Memorandum

Date     December 6, 2012

TO           Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

FROM     Karl H. Quackenbush
CTPS Executive Director

RE           Work Program for: Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional Priority Roadways

Action Required

Review and approval

Proposed Motion

That the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization vote to approve the work program for Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional Priority Roadways in the form of the draft dated December 6, 2012.

Project Identification

Unified Planning Work Program Classification

Planning Studies

CTPS Project Number

13259

Client

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

CTPS Project Supervisors

Principal: Efi Pagitsas

Manager: Chen-Yuan Wang

Funding

MPO 3C Planning Contract #75086

MPO §5303 Contract #75364

IMPACT ON MPO WORK

This is MPO work and will be carried out in conformance with the priorities established by the MPO.

BACKGROUND

During MPO outreach for the development of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), MAPC subregional groups and other entities submit comments and identify transportation problems and issues that concern them. Often these issues are related to bottlenecks, safety, or lack of safe or convenient access to abutters along roadway corridors in their area. Such issues can affect not only mobility and crash incidence along a roadway and its side streets, but also livability and quality of life, including economic development and air quality.

To address some concerns of these kinds of the MAPC subregional groups and others, MPO staff will identify and study roadway corridor segments in the MPO region that are of concern to them but that have not been identified in the LRTP regional needs assessment.¹ These will not be major arterials, but arterial roadways or collector roadways that may carry lower numbers of vehicles daily than major arterials and may be maintained by a city or town. The emphasis of the study will be on the issues identified by the relevant subregional groups and the development of  recommendations for improvements. Subjects that will be considered in addition to mobility, safety, and access are transit feasibility, truck issues, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation.

The selection of the corridor segments to be studied will be based on criteria that include mobility and safety needs, agency, municipal, and MAPC subregional group input, and implementation feasibility, as described in Task 2. Up to three corridor segments will be selected; the number selected will depend on the lengths of the segments and the nature of the issues that need to be addressed. A segment selected for study may span multiple towns, or it may be restricted to just a few intersections in a town center, shopping area, or office/business park.

A roadway corridor study is usually a logical way to address subregional multimodal transportation needs, as it evaluates a roadway corridor segment comprehensively: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, public transportation users, and abutters are all considered, using a holistic approach to the analysis of the issues and to developing recommendations for improvements to be made within the roadway’s right-of-way. The result is a roadway corridor where not only are vehicular traffic operations improved, but it is safe to cross the street and to walk or cycle, whether to shops or schools or for recreation; buses can run on time; and pedestrian access to and from train stations is safe.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to:

• Select up to three arterial or collector roadway segments, based on prioritization criteria and input from subregional MAPC groups, municipalities, and agencies
• Identify the safety, mobility, access, and other transportation-related problems within the segments
• Evaluate the feasibility of multimodal transportation solutions to the problems, including pedestrian, bicycle, trucks, and transit modes

WORK DESCRIPTION

MPO staff will perform the following tasks:

• Solicit agency, MAPC subregion, and municipal input
• Select study locations
• Collect data
• Analyze data
• Recommend improvements
• Document methodology and findings

Task 1  Solicit Agency, MAPC Subregion, and Municipal Input

MPO staff will review existing comments from LRTP, UPWP, and other outreach activities to begin constructing an initial list of corridors to consider. Subsequently, staff will invite pertinent municipal officials, members of the MAPC subregional groups for the areas in which the potential study segments are located, representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Office of Transportation Planning and MassDOT’s Highway Division, and representatives of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to comment on the initial list of potential corridors. The participants will provide advice and input on data, help to select study locations and to identify transportation-related problems, and provide input to the development of potential multimodal transportation solutions and of recommendations. Recommendations from this study will be carried out by the municipalities or the Highway Division; therefore it is important that the study recommendations reflect their experience and design standards.

Products of Task 1

Advice and input on: data, selection of study locations, identification of problems, and possible solutions

Task 2  Select Roadway Segments to Be Studied 

MPO staff will develop a ranking system similar to the one developed for the “Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment—FFY 2013” study and apply it to the candidate segments for this study in order to select up to three. The system will use metrics for the following criteria areas:

• Safety
• Congestion
• Transit significance
• Regional significance
• Implementation potential
• Regional equity

The segments selected for study will be ones study participants consider suitable and for which the communities through which they pass will be committed to promoting implementation of the recommendations of the study. The staff’s proposed selection of up to three segments, along with the list of candidate segments, will be presented to the MPO for discussion and approval.

Within each segment selected for this study, MPO staff, working in conjunction with agency, subregional, and municipal officials, will identify problem subsegments and isolated locations where this study should focus on developing multimodal transportation improvements. To this end, staff will examine the segment to identify safety and mobility problems facing pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users in the corridor, as well as transit service deficiencies and connectivity problems. Staff will also identify truck traffic issues, such as crash locations with unusually high truck involvement, possible turning-radius issues at intersections along the corridor, heavy truck volumes adding to congestion along the corridor, and points of truck conflict with cars and pedestrians. In addition, staff will review the Highway Division’s and MPO’s TIP project information databases and contact the municipalities to identify projects and studies that have already been planned or conducted that include each roadway segment selected for study; this information will not only guide the selection of problem locations within each segment, but also enable staff to consider previous recommendations for incorporation into this study.

Products of Task 2

Documentation of:

• Safety, operational, and mobility problems facing pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists
• Transit service issues, including service deficiencies and problems with connectivity and linkage
• Truck traffic issues
• Projects and studies already planned or conducted that include the roadway segments
• The corridor segment selection process (in a table and accompanying technical memorandum)

Task 3  Collect and Gather Data

Once the problem locations have been identified for each roadway segment selected for study, recent and historical data on them will be gathered from existing sources, including studies performed by municipalities or by proponents of private development projects and databases maintained by the MPO and the Highway Division. Unavoidably, some data will have to be collected in the field for some of the types of analysis in this work program. The following data are likely to be gathered from existing sources or to be collected in the field for the problem locations under study:

• Turning-movement counts for the AM and PM peak periods, including trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and average annual weekday traffic data from automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts
• Traffic-signal timing plans and coordination settings, signage, and lane configurations
• Bus service performance data and locations of stops, signage, and shelters
• Truck traffic data, including truck origins and destinations
• Right-of-way, pavement widths and conditions, sidewalk widths and conditions, and condition of and signage for midblock crossings
• Development projects, development mitigation proposals, and proposed transportation projects; and specific proposed improvements for the segments from these sources
• Crash statistics, rates, and diagrams for locations with crash rates exceeding the Highway Division’s district average
• Signage, street markings, and pavement conditions

Products of Task 3

• Various kinds of data for assessing safety, mobility, and operational performance at the problem locations
• A list of economic development and transportation improvement proposals previously planned for the roadway segments

Task 4  Analyze Data

Based on the types of analyses performed in similar studies in the past and the need to provide “complete streets,” where pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a street, the following types of analyses and evaluations will be performed:

• Analyze crash data and prepare crash diagrams to confirm and examine safety concerns and identify possible improvements
• In order to determine potential truck traffic safety improvements, analyze crash and traffic volume data and intersection turning-radius data 
• Evaluate the need to provide new sidewalks, to replace broken and crumbled sidewalks, and to provide continuity of sidewalks
• Evaluate the need to provide new midblock pedestrian crossings or to improve existing ones by installing pedestrian crosswalk flashing beacons, improving signage at or near them, or making them accessible
• Assess safe and economical means to accommodate bicyclists—for example, adding bike lanes, providing adequate shoulders, or making provisions for bicyclists to share the road with motorists 
• Conduct traffic signal warrant, signal retiming and coordination, and roundabout analyses to determine the appropriate intersection traffic controls and best signal timing plans for safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists
• Assess the need for traffic signal equipment upgrades, including for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for signalized intersections
• Evaluate on-time performance of bus service, bus-stop placement in relationship to demand and pedestrian activity, and need for bus route signs and shelters

Products of Task 4        

Analysis results, including crash analysis tables, intersection crash diagrams, delay and queue calculations, warrant analyses, bus performance statistics, maps and other graphics showing pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and all other results from Task 4

Task 5  Recommend Improvements

Based on consultations with agency and municipal officials and with subregional group representatives, and on the analyses described above, staff will make recommendations in many areas, including geometric, traffic control, pavement rehabilitation, roadway enhancement, and other changes to improve traffic operations, including  the effective and safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists for traveling upon and crossing streets. Additional recommendations will be made related to truck traffic, to improving the on-time performance of bus service, and to increasing the safety of people walking or bicycling to and from bus stops and train stations.

Products of Task 5

Recommendations to address: pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety; accommodation of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users; other traffic operations issues, including those related to trucks; and bus service issues

Task 6  Document Study Methodology and Results

Documentation will be in the form of a report or a technical memorandum on the following subjects: study background, agency and municipal input, identification of problems, data collection, analyses, and recommendations. The document will follow the MassDOT Highway Division’s guidelines for preparation of functional design reports as much as possible, taking into consideration the study’s budget. A draft document will be made available for review by municipal officials, members of the subregional groups for the areas in which the roadway corridor segments are located, and the MassDOT Highway Division and Office of Transportation Planning. After comments have been addressed, the draft will be submitted to the MPO for final approval.

Product of Task 6

A final technical memorandum for each selected roadway corridor segment documenting all of the project’s tasks and products, including recommendations

ESTIMATED SCHEDULE

It is estimated that the study of two of the three selected roadway corridor segments will be completed eight months after the notice to proceed is received. The third roadway corridor segment will be studied in FFY 2014 and will be completed within four months. The proposed schedule, by task, is shown in Exhibit 1.

ESTIMATED COST

The total cost of this project is estimated to be $119,878; $75,000 will be spent in FFY 2013 and $44,878 in FFY 2014. This includes the cost of 44.5 person-weeks of staff time, overhead at the rate of 96.58 percent, and travel. A detailed breakdown of the estimated costs is presented in Exhibit 2.

KQ/EP/ep