Northampton TransportationPlan--policies
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 1
Municipal Transportation Plan for the
City of Northampton
City of Northampton Transportation Policies
Transportation Plan, as amended by these policies, adopted by:
Transportation and Parking Commission March 15, 2005
Planning Board as a Comprehensive Plan element (MGL Chapter 41, § 81 C and D) February 24, 2005
Board of Public Works (BPW) March 9, 2005
City Council April 21, 2005
Public Hearings:
October 3, 2001
October 17, 2001
January 18, 2005
Background
The Municipal Transportation Plan for the City of Northampton was adopted by the now defunct
Northampton Transportation Committee on December 10, 2001 and by the Northampton
Planning Board on January 10, 2002. The original plan was a study plan but did not fully detail
the City’s transportation policies. As such, the Planning Board adopted it as a plan, but not as an
element in the City’s comprehensive plan.
On December 5, 2002 (amended on December 18, 2003), City Council established the permanent
Transportation and Parking Commission “to create clear and consistent transportation policies.”
Among its duties were to “adopt, amend, and help coordinate with the Planning Board the
writing and implementation of a transportation plan element of the city’s comprehensive plan.
In adopting these policies, it is the city’s intention that:
1. These policies are the City of Northampton’s transportation policies; and
2. These policies are added to the Municipal Transportation Plan and that, as amended, that
plan is the transportation element of the City’s comprehensive plan, adopted by the
Planning Board pursuant to MGL Chapter 41, § 81 C and D
3. That the City agencies adopting this plan continue to work on the plan and revise it to
improve its utility as a comprehensive plan.
Transportation Vision
It is the intention of the City of Northampton to have a transportation system that encourages the
safe and convenient movement of people and goods. Northampton’s transportation system must
allow for the safe and efficient transportation of goods and people by automobiles, trucks,
and other motor vehicles and by bicycle and foot. The City’s transportation system should be
a multimodal one that provides many different types of transportation options.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 2
The Northampton transportation system should support economic development in the City
through targeted transportation system improvements and overall efficiency of the system.
Further, flexibility and responsponsiveness to short-term project specific needs and long-term
strategic economic strategies are important goals to the City. Transportation, as well as other
public infrastructure, is a key element to economic growth in the City.
In Northampton, the majority of trips beyond a certain length and those involving the movement
of goods are going to be by automobile, truck, and other motor vehicles. Intersections and
streets must be designed for safe movements of all appropriate vehicles and should minimize, to
the extent appropriate, travel times and idling times. Motor vehicle movement must, however,
be designed to enhance the quality of life in the city and reduce risks to other modes of travel.
Northampton’s transportation system must encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-
motorized travel. Compared to vehicle travel, non-motorized travel is healthier, more
environmentally sound, less damaging to neighborhoods, and less expensive. The City of
Northampton is one of the most pedestrian and bicycle-friendly communities in the Pioneer
Valley, with higher rates of bicycle and pedestrian trips for work and recreation than a majority
of similar-sized communities in the country. Additional investments will provide dramatic
returns in congestion mitigation, emission reductions, health, safety, economic development,
quality of life, and opportunities for youth and those with limited resources. Non-motorized
travel should be enhanced without creating undue barriers to traditional vehicular transportation.
Northampton’s transportation system must encourage transit. Transit is more environmentally
sound than other motor vehicle modes; it reduces congestion when it replaces single occupancy
vehicles, and it provides an alternative for those without access to automobiles.
Parking for cars and for bicycles is an integral part of Northampton’s transportation system.
Urban core area vehicle parking must be adequate to avoid encouraging motor vehicle trips to
sprawling areas with free and ample parking. Excessive parking, especially a sea of surface
parking, however, can adversely harm the character of urban core areas, create dead areas in the
urban fabric and can effectively discourage trips by any thing other than a motor vehicle.
Transportation demand management, which encourages alternatives to peak-hour single
occupancy vehicle use, is critical to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion.
City of Northampton Transportation Policies and actions
CORE TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
Party
responsible
for ensuring
policy is
followed
Partners
1. Ensure that safety is a primary goal in transportation
improvements, systems, and operations, both to reduce crashes
and to ensure that both vehicular and non-vehicular modes of
traffic are safe and attractive to all users on all roads. The Police
shall make available an annual report on motor vehicle collisions,
DPW
BPW
T&PC
PD
OPD
Public
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 3
their location, and whether personal injury is involved.
2. Ensure that the needs of bicycle, pedestrian, and other non-
motorized vehicles as well as transit services are considered and
addressed in the design, construction, and management of every
project affecting the transportation system.
3. Ensure that environmental impacts are considered and adverse
effects are minimized on all transportation project.
PB,
Mayor
Council
4. Ensure that economic development implications are considered
and balanced with other City goals in all transportation policies,
decisions, and improvements.
Mayor
DPW
PB
OPD
BPW
T&PC
5. Review the Transportation Plan every two years. Amend the plan
as needed based on experience and planning. Amendments should
be approved by the same boards who approved the original plan
T&PC
PB
BPW
Council
Mayor
ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION POLICIES
6. Maintain an in-house pavement management system to inform
pavement management decisions and ensure an objective decision
making process.
DPW BPW
7. Design roadway improvements with consideration that “a bicyclist
should be expected to be riding on any roadway {and a pedestrian
walking along the roadway}, and therefore should be
accommodated” (Building Better Bicycling, MassHighway, 1999).
DPW BPW
8. Ensure catch basin covers are in a “bicycle-safe” format. DPW
9. Undertake the following in all intersection studies and designs:
• Minimize queuing times at intersections (and therefore
vehicle emissions) while ensuring that intersections are
pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
• Design for appropriate truck movements consistent with
truck needs and MassHighway requirements while
exploring options that avoid excessively wide
intersections, including the use of mountable curbs.
• The suitability of roundabouts and mini-roundabouts will
be evaluated during the preliminary engineering analysis
for all intersections being considered for significant
reconstruction, realignment, signalization, and four-way
stops. Roundabouts are the favored intersection treatment
for safety, efficiency, and environmental reasons, when
appropriate. The Board of Public Works and the
Transportation and Parking Commission shall be consulted
before making any determination not to add a roundabout
or mini-roundabout. (See Appendix C, Roundabout
Evaluation.)
• Ensure that all new and existing traffic signals incorporate
audible pedestrian signals (dedicated pedestrian-only
DPW BPW
T&PC
PB
OPD
Mayor
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 4
phase, pedestrian activated pedestrian-only phase, or a
shared phase). Create a prioritized list of existing traffic
signals where pedestrian signals are desired. Installation of
pedestrian signals shall be made as funding becomes
available. When no pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks)
currently exists, traffic signal equipment shall be installed
that will allow for future pedestrian signalization. In
deciding what kind of traffic signal to use, consider shared
pedestrian phases (where pedestrians cross with parallel
vehicle traffic allowing for shorter cycle cycles and less
frustration).
10. Share relevant crash data with other city boards and departments
whenever requested.
PD DPW
OPD
T&PC
11. When funds become available, prepare a sign inventory and
implement plan to bring signage and crosswalks into conformance
with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Signage related to marked crosswalks is the first priority.
DPW
12. Layout new City streets to avoid creating cul-de-sacs and dead
ends when possible and instead create a network of streets. Dead
end streets, while desirable to some residents, add significantly to
the delivery of city services and increases traffic flows to other
local streets. Design streets to avoid creating new high-speed
short cuts through residential neighborhoods.
PB OPD
DPW
BPW
13. Clear snow to provide safe driving conditions. The level of
service available will be based on the resources the city is able and
willing to allocate
DPW BPW
Mayor
Council
14. Traffic congestion problems should generally be addressed by
providing and enhancing alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles,
rather than by adding roads or road lanes. The long-term effect on
"induced traffic" (individuals' decision to drive on a particular road
or route encouraged by perceived low congestion) should be
carefully considered whenever roadways are reconfigured or
widened in an attempt to relieve congestion. When enhancing
intersections, as opposed to roadways, the City’s goal is to avoid
inducing additional traffic while reducing intersection queuing
times, to avoid polluting idling and to allow smooth flow of
traffic.
T&PC
BPW
PB
OPD
Mayor
Council
15. Roadways should be designed to be environmentally sensitive, to
the extent feasible, with elements such as tree belts and curbs
designed to improve the human environment and reduce impact on
the natural environment.
DPW BPW
16. DPW should provide the T&PC, BPW, Mayor, and City Council
with annual lists of street and intersections which are planned for
design or construction to aid in multi-board/department
communications.
DPW T&PC
BPW
Mayor
Council
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 5
TRAFFIC CALMING
17. Examine all unsafe intersections, areas of excessive speeds, and
areas where neighborhoods perceive a loss of quality of life to
consider possible traffic calming efforts. Adopt a policy for
identifying areas which need traffic calming (see Transportation
Plan).
T&PC
DPW
BPW
PB
OPD
Mayor
Council
18. Develop and implement traffic calming models and standards for
subdivision and zoning major site plan approval regulations.
PB
OPD
DPW
BPW
Mayor
19. Ensure that the design of all new, reconstructed, and reclaimed
streets considers incorporating appropriate traffic calming
measures, in consultation with the Board of Public Works and the
Transportation and Parking Commission.
DPW
BPW
T&PC
Mayor
PD
20. Implement traffic calming measures on projects listed in Appendix
A (as it may be amended from time to time). Revise Appendix A
to develop a more complete list of where traffic calming measures
might be needed within the city. Use first few projects to develop
traffic calming model (both methods and community outreach and
involvement) that can be used elsewhere in the city.
DPW
BPW
T&PC
Mayor
PD
SIDEWALKS
21. Ensure that all new privately-built streets include sidewalks,
consistent with the Northampton Subdivision Regulations. When
feasible and practical, concrete sidewalks on two sides of a street
are desirable.
PB OPD
DPW
22. Ensure that all developers provide sidewalks when necessary to
serve their projects.
PB OPD
DPW
23. Ensure that all new and reconstructed streets include sidewalks
unless right-of-way or engineering issues or the rural nature (based
on projected traffic and development density when the street is
built-out) of a street makes it not feasible. When sidewalks are
installed, no consultation with the Board of Public Works or
Transportation and Parking Commission is necessary. Otherwise,
the Board of Public Works and the Transportation and Parking
Commission shall be consulted before any determination is made
not to add such a sidewalk.
DPW
BPW
T&PC
24. Add wheelchair ramps and pavement markings necessary to make
all sidewalks accessible for people with mobility disabilities.
DPW
OPD
Mayor
25. Create and update a prioritized list of routes where sidewalks are
desired, ready to take advantage of funding and construction
opportunities. (See current list in Appendix A.)
DPW
T&PC
School
BPW
OPD
Mayor
Council
26. Create and update a prioritized list of routes where curb
extensions, raised intersections and other sidewalk improvements
are desired, ready to take advantage of funding and construction
opportunities. (See current list in Appendix A.) Install such
DPW
T&PC
School
OPD
Mayor
Council
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 6
improvements as funding allows.
27. Submit a Capital Improvements request for a sidewalk
management program modeled on the successful pavement
management program to inventory sidewalks, sidewalk conditions,
sidewalk usage, and to identify priorities for new or restored
sidewalks. Consider whether Chapter 90 monies should be used
for sidewalks or remain committed only for street improvements.
DPW
BPW
Mayor
Council
28. Prioritize streets for sidewalks where 1) vehicle/pedestrian
conflicts are prevalent or that will 2) serve commercial areas, 3)
serve children on their journey to school, and 4) reduce the need
for school buses. Ensure that all reclaimed streets on the
prioritized list shall include sidewalks unless right-of-way or
engineering issues make it infeasible. The Board of Public Works
and the Transportation and Parking Commission shall be consulted
before any determination is made not to add such a sidewalk. The
current prioritized list is attached as an Appendix and shall be
amended from time to time.
DPW
BPW
T&PC
OPD
School
PD
Mayor
Council
29. Educate the public and enforce requirements to ensure the safety
of sidewalks, including existing requirements that property owners
abutting sidewalks:
• Clear snow from sidewalks after a storm, with a priority on
sidewalks in commercial areas and along arterial and collector
streets (Section 19-19, Northampton Code of Ordinances); and
• Control brush from growing over sidewalks or blocking
visibility at intersections.
PD
DPW
Parking
Mayor
BICYCLE AND MULTI-USE TRAVEL AND FACILITIES
30. Develop a comprehensive city-wide bicycle system including
existing and planned off-road bicycle paths, on-road bicycle lanes,
and safe on-road bicycle routes. On-road bicycle routes and lanes
that provide direct access to the growing rail-trail network and to
urban core areas should receive a high priority. The system should
include supporting services, such as signage, bicycle storage, and
bicycle system maps and information.
OPD
DPW
BPW
T&PC
Mayor
Council
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 7
.-,91
.-,91
(/5%g10
%g9
%g10
%g66RYAN RO A D
BURTS PIT ROAD
FLORENCE ROADBRIDGE ROAD
WESTHAMP TON ROAD
ELM STREET
SYLVESTER ROADC H E S T E R F I E L D R O A D
KING STREETS
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T NORTH KING STREETMOUNT TOM ROADS O U T H ST R E E T
AUDUBON ROAD
BRIDGE STREETNORTH FARMS ROADRESERVOIR ROADRIVER ROADHAYDENVILLE ROADDAMON ROAD
EASTHAMPTON ROADN
O
R
T
H
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
H A TFIELD STREETPROSPECT STREET
R IV E R SID E D R IV ER O C K Y H IL L R O A D
GLENDALE ROADLOCUST STREET
WEST STREETWEST FARMS ROADNORTH MAPLE STREETNONOTUCK STREET
STATE STREETJACKSON STREETC
O
NZ STREET
MEADOW STREET
NORTH STREETPLEASANT STREETFLORENCE STREET
CHESTNUT STREETC H A PEL ST R EE TMAIN STREETA R C H S T R E E T
NORTH ELM STREETMAPLE STREETLOUDVILLE ROADIN
D
U
S
T
RIA
L D
RIV
E
FINN STREET
CLEMENT STREETMOUNTAI
N STREETMONTAGUE ROADD
A
Y A
V
E
N
U
E
NEW SOUTH STREET0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Northampton, Massachusetts
Roadway Classification
Functional Class
Local (0)
Interstate (1)
Rural Prin. Art./Urban Ext. (2)
Other Prin. Arterial (4)
Urban Minor Art. or Rural Maj. Coll (5)5
Urban Collector or Rural Minor Coll. (6)
Date: 18-Jan-2005Author: jt
Revision: 0
File: z:\projects\public\transportation\
bikeways\bikepaths.apr
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 8
31. Strive to add marked bicycle lanes to all surface arterial, collector,
and federal aid roads whenever feasible (i.e., all surface roads
except local roads.). See Roadway Classification map above.
When bike lane standards cannot be accommodated, investigate
adding marked shoulders to provide the best accommodation
feasible for bicyclists. (See Appendix, Bicycle Lane Design
Guidelines).
• When arterials and collectors are constructed, reconstructed or
reclaimed, add bicycle lanes unless a consensus is reached that
right-of-way issues make it infeasible.
• When arterials and collectors that are at least 30 feet wide are
restriped, add bicycle lanes unless safety issues make it
infeasible. (See lane width inventory the Transportation Plan’s
“Bicycle Level of Service Evaluation.”)
• Identified priority corridors for bike lane investigation and
improvement are 1) King Street-- (see VHB King Street
Corridor Study); 2) Bridge Street—the city maintained section;
3) South Street-- improving the bicycle lane layout, markings
and signage; 4) Elm Street-- maintaining the bicycle lane
layout and crosswalks; 5) Elm Street/Locust Street, Main
Street, Florence--extend the bicycle lane.
• Create an ordinance prohibiting parking in a bike lane.
• When bike lanes are installed, no consultation is necessary
with the BPW or T&PC. Otherwise, consult BPW and T&PC
BEFORE any determination is made not to add bicycle lanes
and improvements identified herein.
DPW BPW
T&PC
Mayor
Council
OPD
PB
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 9
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Northampton, Massachusetts
Current and Possible Bike Lanes
Date: 18-Jan-2005
Author: jtRevision: 0
File: z:\projects\public\transportation\
bikeways\bikepaths.aprRYAN R O A D
BURTS PIT ROAD
FLORENCE ROADBRIDGE ROAD
W EST HAMPTON ROAD
ELM STREET
SYLVESTER ROADC H E S T E R F I E L D R O A D
KING STREETS
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T NORTH KING STREETMOUNT TOM ROADSO U T H S T R E E T
AUDUBON ROAD
BRIDGE STREETNORTH FARMS ROADRESERVOIR ROADRIVER ROADHAYDENVILLE ROADDAMON ROAD
EASTHAMPTON ROADN
O
R
T
H
MA
I
N S
T
R
E
E
T
HATFIELD STREETPROSPECT STREET
R IV E R SID E D R IV ER O C K Y H IL L R O A D
GLENDALE ROADLOCUST STREET
WEST STREETWEST FARMS ROADNORTH MAPLE STREETNONOTUCK STREET
STATE STREETJACKSON STREETC
O
NZ S
TR
EET
MEADOW STREET
NORTH STREETPLEASANT STREETFLORENCE STREET
CHESTNUT STREETC H A PE L STR E E T MAIN STREETA R C H S T R E E T
NORTH ELM STREETMAPLE STREETLOUDVILLE ROADIN
D
U
S
T
RI
A
L D
RIV
E
FINN STREET
CLEMENT STREETMOUNTAI
N STREETMONTAGUE ROADD
A
Y A
V
EN
U
E
NEW SOUTH STREET%g9
%g10
%g66
%g10
.-,91
.-,91
(Solid lines are current bike lanes, gray are proposed bike lanes)
32. Transform the Northampton Bike Path and Norwottuck Rail Trail
into a complete rail trail network with construction funding from
federal, state and local sources. Design, permitting, and land
acquisition will be completed locally. See Rail Trail Network
map below.
Projects with estimated construction dates are shown. Actual
construction is completely dependent on state and federal funds:
• Norwottuck Rail Trail Extension to Woodmont (2005)
• Manhan Rail Trail Round House to Earle Street (2005)
• Manhan Rail Trail Earle Street to Ferry Street, Easthampton
(2006-2008)
• Norwottuck Rail Trail Bridge Road to Leeds/Williamsburg
town line (2006-2008)
• Earle Street—Village at Hospital Hill (Village developer—
2005-2006)
• Village at Hospital Hill to High School (future project—2010)
• Ice Pond/Route 66 to Florence Road Manhan Rail Trail Spur
(2004-2005)
OPD DPW
BPW
T&PC
Mayor
Council
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 10
R Y A N R O A D
BURTS PIT ROAD
FLORENCE ROADBRIDGE ROAD
W ESTH AMP TON RO A D
ELM STREET
SYLVESTER ROADC H E S T E R F I E L D R O A D
KING STREETS
P
R
I
N
G S
T
R
E
E
T NORTH KING STREETMOUNT TOM ROADSO U T H S T R E E T
AUDUBON ROAD
BRIDGE STREETNORTH FARMS ROADRESERVOIR ROADRIVER ROADHAYDENVILLE ROADDAMON ROAD
EASTHAMPTON ROADN
O
R
T
H
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
HATFIELD STREETPROSPECT STREET
R IV E R SID E D R IV E
R O C K Y H IL L R O A D
GLENDALE ROADLOCUST STREET
WEST STREETWEST FARMS ROADNORTH MAPLE STREETNONOTUCK STREET
STATE STREETJACKSON STREETC
O
NZ ST
R
EET
MEADOW STREET
NORTH STREETPLEASANT STREETFLORENCE STREET
CHESTNUT STREETC H A PE L S T R E E T MAIN STREETA R C H S T R E E T
NORTH ELM STREETMAPLE STREETLOUDVILLE ROADI
N
D
U
S
T
RIA
L D
RIV
E
FINN STREET
CLEMENT STREETMOUNTAI
N STREETMONTAGUE ROADD
A
Y A
VE
N
U
E
NEW SOUTH STREETEASTHAMPTON ROADMOUNT TOM ROAD%g66
%g10
.-,91
.-,91
%g9
%g10
Date: 18-Jan-2005
Author: jtRevision: 0
File: z:\projects\public\transportation\
bikeways\bikepaths.apr
Rail- and Multiuse- Trails
Northampton, Massachusetts
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
• Jackson Street/Rail Trail off ramp
• Rail Trail extensions, spurs, on-ramps throughout the City (see
map) (2005-2010)
(Solid lines are existing rail trails, dashed are planned, dotted are future proposed)
33. Install bicycle racks to provide all needed bicycle parking in
public high bicycle traffic areas, including schools, downtown
Florence, downtown Northampton, and the Village at Hospital
Hill, to the extent grant-funded racks are available. Bicycle
parking should be located close to building entrances and final
destinations.
DPW
Parking
T&PC
OPD
Streetscape
34. Ensure that private developers provide adequate bicycle parking to
encourage bicycle travel. Bicycle parking should be located close
to building entrances and final destinations. Include all-weather
and theft resistant bicycle storage when appropriate. Develop a
policy of when all-weather bicycle storage is appropriate.
PB OPD
Public
T&PC
Mayor
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 11
35. Obtain funds and install bicycle lockers and improve utilization of
existing bicycle lockers.
OPD
Recreation
T&PC
Parking
36. Educate the public about the rights and responsibilities of
bicyclists, to the extent that financial resources allow. Consider a
bicycle safety curriculum at all school levels. Maintain web-based
information on transportation facilities and transportation users’
rights and responsibilities. Consider use of community television
channel and newspapers to carry relevant stories and public
service announcements.
PD
School
T&PC
PUBLIC TRANSIT
37. Ensure higher visibility and better information about public transit
stops.
T&PC PVTA
Mayor
38. Encourage efficient transit by locating bus stops directly on major
transit routes and discouraging turn-offs into private developments
(e.g. shopping centers) when such turn-offs increase transit time.
T&PC
PB
PVTA
Mayor
OPD
39. Continue to work with PVTA and PVPC to consider a centralized
public transit or multi-modal facility in Northampton.
Parking
T&PC
Mayor
PVTA
OPD
40. Work with federal and state governments to ensure appropriate
funding and levels of service for public transit.
Mayor
Council
PVTA
T&PC
PARKING
41. Implement the recommendations of the Central Business District
Parking Needs Study for parking demand mitigation, parking
supply optimization, and parking supply shortfall.
Parking
Mayor
T&PC
Chamber
42. Maximize the utilization of existing parking facilities and take
other measures to reduce the need for new parking facilities while
still encouraging the public to come downtown. Ensure high
quality customer service and convenience of use to serve visitors
to Northampton and ensure maximum system utilization.
Parking T&PC
OPD
Mayor
Chamber
43. Explore the development of a second structured parking facility
downtown (deck or garage) to address parking shortfalls and allow
visitors and residents to park in a centralized facility as a smart
growth alternative to commercial and residential sprawl and to
minimize traffic congestion from circulating vehicles seeking
parking spaces. (Such a structure could be in conjunction with a
multi-modal transportation facility.)
Parking
Mayor
OPD
T&PC
Chamber
44. Ensure that on-street parking spaces in commercial areas not be
eliminated to meet street improvements without a detailed
alternatives assessment and a full community discussion.
T&PC
DPW
Mayor
Chamber
45. Promote the use of special event shuttles to connect parking on the
edge of downtown with downtown special events when
appropriate.
Parking
Police
Chamber
Property
owners
46. Explore the potential for park-and-ride lots (e.g. in Leeds and the
Village at Hospital Hill) to minimize traffic congestion
T&PC
OPD
Mayor
DPW
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 12
47. Ensure adequate parking is present in newly proposed large
projects to meet their parking demand, consistent with efforts to
reduce traffic, cars, and parking needs through transportation
demand management.
PB OPD
48. Explore the potential for the City to offer a parking cashout, where
City employees receive a choice of free parking or its equivalent
value in cash, to encourage employees to come to work in modes
other than single occupancy vehicles. Use cash out program to
promote similar efforts in the private sector.
Parking
Mayor
T&PC
ENFORCEMENT
49. Enforce traffic and sidewalk regulations, ordinances, and statutes
on the book in order to promote safety.
PD
Parking
DPW
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
50. Incorporate reasonable steps to reduce peak-hour single-
occupancy vehicle trips for new projects. Transportation demand
management (TDM) techniques will be tailored to suit individual
project needs, user needs, and the overall feasibility of the project
while addressing City TDM goals. This may include:
• Capital improvements (e.g., sidewalks, bicycle lanes, non-
motorized trails and connections, bus stops, car pool parking);
• Incentives for low-impact transportation (e.g., transit, car
pooling, cycling, and walking) along with reduced incentives
for single-occupancy vehicles (e.g., below-cost employee
parking);
• Policies to redistribute traffic impacts (e.g., set employee hours
to avoid peak hour commutes).
PB
DPW
Parking
OPD
BPW
51. In locating municipal facilities, one of the goals is to build close to
urban centers and otherwise close to the population the facilities
will serve.
Mayor
Council
All city
52. Coordinate City land use policies and the land use plan with the
city’s transportation plan and shall consider the impacts of land
use on the city’s transportation system.
PB
OPD
T&PC
Mayor
Council
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
53. Develop capital improvements requests to identify and prioritize
transportation improvements that support this plan and economic
development
T&PC
DPW
BPW
Mayor
Council
54. Encourage and facilitate transportation improvements that support
economic development in areas identified for growth in the city’s
comprehensive and other economic development plans.
T&PC
DPW
BPW
Mayor
Council
55. Monitor the status of infrastructure to work towards timely
upgrades to meet the economic needs of the City.
T&PC
DPW
Council
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 13
BPW
Mayor
Responsible and Partner Agencies (and their abbreviations)
BPW Board of Public Works
Chamber Northampton Area Chamber of Commerce
COUNCIL City Council
DPW Department of Public Works
MAYOR Mayor and Mayor’s Office of Economic Development
OPD Office of Planning and Development
PARKING Parking Division
PB Planning Board
PD Police Department
SCHOOL School Department or Board
Streetscape Streetscape Advisory Committee
T&PC Transportation and Parking Commission
PVTA Pioneer Valley Transportation Authority `
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 14
Appendix A
Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Priorities
Discussions between members of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Subcommittee, School Department,
School Committee and Police Department identified critically needed sidewalk links. These
discussions primarily focused on sidewalks that could make students’ journeys to school safer
and those that could reduce busing costs by allowing students who lived within reasonable
walking distance of the school to walk instead of ride the bus.
All of the lists in this Appendix shall be expanded in the near future by the DPW and T&PC to
reflect additional priorities for sidewalks and traffic calming.
HIGHEST PRIORITY NEW SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Street From/To Discussion
Busing
Savings
Bridge Road
(Southside)
Gables to
Jackson Street
Currently under design. Sidewalk construction prioritized for
funding.
Prospect Street
(Southside)
Massasoit St.
to Woodlawn
Ave.
Currently students from the neighborhoods on the southside of
Elm Street are bused to Jackson Street School even though
they are within 2 miles because of the lack of a safe walking
route to the school, primarily due to the crossings of Elm
Street and Prospect Street. Moving the location of two
Crossing Guards would provide a safer walking route to
school. One Crossing Guard would move from the x-walk at
Forbes Ave. and Elm St. to the x-walk at Woodlawn Ave. and
Elm St. The second Crossing Guard would move from the x-
walk at Massasoit St. and Prospect St. to the x-walk at
Woodlawn Ave. and Prospect St. Funding could be sought
for any necessary crosswalk improvements, such as signage.
Hatfield Street
(Either Side)
Locust Street
to Bridge
Road
This sidewalk would connect to the currently under design
Bridge Road sidewalk. Hatfield carries heavy commuter
traffic volumes (4,700 AADT) traveling at speed along a
narrow street through a residential neighborhood. A sidewalk
would open Smith Vocational High School, Northampton
High School, Cooley Dickinson Hospital and the
Northampton Bike Path to pedestrians from the surrounding
neighborhoods.
North Elm
Street (Either
Side)
Hatfield Street
to Bridge
Road
This sidewalk would connect to the currently under design
Bridge Road sidewalk. North Elm carries commuter traffic
(2,000 ADT) traveling at speed along a narrow street. A
sidewalk would open Smith Vocational High School,
Northampton High School, Cooley Dickinson Hospital and
the Northampton Bike Path to pedestrians from the Gables All 3 improvements could allow the elimination of an elementary bus route, saving $35,000/year Locations are in no particular order.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 15
MEDIUM PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR NEW SIDEWALKS
Street From/To Discussion
Bridge Road
(Northside)
Chestnut
Street to JFK
School
Students in the Neighborhoods on the north side of Bridge
Road are currently bused to JFK because Bridge Road is too
dangerous for them to cross to get to the existing sidewalk.
With the addition of this section of sidewalk all these
students would no longer require busing.
Bridge Road
(Southside)
Jackson St. to
King St.
Burts Pit Road Ryan Road to
Florence
Road
Students in the Neighborhoods on the south side of Burts
Pitt Road are currently bused to Ryan Road School because
Burts Pitt Road is too dangerous for them to cross to get to
the neighborhood roads that lead to the school and are
currently used by the students living on the north side. With
the addition of this section of sidewalk all these students
would no longer require busing.
Cooke Avenue Bridge Rd. to
Hatfield St.
Hatfield Street Bridge Road
to Cooke Ave.
Damon Road
Industrial Drive
and Bates
River Run
access to
King St.
Damon Rd. to
North St.
Students in the River Run Condominiums are currently
bused to Bridge Street School. If there was a sidewalk from
the complex along its access road and Damon Road, a
pedestrian signal at Industrial Drive, and a sidewalk along
Industrial Drive and Bates, then these students could then
walk and no longer require busing. (All of Damon Road
should have sidewalks when Damon Road is reconstructed.)
Chestnut Street
(Eastside)
Strawberry
Hill, south.
There is a short section of sidewalk missing south from
Strawberry Hill, which if constructed would negate the need
for pedestrians to cross the street.
Elm Street
(Northside)
Woodlawn
Ave. to
Prospect St.
This section runs along the edge of Childs Park where there
is currently a well defined “cow path” indicating a well used
pedestrian route.
Route 9 Bridge Road
to Florence
Street
Currently there is no complete sidewalk connection between
Bridge Road and Leeds. A sidewalk exists on the west side
of Route 9 from Bridge Road for a short distance. The
sidewalk then begins on the east side and continues to the
VA Hospital entrance. A crosswalk across Route 9 connects
the two sections of Sidewalk. It should be noted that there
are plans to extend the Northampton bike path along the
abandoned rail bed through Look Park. Additionally the
intersection of Route 9 and Bridge Road is to be improved.
A pedestrian connection between Bridge Road and Leeds
would allow JFK students living in Leeds to walk or bike to
school and residents to walk or bike to Florence or
Downtown.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 16
RY A N R O A D
BURTS PIT ROAD
FLORENCE ROADBRIDGE ROAD
ELM STREET KING STREETS
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T NORTH KING STREETSO U T H ST R E E T
AD
BRIDGE STREETLLE ROADDAMON ROAD
N
OR
T
H
MA
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
HATFIELD STREETPROSPECT STREET
R IV ER SID E D R IV ELOCUST STREET
WEST STREETNORTH MAPLE STREETNONOTUCK STREET
STATE STREETJACKSON STREETC
O
N
Z ST
R
E
E
T
MEADOW STREET
NORTH STREETPLEASANT STREETFLORENCE STREET
CHESTNUT STREETC H A PEL STR EETMAIN STREETA R C H S T R E E T
NORTH ELM STREETMAPLE STREETI
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
FINN STREET
CLEMENT STREETMOUNTAI
N STREETD
A
Y A
V
E
N
U
E
NEW SOUTH STREET%g9
%g66
%g10
.-,91
Date: 18-Jan-2005
Author: jtRevision: 0
File: z:\projects\public\transportation\
bikeways\bikepaths.apr
Sidewalk Priorities
Northampton, Massachusetts
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Jackson Street Bike path
bridge to
school
Install tree belt between sidewalk and road or otherwise
make improvements to minimize potential conflict between
young elementary school bound walkers and cars.
Locations are in no particular order.
(Dashed lines show proposed sidewalk improvements)
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 17
INTERSECTIONS PERCEIVED AS HAZARDOUS FOR PEDESTRIANS
Intersection Discussion
Riverside Dr./Federal Street Sidewalk shifts from one side of street to the other.
Intersection has poor sight lines
Nonotuck St./Elm St./S. Main St. With the addition of approximately 20 feet of sidewalk
on the south side, a cross walk could connect the
existing sidewalks. This is a main pedestrian route to
NHS.
Locust St./Elm St./Prospect
St./Hospital Driveway
Damon Rd./King Street/ Bridge
Road
Pedestrian cycle needed
Woodlawn Ave./Prospect
St./Jackson St.
See discussion in Top Priority List.
Florence Rd./Ryan Rd.
Finn St./State St.
Hatfield St./Cooke Ave.
Locations are in no particular order.
PRIORITY SCHOOL BUS WAITING AREAS
Intersection Discussion
Dunphy Drive/Westhampton Road Students currently wait at this intersection for the school
bus. There is no sidewalk, so students stand in the road.
A formalized waiting area would allow students to wait
off the road.
Locations are in no particular order.
TRAFFIC CALMING PRIORITIES
Locations Discussion
Bridge Street School Elementary School with children walking to school
Jackson Street School Elementary School with children walking to school
Leeds School Elementary School with children walking to school
Ryan Road School Elementary School with children walking to school
Hockanum Road by Pleasant St.* Funded by development project mitigation
Hatfield Street at Cooke Avenue* Dangerous intersection with traffic calming funded by
development project mitigation
Pine Street (near S. Main)* Funded by development project mitigation
Bliss Street* Opportunity because of bridge closing and eventual new
bridge
*These projects are not necessarily the most critical traffic calming projects in the City, but are on the priority list because funding and other
opportunities makes them the easiest projects to proceed on and to establish a model traffic calming process.
Locations are in no particular order.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 18
Appendix B
Bicycle Lane Design Guidelines
Bicycle lanes shall be designed in accordance with the most recent edition of the American
Association of State Highway and Transporation Officials (AASHTO) “The Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities,” with attention to the following aspects:
1. Bike lanes should contain appropriate pavement markings and signage.
2. Identified priority corridors for bike lane investigation and improvement by the DPW are:
King Street (refer to VHB Study), the City-maintained portion of Bridge Street,
improving the bicycle lane layout, markings and signage on South Street, maintaining the
bicycle lane layout and crosswalks on Elm Street, and extending the Elm Street bicycle
lane up Locust Street and Main Street into Florence Center.
3. In determining whether a bicycle lane is feasible, roadway travel lanes widths of 11 feet
are generally considered adequate, unless specific local conditions require a wider lane
width. Four-foot bicycle lanes are desirable, but three-foot bicycle lanes are a significant
improvement over no bicycle lane. In areas with on-street parking typically there should
be a seven-foot parking lane with an adjacent six-foot wide bicycle lane (three-foot for
bicycles and a three-foot wide door zone buffer). Bicycle lanes should not generally be
added next to diagonal parking.
4. Bicycle lanes should be created by measuring from the center line of the road, creating
11’ or 12’ travel lanes as appropriate, leaving the rest of the space for bicycle lanes (as
opposed to measuring in from the curb, which can create unduly wide vehicle lanes and
create sudden curves in the bicycle lane).
5. Right-turn vehicle lanes should be located on the right side of through bicycle lanes, with
pavement markings used to indicate the location where vehicles should cross the bicycle
lane (typically 200’ back from the intersection).
6. One-way streets without parking on the left-side of the street (as the traffic flows) can be
appropriate for bicycle lanes running counter to the flow of traffic.
7. Sidewalks designed to accommodate bicycles should be installed only with consideration
of AASTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and:
a. Should only be designed when the sidewalk is wide enough to accommodate the
expected traffic; and
b. Driveway crossings are minimized and are designed to provide visibility and
right-of-way for sidewalk traffic; and
c. Do not replace or discourage appropriate bicycle usage and/or bicycle lanes in the
street.
d. Ensure that signage reinforces safe bicycling habits in children and new riders.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 19
Minimum Road Widths for Bicycle Lanes
Minimum Traveled Lane
Width (11’ travel lanes)
Minimum Traveled Lane Width
(12’ travel lanes)
Streets with no parking 15’ 16’
One lane of parking 23’ 24’
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 20
Appendix C
Roundabout Evaluation
Roundabouts are the favored intersection treatment when appropriate. Suitability of roundabouts
will be evaluated during the preliminary engineering analysis for all intersections being
considered for significant reconstruction, realignment, signalization, and four-way stops. The
following factors shall be considered when determining the suitability of a roundabout for a
location.
Roundabout Benefits :
1. Roundabouts (particularly single lane) have been shown to substantially reduce the severity
and number of crashes for all users (studies in the US have found safety benefits for
bicyclists at roundabouts inconclusive, primarily due to the limited sample size of bicycle
crashes at the locations studied).
2. The slow speed environment combined with the reduced number of conflict points provides
more time for drivers to judge and react to other vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. This is
particularly advantageous to older and novice drivers.
3. Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts provide less exposure to conflict due to the shorter
crossing distances due to the spliter islands used to separate the approach and exit lanes. The
slower vehicle speeds increases compliance with yield laws for pedestrians and less severe
consequences if a vehicle/pedestrian collision occurs.
4. Yield control combined with low circulating speeds allow entering vehicles to accept
relatively small gaps. Additionally, vehicles can simultaneously enter the roundabout from
multiple approaches. These factors provide increased capacity, reduced delays, and therefore
reductions in air pollution, reduced queue lengths and therefore, the need for extended
storage lanes commonly seen at traffic signals.
5. Roundabouts do not have to be perfectly circular allowing their design to be adjusted to fit
locations with unusual geometry and/or odd number of approaches. Roundabouts may also
be useful in eliminating a pair of closely spaced intersections to combine them to form a
multi-legged elongated roundabout. In locations where available right of way or geometry
are limited a “mini-roundabout” design may still provide many of the benefits.
6. Traffic Calming effects on vehicle speeds are observed over several hundred feet both up and
downstream of a roundabout.
7. Each roundabout installation is unique, but construction costs are typically comparable to a
traffic signal installation with associated intersections improvements. Howevere,
roundabouts will generally have reduced annual maintenance costs compared to traffic
signals amounting to several thousand dollars a year (signal maintenance and electrical
costs). Additionally the service life (time frame where acceptable operation will be
sustained) of a roundabout is typically 25 years compared to 10 years for a traffic signal.
8. Roundabouts provide an opportunity to provide an aesthetic solution for intersection
improvements.
Roundabout Disadvantages
1. Heavily unbalanced traffic flows may not be efficiently accommodated at a roundabout,
although if a roundabout is the highly desirable option for the intersection and the unbalanced
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 21
flows occur during limited periods of the day, measures such as metering traffic signals on
the unbalanced approach can often alleviate problems.
2. Intersections that experience extremely heavy pedestrian volumes may not be appropriate for
a roundabout application as the capacity may be reduced.
3. Roundabouts typically require a larger footprint at the intersection and may not be able to be
accommodated due to right of way or geometric constraints. In these circumstances the
suitability of a mini-roundabout option should be considered.
4. Visually impaired pedestrians have expressed concern about navigating roundabouts, due to
difficulty in locating crossing locations and identifying gaps in traffic at the crossing
locations. Research is currently being conducted to identify the best treatments to
accommodate the visually impaired. Care should be taken to ensure that sidewalks and
crosswalks are designed with treatments that will assist the visually-impaired.
5. The safety benefits of roundabouts reduce as additional lanes are added.
Roundabout Capacity Analysis
1. There are currently two commonly used software packages utilized for measuring the
capacity of roundabouts in the U.S., aaSIDRA and RODEL. Capacity analysis of
roundabouts should be conducted using one or both of these software programs.
Final April 2005 Transportation Policies and Transportation Plan—Page 22
April 7, 2005 and April 21, 2005
Upon the recommendation of the Transportation and Parking Commission, Board of Public
Works and Planning Board
BE IT RESOLVED
WHEREAS, On March 15, 2005, the Transportation and Parking Commission adopted the
Municipal Transportation Plan for the City of Northampton (Transportation
Plan), as the transportation element of the City’s comprehensive plan pursuant to
the Northampton Code of Ordinances §2-675; and
WHEREAS, On February 24, 2005, the Planning Board adopted the Transportation Plan as the
transportation element of the City’s comprehensive plan pursuant to MGL
Chapter 41 §81 C and D and the Northampton Code of Ordinances §2-675; and
WHEREAS, On March 9, 2005, the Board of Public Works Planning Board adopted the
Transportation Plan pursuant to their authority to set city public works policy;
and
WHEREAS, Although the plan is now in effect, City Council endorsement is important for
overall acceptance of the planning process and the plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
City Council endorses the Municipal Transportation Plan for the City of
Northampton.
Approved Northampton City Council April 7 and April 21, 2005