiltration, are the same as
the average daily water consumption estimate. The maximum sewer flows were
determined using the TR-16 Design manual for sewer design. For a small population, the
recommended peak flow to average daily flow demand factor is 5.6. Estimated average
daily and peak wastewater flows are shown in Table 6-2.
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-9 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 6-2 Total Projected Wastewater Flows
Land Use Quantity Residents or
Employees
Per Capita
Wastewater
Flow (gpcd)
Estimated
Average Daily
Wastewater
Flow (gpd)
Phase I – Village at Hospital Hill
Residential 109 single family
dwelling units
327 residents 100 32,700
Commercial 152,000 s.f. 456
employees
20 9,120
Total Average Daily Wastewater Flows = 41,820
Total Peak Wastewater Flows (PF=5.6) = 234,192
Full Build – Village at Hospital Hill
Residential 207 single family and
mixed-income rental
dwelling units
621 residents 100 62,100
Commercial 476,000 s.f. 1,428
employees
20 28,560
Commercial 80 assisted living
dwelling units (75,000
s.f.)
80 residents 100 8,000
Total Average Daily Wastewater Flows = 98,660
Total Peak Wastewater Flows (PF=5.6) = 552,496
6.5.2 Wastewater Collection System Capacity
The evaluation of the wastewater collection system was performed on a percentage of total
system capacity basis. Estimated project wastewater flows were compared to total existing
wastewater collection system capacity. If a sewer pipe slope was unknown, the minimum
allowable pipe slope to provide a 2-foot per second solids scouring velocity was used. The
Manning formula for open channel flow was used to determine sewer pipe capacity. A
typical manning coefficient of 0.013 was used for all sanitary wastewater lines in the
analysis. For the 10-inch siphon, the Hazen Williams formula for pressure pipe and a
typical friction factor of 100 was used to determine the maximum capacity. Results of the
wastewater collection system capacity analysis are presented in Table 6-3.
76601\Phase I Report\6-WaterWaste.doc 6-10 Water Supply and Wastewater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 6-3 Wastewater Collection System Capacity and Project Wastewater Contribution
Pipe Description Length
(feet)
Slope
(foot/foot)
Maximum
Capacity
(mgd)
Percent
Capacity for
Phase I Max
Project Flow
(%)
Percent
Capacity for
Full Build
Max Project
Flow (%)
8-inch existing line down
Prince Street Hill 1000 0.012 2.44 9.6 22.7
12-inch new line
connecting to West Street
line
250 0.055 6.89 3.4 8.0
12-inch existing line in
West Street 525 0.022 2.35 10.0 23.5
14-inch line in West
Street connecting to 10-
inch siphon
255 0.017 2.61 9.0 21.2
10-inch siphon under Mill
River 100 0.01 2.60 9.0 21.2
6.5.3 Conclusions of the Wastewater Collection System Analysis
The proposed Phase I and Full Build development do not include upgrades or the
construction of additional municipal sanitary sewers. Evaluation of the wastewater
collection system indicates that the infrastructure, with the proposed Route 66 upgrades
should have sufficient capacity to handle the proposed Phase I development due to the
relatively low (10 percent or less) required existing pipe capacity. Phase I construction of
sewer utilities will be limited to onsite pipelines to serve the proposed facilities.
A more detailed analysis of the existing system is necessary to determine the potential
system upgrades necessary to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the Full Build
plan. Because the project wastewater flow is a larger (up to 23.5 percent) percentage of
existing sanitary sewer capacity, the existing sanitary sewer flows along Route 66 and Earle
Street will be further evaluated for the DEIR to determine the system’s ability to handle the
anticipated peak sanitary sewer flows for Full Build. It is anticipated that the existing sewer
in Route 66 has sufficient capacity to handle the additional flows contributed by the Full
Build plan. In the event that the existing Route 66 sewer cannot handle all of the additional
flow, then the second sanitary sewer line that extends north of the NSH property will be
utilized to carry wastewater flows to the 36-inch trunk line on the north side of the Mill
River.
7.0 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-1 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
7.0 WETLANDS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER
7.1 Wetland Resources
On December 4, 2001, project scientists from Epsilon Associates delineated off-site wetland
resource areas in close proximity to anticipated Phase I work at Grove Street, Earle Street,
and Route 10. On-site wetland resource areas associated with the Full Build development
scenario were delineated on December 20, 2001, with the assistance of Dr. Peter L. M.
Veneman.
In delineating the above wetland resource areas, project scientists followed the
methodology described in the DEP’s Handbook on Delineating Bordering Vegetated
Wetlands (March 1995), the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(January 1987), the New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee, Field Indicators for
Identifying Hydric Soils in New England, and Section 24:2 of the Northampton Wetland
Protection ByLaw (the ByLaw).
Three wetland flag series were placed, denoting vegetated wetlands. Each of these flag
series is described in the following section and depicted on Figure 7-1. Riverfront Area,
relative to Mill River, is described in section 7.1.2, and also depicted on Figure 7-1.
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding has also been identified, and is discussed in Section
7.1.3 and depicted on Figure 7-3. The Phase I Report is being provided to the Northampton
Conservation Commission for its review and comment, and an Abbreviated Notice of
Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) will be filed later this spring for verification of the
delineation. A copy of the Commission’s ruling will be included in the Draft EIR.
7.1.1 Vegetated Wetlands
The majority of the site is situated on a hilltop plateau and is thus devoid of jurisdictional
vegetated wetlands. However, project scientists identified and delineated the following on-
site and off-site wetland resource areas.
Wetland Series #1
Wetland series #1 exists tangent to the western bank of the Mill River, down gradient from
Earle Street (see Figure 7-1). In this location, the Mill River bank has been fortified with
large granite blocks that result in a distinct separation of approximately 25 to 35-feet from
the Mill River itself and this wetland (see Figure 7-2, photograph A). A dam exists where
the Mill River flows beneath Route 10.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-4 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Sixteen pink flags (labeled 1-1 through 1-16) were tied in the field along the wetland/upland
edge. Wetland series #1 may be characterized as forested wetland with a scrub-shrub
component (see Figure 7-2, photograph B). Dominant tree species in the wetland and
surrounding buffer zone include cottonwood, red maple, black cherry, American elm, and
oak species. The roots of these tree species were exposed and shallow rooted. A seasonal
high water table may impede their growth, which is at or near the surface at select times
throughout the year. Dominant shrub species included black cherry, redosier dogwood,
northern arrow-wood, honeysuckle, poison ivy, goldenrod species, and multiflora rose.
Primary hydrology to this wetland is derived from a series of pipes and culverts, which
convey stormwater runoff from Earle Street and Route 10, through this wetland system and
eventually into the Mill River.
According to the Hampshire County Soil Survey (Central Part), soils in wetland series #1 are
comprised of Belgrade silt loams (BaB), 3 to 8 percent slopes with areas of Raynham soils (0
to 3 percent slopes). Belgrade soils are moderately well drained and have a slow
permeability rate. These soils formed in marine or lacustrine sediments and are typically
found along existing streams or rivers including the Mill River. Most areas of these soils
were historically farmed with some degree of artificial drainage. The Raynham soil series,
which is similar to the Belgrade series, consists of deep, poorly drained soils on old
lakebeds. These soils formed in glaciolacustrine deposits and sloped generally range from 0
to 3 percent.
Wetland Series #2
Wetland series #2 appears to be a formerly cultivated field that has reverted to a wet
meadow. Invasive (and non-native) reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is the
dominant cover type (see Figure 7-3, photograph A and B). Random apple (Mallus spp.),
willow, and poplar saplings were identified along the edges. Primary hydrology within this
wetland is likely attributable to elevated seasonal high groundwater levels and slow
permeability rates associated with existing soil types (Belgrade and/or Raynham silt loams).
Wetland Series #3
Similar to wetland series #2, this wetland may have historically been a cultivated field that
has since reverted to a wet meadow. Dominant vegetation includes reed canary grass and
other wetland plant species such as willow saplings and steeplebush (see Figure 7-4,
photograph A and B).
The juxtaposition of this wetland in the surrounding landscape (e.g., at the base of three
hills), the encompassing watershed, and slow soil permeability rates (Raynham silt loam)
results in a groundwater discharge condition. Groundwater discharge areas occur typically
at the base of slopes (e.g., foot slope or toe-of-slope) where groundwater moves towards the
land surface and discharges onto or close to the surface. Such a condition is evident in this
wetland system, which has a consistent and gradual slope towards Grove Street.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-7 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
7.1.2 200-Foot Riverfront Area
According to 310 CMR 10.58 (in part), a riverfront area is the area of land between a river’s
mean annual high water line and a parallel line measured 200 feet horizontally outward. A
river means any natural flowing body of water that empties to any ocean, lake, pond, or
other river and which flows throughout the year. Perennial streams are rivers; intermittent
streams are not rivers.
Rivers or streams shown as perennial on the current USGS or more recent map provided by
the DEP are presumed to be perennial. If a river or stream is shown as intermittent or not
shown on the current USGS map or more recent map provided by the DEP, an assertion
that it is perennial must be supported with evidence by the person making the assertion or
by the issuing authority upon on its own initiative.
According to the applicable USGS locus map (see Figure 2-1), of the three wetland systems
delineated by project scientists, only wetland series #1 borders on a perennial stream or
river (i.e., the Mill River). In accordance with the Act, a 200-foot riverfront area has been
delineated accordingly from the banks of the Mill River (see Figure 7-1).
7.1.3 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
Bordering land subject to flooding (BLSF) is an area with low, flat topography adjacent to
and inundated by floodwaters rising from creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes. The
boundary of BLSF is the 100-year floodplain. It extends from the outer edge of a bank or
bordering vegetated wetlands.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FEMA-FIRM) (Community Panel #250167 0002, dated April 3, 1978), the Mill River has a
Zone A – 100 year flood boundary (i.e., BLSF) with an approximate floodplain elevation
ranging between 126 feet and 127 feet NGVD1 at the Route 10 dam (see Figure 7-5).
7.2 Wetland Impacts
7.2.1 Full Build
The majority of the Full Build development scenario will not occur within 100-feet of
jurisdictional local and state wetland resource areas (i.e., the “buffer zone”). Access
roadways and circulation patterns are still being evaluated and, depending on final design,
may result in encroachments into the buffer zone of wetland series #2 and/or direct
alteration of wetland series #3. No Phase I activities are contemplated to occur in these
locations.
1 NGVD = National Geodetic Vertical Datum
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-9 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Should it be determined that Full Build activities will occur in the 100-foot buffer zone of
wetland series #2 or #3, then a Notice of Intent application will be filed accordingly with
the Northampton Conservation Commission for review and subsequent approval. Wetland
impacts will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the best extent practicable in
accordance with the performance standards of the Act and ByLaw.
7.2.2 Phase I
Limited Phase I roadway improvements may entail realigning the northbound and
southbound Earle Street approaches to create a standard four-way intersection, and
lowering existing bridge abutments to grade to eliminate the sight barriers and sharp turn
from Grove Street onto Earle Street. Components of this work may result in impacts to the
100-foot buffer zone of wetland series #1 and previously degraded riverfront area
associated with the Mill River. Removal (lowering) of the railroad embankment will occur
proximate to wetland series #2. Roadway improvements (signalization) at the Route
10/Earle Street intersection may result in additional impacts to the wetland series #1 buffer
zone and the riverfront area. As noted in Section 4.0, the proponent will be developing the
design for this signal, with construction dependent upon later availability of funding. The
design will include appropriate mitigation.
As with the Full Build development scenario, a Notice of Intent application will be filed
with the Northampton Conservation prior to construction for those activities proposed
within the 100-foot buffer zone. Wetland impacts will be avoided, minimized, and
mitigated to the best extent practicable.
7.3 Mitigation of Phase I Wetland Impacts
Phase I mitigation measures associated with impacts to the buffer zone and previously
degraded riverfront area from roadway re-construction activities may include:
Erosion and Sediment Control Program
An erosion and sediment control program will minimize the risk of impacts to wetland
resource areas during the construction of the project. The program will incorporate Best
Management Practices (BMP) specified in the guidelines developed by the DEP and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)2 and will comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities. These measures may
include the installation of temporary erosion and sediment controls and construction
sequencing. Areas of exposed soil will be kept to a minimum and a permanent vegetative
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Storm Water Management for Construction Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-10 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
cover will be established after final grading as soon as practicable. Erosion and sediment
control measures proposed for site preparation and development phases may include the
following components:
Siltation Barriers - Siltation barriers composed of double-staked hay bales and trenched silt
fence will be installed between the boundary of wetland series #1 and #2 and proposed
construction activities along Earle Street and Route 10. These siltation barriers will
demarcate the limit of work, form a work envelope, and provide additional assurance that
construction equipment will not enter the wetland. All barriers will remain in place until
disturbed areas are stabilized by vegetation.
Catch Basin Inlet Protection - The inlets of any newly installed catch basins (or existing, on-
line catch basins) may be protected from sediment inflow during the work period through
the installation of “silt sacks” or by surrounding them with a barrier of staked hay bales or
gravel. In the latter case, a layer of filter fabric will be installed beneath the grates of the
catch basins.
Construction Stockpile Locations
There will be no storage of soil, gravel, or construction debris within wetland resource areas
for work associated with Phase I. Temporary stockpiles of piping and trench excavate
associated with the subsurface utility work along Earle Street will be contained with a single
row of staked hay bales backed by trenched siltation fence.
De-Watering Measures
The need for dewatering during roadway reconstruction work is not expected. However,
should the need for dewatering arise, then groundwater may be pumped through silt bags
and into the existing municipal stormwater management system via deep sump catch
basins. All groundwater discharge points will be free from visible floating, suspended, and
settleable solids that would impair the functions of a wetland or degrade the chemical
composition of the wetland resource area that eventually receives said water.
Spill Prevention Measures
A "Spill Prevention Plan" will be prepared prior to construction and submitted to the
Northampton Conservation Commission for approval in order to establish protocol and
identify contact personnel should there be a release of fuel or other product to the
environment. As part of this plan, a spill containment kit will be kept on-site in the Project
Manager's trailer throughout the duration of construction. Should there be an accidental
release of petroleum product into a wetland (or within the 100-foot buffer zone) the
Conservation Commission will be notified along with appropriate emergency response
agencies.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-11 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Slope Stabilization Measures
Reconstructed roadway shoulders along Earle Street will be stabilized with an appropriate
loam and seed mix or rip rap depending on the slope in question.
7.4 Rare and Endangered Species
The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has mapped
portions of the northern and southern sections of the project site as Estimated/Priority
Habitat of Rare Species (see Figure 7-6). In response to a written request from the
proponent for additional information, the NHESP provided correspondence dated
September 17, 2002 indicating that the Dwarf Wedge Mussel (endangered), the Squawfoot
mussel (special concern) and the Eastern Pondmussel (special concern) are known to occur
in the Mill River (or similar environment). In addition, the Zebra Clubtail dragonfly
(endangered) and the Brook Snaketail dragonfly (special concern) are known to occur in
unspecified habitats elsewhere in the general vicinity of the project.
Potential Mussel Habitat
Freshwater mussels can be found in a variety of waterbodies and at all depths as long as the
water is clean. Different species prefer different kinds of substrates; mussels can be found
in sand, gravel, mixed sand, cobble and even muck and silt3.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel – The Dwarf Wedge Mussel inhabits well-oxygenated streams and
rivers with sand, muddy sand, and gravel bottoms, slow to moderate currents, and little silt
deposition; it is never found in still waters4. No specimens have been documented
anywhere in the state since 1983, so the species may be extirpated from Massachusetts5.
Squawfoot Mussel – While NHESP did not have a fact sheet for the Squawfoot Mussel, it is
believed to have habitat requirements similar to the Dwarf Wedge Mussel6.
Eastern Pond Mussel - The eastern pond mussel prefers protected areas of lakes, in
slackwater areas or rivers, and in canals. Sand, silty-sand, and to a lesser extent gravelly
substrates of slow moving to standing water7.
3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office. 1996 – New England’s Freshwater Mussels
4 NHESP Fact Sheet (dated 1991)
5 IBID
6 NHESP Fact Sheet – Dwarf Wedge Mussel (dated 1991)
7 NHESP Fact Sheet (dated 1998)
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-13 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The preferred habitat of each of the listed mussel species is likely restricted to the substrate
of the Mill River itself although existing water quality and the presence of the Route 10 dam
may limit the amount of available habitat. Dams eliminate sensitive species immediately
upstream and downstream, and change the physical and chemical characteristics of the
river flows and bottom sediments8. There are no other identified intermittent or perennial
surface waterbodies on or near the project site that could provide suitable mussel habitat.
As noted in Section 7.2, impacts to the Mill River are not proposed or anticipated as part of
Phase I (or the Full Build scenario). In fact, Phase I roadway improvements along Earle
Street and Route 10 will likely improve the Mill River’s existing water quality by modifying
existing point source discharges that currently convey untreated stormwater runoff from
Earle Street directly to the river, to meet the nine standards outlined in DEP’s Stormwater
Management Policy (see Section 7.5 below).
Potential Dragonfly Habitat
There is little published information on dragonfly habits and general life histories (NHESP
does not have a fact sheet in their database for either the Zebra Clubtail or the Brook
Snaketail dragonfly). However, information that has been published on other related
species is most likely applicable.
Brook Snaketail9 – The Brook Snaketail dragonfly is known to inhabit sandy-bottomed
streams or small rivers with moderate flow and alternating riffles and deeper pools10. This
species has two distinct life stages following hatching of the egg. These are an aquatic
larval stage (nymph) and the flying adult stage. Most dragonfly nymphs are wholly aquatic,
only venturing out of the water to emerge into the adult form. Brook Snaketail nymphs
spend the majority of their time burrowing in the sand. Upon completion of larval stage
development (approximately 1-year), the nymph may usually crawls up directly onto the
bank of the stream to emerge, through it may utilize rocks or logs jutting out of the water
and even bridge abutments. In the first few hours following emergence, the adult Brook
Snaketail makes its maiden flight into the adjacent woods that surround the breeding habitat
as soon as possible. Away from the water, the dragonfly can find relatively safe shelter
among the leaves and branches of trees. During this time of wandering and maturation,
adult dragon flies can also be found in fields and in forest clearings, sometimes far away
from the breeding site, feeding on small aerial insects such as flies and mosquitoes. When
the maturation process is complete, which takes about a week, the adults return to the
stream to breed.
8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office. 1996 – New England’s Freshwater Mussels
9 Excerpts taken from Brook Snaketail Dragonfly (Ophiogomphus aspersus) Fact Sheet provided by Mr. Blair
Nikula, Odonotate News (ODE News), March 16, 2002.
10 Communication with Mr. Blair Nikula, Odonotate News (ODE News), March 16, 2002.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-14 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Zebra Clubtail11 – The Zebra Clubtail inhabits medium sized forested streams, which
usually have some intermittent rapids. Similar to the Brook Snaketail habitat, these streams
are generally sandy-bottomed with slow to moderate flow. Elsewhere within its range, the
Zebra Clubtail has occasionally been found on large lakes. Habitat requirements during the
nymph and adult life stages mimic that of the Brook Snaketail, albeit to varying degrees and
duration.
On December 20, 2001, project scientists inspected wetland series #1, #2, and #3 for
potential dragonfly habitat. Project scientists did not inspect that portion of the Mill River
north of the campus, as no work is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of off-site wetland
resource areas. Wetland series #2 and #3 are dominated by reed canary grass and do not
contain a permanent standing waterbody that could potentially provide suitable dragonfly
habitat. Wetland series #1 is a forested wetland with a scrub-shrub component adjacent to
the Mill River. While the Mill River could potentially provide suitable dragonfly habitat,
impacts to the river or adjoining wetland resource area are not proposed at this time.
Furthermore, the banks of the Mill River have been substantially altered, contain little
overhanging vegetation, and are fortified with large stones and thus would potentially
provide only marginal shoreline habitat (see photograph 7-2).
7.5 Stormwater Management Plan
7.5.1 Overview
The purpose of the stormwater management plan is to identify and implement facilities and
procedures to accommodate additional storm runoff created by development of the site.
The stormwater management plan addresses both quantity control (peak flow attenuation)
and quality control (treatment/settlement of suspended solids) and is based on guidelines
established in “Stormwater Management – Stormwater Policy Handbooks Volumes 1 and 2”
by the DEP. The stormwater management plan also meets and/or exceeds the criteria
established in Section 11 – Site Plan Approval of the “City of Northampton Zoning
Ordinance” and “The Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City
of Northampton, Massachusetts.”
7.5.2 Methodology
For storm runoff quantity control, structural stormwater facilities (also known as Best
Management Practices or BMPs) will be implemented such that the peak runoff generated
from the proposed (Build) condition does not exceed the peak runoff generated by the
existing (No-Build) condition for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year frequency storm events.
11 Excerpts taken from Zebra Clubtail Dragonfly (Stylurus scudderi) Fact Sheet provided by Mr. Blair Nikula,
Odonotate News (ODE News), March 16, 2002.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-15 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The proposed stormwater facilities will also treat incoming runoff by removing suspended
solids prior to release off the site for the first-flush runoff, which is considered to be rainfall
that generates 0.5-inch of runoff from paved surfaces.
The hydrologic calculations for this project have been prepared based on USDA’s Technical
Release No. 55 (TR-55) which takes into account drainage area size, underlying soil types,
land use, topography (slopes), and rainfall amounts for estimating peak runoff rates.
Drainage Areas – Delineation of existing condition drainage divides, flow direction, and
discharge locations are based on available site utility plans, USGS quadrangle maps, and
limited site reconnaissance. Delineation of proposed condition drainage divides are based
on the site layout as shown on the Illustrative Site Plan (Figure 3-2) with the assumption that
grading and drainage will generally follow existing topography but will also be affected by
proposed road/parking lot alignments.
Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) – HSGs were identified and delineated based on the “Soil
Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts – Central Part” by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources
Conservation Service). The soils generally are categorized in one of three categories: A, B,
and C in which A soils are more permeable (produce less runoff) than B soils, and B soils
are more permeable than C soils. Of note, the soil survey describes a portion of the site as
a complex of two soil types (both A and C) and for the purposes of the hydrologic
evaluation these soils were categorized as the mean of the two, as a B soil.
Runoff Curve Numbers (CN) – Runoff Curve Numbers were determined for each area by
land use and soil type based on TR-55 methodology values described in “Urban Hydrology
for Small Watersheds” by the United States Department of Agriculture. Specific values for
each area by land use and soil type are provided in Table 7-1. These values were used to
determine the composite CN for each existing and proposed drainage area based on
weighting coverage for each land use.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-16 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 7-1 Runoff Curve Numbers (CN)
Land Use Density Description
(Average Impervious Area)
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) CN
Open Space (<5%) A 39
B 61
C 74
Light Density (38%) A 61
B 75
C 83
Moderate (65%) A 77
B 85
C 90
Open Space (85%) A 89
B 92
C 94
Time of Concentration (Tc) – The time of concentration for calculation of peak flows for all
drainage areas (both existing and proposed) was assumed to be 10 minutes. This is due to
the recognition that all drainage areas currently have or will have similar flow
characteristics including sheet flow lengths, slopes and surfaces (which is typically the
controlling factor for time of concentration) and conveyance by closed (piped) drainage
systems.
Precipitation Values – Rainfall values for calculation of the peak discharge rates as shown
in Table 7-2 are based on maps and values provided in the “Atlas of Precipitation Extremes
for Northeastern United States and Southeastern Canada” by Cornell University.
Table 7-2 Rainfall Values Based on Storm Frequency
Storm Frequency Precipitation (inches)
2-year 3.1
10-year 4.5
100-year 7.9
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-17 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
7.5.3 Existing Conditions
Although the subject project encompasses approximately 102 acres, the stormwater
management plan does not include the northernmost tip of the property (approximately 12
acres) since that area will remain unchanged from the existing condition. The remaining
90.4 acres, which encompasses the proposed development, has been subdivided into five
discrete drainage areas based on the outfall location of each. Figure 7-7 shows these
drainage areas with existing land use density and underlying soils categorized by HSG.
Drainage Area E1 (Mill River – West) – This existing drainage area is approximately 23.6
acres in size and is located on both Parcels A and H, north of Route 66. The western side
of Old Main and the ancillary buildings to the west are included within this drainage area.
Most runoff from these buildings, as well as the courtyards, driveways, and parking areas is
generally conveyed by closed drainage systems which outfall at various locations along the
slope leading to a large wet meadow, west of the property. Although some of the closed
drainage systems and sheet flow release flow near or at the top of the slope, a large portion
of this drainage area is directed through a brick arch which outfalls to the swale that runs
northward along the toe of slope and to the Mill River.
Drainage Area E2 (Mill River – East) – This existing drainage area is approximately 24.7
acres in size and is located on Parcel A, north of Route 66. The eastern side of Old Main
and the adjacent parking areas and driveways to the east are included within this drainage
area. Runoff from the east side of Old Main, adjacent driveways, and a large parking areas
is generally conveyed by closed drainage systems which outfall to the Mill River at various
locations beyond the Smith College athletic fields.
Drainage Area E3 (Route 66 - North) – This existing drainage area is approximately 18.3
acres in size and is located on Parcels A and H and the Haskell Building parcel, north of
Route 66. This drainage area includes the Haskell Building, the South Employees Home,
the Nurses Home, the Male Attendants Home, the Engineers Home as well as other
adjacent buildings, driveways and parking areas. Runoff from these areas is generally
conveyed by closed drainage systems which outfall to the existing closed drainage system
within Route 66.
Drainage Area E4 (Route 66 - South) – This existing drainage area is approximately 6.5
acres in size and is located on Parcels B and B1, south of Route 66. This drainage area
generally includes the northern half of the Memorial Building Complex and adjacent
driveways and parking areas. Runoff from these areas is generally conveyed by a closed
drainage system which outfall to the existing closed drainage system within Route 66.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-19 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Drainage Area E5 (Mill River – South) – This existing drainage area is approximately 17.3
acres in size and is located on Parcel B, south of Route 66. This drainage area generally
includes the southern half of the Memorial Building Complex, the powerhouse and the
laundry building. Runoff from these areas is generally conveyed by closed drainage
systems within Earle Street which then outfall to the Mill River, generally located to the
south.
A summary of land use within each existing drainage area is provided in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 Existing Land Use Summary
Area (acres)
Drainage
Area Open Light Medium Dense Total
E1 6.5 0.0 17.1 0.0 23.6
E2 18.7 1.2 4.8 0.0 24.7
E3 5.8 3.6 8.9 0.0 18.3
E4 2.2 1.0 3.3 0.0 6.5
E5 7.2 5.7 4.4 0.0 17.3
Total 40.4 11.5 38.5 0.0 90.4
7.5.4 Proposed Conditions
For stormwater runoff comparison, the same area encompassed by the existing condition
evaluation is also evaluated in the proposed condition. For the proposed condition, the
same 90.4 acres has been subdivided into five discrete drainage areas with numbering
based on the same outfall location as the existing conditions. Figure 7-8 shows these
drainage areas with proposed land use density and underlying soils categorized by HSG.
Drainage Area P1 (Mill River – West) – This proposed drainage area is approximately 25.5
acres in size and is located on both Parcels A and H, north of Route 66. The majority of the
Old Main mixed-use area and the townhouse areas and areas to the west, which principally
consist of small-lot and large-lot residential homes, are included within this drainage area.
Runoff from these areas will be conveyed through new closed drainage systems to new
stormwater facilities that will release resulting flows at the bottom of the slope adjacent to
the large wet meadow west of the property, similar to the existing condition.
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN 2A (12,000 CF)
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN 2B (29,000 CF)
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN 3 (26,000 CF)
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN 3B (126,000 CF)
1
25.5 ac
CN=69
2
25.5 ac
CN=76
3
15.6 ac
CN=76
4
1.9 ac
CN=90
5
21.9 ac
CN=89
STORMWATER DETENTION
BASIN 1 (35,000 CF)
W3313\DP1\LUDENSITY 3/18/02
Type A
Type B
Type C
Figure 7-8: Proposed Conditions
Stormwater Management Plan
The Village at Hospital Hill
Northampton, Massachusetts
1 inch equals 400 feet
Feet
8004002000
N
S
EW
5
17.3 ac
CN=75
Hydrologic Soil Group Land Use Density
Open (<5 % Impervious Cover)
Light (38 % Impervious Cover)
Medium (65 % Impervious Cover)
Dense (85 % Impervious Cover)
Drainage Divide
Drainage Area Number
Area in Acres
Runoff Curve Number (weighted)
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-21 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Drainage Area P2 (Mill River – East) – This proposed drainage area is also approximately
25.5 acres in size and is located on Parcel A, north of Route 66. The eastern side of Old
Main mixed-use area, the small-lot residential homes to the east of the main access road,
and the large-lot residential homes at the northeast corner of the property are included
within this drainage area. Runoff from these areas will be conveyed through new closed
drainage systems to new stormwater facilities that will release resulting flows into the
existing closed drainage systems which outfall to the Mill River at various locations beyond
the Smith College athletic fields. The dedicated open space area to the east of the Old
Main mixed-use area will remain as sheet flow, similar to the existing condition which also
flows toward the Smith College athletic fields.
Drainage Area P3 (Route 66 - North) – This proposed drainage area is approximately 15.6
acres in size and is located on Parcels A and H and the Haskell Building parcel, north of
Route 66. This drainage area includes the Assisted Living Facility, the existing Haskell
Building, and the south portion of the townhouses along the main access road. Runoff from
these areas will be conveyed through new closed drainage systems to new stormwater
facilities that will release resulting flows into the existing closed drainage system within
Route 66.
Drainage Area P4 (Route 66 - South) – This existing drainage area is approximately 1.9
acres in size and is located on Parcels B and B1, south of Route 66. This drainage area
includes only the northeastern industrial building and adjacent driveways and parking.
Runoff from this area will be conveyed through new closed drainage systems to new
stormwater facilities that will release resulting flows into to the existing closed drainage
system within Route 66.
Drainage Area P5 (Mill River – South) – This existing drainage area is approximately 21.9
acres in size and is located on Parcel B, south of Route 66. This drainage area includes all
buildings, driveways, and parking on Parcel B excluding Drainage Area P4. Runoff from
these areas will be conveyed through new closed drainage systems to new stormwater
facilities that will release resulting flows into the existing closed drainage systems within
Earle Street, which then outfalls to the Mill River, generally located to the south.
A summary of land use within each proposed drainage area is provided in Table 7-4.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-22 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 7-4 Proposed Land Use Summary
Area (acres)
Drainage
Area Open Light Medium Dense Total
P1 3.8 15.1 6.6 0.0 25.5
P2 12.5 12.0 1.0 0.0 25.5
P3 2.1 2.0 11.5 0.0 15.6
P4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9
P5 0.7 0.9 9.4 10.9 21.9
Total 19.1 30.0 30.4 10.9 90.4
7.5.5 Comparison of Peak Runoff without Stormwater Management Facilities
Tables 7-5, 7-6, and 7-7 provides a comparison of peak flow from the existing and proposed
drainage areas based on hydrologic values (including land use and soils) described in
previous sections runoff for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storms, respectively. These
values are used to identify the increase in peak flow at each drainage area for the purpose
of sizing stormwater management facilities.
Table 7-5 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater Management Facilities –
2-Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 19 15 (4)
2 22 24 2
3 12 15 3
4 6 4 (2)
5 15 40 25
Total 74 98 24
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-23 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 7-6 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater Management Facilities -
10-Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 41 35 (6)
2 45 49 4
3 26 30 4
4 13 6 (7)
5 32 67 35
Total 157 187 30
Table 7-7 Comparison of Peak Runoff Without Stormwater Management Facilities -
100 -Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 105 99 (6)
2 113 119 6
3 72 73 1
4 31 12 (19)
5 79 133 54
Total 400 436 36
Note that without stormwater management facilities, peak runoff in two of the drainage
areas (P2 and P3) increases just slightly, and in two other drainage areas (P1 and P4) the
peak runoff is actually less than in the existing condition. This is due to the fact that the site
in the existing condition with many large buildings, parking areas and driveways generates
significant runoff with no stormwater attenuation facilities. These areas will be redeveloped
with similar amounts of impervious surface, thereby producing similar runoff rates.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-24 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Drainage Area P5 is the one drainage area that, without stormwater management facilities,
reflects a significant peak runoff increase in comparison to existing conditions. This
increase is attributable to both the increase of land use density (impervious cover) and
tributary area.
7.5.6 Stormwater Management Facilities
Stormwater management facilities will be implemented in each of the proposed drainage
areas. As discussed in Section 7.5.1, the stormwater facilities provide two functions:
attenuation of peak runoff flows such that proposed flows do not exceed existing flows, and
removal of suspended solids from the first-flush of runoff.
Structural BMPs such as deep-sumped hooded catch basins, detention basins, sediment
forebays, infiltration trenches, dry wells, water quality swales, as well as non-structural
BMPs such as street sweeping, will provide removal of suspended solids to state and local
standards.
Implementation of detention basins is especially effective for attenuation of peak flow
runoff. The outfall pipe for a stormwater detention basin is sized to release a prescribed
maximum peak flow rate, which is usually set at the existing peak flow or a lesser rate. The
basin itself provides temporary detention (storage) of incoming runoff from the closed
drainage system serving the tributary drainage area. The storage volume of the detention
basin is created by either excavation in and/or placement of a berm around an open area.
Detention basin sizing and location addressing each drainage area is provided in the
following paragraphs as applicable. As previously discussed, the stormwater facilities will
be sized such that the proposed 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak flows do not exceed the
corresponding existing peak flows. Since values relating to the larger 100-year storm are
controlling factors over lesser storm values, the detention basin sizing and peak flows
described in the following paragraphs will reference only the 100-year storm under the
assumption that the lesser peak flows, including those generated by the 2-year and 10-year
storms, will be correspondingly attenuated.
Drainage Area P1 (Mill River – West) – The 100-year proposed peak runoff rate is
estimated to be 99 cubic feet per second (cfs), which represents a 6 cfs decrease from the
existing peak runoff rate of 105 cfs. Traditionally, attenuation of flows from the proposed
development would not be necessary since there would be no runoff increase over existing
conditions. However, presence of the wet meadow to the west of this drainage area
supports that implementation of detention basin may be prudent. Establishing a peak outfall
rate of approximately 90 percent of the peak rate entering the detention basin (90 cfs)
results in a detention basin storage requirement of approximately 35,000 cubic feet (cf).
Based on average 6-foot depth, the surface area of the detention basin would be
approximately 100 feet long x 60 feet wide and is referenced on Figure 7-8 as Detention
Basin 1.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-25 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Drainage Area P2 (Mill River – East) – The 100-year proposed peak runoff rate is estimated
to be 119 cfs, which represents a 6 cfs increase over the existing peak runoff rate of 113 cfs.
Establishing a peak outfall rate of the lesser of either the existing peak flow rate or
approximately 90 percent of the peak rate entering the detention basin (107 cfs) results in a
detention basin storage requirement of approximately 41,000 cubic feet (cf). This drainage
area is likely to have two separate outfalls based on the proposed layout, therefore two
separate detention basins are anticipated and are referenced on Figure 7-8 as Detention
Basins 2A and 2B. Based on average 5-foot depth, the surface area of Detention Basin 2A
(12,000 cf) would be approximately 70 feet long x 40 feet wide and Detention Basin 2B
(29,000 cf) would be approximately 90 feet long x 65 feet wide.
Drainage Area P3 (Route 66 - North) – The 100-year proposed peak runoff rate is estimated
to be 73 cfs, which represents a 1 cfs increase over the existing peak runoff rate of 72 cfs.
Establishing a peak outfall rate to the lesser of either the existing peak flow rate or
approximately 90 percent of the peak rate entering the detention basin (65 cfs) results in a
detention basin storage requirement of approximately 26,000 cubic feet (cf). Based on
average 5-foot depth, the surface area of the detention basin would be approximately 80
feet long x 65 feet wide and is referenced on Figure 7-8 as Detention Basin 3.
Drainage Area P4 (Route 66 - South) – The 100-year proposed peak runoff rate is estimated
to be 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), which represents a 19 cfs decrease from the existing
peak runoff rate of 31 cfs. Coupled with reductions from stormwater improvements within
Drainage Area P3, the combined 100-year peak rate to the Route 66 closed drainage system
will be reduced from 103 cfs to 77 cfs, approximately a 25 percent reduction. Since peak
flows into the Route 66 closed drainage system are already significantly reduced, a
detention basin for Drainage Area P4 is deemed to be unnecessary. However, other
stormwater facilities will still be implemented in this drainage area to provide treatment of
first flush runoff.
Drainage Area P5 (Mill River – South) – The 100-year proposed peak runoff rate is
estimated to be 133 cfs, which represents a 54 cfs increase over the existing peak runoff
rate of 79 cfs. Establishing a peak outfall rate to the existing peak flow rate results in a
detention basin storage requirement of approximately 126,000 cubic feet (cf). Based on
average 6-foot depth, the surface area of each detention basin would be approximately 170
feet long x 120 feet wide and is referenced on Figure 7-8 as Detention Basin 5.
7.5.7 Comparison of Peak Runoff without Stormwater Management Facilities
Tables 7-8, 7-9 and 7-10 provides a comparison of peak flow from the existing drainage
areas and proposed drainage areas with implementation of stormwater management
facilities for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storms, respectively.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-26 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 7-8 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management Facilities -
2-Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 19 13 (6)
2 22 21 (1)
3 12 12 (0)
4 6 4 (2)
5 15 15 0
Total 74 65 (9)
Table 7-9 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management Facilities -
10-Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 41 31 (10)
2 45 44 (1)
3 26 26 (0)
4 13 6 (7)
5 32 32 0
Total 157 139 (18)
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-27 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 7-10 Comparison of Peak Runoff With Stormwater Management Facilities -
100-Year Storm
Peak Flow (cubic feet per second)
Drainage Area Existing Proposed Increase / (Decrease)
1 105 90 (15)
2 113 107 (6)
3 72 65 (7)
4 31 12 (19)
5 79 79 0
Total 400 353 (47)
With implementation of detention basins in four of the five drainage areas, the proposed
peak flow rate in all drainage areas will be equal or less than the existing peak runoff rate
for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storms as shown by Tables 7-8, 7-9 and 7-10,
respectively. The total peak runoff rate from the site will be reduced approximately 12
percent for the 2-year storm, 11 percent for the 10-year storm, and 11 percent for the 100-
year storm.
7.5.8 Massachusetts Stormwater Policy
The Stormwater Management Plan for the project has been developed based on
“Stormwater Management – Stormwater Policy Handbooks Volumes 1 and 2” by the DEP,
which is used as guidance by both state and local regulatory agencies. The Stormwater
Policy identifies nine performance standards that site development projects should meet.
The standards and a brief response how the proposed project will achieve compliance with
each standard is provided below.
1. No new stormwater conveyances may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or
cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.
All proposed drainage areas will incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs to
treat runoff prior to discharge to waters of the Commonwealth. Downstream
erosion will be deterred through use of outfall stabilization methods (such as riprap
splash pads) as applicable. Also, erosion is less likely to occur since the proposed
peak runoff will be equal to or less than existing peak runoff.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-28 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
2. Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak
discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.
Stormwater detention basins will be implemented such that proposed peak runoff
will be equal to or less than existing peak runoff for all drainage areas as well as the
total site.
3. Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of
infiltration measures to the maximum extent practicable. The annual recharge from
the post-development site should approximate the annual recharge from the pre-
development of existing site conditions, based on soil types.
Infiltration trenches and dry wells will be used to the extent practicable in areas of
permeable soils to recharge surface flows to groundwater. Stormwater detention
basins may also be designed with an infiltration component if suitable underlying
soils are found in those areas. The groundwater recharge volume will be based on
the area of impervious coverage over the hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) as follows:
0.4 inches for Type A soils, 0.25 inches for Type B soils, and 0.1 inches for Type C
soils.
4. For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to
remove 80 percent of the average annual load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
The 80 percent TSS removal rates will be accomplished through a various structural
BMPs including deep-sumped hooded catch basins, detention basins, sediment
forebays, infiltration trenches, dry wells, and water quality swales, as well as non-
structural BMPs such as street sweeping. Most runoff will be routed through the
typical series of BMPs to include street weeping, deep-sumped hooded catch basins,
sediment forebay, and detention basin providing a composite TSS removal of
approximately 87 percent.
5. Stormwater discharges from areas with higher potential pollutant loads require the
use of specific stormwater management BMPs.
There are no proposed land uses that are defined under the stormwater policy as
having a higher potential pollutant load.
6. Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize stormwater management BMPs
approved for critical areas.
The project does not have any discharges to a critical area as defined by the
stormwater policy.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-29 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
7. Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater
Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. However, if it is not
practicable to meet all the Standards, new stormwater management systems must
be designed to improve existing conditions.
The proposed project principally involves the redevelopment of the former state
hospital. Structural and non-structural stormwater BMPs have been provided to
attenuate and treat runoff from the proposed conditions to the extent practicable and
result in an improvement over existing conditions.
8. Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during
construction or land disturbance activities.
Erosion and sediment controls will be used during construction activities to ensure
compliance with state and local policies as well as EPA’s NPDES stormwater
regulations. A discussion is provided in Section 7.5.9.
9. All stormwater management systems must have an operation and maintenance plan
to ensure that systems function as designed.
The design of the proposed stormwater facilities will include a detailed operation
and maintenance (O&M) plan including a description, inspection and
implementation schedules, and procedures for carrying out each activity associated
for each BMP. At a minimum, the stormwater management O&M plan will have the
following components:
♦ Street sweeping will be performed every spring.
♦ Deep-sumped, hooded catch basins will be cleaned once per year.
♦ Sediment within forebays will be removed if more than one-third full.
♦ Detention facilities will be inspected after major storms (greater than 0.5 inches
of rainfall). Debris will be removed.
♦ Vegetated BMPs will be mowed at least twice per year. Woody vegetation will
be removed.
♦ Maintenance personnel will keep records of inspection and maintenance
activities including date and description of activities performed.
♦ Any structural BMP found to be functioning improperly will be repaired or
replaced accordingly.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-30 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
7.5.9 Construction Impacts / Mitigation
The proposed project will result in the disturbance of more than five acres of land and
therefore will require the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPP) in accordance with the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Program for Stormwater Discharges for
Construction Sites.
Various methods will be utilized to minimize the erosion of disturbed surfaces and transport
of sediments within the limit of work and onto adjacent properties during construction
activities. The most prevalent erosion and sediment control methods to be used will
included hay bale/silt fence combinations, temporary diversion channels, sediment traps,
stabilized construction entrances, and slope stabilization. Implementation of the erosion
and sediment controls will be in accordance with the “Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas – A Guide for Planners, Designers and
Municipal Officials” by the DEP. A description of each method cited is provided below.
Hay bale / Silt Fence Combination – Hay bales are set “butt to butt” into the ground and
secured to the ground by two wood stakes. Silt fences are a semi-permeable barrier made
of a synthetic fabric stable to wooden stakes secured into the ground. Placed side-by side
(usually perpendicular to the surface flow), the silt/silt fence combination provides a barrier
to the runoff, resulting in slower flow velocities in which entrained sediment can settle out
and remain within the limit of disturbance.
Temporary Diversion Channels – Temporary diversion channels are typical shallow ditches
or berms that are placed to intercept sheet runoff. The purpose may be either to direct the
intercepted flow away from a sensitive area (such as a steep slope) or into a sediment trap.
These channels are sometimes seeded to provide vegetative protection against erosive
velocities.
Sediment Traps – Temporary sediment traps are excavated or bermed facilities that provide
a storage volume for runoff such that entrained sediments may settle over a set time.
Sediment traps are typically implemented at the low points within the area of disturbance in
conjunction with temporary diversion channels.
Stabilized Construction Entrance – Stabilized construction entrances will be established at
each construction egress to enhance removal of soils/muds attached to tires prior to
construction vehicles entering public roads. The entrance is comprised of a minimum 25-
foot wide, 6-inch thick bed of 2-inch crushed stone extending a distance of at least 50 feet
into the construction site. Stone will be replenished as necessary to maintain proper
dimensions and function. Tire washes will be provided if the stabilized construction
entrance is deemed inadequate alone.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-31 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Vegetative Stabilization – Temporary slope stabilization will utilize seeding with annual
grasses (such as annual rye) due to rapid germination and production of rootmass.
Permanent vegetation will utilize perennial grasses. Establishment of vegetative cover will
typically be performed by hydroseeding, although sodding may be used in permanent,
landscaped areas. Suitable topsoil, proper seed bed preparation, lime, fertilizer and
consistent watering are required for effective establishment of vegetative stabilization.
Mulch may also be used for permanent seeding for erosion-prone area, such as steep
slopes.
Operation and Maintenance Plan– The SWPP will identify the operation and maintenance
(O&M) activities that shall be the responsibility of the on-site contractor. At a minimum, the
erosion and sediment control O&M plan will have the following components:
• Sediment within traps will be removed if more than one-third full. Sediments behind
silt/silt fence combinations will be removed if greater than 6 inches.
• All erosion and sediment controls will be inspected after each rain event. Debris
will be removed.
• Maintenance personnel will keep records of inspection and maintenance activities
including date and description of activities performed.
• Any erosion and sediment control found to be functioning improperly shall be
repaired or replaced accordingly.
• Erosion and sediment controls will remain in place until all tributary areas have
been stabilized. After removal of controls, the disturbed areas shall be regarded and
stabilized as necessary.
7.5.10 Phase 1 Impacts
The Stormwater Management Plan described to this point relates to the entire project, as if
work in all drainage areas would be constructed simultaneously. However, the project will
proceed in a sequenced manner beginning with Phase 1 as presented in this report. Since
Phase 1 incorporates work in four different drainage areas (1, 3, 4, and 5), stormwater
management facilities must be correspondingly implemented in each.
For Drainage Areas 3, 4 and 5 where a significant portion of each area is being developed,
it would be prudent to construct at least a portion of the stormwater detention basins and
other BMPs. Should full-size facilities be constructed, the stormwater peak flows released
from each area under Phase 1 would be well below the peak flows for full build-out and
would therefore be adequate. Otherwise, the stormwater facilities can be constructed to a
size in proportion to the development of the watershed with the potential for expansion to
the full size.
76601\Phase I Report\7-WetWildStorm.doc 7-32 Wetlands, Wildlife and Stormwater
Tighe & Bond
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
For Drainage Area 1, the proposed Phase 1 construction is minor in comparison to full
build-out. Construction of the stormwater facility for the entire drainage area as shown on
Figure 7-8, may be cost prohibitive from a phasing perspective. Instead, a smaller
temporary stormwater facility could be constructed adjacent to the Phase 1 development.
Another alternative that may be available if the site grading permits, would be to
temporarily direct the Phase 1/Drainage Area 1 runoff to the Phase 1/Drainage Area 3
stormwater facility for attenuation and treatment.
Regardless of the approach taken for stormwater improvements for the Phase 1
development, all stormwater management standards can be met including quantity control
(attenuation of peak flows) and quality control (treatment / settlement of suspended solids).
8.0 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-1 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
8.0 MITIGATION OF PHASE I IMPACTS
8.1 Transportation
Measures are identified that address existing transportation deficiencies, as well as projected
deficiencies resulting from general background growth and project-related traffic increases.
These measures are categorized as non-project-related mitigation (measures that address
deficiencies that exist independent of Phase I redevelopment) and project-related mitigation
(measures required to offset project-related traffic increases). The nature, timing, and
implementation of specific mitigation actions needed to support Phase I redevelopment has
been refined through a consultative process involving the City of Northampton, CAC input,
MassDevelopment, and TCB. All figures referenced in this section are included in Section
4.0.
8.1.1 Non-Project-Related Mitigation
Based on the results of the transportation analysis, a number of existing transportation
deficiencies currently exist within the study area. Future growth in area traffic, independent
of the proposed development is expected to further exacerbate these existing deficiencies.
In an effort to enhance the existing transportation system, a number of mitigation solutions
are identified to improve traffic operations and/or safety within the study area. The costs,
timetables, responsible parties, and funding sources for these improvements are defined
under the mitigation schedule section that follows.
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road
The results of the transportation analysis indicate that safety deficiencies currently exist at
the intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. This condition is
attributable to the substandard roadway geometry at this location, principally the offset of
the northbound and southbound Earle Street approaches. In addition, bridge abutments at
this location, which previously housed an elevated rail line across Grove Street, results in
limited sight distance from both Earle Street approaches
While traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment can be adequately
accommodated within available capacity at this intersection, the proponent recognizes that
safety deficiencies exist which require mitigation independent of the proposed
development. Proposed improvements at this location entail removal of the existing bridge
abutments, which will significantly improve sight distance for both vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. In addition, it is recommended that this intersection be regraded to further improve
safety at this location. A Conceptual Improvement Plan for the intersection is presented in
Figure 4-16.
Based on discussions with the City of Northampton DPW, a future bike path is planned
along the former rail line (the “Manhan Rail Trail”), which will bisect the realigned
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-2 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. The removal of the existing
bridge abutments and regrading of the intersection to enhance safety at this location is
consistent with the design of this bike path, which envisions an at-grade bike path crossing,
requiring the removal of the bridge abutments. The future location of this bike path is also
depicted on Figure 4-16.
Proposed improvements at this location will vastly improve sight lines within the
intersection and enhance both vehicular and pedestrian safety. These improvements may
also address interim safety needs for traffic diversion from the Route 66 corridor once
reconstruction of that corridor is underway by MassHighway in the near future.
Further discussion with the City’s DPW will be required to refine the design plan for Earle
Street and Grove Street and Texas Road. MassDevelopment recognizes the longer-term
value of fully realigning the intersection to provide standard geometry and will pursue this
option more fully as part of the EIR for the Full Build program. Refinements to the currently
proposed safety improvements at the intersection will be undertaken as part of the local
review and approval process for Phase I redevelopment.
MassDevelopment has every expectation that an alignment alternative for a connector road
to the campus will be determined in the near future as part of the upcoming EIR effort.
Nevertheless, MassDevelopment has agreed to the CAC request that it proceed with the
design of permanent Earle/Grove intersection improvements, including sidewalk, within
three years if for some unanticipated reason the access road decision is delayed beyond that
time.
Route 10 Corridor Enhancements
The City of Northampton has been working with residents to identify and implement
appropriate pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along the Route 10 (South Street) corridor
that address long-standing safety concerns. MassDevelopment has participated in a
consultative process involving the Mayor’s office, the City’s DPW, the City’s planning office
and the CAC that has resulted in a set of clearly defined (and funded) actions to be taken by
the City to build additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the uniquely residential
portion of the Route 10 corridor. These improvements will not only improve the physical
infrastructure serving pedestrians and bicyclists who travel along Route 10, but are likely as
well to reinforce the 30 MPH speed limit that exists along this stretch of Route 10.
Motorists traveling north from the Easthampton vicinity along higher speed, wider lane
sections of Route 10 south of the Mill River will be transitioned to the residential portion of
Route 10 by narrower travel lanes, curbside parking, and clearly visible pedestrian
crossings, together providing visual cues to the driver of the residential, slower speed nature
of travel in this area. The enhancements will build on existing pedestrian infrastructure
along the Route 10 corridor as depicted in Figure 4-17. These improvements are shown in
Figure 4-18 and are as follows:
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-3 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
• Side-Street Crosswalks. The City has committed to providing painted crosswalks
across each side street that intersects Route 10 between Old South Street and Earle
Street, and where applicable to provide necessary adjustments to curbing to ensure
obstructions to pedestrian movement are eliminated.
• Route 10 Crosswalks. The City has committed to a pedestrian crosswalk across
Route 10 at Olive Street, a location cited by area residents as an active crossing
location. In addition, the City is evaluating an additional crosswalk in the vicinity of
the South Park Terrace/Cahillane Dodge section of Route 10. The precise location
of the crossing is still under review by the City.
Through a separate funding mechanism, a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
the City will undertake additional pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along Route 10.
The specific engineering details are currently under review to determine the specific
materials and placement of pedestrian/bicycle improvements that are possible within the
available CDBG budget that has been committed by the City to leverage the State Hospital
redevelopment and its required permits. Additional infrastructure to be built using CDBG
funding is as follows:
• Sidewalk Extension. The existing sidewalk on the west side of Route 10 currently
terminates in the vicinity of Charles Street. The sidewalk will be extended to the
Mill River Bridge to provide continuity to a new Route 10 crosswalk in that area.
• Bike Lanes. The Route 10 corridor will be re-striped between the Munroe Street
and South Park Terrace to include bike lanes and associated signs on both sides of
the road. Where width allows, curbside parking will also be striped alongside the
bike lanes. The bike lanes and curbside parking lanes are expected to significantly
reduce the effective/perceived crossing distances of Route 10, as well as more
clearly communicating to the motorist pedestrian/bicycle presence along Route 10.
This may result in reducing travel speeds along this section of Route 10. A typical
cross-section of the Route 10 corridor with bike lanes and parking is depicted in
Figure 4-19.
Pending further engineering review of costs, the City is also considering the possibility of
designing the new Route 10 crosswalks at Olive Street to include a “bump-out” (whether
painted or raised curb) to reduce effective/perceived crossing distance across Route 10.
Earle Street at Route 10
A traffic signal warrant analysis indicates that a traffic signal is currently warranted (although
only marginally) at this location under existing conditions. The results of the capacity
analysis indicate that under future conditions, independent of project related traffic, the
intersection of Earle Street with Route 10 will operate at LOS F, with peak-hour delays
occurring on the eastbound Earle Street approach at this location. This is consistent with
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-4 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
the finding that Earle Street is used by local residents as an increasingly popular “by-pass” to
the downtown area for access to Route 10, particularly from the Florence section of
Northampton. Under future Build conditions, traffic operations will remain at LOS F, with
eastbound traffic on Earle Street experiencing delays (specifically for left turns).
While installation of a traffic signal at this location is warranted independent of project-
related traffic increases, the fact that warrants are met based on MassHighway criteria does
not guarantee that MassHighway will endorse signalization initially. The process for signal
installation involves community petition to MassHighway with supporting technical
data/reports and a preliminary (“25 percent”) design plan. Warrants are one measure that
MassHighway considers before allowing signalization; safety-related characteristics are
another factor. In this case, warrants are only marginally met (within 10 vehicles per hour
of minimum thresholds) and the intersection crash rate is below statewide averages – both
trends that suggest that MassHighway may initially require monitoring of the intersection
over time prior to endorsing signalization. Incremental traffic associated with Phase I
redevelopment is likely to be less than one vehicle per minute for critical left-turns, and
only during commuter hours – levels that are not likely to independently drive a need for
immediate signalization of the intersection. In fact, actual increases will occur over time as
elements of Phase I come on line, which may only occur over a two to seven year period.
In recognition of Northampton’s desire to address future needs at this intersection,
MassDevelopment is committed to working with the City of Northampton to advance plans
to signalize Earle Street at Route 10. To this end, MassDevelopment commits to funding
the 25 percent design of the traffic signal and associated engineering analysis at this
location so that this improvement can be recommended for inclusion on the State
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). It is through this process that funding for
implementation of this improvement may be achieved. MassDevelopment will also fund
complete design plans to MassHighway standards following inclusion of the project on the
State’s TIP.
In addition to committing 25 percent plans and engineering analysis for the intersection,
MassDevelopment will also monitor the operational and safety characteristics of the Earle
Street at Route 10 intersection following occupancy of its first commercial building to
determine the need for interim corrective measures that may be needed prior to
signalization. The framework of this monitoring program is described in more detail under
the Monitoring Program section.
8.1.2 Project-Related Mitigation
The following section describes specific mitigation measures, which are recommended to
offset project-related impacts on area roadways. The measures include a combination of
transportation design elements and TDM techniques, aimed at reducing the number of
SOVs traveling to and from the project site.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-5 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Site Driveway Design and Internal Site Circulation
The proposed Phase I redevelopment calls for construction of a number of driveways onto
the Route 66, Prince Street and Earle Street corridors. All site driveways will be constructed
to provide necessary corner radii to accommodate emergency vehicles turning into the site.
In addition, all site driveways will be designed to ensure that the required sight distance to
and from the drive location is maintained in both directions. Existing and proposed
vegetation should be regularly trimmed and signs and other appurtenances placed to ensure
that adequate sight distance is maintained at all times. Finally, it is recommended that a
STOP sign and painted STOP lines be installed to control exiting vehicle flows at driveway
locations.
MassDevelopment is currently coordinating driveway design for the primary site entrance
on Route 66 with the City and MassHighway to ensure compatibility of the design with
ongoing reconstruction of Route 66. The specific location and design of the remaining site
driveways will be determined in part by individual tenant requirements, and will be
designed to meet the City’s standards and requirements as part of the local review and
approval process.
MassDevelopment and TCB will also provide sidewalks on all new roads as part of the
subdivision process. MassDevelopment and TCB will also provide an internal non-
motorized path network to take bicycles and pedestrians from the Manhan Rail Trail,
through Memorial Complex, the Main Complex, and to the agricultural lands along the Mill
River both as part of the subdivision process and the special permit approval. This system is
shown in the approved master plan and (with whatever relocations are needed in the
detailed design process), will be in the final project. This path system will be developed in
tandem with the Phase I redevelopment of the project.
Earle Street Corridor
As Phase I redevelopment occurs, MassDevelopment is committed to upgrading Earle Street
from Route 66 to Grove Street and Texas Road to include pedestrian sidewalks along the
site frontage. This upgrade will provide a continuous connection to new sidewalks being
built along Route 66, which in turn lead to the downtown area and existing transit stops
served by the PVTA. Reconstruction of the Earle Street corridor along the site frontage will
occur as commercial tenants are secured and site construction commences. This proposed
sidewalk complements, and does not replace, the planned system of non-motorized paths
that are being planned within the site and is consistent with the potential longer-term layout
for the Earle Street corridor as depicted in the Master Plan.
The portion of Earle Street between Grove Street/Texas Road and Route 10 has been
identified in meetings of the CAC as a candi date for new sidewalks based on existing
pedestrian needs – independent of Phase I redevelopment. Phase I redevelopment is not
expected to generate additional pedestrian activity along this portion of Earle Street;
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-6 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
however, it is possible that longer-term build out of the redevelopment (beyond Phase I
redevelopment) may generate some demand between Route 10 and the site.
MassDevelopment will evaluate in more detail possible “Connector Road” alternatives
between Route 10 and the site, including pedestrian/bicycle connections along this future
connector. Signal Timing Improvements
MassDevelopment is committed to timing/phasing adjustments as required to ensure
optimal operation of signalized intersections in the study area. These locations include the
Old South Street signals at South Street (Route 10) and at Conz Street; and the downtown
signals located at West Street (Route 66) and Elm Street (Route 9), and South Street (Route
10), Main Street (Route 9), and State Street. Implementation of those adjustments will be
conducted in coordination with the City and MassHighway as a measure to offset project-
related traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment. The schedule for
implementation is to be based on size, type and occupancy of buildings and will be
conducted within one year of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy issued for
projects permitted under this phase of redevelopment. For planning purposes,
MassDevelopment anticipates that timing improvements will be triggered by cumulative
commercial development of 50,000 s.f. or greater. A specific implementation schedule will
be identified in further consultation with the City of Northampton as part of the local
approval process.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
MassDevelopment and TCB as joint developers of the Village at Hospital Hill will
implement a comprehensive TDM program that promotes the use of alternative modes of
travel, and that reduces the dependence on SOVs.
The scope and effectiveness of the TDM program is expected to grow over time as
commercial components of the redevelopment come on line, employment levels increase,
and as planned area pedestrian projects such as the adjacent Manhan Rail Trail are realized.
A fundamental component of the TDM program will be participation in the Route 9 TMA,
which offers a host of TDM programs to its group of corporate and institutional members.
By pooling employees of individual commercial and institutional employers, the Route 9
TMA is able to increase the viability and success of certain TDM measures.
A summary of proposed TDM measures proposed is provided below.
Proposed TDM Strategies
MassDevelopment working in concert with TCB has identified the following strategies that
will be incorporated into the TDM plan for the NSH redevelopment.
TMA Membership. MassDevelopment, when leasing property, will encourage individual
commercial tenants to become a member of the Route 9 TMA, and is considering this as a
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-7 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
provision of the lease agreements with these tenants. When selling property,
MassDevelopment will work with the City’s Planning Department to encourage and
facilitate participation in the Route 9 TMA by businesses acquiring property at the Village at
Hospital Hill. MassDevelopment has committed to provide proportionate funding for the
Route 9 Transportation Management Agency (TMA), as development proceeds, to support
the efforts of the TMA agency, or a successor thereof, to continue to work for trip reduction
measures in the vicinity of the Village at Hospital Hill. MassDevelopment will discuss with
businesses reduction requirements, and where appropriate will encourage such businesses
to take the place of MassDevelopment in supporting the Route 9 TMA Agency as
responsibility for the site transitions from the public sector to the private sector. More detail
on this approach will be provided in the EIR.
To maximize the benefits of regional TDM planning, MassDevelopment is committed to
working through the Route 9 TMA, rather than establishing independent programs limited
to The Village at Hospital Hill. At this juncture, MassDevelopment estimates that its
commitment to support the Route 9 TMA will cost approximately $5,000 per year. As a
member of the Route 9 TMA, MassDevelopment will coordinate strategies and programs
offered by the TMA including the following:
• Participation in area transportation events such as the Transportation Fair, Bicycle
Commute Week, and other promotional events offered by the TMA.
• Production and dissemination of TDM marketing materials and newsletters.
• Linkages to the TMA’s web site.
• Completion of employee surveys.
• Participation in transportation coordinator training.
• Participation in the guaranteed-ride-home program.
• Participation in ride-matching programs.
• Commuter choice benefits.
Commuter choice benefits are programs offered by individual employers that assist
employees with their commuting costs. Employers are offered a range of options to
subsidize transportation costs and take advantage of the tax deductions associated with
these subsidies. In addition, employers can offer employees the option of using pre-tax
income to offset the cost of commuting.
On-Site Transportation Coordinator. As a landlord, MassDevelopment or its professional
property manager will work with individual tenants to designate an individual to serve as
the on-site ETC. MassDevelopment will also encourage other commercial landowners to
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-8 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
identify on-site ETCs. The role of this individual is to oversee the promotion and
implementation of TDM programs and will serve as the chief liaison with the Route 9 TMA,
and with building employees and state and city agencies, as required.
Public Transit Marketing Information. MassDevelopment and TCB are committed to
encouraging employees and residents of the Village at Hospital Hill to travel by transit as an
alternative to drive-alone commuting. To achieve this goal, MassDevelopment and TCB
will make information on transit alternatives available at various on-site locations including
commercial and residential areas, and other public places. MassDevelopment will
recommend that information related to public transit be incorporated into employee
orientation material for the various property tenants.
Carpool/Vanpool Program. As another alternative to public transit use, MassDevelopment
will strongly encourage the use of carpools and vanpools by employees working within the
development. Through membership in the Route 9 TMA, employers will be provided with
in-house ride-matching services for employees, coordinating with other employers to match
employees located either in the building or the vicinity. All employers within the Village at
Hospital Hill development will be encouraged to provide employees with information
regarding the Route 9 TMA and CARAVAN for Commuters and their ridesharing-related
services. These services include ride matching for carpools and vanpools via CARAVAN’s
databases, arrangements for the leasing of vehicles, and other services provided to promote
TDM strategies.
Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. In conjunction with the ride-matching
programs outlined above, one of the stronger incentives to foster the use of carpools or
vanpools is the provision of preferential parking on site. A number of employees may
chose to take advantage of the opportunity to park at a dedicated, convenient location
through the use of carpooling or vanpooling. MassDevelopment will designate a limited
number of parking spaces in convenient spaces to be reserved for carpools and vanpools for
employees at the Village at Hospital Hill. Roadways within the development will be city
owned streets; parking lots within the development will be privately owned.
MassDevelopment will encourage private developers to reserve spaces within the private
parking lots.
On-Site Transit Pass Sales. MassDevelopment and TCB will encourage transit use by
employees and residents of the development. Employers will be encouraged to make
transit passes available to employees. MassDevelopment will work with on-site retail users
to make transit passes available publicly. MassDevelopment will coordinate this effort with
the Route 9 TMA.
Guaranteed-Ride-Home Program. MassDevelopment is committed to implementing a
guaranteed-ride-home program that will serve to facilitate use of carpool and vanpool
services by employees of the development. Participants who choose to vanpool or carpool
will be assured that a ride home will be provided should they have to return home for
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-9 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
personal or work-related reasons and cannot use their normal ride. The Route 9 TMA
provides a guaranteed-ride-home program for TMA members.
Bicycle Storage. On-site bicycle storage will be provided for both employees and residents
of the Village at Hospital Hill. In addition, MassDevelopment will encourage commercial
tenants and landowners to include on-site shower and locker facilities to encourage the use
of bicycles by employees of the development. MassDevelopment will distribute
information related to the PVTA ‘Rack and Roll’ program, which allows commuters to
utilize both bicycle and transit as a means of commuting to work. Bicycle racks will be
provided at convenient locations, proximate to employment centers on-site.
Transit Connection to the Site. The Village at Hospital Hill is located approximately one
mile from the nearest PVTA bus stop, located at the Academy of Music in downtown
Northampton. MassDevelopment, in coordination with the Route 9 TMA, will work with
the PVTA to determine the feasibility of including the Village at Hospital Hill as a stop on
the regional transit routes currently serving the area, such as the routes serving the Cooley
Dickinson Hospital. As future commercial and residential development of the project site
proceeds and a critical mass of potential transit users is formed, MassDevelopment will
continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement transit service to the site.
Support for Car Sharing. Due to increased costs associated with car ownership and
increasing environmental awareness, car sharing is gaining in popularity. Zipcar, a
Cambridge-based company, places cars in publicly accessible places and offers them for
rent on an hourly basis. Based on discussion with the Route 9 TMA, the use of Zipcar is
under review as a potential TDM alternative for its members. While membership is
required to use these vehicles and a per-mile cost is assessed, this service is rapidly
growing. MassDevelopment supports the car-sharing initiative as well as the availability of
rental car services in the area. This service provides an alternative option for transit,
bicycle, or other non-automobile commuters who have the need for a car during the
business day. MassDevelopment agrees to dedicate, at no charge, several parking spaces for
shared community cars such as Zipcar, which would be available for project residents and
employees to reduce inbound city traffic. The site design will incorporate this feature.
8.1.3 Mitigation Schedule
Table 8-1 summarizes each of the committed mitigation measures that will be implemented
by MassDevelopment and by the City within the timeframe of Phase I redevelopment.
These measures include the responsible party, estimated cost, and implementation
schedule. The timing of mitigation is such that the mitigation will be available as needed,
to address the impact of concern.
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-10 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 8-1 Mitigation Schedule
Improvement Cost Responsible Party Schedule
Earle Street, Texas Street,
Grove Street Safety
Improvements
$70,000 MassDevelopment Prior to occupancy of first
commercial building
Earle Street Sidewalk
Route 66 to Grove Street
$70,000 MassDevelopment Concurrent with
development of Earle Street
frontage
Route 10 Pedestrian
Improvements
CDBG
Funds
City of Northampton
DPW
Completion date Fall 2003
Optimize Traffic Signal Timing
(Up To Four Locations)
$10,000 MassDevelopment Phased schedule; Within
one year of final certificate
of occupancy of first
commercial building for
each commercial building(s)
– Triggered by cumulative
development of at least
50,000 s.f.
Transportation Demand
Management
$5,000
Annually
MassDevelopment
TCB
Upon occupancy of first
commercial building
Earle Street/Grove Street
Design Plans – Long-Range
Alignment Option (Including
Sidewalks)
$30,000 MassDevelopment Within 3 years, pending
decision on status of final
access road alignment
Route 10/Earle Street Signal
Design/Permits
$30,000 MassDevelopment 25% Design by fall 2003;
final design following TIP
funding
Monitoring Program $5,000Annu
ally
MassDevelopment Annually, following
occupancy of first
commercial building
Downtown Signal
Improvements
TIP Chapter
90 Funds
City of Northampton
DPW
Ongoing; new controller
units by fall 2003
Monitoring Program
In accordance with the MEPA scope on the ENF, MassDevelopment has developed the
general framework of a transportation monitoring program that will measure actual
performance characteristics of the Phase I redevelopment over time. This monitoring
program will be used as a tool to report status of mitigation commitments made in this
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-11 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Phase I Report and/or Section 61 Finding, fine-tune mitigation commitments as necessary to
address actual Phase I transportation impacts, and provide supporting technical basis for
future signalization of the Earle Street/Route 10 intersection. The objectives of the
monitoring program are two-fold.
• To quantify actual traffic-generation characteristics (both peak hour and daily) for
comparison to projected traffic levels.
• To quantify performance characteristics of the TDM program for the site, including
employee/tenant mode shares, vehicle occupancy rates, bicycle use, etc. This
portion of the monitoring program will be used to determine baseline performance
of the TDM program, and will serve as a basis for fine-tuning or adjusting the
program to encourage alternative travel modes.
The specific provisions (time periods, seasons, days of week, etc.) and protocols for
administration of the annual monitoring/reporting program will be developed in more detail
as part of the local review/approval process. The monitoring/reporting program will help
the proponents and the City determine whether the traffic mitigation is functioning as
intended, and will permit adjustments in location, focus, or strategy to be identified as
actual conditions become apparent and are compared with conditions as projected at this
time. The framework of the program is envisioned as follows:
• Annual Reporting. The monitoring program will be administered under the
direction of MassDevelopment, with reporting to appropriate City of Northampton
officials (for instance, the Planning Director). Annual reporting will be conducted
for a period of up to two years following occupancy of each commercial and/or
residential building. Annual reporting will also cite status of committed mitigation
actions identified in this Phase I report and/or the Section 61 Finding for the
development.
• Employee/Tenant Survey. Administration of an employee/tenant survey annually to
measure transit use, carpooling, car-sharing, bicycle use, and participation in
programs offered through the Route 9 TMA. This will include reporting of
employer/tenant participation in programs offered by the Route 9 TMA.
• Trip-Generation Surveys. Collection of peak-hour TMCs and ATRs at site driveways
during a typical weekday. Observed trip generation will be compared to levels
calculated for actual building use, density, and employment using standard trip rates
published by the ITE.
Route 10/Earle Street Monitoring. Collection of peak-hour TMCs and ATRs, and manual
recording of observed peak-hour vehicle delays and queuing for a typical weekday.
Accident records for the intersection will also be reviewed for the latest available one-year
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-12 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
period. The data will be used to determine corrective measures that may be needed prior
to signalizing the intersection.
8.1.4 Traffic Study Conclusions
As documented in this study, at the majority of study area intersections, project-related
traffic will be adequately accommodated within existing area infrastructure. On the basis of
capacity along area roadways, no specific mitigation measures are required to
accommodate project-related traffic.
Proposed mitigation as described above is recommended in order to enhance pedestrian
and vehicular safety within the study area. Overall, this mitigation plan addresses the
incremental impact of the project, as well as identifying appropriate safety-related design
improvements that may be implemented by others to address existing deficiencies. With
these improvements in place, safe access and egress to the development can be provided
and the development can be safely constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding
transportation system.
8.2 Historic Resources
The Phase I development has been planned to comply with the spirit and intent of the
stipulations outlined in the MOA. As a result of careful analysis and planning, including
reconsideration of the South Employees’ Home originally slated for demolition, six
buildings are proposed to be retained and reused in Phase I.
The project proponent also undertook an analysis of stabilizing Old Main as part of the
Phase I analysis. Section 5.4 relates the findings of that analysis; MassDevelopment has
decided to defer any expenditure on interim stabilization until the results of Arrowstreet’s
study of building renovation feasibility and cost, and the updated market study are available
(expected in the summer of 2002). MassDevelopment will proceed, for public safety
reasons, to fence off the porte-cochere at the central entrance of Old Main and the Dining
Hall addition to Three North.
8.3 Water Supply and Wastewater
Adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure exists to meet the needs of Phase I.
All new construction and rehabilitation of existing structures will utilize modern, code-
compliant low flow plumbing fixtures, to minimize water usage, and new water mains will
be installed on the site.
8.4 Wetlands, Wildlife, and Stormwater
As discussed in detail in Section 7.0, Phase I mitigation measures associated with impacts to
the buffer zone and previously degraded riverfront area from roadway reconstruction
activities include: 1) an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program incorporating Best
76601\Phase I Report\8-Mitigation.doc 8-13 Mitigation of Phase I Impacts
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Management Practices such as siltation barriers and catch basin inlet protection; 2) the
location of construction stockpiles outside of wetland resource areas; 3) proper filtering of
groundwater prior to release to the municipal stormwater management system should de-
watering become necessary (the need for de-watering is not anticipated); 4) the preparation
of a Spill Prevention Plan; and 5) the implementation of slope stabilization measures along
reconstructed roadway shoulders of Earle Street. A comprehensive stormwater
management plan in compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy
will be implemented, under which peak rate of runoff will be decreased over existing
conditions, and 80% of total suspended solids will be removed from stormwater prior to its
release from the site.
8.5 Construction
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, the construction contractor(s) will be required to submit a
Construction Management Plan (CMP), prior to the commencement of construction. The
plan will address potential air, noise, and traffic impacts, will outline hours of operations,
and will provide a plan to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate these impacts. The construction
contractor(s) will be bound to the terms of the CMP.
9.0 Responses to Comments
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-1 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
9.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Phase I Report is structured in response to the Certificate of the Secretary of
Environmental Affairs Establishing a Special Review Procedure (Section 1.1) and the
Certificate of the Secretary on the ENF (Section 1.2). This Section responds to comment
letters from government agencies, elected officials, private organizations, and individuals.
9.1 Agency and Organization Comments
All letters from agencies, elected officials, private officials, and organizations have been
assigned an abbreviation, listed below in Table 9-1. Specific comments within each letter
are noted in the margin with this abbreviation and a sequential numbering. Preceding the
letter is a restatement of the comment accompanied by a response.
Table 9-1 Agency and Organization Comment Letters
Commenter Abbreviation
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP
Massachusetts Historical Commission MHC
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission PVPC
Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, City of Northampton NOR
Northampton Historical Commission NHC
Northampton Housing Authority NHA
Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce NCOC
Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition, Pioneer Valley Chapter MBC
Clark Avenue Condominium Association CACA
Committee to Save Old Main (2 letters) SOM
South Street Neighborhood Alliance SSNA
Rita M. Bleiman, City Councilor – Ward 4 CCB
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-2 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DEP.01 The project proponent should refer to the Air Pollution Control Regulations
(310 CMR 7.02) for a complete overview of the permitting thresholds
associated with 310 CMR 7.00 if the project proposes to meet certain on-site
energy needs through combustion process.
The proponent will comply with all applicable requirements.
DEP.02 The project proponent should be advised that demolition activity at the
existing site must comply with both Solid Waste and Air Quality Control
regulations.
Demolition activities will be conducted in compliance with all applicable
Solid Waste and Air Quality Control regulations.
DEP.03 The proponent should suggest measures to alleviate dust, noise, and odor
nuisance conditions, which may occur during the demolition. Such
measures must comply with DEP Bureau of Waste Prevention Regulations
310 CMR 7.01, 7.09, and 7.10.
The construction contractor(s) will be required to submit a Construction
Management Plan (CMP), prior to the commencement of construction. The
plan will address potential air, noise, and traffic impacts, will outline hours of
operations, and will provide a plan to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate these
impacts. Section 4.7.2 outlines typical controls that may be incorporated into
a CMP.
DEP.04 All jurisdictional [resource] areas should be identified prior to
commencement of work. A Request for Determination of Applicability
should be filed with the Northampton Conservation Commission
Section 7.1 identifies wetland resource areas on the project site. An ANRAD
will be filed with the Northampton Conservation Commission in the near
future.
DEP.05 Extreme care should be taken in the design and monitoring of the
construction project to protect wetlands and streams from sedimentation
impacts.
Mitigation measures are described in Section 7.5.9.
DEP.06 It is important the road drainage design be adequate to control the flow of
stormwater.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-3 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The site design will comply fully with the Massachusetts Stormwater
Management Guidelines; refer to Section 7.5.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-4 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MHC.01 MHC is encouraged to learn that options are in fact still being explored for
the Old Main Building. The EIR should include an analysis of alternatives for
Old Main.
During earlier planning, opportunities to save Old Main could not be
identified, and under the MOA, demolition of Old Main was allowed. In
response to continued interest in the future of Old Main, the proponent has
agreed to reexamine ways in which all or a portion of Old Main might be
preserved. This analysis and its results will be reported in the EIR. Section 5.4
addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
MHC.02 MHC encourages MassDevelopment and The Community Builders to
develop a plan of action to secure the buildings from further damage from
the elements, which could be implemented upon formal acquisition of the
property.
Section 5.4 addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main. Two
areas will be fenced for public safety reasons. MassDevelopment plans to
reach a decision as to the future of Old Main this summer.
MHC.03 MHC encourages the examination of the buildings slated for demolition in
the context of the importance of the buildings, both historically and
architecturally, as well as based on current conditions.
MassDevelopment has engaged an architect to evaluate the rehabilitation and
reuse of several buildings on the site. The buildings slated for demolition
have been examined in the context of their importance as well as based upon
their existing conditions and economic feasibility for reuse.
MHC.04 MHC recommends that the EIR further explore the re-use potential of the
South Employees Home in current market conditions. MHC also suggests
that the full text of the Deitz & Company analysis be included in the EIR.
The Deitz & Company analysis is a lengthy document, which was previously
provided to MHC and others as an appendix to the Master Plan. Relevant
portions have been summarized and discussed in Section 5.3.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-5 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
MHC.05 MHC also expresses concern as to whether or not any portion of the
financing of the project is contingent upon receipt of the Federal Investment
Tax Credit. That is, given the amount of new construction and the amount
of demolition, the eligibility of the historic properties for the National
Register of Historic Places may be compromised for the purposes of the
Investment Tax Credit.
The project proponent is currently examining the economic benefits of the
Federal Investment Tax Credit. The proponent is preparing to consult with the
National Park Service on the eligibility of the complex in light of build-out of
the campus as envisioned in the Master Plan. This consultation will be
utilized to guide planning for the Full Build development.
MHC.06 MHC strongly encourages The Community Builders, Inc. to contact the
National Park Service regarding the viability of the use of the Investment Tax
Credit. MHC recommends that the developer initiate discussions with the
National Park Service by filing Part I of the Tax Credit application.
Refer to response to Comment MHC.05.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-6 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
PIONEER VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
PVPC.01 The EIR should address recharge of stormwater runoff and utilization of
natural features and systems to control stormwater onsite. An erosion and
sedimentation control system should be in place during construction
activities.
The Stormwater Management Plan is discussed in Section 7.5.
PVPC.02 The EIR should analyze and quantify the total impact of the project on the
City’s water lines and wastewater processing facilities.
Project water and wastewater issues are discussed in Section 6.0.
PVPC.03 The transportation study area should be expanded as part of any future
MEPA or project impact analysis to include the intersections of Route 10
with the Interstate 91 Exit 18 on/off ramps, Route 66 (Rocky Hill Road) with
Florence Road, and Florence Road with Burts Pit Road.
The transportation study area has been expanded to include the intersections
of Route 66 (Rocky Hill Road) with Florence Road, Florence Road with Burts
Pit Road, and Burts Pit Road with Clement Street.
At the request of the PVPC, potential transportation impacts to the intersection
of Interstate 91 Exit 18 on/off-ramps were also considered. Phase I project-
related traffic increases at this location are expected to be minimal, resulting in
approximately 10 to 27 peak hour directional trips, or, on average one
additional trip every two to six minutes. Such a nominal increase is not
expected to result in a reduction to overall traffic operations at this location.
PVPC.04 The proponent should monitor the traffic effects of the project at full build
out of Phase I and implement appropriate mitigation measures designed to
correct any adverse impacts caused by the project.
Mitigation of Phase I transportation impacts is discussed in Section 8.1. As
part of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the Phase I
development, the proponent is committed to implementing a monitoring
program to assess the impacts of Phase I development, and if required, to
implement appropriate mitigation measures to offset Phase I traffic impacts.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-7 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
PVPC.05 The mitigation section of the traffic report should include an implementation
schedule. At a minimum, this schedule should include information on the
proposed timeline for improvements; the party responsible for
implementation; and, the estimated funding source (or sources) for each
improvement.
An implementation schedule is included in Section 4.5.3.
PVPC.06 The proponent should coordinate all TDM efforts with the Pioneer Valley’s
Route 9 Transportation Management Association (TMA).
The proponent has met with the Route 9 TMA on Monday February 25, 2002
to coordinate preliminary TDM efforts. Proposed TDM measures are
discussed in Section 4.5.2. MassDevelopment will continue to work with the
Route 9 TMA to refine the TDM program to best meet the needs and
opportunities of individual tenants of Hospital Hill.
PVPC.07 It is vital that a reliable source of funds be identified prior to transit being
considered to serve this project. In addition, the proponent will need to
provide adequate on-site accommodations for transit service so as to
minimize the time required to serve the site with a bus. Early and direct
consultation with representatives of the PVTA on all transit options and
concerns is encouraged.
MassDevelopment, through participation in the Route 9 TMA, will work
cooperatively with the PVPC and PVTA to determine the feasibility of
including the Village at Hospital Hill as a stop on the regional transit routes
currently serving the area, such as the routes serving the Cooley Dickinson
Hospital. As future commercial and residential development of the project
site proceeds and a critical mass of potential transit users is formed, the project
proponent will continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement transit
service to the site.
PVPC.08 More specific information on the location, cost, and construction of the
connector roadway should be included in the DEIR for this project.
A complete assessment of the connector roadway will be included in the
DEIR.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-8 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
MAYOR MARY CLARE HIGGINS, CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
NOR.01 The City Department of Public Works is comfortable with the capacity of the
existing water and sewer infrastructure, but the final report should confirm
that adverse impacts would not occur as a result of the development.
An assessment of project water and wastewater impacts is included in Section
6.0.
NOR.02 The need for connections to municipal or state storm sewers and appropriate
sizing should be determined and coordinated with the City and with Mass
Highway.
The Stormwater Management Plan is included in Section 7.5. As design
proceeds, it will be coordinated with the City and MassHighway.
NOR.03 Any improvements in non-municipal utilities should take place before or
during the reconstruction of Rt. 66 to avoid excavation of a newly
constructed roadway.
MassDevelopment will advance design of on-site utilities such that any
required changes may be accomplished prior to or during the reconstruction
of Rt. 66.
NOR.04 All building material should be recycled to the extent feasible. All
demolition waste should be recycled on-site or at a regional facility to
minimize waste disposal at the municipal landfill.
The proponent will take an active role with regard to the reprocessing and
recycling of construction waste. The demolition contract will include specific
requirements that will ensure that construction procedures allow for the
necessary segregation, reprocessing, reuse, and recycling of materials. In most
cases, the demolition specifications will allow the contractor to crush asphalt,
brick, and concrete debris for use as on-site fill material. Specifications also
require the recycling of all steel generated during the demolition process. For
those materials that cannot be recycled, specifications will require that solid
waste be transported in covered trucks to an approved solid waste facility, in
accordance with the DEP’s Regulations for Solid Waste Facilities (310 CMR
16.00).
NOR.05 The Old South Street/Conz Street intersection and the Burts Pit
Road/Clement Street/Florence Road routes should be added to the study area
in both phases.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-9 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
The traffic study area has been enlarged to include these locations, as well as
the intersection of Florence Road with Route 66. Please refer to Section 4.0.
NOR.06 The design for [the Earle St./Route 10 intersection] signal should begin
immediately given the time frame for new signalization through
MassHighway. A letter should be submitted to MassHighway requesting
approval and funding for the installation of the signal.
MassDevelopment has collected additional traffic count data for the
intersection of Route 10 with Earle Street, which indicates that this location
currently meets the warrants for installation of a traffic signal independent of
Phase I redevelopment. MassDevelopment commits to funding a 25 percent
design submittal in conjunction with Phase I redevelopment, and will
continue to work with the City of Northampton DPW in advancing the design
of this location. The 25 percent design will be submitted to the City, to
facilitate having a project placed on the State Transportation Improvement
Plan (TIP).
As part of the TDM plan for this project, MassDevelopment is also committed
to monitoring traffic operations at the intersection of Route 10 at Earle Street.
Should this monitoring program indicate that excessive delay and/or queuing
occur at this location, appropriate interim mitigation measures would be
implemented, in coordination with the City of Northampton DPW. These
improvements may include use of police officer control during peak
commuter hours.
NOR.07 The final report should determine how much development is feasible before
a signal is installed with intermediate mitigation measures.
Refer to response to Comment NOR.06.
NOR.08 Temporary access driveways should be considered to service
commercial/industrial buildings in the Memorial Complex to avoid traffic
flow through surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The Phase I redevelopment assumes site access for commercial properties will
be provided via a driveway onto Route 66 at the main hospital driveway. In
addition, driveways will be provided to commercial properties along Earle
Street, south of Route 66. It is expected that the majority of project related
traffic will arrive and depart via the Route 10, Route 9, and Route 66
corridors.
Commercial truck activity serving the site will utilize the Route 66 corridor
and the portion of Earle Street north of Texas Road. The existing geometry of
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-10 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
the Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road intersection cannot
accommodate large commercial vehicles, and will serve to constrain any
commercial deliveries that would otherwise use Route 10 or Grove Street to
access the site. These constraints will also exist even once safety-related
improvements are made to the intersection by MassDevelopment to support
Phase I redevelopment. A more detailed discussion of improvements is
presented in Section 4.0.
NOR.09 The Phase 2/Full Build EIR should evaluate 1) the need for a Signal at Route
66 and the Main Drive; 2) transit service from the development to
downtown and along Route 10; 3) redesign of the bike path at Earle/Grove
St. if necessary; 4) internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns to
provide access points to the bikeway and sidewalks other than at existing
streets; 5) clarify the status of the roadway west of the Haskell Building; 6)
full realignment of Earle Street from Route 10 to the Main Campus; 7)
possible improvements to the West Street/Elm Street intersection; 8) more
detailed growth projections for he background development analysis; and 9)
an analysis of the structural integrity of any proposed underground utility
crossings of adjacent streets using existing tunnels.
As part of the Phase II/Full Build EIR each of the above items will be
addressed. Specific information related to the each of the items above are
summarized below:
Route 66 Signal
As part of the EIR for the Full Build program, a signal warrant analysis will be
conducted for the main driveway intersection onto Route 66. Based on the
anticipated Full Build traffic projections for the Village at Hospital Hill, the
need for a traffic signal at this location will be determined.
Transit Service
MassDevelopment and TCB, through participation in the Route 9 TMA, will
work cooperatively with the PVPC and PVTA to determine the feasibility of
including the Village at Hospital Hill as a stop on the regional transit routes
currently serving the area, such as the routes serving the Cooley Dickinson
Hospital. As future commercial and residential development of the project
site proceeds and a critical mass of potential transit users is formed,
MassDevelopment will continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement
transit service to the site.
Bike Path Design
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-11 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
MassDevelopment acknowledges that the final design of the realignment of
Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road will need to be sensitive to the
planned bikepath through this intersection. Future design of this intersection
will incorporate the bicycle path alignment to ensure safe pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicular movement at this location. As a measure to improve both
vehicular and pedestrian safety at this location, MassDevelopment will
remove the existing bridge abutments, which constrain sight lines at this
location. Removal of these abutments is consistent with the future bikepath
design, which envisions an at-grade crossing at this location.
Internal Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
A full discussion of pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns and connection
to the bikeway and public sidewalks will be provided in the DEIR. Section
4.0 represents commitments by MassDevelopment to build an additional
sidewalk along Earle Street connecting to Route 66. The TDM plan defined in
Section 4.0 also commits MassDevelopment to bicycle accommodation to and
within the site.
Roadway west of Haskell Building
The roadway west of the Haskell Building is intended to serve as a primary
driveway to the residential portion of the Phase I redevelopment, located
north of Route 66.
Earle Street Realignment
The potential for realignment of Earle Street between Route 10 and the main
campus will be evaluated as part of the EIR for the Full Build program.
West Street and Elm Street Intersection
The West Street and Elm Street intersection signal is being upgraded by the
City to enhance operation. Through the consultation process with the City
and the CAC, a specific improvement to add an eastbound right-turn lane was
also asked to be evaluated.
Section 4.0 presents an updated analysis of Phase I redevelopment traffic
increases and capacity impacts at this location. In summary, traffic increases
on Elm Street represent less than 20 vehicles per hour due to Phase I
redevelopment (12 vehicles per hour or less for the eastbound right turn).
City-sponsored signal improvements will provide adequate intersection
capacity, with no discernable impacts from Phase I redevelopment.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-12 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
VAI has also completed a capacity analysis of this intersection with the added
eastbound right-turn lane and has compared the resulting operations to those
without this lane (i.e., existing geometry). The results of this analysis are
summarized below.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY –
MAIN STREET AT ELM STREET AND WEST STREET
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
2006 Build with
Right-Turn Lane
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb V/C Delay V/C Delay
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.48
0.74
0.56
0.58
18
13
36
21
0.53
0.80
0.60
0.63
20
15
36
22
0.45
0.71
0.55
0.56
18
12
34
20
Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.55
0.71
0.52
0.63
20
11
36
21
0.61
0.75
0.65
0.66
24
13
36
23
0.51
0.68
0.55
0.61
19
11
34
20
aVolume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
cLevel of service.
d2006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned signal timing and phasing improvements.
The results of the analysis indicate that construction of this improvement
would result in little benefit to overall traffic operations at this location,
amounting to a reduction in overall delay of two to three seconds per vehicle.
The results of the capacity analysis are being provided to the City,
MassHighway, and PVPC.
In summary, costs associated with adding an exclusive right-turn lane (which
involve substantial earthwork, sidewalk reconstruction, right-of-way
acquisition, signal pole relocation, wall construction, and utility
reconstruction) far outweigh any benefits (e.g., enhancement in signal
operation) that may be achieved by adding this lane.
Background Growth
The future background growth projections, including traffic expected to be
generated by specific area developments is discussed in detail in Section 4.0.
The reuse of existing utility tunnels (and their structural integrity) will be
evaluated as site design proceeds, but in any event prior to reconstruction of
Rt. 66.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-13 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
NOR.10 The Ox Barn and the Red Barn should be added to the demolition list for
Phase I or stabilized to ensure no access and fire hazard.
The project proponent has considered this request and agreed that the Ox
Barn is in very poor condition and can be demolished as part of Phase I.
However, the Red Barn is in no imminent threat of collapse and its reuse
potential will be evaluated as part of the Full Build analyses. The Red Barn, as
well as all of the other buildings on the campus, are locked and secured, and
routinely checked by security personnel.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-14 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
NORTHAMPTON HISTORICAL COMMISSION
NHC.01 It would have been helpful to have photographs of the buildings proposed
for demolition included in the Environmental Notification Form submitted
by the project proponents.
Photographs of the buildings proposed for retention and rehabilitation, as well
as those proposed for demolition, are included in Appendix D. In addition, an
archival narrative and photographic recordation of the NSH was completed by
DCAM, in compliance with the MOA, and a copy has been provided to the
City.
NHC.02 It would also have been helpful to have the proposed development plan
superimposed over existing conditions, i.e., layouts, roadways and existing
buildings.
The Phase I report contains many figures and graphics depicting the existing
conditions and proposed development plans.
NHC.03 The EIR should explain the reasoning behind the proposed demolition of 51
Grove Street [Building 23].
Building 23 (51 Grove Street) is in extremely poor condition and is located
within a development parcel. Its reuse cannot be accommodated by the
proposed plans for the parcel.
NHC.04 The EIR should explain the reasoning behind the proposed demolition of the
South Employees’ Home [Building13].
At the request of the MHC and Northampton Historical Commission, TCB and
MassDevelopment have further considered the feasibility of incorporating the
South Employees’ Home into the reuse program and have agreed to convert it
into eleven family units.
NHC.05 The EIR should explain the rationale behind the proposed demolition of
Building 56.
Building 56 is in fair condition, but is located within the Phase I residential
development parcel and its reuse cannot be accommodated by the proposed
plans for the parcel.
NHC.06 The EIR should address potential impact on the “Fort Hill Historic District”.
The Fort Hill Historic District is located approximately one-half mile to the
east of the project site along South Street. The potential impacts to the Fort
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-15 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Hill Historic District will be the same as the project impacts identified for the
South Street corridor, which are associated with traffic. Refer to Section 4.0
for a detailed discussion of traffic.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-16 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
NORTHAMPTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
NHA.01 A sidewalk should be provided along at least one side of the reconstructed
version of Earle St.
As Phase I redevelopment advances and commercial tenants are identified,
MassDevelopment will construct sidewalks along the site frontage abutting
Earle Street providing a connection to Route 66 sidewalks. This will provide a
continuous sidewalk connection that eventually leads to the downtown area.
Development of Phase I is not expected to significantly increase pedestrian
volumes along the Earle Street corridor. The bulk of pedestrian activity is
expected to be generated by the residential component of the development,
located north of Route 66. The primary travel route between the Phase I
residential component and nearby destinations such as the downtown area
would be along the Route 66 corridor. Future improvements along this
corridor, currently under construction by MassHighway would provide a
continuous sidewalk between the project site and the downtown area.
As part of the Phase I redevelopment, internal pedestrian connections will also
be provided on-site between the commercial uses along Earle Street, and
Route 66. The precise layout and location of sidewalks within the site will be
determined through the local review and approval process.
Concern has been expressed for pedestrian traffic along Earle Street between
Grove Street and Route 10. For Phase I, MassDevelopment will realign the
Earle/Grove intersection, but does not plan improvements downgradient along
Earle Street. For the Full-Build, the need for a sidewalk along Earle Street or
the proposed connector road will be addressed.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-17 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
NORTHAMPTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
NCOC.01 (all comments are supportive)
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-18 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
MASSACHUSETTS BICYCLE COALITION
MBC.01 Implementation of traffic calming measures in these areas should be a
requirement for the proponent. The traffic calming measures should
include: (1) additional crosswalks on South St. at Cahillane Dodge, South
Park Terrace, and Olive streets, (2) bump-outs and crosswalk candles at all
crosswalks, (3) street lights installed directly over all crosswalks where not
already present; (4) crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the intersection of
Earle and South Streets; and (5) striping of bicycle lanes on South Street.
The City of Northampton proposes a number of pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along the Route 10 corridor, which include new side-street
crosswalks, two new crosswalks across Route 10, restriping Route 10 to
provide bike lanes, and sidewalk improvements. Details of these
improvements are described in Section 4.0.
MBC.02 Time and money should be spent to investigate the potential of public
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel. Recommended measures include: (1)
fund a pilot program bus route with PVTA to serve Hospital Hill, West Street
and South Street, (2) contribute to building the Manhan Rail Trail form
Round House Plaza to Veteran’s Field and bike lanes from Veteran’s Field to
the areas of development on Hospital Hill in order to promote bicycle and
pedestrian commuting, (3) contribute to year-round maintenance of
pedestrian and bicycle paths, (4) install bicycle racks and lockers in
convenient locations on Hospital Hill, and (5) build an uninterrupted
pedestrian path from Hospital Hill to downtown.
MassDevelopment has met with the Route 9 TMA to identify a possible range
of solutions to encourage alternative travel modes for its tenants.
MassDevelopment will encourage membership and participation in Route 9
TMA. One of the services provided by the TMA is coordination with the
PVPC and PVTA to determine the feasibility of providing transit service to
employment centers not currently served by existing transit.
MassDevelopment, in coordination with the Route 9 TMA, will work with the
PVTA to determine the feasibility of including the Village at Hospital Hill as a
stop on the regional transit routes currently serving the area, such as the routes
serving the Cooley Dickinson Hospital. As future commercial and residential
development of the project site proceeds and a critical mass of potential transit
users is formed, MassDevelopment will continue to work with the Route 9
TMA to implement transit service to the site.
The construction of the Manhan Rail Trail, and year round maintenance of
pedestrian and bicycle paths fall within the jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton DPW. However, MassDevelopment is committed to advancing
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-19 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
the construction of the Manhan bike trail, which would provide a valuable
non-auto travel option for residents and employees of the development.
Specifically, MassDevelopment will implement the reconstruction of the Earle
Street intersection at Grove Street and Texas Road that is specified in the bike
trail plans. This entails removing existing bridge abutments at the intersection
of Earle Street with Grove Street. These abutments lie in the alignment of the
proposed bicycle path, and also create an unsafe condition for both motorists
and pedestrians as they limit available sight distance at this location. Section
4.0 provides more detail on this improvement.
The proposed site plan will be developed to incorporate use of bicycles by
project employees and residents. The proposed site plan will provide bicycle
amenities including provision of bicycle racks at key commercial and
residential locations. MassDevelopment will also encourage commercial
tenants and land owners to include provision of shower and locker facilities
for employees. MassDevelopment, as another TDM program element, will
provide information centers that list transit information including promotional
material for the PVTA ‘Rack and Roll’ program.
Regarding sidewalks, it is noted that MassHighway is constructing a
continuous sidewalk along Route 66 to the downtown area that directly abuts
the site. MassDevelopment will develop additional sidewalks within the site
that connect to Route 66, as well as a new public sidewalk along Earle Street
from Grove Street to Route 66 as part of the phase I redevelopment program.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-20 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
CLARK AVENUE CONDOMINUM ASSOCIATION
CACA.01 The Northampton State Hospital campus should be incorporated into
existing bus routes so that the hospital campus will have direct transit
service to surrounding communities served by the transit service.
MassDevelopment and TCB are committed to promoting the use of alternative
travel modes to access the site, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
travel. To facilitate this, MassDevelopment, when leasing property, will
encourage its commercial tenants to join the Route 9 TMA. Likewise, TCB
will encourage its residential tenants to join and participate in Route 9 TMA
programs. MassDevelopment in coordination with the Route 9 TMA will
work with the PVTA to determine the feasibility of including the Village at
Hospital Hill as a stop on the regional transit routes currently serving the area,
such as the routes serving the Cooley Dickinson Hospital. As future
commercial and residential development of the project site proceeds and a
critical mass of potential transit users is formed, MassDevelopment will
continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement transit service to the
site.
CACA.02 Further commitments to bicycle transportation should be made. The
proposed bike path, which will cross at Earle Street, could have a spur going
to the hospital campus. In addition both Route 10 and the reconstructed
Route 66 should be provided with bike lanes.
The City of Northampton proposes a number of pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along the Route 10 corridor, which include new side-street
crosswalks, two new crosswalks along Route 10, restriping Route 10 to
provide bike lanes, and sidewalk improvements. Details of these
improvements are described in Section 4.0.
The reconstruction of the Route 66 corridor is currently underway, with
MassHighway entering into Phase II of the construction, occurring between
Wilson Road and the downtown area. The reconstructed Route 66 roadway
layout will one approximate 13 to 16 foot travel lane in each direction, with
sidewalks provided along both sides of the roadway to accommodate
pedestrian and bicyclists along the corridor.
CACA.03 The Coalition sees many negatives to any serious consideration of building a
new road from Old South Street to Route 66 (the earlier By-pass proposal).
MassDevelopment does not propose to build a new connector road from Old
South Street to Route 66 as part of Phase I redevelopment. Based on
preliminary field observations, it does not appear that sufficient roadway width
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-21 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
exists to accommodate one lane of travel in each direction between Clark
Avenue and the proposed by-pass roadway. Assuming this connector would
operate as a one-way roadway only, there is little benefit to be achieved
through construction of this by-pass route as part of the Phase I
redevelopment.
The potential by-pass roadway would travel within the same right-of-way as
the proposed Manhan Bicycle Trail. Given that the design intent of the
bicycle trail is to provide a dedicated route for bicycle and pedestrian travel
only, the introduction of vehicular traffic along the route is not recommended.
A more detailed assessment of this alternative connection to the Hospital Hill
site will be conducted in the EIR for the Full Build program.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-22 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SAVE OLD MAIN COMMITTEE
SOM.01 Immediate action should be taken by the State of Massachusetts and the
developers to fix the roofs and secure Old Main so as to facilitate good
airflow and low humidity in the building. This should be done now, before
further deterioration occurs.
Section 5.4 addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
SOM.02 Reuse of Old Main could fit into Northampton’s economic development
plans. It is proximate to Smith College and downtown Northampton.
During earlier planning, opportunities to save Old Main could not be
identified, and under the MOA, demolition of Old Main was allowed. In
response to continued interest in the future of Old Main, the proponent has
agreed to reexamine ways in which all or a portion of Old Main might be
preserved. This analysis and its results will be reported in the EIR. Section 5.4
addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
SOM.05 The membership of the CAC should be broadened so it represents the
interests of the neighborhoods affected.
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has appointed three local
neighborhood residents to the CAC. A complete list of the CAC membership
is included in Section 1.0.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-23 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SOUTH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE
SSNA.01 Given the many concerns about this project and the lack of representation,
the proponents should be required to present a new master plan addressing
mitigation measures for the entire project, along with a full ENF, to a more
representative Citizens Advisory Committee and to the MEPA office.
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has appointed three local
neighborhood residents to the CAC. A complete list of the CAC membership
is included in Section 1.0.
SSNA.02 Phase One would have significant environmental impacts, exceeding ENF
thresholds for Land and Transportation and possibly for rare species, air and
wetlands.
All potential Phase I impacts have been assessed and appropriate mitigation
measures proposed in this Phase I Report. A summary of all Phase I mitigation
measures is presented in Section 8.0.
SSNA.03 No hardship exists or would exist if the entire plan for the proposed
development were considered in its entirety.
Hardship is not a prerequisite to the establishment of a Special Review
Procedure. See 301 CMR 11.09(1)."
SSNA.04 Sufficient infrastructure does not currently exist to support Phase One.
Existing water and wastewater infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support
Phase I (refer to Section 6.0). As discussed in Section 4.0, at the majority of
study area intersections, available capacity exists to accommodate project-
related traffic increases. At the majority of study area intersections, project-
related traffic increases do not results in a reduction to overall LOS, as
compared to future No-Build conditions. The one exception is the
intersection of Route 10 and Earle Street, which under future conditions
independent of project related impacts is projected to operate at LOS F. The
proponent is committed to designing the 25 percent design plans for the
signalization of this intersection so that it can be placed in the State TIP to
secure funding for implementation of these improvements. As part of the
TDM Plan for this project, MassDevelopment is committed to monitoring
traffic operations and safety at this location, and if required to implement
interim corrective measures including use of police control during peak hours.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-24 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SSNA.05 Proceeding with Phase One mitigations as outlined could restrict mitigations
that are possible in later phases.
All Phase I mitigations have been designed so as to allow future mitigation of
Full Build impacts.
SSNA.06 Implementation of Phase One would enable the development to proceed
without a full and complete assessment of impacts from future phases,
including land, transportation and historical impacts.
Phase I has been designed to be severable from the rest of the project; Phase I
impacts and appropriate mitigation are addressed in this Phase I Report.
Impacts and appropriate mitigation for Full Build conditions will be fully
addressed in the Draft and Final EIRs.
SSNA.07 Eleven structures in Phase One are part of the Northampton State Hospital
Historical District and should not be altered before an EIR is completed for
the entire Master Plan.
Phase I calls for the retention and reuse of six buildings and the demolition of
nine buildings that contribute to the NSH historic district. Section 5.0
provides a discussion of the proposed Phase I development and historic
resources.
SSNA.08 The CAC has not included a single representative from any of the
neighborhoods that abut the proposed development.
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has appointed three local
neighborhood residents to the CAC. A complete list of the CAC membership
is included in Section 1.0.
SSNA.09 Additional crosswalks should be provided at Cahillane Dodge, South Park
Terrace and Olive Streets.
The City of Northampton DPW has committed to constructing a sidewalk
across South Street at the intersection with Olive Street. The City of
Northampton DPW is also evaluating the feasibility of providing additional
crosswalks in the vicinity of Cahillane Dodge and/or South Park Terrace. A
full discussion of proposed pedestrian improvements along Route 10 is
provided in Section 4.0.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-25 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SSNA.10 Bump-outs, crosswalk candles and high visibility striping should be provided
at all South Street crosswalks.
The City of Northampton DPW is currently evaluating a number of design
options, including bump-outs at existing and proposed pedestrian crosswalks.
A full discussion of proposed pedestrian improvements along Route 10 is
provided in Section 4.0.
SSNA.11 The sidewalk on South Street should be extended to Earle Street.
The City of Northampton DPW is currently investigating the possibility of
extending the existing sidewalk along the west side of South Street between its
southern terminus across from Charles Street to the bridge over the
Connecticut River. South of the bridge, Route 10 is under the jurisdiction of
MassHighway.
SSNA.12 Bicycle lanes should be established on South Street in order to narrow
roadway and slow traffic.
CDBG funds have been secured by the City and will be used in part to restripe
Route 10 to include bicycle lanes. Section 4.0 describes this improvement in
more detail.
SSNA.13 The Earle and South Street intersection should be signalized.
MassDevelopment has collected additional traffic count data for the
intersection of Route 10 with Earle Street, which indicates that this location
currently meets the warrants for installation of a traffic signal.
MassDevelopment is committed to completing the 25 percent design plans for
improvements at this location so that it can be placed on the State TIP to
secure funding for implementation of these improvements.
As part of the TDM plan for this project, the proponent is committed to
monitoring traffic operations at the intersection of Route 10 at Earle Street.
Should this monitoring program indicate that excessive delay and/or queuing
occur at this location, appropriate interim corrective measures would be
implemented, in coordination with the City of Northampton DPW. These
improvements may include use of police officer control during peak
commuter hours.
SSNA.14 Crosswalk and pedestrian signals should be provided at the intersection of
Earle and South Streets.
The signal design to be funded by MassDevelopment for the intersection of
South Street and Earle Street will include provision for an exclusive pedestrian
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-26 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
phase, with crosswalks and wheelchair ramps provided across each
intersection approach.
SSNA.15 What will be the traffic impacts if the intersection of Earle and South Streets
is not signalized immediately?
The proponent is committed to monitoring traffic operations at the intersection
of Route 10 at Earle Street. Should this monitoring program indicate that
excessive delay and/or queuing occur at this location, appropriate interim
corrective measures would be implemented, in coordination with the City of
Northampton DPW. These improvements may include use of police officer
control during peak commuter hours. Section 4.0 presents more details on
this commitment.
SSNA.16 Street lights should be installed directly over all crosswalks on South Street
where not already present.
Installation of streetlights falls under the jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton DPW.
SSNA.17 Pedestrian-activated crossing lights should be installed at Olive Street and
Cahillane Dodge.
Installation of crossing lights falls under the jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton DPW.
SSNA.18 A pilot program bus route should be established by PVTA to serve Hospital
Hill, West Street, and South Street.[
MassDevelopment and TCB are committed to promoting the use of alternative
travel modes to access the site, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
travel. To facilitate this, MassDevelopment, when leasing property, will
encourage its commercial tenants to join the Route 9 TMA. Likewise, TCB
will encourage its residential tenants to join and participate in Route 9 TMA
programs. MassDevelopment in coordination with the Route 9 TMA will
work with the PVTA to determine the feasibility of including the Village at
Hospital Hill as a stop on the regional transit routes currently serving the area,
such as the routes serving the Cooley Dickinson Hospital. As future
commercial and residential development of the project site proceeds and a
critical mass of potential transit users is formed, MassDevelopment will
continue to work with the Route 9 TMA to implement transit service to the
site.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-27 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SSNA.19 The proponent should contribute to funding of construction of the Manhan
Rail Trail from Round House Plaza to Veteran’s Field and bike lanes from
Veteran’s Field to the areas of development on Hospital Hill
Construction of the Manhan Rail Trail falls under the jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton DPW. However, as mitigation for the proposed development,
MassDevelopment is committed to removing existing bridge abutments at the
intersection of Earle Street with Grove Street and Texas Road. This
improvement is consistent with the Rail Trail design, which envisions an at-
grade crossing at this location.
SSNA.20 The proponent should contribute to year-round maintenance of pedestrian
and bicycle paths.
Year round maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle paths falls under the
jurisdiction of the City of Northampton DPW.
SSNA.21 Bicycle racks and lockers should be installed in convenient locations on
Hospital Hill.
The proposed site plan will be developed to incorporate use of bicycles by
project employees and residents. The proposed site plan will provide bicycle
amenities including provision of bicycle racks at key commercial and
residential locations, development of commercial buildings to include
provision of shower facilities for employees, and information centers
providing transit information including promotional material for the PVTA
‘Rack and Roll’ program.
SSNA.22 There should be an uninterrupted pedestrian path from Hospital Hill to
downtown.
The ongoing Route 66 reconstruction will provide an uninterrupted pedestrian
path from the Village at Hospital Hill to downtown Northampton.
SSNA.23 Alternate routes should be identified that do not funnel traffic generated by
Phase One build-out through residential streets.
The Phase I redevelopment assumes site access for commercial properties will
be provided via a driveway onto Route 66 at the main hospital driveway. In
addition, driveways will be provided to commercial properties along Earle
Street, south of Route 66. The driveway locations will be designed to
discourage use of local streets, such as Grove Street, as primary travel routes
to Phase I commercial uses. It is expected that the majority of project related
traffic will arrive and depart via the Route 10, Route 9, and Route 66
corridors.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-28 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Commercial truck activity serving the site will utilize the Route 66 corridor
and the portion of Earle Street north of Texas Road. The existing geometry of
the Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road intersection cannot
accommodate large commercial vehicles, and will serve to constrain any
commercial deliveries that would otherwise use Route 10 or Grove Street to
access the site. These constraints will also exist even once safety-related
improvements are made to the intersection by MassDevelopment to support
Phase I redevelopment.
SSNA.24 The proponent should develop a plan for making the infrastructure
improvements to Route 66 and the intersection of 66 and Route 9 that
would allow Route 66 to serve as the primary gateway to the development.
The West Street and Elm Street intersection signal is being upgraded by the
City to enhance operation. Through the consultation process with the City
and the CAC, a specific improvement to add an eastbound right-turn lane was
also asked to be evaluated.
Section 4.0 presents an updated analysis of Phase I redevelopment traffic
increases and capacity impacts at this location. In summary, traffic increases
on Elm Street represent less than 20 vehicles per hour due to Phase I
redevelopment (12 vehicles per hour or less for the eastbound right turn).
City-sponsored signal improvements will provide adequate intersection
capacity, with no discernable impacts from Phase I redevelopment.
VAI has also completed a capacity analysis of this intersection with the added
eastbound right-turn lane and has compared the resulting operations to those
without this lane (i.e., existing geometry). The results of this analysis are
summarized in the table below.
The results of the analysis indicate that construction of this improvement
would result in little benefit to overall traffic operations at this location,
amounting to a reduction in overall delay of two to three seconds per vehicle.
In summary, costs associated with adding an exclusive right-turn lane (which
involve substantial earthwork, sidewalk reconstruction, right-of-way
acquisition, signal pole relocation, wall construction, and utility
reconstruction) far outweigh any benefits (e.g., enhancement in signal
operation) that may be achieved by adding this lane.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-29 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY –
MAIN STREET AT ELM STREET AND WEST STREET
2006 No-Build
2006 Build
2006 Build with
Right-Turn Lane
Location Approach V/Ca Delayb V/C Delay V/C Delay
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.48
0.74
0.56
0.58
18
13
36
21
0.53
0.80
0.60
0.63
20
15
36
22
0.45
0.71
0.55
0.56
18
12
34
20
Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Intersection
0.55
0.71
0.52
0.63
20
11
36
21
0.61
0.75
0.65
0.66
24
13
36
23
0.51
0.68
0.55
0.61
19
11
34
20
aVolume-to-capacity ratio.
bAverage stopped delay per vehicle (in seconds).
cLevel of service.
d2006 No-Build and Build analyses reflect planned signal timing and phasing improvements.
SSNA.25 Another alternative would be using the old railroad bridge and abandoned
rail bed that runs behind the Smith College Power Plant to Old South Street.
This alternative will be evaluated as part of the for the Full Build program.
SSNA.26 The EIR should address the impact on Grove Street and Laurel Street and
should identify measures to encourage traffic to take other routes.
The Phase I redevelopment assumes site access for commercial properties will
be provided via a driveway onto Route 66 at the main hospital driveway. In
addition, driveways will be provided to commercial properties along Earle
Street, south of Route 66. The driveway locations will be designed to
discourage use of local streets, such as Grove Street, as primary travel routes
to Phase I commercial uses. It is expected that the majority of project related
traffic will arrive and depart via the Route 10, Route 9, and Route 66
corridors.
Commercial truck activity serving the site will utilize the Route 66 corridor
and the portion of Earle Street north of Texas Road. The existing geometry of
the Earle Street at Grove Street and Texas Road intersection cannot
accommodate large commercial vehicles, and will serve to constrain any
commercial deliveries that would otherwise use Route 10 or Grove Street to
access the site. These constraints will also exist even once safety-related
improvements are made to the intersection by MassDevelopment to support
Phase I redevelopment.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-30 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SSNA.27 The EIR should address issues of noise during construction and demolition.
Refer to response to Comment DEP.03 and Section 4.7.2.
SSNA.28 The traffic study area should include Clement Street and the Clement Street
Bridge.
The traffic study area has been enlarged to include Clement Street. Please
refer to Section 4.1.
SSNA.29 The EIR should identify mitigation based on estimated traffic levels after the
proposed roadway modifications are complete.
The analysis of future traffic operations, as presented in Section 4.0, accounts
for future traffic volumes with planned roadway improvements in place.
SSNA.30 The traffic analysis should address potential increased traffic impacts from
background development that result from proposed roadway improvements.
The analysis of future traffic operations presented in Section 4.0 accounts for
traffic associated with background development projects and proposed
roadway improvements.
SSNA.31 The developers, the city, and the Northampton Police Department should
provide a detailed plan for managing traffic to and from the site.
The proponent is committed to implementing necessary measures to offset
project-related traffic increases, as described in Section 4.0.
SSNA.32 The pace of residential development at Hospital Hill relative to commercial
development should not be increased in Phase One beyond the mix or total
amount that was agreed upon for Phase One in the 1999 master plan.
The residential development of Phase I has not increased beyond what had
previously envisioned in the approved Master plan. The overall pace is
relatively the same. The Phase I Report demonstrates that the impacts of
Phase I are within the capacity of traffic and water/wastewater infrastructure.
MassDevelopment and TCB believe that Phase I represents an appropriate
balance between residential and commercial uses.
SSNA.33 The scope should require investigation into the presence of rare species on
the site.
Please refer to Section 7.4.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-31 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SSNA.34 The EIR should address project impacts on carbon monoxide levels.
Air quality issues associated with project development are discussed in
Section 4.6.
SSNA.35 The City should retain a separate consultant to perform an independent
traffic analysis.
The City has consulted with the project proponent throughout the Master
Planning process and has participated in developing the scope of the traffic
analyses undertaken as part of the environmental review of the proposed
project.
SSNA.36 The EIR should address issues associated with increased school costs.
Issues associated with increased school costs are outside the scope of this
environmental review process.
SSNA.37 Project-related materials should be available on a web site.
The City Planning Department has made the project ENF, several plans, and
the Secretary of Environmental Affairs Certificate on the ENF available on their
website (http://www.northamptonplanning.org). The full text of the ENF was
sent to all parties who made their interest known, and was available upon
request. Distribution of this Phase I Report will be handled in a similar
manner.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-32 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
CITY COUNCILOR BLEIMAN
CCB.01 Numerous traffic mitigation proposals were suggested which I strongly
support, including (but not limited to) bicycle lanes, completed sidewalks,
crosswalks with bump outs, and radar signs for South Street.
The City of Northampton DPW is currently evaluating a number of pedestrian
and bicycle enhancements along the South Street corridor, many of which will
be built using (in part) CDBG funds. Section 4.0 presents more detail on
proposed improvements.
CCB.02 I would also like to see some sort of design within the complex to encourage
motorists to opt for Rt. 66 over Rt. 10, since Rt. 66 is, by comparison, under
utilized, much less residential and will be undergoing a revamping in the
near future.
The Full Build development of the Village at Hospital Hill will create a main
access point to the northern and southern campuses off the Route 66 corridor.
The ongoing reconstruction of Route 66 may also result in this roadway
serving as a more attractive commuter route to the project site. However, it is
likely that the Route 10 corridor will still serve as a major gateway to the
project site.
CCB.03 It is my hope that the design for the signalization at Earle St/Rt. 10 will begin
immediately.
Refer to Comment NOR.06.
CCB.04 I would also like to urge that every effort be made to encourage alternative
forms of transportation.
MassDevelopment and TCB propose a comprehensive TDM plan aimed at
encouraging alternative forms of transportation. Specific elements of the TDM
plan are presented in Section 4.0.
CCB.05 I want to express by interest in further analysis of the Old Main structure in
Phase II, and my overall support for the preservation of any existing
buildings whenever possible.
During earlier planning, opportunities to save Old Main could not be
identified, and under the MOA, demolition of Old Main was allowed. In
response to continued interest in the future of Old Main, the proponent has
agreed to reexamine ways in which all or a portion of Old Main might be
preserved. This analysis and its results will be reported in the EIR. Section 5.4
addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-33 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
9.2 Public Comments
Twenty- three public comment letters, including six form letters, were received and are
listed in Table 9-2. The public comments have been synthesized and responded to in the
section below. A total of 54 distinct comments were identified and summarized. The
comment/responses are grouped into 8 topics:
Review of Process and Regulatory Compliance (REG)
Transportation and Air Quality (TRANS)
Historic Resources (HIST)
Solid Waste Disposal (SW)
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (WAT)
Open Space (OS)
Rare Species Habitat (RS)
Construction Issues (CONST)
All comment letters are reprinted following the synthesized comments and responses.
Specific comments in each letter are keyed in the letter’s margin with a number
corresponding to the comment/response at the beginning of the section.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-34 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Table 9-2 Public Comment Letters
Public Comment Letters
Form Letter (6 Letters): Marsha A. and George E. Bailey
J. Borowski
Richard Butcher
Laura and Paul Facteau
Nancy E. Fish
Peter Fulvi and Kenneth Stafford
Barbara Blumenthal
Eleanor E. Cook
Martha Ebner
Dorothy Green
Edward Hagelstein
Gretchen J. Hendricks, Ph.D.
Holly Keith
Daryl and Jessica LaFleur
Marilyn Marks
Tris Metcalf
Sheilah and Greg Sandler
Wendy Sinton
Donna M. Taylor and Daniel K. Musante
Lisa Tennyson
June Turcotte
Carol Varsano
Kate Weigand and Nancy Whittier
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-35 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
REVIEW OF PROCESS AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
REG.01 The project should not be broken into phases; it should be considered as a
whole in order to ensure proper mitigation for the full project.
Mitigation appropriate to Phase I of this project, which has been designed to
be severable from the rest of the project, is detailed in this Section 8.0. Full
Build impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be fully addressed in
the Draft and Final EIRs.
REG.02 The CAC should include neighborhood residents.
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has appointed three local
neighborhood residents to the CAC. A complete list of the CAC membership
is included in Section 1.0.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-36 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY
TRANS.01 Required traffic mitigation for the project should include barring the use of
South Street as the major accessway to the project site, traffic calming
measures, measures to encourage mass transit, and securing of funding for
these measures.
MassDevelopment cannot, as a practical or legal matter, restrict use of Route
10 – it is a public roadway. However, MassDevelopment has worked closely
with the City and documents in this Phase I Report a host of pedestrian and
bicycle improvements that will be built by the City along Route 10 to address
long-standing community concerns. These measures will be built with CDBG
funds. Section 4.0 provides more detail. Section 4.0 also presents measures
that MassDevelopment will implement to encourage use of alternative travel
modes.
TRANS.02 A new connector roadway should be constructed at the initiation of the
project; not as a part of later phases.
Phase I development does not warrant construction of a new connector road
to the project site. As part of the EIR for the Full Build program, the need for
and alignment of a connector roadway will be evaluated.
TRANS.03 A signal should be installed at the junction of Rt. 10 and Earle Street at the
start of the project.
Under existing conditions, a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of
Route 10 and Earle Street, independent of the proposed development.
MassDevelopment is committed to advancing the design of this improvement
to the 25 percent design so that it may be placed on the State TIP to secure
funding for implementation of this improvement.
TRANS.04 Realigning Earle and Grove Streets should be a condition for the start of any
construction.
Realignment of Earle Street and Grove Street is not required to accommodate
Phase I traffic impacts. From a capacity standpoint, this location can
adequately accommodate project-related traffic increases. However, the
proponent recognized that existing bridge abutments at this location restrict
available sight distances, thereby inhibiting safe travel through this location.
As part of the Phase I development, the proponent is committed to removing
these abutments to enhance safety at this location. Refer to Section 4.0 for a
description of improvements at this location.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-37 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
TRANS.05 Improvements to Route 66 should be made before this project is undertaken.
While Route 66 reconstruction is likely to be completed prior to Phase I build-
out, it is possible that early portions of Phase I construction will occur prior to
or concurrently with Route 66 reconstruction. Indeed, utility work in the street
should be accomplished prior to Route 66 reconstruction, as pointed out in
other comments. Any early construction activities will be carefully
coordinated with the Route 66 work.
TRANS.06 Transportation alternatives should be in place before any development is
approved.
A schedule of transportation improvements that address Phase I
redevelopment impacts is presented in Section 4.5.3.
TRANS.07 A new connector road should not be built for this project; existing roadways
should be used in order to avoid paving over existing green spaces.
A new connector road is not warranted or proposed to support Phase I
redevelopment. An evaluation of the need and layout of a connector road will
be addressed in the EIR for the Full Build program.
TRANS.08 The traffic study should include an analysis of Burts Pitt Road, Clement
Street, Riverside Drive, and some streets in Florence.
The study area has been expanded to include (among others) Burts Pitt Road,
and Clement Street. Incremental increases along those streets, Riverside
Drive, and areas of Florence are presented in Section 4.0.
TRANS.09 Increased traffic caused by the project will compromise the character of
existing, well-established neighborhoods.
Traffic increases associated with Phase I redevelopment will primarily impact
numbered arterial roadways, namely Route 66, Route 9, and Route 10 (South
Street). MassDevelopment recognizes the unique residential nature of South
Street between Old South Street and Earle Street. A host of pedestrian and
bicycle safety improvements along South Street (Route 10) have been
identified in Section 4.0 and will be implemented by the City using CDBG
funds.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-38 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
TRANS.10 Increased traffic caused by the project will compromise the safety of
pedestrians, including school children, on South Street.
A host of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements along South Street
(Route 10) have been identified in Section 4.0 and will be implemented by the
City using CDBG.
TRANS.11 Carbon monoxide levels are a potential impact of concern.
An air quality assessment that takes increased traffic volumes into account has
been undertaken. Results from this study are detailed in Section 4.0. Changes
in ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx) have been modeled; Northampton is
and will remain an attainment area for carbon monoxide.
TRANS.12 Other options for traffic to and from the center of town must be made
available.
Please see Section 4.5 for a comprehensive discussion of traffic mitigation.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-39 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
HIST.01 The ongoing deterioration of the “Old Main” building should be halted as
part of Phase I, even if the fate of this building is not decided until later
phases of the project.
Section 5.4 addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
HIST.02 The “Old Main” building is a valuable architectural and social landmark and
should not be torn down.
During earlier planning, opportunities to save Old Main could not be
identified, and under the MOA, demolition of Old Main was allowed. In
response to continued interest in the future of Old Main, the proponent has
agreed to reexamine ways in which all or a portion of Old Main might be
preserved. This analysis and its results will be reported in the EIR. Section 5.4
addresses the potential for interim stabilization of Old Main.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-40 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SW.01 Impacts to the municipal landfill caused by this project need to be assessed.
Refer to Response to Comment NOR.04.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-41 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
WAT.01 Stresses on the municipal water supply should be evaluated for up to 50
years in the future.
Such a study is out of the scope of this project. Adequate water supply to
support this project has been confirmed; please refer to Section 6.0.
WAT.02 The existing water and sewer infrastructure is not sufficient to support this
project.
The Northampton Department of Public Works has confirmed that the existing
water and sewer infrastructure is sufficient to support this project. Please refer
to Section 6.0 for a complete discussion of water supply and wastewater
issues.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-42 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
OPEN SPACE
OS.01 Open space on the project site should be maximized.
Every effort has been made to maximize the open space on this project.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-43 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
RARE SPECIES HABITAT
RS.01 Potential impacts on rare species should be addressed.
As required for the ENF, maps compiled by the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program showing estimated rare species habitats and
priority sites of rare species were consulted, as detailed in Section 7.4.
76601\Phase I Report\9-Comments.doc 9-44 Responses to Comments
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
CONST.01 Project construction vehicles should be required to use caution on South
Street.
Project construction vehicles will be required to obey all traffic laws. The
hours of operation for demolition activities are typically limited to 7:30 a.m. to
5 p.m., with occasional exemptions approved on a case-by-case basis for
special conditions. Project specifications will require the construction
contractor to conduct safety briefings with truck drivers to emphasize the
importance of safety while traveling on all City streets. Refer to Section 4.7.2.
CONST.02 Construction noise should be controlled.
Refer to response to Comment DEP.03 and Section 4.7.2.
Appendix A
Traffic Data:
Automatic Traffic Recorder Data
Manual Turning Movement Count Data
Public Transit Data
Accident Data
Seasonal Growth Data
Trip Generation/Distribution Calculations
Capacity Analysis
Mitigation Analysis
Signal Warrant Analysis
Air Quality