You are on page 1of 544

CEA GROUP INC.

1105 MASSACHUSETTS AVE CAMBRIDGE MA 02138 617-576-6500

September2,2014

SecretaryMaeveVallelyBartlett
ExecutiveOfficeofEnergy&EnvironmentalAffairs
Attn:MEPAOffice
100CambridgeStreet,Suite900(9thFloor)
Boston,MA02114

Re: ExpandedEnvironmentalNotificationForm
BrimbalAve&SohierRd
Beverly,Massachusetts

DearSecretaryBartlett:

WearesubmittingthisExpandedEnvironmentalNotificationForm(ENF)fortheproposedNorthShore
Crossingcommercialdevelopment(the"Project")attheintersectionofBrimbalAvenueandtheRoute
128ConnectorRoadinBeverly,Massachusetts.ThisExpandedENFhasbeenpreparedinaccordance
withtheregulationsoftheMassachusettsEnvironmentalPolicyAct(MEPA)statuteandregulations301
CMR11.00.

ProjectOverview

TheProjectcontemplatestheredevelopmentofa6.43+/acreformermunicipallandfillsiteinBeverly,
Massachusetts.Itconsistsofatotalof77,852squarefeetofcommercialbuildings,includinga35,000
squarefootWholeFoodsMarket,tworestaurants,medicaloffices,abankandgeneralretailuses.We
haveworkedcloselyformanyyearswiththeCityofBeverly,theSolidWasteManagementSectionof
theDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP),andtheMassachusettsDepartmentof
Transportation(MassDOT)toreturnthisformerlandfilltoproductiveuseinamannerthataddresses
environmentalconcernsandprotectsandenhancesthepublicinterest.TheproposedProjectoffersa
numberofpublicbenefitsincludingthefollowing:

Thismunicipallandfillwasusedbrieflyfrom1949through1960.Atthetimeofitsclosurein
1960,currentregulationshadnotyetbeenadoptedandthelandfillwasnotclosedwiththesort
ofengineeredprotectionsthatwouldbeappropriateundercurrentlawandenvironmental
standards.TheSolidWasteManagementSectionofDEPauthorizedconstructionofa
commercialdevelopmentonthissitein2009.Thatauthorizationmustbemodifiedtoreflect
therevisedconfigurationofthecurrentProject.UnderthecontinuingsupervisionoftheSolid
WasteManagementSectionofDEP,theProjectwillincorporateengineereddetailstoachieve
thefollowing:i)theformerlandfillwillbeclosedwithanappropriatecapofcleancover
material;ii)potentiallydangerousmigrationoflandfillgasintoutilitystructures,buildingsand
adjacentpropertieswillbecontrolled;andiii)stormwaterinfiltrationintolandfillwastewillbe
minimized.TheproposedProjectcreatestheopportunitytoincorporatetheseandother
engineeringdetailsthatwillprovideforappropriateclosureofthelandfillandwillprotectthe
healthandsafetyoffutureusersofthesiteandthepublicingeneral.
1

TheanticipatedeconomicactivityandjobstobegeneratedbytheProjectwereanimportant
elementoftheCity'ssuccessfulapplicationtotheExecutiveOfficeofHousingandEconomic
Developmentfora$5,000,000MassWorksInfrastructureGranttoreconfigureandimprovethe
BrimbalAve/Exit19interchangeatRoute128.Theseroadimprovementswill,amongother
things,improvetrafficsafetyatthisbusyinterchangeandwilldramaticallyincrease
opportunitiesforpedestrianuseandbicycleaccess.

TheProjectisbeingdesignedinaccordancewithbestpracticesandspecificationsfor
sustainabledevelopment,asapplicabletoaretaildevelopment.Itiscontemplatedthatthe
proponentwillseekandachieveLEEDcertificationfortheProject.Projectbuildingswillbe
designedtoconserveenergy,reducewaterconsumption,improveindoorairquality,use
sustainablebuildingmaterialswhereappropriate,andcreateahealthyenvironmentfor
customers,employeesandthecommunity.

ThisformermunicipallandfillparcelhadnotgeneratedanyrealestatetaxrevenuefortheCity
ofBeverlyfordecades.TheproposedProjectwillreturntheparceltoproductiveuseandwill
generatesignificantrealestatetaxrevenuefortheCitytofundimportantmunicipaleducational
andpublicworksprojects.

TheproposedProjectwillbeanchoredbya35,000squarefootWholeFoodsMarket.Whole
Foodsisaleaderinpromotingenvironmentallysoundpractices.Ithasbeenaninnovative
leaderinsupportingsustainableagriculture,raisinganimalwelfarestandards,usingrenewable
energysources,andincorporatinggreendesignandcuttingedgesustainablearchitectureinto
itsstores,includingrooftopfarms,solarpanels,windturbines,andelectriccarcharging
stations.Forthefourthconsecutiveyear,WholeFoodshasoffset100%ofitsuseofelectricity
byinvestingingreentechnologyandmakinggreenpowerpurchasingacompanywideinitiative.
WholeFoodshasbecomeakeypartneroftheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandhaswon
numerousEPAAwards,including:GreenPowerLeadershipAward2004,GreenPower
LeadershipAward2005,PartneroftheYear2006,PartneroftheYear2007,PartneroftheYear
2010,andSustainedExcellenceinGreenPower2012.

PublicProcess

Theproponenthasworkedextensivelywithstateandlocalgovernmentsince2005tobringthisProject
tofruition.Initscurrentandpriorconfigurations,publicsupportfortheProjecthasincludedthe
following:

RezoningbytheBeverlyPlanningBoardandCityCouncilin2009topermitretailuseofthe
parcel,inaccordancewiththerecommendationoftheCityofBeverlyMasterPlanof2002;

Issuancein2009bytheSolidWasteManagementSectionofDEPofapostclosureusepermit
approvingandauthorizingconstructionofa67,700squarefootmixedusecommercialproject
onthissite,whichincludeda3storycommercialbuildingandachildcarecenter;

Passagein2013bytheMassachusettslegislature,signedintolawbytheGovernor,ofspecial
legislationauthorizingalandswapwiththeCommonwealthtofacilitateanalternative
2

configurationofthisprojectwiththesameusesandenvironmentalissues("Alternative
Project",asfurtherexplainedbelow);

RezoningbytheCityofBeverlyPlanningBoardandCityCouncilin2013tofacilitatethe
AlternativeProject;and

WinningamajorityvoteinaCitywidereferenduminsupportoftheAlternativeProject.

ProjectHistory

Averysimilarcommercialdevelopmentwasproposedforthissitein2009.Atthattime,theCityof
Beverlypassedazoningamendmenttofacilitatetheredevelopmentofthisformermunicipallandfill,
andtheDEPSolidWasteManagementSection,afterexhaustiveenvironmentalstudy,authorized
constructionofthecommercialproject.Unfortunately,thenationhadslippedintoadeeprecessionat
thattime,commercialtenantswereunwillingtomakeforwardcommitments,andtheprojectwas
withdrawn.

In2012,astheeconomywasrecovering,theproponentresuscitatedtheprojectwithWholeFoods
Marketasitsanchor.Atthesametime,theCityofBeverly,workingwithMassDOT,proposedto
reconfiguretheExit19interchangeofRoute128byrelocatingtheConnectorRoadonlandownedby
theproponent(thesouthernmostportionofthelandwhichisnowpartofthecurrentProject)and
furtherproposedthattheproponentswaptherequiredlandinexchangeforadjacentsurplusland
ownedbytheCommonwealth.TheproponentagreedtocooperatewiththeCity'sproposaland
proceededinapublic/privatepartnershiptoimplementtheCitysplan(the"AlternativeProject").In
2013,theCityofBeverlypassedazoningamendmentandtheStatelegislaturepassedspeciallegislation
tofacilitatetheAlternativeProject.TheAlternativeProjectentailedconstructionoftherelocated
ConnectorRoadoverlandfillwaste,whichinearly2014ledMassDOTtoexpressconcernabout
geotechnicalissuesandpotentialpermittingdelays.Consequently,MassDOTrecommendedagainst
relocatingtheConnectorRoad.TheCityofBeverlyandtheproponentevaluatedenvironmental,
geotechnicalandpermittingissuesoftheAlternativeProjectandconcludedthattheseconcernswould
bebestaddressed,withlesserenvironmentalimpact,byabandoningtheAlternativeProject,rebuilding
animprovedConnectorRoadinitscurrentlocationanddevelopingtheProjectonthelandalready
ownedbytheproponent,asoriginallyproposedandapprovedbyDEPin2009.Thishistoricevolution
hasculminatedintheNorthShoreCrossingProject,whichisthesubjectofthisexpandedENF.

StatePermits

LandfillPostClosureUsePermit:BecausemuchoftheProjectsiteisaformermunicipal
landfill,theSolidWasteManagementSectionofDEPmustapproveandauthorizeconstruction
oftheProject.Theprimaryfocusofthisreviewandapprovalprocessistoassurethatthe
proposedconstructionincorporatesappropriateengineeringdetailstoprotectthehealthand
safetyofthepublic.Tetratech,theproponent'senvironmentalengineeringfirm,hasdiscussed
theProjectwiththeenvironmentalengineersatDEPandhasfiledFormBWPSW45Alternative
Review tostartthepermittingprocess.InlateAugust2014,DEPapprovedaprogramof
subsurfaceinvestigationtoconfirmconditionsinthelocationsoftheproposednewbuildings.
DEPpreviouslyissueditsapprovalofasimilarcommercialdevelopmentonthissitein2009.The
currentProjectraisesthesamelandfillrelatedissuesasthe2009project,andincorporatesthe
sameDEPapprovedengineeringdetailstoaddressthoseissues.ThecurrentProjectdiffers
3

fromthe2009projectinoneimportantrespect:the2009projectwasdesignedtoaddressthe
sensitiveenvironmentalissuesassociatedwitha10,000squarefootchildcarecenter,whereas
thecurrentProjecthasnosuchsensitiveuses.Weanticipatethatallthelandfillrelated
developmentissuesmaybeaddressedtothesatisfactionofDEPwithengineeringdetailsthat
arethesameasorverysimilartothoseapprovedbyDEPin2009.Basedonongoing
consultationwithDEP,appropriateengineeringdetailswillultimatelybeincorporatedintoa
modifiedCorrectiveActionDesignwhichwillbesubmittedforreviewandapprovalbyDEPin
late2014.

MassDOTStateHighwayAccessPermit:AccesstoandfromtheProjectisprovidedattwo
locations:arightturnin,rightturnoutcurbcutontheConnectorRoad(i.e.noleftturns
permitted),andacurbcutonBrimbalAvenue(noleftturnsoutpermitted).Neitherofthese
accesspointsissignalized.Leftturnsareachievedbyuseofthenewroundaboutstobe
constructedateitherendoftheimprovedConnectorRoad.TheBrimbalAvenueaccessisunder
thecontrolandjurisdictionoftheCityofBeverly.However,theConnectorRoadaccesswill
requireaStateHighwayAccessPermit.Theproponenthasworkedcloselywiththetraffic
engineersatJacobsEngineeringwhoaredesigningtheConnectorRoadonbehalfoftheCityof
BeverlyandMassDOT.Bycarefulcoordinationofdesign,the75%100%ConnectorRoadplans
preparedbyJacobsincludeprovisionforthecurbcutthatwillservetheProject.Inaddition,the
trafficreportpreparedbyJacobsfortheExpandedENFfiledin2013fortheExit19/Brimbal
Ave/Route128InterchangeProject(EEA#15065)assumedthata90,000squarefootretail
projectwouldbebuiltontheProjectsite,andtheConnectorRoadinterchangewasdesignedto
accommodatetheanticipatedtraffictobegeneratedbythatretailproject.Wenotethatthe
actualProjectwillbesmallerthantheprojectassumedbyJacobs.Forthesereasons,the
proponentisconfidentthatboththegeometryoftheproposedcurbcutandthecapacityofthe
proposednewConnectorRoadwillaccommodatetheaccessrequirementsandtripsgenerated
bytheProject.

ENFReviewThresholds

TheproposedNorthShoreCrossingmixedusedevelopmentwillgeneratedailyvehicletripswhichwill
exceedthereviewthresholdsfortransportation(ReviewThresholds:11.03(6)(a)6&11.03(6)(b)13,
14,&15).

Additionally,asindicatedabove,theProjectwillrequirethefollowingtwostatepermits:
MassachusettsDepartmentofTransportationStateHighwayAccessPermit.
MassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionBWPSW25CorrectiveActionDesign
ApprovalandAuthorizationtoConstruct

Inaproactiveanddetailedmanner,theapplicantandtheprojectteamhavestudiedtheexistingsite,
theproposeddevelopment,anditsanticipatedimpacts.ThisExpandedENFdetailsthepotential
impactsbasedontheprojectscopeofwork.Thepotentialimpactstotheenvironmentwillbe
appropriatelyminimized,mitigated,oravoided.Specifically,thisExpandedENFincludesanalysis
describingtheeffectsandmitigationrequiredforstormwaterdrainage,traffic,greenhousegas,andthe
CorrectiveActionDesign/PostClosureUseplansforthepreviouslyclosedCityofBeverlymunicipal
landfill.
4

AsthisExpandedENFapplicationdetailstheproposeddevelopment,itsanticipatedimpactsand
resultingmitigation,theapplicantrespectfullyrequeststhattheSecretaryissueascopeallowingasingle
EIRinaccordancewith301CMR11.06(8).

SubmissionInformation

EnclosedpleasefindtwocopiesoftheExpandedEnvironmentalNotificationpermitpackagethat
includes:

EnvironmentalNotificationForm
NotificationsforNewspaper&EnvironmentalMonitor
Exhibitsillustratingtheparcel
Listofstateandfederalpermitsandapprovals
TrafficImpactandAccessStudy
DrainageReport
GreenhouseGasReport
LandfillPermittingDocumentation
SiteDevelopmentPlans

Ifitishelpfulinyourreview,theprojectteamisavailabletomeetandfurtherdiscusstheapplication.
WelookforwardtoworkingwiththeMEPAofficeandthankyouforyourconsiderationofthisproject.
Ifthereareanyquestionsregardingthisfilingoradditionalinformationisrequired,pleasecontactmeat
6175766500ext.24,orRyanBianchettoofAllen&Majors,mycivilengineers,at7819356889.

Verytrulyyours,

CEABeverlyLLC

StevenA.Cohen,Manager

cc: MayorMichaelP.Cahill,CityofBeverly
Aaron Clausen, City of Beverly, Planning and Community Development
DouglasHusid,Esq.,Goulston&Storrs
Thomas J. Alexander, Esq., Alexander & Femino
RyanBianchetto,LEEDAP,Allen&Major
MatthewMadden,P.E.,L.S.P.,Tetratech
StevenKraemer,P.E.,Haley&Aldrich
RonMuller,P.E.,RonMullerAssociates
MarcWallace,QEP,TechEnvironmental
5

ALLEN & MAJ OR
ASSOCIATES, INC.






civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants
www.allenmajor.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1 OF 2:

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM (ENF)

1.1 Environmental Notification Form

2.0 NOTIFICATIONS

2.1 Environmental Notification Form Distribution List
2.2 Newspaper Notice for Environmental Notification Form

3.0 ATTACHMENTS

3.1 EXHIBIT-1 USGS Site Locus Map
3.2 EXHIBIT-2 FEMA Firm Map
3.3 EXHIBIT-3 NHESP Priority & Estimated Habitats Map

4.0 APPENDIX

4.1 List of State and Federal Permits and Approvals
4.2 Letter from MA Historical Commission

4.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
4.3.2 Proposed Layout & Materials Plan
4.3.3 Proposed Grading & Drainage Plan
4.3.4 Proposed Utility Plan
4.3.5 Proposed Erosion Control Plan

5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY
5.1 Traffic Study by Muller Associates

6.0 DRAINAGE REPORT
6.1 Drainage Report by A&M

7.0 GREENHOUSE GAS REPORT
7.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis by Tech Environmental

VOLUME 2 OF 2:

8.0 LANDFILL PERMITTING (BOUND SEPARATELY)
8.1 Engineering Design Report by Tetra Tech




civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com
SECTION 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION
FORM (ENF)





























Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office



Effective J anuary 2011
Environmental Notification Form
For Office Use Only
EEA#:
MEPA Analyst:

The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document
electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.

Project Name: North Shore Crossing
Street Address: Brimbal Ave and Sohier Rd
Municipality: Beverly Watershed: North Coastal
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates:
345737 Easting, 4715315 Northing
Latitude: 4234'24.74" N
Longitude: 7052'44.12" W
Estimated commencement date: March 2015 Estimated completion date: June 2016
Project Type: Commercial Status of project design: 50 %complete
Proponent: CEA Beverly LLC
Street Address: 1105 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite #2F
Municipality: Cambridge MA Zip Code: 02138
Name of Contact Person: Ryan Bianchetto
Firm/Agency: Allen & Major Associates, Inc. Street Address: 100 Commerce Way
Municipality: Woburn State: MA Zip Code: 01888
Phone: 781-935-6889 Fax: 781-935-2896 E-mail: rbianchetto
@allenmajor.com

Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes No
Transportation Mandatory EIR Review Threshold: 11.03 (6)(a)6

If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a
Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting:

a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) Yes No
a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) Yes No
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No
(Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.)

Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Transportation Review Thresholds: 11.03 (6)(a)6 & 11.03 (6) (b) 13, 14, & 15

Which State Agency Permits will the project require?

MA DOT State Highway Access Permit, & MA DEP BWP-SW25 Corrective Action Design
Approval and Authorization to Construct

- 2 -

Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including
the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres:

The project will be privately financed.


Summary of Project Size
& Environmental Impacts
Existing Change Total
LAND
Total site acreage
6.43 acres
New acres of land altered
6.43 acres
Acres of impervious area
0 acres 4.82 acres +/- 4.82 acres +/-
Square feet of new bordering
vegetated wetlands alteration
N/A
Square feet of new other wetland
alteration



N/A


Acres of new non-water dependent
use of tidelands or waterways



N/A


STRUCTURES
Gross square footage
N/A 77,852 S.F. 77,852 S.F.
Number of housing units
N/A N/A N/A
Maximum height (feet)
N/A 1 Story at 36 +/- 1 Story at 36 +/-
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle trips per day
0 6,520 6,520
Parking spaces
0 380 380
WASTEWATER
Water Use (Gallons per day)
0 13,087 13,087
Water withdrawal (GPD)
0 0 0
Wastewater generation/treatment
(GPD)
0 11,898 11,898
Length of water mains (miles)
0 0 0
Length of sewer mains (miles)
0 0 0

Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA # ) No
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes No (EEA # 15065 (Route 128, Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue Interchange
improvements Project in Beverly) Project proponents are the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MA DOT) and the City of Beverly.

The project included the modification of the existing interchange (Phase 1) and future
construction of an expanded interchange (Phase 2).

The proponent has been working closely with MA DOT and the City of Beverly to
coordinate the development of this site with the MA DOT interchange improvements.

- 3 -


GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION all proponents must fill out this section

Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site:
Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements:
NOTE: The project description should summarize both the projects direct and indirect impacts
(including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration
and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements
of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these
requirements into the future.
Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered
by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning,
and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative:
Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative:


PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Existing Site Summary
The 6.43acre project site is located at Brimbal Avenue and Sohier Road (City of Beverly Assessors
Parcel #55-29 at 140 Brimbal Avenue) in the City of Beverly, Massachusetts. The existing site is a
former City of Beverly municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill bordered on three sides by roadways: the
connector road to the north, Brimbal Ave to the east, and Sohier Rd to the west. Surrounding land
uses include a multifamily residential development to the south (Northridge Homes) and commercial/
industrial uses to the east and west.



Bing Birds Eye Aerial of Existing Site. Not to Scale.



- 4 -

Environmental Due Diligence
There are no wetland resources on or directly adjacent to the site. A review of the latest
Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas; 13th Edition, reveals that there are no Estimated Habitats,
Priority Habitats or Certified Vernal Pools onsite or directly adjacent to the site (Exhibit 3). Also, the
site is not located within any Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW).

Additional due diligence also included a review of the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) map dated J uly 3, 2012. While there is one area of Zone
X areas of 0.2% annual chance flood on an adjacent parcel, there are no 100-year flood zones
onsite (Exhibit 2).

Extensive investigations have been conducted with respect to the former landfill use of the site.
For a description of these investigations, please see the Landfill section below.

Proposed Project Overview
The proposed project (North Shore Crossing) presents a unique opportunity to redevelop a
previously disturbed 6.43 +/- acre former municipal landfill into a high quality, multi-use facility in
Beverly, Massachusetts. The proposed Project consists of a total of 77,852 square feet of
commercial buildings, including a 35,000 square foot Whole Foods Market, two restaurants, medical
offices, a bank and general retail uses. There will be two vehicular access points from the
Connector Road and Brimbal Avenue into the project site. Onsite, there is a total of 380parking
spaces and 48 of those spaces will be underground in a garage. The project will also include
internal access drives, improved site utilities and stormwater drainage, landscaping and associated
site amenities. See Section 4 for copies of the proposed site design plans.

As the project designs are further developed, a comprehensive landscape plan will be designed.
The landscape plan will be both practical and enhance the aesthetics of the site. A variety of hardy,
multi-seasonal interest trees, shrubs and perennials will be utilized throughout the site. These
plantings will provide shade within the parking areas, walkways and seating areas and buffering
from adjacent roadways and land uses. In addition, the proposed landscape design will establish a
pleasant sense of place throughout all seasons.

The project applicant has worked closely for many years with the City of Beverly, the Solid Waste
Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to return this former landfill to productive use in a manner
that addresses environmental concerns and protects and enhances the public interest. Through
careful planning, adverse environmental impacts of this proposed project will be avoided, minimized,
or mitigated. The proposed Project offers a number of public benefits including the following:

This municipal landfill was used briefly from 1949 through 1960. At the time of its closure in
1960, current regulations had not yet been adopted and the landfill was not closed with the
sort of engineered protections that would be appropriate under current law and
environmental standards. The Solid Waste Management Section of DEP authorized
construction of a commercial on this site in 2009. That authorization must be modified to
reflects the revised configuration of the current Project. Under the continuing supervision of
the Solid Waste Management Section of DEP, the Project will incorporate engineered details
to achieve the following: i) the former landfill will be closed with an appropriate cap, ii)
potentially dangerous migration of landfill gas into utility structures, buildings and adjacent
properties will be controlled, and iii) stormwater infiltration into landfill waste will be
minimized. The proposed Project creates the opportunity to incorporate these and other
engineering details that will provide for appropriate closure of the landfill and will protect the
health and safety of future users of the site and the public in general.
- 5 -

The anticipated economic activity and jobs to be generated by the Project were an important
element of the City's successful application to the Executive Office for Housing and
Economic Development for a $5,000,000 MassWorks grant to reconfigure and improve the
Brimbal Ave/Exit 19 interchange at Route 128. These road improvements will, among other
things, improve traffic safety at this busy interchange and will dramatically increase
opportunities for pedestrian use and bicycle access.

The Project is being designed in accordance with best practices and specifications for
sustainable development, as applicable to a retail development. It is contemplated that the
proponent will seek and achieve LEED certification for the Project. Project buildings will be
designed to conserves energy, reduce water consumption, improve indoor air quality, use
sustainable building materials where appropriate, and create a healthy environment for
customers, employees and the community.

This former municipal landfill parcel had not generated any real estate tax revenue for the
City of Beverly for decades. The proposed Project will return the parcel to productive use
and will generate significant real estate tax revenue for the City to fund important municipal
educational and public works projects.

The proposed Project will be anchored by a 35,000 square foot Whole Foods Market. Whole
Foods is a leader in promoting environmentally sound practices. It has been an innovative
leader in supporting sustainable agriculture, raising animal welfare standards, using
renewable energy sources, and incorporating green design and cutting-edge sustainable
architecture into its stores, including rooftop farms, solar panels, wind turbines, and electric
car charging stations. For the fourth consecutive year, Whole Foods has offset 100% of its
use of electricity by investing in green technology and making green power purchasing a
company-wide initiative. Whole Foods has become a key partner of the Environmental
Protection Agency and has won numerous EPA Awards, including: Green Power Leadership
Award 2004, Green Power Leadership Award 2005, Partner of the Year 2006, Partner of the
Year 2007, Partner of the Year 2010, and Sustained Excellence in Green Power 2012.


Public Process and Project History
A detailed summary on the public process and full project history has been included in the cover
letter.


State Permits

Landfill - Post Closure Use Permit: Because much of the Project site is a former municipal
landfill, the Solid Waste Management Section of DEP must approve and authorize
construction of the Project. The primary focus of this review and approval process is to
assure that the proposed construction incorporates appropriate engineering details to insure
that landfill waste and gas is treated in a manner that protects the health and safety of the
public. Tetratech, the proponent's environmental engineering firm, has discussed the
Project with the environmental engineers at DEP and has filed Form BWP-SW-45 Alternative
Review to start the permitting process. In late August 2014, DEP approved a program of
subsurface investigation to confirm conditions in the locations of the proposed new buildings.
DEP previously issued its approval of a similar commercial development on this site in 2009.
For the most part, the current Project raises the same landfill-related issues as the 2009
project, and incorporates the same DEP-approved engineering details to address those
issues. The current Project differs from the 2009 project in one important respect: the 2009
project was designed to address the sensitive environmental issues associated with a 10,000
- 6 -
square foot child care center, whereas the current Project has no such sensitive uses. We
anticipate that all the landfill-related development issues may be addressed to the
satisfaction of DEP with engineering details that are the same as or very similar to those
approved by DEP in 2009. Based on ongoing consultation with DEP, appropriate
engineering details will ultimately be incorporated into a modified Corrective Action Design
which will be submitted for review and approval by DEP in late 2014. For additional
information on the landfill, see the narrative section below entitled Landfill Corrective Action
Design Summary, the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section of the application, and Section 8.

MassDOT State Highway Access Permit: Access to and from the Project is provided at
two locations: a right turn in, right turn out curb cut on the Connector Road (i.e. no left turns
permitted), and a curb cut on Brimbal Avenue (no left turns out permitted). Neither of these
access points is signalized. Left turns are achieved by use of the new roundabouts to be
constructed at either end of the improved Connector Road. The Brimbal Avenue access is
under the control and jurisdiction of the City of Beverly. However, the Connector Road
access will require a State Highway Access Permit. The proponent has worked closely with
the traffic engineers at J acobs Engineering who are designing the Connector Road on behalf
of the City of Beverly and MassDOT. (Project No. 604369). By careful coordination of
design, the 75%-100% Connector Road plans prepared by J acobs include provision for the
curb cut that will serve the Project. In addition, the traffic report prepared by J acobs for the
Expanded ENF filed in 2013 for the Exit 19/Brimbal Ave/Route 128 Interchange Project
(EEA#15065)assumed that a 90,000 square foot retail project would be built on the Project
site, and the Connector Road interchange was designed to accommodate the anticipated
traffic to be generated by that retail project. We note that the actual Project will be smaller
than the project assumed by J acobs. For these reasons, the proponent is confident that both
the geometry of the proposed curb cut and the capacity of the proposed new Connector
Road will accommodate the access requirements and trips generated by the Project.


Traffic Impact Study Summary
MassDOT and the City of Beverly are proposing significant improvements to the Route 128 Exit 19
interchange area including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Brimball Avenue, Sohier
Road, and the Connector Road (Project #604369). While the proposed shopping center will result in
increases in traffic during the peak hours there are mitigation measures proposed and the MassDOT
project has been designed to accommodate the increase in traffic from this particular development
(and others). Traffic operations after completion of this project will be significantly enhanced from
the existing conditions. As a result, the project impacts are expected to be minimal with little change
in predicted levels of service.

The site also abuts a state highway (Connector Road from Route 128) and therefore will require a
Highway Access Permit from MassDOT. The proponent will design the site driveways in compliance
with MassDOT and City of Beverly design standards. The proponent has worked closely with the
traffic engineers at J acobs Engineering who are finalizing design plans for the Route 128 Exit 19
interchange area and Connector Road. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) is currently in the process of finalizing these MEPA approved plans which include
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Brimball Avenue, Sohier Road, and the
Connector Road. The proponent is committed to providing a number of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures as part of the project. For these above reasons, the proponent is
confident that both the geometry of the proposed curb cut and the capacity of the proposed new
Connector Road will accommodate the access requirements and trips generated by the Project. For
a detailed traffic impact and access study see Section 5.



- 7 -
Drainage Report Summary
The attached Stormwater Report will show by means of narrative, calculations, and exhibits that
there is no increase in peak rate of runoff from the site at each of the study points for all design
storm events. The stormwater management system (SMS) incorporates structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices to provide stormwater quality treatment and conveyance. All
of the stormwater runoff from the proposed development is collected and treated onsite (See
Grading & Drainage Plan in Section 4). Its important to note, while the project is outside of the
jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act and its Implementing Regulations; (310 CMR 10.00), the
onsite stormwater systems have been designed to meet the 10 MA DEP Stormwater Handbook
standards. See the Section 6 Stormwater Report for a detailed analysis.


Erosion Control Measures During Construction
As detailed on the attached site design plans, appropriate erosion controls will be installed prior to
construction. These measures will reduce the impact of sediment and erosion during the
construction and future use of the site. The erosion controls include protecting the existing and
proposed catch basins with silt sacks, setting up a stabilized construction entrance, and installing
strawbale and silt fence lines along the perimeter of the site. See Section 4 for the current site
design plans including an Erosion Control Plan.


Greenhouse Gas Report Summary
The City of Beverly has adopted the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code, which requires higher
levels of energy efficiency. The project proposed energy mitigation measures consistent with and in
some cases greater than what is required by the applicable local Stretch Code policies and the
Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Policy. The Greenhouse Gas report in Section 7
summarizes measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate GHG emissions through site design mitigation
measures and building design and operation mitigation measures.

The proposed development follows sustainable site development principles by re-using existing
disturbed land and locating the project in an existing commercial / industrial area next to a highway
interchange. The project supports alternative transportation to the site with its proximity to both an
MBTA train station and bus routes. In addition, site design features include water efficient
landscaping, orientation of buildings to reduce energy use, and storm water design utilizing Best
Management Practices (BMP) which all contribute to avoid, minimize, or mitigate GHG emissions
(See Greenhouse Gas analysis Section 7 - 3.1).

The proposed building design also incorporates a number of mitigation and operation measures.
Whenever practical, the Project will use environmentally friendly building materials, including
materials with recycled content, rapidly renewable building materials, low-VOC materials and
building materials that are manufactured within the region. The proposed structures will incorporate
Energy Efficient Windows and Building Envelopes and light-colored membrane roofs (cool roofs). In
addition, operation mitigation measures include Demand Control Ventilation, Higher-Efficiency
HVAC Cooling Systems & Heating Systems, Energy Management Systems, High-Efficiency
Refrigeration System and Energy Efficient Interior & Exterior Lighting which all contribute to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate GHG emissions. (See Greenhouse Gas analysis Section 7 3.2).








- 8 -
Landfill Corrective Action Design Summary
As previously mentioned, the project consists of construction of a commercial development on an
historic municipal landfill. The former landfill was utilized by the City of Beverly from approximately
1946 through 1961. The site is currently vacant and partially vegetated and has not accepted waste
for about 50 years.

The site has been investigated on multiple occasions, by J acobs Engineering, Tetra Tech, Haley &
Aldrich, and other investigators in connection with proposed re-development projects. Tetra Tech
performed extensive investigations that included analytical testing of the subsurface materials and
measurements of landfill gas emissions.

The fill typically consists of organic soil resulting from a very high degree of decomposition of the
landfill materials mixed with inert materials such as brick and concrete fragments, plastic, metal and
glass. Shallow soil at the Site is primarily sand and gravel fill.

The investigation of the landfill under Massachusetts DEPs Solid Waste program began in February
2007 with initial discussions with Tetra Tech, DEP, and the previous proponent. Tetra Tech
conducted a literature search and compiled the results of historic investigations at the landfill dating
back to 1971 as part of an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) submitted to DEP on May 24, 2007 in
accordance with 310 CMR 19.150. The ISA also proposed investigations to further assess
subsurface conditions at the landfill. The ISA was conditionally approved by DEP on J uly 20, 2007.
In accordance with the ISA and conditional approval, Tetra Tech advanced soil borings and installed
monitoring wells, conducted groundwater sampling and analysis, evaluated hydraulic conductivity,
monitored groundwater elevation, installed gas sampling points, and conducted landfill gas
sampling. This work was conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009

The results of these investigations, along with the historical investigations compiled in the ISA, were
used to develop mitigation measures as part of a Corrective Action Design (CAD). A CAD submittal
was prepared by Tetra Tech and submitted to DEP on November 24, 2009. The CAD included
mitigation measures such as clean cover material over waste, venting below buildings and parking
areas, venting trenches in certain areas along the site perimeter, and measures to prevent gas
migration along utility corridors. The CAD also included relocation of waste within the Site
boundaries. The CAD was approved by DEP on December 31, 2009 including an Authorization to
Construct. Due to economic factors, the project was not constructed.

In 2012 and 2013, the proponent and its consultants worked with the City of Beverly, DEP,
MassDOT and its consultants to design a public/private project involving relocation of the existing
MassDOT Connector Road to the southern portion of the Site, and a commercial development on
the northern portion of the Site, including land north of the existing Connector Road. Ultimately,
MassDOT recommended against relocation of the Connector Road, and recommended instead
improvements to the existing Connector Road in its current alignment. After appropriate review, the
City of Beverly and the proponent accepted the MassDOT recommendations. Accordingly,, the
proponent prepared a Site design for a commercial development south of the existing Connector
Road , within the same Site boundaries as the commercial development that was proposed for the
Site and approved by DEP in 2009.

The currently proposed project is similar to the commercial development proposed and
described in the CAD submitted in 2009 and approved by DEP. The proponent is conducting
additional investigations to gain information to confirm subsurface conditions at the new Site
layout. A modification of the CAD will be submitted to DEP for its approval. The revised CAD will
include many of the same mitigation measures included in the CAD approved by DEP in 2009.
The current project does not include a child care center, which was included in the 2009 design,
and therefore certain details specific to the childcare use will not be required in the current
design. The proponent has committed to mitigation measures including physical separation
- 9 -
from the waste via clean cover material and various surface treatments, gas control via venting
and monitoring, effective drainage, and mitigation of potential settlement.

The revised CAD will be submitted to DEP for their approval, and we anticipate an approval and
authorization to construct with similar provisions to the approval issued in 2009. After construction
and implementation of the provisions of the Corrective Action Design, the proponent will maintain
and monitor the Site controls to detect and prevent any adverse impacts of the Site on public health,
safety, and the environment for the post-closure period. As stated in 310 CMR 19.142, the post-
closure period shall terminate on the date of DEPs written determination that post-closure care,
maintenance, and monitoring of the Site is no longer required.

The proponent has been working closely with Massachusetts DEP Bureau of Waste Prevention -
Solid Waste unit while planning the project. Management of excavated material, management of
landfill gas, and post construction monitoring will be subject to DEPs review and conducted in
accordance with approved plans.

Achieving a safe closure of this historic landfill site and the economic benefits of the proposed
development are consistent with the State Solid Waste Master Plan. See Section 8 for detailed
information on the Landfill Corrective Action Design. There are 4 reports including:
Engineering Design Report, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009
Human Health and Environmental Risk Characterization, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009
Corrective Action Design Plans, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009, Revised November 24, 2009
Corrective Action Design Specifications, Tetra Tech, November 24, 2009

Project Alternatives and Impacts

Project Alternative
As discussed in the cover letter, in the year 2013 the applicant explored a concept alternative which
sited the project on a larger parcel made up of the current 6.43AC property owned by the applicant
and land just north of the current parcel. That concept included the area of land between the
Connector Road and Rt. 128 that is owned by the MA DOT. This proposal entailed a land swap with
MA DOT in order to relocate the Connector Road farther south. In this concept, the applicant
proposed to develop this 7.24acre parcel with a 35,215square foot grocery store and four
additional retail buildings totaling 52,842square feet as well as associated surface parking and
utilities.

This alternative project has a number of environmental impacts that were greater than the Preferred
Alternative (current proposed project) including:
Proximity to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (portions of site work would be within 100
resource buffer to offsite wetlands.
The relocation of the functional Connector Road.
Impervious surfaces area more than is currently proposed.
Use of surface parking only (structured parking under building in current proposal reduces
heat island effect).
Greater disturbance of a portion of the existing closed landfill.

While this project was fully explored as an alternative, this alternative entailed construction of the
relocated Connector Road over the landfill, which led MassDOT to express concern about
geotechnical challenges and potential permitting delays. Consequently, MassDOT recommended
against relocating the Connector Road. The City of Beverly and the proponent evaluated
environmental, geotechnical and permitting issues of the Alternative Project and concluded that these
- 10 -
concerns would be best addressed, with lesser environmental impact, by abandoning the Alternative
project, rebuilding an improved Connector Road in its current location and developing the currently
proposed project on the land already owned by the proponent, as originally proposed and approved
by DEP in 2009.


Project Alternatives and Impacts

Project Alternative
As discussed in the cover letter, in the year 2013 the proponent explored a conceptual alternative
which sited the project on a larger parcel made up of the current 6.43AC property owned by the
proponent and land just north of the current parcel. That concept included the area of land between
the Connector Road and Rt. 128 that is owned by the MA DOT. This proposal would have entailed a
land swap with MA DOT in order to relocate the connector road farther south. In this concept, the
proponent would have developed a 7.24acre parcel with a 35,215square foot grocery store and
four additional retail buildings totaling 52,842square feet as well as associated surface parking and
utilities.

This alternative project has a number of environmental impacts that were greater than the Preferred
Alternative (current proposed project) including:
Proximity to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (portions of site work would be within 100
resource buffer to offsite wetlands.
The relocation of the functional Connector Road.
Impervious surfaces area more than is currently proposed.
Use of surface parking only (structured parking under building in current proposal reduces
heat island effect).
Greater disturbance of a portion of the existing closed landfill.

While this project was fully explored as an alternative, it was concluded in the Spring of 2014.
As the alternative entailed construction of the relocated Connector Road over the landfill, which in led
MassDOT to express concerns about geotechnical challenges and potential permitting delays.
Consequently, MassDOT recommended against relocating the Connector Road. The City of Beverly
and the proponent evaluated environmental, geotechnical and permitting issues of the Alternative
Project and concluded that these concerns would be best addressed, with lesser environmental
impact by abandoning the Alternative project and rebuilding an improved Connector Road in its
current location. The best route would be to further develop the currently proposed project on the
land already owned by the proponent, as originally proposed and approved by DEP in 2009.


No Build Alternative
Under the No-Build alternative, the site would remain underutilized. In this scenario, the landfill would
not be put to another appropriate product reuse and other open space in the city could be utilized for
commercial development. The anticipated economic activity and jobs to be generated by the
currently proposed project were an important element of the City of Beverlys successful application
to the Executive Office for Housing and Economic Development for a $5,000,000 MassWorks grant to
reconfigure and improve the Brimbal Ave/Exit 19 interchange and this activity would be lost.
Opportunities for temporary and permanent jobs, and significant tax revenues for the City of Beverly
would be lost. Additionally, the existing landfill would not be fully closed or as closely monitored by
the proponent and existing stormwater would continue to flow unmitigated through the landfill waste.
Lastly, many of the mitigation measures proposed would not be realized. The preferred alternative
(the current proposed project) creates the opportunity to incorporate appropriate closure of the landfill
and will protect the health and safety of future users of the site and the public in general.

- 11 -
Current Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative (the current project) would have minimal impacts to vehicular traffic
conditions due to the adjacent traffic improvements and stormwater would be mitigated. The site is
not within a FEMA Flood Zone nor is it within a Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
Priority of Estimated Habitat Areas of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Furthermore, it does
not contain any wetland resource areas. Therefore, no adverse impacts to natural resources or
wildlife habitat are anticipated. The proposed development would be of benefit to the environment by
offering the opportunity to remediate the existing landfill site and reestablish it as a usable space
within the community. Rather than disturbing unaltered land, the proposed project is redeveloping a
previously altered site and leaving other areas of the city open for recreation and scenic value.
Numerous mitigation measures detailed in this application are proposed for this preferred alternative.
This proposed project creates the opportunity to appropriately close the landfill and will protect the
health and safety of future users of the site and the public in general. This preferred alternative
allows significant economic and environmental benefit as outlined in this application


On Site & Off Site Mitigation Measures

Transportation Mitigation As outlined in the Traffic Impact Study, there are numerous mitigation
measures proposed.

As sponsored by the City of Beverly, and implemented by the MA DOT the plans include
improvements to the Route 128, Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road, Dunham Road, Otis Road, and the
Interchange 19 ramp system (#604369) (EEA # 15065). The project is proposed to be constructed
in two phases. Phase 1 is currently at the 75%-100% design stage and the project is proposed to be
advertised for construction in the fall of 2014 with project completion expected in 2015 For
additional history and permitting of the MA DOT roadway project see the cover letter.

Phase 1 includes roadway, traffic control, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to the Route 128
Interchange Exit 19 area as well a traffic control improvements to the Brimbal Avenue and Herrick
Street intersection. The Project will improve roadway capacity and safety as well as sidewalks,
accessible wheelchair ramps at intersections, and bike lanes or shared pedestrian/bicycle paths
throughout the design. The Connector Road will be improved and include single lane roundabouts
at the intersections with Sohier Road and with Brimbal Avenue. The Sohier Road southbound
approach to the new roundabout will include a through movement by-pass lane and an exclusive
left-turn lane and the northbound approach will include a through lane and an exclusive right-turn
lane. The Connector Road approach will include separate left- and right-turn lanes. At the new
Brimball Avenue roundabout, the Brimball Avenue northbound approach will include a through lane
and an exclusive left-turn lane and the southbound approach will include a single-lane for all
movements. The Connector Road approach will include separate left- and right-turn lanes.

Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are proposed within the project area that include 5-foot
wide bicycle lanes and separate sidewalks on Brimball Avenue and on Sohier Road that merge into
14-foot wide shared use paths around both roundabouts and along the Connector Road. Pedestrian
crosswalks will be located close to the circulating roundabout since vehicle speeds are lower in the
vicinity due to the radii and deflection angles.

At the Route 128 southbound on/off ramp intersection with Brimball Avenue, lane striping will be
provided on Brimbal Avenue by creating a refuge area for left turns from the Route 128 southbound
off ramp to cross northbound Brimbal Avenue traffic before merging with southbound traffic (Section
5 Page 14). This two-stage left-turn movement will greatly improve peak hour traffic operations for
this movement. The intersection of Brimbal Avenue and Herrick Street will be signalized and
Brimball Avenue will be widened to provide an exclusive northbound left-turn lane. The left-turn lane
will operate with protected-permissive phasing to improve safety. This Project is part of an overall
- 12 -
strategy of transportation and other infrastructure improvements to provide for improved safety and
congestion mitigation on the North Shore and along Route 128.

Based on the Functional Design Report (FDR) submitted with the design, the interchange project
has been designed to accommodate future traffic growth including development of the proposed
shopping center as well as several other development projects as listed in Section 5 Page 15.
Accordingly, the capacity of these improved roadways and intersections is expected to satisfy the
traffic demands projected well beyond the 2021 design year. Both the Phase 1 improvement project
and the proposed retail development project are assumed to be completed by the 2021 design year.

Phase 2 of the Interchange Improvement Project would remove the existing Route 128 southbound
ramps at Brimbal Avenue and construct a new diamond interchange by extending Otis Street to
Dunham Road. Detailed engineering and design plans will be developed as part of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Statement to be prepared by MassDOT. No timeline has been
established for Phase 2 of this project and these improvements are therefore not assumed to be
completed by the 2021 design year.

The proponent has also committed to implementing a number of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures aimed at reducing vehicular traffic to and from the site. Retail
establishments in general do not lend themselves well to TDM measures since most of the traffic is
customer related. However, in an effort to minimize the dependency on the private automobile and
maximize employee vehicle occupancy, the proponent will implement measures and encourage
tenants to have their employees make use of them. For further detailed information, see the
Mitigation section of the Traffic Impact and Access Study.


Stormwater Mitigation The site design includes analysis of both the existing and proposed
stormwater systems. The proposed stormwater management system incorporates various
mitigation measures including both structural and non-structural BMPs to provide stormwater quality
treatment and conveyance. There will be standard catch basins with deep sumps and hooded
outlets, proprietary separators (water quality units), a subsurface detention systems, and appropriate
erosion controls during construction.

The primary mechanism to address the peak rate of runoff from the site is the construction of a
subsurface detention system. This results in no increase in the peak rate of runoff from the site at
each of the study points for all design storm events. Its important to note, while the project is outside
of the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act and its Implementing Regulations; (310 CMR
10.00), the onsite stormwater systems have been designed to meet the 10 MA DEP Stormwater
Handbook standards. See Section 6 for a complete drainage analysis prepared by A&M, and the
Section 4 for the site plans including Grading & Drainage.


Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Site Design Mitigation Measures

Sustainable Development Principles The Project conserves land by locating in an existing
commercial/industrial area next to a highway interchange. As practicable, open space on the site will
be replanted with native, hardy, and or adapted plant species.

Design Project to Support Alternative Transportation to the Site The nearest Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter rail station is the North Beverly station
located one mile north of the site at the corner of Enon Street and Dodge Street. The train
station is accessible from the site via MBTA Bus No. 451 that provides a stop at the corner of
Sohier Road and Tozer Road, located approximately 0.4 miles to the south of the site. The
- 13 -
proponent will encourage tenants within the shopping center to make use of public transportation
and to offer their employees a transit subsidy. The proponent will also encourage tenants to post
MBTA transit schedules in prominent places within the buildings (such as employee break
rooms).

Design Water Efficient Landscaping Water efficient landscaping will be installed to minimize water
use. Where possible, this includes utilizing a plant palette which requires less water and native
plants. This will lessen the developments reliance on irrigation due to the plants lower water and
maintenance requirements and adaptation to the local climate.

Minimize Energy Use Through Building Orientation Buildings A, B and B2 will face east
and Buildings C and D will face west, capturing natural light throughout the year. By orienting the
buildings to capture natural light, the developments reliance on energy for lighting as well as heating
is reduced.

Best Practices for Stormwater Design The stormwater management system incorporates structural
and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to provide stormwater quality treatment and
conveyance that meets or exceeds the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ten
(10) Stormwater Management Standards (See Section 6 1.4)

Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures
The eQUEST energy model inputs are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 of the Greenhouse Gas
Report. A comparison of the Projects Base Case Energy Use Intensity (EUI) to the U.S. Department
of Energys Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data is provided in Table 6
and reveals the modeled Base Case buildings are within +/- 10% of the average CBECS EUI.

Examples of mitigation items include: energy efficient windows and building envelope, demand
control ventilation, higher efficiency HVAC for heating and cooling, cool roofs, energy management
systems, high-efficiency refrigeration system, energy efficient interior lighting, energy efficient
exterior lighting, occupancy controls for lighting, recycling of materials, whenever practicable using
building materials with recycled content, building materials that are manufactured within the region,
use rapidly renewable building materials, and use low-VOC building materials.


Conclusion
The proposed project presents a unique opportunity to redevelop a previously disturbed site into a
high quality, multi-use facility. The proposed project will be of both environmental and economic
benefit to the community by providing a productive re-use of a former landfill site and providing both
temporary and permanent local jobs and tax revenue. Extensive studies have been conducted in
regards to traffic impacts, stormwater management, greenhouse gas emissions and the landfill
corrective action design. Significant mitigation measures have been incorporated into the site and
building design and operations. Through careful site design, adverse environmental impacts of this
proposed project have been avoided, minimized, or mitigated. As this Expanded ENF application
details the proposed development, its anticipated impacts, and resulting mitigation, the applicant
respectfully requests that the Secretary, issue a scope allowing a single EIR in accordance with 301
CMR 11.06 (8).



If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase:

It is anticipated the project will be completed in one phase.
______________________________________________________

- 14 -
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:
Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?
Yes (Specify__________________________________)
No
if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? ___ Yes _X No;
If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan.
N/A_______________________________________________________
Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? ___ Yes X No;
If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC.
_________________________________________________



RARE SPECIES:
Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm)
Yes (Specify__________________________________ ) No



HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place
or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ ) No
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic
or archaeological resources? Yes (Specify__________________________________) No

See the Appendix (Section 4) for correspondence received from Massachusetts Historical Commission.
The Project Notification Form (PNF) states it has been determined this project is unlikely to affect
significant historic or archaeological resources.


WATER RESOURCES:
Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? Yes X No;
if yes, identify the ORW and its location. N/A

(NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering
wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP; certain waters within Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.)

Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment: N/A

Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Commission? ___Yes X No

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:

Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply
with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations:______________________

The site design includes analysis of the existing and proposed stormwater systems. The
proposed stormwater management system incorporates structural and non-structural
BMPs to provide stormwater quality treatment and conveyance. There will be standard
catch basins with deep sumps and hooded outlets, proprietary separators (water quality
units), and a subsurface detention systems. Additionally, appropriate erosion controls
will be installed as shown on the plans during construction.
- 15 -

The primary mechanism to address the peak rate of runoff from the site is the
construction of a subsurface detention systems. See Section 6 for a complete drainage
analysis prepared by A&M. The report illustrates there is no increase in peak runoff from
the site at each of the study point for all design storms events.


MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:
Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan? Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including
Release Tracking Number (RTN), cleanup phase, and Response
Action Outcome classification): No

Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: ______
Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN?
Yes ___ No X ; if yes, please describe:____________________________________


SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:

If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered
for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood:

Historic landfill waste would be excavated as required for construction of buildings and utilities.
Historic landfill waste consists of soil mixed with glass, wood, plastic and similar materials.

Waste will be re-used on-site after screening to remove oversize materials. The oversize materials
will be recycled to the extent feasible and/or disposed of as construction and demolition (C&D)
debris and a solid waste C&D landfill.

No demolition of existing buildings is proposed. Construction waste will be generated during
construction. Wastes will be segregated and recycled to the extent feasible. Construction wastes
unsuitable for recycling will be disposed of at a C&D landfill.

For a summary of the detailed landfill investigations and permitting see the narrative section
entitled Corrective Action Design Summary in the narrative of this application.

(NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts
landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills.
See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.)

Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom01.htm

Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment: _________________


DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:
Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally
designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, specify name of river and designation:

If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the outstandingly remarkable
resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River?
Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: _____________;
if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated outstandingly remarkable
resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River.
- 16 -
Yes ___ No ___ ;
if yes, describe the potential impacts to one or more of the outstandingly remarkable resources or
stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of all attachments to this document.
2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8- x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000)
indicating the project location and boundaries.
3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate
environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way,
wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and
major utilities.
4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the
project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands,
wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources
and/or districts.
5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if
construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing
conditions upon the completion of each phase).
6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable.





























- 17 -
LAND SECTION all proponents must fill out this section

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
___ Yes X No; if yes, specify each threshold:

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Existing Change Total
Footprint of buildings __N/A___ 1.42 acres 1.42 acres
Internal roadways N/A N/A N/A
Parking and other paved areas N/A 3.4 acres 3.4 acres
Other altered areas (landscaped) N/A 1.61 acres 1.61 acres
Undeveloped areas 6.43 acres* 0 acres 6.43 acres
Total: Project Site Acreage 6.43 acres N/A N/A
*Existing mature landfill is included in undeveloped area calculation.

B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years?
___ Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or
locally important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use?

C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
___ Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and
indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by
the Department of Conservation and Recreation:

D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to
any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:

E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? ___
Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction?
___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe: N/A

F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change
in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
describe:

G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No X; if yes, describe:

III. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan
Title: City of Beverly Master Plan Date August 1, 2002

B. Describe the projects consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) Economic development

The proposed project is consistent with the City of Beverly Master Plan in regard
to economic development because it:
Provides a new source of jobs and tax revenues for the City.
Promotes commercial investment along the Rt. 128 corridor and within an
existing industrial zone area.



- 18 -
2) Adequacy of infrastructure

The proposed project is consistent with the City of Beverlys standards of
infrastructure because it:
Contributes utility improvements as well as onsite stormwater drainage
systems that will lessen the sites dependence on municipal stormwater
systems.
Is compliant with the outlined design standards for vehicular drives and
pedestrian walkways.
Promotes pedestrian use by establishing a direct connection to existing
local and regional public transportation routes via Brimbal Avenue.
o The nearest MBTA bus stop is .25 miles East at Tozer Road.
o The Montserrat Commuter Train Station is 1 mile South.
o Bike racks will be provided onsite.
Productive reuse of a closed landfill.

3) Open space impacts

The proposed project is consistent with the City of Beverlys Open Space and
Recreation Plan (Updated 2008) because:
There are no NHESP Priority, Estimated or Certified Vernal Pools noted
onsite.
The area has low potential for passive recreation and scenic value due to
its surrounding industrial land use and its former use as a municipal land
fill.
It establishes outdoor pedestrian walkways and seating areas that offer
recreational opportunities for Beverly residents.

4) Compatibility with adjacent land uses

The proposed project is congruent with the City of Beverlys Zoning Ordinances
(2013) because:
Retail use is allowable in lots zoned as IR-Overlay with a Special Permit
granted by the Beverly Planning Board.

C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
RPA: North Shore Task Force
Title: Metro Future Regional Plan Date: 2008
D. Describe the projects consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development

The project is consistent with the Metro Future Regional Plan in regard to
economic development because it would:
Increase employment density in an appropriate suburban job center.
Generate both temporary construction jobs and permanent onsite
employment.

2) adequacy of infrastructure

The project is congruent with the Regional Plan in terms of adequacy of
infrastructure by:
Promoting compact growth.
Establishing pedestrian connectivity on site.
Adhering to the ADA accessibility standards.
- 19 -
Providing accessibility to existing local and regional public transportation
routes.

3) open space impacts

The proposed design is consistent with the Regional Plan in regard to open space
because:
The area has low potential for passive recreation and scenic value due to
its surrounding industrial/commercial land use, the proximity to Route 128,
and its former use as a municipal landfill. Rather than disturbing unaltered
land, the proposed project is redeveloping a previously altered site and
leaving other areas of the city open for recreation and scenic value.

It establishes outdoor pedestrian walkways and seating areas that offer
recreational opportunities for Beverly residents.



- 20 -

RARE SPECIES SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 11.03(2))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

(NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.)

B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? ___ Yes _ X No

C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the
current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes X No.

D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Rare Species section below.

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes___No. If yes,
1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? ___Yes ___No; if yes, have you received a
determination as to whether the project will result in the take of a rare species? ___
Yes ___ No; if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission.

2. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes___No; if yes, provide
a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts

3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat?

4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act? ___ Yes ___ No

4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an
Order of Conditions for this project? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, did you send a copy of the
Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? ___ Yes ___ No


B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes,
provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant
habitat:



- 21 -

WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.

II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? ___; if yes, list
the date and MassDEP file number: ___; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been issued?
___; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will the project require a
Variance from the Wetlands regulations? ___ Yes ___ No.


B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on
the project site:

C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:

Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or
Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact?

Land Under the Ocean ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Designated Port Areas ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Coastal Beaches ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Coastal Dunes ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Barrier Beaches ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Coastal Banks ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Rocky Intertidal Shores ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Salt Marshes ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Land Under Salt Ponds ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Land Containing Shellfish ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Fish Runs ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ______N/A________ ______N/A________

Inland Wetlands
Bank (lf) ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Land under Water ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Borderi ng Land Subject to Flooding ______N/A________ ______N/A________
Riverfront Area ______N/A________ ______N/A________


D. Is any part of the project:
1. proposed as a limited project? ___ Yes ___No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___No ___ Yes ; if yes, describe:


- 22 -
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? ___ Yes ___ No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: N/A
5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC)? ___ Yes ___No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, identify the area (in sf):
7. located in buffer zones Yes___No; if yes, how much (in sf)

E. Will the project:
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? Yes ___ No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? ___ Yes ___ No; if
yes, what is the area (sf)?

III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes ___No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91
License or Permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes ___No; if yes, list the date and license or
permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine extent of filled
tidelands:

B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes ___No;
if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water-dependent
use? Current ___ Change ___ Total ___
If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)?

C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following:
Area of filled tidelands on the site:_____________________
Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:____________
For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use:
______________
Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands?
Yes ___ No ___
Height of building on filled tidelands________________

Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water-
dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and
exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low
water marks.

D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? ___ Yes ___No; if yes, describe the projects
impact on the publics right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:


E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a
municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ___Yes
___No; if yes, describe the projects impact on groundwater levels and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:

F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or
tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR? ___ Yes ___
No; ___
(NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and
Determination.)

G. Does the project include dredging? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, answer the following questions:
What type of dredging? Improvement ___ Maintenance ___ Both ____


- 23 -
What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) _________
What is the proposed dredge footprint ____length (ft) ___width (ft)____depth (ft);
Will dredging impact the following resource areas?
Intertidal Yes__ No__; if yes, ___ sq ft
Outstanding Resource Waters Yes__ No__; if yes, ___ sq ft


Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes__ No__; if yes __
sq ft
If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps
to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either
avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation?
If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support
this determination?
Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in
accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the
sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis.
Sediment Characterization
Existing gradation analysis results? __Yes ___No: if yes, provide results.
Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? ___Yes
____No; if yes, provide results.
Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management
options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option.

Beach Nourishment ___
Unconfined Ocean Disposal ___
Confined Disposal:
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) ___
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) ___
Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 ___
Shoreline Placement ___
Upland Material Reuse____
In-State landfill disposal____
Out-of-state landfill disposal ____
(NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.)

IV. Consistency:
A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located
within the Coastal Zone? ___ Yes ___No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency
with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:

B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes,
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:


- 24 -

WATER SUPPLY SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
specify which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section
below.

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed
activities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Municipal or regional water supply ________ ________ ________
Withdrawal from groundwater ________ ________ ________
Withdrawal from surface water ________ ________ ________
Interbasin transfer ________ ________ ________

(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed
water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater
from the source will be discharged.)

B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? ___ Yes ___ No

C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water
source, has a pumping test been conducted? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach a map of the drilling
sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. ______________

D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per
day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? ___Yes ___No; if yes, then how
much of an increase (gpd)? ____________________

E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
___ Yes ___No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:

Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total
Flow Daily Flow
Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________
Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________


F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?

G. Does the project involve:
1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of
the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? ___ Yes ___ No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, how many acres of
alteration?
3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking



- 25 -
water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? ___ Yes ___ No

III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water
resources, quality, facilities and services:




- 26 -

WASTEWATER SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.03(5))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify
which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for
existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic
systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems):


Existing Change Total

Discharge of sanitary wastewater ________ ________ ________
Discharge of industrial wastewater ________ ________ ________
TOTAL ________ ________ ________

Existing Change Total
Discharge to groundwater ________ ________ ________
Discharge to outstanding resource water ________ ________ ________
Discharge to surface water ________ ________ ________
Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater
facility ________ ________ ________
TOTAL ________ ________ ________


B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, then describe
the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the projects wastewater flows:


C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity? ___ Yes___ No; if
yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the projects wastewater flows:


D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, describe as follows:

Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total
Daily Flow
Wastewater treatment plant capacity
(in gallons per day) _______ ________ ________ ________


E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new?




- 27 -
(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater
will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is
located.)

F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? ___ Yes ___ No


G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage,
treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings,
wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is
the capacity (tons per day):

Existing Change Total
Storage ________ ________ ________
Treatment ________ ________ ________
Processing ________ ________ ________
Combustion ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________

H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other
wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal.

III. Consistency
A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to wastewater management:

B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan
and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that
plan:



- 28 -

TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION)

I. Thresholds / Permit
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR
11.03(6))? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

The project will generate 6,520 vehicle trips per day

B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? X Yes ___
No; if yes, specify which permit:
The site abuts a state highway (Connector Road) and therefore will require a Highway Access
Permit from MassDOT.

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.

II. Traffic Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Number of parking spaces 0 380 380
Number of vehicle trips per day 0 6,520 6,520
ITE Land Use Code(s): N/A ITE Codes: 820, 850 & 720

B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway Existing Change Total
1. Brimbal Avenue 17,300 1,120 18,420
2. Connector Road 11,000 1,660 12,660


C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the
project proponent will implement:

The project does not require any traffic improvements on state-controlled roadways.

D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and services to provide access to and from the project site?

MassDOT and the City of Beverly are proposing significant improvements to the Route
128 Exit 19 interchange area including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on
Brimball Avenue, Sohier Road, and the Connector Road. The proponent will provide
internal pedestrian linkages from the site to these new sidewalks and bicycle lanes. In
addition, the proponent will install high-security bicycle racks on site. The proponent will
encourage tenants within the shopping center to make use of public transportation and to
offer their employees a transit subsidy. The proponent will also encourage tenants to
post MBTA transit schedules in prominent places within the buildings (such as employee
break rooms).


C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that provides transportation demand
management (TDM) services in the area of the project site? X Yes ___ No; if yes, describe if
and how will the project will participate in the TMA:

The proponent is committed to joining the North Shore Transportation Management
Association (TMA) and will promote a variety of measures to its tenants and their
employees and collaborate with the North Shore TMA in shared commuter services.



- 29 -
These include registering each employee in a commuter database, which the North
Shore TMA can use to develop and market commuter services to employees, and
supporting the North Shore TMAs efforts to organize vanpools of employees from the
various tenants within the shopping center and surrounding businesses.

D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation
facilities? ____ Yes X No ; if yes, generally describe:

E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice
of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title
14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)?

Not applicable.

III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal
plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and
services:

The proponent will design the site driveways in compliance with MassDOT and City of
Beverly design standards. MassDOT is currently at the 25% design stage for the Route 128
Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project (Project No. 604369). The proponent has been
working closely with MassDOT and the City of Beverly to coordinate access to this site and
assure that development of the site will not impede the MassDOT project.




- 30 -

TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES)

I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section
below.

II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project
site:


B. Will the project involve any
1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? ____________
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? ____________
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? ____________

III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation
Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:



- 31 -

ENERGY SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))?
___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify
which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.


II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts) ________ ________ ________
Length of fuel line (in miles) ________ ________ ________
Length of transmission lines (in miles) ________ ________ ________
Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) ________ ________ ________

B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are:
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?

C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
unused, or abandoned right of way? ___Yes ___No; if yes, please describe:

D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:

III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for
enhancing energy facilities and services:






32
AIR QUALITY SECTION

I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.03(8))? ___ Yes X No if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify
which permit:

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
Quality Section below.

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons
per day) of:

Existing Change Total

Particulate matter ________ ________ ________
Carbon monoxide ________ ________ ________
Sulfur dioxide ________ ________ ________
Volatile organic compounds ________ ________ ________
Oxides of nitrogen ________ ________ ________
Lead ________ ________ ________
Any hazardous air pollutant ________ ________ ________
Carbon dioxide ________ ________ ________

B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:

III. Consistency
A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:

B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:





33
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION

I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _X__ Yes
___ No; if yes, specify which permit:

BWP-SW25 Corrective Action Design Approval and Authorization to Construct.

Massachusetts DEP issued an Approval of the Corrective Action Design and Authorization to
Construct dated December 31, 2009.The following documents were submitted to
Massachusetts DEP in support of the Corrective Action Design and are included in Section 8
of this filing:

Engineering Design Report, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009
Human Health and Environmental Risk Characterization, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009
Corrective Action Design Plans, Tetra Tech, March 5, 2009, Revised November 24,
2009
Corrective Action Design Specifications, Tetra Tech, November 24, 2009
The currently proposed project is a similar commercial development on the same parcel. A
Corrective Action Design with many of the same features as those included in the 2009
permit will be submitted to DEP for their approval. DEP has jurisdiction over the solid
waste permitting process and will be the party to issue the permit.

C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.

II. Impacts and Permits
A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes X No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day) of
the capacity:
Existing Change Total
Storage ________ ________ ________
Treatment, processing ________ ________ ________
Combustion ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________

B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes X No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day) of
the capacity:

Existing Change Total
Storage ________ ________ ________
Recycling ________ ________ ________
Treatment ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________

C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal:
D.




34
Historic landfill waste will be excavated as required for construction of buildings and utilities.
Historic landfill waste consists of soil mixed with glass, wood, plastic and similar materials.

Waste will be re-used on-site after screening to remove oversize materials. The oversize
materials will be recycled to the extent feasible and/or disposed of as construction and
demolition (C&D) debris and a solid waste C&D landfill.

No demolition of existing buildings is proposed. Construction waste will be generated during
construction. Wastes will be segregated and recycled to the extent feasible. Construction
wastes unsuitable for recycling will be disposed of at a C&D landfill.

D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
___ Yes X No

No existing buildings are located on the site.

E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):

As previously mentioned, the project consists of construction of a commercial development
on an historic municipal landfill. The former landfill was utilized by the City of Beverly from
approximately 1946 through 1961. The site is currently vacant and partially vegetated and has
not accepted waste for about 50 years.

The site has been investigated on multiple occasions, by Jacobs Engineering, Tetra Tech,
Haley & Aldrich, and other investigators in connection with proposed re-development
projects. Tetra Tech performed extensive investigations that included analytical testing of
the subsurface materials and measurements of landfill gas emissions.

The fill typically consists of organic soil resulting from a very high degree of decomposition
of the landfill materials mixed with inert materials such as brick and concrete fragments,
plastic, metal and glass. Shallow soil at the Site is primarily sand and gravel fill.

The investigation of the landfill under Massachusetts DEPs Solid Waste program began in
February 2007 with initial discussions with Tetra Tech, DEP, and the previous proponent.
Tetra Tech conducted a literature search and compiled the results of historic investigations at
the landfill dating back to 1971 as part of an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) submitted to DEP
on May 24, 2007 in accordance with 310 CMR 19.150. The ISA also proposed investigations to
further assess subsurface conditions at the landfill. The ISA was conditionally approved by
DEP on July 20, 2007. In accordance with the ISA and conditional approval, Tetra Tech
advanced soil borings and installed monitoring wells, conducted groundwater sampling and
analysis, evaluated hydraulic conductivity, monitored groundwater elevation, installed gas
sampling points, and conducted landfill gas sampling. This work was conducted in 2007,
2008, and 2009

The results of these investigations, along with the historical investigations compiled in the
ISA, were used to develop mitigation measures as part of a Corrective Action Design (CAD). A
CAD submittal was prepared by Tetra Tech and submitted to DEP on November 24, 2009. The
CAD included mitigation measures such as clean cover material over waste, venting below
buildings and parking areas, venting trenches in certain areas along the site perimeter, and
measures to prevent gas migration along utility corridors. The CAD also included relocation
of waste within the Site boundaries. The CAD was approved by DEP on December 31, 2009
including an Authorization to Construct. Due to economic factors, the project was not
constructed.






35
In 2012 and 2013, the proponent and its consultants worked with the City of Beverly, DEP,
MassDOT and its consultants to design a public/private project involving relocation of the
existing MassDOT Connector Road to the southern portion of the Site, and a commercial
development on the northern portion of the Site, including land north of the existing
Connector Road. Ultimately, MassDOT recommended against relocation of the Connector
Road, and recommended instead improvements to the existing Connector Road in its current
alignment. After appropriate review, the City of Beverly and the proponent accepted the
MassDOT recommendations. Accordingly,, the proponent prepared a Site design for a
commercial development south of the existing Connector Road , within the same Site
boundaries as the commercial development that was proposed for the Site and approved by
DEP in 2009.

The currently proposed project is similar to the commercial development proposed and
described in the CAD submitted in 2009 and approved by DEP. The proponent is conducting
additional investigations to gain information to confirm subsurface conditions at the new Site
layout. A modification of the CAD will be submitted to DEP for its approval. The revised CAD
will include many of the same mitigation measures included in the CAD approved by DEP in
2009. The current project does not include a child care center, which was included in the 2009
design, and therefore certain details specific to the childcare use will not be required in the
current design. The proponent has committed to mitigation measures including physical
separation from the waste via clean cover material and various surface treatments, gas
control via venting and monitoring, effective drainage, and mitigation of potential settlement.

The revised CAD will be submitted to DEP for their approval, and we anticipate an approval
and authorization to construct with similar provisions to the approval issued in 2009. After
construction and implementation of the provisions of the Corrective Action Design, the
proponent will maintain and monitor the Site controls to detect and prevent any adverse
impacts of the Site on public health, safety, and the environment for the post-closure period.
As stated in 310 CMR 19.142, the post-closure period shall terminate on the date of DEPs
written determination that post-closure care, maintenance, and monitoring of the Site is no
longer required.

The proponent has been working closely with Massachusetts DEP Bureau of Waste
Prevention - Solid Waste unit while planning the project. Management of excavated material,
management of landfill gas, and post construction monitoring will be subject to DEPs review
and conducted in accordance with approved plans.

Achieving a safe closure of this historic landfill site and the economic benefits of the
proposed development are consistent with the State Solid Waste Master Plan. See Section 8
for detailed information on the Landfill Corrective Action Design.

III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan:

Consistent with the State Solid Waste Master Plan, the project will recycle construction
debris to the extent feasible. Waste segregation and management during construction can
achieve recycling rates of over 80%.

The proponent has been working closely with Massachusetts DEP Bureau of Waste
Prevention - Solid Waste unit while planning the project. Management of excavated material,
management of landfill gas, and post construction monitoring will be subject to DEPs review
and conducted in accordance with approved plans.

Achieving a safe closure of this historic landfill site and the economic benefits of the
proposed development are consistent with the State Solid Waste Master Plan.




36

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION

I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? X Yes____No; if yes, attach
correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? ____Yes ____ No; if yes, attach
correspondence .

See the Appendix (Section 4) for correspondence received from Massachusetts Historical
Commission. The Project Notification Form (PNF) states it has been determined this project
is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.

B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all or
any exterior part of such historic structure? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:

C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes X No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, please describe:

D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.


II. Impacts
Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and
archaeological resources:


III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:



civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com
SECTION 2.0 NOTIFICATIONS


civil & structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com


100 Commerce Way
P.O. Box 2118
Woburn, MA 01888-0118
Tel: (781) 935-6889
Fax:(781) 935-2896
Environmental Notification Form Distribution List
This Environmental Notification Form is being distributed to the following regulatory agencies and other
reviewers in accordance with the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
regulations, 310 CMR 11.16.

Two (2) Copies To:
Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, J r.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, 9
th
Floor, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

One (1) Copy Each To:
Department of Environmental Protection
Commissioners Office
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108

Department of Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Office
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887

Department of Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Office
Attn: J ohn Morey
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887

Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Public/Private Development Unit
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

Massachusetts Department of Transportation
District #4
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
519 Appleton Street
Arlington, MA 02476

Massachusetts Historical Commission
The MA Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125

2
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place, 6
th
floor
Boston, MA 02111

Department of Energy Resources (DOER)
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
100 Cambridge St., Suite 1020
Boston, MA 02114

Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
100 First Avenue
Charlestown Navy Yard
Boston, MA 02129

Beverly City Council
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Beverly Planning Board
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Aaron Clausen
Director of Planning and Community Development
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Beverly Conservation Commission
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Beverly Mayors Office
City Hall
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Beverly Board of Health
Senior Center
90 Colon Street
Beverly, MA 01915

Beverly Public Library
32 Essex St
Beverly, MA 01915




Timothy J . Williams, PE
Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
100 Commerce Way, Woburn, MA 01801
781-935-6889
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone 617-626-1020

The following should be completed and submitted to a local newspaper:

PUBLIC NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT: North Shore Crossing
LOCATION: Brimbal Ave & Sohier Rd, Beverly, MA
PROPONENT: CEA Beverly LLC
The undersigned is submitting an Expanded Environmental Notification Form
("ENF") to the Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs on or before
September 2, 2014
This will initiate review of the above project pursuant to the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA", M.G.L. c. 30, s.s. 61-62I). Copies of the ENF
may be obtained from:



Copies of the ENF are also being sent to the Conservation Commission and
Planning Board of City of Beverly where they may be inspected.
The Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the
Environmental Monitor, will receive public comments on the project for 20 days, and
will then decide, within ten days, if an environmental Impact Report is needed. A site
visit and consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. All persons wishing
to comment on the project, or to be notified of a site visit or consultation session, should
write to the Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900,
Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Attention: MEPA Office, referencing the above project.
By ___CEA Beverly LLC



civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com
SECTION 3.0 - ATTACHMENTS



civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com

SECTION 4.0 - APPENDIX































LIST OF MUNICIPAL, STATE, & FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit/Approval Status
Beverly Engineering Dept. Drainage Alteration Permit To be filed
Erosion/Sediment Control & Materials Management
Application

Fire Flow/Pressure Test Application
To be filed
Beverly Planning Board Special Permit Application To be filed

Design Review Board To be filed
Beverly Department of Public
Works

Sewer Connection Permit To be filed
Massachusetts Department of
Transportation
State Highway Access Permit To be filed

Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
BRP-SW25 Corrective Action Design
Authorization to Construct
Permit has been filed &
approved in 2009 for a
similar commercial
project. An updated
CAD with many of the
same features included
in 2009 will be
submitted to DEP for
approval.

US Environmental Protection
Agency
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for Construction
To be filed
EPA NPDES Notice of Intent To be filed
EPA NPDES Construction Pollution Prevention
Plan
To be filed



civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com
SECTION 5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS
STUDY



Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering




Traffic Impact and Access Study


Proposed Shopping Center
Beverly, Massachusetts




Prepared for:

CEA Beverly, LLC
1105 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2F
Cambridge, MA 02138








August 25, 2014

Ron Mller & Associates
Engineering and Consulting Services
www.RonMullerAssociates.com
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Proposed Shopping Center
Massachusetts
CEA Beverly, LLC
1105 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2F
02138




56 Teresa Road
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Tel.: (508) 395-1576
Fax: (508) 435-2481
www.RonMullerAssociates.com



Quality


Accuracy




Integrity




Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
56 Teresa Road
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Tel.: (508) 395-1576
Fax: (508) 435-2481
www.RonMullerAssociates.com



Traffic Impact and Access Study


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 1
To: Mr. Steve Cohen Reg: Proposed Shopping Center
CEA Beverly, LLC Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road
1105 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 2F Beverly, Massachusetts
Cambridge, MA 02138
Date: August 25, 2014
From: Ron Mller, P.E., Principal Project #: 13060




INTRODUCTION


Ron Mller & Associates (RMA) has conducted this Traffic Impact and Access Study to
evaluate the traffic impacts of a proposed shopping center project to be located on Brimbal
Avenue and Sohier Road, south of the existing connector road in Beverly, Massachusetts. As
proposed, the site would be developed with approximately 62,000 square feet of retail,
restaurant, and supermarket space as well as 20,000 square feet of office/medical office space on
a second floor. Access is proposed via a right-in/right-out driveway on the Connector Road and
a full access/right-turn out only driveway on Brimbal Avenue. Since the site abuts a state
highway, a Highway Access Permit will be required from MassDOT. The site location in
relation to the surrounding roadways is shown on Figure 1.

This study provides an estimate of the expected traffic generation and distribution characteristics
of the project, evaluates the impact of that traffic within the study area, and determines the
necessity for improvements to the area roadway system. As documented in this report, the
proposed shopping center will result in increases in traffic during the peak hours and impact
operations at several locations. However, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) is currently in the process of preparing design plans for significant improvements to
the Route 128 Exit 19 interchange including improvements to Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road,
and modification to the Connector Road between Brimbal Avenue and Sohier Road. The
MassDOT project has been designed to accommodate the increase in traffic from this particular
development (and others) and traffic operations after completion of this project will be
significantly better than existing. As a result, the project impacts are expected to be minimal
with little change in level of service predicted.


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 2
Figure 1
Site Location Map




Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 3
MEPA HISTORY


The project site itself has not been the subject of any review by the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) office of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA).
However, MassDOT and the City of Beverly have submitted an Expanded Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) to the MEPA office for the Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange
Improvement Project (EEA #15065). The Expanded ENF included development of a 90,000
square foot shopping center on the project site as part of the future traffic volume projections.
The Expanded ENF requested a waiver for the first phase of the interchange improvement
project that includes roadway and intersection improvements to Brimbal Avenue and Sohier
Road and the construction of new connector road with roundabouts at both Brimbal Avenue and
Sohier Road. On August 28, 2013, MEPA issued a Certificate for the interchange improvement
project granting the Phase 1 waiver. However, since this submission, the current roadway
improvement project will not relocate the existing connector road. An update based on the
current roadway configuration has been submitted which includes the current build program of
this shopping center proposal.



EXISTING CONDITIONS


Study Area

Evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed site development requires an
evaluation of existing and projected traffic volumes, the volume of traffic expected to be
generated by the project, and the impact that this traffic will have on the adjacent streets. In
preparing this study for the site and in consultation with the Beverly City Planning Department,
the following roadways and intersections were included in the study area and are shown on
Figure 2. The proposed development is expected to have a minimal effect on traffic operations
beyond this study area. The study area intersections and roadways are described in detail below.

Roadways:
Route 128
Brimbal Avenue
Sohier Road
Connector Road (Sohier Road)
Herrick Street
Colon Street
Route 1A (Dodge/Enon St.)
Route 22 (Essex Street)

Intersections:
Dodge Street and Enon Street
Laurel Street and Dodge Street
Brimbal Ave. at Route 128 southbound on-ramp and
Dunham Road
Brimbal Ave. at the Route 128 southbound off-ramp
Brimbal Avenue at Connector Road
Route 128 northbound ramps at Sohier Road and
Connector Road
Brimbal Avenue and Herrick Street
Brimbal Avenue and Colon Street
Brimbal Avenue and Essex Street (Route 22)
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 4
Figure 2
Study Area Map




Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 5
Route 128 is a limited-access state highway classified as a principal arterial, but functions more
like an interstate highway. Regionally the highway is oriented in a north/south direction, but is
generally oriented in an east/west direction through the study area. It is a circumferential
highway around metropolitan Boston and connects communities situated north and south of
Boston. Within the study area, Route 128 is a four-lane divided highway with two lanes in each
direction and interchange ramps at major intersections.

Brimbal Avenue is classified as an urban minor arterial roadway generally orientated in a
north/south direction through the study area. It provides access to Route 128 (southbound) and
serves primarily residential uses north of Route 128 and a mix of commercial and residential
uses south of Route 128. Brimbal Avenue is a two-way, two-lane roadway within the study area.

Sohier Road is an urban minor arterial generally orientated in a north/south direction through the
study area. It serves as a primary access to/from Route 128 (northbound) for downtown Beverly.
Sohier Road is a two-way, two-lane roadway within the study area and provides access to several
major businesses, the North Shore Community College Campus, and a number of residential
neighborhoods.

Connector Road (Sohier Road) is an east/west connector between Brimbal Avenue and Sohier
Road and is approximately 500 feet in length. The Connector Road is a two-way, two-lane
roadway within the study area and the surrounding area is undeveloped.

Herrick Street is an east/west major collector between Cabot Street and Brimbal Avenue.
Herrick Street is a two-way, two-lane roadway within the study area and provides access to
residential uses near the intersection with Brimbal Avenue and the Beverly Northeast Hospital
campus and other businesses near its intersection with Sohier Road.

Colon Street is an east/west local roadway between Cabot Street and Essex Street. Colon Street
is a two-way, two-lane roadway within the study area and provides access to residential uses near
the intersection with Brimbal Avenue.

Route 22 (Essex Street) is an east/west minor arterial extending east into Essex and west to the
intersection with Route 1A. Route 22 is a two-way, two-lane roadway within the study area at
the intersection with Brimbal Avenue. Route 22 within the study area primarily provides access
to commercial uses as well as an MBTA commuter rail parking lot (Montserrat).

Route 1A (Dodge Street/Enon Street) is a north/south principal arterial extending south into
Salem and north into Wenham. Route 1A is a two-way, two-lane roadway but widens to four
lanes within the study area at the intersection with Dodge Street. Route 1A within the study area
primarily provides access to commercial uses as well as an MBTA commuter rail parking lot and
train station (North Beverly).

Dodge Street and Enon Street meet to form a three-way signalized intersection. The
northbound Dodge Street (Route 1A) approach provides two through lanes and a channelized
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 6
right-turn lane while the southbound Enon Street (Route 1A) approach provides an exclusive
left-turn lane and a through lane. The westbound Dodge Street approach provides an exclusive
left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The signal operates under fully actuated three-
phase control with a protected only southbound left-turn movement. In addition, the intersection
provides an exclusive pedestrian phase as well as a train crossing preemption. During the train
preemption, the Route 1A (northbound and southbound) through movements are allowed through
a green signal indication, while southbound lefts and northbound rights have a red signal
indication. The northbound channelized right-turn lane is under signal control and stopped
during the train preemption.

Laurel Street and Dodge Street meet to form a three-way unsignalized intersection. The Dodge
Street eastbound and westbound approaches each provide a single travel lane. The Laurel Street
northbound approach provides an exclusive left-turn and an exclusive right-turn lane under
STOP-sign control.

Brimbal Avenue, the Route 128 southbound on-ramp, and Dunham Road meet to form a four-
way unsignalized intersection. The northbound Brimbal Avenue approach provides a shared
through/right-turn lane while the southbound approach provides a shared left-turn/through lane
and a channelized right-turn lane. Left turns from Brimbal Avenue northbound onto the Route
128 on-ramp are prohibited as this movement is accomplished at the adjacent intersection with
the Route 128 southbound on/off-ramps. The Dunham Road westbound approach provides a
single general-purpose approach lane under STOP-sign control. The Route 128 southbound on-
ramp only has traffic traveling away from the intersection.

Brimbal Avenue and the Route 128 southbound off-ramp meet to form a three-way
unsignalized intersection. The northbound Brimbal Avenue approach provides a through lane
and a channelized right-turn lane for traffic onto Route 128 south. The Brimbal Avenue
southbound approach provides a single through lane. The westbound Route 128 off-ramp
provides a left-turn lane and a channelized right-turn lane, both under STOP-sign control.

Brimbal Avenue, the Connector Road, and a private driveway meet to form a four-way
unsignalized intersection. The northbound Brimbal Avenue approach provides a single general-
purpose lane and the southbound approach provides a shared left-turn/through lane and a
channelized right-turn lane. The Connector Road eastbound approach provides a left-turn lane
and a channelized right-turn lane that is also used for through traffic to the driveway to 133-143
Brimbal Avenue. Both lanes are under STOP-sign control. The driveway approach provides a
single general-purpose lane.

Route 128 northbound off-ramp and Sohier Road and the Connector meet to form a three-way
unsignalized intersection. The northbound Sohier Road approach provides a through lane and a
channelized right-turn lane under YIELD control. The westbound Connector Road approach
provides a left-turn lane and a channelized right-turn lane, both under STOP-sign control. The
southbound Route 128 off-ramp approach provides a left-turn lane and a through lane.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 7
Brimbal Avenue and Herrick Street meet to form a three-way unsignalized intersection. The
Brimbal Avenue northbound and southbound approaches each provide a single travel lane. The
Herrick Street eastbound approach provides a single lane under STOP-sign control.

Brimbal Avenue and Colon Street intersect to form a four-way unsignalized intersection. The
Brimbal Avenue northbound and southbound approaches and the Colon Street eastbound and
westbound approaches all provide single-lane approaches under STOP-sign control. In addition
to the STOP-signs, there is also a flashing four-way red beacon mounted over the center of the
intersection.

Brimbal Avenue and Essex Street (Route 22) meet to form an unsignalized intersection. The
Essex Street eastbound and westbound approaches provide single lanes. The Brimbal Avenue
southbound approach provides a single lane under STOP-sign control. A retail center driveway
creates the fourth (northbound) approach to this intersection and provides a single lane operating
under stop control.


Traffic Volumes

Base traffic conditions within the study area were developed by utilizing the existing-conditions
traffic volume networks from the Functional Design Report (FDR) prepared for the Route 128
Exit 19 Interchange Improvements Project
1
and by conducting manual turning movement and
vehicle classification counts (TMCs) at the study intersections. The FDR provided 2012 volume
information for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the Brimbal Avenue/Sohier Road
interchange with Route 128 as well as the Brimbal Avenue intersection with Herrick Street. The
additional TMCs were performed in October 2013 and April 2014 to supplement the FDR data
by collecting counts at the remaining study intersections during the weekday AM peak period
(7:00 to 9:00 AM), the weekday PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM) and the Saturday midday
peak period (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM). All traffic count data are provided in the Appendix.

To determine if the count data needed to be adjusted to represent annual average month
conditions consistent with state and local guidelines for traffic impact assessment, historical
traffic volume data were obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT). Since some traffic counts were collected in 2012 and 2013, they were increased by
a 0.5 percent per year growth rate (see Future Conditions section) to represent 2014 conditions
and balanced within the study area. The MassDOT permanent count station on Route 128 in
Beverly
2
north of Brimbal Avenue shows that traffic volumes during the month of October
represent annual average month conditions but April volumes are approximately one percent
below. Accordingly, no seasonal adjustments were made to the October counts and the April
counts were increased by one percent. The MassDOT seasonal adjustment data are provided in
the Appendix.

1
Rte 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvements Project, Beverly, MA, 25% Functional Design Report; Prepared for
MassDOT & City of Beverly; Prepared by Jacobs; Dated August 2013.
2
MassDOT Automatic Traffic Recorder Report; Station 35 Route 128 north of Brimbal Avenue; Beverly,
MA; 2005 to 2009.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 8
The weekday and Saturday daily as well as the peak hour traffic flows are summarized in
Table 1. The 2014 Existing peak hour traffic flow networks are provided on Figures 3 through 5
representing the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour conditions,
respectively.


Table 1
Existing Average-Month Traffic Volume Summary


Location/
Time Period

Weekday
Daily Volume
a


Peak Hour
Volume
b



K-Factor
c


Directional
Distribution
d


Brimbal Avenue
adjacent to the Site:


17,300



AM Peak: 1,537
PM Peak: 1,488
Sat. Peak: 1,302

8.9%
8.6%
NA

55% NB
68% NB
61% NB
Connector Road
adjacent to the Site:

11,000


AM Peak: 901
PM Peak: 937
Sat. Peak: 730


8.2 %
8.5 %
NA

59% EB
69% EB
62% EB
a
In vehicles per day.
b
In vehicles per hour from TMCs.
c
Percentage of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour.
d
NB = northbound, EB = eastbound.


Accidents

Accident data for the study area intersections were obtained from MassDOT Traffic Operations
Safety Management System for the period between 2009 and 2011, the latest three years of
available data. A summary of the MassDOT accident data at the study area intersections is
provided in Table 2. In addition to the summary, accident occurrence should also be compared
to the volume of traffic through a particular intersection to determine any significance. The
accident rates for each of the study intersections were accordingly calculated and compared with
the statewide and district-wide averages. The crash rate worksheets are provided in the
Appendix.

An intersection accident rate is a measure of the frequency of accidents compared to the volume
of traffic through an intersection and is presented in accidents per million entering vehicles
(acc/mev). For signalized intersections, the statewide average accident rate is 0.80 acc/mev and
the district-wide (District 4) accident rate is 0.77 acc/mev. For unsignalized intersections, the
statewide average accident rate is 0.60 acc/mev and the district-wide accident rate is 0.58
acc/mev. A comparison of the calculated accident rate to the statewide and district-wide
averages can be used to establish the significance of accident occurrence and whether or not
potential safety problems exist.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 9
Table 2
Accident Summary


Number of Accidents

Severity
a


Accident Type
b


% During

Location

Total
Avg./
Year
Accident
Rate
c


PD

PI

F

CM

RE

HO

FO

Ped

Other
Wet/Icy
Conditions

Route 1A at Dodge
Street

15 5.00

0.50 10 5 0 5 9 1 0 0 0 20%
Dodge Street at
Laurel Street

7 2.33 0.50 6 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 29%
Brimbal Avenue at
Dunham Road

5 1.67 0.41 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 20%
Brimbal Ave. at Rte.
128 SB Off-Ramp

3 1.00

0.15 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0%
Brimbal Ave. at
Connector Road

10 3.33

0.41 7 3 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 20%
Sohier Road at Rte.
128 NB Ramps

12 4.00

0.69 7 5 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 25%
Brimbal Avenue at
Herrick Street

8 2.67 0.48 5 3 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 13%
Brimbal Avenue at
Colon Street

5 1.67 0.29 4 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0%
Brimbal Avenue at
Route 22
7 2.33 0.36 5 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 57%

Source: MassDOT Traffic Operations Safety Management System 2009 through 2011 data.
a
PD = property damage only; PI = personal injury; F = fatality.
b
CM = cross movement/angle; RE = rear end; HO = head on; FO = fixed object; Ped = pedestrian.
c
Measured in accidents per million entering vehicles (assumed PM peak hour factor of 0.09).


As shown in Table 2, only one of the nine study area intersections had a crash rate above the
district and state-wide averages. The unsignalized intersection of Sohier Road (Connector Road)
at the Route 128 northbound ramps experienced, on average, four accident per year over the
analysis period of which half were cross movements and half were rear-end type collisions.
Although the signalized intersection of Route 1A at Dodge Street had a higher per year accident
average, the volume of traffic is also higher through this intersection resulting in a lower crash
rate. The rate over the analysis period was lower than both the district and state-wide averages.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 10
Significant roadway improvements are proposed at the intersection of Sohier Road at the Route
128 northbound ramps. These improvements are independent of the proposed shopping center
project and are expected to improve the overall safety of the intersection with the construction of
a roundabout design.


Vehicle Speeds

Speed measurements were conducted along Brimbal Avenue and along Sohier Road (both south
of the Connector) as part of the FDR prepared for the interchange improvements by measuring
the elapsed time for vehicles traveling a short, pre-measured distance between two checkpoints.
These measurement recorded 85
th
percentile speeds of between 38 and 41 miles per hour (mph)
on both roadways, slightly higher than the posted speed limit of 35 mph. Although speeds were
not measured on the Connector Road, travel speeds are expected to be much lower due to the
short length of the roadway and the influence of the proposed roundabouts in the future. For the
purpose of this study, speeds of 25 mph were assumed for the future Connector Road as well as
vehicles exiting from the proposed roundabouts.


Sight Distance

To identify potential safety concerns associated with site access and egress, sight distances have
been evaluated at the proposed site driveway locations to determine if the available sight
distances for vehicles exiting the site meet or exceed the minimum distances required for
approaching vehicles to safely stop. The available sight distances were compared with minimum
requirements, as established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO)
3
. AASHTO is the national standard by which vehicle sight distance is
calculated, measured, and reported. The MassDOT and the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (EEA) require the use of AASHTO sight distance standards when
preparing traffic impact studies, as stated in their guidelines for traffic impact assessment.

Sight distance is the length of roadway ahead that is visible to the driver. Stopping Sight
Distance (SSD) is the minimum distance required for a vehicle traveling at a certain speed to
safely stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. The values are based on a driver
perception and reaction time of 2.5 seconds and a braking distance calculated for wet, level
pavements. When the roadway is either on an upgrade or downgrade, grade correction factors
are applied. Stopping sight distance is measured from an eye height of 3.5 feet to an object
height of 2 feet above street level, equivalent to the taillight height of a passenger car. The SSD
is measured along the centerline of the traveled way of the major road.

3
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 2004.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 11
Intersection sight distance (ISD) is provided on minor street approaches to allow the drivers of
stopped vehicles a sufficient view of the major roadway to decide when to enter the major
roadway. By definition, ISD is the minimum distance required for a motorist exiting a minor
street to turn onto the major street, without being overtaken by an approaching vehicle reducing
its speed from the design speed to 70 percent of the design speed. ISD is measured from an eye
height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 3.5 feet above street level. The use of an object height
equal to the driver eye height makes intersection sight distances reciprocal (i.e., if one driver can
see another vehicle, then the driver of that vehicle can also see the first vehicle). When the
minor street is on an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent, grade correction factors are applied.

SSD is generally more important as it represents the minimum distance required for safe
stopping while ISD is based only upon acceptable speed reductions to the approaching traffic
stream. However, the ISD must be equal to or greater than the minimum required SSD in order
to provide safe operations at the intersection. In accordance with the AASHTO manual, If the
available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate
stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to
anticipate and avoid collisions. However, in some cases, this may require a major-road vehicle
to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor-road vehicle. To enhance traffic
operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distances are desirable along
the major road. Accordingly, ISD should be at least equal to the distance required to allow a
driver approaching the minor road to safely stop.

The available SSD and ISD at the proposed site driveway locations were measured and
compared to minimum requirements as established by AASHTO. Since the requirements are
based on the speed of traffic on the adjacent street, the results of the vehicle speed study on the
adjacent roadways were used for this purpose. Since the proposed site driveways will restrict
exiting traffic to right-turns out only and will be located downstream from the proposed
roundabouts, the assumed roundabout speeds were used for the sight distance analysis. The
required minimum sight distances for these speeds are compared to the available distances, as
shown in Table 3.

As shown in the table, ample sight distances will exist at the proposed site driveway locations
exceeding the minimum requirement and therefore, safe operation can be expected. These
values assume landscaping, signs, and any other obstructions along the site frontage will be kept
low to the ground (less than 3 feet above street level within the sight triangles) as part of the site
development or set back sufficiently so as not to impede sight distances for drivers exiting the
site.


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 12
Table 3
Sight Distance Summary


Intersection Sight Distance (feet)

Direction Measured
Minimum
Required
a
Desirable
b


Brimbal Ave. at Site Drive
(right-out-only):
North of intersection




300
c





155




280

Connector Road at Site
Driveway (right-out only):
West of intersection



200
c




155



280

a
Values based on AASHTO SSD requirements for vehicles driving at an assumed speed of 25
mph exiting from the proposed roundabouts.
b
Values based on AASHTO ISD requirements for vehicles driving at an assumed speed of 25
mph exiting from the proposed roundabouts.
c
Sight line extends into the roundabout where vehicle travel speeds will be lower than 25 mph.


Public Transportation

Public transportation is provided within the study area by the Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority (MBTA). There is one bus route (bus number 451 North Beverly Salem Depot via
Cabot Street or Tozer Road) that runs through Beverly. The closest bus stop is at the intersection
of Sohier Road and Tozer Road, approximately one-half mile to the south of the site. There are
commuter rail stations at the northern and southern study area limits. To the north, the
Newburyport Line stops at the North Beverly Station located at the intersection of Dodge Street
and Enon Street. To the south, the Rockport Line stops at the Montserrat Station located near the
intersection of Brimbal Avenue and Route 22. Bus No. 451 provides a connection to this
commuter rail stop. The schedules for these public transportation options are provided below:

Bus 451 North Beverly to Salem Depot via Cabot Street or Tozer Toad
o Weekday runs from 6:40AM to 9:30AM and 3:20PM to 7:40PM (approximately 60
minute headways)
o No weekend service.

Newburyport/Rockport Lines
o Weekdays runs from 5:05AM to 12:00AM (approx. 40-120 minute headways)
o Weekends runs from 7:00AM to 11:00AM (approx. 120-180 minute headways)


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 13
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation

Bicycle and pedestrian accommodation is currently limited within the study area. There are no
bike lanes identified on any of the streets, although bicyclists were observed to use the roadways.
A sidewalk currently exists along the west side of Brimbal Avenue, but is in poor condition and
does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Similarly, a sidewalk exists
along the south side of the Connector Road and along the east side of Sohier Road.



FUTURE CONDITIONS


Traffic Growth

Future traffic conditions were projected to the year 2021, representing a 7-year design horizon
consistent with MassDOT requirements for traffic impact analysis and functional design reports
for highway improvement projects. To project traffic conditions within this design horizon, two
components of traffic growth were included. First, an annual average traffic growth rate was
determined to account for general population growth and smaller development projects (i.e.
residential subdivisions) that may impact traffic in the site vicinity. Based on the FDR that was
prepared for the Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Project that reviewed historical traffic volume
data from the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CPTS) and MassDOT, a 0.5 percent annual
growth rate was determined and used for the purposes of this analysis.

Second, any planned or approved specific developments in the area that would generate a
significant volume of traffic on study area roadways within the next seven years were included.
The FDR for Phase 1 of the Interchange Improvement Project included four background projects
in addition to the annual growth rate in the area of the site. These included the currently
proposed retail site as well as 600 additional employees for the Converter Power Inc. plant, 300
additional employees for the Cell Signaling Company, and 500 additional employees for the
Beverly Northeast Hospital campus. The traffic generated by the shopping center was excluded
from the No-Build volume projections for the purpose of this study as this is the site of the
proposed development project and is therefore included under the Build volume projections.

In addition, another background development project was included at the request of the Beverly
Planning Department. This project includes 125,000 square feet of research and development
space proposed by Cummings Properties to be located at 50 Dunham Road. For the purposes of
this study and at the request of the City Planning Department, this project was assumed to be a
145,000 square foot building as it is expected that the developer will request this expansion to
the project. The traffic to be generated by the background developments were estimated based
on the volume projections from the interchange improvement project FDR, as well as using trip-
generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 14
Manual
4
using Land Use Codes (LUC) for General Office Building (LUC 710), Hospital (LUC
610), and Research and Development Center (LUC 760).


Improvement Projects

MassDOT and the City of Beverly have a project (#604369) to provide improvements to Route
128, Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road, Dunham Road, Otis Road, and the Interchange 19 ramp
system. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 is currently at the 25%
design stage (submitted in September, 2013 and recently revised in June 2014) and the project is
proposed to be advertised for construction in the fall of 2014 with project completion expected in
2015.

Phase 1 includes roadway, traffic control, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to the Route 128
Interchange Exit 19 area as well a traffic control improvements to the Brimbal Avenue and
Herrick Street intersection. The Project will improve roadway capacity and safety as well as
sidewalks, accessible wheelchair ramps at intersections, and bike lanes or shared
pedestrian/bicycle paths throughout the design. The Connector Road will be improved and
include single lane roundabouts at the intersections with Sohier Road and with Brimbal Avenue.
The Sohier Road southbound approach to the new roundabout will include a through movement
by-pass lane and an exclusive left-turn lane and the northbound approach will include a through
lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The Connector Road approach will include separate left-
and right-turn lanes. At the new Brimball Avenue roundabout, the Brimball Avenue northbound
approach will include a through lane and an exclusive left-turn lane and the southbound approach
will include a single-lane for all movements. The Connector Road approach will include
separate left- and right-turn lanes.

Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are proposed within the project area that include 5-foot
wide bicycle lanes and separate sidewalks on Brimball Avenue and on Sohier Road that merge
into 14-foot wide shared use paths around both roundabouts and along the Connector Road.
Pedestrian crosswalks will be located close to the circulating roundabout since vehicle speeds are
lower in the vicinity due to the radii and deflection angles. Pedestrian crosswalks will be zig-
zagged to encourage 2-stage pedestrian crossings and preclude straight-shot 1-stage pedestrian
movements across 3 or 4 travel lanes plus refuge area width.

At the Route 128 southbound on/off ramp intersection with Brimball Avenue, lane striping will
be provided on Brimbal Avenue by creating a refuge area for left turns from the Route 128
southbound off ramp to cross northbound Brimbal Avenue traffic before merging with
southbound traffic. This two-stage left-turn movement will greatly improve peak hour traffic
operations for this movement. The intersection of Brimbal Avenue and Herrick Street will be
signalized and Brimball Avenue will be widened to provide an exclusive northbound left-turn
lane. The left-turn lane will operate with protected-permissive phasing to improve safety. This

4
Trip Generation Manual, 9
th
Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 2012
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 15
Project is part of an overall strategy of transportation and other infrastructure improvements to
provide for improved safety and congestion mitigation on the North Shore and along Route 128.

Based on the Functional Design Report (FDR) submitted with the design, the interchange project
has been designed to accommodate future traffic growth including development of the proposed
shopping center as well as several other development projects as listed previously. Accordingly,
the capacity of these improved roadways and intersections is expected to satisfy the traffic
demands projected well beyond the 2021 design year. Both the Phase 1 improvement project
and the proposed retail development project are assumed to be completed by the 2021 design
year.

Phase 2 of the Interchange Improvement Project would remove the existing Route 128
southbound ramps at Brimbal Avenue and construct a new diamond interchange by extending
Otis Street to Dunham Road. Detailed engineering and design plans will be developed as part of
a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement to be prepared by MassDOT. No timeline has
been established for Phase 2 of this project and these improvements are therefore not assumed to
be completed by the 2021 design year.


No-Build Conditions

For the weekday AM and PM peak hours, the 2021 No-Build networks were developed by
removing the assumed shopping center site traffic from the FDR Design Year volumes, adding
the fifth background development project, and increasing the volumes by an annual growth rate
of 0.5 percent to reflect 2021 design year conditions. The Saturday midday peak hour traffic
projections were developed by applying a compounded 0.5 percent annual growth rate (3.6
percent over seven years) to the existing adjacent street volumes, and by adding the traffic
volumes to be generated by the other background developments in the area. The 2021 No-Build
peak-hour traffic-flow networks are shown on Figures 6 through 8 for the weekday AM,
weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. Phase 1 of the city/state
improvement project is assumed to be completed under the 2021 future traffic volume
conditions.


Trip Generation

The traffic to be generated by the proposed shopping center was estimated using the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. For the purpose of traffic analysis, the
proposed supermarket was assumed to be 35,340 square feet in size. Since the supermarket will
represent over half of the total retail development size (35,340 square feet of the 62,340 square
foot shopping center), traffic generation for the supermarket portion of the project was estimated
separately using Land Use Code 850 (Supermarket) as this produces higher traffic generation
estimates than using shopping center trip rates for the whole development. Traffic generation for
the remaining 27,000 square feet of retail space was determined using Land Use Code 820
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 16
(Shopping Center) using the rates for a 62,340 square foot center to account for multi-purpose
trips between the two uses. For the proposed 20,000 square feet of second-floor office/medical
office space, ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical/Dental Office Building) rates were used as these
rates are higher than general office trip rates (Land Use Code 710). The resulting trips estimates
therefore produce conservatively high numbers.

Not all vehicle trips generated by the project represent new trips along the study roadways.
Studies have shown that retail developments generate a substantial amount of their business from
the traffic already present on the adjacent roadway. These trips are referred to as pass-by trips.
Based on studies contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, up to 45 percent of the traffic
generated by retail centers and supermarkets represents pass-by traffic based on their proposed
size. The ITE pass-by rates were used for the retail and supermarket components of the project.
No pass-by trips were assumed for the office/medical office component of the proposed project.
A summary of the expected traffic generation is provided in Table 4 and all trip generation and
pass-by rate data are provided in the Appendix.


Table 4
Trip Generation Summary




Time Period

27,000 sf
Shopping
Center
a



35,340 sf
Supermarket
b


20,000 sf
Medical
Office Space
c




Total Trips
d



By-Pass
Trips
e




New Trips
f


Weekday Daily

2,170 3,760 600 6,530 2,030 4,500
Weekday AM Peak
Enter
Exit
Total


32
19
51

74
46
120

38
10
48

144
75
219

29
29
58

115
46
161
Weekday PM Peak
Enter
Exit
Total


91
98
189

184
177
361

19
49
68

294
324
618

105
105
210

189
219
408
Saturday Daily

2,970 6,280 180 9,430 3,030 6,400
Saturday Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Total


145
134
279

254
245
499

42
31
73

441
410
851

139
139
278

302
271
573
a
ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) - 62,340 square foot total center size rate applied to 27,000 square feet.
b
ITE Land Use Code 850 (Supermarket) applied to 35,340 square feet.
c
ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical/Dental Office Building) applied to 20,000 square feet.
d
Shopping center plus supermarket and medical office space trips.
e
35% pass-by rate applied to proposed supermarket total trips; Shopping center PM peak hour pass-by rate (45%) and Saturday
midday peak hour pass-by rate (37%) based on ITE equation for 62,340 square feet. Weekday AM peak hour and weekday
daily based on average rate of 33%, and Saturday daily based on average pass-by rate of 28%.
f
New trips are calculated by subtracting the by-pass trips from the total expected generation.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 17
MEPA Thresholds

MEPA review of the project is required if the project requires a Highway Access Permit from
MassDOT and exceeds one or more of the following review thresholds:

Generation of 3,000 or more daily vehicle trips
Addition of 1,000 or more new parking spaces
Creation of 10 or more acres of additional impervious surface
Alteration of 50 or more acres of additional land.

As shown in Table 4, the project will generate 6,530 daily vehicle trips. The site abuts a state
highway (Connector Road) and therefore will require a Highway Access Permit from MassDOT.
Accordingly, MEPA will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Report that will
have to include (at a minimum) evaluation of Traffic, Land, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas
impacts of the project.


Trip Distribution

The distribution of proposed new site traffic on the area roadways is based on existing travel
patterns at the study area intersections, population densities, competing opportunities, and
expected travel routes to the site. Accordingly, approximately 30 percent of the new site traffic
is expected to and from the south (or west) on Route 128 and 15 percent to and from the north
(or east) on Route 128. Of the remaining 55 percent, 25 percent is expected to and from the
south on Brimbal Avenue, of which, 15 is expected to travel to and from the west on Essex Street
(Route 22), 5 percent to and from the east on Essex Street via Colon Street, and 5 percent to and
from the west on Herrick Street. To the north of the site, 10 percent of the site traffic is expected
to and from the north on Enon Street (Route 1A) and 5 percent to and from the east on Dodge
Street. The remaining 15 percent is expected to and from the south on Sohier Road. The
directional distribution of pass-by trips is expected to follow the existing travel patterns on the
adjacent roadways during the respective peak hours. The regional distribution and assignment of
traffic are summarized on Figures 9 through 11 for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday
midday peak hours, respectively.


Build Conditions

Based on the traffic generation and distribution estimates for this project, the traffic volumes
generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway network as shown on Figures 9
through 11 and were added to the 2021 No-Build traffic volumes to develop the 2021 Build
traffic volumes. The 2021 Build traffic volume networks are graphically depicted on Figures 12
through 14 for the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 18
Traffic Increases

The proposed project will result in increases in traffic on the study area roadways. As shown on
Figures 9 through 11, traffic-volume increases beyond the study area are expected to be greatest
on Route 128 due to the accessibility of the regional highway network. The next largest
increases in traffic beyond the study area are expected on Sohier Road and on Essex Street west
of Brimbal Avenue with increases of 24 to 86 peak hour vehicles. On Enon Street north of
Dodge Street, volume increases of 15 to 58 peak hour vehicles are expected. Along the
remaining study area roadways (Dodge Street east of Laurel Street, Herrick Street, and Essex
Street east of Colon Street), peak hour traffic increases in the range of 8 to 29 vehicles beyond
the study area.


Site Access

Access to the site is proposed via driveways on Brimbal Avenue south of the Connector Road
and on the Connector Road between Sohier Road and Brimbal Avenue. As part of the
MassDOT interchange project, the Connector Road will be modified and have a raised center
median separating direction of travel and will therefore allow only right-turns in and right-turns
out of the proposed site driveway. This driveway will provide one entering and one exiting lane,
under STOP-sign control. The driveway on Brimbal Avenue will be located to the south of the
proposed Connector Road roundabout, opposite the relocated driveway to 133-143 Brimball
Avenue, and allow for full access into the site, but restricted to allow right-turns out only. Left-
turn lanes will be provided on Brimbal Avenue for entering left-turn movements into the site and
into the driveway across the street so that left-turn movements will not interfere with through
traffic on Brimball Avenue.



CAPACITY ANALYSIS


Level-of-service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the study area intersections under existing
and projected volume conditions to determine the effect that the site generated traffic will have
on traffic operations. The capacity analysis methodology for signalized and unsignalized
intersections and roundabouts is based on the concepts and procedures in the Highway Capacity
Manual
5
(HCM) and is described in the Appendix. The maximum back of queue during an
average signal cycle and a 95
th
percentile signal cycle were calculated for each lane group during
the peak periods studied. The back of queue is the length of a backup of vehicles from the stop
line of a signalized intersection to the last car in the queue that is required to stop, regardless of
the signal indication. The length of this queue depends on a number of factors including signal
timing, vehicle arrival patterns, and the saturation flow rate.


5
Highway Capacity Manual 2010; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 19
For unsignalized intersections, the 95
th
percentile queue represents the length of queue of the
critical minor-street movement that is not expected to be exceeded 95 percent of the time during
the analysis period (typically one hour). In this case, the queue length is a function of the
capacity of the movement and the movements degree of saturation.

The Synchro version 8.0 analysis program was used for capacity analyses of signalized and
unsignalized intersections. The use of the 2010 HCM method has limitations as the methodology
does not support shared permitted/protected left-turn phasing at a signalized intersection.
Therefore, the 2000 HCM methodology was used for this analysis as it supports all of the
intersection configurations within the study area. For the roundabouts, the SIDRA Intersection
6.0, Standard SIDRA capacity model was used applying the HCM 2010 LOS criteria. The
level-of-service and queue results are presented in Table 5 and are discussed below. All analysis
worksheets are provided in the Appendix.


Enon Street (Route 1A) at Dodge Street

This signalized intersection currently operates at an overall LOS B during the analyzed time
periods and is expected to continue to operate at LOS B under the No-Build and Build traffic
volume conditions. All lane groups are expected to operate at acceptable levels (LOS C) or better
during the analyzed conditions. It should be noted that these analyses show conditions during
typical peak hour operations and do not account for train preemption of this signal. During a
train crossing, only the Route 1A through movements have a green signal indication while all
other movements are red until the preemption clears. Although this causes a temporary delay,
ample capacity exists for the intersection and the stopped movements are able to clear through
the intersection after a few cycles.

The following train crossing observations were made during the field inventory and traffic
counting period. During the weekday AM peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 AM), two trains went through
the intersection causing the gates to be down for nearly four minutes each time. During the
weekday PM peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 PM), one train passed through the intersection and the
gates were down for nearly two minutes. During the Saturday peak hour (12:00 to 1:00 PM),
one train went through and the gates were down for one minute and 40 seconds. The differences
in length of time that the gates are down depend on whether the trains are inbound vs. outbound
trains. During all of the traffic counting periods, outbound trains generally cause the gates to be
down between one to two minutes, while inbound trains cause the gates to be down for nearly
four minutes. This is due to the fact that when an inbound train stops at the North Beverly
station, the gates are down while passengers get on and off the train. On an outbound train, the
gates are down only during the time that the train actually crosses the intersection and the gates
go back up while passengers get on and off the train. The MBTA should consider modifying the
gate operation so intersection operations are not affected by inbound trains simply stopped at the
station.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 20
Table 5
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Enon Street (Route 1A) at Dodge Street


Weekday AM Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall


0.37
0.35
0.61
0.16
0.68
0.75
---

17.5
7.7
15.4
12.6
22.1
9.6
12.9

B
A
B
B
C
A
B

32/74
36/88
84/149
8/46
62/177
140/375
---

0.37
0.36
0.64
0.18
0.76
0.78
---

17.9
7.7
16.5
13.3
26.5
10.6
14.2

B
A
B
B
C
B
B

34/76
41/95
90/158
10/50
77/219
158/466
---

0.37
0.37
0.65
0.18
0.77
0.78
---

17.9
7.6
16.9
13.5
27.5
10.6
14.5

B
A
B
B
C
B
B

34/76
42/96
90/159
10/50
81/231
158/469
---
Weekday PM Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall


0.28
0.36
0.73
0.33
0.71
0.60
---

17.8
8.4
17.7
13.5
25.0
6.7
13.7

B
A
B
B
C
A
B

27/60
49/93
121/202
26/85
74/183
108/243
---

0.27
0.39
0.77
0.35
0.75
0.62
---

17.8
8.4
19.6
14.2
27.3
7.4
14.9

B
A
B
B
C
A
B

28/61
57/105
130/238
30/93
82/201
121/266
---

0.27
0.42
0.78
0.35
0.80
0.63
---

17.8
8.5
20.0
14.4
31.5
7.6
15.6

B
A
C
B
C
A
B

28/61
62/114
132/238
30/93
91/221
126/266
---
Saturday Midday Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall

0.32
0.39
0.78
0.28
0.73
0.72
---

17.8
7.7
20.7
14.6
25.1
9.1
15.2

B
A
C
B
C
A
B

34/71
56/101
125/236
23/77
85/199
150/336
---

0.34
0.42
0.82
0.30
0.77
0.74
---

18.0
7.8
23.0
15.1
27.4
10.1
16.5

B
A
C
B
C
B
B

37/76
63/112
135/249
26/81
94/218
168/376
---

0.33
0.45
0.84
0.31
0.83
0.75
---

18.2
7.8
24.5
15.7
32.5
10.4
17.8

B
A
C
B
C
B
B

37/76
69/123
137/249
26/81
109/250
176/376
---

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
Avg./95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 21
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Dodge Street at Laurel Street


Weekday AM Peak
WB Left
NB Left
NB Right


0.28
>1.2
0.07

6.6
NC
10.0

A
F
A

29
278
6

0.30
>1.2
0.08

7.0
NC
10.2

A
F
B

32
350
6

0.31
>1.2
0.08

7.1
NC
10.3

A
F
B

34
375
7
Weekday PM Peak
WB Left
NB Left
NB Right


0.12
0.84
0.21

4.5
57.9
12.2

A
F
B

10
179
19

0.13
1.01
0.22

4.6
96.2
12.5

A
F
B

11
261
21

0.14
>1.2
0.25

4.9
NC
12.9

A
F
B

12
341
24
Saturday Midday Peak
WB Left
NB Left
NB Right


0.12
0.88
0.13

4.5
62.0
11.0

A
F
B

11
198
11

0.13
1.03
0.14

4.6
99.0
11.3

A
F
B

12
276
12

0.15
>1.2
0.17

5.1
NC
11.6

A
F
B

13
385
15

Brimbal Avenue at Dunham Road and Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp


Weekday AM Peak
WB All
SB Left


0.23
0.02

20.9
0.6

C
A

22
1

0.49
0.04

36.4
1.0

E
A

62
3

0.51
0.04

38.8
1.0

E
A

65
3
Weekday PM Peak
WB All
SB Left


0.20
0.01

18.5
0.5

C
A

18
1

0.91
0.02

75.4
0.6

F
A

201
1

1.00
0.02

101.7
0.6

F
A

235
1
Saturday Midday Peak
WB All
SB Left

0.25
0.00

18.7
0.2

C
A

24
0

0.34
0.01

22.4
0.2

C
A

36
0

0.39
0.01

26.2
0.2

D
A

43
0

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 22
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Hour/Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Brimbal Avenue at Route 128 SB Off-Ramps


Weekday AM Peak
WB Left


1.13

101.4

F

313

>1.2

NC

F

559

>1.2

NC

F

641
Weekday PM Peak
WB Left


0.41

19.4

C

49

0.40

16.2

C

48

0.49

18.4

C

66
Sat. Midday Peak
WB Left


0.40

17.7

C

48

0.37

14.3

B

42

0.48

17.0

C

66
Brimbal Avenue at Connector Road


Weekday AM Peak
NB Left
NB Thru
SB All
WB All
EB Left
EB Right
Overall


0.08
--
0.01
0.04
>1.2
0.56
--

2.0
--
0.2
17.9
NC
19.0
--

A
--
A
C
F
C
--

7
--
0
3
686
86
--

0.13
0.40
0.90
--
0.46
0.42
--

10.4
3.6
9.3
--
11.9
7.8
7.9

B
A
A
--
B
A
A

22
0
510
--
98
81
--

0.14
0.39
0.95
--
0.54
0.45
--

10.7
3.6
14.6
--
13.5
8.8
10.4

B
A
B
--
B
A
B

23
0
717
--
132
91
--
Weekday PM Peak
NB Left
NB Thru
SB All
WB All
EB Left
EB Right
Overall


0.09
--
0.01
0.24
>1.2
0.59
--

2.2
--
0.4
25.5
NC
19.4
--

A
--
A
D
F
C
--

7
--
1
23
NC
96
--

0.17
0.45
0.65
--
0.55
0.46
--

11.5
3.6
5.1
--
11.8
7.2
6.6

B
A
A
--
B
A
A

28
0
156
--
126
89
--

0.23
0.43
0.75
--
0.84
0.56
--

13.7
3.6
7.8
--
21.0
10.0
10.8

B
A
A
--
C
B
B

42
0
235
--
397
129
--
Sat. Midday Peak
NB Left
NB Thru
SB All
WB All
EB Left
EB Right
Overall

0.06
--
0.01
0.03
>1.2
0.37
--

1.5
--
0.2
15.7
NC
13.2
--

A
--
A
C
F
B
--

5
--
0
3
302
44
--

0.08
0.40
0.59
--
0.28
0.29
--

9.5
3.6
4.4
--
11.0
6.2
5.4

A
A
A
--
B
A
A

11
0
129
--
47
47
--

0.09
0.37
0.74
--
0.62
0.42
--

11.3
3.6
6.6
--
14.3
8.4
7.9

B
A
A
--
B
A
A

16
0
216
--
168
75
--

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not calculable
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 23
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Sohier Rd. at Route 128 NB Ramps & Connector Rd.


Weekday AM Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall


3.80
---
---
---
0.29
---
---

NC
---
---
---
8.5
---
---

F
---
---
---
A
---
---

NC
---
---
---
31
---
---

0.40
0.12
0.18
0.28
0.47
0.35
--

9.4
4.8
6.4
6.2
13.1
4.0
7.7

A
A
A
A
B
A
A

81
17
29
50
89
0
--

0.40
0.13
0.20
0.31
0.52
0.35
--

9.4
4.9
6.9
6.5
13.7
4.0
8.0

A
A
A
A
B
A
A

84
19
31
58
107
0
--
Weekday PM Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall


1.40
---
---
---
0.33
---
---

246.6
---
---
---
8.9
---
---

F
---
---
---
A
---
---

445
---
---
---
37
---
---

0.21
0.21
0.41
0.51
0.41
0.17
--

10.5
5.2
7.2
7.7
10.9
4.0
7.8

B
A
A
A
B
A
A

36
36
73
110
77
0
--

0.25
0.25
0.45
0.58
0.48
0.17
--

10.6
5.2
8.6
9.7
11.3
4.0
8.7

B
A
A
A
B
A
A

44
44
87
148
95
0
--
Sat. Midday Peak
WB Left
WB Right
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
Overall


0.64
---
---
---
0.19
---
---

27.4
---
---
---
8.1
---
---

D
---
---
---
A
---
---

112
---
---
---
18
---
---

0.17
0.13
0.19
0.23
0.25
0.13
--

9.5
4.6
5.0
5.2
10.7
4.0
6.8

A
A
A
A
B
A
A

28
20
30
37
40
0
--

0.21
0.17
0.23
0.30
0.35
0.13
--

9.5
4.6
6.0
6.0
11.1
4.0
7.4

A
A
A
A
B
A
A

36
27
36
53
60
0
--
a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 24
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Brimbal Avenue at Herrick Street


Weekday AM Peak
EB All
NB All
SB All
Overall


0.72
0.04
---
---


51.3
1.0
---
---


F
A
---
---


121
3
---
---


0.55
0.62
0.65
---

16.6
6.5
7.0
7.9

B
A
A
A

28/97
84/214
71/213
---

0.56
0.65
0.67
---

17.1
6.9
7.3
8.2

B
A
A
A

31/101
91/233
76/227
---
Weekday PM Peak
EB All
NB All
SB All
Overall


>1.2
0.01
---
---


NC
0.3
---
---


F
A
---
---


395
1
---
---


0.67
0.52
0.72
---

19.0
8.2
11.7
12.2

B
A
B
B

78/208
85/158
130/248
---

0.70
0.55
0.77
---

21.0
7.9
13.1
13.3

C
A
B
B

88/219
101/175
159/289
---
Saturday Midday Peak
EB All
NB All
SB All
Overall

0.45
0.01
---
---

24.9
0.4
---
---

C
A
---
---

56
1
---
---

0.46
0.48
0.52
---

13.6
5.1
5.3
6.3

B
A
A
A

19/63
50/123
52/134
---

0.51
0.53
0.58
---

14.5
5.5
6.0
6.9

B
A
A
A

23/79
62/156
67/172
---

Brimbal Avenue at Colon Street


Weekday AM Peak
EB All
WB All
NB All
SB All


0.79
1.00
0.96
1.00

40.9
83.8
66.6
81.6

E
F
F
F

---
---
---
---


0.83
1.00
1.00
1.00

45.8
114.9
104.4
107.6

E
F
F
F


---
---
---
---


0.83
1.00
1.00
1.00

45.8
120.3
120.2
117.0

E
F
F
F

---
---
---
---

Weekday PM Peak
EB All
WB All
NB All
SB All


0.58
0.65
0.66
1.00

21.4
23.5
24.1
70.9

C
C
C
F

---
---
---
---


0.62
0.69
0.72
1.00

23.4
26.6
28.1
120.2

C
D
D
F

---
---
---
---


0.64
0.73
0.80
1.00

25.1
29.9
35.5
178.5

D
D
E
F

---
---
---
---

Saturday Midday Peak
EB All
WB All
NB All
SB All

0.43
0.42
0.66
0.76

15.4
15.0
21.3
26.7

C
B
C
D

---
---
---
---

0.48
0.49
0.76
0.91

17.7
17.5
28.9
44.8

C
C
D
E

---
---
---
---

0.50
0.55
0.89
1.00

19.4
20.0
44.6
90.0

C
C
E
F

---
---
---
---

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 25
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Brimbal Avenue at Essex Road (Rte. 22) and Retail Driveway


Weekday AM Peak
EB Left
WB Left
NB All
SB All


0.35
0.00
1.19
0.75

7.3
0.1
469.2
39.4

A
A
F
E

39
0
91
146

0.40
0.00
>1.2
0.89


8.3
0.1
NC
62.8

A
A
F
F

49
0
108
209

0.42
0.00
>1.2
0.94

8.6
0.1
NC
74.8

A
A
F
F

53
0
112
236
Weekday PM Peak
EB Left
WB Left
NB All
SB All


0.24
0.00
0.99
0.83

5.4
0.1
397.2
44.2

A
A
F
E

24
0
77
198

0.26
0.00
>1.2
0.95

5.7
0.1
NC
64.4

A
A
F
F

26
0
90
269

0.29
0.00
>1.2
1.05

6.1
0.1
NC
90.3

A
A
F
F

30
0
99
344
Saturday Midday Peak
EB Left
WB Left
NB All
SB All

0.24
0.00
0.32
0.54

5.7
0.1
72.4
18.4

A
A
F
C

24
0
30
80

0.26
0.00
0.40
0.61

5.9
0.1
98.1
20.8

A
A
F
C

26
0
38
100

0.30
0.00
0.56
0.70

6.4
0.1
162.1
25.5

A
A
F
D

31
0
52
138

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable





Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 26
Table 5 (continued)
Level-of-Service Analysis Summary


Location/Peak Hour

2014 Existing

2021 No-Build

2021 Build
Movement v/c
a
Del.
b
LOS
c
Queue
d
v/c Del. LOS Queue v/c Del. LOS Queue

Brimbal Avenue at Proposed Site Driveway


Weekday AM Peak
EB Right
WB All
NB Left
SB Left


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


0.07
0.26
0.05
0.01

14.8
63.5
9.7
10.0

B
F
A
B

5
24
4
1
Weekday PM Peak
EB Right
WB All
NB Left
SB Left


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


0.22
0.43
0.12
0.02

16.5
121.5
10.0
10.2

C
F
B
B

21
39
10
1
Sat. Midday Peak
EB Right
WB All
NB Left
SB Left


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


--
--
--
--


0.26
0.28
0.16
0.01

15.5
68.9
10.0
9.3

C
F
B
A

26
25
15
1
Connector Road at Site Drive & 133-143 Driveway


Weekday AM Peak
EB All
NB Right


--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

0.27
0.09

0.0
11.3

A
B

0
7
Weekday PM Peak
EB All
NB Right


--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

0.35
0.52

0.0
19.5

A
C

0
74
Sat. Midday Peak
EB All
NB Right

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

--
--

0.21
0.50

0.0
15.7

A
C

0
69

a
Volume-to-capacity ratio
b
Average control delay in seconds per vehicle
c
Level of service
d
95th percentile queue in feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle
NC = Not Calculable
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 27
Dodge Street at Laurel Street

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with very long left-turn delays on the Laurel
Street northbound approach during existing peak hours. Under the existing AM peak hour, this
movement operates over capacity (v/c > 1.0). This movement is further impacted by the
commuter rail crossing located just to the west of the intersection. Under the No-Build
condition, the inclusion of general traffic growth and planned background development projects
(independent of the proposed project) results in the Laurel Street left-turn lane operating over
capacity also during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. The proposed project
will result in additional traffic through this intersection, particularly during the weekday PM and
Saturday midday peak hours, with increased delays for northbound left turns onto Dodge Street.

Based on a review of the signal plans for the Route 1A and Dodge Street intersection and
discussions with MassDOT, the Dodge Street and Laurel Street intersection was previously
controlled as a signalized intersection as part of the Route 1A and Dodge Street signal system.
However, due to local complaints of poor traffic operations and long delays, the signal
equipment controlling this intersection was removed in 2007. Although preliminary analyses of
the intersections assuming that Laurel Street is again signalized show that LOS B to C operations
could be attained at both intersections under Build volume conditions, it is expected that such
control would not be installed given the past results. Fine-tuning of the signal equipment was
attempted at the time and yielded little result. The long delays and queues currently experienced
on the Dodge Street and Laurel Avenue approaches are also caused in large part by the railroad
crossing and the length of time that the gates are down, particularly during the morning peak
hour. The MBTA should consider modifying the gate operation so intersection operations are
not affected by inbound trains simply stopped at the station. This would greatly reduce vehicle
queuing on the Dodge Street westbound and Laurel Street northbound approaches during times
that the railroad gates are down.


Brimbal Avenue at Route 128 Southbound Ramps and Dunham Road

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with the westbound Dunham Road approach at
LOS C, well under capacity (maximum v/c ratio of 0.25) during the analyzed time periods. All
other movements operate at LOS A during these time periods. Under future volume conditions,
significant increases in delay are expected during the weekday peak hours as a result of the
background development projects assumed under the No-Build conditions, particularly the
research and development facility proposed at 50 Dunham Road. Level-of-service E to F
conditions are projected for turns exiting Dunham Road. Under the Build condition, these delays
are expected to increase slightly as a result of the additional through traffic on Brimbal Avenue,
but operating conditions will remain essentially the same. If Phase 2 of the Exit 19 Interchange
Improvement Project is constructed, these delays are expected to be mitigated through the
construction of new interchange ramps directly to and from Dunham Road.


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 28
Brimbal Avenue at the Route 128 Southbound Off-Ramp

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with the westbound Route 128 southbound off-
ramp left-turn movement at LOS F and over capacity (v/c = 1.13) during the weekday AM time
period. During the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, this movement operates at an
acceptable LOS C. All other movements operate at LOS A during the analyzed time periods.
The Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project proposes improvements to this
intersection including the provision of a center receiving lane on Brimbal Avenue allowing left-
turning traffic exiting the ramp to cross northbound Brimbal Avenue traffic before merging into
the southbound Brimbal Avenue traffic flow. While this improvement adds capacity to the
intersection, the additional traffic from the background development projects included in the
traffic projections, particularly the research and development facility at 50 Dunham Road, still
causes left turns from the ramp to operate at LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour. During
all other time periods, LOS B to C operations are expected. The addition of site traffic does not
significantly affect operations with minimal increases in delay and queuing noted on the
individual approach lanes. If Phase 2 of the Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project is
constructed, these delays would be eliminated by removing the Route 128 on and off ramps at
this location.


Brimbal Avenue at Connector Road

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with very long delays and queues on the
eastbound Connector Road left-turn movement at LOS F and over capacity (v/c > 1.0) during all
analyzed time periods, but particularly during the weekday PM peak hour. Queues during this
time period frequently back up to Sohier Road and beyond. All other movements operate at
acceptable levels. As part of the proposed Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project,
this unsignalized intersection will be replaced with a single lane roundabout with two approach
lanes provided on the northbound and eastbound approaches. These improvements will add
significant capacity to the intersection with an overall LOS B or better during all time periods
and with all lane groups operating at LOS C or better under No-Build and Build conditions. The
addition of site traffic does not significantly affect operations with minimal increases in delay
and queuing noted on the individual approach lanes.


Sohier Road at Route 128 Northbound Ramps and Connector Road

Similar to the Brimbal Avenue and Connector Road intersection, this unsignalized intersection
currently operates with long delays and queues on the westbound Connector Road left-turn
movement at LOS F and over capacity (v/c > 1.0) during the weekday AM and PM time periods.
During the Saturday midday peak hour, this movement operates at acceptable levels. The
MassDOT Interchange Improvement Project will replace the current traffic control with a single
lane roundabout with two approach lanes on all three legs of the roundabout. These
improvements will add significant capacity to the intersection with an overall LOS A during all
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 29
time periods and with all lane groups operating at LOS B or better under No-Build and Build
conditions. The addition of site traffic does not significantly affect operations with minimal
increases in delay and queuing noted on the individual approach lanes.


Brimbal Avenue at Herrick Street

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with very long delays and queues on the
eastbound Herrick Street approach during the weekday AM and weekday PM time periods. As
part of the proposed Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project, this intersection will
be placed under signal control. Under signal control with the future No-Build and Build traffic
volumes, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B or better and all lane groups
at LOS C or better during the analyzed time periods. The addition of site traffic does not
significantly affect operations with minimal increases in delay and queuing noted on the
individual approach lanes.


Brimbal Avenue at Colon Street

This all-way STOP controlled unsignalized intersection currently operates with long delays on
the Colon Street westbound and Brimbal Avenue southbound approaches during the weekday
AM peak hour. Under future No-Build and Build traffic volume conditions, these delays are
expected to be exacerbated. Capacity constraints are also expected during the weekday PM and
Saturday midday peak hours under the future volume conditions on the Brimbal Avenue
northbound and southbound approaches with LOS E to F conditions. As previously described,
the proposed retail project will have little impact during the weekday AM peak hour. During the
weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, increases in delay will be experienced, particularly on the
Brimbal Avenue approaches with LOS E to F. Based on existing peak hour volumes, this
intersection meets the peak hour warrant for installation of a traffic control signal. Additional
study would be required to determine if 8-hour volume warrants would also be met. Since
capacity constraints currently exist at this location, consideration should be given to signalizing
this intersection independent of the proposed project. With such control, this intersection could
operate at LOS B to C during the peak hours with simple two-phase operation. Roadway
widening to provide separate turn lanes would not be required to achieve these service levels.


Brimbal Avenue at Essex Road (Route 22) and retail driveway

This unsignalized intersection currently operates with long delays on the northbound retail
driveway under Existing conditions. However, vehicles from the retail driveway have the option
to use the other retail driveway located further to the east which has a significant less intersection
volume and fewer movement conflicts. Under future traffic volume conditions, the southbound
approach is expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours
independent of the proposed retail project. The development will add traffic to the southbound
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 30
right turn and eastbound left turn movements. These movements, however, have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic. Independent of the project, since capacity
constraints currently exist at this intersection, consideration should be given to modifying the
southbound Brimbal Avenue approach to create a short channelized right-turn lane placed under
YIELD-control. This would minimize any queuing created by vehicles waiting to turn left from
Brimbal Avenue onto Essex Street.


Brimbal Avenue at the Proposed Site Driveway and Driveway to 133-143 Brimball Avenue

With the right-turn out only restriction, the site driveway unsignalized approach to Brimbal
Avenue is expected to operate at LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour and LOS C during
the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. As proposed, exclusive left-turn lanes are
proposed on both the northbound and southbound Brimbal Avenue approaches and are expected
to operate at LOS B or better. These lanes will separate left-turning traffic from the through
traffic on Brimbal Avenue minimizing the proposed driveway impact. Although the driveway to
133-143 Brimbal Avenue was not included as part of the Route 128 Interchange Improvement
FDR, volumes for this driveway were estimated and analyzed as part of the proposed site
driveway. Based on these assumed volumes, it is expected that delays may be experienced for
vehicles turning left out of the 133-143 Brimbal Avenue driveway. However, based on these
volumes it is expected that the driveway would likely operate under capacity with vehicle queues
of two vehicles or less.


Connector Road at the Proposed Site Driveway

This unsignalized intersection is expected to operate at desirable levels with little to no delay and
the northbound site driveway right-turn movement at LOS C or better during the analyzed time
periods. All other movements are expected to operate at LOS A.



MITIGATION


The final phase of the transportation analysis process is to identify any measures necessary to
improve existing or projected traffic operations as well as mitigate the effects of the project on
the transportation system. As documented in the Capacity Analysis section of this report, the
MassDOT Interchange Improvement Project will provide ample capacity at the Connector Road
intersections with Brimbal Avenue and with Sohier Road through the creation of new
roundabouts. In addition, the MassDOT project will provide improved capacity for the Route
128 southbound off-ramp left-turn movement and greatly improve traffic operations at the
Brimbal Avenue and Herrick Street intersection through the installation of a traffic signal. Since
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 31
the MassDOT project accounted for the traffic from the proposed shopping center, no additional
improvements are necessary at these locations.

However, other study area intersections not included in the MassDOT Route 128 Interchange
Project show capacity constraints under existing and/or No-Build conditions, independent of the
proposed project. Many of these constraints occur during the weekday AM peak hour when the
proposed retail project is not expected to have a significant impact. Additional measures are
described in the analysis section for potential improvements independent of the proposed retail
project.


Transportation Demand Management Program

The proponent is committed to implementing a number of Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures aimed at reducing vehicular traffic to and from the site. Retail establishments
in general do not lend themselves well to TDM measures since most of the traffic is customer
related. However, in an effort to minimize the dependency on the private automobile and
maximize employee vehicle occupancy, the proponent will implement the following measures
and encourage tenants to have their employees make use of them.

Transportation Management Association (TMA)

The proponent is committed to joining the North Shore Transportation Management Association
(TMA), a non-profit transportation and environmental organization that is working to address
transportation issues in Beverly, Danvers, Lynn, Peabody, and Salem. The North Shore TMA's
mission is to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, improve air quality, and enhance
access by promoting and advocating for transportation options that support environmental/
sustainability goals and promote business and municipal economic development objectives.

The proponent will promote a variety of measures to its tenants and their employees and
collaborate with the North Shore TMA in shared commuter services, including:

Registering each employee in a commuter database, which the North Shore TMA can
use to develop and market commuter services to employees.
Supporting the North Shore TMAs efforts to organize vanpools of employees from the
various tenants within the shopping center and surrounding businesses.

Pedestrian/Bicycle Linkages

The Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project currently under design by MassDOT
will include extensive pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Brimbal Avenue, Sohier
Road, and the new Connector Road. The proponent will provide internal pedestrian linkages
from the site to these new sidewalks and bicycle lanes. In addition, the proponent will install
high-security bicycle racks on site. Bicycle racks encourage employees and customers to bike-
ride to the site by allowing them a secure place to store their bicycles.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 32
Public Transportation

The nearest MBTA commuter rail station is the North Beverly station located nearly one mile
north of the site at the corner of Enon Street and Dodge Street. The train station is accessible
from the site via Bus No. 451 that provides a stop at the corner of Sohier Road and Tozer Road,
located approximately one-half mile to the south of the site. The proponent will encourage
tenants within the shopping center to make use of public transportation and to offer their
employees a transit subsidy. The proponent will also encourage tenants to post MBTA transit
schedules in prominent places within the buildings (such as employee break rooms).

Direct Deposit

The proponent will encourage tenants within the shopping center to offer direct deposit of
employee paychecks to minimize the need for separate trips to employees banks.

Carpooling Program

The proponent will encourage tenants to institute a ride matching program to assist employees in
finding appropriate carpool matches. To encourage carpooling, the proponent will designate
preferential parking spaces for employees that use carpools.

Truck Deliveries

The proponent will work with tenants to make all efforts to schedule truck deliveries and service
vehicles during off-peak times to minimize the impact of trucks on pedestrians and bicyclists
during the busiest shopping times and to reduce the projects impacts on peak hour traffic
operations.

Rideshare Program

To actively reach out to employees, the proponent will work with tenants to implement a
Commuter Services Program that can motivate employees to seek alternatives to driving to
work alone by doing the following:

Post and distribute announcements.
Hold promotional events to encourage ridesharing, public transit, bicycling and walking.
Monitor the program and assist in the evaluation.
Act as a resource and provide transit schedules and other up-to-date information about
the program's services.
Offer a guaranteed ride home for employees in emergency situations.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 33
By using the programs described above, it is possible for the development to reduce its drive-
alone population. However, there are a variety of inherent constraints that prohibit immediate
success, including:

The project includes the leasing of retail space to smaller tenants.
Many employees of retail establishments work irregular hours, which make it difficult to
carpool every day. To accommodate for this, casual carpools will be promoted where
employees can participate in the program even if they carpool one day per week.

Employee attitudes toward carpooling are such that an education process must take place to
change behavior and improve the perception of ridesharing. Since people are reluctant to give up
their automobiles, this will take time.


Traffic/TDM Monitoring

The proponent is committed to this programs success and will continually work with the North
Shore TMA, MassDOT, the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), the MBTA, and
MassRIDES, the Commonwealths travel options service, to implement and fine-tune this
comprehensive TDM program for the project. As part of the annual traffic monitoring program,
the proponent will prepare a report on the implementation and effectiveness of the TDM program
and submit the results to MassDOT, MAPC, MassRIDES, and the City of Beverly.

The proponent will also monitor the traffic entering and exiting the site driveway once per year
following initial occupancy of the site. The monitoring program will continue for five years
following full occupancy and will include 24-hour Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts
over a seven-day, weeklong period, and weekday AM, PM, and Saturday peak-hour turning
movement counts. The proponent will submit the results of these monitoring programs to the
MassDOT District 4 and Boston offices, as well as to MAPC, MassRIDES, and the City of
Beverly.



CONCLUSIONS


Existing and future conditions at the study area intersections have been described and analyzed
with respect to traffic operations and the impact of the proposed site development. Conclusions
of this effort and recommendations are presented below.


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 34
The proposed development includes the construction of a total of 82,340 square feet of
retail and office/medical office space including a 35,340 square foot supermarket, 27,000
square feet of general retail and restaurant space, and 20,000 square feet of second floor
office/medical office space. Site access is proposed via a right-in/right-out driveway on
the Connector Road and a driveway on Brimbal Avenue south of the Connector Road.
Minimum sight distance requirements are exceeded at these locations.

The proposed shopping center is expected to generate 4,500 new weekday daily vehicle
trips of which 161 trips would occur during the weekday AM peak hour and 408 trips
during the weekday PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the project is expected to generate
6,400 new daily vehicle trips with 573 trips occurring during the midday peak hour.

Traffic-volume increases on Route 128 are expected to range between 24 and 172
vehicles during the peak hours. Traffic increases beyond Route 128 and the study area
are expected in the range of 8 to 86 vehicles during the peak hours. These increases
represent, on average, as little as one additional vehicle every seven minutes during peak
hours to as much as 1.5 additional vehicles per minute during peak hours.

The proposed shopping center will generate traffic that will exceed the thresholds of the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and will therefore require the
submission of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

MassDOT and the City of Beverly have a project to provide improvements to Route 128
Interchange 19 ramp system (Project No. 604369). Phase 1 of the project includes
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road, the
Connector Road, the Route 128 southbound off-ramp, and Herrick Street and is currently
at the 25 percent design stage. The project is proposed to be advertised for construction
in the fall of 2014 with project completion expected in 2015. MassDOT has designed the
improvement project to accommodate the proposed site development.

With the proposed MassDOT improvements and traffic increases as a result of the
project, acceptable traffic operations can be expected at the study locations near the
project site during the analyzed time periods.

Some study area intersections further from the project site either currently experience, or
are expected to experience long delays as a result of general population growth and other
development planned in the area. Recommendations independent of the project are
described in the analysis section of this report. These include:

o Modifying the railroad crossing gate operation at the Route 1A and Dodge Street
intersection so traffic operations are not affected by inbound trains simply stopped
at the station.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts


13060 TIAS 082514.docx Page 35
o Advancing Phase 2 of the Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange Improvement Project to
mitigate delays at the Brimbal Avenue intersections with Dunham Road and with
the Route 128 southbound ramps.
o Installing a traffic control signal at the Brimbal Avenue and Colon Street
intersection.
o Modifying the southbound Brimbal Avenue approach to Essex Street to create a
short channelized right-turn lane placed under YIELD-control.

The proposed site driveway approaches to Brimbal Avenue and the Connector Road are
expected to operate at LOS C or better with ample capacity to accommodate the expected
site traffic. With the proposed turn restrictions and provision of left-turn lanes on
Brimbal Avenue, the proposed site driveways are expected to have little impact on traffic
operation along the roadways adjacent to the driveways.

The proponent will implement a number of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures aimed at reducing the reliance on single occupancy vehicle trips to the site.
These include joining the North Shore Transportation Management Association,
encouraging tenants of the shopping center to register their employees in a commuter
database, installing pedestrian and bicycle linkages and secure bicycle racks on site,
encouraging tenants of offer transit subsidies to employees, providing direct deposit of
employees paychecks, and limiting truck deliveries during peak hours. Finally, the
proponent will implement a traffic monitoring program that will include traffic counts at
the site driveways and monitoring the success of the TDM programs.
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



APPENDIX

Traffic Count Data
Seasonal/Historical Adjustment Data
Crash Rate Worksheets
Trip Generation Worksheets
Capacity Analysis Methodology and Worksheets



Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



Traffic Count Data

File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Dunham Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dunham Road/Rte 128 Ramp
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Dunham Road
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Rte 128 Ramp
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 3 88 36 0 127 4 8 4 0 16 0 71 11 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 225
11:15 AM 2 89 30 0 121 4 10 4 3 21 0 71 10 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 223
11:30 AM 0 88 31 0 119 6 5 2 1 14 0 104 12 0 116 0 0 0 1 1 250
11:45 AM 3 71 42 0 116 6 7 5 2 20 0 97 12 0 109 0 0 0 1 1 246
Total 8 336 139 0 483 20 30 15 6 71 0 343 45 0 388 0 0 0 2 2 944
12:00 PM 0 83 23 0 106 17 12 3 0 32 0 86 7 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 231
12:15 PM 4 64 26 0 94 7 3 5 1 16 0 91 9 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 210
12:30 PM 3 63 31 0 97 4 8 4 1 17 0 86 8 0 94 0 0 0 2 2 210
12:45 PM 2 90 30 0 122 3 2 1 1 7 0 93 4 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 226
Total 9 300 110 0 419 31 25 13 3 72 0 356 28 0 384 0 0 0 2 2 877
01:00 PM 0 64 26 0 90 3 3 2 3 11 0 81 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 183
01:15 PM 2 83 32 0 117 7 1 3 0 11 1 89 13 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 231
01:30 PM 5 59 28 0 92 3 4 2 2 11 1 84 7 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 195
01:45 PM 4 75 10 0 89 3 2 4 1 10 0 81 6 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 186
Total 11 281 96 0 388 16 10 11 6 43 2 335 27 0 364 0 0 0 0 0 795
Grand Total 28 917 345 0 1290 67 65 39 15 186 2 1034 100 0 1136 0 0 0 4 4 2616
Apprch % 2.2 71.1 26.7 0 36 34.9 21 8.1 0.2 91 8.8 0 0 0 0 100
Total % 1.1 35.1 13.2 0 49.3 2.6 2.5 1.5 0.6 7.1 0.1 39.5 3.8 0 43.4 0 0 0 0.2 0.2
Cars 28 907 341 0 1276 66 64 37 15 182 2 1026 97 0 1125 0 0 0 4 4 2587
% Cars 100 98.9 98.8 0 98.9 98.5 98.5 94.9 100 97.8 100 99.2 97 0 99 0 0 0 100 100 98.9
Trucks 0 10 4 0 14 1 1 2 0 4 0 8 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 29
% Trucks 0 1.1 1.2 0 1.1 1.5 1.5 5.1 0 2.2 0 0.8 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.1
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Dunham Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dunham Road/Rte 128 Ramp
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Dunham Road
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Rte 128 Ramp
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:15 AM
11:15 AM 2 89 30 0 121 4 10 4 3 21 0 71 10 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 223
11:30 AM 0 88 31 0 119 6 5 2 1 14 0 104 12 0 116 0 0 0 1 1 250
11:45 AM 3 71 42 0 116 6 7 5 2 20 0 97 12 0 109 0 0 0 1 1 246
12:00 PM 0 83 23 0 106 17 12 3 0 32 0 86 7 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 231
Total Volume 5 331 126 0 462 33 34 14 6 87 0 358 41 0 399 0 0 0 2 2 950
% App. Total 1.1 71.6 27.3 0 37.9 39.1 16.1 6.9 0 89.7 10.3 0 0 0 0 100
PHF .417 .930 .750 .000 .955 .485 .708 .700 .500 .680 .000 .861 .854 .000 .860 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .950
Cars 5 329 124 0 458 33 33 14 6 86 0 354 40 0 394 0 0 0 2 2 940
% Cars 100 99.4 98.4 0 99.1 100 97.1 100 100 98.9 0 98.9 97.6 0 98.7 0 0 0 100 100 98.9
Trucks 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10
% Trucks 0 0.6 1.6 0 0.9 0 2.9 0 0 1.1 0 1.1 2.4 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 1.1
Brimbal Ave

R
t
e

1
2
8

R
a
m
p


D
u
n
h
a
m

R
o
a
d

Brimbal Ave
Right
124
2
126
Thru
329
2
331
Left
5
0
5
Peds
0
0
0
In Out Total
368 458 826
4 4 8
372 834 462
R
i
g
h
t
1
4

0

1
4

T
h
r
u
3
3

1

3
4

L
e
f
t
3
3

0

3
3

P
e
d
s
6

0

6

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
5

8
6

1
3
1

1

1

2

4
6

1
3
3

8
7

Left
0
0
0
Thru
354
4
358
Right
40
1
41
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
362 394 756
2 5 7
364 763 399
L
e
f
t
0

0

0

T
h
r
u
0

0

0

R
i
g
h
t 0

0

0

P
e
d
s
2

0

2

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
1
5
7

2

1
5
9

3

0

3

1
6
0

1
6
2

2

Peak Hour Begins at 11:15 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Sohier Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Sohier Road/133 Brimbal Ave
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
133 Brimbal Ave
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Sohier Road
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 2 61 24 0 87 1 0 2 0 3 9 87 0 0 96 46 2 47 0 95 281
11:15 AM 2 68 37 0 107 1 0 2 0 3 14 86 0 0 100 45 2 50 0 97 307
11:30 AM 2 84 33 0 119 0 0 3 0 3 10 102 0 0 112 49 1 48 0 98 332
11:45 AM 1 57 27 0 85 0 0 4 0 4 21 123 0 0 144 50 3 64 0 117 350
Total 7 270 121 0 398 2 0 11 0 13 54 398 0 0 452 190 8 209 0 407 1270
12:00 PM 1 80 32 0 113 0 0 7 0 7 11 111 0 0 122 32 1 37 0 70 312
12:15 PM 1 60 36 0 97 1 0 2 0 3 6 112 0 0 118 33 0 52 0 85 303
12:30 PM 2 60 27 0 89 0 0 2 0 2 13 128 0 0 141 42 0 54 0 96 328
12:45 PM 2 71 31 0 104 1 0 3 0 4 17 134 1 0 152 43 0 48 0 91 351
Total 6 271 126 0 403 2 0 14 0 16 47 485 1 0 533 150 1 191 0 342 1294
01:00 PM 1 60 23 0 84 0 1 4 0 5 16 123 0 0 139 47 3 64 0 114 342
01:15 PM 0 77 38 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 22 117 1 0 140 59 1 57 0 117 372
01:30 PM 1 64 23 0 88 2 0 2 0 4 16 117 1 0 134 32 3 55 0 90 316
01:45 PM 1 64 32 0 97 0 0 1 0 1 11 114 3 0 128 53 7 39 0 99 325
Total 3 265 116 0 384 2 1 7 0 10 65 471 5 0 541 191 14 215 0 420 1355
Grand Total 16 806 363 0 1185 6 1 32 0 39 166 1354 6 0 1526 531 23 615 0 1169 3919
Apprch % 1.4 68 30.6 0 15.4 2.6 82.1 0 10.9 88.7 0.4 0 45.4 2 52.6 0
Total % 0.4 20.6 9.3 0 30.2 0.2 0 0.8 0 1 4.2 34.5 0.2 0 38.9 13.5 0.6 15.7 0 29.8
Cars 16 783 360 0 1159 6 1 31 0 38 163 1331 6 0 1500 515 23 602 0 1140 3837
% Cars 100 97.1 99.2 0 97.8 100 100 96.9 0 97.4 98.2 98.3 100 0 98.3 97 100 97.9 0 97.5 97.9
Trucks 0 23 3 0 26 0 0 1 0 1 3 23 0 0 26 16 0 13 0 29 82
% Trucks 0 2.9 0.8 0 2.2 0 0 3.1 0 2.6 1.8 1.7 0 0 1.7 3 0 2.1 0 2.5 2.1
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Sohier Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Sohier Road/133 Brimbal Ave
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
133 Brimbal Ave
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Sohier Road
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:30 PM
12:30 PM 2 60 27 0 89 0 0 2 0 2 13 128 0 0 141 42 0 54 0 96 328
12:45 PM 2 71 31 0 104 1 0 3 0 4 17 134 1 0 152 43 0 48 0 91 351
01:00 PM 1 60 23 0 84 0 1 4 0 5 16 123 0 0 139 47 3 64 0 114 342
01:15 PM 0 77 38 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 22 117 1 0 140 59 1 57 0 117 372
Total Volume 5 268 119 0 392 1 1 9 0 11 68 502 2 0 572 191 4 223 0 418 1393
% App. Total 1.3 68.4 30.4 0 9.1 9.1 81.8 0 11.9 87.8 0.3 0 45.7 1 53.3 0
PHF .625 .870 .783 .000 .852 .250 .250 .563 .000 .550 .773 .937 .500 .000 .941 .809 .333 .871 .000 .893 .936
Cars 5 262 118 0 385 1 1 9 0 11 68 493 2 0 563 186 4 219 0 409 1368
% Cars 100 97.8 99.2 0 98.2 100 100 100 0 100 100 98.2 100 0 98.4 97.4 100 98.2 0 97.8 98.2
Trucks 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 5 0 4 0 9 25
% Trucks 0 2.2 0.8 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 1.6 2.6 0 1.8 0 2.2 1.8
Brimbal Ave

S
o
h
i
e
r

R
o
a
d


1
3
3

B
r
i
m
b
a
l

A
v
e

Brimbal Ave
Right
118
1
119
Thru
262
6
268
Left
5
0
5
Peds
0
0
0
In Out Total
688 385 1073
14 7 21
702 1094 392
R
i
g
h
t9

0

9

T
h
r
u
1

0

1

L
e
f
t
1

0

1

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
1

1
1

2
2

0

0

0

1
1

2
2

1
1

Left
68
0
68
Thru
493
9
502
Right
2
0
2
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
482 563 1045
10 9 19
492 1064 572
L
e
f
t
1
8
6

5

1
9
1

T
h
r
u
4

0

4

R
i
g
h
t
2
1
9

4

2
2
3

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
1
8
7

4
0
9

5
9
6

1

9

1
0

1
8
8

6
0
6

4
1
8

Peak Hour Begins at 12:30 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Herrick Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Herrick Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Brimbal Ave
From South
Herrick Street
From West
Start Time Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 72 19 0 91 3 108 1 112 18 0 0 18 221
11:15 AM 73 14 1 88 0 83 0 83 20 1 0 21 192
11:30 AM 85 30 0 115 1 106 0 107 27 1 0 28 250
11:45 AM 84 19 0 103 1 82 0 83 26 1 0 27 213
Total 314 82 1 397 5 379 1 385 91 3 0 94 876
12:00 PM 80 32 2 114 4 99 0 103 29 0 0 29 246
12:15 PM 76 12 0 88 2 85 0 87 27 1 0 28 203
12:30 PM 76 22 0 98 2 90 0 92 28 2 1 31 221
12:45 PM 77 23 0 100 2 99 1 102 28 0 0 28 230
Total 309 89 2 400 10 373 1 384 112 3 1 116 900
01:00 PM 76 26 0 102 5 92 4 101 31 6 0 37 240
01:15 PM 109 20 0 129 4 103 1 108 29 5 0 34 271
01:30 PM 57 24 2 83 2 81 0 83 31 2 2 35 201
01:45 PM 84 23 0 107 1 91 1 93 26 2 0 28 228
Total 326 93 2 421 12 367 6 385 117 15 2 134 940
Grand Total 949 264 5 1218 27 1119 8 1154 320 21 3 344 2716
Apprch % 77.9 21.7 0.4 2.3 97 0.7 93 6.1 0.9
Total % 34.9 9.7 0.2 44.8 1 41.2 0.3 42.5 11.8 0.8 0.1 12.7
Cars 946 264 5 1215 27 1118 8 1153 319 21 3 343 2711
% Cars 99.7 100 100 99.8 100 99.9 100 99.9 99.7 100 100 99.7 99.8
Trucks 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 5
% Trucks 0.3 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.2
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Herrick Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Herrick Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Brimbal Ave
From South
Herrick Street
From West
Start Time Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:30 PM
12:30 PM 76 22 0 98 2 90 0 92 28 2 1 31 221
12:45 PM 77 23 0 100 2 99 1 102 28 0 0 28 230
01:00 PM 76 26 0 102 5 92 4 101 31 6 0 37 240
01:15 PM 109 20 0 129 4 103 1 108 29 5 0 34 271
Total Volume 338 91 0 429 13 384 6 403 116 13 1 130 962
% App. Total 78.8 21.2 0 3.2 95.3 1.5 89.2 10 0.8
PHF .775 .875 .000 .831 .650 .932 .375 .933 .935 .542 .250 .878 .887
Cars 338 91 0 429 13 384 6 403 116 13 1 130 962
% Cars 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brimbal Ave

H
e
r
r
i
c
k

S
t
r
e
e
t

Brimbal Ave
Right
91
0
91
Thru
338
0
338
Peds
0
0
0
In Out Total
500 429 929
0 0 0
500 929 429
Left
13
0
13
Thru
384
0
384
Peds
6
0
6
Out Total In
351 403 754
0 0 0
351 754 403
L
e
f
t
1
1
6

0

1
1
6

R
i
g
h
t
1
3

0

1
3

P
e
d
s
1

0

1

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
1
0
4

1
3
0

2
3
4

0

0

0

1
0
4

2
3
4

1
3
0

Peak Hour Begins at 12:30 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 128 Ramp-Brimbal Ave Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Rte 128 Ramp
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Rte 128 Ramp
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 0 90 0 90 31 16 0 47 67 92 0 159 296
11:15 AM 0 88 0 88 36 13 4 53 70 99 0 169 310
11:30 AM 0 91 0 91 48 19 1 68 97 98 0 195 354
11:45 AM 0 77 0 77 35 19 2 56 95 105 0 200 333
Total 0 346 0 346 150 67 7 224 329 394 0 723 1293
12:00 PM 0 99 0 99 29 8 1 38 81 116 0 197 334
12:15 PM 0 70 0 70 31 22 0 53 80 116 0 196 319
12:30 PM 0 65 0 65 23 11 1 35 83 87 0 170 270
12:45 PM 0 87 0 87 26 19 1 46 79 119 0 198 331
Total 0 321 0 321 109 60 3 172 323 438 0 761 1254
01:00 PM 0 63 0 63 30 12 3 45 70 110 0 180 288
01:15 PM 0 85 0 85 26 17 0 43 86 112 0 198 326
01:30 PM 0 61 0 61 30 11 3 44 84 90 0 174 279
01:45 PM 0 73 0 73 28 11 1 40 75 96 0 171 284
Total 0 282 0 282 114 51 7 172 315 408 0 723 1177
Grand Total 0 949 0 949 373 178 17 568 967 1240 0 2207 3724
Apprch % 0 100 0 65.7 31.3 3 43.8 56.2 0
Total % 0 25.5 0 25.5 10 4.8 0.5 15.3 26 33.3 0 59.3
Cars 0 938 0 938 371 177 17 565 958 1227 0 2185 3688
% Cars 0 98.8 0 98.8 99.5 99.4 100 99.5 99.1 99 0 99 99
Trucks 0 11 0 11 2 1 0 3 9 13 0 22 36
% Trucks 0 1.2 0 1.2 0.5 0.6 0 0.5 0.9 1 0 1 1
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 128 Ramp-Brimbal Ave Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Rte 128 Ramp
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Rte 128 Ramp
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM
11:30 AM 0 91 0 91 48 19 1 68 97 98 0 195 354
11:45 AM 0 77 0 77 35 19 2 56 95 105 0 200 333
12:00 PM 0 99 0 99 29 8 1 38 81 116 0 197 334
12:15 PM 0 70 0 70 31 22 0 53 80 116 0 196 319
Total Volume 0 337 0 337 143 68 4 215 353 435 0 788 1340
% App. Total 0 100 0 66.5 31.6 1.9 44.8 55.2 0
PHF .000 .851 .000 .851 .745 .773 .500 .790 .910 .938 .000 .985 .946
Cars 0 337 0 337 142 67 4 213 349 434 0 783 1333
% Cars 0 100 0 100 99.3 98.5 100 99.1 98.9 99.8 0 99.4 99.5
Trucks 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 5 7
% Trucks 0 0 0 0 0.7 1.5 0 0.9 1.1 0.2 0 0.6 0.5
Brimbal Ave

R
t
e

1
2
8

R
a
m
p

Brimbal Ave
Thru
337
0
337
Left
0
0
0
Peds
0
0
0
In Out Total
416 337 753
5 0 5
421 758 337
R
i
g
h
t
6
7

1

6
8

L
e
f
t
1
4
2

1

1
4
3

P
e
d
s
4

0

4

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
3
4

2
1
3

6
4
7

1

2

3

4
3
5

6
5
0

2
1
5

Thru
349
4
353
Right
434
1
435
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
479 783 1262
1 5 6
480 1268 788
Peak Hour Begins at 11:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 128 Ramp-Sohier Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Sohier Road
N-S Street: Rte 128 Ramp/Sohier Road
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Rte 128 Ramp
From North
Sohier Road
From East
Sohier Road
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 68 25 0 93 29 27 0 56 30 39 0 69 218
11:15 AM 61 42 0 103 43 26 0 69 28 46 0 74 246
11:30 AM 61 36 0 97 48 23 0 71 41 50 0 91 259
11:45 AM 79 29 0 108 40 35 0 75 33 48 0 81 264
Total 269 132 0 401 160 111 0 271 132 183 0 315 987
12:00 PM 58 40 0 98 34 28 0 62 31 46 0 77 237
12:15 PM 64 37 0 101 27 28 0 55 34 35 0 69 225
12:30 PM 68 37 0 105 22 30 0 52 29 33 0 62 219
12:45 PM 67 42 0 109 33 30 0 63 18 29 0 47 219
Total 257 156 0 413 116 116 0 232 112 143 0 255 900
01:00 PM 78 42 0 120 19 33 0 52 29 36 0 65 237
01:15 PM 75 34 0 109 25 40 0 65 32 43 0 75 249
01:30 PM 68 40 0 108 18 33 0 51 28 27 0 55 214
01:45 PM 61 47 0 108 29 19 0 48 27 41 0 68 224
Total 282 163 0 445 91 125 0 216 116 147 0 263 924
Grand Total 808 451 0 1259 367 352 0 719 360 473 0 833 2811
Apprch % 64.2 35.8 0 51 49 0 43.2 56.8 0
Total % 28.7 16 0 44.8 13.1 12.5 0 25.6 12.8 16.8 0 29.6
Cars 787 444 0 1231 365 347 0 712 352 461 0 813 2756
% Cars 97.4 98.4 0 97.8 99.5 98.6 0 99 97.8 97.5 0 97.6 98
Trucks 21 7 0 28 2 5 0 7 8 12 0 20 55
% Trucks 2.6 1.6 0 2.2 0.5 1.4 0 1 2.2 2.5 0 2.4 2
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 128 Ramp-Sohier Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 10/19/2013
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Sohier Road
N-S Street: Rte 128 Ramp/Sohier Road
Rte 128 Ramp
From North
Sohier Road
From East
Sohier Road
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:15 AM
11:15 AM 61 42 0 103 43 26 0 69 28 46 0 74 246
11:30 AM 61 36 0 97 48 23 0 71 41 50 0 91 259
11:45 AM 79 29 0 108 40 35 0 75 33 48 0 81 264
12:00 PM 58 40 0 98 34 28 0 62 31 46 0 77 237
Total Volume 259 147 0 406 165 112 0 277 133 190 0 323 1006
% App. Total 63.8 36.2 0 59.6 40.4 0 41.2 58.8 0
PHF .820 .875 .000 .940 .859 .800 .000 .923 .811 .950 .000 .887 .953
Cars 251 143 0 394 165 109 0 274 130 187 0 317 985
% Cars 96.9 97.3 0 97.0 100 97.3 0 98.9 97.7 98.4 0 98.1 97.9
Trucks 8 4 0 12 0 3 0 3 3 3 0 6 21
% Trucks 3.1 2.7 0 3.0 0 2.7 0 1.1 2.3 1.6 0 1.9 2.1
Rte 128 Ramp

S
o
h
i
e
r

R
o
a
d

Sohier Road
Thru
143
4
147
Left
251
8
259
Peds
0
0
0
In Out Total
239 394 633
6 12 18
245 651 406
R
i
g
h
t
1
0
9

3

1
1
2

L
e
f
t
1
6
5

0

1
6
5

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
3
8

2
7
4

7
1
2

1
1

3

1
4

4
4
9

7
2
6

2
7
7

Thru
130
3
133
Right
187
3
190
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
308 317 625
4 6 10
312 635 323
Peak Hour Begins at 11:15 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/10/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 10 36 16 1 63 2 36 13 0 51 1 77 0 0 78 24 17 2 2 45 237
07:15 AM 12 42 9 0 63 0 52 19 0 71 2 76 0 0 78 29 28 2 0 59 271
07:30 AM 19 62 15 0 96 0 56 39 0 95 3 99 0 0 102 47 22 5 0 74 367
07:45 AM 18 54 19 1 92 0 77 23 0 100 3 84 0 0 87 50 40 1 1 92 371
Total 59 194 59 2 314 2 221 94 0 317 9 336 0 0 345 150 107 10 3 270 1246
08:00 AM 21 59 24 0 104 0 68 23 1 92 3 74 0 0 77 20 30 1 1 52 325
08:15 AM 16 49 20 2 87 0 75 22 2 99 3 58 1 0 62 19 35 1 0 55 303
08:30 AM 24 50 17 0 91 1 62 32 0 95 4 61 0 0 65 19 36 4 0 59 310
08:45 AM 9 63 11 2 85 0 61 11 0 72 9 70 1 0 80 25 20 1 1 47 284
Total 70 221 72 4 367 1 266 88 3 358 19 263 2 0 284 83 121 7 2 213 1222
Grand Total 129 415 131 6 681 3 487 182 3 675 28 599 2 0 629 233 228 17 5 483 2468
Apprch % 18.9 60.9 19.2 0.9 0.4 72.1 27 0.4 4.5 95.2 0.3 0 48.2 47.2 3.5 1
Total % 5.2 16.8 5.3 0.2 27.6 0.1 19.7 7.4 0.1 27.4 1.1 24.3 0.1 0 25.5 9.4 9.2 0.7 0.2 19.6
Cars 123 402 126 6 657 3 467 182 3 655 28 588 2 0 618 229 216 15 5 465 2395
% Cars 95.3 96.9 96.2 100 96.5 100 95.9 100 100 97 100 98.2 100 0 98.3 98.3 94.7 88.2 100 96.3 97
Trucks 6 13 5 0 24 0 20 0 0 20 0 11 0 0 11 4 12 2 0 18 73
% Trucks 4.7 3.1 3.8 0 3.5 0 4.1 0 0 3 0 1.8 0 0 1.7 1.7 5.3 11.8 0 3.7 3
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/10/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 19 62 15 0 96 0 56 39 0 95 3 99 0 0 102 47 22 5 0 74 367
07:45 AM 18 54 19 1 92 0 77 23 0 100 3 84 0 0 87 50 40 1 1 92 371
08:00 AM 21 59 24 0 104 0 68 23 1 92 3 74 0 0 77 20 30 1 1 52 325
08:15 AM 16 49 20 2 87 0 75 22 2 99 3 58 1 0 62 19 35 1 0 55 303
Total Volume 74 224 78 3 379 0 276 107 3 386 12 315 1 0 328 136 127 8 2 273 1366
% App. Total 19.5 59.1 20.6 0.8 0 71.5 27.7 0.8 3.7 96 0.3 0 49.8 46.5 2.9 0.7
PHF .881 .903 .813 .375 .911 .000 .896 .686 .375 .965 1.00 .795 .250 .000 .804 .680 .794 .400 .500 .742 .920
Cars 70 218 75 3 366 0 264 107 3 374 12 309 1 0 322 133 120 6 2 261 1323
% Cars 94.6 97.3 96.2 100 96.6 0 95.7 100 100 96.9 100 98.1 100 0 98.2 97.8 94.5 75.0 100 95.6 96.9
Trucks 4 6 3 0 13 0 12 0 0 12 0 6 0 0 6 3 7 2 0 12 43
% Trucks 5.4 2.7 3.8 0 3.4 0 4.3 0 0 3.1 0 1.9 0 0 1.8 2.2 5.5 25.0 0 4.4 3.1
Brimbal Ave

C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t


C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t

Brimbal Ave
Right
75
3
78
Thru
218
6
224
Left
70
4
74
Peds
3
0
3
In Out Total
549 366 915
9 13 22
558 937 379
R
i
g
h
t
1
0
7

0

1
0
7

T
h
r
u
2
6
4

1
2

2
7
6

L
e
f
t
0

0

0

P
e
d
s
3

0

3

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
9
1

3
7
4

5
6
5

1
1

1
2

2
3

2
0
2

5
8
8

3
8
6

Left
12
0
12
Thru
309
6
315
Right
1
0
1
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
224 322 546
8 6 14
232 560 328
L
e
f
t
1
3
3

3

1
3
6

T
h
r
u
1
2
0

7

1
2
7

R
i
g
h
t 6

2

8

P
e
d
s
2

0

2

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
3
5
1

2
6
1

6
1
2

1
5

1
2

2
7

3
6
6

6
3
9

2
7
3

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/10/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 26 65 14 1 106 0 45 14 0 59 4 69 0 0 73 18 35 4 1 58 296
04:15 PM 22 70 17 3 112 2 37 17 0 56 2 61 0 0 63 7 33 0 2 42 273
04:30 PM 28 71 28 0 127 2 44 27 0 73 4 56 0 0 60 23 35 4 1 63 323
04:45 PM 22 85 21 2 130 2 55 25 1 83 3 61 0 0 64 14 35 3 3 55 332
Total 98 291 80 6 475 6 181 83 1 271 13 247 0 0 260 62 138 11 7 218 1224
05:00 PM 25 79 21 1 126 0 51 29 0 80 5 81 0 0 86 15 32 9 1 57 349
05:15 PM 19 82 19 0 120 0 44 26 0 70 5 71 1 0 77 13 33 4 1 51 318
05:30 PM 21 77 16 6 120 0 31 27 0 58 6 61 0 0 67 38 50 2 1 91 336
05:45 PM 20 69 19 1 109 0 50 27 0 77 3 63 0 0 66 28 39 1 0 68 320
Total 85 307 75 8 475 0 176 109 0 285 19 276 1 0 296 94 154 16 3 267 1323
Grand Total 183 598 155 14 950 6 357 192 1 556 32 523 1 0 556 156 292 27 10 485 2547
Apprch % 19.3 62.9 16.3 1.5 1.1 64.2 34.5 0.2 5.8 94.1 0.2 0 32.2 60.2 5.6 2.1
Total % 7.2 23.5 6.1 0.5 37.3 0.2 14 7.5 0 21.8 1.3 20.5 0 0 21.8 6.1 11.5 1.1 0.4 19
Cars 182 587 154 14 937 6 346 190 1 543 32 515 1 0 548 154 289 27 10 480 2508
% Cars 99.5 98.2 99.4 100 98.6 100 96.9 99 100 97.7 100 98.5 100 0 98.6 98.7 99 100 100 99 98.5
Trucks 1 11 1 0 13 0 11 2 0 13 0 8 0 0 8 2 3 0 0 5 39
% Trucks 0.5 1.8 0.6 0 1.4 0 3.1 1 0 2.3 0 1.5 0 0 1.4 1.3 1 0 0 1 1.5
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/10/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 22 85 21 2 130 2 55 25 1 83 3 61 0 0 64 14 35 3 3 55 332
05:00 PM 25 79 21 1 126 0 51 29 0 80 5 81 0 0 86 15 32 9 1 57 349
05:15 PM 19 82 19 0 120 0 44 26 0 70 5 71 1 0 77 13 33 4 1 51 318
05:30 PM 21 77 16 6 120 0 31 27 0 58 6 61 0 0 67 38 50 2 1 91 336
Total Volume 87 323 77 9 496 2 181 107 1 291 19 274 1 0 294 80 150 18 6 254 1335
% App. Total 17.5 65.1 15.5 1.8 0.7 62.2 36.8 0.3 6.5 93.2 0.3 0 31.5 59.1 7.1 2.4
PHF .870 .950 .917 .375 .954 .250 .823 .922 .250 .877 .792 .846 .250 .000 .855 .526 .750 .500 .500 .698 .956
Cars 87 316 77 9 489 2 175 107 1 285 19 270 1 0 290 80 149 18 6 253 1317
% Cars 100 97.8 100 100 98.6 100 96.7 100 100 97.9 100 98.5 100 0 98.6 100 99.3 100 100 99.6 98.7
Trucks 0 7 0 0 7 0 6 0 0 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 18
% Trucks 0 2.2 0 0 1.4 0 3.3 0 0 2.1 0 1.5 0 0 1.4 0 0.7 0 0 0.4 1.3
Brimbal Ave

C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t


C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t

Brimbal Ave
Right
77
0
77
Thru
316
7
323
Left
87
0
87
Peds
9
0
9
In Out Total
457 489 946
4 7 11
461 957 496
R
i
g
h
t
1
0
7

0

1
0
7

T
h
r
u
1
7
5

6

1
8
1

L
e
f
t
2

0

2

P
e
d
s
1

0

1

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
2
3
7

2
8
5

5
2
2

1

6

7

2
3
8

5
2
9

2
9
1

Left
19
0
19
Thru
270
4
274
Right
1
0
1
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
336 290 626
7 4 11
343 637 294
L
e
f
t
8
0

0

8
0

T
h
r
u
1
4
9

1

1
5
0

R
i
g
h
t
1
8

0

1
8

P
e
d
s
6

0

6

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
2
7
1

2
5
3

5
2
4

6

1

7

2
7
7

5
3
1

2
5
4

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/12/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 18 63 13 1 95 0 29 12 0 41 5 69 0 0 74 21 23 3 0 47 257
11:15 AM 13 51 13 2 79 3 35 19 1 58 3 74 0 0 77 9 29 5 0 43 257
11:30 AM 14 67 18 5 104 0 31 25 1 57 5 76 0 0 81 24 39 5 1 69 311
11:45 AM 14 61 15 6 96 1 35 13 0 49 3 75 2 0 80 14 28 1 1 44 269
Total 59 242 59 14 374 4 130 69 2 205 16 294 2 0 312 68 119 14 2 203 1094
12:00 PM 16 77 12 2 107 0 34 20 0 54 4 83 1 0 88 14 26 3 1 44 293
12:15 PM 9 79 12 1 101 0 25 14 1 40 5 79 0 0 84 10 25 3 1 39 264
12:30 PM 16 67 23 1 107 0 34 15 1 50 6 74 0 0 80 14 20 3 0 37 274
12:45 PM 11 51 14 1 77 2 37 15 0 54 4 64 1 0 69 12 30 4 0 46 246
Total 52 274 61 5 392 2 130 64 2 198 19 300 2 0 321 50 101 13 2 166 1077
01:00 PM 13 67 14 2 96 0 30 13 1 44 0 66 0 0 66 18 27 2 3 50 256
01:15 PM 8 68 13 2 91 0 31 16 0 47 4 69 0 0 73 11 30 3 0 44 255
01:30 PM 12 70 13 0 95 0 47 15 0 62 4 87 0 0 91 16 19 2 1 38 286
01:45 PM 15 55 18 0 88 1 36 14 0 51 1 101 0 0 102 14 20 3 0 37 278
Total 48 260 58 4 370 1 144 58 1 204 9 323 0 0 332 59 96 10 4 169 1075
Grand Total 159 776 178 23 1136 7 404 191 5 607 44 917 4 0 965 177 316 37 8 538 3246
Apprch % 14 68.3 15.7 2 1.2 66.6 31.5 0.8 4.6 95 0.4 0 32.9 58.7 6.9 1.5
Total % 4.9 23.9 5.5 0.7 35 0.2 12.4 5.9 0.2 18.7 1.4 28.3 0.1 0 29.7 5.5 9.7 1.1 0.2 16.6
Cars 152 766 177 23 1118 7 396 188 5 596 44 907 4 0 955 176 305 37 8 526 3195
% Cars 95.6 98.7 99.4 100 98.4 100 98 98.4 100 98.2 100 98.9 100 0 99 99.4 96.5 100 100 97.8 98.4
Trucks 7 10 1 0 18 0 8 3 0 11 0 10 0 0 10 1 11 0 0 12 51
% Trucks 4.4 1.3 0.6 0 1.6 0 2 1.6 0 1.8 0 1.1 0 0 1 0.6 3.5 0 0 2.2 1.6
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Colon Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/12/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Colon Street
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave
Brimbal Ave
From North
Colon Street
From East
Brimbal Ave
From South
Colon Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:30 AM
11:30 AM 14 67 18 5 104 0 31 25 1 57 5 76 0 0 81 24 39 5 1 69 311
11:45 AM 14 61 15 6 96 1 35 13 0 49 3 75 2 0 80 14 28 1 1 44 269
12:00 PM 16 77 12 2 107 0 34 20 0 54 4 83 1 0 88 14 26 3 1 44 293
12:15 PM 9 79 12 1 101 0 25 14 1 40 5 79 0 0 84 10 25 3 1 39 264
Total Volume 53 284 57 14 408 1 125 72 2 200 17 313 3 0 333 62 118 12 4 196 1137
% App. Total 13 69.6 14 3.4 0.5 62.5 36 1 5.1 94 0.9 0 31.6 60.2 6.1 2
PHF .828 .899 .792 .583 .953 .250 .893 .720 .500 .877 .850 .943 .375 .000 .946 .646 .756 .600 1.00 .710 .914
Cars 51 282 56 14 403 1 120 71 2 194 17 311 3 0 331 61 114 12 4 191 1119
% Cars 96.2 99.3 98.2 100 98.8 100 96.0 98.6 100 97.0 100 99.4 100 0 99.4 98.4 96.6 100 100 97.4 98.4
Trucks 2 2 1 0 5 0 5 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 5 18
% Trucks 3.8 0.7 1.8 0 1.2 0 4.0 1.4 0 3.0 0 0.6 0 0 0.6 1.6 3.4 0 0 2.6 1.6
Brimbal Ave

C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t


C
o
l
o
n

S
t
r
e
e
t

Brimbal Ave
Right
56
1
57
Thru
282
2
284
Left
51
2
53
Peds
14
0
14
In Out Total
443 403 846
4 5 9
447 855 408
R
i
g
h
t
7
1

1

7
2

T
h
r
u
1
2
0

5

1
2
5

L
e
f
t
1

0

1

P
e
d
s
2

0

2

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
6
8

1
9
4

3
6
2

6

6

1
2

1
7
4

3
7
4

2
0
0

Left
17
0
17
Thru
311
2
313
Right
3
0
3
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
295 331 626
2 2 4
297 630 333
L
e
f
t
6
1

1

6
2

T
h
r
u
1
1
4

4

1
1
8

R
i
g
h
t
1
2

0

1
2

P
e
d
s
4

0

4

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
1
9
3

1
9
1

3
8
4

6

5

1
1

1
9
9

3
9
5

1
9
6

Peak Hour Begins at 11:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/3/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 37 24 0 61 34 11 0 45 17 33 0 50 156
07:15 AM 65 32 1 98 36 14 0 50 18 35 1 54 202
07:30 AM 91 54 1 146 27 9 0 36 18 74 0 92 274
07:45 AM 76 72 0 148 48 11 0 59 21 72 0 93 300
Total 269 182 2 453 145 45 0 190 74 214 1 289 932
08:00 AM 63 51 0 114 41 19 2 62 23 66 0 89 265
08:15 AM 50 32 1 83 49 10 0 59 25 49 0 74 216
08:30 AM 46 32 1 79 33 8 1 42 28 46 0 74 195
08:45 AM 29 44 0 73 56 14 0 70 26 53 0 79 222
Total 188 159 2 349 179 51 3 233 102 214 0 316 898
Grand Total 457 341 4 802 324 96 3 423 176 428 1 605 1830
Apprch % 57 42.5 0.5 76.6 22.7 0.7 29.1 70.7 0.2
Total % 25 18.6 0.2 43.8 17.7 5.2 0.2 23.1 9.6 23.4 0.1 33.1
Cars 454 334 4 792 314 94 3 411 163 416 1 580 1783
% Cars 99.3 97.9 100 98.8 96.9 97.9 100 97.2 92.6 97.2 100 95.9 97.4
Trucks 3 7 0 10 10 2 0 12 13 12 0 25 47
% Trucks 0.7 2.1 0 1.2 3.1 2.1 0 2.8 7.4 2.8 0 4.1 2.6
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/3/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 91 54 1 146 27 9 0 36 18 74 0 92 274
07:45 AM 76 72 0 148 48 11 0 59 21 72 0 93 300
08:00 AM 63 51 0 114 41 19 2 62 23 66 0 89 265
08:15 AM 50 32 1 83 49 10 0 59 25 49 0 74 216
Total Volume 280 209 2 491 165 49 2 216 87 261 0 348 1055
% App. Total 57 42.6 0.4 76.4 22.7 0.9 25 75 0
PHF .769 .726 .500 .829 .842 .645 .250 .871 .870 .882 .000 .935 .879
Cars 278 208 2 488 158 48 2 208 81 256 0 337 1033
% Cars 99.3 99.5 100 99.4 95.8 98.0 100 96.3 93.1 98.1 0 96.8 97.9
Trucks 2 1 0 3 7 1 0 8 6 5 0 11 22
% Trucks 0.7 0.5 0 0.6 4.2 2.0 0 3.7 6.9 1.9 0 3.2 2.1

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t


D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Laurel Street
T
h
r
u
2
0
8

1

2
0
9

L
e
f
t
2
7
8

2

2
8
0

P
e
d
s
2

0

2

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
2
9

4
8
8

6
1
7

7

3

1
0

1
3
6

6
2
7

4
9
1

Left
158
7
165
Right
48
1
49
Peds
2
0
2
Out Total In
534 208 742
7 8 15
541 757 216
T
h
r
u
8
1

6

8
7

R
i
g
h
t
2
5
6

5

2
6
1

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
3
6
6

3
3
7

7
0
3

8

1
1

1
9

3
7
4

7
2
2

3
4
8

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 25 36 0 61 52 28 0 80 57 64 0 121 262
04:15 PM 26 22 0 48 66 21 0 87 60 72 0 132 267
04:30 PM 25 22 0 47 54 18 0 72 26 55 0 81 200
04:45 PM 29 35 0 64 46 23 0 69 38 54 0 92 225
Total 105 115 0 220 218 90 0 308 181 245 0 426 954
05:00 PM 36 36 0 72 72 24 0 96 76 61 0 137 305
05:15 PM 17 28 0 45 52 29 0 81 58 70 0 128 254
05:30 PM 28 40 0 68 44 30 0 74 53 56 0 109 251
05:45 PM 26 46 0 72 51 32 0 83 64 60 0 124 279
Total 107 150 0 257 219 115 0 334 251 247 0 498 1089
Grand Total 212 265 0 477 437 205 0 642 432 492 0 924 2043
Apprch % 44.4 55.6 0 68.1 31.9 0 46.8 53.2 0
Total % 10.4 13 0 23.3 21.4 10 0 31.4 21.1 24.1 0 45.2
Cars 210 263 0 473 434 201 0 635 430 490 0 920 2028
% Cars 99.1 99.2 0 99.2 99.3 98 0 98.9 99.5 99.6 0 99.6 99.3
Trucks 2 2 0 4 3 4 0 7 2 2 0 4 15
% Trucks 0.9 0.8 0 0.8 0.7 2 0 1.1 0.5 0.4 0 0.4 0.7
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 36 36 0 72 72 24 0 96 76 61 0 137 305
05:15 PM 17 28 0 45 52 29 0 81 58 70 0 128 254
05:30 PM 28 40 0 68 44 30 0 74 53 56 0 109 251
05:45 PM 26 46 0 72 51 32 0 83 64 60 0 124 279
Total Volume 107 150 0 257 219 115 0 334 251 247 0 498 1089
% App. Total 41.6 58.4 0 65.6 34.4 0 50.4 49.6 0
PHF .743 .815 .000 .892 .760 .898 .000 .870 .826 .882 .000 .909 .893
Cars 106 148 0 254 217 113 0 330 249 246 0 495 1079
% Cars 99.1 98.7 0 98.8 99.1 98.3 0 98.8 99.2 99.6 0 99.4 99.1
Trucks 1 2 0 3 2 2 0 4 2 1 0 3 10
% Trucks 0.9 1.3 0 1.2 0.9 1.7 0 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0.6 0.9

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t


D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Laurel Street
T
h
r
u
1
4
8

2

1
5
0

L
e
f
t
1
0
6

1

1
0
7

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
3
6
2

2
5
4

6
1
6

4

3

7

3
6
6

6
2
3

2
5
7

Left
217
2
219
Right
113
2
115
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
352 330 682
2 4 6
354 688 334
T
h
r
u
2
4
9

2

2
5
1

R
i
g
h
t
2
4
6

1

2
4
7

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
3
6
5

4
9
5

8
6
0

4

3

7

3
6
9

8
6
7

4
9
8

Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 23 49 0 72 67 13 0 80 41 57 0 98 250
11:15 AM 23 47 0 70 73 18 0 91 41 60 0 101 262
11:30 AM 23 59 0 82 60 14 0 74 44 59 0 103 259
11:45 AM 28 52 0 80 57 25 0 82 60 70 0 130 292
Total 97 207 0 304 257 70 0 327 186 246 0 432 1063
12:00 PM 25 46 0 71 44 12 0 56 20 47 0 67 194
12:15 PM 30 43 0 73 57 28 0 85 59 60 0 119 277
12:30 PM 30 42 0 72 62 21 0 83 64 62 0 126 281
12:45 PM 43 33 0 76 66 24 0 90 44 75 0 119 285
Total 128 164 0 292 229 85 0 314 187 244 0 431 1037
01:00 PM 25 45 0 70 64 13 0 77 52 51 0 103 250
01:15 PM 29 36 0 65 63 21 0 84 49 54 0 103 252
01:30 PM 19 24 0 43 48 14 0 62 65 73 0 138 243
01:45 PM 26 40 0 66 43 13 0 56 52 53 0 105 227
Total 99 145 0 244 218 61 0 279 218 231 0 449 972
Grand Total 324 516 0 840 704 216 0 920 591 721 0 1312 3072
Apprch % 38.6 61.4 0 76.5 23.5 0 45 55 0
Total % 10.5 16.8 0 27.3 22.9 7 0 29.9 19.2 23.5 0 42.7
Cars 323 505 0 828 700 214 0 914 577 716 0 1293 3035
% Cars 99.7 97.9 0 98.6 99.4 99.1 0 99.3 97.6 99.3 0 98.6 98.8
Trucks 1 11 0 12 4 2 0 6 14 5 0 19 37
% Trucks 0.3 2.1 0 1.4 0.6 0.9 0 0.7 2.4 0.7 0 1.4 1.2
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Laurel-Dodge Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Laurel Street
Dodge Street
From East
Laurel Street
From South
Dodge Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:15 PM
12:15 PM 30 43 0 73 57 28 0 85 59 60 0 119 277
12:30 PM 30 42 0 72 62 21 0 83 64 62 0 126 281
12:45 PM 43 33 0 76 66 24 0 90 44 75 0 119 285
01:00 PM 25 45 0 70 64 13 0 77 52 51 0 103 250
Total Volume 128 163 0 291 249 86 0 335 219 248 0 467 1093
% App. Total 44 56 0 74.3 25.7 0 46.9 53.1 0
PHF .744 .906 .000 .957 .943 .768 .000 .931 .855 .827 .000 .927 .959
Cars 128 159 0 287 247 86 0 333 211 247 0 458 1078
% Cars 100 97.5 0 98.6 99.2 100 0 99.4 96.3 99.6 0 98.1 98.6
Trucks 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 8 1 0 9 15
% Trucks 0 2.5 0 1.4 0.8 0 0 0.6 3.7 0.4 0 1.9 1.4

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t


D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Laurel Street
T
h
r
u
1
5
9

4

1
6
3

L
e
f
t
1
2
8

0

1
2
8

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
2
9
7

2
8
7

5
8
4

8

4

1
2

3
0
5

5
9
6

2
9
1

Left
247
2
249
Right
86
0
86
Peds
0
0
0
Out Total In
375 333 708
1 2 3
376 711 335
T
h
r
u
2
1
1

8

2
1
9

R
i
g
h
t
2
4
7

1

2
4
8

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
4
0
6

4
5
8

8
6
4

6

9

1
5

4
1
2

8
7
9

4
6
7

Peak Hour Begins at 12:15 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/4/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Essex Street/Rte 22
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Essex Street/Rte 22
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 2 28 2 32 0 83 2 0 85 1 1 0 1 3 64 60 6 0 130 250
07:15 AM 0 2 26 0 28 1 82 0 0 83 3 1 0 0 4 76 58 9 0 143 258
07:30 AM 1 2 56 0 59 2 98 2 0 102 3 3 1 0 7 95 84 13 0 192 360
07:45 AM 0 2 43 1 46 0 129 16 1 146 3 1 1 0 5 86 101 4 0 191 388
Total 1 8 153 3 165 3 392 20 1 416 10 6 2 1 19 321 303 32 0 656 1256
08:00 AM 0 10 41 2 53 0 94 1 2 97 5 2 0 0 7 66 78 13 0 157 314
08:15 AM 1 1 42 1 45 2 93 7 0 102 5 2 0 1 8 67 56 6 0 129 284
08:30 AM 0 0 46 1 47 1 104 5 2 112 1 4 0 0 5 62 57 11 0 130 294
08:45 AM 0 7 49 0 56 1 86 3 0 90 3 3 0 0 6 59 68 8 0 135 287
Total 1 18 178 4 201 4 377 16 4 401 14 11 0 1 26 254 259 38 0 551 1179
Grand Total 2 26 331 7 366 7 769 36 5 817 24 17 2 2 45 575 562 70 0 1207 2435
Apprch % 0.5 7.1 90.4 1.9 0.9 94.1 4.4 0.6 53.3 37.8 4.4 4.4 47.6 46.6 5.8 0
Total % 0.1 1.1 13.6 0.3 15 0.3 31.6 1.5 0.2 33.6 1 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.8 23.6 23.1 2.9 0 49.6
Cars 2 26 317 7 352 6 738 34 5 783 24 16 1 2 43 564 546 68 0 1178 2356
% Cars 100 100 95.8 100 96.2 85.7 96 94.4 100 95.8 100 94.1 50 100 95.6 98.1 97.2 97.1 0 97.6 96.8
Trucks 0 0 14 0 14 1 31 2 0 34 0 1 1 0 2 11 16 2 0 29 79
% Trucks 0 0 4.2 0 3.8 14.3 4 5.6 0 4.2 0 5.9 50 0 4.4 1.9 2.8 2.9 0 2.4 3.2
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/4/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Brimbal Ave
From North
Essex Street/Rte 22
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Essex Street/Rte 22
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 1 2 56 0 59 2 98 2 0 102 3 3 1 0 7 95 84 13 0 192 360
07:45 AM 0 2 43 1 46 0 129 16 1 146 3 1 1 0 5 86 101 4 0 191 388
08:00 AM 0 10 41 2 53 0 94 1 2 97 5 2 0 0 7 66 78 13 0 157 314
08:15 AM 1 1 42 1 45 2 93 7 0 102 5 2 0 1 8 67 56 6 0 129 284
Total Volume 2 15 182 4 203 4 414 26 3 447 16 8 2 1 27 314 319 36 0 669 1346
% App. Total 1 7.4 89.7 2 0.9 92.6 5.8 0.7 59.3 29.6 7.4 3.7 46.9 47.7 5.4 0
PHF .500 .375 .813 .500 .860 .500 .802 .406 .375 .765 .800 .667 .500 .250 .844 .826 .790 .692 .000 .871 .867
Cars 2 15 176 4 197 4 396 24 3 427 16 8 1 1 26 308 308 35 0 651 1301
% Cars 100 100 96.7 100 97.0 100 95.7 92.3 100 95.5 100 100 50.0 100 96.3 98.1 96.6 97.2 0 97.3 96.7
Trucks 0 0 6 0 6 0 18 2 0 20 0 0 1 0 1 6 11 1 0 18 45
% Trucks 0 0 3.3 0 3.0 0 4.3 7.7 0 4.5 0 0 50.0 0 3.7 1.9 3.4 2.8 0 2.7 3.3
Brimbal Ave

E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t
/
R
t
e

2
2


E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t
/
R
t
e

2
2

Retail Drive
Right
176
6
182
Thru
15
0
15
Left
2
0
2
Peds
4
0
4
In Out Total
340 197 537
8 6 14
348 551 203
R
i
g
h
t
2
4

2

2
6

T
h
r
u
3
9
6

1
8

4
1
4

L
e
f
t
4

0

4

P
e
d
s
3

0

3

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
3
1
1

4
2
7

7
3
8

1
2

2
0

3
2

3
2
3

7
7
0

4
4
7

Left
16
0
16
Thru
8
0
8
Right
1
1
2
Peds
1
0
1
Out Total In
54 26 80
1 1 2
55 82 27
L
e
f
t
3
0
8

6

3
1
4

T
h
r
u
3
0
8

1
1

3
1
9

R
i
g
h
t
3
5

1

3
6

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
5
8
8

6
5
1

1
2
3
9

2
4

1
8

4
2

6
1
2

1
2
8
1

6
6
9

Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Rte 22/Essex Street
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Rte 22/Essex Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 4 8 61 0 73 3 91 1 0 95 5 0 1 0 6 63 97 6 0 166 340
04:15 PM 1 6 70 0 77 1 95 3 0 99 2 2 0 0 4 55 103 6 0 164 344
04:30 PM 0 7 60 0 67 0 88 3 0 91 2 2 0 0 4 64 110 15 0 189 351
04:45 PM 1 5 81 1 88 1 102 9 1 113 5 1 0 0 6 52 101 13 0 166 373
Total 6 26 272 1 305 5 376 16 1 398 14 5 1 0 20 234 411 40 0 685 1408
05:00 PM 4 6 70 1 81 2 91 5 0 98 8 0 0 1 9 67 102 11 0 180 368
05:15 PM 1 5 62 1 69 1 106 5 2 114 5 0 0 1 6 61 102 12 0 175 364
05:30 PM 1 7 61 3 72 0 119 6 0 125 3 3 0 2 8 60 100 6 0 166 371
05:45 PM 0 3 74 1 78 0 94 6 0 100 4 2 0 1 7 61 65 7 0 133 318
Total 6 21 267 6 300 3 410 22 2 437 20 5 0 5 30 249 369 36 0 654 1421
Grand Total 12 47 539 7 605 8 786 38 3 835 34 10 1 5 50 483 780 76 0 1339 2829
Apprch % 2 7.8 89.1 1.2 1 94.1 4.6 0.4 68 20 2 10 36.1 58.3 5.7 0
Total % 0.4 1.7 19.1 0.2 21.4 0.3 27.8 1.3 0.1 29.5 1.2 0.4 0 0.2 1.8 17.1 27.6 2.7 0 47.3
Cars 12 47 531 7 597 8 779 38 3 828 34 10 1 5 50 477 774 76 0 1327 2802
% Cars 100 100 98.5 100 98.7 100 99.1 100 100 99.2 100 100 100 100 100 98.8 99.2 100 0 99.1 99
Trucks 0 0 8 0 8 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 12 27
% Trucks 0 0 1.5 0 1.3 0 0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.8 0 0 0.9 1
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Brimbal Ave
From North
Rte 22/Essex Street
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Rte 22/Essex Street
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 1 5 81 1 88 1 102 9 1 113 5 1 0 0 6 52 101 13 0 166 373
05:00 PM 4 6 70 1 81 2 91 5 0 98 8 0 0 1 9 67 102 11 0 180 368
05:15 PM 1 5 62 1 69 1 106 5 2 114 5 0 0 1 6 61 102 12 0 175 364
05:30 PM 1 7 61 3 72 0 119 6 0 125 3 3 0 2 8 60 100 6 0 166 371
Total Volume 7 23 274 6 310 4 418 25 3 450 21 4 0 4 29 240 405 42 0 687 1476
% App. Total 2.3 7.4 88.4 1.9 0.9 92.9 5.6 0.7 72.4 13.8 0 13.8 34.9 59 6.1 0
PHF .438 .821 .846 .500 .881 .500 .878 .694 .375 .900 .656 .333 .000 .500 .806 .896 .993 .808 .000 .954 .989
Cars 7 23 272 6 308 4 417 25 3 449 21 4 0 4 29 237 400 42 0 679 1465
% Cars 100 100 99.3 100 99.4 100 99.8 100 100 99.8 100 100 0 100 100 98.8 98.8 100 0 98.8 99.3
Trucks 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 8 11
% Trucks 0 0 0.7 0 0.6 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.2 0 0 1.2 0.7
Brimbal Ave

R
t
e

2
2
/
E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t


R
t
e

2
2
/
E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t

Retail Drive
Right
272
2
274
Thru
23
0
23
Left
7
0
7
Peds
6
0
6
In Out Total
266 308 574
3 2 5
269 579 310
R
i
g
h
t
2
5

0

2
5

T
h
r
u
4
1
7

1

4
1
8

L
e
f
t
4

0

4

P
e
d
s
3

0

3

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
0
7

4
4
9

8
5
6

5

1

6

4
1
2

8
6
2

4
5
0

Left
21
0
21
Thru
4
0
4
Right
0
0
0
Peds
4
0
4
Out Total In
69 29 98
0 0 0
69 98 29
L
e
f
t
2
3
7

3

2
4
0

T
h
r
u
4
0
0

5

4
0
5

R
i
g
h
t
4
2

0

4
2

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
7
1
0

6
7
9

1
3
8
9

3

8

1
1

7
1
3

1
4
0
0

6
8
7

Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Brimbal Ave
From North
Essex Street/Rte 22
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Essex Street/Rte 22
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 0 1 54 0 55 0 59 7 1 67 2 4 0 2 8 69 54 10 0 133 263
11:15 AM 0 3 46 0 49 0 76 2 0 78 3 0 0 3 6 56 59 8 0 123 256
11:30 AM 1 5 54 2 62 1 66 6 2 75 5 2 1 1 9 57 56 17 0 130 276
11:45 AM 0 2 50 0 52 0 62 6 2 70 5 3 1 0 9 53 53 11 0 117 248
Total 1 11 204 2 218 1 263 21 5 290 15 9 2 6 32 235 222 46 0 503 1043
12:00 PM 1 5 47 0 53 0 70 2 0 72 4 2 0 0 6 62 63 12 0 137 268
12:15 PM 0 6 57 0 63 1 41 2 0 44 6 2 0 0 8 57 55 4 0 116 231
12:30 PM 1 3 51 0 55 0 63 4 0 67 3 4 0 0 7 64 69 11 0 144 273
12:45 PM 1 1 53 1 56 2 77 7 1 87 3 1 0 0 4 74 54 12 0 140 287
Total 3 15 208 1 227 3 251 15 1 270 16 9 0 0 25 257 241 39 0 537 1059
01:00 PM 0 7 61 0 68 0 54 4 1 59 3 3 0 2 8 71 53 15 0 139 274
01:15 PM 3 6 70 1 80 1 46 5 0 52 3 2 2 0 7 73 63 15 0 151 290
01:30 PM 3 6 46 0 55 0 48 5 0 53 5 4 1 0 10 63 74 3 0 140 258
01:45 PM 2 2 58 1 63 2 43 1 0 46 2 3 0 0 5 69 63 5 0 137 251
Total 8 21 235 2 266 3 191 15 1 210 13 12 3 2 30 276 253 38 0 567 1073
Grand Total 12 47 647 5 711 7 705 51 7 770 44 30 5 8 87 768 716 123 0 1607 3175
Apprch % 1.7 6.6 91 0.7 0.9 91.6 6.6 0.9 50.6 34.5 5.7 9.2 47.8 44.6 7.7 0
Total % 0.4 1.5 20.4 0.2 22.4 0.2 22.2 1.6 0.2 24.3 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.3 2.7 24.2 22.6 3.9 0 50.6
Cars 12 46 640 5 703 7 698 51 7 763 44 30 5 8 87 759 707 122 0 1588 3141
% Cars 100 97.9 98.9 100 98.9 100 99 100 100 99.1 100 100 100 100 100 98.8 98.7 99.2 0 98.8 98.9
Trucks 0 1 7 0 8 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 1 0 19 34
% Trucks 0 2.1 1.1 0 1.1 0 1 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.3 0.8 0 1.2 1.1
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Brimbal-Essex Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Essex Street/Rte 22
N-S Street: Brimbal Ave-Retail Drive
Brimbal Ave
From North
Essex Street/Rte 22
From East
Retail Drive
From South
Essex Street/Rte 22
From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:30 PM
12:30 PM 1 3 51 0 55 0 63 4 0 67 3 4 0 0 7 64 69 11 0 144 273
12:45 PM 1 1 53 1 56 2 77 7 1 87 3 1 0 0 4 74 54 12 0 140 287
01:00 PM 0 7 61 0 68 0 54 4 1 59 3 3 0 2 8 71 53 15 0 139 274
01:15 PM 3 6 70 1 80 1 46 5 0 52 3 2 2 0 7 73 63 15 0 151 290
Total Volume 5 17 235 2 259 3 240 20 2 265 12 10 2 2 26 282 239 53 0 574 1124
% App. Total 1.9 6.6 90.7 0.8 1.1 90.6 7.5 0.8 46.2 38.5 7.7 7.7 49.1 41.6 9.2 0
PHF .417 .607 .839 .500 .809 .375 .779 .714 .500 .761 1.00 .625 .250 .250 .813 .953 .866 .883 .000 .950 .969
Cars 5 16 232 2 255 3 237 20 2 262 12 10 2 2 26 277 238 53 0 568 1111
% Cars 100 94.1 98.7 100 98.5 100 98.8 100 100 98.9 100 100 100 100 100 98.2 99.6 100 0 99.0 98.8
Trucks 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 13
% Trucks 0 5.9 1.3 0 1.5 0 1.3 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0.4 0 0 1.0 1.2
Brimbal Ave

E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t
/
R
t
e

2
2


E
s
s
e
x

S
t
r
e
e
t
/
R
t
e

2
2

Retail Drive
Right
232
3
235
Thru
16
1
17
Left
5
0
5
Peds
2
0
2
In Out Total
307 255 562
5 4 9
312 571 259
R
i
g
h
t
2
0

0

2
0

T
h
r
u
2
3
7

3

2
4
0

L
e
f
t
3

0

3

P
e
d
s
2

0

2

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
2
4
5

2
6
2

5
0
7

1

3

4

2
4
6

5
1
1

2
6
5

Left
12
0
12
Thru
10
0
10
Right
2
0
2
Peds
2
0
2
Out Total In
72 26 98
1 0 1
73 99 26
L
e
f
t
2
7
7

5

2
8
2

T
h
r
u
2
3
8

1

2
3
9

R
i
g
h
t
5
3

0

5
3

P
e
d
s
0

0

0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
4
8
1

5
6
8

1
0
4
9

6

6

1
2

4
8
7

1
0
6
1

5
7
4

Peak Hour Begins at 12:30 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/3/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 35 123 2 160 13 47 2 62 91 19 1 111 333
07:15 AM 27 152 0 179 19 52 1 72 126 23 0 149 400
07:30 AM 43 192 4 239 23 55 4 82 144 55 1 200 521
07:45 AM 61 196 1 258 47 81 0 128 155 38 0 193 579
Total 166 663 7 836 102 235 7 344 516 135 2 653 1833
08:00 AM 62 179 0 241 22 71 0 93 133 27 0 160 494
08:15 AM 49 188 0 237 20 65 0 85 145 21 1 167 489
08:30 AM 44 163 0 207 16 53 4 73 125 28 0 153 433
08:45 AM 52 152 0 204 32 73 1 106 132 26 0 158 468
Total 207 682 0 889 90 262 5 357 535 102 1 638 1884
Grand Total 373 1345 7 1725 192 497 12 701 1051 237 3 1291 3717
Apprch % 21.6 78 0.4 27.4 70.9 1.7 81.4 18.4 0.2
Total % 10 36.2 0.2 46.4 5.2 13.4 0.3 18.9 28.3 6.4 0.1 34.7
Cars 367 1309 7 1683 189 488 12 689 1017 228 3 1248 3620
% Cars 98.4 97.3 100 97.6 98.4 98.2 100 98.3 96.8 96.2 100 96.7 97.4
Trucks 6 36 0 42 3 9 0 12 34 9 0 43 97
% Trucks 1.6 2.7 0 2.4 1.6 1.8 0 1.7 3.2 3.8 0 3.3 2.6
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge AM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/3/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 43 192 4 239 23 55 4 82 144 55 1 200 521
07:45 AM 61 196 1 258 47 81 0 128 155 38 0 193 579
08:00 AM 62 179 0 241 22 71 0 93 133 27 0 160 494
08:15 AM 49 188 0 237 20 65 0 85 145 21 1 167 489
Total Volume 215 755 5 975 112 272 4 388 577 141 2 720 2083
% App. Total 22.1 77.4 0.5 28.9 70.1 1 80.1 19.6 0.3
PHF .867 .963 .313 .945 .596 .840 .250 .758 .931 .641 .500 .900 .899
Cars 214 737 5 956 112 267 4 383 559 136 2 697 2036
% Cars 99.5 97.6 100 98.1 100 98.2 100 98.7 96.9 96.5 100 96.8 97.7
Trucks 1 18 0 19 0 5 0 5 18 5 0 23 47
% Trucks 0.5 2.4 0 1.9 0 1.8 0 1.3 3.1 3.5 0 3.2 2.3
Rte 1A/Enon Street

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Rte 1A/Dodge Street
Thru
737
18
755
Left
214
1
215
Peds
5
0
5
In Out Total
826 956 1782
23 19 42
849 1824 975
R
i
g
h
t
2
6
7

5

2
7
2

L
e
f
t
1
1
2

0

1
1
2

P
e
d
s
4

0

4

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
3
5
0

3
8
3

7
3
3

6

5

1
1

3
5
6

7
4
4

3
8
8

Thru
559
18
577
Right
136
5
141
Peds
2
0
2
Out Total In
849 697 1546
18 23 41
867 1587 720
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 57 158 0 215 25 65 1 91 167 73 0 240 546
04:15 PM 79 168 0 247 21 68 3 92 197 55 0 252 591
04:30 PM 51 160 0 211 25 72 4 101 168 72 0 240 552
04:45 PM 49 147 1 197 29 75 2 106 214 48 0 262 565
Total 236 633 1 870 100 280 10 390 746 248 0 994 2254
05:00 PM 53 171 2 226 23 70 2 95 211 76 2 289 610
05:15 PM 61 189 1 251 24 64 5 93 192 71 2 265 609
05:30 PM 56 155 2 213 21 69 1 91 195 52 0 247 551
05:45 PM 64 143 0 207 23 76 3 102 198 60 3 261 570
Total 234 658 5 897 91 279 11 381 796 259 7 1062 2340
Grand Total 470 1291 6 1767 191 559 21 771 1542 507 7 2056 4594
Apprch % 26.6 73.1 0.3 24.8 72.5 2.7 75 24.7 0.3
Total % 10.2 28.1 0.1 38.5 4.2 12.2 0.5 16.8 33.6 11 0.2 44.8
Cars 469 1282 6 1757 188 558 21 767 1531 506 7 2044 4568
% Cars 99.8 99.3 100 99.4 98.4 99.8 100 99.5 99.3 99.8 100 99.4 99.4
Trucks 1 9 0 10 3 1 0 4 11 1 0 12 26
% Trucks 0.2 0.7 0 0.6 1.6 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.2 0 0.6 0.6
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge PM
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/2/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 53 171 2 226 23 70 2 95 211 76 2 289 610
05:15 PM 61 189 1 251 24 64 5 93 192 71 2 265 609
05:30 PM 56 155 2 213 21 69 1 91 195 52 0 247 551
05:45 PM 64 143 0 207 23 76 3 102 198 60 3 261 570
Total Volume 234 658 5 897 91 279 11 381 796 259 7 1062 2340
% App. Total 26.1 73.4 0.6 23.9 73.2 2.9 75 24.4 0.7
PHF .914 .870 .625 .893 .948 .918 .550 .934 .943 .852 .583 .919 .959
Cars 234 654 5 893 88 279 11 378 791 258 7 1056 2327
% Cars 100 99.4 100 99.6 96.7 100 100 99.2 99.4 99.6 100 99.4 99.4
Trucks 0 4 0 4 3 0 0 3 5 1 0 6 13
% Trucks 0 0.6 0 0.4 3.3 0 0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0 0.6 0.6
Rte 1A/Enon Street

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Rte 1A/Dodge Street
Thru
654
4
658
Left
234
0
234
Peds
5
0
5
In Out Total
1070 893 1963
5 4 9
1075 1972 897
R
i
g
h
t
2
7
9

0

2
7
9

L
e
f
t
8
8

3

9
1

P
e
d
s
1
1

0

1
1

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
9
2

3
7
8

8
7
0

1

3

4

4
9
3

8
7
4

3
8
1

Thru
791
5
796
Right
258
1
259
Peds
7
0
7
Out Total In
742 1056 1798
7 6 13
749 1811 1062
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 1
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Groups Printed- Cars - Trucks
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds App. Total Left Right Peds App. Total Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
11:00 AM 46 162 0 208 31 75 0 106 162 41 0 203 517
11:15 AM 69 195 0 264 32 91 0 123 163 40 0 203 590
11:30 AM 71 173 0 244 27 98 2 127 172 40 0 212 583
11:45 AM 59 181 0 240 41 81 1 123 144 53 0 197 560
Total 245 711 0 956 131 345 3 479 641 174 0 815 2250
12:00 PM 59 187 0 246 29 70 1 100 194 46 2 242 588
12:15 PM 62 181 3 246 33 74 6 113 167 35 0 202 561
12:30 PM 62 203 1 266 23 80 11 114 214 44 3 261 641
12:45 PM 61 182 1 244 29 86 7 122 169 64 0 233 599
Total 244 753 5 1002 114 310 25 449 744 189 5 938 2389
01:00 PM 42 157 1 200 28 62 5 95 187 39 7 233 528
01:15 PM 72 162 0 234 33 113 1 147 159 50 6 215 596
01:30 PM 59 177 1 237 28 75 4 107 179 50 0 229 573
01:45 PM 65 178 0 243 26 65 2 93 191 58 7 256 592
Total 238 674 2 914 115 315 12 442 716 197 20 933 2289
Grand Total 727 2138 7 2872 360 970 40 1370 2101 560 25 2686 6928
Apprch % 25.3 74.4 0.2 26.3 70.8 2.9 78.2 20.8 0.9
Total % 10.5 30.9 0.1 41.5 5.2 14 0.6 19.8 30.3 8.1 0.4 38.8
Cars 727 2131 7 2865 353 969 40 1362 2091 555 25 2671 6898
% Cars 100 99.7 100 99.8 98.1 99.9 100 99.4 99.5 99.1 100 99.4 99.6
Trucks 0 7 0 7 7 1 0 8 10 5 0 15 30
% Trucks 0 0.3 0 0.2 1.9 0.1 0 0.6 0.5 0.9 0 0.6 0.4
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
File Name : 13060 Rte 1A-Dodge Sat
Site Code : 13060
Start Date : 4/5/2014
Page No : 2
E-W Street: Dodge Street
N-S Street: Route 1A
Rte 1A/Enon Street
From North
Dodge Street
From East
Rte 1A/Dodge Street
From South
Start Time Left Thru Peds
App.
Total
Left Right Peds
App.
Total
Thru Right Peds
App.
Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM
12:00 PM 59 187 0 246 29 70 1 100 194 46 2 242 588
12:15 PM 62 181 3 246 33 74 6 113 167 35 0 202 561
12:30 PM 62 203 1 266 23 80 11 114 214 44 3 261 641
12:45 PM 61 182 1 244 29 86 7 122 169 64 0 233 599
Total Volume 244 753 5 1002 114 310 25 449 744 189 5 938 2389
% App. Total 24.4 75.1 0.5 25.4 69 5.6 79.3 20.1 0.5
PHF .984 .927 .417 .942 .864 .901 .568 .920 .869 .738 .417 .898 .932
Cars 244 750 5 999 112 310 25 447 740 187 5 932 2378
% Cars 100 99.6 100 99.7 98.2 100 100 99.6 99.5 98.9 100 99.4 99.5
Trucks 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 6 11
% Trucks 0 0.4 0 0.3 1.8 0 0 0.4 0.5 1.1 0 0.6 0.5
Rte 1A/Enon Street

D
o
d
g
e

S
t
r
e
e
t

Rte 1A/Dodge Street
Thru
750
3
753
Left
244
0
244
Peds
5
0
5
In Out Total
1050 999 2049
4 3 7
1054 2056 1002
R
i
g
h
t
3
1
0

0

3
1
0

L
e
f
t
1
1
2

2

1
1
4

P
e
d
s
2
5

0

2
5

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
4
3
1

4
4
7

8
7
8

2

2

4

4
3
3

8
8
2

4
4
9

Thru
740
4
744
Right
187
2
189
Peds
5
0
5
Out Total In
862 932 1794
5 6 11
867 1805 938
Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM

Cars
Trucks
Peak Hour Data
North
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



Seasonal/Historical Adjustment Data

S
T
A
T
I
O
N

3
5

-

B
E
V
E
R
L
Y

-

R
O
U
T
E

1
2
8

N
O
R
T
H

O
F

B
R
I
M
B
L
E

A
V
E
N
U
E
Y
R
J
A
N
F
E
B
M
A
R
A
P
R
M
A
Y
J
U
N
J
U
L
A
U
G
S
E
P
O
C
T
N
O
V
D
E
C
Y
E
A
R
2
0
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
4
2
7
2
0
4
3
4
1
4
4
7
4
9
6
4
9
0
1
0
5
5
1
1
1
5
4
8
3
0
5
4
4
5
3
4
9
5
4
1
4
6
6
3
2
4
6
0
8
6
4
4
1
4
0
4
7
7
8
6
2
0
0
6
4
0
1
6
0
4
0
4
0
5
4
5
1
4
7
4
6
0
8
4
5
0
1
2
4
5
2
2
4
5
5
3
5
6
1
5
4
0
0
0
4
9
9
8
3
4
8
9
2
0
4
6
0
3
4
4
4
5
9
6
4
7
6
0
5
2
0
0
7
4
2
0
0
0
4
2
5
4
1
4
4
2
4
3
4
5
7
5
7
5
0
8
9
6
4
9
5
3
1
5
3
6
6
3
5
4
4
2
2
5
0
5
1
6
4
9
0
0
4
4
5
4
6
5
4
1
5
6
5
4
7
4
6
7
2
0
0
8
4
2
2
6
1
4
1
6
3
0
4
2
2
1
3
4
6
1
4
5
4
8
6
3
7
5
0
3
0
6
5
0
3
5
8
5
0
0
4
5
4
6
6
6
0
4
1
9
9
1
3
9
0
1
2
4
0
2
5
7
4
4
9
6
0
2
0
0
9
3
9
0
1
1
4
1
6
4
8
4
6
0
0
0
4
6
5
1
1
4
8
7
4
1
4
9
4
7
0
5
1
2
7
3
4
8
1
5
3
4
5
7
2
1
4
8
2
1
2
4
3
7
5
4
4
1
8
1
3
4
5
8
5
9
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
:
4
0
6
8
6
4
1
7
8
9
4
4
2
0
3
4
6
3
9
9
4
9
4
8
2
5
1
3
3
3
5
2
7
3
7
5
2
2
1
5
4
8
4
8
4
4
6
9
5
2
4
4
0
7
0
4
2
4
7
4
4
6
7
3
5
F
a
c
t
o
r

t
o
A
n
n
u
a
l

A
v
g
.
:
1
.
1
5
1
.
1
2
1
.
0
6
1
.
0
1
0
.
9
4
0
.
9
1
0
.
8
9
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
6
1
.
0
0
1
.
0
6
1
.
1
0
A
n
n
u
a
l

G
r
o
w
t
h
:
2
0
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
-
0
.
3
8
%
2
0
0
5
-
2
0
0
7
-
0
.
3
3
%
2
0
0
5
-
2
0
0
8
-
1
.
9
7
%
2
0
0
5
-
2
0
0
9
-
1
.
0
1
%
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
0
7
-
0
.
2
9
%
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
0
8
-
2
.
7
8
%
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
0
9
-
1
.
2
2
%
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
0
8
-
5
.
2
8
%
2
0
0
7
-
2
0
0
9
-
1
.
6
9
%
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
2
.
0
0
%
A
v
g
.

G
r
o
w
t
h
:
-
1
.
3
0
%
Ron Miiller & Associates
Tmffic Engineering and Consulting Services
0,r) Q,l
lo,r
Figure 5
zoz )
Z02CIffo-Build
Peak Hom Traffic Volumes
"4
*
fi5
n'*i i)
'D
rfl;.7
3a c,,
r
5b.
try
fif
','9
o
o
etA,a
s-O
1U
'.qp
/s*
lg
/o
,f oo
g
q
":a.'J
i I
",\r'
,{
-i'
+
o
|
"or
ro r.*u
Ron Miiller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Senices
Pryfupyc,,"
Figure 5
?Zt
Z9Z0 No-Build
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
$1
Z7 ;a
t63 crui
",
\l)
\,/ (
,r1
''\
'
ri\i@
@
3,
?.\
,d\
,a\
"%\
,
.
-b\
c'^
i{ \
,-.o\
I
tf_
-r\
\\
r(
,\,-.lrrt C
-,iX'q,
l7\
-+^+\
\
ru
.{
,8,,2!;I*<
'
" ll,l->Y
"ru:x
**{3"0"'n
ne/ Lk
,'Lr,
rsJr T
\
9t ,t7
,lt:_
r
''1,
'c:
\LL
@
:
Retail Drive
dr,. ,l!
\(
- -L,
\B\
J*
I
s
i
,/ o-
tv
la
o
4
?\
.,x\
?.5i)
ryi',i;'P
NOT TO SCALE
Ron Miiller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Scl
Pn|
Hour
-==-
Figure 5
7nL
i
202flNo-Build
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Q",
RE
\
*
i49
rti f
'D
u
i{i
in
l:7 o, i
G'
\(
., ll
{+)
\j
q"
.(\
J
l
+
l
tq
/o=
/^i
b
.t
t+.t-^
ti--*-,.')
t'7.+
>Y
NOT TO SCAIE
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



Crash Rate Worksheets

CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : April 2014
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : SIGNALIZED : X
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Enon Street (Route 1A) and Dodge Street (Route 1A)
MINOR STREET(S) : Dodge Street
Enon St. (Rte 1A)
North
Dodge Street
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Dodge St. (Rte 1A)
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
1,069 903 0 374 2,346

0.086 27,279
15
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
5.00
0.50
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : April 2014
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Dodge Street
MINOR STREET(S) : Laurel Street
North
Dodge Street
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Laurrel Street
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
338 0 503 260 1,101

0.086 12,802
7
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
2.33
0.50
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : September 2013
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Brimbal Avenue
MINOR STREET(S) : Rte 128 SB On-Ramp and Dunham Road
Brimbal Avenue
North
Rte 128 SB On-Ramp Dunham Road
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Brimbal Avenue
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
491 404 0 63 958
0.086 11,140
5
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
1.67
0.41
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : September 2013
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Brimbal Avenue
MINOR STREET(S) : Route 128 Southbound Off-Ramp
Brimbal Avenue
North
Rte. 128 SB Off-Ramp
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Brimbal Avenue
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
1,015 336 0 189 1,540
0.086 17,907
3
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
1.00
0.15
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : September 2013
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Brimbal Avenue
MINOR STREET(S) : Connector Road (Sohier Road)
Private Driveway
Brimbal Avenue
North
Connector Rd (Sohier Rd) private driveway
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Brimbal Avenue
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
756 474 650 51 1,931

0.086 22,453
10
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
3.33
0.41
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : September 2013
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Route 128 NB Ramps and Sohier Road
MINOR STREET(S) : Connector Road (Sohier Road)
Route 128 Northbound Ramps
North
Connector Rd (Sohier Rd)
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Sohier Road
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
426 659 0 288 1,373

0.086 15,965
12
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
4.00
0.69
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : April 2014
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Brimbal Avenue
MINOR STREET(S) : Herrick Street
Brimbal Avenue
North
Herrick Street
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Brimbal Avenue
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
428 580 300 0 1,308
0.086 15,209
8
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
2.67
0.48
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : April 2014
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Brimbal Avenue
MINOR STREET(S) : Colon Street (all-way stop control)
Brimbal Avenue
North
Colon Street Colon Street
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Brimbal Avenue
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
297 492 251 293 1,333
0.086 15,500
5
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
1.67
0.29
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
CITY/TOWN : Beverly COUNT DATE : April 2014
DISTRICT : 4 UNSIGNALIZED : X SIGNALIZED :
~ INTERSECTION DATA ~
MAJOR STREET : Essex Road (Rte 22)
MINOR STREET(S) : Brimbal Ave. and private retail driveway
Brimbal Avenue
North
Esse Road (Rte 22) Essex Road (Rte 22)
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION
Private Retail Driveway
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
1 2 3 4 5
NB SB EB WB
25 346 717 453 1,541
0.086 17,919
7
# OF
YEARS :
3
AVERAGE # OF
CRASHES PER YEAR
( A ) :
2.33
0.36
RATE =
( A * 1,000,000 )
( V * 365 )
Comments : 0.086 K factor and actual PM peak hourly volumes used
Project Title & Date: Proposed Retail Development, Beverly MA
APPROACH :
INTERSECTION ADT ( V ) = TOTAL DAILY
APPROACH VOLUME :
CRASH RATE CALCULATION :
TOTAL # OF CRASHES :
" K " FACTOR :
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM/PM) :
DIRECTION :
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
Volume
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



Trip Generation Worksheets



Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 9th Edition
Land Use Code (LUC) 850 - Supermarket
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Independent Variable (X): 35.340
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY
T = 66.95 * (X) + 1391.56
T = 3757.57
T = 3,758 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 1,879 vpd) entering and 50% ( 1,879 vpd) exiting.
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 3.40 * (X)
T = 120.16
T = 120 vehicle trips
with 62% ( 74 vph) entering and 39% ( 46 vph) exiting.
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
Ln (T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 3.25
Ln (T) = 5.89
T = 360.72
T = 361 vehicle trips
with 51% ( 184 vph) entering and 49% ( 177 vph) exiting.
SATURDAY DAILY
T = 177.59 * (X)
T = 6276.03
T = 6,276 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 3,138 vpd) entering and 50% ( 3,138 vpd) exiting.
SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
Ln (T) = 0.57 Ln(X) + 4.18
Ln (T) = 6.21 0.000
T = 498.73
T = 499 vehicle trips
with 51% ( 254 vpd) entering and 49% ( 245 vpd) exiting.
Ron Muller & Associates 850-SF-Supermarket.xlsx
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 9th Edition
Land Use Code (LUC) 820 - Shopping Center
Computing trips for (X): 27.000 ksf at a
rate of the total site (Y): 62.340 ksf
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY SATURDAY DAILY
Ln T = 0.65 Ln (Y) + 5.83 Ln T = 0.63 Ln (Y) + 6.23
Ln T = 8.52 Ln T = 8.83
T = 4995.00 T = 6860.53
T = 4,995 T = 6,861 vehicle trips
Rate = 80.13 Rate = 110.06
T = T =
T = 2,163.38 T = 2,971.56
T = 2,163 vehicle trips T = 2,972 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 1,082 vpd) entering and 50% ( 1,082 vpd) exiting. with 50% ( 1,486 vpd) entering and 50% ( 1,486 vpd) exiting.
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
Ln T = 0.61 Ln (Y) +2.24 Ln T = 0.65 Ln (Y) + 3.78
Ln T = 4.76 Ln T = 6.47
T = 116.85 T = 643.03
T = 117 vehicle trips T = 643 vehicle trips
Rate = 1.88 Rate = 10.31
T = T =
T = 50.67 T = 278.49
T = 51 vehicle trips T = 278 vehicle trips
with 62% ( 32 vph) entering and 38% ( 19 vph) exiting. with 52% ( 145 vph) entering and 48% ( 133 vph) exiting.
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
Ln T = 0.67 Ln (Y) + 3.31
Ln T = 6.08
T = 436.52
T = 437 vehicle trips
Rate = 7.01
T =
T = 189.27
T = 189 vehicle trips
with 48% ( 91 vph) entering and 52% ( 98 vph) exiting.
80.13 * (X) 110.06 * (X)
10.31 * (X)
7.01 * (X)
1.88 * (X)
Ron Muller & Associates 820-SF-overall rate applied SF.xlsx
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 9th Edition
Land Use Code (LUC) 720 - Medical-Dental Office Building
Average Vehicle Trips Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Independent Variable (X): 20.000
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY WEEKDAY DAILY AVG. RATE
T = 40.89 * (X) -214.97 T = 36.13 * (X)
T = 602.83 T = 722.60
T = 603 vehicle trips T = 723
with 50% ( 302 vph) entering and 50% ( 301 vph) exiting. with 362 entering and 361 exiting
WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC
T = 2.39 * (X)
T = 47.80
T = 48 vehicle trips
with 79% ( 38 vph) entering and 21% ( 10 vph) exiting.
WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC WEEKDAY PM PEAK AVG. RATE
Ln(T) = 0.90 * Ln(X) + 1.53 T = 3.57 * (X)
Ln(T) = 4.226 T = 71.4
T = 68.45 T = 71
T = 68 vehicle trips with 20 entering and 51 exiting
with 28% ( 19 vph) entering and 72% ( 49 vph) exiting.
SATURDAY DAILY
T = 8.96 * (X)
T = 179.20
T = 179 vehicle trips
with 50% ( 90 vph) entering and 50% ( 89 vph) exiting.
SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR OF GENERATOR
T = 3.63 * (X)
T = 72.60
T = 73 vehicle trips
with 57% ( 42 vph) entering and 43% ( 31 vph) exiting.
Ron Muller & Associates 720-SF-Medical Office.xlsx
Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Traffic Impact and Access Study
Shopping Center, Beverly, Massachusetts



Capacity Analysis Methodology and Worksheets


Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Capacity Analysis Methodology



Page 1 of 2

General

A primary result of capacity analysis is the assignment of levels of service to traffic facilities
under various traffic flow conditions. The capacity analysis methodology is based on the
concepts and procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); Transportation Research
Board; Washington, D.C.; 2010. The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a
qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception
by motorists and/or passengers. A level of service definition provides an index to quality of
traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety.

Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from
A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Since the
level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility
may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of week, or
period of year. A description of the operating condition under each level of service is provided
below:

LOS A describes conditions with little to no delay to motorists.

LOS B represents a desirable level with relatively low delay to motorists.

LOS C describes conditions with average delays to motorists.

LOS D describes operations where the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.
Delays are still within an acceptable range.

LOS E represents operating conditions with high delay values. This level is considered
by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.

LOS F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers with high delay values that often
occur, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.


Unsignalized Intersections

Levels of service for unsignalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis
methodology of the HCM. The procedure accounts for lane configuration on both the minor and
major street approaches, conflicting traffic stream volumes, and the type of intersection control
(STOP, YIELD, or all-way STOP control). The definition of level of service for unsignalized
intersections is a function of average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration
delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The level-of-service
criteria for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table A-1.

Ron Mller & Associates
Traffic Engineering and Consulting Services
Capacity Analysis Methodology



Page 2 of 2

Signalized Intersections

Levels of service for signalized intersections are also calculated using the operational analysis
methodology of the HCM. The methodology for signalized intersections assesses the effects of
signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and geometries on average control
delay. Control delay includes queue move-up time and stopped delay. Table A-l summarizes the
relationship between level of service and average control delay.


Roundabouts

The level of service method used for roundabouts is based on both delay and the volume-to-
capacity ratio as presented in the (HCM 2010). The control delay formulation for roundabouts is
similar to that of two-way and all-way stop controlled intersections, adjusting for the effect of
yield control. As such, the LOS criterion for automobiles in roundabouts is the same as that of
unsignalized intersections. LOS F is assigned to a movement if the volume-to-capacity ratio
exceeds 1.0 regardless of the movement control delay. Intersection and approach LOS values,
however, are based on the average delay for all movements and are not governed by the volume-
to-capacity ratio. Continuous right-turn by-pass lanes always operate at LOS A.


Table A-1
Level-of-Service Criteria for Intersections and Roundabouts





Level of Service

Unsignalized and
Roundabout Criteria
Average Control Delay
In Seconds Per Vehicle


Signalized Criteria
Average Control Delay
In Seconds Per Vehicle

A
B
C
D
E
F


10
10.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 50.0
>50


10
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 80.0
>80



For signalized intersections and roundabouts, this delay criterion may be applied in assigning
level of service designations to individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or
to the entire intersection. For unsignalized intersections, this delay criterion may be applied in
assigning level of service designations to individual lane groups or to individual intersection
approaches.
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.852 0.892 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.994 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1603 0 0 1527 0 0 1870 0 0 1861 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.994 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1603 0 0 1527 0 0 1870 0 0 1861 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 219 1634 690
Travel Time (s) 10.6 4.3 31.8 13.4
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 257 4 268 0 2 7 77 580 1 5 395 293
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 302 5 315 0 2 8 91 682 1 6 465 345
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1350 1341 465 1343 1341 683 465 684
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1350 1341 465 1343 1341 683 465 684
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 97 47 100 98 98 92 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 116 140 600 53 133 434 1102 910
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 302 320 11 774 471 345
Volume Left 302 0 0 91 6 0
Volume Right 0 315 8 1 0 345
cSH 116 572 289 1102 910 1700
Volume to Capacity 2.61 0.56 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.20
Queue Length 95th (ft) 686 86 3 7 0 0
Control Delay (s) 808.7 19.0 17.9 2.0 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS F C C A A
Approach Delay (s) 402.6 17.9 2.0 0.1
Approach LOS F C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 113.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.990 0.927
Flt Protected 0.956 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 1763 0 0 1857 1710 0
Flt Permitted 0.956 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 1763 0 0 1857 1710 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 648 2995 1634
Travel Time (s) 12.6 58.3 31.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 145 11 31 488 289 345
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 158 12 34 530 314 375
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1099 502 689
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1099 502 689
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 30 98 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 226 570 905
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 170 564 689
Volume Left 158 34 0
Volume Right 12 0 375
cSH 236 905 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.72 0.04 0.41
Queue Length 95th (ft) 121 3 0
Control Delay (s) 51.3 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) 51.3 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 150 200 175
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1568 1827 1553 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1568 1827 1553 1770 1863
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 547 343
Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.7 6.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 298 74 98 171 358 417
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 359 89 118 206 431 502
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 6
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1483 118 118
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1483 118 118
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 90 71
cM capacity (veh/h) 97 931 1470
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 448 118 206 431 502
Volume Left 359 0 0 431 0
Volume Right 89 0 206 0 0
cSH 118 1700 1700 1470 1700
Volume to Capacity 3.80 0.07 0.12 0.29 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 0 0 31 0
Control Delay (s) Err 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) Err 0.0 3.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2629.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.966 0.987 0.850
Flt Protected 0.984 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1720 0 0 1857 0 0 1859 1583
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1720 0 0 1857 0 0 1859 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 103 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.0 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 18 24 14 0 331 34 18 391 190
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 22 29 17 0 399 41 22 471 229
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 965 954 471 934 934 419 471 440
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 965 954 471 934 934 419 471 440
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 89 97 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 207 256 597 239 258 628 1096 1120
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 67 440 493 229
Volume Left 22 0 22 0
Volume Right 17 41 0 229
cSH 294 1700 1120 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.26 0.02 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 20.9 0.0 0.6 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 20.9 0.0 0.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 85 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 690 103
Travel Time (s) 9.6 13.4 2.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 284 56 309 535 0 409
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 342 67 372 645 0 493
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 865 372 372
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 865 372 372
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 90 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 325 676 1186
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 410 372 645 493
Volume Left 342 0 0 0
Volume Right 67 0 645 0
cSH 362 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.13 0.22 0.38 0.29
Queue Length 95th (ft) 393 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 121.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 121.6 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 26.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.996 0.962 0.972
Flt Protected 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1776 0 0 1775 0 0 1859 0 0 1775 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1776 0 0 1775 0 0 1859 0 0 1775 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 587 432 353 2995
Travel Time (s) 13.3 9.8 8.0 68.1
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 137 128 8 0 279 108 13 337 1 75 226 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 149 139 9 0 303 117 14 366 1 82 246 86
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 297 421 382 413
Volume Left (vph) 149 0 14 82
Volume Right (vph) 9 117 1 86
Hadj (s) 0.15 -0.12 0.04 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 9.6 8.8 9.1 8.9
Degree Utilization, x 0.79 1.0 0.96 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 366 404 393 413
Control Delay (s) 40.9 83.8 66.6 81.6
Approach Delay (s) 40.9 83.8 66.6 81.6
Approach LOS E F F F
Intersection Summary
Delay 70.4
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.993 0.992 0.991 0.875
Flt Protected 0.977 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1790 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1614 0
Flt Permitted 0.977 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1790 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1614 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 539 453 183 353
Travel Time (s) 10.5 8.8 3.6 8.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 317 322 36 4 418 26 16 8 2 2 15 217
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 364 370 41 5 480 30 18 9 2 2 17 249
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 510 411 1882 1639 391 1631 1645 495
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 510 411 1882 1639 391 1631 1645 495
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 65 100 0 86 100 96 73 56
cM capacity (veh/h) 1050 1131 18 65 653 53 64 572
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 776 515 30 269
Volume Left 364 5 18 2
Volume Right 41 30 2 249
cSH 1050 1131 25 360
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.00 1.19 0.75
Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 0 91 146
Control Delay (s) 7.3 0.1 469.2 39.4
Lane LOS A A F E
Approach Delay (s) 7.3 0.1 469.2 39.4
Approach LOS F E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 19.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 61 120
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 113 275 583 143 217 763
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 38.3% 38.3% 26.7% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 9.4 24.4 14.7 14.7 9.9 29.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.62 0.29 0.68 0.76
Control Delay 21.4 7.7 18.6 7.1 32.4 13.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 7.7 18.6 7.1 32.4 13.8
LOS C A B A C B
Approach Delay 11.7 16.3 17.9
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 49.3
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.76
Intersection Signal Delay: 16.2 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 306 648 159 241 848
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.62 0.29 0.68 0.76
Control Delay 21.4 7.7 18.6 7.1 32.4 13.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 7.7 18.6 7.1 32.4 13.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 36 84 8 62 140
Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 88 149 46 #177 #375
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 592 840 1307 660 403 1312
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.36 0.50 0.24 0.60 0.65
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 113 275 583 143 217 763
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 126 306 648 159 241 848
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 84 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 275 648 75 241 848
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 24.3 14.8 14.8 9.9 29.7
Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 24.3 14.8 14.8 9.9 29.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 342 791 1056 472 356 1126
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.17 0.18 0.14 c0.46
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.35 0.61 0.16 0.68 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 17.3 7.6 14.7 12.6 18.1 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 4.0 2.6
Delay (s) 17.5 7.7 15.4 12.6 22.1 9.6
Level of Service B A B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 10.5 14.9 12.4
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.1 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.899 0.850
Flt Protected 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1658 0 0 1829 1736 1553
Flt Permitted 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1658 0 0 1829 1736 1553
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 90 270 283 217 171 49
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 102 307 322 247 194 56
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 409 1145 256
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 409 1145 256
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 72 0 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 1155 158 778
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 409 568 194 56
Volume Left 0 322 194 0
Volume Right 307 0 0 56
cSH 1700 1155 158 778
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.28 1.23 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 29 278 6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 6.6 204.1 10.0
Lane LOS A F A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.6 160.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 35.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.859 0.902 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.995 0.993 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1600 0 0 1672 0 0 1868 0 0 1877 1599
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.995 0.993 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1600 0 0 1672 0 0 1868 0 0 1877 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 219 1634 690
Travel Time (s) 10.6 4.3 31.8 13.4
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 326 19 305 5 9 37 102 652 2 10 287 177
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 354 21 332 5 10 40 111 709 2 11 312 192
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1310 1266 312 1276 1265 710 312 711
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1310 1266 312 1276 1265 710 312 711
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 86 54 92 94 91 91 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 108 152 728 65 152 434 1254 893
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 354 352 55 822 323 192
Volume Left 354 0 5 111 11 0
Volume Right 0 332 40 2 0 192
cSH 108 596 230 1254 893 1700
Volume to Capacity 3.27 0.59 0.24 0.09 0.01 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) Err 96 23 7 1 0
Control Delay (s) Err 19.4 25.5 2.2 0.4 0.0
Lane LOS F C D A A
Approach Delay (s) 5024.5 25.5 2.2 0.3
Approach LOS F D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1692.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.994 0.967
Flt Protected 0.954 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 0 0 1861 1801 0
Flt Permitted 0.954 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 0 0 1861 1801 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 648 2995 1634
Travel Time (s) 12.6 58.3 31.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 287 13 10 418 439 141
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 312 14 11 454 477 153
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1030 554 630
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1030 554 630
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 97 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 256 532 952
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 326 465 630
Volume Left 312 11 0
Volume Right 14 0 153
cSH 262 952 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.25 0.01 0.37
Queue Length 95th (ft) 395 1 0
Control Delay (s) 178.1 0.3 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) 178.1 0.3 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 41.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 150 200 175
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1881 1599 1787 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1881 1599 1787 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 547 343
Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.7 6.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 128 160 194 232 418 241
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 139 174 211 252 454 262
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 6
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1382 211 211
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1382 211 211
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 79 67
cM capacity (veh/h) 106 829 1366
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 313 211 252 454 262
Volume Left 139 0 0 454 0
Volume Right 174 0 252 0 0
cSH 223 1700 1700 1366 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.40 0.12 0.15 0.33 0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft) 445 0 0 37 0
Control Delay (s) 246.6 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) 246.6 0.0 5.7
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 54.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.965 0.989 0.850
Flt Protected 0.981 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1799 0 0 1860 0 0 1877 1599
Flt Permitted 0.981 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1799 0 0 1860 0 0 1877 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 103 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.0 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 24 23 16 0 451 40 14 312 78
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 25 24 17 0 470 42 15 325 81
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 873 866 325 845 845 491 325 511
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 873 866 325 845 845 491 325 511
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 92 97 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 246 290 721 282 298 582 1240 1059
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 66 511 340 81
Volume Left 25 0 15 0
Volume Right 17 42 0 81
cSH 332 1700 1059 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.30 0.01 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 18.5 0.0 0.5 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 18.5 0.0 0.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 85 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 690 103
Travel Time (s) 9.6 13.4 2.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 138 51 440 575 0 336
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 144 53 458 599 0 350
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 808 458 458
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 808 458 458
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 59 91 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 350 603 1108
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 197 458 599 350
Volume Left 144 0 0 0
Volume Right 53 0 599 0
cSH 480 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.27 0.35 0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 19.4 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.990 0.950 0.979
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 0 0 1770 0 0 1894 0 0 1825 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.991
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 0 0 1770 0 0 1894 0 0 1825 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 587 432 353 2995
Travel Time (s) 13.3 9.8 8.0 68.1
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 81 152 18 2 183 108 19 277 1 88 326 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 84 158 19 2 191 112 20 289 1 92 340 81
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 261 305 309 513
Volume Left (vph) 84 2 20 92
Volume Right (vph) 19 113 1 81
Hadj (s) 0.04 -0.19 0.01 -0.04
Departure Headway (s) 8.0 7.6 7.6 7.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.58 0.65 0.66 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 423 443 450 499
Control Delay (s) 21.4 23.5 24.1 70.9
Approach Delay (s) 21.4 23.5 24.1 70.9
Approach LOS C C C F
Intersection Summary
Delay 40.8
Level of Service E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.992 0.992 0.877
Flt Protected 0.982 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1648 0
Flt Permitted 0.982 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1648 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 539 453 183 353
Travel Time (s) 10.5 8.8 3.6 8.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 266 409 42 4 422 27 21 4 0 8 23 315
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Hourly flow rate (vph) 269 413 42 4 426 27 21 4 0 8 23 318
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 454 456 1749 1433 434 1422 1441 440
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 454 456 1749 1433 434 1422 1441 440
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 76 100 5 96 100 91 77 49
cM capacity (veh/h) 1112 1116 22 102 626 90 101 619
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 724 458 25 349
Volume Left 269 4 21 8
Volume Right 42 27 0 318
cSH 1112 1116 25 419
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.00 0.99 0.83
Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 0 77 198
Control Delay (s) 5.4 0.1 397.2 44.2
Lane LOS A A F E
Approach Delay (s) 5.4 0.1 397.2 44.2
Approach LOS F E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 18.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.8% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 25 161
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 92 282 804 265 238 665
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 38.3% 38.3% 26.7% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 10.1 25.2 16.4 16.4 10.0 31.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.19 0.61
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.37 0.74 0.45 0.71 0.60
Control Delay 20.4 9.3 21.5 9.6 35.0 9.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.4 9.3 21.5 9.6 35.0 9.6
LOS C A C A D A
Approach Delay 12.0 18.6 16.3
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 51.8
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay: 16.6 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 294 838 276 248 693
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.37 0.74 0.45 0.71 0.60
Control Delay 20.4 9.3 21.5 9.6 35.0 9.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.4 9.3 21.5 9.6 35.0 9.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 49 121 26 74 108
Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 93 #202 85 #183 243
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 562 798 1265 670 390 1271
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.37 0.66 0.41 0.64 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 92 282 804 265 238 665
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 96 294 838 276 248 693
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 110 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 281 838 166 248 693
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 25.1 16.5 16.5 10.0 31.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 25.1 16.5 16.5 10.0 31.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.19 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 777 1142 511 349 1159
v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.18 c0.23 0.14 c0.36
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.36 0.73 0.33 0.71 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 8.3 15.6 13.3 19.4 6.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.1 5.6 0.6
Delay (s) 17.8 8.4 17.7 13.5 25.0 6.7
Level of Service B A B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 10.7 16.7 11.5
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.933 0.850
Flt Protected 0.980 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1755 0 0 1844 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1755 0 0 1844 1787 1599
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 254 249 108 152 222 116
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 285 280 121 171 249 130
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 565 839 425
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 565 839 425
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 88 16 79
cM capacity (veh/h) 1012 297 631
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 565 292 249 130
Volume Left 0 121 249 0
Volume Right 280 0 0 130
cSH 1700 1012 297 631
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.12 0.84 0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 179 19
Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 57.9 12.2
Lane LOS A F B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 42.2
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.852 0.887 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.996 0.995 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1587 0 0 1679 0 0 1853 0 0 1861 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.996 0.995 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1587 0 0 1679 0 0 1853 0 0 1861 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 219 1634 690
Travel Time (s) 10.6 4.3 31.8 13.4
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
2: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd./Driveway
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 206 4 241 1 1 9 69 577 2 5 296 209
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 219 4 256 1 1 10 73 614 2 5 315 222
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1097 1088 315 1089 1087 615 315 616
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1097 1088 315 1089 1087 615 315 616
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 98 65 99 99 98 94 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 177 202 726 118 204 495 1245 964
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 219 261 12 689 320 222
Volume Left 219 0 1 73 5 0
Volume Right 0 256 10 2 0 222
cSH 177 696 348 1245 964 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.24 0.37 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 302 44 3 5 0 0
Control Delay (s) 198.5 13.2 15.7 1.5 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS F B C A A
Approach Delay (s) 97.8 15.7 1.5 0.1
Approach LOS F C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 28.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.986 0.971
Flt Protected 0.957 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1793 0 0 1896 1845 0
Flt Permitted 0.957 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1793 0 0 1896 1845 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 648 2995 1634
Travel Time (s) 12.6 58.3 31.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
3: Brimbal Ave. & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 117 13 13 388 341 92
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 131 15 15 436 383 103
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 900 435 487
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 900 435 487
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 57 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 307 626 1087
Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 146 451 487
Volume Left 131 15 0
Volume Right 15 0 103
cSH 324 1087 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.45 0.01 0.29
Queue Length 95th (ft) 56 1 0
Control Delay (s) 24.9 0.4 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 24.9 0.4 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 150 200 175
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1863 1583 1752 1845
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1863 1583 1752 1845
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 544 547 343
Travel Time (s) 10.6 10.7 6.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 166 113 134 191 260 148
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 175 119 141 201 274 156
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 6
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 844 141 141
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 844 141 141
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 36 87 81
cM capacity (veh/h) 271 909 1436
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 294 141 201 274 156
Volume Left 175 0 0 274 0
Volume Right 119 0 201 0 0
cSH 455 1700 1700 1436 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.64 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 0 0 18 0
Control Delay (s) 27.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0
Lane LOS D A
Approach Delay (s) 27.4 0.0 5.2
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.976 0.986 0.850
Flt Protected 0.980 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1799 0 0 1855 0 0 1879 1599
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1799 0 0 1855 0 0 1879 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 103 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.0 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 33 34 14 0 380 43 5 333 127
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 35 36 15 0 400 45 5 351 134
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 816 806 351 784 784 423 351 445
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 816 806 351 784 784 423 351 445
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 89 89 98 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 265 316 697 311 325 633 1214 1120
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 85 445 356 134
Volume Left 35 0 5 0
Volume Right 15 45 0 134
cSH 348 1700 1120 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.7 0.0 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 18.7 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 85 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 690 103
Travel Time (s) 9.6 13.4 2.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 144 68 355 437 0 366
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 152 72 374 460 0 385
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 759 374 374
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 759 374 374
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 60 89 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 376 675 1190
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 223 374 460 385
Volume Left 152 0 0 0
Volume Right 72 0 460 0
cSH 553 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.22 0.27 0.23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.992 0.951 0.999 0.980
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1801 0 0 1754 0 0 1874 0 0 1831 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1801 0 0 1754 0 0 1874 0 0 1831 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 587 432 353 2995
Travel Time (s) 13.3 9.8 8.0 68.1
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
13: Brimbal Ave. & Colon St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 63 119 12 1 126 73 17 316 3 54 287 58
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph) 69 131 13 1 138 80 19 347 3 59 315 64
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 213 220 369 438
Volume Left (vph) 69 1 19 59
Volume Right (vph) 13 80 3 64
Hadj (s) 0.08 -0.17 0.02 -0.04
Departure Headway (s) 7.2 7.0 6.5 6.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.43 0.42 0.66 0.76
Capacity (veh/h) 427 444 523 544
Control Delay (s) 15.4 15.0 21.3 26.7
Approach Delay (s) 15.4 15.0 21.3 26.7
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
Delay 21.1
Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.988 0.989 0.989 0.875
Flt Protected 0.975 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1812 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1628 0
Flt Permitted 0.975 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1812 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1628 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 539 453 183 353
Travel Time (s) 10.5 8.8 3.6 8.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
14: Plaza Driveway/Brimbal Ave. & Rte 22
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 305 241 53 3 242 21 12 10 2 6 17 277
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph) 314 248 55 3 249 22 12 10 2 6 18 286
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 271 303 1465 1182 276 1178 1198 260
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 271 303 1465 1182 276 1178 1198 260
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 76 100 75 93 100 95 87 63
cM capacity (veh/h) 1298 1264 50 145 768 129 140 778
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 618 274 25 309
Volume Left 314 3 12 6
Volume Right 55 22 2 286
cSH 1298 1264 77 573
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.54
Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 0 30 80
Control Delay (s) 5.7 0.1 72.4 18.4
Lane LOS A A F C
Approach Delay (s) 5.7 0.1 72.4 18.4
Approach LOS F C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 17 128
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 112 313 751 206 266 761
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 18.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 30.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 10.9 27.4 15.1 15.1 11.4 31.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.40 0.79 0.40 0.73 0.72
Control Delay 20.8 8.8 25.6 10.5 33.8 12.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.8 8.8 25.6 10.5 33.8 12.8
LOS C A C B C B
Approach Delay 11.9 22.4 18.2
Approach LOS B C B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 52.7
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79
Intersection Signal Delay: 18.8 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 337 808 222 286 818
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.40 0.79 0.40 0.73 0.72
Control Delay 20.8 8.8 25.6 10.5 33.8 12.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.8 8.8 25.6 10.5 33.8 12.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 56 125 23 85 150
Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 101 #236 77 #199 336
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 558 891 1105 582 453 1248
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.38 0.73 0.38 0.63 0.66
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 112 313 751 206 266 761
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 337 808 222 286 818
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 91 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 329 808 131 286 818
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 27.3 15.2 15.2 11.4 31.6
Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 27.3 15.2 15.2 11.4 31.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.52 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 374 839 1034 462 391 1143
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.20 0.23 0.16 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.39 0.78 0.28 0.73 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 17.7 7.6 17.1 14.4 19.1 7.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 3.6 0.1 6.0 1.8
Delay (s) 17.8 7.7 20.7 14.6 25.1 9.1
Level of Service B A C B C A
Approach Delay (s) 10.4 19.4 13.2
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.928 0.850
Flt Protected 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1729 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1729 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Existing
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2014 Existing Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2014 Existing Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 221 251 129 170 259 87
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 230 261 134 177 270 91
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 492 807 361
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 492 807 361
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 88 12 87
cM capacity (veh/h) 1077 308 686
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 492 311 270 91
Volume Left 0 134 270 0
Volume Right 261 0 0 91
cSH 1700 1077 308 686
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.12 0.88 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 11 198 11
Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 62.0 11.0
Lane LOS A F B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 49.2
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 16.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.975 0.954 0.850
Flt Protected 0.981 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1731 0 0 1795 0 0 1857 1583
Flt Permitted 0.981 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1731 0 0 1795 0 0 1857 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 34 38 17 0 346 176 28 426 197
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 41 46 20 0 417 212 34 513 237
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1147 1210 513 1104 1104 523 513 629
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1147 1210 513 1104 1104 523 513 629
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 77 77 96 100 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 137 178 565 181 201 548 1057 953
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 107 629 547 237
Volume Left 41 0 34 0
Volume Right 20 212 0 237
cSH 218 1700 953 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.37 0.04 0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 0 3 0
Control Delay (s) 36.4 0.0 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS E A
Approach Delay (s) 36.4 0.0 0.7
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 401 90 431 608 0 460
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 483 108 519 733 0 554
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1073 519 519
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 519
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 554
vCu, unblocked vol 1073 519 519
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 81 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 462 559 1047
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 592 519 733 554
Volume Left 483 0 0 0
Volume Right 108 0 733 0
cSH 492 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.20 0.31 0.43 0.33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 559 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 135.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 135.5 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 33.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.991 0.928
Flt Protected 0.956 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 0 0 1857 1729 0
Flt Permitted 0.956 0.945
Satd. Flow (perm) 1765 0 0 1760 1729 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 160
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 150 32 554 308
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 8.6 25.4 25.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.63 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.58 0.63
Control Delay 19.1 9.4 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.1 9.4 8.6
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 19.1 9.4 8.6
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 40.5
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.1 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 637 723
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.58 0.63
Control Delay 19.1 9.4 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.1 9.4 8.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 84 71
Queue Length 95th (ft) 97 214 213
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 736 1505 1502
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.42 0.48
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 150 11 32 554 308 357
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1763 1858 1728
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1763 1761 1728
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 163 12 35 602 335 388
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 67 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 170 0 0 637 656 0
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 24.1 24.1
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 24.1 24.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.58 0.58
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 310 1025 1005
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.36
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.62 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 5.7 5.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.8 1.2
Delay (s) 16.6 6.5 7.0
Level of Service B A A
Approach Delay (s) 16.6 6.5 7.0
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.4 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.996 0.959 0.973
Flt Protected 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1776 0 0 1769 0 0 1859 0 0 1777 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1776 0 0 1769 0 0 1859 0 0 1777 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 142 133 8 0 289 127 13 382 1 80 241 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 154 145 9 0 314 138 14 415 1 87 262 89
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 308 452 430 438
Volume Left (vph) 154 0 14 87
Volume Right (vph) 9 138 1 89
Hadj (s) 0.15 -0.13 0.04 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 9.7 9.0 9.2 9.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.83 1.0 1.0 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 367 400 402 406
Control Delay (s) 45.8 114.9 104.4 107.6
Approach Delay (s) 45.8 114.9 104.4 107.6
Approach LOS E F F F
Intersection Summary
Delay 97.1
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.993 0.992 0.991 0.874
Flt Protected 0.976 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1788 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1612 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1788 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1612 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 361 334 36 4 433 27 16 8 2 2 15 232
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 415 384 41 5 498 31 18 9 2 2 17 267
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 529 425 2032 1772 405 1764 1778 513
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 529 425 2032 1772 405 1764 1778 513
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 60 100 0 81 100 94 65 52
cM capacity (veh/h) 1033 1118 11 49 642 39 49 559
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 840 533 30 286
Volume Left 415 5 18 2
Volume Right 41 31 2 267
cSH 1033 1118 16 322
Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.00 1.84 0.89
Queue Length 95th (ft) 49 0 108 209
Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.1 886.6 62.8
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 8.3 0.1 886.6 62.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 30.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 54 122
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 118 289 604 151 252 790
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 38.3% 38.3% 26.7% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 10.0 25.7 14.9 14.9 10.6 30.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.51 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.38 0.65 0.31 0.76 0.78
Control Delay 21.4 8.1 19.7 7.5 37.5 15.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 8.1 19.7 7.5 37.5 15.3
LOS C A B A D B
Approach Delay 12.0 17.2 20.7
Approach LOS B B C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.8
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78
Intersection Signal Delay: 17.9 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 321 671 168 280 878
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.38 0.65 0.31 0.76 0.78
Control Delay 21.4 8.1 19.7 7.5 37.5 15.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 8.1 19.7 7.5 37.5 15.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 41 90 10 77 158
Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 95 158 50 #219 #466
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 572 819 1263 643 389 1268
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.39 0.53 0.26 0.72 0.69
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 118 289 604 151 252 790
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3505 1568 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 131 321 671 168 280 878
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 86 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 294 671 82 280 878
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 25.6 15.1 15.1 10.6 30.7
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 25.6 15.1 15.1 10.6 30.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 352 807 1043 466 370 1128
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.18 0.19 0.16 c0.47
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.36 0.64 0.18 0.76 0.78
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 7.6 15.5 13.2 18.8 7.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 7.6 3.2
Delay (s) 17.9 7.7 16.5 13.3 26.5 10.6
Level of Service B A B B C B
Approach Delay (s) 10.7 15.8 14.4
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.7 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.896 0.850
Flt Protected 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1653 0 0 1829 1736 1553
Flt Permitted 0.972 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1653 0 0 1829 1736 1553
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 93 310 296 225 182 52
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 106 352 336 256 207 59
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 458 1210 282
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 458 1210 282
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 70 0 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1108 139 752
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 458 592 207 59
Volume Left 0 336 207 0
Volume Right 352 0 0 59
cSH 1700 1108 139 752
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.30 1.49 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 32 350 6
Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.0 311.6 10.2
Lane LOS A F B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 7.0 244.6
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 52.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 No-Build AM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 122 1.0 0.134 10.4 LOS B 0.8 21.4 0.61 0.70 30.4
8 T1 745 1.0 0.396 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.5
Approach 866 1.0 0.396 4.5 LOS A 0.8 21.4 0.09 0.43 33.1
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 484 1.0 0.902 9.3 LOS A 20.2 509.3 1.00 0.71 30.9
14 R2 452 1.0 0.902 9.3 LOS A 20.2 509.3 1.00 0.71 30.2
Approach 936 1.0 0.902 9.3 LOS A 20.2 509.3 1.00 0.71 30.6
West: Connector Road
5 L2 385 2.0 0.464 11.9 LOS B 3.8 97.6 0.84 0.83 29.9
12 R2 303 2.0 0.419 7.8 LOS A 3.2 80.5 0.82 0.81 30.8
Approach 688 2.0 0.464 10.1 LOS B 3.8 97.6 0.83 0.82 30.3
All Vehicles 2490 1.3 0.902 7.9 LOS A 20.2 509.3 0.64 0.64 31.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:17:07 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build AM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 No-Build AM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 128 4.0 0.183 6.4 LOS A 1.1 28.6 0.67 0.66 32.3
18 R2 251 4.0 0.280 6.2 LOS A 1.9 49.9 0.69 0.69 31.6
Approach 379 4.0 0.280 6.3 LOS A 1.9 49.9 0.69 0.68 31.9
East: Connector Road
1 L2 484 3.0 0.395 9.4 LOS A 3.2 80.7 0.46 0.61 31.0
16 R2 90 3.0 0.118 4.8 LOS A 0.7 17.0 0.41 0.50 32.2
Approach 574 3.0 0.395 8.7 LOS A 3.2 80.7 0.45 0.59 31.2
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 437 2.0 0.467 13.1 LOS B 3.5 88.6 0.75 0.82 31.8
4 T1 652 2.0 0.350 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 1089 2.0 0.467 7.6 LOS A 3.5 88.6 0.30 0.57 35.1
All Vehicles 2042 2.7 0.467 7.7 LOS A 3.5 88.6 0.41 0.59 33.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:57:39 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build Sohier
AM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.984 0.983 0.850
Flt Protected 0.977 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1827 0 0 1849 0 0 1877 1599
Flt Permitted 0.977 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1827 0 0 1849 0 0 1877 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 105 88 26 0 480 67 17 329 80
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 114 96 28 0 522 73 18 358 87
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1029 989 358 953 953 558 358 595
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1029 989 358 953 953 558 358 595
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 52 63 95 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 142 244 691 238 256 533 1207 987
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 238 595 376 87
Volume Left 114 0 18 0
Volume Right 28 73 0 87
cSH 263 1700 987 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.91 0.35 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 201 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 75.4 0.0 0.6 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) 75.4 0.0 0.5
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 178 57 490 776 0 434
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 193 62 533 843 0 472
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1004 533 533
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 533
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 472
vCu, unblocked vol 1004 533 533
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 60 89 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 482 547 1040
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 255 533 843 472
Volume Left 193 0 0 0
Volume Right 62 0 843 0
cSH 636 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.31 0.50 0.28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 16.2 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.994 0.969
Flt Protected 0.954 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 0 0 1861 1805 0
Flt Permitted 0.954 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 0 0 1833 1805 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 41
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 290 10 445 490
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 13.1 24.6 24.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.51 0.51
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.53 0.73
Control Delay 25.3 10.4 14.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.3 10.4 14.2
LOS C B B
Approach Delay 25.3 10.4 14.2
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 48.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 329 495 692
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.53 0.73
Control Delay 25.3 10.4 14.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.3 10.4 14.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 78 85 130
Queue Length 95th (ft) #208 158 248
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 609 1339 1330
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.52
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 290 13 10 445 490 146
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1767 1861 1805
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1767 1832 1805
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 315 14 11 484 533 159
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 20 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 0 0 495 672 0
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 24.6 24.6
Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 24.6 24.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 485 944 930
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.52 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 15.4 7.7 8.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.5 2.8
Delay (s) 19.0 8.2 11.7
Level of Service B A B
Approach Delay (s) 19.0 8.2 11.7
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.7 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
5/2/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.990 0.949 0.980
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 0 0 1768 0 0 1894 0 0 1827 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.991
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 0 0 1768 0 0 1894 0 0 1827 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
5/2/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 84 157 19 2 190 116 20 295 1 103 361 81
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 164 20 2 198 121 21 307 1 107 376 84
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 271 321 329 568
Volume Left (vph) 88 2 21 107
Volume Right (vph) 20 121 1 84
Hadj (s) 0.04 -0.19 0.01 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 8.2 7.8 7.8 7.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.62 0.69 0.72 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 411 435 440 480
Control Delay (s) 23.4 26.6 28.1 120.2
Approach Delay (s) 23.4 26.6 28.1 120.2
Approach LOS C D D F
Intersection Summary
Delay 62.0
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
5/2/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.993 0.992 0.876
Flt Protected 0.981 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1646 0
Flt Permitted 0.981 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1646 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
5/2/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 284 424 42 4 437 28 21 4 0 8 23 351
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Hourly flow rate (vph) 287 428 42 4 441 28 21 4 0 8 23 355
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 470 471 1853 1501 449 1489 1508 456
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 470 471 1853 1501 449 1489 1508 456
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 74 100 0 96 100 90 74 42
cM capacity (veh/h) 1097 1102 15 91 614 79 89 607
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 758 474 25 386
Volume Left 287 4 21 8
Volume Right 42 28 0 355
cSH 1097 1102 18 408
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.00 1.43 0.95
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 0 90 269
Control Delay (s) 5.7 0.1 678.4 64.4
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 5.7 0.1 678.4 64.4
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 28.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.6% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 21 162
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 97 311 833 276 253 689
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 23.0 23.0 16.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 38.3% 38.3% 26.7% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 10.9 26.4 16.6 16.6 10.4 32.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.50 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.40 0.78 0.47 0.75 0.63
Control Delay 20.2 9.7 23.6 10.4 37.9 10.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.2 9.7 23.6 10.4 37.9 10.4
LOS C A C B D B
Approach Delay 12.2 20.3 17.8
Approach LOS B C B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 53.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78
Intersection Signal Delay: 18.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 324 868 288 264 718
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.40 0.78 0.47 0.75 0.63
Control Delay 20.2 9.7 23.6 10.4 37.9 10.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.2 9.7 23.6 10.4 37.9 10.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 57 130 30 82 121
Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 105 #238 93 #201 266
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 547 815 1232 657 380 1237
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.40 0.70 0.44 0.69 0.58
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 97 311 833 276 253 689
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 3574 1599 1805 1900
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 101 324 868 288 264 718
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 111 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 313 868 177 264 718
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 26.3 16.6 16.6 10.4 32.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 26.3 16.6 16.6 10.4 32.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.50 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 368 794 1121 501 354 1149
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.20 c0.24 0.15 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.39 0.77 0.35 0.75 0.62
Uniform Delay, d1 17.7 8.3 16.5 14.0 20.0 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 3.1 0.2 7.3 0.8
Delay (s) 17.8 8.4 19.6 14.2 27.3 7.4
Level of Service B A B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 10.7 18.2 12.8
Approach LOS B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.932 0.850
Flt Protected 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1753 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1753 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 263 266 113 157 251 122
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Hourly flow rate (vph) 296 299 127 176 282 137
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 594 875 445
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 594 875 445
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 87 0 78
cM capacity (veh/h) 987 280 615
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 594 303 282 137
Volume Left 0 127 282 0
Volume Right 299 0 0 137
cSH 1700 987 280 615
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.13 1.01 0.22
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 11 261 21
Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 96.2 12.5
Lane LOS A F B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 68.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 23.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 No-Build PM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 129 1.0 0.166 11.5 LOS B 1.1 27.4 0.72 0.76 30.1
8 T1 841 1.0 0.447 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.5
Approach 971 1.0 0.447 4.6 LOS A 1.1 27.4 0.10 0.43 33.0
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 375 1.0 0.649 5.1 LOS A 6.2 155.9 0.60 0.55 32.2
14 R2 290 1.0 0.649 5.0 LOS A 6.2 155.9 0.60 0.55 31.4
Approach 665 1.0 0.649 5.1 LOS A 6.2 155.9 0.60 0.55 31.8
West: Connector Road
5 L2 535 2.0 0.548 11.8 LOS B 4.9 125.1 0.78 0.80 30.0
12 R2 395 2.0 0.463 7.2 LOS A 3.5 88.5 0.74 0.74 31.1
Approach 929 2.0 0.548 9.8 LOS A 4.9 125.1 0.77 0.78 30.4
All Vehicles 2565 1.4 0.649 6.6 LOS A 6.2 155.9 0.47 0.59 31.7
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:35:48 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build PM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 No-Build PM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 304 4.0 0.408 7.2 LOS A 2.8 72.1 0.76 0.76 32.1
18 R2 450 4.0 0.507 7.7 LOS A 4.2 109.3 0.80 0.81 31.0
Approach 754 4.0 0.507 7.5 LOS A 4.2 109.3 0.78 0.79 31.4
East: Connector Road
1 L2 202 3.0 0.214 10.5 LOS B 1.4 35.3 0.58 0.69 30.7
16 R2 217 3.0 0.212 5.2 LOS A 1.4 35.7 0.57 0.59 31.9
Approach 420 3.0 0.214 7.7 LOS A 1.4 35.7 0.58 0.64 31.3
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 479 2.0 0.408 10.9 LOS B 3.0 76.4 0.52 0.67 32.3
4 T1 318 2.0 0.171 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 798 2.0 0.408 8.2 LOS A 3.0 76.4 0.32 0.56 34.3
All Vehicles 1972 3.0 0.507 7.8 LOS A 4.2 109.3 0.55 0.66 32.5
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:02:37 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build Sohier
PM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.979 0.982 0.850
Flt Protected 0.979 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1803 0 0 1847 0 0 1879 1599
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1803 0 0 1847 0 0 1879 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 43 42 15 0 414 62 6 355 131
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 45 44 16 0 436 65 6 374 138
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 893 887 374 855 855 468 374 501
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 893 887 374 855 855 468 374 501
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 84 85 97 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 227 283 677 278 295 597 1190 1068
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 105 501 380 138
Volume Left 45 0 6 0
Volume Right 16 65 0 138
cSH 311 1700 1068 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.34 0.29 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 22.4 0.0 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay (s) 22.4 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 189 74 402 525 0 398
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 199 78 423 553 0 419
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 842 423 423
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 423
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 419
vCu, unblocked vol 842 423 423
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 63 88 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 542 633 1141
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 277 423 553 419
Volume Left 199 0 0 0
Volume Right 78 0 553 0
cSH 754 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.25 0.33 0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft) 42 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 14.3 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.987 0.973
Flt Protected 0.957 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1795 0 0 1896 1849 0
Flt Permitted 0.957 0.980
Satd. Flow (perm) 1795 0 0 1862 1849 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 34
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 121 13 418 384
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 7.4 20.5 20.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.59 0.59
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.44 0.49
Control Delay 14.6 7.6 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.6 7.6 7.7
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 14.6 7.6 7.7
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 34.6
Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.49
Intersection Signal Delay: 8.5 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 485 538
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.44 0.49
Control Delay 14.6 7.6 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.6 7.6 7.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 50 52
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 123 134
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 849 1766 1756
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.27 0.31
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 121 13 13 418 384 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1794 1897 1849
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1794 1862 1849
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 136 15 15 470 431 107
RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 0 15 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 0 0 485 523 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 19.4 19.4
Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 19.4 19.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 1014 1007
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.48 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 5.0 5.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 13.6 5.1 5.3
Level of Service B A A
Approach Delay (s) 13.6 5.1 5.3
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.6 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.992 0.949 0.999 0.982
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1801 0 0 1751 0 0 1874 0 0 1834 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1801 0 0 1751 0 0 1874 0 0 1834 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 65 123 12 1 131 81 18 338 3 65 319 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph) 71 135 13 1 144 89 20 371 3 71 351 66
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 220 234 395 488
Volume Left (vph) 71 1 20 71
Volume Right (vph) 13 89 3 66
Hadj (s) 0.08 -0.18 0.02 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 7.8 7.5 7.0 6.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.48 0.49 0.76 0.91
Capacity (veh/h) 418 440 487 488
Control Delay (s) 17.7 17.5 28.9 44.8
Approach Delay (s) 17.7 17.5 28.9 44.8
Approach LOS C C D E
Intersection Summary
Delay 30.9
Level of Service D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.875
Flt Protected 0.975 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1814 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1628 0
Flt Permitted 0.975 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1814 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1628 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
4/17/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 327 250 53 3 251 22 12 10 2 6 17 306
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph) 337 258 55 3 259 23 12 10 2 6 18 315
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 281 312 1560 1247 285 1243 1263 270
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 281 312 1560 1247 285 1243 1263 270
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 74 100 68 92 100 95 86 59
cM capacity (veh/h) 1287 1254 39 129 759 113 125 769
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 649 285 25 339
Volume Left 337 3 12 6
Volume Right 55 23 2 315
cSH 1287 1254 62 560
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.00 0.40 0.61
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 0 38 100
Control Delay (s) 5.9 0.1 98.1 20.8
Lane LOS A A F C
Approach Delay (s) 5.9 0.1 98.1 20.8
Approach LOS F C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 10.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 15 128
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 470 592
Travel Time (s) 3.2 9.2 11.5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 122 340 778 214 284 788
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 8 8 1 2 2 1 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 12.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 18.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 30.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None Min Min None Min
Act Effct Green (s) 11.5 28.3 15.2 15.2 11.8 32.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.53 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.83 0.42 0.77 0.75
Control Delay 21.0 9.1 28.1 11.1 36.7 14.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.0 9.1 28.1 11.1 36.7 14.2
LOS C A C B D B
Approach Delay 12.3 24.4 20.2
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 53.7
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.83
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.4 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
Queues 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 366 837 230 305 847
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.83 0.42 0.77 0.75
Control Delay 21.0 9.1 28.1 11.1 36.7 14.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.0 9.1 28.1 11.1 36.7 14.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 63 135 26 94 168
Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 112 #249 81 #218 #376
Internal Link Dist (ft) 86 390 512
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 546 880 1081 572 443 1221
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.42 0.77 0.40 0.69 0.69
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
20: Rte 1A & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 122 340 778 214 284 788
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1615 3574 1599 1805 1900
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 131 366 837 230 305 847
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 91 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 359 837 139 305 847
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 28.3 15.3 15.3 11.8 32.1
Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 28.3 15.3 15.3 11.8 32.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 387 852 1020 456 397 1137
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.22 0.23 0.17 c0.45
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.42 0.82 0.30 0.77 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 7.7 17.9 15.0 19.6 7.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 5.1 0.1 7.8 2.4
Delay (s) 18.0 7.8 23.0 15.1 27.4 10.1
Level of Service B A C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 10.5 21.3 14.7
Approach LOS B C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.927 0.850
Flt Protected 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1727 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1727 0 0 1842 1787 1599
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 166 1075 351
Travel Time (s) 3.8 20.9 6.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 No-Build
22: Laurel St & Dodge St
4/16/2014
2021 No-Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 No-Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 229 269 135 176 286 92
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 239 280 141 183 298 96
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 166
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 519 843 379
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 519 843 379
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 87 0 86
cM capacity (veh/h) 1052 290 670
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 519 324 298 96
Volume Left 0 141 298 0
Volume Right 280 0 0 96
cSH 1700 1052 290 670
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.13 1.03 0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 12 276 12
Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 99.0 11.3
Lane LOS A F B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.6 77.7
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 25.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 No-Build Sat
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 78 1.0 0.075 9.5 LOS A 0.4 10.9 0.47 0.63 30.6
8 T1 752 1.0 0.400 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.5
Approach 830 1.0 0.400 4.1 LOS A 0.4 10.9 0.04 0.41 33.2
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 382 1.0 0.587 4.4 LOS A 5.1 128.6 0.42 0.47 32.6
14 R2 257 1.0 0.587 4.4 LOS A 5.1 128.6 0.42 0.47 31.8
Approach 638 1.0 0.587 4.4 LOS A 5.1 128.6 0.42 0.47 32.3
West: Connector Road
5 L2 255 2.0 0.284 11.0 LOS B 1.8 46.8 0.64 0.74 30.3
12 R2 284 2.0 0.287 6.2 LOS A 1.9 48.6 0.63 0.66 31.5
Approach 539 2.0 0.287 8.5 LOS A 1.9 48.6 0.63 0.70 30.9
All Vehicles 2008 1.3 0.587 5.4 LOS A 5.1 128.6 0.32 0.50 32.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:38:43 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build Sat.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 No-Build Sat
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 179 4.0 0.194 5.0 LOS A 1.2 29.7 0.54 0.54 32.7
18 R2 238 4.0 0.227 5.2 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.54 0.59 31.9
Approach 417 4.0 0.227 5.1 LOS A 1.4 36.7 0.54 0.57 32.3
East: Connector Road
1 L2 203 3.0 0.174 9.5 LOS A 1.1 27.5 0.42 0.62 31.1
16 R2 132 3.0 0.129 4.6 LOS A 0.8 19.2 0.43 0.51 32.2
Approach 335 3.0 0.174 7.6 LOS A 1.1 27.5 0.42 0.58 31.5
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 301 2.0 0.254 10.7 LOS B 1.6 39.8 0.44 0.66 32.4
4 T1 246 2.0 0.132 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 547 2.0 0.254 7.7 LOS A 1.6 39.8 0.24 0.54 34.7
All Vehicles 1299 2.9 0.254 6.8 LOS A 1.6 39.8 0.39 0.56 33.0
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:07:51 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\No-Build Sohier
Sat.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.865 0.932 0.998 0.991
Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1846 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1846 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 282 219 414 511
Travel Time (s) 5.5 4.3 8.1 10.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 24 10 0 10 37 779 10 10 702 46
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 26 11 0 11 40 847 11 11 763 50
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1133
pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
vC, conflicting volume 1748 1748 788 1743 1767 852 813 858
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1798 1798 788 1793 1822 720 813 726
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 93 77 100 97 95 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 48 63 394 47 61 358 814 728
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 26 22 40 858 11 813
Volume Left 0 11 40 0 11 0
Volume Right 26 11 0 11 0 50
cSH 394 83 814 1700 728 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.26 0.05 0.50 0.01 0.48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 24 4 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 14.8 63.5 9.7 0.0 10.0 0.0
Lane LOS B F A B
Approach Delay (s) 14.8 63.5 0.4 0.1
Approach LOS B F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 0 3549 1845 1568
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 0 3549 1845 1568
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 306 511 299
Travel Time (s) 6.0 10.0 5.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 396 279 111 678 479 416
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph) 466 328 131 798 564 489
Approach Volume (veh/h) 794 928 1053
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 564 466 131
High Capacity (veh/h) 887 959 1250
High v/c (veh/h) 0.90 0.97 0.84
Low Capacity (veh/h) 713 777 1039
Low v/c (veh/h) 1.11 1.19 1.01
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 0.97
Maximum v/c Low 1.19
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
5: Site Drive & Sohier Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.987 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 3528 0 0 1845 0 1644
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 3528 0 0 1845 0 1644
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 294 306 263
Travel Time (s) 5.7 6.0 5.1
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
5: Site Drive & Sohier Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 624 61 0 542 0 51
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 678 66 0 589 0 55
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 745 1301 372
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 745 1301 372
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 852 155 631
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 452 292 589 55
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 66 0 55
cSH 1700 1700 1700 631
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.17 0.35 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1568 1827 1553 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1568 1827 1553 1770 1863
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 294 445 558
Travel Time (s) 5.7 8.7 10.9
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 452 90 118 248 437 600
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 545 108 142 299 527 723
Approach Volume (veh/h) 653 441 1249
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 142 527 545
High Capacity (veh/h) 1239 914 901
High v/c (veh/h) 0.53 0.48 1.39
Low Capacity (veh/h) 1029 737 725
Low v/c (veh/h) 0.63 0.60 1.72
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 1.39
Maximum v/c Low 1.72
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.975 0.955 0.850
Flt Protected 0.981 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1731 0 0 1797 0 0 1857 1583
Flt Permitted 0.981 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1731 0 0 1797 0 0 1857 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 34 38 17 0 352 176 28 443 197
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 41 46 20 0 424 212 34 534 237
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1175 1237 534 1131 1131 530 534 636
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1175 1237 534 1131 1131 530 534 636
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 76 76 96 100 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 130 171 550 173 194 543 1039 947
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 107 636 567 237
Volume Left 41 0 34 0
Volume Right 20 212 0 237
cSH 210 1700 947 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.51 0.37 0.04 0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 0 3 0
Control Delay (s) 38.8 0.0 1.0 0.0
Lane LOS E A
Approach Delay (s) 38.8 0.0 0.7
Approach LOS E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1863
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 418 90 437 622 0 477
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph) 504 108 527 749 0 575
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1101 527 527
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 527
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 575
vCu, unblocked vol 1101 527 527
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 80 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 453 553 1040
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 612 527 749 575
Volume Left 504 0 0 0
Volume Right 108 0 749 0
cSH 479 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.28 0.31 0.44 0.34
Queue Length 95th (ft) 641 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 166.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 166.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 41.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.991 0.928
Flt Protected 0.955 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 1763 0 0 1857 1729 0
Flt Permitted 0.955 0.946
Satd. Flow (perm) 1763 0 0 1762 1729 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 156
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 156 32 577 318
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 8.9 25.8 25.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.63 0.63
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.60 0.64
Control Delay 19.5 9.9 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.5 9.9 8.9
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 19.5 9.9 8.9
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 41.1
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.6 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 662 736
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.60 0.64
Control Delay 19.5 9.9 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.5 9.9 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 91 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 233 227
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 727 1490 1486
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.44 0.50
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 156 11 32 577 318 359
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1764 1858 1729
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1764 1762 1729
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 170 12 35 627 346 390
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 65 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 177 0 0 662 671 0
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 24.4 24.4
Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 24.4 24.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.58 0.58
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 1026 1006
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.39
v/s Ratio Perm 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.65 0.67
Uniform Delay, d1 15.7 5.9 6.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.1 1.3
Delay (s) 17.1 6.9 7.3
Level of Service B A A
Approach Delay (s) 17.1 6.9 7.3
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.9 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.996 0.957 0.973
Flt Protected 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1776 0 0 1765 0 0 1859 0 0 1777 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1776 0 0 1765 0 0 1859 0 0 1777 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 142 133 8 0 289 133 13 399 1 83 248 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 154 145 9 0 314 145 14 434 1 90 270 89
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 308 459 449 449
Volume Left (vph) 154 0 14 90
Volume Right (vph) 9 145 1 89
Hadj (s) 0.15 -0.14 0.04 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 9.7 9.0 9.2 9.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.83 1.0 1.0 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 367 402 396 399
Control Delay (s) 45.8 120.3 120.2 117.0
Approach Delay (s) 45.8 120.3 120.2 117.0
Approach LOS E F F F
Intersection Summary
Delay 105.6
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.4% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.994 0.992 0.991 0.874
Flt Protected 0.975 0.970
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1788 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1612 0
Flt Permitted 0.975 0.970
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1788 0 0 1795 0 0 1756 0 0 1612 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday AM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 378 334 36 4 433 27 16 8 2 2 15 239
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 434 384 41 5 498 31 18 9 2 2 17 275
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 529 425 2079 1811 405 1803 1817 513
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 529 425 2079 1811 405 1803 1817 513
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 58 100 0 79 100 93 61 51
cM capacity (veh/h) 1033 1118 9 45 642 35 45 559
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 860 533 30 294
Volume Left 434 5 18 2
Volume Right 41 31 2 275
cSH 1033 1118 14 312
Volume to Capacity 0.42 0.00 2.15 0.94
Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 0 112 236
Control Delay (s) 8.6 0.1 1085.6 74.8
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 8.6 0.1 1085.6 74.8
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 36.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 Build AM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 121 1.0 0.141 10.7 LOS B 0.9 22.8 0.65 0.72 30.3
8 T1 737 1.0 0.392 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.5
Approach 858 1.0 0.392 4.6 LOS A 0.9 22.8 0.09 0.43 33.0
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 521 1.0 0.951 14.6 LOS B 28.4 716.8 1.00 0.85 28.8
14 R2 452 1.0 0.951 14.6 LOS B 28.4 716.8 1.00 0.85 28.2
Approach 973 1.0 0.951 14.6 LOS B 28.4 716.8 1.00 0.85 28.5
West: Connector Road
5u U 16 0.0 0.541 15.4 LOS C 5.2 131.2 0.90 0.91 29.8
5 L2 414 2.0 0.541 13.5 LOS B 5.2 131.2 0.90 0.91 29.3
12 R2 303 2.0 0.451 8.8 LOS A 3.6 90.6 0.86 0.87 30.4
Approach 734 2.0 0.541 11.6 LOS B 5.2 131.2 0.88 0.89 29.7
All Vehicles 2564 1.3 0.951 10.4 LOS B 28.4 716.8 0.66 0.72 30.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:26:42 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build AM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 Build AM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 128 4.0 0.196 6.9 LOS A 1.2 30.9 0.70 0.69 32.2
18 R2 270 4.0 0.314 6.5 LOS A 2.2 57.6 0.74 0.73 31.6
Approach 398 4.0 0.314 6.6 LOS A 2.2 57.6 0.72 0.72 31.8
East: Connector Road
1 L2 491 3.0 0.402 9.4 LOS A 3.2 83.2 0.46 0.61 31.0
16 R2 98 3.0 0.128 4.9 LOS A 0.7 18.7 0.42 0.50 32.2
Approach 589 3.0 0.402 8.7 LOS A 3.2 83.2 0.46 0.59 31.2
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 475 2.0 0.512 13.7 LOS B 4.2 106.6 0.78 0.86 31.5
4 T1 652 2.0 0.350 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 1127 2.0 0.512 8.1 LOS A 4.2 106.6 0.33 0.59 34.9
All Vehicles 2114 2.7 0.512 8.0 LOS A 4.2 106.6 0.44 0.61 33.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:00:09 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build Sohier
AM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.865 0.932 0.998 0.984
Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1805 1896 0 1787 1851 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1805 1896 0 1787 1851 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 276 219 414 511
Travel Time (s) 5.4 4.3 8.1 10.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 81 10 0 10 89 841 10 10 672 83
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 88 11 0 11 97 914 11 11 730 90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1133
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
vC, conflicting volume 1916 1916 776 1953 1955 920 821 925
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1970 1970 776 2012 2015 844 821 850
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 78 60 100 97 88 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 36 49 401 27 46 324 817 701
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 88 22 97 925 11 821
Volume Left 0 11 97 0 11 0
Volume Right 88 11 0 11 0 90
cSH 401 51 817 1700 701 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.43 0.12 0.54 0.02 0.48
Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 39 10 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 16.5 121.5 10.0 0.0 10.2 0.0
Lane LOS C F A B
Approach Delay (s) 16.5 121.5 0.9 0.1
Approach LOS C F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 0 3585 1881 1599
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 0 3585 1881 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 325 511 299
Travel Time (s) 6.3 10.0 5.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 698 363 113 738 402 267
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 759 395 123 802 437 290
Approach Volume (veh/h) 1153 925 727
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 437 759 123
High Capacity (veh/h) 982 758 1258
High v/c (veh/h) 1.17 1.22 0.58
Low Capacity (veh/h) 797 600 1046
Low v/c (veh/h) 1.45 1.54 0.70
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 1.22
Maximum v/c Low 1.54
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1881 1599 1787 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1881 1599 1787 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 274 445 558
Travel Time (s) 5.3 8.7 10.9
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 219 233 280 442 498 293
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 238 253 304 480 541 318
Approach Volume (veh/h) 491 785 860
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 304 541 238
High Capacity (veh/h) 1091 903 1149
High v/c (veh/h) 0.45 0.87 0.75
Low Capacity (veh/h) 895 728 948
Low v/c (veh/h) 0.55 1.08 0.91
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 0.87
Maximum v/c Low 1.08
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.984 0.984 0.850
Flt Protected 0.977 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1827 0 0 1851 0 0 1877 1599
Flt Permitted 0.977 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1827 0 0 1851 0 0 1877 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 105 88 26 0 512 67 17 358 80
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 114 96 28 0 557 73 18 389 87
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1095 1055 389 1019 1019 593 389 629
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1095 1055 389 1019 1019 593 389 629
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 47 59 94 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 122 223 664 214 234 509 1175 958
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 238 629 408 87
Volume Left 114 0 18 0
Volume Right 28 73 0 87
cSH 239 1700 958 1700
Volume to Capacity 1.00 0.37 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 235 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 101.7 0.0 0.6 0.0
Lane LOS F A
Approach Delay (s) 101.7 0.0 0.5
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 18.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 206 57 522 842 0 463
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 224 62 567 915 0 503
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1071 567 567
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 567
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 503
vCu, unblocked vol 1071 567 567
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 51 88 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 461 523 1010
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 286 567 915 503
Volume Left 224 0 0 0
Volume Right 62 0 915 0
cSH 588 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.33 0.54 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 18.4 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
16: Site Drive & Sohier Rd./Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.980 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 3468 0 0 1863 0 1611
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 3468 0 0 1863 0 1611
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 274 325 317
Travel Time (s) 5.3 6.3 6.2
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
16: Site Drive & Sohier Rd./Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 818 122 0 452 0 243
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 889 133 0 491 0 264
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1022 1447 511
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1022 1447 511
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 48
cM capacity (veh/h) 675 122 508
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 593 429 491 264
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 133 0 264
cSH 1700 1700 1700 508
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.25 0.29 0.52
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 74
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 19.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.994 0.969
Flt Protected 0.954 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 0 0 1861 1805 0
Flt Permitted 0.954 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 0 0 1833 1805 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 41
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 300 10 482 534
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 13.6 26.4 26.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.52 0.52
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.56 0.78
Control Delay 27.8 10.8 15.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.8 10.8 15.8
LOS C B B
Approach Delay 27.8 10.8 15.8
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 50.3
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.78
Intersection Signal Delay: 16.7 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 340 535 751
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.56 0.78
Control Delay 27.8 10.8 15.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.8 10.8 15.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 101 159
Queue Length 95th (ft) #219 175 289
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 582 1279 1272
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.42 0.59
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 300 13 10 482 534 157
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1768 1861 1805
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1768 1833 1805
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 326 14 11 524 580 171
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 337 0 0 535 732 0
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 26.4 26.4
Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 26.4 26.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.53 0.53
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 480 967 953
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.29
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.55 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 16.4 7.9 9.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 0.7 3.8
Delay (s) 21.0 8.6 13.1
Level of Service C A B
Approach Delay (s) 21.0 8.6 13.1
Approach LOS C A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.990 0.947 0.982
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 0 0 1764 0 0 1894 0 0 1829 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 0 0 1764 0 0 1894 0 0 1829 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 84 157 19 2 190 125 20 323 1 114 394 81
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 164 20 2 198 130 21 336 1 119 410 84
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 271 330 358 614
Volume Left (vph) 88 2 21 119
Volume Right (vph) 20 130 1 84
Hadj (s) 0.04 -0.20 0.01 -0.03
Departure Headway (s) 8.5 8.0 8.0 7.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.64 0.73 0.80 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 399 427 428 469
Control Delay (s) 25.1 29.9 35.5 178.5
Approach Delay (s) 25.1 29.9 35.5 178.5
Approach LOS D D E F
Intersection Summary
Delay 88.3
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.3% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.993 0.992 0.875
Flt Protected 0.980 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1831 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1644 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.960 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1831 0 0 1885 0 0 1824 0 0 1644 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Weekday PM 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 312 424 42 4 437 28 21 4 0 8 23 384
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Hourly flow rate (vph) 315 428 42 4 441 28 21 4 0 8 23 388
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 470 471 1943 1558 449 1545 1565 456
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 470 471 1943 1558 449 1545 1565 456
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 71 100 0 95 100 88 71 36
cM capacity (veh/h) 1097 1102 11 81 614 70 80 607
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 786 474 25 419
Volume Left 315 4 21 8
Volume Right 42 28 0 388
cSH 1097 1102 13 401
Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.00 2.00 1.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 0 99 344
Control Delay (s) 6.1 0.1 1067.5 90.3
Lane LOS A A F F
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 0.1 1067.5 90.3
Approach LOS F F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 40.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.2% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 Build PM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 123 1.0 0.225 13.7 LOS B 1.6 41.4 0.90 0.87 29.3
8 T1 802 1.0 0.426 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.5
Approach 925 1.0 0.426 4.9 LOS A 1.6 41.4 0.12 0.45 32.9
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 437 1.0 0.754 7.8 LOS A 9.3 234.9 0.79 0.74 31.5
14 R2 290 1.0 0.754 7.7 LOS A 9.3 234.9 0.79 0.74 30.8
Approach 727 1.0 0.754 7.8 LOS A 9.3 234.9 0.79 0.74 31.2
West: Connector Road
5u U 78 1.0 0.842 22.9 LOS C 15.6 397.0 1.00 1.14 27.1
5 L2 680 2.0 0.842 21.0 LOS C 15.6 397.0 1.00 1.14 26.7
12 R2 395 2.0 0.557 10.0 LOS B 5.1 128.5 0.86 0.91 29.9
Approach 1153 1.9 0.842 17.4 LOS C 15.6 397.0 0.95 1.06 27.7
All Vehicles 2805 1.4 0.842 10.8 LOS B 15.6 397.0 0.63 0.78 30.2
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:31:11 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build PM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 Build PM
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 304 4.0 0.450 8.6 LOS A 3.3 86.2 0.82 0.85 31.6
18 R2 480 4.0 0.583 9.7 LOS A 5.7 147.5 0.88 0.93 30.2
Approach 785 4.0 0.583 9.3 LOS A 5.7 147.5 0.86 0.90 30.7
East: Connector Road
1 L2 238 3.0 0.253 10.6 LOS B 1.7 43.3 0.60 0.70 30.7
16 R2 253 3.0 0.248 5.2 LOS A 1.7 43.4 0.59 0.61 31.9
Approach 491 3.0 0.253 7.8 LOS A 1.7 43.4 0.60 0.65 31.3
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 541 2.0 0.476 11.3 LOS B 3.7 94.8 0.60 0.70 32.1
4 T1 318 2.0 0.171 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 860 2.0 0.476 8.6 LOS A 3.7 94.8 0.38 0.58 34.0
All Vehicles 2136 3.0 0.583 8.7 LOS A 5.7 147.5 0.61 0.72 32.1
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:05:36 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build Sohier
PM.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.865 0.932 0.998 0.971
Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1809 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 1644 0 1728 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1809 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 319 219 414 511
Travel Time (s) 6.2 4.3 8.1 10.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
2: Brimbal Ave. & Site Drive/Driveway
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 110 10 0 10 130 699 10 10 560 133
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 120 11 0 11 141 744 11 11 596 145
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1133
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 1726 1726 668 1768 1793 749 740 754
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1726 1726 668 1768 1793 749 740 754
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 74 75 100 97 84 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 60 74 462 42 67 415 866 856
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 120 21 141 754 11 740
Volume Left 0 11 141 0 11 0
Volume Right 120 11 0 11 0 145
cSH 462 77 866 1700 856 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.28 0.16 0.44 0.01 0.44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 25 15 0 1 0
Control Delay (s) 15.5 68.9 10.0 0.0 9.3 0.0
Lane LOS C F A A
Approach Delay (s) 15.5 68.9 1.6 0.1
Approach LOS C F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 150
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 0 3522 1863 1583
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 0 3522 1863 1583
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 324 511 299
Travel Time (s) 6.3 10.0 5.8
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
4: Brimbal Ave. & Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 493 261 66 643 442 236
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 524 278 70 684 470 251
Approach Volume (veh/h) 802 754 721
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 470 524 70
High Capacity (veh/h) 956 915 1311
High v/c (veh/h) 0.84 0.82 0.55
Low Capacity (veh/h) 774 738 1094
Low v/c (veh/h) 1.04 1.02 0.66
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 0.84
Maximum v/c Low 1.04
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of Service D
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
5: Site Drive & Sohier Rd./Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.958 0.865
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 3391 0 0 1863 0 1644
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 3391 0 0 1863 0 1644
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 276 324 391
Travel Time (s) 5.4 6.3 7.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
5: Site Drive & Sohier Rd./Sohier Rd
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 454 178 0 389 0 300
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 493 193 0 423 0 326
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 687 1013 343
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 687 1013 343
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 50
cM capacity (veh/h) 903 239 658
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 329 358 423 326
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 193 0 326
cSH 1700 1700 1700 658
Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 69
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 15.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 7
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1863 1583 1752 1845
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1863 1583 1752 1845
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 276 445 558
Travel Time (s) 5.4 8.7 10.9
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
6: Sohier Rd. & Rte. 128 NB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Right Turn Channelized
Volume (veh/h) 227 162 165 264 368 226
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 239 171 174 278 387 238
Approach Volume (veh/h) 409 452 625
Crossing Volume (veh/h) 174 387 239
High Capacity (veh/h) 1209 1021 1148
High v/c (veh/h) 0.34 0.44 0.54
Low Capacity (veh/h) 1001 833 947
Low v/c (veh/h) 0.41 0.54 0.66
Intersection Summary
Maximum v/c High 0.54
Maximum v/c Low 0.66
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 9
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.979 0.984 0.850
Flt Protected 0.979 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 1803 0 0 1851 0 0 1879 1599
Flt Permitted 0.979 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 1803 0 0 1851 0 0 1879 1599
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 396 438 132 377
Travel Time (s) 7.7 8.5 2.6 7.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
7: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB On-Ramp/Dunham Rd.
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 43 42 15 0 455 62 6 401 131
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 45 44 16 0 479 65 6 422 138
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 984 979 422 946 946 512 422 544
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 984 979 422 946 946 512 422 544
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 81 83 97 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 193 251 636 241 261 564 1142 1030
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 105 544 428 138
Volume Left 45 0 6 0
Volume Right 16 65 0 138
cSH 273 1700 1030 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.32 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 26.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
Lane LOS D A
Approach Delay (s) 26.2 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 11
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 50 150 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1599 1881 1599 0 1881
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 494 420 132
Travel Time (s) 9.6 8.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
10: Brimbal Ave. & Rte. 128 SB Ramps
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 12
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 234 74 443 606 0 444
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 246 78 466 638 0 467
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh) 2
Median type TWLTL None
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 934 466 466
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 466
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 467
vCu, unblocked vol 934 466 466
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 52 87 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 509 598 1100
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 324 466 638 467
Volume Left 246 0 0 0
Volume Right 78 0 638 0
cSH 669 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.27 0.38 0.27
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 17.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.988 0.973
Flt Protected 0.956 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1795 0 0 1898 1849 0
Flt Permitted 0.956 0.981
Satd. Flow (perm) 1795 0 0 1864 1849 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 34
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 548 3049 719
Travel Time (s) 10.7 59.4 14.0
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Timings 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 14
Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 136 13 478 438
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Total Split (s) 21.0 39.0 39.0 39.0
Total Split (%) 35.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None Min Min Min
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 22.3 22.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.60 0.60
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.49 0.54
Control Delay 16.3 8.2 8.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 8.2 8.5
LOS B A A
Approach Delay 16.3 8.2 8.5
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 36.9
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.4 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
Queues 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 15
Lane Group EBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 552 613
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.49 0.54
Control Delay 16.3 8.2 8.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 8.2 8.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 62 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 156 172
Internal Link Dist (ft) 468 2969 639
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 808 1699 1688
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.32 0.36
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
18: Brimbal Ave & Herrick St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 16
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 136 13 13 478 438 108
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1795 1897 1849
Flt Permitted 0.96 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1795 1863 1849
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 153 15 15 537 492 121
RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 0 15 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 0 0 552 598 0
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 21.0 21.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 21.0 21.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.56 0.56
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 319 1037 1029
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.30
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.53 0.58
Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 5.3 5.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 0.5
Delay (s) 14.5 5.5 6.0
Level of Service B A A
Approach Delay (s) 14.5 5.5 6.0
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.7 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 17
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.992 0.943 0.999 0.984
Flt Protected 0.984 0.998 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1801 0 0 1740 0 0 1876 0 0 1836 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.998 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1801 0 0 1740 0 0 1876 0 0 1836 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 357 359 338 3049
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.2 7.7 69.3
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
19: Brimbal Ave & Colon St
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph) 65 123 12 1 131 96 18 383 3 78 360 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph) 71 135 13 1 144 105 20 421 3 86 396 66
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph) 220 251 444 547
Volume Left (vph) 71 1 20 86
Volume Right (vph) 13 105 3 66
Hadj (s) 0.08 -0.20 0.02 -0.02
Departure Headway (s) 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.1
Degree Utilization, x 0.50 0.55 0.89 1.0
Capacity (veh/h) 405 431 485 505
Control Delay (s) 19.4 20.0 44.6 90.0
Approach Delay (s) 19.4 20.0 44.6 90.0
Approach LOS C C E F
Intersection Summary
Delay 53.6
Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.2% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes and Geometrics 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 19
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.873
Flt Protected 0.973 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1810 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1625 0
Flt Permitted 0.973 0.999 0.976 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1810 0 0 1859 0 0 1834 0 0 1625 0
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 35 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 397 161 338
Travel Time (s) 6.0 7.7 3.1 7.7
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Build
21: Rte 22 & Brimbal Ave
8/14/2014
2021 Build Saturday Mid 10/27/2013 2021 Build Synchro 8 Light Report
Muller & Associates Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 372 250 53 3 251 22 12 10 2 6 17 347
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph) 384 258 55 3 259 23 12 10 2 6 18 358
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 281 312 1695 1340 285 1336 1356 270
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 281 312 1695 1340 285 1336 1356 270
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 70 100 54 90 100 93 83 53
cM capacity (veh/h) 1287 1254 27 108 759 93 105 769
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 696 285 25 381
Volume Left 384 3 12 6
Volume Right 55 23 2 358
cSH 1287 1254 44 545
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.00 0.56 0.70
Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 0 52 138
Control Delay (s) 6.4 0.1 162.1 25.5
Lane LOS A A F D
Approach Delay (s) 6.4 0.1 162.1 25.5
Approach LOS F D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 13.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Sohier Road Roundabout - 2021 Build Sat
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Sohier Road
8 T1 179 4.0 0.226 6.0 LOS A 1.4 35.5 0.64 0.63 32.4
18 R2 287 4.0 0.301 6.0 LOS A 2.0 52.2 0.65 0.67 31.7
Approach 466 4.0 0.301 6.0 LOS A 2.0 52.2 0.65 0.65 32.0
East: Connector Road
1 L2 247 3.0 0.212 9.5 LOS A 1.4 35.3 0.44 0.62 31.0
16 R2 176 3.0 0.170 4.6 LOS A 1.0 26.7 0.44 0.52 32.1
Approach 423 3.0 0.212 7.5 LOS A 1.4 35.3 0.44 0.58 31.5
North: Route 128 Ramp
7 L2 400 2.0 0.351 11.1 LOS B 2.4 59.8 0.53 0.68 32.3
4 T1 246 2.0 0.132 4.0 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.39 37.9
Approach 646 2.0 0.351 8.4 LOS A 2.4 59.8 0.33 0.57 34.2
All Vehicles 1535 2.9 0.351 7.4 LOS A 2.4 59.8 0.46 0.60 32.7
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:11:42 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build Sohier
Sat.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC
MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: Brimball Ave Roundabout - 2021 Build Sat
Beverly
Roundabout
Movement Performance - Vehicles
Demand Flows 95% Back of Queue Mov
ID
OD
Mov
Deg.
Satn
Average
Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.
Queued
Effective
Stop Rate
Average
Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance
veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph
South: Brimball NB
3 L2 72 1.0 0.094 11.3 LOS B 0.6 15.3 0.71 0.73 30.2
8 T1 699 1.0 0.372 3.6 LOS A 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.38 33.6
Approach 771 1.0 0.372 4.3 LOS A 0.6 15.3 0.07 0.42 33.2
North: Brimball SB
4 T1 480 1.0 0.738 6.6 LOS A 8.5 215.1 0.73 0.66 31.8
14 R2 257 1.0 0.738 6.6 LOS A 8.5 215.1 0.73 0.66 31.0
Approach 737 1.0 0.738 6.6 LOS A 8.5 215.1 0.73 0.66 31.5
West: Connector Road
5u U 95 1.0 0.616 16.2 LOS C 6.6 167.2 0.90 0.94 29.4
5 L2 441 2.0 0.616 14.3 LOS B 6.6 167.2 0.90 0.94 28.9
12 R2 284 2.0 0.416 8.4 LOS A 2.9 74.5 0.80 0.82 30.6
Approach 820 1.9 0.616 12.5 LOS B 6.6 167.2 0.86 0.90 29.5
All Vehicles 2327 1.3 0.738 7.9 LOS A 8.5 215.1 0.56 0.66 31.3
Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010).
Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.
Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement
LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).
Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010).
Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.
SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay.
Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akelik M3D).
HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.
Processed: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:41:11 PM
SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.0.24.4877
Copyright 2000-2014 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Project: C:\Users\Ron\Documents\Work\Projects\13060 - Beverly\Analysis\Aug 2014 Analysis\Build Sat.sip6
8003731, 6020832, RON MULLER & ASSOCIATES, PLUS / 1PC



civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com

SECTION 6.0 DRAINAGE REPORT






























DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-1
Section 1.0 Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 1-1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-2
SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS ............................................................................................... 1-2
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 1-2
EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 1-2
FEMA FLOODPLAIN ............................................................................................................. 1-2
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1-3
PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF ......................................................................................................... 1-3
MADEP PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................... 1-4
Section 2.0
MADEP STORMWATER REPORT CHECKLIST ..................................................................... 2.0
Section 3.0
AERIAL MAP ............................................................................................................. EX-1
USGS MAP ......................................................................................................... EX-2
SOILS MAP .............................................................................................................. EX-3
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP .................................................................................. EX-4
Section 4.0
EXISTING HYDROCAD ......................................................................................................... 4.1
PROPOSED HYDROCAD ........................................................................................................ 4.2
Section 5.0
EXISTING WATERSHED PLAN ............................................................................................... EWS
PROPOSED WATERSHED PLAN .............................................................................................. PWS
PROPOSED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN ............................................................................. C-3
Section 6.0
SOIL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 6.1
RAINFALL DATA .............................................................................................................. 6.2
MANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT TABLE .................................................................... 6.3
STORMCEPTOR SIZING REPORT ............................................................................................ 6.4
PIPE SIZING TABLE .......................................................................................................... 6.5
ILLICIT DISCHARGE STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 6.6

DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this drainage report is to provide an overview of the proposed stormwater
management system for the proposed development of North Shore Crossing project located in
Beverly, MA. This report will show by means of narrative, calculations and exhibits that there is no
increase in peak rate of runoff from the site at each of the study points for all design storm events.

The project area consists of one parcel located at 140 Brimbal Ave (parcel 55-29). The parcels is
identified on the Assessors Map as Map 55, Lot 29, 6.5 acres and is illustrated on the Existing
Conditions Plan of Land in Beverly, MA, by Hancock Associates, dated May 2, 2005 (See Site
Development Plans).

The proposed site improvements include four Commercial Buildings, with onsite parking, associated
site-work and utilities to service the buildings.

The stormwater management system incorporates structural and non-structural BMPs to provide
stormwater quality treatment and conveyance. There will be a street sweeping schedule, standard
catch basins with deep sumps and hooded outlets, proprietary separators (water quality units), and
subsurface detention systems.

The primary mechanism to address the peak rate of runoff from the site is the subsurface detention
systems. The result is a reduction in the peak rate of stormwater runoff.

SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS
The site is located at #140 Brimbal Ave and is entirely in within the City of Beverly, Massachusetts.
The site has access from Brimbal Ave and Sohier Street, but no curb cut or direct paved access. An
access permit will be required from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project area is currently in use as a historic capped Landfill. The sites natural topography slopes
from south to north. The existing ground cover is a grass wooded combination. See attached Existing
Watershed Plan (EWS) and the Aerial Photo (EX-1).

The surface drainage flows were analyzed at one Study Point:
Study Point #1 is a summation of the runoff from the site, which flows northerly into the
Sohier Road drainage system. It is collected in a wetland area located on the northwesterly
side of Sohier Road and is then collected in the closed drainage system flowing southerly.

EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS
The on-site soils were identified using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Soil Survey for Essex County. The sites soil types include:
602 Urban Land

A copy of the soil mapping is included in the Appendix of this report. For purposes of the analysis, all
soils were assumed to be Hydrologic Soil Group C.

FEMA FLOODPLAIN
The entire site is are located within the FEMA Zone X area determined to be outside the 500-year flood
plain. The official Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) on file with the City of Beverly is dated July 3, 2012,
community panel 25009C0409F as shown on the attached FEMA FIRM Map (EX-4).

DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-3
DRAINAGE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The peak rate of runoff was determined using techniques and data found in the following:

1. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Technical Release 55 by the United States
Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service, June 1986. Runoff curve numbers
and 24-hour precipitation values were obtained from this reference.

2. HydroCAD

Stormwater Modeling System by HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC, version


10.00, 2013. The HydroCAD program was used to generate the runoff hydrographs for the
watershed areas, to determine discharge/stage/storage characteristics for the detention basins,
to perform drainage routing and to combine the results of the runoff hydrographs.
HydroCAD uses the TR-20 methodology of the SCS Unit Hydrograph procedure (SCS-UH).

3. Soil Survey of Essex County Massachusetts by United States Department of Agriculture,
NRCS. Soil types and boundaries were obtained from this reference.

PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF
The storm water runoff analysis of the existing and proposed conditions includes an estimate of the
peak rate of runoff from various rainfall events. Peak runoff rates were developed using TR-55 Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds, developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Engineering
Division and the HydroCAD 10.00 computer program. Further, the analysis has been prepared in
accordance with the MA DEP requirements and standard engineering practices. The peak rate of
runoff has been estimated for each watershed during the 2, 10 and 100-year storm events.

Underground Detention System #1 (USD-1) has been designed to mitigate the peak rate of runoff.
The systems discharge across Shier Road to an existing closed drainage system (Study Point #1).

The stormwater runoff model shows that the proposed site development reduces the rate of runoff during all
storm events at the identified point of analysis. The following tables provide a summary of the estimated
peak rate at Study Point #1 during each of the design storm events. The HydroCAD worksheets are
included in Section 4 of this report.

STUDY POINT #1 (Southerly Flow to the Existing Headwall)
2-Year 10-Year 100-Year
Existing Runoff (CFS) 3.66 8.24 15.75
Developed Runoff (CFS) 3.60 8.10 15.17
% REDUCTION 1.6% 1.7% 3.7%
DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-4
MA DEP STORMWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The MA DEP Stormwater Management Policy was developed to improve water quality by
implementing performance standards for stormwater management. The following section outlines
how the proposed Stormwater Management System meets the standards set forth by the Policy.

BMPs implemented in the design include:
o Deep Sump Catch Basins
o Hydro-dynamic (Proprietary) Separators
o Underground Detention Systems
o Specific maintenance schedule

Stormwater Best Management Practices have been incorporated into the design of the project to
mitigate the anticipated pollutant loading. An Operations and Maintenance Plan has been developed
for the project, which addresses the long term maintenance requirements of the proposed system.

Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be incorporated into the construction phase of the
project. These temporary controls may include straw bale and/or silt fence barriers, inlet sediment
traps, diversion channels, slope stabilization, and stabilized construction entrances.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has established ten (10) Stormwater
Management Standards. A project that meets or exceeds the standards is presumed to satisfy the
regulatory requirements regarding stormwater management. The Standards are as follows:

1. No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly
to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.

2. Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge
rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. This Standard may be waived for
discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04.

3. Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of
infiltration measures including environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development
techniques, stormwater best management practices, and good operation and maintenance. At
a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual
recharge from pre-development conditions based on soil type. This Standard is met when the
stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as
determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.

4. Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual
post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This Standard is met when:

a. Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-
term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and maintained;
b. Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required
water quality volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater
Handbook; and
c. Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.

DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-5
5. For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention
shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to
eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum
extent practicable. If through source control and/or pollution prevention all land uses with
higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from exposure to rain, snow,
snow melt, and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural stormwater
BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher
potential pollutant loads shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean
Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, 26-53 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR
3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00.

6. Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public
water supply, and stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area, require the use of
the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural
stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for
managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact
occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to
Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back
from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of
treatment. A storm water discharge as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1 or (b) to an
Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00
and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless
essential to the operation of a public water supply.

7. A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management
Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the
pretreatment and structural best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6.
Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent
practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the
Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions.

8. A plan to control construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation and other
pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period
erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented.

9. A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure
that stormwater management systems function as designed.

10. All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited.

DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-6
The following demonstrates that the proposed stormwater management system is in compliance with
the performance standards as outlined in the MA DEP Stormwater Management Handbook.

STANDARD #1: The proposed development will not introduce any new outfalls with direct
discharge to a wetland area or waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All discharges
will be treated for water quality and the runoff rates will not be increased over existing
conditions.

STANDARD #2: The proposed development has been designed so that the post-development
peak discharge rates do not exceed the predevelopment peak discharge rates. A summary of the
existing and proposed discharge rates are included within this document (See page 1-3).

STANDARD #3: Due to the existing underground conditions infiltration will not be proposed.
The historic land use associated with this property is a land fill and proposing infiltration would
promote the flow of contaminant into the groundwater. Standard 3 has been met to the maximum
extent practicable.

STANDARD #4: The proposed stormwater management system has been designed so that for
each drainage area the 80% TSS removal standard has been met. Standard #4 is met when
structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture and treat the required water
quality volume and pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater
Handbook. Standard #4 also requires that suitable source control measures are identified in the
Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan.

The water quality volume for the site development is captured and treated using Proprietary
Separators. Supporting calculations are provided in Section 6.

The TSS removal efficiencies for the proprietary separators are based on the values assigned
under the TARP Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing protocol. The Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity
Partnership (TARP) is a workgroup of the Environmental Council of States that was originally
made of California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and
Virginia. TARP is recognized in the MA DEP Stormwater Management Handbook as a valid
source for assigning TSS removal efficiencies for proprietary separators.

STANDARD #5: The site is considered a land use with higher potential pollutant loads.

STANDARD #6: The project site does not discharge within a Zone II or Interim Wellhead
Protection Area or near a critical area. Critical Areas are Outstanding Resource Waters as
designated in 314 CMR 4.00, Special Resource Waters as designated in 314 CMR 4.00, recharge
areas for public water supplies as defined in 310 CMR 22.02, bathing beaches as defined in 105
CMR 445.000, cold-water fisheries as defined in 314 CMR 9.02 and 310 CMR 10.04, and
shellfish growing areas as defined in 314 CMR 9.02 and 310 CMR 10.04.

STANDARD #7: The proposed project is not considered a re-development project under the
Stormwater Management Handbook guidelines as there is no existing development on the site,
therefore there is an increase in the amount of total impervious area.

DRAINAGE REPORT
North Shore Crossing Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road, Beverly, MA

1-7
STANDARD #8: A plan to control construction-related impacts, including erosion, sedimentation
and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities has been
developed. A detailed Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is included in the Construction
Drawings. A Pollution Prevention Plan is included in the O&M. The proponent will prepare and
submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of construction
activities that will result in the disturbance of one acre of land or more.

STANDARD #9: A Long-Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan has been developed for
the proposed stormwater management system and has been submitted under separate cover.

STANDARD #10: There are no expected illicit discharges to the stormwater management
system. The applicant has included an Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement in Section 6.



2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 1 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

A. Introduction
Important: When
filling out forms
on the computer,
use only the tab
key to move your
cursor - do not
use the return
key.

A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document
compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for
the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered
here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their
Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist,
the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in
Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and
certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth.

The Stormwater Report must include:
The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer (see
page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.
1
This Checklist
is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report.
Applicant/Project Name
Project Address
Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report
Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6
Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required
by Standard 8
2

Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9

In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative
describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID
techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are
required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types,
critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site
where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for
both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations.

As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of
the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The
soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.

To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report
Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the
Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the
applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification
must be submitted with the Stormwater Report.
















1
The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in
the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to
the post-construction best management practices.

2
For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in
the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the
project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site.






2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 3 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what
environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of
the project:

No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas

Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks)

Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only)

Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs

LID Site Design Credit Requested:

Credit 1

Credit 2

Credit 3

Use of country drainage versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe

Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens)

Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs)

Treebox Filter

Water Quality Swale

Grass Channel

Green Roof

Other (describe):
Pervious Pavement




Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges

No new untreated discharges

Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the
Commonwealth

Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included.






2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 4 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation

Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage
and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding.

Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour
storm.

Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-
development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site
flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that
post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24-
hour storm.



Standard 3: Recharge

Soil Analysis provided.

Required Recharge Volume calculation provided.

Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits.

Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used.

Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field
1


Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP.

Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations
are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to
generate the required recharge volume.

Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume.

Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum
extent practicable for the following reason:

Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface

M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000

Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000

Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent
practicable.

Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided.

Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included.



1
80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used.


2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 5 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

Standard 3: Recharge (continued)

The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10-
year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding
analysis is provided.

Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland
resource areas.

Standard 4: Water Quality

The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following:
Good housekeeping practices;
Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover;
Vehicle washing controls;
Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs;
Spill prevention and response plans;
Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas;
Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides;
Pet waste management provisions;
Provisions for operation and management of septic systems;
Provisions for solid waste management;
Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas;
Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions;
Street sweeping schedules;
Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system;
Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the
event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL;
Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan;
List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan.










A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an
attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent.

Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for
calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge:

is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area

is near or to other critical areas

is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour)

involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads.

The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits.

Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if
applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided.






2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 6 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

Standard 4: Water Quality (continued)

The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on:

The or 1 Water Quality Volume or

The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is
provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume.

The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary
BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the
propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying
performance of the proprietary BMPs.



A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing
that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided.
Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs)

The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report.

The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior
to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs.
The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use.

LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention
measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow
melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan.
All exposure has been eliminated.
All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list.

The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and
grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil
grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent.
Standard 6: Critical Areas

The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP
has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area.
Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report.






2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 7 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum
extent practicable

The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent
Practicable as a:
Limited Project

Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development
provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area.

Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development
with a discharge to a critical area

Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected
from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff
Bike Path and/or Foot Path
Redevelopment Project
Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment.

Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an
explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report.

The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to
improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found
in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that
the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment
and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b)
improves existing conditions.


Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the
following information:

Narrative;
Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan;
Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance;
Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures;
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings;
Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations;
Vegetation Planning;
Site Development Plan;
Construction Sequencing Plan;
Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls;
Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls;
Inspection Schedule;
Maintenance Schedule;
Inspection and Maintenance Log Form.









A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing
the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report.



2.0 - SW Checklist.doc 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist Page 8 of 8




Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report

Checklist (continued)

Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(continued)

The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why
it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and
Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be
submitted before land disturbance begins.


The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit.

The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the
Stormwater Report.

The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted.
The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins.
Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan

The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and
includes the following information:
Name of the stormwater management system owners;
Party responsible for operation and maintenance;
Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks;
Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas;
Description and delineation of public safety features;
Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and
Operation and Maintenance Log Form.

The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater
Report includes the following submissions:

A copy of the legal instrument (deed, homeowners association, utility trust or other legal entity)
that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
project site stormwater BMPs;

A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain
BMP functions.
Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges;
An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached;

NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of
any stormwater to post-construction BMPs.

E-1
Watershed
SP-1
Study Point
Routing Diagram for 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc., Printed 8/25/2014
HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 2 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=280,190 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.87" Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Flow Length=806' Tc=24.8 min CN=72 Runoff=3.66 cfs 0.465 af
Inflow=3.66 cfs 0.465 af Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=3.66 cfs 0.465 af
Total Runoff Area = 6.432 ac Runoff Volume = 0.465 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.87"
100.00% Pervious = 6.432 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 3 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Runoff = 3.66 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af, Depth= 0.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
280,190 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C
280,190 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
9.6 50 0.0350 0.09 Sheet Flow,
Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.40"
15.2 756 0.0141 0.83 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps
24.8 806 Total
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 6.432 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.87" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 3.66 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af
Primary = 3.66 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 4 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=280,190 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.82" Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Flow Length=806' Tc=24.8 min CN=72 Runoff=8.24 cfs 0.976 af
Inflow=8.24 cfs 0.976 af Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=8.24 cfs 0.976 af
Total Runoff Area = 6.432 ac Runoff Volume = 0.976 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.82"
100.00% Pervious = 6.432 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 5 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Runoff = 8.24 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.976 af, Depth= 1.82"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
280,190 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C
280,190 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
9.6 50 0.0350 0.09 Sheet Flow,
Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.40"
15.2 756 0.0141 0.83 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps
24.8 806 Total
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 6.432 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.82" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 8.24 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.976 af
Primary = 8.24 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.976 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 6 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=280,190 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.41" Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Flow Length=806' Tc=24.8 min CN=72 Runoff=15.75 cfs 1.826 af
Inflow=15.75 cfs 1.826 af Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=15.75 cfs 1.826 af
Total Runoff Area = 6.432 ac Runoff Volume = 1.826 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.41"
100.00% Pervious = 6.432 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Existing (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 7 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Watershed
Runoff = 15.75 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.826 af, Depth= 3.41"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
280,190 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C
280,190 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
9.6 50 0.0350 0.09 Sheet Flow,
Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.40"
15.2 756 0.0141 0.83 Shallow Concentrated Flow,
Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps
24.8 806 Total
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 6.432 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.41" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 15.75 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.826 af
Primary = 15.75 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.826 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
P-1
Watershed
P-10
Watershed
P-11
Watershed
P-2
Watershed
P-3
Watershed
P-4
Watershed
P-5
Watershed
P-6
Watershed
P-7
Watershed
P-8
Watershed
P-9
Watershed
R-1
Roof
R-2
Roof
R-3
Roof
R-4
Roof
DMH#1
CB
Cach Basin
DMH#13
CB
Manhole
DMH#2
CB
Manhole
DMH#3
CB
Manhole
DMH#4
CB
Manhole
DMH#5
CB
Manhole
DMH#6
CB
Manhole
DMH#8
CB
Manhole
DMH#9
CB
Exising Catch Basin
RD
CB
Manhole
UDS-1
Underground Detention
System
UDS-2
Underground Detention
System
SP-1
Study Point
Routing Diagram for 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc., Printed 8/25/2014
HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Subcat Reach Pond Link
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 2 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=18,951 sf 77.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35" Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=1.14 cfs 3,711 cf
Runoff Area=16,117 sf 5.64% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.51" Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=0.16 cfs 689 cf
Runoff Area=22,832 sf 12.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.03" Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=0.59 cfs 1,954 cf
Runoff Area=8,246 sf 74.78% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.26" Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.48 cfs 1,550 cf
Runoff Area=9,996 sf 53.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.83" Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=87 Runoff=0.48 cfs 1,522 cf
Runoff Area=47,247 sf 87.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.55" Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=3.00 cfs 10,029 cf
Runoff Area=55,318 sf 86.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.55" Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=3.51 cfs 11,742 cf
Runoff Area=5,618 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.38 cfs 1,343 cf
Runoff Area=8,142 sf 73.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.99" Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.42 cfs 1,351 cf
Runoff Area=5,206 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.35 cfs 1,244 cf
Runoff Area=19,555 sf 5.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.51" Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=0.19 cfs 836 cf
Runoff Area=35,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=2.36 cfs 8,365 cf
Runoff Area=5,562 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.37 cfs 1,329 cf
Runoff Area=20,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.35 cfs 4,780 cf
Runoff Area=2,400 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.87" Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.16 cfs 574 cf
Peak Elev=75.65' Inflow=0.35 cfs 1,526 cf Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=55.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=0.35 cfs 1,526 cf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 3 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=75.25' Inflow=4.08 cfs 14,474 cf Pond DMH#13: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=124.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=4.08 cfs 14,474 cf
Peak Elev=75.12' Inflow=0.77 cfs 2,876 cf Pond DMH#2: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=46.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=0.77 cfs 2,876 cf
Peak Elev=74.75' Inflow=1.73 cfs 6,172 cf Pond DMH#3: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=66.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=1.73 cfs 6,172 cf
Peak Elev=74.53' Inflow=5.24 cfs 17,914 cf Pond DMH#4: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=115.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=5.24 cfs 17,914 cf
Peak Elev=72.90' Inflow=0.96 cfs 3,072 cf Pond DMH#5: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=120.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=0.96 cfs 3,072 cf
Peak Elev=72.81' Inflow=9.19 cfs 31,014 cf Pond DMH#6: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=5.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=9.19 cfs 31,014 cf
Peak Elev=67.97' Inflow=3.20 cfs 46,061 cf Pond DMH#8: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=192.0' S=0.0715 '/' Outflow=3.20 cfs 46,061 cf
Peak Elev=54.46' Inflow=3.60 cfs 51,017 cf Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=208.0' S=0.0044 '/' Outflow=3.60 cfs 51,017 cf
Peak Elev=78.44' Inflow=0.16 cfs 574 cf Pond RD: Manhole
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=65.0' S=0.0500 '/' Outflow=0.16 cfs 574 cf
Peak Elev=70.84' Storage=59 cf Inflow=1.14 cfs 3,711 cf Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Outflow=1.09 cfs 3,712 cf
Peak Elev=72.86' Storage=14,019 cf Inflow=13.44 cfs 46,062 cf Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention
Outflow=3.20 cfs 46,061 cf
Inflow=3.60 cfs 51,017 cf Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=3.60 cfs 51,017 cf
Total Runoff Area = 280,190 sf Runoff Volume = 51,017 cf Average Runoff Depth = 2.18"
28.63% Pervious = 80,214 sf 71.37% Impervious = 199,976 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 4 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Runoff = 1.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,711 cf, Depth= 2.35"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
14,720 98 Paved parking, HSG C
4,231 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
18,951 93 Weighted Average
4,231 22.33% Pervious Area
14,720 77.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 689 cf, Depth= 0.51"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
909 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,527 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 13,681 61 Porous Paved Area
16,117 64 Weighted Average
15,208 94.36% Pervious Area
909 5.64% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,954 cf, Depth= 1.03"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 5 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
2,834 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
16,928 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 3,070 61 Porous Paved Area
22,832 75 Weighted Average
19,998 87.59% Pervious Area
2,834 12.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,550 cf, Depth= 2.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
6,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
2,080 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
8,246 92 Weighted Average
2,080 25.22% Pervious Area
6,166 74.78% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,522 cf, Depth= 1.83"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,365 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
4,631 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
9,996 87 Weighted Average
4,631 46.33% Pervious Area
5,365 53.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 6 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Runoff = 3.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,029 cf, Depth= 2.55"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
41,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
6,081 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
47,247 95 Weighted Average
6,081 12.87% Pervious Area
41,166 87.13% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Runoff = 3.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,742 cf, Depth= 2.55"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
47,985 98 Paved parking, HSG C
7,333 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
55,318 95 Weighted Average
7,333 13.26% Pervious Area
47,985 86.74% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Runoff = 0.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,343 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,618 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,618 98 Weighted Average
5,618 100.00% Impervious Area
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 7 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Runoff = 0.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,351 cf, Depth= 1.99"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,987 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
421 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 1,734 61 Pervious Parking Area
8,142 89 Weighted Average
2,155 26.47% Pervious Area
5,987 73.53% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, 10.0
Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Runoff = 0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,244 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,206 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,206 98 Weighted Average
5,206 100.00% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 836 cf, Depth= 0.51"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 8 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
1,058 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,330 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 17,167 61 Porous Paved Area
19,555 64 Weighted Average
18,497 94.59% Pervious Area
1,058 5.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Runoff = 2.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,365 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
35,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
35,000 100.00% Impervious Area
35,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,329 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,562 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
5,562 100.00% Impervious Area
5,562 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 9 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Runoff = 1.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,780 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
20,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
20,000 100.00% Impervious Area
20,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 574 cf, Depth= 2.87"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"
Area (sf) CN Description
2,400 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
2,400 100.00% Impervious Area
2,400 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
Inflow Area = 35,672 sf, 5.51% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.51" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,526 cf
Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,526 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.35 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,526 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.65' @ 12.12 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 75.36' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 55.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 75.36' / 74.81' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 10 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=0.34 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=75.65' TW=73.67' (Fixed TW Elev= 73.67')
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.34 cfs @ 1.82 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#13: Manhole
Inflow Area = 60,562 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.87" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 4.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 14,474 cf
Outflow = 4.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 14,474 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 4.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 14,474 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.25' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 124.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 71.67' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=3.98 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=75.23' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.98 cfs @ 3.53 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#2: Manhole
Inflow Area = 43,814 sf, 18.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.79" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,876 cf
Outflow = 0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,876 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,876 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.12' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 77.40'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.71' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 46.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.71' / 74.25' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.76 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=75.12' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.76 cfs @ 2.18 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 11 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond DMH#3: Manhole
Inflow Area = 72,264 sf, 22.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 1.73 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,172 cf
Outflow = 1.73 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,172 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 1.73 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 6,172 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 74.75' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.10'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 66.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 73.49' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=1.73 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=74.75' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.73 cfs @ 2.63 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#4: Manhole
Inflow Area = 127,582 sf, 50.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 5.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 17,914 cf
Outflow = 5.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 17,914 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 5.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 17,914 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 74.53' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 73.39' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 73.39' / 72.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=5.13 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=74.52' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.13 cfs @ 3.61 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#5: Manhole
Inflow Area = 18,242 sf, 63.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,072 cf
Outflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,072 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.96 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,072 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 12 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev= 72.90' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 72.44' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 120.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 72.44' / 71.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=72.90' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.94 cfs @ 2.30 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#6: Manhole
Inflow Area = 193,071 sf, 60.65% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 9.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,014 cf
Outflow = 9.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,014 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 9.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,014 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 72.81' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 71.14' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 71.14' / 71.09' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=8.99 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=72.79' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 8.99 cfs @ 4.40 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#8: Manhole
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.16" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46,061 cf
Outflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46,061 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46,061 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 67.97' @ 12.49 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 67.22' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 192.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 67.22' / 53.50' S= 0.0715 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 13 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=3.18 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=67.97' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.18 cfs @ 2.95 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.18" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 3.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 51,017 cf
Outflow = 3.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 51,017 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 3.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 51,017 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 54.46' @ 12.41 hrs
Flood Elev= 67.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 53.55' 24.0" Round RCP_Round 24"
L= 208.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 53.55' / 52.63' S= 0.0044 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=3.58 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=54.46' (Free Discharge)
1=RCP_Round 24" (Barrel Controls 3.58 cfs @ 3.76 fps)
Summary for Pond RD: Manhole
Inflow Area = 2,400 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.87" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 0.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 574 cf
Outflow = 0.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 574 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 574 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 78.44' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 78.25' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 65.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 78.25' / 75.00' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=78.44' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.16 cfs @ 1.49 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 14 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 18,951 sf, 77.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.35" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 1.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,711 cf
Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,712 cf, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.4 min
Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 3,712 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 70.84' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 1,523 sf Storage= 59 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.3 min ( 794.1 - 793.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.84' 0 cf 7.50'W x 203.00'L x 5.50'H Field A
8,374 cf Overall - 2,971 cf Embedded = 5,403 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.34' 2,480 cf ADS N-12 48 x 10 Inside #1
Inside= 47.7"W x 47.7"H => 12.40 sf x 20.00'L = 248.0 cf
Outside= 54.0"W x 54.0"H => 14.86 sf x 20.00'L = 297.1 cf
2,480 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.34' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 28.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.34' / 69.78' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
#2 Device 1 69.84' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Primary OutFlow Max=1.07 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=70.83' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.07 cfs @ 2.39 fps)
2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 1.07 cfs of 1.18 cfs potential flow)
Summary for Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.16" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 13.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 46,062 cf
Outflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46,061 cf, Atten= 76%, Lag= 23.9 min
Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 46,061 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3
Peak Elev= 72.86' @ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 13,252 sf Storage= 14,019 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 42.5 min ( 825.7 - 783.2 )
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 15 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.90' 0 cf 76.09'W x 174.17'L x 6.58'H Field A
87,250 cf Overall - 40,024 cf Embedded = 47,226 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.40' 33,701 cf ADS N-12 60 x 80 Inside #1
Inside= 59.5"W x 59.5"H => 19.30 sf x 20.00'L = 386.0 cf
Outside= 67.0"W x 67.0"H => 22.91 sf x 20.00'L = 458.2 cf
73.09' Header x 19.30 sf x 2 = 2,821.2 cf Inside
33,701 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.49' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.49' / 69.79' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2 Device 1 70.40' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#3 Device 1 72.45' 14.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#4 Device 1 73.50' 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#5 Device 1 75.20' 4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=3.19 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=72.86' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Passes 3.19 cfs of 13.99 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.45 cfs @ 7.03 fps)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.74 cfs @ 2.19 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
5=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.18" for 2-Year event
Inflow = 3.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 51,017 cf
Primary = 3.60 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 51,017 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 16 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=18,951 sf 77.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71" Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=1.75 cfs 5,856 cf
Runoff Area=16,117 sf 5.64% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.27" Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=0.50 cfs 1,700 cf
Runoff Area=22,832 sf 12.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.05" Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=1.23 cfs 3,901 cf
Runoff Area=8,246 sf 74.78% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.60" Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=0.75 cfs 2,475 cf
Runoff Area=9,996 sf 53.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.10" Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=87 Runoff=0.81 cfs 2,581 cf
Runoff Area=47,247 sf 87.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.92" Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=4.51 cfs 15,453 cf
Runoff Area=55,318 sf 86.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.92" Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=5.28 cfs 18,092 cf
Runoff Area=5,618 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.55 cfs 1,996 cf
Runoff Area=8,142 sf 73.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.30" Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.69 cfs 2,236 cf
Runoff Area=5,206 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.51 cfs 1,850 cf
Runoff Area=19,555 sf 5.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.27" Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=0.60 cfs 2,062 cf
Runoff Area=35,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=3.45 cfs 12,437 cf
Runoff Area=5,562 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.55 cfs 1,976 cf
Runoff Area=20,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=1.97 cfs 7,107 cf
Runoff Area=2,400 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.26" Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.24 cfs 853 cf
Peak Elev=75.90' Inflow=1.10 cfs 3,762 cf Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=55.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=1.10 cfs 3,762 cf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 17 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=75.79' Inflow=5.97 cfs 21,520 cf Pond DMH#13: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=124.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=5.97 cfs 21,520 cf
Peak Elev=75.36' Inflow=1.78 cfs 5,998 cf Pond DMH#2: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=46.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=1.78 cfs 5,998 cf
Peak Elev=75.05' Inflow=3.56 cfs 11,896 cf Pond DMH#3: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=66.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=3.56 cfs 11,896 cf
Peak Elev=75.22' Inflow=8.83 cfs 29,988 cf Pond DMH#4: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=115.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=8.83 cfs 29,988 cf
Peak Elev=73.04' Inflow=1.55 cfs 5,057 cf Pond DMH#5: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=120.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=1.55 cfs 5,057 cf
Peak Elev=73.46' Inflow=14.89 cfs 50,497 cf Pond DMH#6: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=5.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=14.89 cfs 50,497 cf
Peak Elev=68.39' Inflow=7.07 cfs 72,871 cf Pond DMH#8: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=192.0' S=0.0715 '/' Outflow=7.07 cfs 72,871 cf
Peak Elev=55.01' Inflow=8.10 cfs 80,577 cf Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=208.0' S=0.0044 '/' Outflow=8.10 cfs 80,577 cf
Peak Elev=78.49' Inflow=0.24 cfs 853 cf Pond RD: Manhole
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=65.0' S=0.0500 '/' Outflow=0.24 cfs 853 cf
Peak Elev=71.09' Storage=173 cf Inflow=1.75 cfs 5,856 cf Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Outflow=1.45 cfs 5,856 cf
Peak Elev=73.66' Storage=20,912 cf Inflow=21.09 cfs 72,870 cf Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention
Outflow=7.07 cfs 72,871 cf
Inflow=8.10 cfs 80,577 cf Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=8.10 cfs 80,577 cf
Total Runoff Area = 280,190 sf Runoff Volume = 80,575 cf Average Runoff Depth = 3.45"
28.63% Pervious = 80,214 sf 71.37% Impervious = 199,976 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 18 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Runoff = 1.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,856 cf, Depth= 3.71"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
14,720 98 Paved parking, HSG C
4,231 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
18,951 93 Weighted Average
4,231 22.33% Pervious Area
14,720 77.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Runoff = 0.50 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,700 cf, Depth= 1.27"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
909 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,527 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 13,681 61 Porous Paved Area
16,117 64 Weighted Average
15,208 94.36% Pervious Area
909 5.64% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Runoff = 1.23 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,901 cf, Depth= 2.05"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 19 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
2,834 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
16,928 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 3,070 61 Porous Paved Area
22,832 75 Weighted Average
19,998 87.59% Pervious Area
2,834 12.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Runoff = 0.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,475 cf, Depth= 3.60"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
6,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
2,080 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
8,246 92 Weighted Average
2,080 25.22% Pervious Area
6,166 74.78% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,581 cf, Depth= 3.10"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,365 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
4,631 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
9,996 87 Weighted Average
4,631 46.33% Pervious Area
5,365 53.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 20 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Runoff = 4.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 15,453 cf, Depth= 3.92"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
41,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
6,081 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
47,247 95 Weighted Average
6,081 12.87% Pervious Area
41,166 87.13% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Runoff = 5.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,092 cf, Depth= 3.92"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
47,985 98 Paved parking, HSG C
7,333 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
55,318 95 Weighted Average
7,333 13.26% Pervious Area
47,985 86.74% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Runoff = 0.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,996 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,618 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,618 98 Weighted Average
5,618 100.00% Impervious Area
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 21 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,236 cf, Depth= 3.30"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,987 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
421 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 1,734 61 Pervious Parking Area
8,142 89 Weighted Average
2,155 26.47% Pervious Area
5,987 73.53% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, 10.0
Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,850 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,206 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,206 98 Weighted Average
5,206 100.00% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 2,062 cf, Depth= 1.27"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 22 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
1,058 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,330 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 17,167 61 Porous Paved Area
19,555 64 Weighted Average
18,497 94.59% Pervious Area
1,058 5.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Runoff = 3.45 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 12,437 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
35,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
35,000 100.00% Impervious Area
35,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Runoff = 0.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,976 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,562 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
5,562 100.00% Impervious Area
5,562 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 23 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Runoff = 1.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,107 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
20,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
20,000 100.00% Impervious Area
20,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 853 cf, Depth= 4.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
2,400 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
2,400 100.00% Impervious Area
2,400 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
Inflow Area = 35,672 sf, 5.51% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.27" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 1.10 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,762 cf
Outflow = 1.10 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,762 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 1.10 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,762 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.90' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 75.36' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 55.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 75.36' / 74.81' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 24 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=75.90' TW=73.67' (Fixed TW Elev= 73.67')
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.09 cfs @ 2.51 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#13: Manhole
Inflow Area = 60,562 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 5.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,520 cf
Outflow = 5.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,520 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 5.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,520 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.79' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 124.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 71.67' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=5.81 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=75.74' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 5.81 cfs @ 4.73 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#2: Manhole
Inflow Area = 43,814 sf, 18.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.64" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,998 cf
Outflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,998 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 1.78 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 5,998 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.36' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 77.40'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.71' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 46.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.71' / 74.25' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=1.77 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=75.36' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.77 cfs @ 2.75 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 25 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond DMH#3: Manhole
Inflow Area = 72,264 sf, 22.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.98" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 3.56 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf
Outflow = 3.56 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 3.56 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 11,896 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.05' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.10'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 66.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 73.49' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=3.52 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=75.04' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.52 cfs @ 3.21 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#4: Manhole
Inflow Area = 127,582 sf, 50.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.82" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 8.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 29,988 cf
Outflow = 8.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 29,988 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 8.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 29,988 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.22' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 73.39' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 73.39' / 72.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=8.64 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=75.17' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.64 cfs @ 4.89 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#5: Manhole
Inflow Area = 18,242 sf, 63.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.33" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 1.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,057 cf
Outflow = 1.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,057 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 1.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,057 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 26 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev= 73.04' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 72.44' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 120.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 72.44' / 71.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=1.51 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=73.03' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.51 cfs @ 2.63 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#6: Manhole
Inflow Area = 193,071 sf, 60.65% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.14" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 14.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 50,497 cf
Outflow = 14.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 50,497 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 14.89 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 50,497 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 73.46' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 71.14' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 71.14' / 71.09' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=14.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=73.41' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 14.55 cfs @ 5.10 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#8: Manhole
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.42" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 7.07 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 72,871 cf
Outflow = 7.07 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 72,871 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 7.07 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 72,871 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 68.39' @ 12.38 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 67.22' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 192.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 67.22' / 53.50' S= 0.0715 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 27 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=7.05 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=68.39' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.05 cfs @ 3.69 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.45" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 8.10 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 80,577 cf
Outflow = 8.10 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 80,577 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 8.10 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 80,577 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 55.01' @ 12.25 hrs
Flood Elev= 67.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 53.55' 24.0" Round RCP_Round 24"
L= 208.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 53.55' / 52.63' S= 0.0044 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=8.09 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=55.01' (Free Discharge)
1=RCP_Round 24" (Barrel Controls 8.09 cfs @ 4.60 fps)
Summary for Pond RD: Manhole
Inflow Area = 2,400 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.26" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 0.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 853 cf
Outflow = 0.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 853 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 853 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 78.49' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 78.25' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 65.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 78.25' / 75.00' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.23 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=78.48' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.23 cfs @ 1.65 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 28 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 18,951 sf, 77.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.71" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 1.75 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 5,856 cf
Outflow = 1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 5,856 cf, Atten= 17%, Lag= 3.3 min
Primary = 1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 5,856 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 71.09' @ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area= 1,523 sf Storage= 173 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.5 min ( 782.0 - 781.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.84' 0 cf 7.50'W x 203.00'L x 5.50'H Field A
8,374 cf Overall - 2,971 cf Embedded = 5,403 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.34' 2,480 cf ADS N-12 48 x 10 Inside #1
Inside= 47.7"W x 47.7"H => 12.40 sf x 20.00'L = 248.0 cf
Outside= 54.0"W x 54.0"H => 14.86 sf x 20.00'L = 297.1 cf
2,480 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.34' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 28.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.34' / 69.78' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
#2 Device 1 69.84' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Primary OutFlow Max=1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=71.08' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Passes 1.45 cfs of 2.22 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.45 cfs @ 4.15 fps)
Summary for Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.42" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 21.09 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 72,870 cf
Outflow = 7.07 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 72,871 cf, Atten= 66%, Lag= 17.6 min
Primary = 7.07 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 72,871 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3
Peak Elev= 73.66' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 13,252 sf Storage= 20,912 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 43.7 min calculated for 72,795 cf (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 43.7 min ( 819.0 - 775.3 )
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 29 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.90' 0 cf 76.09'W x 174.17'L x 6.58'H Field A
87,250 cf Overall - 40,024 cf Embedded = 47,226 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.40' 33,701 cf ADS N-12 60 x 80 Inside #1
Inside= 59.5"W x 59.5"H => 19.30 sf x 20.00'L = 386.0 cf
Outside= 67.0"W x 67.0"H => 22.91 sf x 20.00'L = 458.2 cf
73.09' Header x 19.30 sf x 2 = 2,821.2 cf Inside
33,701 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.49' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.49' / 69.79' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2 Device 1 70.40' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#3 Device 1 72.45' 14.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#4 Device 1 73.50' 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#5 Device 1 75.20' 4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=7.06 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=73.66' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Passes 7.06 cfs of 17.60 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.88 cfs @ 8.24 fps)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 4.08 cfs @ 3.82 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.10 cfs @ 1.37 fps)
5=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.45" for 10-Year event
Inflow = 8.10 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 80,577 cf
Primary = 8.10 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 80,577 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 30 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 961 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method
Runoff Area=18,951 sf 77.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.68" Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=93 Runoff=2.61 cfs 8,965 cf
Runoff Area=16,117 sf 5.64% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.63" Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=1.10 cfs 3,528 cf
Runoff Area=22,832 sf 12.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71" Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=75 Runoff=2.24 cfs 7,063 cf
Runoff Area=8,246 sf 74.78% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.56" Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=92 Runoff=1.12 cfs 3,822 cf
Runoff Area=9,996 sf 53.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.00" Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=87 Runoff=1.27 cfs 4,163 cf
Runoff Area=47,247 sf 87.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.91" Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=6.63 cfs 23,263 cf
Runoff Area=55,318 sf 86.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.91" Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=95 Runoff=7.77 cfs 27,237 cf
Runoff Area=5,618 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.80 cfs 2,931 cf
Runoff Area=8,142 sf 73.53% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.22" Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=89 Runoff=1.07 cfs 3,542 cf
Runoff Area=5,206 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.74 cfs 2,716 cf
Runoff Area=19,555 sf 5.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.63" Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Tc=6.0 min CN=64 Runoff=1.33 cfs 4,280 cf
Runoff Area=35,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.00 cfs 18,262 cf
Runoff Area=5,562 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.79 cfs 2,902 cf
Runoff Area=20,000 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=2.86 cfs 10,436 cf
Runoff Area=2,400 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.26" Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.34 cfs 1,252 cf
Peak Elev=76.27' Inflow=2.43 cfs 7,807 cf Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=55.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=2.43 cfs 7,807 cf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 31 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev=76.91' Inflow=8.65 cfs 31,600 cf Pond DMH#13: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=124.0' S=0.0200 '/' Outflow=8.65 cfs 31,600 cf
Peak Elev=75.70' Inflow=3.50 cfs 11,350 cf Pond DMH#2: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=46.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=3.50 cfs 11,350 cf
Peak Elev=75.48' Inflow=6.53 cfs 21,344 cf Pond DMH#3: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=66.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=6.53 cfs 21,344 cf
Peak Elev=76.95' Inflow=14.29 cfs 48,581 cf Pond DMH#4: Manhole
18.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=115.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=14.29 cfs 48,581 cf
Peak Elev=73.21' Inflow=2.40 cfs 7,984 cf Pond DMH#5: Manhole
15.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=120.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=2.40 cfs 7,984 cf
Peak Elev=74.49' Inflow=23.32 cfs 79,828 cf Pond DMH#6: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=5.0' S=0.0100 '/' Outflow=23.32 cfs 79,828 cf
Peak Elev=68.98' Inflow=13.18 cfs 112,688 cf Pond DMH#8: Manhole
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=192.0' S=0.0715 '/' Outflow=13.18 cfs 112,688 cf
Peak Elev=55.87' Inflow=15.17 cfs 124,369 cf Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
24.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=208.0' S=0.0044 '/' Outflow=15.17 cfs 124,369 cf
Peak Elev=78.54' Inflow=0.34 cfs 1,252 cf Pond RD: Manhole
12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=65.0' S=0.0500 '/' Outflow=0.34 cfs 1,252 cf
Peak Elev=71.58' Storage=471 cf Inflow=2.61 cfs 8,965 cf Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Outflow=1.87 cfs 8,965 cf
Peak Elev=74.93' Storage=30,560 cf Inflow=32.31 cfs 112,681 cf Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention
Outflow=13.18 cfs 112,688 cf
Inflow=15.17 cfs 124,369 cf Link SP-1: Study Point
Primary=15.17 cfs 124,369 cf
Total Runoff Area = 280,190 sf Runoff Volume = 124,362 cf Average Runoff Depth = 5.33"
28.63% Pervious = 80,214 sf 71.37% Impervious = 199,976 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 32 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Watershed
Runoff = 2.61 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,965 cf, Depth= 5.68"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
14,720 98 Paved parking, HSG C
4,231 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
18,951 93 Weighted Average
4,231 22.33% Pervious Area
14,720 77.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-10: Watershed
Runoff = 1.10 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,528 cf, Depth= 2.63"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
909 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,527 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 13,681 61 Porous Paved Area
16,117 64 Weighted Average
15,208 94.36% Pervious Area
909 5.64% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-11: Watershed
Runoff = 2.24 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,063 cf, Depth= 3.71"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 33 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
2,834 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
16,928 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 3,070 61 Porous Paved Area
22,832 75 Weighted Average
19,998 87.59% Pervious Area
2,834 12.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Watershed
Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,822 cf, Depth= 5.56"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
6,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
2,080 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
8,246 92 Weighted Average
2,080 25.22% Pervious Area
6,166 74.78% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-3: Watershed
Runoff = 1.27 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 4,163 cf, Depth= 5.00"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,365 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
4,631 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
9,996 87 Weighted Average
4,631 46.33% Pervious Area
5,365 53.67% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 34 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment P-4: Watershed
Runoff = 6.63 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 23,263 cf, Depth= 5.91"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
41,166 98 Paved parking, HSG C
6,081 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
47,247 95 Weighted Average
6,081 12.87% Pervious Area
41,166 87.13% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-5: Watershed
Runoff = 7.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 27,237 cf, Depth= 5.91"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
47,985 98 Paved parking, HSG C
7,333 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
55,318 95 Weighted Average
7,333 13.26% Pervious Area
47,985 86.74% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-6: Watershed
Runoff = 0.80 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,931 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,618 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,618 98 Weighted Average
5,618 100.00% Impervious Area
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 35 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-7: Watershed
Runoff = 1.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,542 cf, Depth= 5.22"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,987 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
421 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 1,734 61 Pervious Parking Area
8,142 89 Weighted Average
2,155 26.47% Pervious Area
5,987 73.53% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry, 10.0
Summary for Subcatchment P-8: Watershed
Runoff = 0.74 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,716 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,206 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
0 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
5,206 98 Weighted Average
5,206 100.00% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment P-9: Watershed
Runoff = 1.33 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 4,280 cf, Depth= 2.63"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 36 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Area (sf) CN Description
1,058 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG C
1,330 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
* 17,167 61 Porous Paved Area
19,555 64 Weighted Average
18,497 94.59% Pervious Area
1,058 5.41% Impervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-1: Roof
Runoff = 5.00 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 18,262 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
35,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
35,000 100.00% Impervious Area
35,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-2: Roof
Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2,902 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
5,562 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
5,562 100.00% Impervious Area
5,562 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 37 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment R-3: Roof
Runoff = 2.86 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 10,436 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
20,000 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
20,000 100.00% Impervious Area
20,000 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment R-4: Roof
Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,252 cf, Depth= 6.26"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"
Area (sf) CN Description
2,400 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C
2,400 100.00% Impervious Area
2,400 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
6.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Pond DMH#1: Cach Basin
Inflow Area = 35,672 sf, 5.51% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.63" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 2.43 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,807 cf
Outflow = 2.43 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,807 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 2.43 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 7,807 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 76.27' @ 12.10 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 75.36' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 55.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 75.36' / 74.81' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 38 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=2.41 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=76.26' TW=73.67' (Fixed TW Elev= 73.67')
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.41 cfs @ 3.23 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#13: Manhole
Inflow Area = 60,562 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 8.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,600 cf
Outflow = 8.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,600 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 8.65 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 31,600 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 76.91' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 124.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 71.67' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=8.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=76.81' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.42 cfs @ 6.86 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#2: Manhole
Inflow Area = 43,814 sf, 18.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.11" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 3.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,350 cf
Outflow = 3.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,350 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 3.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 11,350 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.70' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 77.40'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.71' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 46.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.71' / 74.25' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=3.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=75.69' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.44 cfs @ 4.57 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 39 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond DMH#3: Manhole
Inflow Area = 72,264 sf, 22.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.54" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 6.53 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,344 cf
Outflow = 6.53 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,344 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 6.53 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 21,344 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 75.48' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 78.10'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 74.15' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 66.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 74.15' / 73.49' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=6.42 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=75.47' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 6.42 cfs @ 3.91 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#4: Manhole
Inflow Area = 127,582 sf, 50.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.57" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 14.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 48,581 cf
Outflow = 14.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 48,581 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 14.29 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 48,581 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 76.95' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 73.39' 18.0" Round Culvert
L= 115.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 73.39' / 72.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=13.97 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=76.84' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 13.97 cfs @ 7.90 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#5: Manhole
Inflow Area = 18,242 sf, 63.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.25" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 2.40 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,984 cf
Outflow = 2.40 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,984 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 2.40 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 7,984 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 40 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Peak Elev= 73.21' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 72.44' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 120.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 72.44' / 71.24' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=2.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=73.20' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 2.33 cfs @ 2.97 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#6: Manhole
Inflow Area = 193,071 sf, 60.65% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.96" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 23.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 79,828 cf
Outflow = 23.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 79,828 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 23.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 79,828 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 74.49' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 71.14' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 5.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 71.14' / 71.09' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=22.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=74.42' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 22.83 cfs @ 7.27 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#8: Manhole
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.28" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 112,688 cf
Outflow = 13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 112,688 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 112,688 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 68.98' @ 12.31 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.20'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 67.22' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 192.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 67.22' / 53.50' S= 0.0715 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 41 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Primary OutFlow Max=13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=68.98' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 13.18 cfs @ 4.51 fps)
Summary for Pond DMH#9: Exising Catch Basin
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 15.17 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 124,369 cf
Outflow = 15.17 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 124,369 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 15.17 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 124,369 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 55.87' @ 12.27 hrs
Flood Elev= 67.50'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 53.55' 24.0" Round RCP_Round 24"
L= 208.0' RCP, sq.cut end projecting, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 53.55' / 52.63' S= 0.0044 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=15.16 cfs @ 12.27 hrs HW=55.86' (Free Discharge)
1=RCP_Round 24" (Barrel Controls 15.16 cfs @ 5.24 fps)
Summary for Pond RD: Manhole
Inflow Area = 2,400 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,252 cf
Outflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,252 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary = 0.34 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1,252 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 78.54' @ 12.09 hrs
Flood Elev= 79.80'
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 78.25' 12.0" Round Culvert
L= 65.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 78.25' / 75.00' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=78.53' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.33 cfs @ 1.81 fps)
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 42 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Pond UDS-1: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 18,951 sf, 77.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.68" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 2.61 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 8,965 cf
Outflow = 1.87 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 8,965 cf, Atten= 28%, Lag= 4.9 min
Primary = 1.87 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 8,965 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 71.58' @ 12.17 hrs Surf.Area= 1,523 sf Storage= 471 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.9 min ( 771.7 - 770.8 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.84' 0 cf 7.50'W x 203.00'L x 5.50'H Field A
8,374 cf Overall - 2,971 cf Embedded = 5,403 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.34' 2,480 cf ADS N-12 48 x 10 Inside #1
Inside= 47.7"W x 47.7"H => 12.40 sf x 20.00'L = 248.0 cf
Outside= 54.0"W x 54.0"H => 14.86 sf x 20.00'L = 297.1 cf
2,480 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.34' 15.0" Round Culvert
L= 28.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.34' / 69.78' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.23 sf
#2 Device 1 69.84' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
Primary OutFlow Max=1.86 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=71.56' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Passes 1.86 cfs of 4.58 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.86 cfs @ 5.31 fps)
Summary for Pond UDS-2: Underground Detention System
Inflow Area = 256,033 sf, 70.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.28" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 32.31 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 112,681 cf
Outflow = 13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 112,688 cf, Atten= 59%, Lag= 13.2 min
Primary = 13.18 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 112,688 cf
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 3
Peak Elev= 74.93' @ 12.31 hrs Surf.Area= 13,252 sf Storage= 30,560 cf
Plug-Flow detention time= 43.4 min calculated for 112,571 cf (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time= 43.4 min ( 811.7 - 768.2 )
North Shore Crossing
Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" 1976-01B - Proposed (Site Only)
Printed 8/25/2014 Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Page 43 HydroCAD 10.00 s/n 02881 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 69.90' 0 cf 76.09'W x 174.17'L x 6.58'H Field A
87,250 cf Overall - 40,024 cf Embedded = 47,226 cf x 0.0% Voids
#2A 70.40' 33,701 cf ADS N-12 60 x 80 Inside #1
Inside= 59.5"W x 59.5"H => 19.30 sf x 20.00'L = 386.0 cf
Outside= 67.0"W x 67.0"H => 22.91 sf x 20.00'L = 458.2 cf
73.09' Header x 19.30 sf x 2 = 2,821.2 cf Inside
33,701 cf Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 70.49' 24.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 70.49' / 69.79' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900
n= 0.011 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2 Device 1 70.40' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#3 Device 1 72.45' 14.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#4 Device 1 73.50' 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600
#5 Device 1 75.20' 4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir
Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32
Primary OutFlow Max=13.17 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=74.93' (Free Discharge)
1=Culvert (Passes 13.17 cfs of 22.14 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.44 cfs @ 9.86 fps)
3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 7.08 cfs @ 6.63 fps)
4=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.64 cfs @ 4.84 fps)
5=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)
Summary for Link SP-1: Study Point
Inflow Area = 280,190 sf, 71.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.33" for 100-Year event
Inflow = 15.17 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 124,369 cf
Primary = 15.17 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 124,369 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Hydrologic Soil GroupEssex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/16/2013
Page 1 of 5
4
7
1
4
5
0
0
4
7
1
4
7
0
0
4
7
1
4
9
0
0
4
7
1
5
1
0
0
4
7
1
5
3
0
0
4
7
1
5
5
0
0
4
7
1
5
7
0
0
4
7
1
4
5
0
0
4
7
1
4
7
0
0
4
7
1
4
9
0
0
4
7
1
5
1
0
0
4
7
1
5
3
0
0
4
7
1
5
5
0
0
4
7
1
5
7
0
0
344900 345100 345300 345500 345700 345900 346100 346300 346500 346700 346900
344900 345100 345300 345500 345700 345900 346100 346300 346500 346700
42 34' 45'' N
7
0

5
3
' 2
6
'' W
42 34' 45'' N
7
0

5
1
' 5
5
'' W
42 34' 1'' N
7
0

5
3
' 2
6
'' W
42 34' 1'' N
7
0

5
1
' 5
5
'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84
0 450 900 1800 2700
Feet
0 100 200 400 600
Meters
Map Scale: 1:9,490 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Essex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Feb 26, 2010
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 20, 2010May 1,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydrologic Soil GroupEssex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/16/2013
Page 2 of 5
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group Summary by Map Unit Essex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part (MA606)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
32A Wareham loamy sand, 0
to 3 percent slopes
C 5.7 1.6%
38A Pipestone loamy fine
sand, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
B 5.0 1.4%
43A Scarboro mucky loamy
fine sand, 0 to 1
percent slopes
D 9.8 2.7%
52A Freetown muck, 0 to 1
percent slopes
D 0.4 0.1%
71B Ridgebury fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes, extremely
stony
C 5.1 1.4%
102C Chatfield-Hollis-Rock
outcrop complex, 3 to
15 percent slopes
B 38.3 10.5%
102E Chatfield-Hollis-Rock
outcrop complex, 15 to
35 percent slopes
B 23.7 6.5%
254B Merrimac fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes
A 1.0 0.3%
260A Sudbury fine sandy
loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
B 15.5 4.3%
260B Sudbury fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes
B 23.5 6.5%
305B Paxton fine sandy loam,
3 to 8 percent slopes
C 8.5 2.3%
306B Paxton fine sandy loam,
3 to 8 percent slopes,
very stony
C 6.0 1.6%
306C Paxton fine sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent slopes,
very stony
C 5.3 1.5%
306D Paxton fine sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent
slopes, very stony
C 14.9 4.1%
310B Woodbridge fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes
C 26.6 7.3%
310C Woodbridge fine sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
C 24.2 6.6%
Hydrologic Soil GroupEssex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/16/2013
Page 3 of 5
Hydrologic Soil Group Summary by Map Unit Essex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part (MA606)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
311B Woodbridge fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes, very stony
C 6.7 1.8%
311C Woodbridge fine sandy
loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, very stony
C 11.2 3.1%
311D Woodbridge fine sandy
loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes, very stony
C 4.5 1.2%
600 Pits, gravel 0.6 0.2%
602 Urban land 69.4 19.0%
626B Merrimac-Urban land
complex, gently
sloping
A 39.0 10.7%
651 Udorthents, smoothed 4.8 1.3%
652 Udorthents, refuse
substratum
0.1 0.0%
725A Shaker fine sandy loam,
0 to 3 percent slopes
C 14.8 4.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 364.7 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil GroupEssex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/16/2013
Page 4 of 5
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil GroupEssex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/16/2013
Page 5 of 5
F-2 Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners March 2002
F-1. Rainfall Data for Massachusetts from Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States
(TP-40)
Users of this Handbook should note that current MA DEP written guidance (see DEP
Waterlines newsletter -- Fall 2000) requires the use of TP-40 Rainfall Data for calculations
under the Wetlands Protection Regulations and the Stormwater Management Policy. More
stringent design storms may be used under a local bylaw or ordinance. However, DEP will
continue to require the use of TP-40 in any case it reviews under the Wetlands Protection
Act and Stormwater Management Policy.
Adjusted Technical Paper 40 Design Storms for 24-hour Event by County
County Name 1-yr 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr
24-hr 24-hr 24-hr 24-hr 24-hr 24-hr 24-hr
Barnstable 2.5 3.6 4.5 4.8 5.7 6.4 7.1
Berkshire 2.5 2.9 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.9 6.4
Bristol 2.5 3.4 4.3 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.0
Dukes 2.5 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 6.5 7.2
Essex 2.5 3.1 3.9 4.5 5.4 5.9 6.5
Franklin 2.5 2.9 3.8 4.3 5.1 5.8 6.2
Hampden 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.5
Hampshire 2.5 3.0 3.9 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.4
Middlesex 2.5 3.1 4.0 4.5 5.3 5.9 6.5
Nantucket 2.5 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 6.5 7.2
Norfolk 2.5 3.2 4.1 4.7 5.5 6.1 6.7
Plymouth 2.5 3.4 4.3 4.7 5.6 6.2 7.0
Suffolk 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.6 5.5 6.0 6.6
Worcester 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.3 5.9 6.5
1
Stormceptor Sizing Detailed Report
PCSWMM for Stormceptor
Project Information
Date 8/25/2014
Project Name North Shore Crossing
Project Number 1976-01B
Location Beverly, MA
Stormwater Quality Objective
This report outlines how Stormceptor System can achieve a defined water quality objective through the
removal of total suspended solids (TSS). Attached to this report is the Stormceptor Sizing Summary.
Stormceptor System Recommendation
The Stormceptor System model STC 7200 achieves the water quality objective removing 81% TSS for a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution; providing continuous positive treatment for a
stormwater quality flow rate of 5.14 cfs.
The Stormceptor System
The Stormceptor oil and sediment separator is sized to treat stormwater runoff by removing pollutants
through gravity separation and flotation. Stormceptors patented design generates positive TSS removal
for all rainfall events, including large storms. Significant levels of pollutants such as heavy metals, free oils
and nutrients are prevented from entering natural water resources and the re-suspension of previously
captured sediment (scour) does not occur.
Stormceptor provides a high level of TSS removal for small frequent storm events that represent the
majority of annual rainfall volume and pollutant load. Positive treatment continues for large infrequent
events, however, such events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal as they represent a
small percentage of the total runoff volume and pollutant load.
Stormceptor is the only oil and sediment separator on the market sized to remove TSS for a wide range of
particle sizes, including fine sediments (clays and silts), that are often overlooked in the design of other
stormwater treatment devices.
2
Small storms dominate hydrologic activity, US EPA reports
Early efforts in stormwater management focused on flood events ranging from the 2-yr
to the 100-yr storm. Increasingly stormwater professionals have come to realize that
small storms (i.e. < 1 in. rainfall) dominate watershed hydrologic parameters typically
associated with water quality management issues and BMP design. These small storms
are responsible for most annual urban runoff and groundwater recharge. Likewise, with
the exception of eroded sediment, they are responsible for most pollutant washoff from
urban surfaces. Therefore, the small storms are of most concern for the stormwater
management objectives of ground water recharge, water quality resource protection and
thermal impacts control.
Most rainfall events are much smaller than design storms used for urban drainage
models. In any given area, most frequently recurrent rainfall events are small (less than 1
in. of daily rainfall).
Continuous simulation offers possibilities for designing and managing BMPs on an
individual site-by-site basis that are not provided by other widely used simpler analysis
methods. Therefore its application and use should be encouraged.
US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, Volume 1 General
Considerations, 2004
Design Methodology
Each Stormceptor system is sized using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, a continuous simulation model based
on US EPA SWMM. The program calculates hydrology from up-to-date local historical rainfall data and
specified site parameters. With US EPA SWMMs precision, every Stormceptor unit is designed to
achieve a defined water quality objective.
The TSS removal data presented follows US EPA guidelines to reduce the average annual TSS load.
Stormceptors unit process for TSS removal is settling. The settling model calculates TSS removal by
analyzing (summary of analysis presented in Appendix 2):
Site parameters
Continuous historical rainfall, including duration, distribution, peaks (Figure 1)
Interevent periods
Particle size distribution
Particle settling velocities (Stokes Law, corrected for drag)
TSS load (Figure 2)
Detention time of the system
The Stormceptor System maintains continuous positive TSS removal for all influent flow rates. Figure 3
illustrates the continuous treatment by Stormceptor throughout the full range of storm events analyzed. It
is clear that large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal. There is no decline
in cumulative TSS removal, indicating scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.
3
Figure 1. Runoff Volume by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE MA 6977, 1948 to 1983 for 6 ac,
70.92% impervious. Small frequent storm events represent the majority of annual rainfall volume. Large
infrequent events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal, as they represent a small
percentage of the total annual volume of runoff.
Figure 2. Long Term Pollutant Load by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE 6977, 1948 to 1983 for 6
ac, 70.92% impervious. The majority of the annual pollutant load is transported by small frequent storm
4
events. Conversely, large infrequent events carry an insignificant percentage of the total annual pollutant
load.
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal (%)
STC 7200
81
Drainage Area (ac)
Impervious (%)
WQ Flow Rate (cfs)
6
70.92
5.14
Figure 3. Cumulative TSS Removal by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE 6977, 1948 to 1983.
Stormceptor continuously removes TSS throughout the full range of storm events analyzed. Note that
large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal. Therefore no decline in
cumulative TSS removal indicates scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.
5
Appendix 1
Stormceptor Design Summary
Project Information
Date 8/25/2014
Project Name North Shore Crossing
Project Number 1976-01B
Location Beverly, MA
Designer Information
Company Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Contact (781) 935-6889
Rainfall
Name ROCKPORT 1 ESE
State MA
ID 6977
Years of Records 1948 to 1983
Latitude 4239'0"N
Longitude 7036'0"W
Notes
N/A
Water Quality Objective
TSS Removal (%) 80
WQ Flow Rate (cfs) 5.14
Drainage Area
Total Area (ac) 6
Imperviousness (%) 70.92
The Stormceptor System model STC 7200 achieves
the water quality objective removing 81% TSS for a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution;
providing continuous positive treatment for a
stormwater quality flow rate of 5.14 cfs.
Upstream Storage
Storage Discharge
(ac-ft) (cfs)
0 0
Stormceptor Sizing Summary
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal
%
STC 450i 53
STC 900 64
STC 1200 65
STC 1800 65
STC 2400 71
STC 3600 72
STC 4800 77
STC 6000 78
STC 7200 81
STC 11000 85
STC 13000 86
STC 16000 88
6
Particle Size Distribution
Removing silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and heavy
metals that adhere to fine particles, are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists the
particle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal.
Fine (organics, silts and sand)
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m % ft/s m % ft/s
20 20 1.3 0.0013
60 20 1.8 0.0051
150 20 2.2 0.0354
400 20 2.65 0.2123
2000 20 2.65 0.9417
Stormceptor Design Notes
Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor.
Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended
solids (TSS) removal.
Only the STC 450i is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes.
Only the Stormceptor models STC 450i to STC 7200 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes.
Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows:
Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences
Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 450i
STC 900 to STC
7200
STC 11000 to
STC 16000
Single inlet pipe 3 in. 1 in. 3 in.
Multiple inlet pipes 3 in. 3 in.
Only one inlet
pipe.
Design estimates are based on stable site conditions only, after construction is completed.
Design estimates assume that the storm drain is not submerged during zero flows. For submerged
applications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative.
Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptor
representative for further assistance.
For pricing inquiries or assistance, please contact Rinker Materials 1 (800) 909-7763
www.rinkerstormceptor.com
7
Appendix 2
Summary of Design Assumptions
SITE DETAILS
Site Drainage Area
Total Area (ac) 6 Imperviousness (%) 70.92
Surface Characteristics
Width (ft) 1022.468
Slope (%) 2
Impervious Depression Storage (in.) 0.02
Pervious Depression Storage (in.) 0.2
Impervious Mannings n 0.015
Pervious Manning's n 0.25
Maintenance Frequency
Sediment build-up reduces the storage volume for
sedimentation. Frequency of maintenance is
assumed for TSS removal calculations.
Maintenance Frequency (months) 12
Infiltration Parameters
Hortons equation is used to estimate infiltration
Max. Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 2.44
Min. Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 0.4
Decay Rate (s
-1
) 0.00055
Regeneration Rate (s
-1
) 0.01
Evaporation
Daily Evaporation Rate (inches/day) 0.1
Dry Weather Flow
Dry Weather Flow (cfs) No
Upstream Attenuation
Stage-storage and stage-discharge relationship used to model attenuation upstream of the Stormceptor System
is identified in the table below.
Storage Discharge
ac-ft cfs
0 0
8
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Size Distribution
Removing fine particles from runoff ensures the majority of pollutants, such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, free oils
and nutrients are not discharged into natural water resources. The table below identifies the particle size distribution
selected to define TSS removal for the design of the Stormceptor System.
Fine (organics, silts and sand)
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m % ft/s m % ft/s
20 20 1.3 0.0013
60 20 1.8 0.0051
150 20 2.2 0.0354
400 20 2.65 0.2123
2000 20 2.65 0.9417
Figure 1. PCSWMM for Stormceptor standard design grain size distributions.
9
TSS LOADING
TSS Loading Parameters
TSS Loading Function Buildup / Washoff
Parameters
Target Event Mean Concentration
(EMC) (mg/L)
125
Exponential Buildup Power 0.4
Exponential Washoff Exponential 0.2
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
PCSWMM for Stormceptor calculates annual hydrology with the US EPA SWMM and local continuous historical
rainfall data. Performance calculations of the Stormceptor System are based on the average annual removal of
TSS for the selected site parameters. The Stormceptor System is engineered to capture fine particles (silts and
sands) by focusing on average annual runoff volume ensuring positive removal efficiency is maintained during all
rainfall events, while preventing the opportunity for negative removal efficiency (scour).
Smaller recurring storms account for the majority of rainfall events and average annual runoff volume, as observed
in the historical rainfall data analyses presented in this section.
Rainfall Station
Rainfall Station ROCKPORT 1 ESE
Rainfall File Name MA6977.NDC Total Number of Events 4581
Latitude 4239'0"N Total Rainfall (in.) 1244.3
Longitude 7036'0"W Average Annual Rainfall (in.) 34.6
Elevation (ft) 79 Total Evaporation (in.) 82.2
Rainfall Period of Record (y) 36 Total Infiltration (in.) 358.1
Total Rainfall Period (y) 36
Percentage of Rainfall that is
Runoff (%)
66.2
10
Rainfall Event Analysis
Rainfall Depth No. of Events
Percentage of
Total Events
Total Volume
Percentage of
Annual Volume
in. % in. %
0.25 3311 72.3 309 24.9
0.50 609 13.3 222 17.8
0.75 240 5.2 151 12.1
1.00 166 3.6 144 11.6
1.25 87 1.9 98 7.8
1.50 67 1.5 92 7.4
1.75 29 0.6 47 3.8
2.00 27 0.6 50 4.0
2.25 14 0.3 30 2.4
2.50 9 0.2 21 1.7
2.75 5 0.1 13 1.1
3.00 5 0.1 14 1.1
3.25 1 0.0 3 0.3
3.50 3 0.1 10 0.8
3.75 2 0.0 7 0.6
4.00 1 0.0 4 0.3
4.25 1 0.0 4 0.3
4.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
4.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.50 2 0.0 11 0.9
5.75 1 0.0 6 0.5
6.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.00 1 0.0 7 0.6
7.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
8.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
8.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
>8.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
11
Pollutograph
Flow Rate Cumulative Mass
cfs %
0.035 40.8
0.141 64.2
0.318 76.3
0.565 83.6
0.883 88.6
1.271 92.2
1.73 94.6
2.26 96.2
2.86 97.5
3.531 98.4
4.273 99.0
5.085 99.4
5.968 99.6
6.922 99.8
7.946 99.9
9.041 99.9
10.206 100.0
11.442 100.0
12.749 100.0
14.126 100.0
15.574 100.0
17.092 100.0
18.681 100.0
20.341 100.0
22.072 100.0
23.873 100.0
25.744 100.0
27.687 100.0
29.7 100.0
31.783 100.0
1
Stormceptor Sizing Detailed Report
PCSWMM for Stormceptor
Project Information
Date 8/25/2014
Project Name North Shore Crossing
Project Number 1976-01B
Location Beverly, MA
Stormwater Quality Objective
This report outlines how Stormceptor System can achieve a defined water quality objective through the
removal of total suspended solids (TSS). Attached to this report is the Stormceptor Sizing Summary.
Stormceptor System Recommendation
The Stormceptor System model STC 450i achieves the water quality objective removing 86% TSS for a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution; providing continuous positive treatment for a
stormwater quality flow rate of 0.409 cfs.
The Stormceptor System
The Stormceptor oil and sediment separator is sized to treat stormwater runoff by removing pollutants
through gravity separation and flotation. Stormceptors patented design generates positive TSS removal
for all rainfall events, including large storms. Significant levels of pollutants such as heavy metals, free oils
and nutrients are prevented from entering natural water resources and the re-suspension of previously
captured sediment (scour) does not occur.
Stormceptor provides a high level of TSS removal for small frequent storm events that represent the
majority of annual rainfall volume and pollutant load. Positive treatment continues for large infrequent
events, however, such events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal as they represent a
small percentage of the total runoff volume and pollutant load.
Stormceptor is the only oil and sediment separator on the market sized to remove TSS for a wide range of
particle sizes, including fine sediments (clays and silts), that are often overlooked in the design of other
stormwater treatment devices.
2
Small storms dominate hydrologic activity, US EPA reports
Early efforts in stormwater management focused on flood events ranging from the 2-yr
to the 100-yr storm. Increasingly stormwater professionals have come to realize that
small storms (i.e. < 1 in. rainfall) dominate watershed hydrologic parameters typically
associated with water quality management issues and BMP design. These small storms
are responsible for most annual urban runoff and groundwater recharge. Likewise, with
the exception of eroded sediment, they are responsible for most pollutant washoff from
urban surfaces. Therefore, the small storms are of most concern for the stormwater
management objectives of ground water recharge, water quality resource protection and
thermal impacts control.
Most rainfall events are much smaller than design storms used for urban drainage
models. In any given area, most frequently recurrent rainfall events are small (less than 1
in. of daily rainfall).
Continuous simulation offers possibilities for designing and managing BMPs on an
individual site-by-site basis that are not provided by other widely used simpler analysis
methods. Therefore its application and use should be encouraged.
US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, Volume 1 General
Considerations, 2004
Design Methodology
Each Stormceptor system is sized using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, a continuous simulation model based
on US EPA SWMM. The program calculates hydrology from up-to-date local historical rainfall data and
specified site parameters. With US EPA SWMMs precision, every Stormceptor unit is designed to
achieve a defined water quality objective.
The TSS removal data presented follows US EPA guidelines to reduce the average annual TSS load.
Stormceptors unit process for TSS removal is settling. The settling model calculates TSS removal by
analyzing (summary of analysis presented in Appendix 2):
Site parameters
Continuous historical rainfall, including duration, distribution, peaks (Figure 1)
Interevent periods
Particle size distribution
Particle settling velocities (Stokes Law, corrected for drag)
TSS load (Figure 2)
Detention time of the system
The Stormceptor System maintains continuous positive TSS removal for all influent flow rates. Figure 3
illustrates the continuous treatment by Stormceptor throughout the full range of storm events analyzed. It
is clear that large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal. There is no decline
in cumulative TSS removal, indicating scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.
3
Figure 1. Runoff Volume by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE MA 6977, 1948 to 1983 for 0.4351
ac, 77.674% impervious. Small frequent storm events represent the majority of annual rainfall volume.
Large infrequent events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal, as they represent a small
percentage of the total annual volume of runoff.
Figure 2. Long Term Pollutant Load by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE 6977, 1948 to 1983 for
0.4351 ac, 77.674% impervious. The majority of the annual pollutant load is transported by small
4
frequent storm events. Conversely, large infrequent events carry an insignificant percentage of the total
annual pollutant load.
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal (%)
STC 450i
86
Drainage Area (ac)
Impervious (%)
WQ Flow Rate (cfs)
0.4351
77.674
0.409
Figure 3. Cumulative TSS Removal by Flow Rate for ROCKPORT 1 ESE 6977, 1948 to 1983.
Stormceptor continuously removes TSS throughout the full range of storm events analyzed. Note that
large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal. Therefore no decline in
cumulative TSS removal indicates scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.
5
Appendix 1
Stormceptor Design Summary
Project Information
Date 8/25/2014
Project Name North Shore Crossing
Project Number 1976-01B
Location Beverly, MA
Designer Information
Company Allen & Major Associates, Inc.
Contact (781) 935-6889
Rainfall
Name ROCKPORT 1 ESE
State MA
ID 6977
Years of Records 1948 to 1983
Latitude 4239'0"N
Longitude 7036'0"W
Notes
N/A
Water Quality Objective
TSS Removal (%) 80
WQ Flow Rate (cfs) 0.409
Drainage Area
Total Area (ac) 0.4351
Imperviousness (%) 77.674
The Stormceptor System model STC 450i achieves the
water quality objective removing 86% TSS for a Fine
(organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution;
providing continuous positive treatment for a
stormwater quality flow rate of 0.409 cfs.
Upstream Storage
Storage Discharge
(ac-ft) (cfs)
0 0
Stormceptor Sizing Summary
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal
%
STC 450i 86
STC 900 92
STC 1200 92
STC 1800 92
STC 2400 94
STC 3600 95
STC 4800 96
STC 6000 96
STC 7200 97
STC 11000 98
STC 13000 98
STC 16000 98
6
Particle Size Distribution
Removing silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and heavy
metals that adhere to fine particles, are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists the
particle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal.
Fine (organics, silts and sand)
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m % ft/s m % ft/s
20 20 1.3 0.0013
60 20 1.8 0.0051
150 20 2.2 0.0354
400 20 2.65 0.2123
2000 20 2.65 0.9417
Stormceptor Design Notes
Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor.
Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended
solids (TSS) removal.
Only the STC 450i is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes.
Only the Stormceptor models STC 450i to STC 7200 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes.
Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows:
Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences
Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 450i
STC 900 to STC
7200
STC 11000 to
STC 16000
Single inlet pipe 3 in. 1 in. 3 in.
Multiple inlet pipes 3 in. 3 in.
Only one inlet
pipe.
Design estimates are based on stable site conditions only, after construction is completed.
Design estimates assume that the storm drain is not submerged during zero flows. For submerged
applications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative.
Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptor
representative for further assistance.
For pricing inquiries or assistance, please contact Rinker Materials 1 (800) 909-7763
www.rinkerstormceptor.com
7
Appendix 2
Summary of Design Assumptions
SITE DETAILS
Site Drainage Area
Total Area (ac) 0.4351 Imperviousness (%) 77.674
Surface Characteristics
Width (ft) 275.3395
Slope (%) 2
Impervious Depression Storage (in.) 0.02
Pervious Depression Storage (in.) 0.2
Impervious Mannings n 0.015
Pervious Manning's n 0.25
Maintenance Frequency
Sediment build-up reduces the storage volume for
sedimentation. Frequency of maintenance is
assumed for TSS removal calculations.
Maintenance Frequency (months) 12
Infiltration Parameters
Hortons equation is used to estimate infiltration
Max. Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 2.44
Min. Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 0.4
Decay Rate (s
-1
) 0.00055
Regeneration Rate (s
-1
) 0.01
Evaporation
Daily Evaporation Rate (inches/day) 0.1
Dry Weather Flow
Dry Weather Flow (cfs) No
Upstream Attenuation
Stage-storage and stage-discharge relationship used to model attenuation upstream of the Stormceptor System
is identified in the table below.
Storage Discharge
ac-ft cfs
0 0
8
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Size Distribution
Removing fine particles from runoff ensures the majority of pollutants, such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, free oils
and nutrients are not discharged into natural water resources. The table below identifies the particle size distribution
selected to define TSS removal for the design of the Stormceptor System.
Fine (organics, silts and sand)
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
Particle Size Distribution
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m % ft/s m % ft/s
20 20 1.3 0.0013
60 20 1.8 0.0051
150 20 2.2 0.0354
400 20 2.65 0.2123
2000 20 2.65 0.9417
Figure 1. PCSWMM for Stormceptor standard design grain size distributions.
9
TSS LOADING
TSS Loading Parameters
TSS Loading Function Buildup / Washoff
Parameters
Target Event Mean Concentration
(EMC) (mg/L)
125
Exponential Buildup Power 0.4
Exponential Washoff Exponential 0.2
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
PCSWMM for Stormceptor calculates annual hydrology with the US EPA SWMM and local continuous historical
rainfall data. Performance calculations of the Stormceptor System are based on the average annual removal of
TSS for the selected site parameters. The Stormceptor System is engineered to capture fine particles (silts and
sands) by focusing on average annual runoff volume ensuring positive removal efficiency is maintained during all
rainfall events, while preventing the opportunity for negative removal efficiency (scour).
Smaller recurring storms account for the majority of rainfall events and average annual runoff volume, as observed
in the historical rainfall data analyses presented in this section.
Rainfall Station
Rainfall Station ROCKPORT 1 ESE
Rainfall File Name MA6977.NDC Total Number of Events 4581
Latitude 4239'0"N Total Rainfall (in.) 1244.3
Longitude 7036'0"W Average Annual Rainfall (in.) 34.6
Elevation (ft) 79 Total Evaporation (in.) 82.4
Rainfall Period of Record (y) 36 Total Infiltration (in.) 273.9
Total Rainfall Period (y) 36
Percentage of Rainfall that is
Runoff (%)
74.2
10
Rainfall Event Analysis
Rainfall Depth No. of Events
Percentage of
Total Events
Total Volume
Percentage of
Annual Volume
in. % in. %
0.25 3311 72.3 309 24.9
0.50 609 13.3 222 17.8
0.75 240 5.2 151 12.1
1.00 166 3.6 144 11.6
1.25 87 1.9 98 7.8
1.50 67 1.5 92 7.4
1.75 29 0.6 47 3.8
2.00 27 0.6 50 4.0
2.25 14 0.3 30 2.4
2.50 9 0.2 21 1.7
2.75 5 0.1 13 1.1
3.00 5 0.1 14 1.1
3.25 1 0.0 3 0.3
3.50 3 0.1 10 0.8
3.75 2 0.0 7 0.6
4.00 1 0.0 4 0.3
4.25 1 0.0 4 0.3
4.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
4.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.50 2 0.0 11 0.9
5.75 1 0.0 6 0.5
6.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
6.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.00 1 0.0 7 0.6
7.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.50 0 0.0 0 0.0
7.75 0 0.0 0 0.0
8.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
8.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
>8.25 0 0.0 0 0.0
11
Pollutograph
Flow Rate Cumulative Mass
cfs %
0.035 77.1
0.141 93.6
0.318 98.8
0.565 99.8
0.883 100.0
1.271 100.0
1.73 100.0
2.26 100.0
2.86 100.0
3.531 100.0
4.273 100.0
5.085 100.0
5.968 100.0
6.922 100.0
7.946 100.0
9.041 100.0
10.206 100.0
11.442 100.0
12.749 100.0
14.126 100.0
15.574 100.0
17.092 100.0
18.681 100.0
20.341 100.0
22.072 100.0
23.873 100.0
25.744 100.0
27.687 100.0
29.7 100.0
31.783 100.0
Allen & Major Associates, Inc. Computation Sheet
Title Pipe Sizing Table Minimum Slope: 0.01 By SJL
Project North Shore Crossing in Beverly, MA Minimum Pipe Size: 10" Chk'd CMQ
Date August 29, 2014 Rainfall Intensity (in/hr): 6.00 (25 year storm) Apprv'd CMQ
A&M Project Number: 1976-01B Manning's n: 0.011
Minimum Pipe Cover: 3.0'
Brimbal Avenue & Sohier Road
Line Req'd. Capac. Pipe Size Slope Design Capacity Drop Invert Elevation Rim Elev.
From To Length Area
wgt. C CA
Qd D s Q
full
V
full Upper Lower Upper Cover
Upper Lower (feet) (acres) (cfs) (in) (%) (cfs) (fps) (feet) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
CB1A DMH1 134 0.449 0.38 0.172 1.03 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 1.34 76.80 75.46 80.00 2.08
CB1B DMH1 35 0.370 0.38 0.142 0.85 12 3.83% 8.3 10.49 1.34 76.80 75.46 80.00 2.08
DMH1 DMH2 55 1.88 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 0.55 75.36 74.81 80.90 4.42
CB2 DMH2 29 0.187 0.79 0.148 0.89 12 3.00% 7.3 9.29 0.87 76.60 75.73 79.80 2.08
DMH2 DMH3 46 2.77 15 1.00% 7.7 6.22 0.46 74.71 74.25 79.80 3.72
CB3A DMH3 33 0.129 0.95 0.123 0.74 12 3.00% 7.3 9.29 0.99 76.50 75.51 79.70 2.08
CB3B DMH3 123 0.524 0.43 0.225 1.35 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 1.23 75.48 74.25 77.90 1.30
DMH3 DMH4 66 4.85 18 1.00% 12.4 7.03 0.66 74.15 73.49 79.80 4.02
CB4 DMH4 21 1.270 0.87 1.105 6.63 12 3.00% 7.3 9.29 0.63 75.90 75.27 79.10 2.07
DMH4 DMH6 115 11.49 18 1.00% 12.4 7.03 1.15 73.39 72.24 79.50 4.49
CB6 DMH6 4 1.085 0.87 0.947 5.68 12 3.00% 7.3 9.29 0.12 75.90 75.78 79.10 2.07
CB12A DMH5 20 0.229 0.67 0.154 0.93 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 0.20 72.90 72.70 76.10 2.07
CB12B DMH5 106 0.189 0.80 0.151 0.91 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 1.06 73.60 72.54 76.80 2.08
DMH5 DMH6 120 1.83 15 1.00% 7.7 6.22 1.20 72.44 71.24 77.00 3.19
DMH6 SC1 5 19.00 24 1.00% 26.8 8.51 0.05 71.14 71.09 79.20 5.94
SC1 OCS1 5 19.00 18 5.00% 27.8 15.71 0.25 70.84 70.59 79.40 6.94
OCS1 DMH7 70 7.07 18 1.00% 12.4 7.03 0.70 70.49 69.79 79.60 7.49
DMH7 DMH8 177 7.07 18 1.00% 12.4 7.03 1.77 69.69 67.92 79.90 8.59
DMH8 DMH9 32 7.07 24 0.22% 12.5 3.98 0.07 53.62 53.55 77.80 22.06
CB9 SC2 33 0.435 0.82 0.355 2.13 12 5.00% 9.4 11.99 1.65 73.30 71.65 76.50 2.08
SC2 OCS2 6 2.13 12 5.00% 9.4 11.99 0.30 71.40 71.10 78.80 6.27
OCS2 DMH9 28 1.65 15 2.00% 10.8 8.80 0.56 71.10 70.54 78.90 6.43
TRENCH DMH14 48 0.120 0.95 0.114 0.68 8 1.00% 1.4 4.09 0.48 71.00 70.52 73.00 1.21
DMH14 EX. MH A 244 0.68 8 1.00% 1.4 4.09 2.44 70.42 67.98 77.20 5.99
ROOF C DMH11 168 0.459 0.95 0.436 2.62 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 1.68 78.80 77.12 83.00 3.08
DMH11 DMH12 225 2.62 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 2.25 77.02 74.77 82.90 4.76
ROOF B (ALL) DMH12 179 0.128 0.95 0.121 0.73 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 1.79 76.56 74.77 81.50 3.82
DMH12 DMH13 44 3.34 12 1.00% 4.2 5.36 0.44 74.67 74.23 79.80 4.01
ROOF A DMH13 187 0.803 0.95 0.763 4.58 15 1.00% 7.7 6.22 1.87 77.38 75.51 80.50 1.75
DMH13 DETENTION 124 0.069 0.90 0.062 7.92 15 2.00% 10.8 8.80 2.48 74.13 71.65 79.80 4.30
(From HydroCAD 25-Year Storm)
(From HydroCAD 25-Year Storm)
N:Projects/001-01/Forms/Affidav/Const.doc
Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement


Responsibility:
The Owner is responsible for ultimate compliance with all provisions of the Massachusetts Stormwater
Management Policy, the USEPA NPDES Construction General Permit and responsible for identifying
and eliminating illicit discharges (as defined by the USEPA).

OWNER NAME: CEA Beverly, Inc.
ADDRESS: 1105 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138


TEL. NUMBER: (617) 576-6500


Engineers Compliance Statement:

To the best of my knowledge, the attached plans, computations and specifications meet the requirements
of Standard 10 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook regarding illicit discharges to the stormwater
management system and that no detectable illicit discharges exist on the site. All documents and
attachments were prepared under my direction and qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated
the information submitted, to the best of my knowledge.

Included with this statement are site plans, drawn to scale, that identify the location of systems for
conveying stormwater on the site and show that these systems do not allow the entry of any illicit
discharges into the stormwater management system. The plans also show any systems for conveying
wastewater and/or groundwater on the site and show that there are no connections between the
stormwater and wastewater systems.

For a redevelopment project (if applicable), all actions taken to identify and remove illicit discharges,
including without limitation, visual screening, dye or smoke testing, and the removal of any sources of
illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are documented and included with this statement.











civil engineers structural engineers land surveyors environmental consultants landscape architects
www.allenmajor.com

SECTION 7.0 GREENHOUSE GAS REPORT
































GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS FOR THE
BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT


BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS





August 2014













GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
FOR THE BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS





Prepared for:

CEA Group Inc.
1105 Massachusetts Avenue #2F
Cambridge, MA 02138










Prepared by:

Tech Environmental, Inc.
303 Wyman Street, Suite 295
Waltham, Massachusetts 02451












August 25, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ....................................................................1
1.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Summary of Results .........................................................................................2
1.3 Section 61 Findings ...........................................................................................3
2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ..............................................................9
3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS ..................................13
3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures ...................................................................13
3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures ...................................13
3.3 Building Energy Efficiency Measures Requiring Further Study....................16
3.4 Draft Outline for Tenant Manual ...................................................................18
3.5 Transportation Mitigation Measures ..............................................................19



APPENDIX A - EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT
APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR VMT AND CO
2
EMISSIONS
APPENDIX C - PV COST CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS


ii

LIST OF TABLES




Table Description Page

1 Energy and CO
2
Modeling ......................................................................................... 6 to 7

2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary ................................................................................9

3 Motor Vehicle CO
2
Emissions Summary .........................................................................11

4 Summary of eQUEST Model Assumptions.19 to 20

5 Summary of Activity Areas ..............................................................................................21

6 Comparison of Base Case EUI to CBECS Data ...............................................................22





iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 Methodology

A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was performed for the Beverly Retail Development (the
Project), located between Brimball Avenue and Sohier Road in Beverly, Massachusetts, consistent
with the EOEEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol (May 5, 2010; the Policy).
The Project has five buildings, which total approximately 61,852 square feet (sf) of retail space.
Building A is a 35,000 sf supermarket, while Buildings B through E will have retail space and range
in size from 1,395 sf to 20,000 sf.

The City of Beverly has adopted the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code, which requires higher
levels of energy efficiency. Since all retail buildings will be smaller than 100,000 sf and the
supermarket is less than 40,000 sf, the Project is only subject to Section 501.1.4 of the Stretch Code,
the Prescriptive Option, and the 20% energy reduction requirement in Section 501.1.1 does not
apply
1
. The GHG analysis assumes energy mitigation measures consistent with, and greater than, the
Prescriptive Option of the Stretch Code.

The GHG Policy requires a project to quantify carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions and identify measures
to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions, quantifying the effect of proposed mitigation in terms
of energy savings and emissions reduction. The Projects GHG emissions will include: 1) direct
emissions of CO
2
from natural gas combustion for space heating and hot water; 2) indirect emissions
of CO
2
from electricity generated off-site and used on-site for lighting, building cooling and
ventilation, and the operation of other equipment; and 3) transportation emissions of CO
2
from
Project traffic. CO
2
emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the 9
th

Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code that includes the IECC 2012 code (the Code), and (2)
the Mitigation Alternative, which includes all energy saving measures, detailed in Section 3.

In some cases, the Project will build spaces equipped with full heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems and lighting; in other cases, the Project will construct core and shell
1
The requirement in Section 5.1.1 of the Stretch Code that building design shall achieve energy use per square foot
at least 20% below the energy requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G does not apply.


1


space in which tenants will fit-out the mechanical systems and lighting according to their needs. The
Project will assist building tenants in selecting energy efficiency measures and a draft outline for the
Tenant Manual is provided in Section 3.4. A full discussion of the energy efficiency measures is
provided in Section 3.2 (Building Design and Operation).

This analysis uses the eQUEST energy design software (version 3.65), which incorporates the U.S.
Department of Energys DOE-2 building energy use model, and CO
2
emission rates of 117.1
lb/million Btu of natural gas
2
and 719 lb/MWhr.
3
The eQUEST model inputs are summarized in
Tables 4 and 5. Consistent with the ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G.3 methodology, electrical
loads and schedules from Tables G-B and G-L were employed in the analysis.

CO
2
emissions produced by project motor vehicle trips were calculated by multiplying the daily
VMT by the MOBILE6.2 predicted CO
2
emission factor of 550.4 grams per mile, which is approved
by MEPA. Energy use and CO
2
emissions are detailed for the two buildings in Tables 1A through
1E, and the eQUEST model output is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the
transportation-related CO
2
emission calculations. Table 2 summarizes total CO
2
emissions for the
Project, for the Base Case (buildings that comply with the Code), and the Mitigation Alternative
(includes all energy saving measures). The eQUEST model input files have been provided to the
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER).

1.2 Summary of Results

The Projects buildings have not progressed past an early conceptual level of design. For this
reason, the Proponent commits to the overall energy and a carbon dioxide (CO
2
) reductions
presented below, but retains the flexibility to achieve these goals using energy efficiency measures
that may be refined at the stage of detailed design. Table 1G reveals that the Mitigation Alternative
will reduce overall Project energy use (stationary sources) by 22.0% and will reduce CO
2
emissions
by 21.7%, compared to the Base Case.

As discussed in Section 2.0, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for this project
2
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
3
ISO New England Inc., 2012 New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report, Annual Average Emission


2


will reduce Project-related motor vehicle CO
2
emissions by 2.0%. The net reduction of the Projects
total CO
2
emissions (stationary sources plus transportation) is 17.3% compared to the Base Case.

1.3 Section 61 Findings

At the completion of construction, the Proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office
signed by an appropriate professional identifying either: 1) all of the energy efficiency mitigation
measures adopted by the Project as part of the Mitigation Alternative have been implemented; or 2)
an equivalent set of energy efficiency mitigation measures that together are designed to achieve the
same percentage reduction in GHG emissions as the Mitigation Alternative, based on the same
energy model and modeling assumptions used in this report, have been adopted.
Rate, Table 5.2, December 2013.


3



Mi ti gati on Measures - eQUEST Model Run GLA (sf)
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
1
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 35,000 1,719.5 1,028.2 60.2 618.1 678.3
Cool Roof 1,717.8 -0.1% 1,052.4 2.4% 61.6 617.6 679.2 0.1%
Higher Cooling Efficiency 1,718.3 -0.1% 1,028.2 0.0% 60.2 617.7 677.9 -0.1%
Higher Heating Efficiency 1,719.5 0.0% 980.3 -4.7% 57.4 618.1 675.5 -0.4%
Lower Light Power Density 1,696.8 -1.3% 1,072.6 4.3% 62.8 610.0 672.8 -0.8%
Higher Efficiency Refrigeration Equipment 1,395.5 -18.8% 1,028.2 0.0% 60.2 501.7 561.9 -17.2%
Increase Roof Insulation 1,720.1 0.0% 999.3 -2.8% 58.5 618.4 676.9 -0.2%
Mitigation Alternative - All Measures Listed Above 1,370.5 -20.3% 1,010.4 -1.7% 59.2 492.7 551.9 -18.6%
1
Includes external electrical load for refrigeration equipment of Base Case 1,295 MWh/yr and Mitigation Case 971 MWh/yr.
Mi ti gati on Measures - eQUEST Model Run GLA (sf)
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 3,057 37.1 150.1 8.8 13.4 22.1
Cool Roof 37.0 -0.4% 152.3 1.5% 8.9 13.3 22.2 0.4%
Higher Cooling Efficiency 37.0 -0.3% 150.1 0.0% 8.8 13.3 22.1 -0.2%
Higher Heating Efficiency 37.1 0.0% 141.7 -5.6% 8.3 13.4 21.6 -2.2%
Lower Light Power Density 35.3 -5.1% 154.1 2.6% 9.0 12.7 21.7 -2.0%
Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) 37.2 0.3% 89.7 -40.3% 5.3 13.4 18.6 -15.8%
Increase Roof Insulation 37.1 -0.1% 148.4 -1.2% 8.7 13.3 22.0 -0.5%
Mitigation Alternative - All Measures Listed Above 35.1 -5.4% 86.5 -42.4% 5.1 12.6 17.7 -20.1%
TABLE 1A
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING A (SUPERMARKET)
Effects of Indi vi dual Mi ti gati on Measures
TABLE 1B
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING B (RETAIL)
Effects of Indi vi dual Mi ti gati on Measures



4


Mi ti gati on Measures - eQUEST Model Run GLA (sf)
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 20,000 215.41 861.38 50.43 77.44 127.87
Cool Roof 214.96 -0.2% 866.97 0.6% 50.76 77.28 128.04 0.1%
Higher Cooling Efficiency 214.48 -0.4% 861.38 0.0% 50.43 77.11 127.54 -0.3%
Higher Heating Efficiency 215.41 0.0% 814.58 -5.4% 47.69 77.44 125.13 -2.1%
Lower Light Power Density 205.74 -4.5% 880.30 2.2% 51.54 73.96 125.51 -1.9%
Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) 215.80 0.2% 591.41 -31.3% 34.63 77.58 112.21 -12.3%
Increase Roof Insulation 215.36 0.0% 856.26 -0.6% 50.13 77.42 127.56 -0.2%
Mitigation Alternative - All Measures Listed Above 204.90 -4.9% 570.35 -33.8% 33.39 73.66 107.06 -16.3%
Mi ti gati on Measures - eQUEST Model Run GLA (sf)
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 2,400 21.46 115.72 6.8 7.7 14.5
Cool Roof 21.37 -0.4% 117.24 1.3% 6.9 7.7 14.5 0.4%
Higher Cooling Efficiency 21.39 -0.3% 115.72 0.0% 6.8 7.7 14.5 -0.2%
Higher Heating Efficiency 21.46 0.0% 109.18 -5.7% 6.4 7.7 14.1 -2.6%
Lower Light Power Density 20.43 -4.8% 117.85 1.8% 6.9 7.3 14.2 -1.7%
Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) 21.50 0.2% 76.63 -33.8% 4.5 7.7 12.2 -15.7%
Increase Roof Insulation 21.45 0.0% 114.67 -0.9% 6.7 7.7 14.4 -0.4%
Mitigation Alternative - All Measures Listed Above 20.33 -5.3% 73.19 -36.8% 4.3 7.3 11.6 -20.0%
TABLE 1D
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING D (RETAIL)
Effects of Indi vi dual Mi ti gati on Measures
TABLE 1C
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING C (RETAIL)
Effects of Indi vi dual Mi ti gati on Measures


5

Mi ti gati on Measures - eQUEST Model Run GLA (sf)
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 1,395 8.38 67.79 4.0 3.0 7.0
Cool Roof 8.34 -0.4% 68.46 1.0% 4.0 3.0 7.0 0.4%
Higher Cooling Efficiency 8.35 -0.3% 67.79 0.0% 4.0 3.0 7.0 -0.1%
Higher Heating Efficiency 8.38 0.0% 63.93 -5.7% 3.7 3.0 6.8 -3.2%
Lower Light Power Density 7.98 -4.8% 68.56 1.1% 4.0 2.9 6.9 -1.4%
Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) 8.37 -0.1% 52.98 -21.8% 3.1 3.0 6.1 -12.5%
Increase Roof Insulation 8.37 -0.1% 67.51 -0.4% 4.0 3.0 7.0 -0.3%
Mitigation Alternative - All Measures Listed Above 7.93 -5.3% 50.39 -25.7% 3.0 2.9 5.8 -16.9%
TABLE 1E
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING E (RETAIL B2)
Effects of Indi vi dual Mi ti gati on Measures


6

Mitigation Measures
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas Change
(%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Base Case 144.5 0.0 0.0 51.9 51.9
Mitigation Alternative - LED Lights 33.7 -76.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 12.1 12.1 -76.7%
Al l Bui l di ngs - Combi ned Mi ti gati on
Electrical
Usage
(MWh/yr)
Electrical
Change (%)
Gas Usage
(Mcf/yr)
Gas
Change (%)
Heating
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Electrical
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
CO2
Emissions
(tons/yr)
CO2
Emissions
Change (%)
Energy Use
Change (%)
Base Case 2,146.3 2,223.2 130.2 771.6 901.8
Mi ti gati on Case 1,672.5 -22.1% 1,740.4 -21.7% 104.9 601.3 706.1 -21.7% -22.0%
Total s for Al l Bui l di ngs and Outdoor Li ghti ng
ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
TABLE 1G
TABLE 1F
ENERGY AND CO2 BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Outdoor Li ghti ng for Parki ng Lots


7

TABLE 2

GREENHOUSE GAS (CO
2
) EMISSIONS SUMMARY
BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
(TONS/YEAR)


Source Base Case Mitigation Alternative
Change in GHG
Emissions
Direct Emissions 130.2 104.9 -21.7%
Indirect Emissions 771.6 601.3 -22.1%
Subtotal Direct and
Indirect Emissions
901.8 706.1 -21.7%
Transportation Emissions 259.7 254.4 -2.0%
Total CO
2
Emissions 1,161.5 960.5 -17.3%



8

2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS

The transportation portion of the GHG analysis calculated emissions of CO
2
for the traffic study area
for three traffic analysis scenarios:

2021 No-Build
2021 Build without TDMs
2021 Build with TDMs

The transportation GHG analysis was based on information provided by Ron Muller & Associates.
The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for six major roadway segments in the traffic study area was
calculated by multiplying the length of each road segment by the average daily traffic (ADT) volume
on the segment The CO
2
emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the
daily VMT by the CO
2
emission factor of 550.40 grams per mile. Average daily traffic volumes
were provided by Ron Muller & Associates. Appendix B presents the VMT and emission
calculations.

Transportation CO
2
emissions are summarized in Table 3. The emissions listed for the 2021 No-
Build and Build cases include both existing volumes on the roadway network and new project-
generated trips. The 2021 Build case includes roadway mitigation measures, but not TDMs. The
projects transportation emissions are calculated by subtracting the 2021 No-Build values from those
for the 2021 Build cases.

The Build with TDMs case includes the effects of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures, detailed below, and Table 3 reveals the 2021 Build with TDMs CO
2
emissions (259.7
tons/year) will be 2% less than those for the 2021 Build case (254.5 tons/year).

Transportation Demand Management

The Project will implement the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies,
which are estimated
4
to reduce trip generation and CO
2
transportation emissions by 2%.
4
Ewing, R. TDM , Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips, Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47,
No. 3, 1993, pp. 343-366.


9


Join a Transportation Management Association (TDA) The proponent is committed to joining
the North Shore Transportation Management Association (TMA), a non-profit transportation and
environmental organization that is working to address transportation issues in Beverly, Danvers,
Lynn, Peabody, and Salem. The proponent will promote a variety of measures to its employees
and collaborate with the North Shore TMA in shared commuter services, including:

o Registering each employee in a commuter database, which the North Shore TMA can use to
develop and market commuter services to employees.

o Supporting the North Shore TMAs efforts to organize vanpools of employees from the
various tenants within the shopping center and surrounding businesses.

Provide Pedestrian/Bicycle Linkages/Bicycle Racks The Route 128 Exit 19 Interchange
Improvement Project currently under design by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) will include extensive pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Brimbal
Avenue, Sohier Road, and the new Connector Road. The proponent will provide internal
pedestrian linkages from the site to these new sidewalks and bicycle lanes and will also provide a
signalized crosswalk across Brimbal Avenue as part of the proposed roadway improvements to
link the site with businesses across the street. In addition, the proponent will install high-security
bicycle racks on site. Bicycle racks encourage employees and customers to bike-ride to the site
by allowing them a secure place to store their bicycles.

Provide Access to Public Transportation The nearest Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) commuter rail station is the North Beverly station located nearly one mile
north of the site at the corner of Enon Street and Dodge Street. The train station is accessible
from the site via MBTA Bus No. 451 that provides a stop at the corner of Sohier Road and Tozer
Road, located approximately one-half mile to the south of the site. The proponent will encourage
tenants within the shopping center to make use of public transportation and to offer their
employees a transit subsidy. The proponent will also encourage tenants to post MBTA transit
schedules in prominent places within the buildings (such as employee break rooms).

Nearby Food Service The Project will have three on-site restaurants.

Carpooling Program - The proponent will encourage tenants to institute a ride matching
program to assist employees in finding appropriate carpool matches. To encourage carpooling,
the proponent will designatepreferential parking spaces for employees that use carpools.

Truck Deliveries - The proponent will work with tenants to make all efforts to schedule truck
deliveries and service vehicles during off-peak times to minimize the impact of trucks on
pedestrians and bicyclists during the busiest shopping times and to reduce the projects impacts
on peak hour traffic operations.

Direct Deposit for Employees The proponent will encourage tenants within the shopping
center to offer direct deposit of employee paychecks to minimize the need for separate trips to
employees banks.



10

Guaranteed Ride Home Program The proponent will encourage tenants to offer a guaranteed
ride home for employees in emergency situations.

Develop a Rideshare Program To actively reach out to employees, the proponent will work
with tenants to implement a Commuter Services Program that can motivate employees to seek
alternatives to driving to work alone by doing the following:

o Post and distribute announcements.

o Hold promotional events to encourage ridesharing, public transit, bicycling and walking.

o Monitor the program and assist in the evaluation.

o Act as a resource and provide transit schedules and other up-to-date information about the
program's services.

o Offer a guaranteed ride home for employees in emergency situations.

Perform Annual TDM Monitoring The proponent is committed to this programs success and
will continually work with the North Shore TMA, MassDOT, the Metropolitan Area Planning
Commission (MAPC), the MBTA, and MassRIDES, the Commonwealths travel options service,
to implement and fine-tune this comprehensive TDM program for the project. As part of the
annual traffic monitoring program, the proponent will prepare a report on the implementation
and effectiveness of the TDM program and submit the results to MassDOT, MAPC,
MassRIDES, and the City of Beverly.




11


TABLE 3
MOTOR VEHICLE CO
2
EMISSIONS SUMMARY
BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT



Total Predicted CO
2
Emissions Burden
2021 2021 2021
No-Build Build without TDMs Build with TDMs
7,504.5 kg/day
8,150.5 kg/day

Project: 646.0 kg/day
8,137.6 kg/day

Project: 633.1 kg/day
3,016.7 tons/yr
3,276.4 tons/year

Project: 259.7 tons/year
3,271.2 tons/year

Project: 254.5 tons/year














12

3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS

The GHG Policy requires the Project to identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate GHG
emissions. The following sections discuss the measures the Project will implement.

3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures


Sustainable Development Principles The Project conserves land by locating in an existing
commercial/industrial area next to a highway interchange. Open space on the site will be
replanted with native and or adapted species.

Design Project to Support Alternative Transportation to the Site The nearest Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter rail station is the North Beverly station located
nearly one mile north of the site at the corner of Enon Street and Dodge Street. The train station
is accessible from the site via MBTA Bus No. 451 that provides a stop at the corner of Sohier
Road and Tozer Road, located approximately 0.4 miles to the south of the site. The proponent
will encourage tenants within the shopping center to make use of public transportation and to
offer their employees a transit subsidy. The proponent will also encourage tenants to post
MBTA transit schedules in prominent places within the buildings (such as employee break
rooms).

Design Water Efficient Landscaping Water efficient landscaping will be installed to minimize
water use. Drought-resistant and native plants will be used for landscaping.

Minimize Energy Use Through Building Orientation Buildings A, B and B2 will face east
and Buildings C and D will face west, capturing natural light throughout the year.

Best Practices for Stormwater Design To the extent possible, the stormwater management
system will utilize Best Management Practices (BMP).


3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures

The eQUEST energy model inputs are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. A comparison of the Projects
Base Case Energy Use Intensity (EUI) to the U.S. Department of Energys Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data is provided in Table 6 and reveals the modeled Base
Case buildings are within +/- 10% of the average CBECS EUI.




13

Energy Efficient Windows and Building Envelope Building envelope insulation will exceed
Code. Roof insulation will be R-30, wall insulation will be R13+R13, and slab insulation will be
R10 24 below grade. Window glass type will be equal to Code for all buildings: double-pane,
low-e glass, U value =0.38. Window glass area as a percentage of total building wall area was
assumed to be 30%.

Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) DCV controls for Outside Fresh Air will be used in all
retail space, where possible, except for the supermarket (Building A), which will have
dehumidification coils on HVAC units to reduce the power demand of the refrigeration system.

Higher-Efficiency HVAC Cooling Systems Energy-STAR rated HVAC units will be used and
Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER) will be above Code (see Table 4).

Higher-Efficiency HVAC Heating Systems HVAC heating systems will be more efficient than
Code and will have an efficiency of 85%.

Seal, Test and Insulate HVAC Supply Ducts HVAC supply ducts will be sealed, leak tested,
and insulated to reduce energy losses.

Cool Roofs The buildings will have light-colored membrane roofs.

Energy Management Systems The buildings will utilize highly efficient energy management
systems (EMS) to track and control energy use. Energy needs will be closely monitored and the
use of heat, cooling, and lighting will be minimized. The Base Case set points for occupied and
unoccupied time periods equal the eQUEST default values: Occupied (cool=76
o
, heat=70
o
),
Unoccupied (cool=82
o
, heat=64
o
). The Mitigation Alternative values are the same as those for
the Base Case.

High-Efficiency Refrigeration System The supermarket refrigeration system design will
achieve an overall 25% energy savings through the following design features: (1) condensers are
equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs); (2) compressors are electronically controlled
for precise energy control; (3) all equipment is designed for floating head pressure to save
compressor energy; (4) evaporator fan motors utilize electronically commutated motors (ECMs);
(5) vertical doors are used for frozen food and certain refrigerated cases; (6) Cases use high-
efficiency fans and electric defrost; (7) LED is used in glass door cases; and (8) dehumidification
coils are used on each HVAC unit to reduce store humidity levels and significantly reduce power
demand of the refrigeration systems. The Base Case electrical use by the refrigeration system is
1,295 MWhr/yr, and the energy savings features listed above reduces that electrical use to 971
MWhr/yr.

Energy Efficient Interior Lighting Interior Light Power Density (LPD) will be below Code of
1.4 W/sf for the retail buildings, meeting a goal of 1.3 W/sf. Consistent with DOER policy, the
plug load used in the eQUEST model for retail use is the Appendix G.3 Table G-B value of 0.25
W/sf.

Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting LED fixtures will be used to light the parking lots.


14


Occupancy Controls for Lighting The Proponent will recommend occupancy controls to
tenants for restrooms and unoccupied storage rooms.

Recycle Materials The Proponent will encourage tenants to collect and recycle cans, bottles,
and office paper.

Use Building Materials with Recycled Content, Building Materials that are Manufactured
Within the Region, Use Rapidly Renewable Building Materials, and Use Low-VOC Building
Materials Whenever practical, the Project will use environmentally friendly building materials,
including materials with recycled content, rapidly renewable building materials, and low-VOC
materials. Also when practical, the Project will purchase building materials that are
manufactured within the region.

Other building design and operation mitigation measures were considered for the Project, but were
rejected because they are either technically/financially infeasible or inappropriate for the Project:

Reduce Energy Demand by Using Peak Shaving or Load Shifting Strategies These measures
are not appropriate for retail buildings that must use power during peak periods.

Incorporate Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technologies into Project CHP requires a
host for the constant (year-round) and substantial steam load (waste heat) generated as part of the
process. The projects thermal loads are seasonal only, making CHP economically infeasible.

Construct Green Roof -- The proponent does not consider it economically feasible to construct
and maintain a green roof. Green roofs, which consist of layers of gravel, soil and vegetation
atop a rubberized water-proof membrane, are expensive to install and maintain. They typically
require a steel-reinforced concrete roof that can support a dead weight of 35 lb/sf and the
installation cost exclusive of roof redesign is $30/sf.
5
While green roof technology has the
potential to improve stormwater management on the Project and reduce overall energy costs, the
significant additional costs (over $2.2 million for the Project) related to the required engineering,
construction and installation of the green roof is not economically feasible.



5
Oberndorfer, Erica, et al., Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures, Functions and Services,
BioScience, Vol. 57, No. 10, November 2007.


15


3.3 Building Energy Efficiency Measures Requiring Further Study

This section identifies other efficiency measures that will be studied at the stage of detailed design.

On-Site Renewable Energy The proponent affirms its commitment to set aside space on the
flat roof of Building C for a possible third-party photo-voltaic (PV) installation and make the
roofs solar-ready. The PV cost feasibility analysis presented below estimates the cost of a 200-
kW system installed in a single block on a commercial building roof. To obtain the most accurate
installed-cost for a commercial-size PV system, data were obtained from the most recent
installed-cost report on the EOEEA website for Qualified Generation Units in the 100-kW to
200-kW size range.
6
Those data are provided in Appendix C. The data do not provide separate
costs for Owner-Installed versus 3
rd
-Party-Installed projects, and so for this analysis we assume
the installed cost is the same. The average installed cost is $4.78, using data updated through
March 26, 2014.

For this PV cost analysis, a 200-kW system was assumed with an installed cost of $4.78/W; this
is generally considered the minimum size for a financially feasible third-party vendor PPA.
7
The
following facts were obtained from MassDOER: (1) SRECs are market-based incentives and
should sell today between $300 and $550 per MWh, less broker fees; (2) An owner can place
excess SRECs into an auction account and receive $285 per MWh ($300 minus 5% fee); (3) The
Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) cap that is $550 today declines to only $365 in the
future on a schedule set by DOER. Since there are no firm estimates of the future value of
SRECs, this analysis assumed the guaranteed floor price of $285, the most realistic assumption.

A 200 kW PV system, flat-mounted, is projected to generate 206,528 kWh per year,
8
which
equates to 85.5 tons per year
9
in GHG emissions reductions. A 200 kW PV system would reduce
the annual Mitigation Case CO
2
emissions (Table 2) by 7% =100% * 74.2 / 1,042.1. The
economics of a PV installation were calculated using the DOER Commercial Solar Financial
Model updated to reflect the above assumptions. Model output is provided in Appendix C. The
cost calculator inputs are as follows:

PV system size of 200 kW
System cost of $4.78/Watt
Annual capacity factor of 11.8% (flush mounted on roof)
10

SREC value of $285 / MWh and revenue term 10 years
An inverter replacement frequency of once every 10 years
11

Customer discount rate of 7%
6
Massachusetts EOEEA, RPS Solar Carve-Out Qualified Renewable Generation Units updated March 26, 2014,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/rps-aps/qualified-generation-units.html.
7
Personal communication, Dave Hebert, Gloria Spire Solar, March 3, 2009.
8
Personal communication, Natalie Howlett, Renewable Energy Project Coordinator, Massachusetts DOER,
December 18, 2008. This figure is 4 times 51,632 kWh/year for a 50 kW system.
9
Annual PV system electrical generation is 206.5 MWh. Multiplying by the ISO New England emission factor of 719 lb
CO
2
per MWh and dividing by 2,000 lb/ton yields an annual CO
2
emission reduction of 74.2 tons/year.
10
Personal communication, Natalie Howlett, Renewable Energy Project Coordinator, Massachusetts DOER,
December 18, 2008.
11
Personal communication, Dave Hebert, Gloria Spire Solar, March 3, 2009.


16



The default customer discount rate in the CS Financial Model is 3%, which is incorrect. The
customer discount rate is defined as the interest rate of return that could be earned in an
investment in the financial markets with similar risk. At present, a 20-year U.S. Treasury bond
pays slightly above 3%; that is the lowest risk investment possible and is not comparable to the
risk of investing in a PV system. Corporate bond rates are 4% to 8%, depending on their
investment grade. This analysis assumed a reasonable customer discount rate of 7%. The
calculations assume federal tax credits, State tax deductions and SREC values.

For the 200-kW system, the calculated Net Present Value of the PV system is -$25,739 and the
internal rate of return (IRR) is 6.2%. The Simple Payback Period is 8 years. Based on market
research, almost 90 percent of strong prospects would consider a payback of four years, but
acceptance begins to drop rapidly once paybacks reach five years.
12
The Simple Payback also has
serious limitations as a measure of cost feasibility and is not used in making business decisions
because it ignores inflation, the time value of money and investment risk.

Net Present Value (NPV) is the standard financial method for using the time value of money to
appraise long-term projects. Used for capital budgeting, and widely throughout economics, NPV
measures the excess or shortfall of cash flows, in present value terms, once financing charges are
met. If the NPV is positive, an investment may be accepted since it would add value to a project
over the long-term. If the NPV is negative, as is the case here, the investment should be rejected.

The IRR is the annualized effective compound return rate that can be earned on the invested
capital, i.e. the yield on the investment. A project is a good investment if its IRR is greater than
the rate of return that could be earned by alternate investments of equal risk; in this case the
alternate rate of return is the 7% discount rate in the financial model. Given the negative NPV
and longer than acceptable payback period, a PV system is not financially feasible for the project
at this time. The Proponent will set aside space on the flat roof of Building C as solar ready to
accommodate flat-mounted PV systems for a possible third-party provider PV installation in the
future.
12
Assessment of California CHP Market and Policy Options for Increased Penetration, Final Report, Cosponsors Public
Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) and California Energy Commission, J uly 2005.


17


3.4 Draft Outline for Tenant Manual

As part of the design phase of the project, the Proponent will implement a set of tenant guidelines in
the Project Tenant Manual, which will either mandate or encourage specific sustainable measures,
where applicable, reasonable and/or feasible for specific users. Each tenant and their design team
will be provided a copy of the Tenant Manual upon executing a lease. With respect to the various
energy efficiency commitments made within the Tenant Manual, it is assumed at this preliminary
stage that the Proponent will be responsible for the construction of the building core and shell, with
individual tenants responsible for the fit-out of their individual interior spaces.

The Tenant Manual will include the following requirements:

Where heating and cooling HVAC systems are not provided by the lessor, the tenant will be
required to design heating systems for a minimum efficiency of 85% and 10/15-ton cooling
systems for 12.1/11.9 EER, values above Code, with DCV controls where possible.

The tenant will be required to design interior lighting systems to have a Light Power Density
not exceeding 1.3 W/sf.

The Proponent will provide for individualized tenant control and metering of electricity and
natural gas, to the extent feasible, to promote increased efficiency.

The Proponent will provide to tenants a list of amenities (such as ATMs, food services,
bicycle racks, bus stop) within walking distance for tenants to pass on to their employees.


In addition, the Proponent will assist future building tenants in selecting energy reduction measures
as part of their construction and interior fit-out. Examples include:

Encourage tenants to use Energy STAR rated refrigerators, freezers, computers and other
equipment.

Encourage tenants to use occupancy controls for lighting in restrooms, offices, and
unoccupied storage areas.

Encourage tenants to use water-conserving bathroom fixtures that exceed Code.

Encourage tenants to offer direct deposit of employee paychecks, flexible work schedules,
transit pass subsidies, and a guaranteed ride home program for employees who van/carpool.

Encourage tenants to collect and recycle cans, bottles, and office paper.

Encourage office tenants to visit the Green Leaf program website (www.green.harvard.edu)
and consider the check lists for energy-savings, recycling and waste reduction in offices.


18



TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF ENERGY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Energy Efficiency Measure
(EEM)
Base Case (Code)
1
Mitigation Case

Building Envelope
(Steel-framed)

Roof R25
Walls R13 + R13
Slab R10-24
Roof R30
Walls R13 + R13
Slab R10-24

Window Glass
(Storefront)

U=0.38,
DOE Type 2601

Same as Base Case

Window Area 30%

Same as Base Case

DCV Controls for Outside
Fresh Air in HVAC Systems
No Retail Buildings B-E, Yes
Cool Roof No Yes
HVAC Cooling Efficiency
(10 ton unit)
EER 11.8 EER 12.1
HVAC Heating Efficiency 80% 85%
Cool/Heat Setpoints
(occupied, unoccupied)
76
o
/ 70
o
, 82
o
/ 64
o

eQUEST Defaults
Same as Base Case


Parking Lot Lighting
Parking Lots
150 W/1,000 SF
Parking Lots
LED 35 W/1,000 SF
1
ASHRAE 90.1-2007


19

TABLE 4 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF ENERGY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

Energy Efficiency Measure
(EEM)
Base Case (Code)
1
Mitigation Case
Light Power Density
(Whole Building Method)
Retail 1.4 W/SF

Retail 1.3 W/SF


Electric Plug Load


Retail 0.25 W/SF
Appendix G.3, Table G-B
Same as Base Case
Occupancy Controls for
Lighting
No
Yes, recommend to retail
tenants for restrooms and
unoccupied storage rooms
1
ASHRAE 90.1-2007



20


TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY AREAS FOR BEVERLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT







Building Name
Floor Area (sf)
eQUEST Activity Type
% Floor
Area

External Electrical
Load
Building A
Supermarket


Retail
Storage (Cond.)
Kitchen
Office
Restroom
Mechanical


77
8
9
4
1
1



Base Case
1,295 MWhr/yr

Mitigation Case
971 MWhr/yr
Buildings B-E
Retail

Retail
Storage (Cond.)
Office
Restroom
Mechanical
87
10
1
1
1



21

TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF eQUEST BASE CASE ENERGY USE INTENSITY
TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CBECS TABLE C3A


Buildings Base Case EUI (kBtu/SF) CBECS EUI (kBtu/SF)
A
(Supermarket)
195.1

200
(Food Sales)
B, C, D and E
(Retail)


81.4, 79.8, 78.7, 80.3




74
(Retail other than mall)




22

APPENDIX A

EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT














A-1
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.23 2.93 7.68 13.04 11.07 5.93 0.77 0.04 - 41.69
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.47 3.13 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 40.81
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.60 29.45 32.59 31.74 35.38 39.06 45.45 43.49 37.31 33.24 31.57 32.59 424.46
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 213.0 173.3 130.1 46.5 1.7 - - - - 1.9 81.0 166.7 814.2
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 232.9 191.8 150.6 66.1 20.6 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 18.3 97.9 185.4 1,028.2
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.23 2.93 7.68 13.04 11.07 5.93 0.77 0.04 - 41.69
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.47 3.13 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 40.81
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.60 29.45 32.59 31.74 35.38 39.06 45.45 43.49 37.31 33.24 31.57 32.59 424.46
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 200.49 163.07 122.41 43.79 1.61 - - - - 1.76 76.27 156.87 766.28
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.85 18.53 20.55 19.59 18.87 17.03 16.50 15.81 15.27 16.38 16.91 18.75 214.06
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 220.35 181.60 142.96 63.38 20.48 17.03 16.50 15.81 15.27 18.15 93.18 175.62 980.33
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.23 2.93 7.68 13.04 11.07 5.93 0.77 0.04 - 41.69
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.47 3.13 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 40.81
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.60 29.45 32.59 31.74 35.38 39.06 45.45 43.49 37.31 33.24 31.57 32.59 424.46
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 213.0 173.3 130.1 46.5 1.7 - - - - 1.9 81.0 166.7 814.2
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 232.9 191.8 150.6 66.1 20.6 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 18.3 97.9 185.4 1,028.2
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Window Area EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 12:19
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.87 7.82 13.42 11.50 6.27 0.87 0.04 - 43.00
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.18 2.88 3.18 3.08 3.18 3.08 3.18 3.18 3.08 3.18 3.08 3.18 37.48
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.14 3.74 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 48.69
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 26.44 23.88 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 311.30
Total 34.01 30.72 34.00 33.09 36.73 40.56 47.24 45.32 39.01 34.75 32.93 34.00 442.35
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 216.6 179.5 143.7 60.3 4.6 - - - - 3.0 82.8 169.5 860.0
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.8 18.5 20.5 19.5 18.8 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 16.3 16.9 18.7 213.6
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 236.4 198.0 164.2 79.9 23.4 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 19.3 99.7 188.3 1,073.5
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.23 2.98 7.77 13.19 11.22 6.06 0.82 0.05 - 42.32
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.46 3.13 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 40.78
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.60 29.45 32.59 31.75 35.42 39.14 45.60 43.63 37.44 33.29 31.57 32.59 425.06
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 206.92 168.28 125.78 43.84 1.16 - - - - 1.36 76.67 161.27 785.28
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.85 18.52 20.55 19.59 18.87 17.03 16.51 15.81 15.27 16.38 16.91 18.75 214.04
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 226.78 186.80 146.33 63.42 20.03 17.03 16.51 15.81 15.27 17.74 93.58 180.02 999.32
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.76 7.36 12.55 10.68 5.62 0.68 0.04 - 39.90
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.46 3.12 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 40.72
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 22.97 20.75 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.23 22.97 270.47
Total 30.82 27.85 30.82 30.01 33.43 37.01 43.20 41.32 35.28 31.38 29.84 30.81 401.77
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 220.6 179.9 137.3 52.7 2.7 - - - - 2.7 88.6 174.0 858.5
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 240.5 198.5 157.8 72.2 21.6 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 19.1 105.5 192.7 1,072.6
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Grnd Floor Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 12:19
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.24 3.11 8.24 13.95 11.95 6.59 0.94 0.05 - 45.08
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.41 3.08 3.41 3.30 3.41 3.30 3.41 3.41 3.30 3.41 3.30 3.41 40.13
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.14 3.74 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 48.69
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 26.44 23.88 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 311.30
Total 34.23 30.92 34.22 33.34 37.19 41.20 48.00 46.00 39.54 35.05 33.15 34.22 447.08
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 206.7 169.5 133.7 51.4 3.3 - - - - 2.4 76.6 162.1 805.7
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.8 18.5 20.5 19.5 18.8 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 16.3 16.9 18.7 213.5
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 226.5 187.9 154.2 71.0 22.2 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 18.7 93.4 180.8 1,019.3
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Ext Wall Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 12:19
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.22 2.95 7.95 13.59 11.68 6.41 0.92 0.05 - 43.77
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.40 3.07 3.40 3.29 3.40 3.29 3.40 3.40 3.29 3.40 3.29 3.40 40.00
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.14 3.74 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 48.69
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 26.44 23.88 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 311.30
Total 34.22 30.91 34.21 33.31 37.02 40.89 47.63 45.72 39.36 35.02 33.14 34.21 445.64
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 209.4 173.1 138.8 56.9 4.2 - - - - 2.5 77.9 163.8 826.7
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.8 18.5 20.5 19.5 18.8 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 16.3 16.9 18.7 213.6
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 229.2 191.6 159.3 76.5 23.1 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.2 18.9 94.7 182.5 1,040.2
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - DCV EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 12:19
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - 0.00 0.00 0.33 3.26 8.06 13.21 11.74 6.89 1.17 0.11 - 44.76
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.39 3.06 3.39 3.28 3.39 3.28 3.39 3.39 3.28 3.39 3.28 3.39 39.94
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.14 3.74 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.14 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.14 48.69
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 26.44 23.88 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 26.44 25.59 26.44 25.59 26.44 311.30
Total 34.22 30.91 34.21 33.41 37.33 41.00 47.24 45.77 39.83 35.26 33.20 34.21 446.58
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 63.32 47.35 24.45 2.69 0.70 - - - - 1.05 4.64 35.66 179.87
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.78 18.46 20.46 19.47 18.80 16.98 16.46 15.77 15.22 16.31 16.80 18.66 213.17
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 83.11 65.81 44.91 22.16 19.50 16.98 16.46 15.77 15.22 17.36 21.44 54.32 393.04
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Cooling Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.22 2.84 7.46 12.66 10.75 5.76 0.75 0.04 - 40.48
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.47 3.13 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.47 3.35 3.47 3.35 3.47 40.81
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.60 29.45 32.59 31.74 35.29 38.83 45.08 43.17 37.14 33.22 31.56 32.59 423.26
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 213.0 173.3 130.1 46.5 1.7 - - - - 1.9 81.0 166.7 814.2
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 232.9 191.8 150.6 66.1 20.6 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 18.3 97.9 185.4 1,028.2
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.77 7.32 12.65 10.75 5.71 0.71 0.04 - 40.16
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.46 3.12 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.46 3.35 3.46 3.35 3.46 40.71
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 24.74 22.34 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 24.74 23.94 24.74 23.94 24.74 291.28
Total 32.59 29.44 32.58 31.72 35.21 38.68 45.06 43.16 37.08 33.18 31.56 32.58 422.84
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 215.9 176.9 135.6 52.0 2.5 - - - - 2.2 84.1 169.2 838.3
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 235.8 195.4 156.1 71.5 21.4 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 18.6 101.0 188.0 1,052.4
Project/Run: Beverly Building A Supermarket - Cum Mitigation EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 11:36
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.19 2.59 6.88 11.91 10.12 5.32 0.67 0.04 - 37.73
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 3.45 3.12 3.45 3.34 3.45 3.34 3.45 3.45 3.34 3.45 3.34 3.45 40.63
Pumps & Aux. 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.17 1.08
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 4.15 3.74 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.15 4.01 4.15 4.01 4.15 48.82
Task Lights 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.79
Area Lights 22.97 20.75 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.97 22.23 22.97 22.23 22.97 270.47
Total 30.82 27.84 30.81 29.99 33.26 36.53 42.55 40.76 34.97 31.36 29.83 30.81 399.52
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 203.4 166.8 128.8 50.9 2.7 - - - 0.0 2.2 81.4 160.1 796.3
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 19.9 18.5 20.6 19.6 18.9 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 16.4 16.9 18.8 214.1
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 223.3 185.3 149.3 70.5 21.6 17.0 16.5 15.8 15.3 18.6 98.3 178.8 1,010.4
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:47
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.28 0.77 1.37 1.14 0.56 0.06 0.00 - 4.20
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.82 2.54 2.81 2.74 3.07 3.46 4.15 3.92 3.25 2.85 2.72 2.81 37.14
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 33.89 27.94 22.60 10.87 1.08 - - - - 1.58 16.53 27.80 142.29
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 34.62 28.61 23.35 11.58 1.77 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.18 17.15 28.48 150.08
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Window Area EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 15:44
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.07 1.09 3.07 5.42 4.77 2.59 0.32 0.01 - 17.35
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.22 1.10 1.22 1.18 1.22 1.18 1.22 1.22 1.18 1.22 1.18 1.22 14.31
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 1.58 1.43 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 18.63
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09
Area Lights 9.02 8.15 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 106.19
Total 11.86 10.71 11.86 11.55 12.92 14.51 17.25 16.60 14.03 12.15 11.49 11.86 156.79
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 104.66 86.65 71.14 33.48 2.98 - - - - 1.70 43.74 83.19 427.53
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 3.02 2.82 3.13 2.98 2.87 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 2.49 2.57 2.85 32.51
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 107.69 89.47 74.27 36.46 5.84 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 4.18 46.31 86.04 460.04
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:47
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.28 0.77 1.36 1.14 0.55 0.06 0.00 - 4.18
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.82 2.54 2.81 2.74 3.06 3.46 4.14 3.92 3.25 2.85 2.72 2.81 37.12
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 33.53 27.65 22.36 10.73 1.04 - - - - 1.51 16.28 27.48 140.56
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.72 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 34.26 28.32 23.11 11.44 1.73 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.10 16.89 28.16 148.35
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:48
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.27 0.75 1.34 1.11 0.54 0.06 - - 4.09
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.44
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 1.87 1.69 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.81 1.87 22.04
Total 2.67 2.41 2.66 2.59 2.91 3.30 3.97 3.74 3.08 2.70 2.57 2.66 35.26
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 34.47 28.46 23.19 11.47 1.27 - - - - 1.91 17.11 28.38 146.26
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 35.19 29.14 23.94 12.19 1.96 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.51 17.73 29.06 154.05
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:48
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.28 0.77 1.37 1.14 0.56 0.06 0.00 - 4.20
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.82 2.54 2.81 2.74 3.07 3.46 4.15 3.92 3.25 2.85 2.72 2.81 37.14
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 31.90 26.29 21.27 10.23 1.02 - - - - 1.49 15.56 26.16 133.92
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 32.62 26.97 22.02 10.94 1.70 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.09 16.17 26.85 141.71
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Grnd Floor Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 15:44
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.10 1.26 3.38 5.84 5.16 2.87 0.38 0.02 - 19.00
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.35 1.22 1.35 1.30 1.35 1.30 1.35 1.35 1.30 1.35 1.30 1.35 15.85
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 1.58 1.43 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 18.63
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09
Area Lights 9.02 8.15 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 106.19
Total 11.99 10.83 11.99 11.70 13.22 14.95 17.79 17.12 14.44 12.35 11.62 11.99 159.98
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 97.23 78.84 62.61 25.81 1.73 - - - - 0.76 37.90 76.83 381.71
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 3.02 2.82 3.13 2.98 2.86 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 2.48 2.57 2.85 32.50
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 100.26 81.66 65.74 28.79 4.59 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 3.25 40.47 79.68 414.21
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Ext Wall Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 15:44
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.09 1.16 3.17 5.58 4.96 2.75 0.36 0.02 - 18.09
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.33 1.20 1.33 1.28 1.33 1.28 1.33 1.33 1.28 1.33 1.28 1.33 15.61
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 1.58 1.43 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 18.63
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09
Area Lights 9.02 8.15 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 106.19
Total 11.97 10.81 11.97 11.67 13.10 14.72 17.51 16.90 14.30 12.30 11.60 11.97 158.83
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 99.15 81.38 66.05 29.56 2.22 - - - - 0.97 38.85 78.15 396.33
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 3.02 2.82 3.13 2.98 2.87 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 2.48 2.57 2.85 32.50
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 102.17 84.20 69.18 32.54 5.09 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 3.46 41.42 81.00 428.83
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - DCV EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:48
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.78 1.34 1.14 0.58 0.08 0.01 0.01 4.30
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.21
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.83 2.56 2.83 2.74 3.09 3.47 4.12 3.92 3.27 2.87 2.73 2.82 37.24
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 21.58 17.42 12.76 4.24 0.13 0.02 - - - 0.17 8.50 17.06 81.88
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 22.30 18.10 13.51 4.96 0.81 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.77 9.11 17.74 89.67
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Cooling Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:48
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.27 0.75 1.33 1.11 0.54 0.06 0.00 - 4.08
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.82 2.54 2.81 2.74 3.06 3.44 4.11 3.89 3.23 2.85 2.72 2.81 37.02
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 33.89 27.94 22.60 10.87 1.08 - - - - 1.58 16.53 27.80 142.29
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 34.62 28.61 23.35 11.58 1.77 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.18 17.15 28.48 150.08
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:47
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.02 0.27 0.74 1.33 1.11 0.54 0.06 0.00 - 4.07
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.51
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 2.02 1.82 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 2.02 1.95 2.02 1.95 2.02 23.73
Total 2.82 2.54 2.81 2.73 3.05 3.43 4.11 3.89 3.23 2.85 2.72 2.81 37.01
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 34.12 28.22 23.05 11.40 1.23 - - - - 1.73 16.74 28.00 144.49
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.80
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 34.84 28.90 23.80 12.12 1.92 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 2.32 17.36 28.69 152.29
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 15:44
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.09 1.18 3.21 5.63 5.01 2.77 0.36 0.02 - 18.28
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.34 1.21 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.30 1.34 15.83
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 1.58 1.43 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.58 1.53 1.58 1.53 1.58 18.63
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09
Area Lights 9.02 8.15 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 9.02 8.73 9.02 8.73 9.02 106.19
Total 11.99 10.83 11.99 11.69 13.14 14.78 17.59 16.97 14.34 12.33 11.62 11.99 159.24
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 100.79 82.60 67.03 29.98 2.30 - - - - 1.10 39.82 79.63 403.25
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 3.02 2.82 3.13 2.98 2.87 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 2.48 2.57 2.85 32.50
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 103.82 85.42 70.16 32.96 5.17 2.58 2.50 2.39 2.31 3.58 42.39 82.48 435.75
Project/Run: Beverly Building B - Cum Mitigation EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 15:48
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
1
2
3
4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.71 1.24 1.06 0.54 0.07 0.00 0.01 3.96
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.21
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 4.46
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Area Lights 1.87 1.69 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.87 1.81 1.87 1.81 1.87 22.04
Total 2.68 2.42 2.67 2.60 2.91 3.26 3.87 3.69 3.09 2.71 2.58 2.67 35.14
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 20.44 16.58 12.39 4.39 0.15 0.02 - - - 0.15 8.32 16.26 78.69
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.72 0.68 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.62 0.68 7.79
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 21.17 17.25 13.14 5.10 0.83 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.55 0.75 8.94 16.94 86.48
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.27 5.82 9.85 8.53 4.73 0.67 0.04 - 32.12
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.30 17.81 20.85 25.38 24.06 19.76 16.23 15.13 15.60 215.41
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 198.34 157.31 124.87 54.29 5.07 - - - - 4.89 88.56 162.23 795.56
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 204.46 163.03 131.21 60.32 10.89 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 9.91 93.76 167.99 861.38
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.26 5.80 9.84 8.52 4.73 0.68 0.04 - 32.07
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.30 17.80 20.83 25.37 24.05 19.76 16.23 15.13 15.60 215.36
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 197.24 156.43 124.14 53.87 4.93 - - - - 4.76 87.81 161.26 790.44
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 203.36 162.14 130.48 59.91 10.74 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 9.78 93.01 167.03 856.26
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.20 2.21 5.71 9.69 8.38 4.63 0.66 0.03 - 31.52
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.57 2.33 2.57 2.49 2.57 2.49 2.57 2.57 2.49 2.57 2.49 2.57 30.31
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 9.59 8.66 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.28 9.59 112.87
Total 14.83 13.40 14.83 14.54 16.99 19.99 24.45 23.14 18.92 15.44 14.38 14.83 205.74
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 201.33 160.09 127.84 57.06 5.85 - - - - 5.64 91.48 165.19 814.47
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 207.45 165.80 134.18 63.09 11.67 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 10.66 96.68 170.95 880.30
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.27 5.82 9.85 8.53 4.73 0.67 0.04 - 32.12
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.30 17.81 20.85 25.38 24.06 19.76 16.23 15.13 15.60 215.41
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 186.67 148.06 117.52 51.09 4.78 - - - - 4.60 83.35 152.69 748.76
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 192.79 153.78 123.86 57.13 10.59 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 9.62 88.55 158.45 814.58
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - DCV EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.24 2.35 5.87 9.79 8.58 4.87 0.77 0.04 - 32.52
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.33 17.89 20.90 25.32 24.11 19.90 16.32 15.13 15.60 215.80
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 140.53 108.25 80.99 26.33 1.04 0.11 - - 0.03 2.49 53.57 112.27 525.61
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.81 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.81
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 146.65 113.96 87.33 32.37 6.85 5.34 5.06 4.84 4.70 7.51 58.77 118.04 591.41
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Cooling Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.20 5.65 9.57 8.29 4.59 0.66 0.04 - 31.19
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.29 17.74 20.68 25.10 23.82 19.62 16.21 15.12 15.60 214.48
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 198.34 157.31 124.87 54.29 5.07 - - - - 4.89 88.56 162.23 795.56
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 204.46 163.03 131.21 60.32 10.89 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 9.91 93.76 167.99 861.38
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.21 2.23 5.70 9.74 8.42 4.67 0.67 0.04 - 31.67
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.61 2.35 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.61 2.52 2.61 2.52 2.61 30.69
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 10.32 9.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 10.32 9.99 10.32 9.99 10.32 121.55
Total 15.60 14.09 15.60 15.29 17.77 20.73 25.27 23.95 19.70 16.22 15.13 15.60 214.96
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 199.02 158.22 126.06 55.59 5.28 - - - - 5.00 89.14 162.83 801.14
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.82 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.83
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 205.14 163.94 132.40 61.63 11.10 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 10.02 94.34 168.60 866.97
Project/Run: Beverly Building C - Cum Mitigation EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:22
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.23 2.21 5.52 9.24 8.09 4.61 0.72 0.04 - 30.65
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.58 2.33 2.58 2.49 2.58 2.49 2.58 2.58 2.49 2.58 2.49 2.58 30.34
Pumps & Aux. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.43
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.01 1.81 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 2.01 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.01 23.61
Task Lights 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.59 7.00
Area Lights 9.59 8.66 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.59 9.28 9.59 9.28 9.59 112.87
Total 14.83 13.40 14.83 14.57 16.99 19.81 24.01 22.85 18.89 15.50 14.38 14.83 204.90
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 133.75 103.43 78.14 26.26 1.13 0.10 - - 0.03 2.53 52.00 107.16 504.54
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 6.12 5.72 6.34 6.03 5.81 5.23 5.06 4.84 4.67 5.02 5.20 5.76 65.81
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 139.87 109.15 84.48 32.29 6.95 5.34 5.06 4.84 4.70 7.54 57.20 112.93 570.35
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.17 0.48 0.83 0.71 0.34 0.03 - 0.00 2.58
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.62 1.57 1.76 2.01 2.42 2.30 1.88 1.63 1.56 1.62 21.46
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 25.38 21.04 17.56 9.17 1.53 0.01 - - 0.01 2.22 13.21 21.20 111.32
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25.79 21.42 17.99 9.57 1.92 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.56 13.56 21.58 115.72
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 16:11
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.11 1.82 5.31 8.94 7.60 3.97 0.42 0.02 - 28.21
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.77 1.60 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 20.85
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.50 2.26 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 29.44
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14
Area Lights 14.25 12.87 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 167.76
Total 18.57 16.77 18.57 18.08 20.36 23.25 27.48 26.13 21.91 18.96 17.98 18.57 246.62
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 173.50 143.64 116.88 52.75 4.08 - - - - 4.92 77.01 139.11 711.89
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 4.78 4.46 4.94 4.71 4.53 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 3.93 4.06 4.51 51.35
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 178.28 148.10 121.83 57.45 8.60 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 8.85 81.07 143.62 763.24
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Window Area EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 16:11
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.17 2.19 5.95 9.94 8.67 4.66 0.60 0.03 - 32.20
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 2.16 1.95 2.16 2.09 2.16 2.09 2.16 2.16 2.09 2.16 2.09 2.16 25.43
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.50 2.26 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 29.44
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14
Area Lights 14.25 12.87 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 167.76
Total 18.96 17.12 18.96 18.51 21.12 24.26 28.86 27.59 22.97 19.53 18.37 18.95 255.19
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 167.21 134.66 105.01 40.83 2.26 - - - - 1.70 68.31 133.14 653.12
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 4.78 4.46 4.94 4.70 4.53 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 3.93 4.06 4.51 51.34
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 171.99 139.12 109.95 45.53 6.79 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 5.63 72.37 137.65 704.46
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.17 0.47 0.83 0.71 0.34 0.03 - - 2.56
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.62 1.57 1.76 2.01 2.41 2.29 1.88 1.63 1.56 1.62 21.45
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 25.17 20.86 17.43 9.08 1.50 0.01 - - 0.01 2.15 13.07 20.99 110.26
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.40
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25.58 21.24 17.85 9.49 1.89 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.49 13.42 21.38 114.67
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.16 0.47 0.82 0.70 0.33 0.03 - 0.00 2.51
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.05
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.02 0.93 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99 1.02 12.06
Total 1.54 1.39 1.54 1.49 1.67 1.92 2.32 2.20 1.79 1.54 1.48 1.54 20.43
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 25.69 21.31 17.88 9.47 1.64 0.01 - - 0.01 2.43 13.51 21.50 113.44
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 26.10 21.69 18.31 9.88 2.03 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.76 13.86 21.89 117.85
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.17 0.48 0.83 0.71 0.34 0.03 - 0.00 2.58
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.62 1.57 1.76 2.01 2.42 2.30 1.88 1.63 1.56 1.62 21.46
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 23.89 19.80 16.53 8.63 1.44 0.01 - - 0.01 2.09 12.43 19.95 104.77
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 24.30 20.18 16.95 9.03 1.83 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.43 12.78 20.34 109.18
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Grnd Floor Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 16:11
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.13 1.98 5.57 9.25 7.80 4.10 0.45 0.02 - 29.28
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.77 1.60 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 20.85
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.50 2.26 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 29.44
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14
Area Lights 14.25 12.87 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 167.76
Total 18.57 16.77 18.57 18.09 20.52 23.50 27.78 26.33 22.03 18.99 17.99 18.57 247.69
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 168.63 138.51 110.67 46.77 3.13 - - - - 4.08 74.33 135.04 681.16
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 4.78 4.46 4.94 4.70 4.53 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 3.93 4.06 4.51 51.35
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 173.40 142.97 115.61 51.47 7.66 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 8.01 78.39 139.55 732.50
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Ext Wall Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 05/01/14 @ 16:11
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
50
100
150
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.11 1.81 5.24 8.87 7.53 3.95 0.41 0.02 - 27.95
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 1.77 1.60 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.77 1.71 1.77 1.71 1.77 20.85
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 2.50 2.26 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.50 2.42 2.50 2.42 2.50 29.44
Task Lights 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14
Area Lights 14.25 12.87 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 14.25 13.79 14.25 13.79 14.25 167.76
Total 18.57 16.77 18.57 18.07 20.35 23.17 27.40 26.07 21.88 18.95 17.98 18.57 246.36
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 171.30 141.91 115.57 52.18 4.03 - - - - 4.62 75.66 137.11 702.38
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 4.78 4.46 4.94 4.70 4.53 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 3.93 4.06 4.51 51.35
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 176.07 146.37 120.51 56.88 8.56 4.07 3.94 3.78 3.65 8.55 79.72 141.61 753.73
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - DCV EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.48 0.81 0.71 0.36 0.05 0.00 0.01 2.62
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.21
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.63 1.58 1.77 2.01 2.39 2.29 1.89 1.64 1.57 1.62 21.50
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 17.59 14.38 11.41 5.06 0.54 0.02 - - 0.03 0.60 8.20 14.39 72.22
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.40
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 18.00 14.76 11.84 5.47 0.92 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.93 8.55 14.78 76.63
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Cooling Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.16 0.47 0.81 0.69 0.33 0.03 - 0.00 2.50
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.62 1.57 1.76 2.00 2.39 2.28 1.87 1.63 1.56 1.62 21.39
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 25.38 21.04 17.56 9.17 1.53 0.01 - - 0.01 2.22 13.21 21.20 111.32
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25.79 21.42 17.99 9.57 1.92 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.56 13.56 21.58 115.72
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
10
20
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.01 0.16 0.46 0.81 0.69 0.33 0.03 - 0.00 2.49
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.09
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.22
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.10 12.99
Total 1.62 1.47 1.62 1.57 1.75 1.99 2.39 2.28 1.87 1.63 1.56 1.62 21.37
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 25.54 21.23 17.87 9.52 1.63 0.01 - - 0.01 2.35 13.36 21.33 112.83
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 25.95 21.61 18.29 9.92 2.02 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.32 2.69 13.71 21.72 117.24
Project/Run: Beverly Building D - Cum Mitigation EEM Run Date/Time: 08/05/14 @ 16:43
eQUEST 3.65.7163 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
(x000)
0
5
10
15
20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh x000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.44 0.75 0.66 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.41
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 3.06
Pumps & Aux. 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.21
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 2.57
Task Lights 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Area Lights 1.02 0.93 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.99 1.02 12.06
Total 1.54 1.39 1.54 1.49 1.68 1.89 2.25 2.16 1.79 1.56 1.49 1.54 20.33
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 16.59 13.60 10.91 4.97 0.54 0.02 - - 0.03 0.62 7.87 13.62 68.78
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.39 4.41
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 17.00 13.98 11.34 5.38 0.93 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.96 8.22 14.00 73.19
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:04
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
5
10
15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 1.1 51.2 182.8 338.8 273.1 119.3 1.2 0.2 - 967.5
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 621.0 668.1 773.9 949.6 883.9 711.1 623.8 621.2 645.2 8,376.0
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 14.14 11.92 10.35 6.00 1.25 0.03 - - 0.00 2.06 7.88 11.95 65.58
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14.35 12.11 10.56 6.20 1.44 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.23 8.05 12.15 67.79
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:04
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
5
10
15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.8 47.7 174.8 328.7 264.1 114.1 0.6 0.2 - 931.0
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 620.8 664.6 765.9 939.5 874.9 706.0 623.2 621.2 645.2 8,339.5
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 14.20 12.00 10.47 6.14 1.31 0.03 - - 0.01 2.15 7.94 12.01 66.25
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14.41 12.19 10.68 6.34 1.51 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.32 8.11 12.20 68.46
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Cooling Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
5
10
15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 1.0 49.7 177.5 329.0 265.2 115.8 1.1 0.2 - 939.5
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 621.0 666.6 768.6 939.8 876.0 707.7 623.7 621.2 645.2 8,348.0
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 14.14 11.92 10.35 6.00 1.25 0.03 - - 0.00 2.06 7.88 11.95 65.58
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14.35 12.11 10.56 6.20 1.44 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.23 8.05 12.15 67.79
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - DCV EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - 0.2 1.5 54.6 179.4 325.5 267.5 126.5 4.4 1.0 - 960.7
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.8 28.5 6.1 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.4 34.3 215.6
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 621.1 671.5 770.5 936.3 878.3 718.4 627.0 621.5 645.2 8,368.1
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 11.28 9.47 8.06 4.42 0.83 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 1.28 5.98 9.43 50.77
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 11.48 9.67 8.28 4.62 1.02 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17 1.45 6.16 9.62 52.98
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 1.1 51.2 182.8 338.8 273.1 119.3 1.2 0.2 - 967.5
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 621.0 668.1 773.9 949.6 883.9 711.1 623.8 621.2 645.2 8,376.0
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 13.31 11.22 9.74 5.65 1.17 0.02 - - 0.00 1.94 7.41 11.25 61.72
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 13.51 11.41 9.95 5.85 1.37 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.11 7.59 11.44 63.93
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
5
10
15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.9 49.0 178.4 332.7 267.3 115.0 0.7 0.2 - 944.2
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 88.0 79.5 88.0 85.1 88.0 85.1 88.0 88.0 85.1 88.0 85.1 88.0 1,035.9
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 398.8 360.2 398.8 385.9 398.8 385.9 398.8 398.8 385.9 398.8 385.9 398.8 4,695.5
Total 615.3 556.5 613.9 590.0 634.1 738.7 911.7 846.2 676.1 591.4 590.4 613.3 7,977.9
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 14.24 12.01 10.45 6.10 1.31 0.03 - - 0.01 2.16 7.98 12.06 66.35
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14.45 12.20 10.67 6.30 1.50 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.33 8.15 12.25 68.56
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
5
10
15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - 0.9 50.5 181.1 336.8 271.4 118.7 1.1 0.2 - 960.6
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 89.1 80.5 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 89.1 86.3 89.1 86.3 89.1 1,049.5
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.9 28.8 6.2 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.9 34.3 216.7
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 429.5 387.9 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 429.5 415.6 429.5 415.6 429.5 5,056.7
Total 647.2 585.3 645.8 620.8 667.4 772.2 947.6 882.2 710.5 623.7 621.2 645.2 8,369.1
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 14.07 11.87 10.31 5.98 1.25 0.03 - - 0.00 2.05 7.83 11.89 65.30
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 14.28 12.06 10.53 6.19 1.44 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.22 8.01 12.09 67.51
Project/Run: Beverly Building E - Cum Mitigation EEM Run Date/Time: 08/13/14 @ 09:05
eQUEST 3.65.7158 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electric Consumption (kWh)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas Consumption (Btu)
(x000,000)
Area Lighting
Task Lighting
Misc. Equipment
Exterior Usage
Pumps & Aux.
Ventilation Fans
Water Heating
Ht Pump Supp.
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Heat Rejection
Space Cooling
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - 0.0 0.8 49.0 166.2 304.8 249.2 116.6 2.9 0.5 - 890.1
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vent. Fans 88.4 79.9 88.4 85.6 88.4 85.6 88.4 88.4 85.6 88.4 85.6 88.4 1,041.3
Pumps & Aux. 36.3 33.6 34.8 28.7 6.1 - - - 0.8 11.8 29.5 34.3 216.0
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. 91.8 82.9 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 88.8 91.8 1,080.8
Task Lights 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.8
Area Lights 398.8 360.2 398.8 385.9 398.8 385.9 398.8 398.8 385.9 398.8 385.9 398.8 4,695.5
Total 615.8 557.0 614.3 590.2 634.5 726.9 884.3 828.6 678.1 594.2 590.8 613.8 7,928.5
Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Space Heat 10.62 8.94 7.65 4.25 0.81 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 1.28 5.70 8.91 48.18
HP Supp. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hot Water 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.19 2.21
Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pumps & Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 10.83 9.13 7.86 4.45 1.00 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17 1.45 5.87 9.10 50.39


APPENDIX B

TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR
VMT AND CO
2
EMISSIONS













B-1
TechEnvironmental,Inc. 3818MesoSpreadsheets,VMT 8/24/2014

AverageDailyTraffic(ADT)
(vehicles/day)
Link
Link Length LinkDescriptor 2021 2021 2021 2021
2014 2021 FullBuild FullBuild 2014 2021 FullBuild FullBuild
I.D. (feet) Existing No-Build w/omitigation w/mitigation* Existing No-Build w/omitigation w/mitigation*
1 710 Brimball Avenue west of Route 128 9,600 10,100 10,884 10,868 1,291 1,358 1,464 1,461
2 900 Brimball Avenue east of Route 128 17,200 20,600 22,462 22,425 2,932 3,511 3,829 3,822
3 700 Brimball Avenue east of Connector Road 15,700 16,800 17,976 17,952 2,081 2,227 2,383 2,380
4 675 Connector Road 10,900 13,400 15,458 15,417 1,393 1,713 1,976 1,971
5 1,135 Sohier Road east of Connector Road 9,100 13,000 13,784 13,768 1,956 2,795 2,963 2,960
6 800 Sohier Road west of Connector Road 11,600 13,400 14,478 14,456 1,758 2,030 2,194 2,190

11,411 13,635 14,808 14,785


*Mitigationassumesan2%reductioninthetotalproject-generatedtrafficduetotheimplementationofproposedTransporationDemandManagement(TDM).
VehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)intheMesoscaleStudyArea
TABLEB-1

VMT(miles/day):
VehicleMilesTraveled(VMT)
(miles/day)
BeverlyRetailDevelopment
TechEnvironmental,Inc. 3818MesoSpreadsheets,CO2 8/24/2014
MOBILE6.2
CO2 VehicleMilesTraveled(VMT) MesoscaleCO2Emissions
EmissionRate (miles/day) (kg/day)
(gram/mile)
Link 2021 2021 2021 2021
2014 2021 FullBuild FullBuild 2014 2021 FullBuild FullBuild
I.D. 2014 2021 Existing No-Build w/omitigation w/mitigation* Existing No-Build w/omitigation w/mitigation*
1 550.40 550.40 1,291 1,358 1,464 1,461 710.5 747.5 805.5 804.4
2 550.40 550.40 2,932 3,511 3,829 3,822 1,613.7 1,932.7 2,107.3 2,103.9
3 550.40 550.40 2,081 2,227 2,383 2,380 1,145.6 1,225.9 1,311.7 1,310.0
4 550.40 550.40 1,393 1,713 1,976 1,971 767.0 942.9 1,087.7 1,084.8
5 550.40 550.40 1,956 2,795 2,963 2,960 1,076.7 1,538.1 1,630.9 1,629.0
6 550.40 550.40 1,758 2,030 2,194 2,190 967.4 1,117.5 1,207.4 1,205.6
TotalDailyCO
2
Emissions
(kg/day): 6,280.81 7,504.52 8,150.51 8,137.59

*Mitigationassumesan2%reductioninprojecttripsduetoTDMs.
TABLEB-2
MesoscaleStudyArea
TotalDailyVolatileOrganicCompound(CO
2
)Emissions
BeverlyRetailDevelopment
APPENDIX C

PV COST CALCULATIONS
SPREADSHEETS














C-1
Commonwealth Solar Rebate Program 2008 Version 3.0
Key Scenario Definitions
Entry Cells Scenario A: Non-Taxable Rebate - Assumes that the state rebate is non-taxable, but is subtracted from the cost basis for purposes of determining tax credits and accelerated depreciation.
Cells Draw Data from Another Worksheet
Calculation Cells (Not for Entry) Scenario B: Taxable Rebate - Assumes that the state rebate is taxable, but is not subtracted from the cost basis for purposes of determining tax credits and accelerated depreciation.
Both Scenarios assume that the project owner can use both federal and state tax benefits
Select Taxable or Non-Taxable Entity Taxable Taxable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Non-Taxable Tax Assumptions
Project and Customer Cost Assumptions Federal TaxRate 35%
Solar Photovoltaic SystemSize 200,000 Watts (DC STC) State TaxRate 10%
Total SystemCost/Watt 4.780 $ $/Watt (DC STC) Effective TaxRate 42%
Total SystemCost 956,000.00 $ Federal TaxCredit 30%
State TaxDeduction 100%
MTC Rebate Assumptions 5 Year Accelerated Depreciation Schedule (MACRS) 20.00% 32.00% 19.20% 11.52% 11.52% 5.76%
Rebate$ per/Watt - $ $/Watt (DC STC) Depreciation 20.00% 32.00% 19.20% 11.52% 11.52% 5.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total Rebate - $ Asset Basis
Gross Cost 956,000 $
Rebate - $
Less 50%of Federal TaxCredit (143,400) $
Project Performance and Savings/ Cost Assumptions
Annual Net CapacityFactor 11.8% kW (DC STC) to kWh AC Asset Basis 812,600 $
Annual Production Degradation 0.50% % Financing Assumptions
Project Life 25 Years %Financed w/ Cash 100% Cash
Depreciation Life 20 Years %Financed w/ Loan 0%
ElectricityRevenue (Avoided Costs) 0.15 $ $/kWh Loan Interest Rate 9.00% Loan
ElectricityRevenue (Avoided Costs) Annual Adjustor 3.0% % Loan Period 20 Years (must be equal to or less than project life)
Renewable EnergyCertificate (REC) Revenue 0.206 $ $/kWh Net Cost 956,000 $
REC Revenue Annual Adjustor 0.0% % Loan - $
REC Revenue Term 10 Years (must be equal to or less than project life) Customer Discount Rate 7.00%
Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost Factor 17.59 $ $/kW/Year
Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost 3,518 $ $/Year
Annual Operations and Maintenance Adjustor 3.0% % Solar Project Financial Analysis Summary
Future Inverter Replacement Cost 0.75 $ $/Watt (DC STC) Net Present Value (25,739) $
Inverter Life, Replace EveryX Years 10 Year (must be equal to or less than project life) Simple Payback (100%Cash only) Year 8
Estimated Return on Equity 6.2%
Scenario A: Guess Return on Equity 10%
Start-Up Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
Project Output 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Annual Generation (kWh) 206,736 205,702 204,674 203,650 202,632 201,619 200,611 199,608 198,610 197,617 196,629 195,646 194,667 193,694 192,726 191,762 190,803 189,849 188,900 187,955 187,016 186,080 185,150 184,224 183,303
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
INCOME STATEMENT
ElectricityRevenue (Avoided Cost) 31,010 $ 31,781 $ 32,571 $ 33,380 $ 34,210 $ 35,060 $ 35,931 $ 36,824 $ 37,739 $ 38,677 $ 39,638 $ 40,623 $ 41,632 $ 42,667 $ 43,727 $ 44,814 $ 45,927 $ 47,069 $ 48,238 $ 49,437 $ 50,666 $ 51,925 $ 53,215 $ 54,537 $ 55,893 $
MTC Rebate - $
REC Revenue 42,588 $ 42,375 $ 42,163 $ 41,952 $ 41,742 $ 41,534 $ 41,326 $ 41,119 $ 40,914 $ 40,709 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Revenue (Avoided Costs) - $ 73,598 $ 74,156 $ 74,734 $ 75,332 $ 75,952 $ 76,593 $ 77,257 $ 77,943 $ 78,653 $ 79,386 $ 39,638 $ 40,623 $ 41,632 $ 42,667 $ 43,727 $ 44,814 $ 45,927 $ 47,069 $ 48,238 $ 49,437 $ 50,666 $ 51,925 $ 53,215 $ 54,537 $ 55,893 $
Replace Inverter? No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No
Operations &Maintenance Costs (3,518) $ (3,624) $ (3,732) $ (3,844) $ (3,960) $ (4,078) $ (4,201) $ (4,327) $ (4,456) $ (4,590) $ (4,728) $ (4,870) $ (5,016) $ (5,166) $ (5,321) $ (5,481) $ (5,645) $ (5,815) $ (5,989) $ (6,169) $ (6,354) $ (6,545) $ (6,741) $ (6,943) $ (7,151) $
Inverter Replacement Cost - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (150,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (150,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Total Operating Expenses - $ (3,518) $ (3,624) $ (3,732) $ (3,844) $ (3,960) $ (4,078) $ (4,201) $ (4,327) $ (4,456) $ (154,590) $ (4,728) $ (4,870) $ (5,016) $ (5,166) $ (5,321) $ (5,481) $ (5,645) $ (5,815) $ (5,989) $ (156,169) $ (6,354) $ (6,545) $ (6,741) $ (6,943) $ (7,151) $
EBITDA - $ 70,080 $ 70,532 $ 71,001 $ 71,488 $ 71,992 $ 72,515 $ 73,056 $ 73,616 $ 74,196 $ (75,204) $ 34,910 $ 35,753 $ 36,617 $ 37,501 $ 38,406 $ 39,333 $ 40,282 $ 41,254 $ 42,249 $ (106,732) $ 44,312 $ 45,380 $ 46,474 $ 47,594 $ 48,741 $
Federal Depreciation Expense (162,520) $ (260,032) $ (156,019) $ (93,612) $ (93,612) $ (46,806) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
EBIT - $ (92,440) $ (189,500) $ (85,018) $ (22,124) $ (21,619) $ 25,709 $ 73,056 $ 73,616 $ 74,196 $ (75,204) $ 34,910 $ 35,753 $ 36,617 $ 37,501 $ 38,406 $ 39,333 $ 40,282 $ 41,254 $ 42,249 $ (106,732) $ 44,312 $ 45,380 $ 46,474 $ 47,594 $ 48,741 $
Interest Expense - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
EBT - $ (92,440) $ (189,500) $ (85,018) $ (22,124) $ (21,619) $ 25,709 $ 73,056 $ 73,616 $ 74,196 $ (75,204) $ 34,910 $ 35,753 $ 36,617 $ 37,501 $ 38,406 $ 39,333 $ 40,282 $ 41,254 $ 42,249 $ (106,732) $ 44,312 $ 45,380 $ 46,474 $ 47,594 $ 48,741 $
Federal taxes saved/(paid) - $ 34,807 $ 68,794 $ 32,241 $ 10,245 $ 10,086 $ (6,460) $ (23,013) $ (23,189) $ (23,372) $ 26,322 $ (10,997) $ (11,262) $ (11,534) $ (11,813) $ (12,098) $ (12,390) $ (12,689) $ (12,995) $ (13,309) $ 37,356 $ (13,958) $ (14,295) $ (14,639) $ (14,992) $ (15,354) $
State taxes saved/(paid) [can not deduct federal depreciation expense] - $ (7,008) $ (7,053) $ (7,100) $ (7,149) $ (7,199) $ (7,251) $ (7,306) $ (7,362) $ (7,420) $ 7,520 $ (3,491) $ (3,575) $ (3,662) $ (3,750) $ (3,841) $ (3,933) $ (4,028) $ (4,125) $ (4,225) $ 10,673 $ (4,431) $ (4,538) $ (4,647) $ (4,759) $ (4,874) $
Net Income - $ (64,641) $ (127,759) $ (59,877) $ (19,027) $ (18,732) $ 11,998 $ 42,738 $ 43,066 $ 43,405 $ (41,362) $ 20,422 $ 20,916 $ 21,421 $ 21,938 $ 22,467 $ 23,010 $ 23,565 $ 24,134 $ 24,716 $ (58,702) $ 25,922 $ 26,547 $ 27,187 $ 27,843 $ 28,514 $
CASH FLOWSTATEMENT
Cash From Operations
Net Income - $ (64,641) $ (127,759) $ (59,877) $ (19,027) $ (18,732) $ 11,998 $ 42,738 $ 43,066 $ 43,405 $ (41,362) $ 20,422 $ 20,916 $ 21,421 $ 21,938 $ 22,467 $ 23,010 $ 23,565 $ 24,134 $ 24,716 $ (58,702) $ 25,922 $ 26,547 $ 27,187 $ 27,843 $ 28,514 $
Federal Depreciation Expense - $ 162,520 $ 260,032 $ 156,019 $ 93,612 $ 93,612 $ 46,806 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Cash FlowFromOperations - $ 97,879 $ 132,273 $ 96,142 $ 74,584 $ 74,880 $ 58,803 $ 42,738 $ 43,066 $ 43,405 $ (41,362) $ 20,422 $ 20,916 $ 21,421 $ 21,938 $ 22,467 $ 23,010 $ 23,565 $ 24,134 $ 24,716 $ (58,702) $ 25,922 $ 26,547 $ 27,187 $ 27,843 $ 28,514 $
Cash From Investing
Installed PV Cost (956,000) $
One Time State Solar Investment TaxDeduction (Actual Cash Value) 66,920 $
One Time Federal Solar Investment TaxCredit 286,800 $
Cash FlowFromInvesting (602,280) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Cash From Financing
Loan Disbursement - $
Loan Repayment (Principle) - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Cash FlowFromFinancing - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Annual Cash Flow (602,280) $ 97,879 $ 132,273 $ 96,142 $ 74,584 $ 74,880 $ 58,803 $ 42,738 $ 43,066 $ 43,405 $ (41,362) $ 20,422 $ 20,916 $ 21,421 $ 21,938 $ 22,467 $ 23,010 $ 23,565 $ 24,134 $ 24,716 $ (58,702) $ 25,922 $ 26,547 $ 27,187 $ 27,843 $ 28,514 $
Cumulative Cash Flow (602,280) $ (504,401) $ (372,129) $ (275,986) $ (201,402) $ (126,522) $ (67,719) $ (24,981) $ 18,085 $ 61,489 $ 20,127 $ 40,549 $ 61,465 $ 82,885 $ 104,823 $ 127,291 $ 150,301 $ 173,866 $ 197,999 $ 222,715 $ 164,012 $ 189,935 $ 216,482 $ 243,670 $ 271,512 $ 300,026 $
Simple Payback 1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 6 $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 $ 12 $ 13 $ 14 $ 15 $ 16 $ 17 $ 18 $ 19 $ 20 $ 21 $ 22 $ 23 $ 24 $ 25 $
Net Investment (602,280) $ (504,401) $ (372,129) $ (275,986) $ (201,402) $ (126,522) $ (67,719) $ (24,981) $ 18,085 $ 61,489 $ 20,127 $ 40,549 $ 61,465 $ 82,885 $ 104,823 $ 127,291 $ 150,301 $ 173,866 $ 197,999 $ 222,715 $ 164,012 $ 189,935 $ 216,482 $ 243,670 $ 271,512 $ 300,026 $
Simple Payback Year 8 8
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
Scenario A Loan: Debt Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Beginning Balance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Debt Service - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Principle - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Interest - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Ending Balance - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
Finally, neither the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts makes any representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned property rights and assumes no liability of any kind or nature
for any loss, injury, or damage directly or indirectly resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this Unofficial Cash Flow Model.
Disclaimer: This Unofficial Cash Flow Model is intended to provide non-residential entities that are considering the purchase and installation of solar energy equipment with a general understanding of possible financial implications of such purchase and installation. Those entities interested in learning
more about the financial implications of the purchase and installation of solar energy equipment are urged to consult their own tax and financial experts. The information contained in the Unofficial Cash Flow Model may not be relied on by anyone for any purposes. Furthermore, the information
contained in this model does not necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and reference to any specific method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Neither the Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts make any warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this model.
Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Project Simple Financial Model (posted 4/06/09) - SREC Guaranteed Price
PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION
DEBT SCHEDULES
DATA ENTRY AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY - MassCEC Avg. Installed Cost for Commercial 100+MW Projects (Owner Installed)
Disclaimer: This Unofficial Cash Flow Model is intended to provide non-residential entities that are considering the purchase and installation of solar energy equipment with a general understanding of
possible financial implications of such purchase and installation. Those entities interested in learning more about the financial implications of the purchase and installation of solar energy equipment are
urged to consult their own tax and financial experts. The information contained in the Unofficial Cash Flow Model may not be relied on by anyone for any purposes. Furthermore, the information contained
in this model does not necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and reference to any specific method does not constitute an
implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Neither the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts make any warranties or representations,
expressed or implied, as to the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this model. Finally, neither the
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts makes any representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other
information will not infringe privately owned property rights and assumes no liability of any kind or nature for any loss, injury, or damage directly or indirectly resulting from, or
occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this Unofficial Cash Flow Model.
PV Calc UsingMarch2014 InstalledCosts 1
MARPSID#
NEPOOLGIS
AssetID#
Memberof
Aggregation
Applicant
Entity
GenerationUnit
Name
FacilityType City/Town ZipCode
Namepla
te
Capacity
(kW)
RPSEffective
Date*
Commercial
Operation
Date
SQDate Installer
Total
Installation
Costs
Installation
CostperWatt
PV203310 NON33072 Aggregated
SolarFarmBank
LLC
SolarFarmBank
SolarHarvest
Industrial Worcester 01603 200.330 1/11/2012 1/11/2012 3/15/2012 USSolarWorks $967,043.00 $4.83
PV202510 NON34033 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
23DrydockAvenue Industrial Boston 02210 199.650 7/1/2011 2/14/2012 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$1,917,192.00 $9.60
PV202510 NON34034 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
25DrydockAvenue Industrial Boston 02210 199.650 7/1/2011 2/14/2012 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$1,917,192.00 $9.60
PV205111 NON33189 Aggregated
BCCSolarEnergy
Advantage,Inc.
BCCMassSREC
Aggregation
Other Boston 02118 198.450 4/22/2011 4/22/2011 4/4/2011 Nexamp,Inc. $1,099,736.00 $5.54
PV200210 NON33997 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. 4M9AldrinLLC Commercial/Office Plymouth 02345 198.440 2/7/2012 2/7/2012 6/18/2012 CotuitSolarLLC $1,012,175.00 $5.10
PV200210 NON34168 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
VictoriaRiverside
LLCVictoria
RiversideLLC
Commercial/Office NewBedford 02746 198.000 1/1/2012 11/16/2011 6/7/2012
NationalElectric
ContractingInc.
$1,050,000.00 $5.30
PV201610 NON36392 Aggregated
CleanAsset
PartnersCorp.
Teradyne500 Industrial NorthReading 01864 197.945 1/1/2013 11/21/2012 3/12/2013
AbsoluteGreen
Energy
$695,830.00 $3.52
PV211112 NON33199 Aggregated GLC
BostonCollegeHigh
School
School(K12) Boston 02125 197.340 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 8/21/2013
BorregoSolar
Systems,Inc.
$976,833.00 $4.95
PV206311 NON33502 NonAggregated
Solventerra
WesternAvenue,
LLC
WesternAve Commercial/Office Lowell 01851 197.340 9/1/2011 9/1/2011 10/4/2011
FallRiverElectrical
Associates
$903,411.00 $4.58
PV200210 NON33406 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
EasternAvenue
HoldingsLLC
ChelseaSolarProject
Commercial/Office Chelsea 02150 197.340 1/6/2011 1/6/2011 7/1/2011 D&DElectric $1,100,000.00 $5.57
PV200210 NON34360 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
HydeParkStorage
L.P.
Commercial/Office Boston 02136 196.560 5/1/2012 5/1/2012 8/10/2012 AscendantEnergy $782,000.00 $3.98
PV200210 NON37315 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. 5ShawmutSolarLLC Commercial/Office Canton 02021 194.700 7/19/2013 7/19/2013 7/23/2013
YoungElectric
ServiceInc./Green
PowerDevelopers
LLC
$712,080.00 $3.66
PV201810 NON32990 NonAggregated
IRTCapital
CorporationII
EQYWebsterSolar Retail Webster 01570 194.480 9/9/2010 9/9/2010 8/3/2010 BlueSpruceSolar $962,676.00 $4.95
PV200210 NON33425 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. HowlandPlace Commercial/Office NewBedford 02744 194.350 4/7/2011 4/7/2011 8/16/2011
MunroDistribution
Co.
$961,369.00 $4.95
PV212512 NON34461 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc.
WalthamMunicipal
Center
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Waltham 02452 193.200 5/29/2012 5/29/2012 9/7/2012 Ameresco $1,150,000.00 $5.95
PV212512 NON35190 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. MiltonAcademy School(K12) Milton 02186 192.270 8/10/2012 8/10/2012 11/9/2012 Ameresco $816,400.00 $4.25
PV200210 NON37563 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. FMCIceSports Commercial/Office Raynham 02767 189.475 6/21/2013 6/21/2013 7/23/2013
MunroDistribution
Co.
$415,000.00 $2.19
PV200210 NON35706 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
RoofMountBody
Shop
Commercial/Office Taunton 02780 187.915 10/1/2012 9/11/2012 1/9/2013 InmanSolarLLC $626,875.00 $3.34
PV206811 NON33461 Aggregated
RANE(Rural
Aggregatorsof
NewEngland)
WinterMoonFarm Agricultural Hatfield 01038 187.200 12/3/2012 12/3/2012 1/9/2013
NorthEastSolar
DesignAssociates
$789,939.57 $4.22
PV203410 NON33865 Aggregated SolSystemsLLC
SRSBelmontHill
SolarLLCMAPV
186.12kWFacility
Commercial/Office Belmont 02478 186.120 1/17/2012 1/17/2012 3/15/2012 SolarRoofSystems $1,080,000.00 $5.80
PV201710 NON36184 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
BayCoast185.6 Commercial/Office Swansea 02777 185.600 12/7/2012 12/7/2012 3/12/2013
Southcoast
GreenlightEnergy
$1,001,920.00 $5.40
PV201710 NON34645 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
LukeMarket Commercial/Office Yarmouth 02673 183.610 8/20/2010 8/20/2010 4/4/2011 BeaumontSolarCo. $1,285,270.00 $7.00
PV218813 NON36502 NonAggregated EcoMarketsLLC 2700Wayland,MA Retail Wayland 01778 181.830 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 3/12/2013
AlterisRenewables
dbaRGSEnergy
$552,466.00 $3.04
PV201710 NON36909 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
BaysideResort Commercial/Office Yarmouth 02763 181.720 4/23/2013 4/23/2013 7/23/2013 BeaumontSolarCo. $412,500.00 $2.27
PV200210 NON33118 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. FlagshipSelfStorage Commercial/Office Mashpee 02649 181.470 11/22/2010 11/22/2010 3/14/2011
MyGeneration
Energy,Inc.
$1,151,502.00 $6.35
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Winthrop 02152 180.600 1/1/2011 3/1/2010 7/6/2011 YESElectrical $1,119,000.00 $6.20
PV200210 NON36663 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
RaynhamFlea
Market
Commercial/Office Raynham 02767 180.245 2/28/2013 2/28/2013 5/10/2013
MunroDistribution
Co.
$712,000.00 $3.95
PV200210 NON35316 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. LittleEnterprises Commercial/Office Ipswich 01938 175.175 8/31/2012 8/31/2012 10/9/2012
INOElectrical
Services
$607,851.00 $3.47
PV202510 NON33710 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
TownofLeicester
HighSchool
School(K12) Leicester 01524 172.480 7/1/2011 11/22/2011 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$991,800.00 $5.75
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Northborough 01532 171.080 4/1/2012 7/3/2012 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $754,198.00 $4.41
PV202510 NON34032 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
21DrydockAvenue Industrial Boston 02210 169.400 7/1/2011 2/14/2012 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$1,285,577.00 $7.59
PV220013 NON36402 Aggregated SafariEnergy,LLC FRITQueenAnne Retail Norwell Pending 168.070 7/24/2013 7/24/2013 4/17/2013 SafariEnergy,LLC $522,697.70 $3.11
PV200210 NON36925 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
MARTWaterStPV
Array
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Fitchburg 01420 168.000 2/10/2013 2/10/2013 7/23/2013
FallRiverElectrical
Associates
$474,971.00 $2.83
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Danvers 01923 165.495 5/22/2013 5/22/2013 7/23/2013 1stLightEnergy $616,410.00 $3.72
PV201710 NON36814 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
Shemesh Commercial/Office Worcester 01604 165.360 8/20/2013 8/20/2013 6/25/2013 SouthPoint,LLC $503,750.00 $3.05
PV204311 NON33091 Aggregated
TurningMill
EnergyLLC
TMEAGCapeCod Commercial/Office Quincy 02169 164.500 4/9/2013 4/9/2013 6/25/2013
TurningMillEnergy,
LLC
$515,185.00 $3.13
PV205411 NON33251 Aggregated
Mattapoisett
Solarpower,Inc.
Mattapoisett
Solarpower
Commercial/Office Mattapoisett 02739 162.250 3/25/2011 3/25/2011 5/16/2011 SolarInstallationLLC $692,400.00 $4.27
PV212512 NON34147 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. FallRiver School(K12) FallRiver 02724 161.915 1/1/2012 12/21/2011 6/7/2012 Ameresco $666,460.00 $4.12
PV206111 NON33376 Aggregated
BlackcombSolar
LLC
705PlantationSolar Commercial/Office Worcester 01605 160.875 5/21/2011 5/21/2011 7/1/2011 TectaSolar $592,695.00 $3.68
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Norfolk 02056 154.600 3/21/2011 3/21/2011 4/4/2011
J.F.White
ContractingCo.
$936,200.00 $6.06
PV211312 NON33977 NonAggregated
WestonSolutions,
Inc.
WestonSolutions
DartmouthReSolve
Industrial Dartmouth 02747 151.340 2/21/2012 2/21/2012 6/7/2012
GehrlicherSolar
AmericaCorporation
$800,000.00 $5.29
PV202510 NON32896 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
HurleyWire&Cable
Readville#1
Industrial Boston 02136 150.920 1/1/2011 12/8/2011 11/9/2010
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$1,050,000.00 $6.96
PV202510 NON32895 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
HurleyWire&Cable
Boston#1
Industrial Boston 02119 150.920 1/1/2011 12/8/2011 10/1/2010
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$847,000.00 $5.61
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Saugus 01906 149.695 6/27/2012 6/27/2012 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $681,128.00 $4.55
PV218413 NON38891 Aggregated
Invaleon
Technologies
Corp.
Pending Commercial/Office Plymouth 02360 149.170 12/19/2013 12/19/2013 7/23/2013
Invaleon
Technologies
Corporation
$325,000.00 $2.18
PV200210 NON33790 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
Bridgewater
Recycling
Bridgewater
Recycling
Commercial/Office Bridgewater 02324 148.740 12/16/2011 12/16/2011 1/25/2012
INOElectrical
Services
$685,000.00 $4.61
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
College/University Salem 01970 147.800 4/12/2012 4/12/2012 6/7/2012
OstrowElectric
Company
$658,886.00 $4.46
PV201710 NON35611 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
McCollester Commercial/Office NewBedford 02745 147.200 7/1/2012 3/16/2012 12/7/2012 BeaumontSolarCo. $470,000.00 $3.19
PV202510 NON33456 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
St.Mary'sHigh
School
School(K12) Lynn 01902 146.510 6/21/2011 6/21/2011 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$842,500.00 $5.75
PV207411 NON33526 Aggregated
Hampshire
Councilof
Governments
HampshireSREC Industrial Greenfield 01301 146.250 12/12/2012 10/22/2012 2/8/2013
NorthEastSolar
DesignAssociates
$468,912.00 $3.21
PV200210 NON37295 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. TwinBoysLLC Commercial/Office Freetown 02702 143.000 8/8/2013 8/8/2013 7/23/2013
INOElectrical
Services
$390,000.00 $2.73
PV201110 NON32975 NonAggregated
TectaAmerica
NewEnglandLLC
PearsonVenture
InvestmentsTecta
Solar
Commercial/Office Billerica 01862 142.560 6/24/2010 6/24/2010 6/4/2010 TectaSolar $643,500.00 $4.51
PV200210 NON33128 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. AnchorSelfStorage Commercial/Office Mashpee 02649 140.760 10/20/2010 10/20/2010 3/14/2011
MyGeneration
Energy,Inc.
$988,000.00 $7.02
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Plainville 02762 140.530 4/1/2012 9/7/2012 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $660,965.00 $4.70
PV200210 NON33150 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
HillsideSchool
Classroom,ACAD,
Health
School(K12) Marlborough 01752 140.530 3/8/2011 3/8/2011 3/14/2011 SunBugSolar $882,000.00 $6.28
PV200210 NON34110 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. MBOPrecast Commercial/Office Carver 02330 139.230 3/15/2012 3/15/2012 6/7/2012
MunroDistribution
Co.
$442,000.00 $3.17
PV200210 NON36959 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. FSCIFSCI Commercial/Office Fairhaven 02719 137.475 1/16/2013 1/16/2013 7/23/2013
Souza&Branco
Electric
$428,354.00 $3.12
PV212512 NON34462 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. WalthamSchools School(K12) Waltham 02451 135.900 7/10/2012 7/10/2012 11/9/2012 Ameresco $492,600.00 $3.62
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Springfield 01107 129.360 3/12/2012 3/12/2012 6/7/2012
OstrowElectric
Company
$914,746.00 $7.07
PV200210 NON35303 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. SLTConstruction2 Commercial/Office Carver 02330 128.520 8/27/2012 8/27/2012 10/9/2012
MunroDistribution
Co.
$384,875.00 $2.99
PV201710 NON34833 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
DedhamHighSchool
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Dedham 02026 128.310 8/2/2011 8/2/2011 12/12/2011
J.F.White
ContractingCo.
$680,296.97 $5.30
PV200210 NON33401 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
Crowley
ManagementCorp.
Commercial/Office Leominster 01453 128.100 3/29/2011 3/29/2011 7/1/2011 SunBugSolar $600,000.00 $4.68
PV200210 NON35109 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
VineyardPower
SolarIILLC
Commercial/Office Tisbury 02568 128.000 8/9/2012 8/9/2012 10/9/2012
SouthMountain
Company,Inc.
$514,432.13 $4.02
PV202410 NON33042 Aggregated SunDialLLC FallonAmbulance Commercial/Office Quincy 02169 127.400 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 1/9/2013
SecondGeneration
EnergyLLC
$388,728.00 $3.05
PV200210 NON34207 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
CreedonandCo.
CreedonandCo.
Commercial/Office Worcester 01604 126.730 5/4/2012 5/4/2012 6/18/2012 SolarFlairEnergy,Inc. $620,129.31 $4.89
PV200210 NON37443 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. ECaligari&SonInc. Commercial/Office Lenox 01240 125.280 4/24/2013 4/24/2013 7/23/2013 KRNContractors,LLC $388,399.00 $3.10
PV201710 NON36144 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
Callahan,Inc. Commercial/Office Bridgewater 02324 124.800 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 3/12/2013 BeaumontSolarCo. $411,840.00 $3.30
PV206811 NON33461 Aggregated
RANE(Rural
Aggregatorsof
NewEngland)
WinterMoonFarm
Multifamily
residential
WestSpringfield 01089 124.800 7/12/2012 7/12/2012 8/10/2012 AtlasElectric $682,760.00 $5.47
PV212012 NON35807 Aggregated RevolutionEnergy
LeominsterBanner
Mold
Industrial Leominster 01453 123.500 2/21/2013 2/21/2013 5/10/2013 DynamicSolar,LLC $648,377.00 $5.25
PV201710 NON34599 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
CircleFinishing Commercial/Office Newburyport 01950 123.200 12/3/2010 12/3/2010 1/3/2011 SolarMarket $985,600.00 $8.00
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Somerville 02143 122.200 4/1/2012 1/28/2013 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $557,400.00 $4.56
PV200210 NON33123 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
HarborBlueSeafood
I
Commercial/Office Fairhaven 02719 121.275 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 4/4/2011 BeaumontSolarCo. $352,705.00 $2.91
PV201710 NON36246 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
Imtra Commercial/Office NewBedford 02745 121.030 12/5/2012 12/5/2012 3/12/2013 BeaumontSolarCo. $387,296.00 $3.20
PV200210 NON33503 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. MBL Commercial/Office Falmouth 02536 119.850 7/18/2011 7/18/2011 8/16/2011
MyGeneration
Energy,Inc.
$750,000.00 $6.26
PV201610 NON37957 Aggregated
CleanAsset
PartnersCorp.
400FrontageRoad
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Boston 02118 119.340 4/1/2013 12/7/2012 7/23/2013 DagleElectric $938,250.00 $7.86
PV201610 NON37503 Aggregated
CleanAsset
PartnersCorp.
CowlsBuilding
Supply
Commercial/Office Amherst 01002 118.950 10/22/2013 10/22/2013 7/23/2013
PioneerValley
Photovoltaics
Cooperative
$377,412.00 $3.17
PV200210 NON34077 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. SEISolarGroup Commercial/Office FallRiver 02721 116.610 3/15/2012 3/15/2012 6/7/2012
MunroDistribution
Co.
$729,270.00 $6.25
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Foxborough 02035 116.325 4/1/2012 3/5/2013 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $530,963.00 $4.56
PV212512 NON34150 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. NatickII School(K12) Natick 01760 116.090 1/1/2012 12/28/2011 6/7/2012 Ameresco $483,325.00 $4.16
PV201710 NON34738 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
RDMatthews Commercial/Office Hanover 02339 116.090 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 8/16/2011 AcerEnergy $536,237.20 $4.62
PV242613 NON37002 NonAggregated
RamsayWelding
&Fabrication,Inc.
RamsayWelding&
Fabrication,Inc.
Industrial Woburn 01801 115.440 5/10/2013 5/14/2013 8/21/2013
VanguardEnergy
Partners,LLC
$595,567.59 $5.16
PV200210 NON35707 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
RoofMountRecon
Bldg
Commercial/Office Dighton 02764 114.660 10/1/2012 9/14/2012 1/9/2013 InmanSolarLLC $382,500.00 $3.34
PV227013 NON38920 Aggregated HeliovaasLLC NewtonSchools School(K12) Newton 02459 113.750 12/31/2013 12/31/2013 7/23/2013 Ameresco $463,000.00 $4.07
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Bridgewater 02324 112.900 1/28/2010 1/28/2010 9/20/2010
SolarDesign
Associates,LLC
$810,000.00 $7.17
PV201710 NON34913 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
Precise112 Commercial/Office FallRiver 02720 112.320 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 3/15/2012 KWManagement $519,700.00 $4.63
PV200210 NON33335 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. AeroManufacturing Commercial/Office Beverly 01915 111.720 1/6/2011 1/6/2011 9/20/2013 Nexamp,Inc. $562,276.00 $5.03
PV200210 NON33967 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. Richey&Clapper Industrial Sudbury 01776 111.650 2/21/2012 2/21/2012 2/19/2014 Nexamp,Inc. $448,833.00 $4.02
PV212512 NON34147 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. FallRiver
Municipal/
Government/
Public
FallRiver 02720 111.475 1/1/2012 12/28/2011 6/7/2012 Ameresco $458,770.00 $4.12
PV201610 NON35537 Aggregated
CleanAsset
PartnersCorp.
MassMutual
Corporate
Headquarters
Commercial/Office Springfield 01111 111.370 8/11/2010 8/11/2010 1/19/2011
AbsoluteGreen
Energy
$805,000.00 $7.23
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
College/University Pittsfield 01201 110.880 7/27/2011 7/27/2011 9/30/2011
OstrowElectric
Company
$360,000.00 $3.25
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
College/University Brockton 02302 110.880 7/1/2011 7/1/2011 9/30/2011
OstrowElectric
Company
$279,089.50 $2.52
PV202510 NON33709 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
TownofLeicester
PrimarySchool
School(K12) Leicester 01524 110.880 7/1/2011 11/9/2011 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$637,600.00 $5.75
PV205111 NON33189 Aggregated
BCCSolarEnergy
Advantage,Inc.
BCCMassSREC
Aggregation
School(K12) Warren 01083 110.250 3/24/2011 3/24/2011 4/4/2011 Nexamp,Inc. $570,515.00 $5.17
PV205111 NON33189 Aggregated
BCCSolarEnergy
Advantage,Inc.
BCCMassSREC
Aggregation
School(K12) Warren 01083 110.250 4/12/2011 4/12/2011 4/4/2011 Nexamp,Inc. $641,165.00 $5.82
PV200210 NON33124 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
SuburbanAthletic
Club
Commercial/Office Framingham 01702 110.240 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 3/14/2011 SolarFlairEnergy,Inc. $703,738.00 $6.38
PV204511 NON33192 Aggregated
Constellation
Solar
Massachusetts,
LLC
GilletteStadium
PatriotPlace
Commercial/Office Foxborough 02035 108.240 7/19/2010 7/19/2010 3/14/2011
HegartyandSons
Electrical
$680,699.00 $6.29
PV230113 NON38297 NonAggregated Pearson
Amherst
Development
Commercial/Office Hadley 01035 108.160 4/1/2013 12/28/2012 7/23/2013
AbsoluteGreen
Energy
$494,650.00 $4.57
PV225613 NON36466 NonAggregated
AmoryStreet
EnergyVentures,
Inc.
BreweryBuildingM
PV
Commercial/Office Boston 02130 107.583 1/1/2013 12/21/2012 5/10/2013
LighthouseElectrical
Contracting,Inc.
$513,100.00 $4.77
PV205111 NON33189 Aggregated
BCCSolarEnergy
Advantage,Inc.
BCCMassSREC
Aggregation
School(K12) WestBrookfield 01585 107.100 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 4/4/2011 Nexamp,Inc. $575,025.00 $5.37
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Norfolk 02056 106.700 1/1/2010 6/18/2009 9/20/2010
J.F.White
ContractingCo.
$790,000.00 $7.40
PV206411 NON33677 NonAggregated
Cityof
Northampton
SVAHS106kW School(K12) Northampton 01060 106.600 8/12/2011 8/12/2011 8/16/2011
FallRiverElectrical
Associates
$464,361.00 $4.36
PV201710 NON34581 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
BancroftSolar School(K12) Worcester 01605 106.260 11/2/2010 11/2/2010 11/9/2010
Professional
ElectricalContractors
ofCT
$663,500.00 $6.24
PV202510 NON33460 Aggregated
BroadwayElectric
Co.Inc.
TownofLunenburg
TurkeyHillMiddle
School
School(K12) Lunenburg 01462 106.150 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 4/4/2011
BroadwayRenewable
Strategies
$602,200.00 $5.67
PV200210 NON35102 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
MetroWest
ProvisionLLC
Commercial/Office Hopedale 01747 106.080 7/24/2012 7/24/2012 10/9/2012
MunroDistribution
Co.
$333,064.00 $3.14
PV200210 NON34209 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. LyonAviation Commercial/Office Pittsfield 01201 106.080 5/3/2012 5/3/2012 6/18/2012 KRNContractors,LLC $395,571.00 $3.73
PV227013 NON37877 Aggregated HeliovaasLLC
LibertyStLibertySt
Solar
Commercial/Office Springfield 01104 105.600 Pending NotOperational 7/23/2013 HeliovaasLLC $450,000.00 $4.26
PV212012 NON35385 Aggregated RevolutionEnergy BostonISBCC Religious Boston 02120 105.000 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 7/23/2013 NuWattEnergy,LLC $440,000.00 $4.19
PV200210 NON36426 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. JJFKRealtyTrust Commercial/Office Weymouth 02189 104.780 2/8/2013 2/8/2013 3/12/2013
MunroDistribution
Co.
$284,800.00 $2.72
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Weymouth 02189 103.870 4/1/2012 8/1/2012 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $474,915.00 $4.57
PV201610 NON36030 Aggregated
CleanAsset
PartnersCorp.
CapeAir Commercial/Office Barnstable 02601 103.840 11/8/2012 11/8/2012 2/8/2013
AlterisRenewables
dbaRGSEnergy
$353,279.00 $3.40
PV206011 NON33298 NonAggregated Ameresco,Inc. BridgewaterState College/University Bridgewater 02325 103.488 5/19/2011 5/19/2011 7/1/2011 Ameresco $745,000.00 $7.20
PV200210 NON34364 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
MunroDistributing
Co,Inc
Commercial/Office Raynham 02767 103.400 4/27/2012 4/27/2012 8/10/2012
MunroDistribution
Co.
$447,000.00 $4.32
PV212512 NON34150 Aggregated Ameresco,Inc. NatickII School(K12) Natick 01760 103.400 1/1/2012 12/21/2011 6/7/2012 Ameresco $430,450.00 $4.16
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Walpole 02071 103.040 7/12/2011 7/12/2011 4/4/2011
J.F.White
ContractingCo.
$549,970.00 $5.34
PV202210 NON32888 Aggregated Nexant,Inc.
MADCAMSolar
DCAMSRECs
Municipal/
Government/
Public
Concord 01742 103.030 12/3/2010 12/3/2010 4/4/2011
J.F.White
ContractingCo.
$630,850.00 $6.12
PV201710 NON35164 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
Virtom Commercial/Office Yarmouth 02664 102.850 7/1/2012 6/26/2012 9/7/2012 BeaumontSolarCo. $334,261.00 $3.25
PV200210 NON38057 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
TyngsboroSports&
RealtyTrust
Commercial/Office Tyngsborough 01879 101.660 4/18/2011 4/18/2011 8/21/2013
SecondGeneration
EnergyLLC
$384,182.00 $3.78
PV209712 NON33730 Aggregated 1stLightEnergy 1stLightEnergy Industrial Dedham 02026 100.815 5/29/2012 5/29/2012 1/25/2012 1stLightEnergy $476,290.00 $4.72
PV200210 NON33230 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc.
RisingTideCharter
SchoolW.
Zaverucha
Commercial/Office Plymouth 02360 100.776 3/17/2011 3/17/2011 4/4/2011 BeaumontSolarCo. $507,000.00 $5.03
PV218513 NON35192 NonAggregated Nexamp
MiddlesexSavings
BankPVSystem
Commercial/Office Westborough 01581 100.600 10/1/2012 9/10/2012 2/8/2013 Nexamp,Inc. $434,845.00 $4.32
PV200210 NON33151 Aggregated SRECTrade,Inc. SolemarII Commercial/Office Dartmouth 02748 100.458 12/23/2010 12/23/2010 3/14/2011 BeaumontSolarCo. $621,628.95 $6.19
PV201710 NON34708 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
R&P Commercial/Office Falmouth 02536 100.320 4/8/2011 4/8/2011 7/1/2011 BeaumontSolarCo. $601,010.00 $5.99
PV201710 NON34681 Aggregated
Knollwood
Energy,LLC
BlountSeafood Commercial/Office FallRiver 02720 100.100 12/14/2010 12/14/2010 7/1/2011
AlterisRenewables
dbaRGSEnergy
$680,938.00 $6.80
$4.78 AverageInstalledCost=

You might also like