Route 10 Corridor Planning Study 12/1991FINAL DRAFT REPORT
ROUTE 10 CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY
A Comprehensive Analysis of Traffic and Land
Use Within the Route 10 Transportation
Corridor Interconnecting Easthampton and Northampton, MA
VOLUME I
Prepared for:
Town of Easthampton, Massachusetts
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
and
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Prepared by:
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
26 Central Street
West Springfield, Massachusetts 01089
December 1991
ROUTE 10 CORRIDOR STUDY
TABLE_ OF CONTENTS -
PAGE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 LAND USE ANALYSIS 9
2.1 INTRODUCTION 10
2.1.1 Study Objectives
2.1.2 Description of the Route 10 Corridor 10
2.2 LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS 14
2.2.1 Soil Characteristics and Prime Farmland 14
2.2.2 Floodplain Areas 14
2.2.3 Groundwater 15
2.2.4 Wetlands 15
10
2.3 EXISTING LAND USE 17
2.3.1 Data Collection and Mapping 17
2.3.2 Existing Land Use 17
2.3.3 Business Land Use Characteristics 20
2.3.4. Residential Land Use Characteristics 20
2.3.5 Undeveloped Land Use Characteristics 21
2.4 . ZONING REVIEW .24
2.4.1 Introduction 24
2.4.2 Summary of Easthampton Zoning in the Route 10 Corridor 24
2.4.3 Summary of Northampton Zoning in the Route 10 Corridor 26
2.4.4 Problem Areas in Easthampton Zoning Bylaw 28
2.4.5 Problem Areas in Northampton Zoning Ordinance 29
2.5 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS 32
2.5.1 Land Availability and Cost 32
2.5.2 Public Utilities 33
2.5.3 Environmental Constraints and Zoning Restrictions 33
2.5.4 Summary of Development Constraints 34
2.6 ROUTE 10 BUILD -OUT ANALYSIS 1990 -2010 36
2.6.1 Introduction 36
2.6.2 Description of Build -out Scenarios 36
2.6.3 Considerations in Developing Build -Out Scenarios 37
2.6.4 Procedures 38
2.6.5 Conclusions 46
2.6.6 Change in Build -Out Assumptions and Its Impact on Traffic Volumes 46
2.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 50
2.7.1 Recent or Current Development 50
2.7.2 Proposed- Development 31
r
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 1 Land Use Change in Northampton/Easthampton
1971 -1985 11
Table 2 Generalized Land Use for Easthampton 18
Table 3 Generalized Land Use for Northampton 18
Table 4 Generalized Land Use for the Study Area 19
Table 5 Retail Use 20
Table 6 Land For Sale in the Route 10 Corridor (12 -88) 32
Table 7 Route 10 Build -Out Scenarios for Years 2000 -2010 39
Table 8 Trip Generation Rates for Business Types 41
Table 9 Gross Number of Trips Generated 42
Table 10 Net Number of New Trips Generated 44
Table 11 Building Permits Issued in the Route 10 Corridor -
1985 -1989 50
Table 12 Proposed or Completed Industrial or Commercial
Projects, 1985 -1990; Easthampton 50
Table 13 Proposed or Completed Industrial or Commercial
Projects, 1985 -1990, Northampton 51
Table 14 Alternative Land Use Strategies 55
Table 15 Status of Recommendations as of 8/91 68
Table 16 Level of Service (LOS) Designations 73
Table 17 Existing Intersection LOS Summary 77
Table 18 Existing Segment Analysis Summary 80
Table 19 Accident History Summary 82
Table 20 Signal Warrant Analysis Summary 84
Table 21 Year 1995 Intersection LOS Summary 90
Table 22 Year 1995 Segment Analysis Summary 92
Table 23 Year 2000 Intersection LOS Summary 97
Table 24 Year 2000 Segment Analysis Summary 98
Table 25 Year 2010 Intersection Analysis Summary 102
Table 26 Year 2010 Segment Analysis Summary 104
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1 Two Site Plans for One Parcel For Existing 63
Zoning and Recommended Zoning Changes
Figure 2 Route 10 Study Area Focus 74
Figure 3 Existing Study Area Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 78
Figure 4 Year 1995 No -Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 88
Figure 5 Year 1995 Build -Out Scenario Peak Hour Trip
Generation Volumes 89
Figure 6 Year 2000 No -Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 94
Figure 7 Year 2000 Build -Out Scenario Peak Hour Trip
Generation Volumes 95
Figure 8 Year 2010 No -Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 100
Figure 9 Year 2010 Build -Out Scenarios Peak Hour
Trip Generatiuon Volumes 101
Figure 10 Route 10 at Union Street Mitigation 107
Figure 11 Route 10 at West Street Mitigation 108
Figure 12 Route 10 at Florence Road Mitigation 109
Figure 13 . Route 10 at O'Neil Street Mitigation 110
Figure 14 Route 10 at Earle Street Mitigation 111
Figure 15 Route 10 at Old South Street Mitigation 112
LIST OF MAPS PAGE
Map 1 Route 10 Corridor Study Area Map 12
Map 2 Highway Jurisdiction 13
Map 3 Environmental Constraints Map 16
Map 4 Existing Land Use Map 23
Map 5 Zoning Map 31
Map 6 Utilities Map 35
Map 7 Existing Zoning Build -Out Scenarios (Scenarios 1 and 2) 48
Map 8 Existing Zoning Map Build -Out Scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 4) 49
Map 9 Development Trends Map 53
3/12/92:dI
r
fl
(3/3/92:d1)
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
F
r
L
ROUTE 10 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC AND LAND USE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LAND USE
FINDINGS
Over a period of two years the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission has studied
the traffic and land use conditions along a stretch of Route 10 between the centers
of the Town of Easthampton and the City of Northampton. Extensive data
collection efforts produced information on land uses and other characteristics for
every parcel of land having frontage along the Route. Similarly, data on existing
traffic conditions were gathered, including a history of accidents, traffic volumes,
and turning movements at numerous intersections along the corridor. Trends in
land development and traffic growth were identified, and places were identified
where safety hazards and congestion were evident. These locations were
analyzed to determine the severity and type of problems that exist. Projections of
future development were made, and estimates of future traffic were derived,
which, in turn, were evaluated to determine if the corridor could accommodate
future traffic. Deficiencies in the capacity and safety conditions of the road under
future traffic volumes were identified, and recommendations to improve the land
use and traffic controls and capabilities of the corridor were made.
A summary follows of the findings and recommendations of the Route 10
Corridor Planning Study.
The Route 10 study area has ample vacant land suitable for development. There
are, however, some areas where there are some environmental constraints,
particularly flood plains, steep slopes, and wetlands. There are also some
constraints in terms of public utilities. The following a re specific findings
regarding land uses and development constraints.
1. A little less than half of the acreage that fronts on the Route 10 Corridor in
the study area is developed for residential, commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses.
2. About half of the undeveloped land (175.7 acres) is owned by the
Massachusetts Audubon Society and called Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary.
3. Approximately 72 of 171 corridor fronting acres in Easthampton and 124 of
441 acres along Route 10 in Northampton are
industrial /commercial /office /mixed -use. Only 25 acres in Easthampton and
30.4 acres in Northampton are residential.
4. There are 24 undeveloped parcels which have a total of 73.5 acres in
Easthampton, nearly all of which are zoned General Business. These
parcels have 3,173 feet of frontage on Route 10. In Northampton, there are
34 undeveloped parcels, which have a total of 109 acres and 8,133 feet of
frontage on Route 10. There are 18 of these parcels, containing 26.4 acres
with 3,865 feet of frontage, that are in the General Industry zone. It is clear
that there is an ample supply of developable land for business uses in both
communities, and this has been taken into account is preparing projections
of future growth in the Route 10 Corridor Study.
5. There are 182 driveway entrances (curb cuts) along the 4.36 mile -long
corridor, 96 in Northampton and 86 in Easthampton.
ANALYSIS
6. Weaknesses have been identified in the zoning laws in both municipalities in
the areas of control of curb cuts, site plan approval requirements, special
permit criteria, lot size, signage, and landscaping.
7. Public water supply is available along the entire portion of Route 10 in
Northampton, but there is a 2,000 foot stretch of the corridor in
Easthampton where there is no public water service available. Water supply
and pressure are adequate for additional development in Northampton, but
there are inadequacies in Easthampton's water supply.
8. Sewers in Easthampton extend from the center of town to a point on Route
10 approximately 375 feet north of the Florence Road intersection. There
are about 2,600 feet from that point to the town line that are unsewered. In
Northampton, sewers extend from the center of the city to the Mill River
bridge. The 8,400 foot section of Route 10 between the bridge and the city
line is not sewered. Adequate treatment capacity exists at the wastewater
treatment plants in both communities.
Information on land use and development gathered from municipal and other
sources was analyzed by conducting a series of "build -out" scenarios. These
were based on sets of different assumptions regarding the rate and type of growth
that might occur over the next twenty years in the study area. Environmental and
traffic impacts related to these alternative future conditions were compared, and
the results should be helpful to the municipalities and regional agencies in
developing and instituting land use policies and control measures to achieve a
preferred future. Four build -out scenarios were examined:
1. Existing Zoning/High Growth Rate. A growth rate averaging 3.5 building
permits per year for new commercial or industrial structures is assumed. A
high share of new development would be related to automobiles.
2. Existing Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate. This scenario assumes a growth
rate of 2.2 building permits per year, on average, with a similar emphasis
on automobile related businesses as in Scenario #1.
3. Recommended Zoning Changes/High Growth Rate. Based on a growth
rate of 3.5 permits per year, this scenario assumes most new developments
will generate low levels of new traffic.
4. Recommended Zoning Changes/Moderate Growth Rate. This scenario
assumes an average of 2.2 building permits per year and that new
development would principallly be low generators of traffic.
3
P
r
L
Traffic generation was determined based on projected land use, trip generation
rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the growth rate for each
scenario. Two forecast years, 2000 and 2010, were included. The results of the
traffic generation are shown in the following table:
New Daily Traffic
Generated on
Route 10
Forecast Year 2000 2010
Scenario #1 11,075 25,800
Scenario #2 7,700 14,200
Scenario #3 8,200 18,050
Scenario #4 5,850 11,700
Route 10 in the study area currently handles about 13,500 to 16,000 vehicles per
day. The impact of additional traffic projected under some of the above scenarios
would be substantial.
There is, among the scenarios, a large variation in new traffic that may be
generated, and this is mainly due to the expected rate of growth of new
development along the Route 10 Corridor, as well as the type of development that
is built. Local officials generally have little influence over the growth rate, which
is largely a function of local and regional economic factors. They do, however,
have control of the types and densities of land uses that are permitted.
Although the regional economy is in a recessionary phase, there continues to be
development activity in the Route 10 Corridor. The Business Park zoning district
in Northampton has recently been adopted, and subdivision approvals and
wetland permits are being processed for several properties along the corridor in
Easthampton. Thus, it is likely that the development activity experienced over the
past decade will resume once the next economic recovery occurs.
ALTERNATE STRATEGIES
Numerous strategies from many communities across the country for controlling
traffic and improving the human environment in commercial "strip" development
were investigated. No simple or complete solution has been found, but a number
of communities have been successful in combining a variety of approaches to
manage traffic, access, and development in a`coordinated fashion. The types of
strategies reviewed include:
1. Commercial Corridor Site Plan Approval
2. Trip Reduction Zoning
3. Planned Unit Development
4. Restriction of High Traffic Generators
5. Down - zoning/Re- zoning
6. Division of Corridor into Multiple Districts
7. Establishment of High Density Districts around Major Intersections
8. Restriction of Residential Conversion
9. Comprehensive Access Control
10. Sign Regulation
11. Design Review /Appearance Controls
12. Zoning Standards for Landscaping and Lighting
13. Parking Standards
14. Driveway Spacing Regulation
15. Curbing
16. Intergovernmental Agreements
17. Phased Growth Laws
18. Temporary Growth Moratoria
19. Land Acquisition
20. Land Banks
21. Transfer of Development Rights
22. Zoning for Pedestrian/Bicycle Access
23. Mitigation Fees for Traffic Generation
24. Landscaping Fees for Corridor Streetscape
25. Revenue Sharing
26. Commercial Design Manual
27. Billboard Amortization/Removal
RECOMMENDED LAND USE STRATEGIES
Recommendations for both Northampton and Easthampton:
1. Revise site plan approval/review standards with Traffic Impact Statements.
2. Improve zoning controls for signs, parking, and landscaping.
3. Promote communication between Easthampton, Northampton, and the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works regarding development along
Route 10.
4. Improve access driveway spacing by increasing minimum frontage.
Recommendations for Easthampton
5. Revise the Planned Business Development By -law.
6. Restrict high - volume traffic generating uses in the General Business
District.
7. Amend the Planned Industrial Development By -Law.
8. Clarify Definition of Frontage and Street.
9. Require sidewalks along the Route 10 Corridor to enhance pedestrian
safety.
Recommendations for Northampton:
10. Amend Planned Unit Development regulations to link housing to
commercial development.
11. Establish a Highway Corridor Overlay District.
'5
TRAFFIC
FINDINGS
ANALYSIS
The Route 10 Study examined traffic condition data within the study area under
existing as well as several future conditions. A review of historic traffic counts
and traffic accident occurrence was conducted to identify trends associated with
the Route 10 corridor. Signal warrant studies were also conducted at several
intersections which accommodate high volumes of traffic. This information is
summarized below.
1. Traffic growth along the corridor has been increasing consistently up to the
year 1990. The average annual growth rate is estimated to be approximately
1.0 percent per year.
2. Signal warrant analysis was conducted and determined that three of the
study area intersections warrant the installation of traffic signals under
present conditions. These intersecting streets with Route 10 include: West
Street, Florence Street and Old South Street. The intersection of Route 10
and O'Neil Street is anticipated to require traffic signals in the near future.
3. Accident occurrence along the corridor has been measured at key
intersection locations. Three accident "Hot- Spots" have been identified: the
intersection of Route 10 at Florence Road, the intersection of Route 10 at
West Street and the intersection of Route 10 at Old South Street. Each
intersection experienced moderate to high vehicle volume levels and is
unsignalized. The accidents reported in 1988 at these locations are 8, 10,
and 14 for the intersections of Route 10 and Florence, West and Old South
Streets respectively.
4. The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) provides service along the
Route 10 corridor. PVTA Route 701 runs hourly between Northampton
and Holyoke along Route 10 through Easthampton.
Vehicle capacity analyses were conducted for each study area intersection as well
as each corridor segment. Analyses were conducted for the existing conditions as
well as a short term time horizon, 1995, and long term time horizons, 2000 and
2010. These various levels of analyses provide information the corridor's
deficiencies overtime allowing a strategic implementation of improvement action
to be developed. The analyses also provide a comparison of the various build -out
scenarios operating conditions. The results of the capacity analyses are
summarized below:
1. Under present operating conditions, five of the seven intersections operate
below acceptable levels of service. Each corridor segment operates within
the capacity of the corridor.
2. The short term forecast analyses determined that all intersection but one
require improvement. These improvements consist of signalization, turning
lane additions, signal timing adjustments and /or turning restrictions.
Segment operations are anticipated to be within the capacity of the corridor.
3. Long term forecast requires additional improvements at five study area
intersections. These improvements include signalization, lane widening
and /or additional research. The 2000 and 2010 forecast of segment
operations identify possible capacity constraints along some of the corridor
segments.
ALTERNATE STRATEGIES
The short term and long term forecasts provide engineers and planners with the
foresight in identifying a capacity problem before the situation becomes a hazard.
The recommendations outlined in this report also allow these officials to build for
the future, or prepare budgetary strategies for the anticipated improvement plans.
Upgrading individual locations can be cost effectively incorporated into separate
construction plans or with local development mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
1. Intersection Recommendations
Recommendations have been identified for all seven of the key study area
intersections. In some cases the short term recommendations (year 1990)
have been calculated to satisfy the demands of the long term conditions
(year 2000 and 2010). Other recommended strategies identify measures to
satisfy the problems at hand and continue progressive improvement
measures in later years on an as- needed basis. The location - specific
improvement recommendations are listed below for each study year.
Route 10 at Union Street:
1995 - Adjust signal timing;
2000 - Reconfigure land assignments;
2010 - Detailed study recommended.
Route 10 at West Street:
1995 - Signalized, add northbound left turn land and
southbound right turn land, install signal -
ahead sign;
2000 - No additional improvement required;
2010 - Change second southbound lane assignment
to a shared right/through land and widen
receiving leg.
Route 10 at Florence Road:
1995 - Signalize, add northbound left turn lane,
add eastbound approach lane;
2000 - No additional improvement required;
2010 - No additional improvement required.
Route 10 at O'Neil Street:
1995 - Signalize;
2000 - No additional improvement required;
2010 - Add southbound left turn land and westbound
left turn lane.
Route 10 at Earle Street:
1995 - No improvement required;
2000 - No improvement required;
2010 - Add eastbound left turn lane.
Route 10 at Old South Street:
1995 - Signalize, add northbound right turn
land and southbound left tum lane;
2000 - No additional improvement required;
2010 - No additional improvement required.
7
L
r—
Route 10 at Main Street:
1995 - Detailed study recommended;
2000 - Detailed study recommended;
2010 - Detailed study recommended.
2. Segment Recommendation
The Route 10 study also included analysis of the five corridor segments.
Based on the criteria set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the
segment travel conditions were evaluated for each study year. The results
of this evaluation determined that one segment will operate below
satisfactory conditions by the year 2010. The segment of Route 10 between
Florence Road and Pleasant Street in Easthampton is anticipated to reduce
user freedom in maintaining preferable travel speeds and comfort. This
restriction may possibly divert users to alternate routes. It is recommended
that continued observation be conducted at this location by the year 2000.
3. Study Area Safety
The safety conditions along the Route 10. corridor have been measured
primarily at the key study area intersections. It is anticipated that the
number of severe accidents occurring within the study area will be reduced
with the implementation of the recommended improvements discussed
above. However, additional attention should be given to pedestrian travel
and safety. As developments continue along the Route 10 corridor,
pedestrian travel will also become heavier. This increase in pedestrian travel
will prompt the need for the regular installation of pedestrian facilities such
as sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian actuated detectors and signage
throughout the developed portions of the corridor.
- 1
P
7
2.0 LAND USE
2.0 ROUTE 10 LAND USE ANALYSIS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Study Objectives
The objectives of the land use component of this study are to:
Determine current land use pattems and development trends
10 Corridor;
Assess the impacts of existing and future land use on Route
and volumes;
10
within the Route
10 traffic safety
Recommend appropriate land use policies to minimize adverse future traffic
impacts;
Provide opportunities for public participation in the planning process
by municipal officials, residents, landowners, and business leaders;
Provide a specific action plan which will promote well - planned commercial
and residential development within the Route 10 Corridor, in accordance with
available public infrastructure capacity, protection of environmentally
sensitive, areas and community character.
2.1.2 Description of the Route 10 Corridor
Route 10 is a state - maintained highway which connects Northampton to
Easthampton (and ultimately to Westfield), and is one of the Pioneer Valley's key
north -south transportation arteries. The Route 10 Corridor is defined, for
purposes of this study, as extending from the Old South Street intersection in
Northampton to the Pleasant Street intersection in Easthampton. See Route 10
Corridor Study Area Map.
From the intersection of Old Street and Route 10 southward to the Mill River
Diversion in Northampton, the highway is under the jurisdiction of the City of
Northampton. The highway is under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works from the Mill River Diversion in Northampton
southward to the Manhan River Bridge in Easthampton. The remainder of the
corridor in Easthampton, from the Manhan River Bridge to the town center, is
under municipal control. See Highway Jurisdiction Map. '
Northampton is a commercial center and residential community,Awith a 1990
population of 29,289. Easthampton is a commercial, industrial and residential
community of 15,537 residents.
Both Northampton and Easthampton experienced considerable residential,
commercial and industrial growth between 1971 and 1985 as illustrated in Table
1, although their populations levels have remained practically unchanged during
the past decade.
Northampton experienced a surge of new housing construction in the late 1980's,
with 654 new residential building permits issued in the period 1985 -1987, as
compared to 140 building permits in the previous three -year period 1982 -1984.
Easthampton's activity peaked in the early 1980's in part due to a building
moratorium established in February, 1987. Easthampton issued 257 building
permits in the three -year period 1982 -1984, and 101 building permits in the two -
year period 1986 -1987.
Table 1.
Land Use Change in Northampton and Easthampton 1971 -1985
Residential
Commercial Industrial
Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent
In Acres of Change in Acres of Change in Acres of Change
Northampton +433 14.5 +37 0.6 + 37 32.0
Easthampton +398 22.6 +26 27.9 +147 40.3
Source: Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and University of Massachusetts
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management
Within the Route 10 Corridor, the level of commercial development differs greatly
between Northampton and. Easthampton. The Northampton section of the
corridor is heavily built -up in residential neighborhoods at the northern end, but
contains significant undeveloped acreage in the southern section near the
Easthampton town line. Some of the undeveloped land in Northampton has
environmental constraints, such as floodplain or wetlands, which affect its
development potential. Isolated land tracts in this section contain industrial or
commercial uses, such as solid waste recycling, fuel oil storage and self - service
storage units.
The Easthampton section of the Route 10 Corridor is much closer to the build -out
stage than the Northampton section. The southern section, closest to the
Easthampton town center, is heavily built -up in a mix of residential and
commercial uses. The northern section is a traditional commercial strip,
comprised of a mix of business uses, including gas stations, auto dealers, fast -
food restaurants and banks. Although many of the lots fronting Route 10 have
been developed, there is significant potential for intensification of existing uses,
and development of back land, behind the frontage lots.
The results of unmanaged growth in the Route 10 Corridor have adversely
affected traffic safety and congestion. The Easthampton section of the corridor,
in particular, has been adversely affected by multiple, uncontrolled curb cuts, by
lack of pedestrian safety features and amenities; by the profusion of auto- oriented
businesses on small lots; and by the aesthetic impacts on community character of
commercial strip development in the absence of design and landscaping controls.
This trend of strip development is beginning to evolve on the Northampton
section of the corridor as well, despite the environmental constraints and
industrial zoning that exist along much of this section.
11
sville
Iliamsb
Route 10 Corridor
Study Area
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
L]
\ Route 10 Study Area
J\
DRAGON
C /F?
)
o.
•
2
0)
Lij
p r ____—__-g-i- --5 ' CI
_________-- ...,i.•
' Easthampton
__ .. in \3 )
.3
....s 8R,GGs ,,_-_—\ E mAPJ,.--E-- 2000
NA AeLE sI2-17— C • ,.. —1 1V - •
ys 1
,* 4 \ :
• 7 •
..---..-,
i' • '',:.,/7 •;----,:.,,,:..,;•:', '‘:, -,.:--_,-, .
\ '-,,,:-.,...,,,..,,,,. .-__-• -.7')' ,).• • ,
1, \,,,---.).—,.,-- , /,' z• • 7-
-/...=----- - 4, ?...."; ' • . 7 : • ‘, .■
• 4 „ A _,,...___
Northamptoni/
- -/7/
kY; • %
0 V E
0 •
•:=!( ! ',..-,
0 '
' '-,------:------...=
, _.....--.., 0 . ■ " e - - -
. —.
.. \ .;
\,, - 0 N
, .
i Z \ \ ,..9 1 -1.1 . ` '. • • 4
- • - 'flb
• x ':\.1. • 1 -i- ; i - - - ..;._•-•..S ,
cD .
0 -
Ii
•
\\
,
0
\v'
a
-\A
_
L
. / TN
; L : > 0
•
• POTASH .•< .
F
z
D
4
2
ROA
RC '
%
Route 10 Corridor
Northampton / Easthampton
Highway Jurisdiction Map
Massachusetts
Highway Department
Easthampton DPW
Northampton DPW
.404000
_ um_aut
2000 • 4000
t
- --I FEET
M
Soils for the study area are primarily defined by two soils associations: The
Hadley - Merrimac- Windsor (HMW) Association and the Hadley- Winooski-
Limerick (HWL) Association. HMW soils are mostly dry, sandy, loamy soils
formed in outwash deposits. HWL soils are deep, loamy moderately to poorly
drained soils formed in alluvial plains or flood plains.
About 1/4 mile of the frontage of the study area just west of the large wetland area
in Northampton contains prime agricultural soils ( Boxford soils). About 3/4 mile
of the frontage in the Easthampton study just southwest of the town line area are
prime agricultural soils (also Boxford soils). These soils extend 1,000 - 1,500
feet from the frontage.
Many of the soil types in Northampton, which are not currently developed have
soil characteristics of either a high water table or slow permeability which could
limit the use of on -site septic systems. Some Northampton soils also have a 15%
slope or greater which could limit larger commercial or industrial developments.
2.2 LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
2.2.1 Soil Characteristics and Prime Farmland
2.2.2 Floodplain Areas
Route 10 in Easthampton crosses the Manhan River near the center of town.
Approximately 175 feet of the frontage on both sides of the highway are within
the 100 year. floodplain.
There is a large floodplain in Northampton in the area of the Mill River Diversion
encompassing Pynchon and Manhan Meadows. About 1,700 feet of frontage on
the east side of Route 10 and 1000 feet on the west side are in the 100 -year
floodplain. This large floodplain is part of the Oxbow floodplain of the
Connecticut River. A large parcel owned by the Audubon Society is located in
this floodplain as is the Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary. There is also a small
floodplain area north of Route 10 near the Northampton/Easthampton town line.
Route 10, as it passes from the intersection of Route 10 and Old South Street in
Northampton to Easthampton Center, is mostly level with a few sloping sections.
There are four distinct land use types, from north to south. For approximately
one mile the landscape in Northampton is dominated by an extension of an
intensively developed urban residential area with scattered commercial uses.
There are well kept older homes with mature trees and modest landscaping. Past
the Mill River diversion to the Easthampton town line (approximately 1.5 miles)
the landscape becomes more open with scattered industrial sites. To the east is a
large wetland and floodplain area. To the west the topography becomes more
steeply sloped and wooded. The highway climbs slightly to the town line. In
Easthampton, from the town line south, is an approximately one mile segment of
straight highway, newly developed as a commercial strip. To the west of the
highway is a large expanse of farmland. Until recently, the predominant use of
this segment was farmland scattered with a few commercial uses. The final
segment of the highway to Easthampton center drops down to cross the Manhan
River through an older, modest residential neighborhood.
Some soils in Easthampton also have a high water table and slow permeability.
Slope in Easthampton is generally less than 8 %. See Environmental Constraints Map.
2 2.3 Groundwater
The entire study area overlays an area of high potential for groundwater
availability. This includes areas underlain by stream and lake deposits of
predominantly coarse and fine stratified drift with moderate to high saturated
thickness.
The Northampton section of the study area is not located in either the primary or
secondary recharge areas for either the Spring Street or Clark Street wells, the
two well supplies located in Northampton.
The Easthampton section of the study area is not located in the Barnes Aquifer; a
major water supply source for Easthampton and surrounding towns. Hence, it is
not located within the primary or secondary recharge areas for the Nonotuck Park
well or Hendrick Street Wellfield.
Currently, there is no aquifer study or recharge area map for the Lovefield St.
well. It is believed the aquifer recharge area for the Lovefield Well lies to the
north of the•well. If this is the case it is likely the recharge area would be located
in the Route 10 study area. More studies are needed to accurately determine
whether this is the case.
2.2.4 Wetlands
Northampton's Conservation Commission has mapped wetlands throughout the
community. Along Route 10, there are the,large significant wetlands !ocated
within the floodplain in Pynchon Meadows. In addition, there is a large wetland
located on the east side of the highway near the Easthampton/Northampton town
line.
In Easthampton, a development has been proposed on the east side of O'Neil
Street at the intersection of Northampton Street, and the developer has been
required to further define wetlands in that area. Easthampton does not have
wetlands maps to define wetland boundaries. PVPC compiled wetlands mapping
data from the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Conservation Service. This
data illustrates significant areas of wetlands and wet soils east of Route 10 in
Easthampton, and smaller areas west of Route 10.
15
r
dory NJOMAEMPOOII pus MopunoS POOII u0Mue4>✓ON:sdoW. umop de I euuo y 0 W
•k0Wsnulsp&mIoM IOUOIRN �R�OS I!os VOSN:sdEW IbId uodusu54 0 0 1 1.2 otl S'JSfIl se0in0S
•fix
%\'• \g�, -\ : Y : x x % r : , :� _ , M ;: '. _ . N ° x '.\ x : x \ ��0���„\ �`� \ \
MAP 3
2.3 EXISTING LAND USE
2.3.1 Data Collection and Mapping
In order to assess land use and development trends along the Route 10 corridor,
PVPC staff gathered data from assessors' records, realtors and "windshield
surveys" of Route 10 properties. Data collected for all land parcels abutting the
Route 10 study area included:
• Ownership/Renter
• Size of Parcel
• Frontage
• Street Access/Number of
• Zoning District
• Current Use
• Number and Size of Structure
• Assessed Value of Land and Curb Cuts
Buildings
This data has been stored on a computerized data base of Route 10 land parcels.
A new Route 10 Corridor base map has been prepared to illustrate all parcels
abutting the highway. Using this base map, the following working maps have
been developed at a scale of 1" = 400':
• Zoning
• Generalized Land Use - 1989
• Development Trends
• Environmental Constraints
• Public Utilities
These maps are shown, at reduced scale, on the following pages.
Sources of information used to produce the series of maps were: Assessors maps
and records in Easthampton and Northampton, building inspector records and
conversations in Northampton and Easthampton, conversations with local
realtors, U.S.G.S. topographic maps, Easthampton F.I.R.M. maps,
Northampton Flood Boundary and Floodway work map, Northampton
"unofficial" wetland location map, National Wetlands Inventory maps,
MacConnell Map Down maps, Easthampton zoning map, Northampton zoning
map, U.S.D.A. soil survey, Easthampton sewer map, conversations with the
Easthampton Town Engineer, Northampton sewer maps, conversations with the
Northampton Department of Public Works and conversations with the
Easthampton and Northampton Planners.
2.3.2 Existing Land Use
The existing land use for the study area contains a dominance of residential and
commercial uses. The following are the "vital statistics" for the study area:
• 258 parcels in the total study area, including 154 in Northampton and 104
in Easthampton;
• 611.96 parcel acres abutting the study area, 440.78 acres in Northampton
and 171.18 acres in Easthampton;
• 7.6 miles of assessed frontage along the study area, 4.9 miles in Northampton
and 2.7 miles in Easthampton;
• 182 curb cuts along the study area, 96 in Northampton, 86 in
Easthampton;
17
• curb cuts are an average of 219 feet apart for the 7.6 mile area, an average
of 163 feet in Easthampton and 268 feet in Northampton;
• parcels have an average of 154.5 feet of frontage per parcel, 167 feet for
parcels in Northampton, 135.5 feet for parcels in Easthampton;
• The parcels and structures have a total assessed value of $55,525,700 for the
study area; $33,655,800 for Northampton; $21,869,900 for
Easthampton;
• There is an average combined land and structure value if $215,215.89/per
lot or $90,734 /acre;
• There are an average of .70 curb cuts per parcel.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show generalized land use in each municipality and for the
study area.
Table 2 .
Generalized Land Use for Easthampton
Land Use # of Parcel # of Acres Frontage (ft)
Vacant 24 73.5 3,136.5
Industrial 2 1.0 75.0
Residential 40 24.7 4,162.5
Institutional 1 .8 80.0
Office/Medicai/Lodging 5 7.0 831.9
Commercial 17 20.7 3,921.5
Mixed/Multi Use 14 43.3 1,904.8
Open/Recreational .1. ,2 fQ
TOTALS 104 171.2 14,172.2
Source: Easthampton Assessor's Records and PVPC field survey.
Table 3.
Generalized Land Use for Northampton
Land Use # of Parcels # of Acres Frontage (ftl
Vacant 34 108.8 8,132.9
Industrial 8 27.9 2,808.4
Residential 91 30.4 7,984.9
Institutional 2 1.4 201.0
Office/Medical/Lodging 2 2.8 484.5
Commercial 3 42.9 872.5
Mixed/Multi Use 13 50.5 4,262.5
Open/Recreational 1 175.7 999.8
TOTALS 154 440.7 25,746.5
Source: Northampton Assessor's Records and PVPC field survey
18
L
r
f I
L
Table 4.
Generalized Land Use for the Study Area
Land Use # of Parcels # of Acres Frontage (ft)
Vacant 58 182.3 11,269.4
Industrial 10 28.9 2,883.4
Residential 131 55.1 12,147.4
Institutional 3 2.2 281.0
Office/Medical/Lodging 7 9.8 1,316.4
Commercial 20 63.6 4,794.0
Mixed/Multi Use 27 93.8 6,167.3
Open/Recreational 2 175.7 1,059.8
TOTALS 258 611.9 39,918.2
Source: Easthampton and Northampton Assessor's Records and PVPC field survey
The largest number of parcels, 131, (56% of the total number of parcels in the
study area) are developed to residential use. These parcels account for 30% of the
frontage but only 9% of the acreage.
The greatest amount of acreage, 182 acres, (30% of the study area total), is
undeveloped. This land accounts for 28% of the frontage in the study area.
The sections of the study area in each community are very different. In
Easthampton, the greatest number of parcels are in residential use, forty parcels,
(39% of the parcels in Easthampton.) These parcels account for only 14% of the
acreage and 30% of the frontage. Commercial and mixed /multi use (which is
mostly commercial) accounts for thirty -one parcels, (30% of the parcels in
Easthampton,) which is 37% of the acreage and over 41% of the frontage. In
Easthampton, there are twenty -four undeveloped parcels (23 %) containing 42%
of the acreage and 22% of the frontage. The Easthampton portion of the study
area is a densely populated, heavily built -up residential area adjacent to a classic
commercial strip development of large frontage sized lots. The relatively large
amount of undeveloped land indicates this commercial pattern could continue and
intensify without tighter controls.
In Northampton, the greatest number of parcels, ninety-one (59 of the parcels in
Northampton) are developed to residential use. These parcels account for 31% of
the frontage but only 7% of the acreage. The largest acreage is a 175 acre parcel
owned by Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary. While this parcel is not going to be
developed, the relatively small amount of frontage the parcel has will play only a
small role in the future development of that section of the highway. Thirty -four
parcels, (22% of the parcels in Northampton)., which have 25% of the acreage
and 32% of the frontage are undeveloped parcels. Three parcels have commercial
uses. The future development of the large amount of undeveloped land will play
an important role in determining the future of the Northampton section of the
study area. See Map of Existing Land Use.
19
2.3.3 Business Use Characteristics
There are twenty parcels devoted solely to business use, either retail or service, in
the study area. These parcels are an average of 3.2 acres in size and have an
average of 240 feet of frontage on Route 10. There is approximately 70,000
square feet of floor space. Each business has an average of 1.35 curb cuts /parcel.
In addition to these twenty parcels there are twenty-seven parcels which have
either mixed use or multiple uses. Eleven of these parcels combine a residential
use with some type of more intense commercial use. Ten of these parcels have
more than one business use, i.e. small shopping center. The mixed and multi -use
parcels average 3.5 /acre in size, average 224 feet of frontage and have an average
of 1.00 curb cut/parcel.
For the study area there are a total of sixty -nine different retail uses. The
following table lists the retail uses:
Table 5.
Retail Use
Easthampton Northampton Study Area
Specialty/general retail 27 1 28
Lumber/hardware 2 0 2
Restaurant/bar 9 0 9
Fast food restaurant 4 1 5
Car dealership: new /used 7 2 9
Gas stations 1 1 2
Auto repair sales /service 7 4 11
Convenience Store 1 0 1
Video Store 0
TOTALS 60 9 69
Source: Easthampton and Northampton Assessor's Record and PVPC field survey
The business uses, which because of existing zoning are mostly located in
Easthampton, are generally on larger parcels, with more frontage and more curb
cuts than residential parcels. They exhibit a consumptive land use pattern. The
trend toward mixed and multi -uses indicates there is likely to be an intensification
of land use in the future.
2.3.4 Residential Use Characteristics
There are 131 parcels developed to residential use in the study area. The average
size per parcel is slightly over 18,000 square feet. The average frontage is 93
feet. There are sixty -nine parcels devoted to single - family use and sixty -two
parcels devoted to more than one - family use; either duplexes or multi -unit
structures. There are a total of 332 living units on these parcels. The average
number of curb cuts /parcel is .68.
There are forty parcels in residential use in Easthampton, twenty-five parcels have
single family homes, fifteen parcels have more than one living unit. The average
size of this residential parcel is 27,000 square feet. The average frontage is 118
20
feet. These forty parcels support 118 living units. There is an average of .80
curb cuts per parcel.
There are ninety -one parcels developed to residential use in Northampton. These
parcels are developed with forty -four single family homes and forty -seven
structures with more than one unit. There are 254 living units on these ninety -one
parcels. The average size of the parcel is 14,600 square feet. The average
frontage' is eighty -seven feet. There is an average of .64 curb cuts per parcel.
Thus residential land uses in both municipalities exhibit a densely settled land use
pattern with relatively small lot sizes and small amounts of frontage. Many of the
parcels have shared curb cuts or access onto side streets rather than Route 10.
Residential use in Northampton is predominantly multi -unit while in Easthampton
it is single family. However, in Easthampton many of the multi -unit structures
have been constructed relatively recently. Recent building permits indicates some
conversion of single - family units to two - family use in Easthampton.
2.3.5 Undeveloped Land
There are fifty -eight parcels (22% of all parcels in the study area) which are
undeveloped. These parcels total 182 acres (30% of the study area), have 11,269
feet of frontage (28% of the study area) and twenty -three curb cuts. For the
purpose of this study, undeveloped land is defined to be land without any
structures.
There are twenty -four undeveloped parcels in Easthampton. These parcels total
73.5 acres with 3,173 feet of frontage and eleven curb cuts. The average size per
parcel is 3.1 acres, the average frontage is 130 feet. Two of the twenty -four
parcels are used as access roads or a parking lot. Twenty -one parcels, totalling
seventy -two acres, 2,918 feet of frontage with ten curb cuts, are located in the
General Business (GB) district. The other three parcels are in residential zoning
districts. Some of these twenty -four parcels, because of size, location (currently
landlocked), and environmental constraints, are not readily developable.
According to tax assessments, eight parcels totalling fifty acres, and 1,869 feet of
frontage have commercial development potential. Two of these eight parcels
already have curb cuts. Seven parcels, totalling fourteen acres and 663 feet of
frontage have residential developmental potential. Three of these, seven parcels
have curb cuts and one parcel has two curb cuts. Only one small parcel in.
Easthampton is devoted to permanent open space as a town park.
There are thirty -four undeveloped parcels in Northampton. These parcels total
109 acres, have 8,133 feet of frontage and have twelve curb cuts. These parcels
average 3.2 acres with 239 feet of frontage. Ten of the thirty -four parcels are
currently in use; nine as parking lots for car dealers. Eighteen parcels, totalling
26.4 acres with 3,865 feet of frontage and four curb cuts, are in the General
Industry (G.I.) Zone. Seven parcels totalling 80.5 acres, with 3,272.8 and three
curb cuts are in Suburban Residential (S.R.) Zone. Nine undeveloped parcels
totalling 1.86 acres and 994 feet frontage are located in the Medium Density
Residential (URB) district.
According to tax assessments, seven parcels totalling 79.5 acres and 3,297 feet of
frontage have immediate residential development potential. Two of these parcels
have curb cuts; one parcel has two curb cuts. In addition, seven parcels totalling
14.5 acres with 1,731 feet of frontage have industrial development potential. One
parcel has a curb cut.
This data for Northampton does not include the 175 acre Audubon parcel which is
classified as permanently protected open space.
21
Thus the data reveals that there is potential for development, both residential,
commercial and industrial, to increase in the study area. Some parcels already
have curb cuts, which effectively removes a development control. Several parcels
which are in use now as parking Lots could be converted to more intense use.
While Northampton has some permanent open space, most of the vacant land in
Easthampton has development potential.
22
\\
Reties weo adAd:swooetl s,ossessy UoldumpoN:sP+ooea s)ossessv uo d retpse3: seo,nos
4 11
MAP 4
2.4 ZONING REVIEW
2.4.1 Introduction
The land uses and development patterns that have evolved along the Route 10
Corridor are largely attributable to the zoning regulations in effect in Easthampton
and Northampton. The purpose of this section is to examine the zoning bylaws
and ordinances in effect along the Route 10 Corridor to determine what, if any,
recommendations can be made to improve the regulations that will influence
future Route 10 development. By increasing local controls, Easthampton and
Northampton can reduce the problems associated with traditional commercial strip
development.
2.4.2 Summary of Easthampton Zoning in the Route 10 Corridor
Easthampton has zoned its segment of the Route 10 Corridor for a mix of
commercial, residential and industrial uses, as shown on the "Existing Zoning"
map herein. About three- quarters of the Route 10 Corridor in Easthampton is
zoned General Business. This business district generally extends 300 -500 feet in
width on either side of Route 10.
Permitted uses within Easthampton's General Business district include the
following:
Convenience retail establishments
General retail establishment
Sit -down restaurants
Motels
Personal and consumer service establishments
Funeral establishments
Membership club
Professional and business offices and services
Automotive repair, automotive service station or garage
Business repair services
Outdoor amusement and recreation service
Antique or gift shop
Church or religious use
Public or religious educational use
Public park
Town building
Street, bridge, railroad
Public utility
Agriculture, horticulture, and floriculture on parcels over 5 acres
Wholesale and retail greenhouse
In addition, the following uses are allowed by Special Permit:
Drive -in restaurants
Vending machine businesses
Motor vehicle sales
Lodging house
Planned business development
Radio or television tower or station
Raw materials removal (i.e. sand and gravel)
Transportation service facilities
24.
Open storage of raw materials, finished goods or construction equipment
Research offices
Private day nursery or kindergarten
Nonprofit recreational facility
Town highway equipment and electric utility garage
Agriculture, horticulture or floriculture on parcels of 5 acres or less
Commercial stables, kennels or veterinary hospitals
Commercial forestry
Easthampton allows a "planned business development" by Special Permit on lots
over five acres in size. These developments must be contained in one continuous
building or grouping of buildings, which must be served by a common parking
area and driveway. A maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 is also established.
The dimensional regulations in the Easthampton General Business district require
the following minimum lot dimensions:
Lot size: 25,000 square feet
Frontage: 120 feet
Front and rear yards: 30 feet
Side yard: 25 feet
Maximum height: 30 feet
Maximum building coverage of lot: 40%
In October 1988, Easthampton approved a Site Plan Review - Special Permit
bylaw. Site Plan Review - Special Permit is required for the projects which
involve the new construction of commercial, industrial, utility, office,
institutional, municipal, or non - exempted residential structures; expansion of an
existing use resulting in a floorspace increase of twenty -five percent or 5,000
square feet whichever is less; and a change in use of a building that will produce
new processes related to odor, noise, vibration or public health not already
associated with the existing use. The bylaw provides that the Planning Board
may required a detailed traffic study for large developments or developments in
heavy traffic areas.
Easthampton has zoned a small segment of the Route 10 Corridor near the O'Neil
Street intersection for industrial use. However, a significantly larger tract on both
sides of O'Neil Street directly abutting the Route 10 Corridor is also zoned
industrial. The following uses are allowed by right in the industrial zone:
Processing of raw materials
Transportation service facilities
Research offices
Motor vehicle sales
Business repair services
Church or religious use
Public or religious educational use
Public park
Street, bridge, railroad
Town highway equipment and electric utility garage
Public utility
Agriculture, horticulture or floriculture on parcels over 5 acres
Wholesale greenhouse
In addition, the following uses are allowed by Special Permit in the industrial
district:
Removal of raw materials (i.e. sand and gravel)
Open storage of raw materials, finished goods or construction equipment
Planned industrial developments
25
Manufacturing
Convenience retail establishments
General retail establishments
Sit -down and drive -in restaurants
Vending machine business.
Automotive repair, automobile service station or garage
Junkyard
Amusement and recreation services
Planned business developments
Town building
Agriculture, horticulture and floriculture on parcels of 5 acres or under
Retail greenhouse
Raising of fur animals and/or swine
Commercial stables, kennels, or veterinary hospital
Commercial forestry
The dimensional regulations in the Easthampton Industrial District require the
following minimum lot dimensions:
Lot size: 40,000 square feet
Frontage: 140 feet
Front yards: 50 feet
Side yard: 25 feet
Rear yard: 30 feet
Maximum height: 30 feet
Maximum building coverage of lot: 50 percent
"Planned industrial developments" are permitted by Special Permit in
Easthampton's Industrial district on lots of forty acres or more. Uses within a
planned industrial development are limited to manufacturing or service industrial
uses and the uses must be totally contained with the building. Individual lot sizes
within the development can be reduced to ten percent below what is normally
permitted, but the number of establishments cannot exceed that which would
normally be permitted in the standard requirements of the district. A minimum of
ten percent of the district must be set aside as permanent open space.
Finally, several sections of Easthampton's segment of the Route 10 Corridor is
zoned for residential use. Most of the areas are zoned R -15 (15,000 square -foot
minimum lot size), but there are also some areas zoned R -5 (5,000 square -foot
minimum lot size) and R -35 (35,000 square -foot minimum lot size).
2.4.3 Summary of Northampton Zoning in the Route 10 Corridor
Northampton has zoned its segment of the Route 10 Corridor for industrial,
residential and special conservancy use, as shown on the "Existing Zoning" Map.
About half of the Route 10 Corridor in Northampton is zoned General Industrial.
The following uses are allowed by right in the General Industrial zone:
Construction supply establishments
Manufacturing
Wholesale bakery, wholesale laundry or dry cleaning plant
Railroad yards and railway express service
Motor freight terminal and warehousing
Railroad passenger terminal
Wholesale trade and distribution
Research office
Commercial motor vehicle maintenance, garaging and parking facilities
Tradesman
Business service and supply service establishments
26
Repair service establishments
Commercial parking lot
Agriculture, horticulture and floriculture
Church, religious use or educational use
Municipality facility and parking lot
In addition, the following uses are allowed by Special Permit in the General
Industrial zone:
Removal of raw materials (i.e. sand and gravel)
Processing and treating of raw materials
Heliport
Contractor's yard, open storage of raw materials, finished goods or
construction equipment
"Sit- down" restaurants
Motor vehicles sales
Medical Center
Automotive repair or automotive service station
Commercial radio and TV tower
Bridge, tunnel
Private utility, power plant
Small scale hydroelectric generation
The dimensional regulations in Northampton's General Industrial zone require the
following minimum lot dimensions:
Lot size: 20,000 square feet
Frontage: 120 feet
Depth: 140 feet
Setback: 20 feet
Side yard: 15 feet
Rear yard: 20 feet
Maximum height: 40 feet
Maximum coverage: 50%
Northampton's Special Conservancy district intersects Route 10 for a distance of
about 2000 feet on the side near the Mill River (see Map 4). This district also lies
behind much of the General Industrial zoned land which abuts the east side of
Route 10. The only land uses permitted by right in the Special Conservancy
district are agriculture, horticulture and floriculture. The following uses are
allowed by Special Permit:
Single family dwelling
Outdoor commercial recreation use
Municipal facility
Bridge, tunnel
Private utility
Small scale hydroelectric generation
Year -round greenhouse
Commercial radio and TV tower
Removal of raw materials (i.e. sand and gravel)
Processing and treating raw materials
Railroad passenger terminal
Airport
Heliport
Finally, Northampton has zoned several segments of the Route 10 Corridor for
residential use of varying intensities, including Suburban Residential (SR),
Medium Density Residential (URB), and High Density Residential (URC).
27
Northampton is currently developing a new Business Park zoning district
proposal for some of the land located in the Suburban Residential zone on the
west side of Route 10. Uses which would be allowed in the Business Park zone
would include any uses currently permitted in the Suburban Residential zone
either by right or by special and a planned business park by special permit. Uses
permitted in a planned business park include manufacturing, research offices,
business offices and services excluding professional offices and sales offices,
tradesmen, restricted retail and commercial uses, residential uses and community
facilities. The non - business uses of any planned business park are restricted to a
specific percentage of gross floor area within the planned business park. The
planned business park will be primarily business/manufacturing in nature while
permitting on -site support services as well as housing. Common curb cuts and
common driveways would be encouraged to minimize traffic and safety impacts.
Performance standards would be established for screening buffers, signs, and
off -street parking and loading.
In 1988 Northampton adopted a site plan approval process. The bylaw applies to
most commercial and industrial projects over 2,000 square feet in gross floor
area. Smaller projects (2,000 -4,999 square feet) require a simplified site plan
review, while larger projects (5,000 square feet and larger) require more detailed
site plan approval with a Special Permit. There are no performance standards to
be met in the bylaw.
In addition Northampton made some amendments to its zoning ordinance in July
1990 that have a direct impact on the Route 10 corridor. Several definitions (i.e.
driveways, construction supply establishments, motor vehicle) were adopted or
amended for easier interpretation. Changes to the off -street parking and loading
regulations included amendments to parking and loading space standards,
standards for parking and loading areas with five or more spaces, and shared
parking lot requirements.
2.4.4 Problems Areas in Easthampton Zoning Bylaws
Recently, Easthampton has made efforts to upgrade its commercial development
controls, most notably with the adoption of a site plan approval bylaw.
However, Easthampton's existing bylaw still contains only limited regulations
designed to reduce the traffic volume and safety impacts of new development. It
also lacks controls on the aesthetic impacts of new buildings and signs,
environmental performance standards.
The existing zoning bylaw has resulted in a somewhat haphazard, uncontrolled
form of commercial strip development occurring along almost the entire length of
the Route 10 Corridor in Easthampton. Based upon a thorough review of
development which has occurred along Route 10, the following problems can be
traced to the zoning bylaw or zoning enforcement:
Uncontrolled curb cuts: multiple curb cuts for individual businesses; large
paved areas linked directly to the highway.
Signage problems: over - sized, unattractive signage which may distract
motorists; a proliferation of temporary signs; placement too close to the road.
Pedestrian and motorist safety: lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing
areas; traffic circulation problems within sites; vehicular access and safety
problems within sites; vehicular access and safety problems.
Design/Architecture: building designs not in keeping with town character or a
unifying design theme.
28
• Landscaping/Screening: lack of landscaping in between parking areas and
highway; lack of landscaping in parking areas; lack of screening of unsightly
uses; parking of autos immediately adjacent to highway.
• Density: proliferation of small business uses on small lots, each with an
individual curb cut.
In addition to these issues, the following comments are made regarding specific
sections of the Easthampton zoning bylaw:
• Planned Business Developments: This concept can be very beneficial to
Route 10, and the existing bylaw allowing PBDs are well- drafted, but
landscaping standard and pedestrian access issues should be addressed. This
form of development should be encouraged through incentives, or required
for future projects locating along Route 10.
• Site Plan Review: The bylaw is well- drafted, but should be expanded to
include performance standards for landscaping, architectural design,
access /driveways, and traffic reduction/mitigation measures.
Industrial Zone: This district allows many by -right uses which are not
industrial in nature. Many of these uses are high - volume traffic generators
(e.g. retail, restaurants, auto repair).
Minimum Lot Size: The existing minimum lot size in the General Business
district of 25,000 square feet is too small to prevent a proliferation of closely -
spaced businesses and curb cuts. This can be a contributing factor in rear -end
collisions.
• Special Permit Criteria: The criteria under which Special Permit applications
are evaluated are somewhat vague.
• Paper Streets: There are several paper streets which intersect Route 10 which
are not, in fact, developable without new subdivision approval. This issue
should be clarified in the Zoning By -law.
• In addition, the interaction of Easthampton's Site Plan Review and Special
Permit processes is not functioning effectively. The intent of the bylaw was
to provide for joint application for Site Plan Review and Special Permit. In
practice, the Special Permit approval is occurring first, and negating any
opportunity for negotiating site plan improvements.
• Sign Bylaw: The maximum height requirement could be reduced from 15 feet
to 10 feet, and the minimum setback of the feet could be increased.
2.4.5 Problems Areas in the Northampton Zoning Ordinances
Northampton has also recently made efforts to upgrade its commercial and
industrial development controls, including the adoption of a site plan review
bylaw. The Planning Department has also drafted a new Business Park ordinance
which is proposed for an area adjacent to Route 10.
Northampton has not experienced the degree of commercial development and
related traffic impacts found in neighboring Easthampton, primarily because there
is no business zone on the Route 10 Corridor in Northampton. However, the
existing Industrial district in Northampton allows many commercial uses, and
many of the problems noted above in the Easthampton section of the corridor
have begun to crop up in the Northampton section.
29
In addition to those issues already noted, the following comments are made
regarding specific sections of the Northampton ordinance:
• Special Permits: The criteria used to evaluate Special Permits in the Industrial
district are somewhat vague.
• Site Plan Review /Approval: The existing ordinance is well- drafted, but
should be expanded to include performance standards for landscaping,
architectural design, traffic access and driveways, and traffic reduction.
• Industrial District: The uses allowed by Special Permit include auto service
and repair, motor vehicle sales, restaurants and other uses which are not
industrial in nature, and which are high volume traffic generators.
Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet may tend to
promote a proliferation of small businesses with individual curb cuts.
Business Park District : The ordinance language is well - drafted and
encourages the development of a comprehensive business node that permits
on -site residential units. Although business park is designed to be
commercial in nature the development permits a mix of uses, encouraging
integrated uses. A minimum of ten percent and a maximum of twenty percent
of the gross floor area in a planned business park is permitted for residential
uses. To provide services to the business park, some commercial and retail
uses are permitted, but are limited to four percent of the gross floor area,
while community facilities can encompass no more than ten percent. To
discourage a proliferation of small lots with multiple curb cuts, a planned
business park must be a minimum of seventy -five acres in size and no more
than one curb cut per twenty -five acres is permitted onto any collector street.
However, the ordinance could be expanded to include performance standards
noted above under "Site Plan Review /Approval."
Sign Ordinance: The sign requirements for the Industrial district allow a
maximum sign size of 100 square feet, with a 15 foot setback requirement,
and 15 foot maximum height requirement. The maximum sign size
requirement is excessive, and could be reduced to approximately 40 square
feet. The setback requirement could be increased, and the height limitation
reduced to ten feet.
30
+ +�fj + + ++ + r + + ��
/. + ; * / + + + + + +
* + * +
* * ++
* + +
____,--
i "' -- i ��
' \ v
v
//
tle y 6wuo2 uotdwey , ON O e ugtl eyt e3 semnog
•
' MAP 5
2.5 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
2.5.1 Land Availability and Cost
As previously discussed, there are fifty -eight parcels, totalling 182 acres which
are currently undeveloped immediately adjacent to Route 10. There are 158 acres
which could immediately be converted to residential, commercial or industrial
use. Fifteen of these parcels, totalling 64.5 acres have immediate commercial or
industrial development potential. Fourteen parcels, totalling 93.5 acres have
immediate residential development potential. Much of this acreage is in the
Suburban- Residential zoning district which is proposed to change to a business
zone. In addition, there are nine residential parcels in the General Business zone
in Easthampton which could be converted to business use.
Table 6 shows the number of parcels for sale in the Route 10 Corridor as of
December, 1988. Those parcels which could have the greatest immediate impact
on the corridor are the three parcels near the Northampton/Easthampton town line
marketed as industrial lots. These lots were recently divided from a larger parcel.
Also, there is a large parcel in Northampton west of the highway in the Suburban
Residential district, which is marketed as having business potential in anticipation
of passage of the proposed zone change.
Asking prices for land for sale reflect several trends along the corridor.
Residential homes in Northampton reflect an average asking price in
Northampton, which is high when compared to the rest of Hampshire County.
The undeveloped land currently for sale in the Suburban Residential District
reflects a somewhat speculative price. These asking prices reflect a higher price
than could be expected for residential land but lower than what could be expected
for land zoned business. This price probably reflects the lack of sewer service
and only the proposed, not definite, nature of the zone change. This land has not
sold rapidly. The industrial land in Northampton for sale also has not sold
rapidly primarily due to the utility limitations in the industrial zone.
Commercially developed land in Easthampton commands a relatively high asking
price and, while it has sold, has sold only at a moderate rate. Undeveloped
industrial land along O'Neil Street has continued to sell well. Residential land in
Easthampton in the General Business zone is being marketed with business
potential.
Current Use
Residential
Vacant
Industrial
Commercial
TOTAL
Table 6 .
Land for Sale in the Route 10 Corridor (12/88)
Source: Conversations with Local realtors
32
Number of Parcels
4
5
1
2
10
2.5.2 Public Utilities
An approximately 2,000 foot segment of the study area of Route 10 in
Easthampton is not serviced by public water. See Utilities Map. Public water
runs from the town center along Route 10 to a point about 1,000 feet north of the
intersection with Florence Road. The most northernly segment of the study area
in Easthampton, adjacent to the Northampton Town line has water available from
a line extending along O'Neil Street. This line crosses Route 10 and continues
along Lyman and Ballard Streets. The new industrial development being built off
of O'Neil Street will extend the water line 1,500 feet along the new cul -de -sac
road. A water line is being laid along an easement from this cul -de -sac road north
to Route 10 which will immediately service a few existing uses but which will
allow for continuation of the line at a later date. Easthampton has had problems
with T.C.E. well contamination and is not currently using its Hendrick Street
well. Another well is also reporting increasingly high levels of contamination.
There is uncertainty over Easthampton's ability to meet current water demand in
the very near future not to mention new demand.
An approximately 2,600 feet segment of the study area in Easthampton is not
serviced by public sewer. Public sewer along Route 10 extends from the center
of town to a point approximately 375 feet north of the intersection with. Florence
Road. The most northernly segment of the study area in Easthampton, adjacent to
the Town line has sewer service available from a line along O'Neil Street. This
line also extends across Route 10 to Lyman Street. The multi -unit apartment
complex, located along the 2,600 foot segment without sewer has built a private
line from its parcel to the pumping station along Ballard Street, This private line
extends under Route 10 to the Autumn Office Park. The capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant is 3.5 mg. The current use is substantially below that
level.
Water lines extend the entire segment of the study area in Northampton. This 8"
line has adequate pressure to accommodate additional development.
Northampton has adequate water supply to meet additional demand. However,
Northampton is studying ways to improve distribution from the main reservoir
supply.
Northampton's sewer lines only extend west from the City center to the Mill
River Diversion. An approximately 8,400 foot section of the study area does not
have sewer. There are no definite plans to extend sewer to this area. The lines
existing along Route 10 were installed in the early 1900's and are in need of
upgrading. A new trunk line south of the residential development, which also
extends almost to the Mill River Diversion, could accommodate increased sewage
flow. The 8.5 mgd. treatment plan, constructed in the early 1980's could
accommodate increased flow.
2.5.3 Environmental Constraints and Zoning Restrictions
The Route 10 Corridor presents some environmental constraints to development.
There are wetlands, 100 -year floodplain areas and steep slopes. A 35+ acre
parcel along the Easthampton/Northampton town line was recently withdrawn
from the market due to wetland restrictions. Steep slopes will serve to make
development more costly if it does not prohibit development along the west side
of sections of the highway in Northampton.
There is a large area of 100 -year floodplain east of the highway in Northampton.
Northampton has zoned this area as a Special Conservancy district which
prohibits most uses except some agricultural uses and allows single family
dwellings, certain outdoor recreational uses, certain municipal uses and limited
transportation and industrial uses by special permit.
33
Only a small portion of the study area in Easthampton is in the Floodplain District
where the highway crosses the Manhan River. The study area is not affected by
any other overlay districts in Easthampton.
2. 5.4 Summary of Development Constraints
The Route 10 Study area has ample vacant land for development. There are some
areas limited to development by environmental constraints. The principal current
restraint to development is the lack of sewer service and, hence, the cost
(estimated at $250/lineal feet) to provide sewer. This is especially noticeable in
Northampton. In Easthampton, the lack of sewer has been somewhat
circumvented by lines from other access areas and is not a great development
constraint.
34
'M "d "O UoldweyuoN:Wei/ )eme5 voldweyuoN:,eeurSu3 umoy uoldweylse3:,ernes AleyueS uw o
auey:se3 � se mog
' MAP 6
2.6 DEVELOPING BUILD -OUT SCENARIOS
FOR ROUTE 10
2.6.1 Introduction
A substantial amount of vacant or under - utilized land still lies along the Route 10
Corridor. A "build -out" scenario analysis of the corridor is intended to quantify
the potential impact further commercial and industrial growth would have on
Route 10. A build -out analysis is a planning tool that allows the communities of
Easthampton and Northampton to what the Route 10 Corridor could
look like under a variety of conditions. After carefully considering their options,
the residents and officials of both Easthampton and Northampton can adopt
policies that will help them plan toward the preferred development option.
2.6.2 Description of Build -Out Scenarios
The four scenarios developed for Route 10 are illustrated in detail in Table 7 and
on Maps 6 and 7, and describe the anticipated number of new businesses and
resulting traffic impacts for each district on Route 10 in the years 2000 and 2010.
The development options are based on four growth scenarios:
Scenario #1: Existing Zoning/High Growth Rate
Growth based on the 2 -year average of number of building permits issued per
year (3.5) and existing zoning. Assumes that all new businesses will be auto -
related in the General Business district while in the Industrial and General
Industrial districts seventy percent (70 %) of new businesses will be industrial in
nature and thirty percent (30 %) will be auto - related. The assumption regarding
the mix of uses in the industrial districts is based on the existing distribution of
uses in the General Industrial district in Northampton. This scenario also
assumes that underutilized parcels (i.e. residential use in a business district) will
be converted to a higher intensity use.
Scenario #2: Existing Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate
Growth based on the 5 -year building permit average (2.2 permits per year) and
existing zoning. Assumes a majority of new businesses will be auto - related in the
General Business district while in the Industrial and General Industrial districts
seventy percent (70 %) of new businesses will be industrial in nature and thirty
percent (30 %) will be auto - related.
Scenario #3: Recommended Zoning Changes/High Growth Rate
Growth rate based on the 2 -year building permit average (3.5 permits per year)
and recommended zoning changes. The recommended zoning changes include
shared curb cuts, reduced number of new curb cuts issued, and other access
management techniques. Assumes all new uses in the General Business district
will include a majority of low volume traffic generators and in the Industrial and
General Industrial districts all new uses will include mostly industrial uses.
Scenario #4: Recommended Zoning Changes /Moderate Growth Rate
Growth based on the 5 -year building permit average (2.2 permits per year) and
recommended zoning changes implemented. The recommended zoning changes
include shared curb cuts, reduced number of new curb cuts issued, and other
access management techniques. Assumes all new uses in the General Business
district will include a majority of low - volume traffic generators and in the
36
Industrial and General Industrial districts all new uses will include mostly
industrial uses.
In all four scenarios, it was assumed that a Business Park District will be
developed in Northampton. The size of the Business Park district will be limited
to three large parcels currently zoned as Suburban Residential. The uses
permitted in the district are low -traffic generators in nature and include research
offices, manufacturing, light manufacturing, miscellaneous professional and
business offices and large -scale professional business offices.
2.6.3 Considerations in Developing Build -Out Scenarios
There are eight types of zoning districts along the Route 10 Corridor. Four
different districts (Suburban Residential, Urban Residential B, Special
Conservancy, and General Industrial) are located in Northampton and four
districts (General Business, Industrial, Residential R -15, and Residential R -5) are
in Easthampton. Because the types of uses permitted in each district play an
important role in the generation of traffic along the corridor, a district approach to
the build -out analysis was used.
Although there are eight types of zoning districts along the corridor, not all the
districts were included in the build -out analysis. The volume of traffic generated
along the corridor can be directly attributed to the types of uses permitted within a
zoning district. Some zoning districts were dominated by low- density residential
uses. Since low - density residential uses were likely to generate limited additional
traffic along the corridor, the residential districts (the Urban Residence B district
and Suburban Residential in Northampton and the Residence R -5 and R -15
districts in Easthampton) were not included in the build -out analysis. Since the
Special Conservancy district in Northampton was also unlikely to generate
volumes of traffic, it too was eliminated. In addition, a small General Business
district in Easthampton was excluded from the analysis. This 6.2 acre district
was eliminated because only a very insignificant amount of land within it was
available for future development.
It is typical to follow zoning district boundary lines when determining the amount
of acreage to include in the build -out analysis. Whenever district boundary lines
follow parcel boundary lines, the amount of acreage to be included in the analysis
is readily determined. However, if a district boundary line splits a parcel creating
a dual -zoned parcel, it is more complicated to determine the appropriate acreage.
In Easthampton, the General Business District boundary line does not follow the
parcel line. Instead, the district is delineated by a measurement from the center
line of Route 10. This practice has created some dual -zoned parcels with frontage
along Route 10 zoned for General Business while backland is zoned as
residential. Historically, if someone with a dual -zoned parcel petitioned to have
his parcel rezoned into one district due to limited access to the backland, the
Planning Board and Town Meeting supported his request. In light of this, if the
only access to the backland portion of a dual -zoned parcel was through the
General Business district, it was assumed that the entire parcel would eventually
be rezoned into the General Business District. However, if access to the backland
was readily available from an existing easement or street, it was assumed that the
existing zoning boundary line would remain intact.
Districts in the corridor permit a diversity of uses, including high - volume traffic
generators. The General Business district in Easthampton allows a variety of
commercial uses including high- volume traffic generators such as drive -in
restaurants, convenience stores, service stations and mini - malls. Manufacturing,
research offices and transportation service facilities are some of the industrial uses
permitted in Easthampton's Industrial district as well as drive -in restaurants,
convenience markets and service stations, all high- volume traffic generators. In
Northampton's General Industrial district, restaurants and service stations (high-
37
2.6.4 Procedures
volume traffic generators) and industrial uses (i.e. construction supply
establishments, manufacturing, motor freight terminal and warehousing) are
permitted.
This section will lead you through Table 7 and explain the procedures used to
develop the four build -out scenarios. Please refer to Table 7.
Column 1: Building Permit Rates is simply the average number of
building permits for new construction on Route 10 issued
over the stated number of years.
Column 2: Types of Business were calculated based on the permitted
uses allowed in each district and are as follows:
General Business District
Auto - Oriented businesses in the General Business district
included fast -food restaurants, shopping mini- malls,
convenience markets, service stations, drive -in banks, and high -
turnover restaurants.
Majority Auto - Related businesses in the General Business
district included those delineated above as well as retail stores,
medical office buildings, general office buildings, quality
restaurants, and business parks.
Lower Traffic Generators included retail stores, medical office
buildings, general office buildings, quality restaurants, and
business parks.
Industrial District
Mostly Industrial businesses included fast -food restaurants,
shopping mini- malls, convenience markets, service stations,
high - turnover restaurants, industrial parks, business parks,
manufacturing, warehousing, and research centers.
Lower Traffic Generators included industrial parks, business
parks, manufacturing, warehousing, and research centers.
General Industrial District:
Mostly Industrial businesses included fast -food restaurants,
service stations, high - turnover restaurants, manufacturing,
warehousing, and research centers.
Lower Traffic Generators included manufacturing,
warehousing, and research centers.
Column 3: Number of new businesses by year 2000/2010:
Column 1 average X # of years between 1990 and 2000/2010
for the number of businesses developed in the entire corridor.
The total number was then divided among the districts in the
corridor based on each district's percentage of land area except
for the Business Park district.
38
z o
(NI z a)
0 'G
O
0
N
as y Q A
Q) C
O W UF
N O
y L
z C H
F •C O
O Q
� M
o
O d
},
3
o 9
,— z
m
S
0
1..6 y
C
0
O N
a.
F
0
•
z a
O et 0 a
on
c)
M y1
O
cl N O O
N
a° 8
Net 0) C`
.• O O s.0
M 01I wN
00 '0 0 O+
. et Ch O)
N .. 00
O 0:0^0
N • - • -+
'0'0 6
N N0 et N
N
'
N 00 IS
a M O
N 00 .. cn
�f•.V� N 00
N 00
00 etM
(ENO 'D
O) et '0 '0
on
so esi oo so ND l∎ . 0 � M p 0000
N N sr) N O NO ..QM
0\ 00 00 00 N N
r N 0000 00 0'
M N 0 0 0 N VI CA
% .. ,e N •• eh ..
i
F
Ch
0
00
7 N .• . et N
WI Os ND NO G) V1 O) N0 ND
• V0 0 0 'o %p o 0
Q
40
`
on N M M 0\
O U C U
0 N . E H h h
'fl y
'O 47 F 'o 'b ' fl ' O
V ~ 5 C 0:1
C7 00
0
F
..0)1 00 N
. fi r NO et NO
CN
et ND R D\
N �
C0 N lr 0) Tr 00
O a O s0
Oh et ND S
I - M N '0
001. CO CD
N QN
N M • 00 C
b
M N '0
Vi..
< N TT
Y1 0h NC N0
VD V0 O O
VI VI tr
ti
F
M 7 00 O
DC` et0
f ) 01 N0
N0 NO O O
Yj M y}V1
N
a
3
N 0
C11 c e fl
X5'5 E2
y y y E•
•O •0 '0
• czn
0
w
5 ��� 5
g °' c 55
4 ' O 'O u b'bw 3 3 7 7 V
O C Q g . 0 .S ,� O O O p C C C
r
g I t : y N �'„ •7 ,.., H d y am + • N y w N C > N '� ".3 • t0
0 0 0 0 3° o 8 o m o a 3 o a� o 0 3 y
'
.5 s °° ,,.• a ao • 5 `0 .y e c 'CI . ' . • I; y .5 y
' o 0
'$ 'v 'o : fl 'v ' '9 ' v :n z3 'o v 4,
m -.. a. aa as . . 2. co w OZ
V C7 a1 0 V W Q c 7 0 .. 0 co v
d
g
0
4 1 o�o '4 2 F, . � ::oo y ▪ am°` Z.
cs
00 0.
v? N ,
M N v N V) v M N v N 11-1 v q
0)
li T0
yy O
y
p «p+ C C %y �- + , U
00 a" 00 5 o p G O 3 • - 5 y
I •S d G 0 0 O
, 1! i (� E i Qi d V O N U O FQ
w O (� aU Q a N 0
G O N . O O M .. •D . ' a •C 'p v
�N61 N0 �Nx� oN .4a
.1 0 ct 0 4)
O 0 0 0 ,n
07 07 N 8 Z
Example: The total number of permits along the corridor is
calculated as follows: 3.5 permits X 10/20 = 35/70.
The General Industrial district comprises approximately fifteen
percent (15 %) of the corridor. Fifteen percent (15 %) of 35/70
is equal to 5/11 new businesses in the General Industrial
district along the corridor.
In the case of the Business Park district there is not enough
available land to accommodate the number of permits that
could be issued. The Business Park district comprises forty -
three percent (43 %) of the corridor. Forty-three percent (43 %)
of 35/70 is equal to 15/30 new businesses in the Business
Park district. There are only 24 building Lots available in this
district. To accommodate this, an adjustment has been made
in Scenario #1 and Scenario #3 in the Business Park and
General Business district. Any spill -over building permits
were transferred to the General Business district, the next .
district most likely to receive new businesses. For Scenarios
#1 and #3, the number of new businesses in the Business Park
district is 15/24 while in the General Business district it is
11/26.
Column 4: Estimated current trips /day
Average daily traffic counts were taken at various locations
along the corridor. Estimates of average daily traffic were
calculated for each district.
There were two ADTs in Northampton, one at the beginning
of the corridor (19,282 ADT) and one at the Northampton/
Easthampton town line (13,692 ADT). It was assumed that
most of the traffic at the beginning of the corridor was diverted
into the Urban Residential district. As a result an additional
ten percent (10 %) of the town line ADT was calculated as the
ADT for the General Industrial District and the Business Park
District.
40
The ADT at the Northampton/Easthampton town line (13,692)
was used as the ADT for the Industrial district in Easthampton.
For the General Business district in Easthampton, the ADT
was calculated as the average of the ADT's taken at the
Northampton/Easthampton town line (13,692) and at Florence
Road (17,616).
Column 5: New Number of New Trips Generated was
derived as follows:
Step 1: Trip generation rates for business types along Route 10 were
calculated.
The information in Table 8 was taken from the TRIP GENERATION
MANUAL by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Studies
conducted show the average number of trips that each type of business
generates per day. A sampling of high, medium and low traffic
generators was used and the number of trips per day calculated.
Type of Business
1. Fast -Food Restaurant
2. Shopping Mini -Mall
3. Convenience Market
4. Service Station
5. Drive -In Bank
6. High- Turnover
(Sit -Down) Restaurant
7. Retail Store
8. Medical Office Building
9. General Office Building
10. Quality Restaurant
11. Industrial Park
12. Business Park
13. Manufacturing
14. Warehousing
15. Research Center
16. Corporate Headquarters
Building
6/12/91:di
Table 8
Trip Generation Rates for Business Types
Average Weekday
Vehicle Trips
632.1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
166.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.
427.0 per 1,000 sq. ft.
748.0 per station
291.1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
200.9 per 1,000 sq. ft.
48.0 per 1,000 sq. ft.
34.2 per 1,000 sq. ft.
12.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.
97.3 per 1,000 sq. ft.
6.9 per 1,000 sq. ft.
12.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.
3.8 per 1,000 sq. ft.
4.9 per 1,000 sq. ft.
6.1 per 1,000 sq. ft.
7.0 per 1,000 sq. ft
Source: Institute for Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation.
Likely Average Trip Generation
Size of Business Rate/Dav
3,000 sq. ft. 1896.3
10,000 sq. ft. 1665.0
2,000 sq. ft. 854.0
1 station 748.0
2,500 sq. ft. 727.7
3,000 sq. ft. 602.7
3,500 sq. ft.
3,500 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3,500 sq. ft.
40,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
35,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
168.0
119.7
87.0
340.5
276.0
248.0
171.5
196.0
122.0
420.0
r
L
u
7
0
09
O
N cn
0
1
Mm
M
VD
W N N
N N
N M
N .•-a
M N M
c'4(1 N
00V00
ti
N
sO
O
S N M
i O 4 " N ,. i i
N 00 N
M
N - —4
N
3
2
C7
,c 0020
• .� h y y
0 A
-, AACa
. • 0 p --w
00 N e. Q\
. - , o00,
000 00 0 N
0\V1 OV1
N V'1 'd• N
•
'.o
N
— - CA ..co
.r ti co
aD
Co b
N 1 .. M
M
00
410.0
'0 M .-+
0 -
N N
O
(‚41 .
tit V1
N.r
d oofx
• • 0 o � AA � a: •
cci M x
0 0
8
�J cy
YD 00
N so. CN
co co
00 `a 0 N
N N
et — N
00 d
• ' '
■ 00 V1
MN'
VD
r
i
N N
N M
O'.O
N r
4141
.-loo
O �
1/40 ir
C)
.b _lY"
.00 0
C O
0U
8 co
N
0
U
07
b . --�0\
N . 00 CT
00- CA %0
00
00 00 00 N
NV1OV1
cri
N , . �t
QT CA
-
l"
N 'M
`O
N -+
I h
.-- .w
.
ti M
.r.1
"C)
a)
e
z
z o
w S
0
b
L
inOOO
r- t--
ON ON
000OON
�D pM
�O
v) ON oo
O ON�n
71"
-r '--4
00N0
N p N
•- \
N M VO co
�nM
M - N
N ON
000o0N
p M
ON ON 00 t�
'-- .■ti
x a)
co
C..7
o
� �00N -Q' y� C 7 Ot�- ---0N
-4 t�Lnt� ct N -1 ooON NCO - M -N ' -,00
� o OCNVO (y.d ,mo. �oo�O�■O
f24 \InN o " f0Lfl a�)00-400 ENV
O t ^ .O O "1- ,t t� bAoO vD O N b0,-, .n �t t
3 r-+ N N C7 In ,-+ ,-+ ,--1 - c c rj r- ,-r
a) OA OA
t) 1
a
OA OA E
g O U
c.) �— -• -.� � � � Q
-
v, ;; QAQA • �, Q AA
Pal � aa��aaa��aaa��a
o 0 a1 o C7 a1 o C7 C7 cq o C7 C7 �A
to) ceD
A trip is defined as one vehicular movement to or from a destination.
For example, a vehicle driving to a business and leaving the business is
two trips.
Step 2: The gross number of trips expected to be generated under each
build -out scenario was calculated. This gross number was derived by
multiplying the average trip generation rate per business by the project
number of new businesses anticipated in years 2000 and 2010 for each
district. See Table 9. An example is given below:
Scenario #1: Worst Case for the General Business district: Businesses #1 -6 from
Table 6 are high traffic generators. In the General Business district all of these
uses are allowed. It was assumed that any new businesses would fall only into
one of these types for this district. The trips /day of these six were averaged
(1,082.3 trips /day/business). This number times the number of new businesses
(11/20) gave the number of trips generated by these additional businesses by the
years 2000 and 2010 in the General Business District.
Step 3: Accounting for diverted trips versus new trips generated is
important to accurately project the traffic impact of new business
development. The gross number of trips generated, as shown in Table
8, is somewhat deceptive, however. Not all of these trips generated by
new businesses are new trips. Some of the people going to these new
businesses would have been driving on Route 10 anyway. Studies have
shown there are three types of trips generated and that each type of
business produces a different percentage of new trips.
1. Passerby trips: cars not going to business in
question.
2. Diverted: cars going somewhere else, but go to business in
question as well.
3. New trips: trips solely going to the new business.
Studies have shown that new trips comprise about forty -five percent
(40 %) of trips to auto - oriented businesses, seventy percent (70 %) of
those to a mixture, and ninety percent (90 %) of those to Iow traffic
generators. Therefore, the number of trips generated multiplied by the
appropriate percentage equals the new number of trips that are new (i.e.
new traffic generated that would not otherwise have been there), as
shown in Table 10 below.
Column 6: Total trips is the sum of the current trips /day and the
additional trips generated by 2000/2010 for each district.
Column 7: Percent increase 2000/2010:
This column shows the percent increase in traffic from 1990 to
the years 2000 and 2010 for each district.
Column 8: The year of build - out takes the number of vacant or under-
utilized parcels adjacent to Route 10, the projected number of
buildings on each, and given the respective building permit
rates, calculates how long it would take to fill all the parcels.
The year at which this "build -out" for the entire corridor would
occur is given.
45
2.6.5 Conclusions
The permitted uses along the Route 10 Corridor play an important role in
determining the amount of traffic generated, as can be seen by comparing
Scenario #1 and Scenario #4. See Map 6 and Map 7. This is particularly true for
the General Business district in Easthampton, where the majority of high - traffic
generating uses already exist. In Scenario #1 (with a high growth rate) if all new
businesses in the General Business district are high volume traffic generators and
existing zoning continues, the Easthampton segment of the corridor can expect an
estimated 2,063 new trips by the year 2010 or an eleven percent (11 %) increase.
However, if a moderate growth is complimented with a comprehensive package
of new land uses, the anticipated new trips in the corridor could reach an
estimated 1,444 or only eight percent (8 %) increase over the present. Because
there is a significant amount of vacant or underdeveloped land along the corridor
(129 acres) the Route 10 Corridor will not reach build -out even under the most
intense building conditions (Scenario #1 - Existing Zoning/High Growth Rate)
until the year 2030.
The moderate increase in development along the corridor is outlined in Map 6
(Existing Zoning Build -Out Scenarios) and Map _7 (the Recommended Zoning
Changes Build -Out Scenarios) proposes changes in the type of development
permitted along the corridor and establishes development standards that effect its
physical form. Since the recommended zoning changes effect the types of uses
permitted the amount of traffic generated is effected. In addition the
recommended zoning changes establish development standards for uses along the
corridor that greatly affect its appearance. These changes cannot be reflected on
the build -out scenario maps.
What the Build -Out Scenarios maps do reveal is the rate of growth along the
corridor under high growth rate and moderate growth rate conditions. Because
the growth rate (3.5 permits per year) is the same for Scenario 1 (Existing Zoning
- 2000) and Scenario 3 (Recommended Zoning Changes - 2000) the same number
of parcels are developed for each scenario. In the case of Scenario 2 (Existing
Zoning - 2010) and Scenario 4 (Recommended Zoning Changes - 2010) a
moderate growth rate was used. The maps reflect the building permit rate but do
not show how the new developments will appear.
Since build -out is not an immediate danger it may be misleading to think that the
impacts of this build -out are long in coming. In fact, this calculation does not
consider the physical capability of Route 10 to accommodate traffic demands with
an acceptable quality of service, also known as the measure of level of service
(LOS). Five segments of the corridor are currently at a LOS rating of D. LOS D
means that traffic begins to flow unevenly with considerable and sudden variation
in traffic speed. Gridlock is classified as LOS F. It is very likely that segments
along Route 10 will reach traffic gridlock long before they reach parcel build -out.
2.6.6 Change in Build -Out Assumptions and Its Impact on Traffic
Volumes
The build -out scenarios presented are based on the development trends that are
most likely to occur along the Route 10 Corridor. Some general assumptions
have been made (i.e. a Business Park district will be developed in Northampton).
Altering any of the general assumptions will have a direct impact on the volume of
traffic generated. The high- volume traffic generators have a significant impact on
the traffic volume figures along the corridor. The elimination of high - volume
traffic generators in Scenarios #3 and #4 would substantially reduced traffic in the
General Business, Industrial, and General Industrial districts. Since the uses
currently permitted in the Business Park district are lower traffic generators, the
elimination of high - volume traffic generators would have no direct impact on this
district.
46
If the Business Park district provided on -site housing in addition to its current
permitted uses, traffic in all four scenarios would slightly increase in the Business
Park district only This would occur in order to accommodate the new housing in
an area that presently has some industry and very few residential uses.
In all four scenarios it was assumed that a Business Park district in Northampton
existed. However, this district has not been adopted yet. If the Business Park
district is not adopted, traffic volumes in the remaining districts (the General
Business, Industrial, and General Industrial districts) would increase. There
would also be a redistribution of new businesses generated in the remaining
districts. For example fifty percent (50 %) of all new businesses would be
developed in the General Business district, as opposed to its current level of
twenty -nine percent (29 %).
47
EXISTING ZONING BUILD-OUT SCENARIOS
Scenario 1* (High Growth) Scenario 2 (Moderate Growth)
*Doesn't include underdeveloped lots.
Route 10 Corridor
Northampton / Easthampton
Existing Developed Parcels
Parcels Developed by
the Year 2000
Additional Parcels
Developed by 2010
SCALE IN FEET MORIN
p Pioneer Valley
Planning Commission
400 800 1200
eremrn hr. eaia yeas tenet. 'Nam
tionnampon a. Cameramen Te. Maas
mama., Alrr.rHyntioy Js ASSOC Ire
MAP 7
\ S
RECOMMENDED ZONING CHANGES BUILD -OUT SCENARIOS
Scenario 3* (High Growth) Scenario 4 (Moderate Growth)
`-Includes underdeveloped lots in build -out.
J'
Route 10 Corridor
Northampton / Easthampton
Existing Developed Parcels
Parcels Developed by
the Year 2000
Additional Parcels
Developed by 2010
SCALE AI FEET
Pioneer Vallev
dapping commiis�on
800 1200
MAP 8
NONT}I
The pro., •ne ca om
a arc E Maps
commies .. er 3 Assoc ' - c
2.7 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
2.7.1 Recent or Current Development
New development has proceeded at a slow but steady pace in recent years along
the Route 10 study area. The segment of the study area zoned as a General
Business district in Easthampton has had the greatest amount of development.
Building permits for remodeling or expansion have outnumbered new
construction as shown in Table #11.
In Easthampton, much of the new development has occurred along O'Neil Street
where there have been four industrial expansions. Development along Route 10
in Easthampton has been concentrated near intersection of O'Neil and Lyman
Streets with the Goldmine Restaurant office addition, the ATM machine and the
car dealership expansion. See Table #12.
Recent development in Northampton has been limited to scattered industrial uses.
See Table #13. The mini - storage buildings at the intersection of Easthampton
Road and Lovefield Street have had the most visual impact along an otherwise
relatively undeveloped landscape.
Table 11.
Building Permits Issued in the Route 10 Corridor - 1985 -1989
Northampton Easthampton
New Cons- Remodel/ New Cons- Remodel/
Year truction Expansion Total truction Expansion Total
1985 1 0 1 0 1 1
1986 0 1 1 1 4 5
1987 2 1 3 0 7 7
1988 2 0 2 4 3 7
1989 0 1 1 1 5 6
TOTAL 5 3 8 6 20 26
Name
Source: Northampton and Easthampton Building Inspector's records and conversation
Table 12.
Proposed or Completed Industrial or Commercial Projects
1985 -1990: Easthampton
Development Type Status as of 9/90
Olds Pontiac Car Showroom Expansion Completed
D. Strong Industrial Building Addition Completed
Farm Petroleum Industrial Building Addition Completed
Tubed Products Industrial Building Addition (24,000 sq. ft.) Completed
Rock Valley Tool Industrial Building Addition (5,000 sq. ft.) Completed
Town Building Office/Lumber Warehouse (20,000 sq. ft.) Completed
Name
Early Times
Gruber
Autumn Office Park
Seraphim Pizza
Goldmine Restaurant
Easthampton Savings Bank
Cemak Tank Co.
ACE Hardware
O'Neil St. Industrial Park
Lot 1- Liebman Optical, Inc.
Lot 2- (Towne)
Name
A to Z Rental
Auto Body Shop
Philips Enterprises
P. Allen & Sons
Wayside Auto Body
Development Tvpe Status as of 9/90
Bar Expansion
New Office Construction
Three New Office Building (3,774 sq. ft.)
Renovation
New ATM
Office Renovation
Retail Renovation
Ten -Lot Industrial subdivision
Manufacturing
Truck Terminal
Source: Easthampton Building Inspector Records and Conversation
Table 13.
Proposed or Completed Industrial or Commercial Projects
1985 -1990: Northampton
Development Tvpe Status as of 9/90
Five Storage Buildings/Two Light
Buildings (19,200 sq. ft.)
Auto Repair Business
Storage/Manufacturing
Recycling Process
Auto Repair & Sales
Source: Northampton Building Inspectors Records and Conversation
51
Completed
Completed
Two Units
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Plan Approved
Under
Construction
Under
Construction
Partially Constructed
One Storage Bldg.
Completed
Special Permit
*Granted - 1987
Special Permit
*Extended -1989
No Building Permit
Issued to Date
Completed
Completed
Completed
2.7.2 Proposed Development
The most recent industrial development activity in Easthampton is near the
intersection of Northampton Street and O'Neil Street. See Map 8. The plans for
a ten -lot industrial subdivsion off of O'Neil Street were approved and
construction of a 1,500 foot subdivision road was completed this summer.
Shortly after the completion of the road, construction of a trucking terminal has
commenced on one of the approved lots. The trucking terminal should be
completed this fall. Due to some wetland concerns, Liebman Optical Inc., is
unable to start construction of its manufacturing facility in this subdivision until
late fall. A mini -mall is proposed on the parcel abutting Route 10 just east of
O'Neil Street. The developer is negotiating the resolution of a wetland issue.
fl
Once an agreement with the Conservation Commissioner is reached the proposed
development will occur. A new ATM is also located on a two -acre parcel at the
comer of O'Neil Street and Route 10. There is a strong probability that once the
two industrial developments along O'Neil Street are completed, the use of the
parcel may intensify, possibly to a drive -in bank with ATM facilities.
In Northampton the only new development proposed is an auto body repair shop
near the Northampton/Easthampton town line. Although a special permit for the
site was granted an extension in 1989, to date no building permit has been issued
for the site. There is a preliminary proposal for a zone change for a segment of
the corridor from a residential district and a general industrial district to a business
park district but until traffic improvements along the intersection of Route 10 and
Old South Road occur the likelihood of its adoption is limited.
Easthampton has a number of "paper streets ", Mountainview Street, Lycurgus
Street, and Floriana Street. These are streets for which a subdivision plan was
filed several years ago but no development begun. The development of these
streets in the future as either residential development or as access roads would
increase traffic and turning movements along Route 10.
Also, there are large blocks of undeveloped land in Easthampton behind the
existing Route 10 commercial frontage development which are owned by a small
number of landowners. This common ownership increases the potential for
future large -scale developments.
sp,00etl sJwoedsul BVIPIInO u0Wueylse3'sp ooey uwdu , 11.N: sewn$
MAP 9
2.8 ALTERNATE LAND USE STRATEGIES
All across the United States, communities are struggling with a common problem:
controlling the traffic and aesthetic impacts of commercial strip development.
Clearly, there is no simple solution, but communities have been successful in
combining various elements of traffic, access and development management into
multi - faceted commercial corridor programs.
In developing a series of alternate land use strategies, PVPC investigated a wide
range of alternatives. Many of these alternatives are based upon the strategies and
experiences of communities across the United States in controlling traffic volumes
and commercial strip development along highway corridors. Other alternatives
are more conceptual, and are linked to the unique problems and opportunities
presented by the Route 10 Corridor. The complete package of options is
contained in the following section, in Table 14, "Alternative Land Use
Strategies ".
54
0
0
� WW
ca
cz E
4 ,c o
tt
�E .c U0 Nq � ro ° y j U > E c ° U >; °
U U C cEli .n xx o s U U.E
t J C > y C /1 y §. O G U '�
U v a a 3w¢ UU< z v) � � w Uv
a4
O
4 Q
CA bo � E-+ y W
v >, , N
> 3 a.) C c i E 04 b a
p er" E CL C o a w _ 1 6 . 4 ,
=
Q c b a E a)
fi ' O a $ y c" .B. E Z °-� E o
a '+ C G 0 C 7 ... T�
I U Ufl O fl N y C Er ea a) a o C x a E c v� C7 t om + •C= N
cn o o c baz .0 c •50 o W . a a. x O o p - b e
� b w g c 4 a . E �° C7 a�a x :Ai �"°�oS
O v a� = v, a� O y y
po> e ia. s 0 a•a Zbw Obo =Ai a O' C..) Z.' A a .c ) E E � 8 0 b Zo O � U Fy $ N a o
p U E C sWw a y R O N W cw b 9 y c4 ay C) 1.2 U b N Ill CI)
6. � � c Z a A a W"o O ce v � wca 'y w S
� o U ES E > � ' o c
W o o o o U cd o a� oi.. 0 y. bq° C7 3� a C c .
s o
r L >� c�.� E E c� ui. c a b a4 -- c
c0 C/1 C N y ca w y U y b a O C O . w •--3 CL C bo • 0
U � b o a a . b , E V b bo°.6 bU •b A� C ° E� ° C o c° 'C ' Os o a f E
C4 �cQb c 05e0 Q� ^. o , ,. 0 0 0 �•.,
I :4 28 D � i N , a 6 U � � N i. ' u A y il x s awUx x pct o >W
. . • . .
U
4
U E -I
c
>10 y
a
c E o: :S '
E w° C.) S
a S `� `E .E
04 ) 0 • aa�
v3 C.) C.)
bo � • Wazc P: 0 0.W ° a 3°
8
E ° '
y E .a o
a v O O
6s >
I.
.y aaA� 6 E
.0 a) c w `"
� b
0c ' c c8
3 y�aaw )
v.
¢ � 0 0 0 aE
�' V1 w . N I.w
z a a,E a
o c 0 a) 8 v d3
.g00
b o .� -a
O °U o .U.3 a b a
U y ~ a0, y
.s -,2 z.-0E
w . 0 0 . E - - E 0
g 4bz § $ E 08
W WNc�rx a° N
ao
h a)
•
y 0
0 y
0 • 0
y
v a
b 0 .)
U 0.1 te
=0 y
U ¢�
.O , ter
c C� .-. o y y y y
o °'° c 3 30) 0 • 8 ° „
p>,' 4 e =
S %' Z O boe
0 EcJ s 2 cc • t> m
cap c � °:
z v 2 3 .5 , 0. 8
:Si a•� c a' o .a � E N c
O
� S. w N .^E 2 E 2, .va a C E a) U n
c4 to � a. . � C ' C 2L) � U C N C
ua ca " " 0 . 0 c, g 0) $ `� a) . c
. ct a 'O .S 0 a .73 a w CL E O V
c) 7 , .g u s al o b • y c o g o oa'Q.z-
y �' E y s C 'd 4,2 a, 6 U .. a) . ..,
wq •.a> �3 2•v$ .a r�t c • ""
E a c3 � a
> 2 a o. E .§ 3 a 0 .0 a) 0 d o• Q.047 mac,
W c o 0• c;o� y c 9 o O � � E >,
0 •a a> a) c I-, E 0 . ca ..0 • " an a.o E 8 o . y c
. � � a a ob a �_S E a b Z ;�'E
O W oU 0a 5 g U Efi g.E 4 o n
U
.r
•v
E
U
W o
E
8
Cel
La 6 R
ci C o 40 N o
4 N • •2 0 N 'J p cn
^ b .J' O c5 O
,.. �, 0 1:4,8 y N .
L?
oe e o a " Et.
• E E ~ 1 `°
O ' er N gb $ N O ' i
N O 0 ,4 C cu`w" ,y O Q =
Q g N Sa C A . 3 c V gg .0
▪ � ° 4 ��o' e�
y' 3 8 y w >, ¢ N vi
.a .5 •a al • 8 4 `1 2 '4 >" o
c ' 3'
$ G 1C4 E a4•6Et: y C7 ¢'a
1 1 1 1 1 = I
•
c,4
e4 3
C
N 1,13
az O V ,- 0
y E LE
• 5 N 9 C .� 11 "' 4 C7 O :
73 E
0
li h III ' G ›' A+ y) c� y+ U
ti
VI
c4i o:5I `°.3a>i `3o q 7 N W.S.
o ��� eo:3 -. 0 4) a a0. a•-0 c .a >
c' W EB
A F 0... i 1 i 1 i . I . 1 Q. 1
•
•
as c°
c
o 0 �
U O C< C U
U g °
o U b 4 0 . U 0 b0 . a -" °
a te U o i&
x
O O
r a 1 � n • U o g U4Z 75 E
CA
y b • v'"i 8 eq Uc c�
O
g 41 la E p , O • ' y N N
° c h w o °� 3c a y 0 to E °'
E y .a a, 2 . N '.4 a ` U. a.)
V y C , w 0 � a C CA > C O
eo° 3 a � � w p a, 3 z C •eb C
a] a 4 z 2 2
' b w b a N e C � y N b C C G _
. . • y 0 'yw Oa b E>,v ���cd
y am'• y y = a 3 d O U a g A ,.`~" g i r
C y i N >, C g E a) U ,,.1 Q' w w y bq R
o y y ybo Q O 2 O ,4•vEE' 8v cu E a C C am . , C e .. . y -s °.3 0 0 S 0 c. o �. y4
� $.°: a VE=q 0 3 1 .2 1 a �' ya1 4. , .g e, a,o O E U• ,k, y
y° =` „ o0,- o a a� cg §°� aE "'3 w G
o ` � C E 0 c• p , 0-a > €oy �ir;•E•1 A 8 ° 8 �..� ` "`'-�
W wc c. 0 „.. ,= ptA °�b ¢'51 ° �� ° ' e �� � o o cC U � W4 1c73 1
U O ° e� O •y 'E ° 3 2 .p C b 2 I R�. : C A 0 g . . e Q' C ,1 C
a�> N C p �G E � r D 74 Q ' - a ea bn . ` z � c N
O'y a� O N e y b0 bo 9 � g E.5 a y �. ` `E y C
z y E E ,. E °a > • a 4 ' 8 " bD ca � ' ° Q t 8 C '0
A = = b ° o y w. $ I. 4.1 .'" b oa .5, a bn y , E. , =" ct 0 i eS — E
gC•y g y E °°e , 2 e ys'C ` . CA C O �a�a�a�
z.g. � .' 5g 1 ag8s - E FE § ago a GO a a. O Z 3 i gxra
ag a"
c?aawa o 8x U W a w w . . . w x wa
VII , , , , , , , , , 1 A 1 , N , , 1 , ,
an
te a )
y•S w
U D 0 O U
a)
U
ij il
y r > R7 Fy.. y y ,0 tzo
b ° — •E
a ` ... CI 0 0 9 M N a
a. a) � ° E 5.
Z. a = '' g °°
04 .61
U S.1 ..r.1 v°' o
•
•
• • •
a S
M
c
E
a
0
W U al cC b 0 c�. 8 R1 ' •
'” �, a g c o 3 c >
U Q :3 L i ti S � . • 0 . E. 0
Z°N(Ac 0 ti WWG
a'y O � E to c, rx on
U ca 3 0 O y ¢ y C> ° O - P. c 0
?i >a� � �� ,o Cl.) ' Eo �E w
U v, : o w o G. a> cy o y
aaU > , � 7 c. g E� c.; c >�
et' 2 et m— = � 1- " :1 : 3 03c- 1 0 1 N t� ��¢
�.. z w I C7 0 E-- o c�
Ac0 e6 IA apb% E ��� w Es o •
a0 5,„,„.8 wEw ^'sc b 2 n ; �
,. te .. y k a , g cn g � — bgeu A �
W a9 'y c o a ¢`�3 c U�a u 3
� ,ra�c.) . F aw a� w � o ba
Z o cC > Q o y- A >s W a8 E > �3 -
O c r 3 P; 3�w •4 § o o C . / W > 4‹ �E p to �4 c°c
N . . - .. 1 r-. . - _1 . F•1 . U . CA ■
0
,
e.
Q a
o'er o >
R Ti 00 o y�`Ec
R 1,' gil
0 ooh aa [ a o
U C C y Cq
C bq
b ,3 w, � a.)
411 u a> y a> y �A � :4 G
2 w 0 b0 �� N C 0 n
cc E Et a c a, v
a 8 H aw ..5 w 4 2sg
. . . . . .
• .
0
2.9 RECOMMENDED LAND USE STRATEGIES
2.9.1 Summary of Recommendations
The following is a brief summary of the land use recommendations which are
described in detail in Section 2.9.2 through 2.9.4.
Recommendations for both Easthampton and Northampton
#1 Revise Site Plan Approval/Review Standards with Traffic Impact
Statements
• #2 Improve Zoning Controls for Signs, Parking and Landscaping
#3 Promote Communication between Easthampton, Northampton, and the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works Regarding Development
Along State Highways
#4 Improve Access Driveway Spacing by Increasing Minimum Frontage
Recommendations Specific to Easthampton
#5 Revise the Planned Business Development Bylaw
#6 Restrict High - Volume Traffic Generating Uses in the General Business
District
#7 Amend the Planned Industrial Development Bylaw
#8 Clarify Definition of Frontage and Street
#9 Require Sidewalks Along the Route 10 Corridor to Enhance Pedestrian
Safety
Recommendations Specific to Northampton
#10 Planned Unit Development: Linking Housing to Commercial
Development
2.9.2 Recommendations for Both Easthampton and Northampton
Route 10 Action #1 - Revise Site Plan Approval /Review Standards with Traffic
Impact Statements
(Short -term Recommendation)
Easthampton and Northampton have adopted a site plan review bylaw or
ordinance. Although the bylaw and ordinance do have some standards regarding
traffic and safety issues they should be modified to incorporate some additional
commercial development standards. In addition some conceptual changes are
recommended to meet each municipality's individual needs.
In Easthampton, the site plan review process should be streamlined in places to
eliminate the need for certain uses to go through two separate permitting
processes - one for site plan review and the other for special permit. Instead, the
61
Planning Board should consolidate the process to produce a joint site plan
review /special permit process by one reviewing board.
In Northampton, the Planning Board should consolidate the site plan approval
review process into a site plan approval process. In this manner the process
moves from sometimes being only an advisory process (site plan review) to
always being a special permit process (site plan approval) and gives the reviewing
board more authority when making recommendations.
Traffic impact statements should be required for all projects in Northampton on
Route 9, Route 10, King Street, and Damon Road. In Easthampton, traffic
impact statements would be required for large developments, high - volume traffic
generating uses (uses with a trip generation rate of 700 vehicles /day) and new
uses with 10,000 square feet or more of gross floor area.
In both communities, new businesses should be clustered or required to share
access where feasible. Performance standards should be established for:
access and traffic impacts;
parking and loading;
lighting and landscaping;
appearance /architectural design; and
environmental impact.
In Figure 1, two commercial site plans for one parcel have been illustrated. One
site plan demonstrates what conditions are to be permitted under existing zoning
while the other site plan highlights improvements included in the recommended
zoning changes. If new performance standards were developed the parcel would
have less paved surface, more landscaping and would encourage more thoughtful
development.
Route 10 Action #2 - Improve Zoning Controls for Signs, Parking and
Landscaping
(Short -term Recommendation)
Both the Planning Boards in Easthampton and Northampton could improve the
impact of signs on the Route 10 Corridor by strengthening zoning control for
signs and providing additional regulations for sign size, height, illumination and
placement. In addition, parking standards addressing parking area design,
landscaping, and driveway location should be adopted in Easthampton.
Route 10 Action #3 - Promote Communication Between Easthampton,
Northampton, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Works Regarding
Development Along the State Highway
(Short -term Recommendation)
In 1985, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works circulated a letter stating
that if a municipality had a concern about the safety of driveway location or access
then the board or department in a city or town having authority over public ways
should notify the local MDPW district office of its concern by registered mail.
This policy stands today, although initially the municipality may express its
concern by a telephone conversation.
In order to open the lines of communication between the District II MDPW office
and the communities of Easthampton and Northampton, the department of public
works in each community should notify MDPW District _II that it would like to
receive notification of all access permit applications within its borders. This
request should be sent by registered mail on an annual basis (i.e. on January
2nd). In this way, the communities could inform MDPW of its concerns in a
timely fashion.
62
Lot Available for Development
Route 10
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
Figure 1
0
0
- n
co
Route 10
Potential Site Plan Potential Site Plan
Under Existing Zoning Requirements Under Recommended Zoning Changes
Route 10 Action #4 - Improve Access Driveway Spacing By Increasing Minimum
Frontage Requirements
(Short -term Recommendation)
Numerous driveways with close spacing usually result in delays and can cause
traffic conflicts, increasing the potential for accidents. A driver has to be on the
alert for traffic entering and exiting the roadway at numerous locations. There is
also increased delay to vehicles entering the roadway from adjacent parcels and
the ability of the traffic stream on the roadway to accept these vehicles is strained.
Longer spacing between driveways reduces the amount of information a driver
must process and improves the ability of traffic stream to absorb the vehicles
turning onto the roadway.
The recommended minimum distances between driveways is based on minimum
driveway spacing to reduce collisions:
Speed
(mph)
Minimum Spacing
(feet)
30 100
35 160
40 210
45 300
(Source: Stover and Koepke Transportation and Land Development, 1988)
In order to improve driveway spacing, the Planning Boards of Easthampton and
Northampton should increase the minimum frontage requirements in the business
and industrial districts within the corridor.
2.9.3 Recommendations Specific to Easthampton
Route 10 Action #5- Revise Planned Business Development Bylaw
(Short -term Recommendation)
Planned business developments allow a variety of business uses to be
consolidated on a single parcel, thereby reducing the number of curb cuts that
would be necessary for each business. The current Easthampton zoning bylaw
permits planned business developments in the General Business and Industrial
districts. As an incentive for development, Easthampton allows a reduction in the
parking requirements for planned business developments. To avoid a commercial
strip appearance additional standards are necessary. The Easthampton Planning
Board should adopt additional parking and landscaping standards for planned
business developments, establishing regulations for:
interior parking lot landscaping requirements
parking location
landscaping along street frontages
loading and unloading location standards
High- volume traffic generating uses (uses with a trip generation rate of 700
vehicles per day or more) should be restricted to a total of twenty (20) percent of
the gross floor area of any structure. By limiting the amount of the high - volume
traffic generators within a planned business development, the Easthampton
Planning Board reduces the chances for major traffic congestion attributed to the
site.
64
Route 10 Action #6 - Restrict High- Volume Traffic Generating Uses in the
General Business and Industrial Districts
(Short -term Recommendation)
To preclude high - traffic generating uses (uses with a trip generation rate of 700
vehicles per day or more) from dominating the General Business district,
consuming valuable industrial land for non - industrial uses in the Industrial district
and increasing traffic and safety concems in both the General Business and
Industrial districts, the Easthampton Planning Board should prohibit all high -
volume traffic generators from the General Business and Industrial districts
unless the use is incorporated in a Planned Business Development.
Route 10 Action #7 - Amend the Planned Industrial Development Bylaw
(Short -term Recommendation)
In Easthampton, Planned Industrial Developments are permitted in the General
Business and Industrial districts. As an incentive for development, the
Easthampton zoning bylaw permits a reduction in the minimum area regulations
for each district. Additional standards are necessary to ensure that the
development reflects the character of the town. The Easthampton Planning Board
should adopt additional parking and landscaping standards for planned industrial
developments, establishing regulations for:
Interior parking lot landscaping requirements
Parking location
Landscaping along street frontages
Loading and unloading location standards
Route 10 Action #8 - Clarify Definitions of Frontage and Street
(Short -term Recommendation)
There arc several ways along the Route 10 Corridor in Easthampton that received
Subdivision Approval but were never constructed and were never accepted by the
Town. In 1972, the Town of Easthampton adopted both the Easthampton Zoning
By -law and the Easthampton Subdivision Regulations. When these documents
were adopted, the Town established definitions for frontage and street.
According to the definition of street, the unconstructed roads, or "paper" roads,
along the Route 10 Corridor do not qualify as streets because they lack frontage.
Without any frontage, the lots lack adequate access and cannot be developed as
buildable lots. Essentially the lots behind the Route 10 Corridor are landlocked.
If a landowner(s) was interested in developing a lot along one of these paper
streets, a new subdivision plan would be required.
Although the current Zoning By -law and Subdivision Regulations do make the
distinction between a street with frontage and a way without frontage, but the
distinction is not apparent. It is recommended that the Planning Board make
amendments to the Zoning By -law and the Subdivision Regulations that clarify .
the status of unaccepted "paper" streets.
Route 10 Action #9 - Require Sidewalks Along the Route 10 Corridor to Enhance
Pedestrian Safety
(Long-term Recommendation)
Due to increased ratio of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, particularly in
Easthampton, sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the state
governed portion of Route 10 Corridor. This could be achieved either by: a) a
petition submitted to the Massachusetts Highway Department to include sidewalks
in their right -of -way; b) the municipality assuming the cost of the sidewalk
directly and constructing the sidewalk itself; or c) the establishment of a
betterment district for those properties that lacked appropriate sidewalks. Given
the current financial status of both Easthampton and the Commonwealth, it is not
65
the current financial status of both Easthampton and the Commonwealth, it is not
likely that recommendations a and b will readily occur. The establishment of a
betterment district may be more likely.
A betterment assessment would apply only to those properties along the corridor
where it would be necessary to construct a new sidewalk or upgrade an existing
sidewalk in disrepair. In this way the municipality would reduce or eliminate the
cost of construction for the municipality and instead pass part or all of the costs
on to the landowners. Developers of new projects along the corridor would have
the option of either paying the betterment assessment or constructing the sidewalk
as part of their development.
In order to establish a betterment assessment, the Board of Selectmen must
formally vote to assess the area for the improvement (sidewalks with
landscaping). Under M.G.L. Chapter 80 - (Betterments) this is classified as the
order for assessment. A plan of the affected area must be drawn and an estimate
of the betterment (sidewalks with landscaping) to be assessed to each parcel
within the area must be calculated. The order, the plan and the estimate must be
recorded within ninety (90) days from the adoption of the order is required in
order to assess the betterment. Six months after the completion of the
improvement (sidewalks with landscaping), the Board of Selectmen must
determine the value of the benefit and assess a proportionate share of the cost of
the improvement to each parcel.
In addition to providing sidewalks, Easthampton should improve the safety of
existing pedestrian crosswalks to further ensure pedestrian safety. A pedestrian
crosswalk coupled with a traffic signal offers maximum security for pedestrians
crossing a busy street. Section 3.0 of this report examines each intersection along
the corridor to determine whether the installation of a traffic signal is warranted.
Two of the intersections analyzed, the intersection of West Street and Route 10
and the intersection of Florence Road and Route 10, warranted the installation of
a traffic signals with the existing pedestrian crosswalks.
To eliminate confusion between pedestrian areas and curb cuts, the construction
of new sidewalks should include a landscaped pedestrian system of sidewalks,
fences, plantings, and buffers to control and direct pedestrian traffic. A strongly
landscaped corridor edge could strongly define the boundaries between the
pedestrian way and the corridor. It would also channel pedestrians to the traffic
signal with a pedestrian crosswalk.
A crosswalk already exists at the intersection of West Street and Route 10, but its
location, to the north of the intersection, is problematic. It is difficult for
motorists on West Street to look around the corner to check if a pedestrian is in
the crosswalk before they turn onto Route 10. It is also difficult for pedestrians
to easily cross Route 10 without facing ongoing traffic. Section 3.0 recommends
the installation of a traffic light without a pedestrian crossing cycle at this
intersection by the year 1995. When the traffic light is installed, the location of
the crosswalk should be shifted from the north side of the intersection to the south
side to minimize pedestrian conflicts with vehicles. It will allow pedestrians
sufficient time to cross.
Currently there is a crosswalk located to the north of the Florence Road/Route 10
intersection. Due to the volume of traffic at this intersection pedestrians find it
difficult to cross the roadway. Section 3.0 recommends that a traffic signal
without a pedestrian crossing cycle be installed. This will reduce the obstacles
pedestrians face when trying to cross the road. Unfortunately the number of
pedestrian traffic crossing near this intersection does not meet the state's
guidelines for adding a pedestrian phasing cycle to the traffic signal. The state
threshold for justification of a pedestrian phasing cycle is 100 pedestrians
crossing the intersection per noon hour. Currently there are sixty pedestrians
crossing at the Florence Road/Route 10 intersection per noon hour. If
66
minimize pedestrian conflicts with vehicles, the Town could request the addition
of a pedestrian cycle to the traffic signal.
2.9.4 Recommendation Specific to Northampton
Route 10 Action #10 - Planned Unit Development: Linking Housing to
Commercial Development
(Short -term Recommendation)
Under consideration by the Northampton Planning Board is the addition of a
Business Park District along the Route 10 Corridor. Included in this draft
ordinance is a provision for housing units, allowing a mix of jobs and housing on
the site. The proposed ordinance establishes regulations for:
floor area ratios to regulate development intensity
provision of common open space
permitting residential units on site with business uses with a density bonus
for affordable units
performance standards for environmental protection
limited curb cut access
The Northampton Planning Board should supplement this draft ordinance with
additional parking and landscaping standards for:
interior parking lot landscaping requirements
parking location
landscaping along street frontages
loading and unloading location standards
Route 10 Action #11 - Establish a Highway Corridor Overlay District
(Short -term Recommendation)
Although the Site Plan Approval Standards are appropriate for those districts to
which it applies, there are roadways in the City where the volume of traffic
traveling along them warrant additional review. The capacity of these roadways,
and any major intersections along them, are sensitive to any additional traffic
generated by a new or expanded use.
In order to address the concerns that additional traffic may bring to certain
roadways, the Northampton Planning Board should adopt a Highway Corridor
Overlay District. The purpose of this district would be to add additional traffic
performance stands in the Site Plan Approval process in areas where a large
volume of traffic already exists. The Highway Corridor Overlay District map
should include parcels directly abutting Route 9, Route 10, King Street and
Damon Road. The ordinance should include requirements for a traffic impact
statement, trip reduction plan and pedestrian safety improvements.
2.9.5 Implementation of Strategies
Since the "Route 10 Corridor Study Technical Memo: Land Use, Development
Trends and Zoning Review" was first published in 1989, the Town of
Easthampton and the City of Northampton have been working independently to
implement some of the document's preliminary recommendations. This has
resulted in some important zoning bylaw or ordinance changes. In 1990,
Easthampton revised its site plan review - special permit bylaw to streamline the
application process.
In May 1991, Northampton significantly revised its site plan approval /review
approval process to address site circulation, traffic and drainage issues. In a
67
separate section of the zoning ordinance, Northampton also tightened up its
screening and buffers/landscaping requirements in May 1991 to its satisfaction.
The City also adopted a Business Park District in August, 1991. The Business
Park District ordinance was considerably revised from its original form and the
district was expanded to include more properties along the Route 10 Corridor.
Table 15 summaries the status of recommendations as of August, 1991
Table 15.
Status of Recommendations as of 8/91
Recommendations Easthampton Northampton
1. Revise Site Plan Approval/ C C
Review
2. Improve Zoning Controls for N C
Signs, Parking and Landscaping
3. Promote Communication in N N
State Curb Cut Permit Process
4. Improve Access Driveway N N
Spacing
5. Planned Business Development N N/A
6. Restrict High - Volume Traffic N N/A
Generating Uses
7. Planned Industrial Development N N/A
8. Discontinue Paper Road N N/A
9. Require Sidewalks N N/A
10. Planned Business Park N/A C
Legend: N/A - Not Applicable
P - Work in Progress
N - Work Needed to Adopt Recommendations
C - Amendment Completed to Municipality's Satisfaction
68
these baseline volumes to present the four Build -out traffic volume scenarios for
each study year.
3.3.2 Operations Analysis
Traffic operations were analyzed according to standard procedures and practices
outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, The efficiency of traffic
operations at a location is measured in terms of "Level of Service" (LOS). The
LOS refers to the quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. It is
described in terms of Levels A through F, where A represents the best possible
conditions and F represents forced -flow or failing conditions.
At signalized intersections, LOS is defined in terms of average delays. For
unsignalized intersections, reserve capacity is used to determine LOS. These
measures are discussed briefly below, and Table 16 summarizes their
relationships.
Average delay is a measurement of the mean stopped delay experienced by
vehicles entering a signalized intersection during the peak hour period. Average
delay is measured for each individual approach and the intersection as a whole.
The LOS provided deteriorates with increasing average delays. Generally LOS D
or better is considered acceptable.
Reserve capacity at an unsignalized intersection is the unused capacity of an
approach. This measure, defined in passenger cars per hour, indicates how many
more vehicles using an individual approach would be required to bring the
intersection leg to capacity. The LOS of an unsignalized intersection is measured
by the worst LOS along any of the intersection's approaches. Generally LOS D
or better is considered acceptable. However, minor street approaches may be
very sensitive to even minimal amounts of traffic and yield lower levels of
service. Intersections with LOS E may also be considered acceptable when
volumes along the minor street approach volumes are not large.
Roadway segments are analyzed based on mobility and accessibility. The
primary measure of service quality is percent time delay, speed, and capacity
utilization. These ideal roadways are typically designed for speeds greater than or
equal to 60 mph, adequate lane and shoulder widths, no absence of passing
zones, limited truck traffic, and an equal directional split of traffic. Using these
parameters for a given roadway segment, the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual has
determined adjustment factors for segments below the ideal conditions. In doing
this, segments with varying conditions and volumes can be measured in terms of
LOS. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable. However, segments
that are designed to operate below the ideal highway conditions may operate
acceptably at LOS E as measured under the ideal highway standards.
The above types of analysis were conducted for the appropriate locations along
the Route 10 Corridor. Anticipated No -Build volumes, as well as the four Build -
out scenario volumes, were analyzed under similar conditions to provide
comparable. results. These analyses were conducted for the weekday PM peak
hour of three future -year periods: 1995, 2000, and 2010. Mitigation measures to
improve the unacceptable study area travel conditions and safety have been
examined for the existing conditions as well as for future study year conditions.
Analyses of the recommended improvements have been conducted for the short
term and long term time frames, in order to identify these improvements on an as-
needed basis.
72
Delay Range Reserve Capacity
Seconds 8
or P�' (Passenger Cars
Category y Description vehicle) ** Per Howl***
LOS A: Describes a condition of free flow, with low 0.00 -5.0 400
volumes and relatively high speeds. There
is little or no reduction in maneuverability
due to the presence of other vehicles, and
drivers can maintain their desired speeds.
Little or no delays result for side street
motorists.
LOS B:
• LOS C:
LOS D:
Table 16
Level of Service (LOS) Designations*
Describes a condition of stable flow, with desired 5.1 -15.0 300 -399
operating speeds relatively unaffected, but with a
slight deterioration of maneuverability within
the traffic stream. Side street motorists
experience short delays.
Describes a condition still representing stable
flow, but speeds and maneuverability begin
to be restricted. Motorists entering form
side streets experience average delays.
Describes a high - density traffic condition
approaching unstable flow. Speeds and
maneuverability become more restricted.
Side street motorists may experience longer
delays.
LOS E: Represents conditions at or near the 40.1 -60.0 0 -99
capacity of the facility. Flow is usually
unstable, and freedom to maneuver within
the traffic stream becomes extremely difficult.
Very long delays may result for side street
motorists.
LOS F: Describes forced flow or breakdown conditions 60.1 or greater N/A
with significant queuing along critical
approaches. Operating conditions are
highly unstable as characterized by erratic
vehicle movements along each approach.
* Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209; 1985.
** Delay ranges relate to the mean stopped delay incurred by all vehicles entering the
intersection and do not consider the effects of traffic signal coordination. This
criteria is intended for use in the evaluation of signalized intersections.
* ** Reserve capacity refers to the unused capacity of an intersection approach, on a per
lane basis. This criteria is limited to use in the evaluation of unsignalized
intersections.
73
15.1 -25.0 200 -299
25.1 -40.0 100 -199
3.0 ROUTE 10 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
This Section of the Route 10 Corridor study concentrates on the transportation
issues associated with the anticipated growth along the Route 10 Corridor.
Transportation issues of concern for growing corridors include: the level of travel
demands, motorist and pedestrian safety, changing travel patterns, and capacity
constraints at key locations. The major contributor to the increasing concern of
these transportation issues is the size and type of new land uses developed along
the corridor. With an appropriate growth management strategy, future
undesirable growth impacts may possibly be avoided through proper planning
and land use controls.
Section 2.0 of this report identifies future planning strategies based on the
historical and existing characteristics of the Easthampton/Northampton area.
Several growth rates and zoning conditions were grouped together to conduct a
"Build -out" analysis and to forecast probable growth impacts for four scenarios.
In order to analyze the growth impacts of these various development rates and
land use conditions, a forecast of the anticipated travel conditions was measured
for each of the four Build -out scenarios described in Section 2 of this report. The
four development scenarios described in Section 2 are as follows:
Scenario 1 - Existing Zoning/High Growth Rate;
Scenario 2 - Existing Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate;
Scenario 3 - Recommended Zoning/High Growth Rate; and
Scenario 4 - Recommended Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate.
The horizon years studied for the Build -out scenarios are the years 2000 and
2010. The travel conditions for roadway segments and various key intersections
have been analyzed for each Build -out scenario during these years. Based on
these analyses, proposed longterm improvements to the roadway network were
developed. Analyses have also been conducted for the interim year 1995 to
identify the possible need for short term improvements on the Route 10 Corridor.
The analyses conducted examine roadway segment conditions, intersection levels
of service, and intersection accident experience.
3.2 STUDY AREA
The Route 10 Corridor which is the focus of this report is located between the
Easthampton and Northampton centers. Figure 1 highlights the section of the
Route 10 Corridor which will be addressed as the study area. The study area
encompasses the Route 10 Corridor between and including the intersection with
Route 9 (Main Street) in Northampton and the intersection with Route 141 (Union
Street) in Easthampton. The total length of the study area is approximately 4.2
miles.
The study area encompasses 40 intersections with Route 10. These intersections
include 16 in Easthampton and 24 in Northampton. The majority of the
70
intersecting roads are local residential streets. The PVPC has identified seven of
the 40 intersections as key locations for evaluation. These intersections are noted
on Figure 2 and are listed below:
Easthampton
1. Route 10 (Main Street) at Route 141 (Union Street);
2. Route 10 (Main Street) at West street;
3. Route 10 (Northampton Street) at Florence Road;
4. Route 10 (Northampton Street) at O'Neil street;
Northampton
5. Route 10 (Easthampton Road) at Earle Street;
6. Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street; and
7. Route 10 (South Street) at Route 9 (Main Street).
Figure 2 also shows the Route 10 Corridor divided into five segments. These
segments were selected based on their conformance with the highway segment
descriptions outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The boundaries of the
Route 10 segments appropriate for study are as follows:
1. Route 9 (Main Street) to Old South Street;
2. Old South Street to Earle Street;
3. Earle Street to Easthampton/Northampton line;
4. Town Line to Florence Road; and
5. Florence Road to Pleasant Street.
These segments represent portions of the corridor that are consistent in geometric
design, travel speed, and traffic flow.
3.3 METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Study Area Volumes
Data collection for the Route 10 Corridor study first began in 1988. Since then
additional data have been collected in support of determining the corridor's
historical growth rate, travel patterns and demands, accident rates, and
developmental characteristics. These data are the primary basis by which the
corridor's performance is measured. A series of comparative evaluations have
been conducted to determine the present and future conditions of the corridor.
Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were stationed at various locations within
the study area to measure the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the corridor.
The data were compared to other annual data collected throughout the region to
determine an appropriate annual background growth rate for the Route 10 study
area. Based on these historical and recent ADT counts, the annual background
growth rate for the corridor was estimated at approximately 1.0 percent. This
growth rate accounts for the general increase in vehicle traffic generated
throughout the local area. This growth rate does not account for specific
developments anticipated within the study area.
This annual background growth rate was applied to the existing volumes
described in the Route 10 Technical Memorandum of Existing Transportation
Conditions published by the PVPC in December 1989. This application
developed the baseline ADT and peak hour volumes for the years 1995, 2000,
2010. The vehicle trips generated from the four scenarios were then added to
71
69
3.0 TRAFFIC
3.0 ROUTE 10 TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS
r
r
3.1 Introduction
This Section of the Route 10 Corridor study concentrates on the transportation
issues associated with the anticipated growth along the Route 10 Corridor.
Transportation issues of concern for growing corridors include: the level of travel
demands, motorist and pedestrian safety, changing travel patterns, and capacity
constraints at key locations. The major contributor to the increasing concern of
these transportation issues is the size and type of new land uses developed along
the corridor. With an appropriate growth management strategy, future
undesirable growth impacts may possibly be avoided through proper planning
and land use controls.
Section 2.0 of this report identifies future planning strategies based on the
historical and existing characteristics of the Easthampton/Northampton area.
Several growth rates, and zoning conditions were grouped together to conduct a
"Build-out" analysis and to forecast probable growth impacts for four scenarios.
In order to analyze the growth impacts of these various development rates and
land use conditions, a forecast of the anticipated travel conditions was measured
for each of the four Build -out scenarios described in Section 2 of this report. The
four development scenarios described in Section 2 are as follows:
Scenario 1 - Existing Zoning/High Growth Rate;
Scenario 2 - Existing Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate;
Scenario 3 - Recommended Zoning/High Growth Rate; and
Scenario 4 - Recommended Zoning/Moderate Growth Rate.
The horizon years studied for the Build -out scenarios are the years 2000 and
2010. The travel conditions for roadway segments and various key intersections
have been analyzed for each Build -out scenario during these years. Based on
these analyses, proposed longterm improvements to the roadway network were
developed. Analyses have also been conducted for the interim year 1995 to
identify the possible need for short term improvements on the Route 10 Corridor.
The analyses conducted examine roadway segment conditions, intersection levels
of service, and intersection accident experience.
3.2 STUDY AREA
The Route 10 Corridor which is the focus of this report is located between the
Easthampton and Northampton centers. Figure 1 highlights the section of the
Route 10 Corridor which will be addressed as the study area. The study area
encompasses the Route 10 Corridor between and including the intersection with
Route 9 (Main Street) in Northampton and the intersection with Route 141 (Union
Street) in Easthampton. The total length of the study area is approximately 4.2
miles.
The study area encompasses 40 intersections with Route 10. These intersections
include 16 in Easthampton and 24 in Northampton. The majority of the
70
intersecting roads are local residential streets. The PVPC has identified seven of
the 40 intersections as key locations for evaluation. These intersections are noted
on Figure 2 and are listed below:
Easthampton
1. Route 10 (Main Street) at Route 141 (Union Street);
2. Route 10 (Main Street) at West street;
3. Route 10 (Northampton Street) at Florence Road;
4. Route 10 (Northampton Street) at O'Neil street;
Northampton
5. Route 10 (Easthampton Road) at Earle Street;
6. Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street; and
7. Route 10 (South Street) at Route 9 (Main Street).
Figure 2 also shows the Route 10 Corridor divided into five segments. These
segments were selected based on their conformance with the highway segment
descriptions outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The boundaries of the
Route 10 segments appropriate for study are as follows:
1. Route 9 (Main Street) to Old South Street;
2. Old South Street to Earle Street;
3. Earle Street to Easthampton/Northampton line;
4. Town Line to Florence Road; and
5. Florence Road to Pleasant Street.
These segments represent portions of the corridor that are consistent in geometric
design, travel speed, and traffic flow.
3.3 METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Study Area Volumes
Data collection for the Route 10 Corridor study first began in 1988. Since then
additional data have been collected in support of determining the corridor's
historical growth rate, travel patterns and demands, accident rates, and
developmental characteristics. These data are the primary basis by which the
corridor's performance is measured. A series of comparative evaluations have
been conducted to determine the present and future conditions of the corridor.
Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were stationed at various locations within
the study area to measure the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along the corridor.
The data were compared to other annual data collected throughout the region to
determine an appropriate annual background growth rate for the Route 10 study
area. Based on these historical and recent ADT counts, the annual background
growth rate for the corridor was estimated at approximately 1.0 percent. This
growth rate accounts for the general increase in vehicle traffic generated
throughout the local area. This growth rate does not account for specific
developments anticipated within the study area.
This annual background growth rate was applied to the existing volumes
described in the Route 10 Technical Memorandum of Existing Transportation
Conditions published by the PVPC in December 1989. This application
developed the baseline ADT and peak hour volumes for the years 1995, 2000,
2010. The vehicle trips generated from the four scenarios were then added to
71
these baseline volumes to present the four Build -out traffic volume scenarios for
each study year.
3.3.2 Operations Analysis
Traffic operations were analyzed according to standard procedures and practices
outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, The efficiency of traffic
operations at a location is measured in terms of "Level of Service" (LOS). The
LOS refers to the quality of traffic flow along roadways and at intersections. It is
described in terms of Levels A through F, w here A represents the best possible
conditions and F represents forced -flow or failing conditions.
At signalized intersections, LOS is defined in terms of average delays. For
unsignalized intersections, reserve capacity is used to determine LOS. These
measures are discussed briefly below, and Table 16 summarizes their
relationships.
Average delay is a measurement of the mean stopped delay experienced by
vehicles entering a signalized intersection during the peak hour period. Average
delay is measured for each individual approach and the intersection as a whole.
The LOS provided deteriorates with increasing average delays. Generally LOS D
or better is considered acceptable.
Reserve capacity at an unsignalized intersection is the unused capacity of an
approach. This measure, defined in passenger cars per hour, indicates how many
more vehicles using an individual approach would be required to bring the
intersection leg to capacity. The LOS of an unsignalized intersection is measured
by the worst LOS along any of the intersection's approaches. Generally LOS D
or better is considered acceptable. However, minor street approaches may be
very sensitive to even minimal amounts of traffic and yield lower levels of
service. Intersections with LOS E may also be considered acceptable when
volumes along the minor street approach volumes are not large.
Roadway segments are analyzed based on mobility and accessibility. The
primary measure of service quality is percent time delay, speed, and capacity
utilization. These ideal roadways are typically designed for speeds greater than or
equal to 60 mph, adequate lane and shoulder widths, no absence of passing
zones, limited truck traffic, and an equal directional split of traffic. Using these
parameters for a given roadway segment, the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual has
determined adjustment factors for segments below the ideal conditions. In doing
this, segments with varying conditions and volumes can be measured in terms of
LOS. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable. However, segments
that are designed to operate below the ideal highway conditions may operate
acceptably at LOS E as measured under the ideal highway standards.
The above types of analysis were conducted for the appropriate locations along
the Route 10 Corridor. Anticipated No -Build volumes, as well as the four Build -
out scenario volumes, were analyzed under similar conditions to provide
comparable. results. These analyses were conducted for the weekday PM peak
hour of three future -year periods: 1995, 2000, and 2010. Mitigation measures to
improve the unacceptable study area travel conditions and safety have been
examined for the existing conditions as well as for future study year conditions.
Analyses of the recommended improvements have been conducted for the short
term and long term time frames, in order to identify these improvements on an as-
needed basis.
72
Category
LOS A:
LOS B:
LOS C:
LOS D:
LOS E:
LOS F:
Level of Service (LOS)
Delay Range Reserve Capacity
Descriution (Seconds per (Passenger Cars
vehicle) ** Per Hour) * **
Describes a condition of free flow, with low 0.00 -5.0
volumes and relatively high speeds. There 400
is little or no reduction in maneuverability
due to the presence of other vehicles, and
drivers can maintain their desired speeds.
Little or no delays result for side street
motorists.
Describes a condition of stable flow, with desired 5.1 -15.0
operating speeds relatively unaffected, but with a 300 399
slight deterioration of maneuverability within
the traffic stream. Side street motorists
experience short delays.
Describes a condition still representing stable 15.1 -25.0
flow, but speeds and maneuverability begin 200 -299
to be restricted. Motorists entering form
side streets experience average delays.
Describes a high - density traffic condition 25.1 -40.0
approaching unstable flow. Speeds and 100 199
maneuverability become more restricted.
Side street motorists may experience longer
delays.
Represents conditions at or near the
capacity of the facility. Flow is usually
unstable, and freedom to maneuver within
the traffic stream becomes extremely difficult.
Very long delays may result for side street
motorists.
Describes forced flow or breakdown conditions 60.1 or greater N/A
with significant queuing along critical
approaches. Operating conditions are
highly unstable as characterized by erratic
vehicle movements along each approach.
* Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209; 1985.
** Delay ranges relate to the mean stopped delay incurred by all vehicles entering the
intersection and do not consider the effects of traffic signal coordination. This
criteria is intended for use in the evaluation of signalized intersections.
* ** Reserve capacity refers to the unused capacity of an intersection approach, on a per
lane basis. This criteria is limited to use in the evaluation of unsignalized
intersections.
73
40.1 -60.0 0 -99
n
J
i
L
3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The technical memorandum of existing conditions along the Route 10 corridor
published by the PVPC in December 1989 provides detailed information of the
study area roadway and intersection characteristics, as well as travel demands and
patterns, and safety conditions. The following paragraphs summarize the
contents of that previous report.
3.4.1 Existing Intersection Analysis
The key locations examined for this report have been selected based upon their
perceived significance to the corridor. Of the 40 roadways that intersect with
Route 10 within the study area, seven are identified as having higher functional
classification than typical local roadways. These intersections are described
briefly below:
EASTHAMPTON
Route 10 (Main Street) at Union Street (Route 141)
This three -way intersection is the southern boundary of the Route 10
corridor study. The intersection of Route 10 with Union Street from the
east is presently controlled by a three phase signal system.
Route 10 (Main Street) at West Street
West Street intersects Route 10 to form a three -way intersection just
south of a significant curve in the Route 10 corridor. This curve
restricts the sight distance along the eastbound West Street approach to
the unsignalized intersection.
Route 10 (Northampton Street) at Florence Road
Florence Road intersects Route 10 from the west to form a three -way
intersection. The present control at this location is a stop sign reinforced
by flashing beacon.
Route 10 (Northampton Street) at O'Neil street
This intersection is located just south of the Easthampton/Northampton
line. O'Neil Street approaches from the east to form a three -way stop
sign controlled intersection with Route 10.
NORTHAMPTON
Route 10 (Easthampton Road) at Earle Street
Earle Street intersects Route 10 at an acute angle to form a three -way
unsignalized intersection. The atypical approach angle supports the
selection for evaluation at this location. Earle Street is located on the
west side of Route 10 and has restricted sight distance of the Route 10
southbound approach.
Route 10 (South Street) at Old South Street
Route 10 is intersected by Old South Street to form a three -way
unsignalized intersection The westbound Old South Street approach is
divided at the intersection into two lanes separated by an island. This
intersection is presently under evaluation by the City of Northampton.
Reconfiguration and improved traffic control of this intersection are
planned.
75
Route 10 (South Street) at Route 9 (Main Street)
Route 10 intersects Route 9 to form a major four -way signalized
intersection. This northern study area boundary is equipped with a
sophisticated five phase signal system to serve the high traffic demand at
this location.
Traffic volumes presented in the December 1989 technical memorandum were
used to represent the existing PM peak hour demands at each location. These PM
peak hour volumes signify typical weekday peak commuter traffic, in which
travel demands are greatest. Existing traffic volumes for the study area .
intersections are presented in Figure 3.
Each key intersection within the study area was analyzed to comparatively
measure its quality of service based on the existing volumes and geometry. The
Level of Service (LOS) calculations were conducted based on the procedures and
practices outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Table 17 presents the estimated operating conditions experienced at the key study
area intersections during the peak hour of any given weekday. As seen, three
intersections operate at LOS D while the remaining four operate at LOS E or F.
A brief description of each intersection's deficiencies is presented below.
Route 10 at Union Street in Easthampton operates at an acceptable service level
under existing conditions. The present signal system offers three phase operation
including a lead southbound phase to accommodate the heavy left turn movement
from Route 10 onto Union Street. Although this lead phase exists, the volumes
along this movement require more green time to fully satisfy demands. The
Union Street right turn movement is also extremely heavy and approaches
unacceptable delays.
The West Street approach to Route 10 in Easthampton is operating with excessive
delays related to the high volume level experienced on Route 10. The restricted
sight distance and shared lane approach add to the intersection operating over its
capacity.
Based on the results presented in Table 17, the intersection of Route 10 and
Florence Road in Easthampton operates over capacity under the existing
conditions. The negative reserve capacity refers to the minor street approach
operations of Florence Road. The present geometry accommodates a single
approach lane which the left and right turning vehicles must share. This, coupled
with the heavy volumes on Route 10, induces an insufficient number of
acceptable gap times between the through moving vehicles, thereby creating
excessive delays. The volumes along the northbound left turn movement are also
significantly high and create delays for the entire northbound approach.
The O'Neil Street approach experiences a reserve capacity of 63 vehicles per peak
hour under existing conditions. Although the volumes along this approach are
relatively low, the high volumes along Route 10 and the increased speed limit of
45 mph create substandard conditions.
The acute angle in which Earle Street intersects with Route 10 in Northampton
hinders the sight distance of the vehicles maneuvering onto Route 10
southbound. This hindrance is realized through the capacity analysis resulting in
a LOS D. The volumes along Earle Street are extremely low. However, as with
the O'Neil Street intersection, the mainline volumes restrict maneuverability from
this approach.
76
LI
L
n
The largest intersection delays within the study area are experienced at the Route
10 at Old South Street location. Volumes along each approach leg are extremely
high causing excessive congestion. The atypical geometric configuration,
although not accounted for in the analysis, increases user confusion reducing the
effective utilization of the intersection. As seen in Table 17, the intersection
presently is estimated to be operating well below capacity.
The delays experienced at the Route 10 at Main Street intersection in Northampton
remains modestly under the LOS E threshold of 40 seconds of average delay per
passenger car per hour. The southbound approach experiences significant delays
due to the limited green time designated to this phase. However, the southbound
approach is the lowest volume approach, and increasing green time for this phase
will increase delays along the other three approaches which carry twice the
volumes. Therefore, the present phasing sequence is appropriate in satisfying the
demands along the high volume approaches and, in turn, keeping the average
intersection delays to a minimum.
3.4.2 Existing Segment Analysis
The Route 10 Corridor has been broken into five segments to examine the
operations of traffic flow within the study area. The segments were determined
based on the continuous geometric conditions as well as travel patterns. A brief
description of each segment is presented below.
NORTHAMPTON
Segment 1: Main Street to Old South Street
Length = 0.1 miles;
Speed limit = 25 mph;
Shoulders = street side parking;
Directional split = 60/40;
Percent heavy vehicles = 2;
Segment 2: Old South Street to Earle Street
Length = 1.1 miles;
Speed limit = 25 -35 mph;
Shoulders = wide;
Directional split = 60/40;
Percent heavy vehicles = 2.
Segment 3: Earle Street to Town line
Length = 1.5 miles;
Speed limit = 50 mph;
Shoulders = wide;
Directional split = 60/40;
Percent heavy vehicles = 2.
EASTHAMPTON
Segment 4: Town line to Florence Road
Length = 0.7 miles;
Speed limit = 40 -45 mph;
Shoulders = none;
Directional split = 60/40;
Percent heavy vehicles = 2.
Segment 5: Florence Road to Pleasant Street
Length = 0.7 miles;
Speed limit = 35 mph;
Shoulders = narrow;
Directional split = 60/40;
Percent heavy vehicles = 2.
79
The segments were analyzed based on the parameters set forth by the Highway
Capacity Manual. Segment LOS was determined by comparing the actual
segment travel demands to the theoretical capacities and calculated LOS criteria
established by each segment's characteristics. Peak hour travel demands were
estimated from the ADT information gathered at mid -block locations along the
corridor. Table 18 presents a summary of the existing segment analysis findings.
Location
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Table 18
Existing Segment Analysis Summary
Mid -block
Volume
1600
1535
1165
1130
1663
The information collected identified a total of 78 accidents occurring at the seven
study area intersections. Of these 78 accidents, approximately 51 percent
reported property damage only, while 49 percent reported personal injury,
including one fatality. Annually, 1986 experienced 12 accidents (some data not
available), 1987 experienced 23 accidents, and 1988 experienced 41 accidents.
This information is presented in Table 19 by year, type and severity for each of
the seven study area intersections. Table 19 also presents the accident rate per
million vehicles for each intersection. This measure is presented to compare
accident experience throughout the study area, as well as with the state average.
3.4.3 Existing Study Area Safety
Safety conditions throughout the study area were estimated based on the accident
history along Route 10. Unfortunately, detailed accident information regarding
incidents at mid -block locations are not consistently available. Therefore,
accident occurrence was based on information gathered at the key locations within
the study area. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) was
contacted to identify all accidents occurring at these intersections. Local police
records were also reviewed to check this information. The accident information
obtained focuses on the three year period of 1986 (when available), 1987 and
1988.
LOS
E
D
D
E
E
The criteria for measuring LOS presented in the 1985. Highway Capacity Manual
for two lane highway segments principally address roadways with travel speeds
of over 50 mph. The speed limits along the Route 10 Corridor segments studied
are posted for speeds below 50 mph, with the exception of segment 3.
Therefore, the LOS values summarized in Table 3 can be interpreted as extremely
conservative. Field observations will also suggest that operating conditions
along the Route 10 segments are not as critical as the analysis results appear.
Knowing this, the report will acknowledge LOS E as being an acceptable service
level for the analysis of segments along Route 10. It is also important to
understand that the LOS designation identified for each segment condition
measures user's freedom to maneuver and operating comfort as well as roadway
capacity. A poor LOS may be typical of a segment with some travel restrictions
and not necessarily a gridlock condition.
80
The greatest number of accidents within the study area occurred at the intersection
of Route 10 at Old South Street in Northampton. This intersection experienced a
to.taLof l 9leported-acciden- is -in-a -two year - period. The- primary types - of
accidents vary between angle and rear -end accidents. It is conceivable that the
atypical configuration of the intersection induces such significant confusion to
motorists that a high number of accidents occur.
The Route 10 at Florence Road intersection in Easthampton experienced a total of
15 reported accidents during the three year study period. Of these 15 accidents,
the majority, eight, have been of the angle type. This may be the result of
insufficient gap time available for the minor street approach or for northbound
Route 10 Left turning vehicles.
The one fatal accident within the study area occurred south of the Route 10 at
Florence Road intersection which involved a pedestrian. At the time of the
accident this segment had not been equipped with pedestrian cross walks,
sidewalks or shoulders. Since the 1988 fatal accident, cross walks have been
installed along with a flashing beacon at the intersection. Additional research on
pedestrian safety at this location has been conducted by an Easthampton Safety
Committee on Route 10 called ESCORT. ESCORT has reported that
approximately 60 accidents have occurred in 1988 along roadway segments south
of Florence Road. The segment just south of Florence Road is also an area of
high pedestrian volume in which ESCORT observed a midday peak of
approximately 60 pedestrians per hour. The high pedestrian traffic along with
travel speeds in excess of 35 mph have raised concerns. Efforts to forewarn
motorists of the posted 35 mph speed limit in the area are underway.
The abundance of accidents occurring at the Route 10 at West Street intersection
are assumed to be associated with the excessive delays experienced on West
Street coupled with the poor sight distance along Route 10. The frustrated West
Street motorists make unsafe maneuvers when entering the flow of traffic along
Route 10. The same is true for vehicles entering West Street from Route 10
northbound. This is apparent by the high number of accidents including
southbound vehicles conflicting with the vehicles entering and exiting West
Street.
The high accident locations within the study area are the intersections of Route 10
at Old South Street, Route 10 at Florence Road and Route 10 at West Street. All
three intersections experienced moderate accident rates before 1988 and then more
than doubled during the 1988 year. Notably, these three intersections each
accommodate over 7 million vehicles per year and operate under stop sign
control.
3.4.4 Transit
The Route 10 Corridor is served by the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA).
The PVTA Route 701 presently is operating well under capacity for all times of
the day. It is anticipated that under the existing zoning regulations Route 701 will
adequately provide service for the Route 10 corridor.
Future transit demand conditions under the four Build -out scenarios are also
anticipated to be within the capacity of Route 701. It is expected that an increase
in residential and retail development will induce a direct increase in transit
demand. It is recommended that as transit ridership increases, the service be
reviewed to identify the efficiency of the Route 701 scheduling and capacity.
Number_
of
Location Year Accidents
NA = Not Available
AN = Angle
RE = Rear End
HO = Head On
PED = Pedestrian
FO = Fixed Object
Table 19
Accident History Summary
`Route 10 at 1986 4 AN 1 PD 5
Union St. 1987 1 RE 4 PI 3
1988 3 HO 1 F 0
PED 1
FO 1
Route 10 at 1986 4 AN 14 PD 10 .44
West St. 1987 6 RE 6 PI 10 .66
1988 10 HO 0 F 0 1.09
PED 0
FO 0
Route 10 at 1986 4 AN 8
Florence Rd. 1987 3 RE 5
1988 8 HO 0
PED 1
FO 1
Route 10 at 1986 0 AN 1 PD 1 .00
O'Neil St. 1987 1 RE 1 PI 1 .17
1988 1 HO 0 F 0 .17
PED 0
FO 0
Route 10 at 1986 NA AN 0
Earle St. 1987 2 RE 1
1988 2 HO 0
PED 0
FO 3
Route 10 at 1986 NA AN 6
Old South St. 1987 5 RE 11
1988 14 HO 0
PED 0
FO . 2
Route 10 at 1986 NA AN 4
Main St. 1987 5 RE 3
1988 5 HO 0
PED 0
FO 2
Mil Veh = Million Vehicles
PD = Property Damage
PI = Personal Injury
F = Fatality
82
Type Severity
PD 4
PI 1
F 0
PD 10
PI 9
F 0
PD 5
PI 4
F 0
Rate Per
Mil. Veh,
.34
.08
.25
PD 5 .59
PI 9 .44
F 1 1.25
NA
.34
.34
NA
.53
1.47
NA
.46
.46
T
L
L .
3.4.5 Signal Warrant Analysis
The findings of the existing conditions analyses prompt further investigation. A
signal warrant analysis was conducted for several key study area locations under
the criteria presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) set forth by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration. These criteria are the accepted standard throughout the United
States.
The signal warrants described in the MUTCD are presented below:
Warrant 1 Minimum vehicular volume.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic.
Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume.
Warrant 4 - School crossings.
Warrant 5 - Progressive movement.
Warrant 6 - Accident experience.
Warrant 7 - Systems.
Warrant 8 - Combination of warrants
Warrant 9 - Four hour volumes.
Warrant 10 - Peak hour delay.
Warrant 11 - Peak hour volume.
The available field data is tested under these warrants to determine if a traffic
signal installation is justified. Signal installation is warranted if at least one of the
above warrants is satisfied. However, good planning and engineering judgement
is also required when determining if a location is suitable for signalized traffic
control.
Four intersections along the Route 10 Corridor were examined using the MUTCD
guidelines. The intersecting roadways include West Street, Florence Road,
O'Neil Street, and Old South Street. The data used in the analysis was obtained
in 1988. The traffic signal warrant worksheets for each of these intersections is
presented in Appendix I and is summarized in Table 20.
With limited data collected at the Route 10 at West Street intersection, five of the
11 signal warrants were satisfied. These warrants include Warrant 6 (Accident
experience), Warrant 7 (Systems warrant), Warrant 9 (Four hour warrant),
Warrant 10 (Peak hour delay), and Warrant 11 (Peak hour volume).
The intersection of Route 10 at Florence Road satisfied 8 of the 11 signal
warrants listed above. Among the warrants not satisfied were Warrant 3
(Minimum Pedestrian Volumes) and Warrant 5 (Progressive Movement). The
minimum pedestrian volume required to satisfy Warrant 3 is 100 pedestrians for .
any four hours or 190 pedestrians for any single hour. Warrant 5 was designed
to accommodate systems which involve additional signalized locations. Warrant
• 4 (School crossing) is the only warrant that did not apply.
Two signal warrants were satisfied at the Route 10 at O'Neil Street intersection.
These warrants include Warrant 9 (Four hour volumes) and Warrant 11 (Peak
hour volume). Two of the signal warrants did not apply, Warrant 3, due to lack
of information, and Warrant 4.
The Route 10 at Old South Street intersection satisfied eight of the 11 warrants,
did not satisfy one, and two did not apply. The one warrant not satisfied was.
Warrant 5.which requires the need to assist a signal system in the proper
platooning of vehicles. This did not seem necessary. The two warrants which
did not apply include Warrant 3, due to lack of information, and Warrant 4.
83
Warrant 1
Warrant 2
Warrant 3
Warrant 4
Warrant 5
Warrant 6
Warrant 7
Warrant 8
Warrant 9
Warrant 10
Warrant 11
TOTAL
NA = Not Applicable.
DNC = Data Not Collected.
3.4.6 Short -Term
Short-term im
conducted for
improvements
1995 has been
recommended
section 3.5.
West St.
DNC
DNC
DNC
NA
DNC
YES
YES
DNC
YES
YES
YES
5 YES
0 NO
6 NA/DNC
Improvements
Table 20
Signal Warrant Analysis Summary
Florence Rd. O'Neil St.
YES
YES
NO
NA
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
8 YES
2 NO
1 NA
provements for the Route 10 corridor are based on the analysis
the existing conditions. It is recommended that these
be implemented as soon as realistically possible. the interim year
randomly selected to identify conditions with and without the
short -term improvements. The 1995 analysis is presented in
The results presented in Table 17 and Table 20 identify four intersections which
experience unsatisfactory conditions under existing conditions and may warrant .
immediate attention. Based on this information, it is recommended that mitigation
in the form of traffic signals be installed at three of the four locations. These
locations include Route 10 at West Street, Route 10 at Florence Road, and Route
10 at Old South Street. It does not seem apparent that signal installation is .
required at this time at the Route 10 at O'Neil Street intersection.
The Route 10 at West Street intersection experiences traffic volumes which satisfy
the installation of a traffic signal. It would appear that this improved control
would reduce the number of angle accidents at the intersection. However, the
installation of a traffic signal may also induce a significant increase in rear -end
accidents along the Route 10 southbound approach due to the curvature of the
corridor. Possibly the installation of forewarning signs would minimize this
problem. Along with the installation of signal control, other control improvement
altematives may also be appropriate. Specifically, the implementation of a
restricted right -turn-only system from West Street should also be considered.
Installation of traffic signals at the Route 10 at Florence Road intersection will
significantly reduce traffic delays at this location. Traffic signal control should
also reduce the number of significant accidents at and adjacent to the intersection.
Pedestrian crossings at the intersection will also be more controlled and the
increased platooning of Route 10 traffic will simplify these maneuvers. Actuated
push buttons may also be installed to serve the pedestrian traffic.
Operations at the Route 10 at O'Neil Street intersection have been calculated to be
below the generally accepted standards under existing conditions. However, the
volumes along O'Neil Street are relatively low and intersection delays are not
84
NO
NO
DNC
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
2 YES
7 NO
2 NA /DNC
Old South St
YES
YES
DNC
NA
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
8 YES
1 NO
2 NA/DNC
n
L
Table 17
Existing Intersection LOS Summary
Signalized
Locations Delay* LOS
Route 10 at 26.4 D
Union St.
Route 10 at 35.9 D
Main St.
Unsignalized Reserve
Loations Capacity ** LOS
Route 10 at -113 F
West St.
Route 10 at -37
Florence Rd.
Route 10 at 63 E
O'Neil St.
Route 10 at 160 D
Earle St.
Route 10 at -401 F
Old South St.
* Delay measured in seconds per passenger cars per hour.
** Reserve capacity measured in passenger cars per hour.
FIGURE 3
P EXISTING STUDY AREA PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
WEST ST.
ROUTE 10 CORRIDOR
O KEY INTERSECTION
LOCATION
PLEAS
SEGMENT 5
ST
Fib
SEGMENT. 4
S s.
SEGMENT 3
wDR .� H A MP 1 N
E .rHAMp'a
s'
P AN
SEGMENT 2
1-
N
SEGMENT 1
2
0
Z
FIGURE 2
ROU 10 -STUDY AREA FOCUS
significant. Therefore, it is not anticipated that improvement measures are
immediately required at this location.
As with the Route 10 at Florence Road intersection, the intersection of Route 10
at Old South Street will be better served by traffic signal control. It would also be
appropriate at this time to reconfigure the intersection geometry to reduce
confusion. Again, significant accidents at this location should decline with the
installation of improved control.
85
L
L_
•u
3.5 YEAR 1995 CONDITIONS
Existing study area traffic volumes were forecast to 1995 levels based on an
estimated annual growth rate of 1.0 percent. These baseline volumes or "No-
Build" volumes were established to measure the future conditions of the Route 10
corridor. A Build -out analysis was then conducted to compare the impacts of
different development growth rates. Projected vehicle trip generation volumes
were combined with the baseline volumes to depict the travel demands for the
various rates of development of the four Build -out scenarios described earlier in
the report. The quality of travel along Route 10 was again measured through
intersection and segment analyses for each scenario, as well as for a No -Build
condition.
Figure 4 represents the 1995 No -Build peak hour volumes for the key study area
intersections. These volumes depict conditions of limited additional development
within the study area. Figure 5 represents the number of estimated new trips
generated by the various rates of development proposed by each of the four
scenarios. These development- generated volumes were assigned throughout the
Route 10 corridor based on the procedures described in Section 2.0 of this report.
3.5.1 Year 1995 Intersection Analysis
Analysis of the intersection operations was conducted for the 1995 No -Build
condition and scenarios 1 through 4. The existing geometric configurations and
traffic controls were maintained to identify future problem locations and capacity
deficiencies. Table 21 presents a summary of the 1995 intersection operating
conditions with and without short-term intersection mitigation. Table 21 also
presents a summary of the existing operating conditions for comparison.
As seen in Table 21, all of the intersections experienced a significant decline in
operating performance. Mitigation at four study area locations was required to
return the intersections to acceptable levels of service. Operating conditions after
mitigation are also presented in Table 21. The short -term mitigation requirements
for each location are described below.
Route 10 at Union Street: Acceptable operating conditions are achieved at this
location by simply adjusting the signal phasing and timing. By
extending the left turn lead phase, the critical southbound movement will
receive adequate green time for an acceptable LOS. Also, by permitting
the Union Street right turns to share this phase, average intersection
delays are reduced significantly. Upgrading the signal head along the
Union Street approach to provide a protected green right -turn arrow
would improve intersection operation but is not absolutely necessary.
This is also true along the Route 10 northbound approach.
Route 10 at West Street: Two short -term mitigation alternatives were
examined at this location. Altemative 1 involves the installation of
traffic signal control. Signalization will administer the added control to
allow critical movements to pass through the intersection safely. The
signal control is anticipated to require second approach lanes along the
Route 10 northbound and southbound legs in order to operate optimally.
These second approach lanes will separate the tuming vehicles and
allow the through movements to pass with minimal interference.
Mitigation Alternate 2 examines restricting left turns from West street.
The vehicles desiring to head northbound on Route 10 would be
required to turn right out of West street, travel into downtown
Easthampton and follow the rotary in order to complete a u -turn and
86
change direction towards Route 10 northbound. By restricting the left
tum movement out of West street, the intersection is relieved of a critical
and hazardous movement due to poor sight distance. The control at the
intersection will be assisted by reconstructing the West Street leg to
include a raised channelization island and proper signage to discourage
left turn movements.
Route 10 at Florence Road: Existing conditions at this intersection warrant
the installation of traffic signal control. However, the volumes at the
intersection also require additional approach lanes to increase the
capacity of the intersection and satisfy travel demands. The significant
volumes along Route 10 northbound justify a second approach lane, as
do the approach volumes along Florence Road. By installing traffic
signals and the northbound and eastbound exclusive approach lanes, the
intersection will be capable of maintaining adequate operational control
and improving safety. Also, appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities
may be installed to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.
Route 10 at O'Neil Street: By the year 1995 the Route 10 at O'Neil Street
intersection will require the installation of traffic signals. The
anticipated development within the study area will cause the intersection
to operate over capacity during the daily peak hours. The present
conditions at the intersection satisfy two of the 11 warrants described in
the MUTCD, and by the year 1995 it is anticipated that the increase in
volume will satisfy more of these warrants. Under signal control, the
existing geometry will continue to handle the traffic demands.
Therefore, additional widening will not be needed at this time.
Route 10 at Earle Street: Based on the analysis conducted for the year 1995,
it is not anticipated that mitigation improvements will be required at this
location. Although the intersection is expected to operate below the
generally accepted conditions, the intersection will still operate under the
calculated capacity limit. It is recommended that this intersection be
monitored to identify any increase in accidents caused by the poor sight
distance due to the design of the Earle Street approach.
Route 10 at Old South Street: This intersection is presently under the
examination of the City of Northampton to install traffic signals and
possibly reconfigure the intersection design. Table 21 analyzed the
intersection under signal control and additional intersection capacity.
The northbound right turn volume was assigned to an exclusive lane as
was the southbound left tuming vehicles. The signal phasing at the
intersection consisted of a three phase sequence including a lead
southbound left turn phase.
Route 10 at Main Street: The limited intersection right -of -way restricts any
possible widening at this location. Therefore improvements to the
intersection operations must come in the form of improving upon the
signal control system. Examination of this intersection control reveals a
very complex signal timing sequence and phasing. In order to improve
the operating conditions of this intersection careful adjustments would
have to be made to this sophisticated timing according to the variance in
traffic levels and travel patterns through the intersection. Also the
construction of a bypass to accommodate traffic around this intersection
may alleviate delays. These types of analyses are beyond the scope of
this report.
87
Study Area
Location
Route 10 at
Union Street
Route 10 at
West Street
Route 10 at
Florence Road
Route 10 at
O'Neil Street
Route 10 at
Earle Street
Route 10 at
• Old South Street
Route 10 at
Main Street
Condition
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2 _
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Table 21
Year 1995 Intersection LOS Summary
Recommended
Existing Short-Term
Year Year 1995 Mitigation
as is w /mit
D
E
F
E
*Represents LOS for mitigation plans Alternative 1 /Alternative 2
90
E C' 1995: adjust signal
F D timing.
F C
F D
F C
F B/E* 1995: ALT 1 signalize,
F C/E add NB LT lane,
F B/E add SB RT lane.
F C/E ALT 2 - restrict
F B/E EB left tums.
F B 1995: signalize,
F C add NB LT lane,
F C add EB LT lane.
F C
F C
E B 1995: signalize.
F B
F B
F B
.F B
D
E
E
E
E
F B
F B
F B
F B
F B
E
E
E
E
1995: none.
1995: signalize,
add SB LT lane,
add NB RT lane.
1995: detailed study
required
3.5.2 Year 1995 Segment Analysis
The existing ADT volumes were forecast to 1995 levels based on the 1.0 percent
annual growth rate discussed earlier. The estimated peak hour volumes were
compared to the calculated LOS criteria established by each segment's
characteristics. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 22. Table 22
also includes the results of the existing conditions analysis for comparison.
The increase in peak hour traffic volumes did not significantly alter the operating
conditions along the study area corridor segments. Segment 2 experienced the
only drop in level of service due to the expected demand induced by the four
Build -out scenarios. As stated earlier, LOS E for a given segment within the
study area is not considered unacceptable as it may be for the operation of an
intersection. Therefore, segment operations within the study area for the year
1995 are acceptable based on the methodology.
3.5.3 Year 1995 Study Area Safety
Safety conditions at the study area intersections should improve with the
installation of short -term mitigation measures at each intersection. Specifically,
the three intersections of West Street (under mitigation altemative 1), Florence
Road, and Old South Street with Route 10 are anticipated to experience fewer
significant accidents with the installation of traffic signals. This improved control
will reduce the conflicts between the mainline traffic flow and the side street
traffic flow. The traffic signals will also platoon the vehicles and allow for easier
pedestrian crossings at both the intersections and mid -block locations.
Mitigation Altemative 2 at West Street suggests eliminating a hazardous
movement from the intersection. The restriction of left turns at this intersection
will reduce conflicts for the Route 10 southbound vehicles. However, the
intersection is located south of a significant curve in the roadway and the
installation of a sign warning motorists of entering vehicles is recommended.
91
Location
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Condition
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario. 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
VOL: mid -block volume for peak hour.
Table 22
Year 1995 Segment Analysis Summary
Existing Year
Year 1995
LOS VOL. LOS VOL.
E 1600
D 1432
1165
1130
E 1663
E 1709
E 1788
E 1752
E 1782
E 1750
D 1535
E 1663
E 1614
E 1654
E 1604
D 1236
D 1457
D 135.9
D 1445
D 1358
E 1198
E 1448
E 1340
E 1425
E 1328
E 1783
E 2033
E 1942
E 2007
E 1910
.
3.6 YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS
The traffic volume information for the study area was forecast to depict the year
2000 No -Build levels using the same method described earlier. The 2000 No-
Build peak hour volumes are presented in Figure 6. The anticipated trip
generation values for each scenario's development growth rate was individually
combined with these No -Build volumes to develop the four build -out scenarios.
Figure 7 shows the anticipated levels of the four build -out scenarios trip
generation values for the year 2000.
3:6.1 Year 2000 Intersection Analysis
Analysis of the intersection operations was conducted for the 2000 No -Build
condition and for the Scenarios 1 through 4. The existing geometric
configurations were maintained to depict the operating conditions of each key
study area location without improvement. Analysis of the operating conditions
were also conducted with mitigation improvements where needed. These
mitigation improvements include the improvements described previously for the
1995 analysis and any additional improvements if required. Table 23 presents a
summary of the year 2000 intersection operations and a summary of the previous
analysis for comparison.
The increase in background traffic and in study area development growth are seen
to significantly affect the intersection quality of service. Without mitigation
measures it is anticipated that six of the seven key study area intersections will
operate at LOS F under any of the four build -out scenarios. If the short -term .
migitation recommendations for the study area intersections were incorporated in
1995, then only minor additional improvements will be required for the year
2000. These improvements are described below.
Route 10 at Union Street: Presently, The northbound approach presently has
one exclusive through lane and one exclusive right turn lane. Under this
configuration, the through volumes are not receiving enough green time
to satisfy the demand. The capacity along this approach should be
increased. At this time it is inappropriate to estimate the travel flow
patterns of this downtown area. Reconfiguring lane assignments
without widening would have direct impacts on other intersection
conditions such as parking, queueing and weaving. These issues as .
well as capacity conditions could best be identified in a detailed study
conducted prior to the year 2000.
Route 10 at West Street: Under 1995 conditions, two mitigation alternatives
were presented. The year 2000 volumes were again analyzed for both
levels of mitigation. Mitigation Alternative 2, the restriction of West
street left turn movements, resulted in LOS F conditions under the year
2000 volumes. The Route 10 southbound volumes are anticipated to be
too high for the critical northbound left turn movement. Therefore, this
mitigation measure is considered temporary and inappropriate for a long
term planning strategy. Mitigation Alternative 1, however, recommends
the installation of traffic signals and additional northbound and
southbound approach lanes by the year 1995. This level of mitigation is
anticipated to operate at acceptable service levels for the year 2000
volumes.
93
FIGURE 6
YEAR 2000 STUDY AREA PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
900
800
700
600
500
N 400 =
300
200 —
100 -
YEAR 2000 BUILD-OUT TRIP GENERATION
Scenario 1
V/
TEAR 1995
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
TEAR 2000
Scenario 4
P
. FIGURE 7
YEAR 2000 BUILD -OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES -
The remaining five intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
with the mitigation improvements recommended under the 1995 conditions.
These improvements were applied to the year 2000 analysis and the results are
summarized in Table 23.
3.6.2 Year 2000 Segment Analysis
The existing ADT volumes were forecast to 2000 levels based on the 1.0 percent
annual growth rate discussed earlier. The estimated peak hour volumes were
compared to the calculated LOS criteria established by each segment's
characteristics. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 24, which also
includes the results of the previous analyses for comparison.
As seen in Table 24, the increase in peak hour traffic volumes did not
significantly alter the operating conditions along the study area corridor segments.
None of the study area segments experiences an operating condition below LOS
E.
3.6.3 Year 2000 Study Area Safety
As stated earlier, safety conditions at the study area intersections should improve
with each mitigation measure adopted. However, the volumes within the study
area are expected to increase each year and unexpected problems may arise. It is
recommended that the two municipalities systematically gather and review
accident occurrence data along the "Route 10 Corridor.
96
L
Study Area Existing Recommended
Location Condition Year Year 1995 Year 2000 Mitigation
as is w /mit as is w /mit
Route 10 at No Build D E C F C 1995: adjust
Union Street Scenario 1 F D F D signal timing.
Scenario 2 F C F C 2000: reconfigure
Scenario 3 F D F D lane assignment.
Scenario 4 F C F C
Route 10 at
West Street
Route 10 at
Florence Road
Route 10 at
O'Neil Street
Route 10 at
Earle Street
Route l0 at
Main Street
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build F F B F C 1995: signalize,
Scenario 1 F C F E add NB LT lane,
Scenario 2 F C F D add EB LT lane.
Scenario 3 F C F D 2000: none.
Scenario 4 F C F D
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Table 23
Year 2000 Intersection LOS Summary
F F B* F B 1995: signalize,
F C F E add NB LT lane,
-F B F D addSBRTlane.
F C F D 2000: none
F B F C
D D E 1995: none.
E E 2000: none.
E E
E E
E E
Route 10 at No Build F F B F B 1995: signalize,
Old South Street Scenario 1 F B F C add SB LT lane,
Scenario 2 F B F C add NB RT lane.
Scenario 3 F B F C 2000: none.
Scenario 4 F B F C
E B E B 1995: signalize.
F B F D 2000: none.
F B F C
F B F C
F B F C
No Build E E E 1995: detailed study
Scenario 1 E F required, mit:
Scenario 2 E F 2000: detailed study
Scenario 3 E F required
Scenario 4
F
*Represents LOS for mitigation plans Alternative 1. Altemative 2 has been determined to be
inappropriate.
97
Location
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Segment 5
Condition
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
VOL. = mid -block volume for peak hour.
Table 24
Year 2000 Segment Analysis Summary
Existing Year Year
Year 1995 2000
LOS VOL. LOS VOL. LOS VOL.
E 1600
D 1432
D 1165
E 1130
E 1663
98
E 1709 E 1803
E 1788 E 1978
E 1752 E 1912
E 1782 E 1920
E 1750 E 1887
D 1535 E 1614
E 1663 E 1886
E 1614 E 1796
E 1654 E 1804
E 1604 E 1750
D 1236 D 1313
D 1457 E 1757
D 1359 E 1622
D 1445 E 1663
D 1358 E 1568
E 1198 E 1273
E 1448 E 1779
E 1340 E 1623
E 1425 E 1648
E 1328 E 1544
E 1783 E 1874
E 2033 E 1378
E 1942 E 2243
E 2007 E 2243
E 1910 E 2134
*FIGURE 4
p YEAR 1995 STUDY . AREA PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
YEAR 1995 BUILD-OUT TRIP GENERATION
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
V/I
YEAR 1995
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
FIGURE 5
YEAR 1995 BUILD —OUT
PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION VOLUMES
3.7 YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS
The traffic volume information for the study area was forecast to depict the year
2010 No -Build volumes using the same method described earlier. The 2010 No-
Build peak hour volumes are presented in Figure 8. The anticipated trip
generation values for each scenario's development growth rate were individually
combined with these No -Build volumes to develop the four build -out scenarios.
Figure 9 shows the anticipated levels of the four build -out scenarios trip
generation values for the year 2010.
3.7.1 Year 2010 Intersection Analysis
Analysis of the intersection operations was conducted for the 2010 No -Build
condition and for the scenarios 1 through 4. The existing geometric
configurations were maintained to depict the operating conditions of each key
study area location without improvement. Analysis of the operating conditions
were also conducted with mitigation improvements where needed. These
mitigation improvements include the improvements described previously for the
1995 and /or the 2000 analysis and any additional improvements if required.
Table 25 presents a summary of the year 2010 intersection operations and a
summary of the previous analyses for comparison.
Under the existing geometry and with no mitigation, all of the key study area
intersections are expected to operate at LOS F in the year 2010. The mitigation
recommendations described for the study years 1995 and 2000 have enabled the
intersections to keep pace with the growing travel demands. The mitigation
improvements recommended for the year 2010 may be incorporated at any time
previous to this year if the municipality has the available funding. Earlier
implementation of these improvements may also be considered if other
reconstruction activity is planned at any of the same locations.
The additional anticipated mitigation needs for the year 2010 at key study area
intersections are listed below.
Route 10 at Union Street: By the year 2010, the present geometric restrictions
will not accommodate the volumes anticipated at this location, and
extreme mitigation measures may be warranted. However, it may be
premature at this time to recommend these mitigation improvements. It
is recommended that by the year 2010 a detailed study be conducted to
identify effective mitigation measures.
Route 10 at West Street: The results from the year 2000 analysis basically
identified Mitigation Alternative 2 as a short term improvement since
operations are not expected to be acceptable for much more than a five
year period or up to the year 2000. Therefore, this Alternative was
disregarded from further consideration. Mitigation Alternative 1 will
need additional mitigation in the year 2010. The Route 10 southbound
volumes become excessive and require two travel lanes through the
intersection. One of these two lanes will also be shared by the Route
10's southbound right turning vehicles. In order to accommodate the
two southbound through lanes, additional widening will be required
along the southern section of the intersection to receive and gradually
merge the two travel lanes.
99
FIGURE 8
p YEAR 2010 STUDY AREA PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
A Li ri A
ArA
2 1 / ,/Sy
19 /
18
L7
16
15
14
ct 13
U4 12
� 11
3 1
ZO NF 0.9
t 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
//
YEAR 2010 BUILD -OUT TRIP GENERATION
Scenario 1
YEAR 1995
Scenario 2
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
YEAR 2000
Scenario 3
YEAR 2010
FIGURE 9.
YEAR 2010 BUILD —OUT
P - E - AK H OUR TRIE GENERATION VOLUMES
Scenario 4
Table 25
Year 2010 Intersection LOS Summary
Study Area Existing Recommended
Location Condition Year Year 1995 Year 2000 Year 2010 Mitigation
as is w /mit as is w /mit as is w /mit
Route 10 at No Build D E C F C F 1995: adjust
Union Street Scenario 1 F D F D F • signal timing.
Scenario 2 F C F C F 2000: recon-
Scenario 3 F D F D F figure lane
Scenario -4 F C F C F_. -_- assignment.
Route 10 at
West Street
Route 10 at
Florence Road
Route 10 at
O'Neil Street
Route 10 at
Earle Street
Route 10 at No Build
Old South Street Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Route 10 at
Main Street
2010: detailed
study required
No Build F F B F B F B 1995: signalize.,
Scenario 1 F C F E F E add NB LT lane,
Scenario 2 F B F D F C add SB RT lane
Scenario 3 F C F D F C 2000: none.
Scenario 4 F B F C F C 2010: reconfigure
lane assignment
No Build F F B F C F B 1995: signalize,
Scenario 1 F C F E F C add NB LT lane,
Scenario 2 F C F D F B add EB LT lane.
Scenario 3 F C F D F B 2000: none.
Scenario 4 F' C F D F B 2010: none.
No Build E E B E B F B 1995: signalize,
Scenario 1 F B F D F D 2000: none.
Scenario 2 F B F C F C 2010: add SB LT
Scenario 3 F B F C F C lane. Scenario 4
F B F C F B add WB LT lane,
No Build D D E E E 1995: none.
Scenario 1 E E F E 2000: none.
Scenario 2 E E F E 2010: add EB LT
Scenario 3 E E F E lane.
Scenario 4 E E F E
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
F B F B F C 1995: signalize,
F B F C F E add SB LT lane,
F B F C F D add NB RT lane.
F B F C F D 2000: none.
F B F C F D 2010: none.
E E F 1995: detailed
E F F study required.
E F F 2000: detailed
E F F study required.
E F F 2010: detailed
study required.
Route 10 at O'Neil Street: By the year 2010 it is anticipated that this
intersection will require the installation of additional approach lanes.
The Route 10 southbound approach will require an exclusive left turn
lane, as will the O'Neil Street approach. The addition of these approach
lanes to the signalized intersection is expected to eliminate the increased
delays associated with the shared lane approaches.
Route 10 at Earle Street: The level of service at this intersection is anticipated
to reach LOS F by the year 2010. Although the volumes along Earle
Street are relatively low, the intersection yields poor operating
conditions due to the high volumes along Route 10. The addition of a
second approach lane along Earle Street may serve two purposes. First,
the delay time at the intersection will be reduced by eliminating the
shared lane approach and increase the operating conditions to LOS E.
Second, the reconstruction may offer the opportunity reduce the
acuteness of the Earle Street approach and reconfigure it to form a
standard 3 -way intersection.
The remaining intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably with
the mitigation improvements recommended under the 1995 and/or 2000
conditions. These improvements were applied to the year 2010 analysis and the
results are summarized in Table 25.
3.7.2 Year 2010 Segment Analysis
Table 26 presents the summary of the segment analysis for the year 2010. As
seen, the analysis yields one segment that operated at LOS F consistently under
the four build -out scenarios, while all other segments are expected to operate
within acceptable standards. The segment of the Route 10 Corridor between
Florence Road and Pleasant Street is expected to operate at unacceptable levels of
service by the year 2010. The segment's characteristics coupled with the
significantly high volumes present conditions which may produce restricted
speeds and heavy congestion throughout the course of the daily peak hours.
Improvement of this segment's condition may be achieved by widening the
available shoulder widths in each direction. Vehicle capacity along this segment
of Route 10 may not increase, however, user comfort and safety will be -
improved. It should be noted that restricted travel conditions along this section of
Route 10 may result in motorists using altemate routes of travel instead of Route
10. One available route to and from the north is via Pleasant Street and O'Neil
Street. This route by- passes the operationally restricted segment of Route 10. It
is difficult to estimate the number of diverted travelers from this segment of Route
10 without conducting further in -depth study of diversion travel times and Route
10 user knowledge of the local network.
3.7.3 Year 2010 Study Area Safety
The long term recommendations described above are planned to reduce the vehicle
delay as well as motorists' confusion and frustration of the conditions of the
future. The efficient management of accident data collection will allow the
municipalities to review regularly the accident rates at various intersections and
mid -block locations. By conducting a continuing record of this information, the
municipalities may be able to effectively develop improvement measures before
severe concentrations of problem arise.
103
Year 2010 Segment Analysis Summary
Existing Year Year Y ear
Location Condition Year 1995 2000 2010
LOS VOL. LOS VOL. LOS VOL. LOS VOL.
Segment 1 No Build E 1600 E 1709 E 1803 E 1991
Scenario 1 E 1788 E 1978 E 2367
Scenario 2 E 1752 E 1912 E 2191
Scenario 3 E 1782 E 1920 E 2243
Scenario 4 E 1750 E 1887 E 2159
Segment 2 No Build D 1432 D 1535 E 1614 E 1782
Scenario 1 E 1663 E 1886 E 2398
Scenario 2 E 1614 E 1796 E 2108
Scenario 3 E 1654 E 1804 E 2193
Scenario 4 E 1604 E 1750 E 2057
Segment 3 No Build D 1165 D 1236 D 1313 D 1450
Scenario 1 D 1457 E 1757 E 2520
Scenario 2 D 1359 E 1622 E 2030
Scenario 3 D 1445 E 1663 E 2181
Scenario 4 D 1358 E 1568 E 1973
Segment 4 No Build E 1130 E 1198 E 1273 E 1407
Scenario 1 E 1448 E 1779 F 2587
Scenario 2 E 1340 E 1623 E 2065
Scenario 3 E 1425 E 1648 E 2233
Scenario 4 E 1328 E 1544 E 1945
Segment 5
No Build
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
VOL.= mid -block volume for peak hour.
Table 26
E 1663 E 1783 E 1874 E 2070
E 2033 E 2378 F 3249
E 1942 E 2243 F 2718
E 2007 E 2243 F 2892
E 1910 E 2134 F 2689
104
3.8 CONCLUSIONS
In order to examine the transportation needs of the Route 10 Corridor, an
analytical forecast of the travel conditions between Easthampton and Northampton
has been conducted for four conditions of various growth rates and zoning
conditions. These four build -out scenarios generate various levels of traffic
volume along the Route 10 Corridor. By forecasting these growth patterns into
the long term, transportation deficiencies can be identified. The analysis
conducted in this report identifies these deficiencies and recommends levels of
mitigation on an as- needed basis.
The corridor of Route 10 examined is approximately 4.7 miles in length. This
stretch of road has been divided into five roadway segments which contain seven
locations that have been identified as key intersections. These segments and
intersections have been examined for deficiencies under the four various Build -
out scenarios for the existing conditions as well as years 1995, 2000, and 2010.
The mitigation improvement measures developed have been identified to reduce
travel delay and increase corridor safety. It is anticipated that the
recommendations presented below will contribute to the reduction of severe
accidents, more efficient control of intersection operations, and improvement of
travel times.
3.8.1 Intersection Recommendations
Recommendations have been identified for all seven of the key study area
intersections. In some cases the short term recommendations (year 1995) have
been calculated to satisfy the demands of the long -term conditions (years 2000
and 2010). Other mitigation strategies identify measures to satisfy the problems
at hand and continue progressive improvement measures in later years on an as-
needed basis. The location- specific mitigation recommendations are listed below
for each study year.
Route 10 at Union Street Mitigation:
1995 - Adjust signal timing;
2000 - Detailed study recommended;
2010 Detailed Study recommended (See Figure 10).
Route 10 at West Street Mitigation
1995 - Signalize, add northbound left turn lane and
southbound right turn lane, install signal-
ahead sign;
2000 - No additional mitigation required;
2010 - Change second southbound lane assignment to a shared
right/through lane and widen receiving leg.
(See Figure 11.)
Route 10 at Florence Road Mitigation:
1995 - Signalize, add northbound left turn lane, add eastbound
approach lane;
2000 - No additional mitigation required;
2010 - No additional mitigation.required.
(See Figure 12.)
105
Route 10 at O'Neil Street Mitigation:
1995 - Signalize;
2000 - No additional mitigation required;
2010 - Add southbound left turn lane and westbound left tum lane.
(See Figure 13.)
Route 10 at Earle Street Mitigation:
1995 - No mitigation required;
2000 - No mitigation required;
2010 - Add eastbound left turn lane.
(See Figure 14.)
Route 10 at Old South Street Mitigation:
1995 - Signalize, add northbound right turn lane and southbound left
turn lane;
2000 - No additional mitigation required;
2010 - No additional mitigation required.
(See Figure 15.)
Route 10 at Main Street Mitigation:
1995 - Detailed study recommended;
2000 - Detailed study recommended;
2010 - Detailed study recommended.
3.8.2 Segment Recommendation
The Route 10 study also included analysis of the five corridor segments. Based
on the criteria set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the segment travel
conditions were evaluated for each study year. The results of this evaluation
determined that one segment will operate below satisfactory conditions by the
year 2010. The segment of Route 10 between Florence Road and Pleasant Street
in Easthampton is anticipated to reduce user freedom in maintaining preferable
travel speeds and comfort. This restriction may possibly divert users to altemate
routes. It is recommended that continued observation be conducted at this
location by the year 2000.
3.8.3 Study Area Safety
The safety conditions along the Route 10 Corridor have been measured primarily
at the key study area intersections. It is anticipated that the number of severe
accidents occurring within the study area will be reduced with the implementation
of the recommended improvements discussed above. However, additional
attention should be given to pedestrian travel and safety. As developments
continue along the Route 10 Corridor, pedestrian travel will also become heavier.
This increase in pedestrian travel will prompt the need for the regular installation
of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian actuated
detectors and signage throughout the developed portions of the corridor.
106
0
0
CC
O
O
O
EXISTING CONDITIONS
O
0
O
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
LANE RECONFIGURATION
ROUTE 141
ROUTE 141
•
•
•
YEAR 1995. MITIGATION:
ADJUST SIGNAL TIMING
O
0
O
ROU
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED
ROUTE 141
TE 141
not to scale
FIGURE 10
p ROUTE 10 AT UNION ST. MITIGATION DIAGRAM
WEST ST.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
O
O
O
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
0
0
YEAR 1995 MITIGATION:
INSTALL SIGNALS,
NB LANE, SB LANE
O
O
O
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
RECONFIGURE SB
LANE ASSIGNMENT,
LANE ALIGNMENT
not to scale
FIGURE 11
P ROUTE 10 AT WEST ST. MITIGATION DIAGRAM
FLORENCE RD.
O
O
O
O
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
0
0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
YEAR 1995 MITIGATION:
INSTALL SIGNALS,
EB LANE, NB LANE
0
O
O
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
0
Z
not to some
- ROUTE- -10
FIGURE 12
FLORENCE RD. M I1 EGA I - ON . -DIAGRAM --
0
w
0
0
0
0
O'NEIL ST.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
YEAR 1995 MITIGATION: •
INSTALL SIGNALS
•
•
•
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
INSTALL EB AND WB
TURN LANES,
ADJUST SIGNAL TIMING
not to scale
FIGURE 13
IP ROUTE 10 AT O'NEIL ST. MITIGATION DIAGRAM
EXISTING CONDITIONS
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
0
W
H-
D
0
YEAR 1995 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
INSTALL EB LANE,
IMPROVE APPROACH ANGLE
z
not to score
FIGURE 14
ROUTE • 10 AT EARLE ST. vITIGATION DIAGRAM
O
W
0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
O
O
O
OLD SOUTH ST.
`N'D
YEAR 2000 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
zl
YEAR 1995 MITIGATION:
INSTALL SIGNALS,
RECONFIGURE APPROACH,
INSTALL SB, NB LANES
O
O
O
YEAR 2010 MITIGATION:
NO ADDITIONAL
MITIGATION REQUIRED
1
z
not to scale
FIGURE 15
P ROUTE 10 AT OLD SOUTH ST. MITIGATION DIAGRAM