MVRTA Intermodal Parking Facility Executive Summary

8/9/2019 MVRTA Intermodal Parking Facility Executive Summary

1/20

Draft Traffic Impact Study

Executive Summary

Submitted to:Newburyport City Council


2/20

Table of Contents1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Future 2030 No-Build Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations ............................................. 4

3.1 Site Access.......................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Project Trip Generation ...................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Project Trip Distribution..................................................................................................... 6

3.4 Future 2030 Build Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations....................................... 7

List of Tables

Table 1 Trip Generation Summary .................................................................................................. 6Table 2 Generalized Trip Distribution (Downtown Newburyport) ................................................. 7Table 3 Traffic Volume Summary...................................................................................................8Table 4 Intersection Capacity Analyses Summary ........................................................................ 10


3/20

1.0 Introduction

A traffic impact analysis was conducted for the four design options (Figures 1 through 4) underconsideration for the proposed Newburyport Intermodal Parking Facility. The traffic study in its

entirety will be provided in the final documentation currently being prepared by the Merrimack

Valley Regional Transit Authority. As requested by the City of Newburyport Mayor a brieflysummary of the traffic is summarized in this document.

The study area for the traffic impact analysis (Figure 5) was defined based on discussions withNewburyport Town officials and the MVTRA and included the following intersections:

Merrimac Street/Route 1 Southbound Ramps

Merrimac Street/Route 1 Northbound Ramps

Merrimac Street/Market Street

Merrimac Street/Titcomb Street

Merrimac Street/Green Street Pleasant Street/Titcomb Street

Pleasant Street/Green Street

Impact analysis was also performed at the driveways that would serve the proposed parking


4/20

127-40405-09001_greenst-optionA-site-plan(fig7-3).ai


5/20

127-40405-09001_greenst-optionB-site-plan(fig7-9).ai


6/20

127-40405-09001_titcombst-optionA-sp-rt52modif(fig7-13).ai

MVRTARoute52


7/20

127-40405-09001_titcombst-optionB-sp-rt52modif(fig7-18).ai

MVRTARoute52

MVRTARoute52


8/20


9/20


10/20


11/20

The existing intersection geometries and peak hour traffic volumes were used to analyze the

existing levels of service at the study intersections. The Green Street/Pleasant Street, Merrimac

Street/Green Street, Merrimac Street/Titcomb Street and Pleasant Street/Titcomb Streetintersections operate at good levels of service during the weekday morning and afternoon peak

hours.

At the Route 1/Merrimac Street interchange, vehicles exiting from the ramps and turning left or

continuing straight operate at LOS E or F during the peak hours with average vehicle delays higherduring the afternoon peak hour.

Merrimac Street at Market Street operates at LOS A. Market Street operates at LOS C during themorning peak hour and LOS F during the afternoon peak hour.

Analysis of the traffic movements at study area driveways shows that the operations are at LOS C

or better all locations with two exceptions during the afternoon peak hour. At the Green Street

Parking Lot Drive/Merrimac Street intersection the driveway right-turn movement experiencesdelays of 43 seconds and operates at LOS E. At the Health Club Drive/Merrimac Street

intersection, vehicles exiting from the driveway operate at LOS D with 32 seconds of delay.

3.0 Future 2030 No-Build Traffic Volumes and IntersectionOperations

Existing traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2030 to represent a twenty-


12/20

3.1 Site Access

The following describes the proposed driveways for each of the design options.

Green Street Option A. Under this option two driveways would provide access to the main

parking area including a driveway on Green Street and a driveway on Merrimac Street. The

existing driveway on Green Street would be relocated approximately 30 feet to the north and

would function as it currently does with only a right turn in and a right turn out. Similarly, thedriveway on Merrimac Street would be relocated approximately 50 feet to the east and would

allow only a right turn in and a right turn out. Access to the site via Unicorn Street would no longer

be provided. Unicorn Street, under this option would be discontinued at the point where itcurrently enters the main Green Street lot.

MVRTA buses would be provided two berths on the south side of Merrimac Street between GreenStreet and the site driveway.

Green Street Option B. The proposed driveways for Green Street Option B are the same as

described above for Option A except that Unicorn Street would not be discontinued and would

provide full access to the site.

MVRTA buses would be provided two berths on the south side of Merrimac Street between Green

Street and the site driveway.


13/20

127-40405-09001_titcomb-optionA_bus-path-fig8.ai


14/20

would be located approximately 120 feet south of Merrimac Street. Opposite the Titcomb Street

entrance to the garage would be a third driveway serving the surface parking lot.

Under Titcomb Street Option B, the MVRTA bus would travel to these berths by entering

downtown via Green Street as it currently does, turning left onto Pleasant Street and finally turningright from Pleasant Street onto Titcomb Street. When the buses leave the berths they would then

turn right from Market Street onto Merrimac Street. These modifications to Route 52 (described in

Section 5.0) are shown on Figure 4. Figure 9 depicts the turning path for each of these turns. Asseen on the figure, approximately three on-street parking spaces on the south side of Pleasant

Street and one on-street parking space on the west side of Titcomb Street may need to be removed

to accommodate the bus pathway.

3.2 Project Trip Generation

Table 1 provides a summary of the trip generation of the four options. The proposed facility would

generate less than 60 new peak hour trips to/from downtown regardless of its location. TitcombStreet Option A would provide the greatest number of parking spaces and the largest retail area

which results in the highest volume of new project related trips. Titcomb Street Option A would

generate approximately 32 trips during the morning peak hour and 59 trips during the afternoonpeak hour. However, these new trips are more than off-set by trips related to the existing health

club and apartment building. These existing uses, which would be removed if Titcomb Street

Option A is selected, generate approximately 71 trips during the morning peak hour and 60 trips

during the afternoon peak hour. Thus, for Titcomb Street Option A, the net change to downtowntraffic is -39 trips for the morning peak hour and -1 trip during the afternoon peak hour. Therefore,


15/20

127-40405-09001_titcomb-optionB_bus-path(fig-9).ai


16/20

new project trips, remove existing site trips as required and to redistribute existing trips from the

NRA parking lots to the Green Street and Titcomb Street sites.

Table 2 Generalized Trip Distribution (Downtown Newburyport)

Approach Inbound Outbound

Route 1 (North) 10% 10%

Route 1 (South) 5% 5%

Merrimac Street (East) 30% 30%

Merrimac Street (West) 25% 45%

Green Street 20% 0%

Pleasant Street 10% 0%Titcomb Street 0% 10%

Total 100% 100%

3.4 Future 2030 Build Traffic Volumes and Intersection Operations

Table 3 provides a summary of the total entering traffic volumes for each of the study intersections

for the 2030 build condition as well as the difference in volume between the 2030 no-build and

2030 build conditions. At the study area intersections (not including site driveway intersections),the proposed facility, regardless of its location, would increase traffic levels during the morning

peak hour by less than 30 trips an hour and in the afternoon peak hour by less than 60 trips an hour

over no-build conditions.

As discussed above, the larger Titcomb Street options generate fewer net new trips to/from


17/20

Table 3 Traffic Volume Summary

2030 Green St. Option A Green St. Option B Titcomb St. Option A Titcomb St. Option B

Location No-Build 2030 Build Diff. 2030 Build Diff. 2030 Build Diff. 2030 Build Diff.

MORNING PEAK HOUR

Study Intersections

Merrimack St & Rte. 1 SB Ramps/Winter St 1,331 1,344 13 1,344 13 1,307 -24 1,307 -24

Merrimack St & Rte. 1 NB Ramps/Summer St 1,409 1,423 15 1,423 15 1,376 -33 1,376 -33

Merrimack St & Market St 1,314 1,329 15 1,329 15 1,310 -3 1,281 -33

Merrimack St & Titcomb St 1,155 1,174 19 1,168 14 1,093 -62 1,163 8

Merrimack St & Green St. 1,279 1,280 0 1,280 1 1,287 8 1,254 -25

Pleasant St & Titcomb St 229 231 2 231 1 108 -121 237 8

Pleasant St & Green St. 360 388 28 379 20 370 10 370 10

Green Street Site Driveway Intersections

Green St. Lot Drive & Green St. 284 333 49 314 30 319 35 284 0

Merrimack St & Green St. Lot Drive 1,085 1,100 15 1,101 16 1,086 1 1,086 1

Pleasant St & Unicorn St. 143 160 17 166 23 148 5 148 5

Titcomb Street Site Driveway Intersections

Merrimack St & Titcomb Opt A Drive 1,173 1,188 15 1,188 15 1,139 -34 1,124 -49

Merrimack St & Titcomb Opt B Drive 1,067 1,086 19 1,081 14 1,093 26 1,080 13

Titcomb Opt B Drive & Titcomb St 123 128 5 122 -1 1 -123 164 41

AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR

Study Intersections

Merrimack St & Rte. 1 SB Ramps/Winter St 1,714 1,737 23 1,725 10 1,710 -5 1,706 -8

Merrimack St & Rte. 1 NB Ramps/Summer St 1,951 1,979 28 1,964 13 1,944 -7 1,940 -11

Merrimack St & Market St 1,856 1,884 28 1,869 13 1,872 16 1,842 -14

Merrimack St & Titcomb St 1,626 1,680 54 1,636 10 1,528 -98 1,659 33

Merrimack St & Green St. 1,735 1,755 19 1,728 -7 1,734 -2 1,698 -37

Pleasant St & Titcomb St 370 378 8 375 5 219 -151 387 18

Pleasant St & Green St. 559 582 24 586 27 569 11 568 9Green Street Site Driveway Intersections

Green St. Lot Drive & Green St. 469 588 119 531 63 510 41 465 -3

Merrimack St & Green St. Lot Drive 1,436 1,462 26 1,449 13 1,441 5 1,438 1

Pleasant St & Unicorn St. 236 245 9 271 35 242 6 242 6

Titcomb Street Site Driveway Intersections

Merrimack St & Titcomb Opt B Drive 1,506 1,559 54 1,516 10 1,541 35 1,538 32

Titcomb Opt B Drive & Titcomb St 158 184 26 155 -3 4 -153 256 98


18/20

Table 4 summarizes the results of intersection capacity analyses for the 2010 Existing, 2030 No-

Build and 2030 Build morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. Traffic operations are not

expected to significantly change at any of the study area intersections as a result of implementationof any of the four options. No design options cause a new LOS E/F condition. The following

provides a summary of traffic operations at the various site driveway intersections for each option:

Green Street - Option A Driveway Intersections. Traffic operations at the three site driveways

would be at LOS C or better with the exception of the right turn movement from the Green Streetdriveway onto Merrimac Street during the afternoon peak hour. During this hour, the driveway

currently operations at LOS E with 43 seconds of delay, is anticipated to operate at LOS F under

no-build conditions with 76 seconds of delay and at LOS F under build conditions with 169seconds of delay. However, the volume to capacity ratio indicates that the driveway is over

capacity by only by one percent.

Green Street - Option B Driveway Intersections. Similar to Option A, the only traffic

movement at the site driveways which is anticipated to operate at LOS F is the right turn from the

site driveway onto Merrimac Street during the afternoon peak hour. However, the volume to

capacity ratio for this movement is 0.71indicating reserve capacity and the average vehicle delay is

98 seconds.

Titcomb Street - Option A Driveway Intersections. Traffic operations at the site driveways areat LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. However, the structured parking garage

driveway and surface parking lot driveway approaches to Merrimac Street would both operate at

LOS F during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic volumes on Merrimac Street by 2030, adjacent to


19/20


20/20

MVRTA Intermodal Parking Facility Executive Summary

Documents

Transcript of MVRTA Intermodal Parking Facility Executive Summary