`MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. John Thomas Beals and Thomas, Inc. Reservoir Corporate Center 144 Turnpike Road (Route 9) Southborough, MA 01772-2104 June 7, 2013 FROM: Scott W. Thornton, P.E Vanasse & Associates, Inc. 10 New England Business Center Drive Suite 314 Andover, MA 01810 (978) 474-8800 6438

DATE: SUBJECT:

RE:

Traffic Impact Assessment – Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts Palmer, Massachusetts

INTRODUCTION Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has prepared this technical memorandum to determine traffic impacts associated with the development of the Proposed Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts casino facility in Palmer, Massachusetts. This memorandum is intended as a technical document containing reviews in the subjects of Study Area; Traffic Volumes; Future Conditions with and without the Project; Trip Generation; Trip Distribution; resulting Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis for intersections; and the proposed roadway improvements intended to mitigate the Project’s impact at critical locations.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts facility is proposed to be a destination type resort casino proposed for the western part of Massachusetts. The development is proposed to contain approximately 3,450 gaming positions, a 300-room hotel, attached meeting space and restaurants within a casino facility. In addition, a 1,800-seat Cineplex, an indoor/outdoor water park with accompanying 300-room hotel, and approximately 250,000 square feet (sf) of general retail space are also part of the proposal. The Project will be located on the east side of Route 32 (Thorndike Street) near the intersection of the Massachusetts Turnpike Exit 8 interchange Toll Road with Route 32. The development is proposed to be completed in a single phase. Two potential alternatives have been identified to provide access to the Project: an At-Grade Alternative and a Grade-Separated Flyover. The At-Grade Alternative would involve the construction of a Site Access Road that would be built opposite the existing Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway at the signalized intersection of Route 32. The ramp roadway would be widened to provide five lanes from the Massachusetts Turnpike and Route 32 would be widened to provide four lanes southbound and five lanes northbound. The Grade-Separated Flyover alternative requires a bridge structure from the existing Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway over Route 32 which transitions into a loop ramp/interchange design that intersects Route 32 at a signalized intersection approximately 500 feet north of the existing Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway intersection with Route 32. Access to the Project would be provided via a Site Access Road that would be built opposite Shearer Street at its intersection with Route 32. In addition, there are other improvements identified at local intersections within the Town of Palmer that are proposed to remedy existing shortfalls in capacity or improve safety over present conditions.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

1

STUDY AREA The study area for this traffic analysis was selected to include the critical locations expected to receive the majority of the traffic flow from the project. These include intersections along Route 32, Route 20, and Route 181 as these form major gateway corridors into and out of the area. A full inventory of these locations including traffic control, geometric conditions, and traffic volumes was conducted to develop baseline conditions for the traffic analysis. The following identifies the traffic volume count procedures followed for the Project. Route 32 Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were conducted over a two week period on Route 32 in early May 2012. Traffic volumes were measured through use of pneumatic Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) count devices used to measure hourly and daily traffic volumes. Counts collected volumes over the period Tuesday May 8 through Monday May 21, 2012. Follow-up counts were conducted in April 2013 to determine growth over the previous year, with a weighted average rate of increase between the four observed time periods (Friday, Friday evening peak hour, Saturday, Saturday evening peak hour) of 0.73 percent. Therefore, the 2012 Existing volumes were adjusted upwards by 1.0 percent to reflect 2013 conditions. Intersection Volume Counts Intersection Turning Movement and vehicle Classification Counts (TMC) were conducted at 15 intersections in the town of Palmer on Friday May 18 and Saturday May 19, 2012. These locations are identified below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Route 181 at Thorndike Street Route 181/Main Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Route 181/Main Street at Route 20/Wilbraham Street Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike Street Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street Route 32/Thorndike Street at Turnpike Ramps Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street/Site Drive Route 32/Thorndike Street at Big Y Drive Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street

The intersections are graphically depicted on Figure 1. For this analysis, the same intersections were also counted during the Saturday midday time period on Saturday April 6, 2013, due to the inclusion of a significant retail component to the project.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

2

Insert figure 1

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

3

Traffic counts were conducted during the time periods expected to receive the majority of activity from the proposed casino. These time periods were previously identified by both Mohegan Sun and by VAI’s review of Mohegan Sun traffic count data as Friday Afternoon-evening and Saturday Afternoon-evening time periods. The Friday Afternoon -evening time period also overlaps the exiting employee peak with the arriving casino patron peak. The Friday time periods were selected to be 3:00 to 6:00 PM and the Saturday time period was selected to be 4:00 to 7:00 PM. These time periods were collected to observe traffic conditions when public schools were in session and vacations were at a minimal level. In general, traffic volumes on Friday were observed to peak between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM while the volumes on Saturday were observed to peak between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. The Saturday midday time period generally occurred between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM. Figure 2 provides the traffic volumes for the 2013 Friday Evening Peak Hour conditions, while Figure 3 provides the traffic volume for the 2013 Saturday Midday Peak Hour conditions. Figure 4 provides the traffic volume for the 2013 Saturday Evening Peak Hour conditions. A brief review of the intersection conditions is provided in Table 1.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

4

Insert figure 2

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

5

Insert Figure 3

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

6

Insert Figure 4

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

7

Table 1 GENERAL INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Location No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a

Location Route 181/ at Thorndike Street Route 181/Sykes Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Route 181/North Main Street at Route 20/Wilbraham Street Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike Street Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street Route 32/Thorndike Street at Turnpike Ramps Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street/Site Drive Route 32/Thorndike Street at Big Y Drive Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street

Control Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Signalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized Signalized

Conditions Good, no clear issues Fair, potential sight distance restrictions Good, close proximity to Loc. 4 creates conflict for exiting vehicles Good, near-roundabout geometry, potential queuing impacts on North Main Street northbound Good, some pedestrian activity Fair, pavement conditions and number of curb cuts and driveways close to intersection, truck volume Good to Fair, flashing beacon, truck volume Good to Fair, awkward geometry, truck volume Good, some pedestrian activity Good, close proximity to Loc. 10 can create conflict for exiting vehicles Good, heavy volume from ramps, existing need for dual left-turn lanes Good, potential sight distance issues Good, short lanes for queue storage Good, no clear issues Good, no clear issues

Volume Classificationa Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium

Relation to Trafficb Regional Local Local Regional Access Route Local Regional Regional Access Route Access Route Access Route Access Route Access Route Access Route Access Route

Volume Classification: Low = Intersection Volume < 1,500 vehicles per hour (vph), Medium = < 2,200 vph, High = > 2,200 vph.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

8

b

Relation to Site Traffic in context of study purposes for local (<15 mile radius) site originations.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

9

Summary of Intersection Conditions Table 1 indicates that in general, most intersections are in Fair to Good condition, with several locations presenting no clear issues requiring improvements. A volume classification was developed to group the locations in terms of their existing traffic demands. As shown, higher volume locations generally require traffic signal control. Most of the locally originating traffic (expected to originate from locations within 15 miles of the Project) is expected to travel on main routes such as Routes 20, 32, and 181; intersections along these routes are the main intersections providing access to the project. Some of the locations further from the site are classified as Regional as these are expected to be routes that traffic outside of Palmer will use. Other locations have been classified as Local locations that could be seen as potential cut-through routes to avoid downtown congestion or delay at specific intersections.

Exit 8 Toll Plaza Entering and exiting movements from the Massachusetts Turnpike at Exit 8 are controlled by a 5-lane toll plaza with typical configurations presenting two lanes entering and exiting, with a center reversible lane. There are dedicated EZ Pass automated toll collection lanes on the outer lanes of the plaza, with manned lanes on the inner exiting lanes and an automatic ticket dispenser or “spitter” machine on the inner entering lane. A graphic depicting the toll plaza and proximity to Route 32 is shown as Figure 5. Counts conducted in September 2012 indicate a high processing rate for each lane at the plaza. The following volumes were observed: Movement Entrance Entrance Exit Exit Exit Lane Lane 5 Lane 4 Lane 3 Lane 2 Lane 1 Function Actual Volume

E-ZPass 444 vph or 7.4 vpm Attendant/Spitter 293 vph or 4.88 vpm Attendant Attendant E-ZPass 203 vph or 3.38 vpm 253 vph or 4.21 vpm 665 vph or 11.08 vpm

The total Interchange was observed to process the following volumes: On Booths (2) Off Booth (3) Total 737 vph 1,121 vph 1,858 vph

Observed values for lane processing capacity are assumed to date to be: Movement Entrance Entrance Exit Exit Exit Lane Ramp Lane 5 Ramp Lane 4 Ramp Lane 3 Ramp Lane 2 Ramp Lane 1 Function Actual Volume

E-ZPass 720 vph or 12 vpm Max Attendant/Spitter 540 vph or 9 vpm Max Attendant Attendant E-ZPass 300 vph or 5.0 vpm 300 vph or 5.0 vpm 900 vph or 15 vpm Max

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

10

Insert figure 5

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

11

Consequently, for the Toll Booth alone, the excess capacities calculated to date are: Max Booth Capacity* Entrance 5 – E-ZPass Entrance 4 Attendant/ Spitter Exit 3 Ramp Attendant Exit 2 Ramp- Attendant Exit 1 Ramp – E-ZPass 720 vph 540 vph 300 vph 300 vph 900 vph

Usage 444 vph 293 vph 203 vph 253 vph 665 vph

Reserve 276 vph 247 vph 97 vph 97 vph 235 vph

Total On Reserve 523 vph Off Reserve 429 vph

with existing configuration
* Attendant processing time was measured and then adjusted downward to produce a conservative estimate.

As shown in Figure 5, the toll plaza is located approximately 375 feet from the stop bar at the Route 32 intersection. This short road segment becomes a limiting factor, as vehicle queues occasionally back up from the Route 32 intersection to the plaza. Any increases in volume through the toll plaza would ideally be accompanied by increases in capacity at the approach to the Route 32 intersection and/or increases in capacity at the toll plaza. This is discussed in a later section.

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA Motor vehicle crash information for the study area intersections was provided by the MassDOT Highway Division Safety Management/Traffic Operations Unit for the most recent three-year period available (2008 through 2010) in order to examine motor vehicle crash trends occurring within the study area. The data is summarized by intersection, type, severity, and day of occurrence, and presented in Table 2. The study area intersections were found to have averaged less than four (4) reported motor vehicle crashes per year over the three-year review period, with the exception of the Route 181/Shearer Street intersection, the Route 20/Route 32 intersection, and the Route 32/High Street intersection, which each averaged 5 to 7 crashes per year. Four of the fifteen study area intersections experienced a crash rate higher than the MassDOT average for a signalized or unsignalized intersection, as appropriate, for the MassDOT Highway Division District in which the project is located (District 2): Route 181/ Thorndike Street, Route 181/Shearer Street, Route 20/Route 32/Breckenridge Street, and Route 32/ High Street. No fatal motor vehicle crashes were reported at the study area intersections over the threeyear review period.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

12

Table 2 CRASH DATA SUMMARYa
Main St (Route 181)/ Wilbraham St/ (Route 20) Main St (Route 20)/ Thorndike St (Route 32) Park St (Route 20/ Route 32)/ Breckenridge St Park St (Route 20/ Route 32)/ Stone St Park St (Route 20/ Route 32)/ Thorndike St

Route 181/ Thorndike St Year: 2008 2009 2010 Total Averageb Ratec d Significant? Type: Angle Rear-End Head-On Sideswipe Hit Fixed Object Pedestrian/Bicycle Other Total Time: Weekday 7 to 9 AM Weekday 4 to 6 PM Remainder of Day Total Pavement Conditions: Dry Wet Snow Icy Other Unknown Total Day of Week: Monday through Friday Saturday and Sunday Total Severity: Property Damage Only Personal Injury Fatal Crashes Hit and Run Other Total
a b

Main St (Route 181)/ Mt. Dumplin Rd

Main St (Route 181)/ Shearer St

Stone St (Route 32)/ South Main St.

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ Lawrence St

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ Mass Tpk Ramps

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ Shearer St

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ Big Y Dwy

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ Mt. Dumplin Rd

Thorndike St (Route 32)/ High St

0 4 4 8 2.67 0.71 Yes 1 3 2 0 1 0 1 8 0 2 6 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 8 6 2 8 4 4 0 0 0 8

0 1 0 1 0.33 0.08 No 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

8 4 8 20 6.67 1.24 Yes 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 20 1 1 18 20 13 7 0 0 0 0 20 17 3 20 14 6 0 0 0 20

6 2 2 10 3.33 0.39 No 3 2 0 1 1 0 3 10 2 1 7 10 7 1 0 1 1 0 10 7 3 10 7 3 0 0 0 10

5 3 8 16 5.33 0.65 No 3 7 0 2 1 3 0 16 1 3 12 16 14 2 0 0 0 0 16 15 1 16 11 5 0 0 0 16

5 5 1 11 3.67 0.73 Yes 5 3 1 0 2 0 0 11 2 3 6 11 7 2 2 0 0 0 11 8 3 11 9 2 0 0 0 11

1 1 0 2 0.67 0.12 No 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2

0 1 1 2 0.67 0.15 No 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2

6 1 3 10 3.33 0.47 No 2 5 0 2 1 0 0 10 2 0 8 10 6 1 3 0 0 0 10 9 1 10 8 2 0 0 0 10

4 3 0 7 2.33 0.34 No 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 1 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 1 7 4 3 0 0 0 7

3 4 3 10 3.33 0.34 No 5 2 0 2 0 0 1 10 3 1 6 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 10 9 1 10 8 2 0 0 0 10

0 5 1 6 2.00 0.25 No 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 1 4 6 4 1 0 1 0 0 6 6 0 6 3 3 0 0 0 6

1 1 6 8 2.67 0.31 No 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 7 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 6 2 0 0 0 8

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 4 8 21 7.00 0.88 Yes 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 21 4 2 15 21 17 2 0 1 0 1 21 17 4 21 13 8 0 0 0 21

Source: MassDOT Crash Data. Average crashes over three-year period. c Crash rate per million vehicles entering the intersection. d Significant if crash rate is found to exceed 0.67 crashes per million entering vehicles (mev) for an unsignalized intersection and 0.83 crashes per mev for a signalized intersection as defined by MassDOT for District 2.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

13

2023 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2023, which reflects a ten-year planning horizon. While State traffic study guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments typically require a five-year planning time frame, recent comments from MassDOT suggest the use of a ten-year horizon is more appropriate for the casino projects currently undergoing review in Massachusetts. Independent of the project, traffic volumes on the roadway network in the year 2023 under No-Build conditions include all existing traffic and new traffic resulting from background traffic growth. Anticipated project-generated traffic volumes superimposed upon this 2023 No-Build traffic network reflect the 2023 Build conditions with the project.

Future Traffic Growth Future traffic growth is a function of the expected land development in the immediate area and the surrounding region. Several methods can be used to estimate this growth. A procedure frequently employed estimates an annual percentage increase in traffic growth and applies that percentage to all traffic volumes under study. The drawback to such a procedure is that some turning volumes may actually grow at either a higher or a lower rate at particular intersections. An alternative procedure identifies the location and type of planned development, estimates the traffic to be generated, and assigns it to the area roadway network. This procedure produces a more realistic estimate of growth for local traffic. However, the drawback of this procedure is that the potential growth in population and development external to the study area would not be accounted for in the traffic projections. To provide a conservative analysis framework, both procedures were used, the salient components of which are described below. Specific Development by Others The Planning Department of the Town of Palmer was contacted in order to determine if there were any projects planned within the study area that would have an impact on future traffic volumes at the study intersections. Based on these discussions, the following projects were identified:  Residential Development - This proposed project consists of the construction of a 36-unit residential condominium development across from Cemetery Hill further south of the site on Route 32 which is currently in construction. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were generated using trip-generation statistics published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)1 for a similar use and were assigned onto the study area roadway network based on the observed traffic patterns.

No other developments were identified that are expected to result in an increase in traffic within the study area beyond the background traffic growth rate. The Town of Palmer had prepared a Chapter 43D Traffic Impact Study for five Priority Development Sites (PDS) in the town where development is encouraged. Discussions with the town indicate that of the five sites, four have had no significant development activity and the fifth site, known as Thorndike Realty, is the site of the proposed casino.

1

Trip Generation, Ninth Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 2012.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

14

There has been discussion of a potential development on property controlled by Northeast Realty in the vicinity of the project site. This development would be located in the triangle of property formed by the Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway, Route 32, and Shearer Street. Nothing formal has been proposed and no plans or application has been submitted to the Planning Board. If in the future, a known program becomes public and files with the town prior to the Project local application submittal, that program will be included in traffic projections and a review of mitigation for the area.

General Background Traffic Growth Traffic-volume data compiled by MassDOT from permanent count stations and historic traffic counts in the area were reviewed in order to determine general background traffic growth trends. Data collected from locations in and surrounding the town of Palmer indicate that traffic volumes in the area have decreased or stayed consistent since 2000, based on counts conducted by MassDOT. A summary of these data is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3 TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON Number of Count Locationsa 3 1 3 4 2 3 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, Percentb -2.5 1.1 0.8 1.4 5.2 0.3 0.0 0.9

Town Palmer Ludlow Monson Ware Belchertown Wilbraham Warren
a

Average Change, Percent

Number of count locations in each town. b Based on counts compiled by MassDOT over the period 2000-2009.

In addition, a review of daily data for Friday and Saturday as well as peak hour counts for the relevant Friday evening and Saturday evening periods indicated an overall growth rate of 0.7 percent between May 2012 and April 2013 on Route 32 adjacent to the site. Based on a review of this data, and given the 10-year horizon period, it was determined that an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent per year was used in order to account for future traffic growth and presently unforeseen development within the study area.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

15

Roadway Improvement Projects MassDOT and the Town of Palmer were contacted in order to determine if there were any planned roadway improvement projects expected to be completed within the study area. There are no proposed changes or roadway improvements expected that will change traffic flow conditions in the study area over the horizon year time frame.

No-Build Traffic Volumes The 2023 No-Build peak-hour traffic-volume networks were developed by applying the 0.9 percent per year compounded annual background traffic growth rate to the 2013 Existing peak-hour traffic volumes and then superimposing the peak-hour traffic volumes expected to be generated by the identified specific development project by others. The resulting 2023 No-Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak-hour traffic volume networks are shown on Figures 6 through 8.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

16

insert figure 6

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

17

insert figure 7

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

18

insert figure 8

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

19

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Casino Facility Data was provided from Mohegan Sun related to the projected development program for Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts, as well as demographics of patrons in terms of originating location, temporal distribution on hourly, daily, and monthly time periods, mode splits, average vehicle occupancies, along with similar data for employees. The current Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts program was summarized as follows:

Table 4 MOHEGAN SUN AT MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Component Casino Facility Patron Visits Gaming Positions Hotel, rooms Meeting Space, sf Other Components Water Park, sf (includes 300 room hotel) Cineplex, seats Shopping Center, sf Metric

3,800,000 annually 3,450 300 25,000 75,000 1,800 250,000

Driveway Counts Data was provided in the form of hourly traffic volumes for the roadways leading into Mohegan Sun at Uncasville, Connecticut. The volumes were categorized by hour of day, day of week, and were provided on a monthly basis for the period between January and July 2009. Peak time periods were observed to occur on Friday and Saturday between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM, and on Sunday between 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM. These times roughly correspond to peak entering and peak exiting time periods. Patron vehicle occupancy was estimated by Mohegan Sun Transportation at between 1.8 and 2.2 persons per vehicle. Bus patronage was also provided which represents approximately 12 percent of the total arrival mode at the Uncasville site. Trip Generation Model To predict the trip generation of Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts, a trip generation model was developed. Data was compiled from observed volume counts and visitation at the Mohegan Sun site in Uncasville, Connecticut to determine trips for the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site. Gaming patrons, mode splits, vehicle occupancy rates, employee Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), observed rates of hourly and daily traffic flow were combined to result in the daily and peak hour trip projections for the Project. Correlation with any major events or arena shows was not specifically accounted for in the model, but was neither discounted, so that any increases due specifically to shows are included in the projections. The volumes and hourly adjustment factors were combined to develop an empirical model that was first used to predict the trip generation of the Mohegan Sun facility for peak conditions. Based on a visitation of approximately 13,000,000 visitors and 7,800 FTEs, an average of Saturday daily trips were predicted
20

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

within 2.3 percent of observed values. The model volumes were then adjusted based on the number of gaming positions at the Uncasville site. Peak hourly totals were then adjusted and calibrated to represent portions of daily trip totals between one and four percent of daily trips. The resulting Peak Hour trip totals average between one and two percent higher than observed values. Hotel trips are implicit in the counts provided by Mohegan Sun for the casino trip generation, as the Connecticut site contains a hotel with 1,175 rooms. Records indicate the hotel historically operates at a 94 percent occupancy rate. In addition to the above factors, the potential existence of competing casinos was also accounted for in this analysis. The Legislature of Massachusetts has indicated casinos could be constructed in the western region, the eastern region, and the southeastern region of the Commonwealth. Since a portion of the effective population of the areas in the east and southeast would be closer to casinos in these areas than the Palmer site, assumptions were made to eliminate approximately 50 percent of the population base. In addition, the population in Plymouth County was neglected entirely, as existing casinos in Rhode Island and the sites in Connecticut are closer to these residents than Palmer. These changes resulted in a correction factor of approximately 20 percent in the predicted trip generation model for the project. Other Components In addition to the Casino Facility anticipated for the Interim Build phase, an Indoor/Outdoor Water Park, Cineplex, and general retail developments are all proposed for the Project. For these components, the ITE publication Trip Generation was used to predict trips for the various time periods under consideration. ITE Land Use Codes (LUCs) 414 (Water Slide Park), 445 (Multiplex Movie Theater), and 820 (Shopping Center) were used with the currently projected development sizes for each component. Trip Type Adjustments The casino facility is currently anticipated to be a destination-type facility. However, the other components of the Project have the potential for the drawing of vehicle traffic from the existing adjacent traffic stream as well as from the casino itself and vice versa, representing internal trip-making or internal trip capture. In this regard, not all of the trips expected with the Project represent new trips on the area road network. Internal Capture. The existing Mohegan Sun site in Uncasville provides nearly 900,000 sf of total development, including hotel rooms, restaurants, and retail shops. The retail component of the site totals approximately 80,000 sf. It is reasonable to assume that few of the trips to the retail components are single purpose and only to the retail components. However, the Uncasville site does not contain the size of non-casino uses or the variation of non-casino uses proposed for the Palmer site, and therefore is not strictly comparable. A review of available literature on multi-use developments2 indicates that in general, retail to retail internal capture rates on developments can range between 20 and 31 percent depending on time periods. There are several points to be considered in calculating internal capture rates:  Competing Markets – In general, internal capture rates between on-site uses increase with increasing distance to similar developments. The closest water parks to Palmer are approximately 25 miles from the site in Agawam, south of Springfield. The same case is true for cineplexes and large retail facilities, as the closest movie theaters and large shopping centers are in Springfield. The closest casino development is Mohegan Sun in Uncasville. There is no one site that contains

2

Trip Generation Manual, Volume 1, 9th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, D.C.; 2012.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

21

all these uses within walking distance. Therefore a high internal capture among the projected uses is expected with the Project. Proximity and Density of On-Site Land Uses – As the density and proximity to land uses increase, the internal capture rates increase. The casino building contains a hotel, but the retail and Cineplex are all attached, leading to easy connections between uses. The water park is approximately 1,200 feet from the main casino building, but a sidewalk is provided to allow patrons to move between the uses easily. With three of the four uses interconnected and the fourth use accessible via a five-minute walk, a high internal capture rate is expected due to this factor.

Based on these factors, the overall internal capture rate is estimated at 25 percent. This equates to the overall capture between the retail (shopping center) trips, and the remainder of the component trips, specifically the casino, water park, and Cineplex trips. This average is across the four peak hours that were reviewed (Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, Saturday Evening, Sunday Evening: 25 percent average for all) and the three daily periods (Friday, Saturday, Sunday: 24 percent average for all). Pass-By Trips. State guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Assessments allow a 25 percent pass-by rate for retail developments. Due to the relative scarcity of retail development in the area and the projected volume on Route 32 exclusive of the Project, the 25 percent rate was determined to be applicable for this Project. Consistent with standard industry practice, the pass-by trips were calculated using the shopping center trips less half of the internal trips (assuming half of the internal trips were due to the shopping center). A summary of the expected trip generation for the critical time periods is shown in Table 5.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

22

Table 5 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Time Period/ Directional Distribution Friday Evening Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Saturday Midday Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Saturday Evening Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Sunday Evening Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Weekday Daily Saturday Daily Sunday Daily

Casino Totala

Water Parkb

Cineplexc

Shopping Centerd

TOTALe

Internal Capturef

Pass-Byg

Total Externalh

Total Newi

534 423 956 417 302 719 367 426 793 367 426 793
13,566 15,446 11,460

76 68 144 151 118 269 104 122 226 104 122 226
1,556 2,004 1,560

308 214 522 117 45 162 208 208 416 208 208 416
2,314 2,452 1,886

531 576 1,107 825 761 1,586 406 374 780 406 374 780
12,320 16,458 6,310

1,449 1,280 2,729 1,510 1,226 2,736 1,216 1,529 2,745 1,084 1,131 2,215
29,756 36,360 21,216

-349 -349 -698 -362 -362 -724 -355 -355 -710 -246 -246 -492
-7,762 -10,368 -3,976

-95 -95 -190 -153 -153 -306 -96 -96 -192 -67 -67 -134
-2,110 -2,818 -1,080

1,100 931 2,031 1,148 864 2,012 861 1,174 2,035 838 885 1,723
21,994 25,992 17,240

1,005 836 1,841 995 711 1,706 765 1,078 1,843 771 818 1,589
19,884 23,174 16,160

a – Based on 3,450 gaming positions and 300 room hotel. b – Based on ITE LUC 414 Water Slide Park and 75,000 sf. c – Based on ITE LUC 445 Multiplex Movie Theater and 1,800 seats. d – Based on ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center and 250,000 sf. Friday evening data assumed as Weekday evening ITE data; Saturday evening data assumed as 71% of Saturday Midday per ITE data; Sunday evening assumed as Sunday midday ITE data. e – Sum of unadjusted trip generation totals. f – Computed as 25 percent of lower trip generation totals of Shopping Center and non-Shopping Center uses. g – Computed as 25 percent of Shopping Center trips reduced by half of Internal Trips. h – Total trips (-) internal trips. Total trips at Site Access Road. i – Total External trips (-) pass-by trips. Total trips new to site road network beyond Site Access Road.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

23

TRIP DISTRIBUTION Several components of trip distribution were developed for the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site. The first component was related to the proportion of existing Mohegan Sun at Uncasville patrons likely to divert to the Palmer location due to its closer location and reduced travel time. The second component was a more conventional type of latent demand model, using populations from the 2000 US Census and assigning approximate “weights” to populations based on location and travel time. These were combined to provide an equalized distribution of trip origins between existing patron and existing population data. In addition, the population based distribution was used exclusively in the assignment for the non-casino trips.

CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION Mohegan Sun Patron Data Patron Data was provided by Mohegan Sun which provided a measure of the geographic distribution of the existing patron base traveling to the Uncasville site. Travel times were compared between the patron home towns and the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site and the Mohegan Sun at Uncasville site in order to determine the extent of existing trips likely to be “captured” by the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site. Trips from towns and cities in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont were routed using generalized travel times and regional roadways (I-90, I-91, I-84, etc.). This data was then adjusted to account for the competing casino location in eastern Massachusetts. It was assumed that patrons in Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex Counties were two times more likely to travel to an eastern casino in the Greater Boston area than to travel an hour or more to Palmer. Patrons in Suffolk County were assumed to be three times more likely to travel the short distance to an eastern casino than to travel to Palmer. The patron trip base from these counties was adjusted accordingly, which generally resulted in an approximately 15 percent reduction in the patron base. Using these assumptions, the distribution of the patron data shown in Table 6 was calculated.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

24

Table 6 SORTED REGIONAL PATRON TRIP DATA
State/County Connecticut Hartford Litchfield Tolland Subtotal Massachusetts Berkshire Essex Franklin Hampden Hampshire Middlesex Norfolk Suffolk Worcester Subtotal New York Albany Columbia Rensselaer Subtotal New Hampshire Maine Vermont TOTAL Results from Sorted Trips Percent of Total

22,834 8,324 7,034 38,192 1,477 1,973 1,216 16,695 3,539 4,131 1,653 821 17,113 48,618 650 205 217 1,072 8,298 2,686 1,557 100,423

22.7 8.3 7.0 38.0 1.5 2.0 1.2 16.6 3.5 4.1 1.6 0.8 17.0 48.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.0 8.4 2.7 1.6 100.0

A large component of New York trips is apparently from Suffolk County and other locations closer to New Jersey, and is not likely to change destinations from Uncasville to the Palmer site. Similarly, the trips from the southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island counties are closer to other facilities than the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site, and therefore were not likely to divert from Mohegan Sun at Uncasville. In addition, a local component of site traffic would be expected for the area within 15 miles from the site. These trips would likely use local roads such as Route 32, Route 20, and Route 181 rather than travel onto I-90 to arrive at the Project. The Patron Data in the areas shown in Table 6 were therefore adjusted to delineate areas less than 15 miles from the Project. These include the trips shown below in Table 7.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

25

Table 7 SORTED LOCAL PATRON TRIP DATA
Town Palmer Three Rivers Monson Brimfield Wilbraham Ludlow Wales Hampden Springfield Indian Orchard Springfield Springfield East Longmeadow Springfield Holland Springfield Westover AFB Chicopee Springfield Springfield Springfield Springfield Chicopee Ware Belchertown Granby South Hadley Stafford Springs Somers Warren West Warren West Brookfield Fiskdale Brookfield Sturbridge Gilbertville East Brookfield New Braintree North Brookfield TOTAL County Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampden Hampshire Hampshire Hampshire Hampshire Tolland (CT) Tolland (CT) Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Worcester Patron Trips 369 107 444 80 478 876 50 216 295 212 330 201 877 531 90 639 121 1497 714 926 143 64 918 393 462 263 562 955 596 108 34 135 108 131 217 20 58 23 79 14,322

Trips from the local distribution were assigned to the localized routes in the cardinal directions. Based on travel times, some trips from areas in Springfield and Chicopee were determined to be more likely to use I-90 to arrive at the Project than local roads, as travel times would be twice as long using secondary roadways. In general, most travel times for the areas in the local distribution were determined to be less than 30 minutes to the Project.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

26

Population Based Trips Populations for the New England and New York areas were obtained from 2000 US Census data and then categorized into the counties consistent with the Patron data. The populations were then adjusted using travel time from the population centroids of the counties or states as applicable to derive “weighted” populations. As with the patron data, the population data from the four counties expected to frequent an eastern casino in varying likelihoods as described previously were also adjusted to account for competition. These adjustments resulted in an original population of slightly over 8,000,000 persons across the target area reduced to a population just over 93,000 using travel time as a factor. This also indicates that target areas of Middlesex and Worcester County in Massachusetts and a portion of Hartford County in Connecticut combined result in nearly half of the weighted population. As with the Patron data, the population data was also adjusted for the local distribution of areas within 15 miles of the Project. It was determined that due to the limited population of Tolland County within this area accuracy would not be significantly affected by using the regional distribution for the entire county. Aggregation of Trip Distribution A method of combining the two trip components (Patrons and Populations) was determined using the existing data and some additional assumptions. This would determine the relative proportion of trips which would originate within and outside of the 15 mile local zone. The method used quantifies the local and regional proportions using the Patron Data and Populations totals, adjusted for anticipated visitation and the travel time factors discussed above. Local visitation is assumed at 10 percent, meaning one of every 10 persons within the 15 mile zone is likely to travel to the Project, and this is compared against the travel time factored regional population. Table 8 presents a summary of the data points and the resulting values. Table 8 CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Component Patrons Populations Average Average (Percent) Local Trips 14,322 33,521 47,843 20 Regional Trips 94,599 93,361 187,960 80 Total 108,921 126,882 235,803 100

As shown in Table 8, the relative proportions of 20 percent for the local basis and 80 percent for the regional basis were calculated, and applied to the trip generation estimates discussed earlier. As applied to the Saturday Evening peak time period for instance, the expectation is that of the total 1,686 hourly vehicle trips, approximately 338 would originate within the 15 mile local zone and the remaining 1,348 trips would originate outside that zone.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

27

NON-CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION Population Based Trips The population-based gravity model was used for the distribution for the Cineplex, Water Park, and Shopping Center visitors. There was assumed to be some relationship between the casino target area and the non-casino target area, in that the existence of one or more component may be a draw for visitors that planned to visit the casino only. In this regard, the distribution is shaped by the same regional attraction as the casino, likely larger than would be the case for any one component alone. Relying on solely the population-based distribution resulted in a trip assignment for the non-casino trips of approximately 74 percent regional trips and 26 percent local trips. This is shown below in Table 9.

Table 9 NON-CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Component Populations Average (Percent) Local Trips 33,521 26 Regional Trips 93,361 74 Total 126,882 100

Pass-by trips were determined to be based on an equal north/south distribution from Route 32, based on traffic volumes for the respective peak hour time periods of analysis. The resulting general local and regional trip distributions for the entire Project are shown graphically in Figures 9 and 10.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

28

insert figure 9

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

29

insert figure 10

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

30

TRIP ASSIGNMENT Using the results of the trip generation and trip distribution processes, trips were assigned to the area roadways. This assignment indicates the magnitude of Project-Generated traffic volumes and impacts to the study intersections in immediate proximity to the Project. These resulting trips for the Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak hours are in Figures 11, 12, and 13, respectively. The Project Generated Trips shown on these network diagrams were added to the respective 2023 No Build volume conditions to derive the 2023 Build condition peak-hour traffic volume networks for the Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak hours, shown in Figures 14, 15, and 16, respectively.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

31

Insert figure 11

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

32

Insert figure 12

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

33

Insert figure 13

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

34

Insert figure 14

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

35

Insert figure 15

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

36

Insert figure 16

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

37

Site Access – Full Build There are two current alternatives for site access required for the Full Build scenario under review. The first is an At-Grade alternative which creates the fourth leg of an intersection with the Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway and Route 32 intersection. The intersection would be signalized and each approach would be substantially widened from the current configuration. Volumes for this condition are shown in Figure 17 for the respective 2023 Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak-hour conditions. The second alternative is a flyover design. The I-90 ramp roadway would overpass Route 32 and connect north of the existing ramp/Route 32 intersection through a partial cloverleaf/trumpet-type interchange with ramps intersecting Route 32 at a signalized intersection. Volumes for this condition are shown in Figure 18 for the respective 2023 Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peakhour conditions.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

38

Insert figure 17

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

39

Insert figure 18

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

40

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To assess quality of flow, roadway capacity analyses were conducted under Existing, No-Build and Build trafficvolume conditions. Capacity analyses provide an indication of how well the roadway facilities serve the traffic demands placed upon them.

Methodology Levels of Service A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level of service to traffic facilities under various traffic-flow conditions.3 The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from A to F, with level-of-service (LOS) A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing congested or constrained operating conditions. 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. Unsignalized Intersections The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:       LOS A represents a condition with little or no control delay to minor street traffic. LOS B represents a condition with short control delays to minor street traffic. LOS C represents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic. LOS D represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic. LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long control delays to minor street traffic. LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity of an approach lane, with extreme control delays resulting.

The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a procedure described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.4 Level of service is measured in terms of average control delay. Mathematically, control delay is a function of the capacity and degree of saturation of the lane group
3

The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010); Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010. 4 Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

41

and/or approach under study and is a quantification of motorist delay associated with traffic control devices such as traffic signals and STOP signs. Control delay includes the affects of initial deceleration delay approaching a STOP sign, stopped delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration delay from a stopped condition. Definitions for level of service at unsignalized intersections are also given in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 10 summarizes the relationship between level of service and average control delay. Table 10 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Average Control Delay (Seconds Per Vehicle) < 10.0 10.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 50.0 >50.0
a

Level of Service v/c ≤ 1.0 A B C D E F

Level of Service v/c >1.0 F F F F F F
Research Board;

Source:

Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Washington, DC; 2010; Volume 3, Exhibit 19-2.

Signalized Intersections The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows:    LOS A describes operations with very low control delay; most vehicles do not stop at all. LOS B describes operations with relatively low control delay. However, more vehicles stop than LOS A. LOS C describes operations with higher control delays. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay in the range where the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with high control delay values. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with high control delay values that often occur with over-saturation. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.

  

Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis methodology of the HCM 2010. This method assesses the effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and geometrics on delay. Level-of-service designations are based on the criterion of control or signal delay per vehicle. Control or signal delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and fuel

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

42

consumption, and includes initial deceleration delay approaching the traffic signal, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Table 11 summarizes the relationship between level of service and control delay. The tabulated control delay criterion may be applied in assigning level-of-service designations to individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or to entire intersections.

Table 11 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Control (Signal) Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) <10.0 10.1 to 20.0 20.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 55.0 55.1 to 80.0 >80.0
a

Level of Service v/c ≤ 1.0 A B C D E F

Level of Service v/c >1.0 F F F F F F

Source: Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010; Volume 3, Exhibit 18-6.

Currently there are a number of technical issues surrounding the implementation of the HCM 2010 for signalized intersections, chiefly that there are unresolved inconsistencies related to signal phasing between the HCM methodology and actual signal design practice. MassDOT has issued a directive allowing the use of the Synchro software LOS calculation for signalized intersections as the HCM methodology will not calculate level-of-service for all signal phasing designs. Therefore, the signalized analyses and LOS results are based on Synchro LOS calculations and the unsignalized analyses and LOS results are based on HCM 2010 methodology. ANALYSIS RESULTS Level-of-service analyses were conducted for 2013 Existing, 2023 No-Build and 2023 Build conditions for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are summarized in Table 12 for the signalized intersections and Table 13 for the unsignalized intersections. The results are presented by individual movement as well as overall intersection level of service (LOS) for signalized intersections and by critical movement for unsignalized intersections.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

43

Table 12 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 4 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/North Main Street at 20/Wilbraham Street Friday Evening: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Route 0.63 0.61 0.73 0.52 0.11 0.74 0.27 -0.45 0.45 0.71 0.41 0.07 0.60 0.21 -0.31 0.44 0.55 0.38 0.02 0.55 0.23 -19.0 13.1 27.3 5.2 16.0 29.0 2.2 16.4 11.2 10.0 25.5 4.7 17.7 23.2 2.2 14.1 9.0 9.8 20.1 5.1 0.0 21.1 2.1 11.7 B B C A B C A B B A C A B C A B A A C A A C A B 2/5 4/11 4/11 0/3 0/1 4/11 0/1 -1/3 3/8 4/11 0/2 0/1 3/7 0/1 -1/3 2/7 3/6 0/2 0/0 3/6 0/1 -0.79 0.70 0.82 0.56 0.12 0.82 0.30 -0.54 0.50 0.76 0.43 0.08 0.64 0.23 -0.36 0.48 0.59 0.39 0.02 0.59 0.25 -32.5 17.3 35.0 5.5 16.7 36.4 2.3 21.7 15.0 10.8 28.4 4.7 17.2 24.7 2.2 15.6 9.7 10.5 20.9 5.0 0.0 22.1 2.2 12.3 C B D A B D A C B B C A B C A B A B C A A C A B 2/7 5/14 5/13 0/3 0/1 5/12 0/1 -1/4 3/9 5/13 0/2 0/1 3/8 0/1 -1/3 3/8 3/7 0/2 0/0 3/7 0/1 -0.80 0.77 0.90 0.57 0.12 0.85 0.30 -0.57 0.58 0.83 0.27 0.09 0.66 0.23 -0.42 0.53 0.70 0.23 0.02 0.62 0.26 -33.9 20.2 44.3 5.5 16.8 39.9 2.3 25.1 16.7 12.2 33.0 1.4 17.3 25.5 2.2 17.0 10.8 11.4 25.0 1.4 0.0 23.4 2.2 13.5 C C D A B D A C B B C A B C A B B B C A A C A B 2/7 6/17 6/15 0/3 0/1 5/13 0/1 -1/4 4/10 5/14 0/1 0/1 4/9 0/1 -1/3 4/9 4/10 0/1 0/0 3/7 0/1 -V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

44

Table 12 (Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 5 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street Friday Evening: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.67 0.53 0.54 0.27 0.69 0.43 -0.69 0.38 0.57 0.23 0.39 0.46 -0.45 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.40 0.34 --

13.1 9.1 18.0 3.3 32.6 4.3 13.0 13.9 7.3 18.6 3.3 23.6 5.4 11.6 7.9 6.7 14.6 3.4 23.7 2.8 9.0

B A B A C A B B A B A C A B A A B A C A A

3/4 5/7 5/8 0/2 4/8 1/3 -3/4 3/5 5/7 0/1 2/4 1/3 -2/4 2/4 3/4 0/1 2/4 0/2 --

0.78 0.58 0.59 0.29 0.76 0.49 -0.81 0.42 0.62 0.25 0.44 0.52 -0.51 0.35 0.34 0.22 0.44 0.36 --

19.9 9.9 19.0 3.3 37.1 6.3 15.5 22.3 7.7 19.9 3.3 24.5 7.6 14.4 8.7 7.0 15.0 3.3 24.5 2.9 9.4

B A B A D A B C A B A C A B A A B A C A A

3/6 5/9 5/8 0/2 5/9 1/4 -3/6 3/5 6/8 0/1 3/5 2/5 -2/4 3/4 3/5 0/1 3/5 0/2 --

0.95 0.58 0.59 0.29 0.76 0.58 -1.07 0.44 0.63 0.16 0.47 0.54 -0.63 0.37 0.35 0.14 0.47 0.46 --

40.7 9.9 19.0 3.3 37.1 8.5 19.7 76.8 11.2 23.7 1.6 29.1 4.1 27.1 15.6 10.4 18.0 1.7 29.1 3.3 12.1

D A B A D A B E B C A C A C B B B A C A B

4/10 5/9 5/8 0/2 5/9 2/5 -4/21 3/11 5/13 0/1 3/7 1/2 -3/11 3/9 3/7 0/1 3/7 0/2 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

45

Table 12 (Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 9 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike Street Friday Evening: Park Street WB LT Park Street WB RT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Overall Saturday Midday: Park Street WB LT Park Street WB RT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Overall Saturday Evening: Park Street WB LT Park Street WB RT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.51 0.42 0.72 0.87 0.34 -0.62 0.33 0.69 0.64 0.32 -0.47 0.32 0.62 0.47 0.24 --

23.9 4.2 19.5 36.9 6.4 18.0 25.0 2.6 19.7 15.8 7.1 14.3 21.6 2.8 16.7 8.4 5.6 11.3

C A B D A B C A B B A B C A B A A B

3/5 1/2 6/11 3/11 2/5 -3/6 0/2 5/9 2/5 2/4 -2/5 0/2 4/9 1/3 2/3 --

0.58 0.45 0.81 1.09 0.42 -0.67 0.36 0.75 0.72 0.36 -0.50 0.35 0.67 0.55 0.27 --

26.3 5.8 24.9 >80.0 7.6 31.4 27.5 2.7 21.9 22.3 7.6 16.6 22.5 2.8 18.3 11.9 6.0 12.6

C A C F A C C A C C A B C A B B A B

3/5 1/3 7/15 5/13 3/6 -4/8 1/2 4/10 2/4 2/3 -2/5 0/2 5/10 1/5 2/4 --

0.60 0.55 0.86 1.24 0.48 -0.68 0.44 0.81 0.84 0.41 -0.52 0.41 0.72 0.69 0.34 --

27.5 9.6 29.0 >80.0 8.2 44.7 29.0 5.7 25.9 34.2 8.1 20.3 24.1 4.6 19.8 20.9 6.4 14.8

C A C F A D C A C C A C C A B C A B

3/5 2/5 9/19 7/15 3/8 -4/7 1/3 8/15 3/8 3/6 -3/5 1/2 6/12 2/8 2/5 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

46

Table 12 (Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 11 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Thorndike Street at the I-90 Ramps Friday Evening: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.89 0.49 0.61 0.51 0.70 0.32 -0.63 0.28 0.44 0.38 0.66 0.31 -0.66 0.28 0.39 0.35 0.62 0.24 --

42.6 3.6 16.8 15.7 40.0 2.3 19.8 29.5 1.8 8.8 8.7 28.9 1.4 12.6 28.5 1.6 9.0 9.2 28.6 1.3 13.2

D A B B D A B C A A A C A B C A A A C A B

12/23 1/4 4/6 6/9 5/9 1/2 -4/9 0/2 2/4 3/6 4/10 0/1 -4/10 0/1 2/4 3/6 4/9 0/1 --

1.01 0.55 0.67 0.54 0.73 0.35 -0.66 0.31 0.51 0.42 0.71 0.34 -0.70 0.30 0.45 0.38 0.67 0.26 --

66.1 5.4 18.7 15.9 41.2 3.5 26.2 32.2 2.9 10.5 9.9 32.4 2.5 14.4 30.9 1.8 10.3 10.1 31.2 1.3 14.4

E A B B D A C C A B A C A B C A B B C A B

16/27 2/7 5/7 7/10 6/10 2/3 -5/10 1/2 2/6 4/8 6/12 1/2 -5/11 0/2 2/5 3/7 5/10 0/1 --

2.58 0.60 0.75 0.65 0.81 0.99 -2.02 0.31 0.70 0.61 0.85 0.80 -1.69 0.31 0.63 0.51 0.86 0.97 --

>80.0 9.9 25.7 17.5 43.4 35.8 >80.0 >80.0 5.0 24.1 16.5 45.6 13.0 >80.0 >80.0 5.1 20.6 14.7 45.3 29.9 >80.0

F A C B D D F F A C B D B F F A C B D C F

62/82 5/12 5/9 10/14 9/13 25/41 -44/63 2/4 4/8 9/12 10/15 11/21 -36/53 2/4 3/7 7/10 10/15 20/43 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

47

Table 12 (Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 13 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Thorndike Street at the Big Y/Job Lot Drive Friday Evening: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.45 0.37 0.44 0.85 0.72 0.12 -0.43 0.40 0.39 0.54 0.75 0.16 -0.35 0.41 0.31 0.57 0.71 0.17 --

29.0 8.0 14.2 17.2 18.1 5.2 16.9 28.5 7.9 13.5 7.7 19.1 5.3 13.9 26.0 8.1 8.5 7.8 17.1 4.5 12.1

C A B B B A B C A B A B A B C A A A B A B

2/5 0/2 1/2 9/20 8/16 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 4/8 9/16 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 4/8 7/12 1/2 --

0.52 0.41 0.59 0.89 0.83 0.14 -0.47 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.79 0.17 -0.39 0.44 0.37 0.61 0.74 0.18 --

32.0 8.0 24.7 20.9 23.8 5.7 21.3 30.6 7.9 20.3 8.4 21.4 5.8 15.7 27.8 8.2 11.8 8.4 18.4 5.0 13.2

C A C C C A C C A C A C A B C A B A B A B

3/5 0/2 1/4 12/28 11/19 1/2 -3/4 0/2 1/3 5/9 11/19 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 4/9 8/14 1/2 --

0.52 0.41 0.61 0.90 0.83 0.14 -0.48 0.43 0.50 0.58 0.80 0.17 -0.39 0.44 0.38 0.62 0.75 0.18 --

32.1 8.0 25.9 21.4 23.9 5.7 21.7 30.9 7.9 21.0 8.4 21.6 5.8 15.9 27.9 8.2 12.1 8.6 18.5 5.0 13.3

C A C C C A C C A C A C A B C A B A B A B

3/5 0/2 1/4 12/28 11/20 1/2 -3/4 0/2 1/3 5/9 11/20 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 5/9 8/14 1/2 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

48

Table 12 (Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 15 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street Friday Evening: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/C
a

2023 No-Build
c

2023 Build
c

Delay

b

LOS

Queued Ave/95th

V/C

a

Delay

b

LOS

Queued Ave/95th

V/C

a

Delay

b

LOS

c

Queued Ave/95th

0.42 0.54 0.05 0.67 0.64 0.78 0.15 -0.26 0.60 0.04 0.46 0.33 0.72 0.08 -0.32 0.47 0.01 0.42 0.44 0.66 0.15 --

23.5 6.3 16.2 14.3 9.7 27.5 3.4 14.5 20.8 7.1 16.0 7.1 5.4 22.8 0.8 11.7 21.9 6.8 15.0 6.3 6.0 19.8 3.0 10.5

C A B B A C A B C A B A A C A B C A B A A B A B

2/3 0/2 0/1 2/6 5/11 5/12 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/1 1/3 2/5 5/11 0/0 -1/2 0/2 0/0 1/2 3/6 4/8 0/1 --

0.44 0.56 0.05 0.79 0.70 0.85 0.16 -0.27 0.62 0.04 0.55 0.37 0.79 0.09 -0.34 0.50 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.72 0.16 --

24.0 6.3 16.0 24.8 11.5 32.9 3.9 18.1 20.9 7.0 15.7 9.6 6.0 27.1 1.1 13.4 22.5 6.8 15.0 7.3 6.5 22.7 3.5 11.7

C A B C B C A B C A B A A C A B C A B A A C A B

2/3 0/2 0/1 3/9 6/14 6/14 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/1 2/4 2/5 6/13 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/0 1/3 3/6 5/11 0/1 --

0.44 0.57 0.05 0.80 0.71 0.86 0.16 -0.27 0.62 0.04 0.55 0.37 0.80 0.09 -0.34 0.50 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.73 0.16 --

24.0 6.3 16.0 26.1 11.9 33.9 3.9 18.7 20.9 7.0 15.7 10.0 6.0 27.9 1.1 13.8 22.5 6.8 15.0 7.4 6.6 23.1 3.5 11.8

C A B C B C A B C A B B A C A B C A B A A C A B

2/3 0/2 0/1 3/9 6/14 7/15 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/1 ¼ 2/6 6/14 0/1 -1/3 0/2 0/0 1/3 3/7 5/11 0/1 --

Volume-to-capacity. Control (signal) delay per vehicle in seconds. Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.
b c

a

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

49

Table 13 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 1 Queued 95th 2023 No-Build Queue 95th 2023 Build Queue 95th

Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/ at Thorndike Street Friday Evening: Thorndike Street WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Palmer Street SB LT/TH Saturday Midday: Thorndike Street WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Palmer Street SB LT/TH Saturday Evening: Thorndike Street WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Palmer Street SB LT/TH Route 181/Sykes Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Friday Evening: Mt. Dumplin Road WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Skyes Street SB LT/TH Saturday Midday: Mt. Dumplin Road WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Skyes Street SB LT/TH Saturday Evening: Mt. Dumplin Road WB LT/RT Route 181 NB TH/RT Skyes Street SB LT/TH

Demanda

Delayb

LOSc

Demand

Delay

LOS

Demand

Delay

LOS

170 253 513 142 251 340 146 212 294

11.7 0.0 8.2 11.1 0.0 8.1 11.3 0.0 8.1

B A A B A A B A A

1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

187 276 564 159 274 375 160 232 322

12.3 0.0 8.3 11.6 0.0 8.3 11.8 0.0 8.2

B A A B A A B A A

2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

187 292 312 159 288 394 200 253 336

12.5 0.0 8.3 11.8 0.0 8.3 12.1 0.0 8.3

B A A B A A B A A

2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1

2

15 538 458 19 375 324 13 299 322

16.8 0.0 8.9 12.9 0.0 8.2 12.5 0.0 7.9

C A A B A A B A A

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

17 588 501 21 410 354 15 327 352

18.8 0.0 9.1 13.7 0.0 8.3 13.2 0.0 8.0

C A A B A A B A A

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

17 604 519 21 424 373 15 248 367

19.5 0.0 9.1 14.1 0.0 8.3 13.6 0.0 8.1

C A A B A A B A A

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

50

Table 13 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 3 Queued 95th 2023 No-Build Queue 95th 2023 Build Queue 95th

Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Friday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Midday: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street Friday Evening: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT Saturday Midday: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT Saturday Evening: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT

Demanda

Delayb

LOSc

Demand

Delay

LOS

Demand

Delay

LOS

1 251 592 495 10 187 429 344 5 197 343 641

11.5 >50.0 8.4 8.9 16.8 29.2 7.9 8.4 12.1 32.1 8.0 8.1

B F A A C D A A B D A A

0 16 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0

1 274 647 541 10 205 469 376 5 176 375 373

11.9 >50.0 8.6 9.2 18.4 42.3 7.9 8.5 12.7 49.5 8.0 8.3

B F A A C E A A B E A A

0 22 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 1

1 274 663 559 10 205 483 395 5 216 396 387

12.1 >50.0 8.6 9.3 19.2 47.5 7.9 8.6 13.0 >50.0 8.1 8.3

B F A A C E A A B F A A

0 23 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 8 0 1

6

638 420 192 431 445 148 399 429 152

8.5 0.0 >50.0 1.0 0.0 27.1 8.4 0.0 25.2

A A F A A D A A D

1 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 3

700 462 210 476 493 162 438 471 166

8.7 0.0 >50.0 8.7 0.0 37.7 8.6 0.0 33.2

A A F A A E A A D

1 0 17 2 0 4 0 0 4

735 505 210 506 536 162 483 505 166

8.8 0.0 >50.0 8.8 0.0 47.4 8.7 0.0 42.1

A A F A A E A A E

1 0 19 1 0 5 0 0 5

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

51

Table 13 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 7 Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street Friday Evening: Park Street EB TH/RT Park Street WB LT/TH Stone Street NB LT/RT Saturday Midday: Park Street EB TH/RT Park Street WB LT/TH Stone Street NB LT/RT Saturday Evening: Park Street EB TH/RT Park Street WB LT/TH Stone Street NB LT/RT Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street Friday Evening: South Main Street EB LT/TH Route 32 WB TH/RT Stone Street SB LT/RT Saturday Midday: South Main Street EB LT/TH Route 32 WB TH/RT Stone Street SB LT/RT Saturday Evening: South Main Street EB LT/TH Route 32 WB TH/RT Stone Street SB LT/RT Demanda Delayb LOSc Queued 95th Demand 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue 95th Demand 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue 95th

693 410 256 494 400 165 466 399 171

0.0 9.6 >50.0 0.0 8.6 27.3 0.0 8.7 31.6

A A F A A D A A D

0 1 13 0 0 3 0 2 4

760 449 282 546 440 183 512 437 188

0.0 10.0 >50.0 0.0 8.9 39.5 0.0 8.9 48.3

A A F A A E A A E

0 1 19 0 1 5 0 1 6

795 469 305 576 460 206 557 453 206

0.0 10.2 >50.0 0.0 8.9 >50.0 0.0 9.2 >50.0

A B F A A F A A F

0 1 24 0 1 7 0 1 9

8

436 459 228 271 417 149 263 318 181

8.7 0.0 >50.0 8.4 0.0 20.1 8.2 0.0 20.5

A A F A A C A A C

1 0 8 1 0 2 1 0 3

477 504 251 297 459 166 287 348 199

8.9 0.0 >50.0 8.6 0.0 24.9 8.3 0.0 25.2

A A F A A C A A D

1 0 13 1 0 3 1 0 4

477 527 270 297 482 182 287 366 224

8.9 0.0 >50.0 8.7 0.0 28.5 8.4 0.0 30.3

A A F A A D A A D

1 0 15 1 0 4 1 0 5

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

52

Table 13 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 10 Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street Friday Evening: Lawrence Street EB LT/TH/RT Driveway WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Midday: Lawrence Street EB LT/TH/RT Driveway WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Evening: Lawrence Street EB LT/TH/RT Driveway WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street Friday Evening: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Saturday Midday: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Saturday Evening: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Demanda Delayb LOSc Queued 95th Demand 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue 95th Demand 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue 95th

110 1 661 916 77 0 570 571 62 0 503 538

>50.0 >50.0 10.3 9.1 37.4 0.0 8.7 8.7 31.4 0.0 8.8 8.5

F F B A E A A A D A A A

10 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

121 1 728 1,013 84 0 636 641 68 0 554 604

>50.0 >50.0 10.9 9.3 >50.0 0.0 8.9 8.9 42.8 0.0 9.0 8.6

F F B A F A A A E A A A

13 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

121 1 853 1,116 84 0 762 729 68 0 648 738

>50.0 >50.0 11.5 9.9 >50.0 0.0 9.2 9.4 >50.0 0.0 9.6 8.9

F F B A F A A A F A A A

16 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

12

138 71 977 842 152 41 603 827 117 27 581 761

>50.0 16.5 10.0 0.0 >50.0 15.9 9.9 0.0 >50.0 13.8 9.4 0.0

F C B A F C A A F B A A

13 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

151 78 1,071 926 166 45 666 913 128 30 638 835

>50.0 18.4 10.5 0.0 >50.0 17.6 10.4 0.0 >50.0 14.8 9.7 0.0

F C B A F C B A F B A A

17 1 0 0 15 1 0 0 7 1 0 0

151 78 1,080 935 166 45 681 922 128 30 650 842

>80.0 18.6 10.5 0.0 >80.0 17.8 10.5 0.0 >80.0 14.9 9.7 0.0

F C B A F C B A F B A A

17 1 0 0 16 1 0 0 7 1 0 0

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

53

Table 13 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY
2013 Existing Location No. 14 Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Friday Evening: Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Saturday Midday: Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Saturday Evening: Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RT Thorndike Street NB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Demanda Delayb LOSc Queued 95th Demand 2023 No-Build Delay LOS Queue 95th Demand 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue 95th

49 1,069 732 38 640 766 19 727 587

>50.0 9.6 0.0 20.6 9.6 0.0 21.3 8.8 0.0

F A A C A A C A A

3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

54 1,171 806 42 707 846 21 798 645

>50.0 10.1 0.0 24.9 9.9 0.0 25.6 9.1 0.0

F B A C A A D A A

5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

54 1,180 815 42 715 855 21 810 651

>50.0 10.1 0.0 25.3 10.0 0.0 26.3 9.1 0.0

F B A D A A D A A

5 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Demand in vehicles per hour. Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.
b c

a

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

54

SUMMARY OF RESULTS As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on local roadways, due to the regional attraction of the Project. However, there are a number of locations where improvements were identified to address deficiencies, either based on existing conditions (safety-related or operationally-related) or due to impacts caused by the Project. These locations are listed below: MITIGATION – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS Locations 3/4 – North Main Street at Shearer Street and Wilbraham Street The unsignalized intersection of North Main Street with Shearer Street has a crash rate above the District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as angle or rear-end collisions. The intersection has awkward geometry and is in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Main Street with Wilbraham Street, but operates under STOP-sign control. Sight distance to the north is also limited for the westbound Shearer Street approach. It is recommended that the intersection be placed under signalized control and coordinated with the adjacent Wilbraham Street intersection. Pavement markings and signage are also recommended. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 19. Locations 6/7 – Park Street at Breckenridge Street and Stone Street The unsignalized intersection of Park Street with Breckenridge Street has a crash rate above the District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as angle or rear-end collisions. A high degree of delay is associated with the Breckenridge Street unsignalized approach, where left- and right-turns are contained in one lane. Due to the high traffic volumes on Park Street but comparatively low volumes on Breckenridge Street, there are no improvements that can effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles exiting Breckenridge Street. However, to reduce the delay for right-turning vehicles, it is suggested that a minor strip widening of the approach to Park Street be implemented. This will allow the right-turns to execute their movements without waiting for left-turning vehicles to first execute their turn. The existing worn pavement markings should also be updated at this intersection and also at the adjacent unsignalized intersection of Park Street and Stone Street. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 20. Location 8 – Stone Street at South Main Street The unsignalized intersection of Stone Street with South Main Street operates with a high degree of delay. The crash rate is not significant (crash rate below the District 2 average). Due to the high traffic volumes on South Main Street but comparatively low volumes on Stone Street, there are no improvements that can effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles exiting Stone Street. It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 21.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

55

Insert figure 19

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

56

Insert figure 20

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

57

Insert figure 21

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

58

Location 9 – Thorndike Street at Park Street The signalized intersection of Thorndike Street with Park Street operates with a high degree of delay. The crash rate is not significant (crash rate below the District 2 average). Due to the limited property available for roadway widening, there are no improvements that can be made to effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles at the intersection. To improve operations for the Park Street approach, it is suggested that pavement markings be installed to formalize the use of separate right-turn and left-turn lanes at this intersection. High-visibility diagonal crosswalk markings should also be applied at the intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 22. Location 14 – Thorndike Street at Mount Dumplin Road The unsignalized Mount Dumplin Road approach to Thorndike Street operates with a high degree of delay. No crashes have been recorded at the intersection. Due to the high traffic volumes on Thorndike Street but comparatively low volumes on Mount Dumplin Road, there are no improvements that can effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles exiting Mount Dumplin Road. It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 23. Location 1 – Thorndike Road at Sykes Street/Palmer Street (Route 181) The unsignalized intersection of Thorndike Road with Route 181 does not operate with a high degree of delay, but the crash rate is above the District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as rear-end collisions, but there have also been two head-on collisions. Half of the collisions resulted in personal injuries. It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. In addition, signage to identify southbound Route 181 motorists that they are approaching an intersection with skewed geometry is recommended, as is removal of vegetation within the right-of-way to improve visibility. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 24. Location 15 – Thorndike Street at High Street The signalized intersection of Thorndike Street with Park Street has a crash rate above the District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as rear-end or angle collisions. In addition, a large number (8 of 21 or 38 percent) resulted in personal injuries. A number of crashes were the result of collisions between northbound left-turning vehicles and southbound through vehicles. The northbound left-turn movement operates with a protected-plus-permissive operation, requiring turning vehicles to yield to opposing through vehicles during the permissive operation. To improve safety at the intersection, it is suggested that the permissive operation be eliminated and the left-turn movement operate through a protected-only operation. This will require a new timing plan for the intersection. In addition, the existing worn pavement markings should be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 25.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

59

Location 5 – Thorndike Road at North Main Street (Route 20) The signalized intersection of Thorndike Road with North Main Street (Route 20) operates with a high degree of delay on the North Main Street eastbound approach. The crash rate is not significant (crash rate below the District 2 average). To improve operations for the North Main Street approach, it is suggested that the eastbound left-turn and through movements be allocated more green time. This will require a modification of the existing timing plan for the intersection. In addition, the existing worn pavement markings should be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 26.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

60

Insert figure 22

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

61

Insert figure 23

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

62

Insert figure 24

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

63

Insert figure 25

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

64

Insert Figure 26

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

65

MITIGATION – SITE ACCESS INTERSECTIONS Significant impacts are expected at the intersections of the Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway and Shearer Street with Route 32. As identified previously, two concepts are currently being reviewed for access: 1. At-Grade Alternative – In this concept, a Site Access Roadway is constructed opposite the Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway and continues around the north of the site. The I-90 ramp roadway and Route 32 are significantly widened and expanded, and a new traffic signal is installed. A boulevard-type Access Road consisting of two lanes per direction and a raised median will serve as the access to the Project. 2. Flyover Alternative – Separate flyover ramps are proposed for the traffic exiting and entering the Turnpike that will bypass the Route 32 intersection with the I-90 ramp roadway. Local traffic will be able to access the Project via the Site Access Road intersection with Route 32 and Shearer Street. The ramps will connect to Route 32 at a new signalized intersection, with a slip ramp for traffic destined to the Project from I-90. The Access Road would consist of two lanes per direction and a raised median. These conceptual alternatives are shown on Figures 27 and 28, respectively. Tables 14 and 15 present the LOS results of the intersections for 2023 No Build, 2023 Build unmitigated, and 2023 Build with proposed mitigation in place for both Local Intersections and the Site Access Intersections.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

66

Insert figure 27

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

67

Insert figure 28

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

68

Table 14 MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 4 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/North Main Street at 20/Wilbraham Streete Friday Evening: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: Wilbraham Street EB LT Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT North Main Street WB LT/TH North Main Street WB RT Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH Route 181 SB RT Overall Route 0.79 0.70 0.82 0.56 0.12 0.82 0.30 -0.54 0.50 0.76 0.43 0.08 0.64 0.23 -0.36 0.48 0.59 0.39 0.02 0.59 0.25 -32.5 17.3 35.0 5.5 16.7 36.4 2.3 21.7 15.0 10.8 28.4 4.7 17.2 24.7 2.2 15.6 9.7 10.5 20.9 5.0 0.0 22.1 2.2 12.3 C B D A B D A C B B C A B C A B A B C A A C A B 2/7 5/14 5/13 0/3 0/1 5/12 0/1 -1/4 3/9 5/13 0/2 0/1 3/8 0/1 -1/3 3/8 3/7 0/2 0/0 3/7 0/1 -0.80 0.77 0.90 0.57 0.12 0.85 0.30 -0.57 0.58 0.83 0.27 0.09 0.66 0.23 -0.42 0.53 0.70 0.23 0.02 0.62 0.26 -33.9 20.2 44.3 5.5 16.8 39.9 2.3 25.1 16.7 12.2 33.0 1.4 17.3 25.5 2.2 17.0 10.8 11.4 25.0 1.4 0.0 23.4 2.2 13.5 C C D A B D A C B B C A B C A B B B C A A C A B 2/7 6/17 6/15 0/3 0/1 5/13 0/1 -1/4 4/10 5/14 0/1 0/1 4/9 0/1 -1/3 4/9 4/10 0/1 0/0 3/7 0/1 -0.84 0.78 0.88 0.36 0.19 0.62 0.25 -0.63 0.63 0.87 0.26 0.15 0.45 0.19 -0.46 0.60 0.72 0.21 0.02 0.38 0.21 -53.9 26.0 48.1 1.7 26.6 72.3 2.2 34.2 43.9 20.6 47.7 1.6 28.9 21.1 1.5 24.5 31.2 20.7 37.5 1.2 0.2 15.7 1.2 18.9 D C D A C E A C D C D A C C A C C C C A A B A B 4/9 12/18 11/17 0/1 0/1 5/13 0/0 -2/5 9/13 10/17 0/1 0/1 2/6 0/0 -2/4 8/12 8/12 0/1 0/0 2/5 0/0 -V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

69

Table 14 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 5 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street Friday Evening: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: North Main Street EB LT North Main Street EB TH South Main Street WB TH South Main Street WB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.78 0.58 0.59 0.29 0.76 0.49 -0.81 0.42 0.62 0.25 0.44 0.52 -0.51 0.35 0.34 0.22 0.44 0.36 --

19.9 9.9 19.0 3.3 37.1 6.3 15.5 22.3 7.7 19.9 3.3 24.5 7.6 14.4 8.7 7.0 15.0 3.3 24.5 2.9 9.4

B A B A D A B C A B A C A B A A B A C A A

3/6 5/9 5/8 0/2 5/9 1/4 -3/6 3/5 6/8 0/1 3/5 2/5 -2/4 3/4 3/5 0/1 3/5 0/2 --

0.95 0.58 0.59 0.29 0.76 0.58 -1.07 0.44 0.63 0.16 0.47 0.54 -0.63 0.37 0.35 0.14 0.47 0.46 --

40.7 9.9 19.0 3.3 37.1 8.5 19.7 76.8 11.2 23.7 1.6 29.1 4.1 27.1 15.6 10.4 18.0 1.7 29.1 3.3 12.1

D A B A D A B E B C A C A C B B B A C A B

4/10 5/9 5/8 0/2 5/9 2/5 -4/21 3/11 5/13 0/1 3/7 1/2 -3/11 3/9 3/7 0/1 3/7 0/2 --

0.86 0.55 0.59 0.29 0.88 0.58 -0.90 0.40 0.62 0.25 0.51 0.59 -0.56 0.33 0.34 0.22 0.51 0.44 --

23.9 8.3 19.0 3.3 52.9 8.5 18.1 30.1 6.5 19.9 3.3 28.0 9.6 16.4 8.4 5.9 15.0 3.3 28.0 3.1 9.1

C A B A D A B C A B A C A B A A B A C A A

3/8 5/8 5/8 0/2 5/10 2/5 -3/8 3/5 6/8 0/1 3/5 3/6 -3/4 3/4 3/5 0/1 3/5 0/2 --

Volume-to-capacity. Control (signal) delay per vehicle in seconds. Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. e Operation levels decrease due to incorporation of Shearer Street intersection into signal operation. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.
b c

a

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

70

Table 14 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 3 Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Friday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Midday: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Saturday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street Friday Evening: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT Saturday Midday: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT Saturday Evening: Park Street EB LT/TH Park Street WB TH/RT Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT Demanda Delayb LOSc Queued 95th Demand 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue 95th 2023 Build with Mitigation Demand Delay LOS Queue 95th

1 274 647 541 10 205 469 376 5 176 375 373

11.9 >50.0 8.6 9.2 18.4 42.3 7.9 8.5 12.7 49.5 8.0 8.3

B F A A C E A A B E A A

0 22 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 1

1 274 663 559 10 205 483 395 5 216 396 387

12.1 >50.0 8.6 9.3 19.2 47.5 7.9 8.6 13.0 >50.0 8.1 8.3

B F A A C E A A B F A A

0 23 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 8 0 1 See following table for signalized conditions.

6

700 462 210 476 493 162 438 471 166

8.7 0.0 >50.0 8.7 0.0 37.7 8.6 0.0 33.2

A A F A A E A A D

1 0 17 2 0 4 0 0 4

735 505 210 506 536 162 483 505 166

8.8 0.0 >50.0 8.8 0.0 47.4 8.7 0.0 42.1

A A F A A E A A E

1 0 19 1 0 5 0 0 5

735 505 210 506 536 162 483 505 166

8.8 0.0 >50.0 8.8 0.0 47.4 8.7 0.0 42.1

A A F A A E A A E

1 0 19 1 0 5 0 0 5

Demand in vehicles per hour. Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.
b c

a

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

71

Table 14 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 3 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Friday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Overall Saturday Midday: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Overall Saturday Evening: Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RT Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.01 0.61 0.57 0.57 -See previous table for unsignalized conditions. See previous table for unsignalized conditions. 0.02 0.29 0.53 0.44 -0.01 0.37 0.41 0.46 --

0.0 53.3 13.3 13.3 20.5 13.9 6.6 21.8 17.3 17.2 0.0 8.9 19.5 16.4 15.7

A D B B C B A C B B A A B B B

0/0 6/10 6/8 7/10 -0/0 1/3 9/12 6/8 -0/0 2/3 8/10 7/11 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

72

Table 14 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – LOCAL INTERSECTIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 15 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street Friday Evening: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: High Street EB LT/TH High Street EB RT High Street WB LT/TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH/RT Thorndike Street SB LT/TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.44 0.56 0.05 0.79 0.70 0.85 0.16 -0.27 0.62 0.04 0.55 0.37 0.79 0.09 -0.34 0.50 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.72 0.16 --

24.0 6.3 16.0 24.8 11.5 32.9 3.9 18.1 20.9 7.0 15.7 9.6 6.0 27.1 1.1 13.4 22.5 6.8 15.0 7.3 6.5 22.7 3.5 11.7

C A B C B C A B C A B A A C A B C A B A A C A B

2/3 0/2 0/1 3/9 6/14 6/14 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/1 2/4 2/5 6/13 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/0 1/3 3/6 5/11 0/1 --

0.44 0.57 0.05 0.80 0.71 0.86 0.16 -0.27 0.62 0.04 0.55 0.37 0.80 0.09 -0.34 0.50 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.73 0.16 --

24.0 6.3 16.0 26.1 11.9 33.9 3.9 18.7 20.9 7.0 15.7 10.0 6.0 27.9 1.1 13.8 22.5 6.8 15.0 7.4 6.6 23.1 3.5 11.8

C A B C B C A B C A B B A C A B C A B A A C A B

2/3 0/2 0/1 3/9 6/14 7/15 0/1 -1/2 0/2 0/1 ¼ 2/6 6/14 0/1 -1/3 0/2 0/0 1/3 3/7 5/11 0/1 --

0.51 0.60 0.06 0.75 0.69 0.79 0.15 -0.30 0.64 0.04 0.53 0.36 0.75 0.08 -0.36 0.51 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.70 0.15 --

29.3 7.7 19.2 18.8 9.5 24.6 3.1 15.0 24.0 8.2 18.4 8.1 5.1 22.1 0.9 12.0 24.7 7.4 17.0 6.8 6.0 20.0 3.0 10.9

C A B B A C A B C A B A A C A B C A B A A C A B

2/4 0/2 0/1 2/7 6/11 7/11 0/1 -1/3 0/3 0/1 1/3 2/4 6/10 0/1 -1/3 0/2 0/0 1/2 3/6 5/9 0/1 --

Volume-to-capacity. Control (signal) delay per vehicle in seconds. c Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.
b

a

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

73

Table 15 MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – SITE ACCESS LOCATIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 11 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Thorndike Street at the I-90 Ramps Friday Evening: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB TH I-90 Ramp EB RT Site Access Road WB LT Site Access Road WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB TH I-90 Ramp EB RT Site Access Road WB LT Site Access Road WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: I-90 Ramp EB LT I-90 Ramp EB TH I-90 Ramp EB RT Site Access Road WB LT Site Access Road WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with At-Grade Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

1.01 -0.55 --0.67 0.54 --0.73 0.35 -0.66 -0.31 --0.51 0.42 --0.71 0.34 -0.70 -0.30 --0.45 0.38 --0.67 0.26 --

66.1 -5.4 --18.7 15.9 --41.2 3.5 26.2 32.2 -2.9 --10.5 9.9 --32.4 2.5 14.4 30.9 -1.8 --10.3 10.1 --31.2 1.3 14.4

E -A --B B --D A C C -A --B A --C A B C -A --B B --C A B

16/27 -2/7 --5/7 7/10 --6/10 2/3 -5/10 -1/2 --2/6 4/8 --6/12 1/2 -5/11 -0/2 --2/5 3/7 --5/10 0/1 --

2.58 -0.60 --0.75 0.65 --0.81 0.99 -2.02 -0.31 --0.70 0.61 --0.85 0.80 -1.69 -0.31 --0.63 0.51 --0.86 0.97 --

>80.0 -9.9 --25.7 17.5 --43.4 35.8 >80.0 >80.0 -5.0 --24.1 16.5 --45.6 13.0 >80.0 >80.0 -5.1 --20.6 14.7 --45.3 29.9 >80.0

F -A --C B --D D F F -A --C B --D B F F -A --C B --D C F

62/82 -5/12 --5/9 10/14 --9/13 25/41 -44/63 -2/4 --4/8 9/12 --10/15 11/21 -36/53 -2/4 --3/7 7/10 --10/15 20/43 --

0.87 0.77 0.68 0.66 0.92 0.88 0.54 0.25 0.55 0.44 0.53 -0.91 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.95 0.78 0.54 0.24 0.43 0.44 0.54 -0.74 0.65 0.36 0.68 0.91 0.70 0.44 0.19 0.41 0.48 0.45 --

51.6 35.8 15.4 54.9 52.5 67.1 38.7 10.1 65.6 42.9 19.0 39.5 57.1 37.8 16.9 57.8 58.4 54.4 38.1 6.0 53.8 41.9 19.5 40.7 51.3 33.6 6.6 50.2 42.9 52.0 37.1 3.3 51.1 40.7 14.0 35.8

D D B D D E D B E D B D E D B E E D D A D D B D D C A D D D D A D D B D

9/13 12/16 8/14 5/7 12/16 5/9 6/8 2/3 2/4 4/5 7/11 -9/13 12/16 9/15 4/7 12/17 5/7 6/8 1/3 2/4 3/5 7/11 -5/7 8/12 2/4 5/8 14/19 4/6 4/6 0/2 2/3 4/5 3/6 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

74

Table 15 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – SITE ACCESS LOCATIONS
2023 No-Build Location No. 13 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Thorndike Street at the Big Y/Job Lot Drive Friday Evening: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Midday: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall Saturday Evening: Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB LT Big Y/Job Lot Drive EB RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street SB TH Thorndike Street SB RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th V/C 2023 Build with Mitigation Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.52 0.41 0.59 0.89 0.83 0.14 -0.47 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.79 0.17 -0.39 0.44 0.37 0.61 0.74 0.18 --

32.0 8.0 24.7 20.9 23.8 5.7 21.3 30.6 7.9 20.3 8.4 21.4 5.8 15.7 27.8 8.2 11.8 8.4 18.4 5.0 13.2

C A C C C A C C A C A C A B C A B A B A B

3/5 0/2 1/4 12/28 11/19 1/2 -3/4 0/2 1/3 5/9 11/19 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 4/9 8/14 1/2 --

0.52 0.41 0.61 0.90 0.83 0.14 -0.48 0.43 0.50 0.58 0.80 0.17 -0.39 0.44 0.38 0.62 0.75 0.18 --

32.1 8.0 25.9 21.4 23.9 5.7 21.7 30.9 7.9 21.0 8.4 21.6 5.8 15.9 27.9 8.2 12.1 8.6 18.5 5.0 13.3

C A C C C A C C A C A C A B C A B A B A B

3/5 0/2 1/4 12/28 11/20 1/2 -3/4 0/2 1/3 5/9 11/20 1/2 -2/4 0/2 1/2 5/9 8/14 1/2 --

0.74 0.50 0.50 0.84 0.83 0.14 -0.66 0.51 0.41 0.55 0.79 0.17 -0.47 0.48 0.35 0.60 0.75 0.18 --

54.0 11.5 16.6 13.4 22.7 5.4 18.7 46.7 11.0 13.9 5.7 20.0 5.3 15.2 33.4 10.0 8.8 6.9 17.1 4.4 12.4

D B B B C A B D B B A B A B C B A A B A B

3/8 0/2 1/3 9/15 9/20 1/2 -3/6 0/2 1/2 4/6 10/18 1/2 -2/5 0/2 1/1 4/6 8/12 1/2 --

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

75

Table 15 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – SITE ACCESS LOCATIONS
2023 Build Location No. 12 Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street/Site Drive Friday Evening: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB TH/RT Site Drive WB LT Site Drive WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Overall Saturday Midday: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB TH/RT Site Drive WB LT Site Drive WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Overall Saturday Evening: Shearer Street EB LT Shearer Street EB TH/RT Site Drive WB LT Site Drive WB TH/RT Thorndike Street NB LT Thorndike Street NB TH Thorndike Street NB RT Thorndike Street SB LT Thorndike Street SB TH/RT Overall V/Ca Delayb LOSc Queued Ave/95th 2023 Build with At-Grade Mitigation V/C Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th 2023 Build with Flyover Mitigation V/C Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

0.10 0.06 --0.02 0.33 --0.32 -0.11 0.03 --0.03 0.19 --0.32 -0.09 0.02 --0.02 0.20 --0.29 --

1.3 0.7 --0.7 1.5 --1.3 1.3 1.8 1.2 --1.0 1.6 --1.7 1.6 2.0 1.4 --1.0 1.7 --1.7 1.7

A A --A A --A A A A --A A --A A A A --A A --A A

0/1 0/1 --0/0 0/4 --3/8 -0/2 0/1 --0/0 0/2 --3/8 -0/1 0/1 --0/0 0/2 --0/3 --

1.04 0.11 0.11 0.80 0.11 0.55 0.74 0.79 0.27 -0.88 0.13 0.16 0.60 0.13 0.50 0.84 0.73 0.13 -1.00 0.09 0.10 0.61 0.09 0.54 0.88 0.66 0.11 --

77.8 0.4 47.0 35.0 0.1 65.3 31.6 70.9 2.2 44.9 43.8 0.4 45.8 35.4 0.2 50.5 40.2 59.3 0.7 37.1 59.5 0.2 46.8 36.1 0.1 64.9 46.9 58.3 0.7 46.9

E A D C A E C E A D D A D D A D D E A D E A D D A E D E A D

15/20 0/0 1/1 13/17 0/0 2/4 11/13 4/9 0/0 -10/15 0/0 1/2 8/10 0/0 2/5 11/14 5/9 0/0 -17/23 0/0 1/1 8/10 0/0 2/4 11/15 4/6 0/0 --

See Unsignalized Level-of-Service Summary (Table 14)

See notes at end of table.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

76

Table 15 (Continued) MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY – SITE ACCESS LOCATIONS
2023 No-Build Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Route 32 at Flyover Ramps Friday Evening: Flyover Ramp WB LT Flyover Ramp WB RT Route 32 NB TH Route 32 SB TH Overall Saturday Midday: Flyover Ramp WB LT Flyover Ramp WB RT Route 32 NB TH Route 32 SB TH Overall Saturday Evening: Flyover Ramp WB LT Flyover Ramp WB RT Route 32 NB TH Route 32 SB TH Overall
a c b

2023 Build Queued Ave/95th V/C Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

2023 Build with Flyover Mitigation V/C Delay LOS Queue Ave/95th

V/Ca

Delayb

LOSc

0.65 1.01 0.58 0.80 -N/A N/A 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.71 -0.54 0.62 0.41 0.77 --

33.9 59.9 15.3 18.1 41.9 30.3 8.6 8.6 11.1 11.4 34.8 9.3 7.3 11.7 14.6

C E B B D C A A B B C A A B B

7/10 12/22 11/13 15/18 -3/5 0/3 4/8 8/13 -3/5 0/3 4/7 11/17 --

Volume-to-capacity. Control (signal) delay per vehicle in seconds. Level-of-Service. d Queue length in vehicles. EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

77

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS A transportation improvement program has been developed that is designed to provide safe and efficient access to the project and address any deficiencies identified at off-site locations evaluated in conjunction with this study. Improvements have been identified at the following locations as a part of this evaluation: Local Intersections 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. North Main Street at Shearer Street and Wilbraham Street Park Street at Breckenridge Street and Stone Street Stone Street at South Main Street Thorndike Street at Park Street Thorndike Street at Mount Dumplin Road Thorndike Street at High Street Thorndike Road at Sykes Street/Palmer Street (Route 181) Thorndike Street at North Main Street (Route 20)

Regional/Access Locations 1. Route 32 at Exit 8 I-90 Ramp Roadway 2. Route 32 at Shearer Street 3. Route 32 at Big Y/Job Lot Driveway Exit 8 Toll Plaza The existing toll plaza configuration was calculated to have approximately 1,000 vph of reserve capacity. Since the trip generation for the project is estimated to send a total of between 569 and 580 vph through the toll plaza in the interim phase, it would appear that the plaza will have sufficient processing capacity to accommodate the increases from the project. However, this is not the case with the Full Build scenario. A more extensive analysis is currently underway to determine the sizing requirements for the toll plaza under both Interim and Full Build conditions. In addition, officials from the MassDOT have indicated that future conditions should include a review of operations due to the change in tolling from the current exit ramp configuration to a mainline Automated Electronic Tolling configuration. This change is likely in the foreseeable future but not within the next five years at Exit 8. While the proposed improvements to the Toll road approach to Route 32 should improve operations for both the intersection and the toll plaza, more review is currently underway in this area. Transportation Demand Management Reducing the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development is an important component of the transportation mitigation plan. The goal of the proposed traffic reduction strategy is to encourage the use of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) as an alternative to personal vehicle travel to the Project. The development team already encourages the use of HOVs at their existing facility, bringing a significant portion of patrons to the site through interstate bus travel. This practice will be maintained in the Palmer facility.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

78

CONCLUSIONS Based on this assessment, the proposed project can be accommodated on the recently improved roadways with a measurable but not a significant impact on overall traffic operations. Focus has been placed on impacts and mitigation at local intersections and roadways with additional review of improvements to regional roadway facilities. With the implementation of the above recommendations, safe and efficient access will be provided to the planned development and the proposed project can be constructed as planned.

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx

79

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful