The URL can be used to link to this page

2009 COPIES OF REPORTS APPENDED TO REQUEST FOR MINOR SITE ASSIGNMENT MODIFICATIONS Salem Transfer Station Minor Site Assignment Modification Table of Contents Attachment 1 —Environmental Notification Form Attachment 2 —Air-Quality Impact Study (Particulates) Attachment 3 —Air Quality Impact Study (Volatile Organic Compounds) Attachment 4—Noise Impact Assessment Study Attachment 5 —Traffic Impact and Access Study y , {a . !t�. `rrt a At x� �dy t ? i �r i^t- u 4 y,A IF, . rS �rV✓e 4t. Environmental Notification Form Salem Transfer Station and Landfill Closure Salem, MA Prepared for: City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 and Northside Carting,Inc. 210 Holt Road North Andover,MA 01845 1 BETA Group, Inc. Engineers•Scientists•Planners 1420 PmvMence Higtrway,Sude 117,Nofwood,MA 02062 781255 1982 fax 7812551974 6 Blah stone Valley NOW,Lmodn,RI 02855 401333 2382 fax 401 333 9225 88D Howard StMal,New London,CT 08329 860437 0239 small BETA®BETA¢g com • JUNE 2008 315 Nomood Park SoLM ri Group, Inc. Nonvood,MA 02062 G9 (781)255-1982,fax(781)256-1974 i Engineers . Scientists . Planners www.BETA4nrcom June 2, 2008 1 Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Attn.: Mr. Richard Bourre Acting Director Re: City of Salem—Transfer Station Expansion Environmental Notification Form Dear Mr. Bourre: Forwarded herewith is the Environmental Notification Form for the referenced project. As discussed,this project is the result of years of negotiations with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, including various forms of agreements between MA DEP, the City of Salem and Northside Carting, Inc. Currently, there is an amended Administration Consent Order between the three parties that sets forth a schedule for implementation of the landfill closure and expansion of the existing transfer station. Both the City of Salem and Northside Carting are _i considered proponents of this project. • Site Background � i j The City of Salem originally constructed a municipal incinerator at the subject site in the early 1960's. It operated for approximately five years before it was taken out of service. During that time, a significant quantity of ash was generated and disposed in a landfill at the site. � I The site was generally abandoned from 1968 until 1975 when a portion of the incinerator building was converted to a transfer station, with permission to operate at up to 50 tons per day. ( ; The station was operated for several years by the City and then abandoned in the late 1980s or early 1990's. In 1994, the DEP issued a permit to operate the transfer station at up to 100 tons j t per day and Northside Carting was selected as operator of the transfer station under a lease arrangement with the City. Northside Carting has been the transfer station operator since that time. i _i In early 2007, the City issued a Request for Proposals to develop the site, giving the respondents significant latitude with respect to the future use of the site, provided that the respondent assume the responsibility for closure of the landfill and all associated groundwater monitoring and maintenance of the landfill cap. Two proposals were submitted; both were from respondents who wanted to expand the existing transfer station operations in exchange for closure of the landfill and redevelopment of the site. In the fall of 2007, the City selected Northside Carting for L redevelopment of the site, including expansion of the transfer station from 100 to 400 tons per L Lincoln,RI Norwood,MA Rocky Hill,CT J i Mr.Richard Bourre June 2, 2008 Page 2 of 2 • day. As part of the purchase and sales arrangement,Northside Carting has agreed to pay the City a host community fee and real estate taxes related to ongoing operation of the transfer station. In addition, Northside will assume responsibility for closure of the landfill, including long term monitoring requirements under the DEP's solid waste management regulations. 1 -3 Environmental Permitting Preliminary engineering related to design of the expanded transfer station and closure of the landfill has been performed and the Notice of Intent was filed with the Salem Conservation Commission earlier this year. An Order of Conditions was issued by the Salem ConComm in j March 2008. A minor permit modification request is expected to be submitted to the Salem Board of Health later this month. That request will include the various supplemental studies conducted to date that have addressed several concerns that have been raised during meetings l with the Board of Health, local residents, the Conservation Commission and others. Specifically, they include the following: j ➢ Traffic Impact Study; J, ➢ Draft Air Quality Impact Study, ➢ Noise Study; and ➢ Method 3 Human Health Risk Characterization. Copies of the first three studies are included herewith;the human health risk characterization will be submitted under separate cover later today. MEPA Thresholds I � .The only identified threshold exceeded by the project is the increase in the permitted tonnage 1 rate from 100 to 400 tons per day. Since the original site assignment preceded the current permitting process, the project proponents elected to file this ENF for your review. i We trust this submission meets you requirements; please call me if you have any questions or need any further information to address public comments. Very truly yours, BETA Group,Inc. J I Alan D. Hanscom, LSP Senior Associate fcc: Beth Rennard, Esq., City Solicitor David Knowlton, City Engineer Robert George,Northside Carting, Inc. LJ L Only Commonwealth of Massachusetts For Office Use nme Ezecurive Office aj6nvironmenrdAffarrs Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ■ MEPA Office • EDEA No.: Environmental MEPA Analyst: Notification Form Phone:617-626- ENF The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. Project Name: Closure of the Salem Landfill and Redevelopment of the Salem Transfer Station Street: 12 Swampscott Road Municipality: Salem Watershed: North Coastal Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42.50030 N 4707125 N, 341759E Longitude: 70.92580 W Estimated commencement date: Nov. 2008 Estimated completion date: December 2009 Approximate cost: $8,000,000 Status of project design: 50 %complete Proponent: City of Salem * Street: 93 Washington Street Municipality: Salem State: MA Zip Code: 01970 Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained: Alan Hanscom Firm/Agency: BETA Group, Inc. ( Street: 315 Norwood Park South Municipality: Norwood State: MA Zip Code: 02062 Phone: (781) 255-1982 Fax: 781) 255-1974 E-mail: AHanscom@BETA-Inc.cor *Also, Northside Carting, Inc. 210 Holt Road, North Andover Ma, 01845 Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? ❑Yes ®No Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EDEA No. ) ®No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EDEA No. 1 ®No Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) requesting: a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) []Yes ®No a Special Review Procedure? (see 301 CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ®No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an agency of the Commonwealth, including the agency name and the amount of funding or land area (in acres): Citv of Salem to transfer 9.2 acres to Northside Cartine. Inc. in exchanee for landfill carmine.annual host communitv fees.and real estate taxes. Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency? ❑Yes(Specify ) ®No List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals: Waiver of Demolition Delav Ordinance(Salem Historical Commission) Building Desian Review(Salem Design Review Board) ConComm Order of Conditions issued (3/19/08) • Minor Modification to Site Assianment(Salem Board of Health) Revised 10/99 Comment period is limited. For information call 617-626-1020 Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03): • ❑ Land ❑ Rare Species ❑Wetlands, Waterways, & Tidelands ❑ Water ❑ Wastewater ❑ Transportation ❑ Energy ❑ Air ® Solid & Hazardous Waste (Proposed transfer station expansion exceeds existing 100 tpd permit amount by 300 tons) ❑ACEC ❑ Regulations ❑ Historical &Archaeological Resources Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total State Permits & & Environmental Impacts Approvals • ® Order of Conditions Total site acreage 9.2 El Order of Conditions New acres of land altered NA' [:] Chapter 91 License Acres of impervious area o.s� I 0.85 1.33 ❑401 Water Quality Certification Square feet of new bordering 450' ❑ MHD or MDC Access vegetated wetlands alteration Permit Square feet of new other ❑Water Management wetland alteration 0 Act Permit Acres of new non-water ❑ New Source Approval dependent use of tidelands or o ❑ DEP or MWRA waterways Sewer Connection/ Extension Permit • ® Other Permits Gross square footage 5500 2000 7500 (including Legislative Approvals)— Specify: Number of housing units o 0 0 Maximum height (in feet) 150' 115 35 Minor Modification to Site Assianment TRANSPORTATION 'Issued by Salem onComm on Vehicle trips per day 4 140 54 193 3119108. Parking spaces s 0 s Gallons/day (GPD) of water use GPD water withdrawal GPD wastewater generation/ treatment Length of water/sewer mains (in miles) Notes: 1. Existing ash landfill to be capped in accordance with MADEP Solid Waste Regulations. 2. Approximately 450 S.F.of wetlands to be disturbed during project activities; 1,330 SF to be restored. 3. Existing incinerator stack is approximately 150 feet high. 4. See Traffic Impact and Assessment Study in Attachment K. • -2- CONSERVATION LAND:Will the project involve the conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? • []Yes (Specifv ) ENo Will it involve the release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction? ❑Yes(Specifv ) ENo RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated Habitat of Rare Species,Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities? []Yes (Specify ) ENo HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ❑Yes(Specifv ) ENo If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes(Specific ) ENo AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project in or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes(Specific ) ENo PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project description should include (a) a description of the project site, (b) a description of both on-site and off-site alternatives and the impacts associated with each alternative, and (c) potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures for each alternative (You may attach one additional page, if necessary.) The project includes both closure of the Salem Landfill and redevelopment of the Salem Transfer Station, including capacity increase of the transfer station from 100 tons/day to 400 tons/day. The attached locus plan shows the locatioe of the project site at 12 Swampscott Road, Salem,MA. The proposed project consists the following: Demolition of Existing Building The former incinerator building including the smokestack will be demolished. The construction and demolition debris will be used as backfill for the incinerator building foundation hole and also to re-grade the area surrounding the existing foundation (See DEP Conditional Approval Letter included as Attachment D). Capping of Closed Landfill The waste at the site consists of ash,C&D Debris, and municipal solid waste. The proposed landfill cap will likely consist of re-grading the existing soil cap to proposed grades, followed by installation of a flexible membrane liner(FML)of HDPE, or equivalent. The FML will be covered by a 12-inch sand drainage layer of topsoil and turf. A geotextile membrane with integral drainage layer may be installed in lieu of the sand drainage layer. After final placement of topsoil and grading to final elevations is completed, the surface of the entire landfill cap will be covered with jute erosion mats held in place with soil nails.An approved meadow and/or slope seed mix will be spread over the upper portions of the cap and a wetland seed mix will be used on the lower,river bank portions of the cap. The contours of the proposed capped landfill will be designed such that slopes to the Forest River will not exceed three feet horizontal by one foot vertical(3:1). Construction of New Transfer Station Building Construction The proposed new transfer station will include an enclosed metal building on a pile-supported poured-concrete foundation with proposed dimensions of approximately 75 feet by 100 feet. The new building footprint will not exceed by more than 10%the footprint of the current incinerator building, including the stack. The building will be approximately two stories high (35 feet at the eaves). The building will contain two upper level truck bays designed for off-loading (dumping) waste into open top trailers parked immediately below in the lower level. A 1,500-square foot office and break room will also be included in the building. The construction of this proposed building will be permitted through a minor modification to the existing site assignment for this facility. • -3. Repaving • The driveways associated with the new transfer station will be similar in layout to the existing paved driveways. All existing pavement will be removed and replaced as part of the transfer station upgrade. Additional paved driveways will be added to allow for the smooth flow of truck traffic within the site. A portion of the paved area at the transfer station will be used for parking—one area for employee parking and three parking spots for trucks used in the transfer station operations. Operations NSC proposes to operate the transfer station at a capacity of 400 tons per day. The waste will consist of construction and demolition debris,municipal solid waste,and commercial solid waste. Relocation of Leaf and Yard Waste Composting/Recycling Area Paving Limited project in accordance with 310 CMR 10.53(3)(e). The current leaf and yard waste composting area is an unpaved handling area that is used only by NSC trucks. In order to make this area useable by resident's automobiles,the travel lanes will be paved to the extent shown"Site Plan—West Side of Forest River" included. The paving will include an access road that will connect the leaf and yard waste composting/recycling area to the Transfer Station site, as well as to existing site access and egress points(curb cuts)to Swampscott Road. This access road meets one of the definitions of a limited project,i.e.,"the construction and maintenance of a new roadway or driveway ...where reasonable alternative means of access from a public way to an upland area"of the site is unavailable. Concrete Block Push Walls A 22,000+/- square foot area will be graded and leveled for the Yard Waste Drop-Off/Recycling Area. A push wall will be constructed of monolithic concrete blocks to facilitate loading of the leaf mulch and yard wastes for off-site transport. Note that the proposed Leaf and Yard Waste Composting/Recycling Area has been situated to minimize the amount of activity within the 100-foot buffer zone. Operation NSC proposes to continue the operation of the leaf and yard waste composting area on a 6-day per week, year round basis. Sunday hours will be added during three week periods in the spring and fall. Leaf and yard wastes will be loaded and shipped from the Site,as required. During periods of heavy usage,the leaf and yard wastes may be shipped as frequently as daily. However,during most times of the year,shipments will be on the order of one to four times a month. Site Improvements Partial Removal of Forest River Culvert The proposed plan includes the removal of approximately sixty (60) linear feet of the upstream portion of the concrete culvert that conveys the Forest River under the existing access road to the composting area located on the west side of the Site. The material excavated to allow removal of that portion of the culvert will be placed on-site within the limits of the waste and incorporated into the capped portion of the landfill. Before any disturbance of soil and/or waste occurs,a continuous row of staked hay bales and silt fence will be installed along the water's edge. During any excavation along river bank,temporary silt curtains will be installed where the depth of the river makes their use possible. After the culvert removal is completed,the remaining material forming the banks of the Forest River will be landfill solid waste and/or ash and will thus be capped as part of the landfill closure. The pre-capping grade of the waste/ash will be altered such that(1)no slope is steeper than three horizontal to one vertical and(2)sufficient room is created to allow the placement of the landfill cap (proposed to consist of a leveling layer of soil or sand, followed by a flexible membrane liner constructed of HDPE,or equivalent,covered by a sand drainage layer and a 12-inch layer of topsoil and turf). As final grading and placement of topsoil to final elevations is completed, landfill slopes leading down to the Forest River will be covered with jute erosion mats held in place with soil nails. An approved wetland seed mix will be spread over the newly- created landfill cap. Removal ofDebris from the Forest River Visible debris from the Forest River will be removed through the use of an extended boom on an excavator. The excavator will be located at the top of the embankment, so as to minimize damage during debris removal. The removed material will either be incorporated into the capped portion of the landfill or transported off-site for recycling or disposal. Note: The remaining culvert will be cleaned, inspected and replaced, as deemed necessary by a registered Professional Engineer. Results from the Alternatives Analysis,as submitted with the Notice of Latent dated 2/11/08,are included as Attachment E. .4- LAND SECTION -all proponents must fill out this section • I. Thresholds/Permits A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1) Yes _X_No; if yes, specify each threshold: II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows: Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings 0.126 0.046 0.172 Roadways, parking, and other paved areas 0.6 0.86 1.43 Other altered areas (describe) Undeveloped areas B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last three years? Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use(with agricultural soils)will be converted to nonagricultural use? C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use? _Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a DEM-approved forest management plan: D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?_Yes X_No; if yes, describe: E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? _Yes X No; if yes, describe: F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? _Yes X No; if yes, describe: G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121 B?Yes _No X_; if yes, describe: H. Describe the project's stormwater impacts and, if applicable, measures that the project will take to comply with the standards found in DEP's Stormwater Management Policy: See Stormwater Management Report Included as Attachment F. I. Is the project site currently being regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan? Yes _No X_; if yes, what is the Release Tracking Number(RTN)? J. If the project is site is within the Chicopee or Nashua watershed, is it within the Quabbin, Ware, or Wachusett subwatershed?_Yes X_No; if yes, is the project site subject to regulation under the Watershed Protection Act? Yes No K. Describe the project's other impacts on land: This Droiect will have no adverse impacts on anv adiacent Drooerties. The Dortions of the wetland along the Forest River will be temoorarily disturbed and then restored during landfill closure activities. An additional 1.330 SF of wetland resource area will be created. • .5- • III.. Consistency A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan and the open space plan and describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan(s): Being a former ash landfill, it is unlikely that the transfer station will be a part of the current land use plan or the open space plan for the municipality. B. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency and describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan: Metropolitan Area Planning Council— MetroPlan 2000. The landfill was not taken into account for the current Regional Policy Plan. C. Will the project require any approvals under the local zoning by-law or ordinance(i.e. text or map amendment, special permit, or variance)? Yes X No _; if yes, describe: Building height variance is likely to be required. D. Will the project require local site plan or project impact review? X Yes _No; if yes, describe: Notice of Intent filed with Salem Conservation Commission 2/11/08. Two supplements to the NOI were subsequently filed with Salem Conservation Commission, dated 2/28/08, and 3/13/08. Order of Conditions issued 3/19/08(See Attachment C). Final design review by City Design Review Board will also be required, prior to issuance of construction permit. RARE SPECIES SECTION I. Thresholds/Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat(see 301 CMR 11.03(2))? _Yes X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? _Yes X_No C. If you answered"No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wetlands,Waterways,and Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Rare Species section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _Yes_No. If yes, 1. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat(contact: Environmental Review, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581, allowing 30 days for receipt of information): 2. Have you surveyed the site for rare species? _Yes_No; if yes, please include the results of your survey. 3. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an Order of Conditions for this project? _Yes_No; if yes, did you send a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? _Yes_No B. Will the project"take"an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes _No; if yes, describe: C. Will the project alter"significant habitat"as designated by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A(see also 321 CMR 10.30)? _Yes _No; if yes, describe: D. Describe the project's other impacts on rare species including indirect impacts(for example, • stormwater runoff into a wetland known to contain rare species or lighting impacts on rare moth habitat): .6- WETLANDS. WATERWAYS. AND TIDELANDS SECTION I. Thresholds/Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands,waterways,and tidelands(see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _Yes X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands, waterways,or tidelands? X Yes _No; if yes, specify which permit: Order of Conditions issued 3/19/08(See Attachment C). C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands Section below. It. Wetlands Impacts and Permits A. Describe any wetland resource areas currently existing on the project site and indicate them on the site plan: The delineated wetland areas are located alona the Forest River. as shown on the Proposed Site Plan in Fiaure 3. B. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent: Coastal Wetlands Area (in sauare feet)or Lenath lin linear feet) Land Under the Ocean Designated Port Areas Coastal Beaches Coastal Dunes Barrier Beaches Coastal Banks Rocky Intertidal Shores Salt Marshes Land Under Salt Ponds Land Containing Shellfish Fish Runs Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Inland Wetlands Bank 1.200 LF Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 450 SF Land under Water 3.600 SF Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Bordering Land Subject to Flooding Riverfront Area 157.000 SF Total C. Is any part of the project 1. a limited project? X Yes —No 2. the construction or alteration of a dam? _Yes X No; if yes, describe: 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? _Yes X No 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? X Yes _No; if yes, describe the volume of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: Less than 50 CY is estimated to be _ removed at base of landfill and placed under landfill cap or managed off-Site at an _ aparooriately licensed facility. 5. a discharge to Outstanding Resource Waters? _Yes X No 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? _Yes _X_No; if yes, identify the area(in square feet): • D. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? X Yes _No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed or a local Order of Conditions issued? X Yes _No; if yes, list the date and DEP file number: #064-0473 Was the Order of Conditions appealed? _Yes X No. Will the project require a variance from the Wetlands regulations?—Yes X No. E. Will the project: 1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? X Yes _No 2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state or local law? _Yes X No; if yes, what is the area(in s.f.)? F. Describe the project's other impacts on wetlands(including new shading of wetland areas or removal of tree canopy from forested wetlands): Trees and vegetation will be removed from the northern side of the Forest River on the Drooertv side. There will be a restriction on vegetative use due to the landfill cover. Ill. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits A. Is any part of the project site waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands)that are subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? —Yes X No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91 license or permit affecting the project site? _Yes X No; if yes, list the date and number: B. Does the project require a new or modified license under M.G.L.c.91? —Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water dependent use? Current _ Change _ Total _ C. Is any part of the project 1. a roadway, bridge, or utility line to or on a barrier beach? _Yes X No; if yes, describe: 2. dredging or disposal of dredged material? X Yes _No; if yes, volume of dredged material <100 CY 3. a solid fill, pile-supported, or bottom-anchored structure in flowed tidelands or other waterways? _Yes X No; if yes,what is the base area? 4. within a Designated Port Area? _Yes X No D. Describe the project's other impacts on waterways and tidelands: Removal of bulkv wastes from Forest River will have a beneficial imoact on the environment. IV. Consistency: A. Is the project located within the Coastal Zone? Yes X No; if yes, describe the project's consistency with policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? _Yes X No; if yes, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan: WATER SUPPLY SECTION I. Thresholds I Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply(see 301 CMR 11.03(4))? _Yes X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? _Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered"No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you • answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section below. -g- 11. Impacts and Permits • A. Describe, in gallons/day,the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Withdrawal from groundwater Withdrawal from surface water Interbasin transfer Municipal or regional water supply B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project?_Yes _No C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water source, 1. have you submitted a permit application? _Yes _No; if yes, attach the application 2. have you conducted a pump test? _Yes _No; if yes, attach the pump test report D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source(in gallons/day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?_Yes _No E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _Yes _No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Water supply well(s)(capacity, in gpd) Drinking water treatment plant (capacity, in gpd) Water mains (length, in miles) F. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of water,which basins are involved,what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? G. Does the project involve 1. new water service by a state agency to a municipality or water district? _Yes -T No 2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? _Yes _No; if yes, how many acres of alteration? 3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? _Yes _No H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on water resources, quality, facilities and services: III. Consistency--Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services: • •9- WASTEWATER SECTION • I. Thresholds/Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater(see 301 CMR 11.03(5))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? _Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation —Traffic Generation Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wastewater Section below. Ii. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and disposal of wastewater generation for existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00): Existing Change Total Discharge to groundwater(Title 5) Discharge to groundwater(non-Title 5) Discharge to outstanding resource water Discharge to surface water Municipal or regional wastewater facility TOTAL B. Is there sufficient capacity in the existing collection system to accommodate the project? Yes _No; if no, describe where capacity will be found: C. Is there sufficient existing capacity at the proposed wastewater disposal facility?_Yes _No; if no, describe how capacity will be increased: • D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _Yes No. If yes, describe as follows: Existing Change Total Wastewater treatment plant(capacity, in gpd) Sewer mains(length, in miles) Title 5 systems (capacity, in gpd) E. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved,what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? F. Does the project involve new sewer service by an Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? Yes No G. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, or other sewage residual materials? _Yes _No; if yes, what is the capacity(in tons per day): Existinq Change Total Storage Treatment, processing Combustion Disposal H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts)on wastewater generation and treatment facilities: Ill. Consistency—Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management: A. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive wastewater management plan? _Yes _No; if yes, indicate the EOEA number for the plan and • describe the relationship of the project to the plan - 10- TRANSPORTATION -TRAFFIC GENERATION SECTION I. Thresholds I Permits • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? _Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered"No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B,fill out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below. II. Traffic Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Number of parking spaces Number of vehicle trips per day ITE Land Use Code(s): B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site? Roadway Existing Change Total 1. 2. 3. C. Describe how the project will affect transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services: III. Consistency--Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services: ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SECTION a I. Thresholds A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other transportation facilities(see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation facilities? _Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered"No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section below. II. Transportation Facility Impacts A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Length (in linear feet)of new or widened roadway Width (in feet) of new or widened roadway Other transportation facilities: B. Will the project involve any 1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? 2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? 3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? III. Consistency—Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to traffic,transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP),the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan: 9 ENERGY SECTION I. Thresholds I Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy(see 301 CMR 11.03(7))? Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? _Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Capacity of electric generating facility(megawatts) Length of fuel line (in miles) Length of transmission lines(in miles) Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility,what are 1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)? 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)? C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line,will it be located on a new, • unused, or abandoned right of way?_Yes _No; if yes, please describe: D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services: III. Consistency--Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services: • - 12- AIR QUALITY SECTION I. Thresholds A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality(see 301 CMR 11.03(8))? _Yes X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? _Yes X_No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered"No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air Quality Section below. II.Impacts and Permits A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source(see 310 CMR 7.00,Appendix A)?_Yes _No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions(in tons per day)of: Existing Change Total Particulate matter Carbon monoxide Sulfur dioxide Volatile organic compounds Oxides of nitrogen Lead Any hazardous air pollutant Carbon dioxide • B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts: III. Consistency A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan: B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality: • - 13- • SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I. Thresholds I Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste(see 301 CMR 11.03(9))? X_Yes _No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? X Yes _No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section. If you answered"Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage,treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of solid waste? X—Yes _No; if yes,what is the volume(in tons per day)of the capacity: Existing Change Total Storage Treatment, processing 100 300 400 F Expansion of existing Combustion transfer station Disposal B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste?_Yes X No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day)of the capacity: . Existing Change Total Storage Recycling Treatment Disposal C. If the project will generate solid waste(for example, during demolition or construction), describe alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal: The construction and demolition debris will be used as backfill for the incinerator building foundation hole and also to re-orade the area surrounding the existing foundation (See DEP Conditional ADDroval Letter in Attachment Dl. D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos? Yes X No E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts(including indirect impacts): III. Consistency--Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan: The 9ror)osed transfer station will Dromote recvcline by havine dedicated recvcline areas for residential use. As Dart of the transfer station or)erations.the oversieht and trackine measures of landfill car)performance and eroundwater monitorine will be enhanced. • .14- HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION • i. Thresholds I Impacts A. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? _Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all or any exterior part of such historic structure? _Yes X_No; if yes, please describe: B. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? Yes _ No; if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _Yes _No; if yes, please describe: C. If you answered "No"to all Darts of both questions A and B, proceed to the Attachments and Certifications Sections. If you answered"Yes"to anv Dart of either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below. D. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? _Yes _No; if yes, attach correspondence E. Describe and assess the projects other impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and archaeological resources: II. Consistency--Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions of the project site and its immediate context, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, rail rights-of-way, wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. See Figure 2. 2. Plan of proposed conditions upon completion of project(if construction of the project is proposed • to be phased,there should be a site plan showing conditions upon the completion of each phase). See Figure 3. 3. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy(8-%x 11 inches or larger) indicating the project location and boundaries. See Figure 1. 4 List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). See Attachment B. 5. Other: -Legal Notice Request -Order of Conditions -DEP Conditional Approval Letter 4/20/05 -Alternatives Analysis -Stormwater Management Plan -Photograph Log -Letter from Salem City Solicitor -Additional Information • Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent(2/28/08) • Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent(3/7/08 -Additional Site Plans • Depth of Refuse • Toe of Landfill Cap Detail -Impact Studies and Risk Characterization" • Vanasse-Traffic Impact Study • Epsilon-Noise Impact Study • Epsilon-Air Quality Report • Wilcox and Barton-Method 3 Risk Characterization Impact Studies and Risk Characterization are included on CD. Hard copies are available at the City of Salem Engineer's Office. Hard copies may be requested by contacting Alan D. Hanscom of BETA Group,Inc. • 15- CERTIFICATIONS: • 1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1): (Name) (Date) The Salem News June/ 2008 JR 2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). Project Proponents: cz� (11 �5, Date nature of Responsible Office — Date Snature of person preparing " or Proponent EN (if different from above) Name(print or type): David Knowlton Name(print or type)' Alan D. Hanscom Firm/Agency: Citv of Salem Firm/Agency: BETA GroUD. Inc. Street 120 Washington Street Street 315 Norwood Park South Municipality/State/Zip: Salem. MA 01970 Municipality/State/Zip: Norwood. MA 02446 Phone: (978)745-9595 Phone: (781)255-1982 • D to0( ignature sponsi er or Proponent Name(print or type): Robert Georae Firm/Agency: Northside Cartina. Inc. Street 210 Holt Road Municipality/State/Zip: North Andover. MA 01845 Phone: (978)686-2020 • 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS • ATTACHMENT DESCRIPTION A LEGAL NOTICE REQUEST B DISTRIBUTION LIST C ORDER OF CONDITIONS D DEP CONDITIONAL LETTER E ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS F STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT G PHOTOGRAPH LOG H LETTER FROM CITY SOLICITOR I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION • Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent (2/28/08) • Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent (3/7/08) J PROGRESS SET OF DRAWINGS K IMPACT STUDIES (Included on CD) • • Vanasse —Traffic Impact Study • Epsilon — Noise Study • Epsilon —Air Quality Report • Wilcox and Barton — Method 3 Risk Characterization FIGURES 1. Site Locus 2. Existing Site Conditions 3. Proposed Site Conditions a. Depth of Refuse e. Toe of Landfill Cap Detail FIGURES Wr y be r0 a {I The Site > i g �� /(��. f n -(� to � •� / ' � �\. � �,., 4 �r /f V �� t' i9 'N l`"31A ::��V�- ^•�,o�, y � -� 't'�,��.A. e:ow, / r ©//` dl I :�;.�-, f ��{{TT5 vy:` I•- � o)v'��.v} 1�''lIJ�-+'\`, 1 I i, I, e y\'�•' •.f 7 t\`):\ \ CLaf COV1'\`t 1 \..rte tta , )'��' e�/`` _lt .•rl�)(,r� -)'• ' `'f11 1`x.:8 - n 4.��L% �� I , /��c y,\� t (j\'` i w ' e ._.�: • �)'=. y• `"''Jv, ,C�`��_ � )f\�' to ' ll, 0 d � •. `""�oo�l' `. Z-.• \�, �1 � �J`, �� ((��,`✓kotdd�•�,ead CY 1, � a I 1 ;'• �a � - � • 0.5 �\ �..,.j 4' `Q %Memorial '��`-> \exp O — ��•"'� :-.+' )/1 Group,Inc. Salem Transfer Station Engineers -Scientists e Planners 12 Swampscott Road Figure 315 Norwood Park So*,Norwood,MA 02062 781.255,1982 Salem, Massachusetts 1 email:beta@beta-ina.com I • \ 1 , 1 , 11 COMPOSTAREA 1 1 1 1 I :1;42J'=lam\ t INCINERATOR�o •{/i �1�� yq I t 1 t -r`• �.. SCAL ,. alis... SWAMPSCOTT ROAD F !� Northside Carting e Im For Permitting Transfer Station Design w<o e.s.rre.se Purposes Only I �e Oe a I tl---_-- Existing Site PI3tt \ - - ----------------_-- ---- _ _ ;'•/--_.:.- ------ ---------------- __s REBAR ------meg •� �•. ____.__ ___N E _ _ - _ !Ba ymNcssft __.___ _ _ AOWALL-- �I - \ g0 OP-OS ` `RIV tJ__--- J __ _ -____ ___-RECLAMAT, N AREA_ _.- x"1.8 ww M.Jg_err J7-alni:J@�bunlf�=__c___--_-__ --_�benY. .,�q R .\Q 30, / 31�-y._- " '_'� '`_. �-n -- >•-�lhnk+-n"v.' '`-- �✓ x .' --_.INe`:1 kW Mw 10 _ 8_-„ rte.:.-�..' •,, _ _9__ - ------ -- of " :a” Iwf lbYwbW11 11 wc� bC WW-V 12 FOR1;S7 ' W _ bank sr`. _ - ___ - _•-_ _-_ �,� �� nom , __ __ .n -'/ .;, book 3) iui" orc lnotl "Onlnlalb'w/, _'• _ _____ - f•;% - ARDS- _- DIRERCEPM __-- 3s tl _+W>«-_ 'l'� '\ GU rRNL - 12' s o1' AY \ n .Y -AD L '-\.,•. :1. �" e:.cz _ i Vii) +. �p l . ,li :'Io C d I' l/ \r�� - /`�.y.i_ `rt.-WC 15cU \IY \; `•'�v� I -tl EDM. I bank 4 M011un \ E \, \ , ,`\,1 �'t� -I RI-- -� �♦ �; GO c A, 6 LP ' SWlte.0 ., \•�,, � �3a—sou �I CCCC I IZ O r` \^ / � tlrivnw%an,voce -'z,�� 1 CURB'-A3L✓ �1 7 f' I r----IUP p�_.; g r vT.nti--.:, i • FA 'Al- "e °el , ! < I - - - `'1 91'17"_; ^. S5 \ I CB -^--, _��_._ CONC PAD & SCAIE �-.> CON�p'i'+'-r ----__._ \ t r IT RL.-\, \'°" LPB _ CB �_ _ :-�— '1 _ „`u�c '\T,`, ® I 6E 98)3 -_ - [�\� ,{ w,W.Ut '.\�`y ' TRAILER -- `. G ___ �.T fT'-f O _—_.—_. SLUMP. .., DMH11 R=88,50 NEi+i ' /Ja311 - C CUR / b9Rµ R�y gp f�i 3Wg5p1 y17m T BIT(,` szE�D SWAMPS60TT' ROAD o PUBLIC o 8 ypw,rywll®W MIIWR.P®IRR _ i �W" I EF"�MO °ivwOl""'Rm w"r Yw� awn ra aovWes 3/11/08 �. mo Northside GanlnB 'w For Permitting Transfer Station Design Purposes Only w m Site Plan om • 0 • ------------------ . ...... -------- -- -- -- --------------------- ------ 01 r. ----- ------------------ vf - ------------ A, ---- ----- ------ -5— FOP wvER M,04.. 110 -.Tm FLOW • ME N� 4i. 20 j N WA'M eA PROCE PP Tu AR A ;SING -1 .... TRANSFORVE --ji 5 lot ... ---- ------ 98 Si CIONC PAD SCALE av `'~'PREVIOUS 6J, GRAY' cGAP NG Ll c AP is Lpelv 9a 7 `UP LP #4311 SIT COC N CURB MECO ] go 4372 8 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD ——--—--—--—--—--—--—--—--—--—--—--—-- Northside Carting For PermittingTransfer Station Design Purposes Only Pa. Depth of Refuse 0:\3400s\3407 — NSC — Salem Transfer Station\ACAD Drawings\Plan Set\Toe of LandFill Cap Detail.dwg Jun 04,2008 1:44pm N PERMEABLE GEOSYNTHETIC FABRIC 3 GEOJUTE FABRIC . . . . . • . • cow :Nt . RIP RAP—\ . . .X. I .-. .` • r .r^^ WATER SURFACE 'J fr ��iF:der �' 0 2.0' 1 IMPERVIOUS LINER NOTE: THIS LANDFILL CAPPING DETAIL SHOWS ONE OF A NUMBER OF LANDFILL CLOSURE OPTIONS ALL WITH THE SAME EQUIVALENT FUNCTIONS. OTHER MATERIALS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THOSE SHOWN HERE DURING THE FINAL DESIGN PHASE OF THIS TOE OF LANDFILL CAP DETAIL PROJECT. SCALE: 1 "=2'-0" ir i Group, Inc. g s.Scientists•Planners SALEM TRANSFER STATION Figure No. T Eonee 315 Norwood Park South SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS TOE OF LANDFILL CAP DETAIL Norwood,MA 02062 78L255.1982 email:BETAwBETA-inccom 0 ATTACHMENT A Legal Notice Request Commonwealth ofMassachusetts • Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Telephone 617-626-1020 The following should be completed and submitted to a local newspaper: PUBLIC NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: Salem Landfill Closure and Redevelopment of Transfer Station LOCATION: 12 Swampscott Road. Salem. MA PROPONENT: Citv of Salem The undersigned is submitting an Environmental Notification Form ("ENF")to the • Secretary of Environmental Affairs on or before June 2,2008. This will initiate review of the above project pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act("MEPA",M.G.L.c.30,s.s.61,62 62I). Copies of the ENF may be obtained from: BETA Group, Inc. 315 Norwood Park South,Norwood, MA Attn: Julie Ritsick (781) 255-1982 Ext. 135 Copies of the ENF are also being sent to the Conservation Commission and Planning Board of Salem where they may be inspected. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor,will receive public comments on the project for 20 days, and will then decide, within ten days, if an environmental Impact Report is needed. A site visit and consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. All persons wishing to comment on the project, or to be notified of a site visit or consultation session, should write to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Attention: MEPA Office, referencing the above project. By The Citv of Salem • ATTACHMENT B ENF Distribution List ENF Distribution List Secretary Ian Bowles Exec. Office of Env. Affairs DEP/Northeast Regional Office• Exec. Office of Env. Affairs Undersecretary for Policy Attn: MEPA Coordinator Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 205B Lowell Street 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Wilmington, MA 01887 Boston, MA 02114 DEP Commissioner's Office Executive Office of Transportation Massachusetts Highway Department Attn: MEPA Coordinator Attn: Environmental Reviewer Public/Private Development Unit One Winter Street 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02108 Boston,MA 02116-3969 Boston, MA 02116 Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Aeronautics Massachusetts Historical District#4, Attn: MEPA Coord. Commission Commission 519 Appleton Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator The MA Archives Building Arlington, MA 02476 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02116 Boston, MA 02125 Metropolitan Area Planning Council Conservation Commission Salem Board of Health 60 Temple Place/6 h Floor City of Salem Attn: MEPA Coordinator Boston, MA 02111 120 Washington Street 120 Washington Street, 4'h Floor Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 • Mass. Bay Transit Authority Salem City Council Planning Board Attn: MEPA Coordinator Salem City Hall City of Salem 10 Park Plaza, 6`h Floor 93 Washington Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator Boston, MA 02216 Salem, MA 01970 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 David Knowlton Elizabeth Rennard Robert A. George City Engineer City Solicitor Northside Carting, Inc. City Hall Annex City Hall 120 Washington Street,4th Floor 93 Washington Street 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 Lenore White Wetland Strategies, Inc. 5 Main Street Ext., Suite 303 Plymouth, MA 02360 • ATTACHMENT C Order of Conditions CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION � March 19, 2008 David Knowlton City of Salem Engineering Department 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP#64-473 Salem Transfer Station, 12 Swampscott Road, Salem,Massachusetts Dear Mr. Knowlton: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above referenced project. Following the 10-day appeal period (as of March 29, 2008), this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds (36 Federal Street, Salem, MA). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 9 of the Order, • which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. As indicated in the Order,prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File#64-473 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me 978-619-5685. Sincerely, llA�l Carey Dugf►es Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: Robbie George,Northside Carting, Inc Alan Hanscom, BETA Group, Inc. DEP Northeast Regional Office • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: ',-- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: Salem When filling From: t_Conservation Commission out forms on the computer, 2.This issuance is for (check one): a. ® Order of Conditions b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions use only the tab key to 3. To: Applicant: move your cursor-do not David Knowlton City of Salem and North Side Carting, Info use the return a. First Name b.Last Name provided on attached sheet key. c.Company 120 Washington Street rn d.Mailing Address X Salem MA 01970 e.Cityrrown f.State g.Zip Code 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): The City of Salem a.First Name b. Last Name c.Company 120 Washington Street d.Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 • e.Cityrrown f.State g.Zlp Code 5. Project Location: 12 Swampscott Road Salem a.Street Address b.Cityrrown Map 7 Lot 68 c.Assessors Map/Plat Number d.Parcel/Lot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known (note: 42.498960 -70.925349 electronic filers will click for GIS locator): e.Latitude f.Longitude e. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex a. County b.Certificate(if registered land) 39004 173 c.Book d.Page �: Dates: February 11, 2008 March 13, 2008 March 19, 2008 a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date of Issuance s. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Site Plan with Sampling Locations a. Plan Title BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan b. Prepared By c.Signed and Stamped by February 2008 1"=50' d. Final Revision Date e.Scale See Attached Sheet for listing • f.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date ,vpaformsdoc• rev.3/1/05 Page i of 9 Co-Applicant • Northside Carting, Inc. 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Robert A. George, President (978) 686-2020 • • 0 0 0 Listing of Approved Plans under Order of Conditions for DEP #64-473 Plan Title Prepared By Signed and Stamped By Final Revision Date Scale Wetlands History BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=20' Depth of Refuse BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 Not to Scale East Side of Forest River BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=20' Overall Site Plan BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=50' 3407 Details.dwg BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 unknown Site Plan BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 1"=20' Toe of Landfill Cap Detail BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=2' General Site and Exploration Location Plan BETA Group and Gerard R. Magnan No date 1"=40' PARE Engineering Corp Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 is B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Check all that apply: a. ® Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the followingconditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set Y forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these • conditions shall control. Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act.Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and wetland boundary(if available) a.linear feet Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 1200 1200 1200 1200 4. ® Bank a.linear feet b.linear feel c.linear feet d.linear feet 5. ® Bordering Vegetated 450 450 450 450 Wetland a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 3600 3600 3600 3600 6. ® Land Under W aterbodies a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet and Waterways e.cu.yd dredged f.cu.yd dredged wpaf=5 dm• rev.311105 Paye 2 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -- DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a.square feel b,square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet 157000 157000 g. ® Riverfront area a.total sq.feet b.total sq.feet 83000 83000 83000 83000 Sq It within 100 it c.square feet d.square feet e.square feet f.square feet Sq ft between 100-200 ft 74000 74000 74000 74000 g.square feet h.square feet i.square feet J.square feet Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) 10. ❑ Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below • 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet b.square feet c.cu.yd dredged d.cu.yd dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches a.square feet b.square feet c.ay nourishmt d.cly nourishmt. 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes a.square feet b.square feet c.Gy nourishmt d.cly nourishmt 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feet b.linear feet 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a.square feet b.square feet c.cu.yd dredged d.cu.yd dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feel b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above • a.cu.yd dredged b.cu.yd dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage a.square feet b.square feet ,vpaform5.aw• rev.3/1105 Page 3 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (only applicable to approved projects) 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures,shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act;or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. if this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill.Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper,cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators,motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 6. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. in the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, in the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done.The recording information shall be submitted to this Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or,"MA DEP1 "File Number 64-473 wpalorro5.doc- rev.311105 Page 4 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before DEP. 11. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 12. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 13. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#12 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 14. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 15. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. • 16. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or nagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission, 17. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means.At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. 18. All work associated with this Order is required to comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Policy Standards. Special Conditions: if you need more space for additional conditions, select box to attach a text document ® - - _--- - wpafor,&dac• rev.3/1/05 Page 5 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection � '�_--- DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands ;> WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 40 D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No z. The hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission 3. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw specifically: a.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw b. Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. 4. ❑ that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: a. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw b.Citation The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. If you need more space for c. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance orb law are as follows: • additional conditions, The special conditions attached to this Order of Conditions relate to both the City of Salem's local select box to ordinance and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. attach a text document wpalorm5.aoc• rev.311105 Page 6ol9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 E. Issuance This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special .%h9/d6 condition pursuant to General Conditions#4, from the date of issuance. 1.Dfite df Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form: 4 (four) This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2.Number of signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. Signatures: 61 f n Notary Acknowledgement • Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Essex 13 March 2008 On this Day "f Month Year Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, K. Cornacchio, D. Pabich, M. Blier, K. Glidden personally appeared Name of Document Signer proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification,which was/were personally known Description of evidence of identification to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. As member of Salem Conservation Commission Cityfrown $ ria l.AREY R DUOUES Npsl 10.X715 Signature f NotaryPublic / Carey . Duques v Printed Name of Notary Public August 16 2013 Place notary seal and/or any stamp above My Commission Expires(Date) This Order is issued to the applicant as follows: • ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail,return receipt requested,on htafrrJ I9 zL)D$ Date Date ' wmforrr5.doc• rev.LV05 Page 7 of 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection '?�-- DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant.Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order or Determination, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order or Determination. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • Section G, Recording Information is available on the following page. • wpalormS.Am rev.3/1105 page a 019 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 64-473 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 G. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of this form shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Salem Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 12 Swampscott Road 64-473 Project Location DEP File Number • Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County Book Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: 0 Document Number • Signature of Applicant wpaform5.doc• rev.311105 Page 9of9 Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-473 i�•, Page lof 7 :s • SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-473 City of Salem Transfer Station 12 Swampscott Road City of Salem,Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats or Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map (June 1, 2003) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L.Chapter 131,Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 34,Section 34-1 —34-13. This Order permits the capping and renovation(including slope stabilization, repaving, grading) of the existing City of Salem transfer station and upgrade of City of Salem yard waste drop-off area (installation of retaining walls and repaving) at the closed solid waste landfill. In further detail,this Order of Conditions permits the work proposed in the Notice of Intent filed with the Conservation Commission on February 11, 2008 which is further described in • supplemental information provided to the Conservation Commission on February 28, 2008 and March 13, 2008. The activities approved under this Order of Conditions include demolition of the existing fanner incinerator building,including the building and the smoke stack. The Commission approves the demolition procedure proposed in the application. The applicant shall obtain all necessary local and state permits necessary to complete this demolition. This Order permits the capping of the landfill as described in the Notice of Intent application. The Commission approves this plan so long as it is in compliance with DEP's regulations. If changes are made to the proposed capping technique the landowner shall provide the Conservation Commission with the new proposed approach to capping the landfill. The Commission approves the construction of a new transfer station building to be 75 feet by 100 feet, as proposed in the Notice of Intent application. This Order permits repaving on the Site including areas within the 200 foot Riverfront area. In order to address runoff and reduce the total suspended solids entering into the river the landowner shall install a Stormceptor 900i unit, per DEP comments made on March 4, 2008. In order to control stormwater during construction the landowner shall provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to the appropriate agencies and provide the Conservation Commission with a copy. This Order permits the development of concrete block push walls and retaining walls within the Riverfront area as proposed on the Overall Site Plan dated February 2008 stamped by Gerald R. Magnan. This project proposal includes the relocation of the yard waste drop-off area and the creation of a recyclable drop-off area to the rear (southern) portion of the site. The Conservation Commission is requiring that no dumping signs be installed along the perimeter of the drop-off area and along the top of the river. Condition #46 outlines the specifics of design, quantity and location of the signs. This Order permits the creation of a water quality swale around the perimeter of the drop-off area as described in the Notice of Intent application. • This Order permits site improvements, specifically the removal of approximately 60 linear feet of the upstream portion of a culvert that currently conveys the Forest River under the existing access road to the yard waste drop-off area located to the rear, southern,side of the Site. This Order permits the removal of the 48"and the installation of a Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64-473 Page 2of 7 12" pipe at inlet to control flow and maintain existing conditions. All material removed as a result of the day- lighting of the river shall be handled appropriately according to DEP requirements. The river shall be protected throughout the entire process of removing the 60 linear feet, taking necessary precautions to limit sediment, equipment, etc. from entering the river. Final stamped plans showing the removal of the pipe shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent or Conservation Commission prior to the start of construction and post the inspection of the drainage pipe. The landowner shall remove debris from the Forest River, including but not limited to"white goods"such as washing machines, dryers,bicycles, etc. Equipment used to remove this debris shall not enter the river and spill kits shall be on Site at all times. An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be maintained on site by the landowner and shall be available for review by the Conservation Agent or others who are interested. The Conservation Agent will be inspecting the site on a weekly basis during construction. The Conservation Agent shall be notified if changes are made to any section of the approved application. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety(all 7 pages)at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day • appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40,Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 34,Section 34-1—34-13. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing, a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File#64-473, and not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00, and the Salem Wetlands Ordinance,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. • S. The term"Applicant" as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all Attachment to Order of Conditions N 64-473 ;) Page 3of 7 • transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816),U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order,the stricter condition(s)shall rule. 11. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods • and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans See Attached Sheet for a Listing of all Plans (Title) (Dated) (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s) or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s) shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Proiect Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of • Environmental Protection. Attachment to Order of Conditions /f 64-473 e^1 r Page 4of 7 • 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued, the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. 17. Condition Number 50 and 51 as indicated shall continue in force beyond the Certificate of Compliance, in perpetuity,and shall be referenced to in all future deeds to this property. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 18. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above, there shall be a Pre-Construction Meeting between the project supervisor,the contractor responsible for the work, and a member of the Conservation Commission or its Administrator to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Commission Agent at(978) 619-5685 at least forty-eight(48)hours prior to any activity to arrange for the pre- construction meeting. 19. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Administrator shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction • meeting. 20. No clearing of vegetation,including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 21. There shall be twenty (20)hay bales and wooden stakes under cover on the site to be used only for emergency erosion control. EROSION CONTROL 22. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in the wetland areas and buffer zones. The erosion control specifications provided in the Notice of Intent and the erosion control provision in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission may require additional measures. 23. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 24. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 25. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 26. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its • Administrator. 27. Within thirty (30) days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project, all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. Attachment to Order of Conditions H 64-473 Page 5of 7 • 28. If soils are to be disturbed for longer that two (2) months, a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant 67owth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 29. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 30. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 31. All waste products, grubbed stumps,slash,construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 32. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be invnediately removed. 33. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3)inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 34. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale • barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 35. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 36. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 37. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 38. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 39. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance (COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. (3) An"As-Built" plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts • Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; Attachment to Order of Conditions N 64-473 u, € Page hof 7 • (b) Locations and elevations of all stomnvater management conveyances,structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include,but are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components,wells, utility lines, fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work" includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 40. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 41. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 42. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Administrator has authorized their removal. • ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 43. The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and local permits prior to demolition occurring on site. The Conservation Commission shall receive copies of these permits. 44. Final plans outlining the partial removal of the Forest River Culvert shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent and approved before construction on this portion of the project can begin. The plans shall contain,elevation of culvert project area post construction, exact length of culvert to be removed, location of erosion control measures to be installed during construction,identification of area where material excavated will be placed,dewatering plan(if necessary),restoration plan proposed for the river banks, and details of cement headwall to be placed on inlet end of culvert. 45. The applicant shall remove debris from the Forest River. Excavators or other equipment used to remove debris from the river shall not enter the river. Spill kits shall be on Site. 46. The applicant shall coordinate with the Conservation Agent regarding the layout,wording, design, quantity, etc of no dumping signs to be installed adjacent to resource area and in the rear, southern, portion of Site near the recycling and yard waste drop-off area. 47. The applicant shall submit letter from adjacent property owner agreeing to be an applicant on the Notice of Intent. 48. The applicant shall submit letter from adjacent property owner granting a construction easement over the property owned by NSSS Limited Partnership located at 38-52 Swampscott Road in Salem, MA or documentation proving the conveyance of the property to the applicant prior to start of construction. 49. The Conservation Commission shall be copied on all documents submitted to the DEP and other state • agencies. 50. The applicant shall provide the Conservation Agent with hydrologic calculations,pre and post removal of the 60 feet of culvert. Final plans for the headwall and any structure to be installed at the upstream Attachment to Order of Conditions N 64-473 Page 7of 7 • inlet of the Forest River shall also be submitted for review and final approval by the Conservation Agent or Conservation Commission and City Engineer. 51. The applicant shall update the Operations and Maintenance manual prior to starting construction to reflect quarterly street sweeping and supplemental sweeping as necessary. 52. The applicant shall update the Operations and Maintenance manual prior to starting construction to reflect inspections of catch basins quarterly and annual cleaning of the catch basins with supplemental cleaning as necessary. 53. Applicant shall update plan showing Toe of Landfill Cap Detail with rip rap covering the impervious liner above and below the water surface. 54. Applicant shall submit annual report by December 31 of each year to the Conservation Agent showing that the catch basins have been cleaned and street sweeping has occurred. 55. The applicant shall install four(4) foot sumps in each of the catch basins located on site. 56. Applicant shall complete and submit a stormwater report meeting DEP standards prior to performing construction. 57. Site visits shall be conducted weekly by the Conservation Agent upon the start of construction. 58. Applicant shall note on site plans snow storage areas. 59. Applicant shall appear before the Conservation Commission with final plans stamped by an engineer • upon submitting plans to DEP and prior to beginning construction. PERPETUAL CONDITIONS 60. The applicant shall maintain an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the stormwater system that is accessible on Site. 61. Sodium based products shall not be used within the Riverfront Area, 200 feet from the river. • Listing of Approved Plans under Order of Conditions for DEP #64473 Plan Title Prepared By Signed and Stamped By Final Revision Date Scale Wetlands History BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=20' Depth of Refuse BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 Not to Scale East Side of Forest River BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=20' Overall Site Plan BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=50' 3407 Details.dwg BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 unknown Site Plan BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 2008 I"=20' Toe of Landfill Cap Detail BETA Group Gerard R. Magnan February 28, 2008 1"=2' General Site and Exploration Location Plan BETA Group and Gerard R. Magnan No date 1"=40' PARE Engineering Corp ATTACHMENT D DEP Conditional Letter COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIItoNMENTAL AFFAIRS ERE �.-.--. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-. ..-_-.-- + METROP.OLITAN BOSTON-NORTHEAST REGIONAL-OFFICE :bI1TT SAbIIQEP ,MlmiltAYHERZFEIAER _-{ Governor . . ;Segetary %ERRYHEA7.Ti9 . ROBERT W,'G0jZMGE,Jr: 'lieutenant Governor .. - Commissioner Bruce Tbibodean a APR 20 ab City of Salem Department of Public Works 120 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: SALEM-Solid waste Salem Landfill Corrective Actions Alternatives Analysis Conditional Approval File#W062414 . Facility#39974 Dear Mr.Thlbodeau The Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Region ofthe Department of Environmental Protection,Division,of Solid Waste Managementhas received your application for approval of the Corrective Action Alternatives Analysis (CAAA)for closure of the Salem Landfill,Swampscott'Road,'Salob Massachusetts(BWP.SW 24,Corrective ActionAltemati 'h ve Analysis, Number W062414). The application was prepared on your.bebalf by BETA Group;Inc,Norwood Massachusetts:' ' The recommended alternative provides for. 1. Demolition of the existing.transfer,staflon(former incinerator)and replacement with a new structure designed'foruse as atransfer,station. 2. Excavation of aonsttiction&demolition waste from the culverted crossing of Forest River with reconstruction of the culvert and crossing. C&D materials are to be disposed of within the existing landfill. .3. Excavation of waste(ash and MSW)from along Forest River with,relocation of the waste to within the existing landfill„The finished slope alomgForestRiver will be gradedat-a:slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical(3:1,a33%.grade).- . 4. Construction of amew-retaining wall-in the vicinity of the existing transfer station(incinerator) building to facilitate relocation of the waste materials(ash,MSW and C&D)while retaining the necessary separation;of grades between.the front and rear of themew transfer station building. ,- 5. Capping of the waste materials,withs flexible membrane liner(FML)cap,, 6. The finished grade of the capped landfill will have a minimum gradient of5%. 7. Construction of a new salt shed west of Forest River. This Information Is available In alternate format Coll Donald bL Games,ADA Coordinator,at 1-617556-1057.TDD Service-1-800-299-2207. - 30 Floor,One WlnterStreg Boston,MA 02108•Phone(017)854-8500•Fax(617)550.1049•TDD#(800)258-2207 DEP on the Wodd Wlde Web. http:[/ v .state.ma.us/dep j a Pdnted on Recycled Paper Salem Page 2 Salem Landfill Corrective Action Alternative Analysis Conditional Approval • As described in the application,the C&D materials from the demolition of the existing transfer station (incinerator)building will be used as backfill for the building foundation. The Department concurs that the C&D materials-both from demolition of the existing building and from relocation of materials from the culvert area- may be used to backfill the building foundation hole and re-grade the area around the existing foundation. The application proposes to effect the use of the C&D debris as bacWl pursuant to a Beneficial Use Detemunation(a BUD,310 CMR 19.060). The Department has determined that a BUD is not the appropriate mechanism for the effecting the use of the C&D as proposed by this project. In consideration of the origin and character of the C&D debris,the debris roust be placed as part of the waste materials in the landfill,and the landfill cap extended to include the transfer station foundation. The Department will entertain disposal of the C&D materials in this manner as an integral component of the site remediation and landfill closure design. Based on the site use history and the soil conditions identified by the Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA),the Department has determined that the construction of the salt shed does not require Department approval. The Department approves the CAAA and concurs with the selection of Option 4 for the design of closure of the landfill subject to the following conditions: 1. The closure design shall: a. Extend the limits of the cap to cover the C&D waste materials. In accomplishing this extension of the cap,either the FML may be extended under the new building with the FML and related layers designed to accommodate the loads,or the building foundation shall be integrated into the impervious layer of the cap. b. Design the new building foundation to protect the building and its occupants from explosive gases. 2. The Corrective Action Design(CAD,i.e.the closure plans)application shall be signed by the appropriate official of the City of Salem Reports,plans,etc.,shall be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. Each shall include certification pursuant to 310 CMR 19.011,as required. 3. The Department reserves the right to amend,modify,suspend or revoke this approval as necessary to protect the public health, safety or the environment, or as otherwise necessary to insure compliance with applicable law and/or regulation. 4. The City shall obtain and comply with the requirements of all applicable state,federal and local laws, regulations, and permits. Concurrently with submitting the CAD application the City shall submit documentation that the applications for such other permits and approvals as may be required have been applied for. 5. In consideration of the commercial operating nature of the transfer station by Northside Carting Inc. and the interdependence of the reconstruction of the transfer station on the corrective action design,the Departments review of the CAD shall not be subject to the exemption from application fees granted to municipalities. The application shall be subject to payment of the applicable fees for privately ownedloperated facilities as established at 310 CMR 4.00. 6. The Department reserves the option to require Northside Carling,Inc.to obtain a permit,issued to Northside Carting,Inc.,for future operation of the facility,and/or otherwise pay an annual compliance fee as applicable to privately operated facilities. s150412aw.doc 04/12/05 Salem Page 3 Salem Landfill . Corrective Action Alternative Analysis Conditional Approval NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL M The City of Salem(the"City")is hereby notified that it may within twenty-one(21)days file.a request that this decision be deemed a provisional decision under 310 CMR 19.037(4)(b),by submitting a written statement of the basis on which the City believes it is aggrieved,together with any supporting materials. Upon timely filing of such a request, the decision shall be deemed a provisional decision with an effective date twenty-one(21) days after the Departments receipt of the request Such a request shall reopen the administrative record, and the Department may rescind, supplement, modify, or reaffirm its decision. Failure by the City to exercise the right provided in this section shall — - - -- constitute a waiver ofthe City's right to appeal Armeal. Any person aggrieved by the issuance of this decision, except as provided for under 310 CMR ..19.037(4)(ti),may file an appeal for judicial review of said decision in accordance with the provisions of N.G.L.c. 111, a.150A,and M.O:L.c.30A,not later than thirty(30)days following the receipt of the find decision.-The standing of a _ person to file an appeal and the procedures for filing such appeal shall be governed bytha provisions of M G.L.c.30A. Unless the person requesting-an appeal requests and is granted a stay of the terms and conditions of the decision by a court of competent jurisdiction,the decision shall remain effective. Notice of Action. Any aggrieved person intending to appeal this decision to the Superior Corot shall first provide notice to the Department of their intention to commence such action. Said notice of intention shall include the Department file number and shall identify with particularity the issues and reasons why it is believed the decision was notproper. Such notice shall be provided to the Office of General Counsel ofthe Department and the Regional Director for the regional office which processed the application The appropriate addresses to which to send such notices are: General Counsel - Department of Environental Protection One Winter Street-3rd Floor Boston,MA 02108 Regional Director Department of Environmental Protection NERO One winter Street-56 Floor Boston,MA 02108 No allegation shall be made in any judicial appeal of this decision unless the matter complained.ofwas raised at the appropriate point in the administrative review procedures established in those regulations,provided that a matter may be raised upon a showing that it is material and that it was not reasonably possible with due diligence to have been raised during such procedures or that matter sought to be raised is of critical importance to the environmental impact of the permitted activity. The Department reminds you that pursuant to the Administrative Consent Order(ACONNE-01-4005),the City was required w complete closure of the landfill by November 1,2004. On October 28,20M the Department forwarded to the City; via your consultant BETA Group; an agreement for extension of the ACOP to November 1, 2005 for completion of the closure of the landfill The City has not executed that extension The Department will entertain discussion to reasonable extension of the ACOP deadlines. However, it is necessary that the City subm 14 within twenty-one (21) days of this notice, to the Department a schedule for completion of the project design(the Corrective Action Design[CAD])and construction of the landfill closure: s160412sov.dnc 04/12/05 - - -- -- -- - --- - --------- -------- --- - - - ------ - Salem Page 4 Salem Landfill Corrective Action Alternative Analysis Conditional Approval • Should you have any questions concerning this matter,please contact David Adams at 617-654-6677. Sincerely, Sincerel David C.Adams John A.Camgan Environmental Engineer Section Chief Solid Waste Management Solid Waste Management JAUDCA/dca enclosure:Fact Sheet cc: SalemBoard of Health Salem,MA jscott@salem.com Alan D.Hanscom,PE BETA Group,Inc: 315 Norwood Park South Norwood,MA 02062 Robert George Northside Carting,Inc. 12 Swampscott Road Salem,MA 01970 sIM412mv.doe 04/12/05 FACT SHEET File Number: W062414 Salem Landfill&Transfer Station Page 1 of 4 Corrective Actions Alternatives Analysis Facility ID Applicant: City of Salem Department of Public Works 120 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 Operator; Northside Carting,Inc. -- - - - -i:-- -- - 12 Swampscott Road. - - - Salem,MA 01970 Facility: Salem Landfill and Transfer Station address: 12 Swampscott Road Salem,MA 01970 ID: Facility Number 39974 Regulated Object Number.368468 Solid Waste ID Number: SL0258 .001 Solid Waste Permit Number:none Type of facility: inactive landfill and active transfer station Waste Type: landfill: ash from ccmbustion'ofMunicipal Solid Waste(MSW), and Municipal Solid Waste transfer station: Construction&Demolition(C&D)waste Current Application - Type: Corrective Action Alternative Analysis (BWPSW24)" Transmittal Number. W0,62414 Date:March 29,2005. Received:March 31,2005 Signed by Town:not signed Engineer of Record: BETA Group,Inc.. J. 315 Norwood Park South Norwood,MA 02062 Alan D. Hanscom,PE MEPA: MEPA Thresholds not triggered s�so4o .ao� 04n4ro5 FACT SHEET File Number: W062414- Salem Landfill&Transfer Station Page 2 of 4 Corrective Actions Alternatives Analysis Size: total site: 9.2 acres landfill: not provided Other Department Approvals Effecting this Application: Administrative Consent Order ACOP-NE-01-4005 effective date:April 4,2002 amended:negotiation pending Comprehensive Site Assessment File Number: W044286 approved:March 2,2004 Submissions with this Application: report City of Salem,Massachusetts Corrective Action Alternative Analysis . Salem Landfill 12 Swampscott Road Salem,Massachusetts March 2005 Discussion: Pursuant to 310 CMR 19.011 and 19.030(10 & 11) a"responsible,official" of the applicant(the City of Salem) is required to sign the application. The City has not signed the Corrective Action Alternative Analysis (CAAA) application. I consideration of the need to proceed to design of this project and the degree of conformity of the selected option to a standard design, the Department has elected to waive the signatory requirement for this application. It will be necessary that the appropriate "responsible official" of the City of Salem sign the application for review of the Corrective Action Design. The CAAA reviews 5 options. The first 2 options ([Option 11 the need for"more stringent closure actions"than defined in 310 CMR 19.112 and[Option 2] the ability to allow a"less stringent closure actions"than defined in 310 CMR 19.112) and the"no s15040ft.doc 04/14/05 FACT SHEET File Number: W062414 .' Salem Landfill&Transfer Station Page 3 of 4 Corrective Actions Alternatives Analysis build" option[Option 5] are only summarily described and examined. The focus of the report is a"standard"option [Option 3] and a"modified" option[Option 4]. Options 2 and 5 are rejected as not meeting the goals of the regulatory standards for landfill closures. Option 1 is rejected as the results of the Comprehensive Site.Assessment(CSA) did not indicate aneed. - - - -- The City's engineers recommend the selection of Option 4 for the closure of the landfill. Under Option 3: * The existing landfill would be capped with a low permeability soil or FML cap. * All waste would be retained within the existing waste limits. * The RiverTront of.the Forest River would be remediated by: L excavating the waste from the edge of the river, ii. constructing a concrete bin type retaining wall along the edge of the river, iii. backfilling the retaining wall with the excavated waste. This option would not make any changes to the existing transfer station or other improvements to the site outside of the existing limits waste. Option 3 describes using an FML to construct the cap along the slopes facing the river. As described the FML would be placed at a gradient of 3:1,and excavated waste would be"stored"behind a retaining wall constructed next to the river." The Department assumes it is meantthat the excavated waste will be used as permanent backfill behind. the retaining.wall. The described River Front remediation would result in waste materials being placed above the cap. This element of the design does not comply with minimal requirements'. for the capping of the waste material. However,the design is amenable to alteration to correct this deficiency. Under Option 4 the landfill would be capped with a low permeability soil or FML cap as included.at Option 3. In addition: * The old incinerator building(of which part is used as the existing transfer station)would be razed. • sOD409faAm 04/14105 FACT SHEET file Number:W062414 Salem Landfill&Transfer Station Page 4 of 4 Corrective Actions Alternatives Analysis • * The River Front of the Forest River would be remediated by excavating waste from along the river and regarding the landfill slope' (currently varying from 1:1 to 2:1)to a gradient of 3:1.' * Forest River will be fiuther remediated by removal of the C&D waste materials from the area of the culvert and reconstructing the river crossing with clean fill. * The C&D debris from razing the incinerator, along with the waste excavated from the River Front would be used to backfill the area of the incinerator building. * A new transfer station,with access driveways and aprons,would be constructed. * A new salt shed would be constructed on the portion of the property on the opposite side of the Forest River(the area currently used for the Town's leaf&yard waste composting area.). As proposed the new building would retain the same setback from the street side property line as the current building(circa 40 feet). Option,4 proposes to use the C&D debris and excavated waste as fill under the new transfer station pursuant to a Beneficial Use Determination(BUD). This type of approval willriot likely be appropriate. However,the design will likely be amenable to extension of the waste area and cap to beneath the new transfer station building. Option 4 includes construction of a new salt shed on the property. As identified in the plans available at this time,the area where the salt shed is proposed has not been used for solid waste (asb,MSR) disposal. The area is currently being used for leaf&yard waste composting-an activity exempt pursuant to 310 CMR 16.05(4)(b). As described in the CSA and noted on the plan included with the CAAA,waste disposal at the site was limited principally to the portion of the site east of Forest River. Some construction& demolition waste(C&D debris) disposal also occurred within the immediate vicinity of the Forest River as part of establishing access across the Forest River to the portion of the west of the river- an approximately 160 foot reach of the river was placed into a culvert and the river channel at the culvert was filled with C&D debris materials. The Department,therefore, deems the portion of the site west of the Forest River(not including the area of C&D disposal)to be a separate and distinct area from the waste disposal area of the site. Therefore,the area where the salt shed is to be located is not subject to review and approval as a post closure use for the purpose of constructing a salt shed as proposed. 'Run(horizontal)to rise(vertical). 050409AAm 04/14/05 ATTACHMENT E Alternatives Analysis Notice of Intent 12 Swampscott Road, Salem,MA February 11,2008 • 1 1 1 In accordance with 310 CMR 10.58(4), BETA has performed the following Alternatives Analysis with respect to the performance standards at 310 CMR 10.58(4)(a)through (d): ➢ Protection of Other Resource Areas 10.58(4)(a) The project will not result in any filling or dredging of the bordering vegetative wetland or any bordering land subject to flooding and, therefore, meets this performance standard. However, minor temporary alteration of the wetland resource area (450+/- square feet) will be required to accommodate installation of the landfill cap. For mitigation, at the Commission's option, we propose to eliminate the 60+/-foot upstream section of the existing culvert, thereby creating approximately 600 square feet of resource area to compensate for the temporary alteration of the river's edge during construction of the cap. ➢ Protection of Rare Species 10.58(4)(b) The Site has not been identified as the habitat of any rare species and, therefore, meets this performance standard. ➢ Practicable and Substantially Equivalent Economic Analysis 10.58(4)(c) The Site is an existing landfill that is required to be closed under MassDEP Solid • Waste Regulations at 310 CMR 19.00. The City of Salem has entered into an Administrative Consent Order with MassDEP which provides for certain deadlines to be met to achieve closure. There are no viable alternatives to closure of the landfill. In addition, the site has a Site Assignment under DEP Solid waste regulations and a minor modification to the Site Assignment will be submitted to the Board of Health. No other site in Salem is currently permitted to serve as a transfer station. ➢ No Significant Adverse Impact 10.58(4)(d) The purposes of the work proposed under this NOI are as follows: • To terminate current composting operations within the Riverfront Area; • To complete the required landfill closure in accordance with applicable state regulations; • To replace the existing incinerator building (retrofitted for use as a transfer station) with a new transfer station; and • To install new recycling and yard waste composting facilities for use by residents of the City of Salem. By achieving these purposes, the project will have a netosa itive impact on the • riverfront area. The proposed construction will include landfill capping and slope —1 — Notice of Intent 12 Swampscott Road, Salem,MA • February 11,2008 stabilization provisions that will substantially reduce the current landfill leachate (storm water infiltrating through the landfill) entering the Forest River, site erosion and ongoing siltation of the river. In addition,wastes and debris currently located along the river's edge will be removed and incorporated into closure of the landfill. All of these activities will result in a significant improvement in the water quality of the Forest River at and downstream of the Site. In order to minimize the impact of the work to the wetlands and riverfront, the Applicants propose to remove the upstream portion of the existing culvert so that approximately 60 linear feet of the river is returned to open channel flow. All slopes along the river will be stabilized with dumped rip-rap and, if necessary, geotextile fabric and stone for stability. In addition, the yard waste drop-off and recycling area has been located as far away from the resource areas as possible. Site Specific Information The following site-specific information is provided to show that the riverfront area of the Site will not have an adverse effect on the following interests: ➢ Private or Public Water Supplies There are no public water supplies within the City of Salem. The water supply for the City of Salem is provided from surface water reservoirs operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, none of whose reservoirs are located in the City of Salem. No private water supplies are know to exist within a half- mile radius if the Site. Therefore, it is BETA's opinion that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on this interest. ➢ Groundwater BETA has reviewed the on-line MassGIS Priority Resource Map which shows that the site is not within or within the vicinity of a mapped Zone II or interim wellhead protection area, productive or potentially productive aquifer, or other area indicating the current or future potential use of the Site as a groundwater supply. Therefore, it is BETA's opinion that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on this interest. ➢ Flood Control BETA has reviewed the August 15, 1985 Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program. Map number 250102 0005 B shows the site and area within at least a 2,000-foot . radius to be in Zone C — an area of minimal flooding. On the basis of this —2— Notice oflntent 12 Swampscott Road Salem,MA February 11,2008 • classification, it is BETA's opinion that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on this interest. Also note that the proposed design of the landfill cap includes the removal of visible waste material within the river. The purpose of this removal is to enhance the aesthetics of the river and to increase the stability at the toe of the landfill cap. The effect of the removal of this material, along with removal of the upsteam portion of the existing culvert, will result in a slight increase in flood storage capacity at the Site. Careful consideration will also be given to clearing the existing culvert of obstructions. Currently, due to debris accumulation, the culvert appears to be serving as a controlled orifice outlet for the upstream reach of the river. The obstructed culvert appears to effectively attenuate peak rates of storm water runoff to downstream areas. ➢ Land Containing Shellfish The Site is approximately two miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Surface water at the Site consists of a very small river (Forest River) and a portion of an associated unnamed pond. Neither of these surface water bodies are tidally influenced or support any shellfish. Therefore, it is BETA's opinion that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on this interest. ,Other Interests The remaining interests may be affected by the proposed project: • Pollution Prevention; • Prevention of storm damage; • Fisheries; and • Wildlife habitat. For each of these interests, BETA presents the evidence in the following sections that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the [remaining] interests listed in M.G.L. c.131 § 40 (i.e., flood control, prevention of storm damage, prevention of pollution, and wildlife habitat) and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in • —3— Notice of intent 12 Swampscott Road, Salem,MA February 11,1008 • M.G.L. c.131 § 40. Prevent Pollution Approximately 60%of the Site is located within the Riverfront Area of the Forest River. The Site contains an operating transfer station. The purpose of the work proposed to be performed under the anticipated OOC will result in the minimization of leachate entering the Forest River (by capping), mitigation of debris currently in the river(by its removal), and reduction of siltation and erosion into the river (by the capping and slope stabilization). Each of these proposed activities will result in an improvement in the water quality of the Forest River at the Site. It is BETA'S opinion that the work will have no adverse impact on the riverfront area's ability to protect the interest of pollution prevention identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40. Conversely, completion of the work proposed under this NOI will significantly curtail leachate migration to the Forest River and greatly enhance the interest of pollution prevention. • ➢ Prevent Storm Damage For similar reasons to those described above, the permanent closure of the existing landfill and the rehabilitation of the transfer station activities will improve Site conditions including the prevention of storm damage. Currently, portions of the Site have minimal or no vegetative cover and erosion of Site soil and/or waste into the Forest River may be occurring during storm events. The presence of a properly capped and vegetated landfill cover will prevent such erosion, and act to absorb stormwater, minimizing direct overland flow of stormwater into the river. Wildlife Habitat In addition to the environmental improvements to the Forest River and its banks described above, the project will provide a permanent cap to the solid waste and ash currently in-place at the Site. The cap will be finished with topsoil and seeded with a meadow seed mix. The presence of the cap will prevent exposure to the waste and ash and substitute grass and other low, shallow-rooted vegetation for the exposed soil and brush currently at the site. It is BETA's opinion that the work will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area's ability to protect the interest of wildlife habitat identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40. In fact, completion of the work proposed under this NOI will likely increase the ability of the • riverfront area at the Site to protect the interest of wildlife. It is BETA's —4— Notice of Intent 12 Swampscoa Road, Salem,MA February 11,2008 • experience that capped landfills provide habitat for numerous plant and animal species including birds and small ground animals. These species typically will return or expand their habitat into a capped landfill shortly after the completion of construction. D Fisheries The Site is approximately two miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Surface water at the Site is at an elevation of approximately 70 feet above sea level and consists of a small river (Forest River) and a portion of an associated unnamed pond. Neither of these surface water bodies is tidally influenced. According to the October 4, 2001 USGS quadrangle for the area, the Forest River flows into Thompson's Meadow approximately %2-mile southeast of the Site before discharging onto Salem Harbor.No river channel is shown within Thompson's Meadow. As previously described, the presence of the cap will prevent exposure to the waste and ash and will greatly reduce runoff from the landfill into the Forest River. It is BETA'S opinion that the work will have no significant adverse impact on the Forest River and will likely increase the ability of the riverfront area to .protect the interest of fisheries identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40. • —5— ATTACHMENT F Stormwater Management Report I -I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT CLOSURE OF THE SALEM LANDFILL AND i REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SALEM TRANSFER STATION SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Applicants: CITY OF SALEM, MA 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 NORTHSIDE CARTING, INC. 210 Holt Road • North Andover,MA 01845 i r BETA Group,Inc. Engineers•Scientists•Planners 315 Nml WPeet Smd,Narovod.1M 03062761.]55.1983 lac 781.255.1870 6BIeNWmn Valley PI Lv®IRRI 03865901.311.2382 lac C01.33AB225 750010Ma Street.R.tl Y HN,U 06097 866513.150.1 i email.BETA®BET0.Nc avn j March 2008 t • OBJECTIVE OF CALCULATIONS This calculation is an analysis of the site hydrology and stormwater runoff for the Existing Conditions Case and the Proposed Conditions Case. The objective of this analysis is to show that the net peak rate and volume of stormwater discharge from -I the site in the Proposed Conditions will be equal to or less than the discharge under the Existing Conditions for the two, ten, and one hundred year rainfall events. Accordingly, development of the site as it pertains to stormwater runoff will not adversely impact adjacent or downgradient properties. CALCULATION METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS Stormwater runoff is analyzed using the following: j "HydroCADTM Stormwater Modeling System," by Applied Microcomputer Systems based upon SCS Technical Releases No. 55 and 20 for generating i hydraulic calculations including peak flows and runoff volumes. • Rational Method (Q = CIA) used to size pipes for the 10 year storm. I i EQUATIONS AND SOURCES OF DATA USED • Q = 1.466(A)/n(R) (S)1n-Manning's Equation for Rational Method • 24 Hour Rainfall data-Technical Release No.40. 2 yr= 3.10 in. 10 yr=4.55 in. 100 yr= 6.50 in • Soils information from the Middlesex County from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) formally SCS. Soils within the construction limits is predominately Hinckley, loamy sand within the A hydraulic group. I POINT OF ANALYSIS This entire project site is located within the Forest River watershed. The analysis point is the river. 2 I • f i PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The proposed project includes demolishing the incinerator building, capping the -, landfill, building a new transfer station, paving access drives, loading and parking areas. It also includes constructing an area to allow for yard waste transfer. For the land fill site, stormwater will be collected in a system of catchbasins and pipes, routed through a water quality unit(Stormceptor)to obtain 80%TSS removal and be discharged to the Forest River. For the yard waste transfer site, the entire area will be surrounded by a vegetated treatment Swale. Stormwater will sheet flow off pavement areas and be collected, treated and infiltrate in the swale. This will mitigate the impacts associated with the addition of impervious area. Standards for peak rate of runoff, infiltrations and water quality will be met with the design as proposed. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS i This analysis has demonstrated that there will be no measurable increase in peak rate of stormwater runoff or stormwater runoff volume due to the proposed development of this site. The proposed stormwater management system has been designed in accordance with DEP's Stormwater Management Policy and will be a significant improvement over the existing condition. Although any site construction can impact local hydrology and water quality, the plans as presented incorporate many design features intended to mitigate adverse effects to downgradient wetlands and aquifers. 3 • ATTACHMENT G Photograph Log COMRPOPS , \\ LEGEND, PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION REFERENCE \ ox oP 9µFM \ /� / .• -•.• _ ion YM PARA 6a 9R0 A"ES 7 \ _ - �� _ _ 4 � WP YAP 9 PARCEL 66 ��-Ap/��K jl i _- 17 _ - _ ._ - _ , 10.]ACRES 1 / F-- _ 1R 7} _ roasr a /t f ROYAL 0.. ' Nl v YAP PAR «` „r>, R P a 1 E;"" - 0 f � o t�hx / Jg/ YA�66�Rfi If E. N 1/ Ki �7 .f.,7v Win)_ _ .� ®'"W �._�" oa"' �" — PSCOTT ROAD SWAM fxaNw s � A�'. IN T - _ SK 9LA R arm 10L a ..� I_•,. Transfer Slallen Photograph Loeatl"Plan aR Salem,MA Photograph Log(3/02— 1/08) Salem Landfill and Transfer Station Existing Site Conditio.is 12 Swampscott Rd Salem,MA s A Jp^ y, fr ++ ay w' - h' 'hobgraph L• View of he transfer station and Swampscott road, Photograph 2: View from transfer station facing southwest towards faring northeast. compost area. "SA t r r • t'"q r 9m Photograph 3: View of transfer station and yard waste compost n+�""" a • '" `. .. mound. Photograph 4: Current truck parking area to the west of building stack. t• r � ��: � � yl - E ` t dyaN- ' C I J� Photograph 5: Transfer station and concrete block retaining wall Photograph 6: Looking in to the current waste processing area (facing north). Page ] of 3 1 1. 1 1• 1 1' 1 1 1 s�• r° ? f � YR�r-F t # �H�( ''Cn j �1 f�� y t.. 1 �` rfh 1"•` `i 4-wf _ ... `..�� .a'Y�""w'.:5�'mxvw'�-' •' v '.t. , .r /�'� r"' 'may 1• .1 ' 1 � 111 ` 11• .1 1 1 oil � fi, LRs, J'rr iR �y�. 1t �tq fi d T ` .a -r �z 231 IX'#'�"+� ^-- �� &'.'. ��`' i� 1'x"3 ��1��xi"3s•�+ ,�k 4 ,• `..-.. .x.. ;.yrs � z.' -ww -ie�`r" a�^.4;''� �, �a��r�r:kx i"" +„,[\ (11 2 12008 11• • 1 111 1. ' l l l• .1 1 1 1 1 i "• i• 1: r r .r� i. •hY `""�t� �' �:s>� a. tF,7 1 �7i1e� 4��`,!�;,�ry�`"';,-r�+. ��„ �•,v�\-��" � +r�ri •� �±;�da* 4'-ice,_ _rid"- ?'.,� _.. � r x d i f �-. f . . i i• f i - .r f i • ..r i � . ff f. i a� r , r r ft ry�yy y� tic _ �3 f�J �` �' y. � � ��1 ry t�yT't yt� P��L�4.t Y f� �•"�4, Fi' PM 4 f z v?a Nb�vdr; Ft!*3vp - f• f f r r f r' r i i r - pp i r f r r g� +n rl f'i Tr+ !� E tj i' i •r�`y . � i f l�s�5 }Nye E 1 i " kMi�� #� ''-. ^� i�t "kr �'tir.•�" `s`�{�vtl �. a 4# V� :.w.r'�� %""'R`..f.'oa.� .+c..i7,.�!-s�+t+.�,}`+�'x �* ;. S': x .r .,,,ag 1t ,. : ,ry. ,✓ "' +' a lJf• r d: : '1` .�+'.�C r . e...r..f-_. ..1� 3•� "+e" nyJf-"�, .. � �,,, R,ttk�,j,�,_. �x i i• .f - r _ f i r r �. k e d`:+�. � J•t+.�. _,,, Y si M x � ATTACHMENT H Letter from City Solicitor cog N, •. : 't'1OF-JI1L1::.M ':. >'' LEGAL DEPART'ME'NT - .,�,;''ti•. - '�}:> 83'WMk#\.dbf4 SAE044" -i[E�k�b'LtSSd'QiISE`r1501970 `. r':1•.�•:'': .'i: to - TEic9,718-745-9595 $a;,t:976744-1279 'KWBEam,DYJsS)U. ..; �,,�'ui�atp•IRenm,�xu,EsQ. Jexrwjt�tiselu,Esq:;.''''._a :. t LiYY�h t•Yn,$Ol7OTo& ASST On'80 LiCIMR To: r Saletn}3oard•bf-Health From, ) iiabetlt Retnlard di r Re: TranSfaC"•$'tation,,;''_' l'41 la5te September 13,11+10'U7 i I:1i`; _ „�„� •,,ql�' ;':.. ' to Info; '`..;..'. I leasedc r m II ':`.O•n,'beh3(If,ofthe'.C.iry"s'Transfer"Sfatioa'Coiuriittee' 'fire r�;� ou'.that'd ,eetin ' r +Heal re re'eritative Paulette I u co last:ive k' our mitfe met with thc' vvithsl3ol d qf, , th p s ro' osed develo er•,o "a` a em'Tiausfe[,Stab'on tu.ciarify tno'kes3ues;'a7t'il;lie''in thz dis$itssion relaht ezo nun titin "'solSie'ofthe_envnroiimehtal`concecits ai'sed'b'' Is:';Piile`o:::;:The'`.,' ;, g Y IIGWIii IS=a Slltlltrlal'}i t1,{"t4+e.' 117f11(1, 5:G 'Qi1r,RlCelillQ a , 5ugg�StCdi�:tl31'•tt�'dhbll and�7C�dl1Ct1G11':Op'.,� I,. 'Ion"'a'eS- - :Y . ::i' di'=- ly v'.�'• ,'g,' 'y . .n.3. .. A I,, 4 The`;tolinage�imn shall`b'e lYased upon an annual fgurti pt 1�4 8p0"lggs pThls lS based on 400 o tblts;6 days per wu ek I At lib Mime may'. SC exceed 25plo!oftlle da11�tonnage,or'SUO tons to E na e'up,Ci60hortfali$ fhatitpdy;h'ate6een,inciirreti.ina'p{roE:.petaod:' I L. ¢ l,r 115: eStlmated'that'tlie additiottal 300 tons per day'iltay result 1n'2:5 more trucks 'o r SU more truck tr7p's;peutd?y,,°,o0%orRtibre'ofthesetnlclsisestibWed;tobe�iSG{vehtcles:,`DuC. o{1ie'ai'IQAJ rule, 11 ii clinent«tticles'thatUtilizes'tlie trarister station Tcais,'picic7rgs apd;�mall'dIS theiebihy-be a r'educnott Iiithe nuinbef:Qfthose k4hicles from 2� #5 per dayto,thatbf`I$:20per div. AIR QUALII;�YT, 1GA Y IUN NSC siiailplant trees#n mitigatiithe effect bl'btlming fossil fuels?;'Quantity and tree location ahah „t lac-deteltiiiied4hrough theassis"tante ofthe'ICity A?bbrist NSC shall purchase alternative low sulfur fuel tor.their,}vaste handling'vel7icles I 'Shall'also rei)oue'tlieii,contractors;to'use on-road Lowisulfiu diesel for thelr,off rCiad equipment, • • ` NSC shall retrrofitall yftid vehicles and up to 10 wilection`vehicles that seriice the Salem area with diesel redu'ctiou,filters. ISG shall;ienford'e1(h-%c, nt idling policy,irti ,osed by the:$tat'e.• In addition to continue process'toti•eiltice the weraII generation of dieser arnissioris;.NSC vvih comtriirto educate all'non " NSC vehihle operatgrs`5nd.tp promote-theittstallatign of the,reduction,filters and the usage of low sulfur di0sel fuel � ATTACHMENT I Additional Information Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent (2/28/08) Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent (3/7/08) Group5 Norwood Park South ' y r I , Inc.. Norwood,MA 02082 { InC � (761)255-1982,tax(789)265-1974 1 Engineers . Scientists Planners www.BETA-inc.com February 28,2008 - Conservation Commission j City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Attn: Ms. Carey Duques,Agent Re: Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent j Salem Transfer Station & Landfill Closure Project Swampscott Road,Salem,MA i1 Dear Ms. Duques: 1 The following questions were posed by the Conservation Commission at the public hearing held for the referenced project on February 14, 2008. On behalf of Northside Carting,Inc. and the City of Salem,we have provided the following responses in bold text. Copies of the referenced documents are included as Attachments. ➢ How will the material exuosed during the Drocess of day-li¢htine the river be handled? Will it be caoDed? I The waste materials will be removed from the subject portion of the river and 1 placed under the area to be capped to the east of the Forest River. All materials will be capped in accordance with the detail presented as Attachment A. ➢ New Dlans to reflect the removal of the 60 feet of culverted river. Reference is made to Attachment B. ➢ Width of the roadwav leading to the rear of the site.DroDosed drop-off area for residents.can it accommodate two cars? i The width or the roadway to the yard waste and recyclable drop-off area will be a minimum of 26 feet to accommodate two-way traffic and large vehicles used to JI ship the yard wastes and recyclables from the site. That change will be reflected in updated site plans to be submitted to the Commission. _ y Detail of guardrails to be located along roadwav leading.to the rear of the site. Reference is made to the Details Sheet included as Attachment C. • Lincoln,RI Norwood,MA Rocky Hill,CT 1 Ms.Carey Ihques,Agent February 28,2008 Page 2 of 3 �. A Profile showing layers that make up the cap. i Reference is made to the capping detail included as Attachment A. i" ➢ Concerns about existing catch basin(s)on site and procedure to discontinue it/them All existing catch basins will be removed and the associated drainage lines will either be crushed and placed under the cap of the landfill or removed and disposed of off-site. > Location of proposed guardrails throughout entire site,retaining walls are noted but not guardrails. Reference is made to the Site Plan included as Attachment B which illustrates the location of the guard rail. ➢ Lack of curbs; how will cape cod berms hold up to the plows during winter; what is outlined in the O&M plan? i' The O&M Plan will include a provision for annual spring inspection and repair of any damaged sections of the Cape Cod berm. Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment,mentioned that you could bring a map to the next meeting showing the location of the test pits. j We have included to location plans for test borings(not test pits) as Attachments D and E. They illustrate the locations of all test borings taken at the site; copies of boring logs are included in the Appendix to this submittal. > Section of property that is outside of the property line—How to handle? The City Solicitor has contacted the Property Owner(North Shore Self Storage) and a tentative agreement to execute a construction easement to allow site access for purposes of landfill closure has been reached. That agreement is currently under development and will be executed soon. Northside Carting,Inc.may,at its discretion,acquire that portion of the adjacent parcel after transfer of the City-owned property to Northside Carting,Inc. Y Final restoration plans,details about plantings,what and how restoration would occur along river bank and other sections of the site. No plantings will be permitted on any portions of the capped landfill and no other adjacent areas will be disturbed. The slopes of the landfill,including those along the river, will be re-seeded with a"slope mix"specifically developed with r Ms.Cy 9ues Du Agent � g February 28,-2008 Page 3 of 3 deep rooted grasses that will hold the embankment from sloughing off to the river. Reference is also made to Attachment A. i. On the west side of the river,we will have an opportunity to provide indigenous plantings at the periphery of the site,but landscaping will be kept to a minimum. We trust that these responses adequately address the concerns of the Commission at this - time. Please call me with any further questions or concerns. j 1 Very truly yours, J BETA GROUP,INC. Alan D.Hanscom,LSP Senior Associate 1 cc: Beth Rennard,Esq.,City Solicitor David Knowlton,City Engineer F Robert George,NSC Bill Thomson,Jr.,NSC i i } 315 Nomad Porn Sordh l llr®Op, Inc. Norwood,MA 02082 (781)255-1982,fax(781)255-1974 Engineers • scientists Planners - www.BETA-inc.cw 1 March 7, 200$ Conservation Commission City of Salem i 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Attn: Ms. Carey Duques,Agent Re: Supplemental Information to Notice of Intent Salem Transfer Station & Landfill Closure Project Swampscott Road, Salem, MA Dear Ms.Duques: The following questions and comments were posed by the Conservation Commission at j the public hearing held for the referenced project on February 28, 2008. On behalf of Northside Carting,Inc. and the City of Salem,we have provided the following responses in bold text Copies of the referenced documents are included as Attachments. A Use of filter baps in lieu of hay bales and silt fence for erosion control at limits of work. We agreed to the use of Straw Wattlesrm and/or Filtrexirm filter socks in lieu of bay bales and silt fence, to avoid introduction of invasive species of plants. See attached product sheet in Attachment A. ➢ What will be done with respect to General site cleanup, including stockuiled oiues,, curbs and miscellaneous building materials? All existing surface debris around the property, including the shoreline along the western boundary of the property,will be cleaned up and disposed off-site, or incorporated under the DEP-approved landfill cap at this site. To the extent that the miscellaneous pipes, curbs and other stockpiled materials are desired by the City,they will be relocated by City forces to an alternative storage location. Otherwise,they will become the property of Northside Carting,Inc.upon transfer of the property and the materials will either be relocated for re-use, or demolished for placement under the landfill cap or under paved areas in accordance with DEP's conditional approval of the CAAA Report and the DEP's Asphalt,Brick and Concrete(ABC)Re-use Policy. Lincoln,RI Norwood,MA Rocky Hill,CT J Ms.Carey Duques,Agent March 7,2008 Page 2 of 3 ➢ What will happen with the construction debris generated from demolition of the existing incinerator building and stack? In accordance with DEP's conditional approval of the CAA.A Report,re-use of { the demolition debris (after abatement of regulated building materials) will be permitted under the paved areas of the site to help achieve final grades. Care will be taken during placement of the C&D debris,including embedded gravel F layers and compaction,to avoid future settlement. l > have the building materials. ash and other`.suspect"materials inside the incinerator i building and stack been sampled for hazardous residuals? The answer is that most of the materials were sampled during a pre-demolition survey conducted in July 2005. The primary contaminants of concern include: ■ Asbestos containing building materials(roofing materials,wall panels, gaskets,duct insulation,masties and floor tiles); ■ Lead based painted surfaces; and Pigeon guano. The ash within the chimney has not yet been tested, but we plan to test the ash for heavy metals prior to demolition. In most cases, the ash will be similar to all of the other ash on the site and will be suitable for placement under the engineered cap. In the event the total metals exceed certain threshold values,we will perform toxicity characteristic leaching procedure tests to assess management requirements. Where will the drainage pipes be installed with respect to the engineered can for the i site? All drainage pipes will be installed above the engineered impervious liner; however,the drainage structures will be provided with a"geotextile skirt"sealed with bentonite to prevent infiltration of rainwater around the periphery of the drainage structures. The skirt will be similar to that illustrated on the guardrail detail included in Attachment C. Reference is also made to the Detail Sheet included in Attachment B. ➢ Will the guard rail supports be installed above or below the eeotextile barrier? I Reference is made to the detail included in Attachment C which illustrates the guard rail installation detail. The support will penetrate the geotextile fabric to I an approximated depth of 4 to 6 feet below grade. A sleeve filled with a "geotextile skirt"will be installed over each support and the annular spaces will I � I Ms. Carey Duques, Agent March 7,2008 Page 3 of 3 . be filled with bentonite chips to seal the connection. "- ➢ Provide a drawing showing the oronosed location of a new concrete inlet headwall on the existing culvert, or on a new culvert, as may be necessary.. Reference is made to the new Site Pian included in Attachment D. ! p A hvdrologic analysis should be provided to substantiate sizing of a new culvert and/or installation of an inlet control device for flow attenuation. BETA has performed a preliminary hydrologic analysis and determined that the existing 48-inch diameter culvert is oversized for the drainage basin. Furthermore, restoring its full flow capacity'could result in worsening downstream flooding problems. Based upon the initial modeling results,we will i . likely recommend installation of a concrete headwall/structure with an inlet control device. In the event the existing culvert is not suitable for re-use, i replacement with an 18-inch or 24-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe will be recommended. Final modeling results will be available for the next public hearing on Thursday night(3/13). ➢ Details of the proposed Stormceotore and manholes should be provided. Details of the drainage manholes and inlet structures were included on the detail i j sheet submitted with the Supplemental NO] package submitted at the public hearing on February 28,2008. We have, at the request of DEP,provided a complete copy of the Stormwater Management Report in Attachment E. That report includes a section of the proposed STC 900 Stormceptor in lieu of the originally proposed 4501 unit. We trust that these responses adequately address the concerns of the Commission at this time. Please call me with any further questions or concerns. i ' I Very truly yours, BETAGROUP, Z INC. CJ Alan D. Hanscom,LSP Senior-Associate i cc: Beth Rennard, Esq.,City Solicitor David Knowlton,City Engineer Robert George,NSC Bill Thomson, Jr.,NSC i ATTACHMENT J Progress Set of Drawings i w STATION N TH' I'DE- CARTING. - ..._ Nam: � ; twe provided for reof the building layout =pts only. Subi-I to g d uring final design. TRANSFER' STATION DESIGN PROGRESS SET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS LOCATION PLAN I _ OWNER SYMBOLS: DRAWING UST: BETA ENGINEERING ® �� ® �� ® �� ,m a 315NormodMSauth •� SEEM NGMW.MA02062 I Tel. (781)255-.1962 '"""� ® �ewm.. ® �® —4 _ •®� - ARCHITECT o Mount Vernon Group, Inc. ® ® i ARCHITECf58PlANNQtS 0 � ® g — �.,,.�.. •R•�•.® atrmmt81 w�wmem ABBREVIATIONS: �� s GENE NOTES Sfma tl°®amauM.°aeo amm5�as ---- '�"" tr— il G}� ILOADING FLR I do"..:m.43—`..`.�.a..�... eti.�. .... .•i 111 �J s� ' \J � � TPPING /\ CODE ao..wm......e......w I �I \ W m� TIPPING FLR .�..... . \ o. ....�..,.. / m 1 L L I O OFFICE 1 I ' NOTE: These preliminary drawings are provided for review of the building layout 1 o r � and operational concepts only. Subject ro change during final design. \ MEZZANINE Y R 1 .. °-w CR-1 1 ] l 171— Mi ------------ ---- 2 m.ow aancn emww y �� wi Il G mw i x z Irmbd eCmtive ilr— T Q Q ® ® % F RPLq .. ' I .. I ^Etanaa®a�RCE R.wn-nvnrvo Rnoa / a a i OC a a cUD TP%R R Mes..�mem � 1 a e m t g w u �� g--' � F _ PenmiGvmEmmluaol� L L___ I1' v BiIARGED ORILE PIAN-MEZIANWE MOOR wumm�o�rwms �m a w maa x D . nsu�i Wll m.mmea.FllBm }I i � _��: NOTE: These preliminary dmwings are provided for review of the bmldmg layout ——— M_...�, ' and operational concepts only. Subject to change doting final design. O�ESAry WE PLOGR A1.1 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE I GLAZING SCHEDULE f I A c 1 = DnnRIYPE HEVATIOt64 FltAMETYPE HEVATIWtS I w.w r.w I I DDDR SCHEDULE I - �a TF- Ok _ WT.HEV.t.@l9 aATHRnnM TW IM.HEV.WOMHia9AT1R(pM IDe BORROWED LIGHT SCHEDULE ItatErvcttEue+o "' ._., t] »vevoru El- OVERHEAD l-OVERHEAD DOO[2 SCHEDULE On� - o i xnen. ray.®r.m xomur rww.rem mmms El ua.o.waa.e NOTE: nese preliminary dmwings are provided for review of the building layout and operational concepts only. Subject to cbsnge during final design. A1"2 ErREFLECTED CEILING LEGEND CEILING TYPElEGENb REFlECIEDCFR1NGftlW-�� e �� a< - Qi FEFl ECIED CEILING PUN-NFSLININE 8000. r.e ' FER bu. .a NOTE= These preliminary drawings are provided for review of the building layout I ✓ and operational concepts only. Subject to change during final design. J r 1 4 o 0 0 a13 3 u u ii — ='i W �m rl NORINflEVAnON O El4r EtEVnTON /.\SOVIH 6EVATIXi w 0-1 �WEST FIEVATON V y \J Y ..m.. v shut.Dd, �J iF 1. _ as m 1� m S S m I S tnmomct srnm secrtOM =i ^�I�INGSEonoN v y\=12NGSECNoN v A m .�'.m ^ eoes ya[iii /� saeuwbmaml � I m NOTE: These preliminary drawings are provided for review of the building layout .•+STAaSEcnox and operational concepts only. Subject to change duringfinal desi O 0STAN secnoN A4.1 Z • AIR QUALITY MODELING REPORT Northside Carting, Inc. 12 Swampscott Street Salem, MA Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 June, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-2 2.0 AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING 2-1 2.1 CAL3QHCR 2-1 2.3 MOBILE6.2 Emissions 2-3 2.3 CAL3QHCR Receptors 2-4 2.4 Meteorological Data 24 2.6 Background Air Quality Data 24 2.8 Modeling Results 2-6 3.0 REFERENCES 3-1 Appendix A Modeling Assumptions Appendix B CAL3QHCR Input and Output File Appendix C MOBILE6.2 Modeling Files List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Modeled Receptor Locations List of Tables Table 1 Emission Factors Generated by MOBILE6.2 Table 2 Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected Background Levels Table 3 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Northside Carting Facility Alone Table 4 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Existing Conditions Table 5 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Conditions 2268/Northside Carting Salem/report Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, Inc. • 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted to assess the potential impact of ambient air quality from the proposed expansion of the Northside Carting Transfer Station in Salem, MA. Particulate emissions associated with the additional truck trips including existing traffic volumes were modeled for comparison to ambient air quality standards using refined air quality dispersion models. The analysis was completed in response to the Salem Board of Health request to analyze the potential impact of diesel truck emissions at residential areas along Highland Avenue (Route 107) and the nearby neighborhood to the southeast of the facility. The modeling was conducted using EPA-approved dispersion models and emission generating software. The modeling results were compared to the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.s and PM,o along with the EPA Reference concentration (RfC) for diesel particulate matter (DPM). The EPA has established an RfC of 5 ug/m' over an annual period'. The RFC is an estimate of inhalation exposure which humans may be exposed throughout there lifetime without being likely to experience adverse non-cancer respiratory effects. The analysis indicates that the existing and proposed truck trips affiliated with Northside iCarting are below the NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and PM,o and also below the EPA RfC for DPM. The analysis was performed consistent with DEP policies and modeling guidance and methodologies for performing mobile source dispersion modeling. • ' U.S. EPA, "Health Assessment Document for Diesel Particulate Matter , EPA/600/8-90/057F, May 2002. 2268/Northside Carting/Report 7-1 Introduction and Summary Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.0 `AIR QUALITY DISPERSION MODELING • An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted for the existing and proposed truck volumes associated with Northside Carting's Salem facility along with existing and proposed traffic volumes from other vehicles. Figure 1 shows the project site location and surrounding area. The dispersion modeling was conducted using EPA's CAL3QHCR model with emission rates derived from EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission generating program. 2.1 CAL3QHCR The model typically employed to estimate impacts of emissions from mobile sources is the EPA-approved CAL3QHCR model (EPA, 1995). The CAL3QHCR model is an enhanced version of EPA's CAL3QHC mobile source model. The CAL3QHCR model has the capability of modeling particulate emissions from motor vehicles during idling and free flow conditions. The model incorporates the CALINE-3 line source dispersion model. Other features of the CAL3QHCR model include: 1) the use of hourly meteorological data to simulate dispersion of emissions on a sequential, hour-by-hour basis for one full year, 2) the complete ISC dispersion model mixing height algorithm, and 3) the ability to vary traffic-related input variables by the hour of the week. The CAL3QHCR model uses emission factors generated by MOBILE6.2 along with traffic volumes, geometry of the free flow and queue links, and source specific parameters (i.e., emission heights, cycle times, etc.) to determine impacts at receptors of concern. The study area is based on the traffic study conducted by Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (Vanasse) and encompasses the area from the Northside Carting site northward along Swampscott Road to the intersection of Route 107 (Highland Avenue). The study also includes the intersection of Marlboro Road and Route 107 to the northeast. The traffic is divided into free flow and queue links. A free flow link is a straight segment of roadway with a constant volume, speed and emission factor. A queue link is a straight segment of roadway on which vehicles are idling for a specified period of time. The free flow links follow the path of the trucks along Route 107 as they enter the Swampscott Road intersection from the northeast and southwest and travel southward along Swampscott Road and enter the Northside Carting site. The trucks then travel around the site and exit onto Swampscott Road. Daily traffic volumes were estimated from the a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes based on adjustment factors (K factors) in the Vanasse report. Conservatively, worst case daily volumes from the a.m. or p.m. were input into the CAL3QHCR model. For the existing conditions at the transfer station an average weekday volume of 140 trips were assumed (70 in and 70 out). For the proposed expansion an additional 54 trips were assumed (27 in and 27 out) for a total of 194 trips per day. • 2268/North5ide Carting/Report 2-1 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. N:9W Z YJ lv"V *'ll t; W" �'ef I AW;. 30 1 WlA J k 01"k. 'N" e,s vvt" Project Site II jt'� A 6 -'z �kA NAIII I MW :'46" S- 4 l ""� Ir Scale 1:2,400 Figure 1 14asemap :'00.s o'-5lh.-'p0mography' fvrassc'15 1 inch = 200 tect Site Location Northside Carting, Inc. 100 100 200 WIPS11on Salem, Massachusetts The modeling assumptions (i.e., source heights, lane widths, queue times, etc.) used in the • analysis are presented in Appendix A. Input and output files for CAL3QHCR are presented in Appendix B. 2.3 MOBILE6.2 Emissions Diesel exhaust emissions were estimated using the EPA-approved MOBILE6.2 emission software program for existing and future build conditions (2012). Separate emissions were derived for existing traffic (not including Northside Carting trips) and Northside Carting truck volumes since not all the existing volumes are comprised of heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) like the Northside Carting trucks. Therefore average size vehicle (all vehicles from MOBILE6.2) emission factor was used for non Northside Carting traffic and the HDDV factor was used for the Northside Carting trucks. The MOBILE6.2 emissions model has the ability to estimate current and future total exhaust particulate (PM1o) and fine particulate (PM2.$) from a variety of vehicle types, including diesel trucks. The total exhaust particulate is the sum of the lead and sulfate in the fuel, soluble organic fraction, and carbon, brake, and tire wear. Emissions of PM10 were used to estimate DPM impacts for comparison to the RfC. Table 1 presents the emissions factors generated by MOBILE6.2. The input parameters used in • the MOBILE6.2 run are consistent with the latest MADEP assumptions for vehicle mix and the inspection and maintenance program (I&M). Table 1 Emission Factors Generated by MOBILE6.2 PM2.5' PM10/DPM' Condition Average Northside Average Northside Vehicle Carting Vehicle Carting (g/mile) Trucks (g/mile) Trucks (g/mile) (g/mile) Existing 0.0365 0.2767 0.0532 0.3236 Future Build 0.0209 0.1142 0.0363 0.1489 Notes: 1.The higher of the summertime and winter emissions were used. The volume queue times at each intersection were estimated based on the Synchro reports provided in the traffic analysis. The Massachusetts anti-idling regulation prohibiting engines idling for greater than 5-minutes will be observed at the facility and was accounted in the modeling. The MOBILE6.2 output files are presented in Appendix C. • 2268/Northside Carting/Report 2-3 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.3 CAL3QHCR Receptors For the CAL3QHCR modeling analysis receptors chosen for the analysis consisted of fenceline receptors and residential areas along Route 107 and to the southeast of the facility. A total of 20 receptors were chosen for the CAL3QHCR analysis. Figure 2 shows the receptor locations used in the analysis. 2.4 Meteorological Data Five years of hourly meteorological data from Boston's Logan International Airport (2001 to 2005) in conjunction with five years of upper air data from Grey, Maine were used in the modeling analysis. Boston is the closest most representative data available which represents the coastal environs of Salem. 2.6 Background Air Quality Data Modeled concentrations from the mobile sources were added to ambient background concentrations to obtain total concentrations. These total concentrations were compared to the NAAQS. To estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, the most recent data obtained from the EPA AIRS database were reviewed. For the short-term average • period, the highest second highest yearly observations were selected for the background concentration consistent with the short-term ambient air quality standards. For long-term averages, the highest yearly observation was used as the background concentration. To estimate background pollutant levels representative of the area, the most recent data obtained from the EPA AIRS database for the years 2004 to 2006 were obtained. The closest and most representative monitoring station to Salem Northside Carting was the Kenmore Square monitor in Boston for (PM,o and the Lynn monitor for PM2.5. A summary of the background air quality concentrations are presented in Table 2. • 2268/N61-651de Carting/Report 2A Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. 7NN�4-��, Legend Receptor Location JT. a, r--V� MM. Z4 Wx It Tt.t�� >4 � '""' r'L �" :�° 'r � "� ��."ia�'a.yV,'.'`\;O��t :.,+toC :,, .m��• g �!�'.�§..a;';�~ of NO %6i 'WT-riFS, 'Ilk Z, 401 ®R J4. Project Site NO EN Zl. N% Y, _ . l� t..ea:: '�'-._ �3t' •''�z�R� ` •`` + .,N';R'� �,f�.•'t' ��,v:.Y `rT;,� ,f :,,�,� ,� -2 m W1 Scale 1:3,600 Figure 2 Basemap 2005 Orthophotagraphy. Vass(VS 1 inch = 300 feet Modeled Receptor Locations 150 Northside Carting, Inc. 0 150 300 Nort Epsilon FeAt Salem, Mass husetts is 0 Table 2 Observed Ambient Air Quality Concentrations and Selected Background Levels FAveraging Background Period 2004 2005 2006 Level' NAAQS PMio(µg/m') 24-Hour 58 58 41 58 150 µg/m' Annual 22 29 22 29 50 gg/m' PM2.5 (µg/m') 24-Hour 26 27 25 26 35 µg/m' Annual 9 9.5 8.5 9.0 15 pg/m' Notes:t. Background values represent overall maximum values except PM2.5 which is based on average of the maximum per MADE?guidance. 2.8 Modeling Results Table 3 presents the maximum modeled CAL3QHCR modeling results for the Northside Carting operations alone for existing and build conditions. Maximum annual PM10 concentrations were compared to the EPA's RfC for DPM. The results show that impacts from the Northside Carting facility alone are small and are well below the EPA RfC. Table 4 and • Table 5 presents the CAL3QHCR modeling results for the existing and future build conditions compared to the NAAQS which includes Northside Carting along with existing and proposed volumes from other vehicles. The predicted ground level concentrations were added to monitored background levels and compared with the NAAQS. The contributions to the CAL3QHCR modeled concentrations from the Northside Carting facility were included in the table. The results of the analysis show that maximum impacts from the daily traffic volumes for both conditions are below the NAAQS. A CD-ROM containing CAL3QHCR input and output files for all pollutants are enclosed in Appendix B. • 116811Vorthside CartingWeport 2-6 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 3 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Northside Carting Facility Alone q _ - Maximum Maximum Averaging Existing Future RfC Percentage of Pollutant Period Northside Northside (pg/m') RFC(%) Carting Truck Carting Truck Trips(pg/m') Trips(pg(m') PM10 24-Hour 0.08 0.04 n/a n/a Annual 0.01 <0.01 5 0.2 PMz.s 24-Hour 0.06 0.03 n/a n/a Annual 0.01 <0.01 n/a n/a Notes: 1.n,a does not apply for determining the DPM RfC Table 4 CAL3 HCR Modeling Results For Existing Conditions s --- — - Monitored - i CAL3QHCR Contributions Background Total Averaging Existing Truck From Existing Concentration Concentration NAAQS Percentage of Pollutant Period Trips(gg(m') Northside (pg/m') (pg/m) (pg/m') NAAQS(%) Carting Truck Trips(pg/m') PM10 24-H2H 0.83 <0.01 58 58.83 150 39.2 Annual 0.2 0.01 29 29.21 50 58.4 PMz.s 24-H8H 0.62 <0.01 26 26.62 35 76.0 Annual 0.16 0.01 9 9.17 15 61.1 j Notes 1. The PM10 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 81h highest concentrations consistent with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS. 2268/Northside Carting/Report 2-7 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5 CAL3QHCR Modeling Results For Future Build Conditions Monitored CAL3QHCR Contributions Background Total Averaging Future Truck From Future Concentration Concentration NAAQS Percentage of Pollutant Period Trips (pg/m') Northside (pglm') (pg/m') (pg/m') NAAQS(%) Carting Truck Trips(µg/m') PM10 24-H2H 0.71 <0.01 58 58.71 150 39.1 Annual 0.17 <0.01 29 29.17 50 58.3 PM2.5 24-H8H 0.31 <0.01 26 26.31 35 75.2 Annual 0.08 <0.01 9 9.08 15 61.0 Notes 1. The PMI 0 concentrations represent the highest second highest modeled concentrations while the PM2.5 represents the highest 8'highest concentrations consistent with the NAAQS. 2. The annual concentrations represent the highest maximum concentration consistent with the NAAQS 1268/North5ide Carting/Report 2-8 Air Quality Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3.0 REFERENCES EPA, 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)40 CFR 51, Appendix W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA, 2003. Users Guide to MOBlLE6.1 and MOBILE6.2. EPA420-R-03-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA, 1995. Addendum to the Users Guide to C4L3QHC Version 2.0(Users Guide to CAL3QHCR). • 1168/Northside CartingiReport 3-1 References Epsilon Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A Modeling Assumptions • • 2268 NorthsideCarting, Inc. Assumptions for CAL3QHCR Source Heights • Truck emission exhaust height— 12 feet • Car emission exhaust height— 1.1 feet Site • Lane width for path traveled by trucks onsite assumed to be 11 feet. Unsignalized Intersection (Project Site/Swampscott Road) • Free Flow links and queues used for traffic analysis as well as to connect the intersections of Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road to represent the truck movements to and from the Project Site. • Free Flow links on Project Site represent movements inbound and outbound. • Queues assumed for left tum onto Project Site from Swampscott Road and leaving the Project Site for one exit(Existing Case)and both exits(Build Case). • Cycle Length equals 60 seconds. • • Red Time equals 30 seconds • Unused Yellow Time equals 0 seconds. Route 107/Marlborough Road (Signalized Intersection) • Free Flow and Queue links were analyzed in traffic analysis connecting the Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue to DiPietro Avenue and Highland Avenue intersections. • Two lanes of a width of 12 feet used onto Route 107. Swampscott Road/Route 107 (Signalized Intersection) • Free Flow and Queue links analyzed in traffic analysis connecting the DiPietro Avenue and Highland intersection with the Project Site. • Assumed 11 foot width lanes. Truck Idling Onsite • Each truck idles for 1 minute at the truck scale when entering the site. • Each truck assumed to idle for 5 minutes during unloading. • Each truck idles for 1 minute at the truck scale when leaving the site. Receptor Height • Assumed 6 feet—typical breathing height. Miscellaneous • Existing(2006)Traffic Volumes and 2012 Build with Mitigation used from traffic analysis. • Daily truck volumes derived from peak hour volumes using k factors. • Conservative assumptions -taking the higher volume between the Morning and Evening Analysis. • Rural land use. • Surface roughness length of 108 cm assumed(single family residential) • Arrival rate for vehicles is average progression. • Meteorological Data years 2000-2004 from Boston. • PM 2.5 and PM10 Pollutants analyzed. • Project truck trips run separately from the Existing Vehicle analysis, which excluded Project truck volumes. Impacts from Existing and Project related trips were added together. • • APPENDIX B CAL3QHCR Input and Output File Available Upon Request • APPENDIX C MOBILE6.2 Modeling Files • 14i44rYataWlr}tittYrFrli}rt#rt1#i}r}ttrt+}a Fi irkYYr ti r}r}t4iaia}ttt##rtY4rW • MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) # • Input file: MA06-TS.INP (file 1, run 1) . F awarWa+a+aa4Wrr++araaaaaalea+a+aaaWWra+it4rttYra•+:+w Yw raWaWra+r}raaYtaYa+• • PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) • File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0499 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0051 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0138 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0553 0.0788 ------ 0.0069 5O4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0510 0.1170 0.1002 0.2578 0.0144 0.0282 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0584 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0207 0.0359 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + PM 2.5 - Summer 25 mph • File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: "000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 --------------------------------------------------------I--------_----------------------------------------------------- Composlte Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0499 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0138 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ -'-'-- ------ 0.0249 0.0553 0.0788 ------ 0.0069 5O4; 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0042 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0511 0.1170 0.1002 0.2578 0.0143 0.0282 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0586 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0207 0.0359 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • PM 2.5 - Summer 30 mph ` File 1, Run 1, Scenario 3. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yee Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 --------------------------------_------------------------------------------------_-------------------__________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0499 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0385 0.1576 ------ 0.0136 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0553 0.0788 ------ 0.0069 5O4; 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0512 0.1170 0.1002 0.2578 0.0143 0.0281 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0587 0.1244 0.1076 0.2692 0.0206 0.0358 SO2: 0.0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ` PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) File 1, Run 1, Scenario 4. Calendar Year: 2006 ' Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDOT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____- VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 --------------_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 0.0560 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0418 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 OCARBON: ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0046 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0571 0.1269 0.1084 0.2783 0.0207 0.0306 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.0060 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0252 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0782 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0372 0.0525 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * PM 10 - Summer 25 mph * File 1, Run 1, Scenario S. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0042 0.0041 0.0042 0.0560 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON; ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0418 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0573 0.1269 0.1084 0.2783 0.0206 0.0305 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0251 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0784 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0372 0.0525 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # • PM 10 - Summer 30 mph • 9 • # File 1, Run 1, Scenario 6. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30, ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ ------ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3794 0.3530 0.1386 0.0361 0.0008 0.0015 0.0865 0.0041 1.0000 ----------------------------------_-------------------------------_____________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0560 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0418 0.1713 ------ 0.0150 OCARBON: ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0602 0.0857 ------ 0.0075 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0213 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0574 0.1269 0.1084 0.2783 0.0206 0.0305 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0086 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0250 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0785 0.1474 0.1289 0.3155 0.0371 0.0525 SO2: 0.0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1229 0.3051 0.0033 0.0345 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ taaaafrl•lalaaaarrrrf•111fllai##µaaµafr•allaaaff aaaYarfrr1a11a1#1#lµµaµilaf + MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) • Input file: MA06-TS.INP (file 1, run 2) . 1!laaarafrlfla!llaaaaaararaaarlalaaaaaaaa of ara11ra1w1aaraaaraaaaaalflfaawwr • PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Winter (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) + File 1, Run 2, Scenario 1. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff; 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ ______ ______ ______ V14T Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 ------------------------------------------_____________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) ; Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0502 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0579 0.0813 ------ 0.0071 5O4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0010 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0512 0.1170 0.1046 0.2652 0.0144 0.0288 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0,0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0587 0,1244 0.1119 0.2767 0.0207 0.0365 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0343 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # + PM 2.5 - Winter 25 mph + File 1, Run 2, Scenario 2. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month; Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas; Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM; 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0502 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0579 0.0813 ------ 0.0071 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0042 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0513 0.1170 0.1046 0.2652 0.0143 0.0288 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0116 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0588 0.1244 0.1119 0.2757 0.0207 0.0365 502: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0,0703 0,1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + PM 2.5 - Winter 30 mph + File 1, Run 2, Scenario 3. Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ----_- ------ ______ ______ ______ ------ ------ ______ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 -------------------____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0502 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0052 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0884 0.0402 0.1626 ------ 0.0141 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0249 0.0579 0.0813 ------ 0.0071 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0042 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044 0.0514 0.1170 0.1046 0.2652 0.0143 0.0287 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0115 0.0117 0.0117 0.0117 0.0589 0.1244 0.1119 0.2767 0.0206 0.0364 SO2: 0.0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ------------------------------------------------------_----------______________________________________________________ + PM 10 - Idle Scenario - winter (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) ' File 1, Run 2, Scenario 4. ' # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: .6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0041 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0565 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0437 0.1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0010 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0002 0.0024 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0046 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0576 0.1269 0.1131 0.2864 0.0207 0.0312 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0252 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0787 0.1474 0.1336 0.3236 0.0372 0.0532 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0343 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 -----------------------------------------------________________________________________________________________________ ' PM 10 - Winter 25 mph + File 1, Run 2, Scenario S. Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT BDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 ---____-----------------------------------_-------------------------------------------_________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM; 0.0041 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0565 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0437 0.1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 5O4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0012 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0046 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0577 0.1269 0.1131 0.2864 0.0206 0.0312 Brake; 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0251 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0788 0.1474 0.1336 0.3236 0.0372 0.0531 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0114 0.0095 0.0165 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0.1014 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # • PM 10 - Winter 30 mph • File 1, Run 2, Scenario 6. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2006 Month: Jan, Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 350. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDDV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR. <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3868 0.3485 0.1366 0.0355 0.0008 0.0015 0.0862 0.0040 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0565 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0057 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0961 0.0437 0.1768 ------ 0.0154 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0271 0.0629 0.0883 ------ 0.0077 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0037 0.0064 0.0214 0.0001 0.0023 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0045 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0578 0.1269 0.1131 0.2864 0.0206 0.0311 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0246 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0250 0.0253 0.0253 0.0253 0.0789 0.1474 0.1336 0.3236 0.0371 0.0531 SO2: 0.0068 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0703 0.1225 0.3053 0.0033 0.0344 0 9 9 _NH3: 0.1015 0.1014 0.1013 0,1014 0,0451 0.0068 0.0068 0,0270 0.0113 0.0924 ____------_..__......_____-----__,._------_»___.----____------____------ + MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) i + Input file: MA12:TS.INP (file 1, run 1) . i .«wwwiiY«wt•i}rrww }...}..:w«iii•iii.www}aiiiwwwwrwiw«wwwwwiiiiiiww«}.}ii«w + PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) + File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ -----' ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 --------------I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : ______ _-____ 0,0000 0.0000 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0198 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0038 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0148 0.0316 ------ 0.0027 SO4; 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0211 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0144 0.0126 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0114 0.0113 0.0113 0.0286 0.0956 0.0326 0.1071 0.0207 0.0203 SO2: 0.0067 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0066 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------_------------------------------------------------ + PM 2.5 - Summer 25 mph + File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: -6000 "000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : 0 0 Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ _ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0035 0.0034 0.0035 0.0196 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0038 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0148 0.0316 ------ 0.0027 5O4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0212 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0143 0.0126 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0286 0.0956 0.0326 0.1071 0.0207 0.0203 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • PM 2.5 - Summer 30 mph * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 3. • # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0195 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0103 0.0631 ------ 0.0054 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0148 0.0316 ------ 0.0027 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0212 0.0883 0.0253 0.0955 0.0143 0.0125 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0287 0.0956 0.0326 0.1071 0.0206 0.0202 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Summer (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) • File 1, Run 1, Scenario 4. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDCV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0220 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 ------ 0.0030 5O4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0233 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0207 0.0136 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0249 0.0249 0.0248 0.0249 0.0443 0.1165 0.0480 0.1411 0.0372 0.0356 SO2; 0.0067 0.0087 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 --------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________________________ • PM 10 - Summer 25 mph * File 1, Run 1, Scenario 5. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR; <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 --------------------____________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0039 0.0038 0.0037 0.0038 0.0218 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARSON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 ------ 0.0030 504: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0233 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0206 0.0136 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0444 0.1165 0.0480 0.1411 0.0372 0.0356 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 -----------------------------------------------------------_----------------------------------------------__________ + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # + PM 10 - Summer 30 mph • • • 0 0 0 + File 1, Run 1, Scenario 6. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content; 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR; <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ ------ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3071 0.4054 0.1595 0.0369 0.0002 0.0015 0.0857 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASFM: 0.0040 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0216 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0111 0.0685 ------ 0.0059 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- 0.0211 0.0160 0.0343 ------ 0.0030 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM; 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0234 0.0960 0.0275 0.1037 0.0206 0.0136 Brake; 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0444 0.1165 0.0480 0.1411 0.0371 0.0356 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1011 0.1015 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ afllaara+a}t•f•iliriarrltrlftrlrlaiaafaaa4+•It}atlflfaiisiasiitttli}a rf iasa + MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) + + Input file: MA12_TS.INP (file 1, run 2) . + aaaarrarrrlraaaaaarraarr:oflfrrrrrtrfttraraaf}1f•1lfrraltrtltrf}1fa11farrrr + PM 2.5 - Idle Scenario - Winter (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) • File 1, Run 2, Scenario 1. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas; Yee Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ --- ______ ------ ______ ______ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0214 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0157 0.0340 ------ 0.0029 SO4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0226 0.0883 0.0268 0.1027 0.0144 0.0132 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0114 0.0113 0.0114 0.0301 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0207 0.0209 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0091 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 --------------------_------------------------------------------------__________________________________________________ + PM 2.5 - Winter 25 mph • File 1, Run 2, Scenario 2. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) _____ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____- VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 ---------------____-------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0212 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0157 0.0340 ------ 0.0029 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0227 0.0883 0.0268 0.1027 0.0143 0.0132 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0302 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0207 0.0209 S02: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 -------------------------------------------------------------__________________________________________________________ • # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # • PM 2.5 - Winter 30 mph • File 1, Run 2, Scenario 3. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 2.50 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh 9 • 0 0 0 GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ ______ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 --------------------------------------------------_-------------------------___________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0210 ------ ------ ------ 0.0142 0.0039 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0688 0.0109 0.0678 ------ 0.0058 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0194 0.0157 0.0340 ------ 0.0029 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0226 0.0883 0.0268 0,1027 0.0143 0.0132 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0020 0.0020 0.0062 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0302 0.0956 0.0341 0.1142 0.0206 0.0209 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 -------------------------------_-------------------------------------------_______---------------------________________ * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # • PM 10 - Idle Scenario - Winter (multiply g/mi by 2.5 mph to get g/hr) * File 1, Run 2, Scenario 4. • # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yea Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0037 0.0037 0.0037 0.0237 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0042 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 5O4: 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0013 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0250 O.D960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0207 0.0143 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0,0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM: 0.0249 0.0249 0.0249 0.0249 0.0460 0.1165 0.0497 0.1489 0.0372 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0091 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 --------------------------------------_________________________________________________________________________________ • PM 10 - Winter 25 mph ' File 1, Run 2, Scenario 5. Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15. ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yea Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR; .6000 >6000 (All) ___--- ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 ------------------------------_----------------------__________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0039 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0235 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0043 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ "---- 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 504: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0250 0.0960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0206 0.0143 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM; 0.0248 0.0249 0.0248 0.0248 0.0461 0.1165 0.0497 0.1469 0.0372 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0163 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 NH3; 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0066 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 ---------------------------------------------------_--------------_____________________________________________________ * PM 10 - Winter 30 mph + File 1, Run 2, Scenario 6. + # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: 2012 Month: Jan. Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 30. ppm Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 15, ppm Particle Size Cutoff: 10.00 Microns Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ------ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.3121 0.4027 0.1582 0.0364 0.0002 0.0015 0.0852 0.0038 1.0000 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors (g/mi) : Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------ ------ ------ 0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0040 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0233 ------ ------ ------ 0.0205 0.0043 ECARBON: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 0.0747 0.0118 0.0737 ------ 0.0063 OCARBON: ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ 0.0211 0.0170 0.0369 ------ 0.0032 5O4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0002 0.0003 0.0009 0.0001 0.0005 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0251 0.0960 0.0291 0.1115 0.0206 0.0143 Brake: 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 Tire: 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0085 0.0080 0.0080 0.0248 0.0040 0.0094 Total PM; 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0462 0.1165 0.0497 0.1489 0.0371 0.0363 SO2: 0.0067 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0162 0.0029 0.0052 0.0131 0.0033 0.0092 • 9 0 0 0 0 NH3: 0.1012 0.1016 0.1017 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0926 ---------------------------------------------------------------_-----------____________________________________________ � d \ b�\ �y � \- \ \ � \ �\ \ u y\ \ � � \ \ \ . �& �\ Wilcox Barton .. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES • FOCUSED RISK CHARACTERIZATION SALEM TRANSFER STATION 12 SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for: City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Prepared by: Wilcox&Barton,Inc. 1115 Route I OOB, Suite 200 Moretown,Vermont 05660 Contact: Ms. Cynthia Fuller, (401) 323-9571 June 3,2008 -Revision for review Wilcox&Barton,Inc.Project No.:BETA0008 • W W W.WILCOXANDBARTON.COM 1 (888) 777-5805 CERTIFICATION • The following personnel have prepared and/or reviewed this report for accuracy, content, and quality of presentation. Document Name: Focused Risk Characterization Salem Transfer Station 12 Swampscott Road. Salem.Massachusetts DateNersion: June 3. 2008 W Cynthia Fuller,MPH Health Risk Assessor • • Wi B f ,�R� • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND............................................................................................................1 3.0 AIR EMISSION MODELING...............................................................................................1 3.1 Input and Assumptions .................................................................................................1 3.2 Modeling Results..........................................................................................................3 3.2.1 Particulate Matter.............................................................................................3 3.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................3 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RISK OF HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH................4 4.1 Hazard Identification ....................................................................................................4 4.1.1 Constituents of Concern...................................................................................4 4.1.2 Toxicity Values................................................................................................4 4.1.3 Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards...................................................5 4.2 Exposure Assessment....................................................................................................5 4.2.1 Receptors and Exposure Scenarios...................................................................5 4.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations........................................................................5 4.2.3 Quantitation of Exposure..................................................................................6 4.3 Risk Characterization....................................................................................................6 4.3.1 Overview..........................................................................................................6 • 4.3.2 Diesel Particulate Matter..................................................................................6 4.3.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons .................................................................7 4.3.4 Volatile Organic Compounds...........................................................................8 4.3.5 Combined Health Risks....................................................................................8 5.0 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................9 6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................9 Tables Table 1 Summary of Modeling Output for Particulate Matter Table 2 Summary of Modeling Results for Volatile Organic Compounds Table 3 Summary of the Composition of Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Table 4 Summary of Toxicity Values Figures Figure 1 Air Toxics Modeled Receptor Locations Aonendices Appendix A Air Modeling Output for Volatile Organic Compounds Appendix B Risk Characterization Calculations -Particulate Matter Appendix C Risk Characterization Calculations -Volatile Organic Compounds • WB EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • A focused risk characterization was performed for air emissions associated with diesel truck traffic at the Salem Transfer Station("transfer station") located at 12 Swampcott Road, Salem,Massachusetts. The focused risk characterization evaluated the potential risk of harm to human health associated with transfer station truck emissions under current transfer station operations and those potentially emitted under the proposed expansion of the transfer station. The risk characterization was based on air quality dispersion modeling conducted by Epsilon Associates,Inc.using EPA-approved dispersion models and emission-generating software. The modeling estimated emissions of particulate matter[(PMre,PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter (DPM)] and five volatile organic compounds(VOCs: acetaldehyde, acrolein,benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde) associated with emissions from truck traffic to and from the transfer station, under current transfer station operations and under the proposed transfer station expansion. Emissions from existing non-transfer station-related traffic in the immediate area of the station were, also examined as a comparison. The risk characterization assumed that background air quajty was' identical in both scenarios, so the background contribution was not considered. This allowed a direct comparison of transfer station traffic impacts without interference from other sources. Exposure point concentrations(EPCs)of PMre,DPM,and five VOCs were the maximum ambient air concentrations predicted by modeling under two time-averaging periods:the maximum 24-hour air concentration(applied to assess short term exposures)and the maximum annual average air concentration(applied to assess long term exposure). PMro modeling results and information on the • composition of diesel particulate matter were used to estimate EPCs for total and carcinogenic PAHs. Exposure through inhalation was assumed to occur 24 hours per day,365 days per year,for 30 years, which is a conventional period for assessing residential exposure. Results of the VOC and PAH assessments were combined to derive the total non-cancer health hazards and cancer risks posed by emissions from transfer station truck traffic under current and proposed expansion scenarios and non- transfer station traffic. The risk characterization results are presented in the following table: ,f _ - a - yR7SIC�CHARACTERI7.AT10N SUMMARY ANDIPAHSTROMTRANSFER SI'ATTONANDNONciP,RANSFEB'STATLON,TRA'FPIC Y - c 1 4 _ r r I ^{Current`Operahon Scenarios-'- I P-roposed-Expanssoo Scenario - - - - - - - - ',� , - + i Sourceti �' '� +Non CanceriHazard Index tJ Cancer R�sk,l Non Cancer Harald Indezaal Cnncer lLsk a r 'i: t Subchronic N -Chrome - Chmmc- -, Subchronic Chfonre +1 -Chrome 'Ez'posure. „Exposure ' Exposure:' . -.Exposure :Exposure ,"-Exposure Transfer',Statlon Truck!Trafficr' .,. VOCs0.007 I 0.02 5 x 10"8 0.008 .0.02 6 x 10-8 PAHs 0.000002 I 0.00002 I 3 x 10-9 II 0.000002 I 0.00002 I 3 x 10-9 Transfer Station Total 0.007 1 0.02 6 x 10-8 0.008 0.02 6 x 10 Nou,Trensfer Station, VOCs 0.2 0.3 2 x W 0.09 0.2 1 x 10PAHs 0.0002 0.0005 6 x 10"8 0.0002 0.0004 5 x 10$ Non-Transfer Station Total 0.2 0.3 2 x 10-8 II 0.09 0.2 1 xle Combined Transfer and II0.2 I 0.4 I 2 x le N 0.1 I 0.2 I 1 x 106 ffic Non-Transfer Station TraII Maximum Acceptable Level 1 1 1 x 10"5 1 1 111 ot • WB E-1 L.� • Total non-cancer hazard indices(HIs)associated with emissions from transfer station traffic and non- transfer station traffic are below the maximum acceptable level for short-term (subchronic)and long- term (chronic)exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Acrolein is the primary contributor to the HI in all scenarios and averaging periods. Similarly,the excess lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from transfer station traffic and non-transfer station traffic are below the maximum acceptable cancer risk in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Benzene is the primary contributor to the cancer risk. In all scenarios,non-transfer station traffic contributed the majority to the HIS and cancer risks. Assessment results for DPM were not combined with results for PAHs and VOCs because assessing emissions as DPM is an alternate way of assessing diesel emissions and its inclusion would result in "double"counting. The results of the DPM assessment are presented in the following table: `.RISK CHARACTSRI'/.ATrON SUMN7ARY s .- trn.i �� r "DIESEEPARTIC[JI:i1TE MA'IT;ER(DPNl) 1SSESSMEIIT,R; , , " '- .�. 1�t pjl ii ni - ';I Sc'enano 'Noii,=Cancer Hazard Tndex,.`,,,, i Transfer Station Traffic 1Currentichronic Exposure 0.002 Proposed Expansion/ChronicExposuie 0.002 Maximum Acceptable Level II II 1 11 The non-cancer HIS associated with emissions from transfer station traffic are below the maximum • acceptable level for chronic exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. DPM emissions were not estimated for non-transfer station traffic. Based on these assessments,the emissions from increased truck traffic associated with the proposed transfer station expansion does not result in a significant risk of harm to human health and contributes only about 10%of the potential health risk associated with emissions from non- transfer station traffic in the immediate area of the transfer station. • WE-2 B 1.0 INTRODUCTION • This report presents a focused risk characterization for air emissions associated with diesel truck traffic at the Salem Transfer Station("transfer station") located at 12 Swampcott Road, Salem, Massachusetts. The risk characterization evaluates the potential risk of harm to human health associated with the truck emissions under current transfer station operations and emissions occurring under the proposed transfer station expansion. The risk characterization has been prepared in general accordance with risk characterization guidance developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP). 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND The Salem Transfer Station is located on Swampscott Road between Highland Avenue(Route 107)and First Street. Residential areas are located along the northern side of Highland Avenue to the north of the transfer station and to the southeast of First Street. Open space is located immediately east,north and west of the transfer station,beyond which are commercial facilities. The City of Salem has recently renegotiated a three party Administrative Consent Order that obligates the City and Northside Carting(operator of the transfer station)to demolish the former City incinerator and close the ash landfill on Swampscott Road. As part of the arrangement between the City and Northside Carting,the existing transfer station (operating out of the former incinerator building)will be expanded from 100 tons per day(TPD)to 400 tons per day. Traffic, • air quality, and noise studies have already been performed;this risk characterization has been prepared to assess human health impacts associated with increased particulate and volatile air emissions from increased truck traffic at the site. 3.0 AIR EMISSION MODELING 3.1 Input and Assumptions An air quality dispersion modeling analysis was conducted by Epsilon Associates, Inc.to assess the potential impact of the proposed expansion of the Salem Transfer Station to ambient air quality. Emissions of particulate matter [PM10,PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter(DPM)] and five volatile organic compounds(VOCs: acetaldehyde, acrolein,benzene, 1,3-butadiene,and formaldehyde) associated with existing and potential additional truck trips under expansion to and from the transfer station were modeled using EPA-approved dispersion models and emission-generating software. Emissions from non-transfer station-related traffic in the immediate vicinity of the transfer station were also modeled. This analysis was completed in response to the Salem Board of Health's request to analyze the potential impact of diesel truck emissions at residential areas along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood southeast of the facility. Dispersion modeling to predict ambient air concentrations of the constituents was conducted using EPA's CAL3QHCR model with emission rates derived from EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission-generating program. Details on the model are presented in the Air Quality Modeling Report(Epsilon Associates, Inc.,February 2008). • W B Some pertinent factors of the modeling are summarized below: • Existing(non-transfer station)traffic emissions were obtained from a traffic study performed by Vanasse &Associates,which quantified traffic volumes from the southwest and northeast along Highland Avenue to the Swampscott Road intersection,then traveling southward along Swampscott Road to the transfer station. For the modeling,trucks were assumed to travel around the transfer station and exit onto Swampscott Road. "Worst case"daily traffic volumes were estimated from peak hour volumes, and emissions during straight travel and idling were considered. • For current conditions at the transfer station, 140 trips (70 in and 70 out)by diesel-fueled trucks were assumed. • For the proposed transfer station expansion scenario, an additional 54 trips (27 in and 27 out) were assumed for a total of 194 trips per day by diesel-fueled trucks. • Trucks were assumed to idle for 1 minute at the truck scale when entering the site, 5 minutes while unloading,and 1 minute at the truck scale when leaving. These times were based on the Massachusetts anti-idling regulations that prohibit engine idling for more than 5 minutes. • For particulate emissions,particulate matter with an effective aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (PM10) and 2.5 microns(PM2.5)and DPM were modeled. These were quantified as a sum of a variety of individual constituents, including the lead portion of exhaust • particulate matter;the total, elemental, and organic carbon portions of diesel exhaust particulate matter, and brake and tire wear particulate matter emissions, in grams per mile. The "all vehicles"emission factor was used for non-transfer station-related traffic and the heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) emission factor was used for the transfer station-related truck traffic. • The current conditions scenario assumed a gasoline fuel sulfur content of 30 parts per million (ppm)and a diesel fuel sulfur content of 350 ppm. The proposed transfer station expansion scenario assumed a gasoline fuel sulfur content of 30 ppm and a diesel fuel sulfur content of 15 ppm,based on the mandated use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) in all highway vehicles beginning in 2007. • For the particulate matter emission modeling, 20 specific receptor locations (points at which air concentrations were predicted)were assessed along the fenceline of the transfer station and in residential areas along Highland Avenue and southeast of the facility. • For VOC modeling,the above 20 receptors and an additional 40 receptors aligned in a grid pattern in the vicinity of the facility were modeled. • Five years of hourly meteorological data from Boston's Logan Airport and five years of upper air data from Grey, Maine were used. • The end results of the modeling were estimates of ground level air concentrations of modeled parameters at each of the modeled receptor locations. Other modeling assumptions are presented in the modeling report. • 2 '&B 3.2 Modeling Results Is 3.2.1 Particulate Matter Results of particulate matter modeling, in the form of the maximum predicted ground level ambient air concentration(i.e.,maximum impact)resulting from transfer station truck traffic emissions and non-transfer station traffic emissions, are summarized in Table 1 (copied from Tables 3 and 4 of the Air Quality Modeling Report). When the maximum impact contributed by transfer station traffic and non-transfer station traffic are compared assuming the current truck traffic to the transfer station (current scenario) , transfer station traffic contributes between—1 and 5 percent of the PMIO and—2 to 6 percent of the PM2.5 concentration contributed by non- transfer station traffic. Under the proposed transfer station expansion scenario,transfer station traffic contributes between--1 and 6 percent of the PMIO and—3 and 12 percent of the PM2.5 concentration contributed by non-transfer station traffic,representing an increase in the relative contribution. When the maximum transfer station traffic impacts under current and proposed transfer station expansion scenarios are compared with available National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS; also presented on Table 1),the transfer station traffic contribution is 500-times(or more)below the applicable standard. This indicates that emissions from transfer station traffic under both current and proposed • transfer station expansion scenarios are less than that contributed by non-transfer station traffic and are less than NAAQS. 3.2.2 Volatile Oreanic Compounds Results of VOC modeling,in the form of the maximum impact resulting from transfer station traffic emissions and non-transfer station traffic emissions,are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2. When the maximum impacts contributed by transfer station and non- transfer station traffic under current transfer station operations are compared,transfer station traffic contributes between—0.4 and 6 percent of either the maximum 24-hour or annual average VOC concentration contributed by non-transfer station traffic. Under the proposed expansion scenario,transfer station traffic contributes between—1 to 12 percent of the maximum 24-hour or annual average VOC concentration contributed by non-transfer station traffic,representing an increase in the relative contribution. None of the subject VOCs has NAAQS, so a comparison to standards cannot be made. This indicates that ambient air concentrations of VOCs resulting from transfer station traffic emissions under current and proposed expansion scenarios are less than that contributed by non- transfer station traffic. • W�rjB 3 �®./ • 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RISK OF HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH Potential human health risks posed by transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions under the current and proposed expansion scenarios are assessed using conventional risk characterization methodology adopted by MassDEP. This risk characterization methodology was developed as a decision-making tool for use under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. It is intended to conservatively examine potential health risks posed by releases of oil and/or hazardous materials to the environment over naturally-occurring or anthropogenic background levels. As such, it focuses on specific releases or conditions and does not estimate risks that may be associated with unrelated events or background conditions. The focused risk characterization presented herein is a comparative risk characterization in that it looks at the effect of traffic emissions upon air quality under different scenarios separate from background air quality. 4.1 Hazard Identification 4.1.1 Constituents of Concern Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of unburned fuel, fuel combustion and pyrolysis products, and lubricating oil,with the exact composition depending on engine type, engine operation conditions,fuel composition, additives, and other factors. Constituents contained within diesel particulate matter include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), alkyl-substituted PAHs, oxygenated PAHs, nitrate PAHs, and carboxylic and dicarboxylic acids of PAHs and PAH derivatives. Table 3 presents a list of representative constituents contained in diesel particulate matter emissions. From this list, seven PAHs are considered probable human carcinogens and possess cancer toxicity values with which to assess them: benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(b)- fluoranthene,benzo(k)fluoranthene,benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Many VOCs are also present in diesel exhaust. However, due to model limitations,five VOCs were modeled and assessed: acetaldehyde,acrolein,benzene, 1,3-butadiene,and formaldehyde. Of these, all but acrolein are considered known or probable human carcinogens. Because of the different forms of the modeling results,risks associated with particulate matter and VOCs are assessed separately and are later combined. 4.1.2 Toxicitv Values Toxicity values used to quantify the potential cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards of the CDCs were obtained from US EPA and MassDEP sources and are summarized on Table 4. Toxicity values used to assess non-cancer health hazards for inhalation exposures are reference concentrations (RfC). Toxicity values used to assess excess lifetime cancer risks for inhalation exposures are inhalation unit risk(UR)values. Sub-chronic RfCs were used to assess shorter- term exposures to non-carcinogens; if a sub-chronic toxicity value was unavailable for a COC, its chronic toxicity value was applied. • 4 w 4.1.3 ADDlicable or Suitablv Analogous Standards • Applicable or suitably analogous standards for some of the COCs are included in the Massachusetts Air Quality Standards(310 CMR 6.00),which adopts federally-established air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Applicable air quality standards were presented on Table 1 for particulate matter;no applicable or suitably analogous standards were identified for the subject VOCs. 4.2 Exposure Assessment 4.2.1 Receptors and Exposure Scenarios Exposure to diesel-associated constituents through inhalation is assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 365 days per year,for 30 years,which represents continual exposure. Because of the manner in which inhalation toxicity values are derived, non-cancer hazard indices will be the same for children,youth, and adults, so assessment of individual age groups is not needed. Cancer risks are conventionally assessed over a long exposure period;the 30 years applied is a conventional chronic exposure period for residential exposure. The assessment of residents also conservatively represents potential exposure of other human receptor groups,such as workers or pedestrians. 4.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure point concentrations (EPCs)of the assessed constituents were obtained from the air dispersion modeling results. For PMio,DPM, and the five VOCs,the EPCs are the maximum predicted ground level ambient air concentrations as summarized on Table 1 (PMIo and DPM) and Table 2 (VOCs). The maximum 24-hour air concentration is applied to assess potential non- cancer health risks under subchronic (short term)exposure and the maximum annual average is applied to assess potential cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards under chronic (long term) exposure. PM10 is assessed rather than PM2.5 because of the conventional use of this parameter in representing inhalable particles and because the predicted maximum concentrations are slightly higher. PMIO modeling results and information on the composition of diesel particulate matter presented in Table 3 are used to estimate EPCs for total PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs. The sum of the constituents presented in Table 3 is used as a total PAH concentration to assess potential non- cancer health hazards. EPCs are also estimated for the seven carcinogenic PAHs by multiplying the total PAH concentration by the percentage of the total PAH concentration represented by the individual carcinogen. While additional PAHs may also be considered potential human carcinogens,these seven PAHs are the only ones possessing established inhalation cancer toxicity values. • 5 W&B • 4.2.3 Ouantitation of Exposure COC exposure was quantified by combining the exposure factors described in Section 4.2.1 with EPCs to derive an average daily exposure (ADE) (which,because continuous exposure is assumed,is the same as the EPC). Generally recognized risk characterization equations were used to quantify exposures and are presented in Appendix B for PM,0, DPM, and PAHs, and Appendix C for VOCs. 4.3 Risk Characterization 4.3.1 Overview Potential cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards were quantified for each receptor group by combining calculated ADEs with the toxicity value for the COC. The risk characterization procedure for carcinogenic constituents derives an excess lifetime cancer risk,which is the extra lifetime risk(i.e., over background risk levels) of incurring cancer from exposure to carcinogenic COCs. Cancer risks for each carcinogenic constituent are summed to derive a total excess lifetime cancer risk. Total cancer risks are compared with the maximum acceptable cancer risk adopted by MassDEP: an excess lifetime cancer risk of one-in- one-hundred-thousand, denoted as 1x10-5. A cancer risk at or below IxI0-5 represents no significant risk of harm to human health. The risk characterization procedure for non-cancer constituents derives a Hazard Quotient(HQ), which is the ratio of an estimated exposure to an exposure that poses no health hazard. HQs for individual constituents are summed to derive a total Hazard Index(HI),which is compared with the maximum acceptable HI adopted by MassDEP: one (1). A total HI equal to or below one represents no significant risk of harm to human health. To avoid"double"-counting potential non-cancer effects,the HIs for DPM and total PAHs are expressed separately. 4.3.2 Diesel Particulate Matter DPM generated from transfer station truck emissions was assessed for non-cancer effects. DPM emissions were not estimated for non-transfer station traffic. Since only average annual emissions were estimated, only chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix B and summarized in the following table. Dresel Particulate Matter'(DPM)Assessment Source II Scenano _ II Non-Cancer Hazard trtdex Transfer Station Traffic Current/Chronic Exposure 0.002 Proposed Expansion/Chronic Exposure 0.002 II Maximum Acceptable Level II I • 6 ,&B Under both current and proposed transfer station expansion scenarios,the HI for chronic • exposure is 0.002. This value is below the maximum acceptable HI of 1, indicating that continual exposure to these emissions at the location of maximum impact poses no significant risk of harm to human health. Further,potential increases in emissions associated with the proposed expansion of the transfer station do not result in a quantifiable increase in the HI over current operation conditions. 4.3.3 Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Total and carcinogenic PAHs in transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions were assessed for non-cancer health hazards and cancer risks. Both subchronic and chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix B and summarized below: � r! -Iris dv Ir r' 't rtr� '� -"PAH ASSPSSmeDt _- r F1f ose Pro CurreufSceoano d`Fx ausioD Sceuanoi -, tir p�� ml Pr i y ` r JIH'n�� -. h r iv ' �t 0.r EBCeSSfi r, t c1 i -�8- 1 EXees3 l Non"Cancer' �tOn Cancer�azardl+, Source Liletime , Ldetnne _ Hazard Index Ynde%1+ n - f{fsrb JI E@! `"" r $t' } Fni'�71f -' � r� Cancer,ltlsk a CancerR�sk ` - -r, ry y a ti u I - a e1�'-• --N r i Chronic - -'Cliromc --Subchroma Chrome. -Chiromc i?�n1+.. 4y �,. +. ..,islExposure,r-al. ,Exposuie ;E posure I 'EkObiuref=_,'I,�-.AExpo'sure�l h�"� xEiposum ,. Transfer Station 0.000002 0.00002 3E-09 0.000002 0.00002 3E-09 Traffic • Non-Transfer Station 0.0002 0.0005 6E-08 0.0002 0.0004 I 5E-08 Traffic 11 Combined 0.0002 0.0005 6E-08 0.0002 0.0004 6E-08 Maximum Acceptable Level 1 1 lE-OS 1 1 IE-05 Percent of Combined 11 Contributed by 1.2% 4.8% 4.8% 1.4% 5.6% 5.6% Transfer Station I I II 1 Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios for both subchronic (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure,Ms are below the maximum acceptable HI of 1 for transfer station traffic,non-transfer station traffic, and the combination of the two. Under subchronic exposures, transfer station traffic emissions contribute less than 2 percent of the combined HI;under chronic exposures,transfer station traffic emissions contribute—5 to 6 percent of the combined HI. Under current and proposed expansion scenarios,excess lifetime cancer risks are below the maximum acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-5 for transfer station traffic emissions, non-transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions contribute—5 to 6 percent of the combined cancer risk. The assessment concludes that subchronic and chronic exposure to PAHs in diesel particulate matter from transfer station traffic emissions and non-transfer station traffic emissions poses no significant risk of harm to human health. Further,the proposed expansion of the transfer • station does not result in a quantifiable increase in HIs or cancer risks over existing conditions. W&B • 4.3.4 Volatile Oreanic Compounds Target VOCs generated from transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions were assessed for non-cancer health hazards and cancer risks, as appropriate for the constituent. Both subchronic and chronic exposures were assessed. The results are contained in Appendix C and summarized below: a' urrentScenano` [, ProposedExpanSion Scenario Cancer f Cancerr � Non Cancer End oint Non Cancer End omt Source p En,'dpomt I_`- p , Endpoint';' Subch�amc Cbrop�c Chronic $ubcbromc Cbronic Cliromc ,�,y. �� , ,_. I,,,Exposureu�rh�Eapogure �I_ Exposure 'Exposure,'; ,,,Exposure i E_aposure�„ Transfer Station 0.007 0.02 5E-08 0.008 0.02 6E-08 Traffic Non-Transfer Station 0.2 0.3 2E-06 0.09 0.2 1E-06 Traffic Total — 11 0.2 0.4 T 2E-06 II 0.1 I 0.2 I IE-06 Percent of Total Contributed by II 4.0% 4.6% I 2.6% I 7.9% I 7.9% I 4.7% Transfer Station . Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios for both subchronic (short-term) and chronic (long-term)exposure,HIs are below the maximum acceptable HI of 1 for transfer station traffic emissions, non-transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions under the current scenario contribute less than 5 percent of the total HI, whereas under the proposed expansion scenario,transfer station traffic emissions contributed about 8 percent of the total HI,for both subchronic and chronic exposure. The primary constituent under subchronic and chronic exposure periods and for both transfer station and non- transfer station traffic emissions was acrolein. Under the current and proposed expansion scenarios, excess lifetime cancer risks are below the maximum acceptable excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-5 for transfer station traffic emissions, non-transfer station traffic emissions, and the combination of the two. Transfer station traffic emissions contribute about 3 percent of the combined cancer risk under the current scenario and about 5 percent under the proposed expansion scenario. The primary constituent contributing to the excess lifetime cancer risk is formaldehyde for transfer station traffic emissions and benzene for non-transfer station traffic emissions. 4.3.5 Combined Health Risks The results of the PAH and VOC risk characterizations are combined to derive total non-cancer health hazards and cancer risks posed by transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions under current and proposed expansion scenarios. Results of the DPM assessment are not combined with the results for PAHs and VOCs because its inclusion would result in "double" • counting. The combined PAH and VOC risk and hazards are presented in the following table: 8 V\V�i�jB Curreot-Sceuuno= E�cpansionrScenano - _ • _ Source 'Non-,Cancer Hazard UdexI',Cancer$isi; Nou Caueer Hazard'Iudex I- _Caucerxisk '^SFu+bxpehromc' I l Ironic-_� C�hromc�; _-Subchronic I �CxhPronrc I'' 3gChromc posure E osure .Exoosoix E ''o'sure ,eE osure ' Transfe};Station TiveliTraffic "?; ':' ' ,. -. VOCs 0.007 0.02 5 x 10"8 0.008 0.02 6 x 10-e PAHs 0.000002 I 0.00002 I 3 x 10-' 0.000002 I 0.00002 I 3 x 10-9 Transfer Station Total 0.007 0.02 6 x 10-8 0.008 0.02 6 x 10 N611 Transter Station Traffic J « ax. VOCs 0.2 0.3 2 x 104 0.09 0.2 I I x 10-6 PAHs 0.0002 I 0.0005 I 6 x 10-8 II 0.0002 I 0.0004) 5 x 10"6 Non-Transfer Station Total 0.2 0.3 2 x 100.09 0.2 1 x10 Combined Transfer andI 0.2 I 0.4 I 2 x 10-6 II 0.1 I 0.2 I 1 x 10-6 ffi Non-Transfer Station Trac Maximum Acceptable Level II 1 I 1 I 1 x 10-5 II 1 I 1 I 1 x 10"5 The overall non-cancer HIs associated with transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions are below the maximum acceptable level for subchronic and chronic exposure in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Acrolein is the primary contributor to the HI in all scenarios and averaging periods. Similarly, the excess lifetime cancer risks associated with transfer station and non-transfer station traffic emissions are below the maximum acceptable level in both the current and proposed expansion scenarios. Benzene is the primary contributor • to the cancer risk. For the non-cancer endpoint,under both subchronic and chronic exposure, and for the cancer endpoint,non-transfer station traffic contributed the majority to the Ins and cancer risks. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on the assessments performed in this risk characterization, emissions from increased truck traffic associated with the proposed transfer station expansion does not result in a significant risk of harm to human health and contributes only about 10%of the potential health risk associated with emissions from non-transfer station traffic in the immediate area of the transfer station. 6.0 REFERENCES Epsilon Associates, Inc. (2008). Air Quality Modeling Report. February. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) (2007)Method 1 Numerical Standards and supporting documentation (November). MassDEP (1995) Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. US Department of Health and Human Services,National Toxicology Program(1998)Report on Carcinogens:Background Document for Diesel Exhaust Particles. December. US EPA (2008a). Integrated Risk Information System(IRIS). US EPA(2003). Toxicological Review of Acrolein in Support of Summary Information on the • Integrated Risk Information System. EPA/635/R-03/003, May. 9 W �B TABLES I • TABLE 1 Summary of Modeling Results for Particulate Matter Salem Transfer Facility Salem, Massachusetts s• �"� sl{�' d�'�''rs�rr' '4��'�rt�tti� „��e'�`+�'''''�,r�'��redic�..�A;IY.�?'xiiRueU�nl'ieR�s��r�,'@oF>~ceuhiafious�r�•�J' - i�5'��Fr`nw� , i�.,,ii.-`apt ^,u1„ irvcv: ni JrrTlr n=ig`'-'^ .., tl'a.a��y_yi{�wr=x• r� ` ° °' yr� ry'a. i oqe�an ferSfatton- '�",�r� nr aYional '`•inbienfarr tea'€ 1.k� moi.. ';' x"'!.;*,k l.� ' !'.w..�y.•i r rt s } v. ,K.+1'1X anston S'cenarto . v aging .r �i�i � 4 " * Q,uahty4Stadard 1Cons' eu au on°11 ransfer ransP Non ra4 s"fi g"L`*�t ansfe -S 1 e'nodx", 'a §StattonGiaffia Staiori 'caLfic ta6o raft St ttoo c ra µJ•.�Ry'Yqt si `- �.''. ^Y`,.5,` fl a. d Bk;31e 3 ."S" .-� �l'� a �'�`�'.T�" :. �• .Y.tw rt�,^S k"`�'..' `I vm 3c, ^3 3 � r'.�i a 3. s" 3 �+?,; :,gi,'la",�''."�s� r :,�... :-�•.��i�.-�i`��-> �:�'�"+1.6�.sm��","`'ezn . F!5��.° �"'F#g�i�`a'' ��cg' ��F�mYsi.�_� .� '4`��µP�m..� :"'� 24-Hour 0.83 <0.01 0.71 <0.01 150 PM'o Annual 0.2 0.01 0.17 <0.01 501 DPM Annual 0.01 <0.01 5Z PMIS 24-Hour 0.62 <0.01 0.31 <0.01 35 s Annual 0.16 0.01 0.08 <0.01 15 Data transcribed from Epsilon Associates,Inc.(2008)Air Quality Modeling Report. February. Bold Value Value applied as an exposure point concentration;non-detections applied at the reporting limit. µg/m' Micrograms per cubic meter. <XX Less than value presented. -- Not available or applicable. 1. Annual standard revoked in 2006. 2. No standard available;value is non-carcinogenic inhalation reference concentration(RfC). 3. Standard is effective as of 2007;standard of 65 µg/m3 applied prior to 2007. BETA0008 Tl PM Modeling results.xls 6/32008 Page 1 of I 0 0 0 TABLE 2 Summary of Modeling Results for Volatile Organic Compounds Salem Transfer Station Salem,Massachusetts � ,%q. ,, rff •k ,r'Y }„3_ ^`•" - "s. r'�'i 'Nor- u.w ., `" ,y>�a ., < i ."°r L P Ia'yrn� "� �. t-arr rr}� oa4r 'eisam`ge�° s� �4'OG �" ernC''�i," 'L§'ME .d'ur> dr'i '�,'(�'tti��s 3z�,..�r^�,h.�Er; r 1. IPa-z5.' R2i a'tx,_ � �°otlLx.+v3-"en"2as- ix ..,�u,'x,ir.i `M._ 9 ��_;Ju cy,rs.i.",' ,,I�i,;"+''€t;{',''°^` , mrfBSnsferStaHbuTa c &u;._ran"'fe�:)Statiouti- rr'A 'e° 'ski. _• '' ° .;Ite. '>:�a05Ce_c'esti•tiauiaffoYr°a? lY,on"=.1�iza3w"Sf€_rhS.fapAn.'>9raffc'�'cgi €r'cie.. ,-'"+�td'= :6�jt , erce�n+ofm r .-al�t.�.,$elye2n`�f3,�•d itlts. > wv,r $ dhti, °. `'! '�"`9" YrW�iS °d5,`: r 'arc r'�`�' 3rarisfe'r'"a to"one o v Y w` ) ' ,m, °' "z .jT,ranster,5tation'to" I, 'Cod�tituent§, S''M'axlmum r cy r "u r . aximum "a mum .�.' 4 IF, t-*Qr Tl. ' ,F 4r+j I' ir!+, raa,;dFp d;8'rraa +°Y�:° a; �. ' en.A::j x .,'i y" 9 n- nansfe 'a `" Air' .Lo�hou�� '. to .";,o4; rap-w�ti!�s;; +'3 € Anabreu ,Arrli y7, ocahon ;zA'mb ocahon�` ' ', r ,k ;r:3. .F,:z., ,�,. ^ Yh It r t.'a. Station E„yCa. -v. ir°f€s+r(ir'4'Soi�1 c �Coucen' a€tion 6`��;k t v' Co Gon '= 06 , Con? o :-^ Con'�er'ta`on+ v ae r .d��u:ita °ir 1I „? neeo• afian E3^, .,,1 `n p� 3ti�' _ Y^`<doncentrahonslL.o; wF '�'C ,pE r �", `i .F a,i ^} ¢. s g1 F 'a u ! �"^' y •.F'# es 8 4�' 0..dr�.1 1 4 Ck . J 'hf.'r rs; - 1 rc v j €°. �C F b uST �h.+l_ '`d'I" _ �t �rr.Y F.1 " � g ! ° �rf '�' a w ?Yrs MOM s<'?sl s- o /lar ICt �V, d5 u #ii .' d..S'..I.,w 4�:✓R ue.. a.�EE��ga..,..4 i'.. r'1 I� Acetaldehyde 0.0099 19 0.29 51 3.5% 0.0027 19 0.085 51 1 3.2% Acrolein 0.0012 19 0.021 51 5.6% 0.00032 19 0.0063 51 5.1% Benzene 0.0036 19 0.87 51 0.40% 0.00097 19 0.24 51 I 0.4% 1,3-Butadiene 0.0021 19 0.11 51 2.0% 0.00056 19 0.031 51 1 1.8% I Formaldehyde 0.027 19 I 0.43 51 6.3% 0.0074 19 0.13 51 5.8% r ^�iz`:��T� ,-••3;r �I� �)+�>'.�"�'�' "..�.'-. �` "�.t'r`'+l��:tr�"�"�� 'id;�'�t�`s' '.'�"�.�;" i�$Popo'�ed�r�anSfe.GtStafion5EFp_an�b'�5ccna'ior<'�`�",>K4t."r`a.' .'��,°.s�3.:�`e`t€"f_�..,.'u vxl ..' '" �i *'ry'�xu,,.y- � �y~- &�nP-"4 $ "',- Cir - -, �+: m,c �a �� rr+� �' w'nT•' t? i� {.., ,�r�s� �' V-s��'tiida°j rr<�' ',d��w�sfif�,r� 1%-'rz c..,,a.� �'24-hpur��'ve�reg: ��w�� >'>i•�xj1^I.�S�"+'",�'�a`.��. -_��:, g" '��+f��3s4- wrh i,, '"-� usv,3�k x.,?s"&a T ��a1.�3u•v � nsr- v1 t +�w+�a n Baa^ �' i�'�. mm¢ixk-+�.rr�w a ,a Trahsfer),Stalroqi"ra"fF"c;s>i$ ;lima' `raps"fer"'F-S4giiojr¢t5:air_�; "`'4",y Pe'ri�een o >a3!'ao"sSta"�S_nL`flraflic I"Non:,�F;'an_sfeF.)ii'a6P6:G.9aes ''�'-Pei¢entto�r' " tr+r'S MINIMIZE>+- rrt r 9l u? ; 3�-„ r� 'z=z "`g' ,r' �a ,y-rs; :. s e ttaion to ' -t. '=f" Million Srr `} r'pra's`fer5tati n toc yagshtuentG. �O "a y rt. S s4r, � y � � t'C a r��r=5arrti11 Mgxr ui"n" s mount,+r h ,onr' rsansfeB • t�'•ni, 1 4:�g � Non�' ansteM�,- 7Yr am ri 3'.HE ME s on Lb � eO t r rat'?�atiou [tin� :`xrf ,� ,,. r. �� on e�, � �n *,€ �r+IConcentrailo - -•' - '1" r 7enon - t�`�hi�l+rntCoDean ,a +a' ra r©oncea$rEll arm )G r ,.u' � n cce�rtrtidnsi .: IRAu, arr 5iw�fn•w;2...1.�;F,.} �,,.`n+4'4i `. ".,�u.,'-,: �Gl a�' ••..N3 y'-V'+"`�. 5 r•r y m i° I4�" u� I as.` ^aRa2�P,�m)Xl�.a._,`,S��"'ii �:��5 � .§�e �7 , tx10'�°�� , _�a.�'�tk�!n��F��},y�-�..,,+�c -u ma.�c� _" _ r a �,. dam.. .. 0./o r„ - E �>k Acetaldehyde 0.011 18 0.15 59 7.0% 0.0028 18 v 0.048 51 1 5.8% I lAcrolein 0.0013 18 0.012 59 11.3% 0.00032 18 0.0035 51 1 9.1% 1 [Benzene 0.0040 18 0.44 51 0.9% 0.0010 18 0.13 51 1 0.8% 1 11,3-Butadiene 0.0023 18 I 0.056 51 4.1% 0.00058 18 0.017 51 1 3.4% 1 Formaldehyde 0.030 18 0.25 59 12.1% 1 0.0076 18 0.076 51 I 10.1% Ug/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter. 1. Location denotes the modeling receptor location at which the maximum concentration occurred,as follows: Station 18 is in the northeastern comer of the Salem Transfer Station property, Station 51 is at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road and is the(0,0)grid location for VOC emissions. Station 59 is located along Highland Avenue,midway between its intersection with Swampscott Road and Marlboro Road/Trader's Way. BEfA0008 T2 VOC Modeling resulu.xls ` 6/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 TABLE3 • _ Summary of the Composition.(Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Salem Tarter Sumcm Salem,Massachmer "i:. "f° iY-�'`� J R 1 4 rr ^ 'NO w..'IT._Pd 3ry:Fx' ' y } 2 9z-yL r.c+4 HM ' L��.�iY•3�- i >P s rv� ".z SCod Nevt�' vcG3,: -S' eoastlmeoN`,-.IX, C'omHmeAf 1" ''e41 f'�'`Yr-'"Y`r 1 .li `i- 7474 t 3v'a`0 Co gen' trv"�B�Per- 3a Medvmu`m im✓ ha YT 7 as_Re n -'L'ofT �"di,s a°tism! +..nn adaktMnorvvdo dleeuly ,< n ta[Illestlx* �wca*rt H 'Refs w mpamle]"' :e ..tB$ t `� )cbmenannm,7 ` d'i Fn'i`da b':vw� .d1'au', ` v��`-fy[ t'i {�v, i? f. vs um_ed Toteyb x Wehght bus-.' 'r+. cr, )•,"v ro. 18n'u.I, '4"v' 'v L (y� s. vrtltleEahaet (gym , ,�yiw 2 I yertld�R[ ut Com'enhefia 7 ;.F � NOW.1 r+,yjlJ`Lsa t n1P .1 .37� ✓W1Mf fJ fFl" .. I u ou,4t fii.. _ 4 2.:h.. 'ta1` t' "i '-+d`ln orlfch�A 5 ercmtiF. :"a'11'WIN 113-Dihiaowlene Non-raph... 292 - - 0.3 0.0003% 18 IL&DwOowrtne Non`=pagirn 292 - - R4 JIM% 131 11.8-Dnlivowtme Non-comm. 292 - - 053 0.0005% Int I1-Ninall.ra hen. Nomcmvnoem 247 - - 0.7 0.0006% 141 "monuam onaJ. N.ncardn.¢m 247 - - 0.B 0.0007% 141 19-Nitmahmvnlhlvle Nonrnninoem 223 - - 1 001109% tat I 19-NiaamNmcme N.nmrtinmm 223 - - 12 0.001% NI I 2-Nlwnumme N.inn¢en 211 - - 1.8 OA02% 141 11-NiomnuolmMme Noncvlciwea 247 - - 1.8 0.001% X41 4-1411rablvhmy'I NNJ-,wdnaeen 199 - - Z2 0.002% 141 6-Niwbwnlolpyrme N.n-.. . 291 - - 25 0.002% 14 '3-NilroahelmnlNme Nan-rnrdnozm 223 - - 4.1 0.004% .: I2Niaomthmcene Non-Canino¢. 223 - - 4.4 0.009% MI b-NiwnuormWme Non-comm.¢. 247 - - 4.4 am% I 141 12,7-Dirdaon... Nmamdnogm 292 - - 10.00% I ap i 13-NitrobmmHh a.. Norvmmnoem 275 - - 11 0.006% I IT 1 p-Melhvl-I-NmantI ceae Ma-ervi... 237 - - 8.3 0.007% 141 IL]-])mils-9-nummane Non-mminavel 270 - - 8.6 0.008% [Acerumhlhvl.e Nan-carcnvem 152 30 30 68 am% OI II-Niaownme Nonw eprn 247 - - 75 007% 141 1 ITimedrvlbiphmvl N.a oa. IM M 50 114 0m% 131 1 Meth,lb.Ula snthmcene Nan-. noem 242 30-50 50 114 0.10% 131 112-Binopthvl Nan. ipmen 254 30-50 50 114 0.10% 131 IBenmf21nmb1M[Z1-dIthiovh.e Nap1-carting. 234 30-53 53 120 0.11% 131 Dlmethylbiph nyl Non-cwdp.gm 182 3MI 91 201 0. U1 Bmmnvohdeffi,.hme Non-cacim. 234 30.126 126 286 025% 131 IF]... Nona noem IM 100-168 169 382 114% 1¢1 IElhyldibmvmhlvahene Nao-.rdp.i,. 212 151-179 179 407 a36% 1 131 I3-Melhvlchrvsme Nan-anti.... 242 50-192 192 436 0.39% 1 131 li'daedlvinvvhthdene Non-..in... 170 140-2M 200 455 0.40%_ _ 1n • Dlbmzaddoohme Noncmci.e. 184 129-246 246 559 a5^ @l 1 Dibm.Py... Non-cordnoem 302 136-254 84 M 0.51% AI i IBmmYdelldibenmddvuhene Non-,.Map. 309 254-333 333 ]5] 067% 131 1 ICA-NvahNolem N.n .age. 184 295-351 351 798 071% I 1 31 1 IAnthmeele Non-carcinogen I]e 155-356 356 809 0.72% (3) IBmrn[ghiIDuormNme Non-colciaoem 226 2174111 418 950 0.94% 131 IEthvlphmmtlume Non-mrdnvecr 2r 389464 464 1.055 0.93% DI I IPh...I(vhmonduendmlhrocmel Noncamm�oem 254 210-559 559 1 70 1.13% 131 �Ethylemlhvt(ahemnlhr.elmthmclme) Non noem 2ID 590-717 717 1,630 1.44% ! 131 I IMelhvldibmnoddaohele Non-cord..¢. I98 520-772 772 1.755 155% 131 BemnlSlpvrme N..-card... 252 487-946 946 ZI50 L91% 131 1 Bmmla]nuvrmMbwulzlnwl.e Non-cucin.R. 216 541-990 990 2]50 1.99% IT 1 NH-Cvdomnte(denohemodu n. Nan..e. 1% 517-1.033 1.033 2348 2.011% 131 1 IBm.[W-ulpuylcn. Non-cadnegm 276 443_1,050 1.0SD 2396 211% n1 I2-1`henyhuNhth.lene Non-mmnogen 209 650-1,336 1.336 3,036 2.69% 1l) IBmmlHFluomnthme Non-..dawn 252 492-1.367 1367 3307 275% 131 M.Mandru.e Non-CacilNeen 192 517-1322 15M 3.459 3.07% - 131 IBmmcmvohlhvlme Nm-cmdnoem 202 791-1.643 L643 3734 331% m Cvclopminpvlma Nmrnrtinogm 226 869-I-671 1.671 3,798 3.37% 131 Dlmedlvi7nhmmdumdmdnmme) Non-.Nino¢en 206 1r298-2354 2354 5350 474% R1 MulJYJI uoNn0e1dw1eLe) Non-cupinagel 216 1548 -2.412 2.412 5.492 4.86% 131 Methvlohe athap1e Non-.rcnogen 192 ;028-2768 1768 6291 557% X31 phelmlhnmc Nmcurata.m 179 2.1864.993 4-993 11.098 9.113% 131 IFluomnthene N. .ogen 202 3399-7321 7.231 16.43414.56% R1 IPv1me Non-c anoem 202 3532-11.0.28.002 19.186 16129. ru Ndmo)Ic23-lcd1w ene Cvrtmmm 276 30A3 93 211 0.19% LQ1 IBearal.hlawaar.o(dlbeao(.h)amJrcenel Corti.m. 218 50-96 M 218 0.19% IBe17n1k10mrmlhem Conchae. 252 91-289 U9 657 0.511% Benmlalwl.e Caihmg. 252 209358 558 1268 II2% IBend.l.daocene CNcinoe. 228 463-1.076 1.076 2,445 217%Benm121Huornlh.e Crt.w. 252 421-1.090 1.090 2471 LID%lam..I.,mvh.vl.e) Cordnag. 228 657-1.529 1,529 3.475 3.09% oW _ - - - -- - --- 11289 1 100% Isum.r... rpnmem 101101 90% 11 jecn.fSmnn®cinogen. 10,752 IO% -We Mimepvmcpmp®, Neappli.blemmw dm 1. Ubu Baud cmipmudamvY vlmmcmddved pavhlehmmn wcNvgem bol dovmmumvgmldmfirc mmci9 vaNewitllrvtidmpM maSieamml- 2 CmcmVvdemnx.ImmN fiml PHt9 ofeauvclmyp/gafimluclu udv0 v.wlm of4d'F finemmtabN.mend(who} Tm6oM Kmmek(19M),mpmmud'm Repvnmfmainogem:Bmkgmmdl)mvmwfar LArttl Edmlul PaMclu N6 DepvwmlvfHml�h and Humm 6mau,NadamlTmimlegy Plvpm90.rember I. 1998) Cmvptxil mtl Lee(19M2m P1esmtedm RepvnmCxlnugnlr:Rmk8lmmdLlvwnmtl rLberzl F�mm Pvntclm NS DepvnmwafHedW mdHmlm Snvicq Nodmd Toekdegy Plvpw,Dawbm • 4 1998). Popo.-Pat�vl l9®,mpmsmmtlm Report.Cvmm,gem:Bukgmlmd2bvlmw�@ettl£�RmurPmkiu N6 Depormevt o<NmlNvnd Nmvm$ttvlcq NvdwW To�mlogy Rogmlq DecwM 5 1999) 6 De®hu 1998). En d„1997 1998).8). 6HE171Rm),m prtimled'm Report.CmnnvBw.amlpmmtlponunem�pug/P16mW Pmnvtu N6 DcpmmematHmldl ontl Nuv1m Servicm,Nmmd Tmwgogy T Rmaglmq Ocmmbm 19 UMOW gTIPAH m 1Re.LW 6ry3008 P,.l oft TABLE 4 Summary of Toxicity Values Salem Transfer Station Salem,Massachusetts ,P.. i51Wia.s l' -" ^m��.r s ..s„- -- .e rN Tt. _ _ y ,.�.y. ,"2rnJ7101i OttI r� r '� �: vlti�f4 .?°s:i''^ s .JJ' Ch7d�ntw fah-elle S66ctis%nmt7nh"s11i(i6m '°'dt }�7�r m. `s' Pc'��y�ncc+Iohalao�g�.y s. �rr"✓ .t 'o I d VC enceI ,"i�y �fe ede'e�ia a irk,, y;rti r 'a r� "i'ymuIIorRisli "v�'-" It '`�fa+'rr'r Coos"Hfuentl' y$ t ouran-arEo or Canceq on e Con ra u "�' 5; ,4 rp ?� +-e+u y . . ,s�, r <.P7 x p 1 "^v, �- a "Endnie�f$uma I('a cmagen oily `��y�"S4t(UR� " 'u02" 'V."k �4ry�#�5��, pk^s y, F,4W✓'i'°' ' " 0.SY{, I r 5 1 14c ��m��+"�1' ].m (Acetaldehyde I Degeneration of olfactory epithelium Y I 0.009 [1] 0.09 0.31 Probable human carcinogen 0.0022 111 Inadequate information to assess human _ Acrolein Nasal lesions I 0.00002 p) 0.0002 11A1 carcinogenicity Benzene Decreased lymphocyte count I 0.03 [1] 0.09 11,31 Human carcinogen 0.0078 111 11,3-Butadiene Ovarian atrophy I 0.002 111 0.002 [4] Human carcinogen 0.03 UI lDiesel Emissions I I 0.05 [I] Likey to be a human carcinogen - Histopathological and functional changes in lung Formaldehyde Reduced weight gain; 0.7 (5)1 1 0.7 [41 Probable human carcinogen 0.013 [I] 1 II histopathology in rats(oral) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(as I 0.05 1310.5 tzl II a group) 11 I IBenzo(a)anthracene 11 See benzo(a)pyrene I 0.05 121 I 0.5 121 (I+ Probable human carcinogen I 0.021 161 IBenzo(b)fluormthene II See bemo(a)pyrene I 0.05 [21 I 0.5 121 II Probable human carcinogen I 0.021 151 IBenzo(k)fluomnthene II See bemo(a)pyrene I 0.05 121 I 0.5 [21 II Probable human carcinogen I 0.0021 161 Benzo(a)pymm, II Squamous cell papillomas and carcinomas of I 0.05 [21 I 0.5 [21 II Probable human carcinogen I 0.21 11.51 forestomach,larynx and esophagus. Chrysene 11 See benze(a)pyrene I 0.05 [311 0.5 121 II Probable human carcinogen I 00021 161 Dibenzo(a,h)anduacene ) See bamo(a)pyrene 0.05 [2]I 0.5 121 II Probable human carcinogen I 0.21 [61 llndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene II See benzo(a)pyrene I 0.05 [z)I 0.5 121 I Probable human carcinogen I 0.021 161 No value available or not applicable. mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter I. US EPA(2008). Integrated Risk Information System ORIS). 2. MassDep(2007)Method 1 Numerical Standards and supporting documentation(November). 3. Removal of uncertainty factor used to extrapolate chronic health effects from subchronic toxicity data 4. No subchronic value available;chronic value applied. 5. Extrapolated from oral data,assuming 20 cubic meter per day inhalation rate for a70 kilogram adult. 6. Extrapolated from benzo(a)pyrone UR,using toxicity equivalency factors in MassDEP(1995)Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. BErA0008 T4 Tax ValuesAs w3noul P4gel or FIGURE • • i 49 n e- Y+' • '`I su�-t 'fl!!`�� sSr #! -. � - a :•,S2 R�4 � ':Il bail,/�,S'i k, ii e • _ c k .. 'r � S r� • - i Rtil s'+y'•. r ry ®^ '..® M W / r- er �ti21 rati"N .''r'r f -."44Yi 4f i'.�, w•. �'�w,p ��. ��L �1r.,�� y 1�1' �i�,ar"l� ~"v;'t'9{ r �y �[¶ q'�� V ^. y.. r c r 1:bf �v ;Jr'1 �ya q��. a �'aj�� • rte a. '+xy1F n�f �' "� g9 I •�� N'�� t �r -.. .: W ® �+'fj�'rC,t.�� ",�^ � �i •r1 Lar) ,� T @A' r'' '�yy.�'•�, S� )� re! ' to+. �{:+_�., ® . 1 v� �j"3t� _:lt �f�' i _ � ��+'�.. .�l a°a'��4V ,�w�/r _ rf}� � � 1' (1r''-� �}@ _r z C'v ® r r � �lrf�ll��n1 if,.'! 1 ,�;2� rh(ix•�'�'.� flyt'.L1�a]� �(r�.F�a LIM7,01, .�� '�rd � �� ,�.: n I � ,_'� �� ® �;� �K3r �+•r�55 ��4•L3 (� �;ir ® ,' i �s;'�T� i _ ��'N " . tA a k t It :�� 3 � � �, _ I � ., '�'�.� � y �� 1e\� ,r ��5�"�•' [ � ':, {tea � � � �, r r "vti iy 'r vd ; f a>f {[vr '',r�f: - ✓ Afr e ' C® t� :F ('qc -+� v 5 - ] �` i r F' • �A..it y� t6 R r 'M f O &tr � Pt3 r r ..� s r ;f; lv . II • - •fly • • _ 11 1 11 '11 i�} _ u�A'�t' ��. .. �. Y,'y u.��a, i�4 Y y k' �� q. 4�. lil°: ;4 S : i_'..a 4 X 3.a � 't 'i T f(�.'i�. +.J �4ii^�.�,. i>: �. j.y4 . �' '�: �. �x �. 5 ,� *r�' {` ., .{ i 44-1 V Noise Impact Assessment Rudy Salem Transfer Station Salem, MA Swampscott Road Salem, MA Prepared for. Northside Carting 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 • March 21, 2008 Noise Impact Assessment Study Salem Transfer Station Salem, MA Swampscott Road Salem, MA Prepared for: Northside Carting • 210 Holt Road North Andover, MA 01845 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 March 21, 2008 • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 NOISE METRICS 2-1 3.0 RELEVANT NOISE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA 3-1 3.1 Massachusetts State Regulations 3-1 3.2 Local Regulations 3-1 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4-1 4.1 Baseline Noise Environment 4-1 4.2 Sound Level Measurement Locations 4-1 4.3 Measurement Methodology 4-3 4.4 Measurement Equipment 44 4.5 Baseline Ambient Noise Levels 4-5 5.0 REFERENCE SOUND LEVEL DATA 5-1 6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 6-1 6.1 Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 6-3 6.2 CadnaA Computer Software Sound Model 6-3 i6.2 Predicted Sound Level Results 6-4 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTROL MEASURES 7-1 Appendix A Beverly Airport Weather Data, March 11, 2008 Appendix B Cadna/A Noise Model Output • 1329 Salem Transfer Noise lreportdoc i Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Figures • Figure 1 Sound Levels in the Environment 2-2 Figure 2 Aerial Site Locus and Sound Level Measurement Locations 4-2 Figure 3 Hourly Sound Level Plot of Continuous Sound Level Data 4-8 Figure 4 Predictive Sound-Level Modeling Locations 6-2 List of Tables Table 1: Baseline Ambient Noise Measurements ...............................................................4-6 Table 2: Location CM Continuous 9-Hour Sound Measurement Data................................4-7 Table 3: Measured Equipment Sound Levels (at 50 feet) ....................................................5-1 Table 4: Equipment Sound Power Levels, dB (re 1 pW) .....................................................5-2 Table 5: Predicted Noise Levels—MA Noise Policy Criteria ..............................................6-5 i • 2319SalemTransfer Noiselreportdoc ii-2 Table of Contents Epsilon Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This report presents an analysis of potential community noise impacts associated with the proposed expansion and processing-rate increase at the Salem Transfer Station in Salem, Massachusetts. The analysis has been prepared to address the requirements of the Massachusetts DEP noise regulations. The report discusses the potential noise levels in the surrounding community due to operations within the facility. A sound level measurement program was conducted at potentially sensitive locations around the proposed site. The goal was to determine existing background sound levels during transfer-station operating hours. The existing background levels were then compared with predicted sound levels associated with a future increase in processing volume. The modeling results were compared against existing conditions and regulatory standards. Community noise attributable to the recycling facility may arise from the following sources: ♦ Trucks operating onsite and within the property boundary ♦ Front-end loaders used to move materials, occurring inside the tipping-floor building ♦ Back-up alarms from trucks on the site The equipment expected to be used at the facility will operate at noise levels within the MA DEP noise regulations, and without substantial impact to the surrounding ambient noise environment. • 2319 Salem Transfer Noiselreportdoc 1-1 Introduction Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.0 NOISE METRICS is There are several metrics with which sound (noise) levels are measured and quantified. All of them use the logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. The following information defines the noise measurement terminology used in this analysis. The decibel scale is logarithmic, to accommodate the wide range of sound intensities found in the environment. A property of the decibel scale is that the sound pressure levels of two separate sounds are not directly additive. For example, if a sound of 50 d6 is added to another sound of 50 dB, the total is only a 3-decibel increase (to 53 dB), not a doubling to 100 dB. Thus, every 3 dB change in sound levels represents a doubling/halving of sound energy. Related to this is the fact that a change in sound levels of less than 3 dB is imperceptible to the human ear. Another property of decibels is that if one source of noise is 10 dB (or more) louder than another source, then the total sound level is simply the sound level of the higher source. For example, a source of sound at 60 dB plus another source of sound at 47 dB is 60 dB. Sound level meters used to measure noise are standardized instruments. They contain "weighting networks" to adjust the frequency response of the instrument to approximate that of the human ear under various circumstances. The network used for community noise • surveys is the A-weighting network. Sounds detected with the A-weighting network of the sound level meter are reported in decibels designated as "dBA." The A-weighted scale (dBA) most closely approximates how the human ear responds to sound at various frequencies: it emphasizes the middle frequency (i.e., middle pitched - around 1,000 Hertz - sounds), and de-emphasizes lower and higher frequency sounds. Figure 1 presents an example of some common indoor and outdoor activities, and their typical sound levels in our environment. Because the sounds in the environment vary with time, they cannot simply be described with a single number. Two methods are used for describing variable sounds: the percent- exceeded levels (Ln) and the equivalent level (Leq). Both are derived from a large number of moment-to-moment A-weighted sound level measurements. Percent-exceeded levels are values from the cumulative amplitude distribution of all of the sound levels observed during a measurement period. Percent-exceeded levels are designated Ln, where n can have a value of 0 to 100 percent. Some common metrics reported in community noise monitoring studies are described below. ♦ Lvo is the sound level in dBA exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period. The Leo is close to the lowest sound level observed. It is essentially the same as the residual sound level, which is the sound level observed when there are no obvious nearby intermittent noise sources. • 1319 Salem Transfer Noise lreport.doc 2-1 Noise Metrics Epsilon Associates, Inc. Sound Pressure 0 0 000- 0 0 Level, dBA o 0 0 000 - . 1---- Jet takeoff at 300 feet Rock Band --•- Jet flyover at 1000 feet Inside Subway train(NYC) --•. ---- Gas lawnmower at 3 feet m' Food Blender at 3 feet ••• ---• Heavy truck at 50 feet Garbage disposal at 3 feet ---• Shouting at 3 feet ---• , ---- Noisy urban daytime Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet ••-. •--- Gas lawnmower at 100 feet Normal speech at 3 feet ••- ---- Auto(50 mph)at 100 feet � • 'M1 •--• Heavy traffic at 300 feet Quiet speech at 3 feet "-- Dishwasher next room •-- 50---- Quiet urban daytime Son whisper at 3 feet .••. 40 .--. Quiet urban nighttime Library ---• •••• Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Bedroom at night --- _ North rim of Grand Canyon Quiet rural nighttime 20 Broadcast and recording studio --- 10 References: Threshold of hearing --- 0 1Hanis,Cyril,"Handbook of Noise Acuusfical Measurements and • Noise Conor,is 1-ill,1998 2'controlling Noise',USAF,AFMC,AFDTC,Elgin AFB,Fed Sheet,August 1996 Northside Carting, Inc. 3 Celdomla Dept of Trans,"Tedlniwl Noise Supplement",Oct,1998 Epsilon Figure 1 11ecl..r1 „r Sound Levels in the Environment ♦ Lso is the median sound level, which is the sound level in dBA exceeded 50 percent of the time during the measurement period. ♦ L,o is the sound level in dBA exceeded only 10 percent of the time. It is close to the maximum level observed during the measurement period. The L,o is sometimes called the intrusive sound level because it is caused by occasional louder noises like those from passing motor vehicles. ♦ Leq,the equivalent level, is the level of a hypothetical steady sound that would have the same energy (i.e., the same time-averaged mean square sound pressure) as the actual fluctuating sound observed. The equivalent level is designated Leq; and is also A- weighted. The equivalent level represents the time average of the fluctuating sound pressure, but because sound is represented on a logarithmic scale and the averaging is done with linear mean square sound pressure values, the LN is most often determined by occasional loud, intrusive noises. ♦ The maximum sound level during a given time is designated as the Lma.. The Lma. are typically due to discrete, identifiable events such as an airplane overflight, car or truck passby, or a dog barking for example. By using various noise metrics it is possible to separate prevailing, steady sounds (the Lvo) from occasional, louder sounds (L,o or Lma.) in the noise environment. The frequency content of noises are also stated in terms of octave band sound pressure levels, in dB, with the octave frequency bands being those established by standard. If noise control treatments are required for a source, it is very useful to know something about the frequency spectrum of the noise of interest. Noise control treatments do not function like the human ear, so simple A-weighted levels are not useful for noise-control design. In the event that noise-control is necessary for this project, the estimates of noise levels due to equipment operation are also presented in terms of octave band sound pressure levels. • 1329 Salem Transfertdoiselreport.doc 2-3 Noise Metrics Epsilon Associates, Inc. • 3.0 RELEVANT NOISE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA Noise is officially defined as "unwanted sound". The principal feature of this definition is that there must be sound energy and someone hearing it who considers it unwanted. Noise impact is judged on two bases: the extent to which governmental regulations or guidelines may be exceeded, and the extent to which it is estimated that people may be annoyed or otherwise adversely affected by the sound. Specific regulatory references are as follows. 3.1 Massachusetts State Regulations The DEP has the authority to regulate noise under 310 CMR 7.10, which is part of the Commonwealth's air pollution control regulations. Under the DEP regulations, noise is considered to be an air contaminant and, thus, 310 CMR 7.10 prohibits "unnecessary emissions" of noise. DEP administers this regulation through Noise Policy DAQC 90-001 dated February 1, 1990. The policy limits a source to a 10-dBA increase in the ambient sound measured (Leo) at the property line for the Project and at the nearest residences. For developed areas, the DEP has utilized a "waiver provision" at the property line in certain cases. This is appropriate when are there are no noise-sensitive land uses at the property • line and the adjacent property owner agrees to waive the 10-dBA limit. The ambient level is defined as the background Leo measured when the facility is not operating (or, in this case, before an expansion that has not yet occurred), but during a time period when it would normally operate. For a source which will or could operate all day, the ambient level typically occurs during the quietest period (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.). The DEP policy further prohibits "pure tone" conditions where one octave band frequency is 3 dB or more greater than an adjacent frequency band. An example of a "pure tone" is a fan with a bad bearing that is producing an objectionable squealing sound. Although the transfer station currently exists, and the sound level measurement program was conducted during operating hours, current operations have been "part of the background" for decades. 3.2 Local Regulations The City of Salem does have a quantifiable noise standard as part of the Code of Ordinances (Article I, Section 22-1 within the Salem Code of Ordinances). The Article does not state a specific sound level limit at the property boundary for a commercial operation. • 1329SalemTransfer Noiselreport.doc 3-1 Relevant Noise Regulations Epsilon Associates, Inc. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 The facility is located on a parcel of land bordered by Swampscott Road to the east and businesses zoned for commercial use to the north, west, and south. The property immediately to the northwest contains a bank, a gas station, and a convenience store. To the west and southwest, the parcel is bordered by the Forest River and a wooded area (immediately beyond which are commercially-zoned properties). The property to the south contains a self-storage facility and a health club. Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the area, and it also shows noise measurement locations with an overlay of the site footprint. The nearest residential locations are located slightly further to the southwest (in the vicinity of Barnes Road) and to the southeast (a development at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street). There also are a few homes on the north side of Highland Avenue at the intersection with Swampscott Road. Trucks enter and exit the transfer station through an entrance on Swampscott Road, and this will not change in the future. Currently, the facility processes approximately 100 tons of construction and demolition debris per day. A traffic study conducted by Vanasse & Associates concluded that, during a weekday morning, peak-hour conditions will result in approximately 9 trucks entering and 11 trucks exiting per hour. 4.1 Baseline Noise Environment • An ambient noise level survey was conducted during the daytime hours to characterize the existing "baseline" acoustical environment in the vicinity of the site. Existing noise sources in the vicinity include: car, bus, and truck traffic on Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road; airplane overflights; birds; and existing-condition activity at the transfer station. 4.2 Sound Level Measurement Locations The selection of both the continuous and short-term sound monitoring locations was based upon a review of the current land use in the area, with emphasis placed on the nearest residential locations. The three short-term noise-monitoring locations were selected at the nearest residences to the northwest, southwest, and southeast. The measurement locations are depicted in Figure 2 are described below. • 1319 Salem Transfer Noise I report doc 4-1 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. ` inti �u si' �� ring. y � � � }r' � • ��*, k�� • �,. c` �. Mi" y f1,:.. ,t � +l:a. "� ♦ • �+c !t £? � 'h4* /i.' Vit.. '�+ i ��// r� dl ,F � 'ra♦ �/�',,^g��(} s�''�"/ tom_ !. �b a�'y � � ^�Nb��.t r.5 - h ♦� ��l +++11eSSS�**/. Y , T r ' A* •+y � rr gAa ' C�f�C7 Ve •? *'I D r v f .c � ..�"�.� d;.;''I��' � •w+ ♦_ /I',� ;FS+"�r h� t. a ;,�. M'7� y ♦ � .' ��tac7 X .. y ~ ^ +1 te ••ifs yBri ♦ ♦ •� i.� ,4S 4,4• - vt i ,�♦. a�� "3r'L�l��.,,.,,kkk�t/ r `�'` y�j�8� �•.+. yy4 4�, Cd��. �t r,� � ♦ f ' s • ♦ Location CM, the continuous 9-hour measurement location, is located along the southern property border of the transfer station and is adjacent to the storage facility property. The location is approximately 100 feet from Swampscott Road. It was chosen due to its close proximity to the nearest residences, which are located at the intersection of Swampscott Road and First Street. Location CM is considered to be very representative of the current background sound level near the transfer station. The primary noise source here was vehicle traffic along Swampscott Road. Truck activity within the transfer station was audible here. There was also an excavator operating on that day, but it was not a major source of noise (compared to vehicle traffic, the excavator was barely audible at location CM). ♦ Location ST-1 is located on the north side of Highland Avenue, within a small development of houses on Thomas Circle. Vehicle noise on Highland was the primary audible sound source there. ♦ Location ST-2 is within the townhouse development at the intersection of First Street and Swampscott Road, approximately 200 feet from the transfer station's southern property line. The townhouses sit at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above the Swampscott Road. From that location the entire vicinity can be seen (including the transfer station). Vehicular traffic on Swampscott Road and First Street were the primary noise sources at ST-2. ♦ Location ST-3 was in a residential neighborhood approximately 1,300 feet to the southwest of the transfer station. This is a traditional neighborhood of single-family homes, and sound levels here were quieter than at the other locations (quiet enough to hear birds chirping). It was not possible to single-out sounds from the transfer station, since vehicular traffic on Highland Avenue was the primary audible source of background noise. 4.3 Measurement Methodology Daytime sound level measurements were made for 30 minutes per short-term location on Tuesday March 11, 2008, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. In addition to the sampling data, one continuous programmable unattended sound level meter was placed at Location CM. This monitor continuously measured and stored hourly sound level statistics for 9 consecutive hours, to determine the temporal variation of the background noise levels, and to confirm that the short-term sampling was indeed representative. The monitor ran from 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday March 11. These hours were selected to match the operating hours of the transfer station. Field personnel checked on the integrity of the continuous equipment intermittently throughout the 9-hour period. Noise sources at each location were observed and noted throughout the day. 23295alem Transfer Noiselreportdoc 4-3 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. The sound levels were measured at a height of five feet above the ground and at locations where there were no large reflective surfaces to affect the measured levels. The measurements were made under low wind conditions and with dry roadway surfaces. Wind speed measurements were made with a Davis Instruments TurboMeter electronic wind speed indicator, and temperature and humidity measurements were made using a Mannix digital psychrometer. Unofficial observations about meteorology or land use in the community were made solely to characterize the existing sound levels in the area and to estimate the noise sensitivity at properties near the proposed Project. Wind speeds were measured several times throughout the day at microphone height. Speeds were calm between 7 a.m. and 12 p.m. and ranged between 3 to 5 mph during the rest of the measurement period. National Weather Service (NWS) observations from Beverly Municipal Airport meteorological station were obtained for the 9-hour period and are provided as Appendix A. The wind speeds at the airport (measured at a height of 33 feet above ground level) ranged between 5 and 13 mph between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. However, conditions near the transfer station were much less windy, and it is not believed that wind significantly affected the measurement equipment or data. 4.4 Measurement Equipment • A CEL Instruments Model 593.C1 Precision Sound Level Analyzer (serial number 3/0162197) equipped with a CEL-257 Type 1 Preamplifier, a CEL-250 half-inch electret microphone (serial number 6259) and a four-inch foam windscreen were used to collect the short-term broadband and octave band ambient sound pressure level data. The instrumentation meets the "Type 1 - Precision" requirements set forth in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4-1983 for acoustical measuring devices, as well as IEC Publication 804 (1985). The meter was equipped with an internal octave band filter set along with automatic data logging capabilities conforming to ANSI 51.11-1986. The meter time-weighting was set for the "slow" response (1 second) and the data were logged every one second. Octave band levels for this study correspond to the same data set processed for the broadband levels. The CEL sound level meter was calibrated in the field before and after the surveys with a CEL-110/1 acoustical calibrator, which meets the standards of IEC 942 Class 1L and ANSI 51.40-1984. The calibration frequency is 1000 Hz with an accuracy of +/- 0.25 dB at the calibration level of 114.0 dB. The calibrator and analyzer were certified as accurate, to standards set by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology by an independent laboratory within the past 12 months. A calibration check was performed before and after each measurement program. All calibration level changes were 0.5 dB or less, thus validating the data precision. A Larson Davis model 812 sound level meter (serial number 0632) was used for the • continuous monitoring. This meter meets Type 1 ANSI 57.4-1983 standards for sound level meters. The meter was calibrated immediately before and after the measurement with a 2319 Salem Transfer Noiselreportdoc 4-4 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Larson Davis CAL200 acoustical calibrator which meets the standards of IEC 942 Class 1 L and ANSI 51.40-1984. The model 812 meter has been calibrated and certified as accurate to standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology by an independent laboratory within the past 12 months. The model 812 has data logging capability and was programmed to log statistical data every hour for the following parameters: L,, L,o, Lso, Lso, Lma., Lm n, and Leq. 4.5 Baseline Ambient Noise Levels The existing short-term ambient baseline sound level measurements are summarized below and are presented in detail in Table 1. Detailed sound level data from the continuous measurement program can be found in Table 2 (Location CM). Figure 3 depicts the hour by hour sound level measurements at Location CM for the 9-hour continuous measurement. The continuous sound level data confirm the short-term data as a reasonable representation of area sound levels. The sound level data shown in Figure 3 demonstrates that noise levels were fairly constant throughout the day, most likely due to the steady traffic pattern on Swamp. ♦ The short-term daytime Lac (equivalent) measurements ranged from 50 to 59 dBA. ♦ The short-term daytime Lso (background) measurements ranged from 42 to 50 dBA. ♦ The 9-hour continuous LN (equivalent) measurements ranged from 53 to 57 dBA at • Location CM, and the Lso (background) measurements ranged from 48 to 50 dBA. The arithmetically averaged hourly background sound level (1-go) equaled 48 dBA for the entire measurement period (7:00 a.m. -4:00 p.m.). • 1329 Salem Transfer Noiselreport.doc 4-5 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 0 0 0 Table 1: Baseline Ambient Noise Measurements—Salem Transfer Station, Salem,MA Octave Bands(Hz) Receptor I.D Start Lio Lw Leo Lea 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 11000 Time (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Lea(d B) Lea(d6) Lea(dB) I Lea(dB) I Lea(dB) LN(dB) Lea(dB) Lea(dB) Lea(dB) Loc ST-1 9:04 A.M. 60 54 50 57 62 62 56 49 46 46 41 30 21 Loc ST-2 9:33 A.M. 61 57 52 59 57 56 53 51 49 49 43 34 26 Loc ST-3 10:53 A.M. 49 45 42 50 51 49 43 36 34 33 29 35 24 Notes. 1.Weather: Temperature=35"F,RE=26%,skies clear,winds from the northwest at 0-4 mph. 2.Road surfaces were dry during all short-term measurements. 3.All sampling periods were approximately 30 minutes duration. 4.Measurements were collected on March 11,2008 2319Saiem Transfer Moiselreport.doc 4-6 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, inc. Table 2: Location CM Continuous 9-Hour Sound Measurement Data Hour Lrq, Hr L90 (dBA) (d BA) 7:00 II 57 I 50 8:00 I 56 II 50 9:00 II 54 II 48 10:00 II 55 II 48 11:00 II 54 II 48 12:00 II 54 II 48 13:0017157 II 48 14:00 � 57 II 49 15:00 II 53 II 48 • 1319Salem Transfer Noiselreportdoc 4-7 Existing Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Figure 3: Salem Transfer Station, Salem, MA: Continuous Sound Levels at Southern Property Line, 7 am -4 pm, March 11, 2008 70 I I ; I ' , ; I ; I I I 65 — - ; I ; ; I I I I I I I ; ; I I ; 2 55 - -- --- ------ ------------ - ------- ---- --- CO - � I I I ----- -------- —L90 50 - - .-�. -�Leq 7 to I I I 45 ----- ------- I--------------------------- I , I ' I : I ; I ' I i I 35 —— — I I I ' I : 30 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o o O o �C 1� CO M O Hour of Day(Starting Hour) 5.0 REFERENCE SOUND LEVEL DATA • The key potential source of operational noise at the transfer station will be truck traffic within the property boundaries. Predictive modeling was conducted with the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), in order to determine impact due to increased truck traffic. The method is described in more detail within Section 6.1. In addition to truck traffic, there will be some noise due to truck back-up alarms and front- end loader activity within the tipping-floor building. Reference sound level data for operation of such equipment was collected by Epsilon Associates through previous projects. Those data were used to estimate impacts at the nearest lot boundaries and residences near the transfer station. Although the front-end loader will operate intermittently and at different times, a worst-case assumption was used where all equipment would operate continuously and simultaneously. Back-up alarms emit sound that is most prominent within the 1,000- hertz (Hz) frequency region, but they emit very little at other frequencies. They are safety devices designed that way, because the human ear is particularly sensitive to sounds within the 1,000-hertz region. Reference sound level data for both sources were measured at 50 feet and are summarized below in Table 3. The loader was operating at full-throttle during the measurement. Table 3: Measured Equipment Sound Levels (at 50 feet) Octave Bands (Hz) Equipment Leq 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 L� LN L� L� LN L� LN LN L� (dBA) (d B) (d B) (d B) (d B) (d B) (d6) (d B) (d B) (d B) Volvo Model L60E Front- 68 74 87 74 62 57 60 63 50 44 end Loader Truck Back-up Alarm 83 - - - - - 83 - - - The Cadna/A model (Computer Aided Noise Abatement, described in more detail with Section 6.2) calculates sound levels based on the sound power levels of the sources. The sound power output of a source is the total amount of energy radiated into the atmosphere, designated in units of Watts. Sound power data for this equipment was not available, so approximate sound power levels were calculated using the measured sound levels listed above. The following equation was used to approximate the sound power level of the equipment, assuming hemi-spherical spreading over hard ground: Lw= L n + 20Logio(r) + 8 where: 2319 Salem Transfer Noise lreport.doc 5-1 Reference Sound Level Data Epsilon Associates, Inc. • Lw = sound power level Lp = sound pressure level measured at 50 feet (15.24 meters) r = distance from measurement microphone to source 8 dB = increase in sound level, accounting for hemispherical spreading The resulting approximate octave-band sound power levels used in the CadnaA model are listed below in Table 4. Table 4: Equipment Sound Power Levels, dB (re 1 p%M Octave Bands (Hz) Equipment Lq 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 (dBA) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) (dB) Volvo Model L60E Front-end Loader 99 95 105 101 104 94 91 88 80 74 Truck Back-up Alarm 115 - - - - - 115 - - • • 1319SalemTransfer Noise lrepo2doc 5-1 Reference Sound Level Data Epsilon Associates, Inc. 6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS • Predictive sound level modeling was conducted with the Traffic Noise Model program and the Cadna/A program at the nearest lot lines to the facility's noise-producing activities, as required by MA DEP regulation. The sound level modeling was also done for the same locations where ambient sound levels were measured. If sound levels are acceptable at these evaluation points, then noise at other more distant locations will be even less as sound decreases with distance from the source. The evaluation points are listed below. All evaluation points were modeled at a height of five feet above the ground. ♦ Point A: Nearest the southern property boundary; this was also the location of the continuous sound level monitor. ♦ Point B: Nearest the northern property boundary shared with the gas station/convenience store (a commercially-zoned parcel). This is not a noise-sensitive residential location, so background sound levels were not measured here. Due to the close proximity of the heavy vehicular traffic on Highland Avenue, it is estimated that the Leo background sound level at this location is between 55 and 60 dBA. ♦ Point C: Nearest the western property boundary in the woods. The abutting parcel is commercially-zoned "Business Park Development" and is not residential. Background • sound levels were not measured here, but Lvo sound levels are probably similar to what was measured at Location CM (an average Leo of 48 dBA). ♦ Point D: Nearest the eastern property line along Swampscott Road. There are no noise- sensitive or residential land use parcels along that section of Swampscott Road. Background sound levels were not measured here, but existing L90 sound levels are estimated to be between 55 and 60 dBA. ♦ Point E: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-1, near the houses on Thomas Circle, across from the Swampscott Road/Highland Avenue Intersection. ♦ Point F: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-2, near the townhouses at the Swampscott Road/First Street intersection. ♦ Point G: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-3, near houses on Barnes Road. The sound levels were predicted within the wooded area in between the two houses that are closest to the transfer station. ♦ Point H: Houses on Highland Avenue near Barcelona Avenue. Although sound level measurements were not made here, those houses are within 700 feet of the transfer station. Figure 4 shows the location of the transfer station and the modeled points of evaluation. • 1329SalemTransfer Noiselreportdoc 6-1 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 1*4 �1Y t .�#` �;��. ,, � ' �vt� t �v v2,�i�b . 1 (/re'rl�.• ` 'Y'S ��. 444 \. r: r < ♦ ,rY� KY'• � a� «, ;n� ,iia r y a¢ � ,. �. �� 'VK2 "v� n '�i r. ♦ i { j� ��I Wr' � t.n� 1� 4 fy r y. � • 1 �[ 1 1 il. 1 jj\\ .f r�.�r ",•�•. � �. yam, r ) s��4 I % 4.7 c _�,�'* x fi F. 'lw '"� w%",r, � � i ��vl•. • , ♦: �Yl !' X14 q.• �N =g.. 1 16 to � . ldr �5u �t S' �� sr •.,y i��. � i -. ". 1. �' ; .?"".' 161.. + }� '�,ci�� y^. © � +��• � °moi�,°� '�.`yI s fi �, +^ ♦ R � r"fir -'#. • � .: ��fi�^".:� � � �� br � �°Syy2l♦.y"*�+. �.�{•-�I 3�1I'�i fi�� ,!{ �`.', °f" J Z.+.`�+.:tit '�Yil ,V r♦ i.. R.♦ 1;f' fyt� 1 _+ h ,S ,y. SN�1V.a r1l Mi T i- iii; �••1'�+..�f �♦r,r� 1"• {•4TH f�(.�S:.i Y4`t•� r4 4;''4, LL �it 6.1 Traffic Noise Model (TNM) • Predicting increases in sound level due to increased truck activity was an important consideration when modeling future conditions. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 is used to predict sound levels near roadways. TNM predicts the hourly average sound level from vehicular traffic. Input information includes roadway width, noise-sensitive evaluation points, the hourly number and speed of vehicles, and ground elevations. In this case, the input parameters were "heavy trucks" travelling within the transfer station property. It was assumed that trucks would travel at a speed of approximately 15 miles per hour. Using data taken from a traffic study conducted by Vanasse & Associates, it was possible to determine the sound level increase due to increases in truck volume at the facility. The study cites an increase of 6 trucks during a weekday morning peak hour' (an additional 3 trucks entering and 3 trucks exiting). The transfer station will have newly-paved surfaces, so the pavement types modeled within TNM are valid. The width and location of the truck driveways were determined from an AutoCAD file of the site plan. Also, the site plan provided the elevations of the driveway sections. With all of the necessary parameters known, it was possible to predict the increase in sound levels resulting from an additional 6 trucks per hour. Location CM was used as the point of reference. • Using the input assumptions above, TNM predicted that the hourly sound level would increase by no more than 2 dBA at the nearest locations. This 2 dBA increase was then assumed for all predictive modeling locations, to be added to the sound levels predicted by Cadna/A. This is described in Section 6.3. 6.2 Cadna/A Computer Software Sound Model The sound modeling for the front-end loader and back-up alarms was conducted using the Cadna/A sound calculation model (DataKustik Corporation, 2005). This physics-based computer software model uses the ISO 9613-2 industrial standard for sound propagation (Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: General method of calculation). The Cadna/A model allows for octave band calculation of noise from multiple sources, as well as computation of diffraction around building edges, and multiple reflections off parallel buildings and solid ground areas. In this manner, all significant noise sources and geometric propagation effects are accounted for in the noise modeling. Shielding credit from onsite structures was taken in the modeling where appropriate. ' "Traffic Impact And Access Study: Proposed Transfer Station Expansion, Salem, MA", Vanasse & Associates, Inc., December 2007 • 2329 Salem TransferNoise lreport.doc 6-3 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. • The front-end loader was assumed to operate inside the tipping-floor building. However, the side of the building facing the gas station (northern property line) was assumed to be open to the outside, which is where trucks will back in. This was determined from the building elevation plans dated October 2007. Additionally, noise radiating from the other three walls (eastern, southern, and western elevations) of the tipping-floor building were modeled within Cadna/A. Though those three walls will not have windows, this is anticipated to be a metal building with limited sound insulation. It is reasonable to assume that sound from the front-end loader may transmit through the walls somewhat. Trucks were assumed to operate at low idle while inside the building. Furthermore, it was assumed that the front-end loader would be considerably louder than the sound of refuse emptying from the trucks. It should also be remembered that the front-end loader was modeled at high-idle conditions and assumed to operate continuously throughout the day. This will not be the case under actual conditions. The back-up alarm was modeled outdoors near the northern side of the tipping-floor building, where the trucks will back up. The Vanasse & Associates traffic study stated that an additional 3 trucks would enter the facility during a weekday morning peak hour (the largest number of trucks for any hour of the day). The Cadna/A model allows the user to input the total amount of time (throughout the entire day) during which a sound source is • expected to operate. It was assumed that each truck's back-up alarm would operate for 30 seconds during a drop-off. The three (3) additional back-up alarm events per hour result in a 1-dBA sound level increase for any given hour. Note: it was assumed that exiting trucks would not operate a back-up alarm. This corresponds approximately to an additional 15 minutes per day during which alarms might operate (3 additional truck alarms for 30 seconds during each of the 9 hours of operation). As with the TNM results, the increases due to back-up alarms were added to the overall Cadna/A results. This will be shown in Section 6.3. The Cadna/A model was run using standard meteorological conditions of 20 degrees C (68 degrees F), 50% relative humidity, and no wind. To be conservative, no ground attenuation credit was taken by the model. The maximum order of reflections was set to seven in Cadna/A. The reflection type of the building wall was modeled as a smooth fa�ade/reflective barrier.That calculates a loss of 1 dB for sound reflecting off of the building. 6.3 Predicted Sound Level Results The model output is shown in Appendix B, produced directly from Cadna/A with the results at the evaluation points. The sound level results at each point are shown in Table 5. Note that the results account for the presence of back-up alarms and truck traffic in incremental terms. Even with the back-up alarm increase and the 2-dBA increase from truck activity, all equipment operation will meet the MA DEP noise policy. • 1319 Salem Transfer Noiselreport.doc 6.4 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5: Predicted Noise Levels Due to Tipping-Floor Building Operations vs. Baseline Ambient Background Sound Levels—MA Noise Policy Criteria Tipping- Baseline Total: TNM: Increase Increase Floor Leo Back- Project + Increase Due to Over Location Activity ground Lowest Leo Due to Alarms Back- (dBA) (dBA (dBA) Trucks (+ 1 dBA) ground (+ 2 dBA) (dBA) A 42 48' 49 51 52 4 B 50 552 56 58 59 4 C 43 48' 50 52 53 4 D 55 552 58 60 61 6 (residential) 41 503 50 52 53 3 (residential) 39 52" 52 54 55 3 (residential) 37 425 43 45 46 4 • (residential) 40 506 50 52 53 3 Point A: Nearest the southern property boundary and continuous sound level monitor. Point B: Nearest the northern property boundary shared with the gas station Point C: Nearest the western property boundary in the woods Point D: Nearest the eastern property line along Swampscott Road. Point E: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-1,near the houses on Thomas Circle Point F: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-2,near the townhouses Point G: Nearest short-term measurement location ST-3,near houses on Barnes Road Point H: Nearest houses on Highland Avenue near Barcelona Avenue. 1.48 dBA was the average Leo sound level for the entire 9-hour continuous measurement period at Location CM 2. 55 dBA is an estimated Lm sound level and is conservative. The actual daytime Lm sound level near the gas station at the intersection of Highland Ave and Swampscott Street is probably higher. 3.Measured Leo sound level at Location ST-1 4.Measured Leo sound level at Location ST-2 5.Measured Leo sound level at Location ST-3 6.The Lw sound level here was assumed to be the same as Location ST-1, since the locations are very close to one another. • 13195alemTransfer Noise lreport.doc 6-5 Future Conditions Epsilon Associates, Inc. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTROL MEASURES The sound level impact assessment for the proposed expansion at the Salem Transfer Station indicates that predicted noise levels will comply with the most stringent daytime noise regulations. Expected worst-case future sound levels from increased truck volumes, loader activity within the tipping-floor building, and truck back-up alarms will be slightly above current property-line noise levels to the north, east, south, and west. Sound levels at the closest residential locations are also predicted to be slightly above the existing ambient (background) sound level. However, the transfer station will be far enough away from all residential zones, such that worst-case increases in background sound levels will range from 34 dBA at the nearest residences. This is well within the MA DEP criteria. Also, the tipping-floor building was intentionally situated such that the open end of the building would face in the direction of Highland Avenue. This will help considerably to shield the townhouses on First Street from tipping-floor activity. When they are operating, the back-up alarms may temporarily result in "pure-tone" conditions at locations to the north and west. However, as described earlier, these events will be very brief (less than 30 seconds during each back-up). Alarms will not operate • continuously throughout the day. Also, actual alarm sound levels will probably be much lower than what was assumed in the modeling. The total increase in the occurrence of back-up alarms will be 15 minutes per day compared to current conditions. • Appendix A Beverly Airport Weather Data, March 11, 2008 • 0 0 0 Observations for Beverly, MA (BVY) Relative Wind STN Date Time PMSL ALTM Temp DEW Humidity DIR Speed VIS CLOUDS hPa inches Hg F F % deg knots mile 1 BVY 11-Mar-08 6:50 AM 1021.1 30.16 20 9 62 300 5 10 CLR 2 BVY 11-Mar-08 7:50 AM 1021.2 30.16 22 9 57 290 5 10 CLR 3 BVY 11-Mar-08 8:50 AM 1020.7 30.15 26 9 48 290 5 10 CLR 4 BVY 11-Mar-08 9:50 AM 1020.5 30.14 29 7 39 290 10 10 CLR 5 BVY 11-Mar-08 10:50 AM 1019.8 30.12 31 6 34 300 9 10 CLR 6 BVY 11-Mar-08 11:50 AM 1018.7 30.09 33 5 30 270 8 10 CLR 7 BVY 11-Mar-08 12:50 PM 1017.8 30.06 35 5 28 260 11 10 CLR 8 BVY 11-Mar-08 1:50 PM 1016.9 30.04 36 5 27 270 5 10 CLR 9 BVY 11-Mar-08 2:50 PM 1015.9 30.01 39 7 26 240 10 10 CLR 10 BVY 11-Mar-08 3:50 PM 1014.8 29.98 40 7 25 260 9 10 CLR 11 BVY 11-Mar-08 4:50 PM 1014.1 29.95 41 6 23 220 7 10 CLR 12 BVY 11-Mar-08 5:50 PM 1013.7 29.94 36 17 46 160 8 10 CLR Appendix B Cadna/A Output • i Sal 0Transfer Station: Predictive Noise Modeling Result Receiver Lr w/o Noise Control Name ID Day I I dB(A) I (Point E:Thomas Circle near STA Imm 40.6 I IPoint F:Townhouses near ST-2 Imm 38.7 IPoint G:Barnes Road Woods near ST3 Imm 36.6 I I Point A:near CM1-Also Southern Props Imm 41.6 I IPoint B:Northam Property Line near Ga Imm 49.8 I IPoint C:Western Property Line-In Woo Imm 43.4 I Point D:Swampscott Road-Eastern Prop Imm 55.5 I IPoint H: Barcelona Ave and Highland Imm 40.2 I .�� § In ■ �, - � / Mb: ) {�\ <�t . ?& . \ 2 y TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION EXPANSION SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for: • NORTHSIDE CARTING North Andover, Massachusetts December 2007 Prepared by: VANASSE&ASSOCIATES,INC. 10 New England Business Center Drive Suite 314 Andover MA 01810 (978)474-8800 • Copyright®2007 by VAI All Rights Reserved CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3 ProjectDescription.............................................................................................................3 StudyMethodology.............................................................................................................3 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................5 • Geometry............................................................................................................................5 ExistingTraffic Volumes...................................................................................................7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................8 PubIic Transportation .........................................................................................................8 Spot Speed Measurements..................................................................................................9 MotorVehicle Crash Data..................................................................................................9 FUTURECONDITIONS............................................................................................................... 12 FutureTraffic Growth ...................................................................................................... 12 Project-Generated Traffic................................................................................................. 15 Future Traffic Volumes—Build Condition...................................................................... 16 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 18 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 18 AnalysisResults................................................................................................................21 SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION ............................................................................................26 • 0 M12 SAW.MAVtcpond1'IA$0)O8.d= CONTENTS (Continued) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................28 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................28 Recommendations.............................................................................................................28 • 093211 Salem MA4ywrb9TIA5_0.108 Aoc FIGURES • No. Title 1 Site Location Map 2 Study Area Map 3 2007 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 Pedestrian Facilities Map • 5 Public Transportation Map 6 2012 No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 7 Trip Distribution Map 8 Project-Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 9 2012 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes GA521I Salem MAWgnns\TIAS 0388.da TABLES No. Title 1 2007 Existing Traffic Volumes 2 Vehicle Travel Speed Measurements 3 Motor Vehicle Crash Data Summary 4 Trip-Generation Summary • 5 Trip-Distribution Summary 6 Peak-Hour Traffic-Volume Increases 7 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 8 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 9 Unsignalized Intersection Level-of-Service and Vehicle Queue Summary 10 Signalized Intersection Level-of-Service and Vehicle Queue Summary 11 Sight Distance Measurements 12 Mitigated Signalized Intersection Level-of-Service and Vehicle Queue Summary • 6!5212 Salen MAUtcpmldY 1AS_0008.duc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted a Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS) in order to determine die impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the expansion of the existing Northside Carting Transfer Station located off Swampscott Road in Salem,Massachusetts. The proposed project will entail an expansion in the operating capacity of the existing transfer station from 100 tons of material per day to 400 tons per day. This study was prepared in consultation with the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) and the City of Salem, and was performed in accordance with the state standards for the preparation of Traffic Impact Assessments(TIAs). The study area evaluated for the project was selected to contain the major roadways providing access to • the site, including Highland Avenue (Route 107), Marlborough Road, and Swampscott Road, as well as the two major intersections located along these roadways through which project-related traffic will travel: Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way and Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue. Each of these locations and the access drives to the project site were assessed with regard to traffic volumes, safety, and operating conditions (motorist delays and vehicle queuing), both at present and in the future and with and without the proposed project. As detailed as a part of this assessment, relative to the transportation system serving the project site, the net result of the project will be an increase of approximately 54 vehicle trips on an average weekday over current conditions (27 additional vehicles entering and 27 exiting over the operational period of the facility),with 6 additional vehicle trips expected (3 entering and 3 exiting)over a one-hour period during the weekday peak periods. Such increases are relatively minor in nature and were not shown to materially impact traffic operations at the study intersections over existing or anticipated future conditions without the project (No-Build conditions). That said, a detailed transportation improvement program has been developed that is designed to maintain safe and efficient access to the site while minimizing impacts to motorists traveling along adjacent roadways and address any deficiencies identified at off-site locations evaluated in conjunction with this study. The following improvements have been recommended as a pall of this evaluation and will be completed in conjunction with the project subject to receipt of the necessary approvals. Site Access - Access the project will be provided by way of two driveways: the southern driveway will be situated at the location of the existing driveway serving the site and will accommodate full access to the project; the northern driveway (proposed) will be situated approximately 200 feet south of the northern property line and will function as a one-way, exit-only facility. It is recommended that the north site driveway be a minimum of 16-feet in width and that appropriate signs and pavement marking be provided indicating the function of the driveway as a one-way, exit-only facility. The south site driveway should be a minimum of GA5212 SPIM MA%cpw ATIAS W08.dM I • 24-feet in width. Vehicles exiting the site should be placed under STOP-sign control, with any signs or landscape features located, designed and maintained so as not to restrict lines of sight to or from the site driveways. In addition, it is recommended that the existing fence located along the project frontage on Swampscott Road be relocated within the site in order to provide the required lines of sight to and from the site driveways. Further, it is suggested that "Trucks Entering Ahead" warning signs be installed on Swampscott Road approaching the site (both directions) in order to inform motorists of the potential for slower moving traffic to be entering the roadway. •:• Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way - In order to improve operating conditions at this intersection, the proposed timing, phasing, and coordination plan to be implemented by MassHighway should be reviewed and refined/adjusted as necessary to achieve optimal operating conditions at this location. This review will be undertaken by the project proponent within one-year of the expansion of the transfer station and will include an updated evaluation of the motor vehicle crash history at the intersection. ❖ Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietrn Avenue - In order to improve operating conditions at this intersection,the following recommendations are offered: 1. The Swampscott Road northwestbound approach should be restriped to convert the existing left-tun lane to an optional left/right-turn lane in order to accommodate the predominant turning movement at the intersection (right-turn movements) and to reduce both motorist delays and vehicle queuing; 2. The traffic signal timing, phasing, and coordination plan should be refined/adjusted as • may be necessary; and 3. Double-yellow centerline pavement markings should be provided along DiPietro Avenue, for a minimum distance of 100 feet in advance of the intersection in order to separate the directions of travel approaching and departing the intersection. With implementation of the above recommendations, safe and efficient access will continue to be provided to the transfer station and the proposed project can be constructed with minimal impact on the roadway system. G152I25Nkn MAXft09S%TAS 0308.doe 2 1 INTRODUCTION Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted a Traffic Impact and Access Study(TIAS) in order to determine the impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the expansion of the existing Northside Carting Transfer Station located off Swampscott Road in Salem, Massachusetts. This study reviews the anticipated traffic characteristics of the proposed project and provides a comprehensive assessment of operating conditions and safety on the transportation infrastructure serving the project site, both with and without the proposed expansion. The study area for the project was selected to contain the major roadways providing access to the site, including Highland Avenue(Route 107),Swampscott Road, and Marlborough Road, as well as the two major intersections located along these roadways through which project-related traffic will travel: Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way and • Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will entail the expansion of the existing Northside Carting Transfer Station located off Swampscott Road in Salem, Massachusetts, to expand its operating capacity from 100 tons of material per day to 400 tons per day. The project site is generally bounded by Swampscott Road to the east; commercial properties to the north and south; and areas of open and wooded space and low-lying wetland areas to the west. Access to the project will be provided by way of two driveways: the southern driveway will be situated at the location of the existing driveway serving the site and will accommodate frill access to the project;the northern driveway(proposed) will be situated approximately 200 feet south of the northern property line and will function as a one-way, exit-only facility. Figure 1 depicts the site location in relation to the existing roadway network. STUDY METHODOLOGY This study was prepared in consultation with the Massachusetts Highway Department (Masslfiglnway) and the City of Salem; was performed in accordance with the state standards for the preparation of Traffic Impact Assessments(TIAs);and was conducted in three distinct stages. The first stage involved an assessment of existing conditions in the study area and included an inventory of roadway geometries; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; public transportation services; observations of traffic flow;and collection of daily and peak period traffic counts. G W1I Ulan,MAV eponff]AS 0)OB.doe 3 IL' WaiLYW �7j' •� -` � ' � ,, .� � ter. �� (' � .� J Ce�1'`• �.'';� �.� ' �� f ,,-sem _ 4 - h'' y� .7 `as4. PS's- - y}�a rf' j�iP'W tl�i� l+� 'µ•l�l��' '-: -y� 1'If��:,�"�F"��j• ,;,:. ,�t• rr` �S� t I ✓ t1,' �f- �• ir'_ •. ,IIS .�ir/JJ((}}'�,r,�(r'1:J1�^`ti`,�••f•X J,'f�� '°1 •�•;3 .,(•'�,"'� :•.t ` .� n � � ` r tt, _ r,.--�`�•� -t9 �Y� � � 7� a� ,'o`1i�`'?�. ,el 1 `.�tt• i ! PI to nd � I ��,✓'(1'�7'.�� i ��,I r.: ��:_`'z..'/,=a ..-,=�,�y)�'• .7'Y l.,, , I, k } � ..i��fJ lr��',,,m Bi C8•� t�`f'( o _ ;✓':.,�i'( ,R��til ` \ r �,,,., �'`�}-��..-�..r��,' M. _-t- -��i- :�s,�� `�"`//•�',I�� .� ` ,I Cr.,1�3�.,, ,f - �'F/'� ��I,:,l` �j� 1-;J G61f50�I.0 ''t?ti'�' fl,�•-i -'......._, -�` \ _ Nf/.i `/ �'[_- t :. :tM1l 11• 'i} Ny,;,.Sti,,Y ,�?tl S�j�`� . ``-•' P" � � 309 '-C'•'�y ..j`P 'ti:,. I: �7" r 71, ..t9r�.�� ``-S a. .,�a�\i0M`�Oo�9,4t� / �'t�=i , ' , ` /T a ,h_.t1�j1U .�,��\?`\�o \\) f'1)�,;•: �7`'f' J 1, r(r I '} ��>��..'"�� 16�� _'�,!` i�.-%ij"' • �`+\ '744i� �i';�) ��-q�\`*ati.ji �i`j,:tt.�' ~� `u�t�'1 \��~-�J c� 5f��f�.,�..,5�, I r.�C '7• -'-'�'-}z'Vi\ `� C_^"..J�` �1 d _ ' ) 5 % �,'' j1�'�^-• 20 �; I!• -`� nl"�'.. '� e`, ', .._'!b`�-'' 1f♦ /'_\ `.� ,yam.. t. ;b{j �'. � ae•t��= f,j,� .:r----' .1� r(-�1�r1!' "l.� ` � _a�,,,� ��^, - (�� Y-�. .f tii -�., _• .� p�: ri .. w- F .1, -,' '. .1•zs�-.,n a ` /r'" ' 78.6 � ,. - I Y� � ♦^--;\ •: ,�� '1 �.s -• * /� � � �J'1: 7HC •o,,�`a (;� 'r,s._ RH ' T£-`hi, =�1 lJ 1 p 'r7.�ti.t ^,,,;. ,�,� �- �. . y_.,. `� - eG7i ' (�,,� � �",` �a°i I ,.r r t,.rr .,-^'�,�,:,�n� �=J•-:- 1 4 t •tea' �'(r'�v � � - l� { �(s' ' (��•'t�� -.'*i. • Wen7wial � :,<o..J: 1 qty, .. '. ._,1 ``' •/� ra.'1�'-'�r i��G - •' S `PerA an \ i .� r-.„,,,,, I UT e,y'- t.1 1 � 111 111 QjVanasse•&Assoalates,"Inc Site Location Map a Transportatiaf7 Engineers & Planners a� Po\5111\5711dn g 11/18/7007 W&IS M EST CO YdOt 0100]Ey VAL N R178b R1111116 In the second stage of the study, future traffic conditions were projected and analyzed. Specific travel demand forecasts for the project were assessed along with future traffic demands due to expected traffic growth independent of the project. A five-year time horizon was selected for analyses consistent with State guidelines for the preparation of TIAs. The traffic analysis conducted in stage two identifies existing or projected future roadway capacity,traffic safety,and site access issues. The third stage of the study presents and evaluates measures to address traffic and safety issues, if any, identified in stage two of the study. • • 015111 Glom,MA%OPMATIAS WOd.do, 4 • EXISTING CONDITIONS A comprehensive field inventory of traffic conditions on the study area roadways was conducted in October and November 2007, The field investigation consisted of an inventory of existing roadway geometries; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; public transportation services; traffic volumes; and operating characteristics; as well as posted speed limits and land use information within the study area. The study area for the project was selected to contain the major roadways providing access to the site, including Highland Avenue (Route 107), Swampscott Road, and Marlborough Road, as well as the two major intersections located along these roadways through which project-related traffic will travel and the existing site driveway, which are listed below and depicted on Figure 2: I. Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way, 2. Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue. 3. Swampscott Road at the site driveway. The following describes the study area roadways and intersections. GEOMETRY Roadways Highland Avenue(Route 107) Highland Avenue is an urban principal arterial roadway under state jurisdiction that traverses the study area in a general northeast-southwest direction. Within the study area, Highland Avenue provides two 1 I-to 12-foot wide travel lanes per direction(four-lane cross-section),separated by a raised median,with additional turning lanes provided at major intersections. Sidewalks are generally provided along the south side of Highland Avenue within the study area, with marked crosswalks provided at major intersections. Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles. Land use along Highland Avenue within the study area consists of commercial properties and areas of open and wooded space. GtS2I2 Salary,MAt0.gonATIAS 0}58.dae 5 LegentV g�nagzed Intersectio ll sect" 0 c Jr. Pk dV WIC +�,.� fit' � { t � S E- � { '=+ _ G '- J_` + �� "Al Iwo 5 fie Park Study Area W18P OIV@nasse &'----}nears Pte s pr tion Eng va A'Rlq ' a U07 by • Swampscott Road Swampscott Road is an urban collector roadway under local jurisdiction that traverses the study area in a general northwest-southeast direction between Highland Avenue and the Swampscott Town Line. Within the study area, Swampscott Road provides two 12- to 13-foot wide travel lanes separated by a double-yellow centerline, with variable width marked shoulders and additional honing lanes at its intersection with Highland Avenue. A sidewalk is provided along the east side of Swampscott Road. Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles. Land use along Swampscott Road within the study area consists of the project site, commercial properties, and areas of open and wooded space. Marlborough Road Marlborough Road is an urban collector roadway under local jurisdiction that traverses the study area in a general north-south direction between the Peabody City Line and Highland Avenue. Within the study area, Marlborough Road provides two 12- to 15-foot wide travel lanes separated by a double-yellow centerline,with variable width marked shoulders provided. Sidewalks are generally provided along both sides of Marlborough Road. Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles. Land use along Marlborough Road consists of commercial and residential properties and areas of open and wooded space. Intersections Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way • Marlborough Road and Traders Way intersect Highland Avenue from the north and south, respectively, to form this four legged intersection under traffic signal control. The Marlborough Road southbound approach consists of an 11.5-foot wide left-turn/through travel lane and a 12-foot wide right-turn lane, with a 1-foot wide marked shoulder provided. The directions of travel along Marlborough Road are separated by a double-yellow centerline. The Traders Way northbound approach consists of an I]-foot wide left-turn lane, a 12-foot wide left-turn/through travel lane, and a 12-foot wide, channelized, right-turn lane that operates under STOP-sign control, with one-foot wide marked shoulders provided. The directions of travel along Traders Way are separated by a raised median. The Highland Avenue northeastbound approach consists of a 12-foot wide left-turn lane, a 12-foot wide through-travel lane and an I1-foot wide through/right-turn lane. A right-turn lane was under construction on the Highland Avenue northeastbound approach to the intersection at the time of completion of the field inventories. The Highland Avenue southwestbound approach consists of a 12-foot wide left-turn lane, two 12-foot wide through travel lanes, and a 10-foot wide right-turn lane, with a I-foot wide marked shoulder provided. The directions of travel along Highland Avenue are separated by a raised median. Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Marlborough Road, along the east side of Traders Way, and along the south side of Highland Avenue, with marked crosswalks provided across all legs of the intersection. Land use in the vicinity of the intersection consists of commercial properties. The traffic signal operations in a five-phase, fully-actuated mode, with advance phases provided for left-turning vehicles along Highland Avenue and split-phasing for both Marlborough Road and Traders Way. An exclusive pedestrian phase is provided upon pushbutton actuation. MBTA bus stops are located along both Highland Avenue approaches to the intersection. OMM Salm.MA%Rgonnnns mos doe 6 Highland Avenue at Swampscott Sheet and DiPietro Avenue • Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue intersect Highland Avenue from the southeast and east, respectively, to form this four-legged intersection under traffic signal control. The Swampscott Road northwestbound approach consists of 12-foot wide left and right-turn lanes, with a ]-foot wide marked shoulder provided. The directions of travel along Swampscott Road are separated by a raised island at the intersection and by a double-yellow centerline to the south. The DiPietro Avenue westbound approach consists of a 23.5-foot wide paved roadway, accommodating two-way travel, with no marked centerline or edge litres provided. The Highland Avenue northeastbound approach consists of two 11.5-to 12-foot wide through travel lanes and an 11.5-foot wide, channelized, right-turn lane that operates under YIELD-sign control, with a 2-foot wide marked shoulder provided. The Highland Avenue southwestbound approach consists of a 12-foot wide left-turn lane and two 12-foot wide through travel lanes,with a 4.5-foot wide marked shoulder provided. The directions of travel along Highland Avenue are separated by a raised median. Illumination is provided by, way of street lights mounted on wood poles. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Swampscott Road at the intersection and along the south side of Highland Avenue, with a marked crosswalk provided across the Swampscott Road leg of the intersection. The traffic signal operates in a four-phase, fully-actuated mode, with an advance phase provided for the Highland Avenue southwestbound approach. An exclusive pedestrian phase is provided upon pushbutton actuation. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES In order to determine existing traffic-volume demands and flow patterns within the study area, automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts, manual tinning movement counts (TMCs) and vehicle classification • counts were completed in October 2007. The ATR counts were conducted on Swampscott Road, north of First Street, in order to record weekday daily traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site over an extended period. The TMCs were conducted at the study intersections during the weekday morning (6:00 to 9:00 AM)and evening(3:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods, the peak periods for both the project and the adjacent roadways. In addition, TMCs were also conducted at the driveway serving the existing transfer station in order to quantify the existing characteristics of the site. Seasonal Adiustments In order to evaluate the potential for seasonal fluctuation of traffic volumes within the study area, historic traffic count data were reviewed for the nearest MassHighway permanent count stations to the project site.' Based on a review of this data, it was determined that traffic volumes for the month of October are approximately 1.7 percent above average-month conditions. In order to provide a conservative (above average) analysis scenario, the October tragic volumes were not adjusted downward to average-month conditions. The 2007 Existing weekday morning and evening peak-hour traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 3 and are summarized in Table 1. IMassHighway'rraltic Volumes for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Permanent Count Station 595 located on Route 128, south of the Peabody City Line, in Lynnfield;Permanent Count Station 5099 located on Route 128,south of Walnut Street,in Lynnfield;and Permanent Count Station 5128 located on Route I,south of Hanover Street,in Newbury;2006. G15212 Bxlnn,MAU.p NTIAS0308.d. 7 u._..,u,. r_..... ............... Yru....ldr.a,a.�Lrndn;� �WKUJIY NIAf2NiNPEAK _0 R' , -.t, u W • RO'40R�cy 107 ,�ryoa ✓ //66 * �• �� rR lygaF�s �2 P °gym ZB `0 AVENUE 4 �to `t;S SWAMPSCOTT ROAD s SITE In 9 0ben Out 11 Total 20 AIEEI(fl 'ENI�NG_:EA4t�i�O,tIR 4i apse • ROgo°��y 107 a N � 9 c aR'6rya,� �g0�'QS �2Jr" P R13 1`4ti DIPIETRO I AVENUE e, SWAMPSCOTT 2 A ROAD SITE In 73 Out 7 tiyh Totd 14 Note: Imb.alonces exist due to numerous curb cuts and side streets that are not shown. . Vssea� ssoo2F�I,c 2007 Existing Transportation Engineers & F'tanners Peak Hour Traffic Volumes x\W12\52tm0.d y 11/MnWy 1o.M'W a W C pyr%bt©2W7 by wl. M R%hU Rft w Table 1 . 2007 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday livening Peak Hour Directional Directional Location AWT' VPH' K Factor` Distribution VPH K Factor Distribution Swampscott Road,north of 12,320 907 7.4 50.3%NWB 999 8.1 61.8%SEB First Street 'Average weekday traffic in vehicles per day. 'Vehicles per hour. `Percent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour. dPereent traveling in peak direction. NWB=northwestbound;SEB=southeastbound. As can be seen in Table I, Swampscott Road, north of First Street, was found to accommodate approximately 12,320 vehicles on an average weekday, with approximately 907 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday morning peak hour and 999 vph during the weekday evening peak hour. A review of the peak-period traffic counts indicates that the weekday morning peak hour generally occurs between 7:00 and 8:00 AM, with the weekday evening peak hour generally occurring between 4:00 and 5:00 PM. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES • A comprehensive field inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area was undertaken in October and November 2007. The field inventory consisted of a review of the location of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing locations along the study roadways and at the study intersections, as well as the location of existing and planned future bicycle facilities. Sidewalks are provided along the east side of Swampscott Road; the south side of Highland Avenue; both sides of Marlborough Road; and along the east side of Traders Way. Marked crosswalks are provided at both signalized study intersections. The existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Figure 4. At present, there are no designated existing or planned future bicycle facilities serving the immediate study area. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) provides two bus routes along Highland Avenue within the study area. Bus Routes 450/45OW and 456 provide service between downtown Salem and points to the southwest along Highland Avenue. MBTA bus stops are provided along Highland Avenue at its intersection with Marlborough Road and Traders Way. In addition, there are two MBTA commuter rail stations located within a two-mile radius of the project site: Salem and Swampscott stations on the Newbury/Rockport Line. The public transportation facilities within the study area are shown on Figure 5. GM212 Salem,MAOlayWl TIAS 0308.doe 8 ��II III III 111111 i1Yliiiill•.. If Legend: • o Existing Sidewalk Existing Crosswalk �lq R0 °00�cy 107 l �9p �qY RS J� DIPIETRO AVENUE 1 . S 'PO SITE 10 T Not To Scale Figure 4 • 1% Vanasse a Associates, Inc? Pedestrian Facilities Ma ITransportation Engineers g Planners n:\5212\szlxolaaod. 11/2e/2W7 n16:23 w tsr fAfy'Idd 0=7 by vu a RIIMd kdadrrW aIIA Jri o Legend: MBTA Bus Route P Peabody Transit Bus Route ® MBTA Commuter Rall Line �� ` N �, , `;/ tl• ;°rin�- a 1 ftC':.}-�f icfJs,, �r'w-.tea 1.,;•::�•�j_ � �° ,4�j•'"/ fF��.`.�-�$ C4!�;Il` �dPBtid - 1FI/�/f`,, 'i :`` .t � "4�, t.�0{.,i;;t�r� •'t '�y�` GSY' ; I MIKE ( ?IR 'mond r �✓ 'r. ,.../ '(r:>`�'.� 1 �/% `v'- +:=�'. b !de' Fel , Brom •,/ � : _ ?n''v l '� 11 l tt � hl; [� . ! \..�„'v`.^+. ��1�..,`.^... �\ Imo'\\ �� • i'-`"� +r` � ,`,y "`';\�' •i'Y. O�1,.` ! \ ...moi-�`r n_ 4'�as�'" - ."h'l', .. / '�Ih�1 f�.�:13 • •,j.3 ! n � �' t1 43 �.. .., t -�_ L ti �`• "..r Y.:.g �. 4 t^� i �r'�i1'�{L`i.+ �'y. '1 'Y A'....—.' 1. S G'. ^` _ y .,9� e- ♦/FR\_.e:{'+/� [. r 7 t r _ t J' ,V �R2 nen :'g! �> `I �'' '• `A: ::X�`'",yi'^„ +u�)rL`.L�r l rh ' '+ `:, (blyatl ., ;�"'S,c • _ .r�- .:`�-; I{,t c r �.7: � .:� • �T�l ' l 1. ;/ 56,te--. ( , ' `'!'' iw_.;'.... T1 . � ��..--�..' 4,-, il'_ r• 18.5 \�o _ 1. -a_,�_.;,:�,� 1 ,t;_� �•'l�• r �//� �.. "k e, �4 .,rte.. .t�s - •� �-� i�; iii .'� .i.'L�.� a`...� 'C tTQ�� 459"`a. .• � ,.�� //y ,t'��f'_l;-�r�':-1 ..� Id QlVanasse &- ssociates, /-- Public Transportation Map . %41 Transportation Engineers & Planners R:\5111\5112t.I.k p n/"/1007 1:-'&.47PM EST Co0Kllht 0 2007°Y vu a Rlghh Ra • SPOT SPEED MEASUREMENTS Vehicle travel speed measurements were performed on Swampscott Road in the vicinity of the project site using a calibrated pulse radar gun. A total of 100 measurements were performed, with 50 measurements taken in each direction of travel. Table 2 summarizes the vehicle travel speed measurements. Table 2 VEHICLE TRAVEL SPEED MEASUREMENTS Swampscott Road Northbound Southbound Mean Travel Speed(mph) 34 34 85ih Percentile S eed(m h 36 37 mph-miles per hour. As can be seen in Table 2, the mean (average) vehicle travel speed along Swampscott Road in the • vicinity of the project site was found to be approximately 34 mph. The average measured 85°i percentile vehicle travel speed, or the speed at which 85 percent of the observed vehicles traveled at or below, was found to be approximately 37 mph,or 7 mph above the posted speed limit of 30 mph. The 851h percentile vehicle travel speed is used as the basis of engineering design and in the evaluation of sight distances, and is often used in establishing posted speed limits. MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA Motor vehicle crash information for the study area intersections was provided by the MassHighway Safety Management/Traffic Operations Unit for the most recent three-year period available (2003 through 2005) in order to examine motor vehicle crash trends occurring within the study area. The data is summarized by intersection, type, severity, weather and lighting conditions, and day of occurrence,and presented in Table 3. • G95317 Salem,MAVlgwskT1A5 030&.dw 9 Table 3 • MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA SUMMARY° Highland Avenue/ Highland Avenue/ Swampscott Road/ Marlborough Road/ DiPietro Avenue Traders Way Year 2003 10 21 2004 5 14 2005 5 21 Total 20 56 Average 6.67 18.67 Rate' 0.53 1.19 Significant?` No Yes 7YPe Angle 4 17 Rear-End 9 29 Head-On 0 1 Sideswipe 2 4 Fixed Object 3 0 Unknown/Other 2 0 Total 20 56 Severity Property Damage Only 15 39 Personal Injury 5 17 . 'ata 0 0 Total 20 56 Conditions Clear 9 31 Cloudy 5 12 Rain 5 6 Snow/Ice 1 5 Unknown 0 2 Total 20 56 Lighting Daylight 12 33 Dawn/Dusk 1 3 Dark(Road Lit) 7 15 Dark(Road Unlit) 0 1 Other/Unknown 0 4 Total 20 56 Day of Ifeek Monday Otru Friday 12 44 Saturday 3 5 Sundav 7 7 Total 20 56 'Source: Massliighway Safety Managemenl/Traffic Operations Unit Records,2003 through 2005. 'Crash rate per million vehicles entering the intersection. `The intersection crash rate is significant if it is found to exceed 0.88 crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection for signalized intersections as defined by Mass]lighway for the MassHighway District in which the project is located(District 4). GA5312 Set"%MNRcpone\TIAS 0308 doe 1 • As can be seen on Table 3, the study area intersections averaged approximately 19 or fewer reported motor vehicle crashes per year over the three-year review period. The intersection of Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way was found to have experienced the largest number of reported motor vehicle collisions, with a total of 56 collisions reported over the three year review period. The majority of the crashes occurring at this intersection involved property damage only (39 out of 56); occurred on a weekday (44 out of 56); under clear weather conditions (31 out of 56); during daylight (33 out of 56);and involved rear-end type collisions(29 out of 56). The intersection of Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way was also found to have a motor vehicle crash rate above the MassHighway average for signalized intersections for the MassHighway District in which the project is located (District 4). It is anticipated that the intersection and traffic control improvements currently under design or construction by MassHighway at both the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue/Marlborough Road intersections will improve both traffic operations and safety (reduction in motor vehicle crashes) over current conditions. No fatal motor vehicle cashes were reported at the study intersections over the three-year review period. The detailed MassHighway Crash Rate Worksheets are provided in the Appendix. G15212 Salem,MANReponATIAS 0308 doe I 1 FUTURE CONDITIONS Traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2012, which reflects a five-year planning horizon consistent with state traffic study guidelines. Independent of the proposed project, traffic volumes on the roadway network in the year 2012 under No-Build conditions include all existing traffic and new traffic resulting from background traffic growth. Anticipated project-generated traffic volumes superimposed upon this 2012 No-Build traffic network reflect 2012 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 Develonment by Others MassHighway and the Planning Department of the City of Salem were 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: • G U212 Salim,MAU UpwAl)AS-0708.d" 12 • • St. Jean's Bank, Salem, Massachusetts. This project is currently under construction and consists of a 7,200 sf commercial building that will contain office space and a bank with a three lane drive-through service facility to be located at 370 Highland Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were obtained both from the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the development2 and using trip-generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)3, and were assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. • Osborne Hills Residential Subdivision, Salem, Massachusetts. This project consists of the construction of a 149-unit single-family home subdivision to be located off Marlborough Road in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were obtained from the TIA prepared for the development4 and assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. • Proposed Tri-City Sales Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts. This project consists of the redevelopment of the Tri-City Sales property located at 272 Highland Avenue (situated in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road) in Salem, Massachusetts. The redevelopment will entail relocating the existing businesses from a 15,054 sf building to a new 10,400 sf building and the construction of a new 12,900 sf CVS Pharmacy with a two lane drive-through service facility. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were obtained both from the TIAS prepared for the developments and using trip-generation statistics published by the ITE, and were assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. • • Witch Hill Residential Subdivision, Salem, Massachusetts. This project consists of the construction of 28 single-family homes to be located off Mooney Road in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were obtained from the TIA prepared for the development6 and assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. • Chapel Hill Residential Subdivision, Salem, Massachusetts. This project consists of the construction of 26 single-family homes off Clark Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were obtained from the TIA prepared for the development7 and assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. • Proposed 469 Highland Avenue Office Building, Salem,Massachusetts. This project consists of the construction of a 12,900 sf office building at 469 Highland Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were estimated using trip generation statistics published by the ITE and assigned to the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. 2TraJfc Impacl Assessment, Proposed Commercial Development;Abend Associates;June 13,2006. 3Tiip Generation,Seventh Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers;Washington,DC;2003. 4TrafficAssessment, Osborne Hills Residential Subdivision;Abend Associates;December 10,2004. 57'rafc Impact and Access Study, Proposed Tri-City Redevelopment;VHB;August 2006. • 6Trafc Impacl Assessment, Witch Hill Residential Subdivision;Abend Associates;October 7,2004. 77,raglc Impact Assessment,Chapel Hill Residential Subdivision;Abend Associates;August 21,2006. 0\5212 Satan;MM"nATIAS 070E doc 13 • Citizen's Bank,Salem,Massachusetts. This project is currently under construction and consists • of a 3,500 sf bank with a two lane drive-through service facility located at 276 Highland Avenue (situated in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road) in Salem, Massachusetts. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this project were estimated using trip generation statistics published by the ITE and assigned onto the study area roadway network based on existing travel patterns. No other projects were identified at this time that are expected to impact future traffic volumes within the study area beyond the general background traffic growth rate. General Background Traffic Growth Traffic-volume data compiled by MassHighway from historic traffic counts in the area were reviewed in order to determine general traffic growth trends. Based on a review of this data, it was determined that traffic volumes within the City of Salem have fluctuated over the past several years, ranging from increases of approximately 3.5 percent to decreases of approximately 4.7 percent. On average, historic traffic volumes within the City were found to have remained relatively stable over the past 10 years. In order to account for future traffic growth and presently unforeseen development within the study area, a 1.0 percent per year compounded annual background traffic growth rate was used. Planned Roadwav Improvements MassHighway and the City of Salem were contacted in order to determine if there were any planned roadway improvement projects expected to be completed within the study area. Based on these discussions,the following projects were identified: • • Highland Avenue/Marlborough RoadlTraders Way Intersection Improvements— This project is currently under construction and entails the addition of a right-turn lane on the Highland Avenue northeastbound approach to the intersection and the upgrade/replacement of the traffic signal system. This improvement is expected to be complete in 2008 and, therefore, was included in the 2012 No-Build and Build condition analyses. • Route 107 Traffic Signal System Improvements (7 Locations) — This project is being undertaken by MassHighway and is in the final stages of design, and entails traffic signal system improvements at seven signalized intersections along Route 107, including the intersections of Route 107 at Marlborough Road and Traders Way and Route 107 at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue. The improvements at these two intersections include the installation of new traffic signal equipment; replacement of pavement markings; traffic signal coordination; and the implementation of optimal timing and phasing plans. These improvements are expected to be completed within the five-year planning horizon of this study and,therefore,were included in tite 2012 No-Build and Build condition analyses. No other roadway improvement projects aside from routine maintenance activities were identified to be planned within the study area at this time. • G'X5212 S.k .MA\Rgr nlnA$0308.da 14 • No-Build Traffic Volumes The 2012 No-Build condition peak-hour traffic-volume networks were developed by applying the 1.0 percent per year compounded amoral background traffic growth rate to the 2007 Existing peak-hour traffic volumes and then superimposing the peak hour traffic volumes associated with the identified specific development projects by others. The resulting 2012 No-Build condition weekday morning and evening peak-hour traffic-volume networks are shown on Figure 6. PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC Design year (2012 Build) traffic volumes for the study area roadways were determined by estimating project-generated traffic volumes and assigning these volumes on the study roadways. The following sections describe the procedures used to develop the Build condition traffic-volume networks. Methodology The proposed project will entail the expansion of the existing Northside Carting Transfer Station to expand its operating capacity from 100 tons of material per day to 400 tons per day. Based on information provided by Northside Carting,the proposed expansion is expected to result in an additional 54 vehicle trips (27 entering and 27 exiting) on an average weekday over existing conditions, with 6 additional vehicle trips (3 entering and 3 exiting) during both the weekday morning and everting peak hours. The majority of these trips will be truck trips and of the same composition (type and size)as those currently servicing the facility. Table 4 summarizes the traffic characteristics of the site, both at present • and at the completion of the proposed expansion. Table 4 TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY Vehicle Trips Existing Proposed Time Period/Direction Transfer Station Expansion Total Trips Avenge Weekday Daily 140` 54 194 Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 9 3 12 Exiting 11 3 14 Total 20 6 26 Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 7 3 10 Exitine 7 3 10 Total 14 6 20 "Based on driveway counts performed in November 2007. 'Based on information provided by Northside Carting. `Estimated. i • G\5212 SOM,MAW pMATIAS 0308.doe 15 'Ln i77..h uu ns�n mL:,sa coa 11 u,d...N.w r.w is•✓/.w:xls.,Ypl tl1. .N!tn1+l n11•,r..,Yulwm.!/6:aanw huawr, e ROgo°��y 107 ✓Jolo h��rym /tq�F,ps P 0 L6 •yM^ --0 DIPIETRO I AVENUE lam. teo SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SITE e�'^shy in u �0n Out 17 Bit Total 20 eem'x1 :roxt: qq�S �Oqo°icy 107 • ryh ✓^/a�A9 7 ��hyn kq�F h gt'PS P� 'lL(�ry CPIETRO 1 AVENUE ^xSlC�j+ !`}JJo SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SITE I7 Out 7 y� Tato1 14 Note: Imbalances exist due to numerous curb cuts and side streets that are not shown, ri Not To Scale Figure 6 0AV1 :e & Assiael 2012 No-Build Transportation Enginec-.rs & Planners Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • R:\5212\5212atDA" u/m/2557 1x31:47 p m c.pylRhl 0 2007 by VAL 91 RIOU R@"a . • As can be seen in Table 4, at the completion of the proposed expansion, the site is expected to generate approximately 194 vehicle trips (97 entering and 97 exiting) on an average weekday, with 26 vehicle trips (12 entering and 14 exiting) during the weekday morning peak hour mid 20 vehicle trips (10 entering and 10 exiting)during the weekday evening peak hour. Trio Distribution and Assienment The directional distribution of generated trips to and from the proposed the proposed project are expected to follow the same general pattern as the vehicles servicing the existing facility. The general trip distribution for the project is summarized in Table 5 and graphically depicted on Figure 7. The additional traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project was assigned on the study area roadway network as shown on Figure 8 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Table 5 TRIP-DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY To/From Site Roadway Direction (Percent) Highland Avenue Northeast 40 Highland Avenue Southwest 40 Swampscott Road Southeast 20 • TOTAL 100 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES—BUILD CONDITION The 2012 Build condition traffic-volume networks consist of the 2012 No-Build traffic volume networks with the anticipated project-generated traffic added to them. The 2012 Build condition weekday morning and evening peak-hour traffic-volume networks are graphically depicted on Figure 9. A summary of peak-hour projected traffic-volume increases external to the immediate study area that is the subject of this assessment is shown in Table 6. These volumes are based on the expected increases from the proposed expansion. 015111 SOM.MAUicpW VJ1AS 0008.dm 16 ...r.,..i__r.� ..ur. .v.._s...a.. _a,. .d•, .\..m .1/Inoanrhugall; Legend: XX Entering Trips • CA Exiting Trips 40% R�ooZcy 107 �k L �q�F,pS 1"2 P q e4 DIPIETRO { f AVENUE //400/ � SWAMPSCOTT ROAD TE 20% %A� a' ss l�ssc eax& lr Trip Distribution Map ITransportation Engineers & Planners • . R\6212\521201.ftj 12/4/2007 1:M'U N est Ca ye*k 0200]by VM M w2nb Xa� 'W 1lllal 1w � u1eAu1.>,17w 1u Lu,ulnadW.n m.l'prt]R,dor.A,unuollne..I]ala�n.Idlonw4lnmAu: ' Legend: 'O p, 107 • XX Entering Trips WQ Exiting Trips 90 ,2JT" P DIPIETRO AVENUE K SWAMPSCOTT SITE ROAD `, In 3 `�, ~� Out 3 Total 6 ti 'EPS • �Oqo°�Cy 107 1� q0 P DIPIETRO ` AVENUE O � SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SITE 21 .� In 3 � out 3 1 Total 6 Not To Scale Figure 8 1 • Project Generated Transportation Engineers% Planners Peak Hour Traffic Volumes IC\SII2]52lWIQd" 11/4/7007 I:MW N EST a*Aht©2007 by VA AS RIghW Ra.n 9.rrPllr.1 arteuu,dn..a�.�YrurY L.euea Rr✓1.niu�1'a.�LavU,�.Wm,r,uaAr,�...�YnIRa,.liLwanehuahnr �oqa� 107 Cy ^�Ao • ✓k�fo •J?ut r~?? pv �'Oryo� WgOF,ps �a P 1�e � D O `00 AVENUE v ori• .nJeo ^g ^ SWAMPSCOTT 4_ ROAD SITEIn 12 Out 14 Si 64�A Total 26 rybl* t r0 RYo�R 107 gQ�Cy ry,15° • 1 e ~7 �c^ P 1^�ye0 �L-t2j DIPIETRO (�A C1 AVENUE �G�yP2 ^ry SWAMPSCOTT d ROAD SITEin Out 10 Total 20 ft ry�ry Note: Imbalances exist due to numerous curb cuts and side streets that are not shown. i % eNfiffia ° mKoyampm =2 Build Al Transportation Engineers& Planners Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • R:\uts\serano.a.y rz/4/2m7 ntsss PY rs7 C*vl0t 0 2007 by VM M ROU Rft n . • Table 6 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC-VOLUME INCREASES Volume Percent Increase Increase 2007 2012 2012 Over Over Location/Peak Hour Existing No-Build Build No-Build No-Build . Highland Avenue,northeast of Marlborough Road .. Weekday Mooing 1,799 1,988 1,990 2 0.1 Weekday Evening 2,019 2,322 2,324 2 0.1 Highland Avenue,sou6nvest o(Sivampscou Road Weekday Mooing 2,175 2,417 2,419 2 0.1 Weekday Evening 2,402 2,780 2,782 2 0.1 Swampscott Road,southeast of the Project Site Weekday Morning 907 972 974 2 0.2 Weekday Evening 999 1,103 1,105 2 0.2 Marlborough Road,northwest of Highland Avenue Weekday Mooing 1,467 1,645 1,645 0 0.0 Weekday Evening 1,710 2,033 2,033 0 0.0 As shown in Table 6,peak-hour traffic-volume increases external to the immediate study area are anticipated to range from 0.0 to 0.2 percent,with vehicle increases ranging from 0 to 2 vehicles. • G:15212 Sabo,MA%eponATIA$WOS daa 17 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS • Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To assess quality of flow, roadway capacity and vehicle queue analyses were conducted under Existing, No-Build and Build traffic-volume conditions. Capacity analyses provide an indication of how well the roadway facilities serve the traffic demands placed upon them, with vehicle queue analyses providing a secondary measure of the operational characteristics of an intersection or section of roadway under study. METHODOLOGY Levels of Service • A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level-of-service to traffic facilities under various traffic-flow conditionss. 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. Unsienalized 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. $The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; • Transportation Research Board;Washington,DC;2000. GA5212 S.10q M*R""IMAS 0308.d. 18 • • LOS represents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic. • LOS represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic. • LOSE 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 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.9 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 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 7 summarizes the relationship between level of service and average control delay. Table 7 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS' • Average Control Delay Level of Service (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F >50.0 'Source: Highway Capacity Manual;Transportation Research Board;Washington,DC;2000;page 17-2. Sienalized Intersections The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows: • LOSA 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. • 9Highway Capacity Manual;Transportation Research Board;Washington,DC;2000. GA5212 S.I..MffiRq ns\71AS_0708.Me 19 • 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 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. This method assesses the effects of signal type,timing,phasing, and progression; vehicle mix; and geometries 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 consumption, and includes initial deceleration delay approaching the traffic signal, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Table 8 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 8 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA 40 FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa Control(Signal) Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle(Seconds) A <10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F >80.0 'Source:Highway Capacity Manual;Transportation Research Board; Washington,DC;2000;page I6-2. Vehicle Oueue Analvsis Vehicle queue analyses are a direct measurement of an intersection's ability to process vehicles under various traffic control and volume scenarios and lane use arrangements. The vehicle queue analysis was performed using the Synchro® intersection capacity analysis software which is also based upon the methodology and procedures presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro© vehicle queue analysis methodology is a simulation based model which reports the number of vehicles that experience a delay of six seconds or more at an intersection. For signalized intersections, Synchro© • reports both the 50'h (median) and 95°i percentile queues. For unsignalized intersections, Synchro© G:13212 S&n,MAVieponATIAS 0108 doe 20 • reports the 95"'percentile vehicle queue length which is a function of the capacity of the movement under study and the volume of traffic being processed by the intersection during the analysis period. The 950'percentile vehicle queue is the vehicle queue length that will be exceeded only five percent of the time, or approximately three minutes out of sixty minutes during the peak one hour of the day(during the remaining fifty-seven minutes, the vehicle queue length will be less than the 95'h percentile queue length). ANALYSIS RESULTS Level-of-service and vehicle queue analyses were conducted for 2007 Existing, 2012 No-Build, and 2012 Build conditions for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection capacity and vehicle queue analyses are summarized for unsignalized and signalized intersections in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. The detailed analysis results are presented in the Appendix. The following is a summary of the level-of-service and vehicle queue analyses for the intersections within the study area. Unsienalized Intersection Swampscott Road at the South Site Driveway Under 2007 Existing, 2012 No-Build, and 2012 Build conditions, the critical movements at this unsignalized intersection (all movements from the south site driveway)were shown to operate at LOS B during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS C during the weekday evening peak hour. Vehicle • queues at the intersection were shown to be negligible during the peak periods. All movements along Swampscott Road were shown to operate at LOS A under all analysis conditions. Swampscott Road at the North Site Driveway Under 2012 Build conditions, the critical movements at this unsignalized intersection (all movements from the north site driveway) were shown to operate at LOS C during both the weekday morning and evening peak hoes. Vehicle queues at the intersection were shown to be negligible during the peak periods. All movements aloe Swampscott during p g S ai pscott Road were shown to operate at LOS A dunnl, the peak period under all analysis conditions. Signalized Intersections Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way Under 2007 Existing conditions, this signalized intersection was shown to operate at an overall LOS E during both die weekday morning and evening peak horns. Under 2012 No-Build and 2012 Build conditions, with the planned geometric and traffic control improvements beine undertaken by Massliiehwav, overall operating conditions were shown to remain at LOS E during the weekday morning peak hour and to degrade to LOS F during the weekday evening peak Hour as a result of traffic volume increases independent of the proposed project. Vehicle queues at the intersection were shown to range from 0 to 31 vehicles during the peak periods. The proposed project was not shown to result in a significant increase in vehicle queues at the intersection over No Build conditions (0 to 1 vehicle during the peak periods). • G.15313 SAW%hMkgW AT1AS 03N doc 21 Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue • Under 2007 Existing conditions, this signalized intersection was shown to operate at an overall LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS D during the weekday evening peak hour. Under 2012 No-Build and 2012 Build conditions, with the olanned traffic control imorovements beine undertaken by MassHiehwav, overall operating conditions were shown to remain at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour and to degrade to LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour as a result of traffic volume increases independent of the proposed project. Vehicle queues at the intersection were shown to range from 0 to 31 vehicles during the peak periods. The proposed project was not shown to result in a significant increase in vehicle queues at the intersection over No-Build conditions (0 to l vehicle during the peak periods). • GA5212 S.1m.MAWeponATIA$0308.da 22 0 0 0 Table 9 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY 2007 Existing 2012 No-Build 2012 Build Quaea Queue Queue Unsignalized lntersmion/Peak Hour/Movement Demand' Delayb LOS` 951h Demand Delay LAS 951° Demand Delay LOS 95t. Swampscott Road at the Sourly Site Driveway Weekday Morning: Swampscott Road SEB TWRT 447 0.0 A 0 479 0.0 A 0 485 0.0 A 0 Swampscott Road NWB LT/TH 456 0.2 A 0 489 0.1 A 0 490 0.2 A 0 South Site Driveway NEB LT/RT 13 133 B 0 11 13.9 B 0 7 14.0 B 0 Weekday Evening: Swampscott Road SEB T WRT 614 0.0 A 0 669 0.0 A 0 674 0.0 A 0 Swampscott Road NWB LT/rH 382 0.2 A 0 431 0.2 A 0 432 0.2 A 0 South Site Driveway NEB LT/RT 7 15.1 C 0 7 16.4 C 0 5 17.5 C 0 Slvampscoa Road at tire North Site Driveway Weekday Morning: Swampscott Road SEB TH/RT -- — — -- — -- — -- 481 0.0 A 0 Swampscott Road NWB LT/TH -- -- — -- — — — — 486 0.0 A 0 North Site Driveway NEB LT/RT — -- — -- — — — — 7 15.1 C 0 Weekday Evening: Swampscott Road SEB TWRT — — -- — -• — -- — 621 0.0 A 0 Swampscott Road NWB LT/rH — — -- — -- — -- — 428 0.0 A 0 North Site Driveway NEB LT/RT — — -- — -- — -- — 5 17.3 C 0 'Demand in vehicles per hour. bAV-age control delay per vehicle(in seconds). el.evelo€Service. Queue length in vehicles. NEB=northeastbound;SEB=southeastbound;NWB=northwestbound;LT=left-turning movements;TH=through movements;RT=right-turning movements. G M12 Salem NA\tcp TIAS 0308.4. 23 Table 10 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY 2007 Existing 2012 No-Build 2012 Build Queued Queue Queue Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement %,/c Delay° Lose 506/95" V/C Delay LOS 50'"195'" V/C Delay LOS 5^9P fIIghland Avenue at Marlboraugh Road and Traders Way Weekday Morning: Marlborough Road SEB LT/TH 0.86 72.5 E 10/15 1.02 >80.0 F 9/16 1.02 >80.0 F 9116 Marlborough Road SEB RT 0.57 27.7 C 9/14 0.59 18A B 7/12 0.59 18.4 B 7/12 Traders Way NWB LT 0.54 55.9 E 3/6 0.56 43.8 D 3/5 0.56 43.8 D 315 Traders Way NWB LT/TH 1 A >80.0 F 1520 1.48 >80.0 F 12/17 1.48 >80.0 F 12117 Traders Way NWB RT 0.05 0.1 A 0/0 0.05 0.1 A 0/0 0.05 0.1 A 010 Highland Avenue NEB LT 1.20 >80.0 F 22/31 1.10 >80.0 F 16/7` 1.10 >80.0 F 16/7` Highland Avenue NEB TH -- - •• -- 0.58 8.2 A 4/3` 0.58 8.2 A 4/3` Highland Avenue NEB TH/RT 0.92 54.7 D 1823 - -- - - -- - -- - Highland Avenue NEB RT - - -- -- 0.14 2.7 A 0/0° 0.14 2.7 A 0/0' Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.20 41.3 D 214 0.76 69.4 E 2/5 0.76 69.4 E 2/5 Highland Avenue SWB TH 0.65 39.0 D 12/14 1.02 74.2 E 11115 1.02 74.8 E 12115 Highland Avenue SWB RT 0.11 30.8 C 12 0.12 31.2 C 02 0.12 31.2 C 0/2 Overall 1.05 783 E -- 1.12 63.9 E - 1.12 64.1 E - Weekday Evening: Marlborough Road SEB LTfFH 0.98 >80.0 F 1221 1.33 >80.0 F 1624 1.33 >80.0 F 1624 Marlborough Road SEB RT 0.76 32.8 C 16/23 0.81 29.2 C 1522 0.81 29.2 C 1522 Traders Way NWB LT 1.11 >80.0 F 9116 1.10 >80.0 F 8114 1.10 >80.0 F 8/14 Traders Way NWB LT/TH 1.06 >80.0 F 9116 1.09 >80.0 F 9115 1.09 >80.0 F 9/15 Traders Way NWB RT 0.06 0.1 A 010 0.07 0.1 A 0/0 0.07 0.1 A 010 Highland Avenue NEB LT 1.13 >90.0 F 1929 1.13 >80.0 F 1920` 1.13 >80.0 F 19200 Highland Avenue NEB TH - - - - 0.51 20A C 10/100 0.51 20.3 C 101100 Highland Avenue NEB TH/RT 0.88 51.6 D 16/19 -- - -- -- -- •- - - Highland Avenue NEB RT - -- - - 0.18 65.6 E 313` 0.18 65.5 E 3/3` Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.32 43.4 D 4/7 0.87 >80.0 F 4/9 0.87 >80.0 F 4/9 Highland Avenue SWB TH 0.82 46.6 D 15/18 1.19 >90.0 F 18123 1.20 >80.0 F 1824 Highland Avenue SWB RT 0.24 34.0 C 214 0.36 37.9 D 2/6 0.36 37.9 D 2/6 Overall 1.00 68.0 E -- 1.19 >80.0 F - 1.19 >80.0 F - See notes at end of table. G.W 13 24 • 0 0 0 0 0 Table 10(Continued) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY 2007 Existing 2012 No-Build 2012 Build Queued Queue Queue Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement V/V Delay° LOS` 501°!950 V/C Delay LOS 501h/951h V/C Delay LOS 501°/95'" AigaiandAvenne at Svampswtr Road and DiPieno Avemre Weekday Morning: DiPietro Avenue WE LT/RT 0.01 50.0 D 0/0 0.01 48.5 D 0/0 0.01 48.5 D 0/0 Swampscott Road NWB LT 0.44 33.3 C 4/7 0.49 33.1 C 4/7 0.50 33.2 C 4/7 Swampscott Road NV3 RT 0.91 62.8 E 8/16 0.98 78.7 E 10/17 0.98 79.4 E 10/17 Highland Avenue NEB TH 1.26 >80.0 F 21/31 1.33 >80.0 F 24/30 1.33 >80.0 F 24/30 Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.18 27.6 C 1/3 0.18 26.5 C 1/3 0.18 26.6 C t/3 Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.95 71.1 E 9/18 0.91 39.1 D 7/15` 0.91 39.3 D 7/15` Highland Avenue SVkB TH 0.44 12.7 B 6/10 0.46 7.5 A 2/120 0.46 7.5 A 2/120 Overall 1.03 >80.0 F - 1.07 >80.0 F - 1.07 >80.0 F - Weekday Evening: DiPietm Avenue WE LT/RT 0.19 54.5 D 0/1 0.28 59.2 E 0/1 0.28 59.2 E 0/1 Swampscott Road NWB LT 0.36 343 C 3/6 0.58 43.7 D 5/7 0.29 43.8 D 5/7 Swampscott Road NWB RT 0.99 >80.0 F 10/19 1.48 >80.0 F 17/22 1.48 >80.0 F 17/23 Highland Avenue NEB TH 1.03 75.1 E 1527 0.96 51.3 D 17/24 0.96 51.8 D 1724 Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.18 28.4 C 1/4 0.16 24.0 C 1/3 0.17 24.1 C 1/3 Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.90 60.1 E 10/17 0.86 49.5 D 11/110 0.86 49.4 D H/110 Highland Avenue SWB TH 0.58 13.7 B 9/14 0.57 6.0 A 6/6` 0.57 6.0 A 6/6` Overall 0.97 47.8 D - 1.03 57.6 E - 1.03 57.9 E - 'Volume-to-capacity ratio. °Control(signal)delay per vehicle in seconds. `Level-ofService. 'Queue length in vehicles. `95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. NEB=northeastbound;SEB=southeastbound;NWB=norti westbound;SWB=southwesthound;LT-left-tuming movements;TH-through movements:RT-right-turning movements. 0.\5212 Salm M.4Ylcpom1nAs oa0s dm 25 SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION Sight distance measurements were performed at the site driveway intersections with Swampscott Road in accordance with MassHighway and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)10 standards. Both stopping sight distance (SSD) and intersection sight distance (ISD) measurements were performed. In brief, SSD is the distance required by a vehicle traveling at the design speed of a roadway,on wet pavement,to stop prior to striking an object in its travel path. ISD or corner sight distance (CSD) is the sight distance required by a driver entering or crossing an intersecting roadway to perceive an on-coming vehicle and safely complete a turning or crossing maneuver with on-coming traffic. In accordance with AASHTO and MassHighway standards,at a minimum, sufficient SSD must be provided at an intersection. Table 11 presents the measured sight lines at the subject intersections. • i I 101bid 1. , cvziz Sana,.MAV.wnsnns 0108 e« 26 • Table 11 SIGHT DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS Required Minimum Measured Intersection/Sight Distance Measurement (Feely (Peet) Swartipscott Road(it the North Site Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Swampscott Road approaching from the northwest 305 438 Swampscott Road approaching from the southeast 305 500+ Intersection Sight Distance: Looking to the northwest from the north site driveway 305 488" Looking to the southeast from the north site driveway 305 500+1 Swampscott Road at the South Site Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Swampscott Road approaching from the northwest 305 500+ Swampscott Road approaching from the southeast 305 500+ Intersection Sight Distance: Looking to the northwest from the south site driveway 305 131/500+b Looking to the southeast from the south site driveway 305 162/500+b 'Recommended minimum values obtained from A Policy on Geometric Design of Hrghwaysand Streets,Pah Edition;American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 2004, and based on a 40 mph approach speed on Swampscott Road. bWith removal/relocation of the existing fence located along tine southwest side of Swampscott Road and north and south of the south site driveway. As can be seen in Table 11, the treasured sight lines approaching the site driveway intersections along Swampscott Road (SSD) and for motorists exiting the site (ISD) currently meet, exceed or can be made to meet or exceed the recommended minimum sight distance requirements for a 40 mph approach speed, consistent with the measured 851i percentile vehicle travel speed along Swampscott Road. QW2 Salam,MAUttyonAT1Aa_03N.doe 27 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS The proposed transfer station expansion is expected to result in an additional 54 vehicle trips on an average weekday (27 entering and 27 exiting), with 6 additional vehicle trips (3 entering and 3 exiting) during both the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Such increases over the course of a one-hour period during the peak hours would not be readily apparent on the roadway network over existing conditions and would not materially impact the flow of traffic along the roadway network from current or projected future conditions without the project. An analysis of traffic operations at the study area intersections indicates that the proposed project will • not result in a significant change in motorist delays or vehicle queuing at the study intersections over anticipated future conditions without the project (No-Build conditions). All movements at the site driveway intersections with Swampscott Road were shown to operate at a level-of-service (LOS) C or better during the peak periods,with negligible vehicle queuing. RECOMMENDATIONS A detailed transportation improvement program has been developed for the proposed project that is designed to provide safe and efficient access to the site while minimizing impacts to motorists traveling along adjacent roadways and address any deficiencies identified at off-site locations evaluated in conjunction with this study. The following improvements have been recommended as a part of this evaluation and will be completed in conjunction with the project subject to receipt of the necessary approvals. Site Access Access the project will be provided by way of two driveways: the southern driveway will be situated at the location of the existing driveway serving the site and will accommodate full access to the project; the northern driveway(proposed)will be situated approximately 200 feet south of the northern property line and will function as a one-way, exit-only facility. It is recommended that the north site driveway be a minimum of 16-feet in width and that appropriate signs and pavement marking be provided indicating the function of the driveway as a one-way, exit-only facility. The south site driveway should be a minimum of 24-feet in width. Vehicles exiting the site should be placed under STOP-sign control, with any signs or landscape features located, designed and maintained so as not to restrict lines of sight to or from the • site driveways. In addition, it is recommended that the existing fence located along the project frontage cAsux sem%MAMkq.nnnns oaos.da 28 • on Swampscott Road be relocated within the site in order to provide the required lines of sight to and from the site driveways. Further, it is suggested that"Trucks Entering Ahead"warning signs be installed on Swampscott Road approaching the site (both directions) in order to inform motorists of the potential for slower moving traffic to be entering the roadway. Off Site Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way Overall operating conditions at the signalized intersection of Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way were found to be at capacity (LOS E) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under 2007 Existing conditions. Under 2012 No-Build conditions, with the completion of the intersection and traffic signal improvements by MassHighway, overall operating conditions were shown to remain at capacity during the weekday morning peak hour and to be over capacity(LOS F)during the weekday evening peak hour as a result of traffic volume increases independent of the proposed project. In order to improve operating conditions at this intersection, it is recommended that the proposed timing, phasing, and coordination plan to be implemented by MassHighway be reviewed and refined/adjusted as necessary to achieve optimal operating conditions at this location. This review will be undertaken by the project proponent within one-year of the expansion of the transfer station and will include an updated evaluation of the motor vehicle crash history at the intersection. The results of the review and the associated findings and recommendations will be provided to the City and MassHighway. As can be seen in Table 12, with the implementation of a refined traffic signal timing, phasing, and coordination plan, overall operating conditions were shown to improve (lower volume-to-capacity ratios) over 2012 No-Build conditions under 2012 Build with Mitigation conditions. . Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue Overall operating conditions at the signalized intersection of Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue were found to be over capacity (LOS F) during the weekday morning peak hour under 2007 Existing conditions. Under 2012 No-Build conditions, with the completion of the traffic control improvements by MassHighway, overall operating conditions were shown to remain over capacity during the weekday morning peak hour and to operate at capacity (LOS E) during the weekday evening peak hour as a result of traffic volume increases independent of the proposed project. In order to improve operating conditions at this intersection,the following recommendations are offered: I. Restripe the Swampscott Road norlhwestbound approach to convert the existing left-turn lane to an optional left/right-turn lane in order to accommodate the predominant turning movement at the intersection(right-turn movements)and reduce both motorist delays and vehicle queuing;and 2. Refine/adjust as necessary the traffic signal timing, phasing, and coordination plan to be implemented by MassHighway. As can be seen in Table 12, with the implementation of the recommended improvements, overall operating conditions were shown to improve to LOS E during the weekday morning peak hour and to LOS D during the weekday evening peak hour under 2012 Build with Mitigation conditions. Independent of the proposed project, it is recommended that double-yellow centerline pavement markings be provided along DiPietro Avenue, for a minimum distance of 100 feet in advance of the intersection in order to separate the directions of travel approaching and departing the intersection. • GA5212 Salem MAVk"rlATJAs mos.dM 29 With implementation of the above recommendations, safe and efficient access will be provided to the • planned development and the proposed project can be constructed with minimal impact on the roadway system. • • G.W12 Sebm,MA\Rq.MATIAS_0309 do 30 0 r 0 Table 12 MITIGATED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY 2012 No-Build 2012 Build 2012 Build with Mitigation Queued Queue Queue Signalized IntersectionlPeak Hour/Movement V/C' Delayb LOS` 506/95t° V/C Delay LOS 50'^W Vic Delay LOS 50'"/95d' Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way Weekday Morning: Marlborough Road SEB LTITH 1.02 >80.0 F 9/16 1.02 >80.0 F 9/16 1.12 >80.0 F 11118 Marlborough Road SEB RT 0.59 18.4 B 7/12 0.59 18.4 B 7112 0.58 21.7 C 7112 Traders Way NWB LT 0.56 43.8 D 3/5 0.56 43.8 D 3/5 0.44 42.6 D 3/5 Traders Way NWS LT/TH 1.48 >80.0 F 12117 1.48 >80.0 F 12117 1.15 >80.0 F 11/16 !I Traders Way NWB RT 0.05 0.1 A 010 0.05 0.1 A 0/0 0.05 0.1 A 0/0 Highland Avenue NEB LT 1.10 >80.0 F 16/7` 1.10 >80.0 F 16/7` 1.13 >80.0 F 18/17` Highland Avenue NEB TH 0.58 8.2 A 4/3° 0.58 82 A 4/3` 0.59 8.8 A 8/9` Highland Avenue NEB THRLT - -- - •• -- - - - - - - -' Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.14 2.7 A 010` 0.14 2.7 A 0/0` 0.14 15.9 B I/1` Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.76 69.4 E 215 0.76 69.4 E 215 0.68 61.0 E 314 Highland Avenue SWB TH 1.02 74.2 E 11/15 1.02 74.8 E 12115 0.99 71.0 E 12/16 Highland Avenue SWB RT 0.12 31.2 C 02 012 31.2 C 02 0.15 34.1 C 1/3 Overall 1.12 63.9 E - 1.12 64.1 E - 1.09 58.0 E - Weekday Evening: Marlborough Road SEB LTI TH 1.33 >80.0 F 1624 1.33 >80.0 F 1624 1.20 >80.0 F 1624 Marlborough Road SEB RT 0.81 29.2 C 15/22 0.81 29.2 C 1522 0.83 33.4 C 1725 Traders Way NWB LT 1.10 >80.0 F 8/14 1.10 >80.0 F 8/14 1.20 >80.0 F 9/16 Traders Way NWB LTfFH 1.09 >80.0 F 9/15 1.09 >80.0 F 9/15 1.19 >80.0 F 10/17 Traders Way NWB RT 0.07 0.1 A 0/0 0.07 0.1 A 0/0 0.07 0.1 A 0/0 Highland Avenue NEB LT 1.13 >80.0 F 1920` 1.13 >80.0 F 1920` 1.24 >80.0 F 22125` Highland Avenue NEB TH 0.51 20.4 C 10/10` 0.51 20.3 C 10/100 0.53 11.8 B 9/10` Highland Avenue NEB TH/RT - - - Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.18 65.6 E 31Y 0.18 65.5 E 3/3° 0.18 34.4 C 213` Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.87 >80.0 F 419 0.87 >90.0 F 4/9 0.70 60.7 E 4/7 Highland Avenue SWB TH 1.19 >90.0 F 1823 1.20 >80.0 F 1824 1.06 >80.0 F 1823 Highland Avenue SWB RT 0.36 37.9 D 2/6 0.36 37.9 D 2/6 0.35 38.0 D 2/6 Overall 1.19 >80.0 F - 1.19 >80.0 F -- 1.17 >80.0 F -- See notes at end of table. 0 M12 sewn atnvicepo MAS 0308 d= 31 Table 12(Continued) MITIGATED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY 2012 No-Build 2012 Build 2012 Build with Mitigation Queued Queue Queue Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement V/C' Delayb LOSC 5011/950' Vic Delay LOS 500'/95A V/C Delay LOS 506/950 HighfandAvenue at SwampscollRoad and Dineao Avenue Weekday Morning: DiPietro Avenue WB LT/RT 0.01 48.5 D 0/0 0.01 48.5 D 0/0 0.01 53.5 D 0/0 Swampscott Road NWB LT 0.49 33.1 C 417 0.50 33.2 C 4/7 0.94 79.9 E 8/15 Swampscott Road NWB RT 0.98 78.7 E 10/17 0.98 79.4 E 10/17 0.91 74.0 E 8/15 Highland Avenue NEB TH 1.33 >80.0 F 24/30 1.33 >80.0 F 24/30 1.15 >80.0 F 25/30 Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.18 26.5 C 1/3 0.18 26.6 C 113 0.17 25.2 C I/3 Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.91 39.1 D 7/15` 0.91 39.3 D 7/15* 0.86 31.2 C 5/15` Highland Avenue SWB TH 0.46 7.5 A 2/12* 0.46 7.5 A 2/12` 0.42 5.2 A 2/66 Overall 1.07 >80.0 F - 1.07 >80.0 F -- 0.99 63.5 E - Weekday Evening: DiPietro Avenue WB LT/RT 028 59.2 E 0/1 029 592 E 0/1 0.28 642 E 0/1 Swampscott Road NWB LT 0.58 43.7 D 5/7 029 43.8 D 5/7 0.93 78.4 E 10/15 Swampscott Road NWB RT 1.48 >80.0 F 1722 148 >80.0 F 1723 0.96 >80.0 F 10115 Highland Avenue NEBTH 0.96 51.3 D 1724 0.96 51.8 D 1724 0.99 61.9 E 2026 Highland Avenue NEB RT 0.16 24.0 C 1/3 0.17 24.1 C 1/3 0.18 27.2 C 1/4 Highland Avenue SWB LT 0.86 49.5 D I ill V 0.86 49.4 D 11/11* 0.85 30.9 C 8/13e Highland Avenue SWB TH 0.57 6.0 A 6/66 0.57 6.0 A 6166 0.57 6.9 A 4/15` Overall 1.03 57.6 E -- 1.03 57.9 E - 0.93 40.1 D - 'Volume-to-capacity ratio. bControl(signal)delay per vehicle in seconds. Revel-of-Service. °Queue length in vehicles. 695th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. NEB=northeastbound;SEB=southeastbound;NWB=northwestboundi SWB=southwestbound;LT=left-tuming movcmenis;TH=through movements;RT=right-turning movements. G.M13 Silva MA1ltepom\TIAS 0305.4oe 32 APPENDIX AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS • SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT DATA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION MASSHIGHWAY CRASH RATE WORKSHEETS SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC-VOLUME NETWORKS GENERAL BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • AU'T'OMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS • • • Page 1 Accurate Counts Location : Swampscott Road North of 978.664-2565 Location First Street City/State: Salem, MA 52120001 Counter 18140 Site Code: 52120001 Start 03-Oct-07 SB Hour Totals NB Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Momina Afternoon Mornino Afternoon Mornino Afternoon Mornina Afternoon 12:00 6 102 5 101 12:15 10 98 3 98 12:30 7 106 2 79 12:45 3 116 26 422 1 116 11 394 37 816 01:00 3 109 3 88 01:15 2 100 1 83 01:30 5 87 2 99 01:45 1 109 11 405 1 88 7 358 18 763 02:00 1 110 2 98 02:15 1 110 4 112 02:30 4 130 0 116 02:45 0 126 6 476 3 106 9 432 15 908 03:00 2 111 2 117 03:15 1 125 2 104 03:30 3 146 4 91 03:45 0 111 6 493 1 124 9 436 15 929 04:00 3 115 4 87 04:15 1 135 4 103 04:30 2 161 4 95 04:45 13 135 19 546 8 113 20 396 39 944 05:00 9 144 9 103 05:15 24 151 11 119 05:30 29 165 22 84 05:45 48 157 110 617 30 76 72 382 182 999 06:00 50 134 39 95 • 06:15 26 12 68 75 06:30 37 1244 72 68 06:45 50 110 163 497 77 81 256 319 419 816 07:00 72 87 97 61 07:15 85 71 95 62 07:30 100 85 114 42 07:45 116 54 373 297 124 50 430 215 803 512 08:00 111 58 123 '49 08:15 117 67 126 41 08:30 108 49 98 23 08:45 115 58 451 232 109 22 456 135 907 367 09:00 110 33 96 26 09:15 80 47 117 25 09:30 103 45 117 28 09:45 88 27 381 152 100 18 430 97 811 249 10:00 63 27 94 21 10:15 93 26 100 21 10:30 94 29 96 16 10:45 90 27 340 109 107 16 397 74 737 183 11:00 89 15 74 12 11:15 89 23 90 9 11:30 108 21 80 4 11:45 123 16 409 75 96 5 340 30 _ 749 105 Total 2295 4321 2437 3270 4732 7591 Percent 34.7% 65.3% 42.7% 57.3% 38.4% 61.6% Grand 2295 4321 2437 3270 4732 7591 Total Percent 34.7% 65.3% 42.7% 57.3% 38.4% 61.6% ADT Not Calculated • Page 1 Accurate Counts Location Swampscott Road North of 978-664-2565 Location First Street City/State: Salem, MA 52120001 Counter 18140 Site Code: 52120001 Start 01-Oot-07 Tue Wed Thu Fd Sat Sun Week Average Time SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 AM 26 11 ' 26 11 01:00 11 7 • ' 11 7 02:00 6 9 6 9 03:00 6 9 6 9 04:00 19 20 19 20 05:00 110 72 ' ' 110 72 06:00 " 163 256 ` « ` ' ' 163 256 07:00 373 430 • ' ` 373 430 08:00 ' 1 4g1 456 . « . : 451 456 09:00 381 430 • • 381 430 10:00 " 340 397 " 340 397 11:00 409 340 " 409 340 12:00 PM 422 394 422 394 01:00 ' ' 405 358 ' 405 358 02:00 ` 476 432 ' " ` 476 432 03:00 493 436 ' • 493 436 04:00 ' 546 398 546 398 05:00 " ' 677 3 ?] ' ' 617 382 06:00 497 319 497 319 07:00 297 215 297 215 08:00 232 135 232 135 09:00 152 97 ' ` 152 97 10:00 ' ' 109 74 109 74 11:00 ' _ 75 30 75 30 Lane 0 0 0 0 6616 5707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6616 5707 Day 0 0 12323 0 0 0 0 12323 AM 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Peak Vol. 451 456 451 456 PM 17:00 15:00 17:00 15:00 Peak Vol. 617 436 617 436 Comb. 0 0 12323 0 0 0 0 12323 Total AOT Not Calculated • MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS • Accurate Counts • N/S Street: Route 107 File Name :52120002 E/W Street: Traders Way/Marlborough Rd 978-664-25G5 Site Code :52120002 City/State : Salem,MA Start Date : 10/3/2007 Weather : Overcast Page No : 1 Grouns Printed.Cars-Trucks Route 107 Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From F.d From South From West Start Time Left I Thru I Rightft I _Th ._ Right-__Left 1 Thm I Riaht I U-tm Left I Thru I Right In, Tola1 06:00 2 45 10 10 14 5 40 63 15 1 7 12 35 259 06:15 1 48 II 7 21 2 65 71 5 1 12 12 29 285 06:30 3 89 25 9 31 7 82 103 17 0 24 16 70 476 06:45 5 124 27 18 35 4 102 179 21 1 32 24 82 654 Total II 306 73 44 101 18 289 416 58 3 75 64 216 1674 07:00I 6 151 32 18 42 3 99 149 26 0 39 17 87 669 07:15 12 176 31 20 51 14 106 174 24 1 45 28 87 769 07:30 7 152 36 20 57 9 102 196 23 4 31 27 112 776 07:45 13 147 32 18 42 13 123 218 38 3 33 26 101 807 Total ) 38 626 131 76 192 39 430 737 111 8 148 98 387 3021 08:0018 189 33 22 57 11 106 197 SI 2 29 19 112 851 O8.15 19 147 34 27 77 13 124 190 51 1 40 25 98 846 08:30 16 151 25 25 50 15 97 166 52 2 43 33 106 781 OR. 17 146 37 32 45 24 117 154 31 4 29 23 103 762 Total 70 633 129 106 229 70 446 707 185 9 141 100 419 3244 Grand Total 119 1565 333 226 522 127 1165 1860 354 20 364 262 1022 7939 Apprch% 5.9 77.6 16.5 25.8 59.7 14.5 34.3 54.7 10.4 0.6 22.1 15.9 62 Total% 1.5 19.7 4.2 2.8 6.6 1.6 14.7 23.4 4.5 0.3 4.6 3.3 12.9 Cars 109 1503 327 221 512 124 1150 1808 345 19 359 258 982 7717 %Cars 91.6 96 98.2 97.8 98.1 97.6 98.7 97.2 97.5 95 98.6 985 96.1 97.2 Trucks 10 62 6 5 10 3 IS 52 9 1 5 4 40 222 • %Trucks 8.4 4 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.4 1.3 2.8 2.5 5 1.4 1.5 3.9 2.8 Route 107 Traders Way ( Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From Cast From South From West Start Tim; . LeA I jhru I Right I AM,Tom Left I Thru Lfth, LA -Tm,L Left Thm I Right I U-Ira I Am.Tmm Left I Thm I Right I noo.Tmd Ira.T.M Peak I lour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for B M1im intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 13 147 32 192 18 42 13 73 123 218 38 3 382 31 26 101 160 807 08:00 18 189 33 240 22 57 18 97 108 197 51 2 358 29 19 112 160 155 08:15 19 147 34 200 27 77 Il 117 124 190 51 1 366 40 25 98 163 846 08:30 16 151____25 __ 192 25 50 IS 90 97 166 52 2 �3�_43 33_ 106 182 781 Total Volume 66 634 124 824 92 226 59 377 ( 452 771 192 8 1423 145 103 417 665 3289 %Ann.Tmal 8 769 IS 24.4 59.9 15.6 3J.8 542 13.5 0.6 _ 21;8 15.5 62.7 ___2HF .8868 .839 912 .858 .852 .734 .819 .806J.. .911 .884 .923 .667 .931 .843 .780 .931 .913 .9R2 • • Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120002 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 Out In Total 975 824 I JX41 6341 881 Right Thum Left Peak Hour Data T - C� ♦ D �O � Norah IS�--L� PeakHWrBegln98t07.46 1 ��{ m m � Cas r L �b • 4, 1 rk Lett Thor Mort U-tm L�21_-Z17 J_].82L�d1 ® F164-231 ETWI Out In Total Pnulo In7 Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak 1 of I Peak Hour for Each Ap lroach Deeins at: 07:15 08:00 07:30 07:45 10 mins. 12 176 31 219 22 57 18 97 102 196 23 4 325 33 26 101 160 +-15 mins. 7 152 36 195 27 77 13 117 123 218 38 3 382 29 19 112 IGO 1.30 mins. 13 147 32 192 25 50 IS 90 108 197 51 2 358 40 25 98 IGS 445 mins. 18 189 33 240 32 45 24 101 124 190 51 1 366 43 31 10G 182 Total Volume 50 664 132 846 106 229 70 405 457 801 163 10 1431 145 103 417 665 Ne Ann Total 59 78.5 15.6 262 56.5 17.3 31.9 56 11.4 0.7 21.8 15.5 62.7 PHF .694 .878 .917 .881 .828 .744 .729 .865 .921 .919 .799 .625 .937 .843 .780 .931 .913 i Accurate CountsPile Name :52120002 • 978-G64-25G55Site Code :52120002 Stan Date :10/3/2007 Page No :3 Route 107 In-P :07:15 L. 8i6j 1 1321 6891 501 Rlghl Thm left Peak Hour Data Nonh T� y 2 (caro I 1-2 N o a a T ucka 8 4, T r • Len rtlN, w8ht U-0m _,_18J3=rJ In-Peak Hour.07:30 g nulw 1n] 1 • �SSlrmi: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 MStreet: Traders Way/Marlborough Rd 978.664-2565 Site Cade :52120002 City/State : Salem,MA Stan Date : 10/32007 Weather : Overcast Page No : I Grouns P-inled-Cars Route 107 Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From East From South From West I Stan Time -Left,�_. Thru Rieht Left I Thru I Rieht Left I Thru I Rieht I U-mn LeR_�_Thrp Right Int.Total 06:00 2 40 l0 10 14 5 40 59 15 1 7 12 35 250 06:15 1 44 II 7 21 2 63 68 5 1 12 12 29 276 06:30 3 86 25 9 30 7 79 102 17 0 23 16 69 466 06:45 4 11$ 25 18 34 4 101 175 21 1 32 24 78 635 Total 10 288 71 44 99 18 283 404 58 3 74 64 211 1627 07:001 144 32 18 41 3 99 144 26 0 39 17 85 653 07:15 II 166 31 20 50 14 104 167 23 1 45 27 83 742 07:30 6 145 34 20 56 8 101 190 23 4 28 26 107 748 07:45 12 140 31 17 41 12 122 209 36 2 33 26 27 778 Total 34 595 128 75 188 37 426 710 108 7 145 96 372 2921 08:0081 188 33 22 56 18 106 192 49 2 29 19 107 837 08:15 17 143 34 2S 77 13 123 187 48 1 39 25 95 827 08:30 15 148 25 25 47 14 97 164 51 2 43 31 105 767 08:45 17 141 36 30 45 24 115 151 31 4 29 23 92 738 Total 65 620 128 102 225 69 441 694 179 9 140 98 399 3169 Grand Total 109 1503 327 ( 221 $12 124 1150 1808 345 19 359 258 982 7717 Appreh 1 5.6 77.5 16.9 25.8 59.7 14.5 34.6 54,4 10.4 0.G 22.5 16.1 61.4 Total°h IA 19.5 4.2 2.9 6.6 1.6 149 23.4 4.5 0.2 4.7 3.3 12.7 Route 107 Traders Way I Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From East From South From West 1 Stan Time I Left I Than 1 Richt I A.Ta.i Ld I Thru1 Right �nrgt.Ta.i I Left I Thru I Right I U-tm I Am,rs.m Left I Thm I Right I A rwA tui Tost Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak I of I Peak Ilour for E,tire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45 12 140 31 183 17 41 12 70 122 209 36 2 369 33 26 97 156 778 08:00 16 188 33 237 22 56 18 96 106 192 49 2 349 29 19 107 155 837 08:15 17 143 34 194 25 77 13 115 123 187 48 1 359 39 25 95 159 827 08:30 15 148 25 188 25 47 14 86 97 164 51 2 314 43 31 105 179 767 Total Volume 60 619 123 802 89 221 57 367 448 752 184 7 1391 144 101 404 649 3209 Ano.Total 7.5 77.2 15.3 24.3 60.2 15.5 32.2 54.1 13.2 0.5 22.2 15.6 62.2 PHF .882 .823 .904 .846 .890 .718 .792 .798 ()11 .900 .902 .875 .942 .837 .815 .944 .906 .958 • Accurate Counts Pile Name :52120002 • 978-664.2565 Sitc code :52120002 Stan Date : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 Out In Total r,s _ 1 7$31 61$1__601 R' ht Th Lea Peak Hour Data �lJ C ♦ 1 - �0 y �J•J North Z J � G � 0 = —i Peek Hour Begins a107:4a 2U J ra �' �..._._... �' "aZ r�� 00 N 4-1 t r Left Thal_ RIg01 U4M CLlt2 rl'30-11 E�5—a Out In Total Rolan 107 Peak Flour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Flour for Each Approach Poems at: 07:15 08:00 07:30 07:45 +0 mins. II 166 31 208 22 56 18 96 101 190 23 4 318 33 26 97 156 +15 mins. 6 145 34 185 25 77 13 115 122 209 36 2 369 29 19 107 155 +30 mins. 12 140 31 183 25 47 14 86 106 192 49 2 349 39 25 95 159 +45 mins, 16 18@ 33 237 30 45 24 99 123 187 48 1 359 43 31 105 179 Total Volumc 45 639 129 813 102 225 69 396 452 778 156 9 1395 144 101 404 649 %Ann Total 5.5 78.6 15.9 25.8 56.8 17.4 32.4 55.8 11.2 0.6 22.2 15.6 62.2 PHP .703 .850 .949 .858 .850 .731 .719 .861 .919 .931 .796 .563 .945 .837 .815 .944 .906 I • • Accurate Counts 978-664-2565 File Name :52120002 Site Code :52120002 Start Date : 10/3!2007 Page No :3 Route 107 In-Peek Hour:07:15 T 1 1281 6391 451 R,3ht T� L0 Peak Peak Hour Data o 1 Nosh c F—/ I Cars I -_...-.-.-_._.._....__. . - -- • 4, T r' Len Thm Right U4rn I 4,5L ZZ{tl._-1591�J do In-Pea :07.30 FmAp rn, • N/S Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts Pile Name :52120002 E/W Street: Traders Way/Marlborough Rd 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120002 City/State : Salem,MA Start Date ; 10/32007 Weather : Overcast page No : I Gmuos Pri ated-Trucks Route 107 Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd ----L From Nprth_ From East From South From West Start,rimc Left r Thm RieM Left I Thm T Riebt Left I Thru I Richt I U-tm I Left I Thm I Riehl Int.Total I 06:00 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 06:15 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 06:30 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 10 06:45 1 G 2 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 4 19 Total 1 18 2 0 2 0 6 12 0 0I 1 0 5 47 07:00 1 70 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2I 16 07:15 I 10 0 0 1 0 2 7 1 0 0 1 4 27 07:30 1 7 2 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 3 1 5 28 07:45 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 1 0 0 4 29 Total 4 31 3 1 4 2 4 27 3 1 3 2 151 100 08:00 2 I 0 0 1 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 5 18 08:15 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 3 3 0 1 0 3 19 08:30 1 3 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 14 08:45 0 5 1 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 11 24 Total 5 13 1 4 4 1 5 13 6 0 1 2 20 75 Grand Total 10 62 6 5 10 3 15 52 9 1 5 4 40 222 Apprch% 12.8 79.5 7.7 27.8 SS.G 16.7 19.5 67.5 11.7 1.3 10.2 8.2 81.6 Total% 4.5 27.9 2.7 2.3 4.5 1.4 68 23.4 4.1 0.5 2.3 1.8 18 Route 107 Traders Way Route 107Marlborough Rd • From North From East From South From West I Start Time I I.eft I Th01 I Riltht I AN.Twee I LCA _Thm IRight I Amrw.i Left I Thm I Richt I U-trn I An,�rwar Left l Thm I Richt I n�,To°� tm.Taal Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak I of 1 Peak Hour for B Ore Intersection Begins at 07:15 07:15 1 t0 0 II 0 I 0 1 2 7 1 0 10 0 1 4 5 27 07:30 1 7 2 10 0 I 1 2 1 6 0 0 7 3 1 5 9 28 07:45 I 7 1 9 I 1 1 3 1 9 2 1 13 0 0 4 4 29 08:00 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 5 2 0 9 0 0 5 5 18 Total Volume 5 25 3 33 I 1 4 2 7 6 27 5 1 39 3 2 18 23 102 %Ann.Total 15.2 758 9.1 14.3 57.1 28.6 15.4 692 12.8 2.6 13 87 78.3 PHF .625 .625 .375 .750 1 .250 1M .500 583 .750 750 .625 .250 .750 .250 .500 .900 .639 .879 i • Accurate Counts Pile Name :52120002 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120002 Start Date : 1013!2007 Page No :2 Rout&107 322 In Total 1— 31 251 R' ht Thm l&ll L+ Peak Hour Data v� ? �� -RNorth 3 L N 2,-10 Peak Hour Begins at07:15 1-4 N 3 a Tglcks _ T r Left Thm Riohl U4m LTBL�LL__S.L_I_33 Out In Total n_.1.m7 Peak Hour Analysis from 06:00 to 08:45-Peak i of I teak Hour for Each Apmaach Boeing at: 06:45 07:45 07:15 07:15 +0 mins. 1 6 2 9 1 1 1 3 2 7 1 0 10 0 1 4 5 +15 mins. 1 7 0 8 0 1 0 1 1 6 0 0 7 3 1 5 9 +30 mins. I 10 0 11 2 0 0 2 1 9 2 1 13 0 0 4 4 1-45 mins. 1 7 2 10 0 3 1 4 2 5 2 0 9 0 0 5 5 Total Volume 4 30 4 38 3 5 2 10 6 27 5 1 39 3 2 IB 231 %Arm.Total 10.5 78.9 10.5 30 50 20 15.4 69.2 12.8 2.6 13 8.7 78.3 PHP 1.000 .750 .500 .864 .375 417 .500 .625 .750 .750 .625 .250 .750 .250 .500 .900 .639 I Accurate Counts • 975-664-2565 Pile Name :52120002 Site Code :52120002 Stan Dale : 10/3!2007 Page No :3 Roule 707 In-Pea Fto rOB:/5 a F- 4r 301 / RIM Th Left Peak Hour Data { S NoM ''2akm ro ry 2 1 Tmekx I O y -A 4, T F Left Thai IV ht U4,n 1 61 271 51 tl I I In-Peak Hmc 07:15 .—I.1n7 WA S : Route 107 978-664-2565 Accurate Counts File Nome ;52120002 Streetree t: 7'mdcrs WaylMerlborough Rd Site Code :52120002 City/Slate : Salem,MA Start Date :1013/2007 Weather : Overcast Page No :I Qrmms Printer..Cars•Trucks Route 107 'traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From Gast From South From West I Start Time Left I Thm I Rieht Left I Thru I Right Lea I _Thr J---_RighJ__V_trn __ LeR_j ThmJ_ Right _[nt_Total j 15:00 23 197 47 63 39 18 82 157 64 3 26 37 90 846 15:15 20 203 51 48 46 10 82 185 71 4 22 50 96 888 15:30 34 222 66 46 36 23 99 147 56 1 25 40 119 914 15:45 24 242 68 47 39 20 88 122 62 4 13 35 89 853 Total 101 864 232 204 160 71 351 611 253 12 86 162 394 3501 16:0038 193 S8 44 37 22 102 188 59 3 30 50 128 952 16:15 35 221 50 52 60 13 94 139 64 0 20 45 125 918 16:30 45 218 42 56 46 17 90 154 68 1 30 62 117 946 16:45 22 212 58 60 38 17 94 154 73 0 23 54 114 919 Total 140 844 208 212 181 69 380 635 264 4 103 211 484 3735 17:0031 221 54 44 43 26 113 156 60 1 37 42 154 989 17:15 34 198 63 61 47 25 107 140 50 0 26 58 146 955 17:30 28 211 49 49 47 26 114 181 59 2 20 70 138 994 17:45 25 193 58 51 41 24 95 IA2 ,47 1 22 55 118 902 Total 125 823 224 205 178 101 429 629 236 4 105 225 556 3840 Grand Total 366 2531 664 621 519 241 1160 1875 753 20 294 598 1434 11076 Appmh% 10.3 71.1 18.6 45 37.6 17.5 30.5 49.2 19.8 0.5 12.6 25.7 61.7 Total% 3.3 22.9 6 5.6 4.7 2.2 10.5 16.9 6.8 0.2 7.7 5.4 12.9 Cars 356 2485 661 618 512 239 1147 1836 747 [8 291 592 1416 10918 %Cars 97.3 98.2 925 99.5 98.7 99.2 98.9 97.9 99.2 90 99 99 98.7 98.6 Trucks 10 46 3 3 7 2 13 39 6 2 3 6 18 158 • %Trucks 2.7 1.8 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.1 2.1 0.8 10 1 1 1.3 1.4 Route 107 I Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From Gast From South From West �SIArI Time Letl Thm I Right] n..7ma t Left I Thin I Riaht I Ap Tem Left I Thm Right I U-m% n�.rom Left I ThrJ Right f ow_raw Ira.Tom1 Peak I lour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak I[our for H airs Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 22 212 58 192 60 38 17 115 94 154 73 0 321 23 54 114 191 919 17:00 38 221 54 313 44 43 26 113 113 156 60 1 330 37 42 154 233 989 17:15 34 198 63 295 61 47 25 133 107 140 50 0 297 26 58 146 230 955 17:30 28 211 49 288 49 47 26 122 114 181 59 2 356 20 70 138 228 994 Total Volume 122 842 224 1188 214 175 94 483 428 631 242 3 1304 106 224 552 882 3857 %Ann.Total 10.3 70.9 18.9 44.3 36.2 19.5 32.9 48.4 18.6 0.2 12 25.4 62.6 PHF .803 .952 .889 .949 .877 .931 .904 .908 .939 .872 829 .375 .916 .716 .800 .896 .946 .970 Accurate Counts • 978-664-2565 Pile Nome :52120002 Site Codc :52120002 Stan Date : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 Out In Total 831 C3ifOW8 F-20-191 F-ga4l.8421 122 Right Thru Lett Peak Hour Data o� ? Hwn2 Peak Hour Begins at 76'45 Cara o n Tn1rMe r y • /, T r� Lett Thru RI9h1 LLtm 1 9281 8311 e421 31 110 Eikiil 2912 Out In Total P,...1n7 Peak Hour Analysis Prom 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of t Peak Hour for Hach Aporoach Beeins at: 15:30 17:00 16:45 17:00 1-0 mins. 34 222 66 322 44 43 26 113 94 154 73 0 321 37 42 154 233 +15 mins. 24 242 68 334 61 47 25 133 113 156 60 1 330 26 58 146 210 130 mins. 38 193 58 289 49 47 26 122 107 140 50 0 297 20 i 138 22A +45 mins. 35 221 50 306 51 41 24 116 114 181 59 2 356 22 55 118 195 Total Volume 131 878 242 1251 205 178 101 484 428 631 242 3 1304 105 225 556 886 %Ann.Total 10.5 70.2 19.3 42.4 36.8 20.9 32.8 48.4 18.6 0.2 11.9 25.4 628 PHP .862 .907 .890 .936 .840 .947 .971 .910 .939 .872 .829 .375 .916 .709 .804 .903 .951 • • Accurate Counts Rile Name :52120002 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120002 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :3 Route 107 In-Peak Hour:15:30 1251 F 2421 6781 131 Right Thm Lea Peak Hour Data Trucks • 41 T f Left Th. Right U�-Im I In-Peak Hour.16:05 I • NIS Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 E/W Street• Traders Way/Marlborough Rd 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120002 City/Statc : Salem,MA Start Date : 10/32007 Weather : Overeast Page No : I GrouosP inled-Cars Route 107 Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From East From South From West Start Time Left I Thru I Right Left I Thru I Right Left I_TI ru I Wahl I U-trn Left I Thm I Right Int.Total J . 15:00 19 189 46 63 39 17 81 152 64 2 26 37 89 824 15:15 20 196 51 47 45 10 80 178 70 4 21 49 91 862 15:30 33 221 66 46 35 23 98 145 55 1 25 39 119 906 ' 15:45 24 235 68 47 39 20 88 119 60 4 13 33 89 839 Total 96 841 231 203 158 70 347 594 249 11 85 158 388 3431 16:0037 191 56 44 35 22 102 184 59 3 29 50 121 939 16:15 33 215 50 52 59 13 94 134 64 0 20 45 123 902 16:30 44 215 42 56 45 17 88 I50 67 1 30 62 115 932 16:45 22 207 58 60 38 17 92 153 72 0 22 54 113 908 Total 136 828 206 1 212 177 69 376 621 262 4 101 211 478 3681 17:0038 220 54 44 43 26 111 156 60 0 37 42 152 983 17:15 34 197 63 60 46 25 107 138 50 0 26 56 145 947 17:30 27 206 49 48 47 26 113 180 59 2 20 70 137 984 17:45 25 193 S8 51 41 23 93 147 67 l 22 55 116 892 Total 124 816 224 203 177 100 424 621 236 3 105 223 550 3806 Grand Total 356 2485 661 618 512 239 1147 1836 747 18 291 592 1416 10918 Approh% 10.2 71 18.9 45.1 37.4 17.5 306 49 19.9 0.5 12.7 25.8 61.6 Total% 3.3 22.8 6.1 5.7 4.7 2.2 10.5 16.8 6.8 0.2 2.7 5.4 13 Route 107 rt I Traders Way From 107 Marlborough Rd f • From North 1 From Last From South Frnm West Start Tilnc Left I Thru I Right J npn,rme� IsOJ Thru 1_Ri ht n�Tmn Left Thm I Ripht I D-tm I A'.T.'n Left I Thm I R�ht-L6,.Tem_, Im.Toml Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of 1 Peak hour for Entirc Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45 22 207 58 287 60 38 17 115 92 153 72 0 317 22 54 113 189 908 17:00 38 220 54 312 44 43 26 113 III 156 60 0 327 37 42 152 231 983 17:15 34 197 63 294 60 46 25 131 107 138 50 0 295 26 56 145 227 947 17:30 27 206 49 282 48 47 26 121 113 180 59 2 354 20 70 137 227 984 Total Volume 121 830 224 1175 212 174 94 480 423 627 241 2 1293 105 222 547 874 3822 %Ann.Total 10.3 70.6 19.1 44.2 36.2 19.6 32.7 48.5 196 0.2 12 25.4 62.6 PIIF .796 .943 .889 .942 .883 926 .904 .916 .936 .871 .837 .250 .911 .709 .793 .900 946 .971 Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 978.664-2565 Site i :52120002 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 8 �400I7 1 1 241 8841 Ri hl ThN Left ell 1 CF Peak Hour Data 11 A u f4^ah cl$ 2-1 Peak Four Begins at 78:45 1--2 t' A c Cars L N2 41 I f Left Thin Right l}Im a 14TH _1054@ E7 O 1= Out In Total Rnift 107 [leak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45•Peak 1 of 1 Peak l4our for Fnch Approach Deeins at: 15:30 16:45 16:45 17:00 1'0 mins. 33 221 66 320 60 38 17 115 92 153 72 0 317 37 42 152 231 +15 mins. 24 235 68 327 44 43 26 113 111 156 60 0 327 26 56 145 227 130 mins. 37 191 56 284 60 46 25 131 107 138 50 0 295 20 70 137 227 +45 mins. 33 215 50 298 48 47 26 121 113 180 59 2 154 22 55 116 193 Total Volume 127 862 240 1229 212 174 94 480 423 627 241 2 1293 105 223 550 878 Ann.Total 10.3 70.1 19.5 44.2 36.2 19.6 32.7 48.5 1,8.6 0.2 12 25.4 G2.G PHF .858 .917 .882 .940 .883 .926 .904 .916 .936 .871 .837 .250 .913 .709 .796 .905 .950 I i Accurate Counts 978-664.2565 Site Name :52120002 Site Code :52120002 Start Date :101312007 Sage No :3 Route 107 In-Peak Hour 15:90 3 2B -- 8621 1271 Right Ttlru Left Peak Hour Data t K' � Nmih 3g LS Q$F6 P r G�k I C8f3 4 S F ea 4, 1 r • telt Thru RSI ht D-trn In-Peek Hour:70:45 Pnen 1n-/ • V/SStreet: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 Street: Traders Way/Marlborough Rd 978-664-2565 Sitc Codc :52120002 City/State : Salem,MA Start Date : 10/312007 Weather : Overcast Page No : I Grouns Pri-ted-Tmcka Route 107 Traders Way Route 107 Marlborough Rd From North From East From South From West I Start Time Left I Thru I Riehl Len I Thru I Riehl Left I Thru I Rieht I U-tm Left I Thru I Rieht Int.Total I 15:00 4 8 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 0 111 15:15 0 7 0 1 1 0 2 7 1 0 1 1 5 26 15:30 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 8 15:45 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 Q 9 2 0 14 Total 5 23 1 1 2 1 4 17 4 1 1 4 61 70 16:001 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1I 13 16:15 I 2 6 0 0 1 0 I 0 5 0 0 I 0 0 2 16 16:30 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 2 14 16:45 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 11 Total 4 16 2 0 4 0 4 14 2 0 2 0 61 54 17:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 6 17:15 0 I 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 8 17:30 1 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 17:46 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 2, to Total 1 7 0 2 1 I 5 8 0 1 0 2 61 34 Grand Total 10 46 3 3 7 2 13 39 6 2 3 6 18 158 Apprch% 16.9 78 S. 25 58.3 16.7 21.7 65 10 3.3 11.1 22.2 66.7 Total% 6.3 29.1 1.9 1.9 4.4 1.3 8.2 24.7 3.8 1.3 1.9 3.8 11.4 Route 107 Traders Way koule 107 Marlborough Rd From North From East From South From West ,_Start Time Leftl Thm1Ri hl n rm.r Loft Thai Rioht I Aae.rwr LeR,f Thm I RieM 111-Ira I q reset Lc�Tlnu,f R?mht I A.T.1 tai.tool I Peak[lour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 15:00 15:00 4 8 1 13 0 0 1 1 1 5 0 1 7 0 0 1 1 22 15:15 0 7 0 7 1 1 0 2 2 7 1 0 to 1 1 5 7 26 15:30 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 8 15:45 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 5 0 2 0 2 14 Total Volume I 5 23 1 29 1 2 1 4 4 17 4 1 26 1 4 6 11 70 V Apn.Total 17.2 722.3 3.4 25 50 25 15.4 65.4 15.4 3.8 9.1 36.4 54.5 PIIF .113 .719 .250 .558 .250 .500 .250 .500 .500 .607 .500 .250 .650 .250 .500 ,300 .393 .673 Accurate Counts File Name :52120002 976-664-2565 Sile Code :52120002 Start Data : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 0 Total 19 _ 29 r8 F-';' :: 23 5 4- T� Left Peak Hour Data Ja T Nona m a y 2-1 I Peek Hour Begins at 15:00 4-2 C N A as Trucks — ,a-7 41 Left Tnru RInhl 0-Im I 41 171 41 it I.] Fs] =0 out In Total a.no 1m Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak 1 of 1 Peak I lour for Eich.Ap1>rQacll Begins a1: 15:00 15:15 15:00 15:15 10 mins. 4 8 1 13 1 1 0 2 1 5 0 1 7 1 1 5 7 +l5 mins. 0 7 0 7 0 1 0 1 2 7 1 0 10 0 1 0 1 +30 mins. I 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 1.45 mins 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 3 2 0 5 1 0 1 2 Total Volume 5 23 1 29 1 4 0 5 4 17 4 1 26 2 4 6 12 °h Ann.Total 17.2 79.3 3.4 10 80 0 15.4 65.4 15.4 3.8 16.7 33.3 50 I'HF .313 .719 .250 .558 .250 .500 .000 .625 .500 .607 500 .250 .650 .500 .500 .300 .429 • • Accurate Counts 978-664-2565 File Name :52120002 SiteCode :52120002 Stan Date :10/32007 Page No :3 Route 107 In-Peak Hour:15:00 11 231 51 Right Thry Litt Peak Hour Data gpo d y AG 8 x 2-1 (Trucks I /— a aj aZ �� w • 4, ? r Left Thr, Riahf U4m 1 41 171 41 11 ~I oe In•Peak Hour.15:00 Cnurn IO] • NIS Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 E/W Street: DePietro Ave/Swampscott Rd 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 City/State : Salem,MA Starr Date : 10/32007 Weather : Overcast Page No : I _ gmkim Printed-Ca s-Trucks Route 107 DePictro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From East From South 1_ 5larl Time _Hard Leg � Le11� Thro _Hard Leg I near Leg I Finxi Mrnl Left I Right I Hard Right Thru Oena Rleht I Richt Int.Total I oG:00 0 27 63 0 0 0 18 32 0 80 5 II 232 06:15 0 22 76 0 0 0 28 50 0 117 0 7 300 06:30 2 40 142 0 0 1 24 29 8 182 2 8 438 0645 2 57 162 0 0 2 23 41 5 219 1 10 522 Total 4 142 443 0 0 3 93 152 13 598 8 36 1492 07:000 46 26 0 0 0 31 60 2 212 0 27 ( $83 07:15 ) 68 2 16 0 0 2 29 73 2 232 0 32 657 07.30 2 72 187 0 0 1 39 79 0 275 0 22 677 67� 4 86 198 0 0 4 39 92 0 260 0 34 717 Total ----�- 9 W 272 _810 - �_0 0 7 138 304 4 979 0 111 2634 08:001 90 221 0 0 1 42 82 o 308 0 31 776 08.15 3 70 187 0 0 0 41 82 0 261 0 30 674 08:30 2 68 195 0 0 0 34 58 I9 242 0 21 638 08:45 0 74 205 0 0 1 39 72 0 210 0 42 643 Total 6 302 808 0 0 2 156 294 I8 1021 0 129 2731 Grand'fotal 19 716 2061 0 0 12 387 750 35 2598 8 271 6857 Apprch% 0.7 25.6 73.7 0 0 100 33 64 3 90.3 0.3 9.4 Total% 0.3 10.4 30.1 0 0 0.2 5.6 10.9 0.5 37.9 0,1 4 Can 19 680 1997 0 0 12 329 735 34 2557 7 225 6595 %Cars 100 95 96.9 0 0 100 85 98 97.1 984 87.5 83 96.2 Trucks 0 76 64 U 0 0 58 IS 1 41 1 46 262 %Trucks 0 5 3.1 0 0 0 15 2 2.9 1.6 12.5 17 3.8 • Route 107 DePietro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From East From South I Smn'rime l uwt:a I Len l 33vu I AU.Total m.e t<e 1 a...L I ,,..ohu I Am-Tom Len I Rieht I I Aro l'eul Thru I -N I Richt I Ann.Tent InL'I'oml I Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 07:30 2 72 187 261 0 0 1 1 39 79 0 118 275 0 22 297 677 07:45 4 86 199 288 0 0 4 4 39 92 0 131 260 0 34 294 717 08:00 1 90 221 312 0 0 1 1 42 82 0 124 308 0 31 339 776 08_15 3 70 187 260 - 0 _ 0-- 0 0 41 82 0 123 261 0 _ _30 191 674 Total Volume 10 318 793 1121 0 0 6 6 161 335 0 496 1104 0 117 1221 2844 App_XqaL 0.9 28.4 70.7 0 0 100 32.5 67.5 0 90.4 0 9.6 I'HF 625 _883 ,897 _898 _.,_000 .000 .375 .375 ,958 .910 .000 .947 .896 .000 .R60 .900 .916 • • Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 978-664-2565 Sitc Codc :52120001 Stan Date :10!3/2007 Pagc No :2 Route 107 1 / DaPlelroAve oto 144r5—I1�21—�1586 ` y I 7931 3181 101 Thm Left Hard ~ Left V27ee� V a, t 41 � � / Peak Hour Data — NMh n 053 Peak Hwr Ba91na a107:90 G Lml�III 2 Cara 9{ n Tmtks rA w '+ R Thm Right Right I 11041 01 112J ®�© Out In Total w-m.m] Peak BOUT Analysis Fran 06:00 to OS 45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for Each Annroach Beeins at: 07:15 07:15 07:30 07:30 +-0 mins. 3 68 216 287 0 0 2 2 39 79 0 118 275 0 22 297 +15 mins. 2 72 187 261 0 0 1 1 39 92 0 131 260 0 34 294 +30 mins. 4 86 198 288 0 0 4 4 42 82 0 124 308 0 31 339 145 mins. 1 90 221 312 0 0 1 1 41 82 0 123 261 0 30 291 Total Volume 10 316 822 1148 0 0 8 8 161 335 0 496 1104 0 117 1221 %Aon.Total 0.9 27.5 71.6 0 0 100 32.5 67.5 0 90.4 0 9.6 PHF .625 .878 .930 .920 .000 .000 .500 .S00 .958 .910 .000 .947 .896 .000 .860 .goo i Accurate Counts File Name .52120001 • 978-664-2565 Site code :52120001 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :3 Roule 707 / DBPIeIro AVE In-Peak Hour:07:1548 io L_822J3161 101 y Thlm Left Hard Left Peak Hour Data T tea- NOM Tara t J Trm w. T -ear 1_ I1N_ Riehl Riphl L.� In-Peak Hour:07:30 Rnrilw In, i • S Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name:52120001 Street: DePietro Ave/Swampscott Rd 978-664-2565 Site Cade :52120001 City/State : Salem,MA Start Date :10/312007 Weather : Overcast Page No : 1 Grouos Printed-Cars Route 107 DePietro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From Gast From South �_$mrt Time__.[lard Lcfl I Left i Thro Hard Left i Bear Left uaru Rin Le� Right I gvd Riehl Thm I neer Rich Right InLTotal 06:10 0 23 59 0 0 0 17 32 0 77 4 7 219 06:15 0 20 74 0 0 0 IS 46 0 117 0 3 275 06:30 2 39 139 0 0 1 17 28 7 180 2 8 423 06:45 2 56 152 0 0 2 21 41 5 216 1 8 504 Total 4 138 424 0 0 3 70 147 12 590 7 26 1421 OTC O 9 255 785 I 0 0 51 7I 120 296 4 I 961 0 87 2211 90 0 257 0 5 08:001 87 218 0 0 1 38 80 0 303 0 27 715 08:15 3 67 182 0 0 0 36 82 0 258 0 27 655 08:30 2 67 191 0 0 0 27 58 i8 238 0 21 622 08:45 0 66 197 0 0 1 38 72 0 207 0 37 618 Total 6 287 788 1 0 0 2 139 292 18 1006 0 112 2650 Grand Total 19 680 1997 0 0 12 329 735 34 2557 7 225 6595 Apprch Y° 0.7 25.2 74.1 0 0 100 30 66.9 3.1 91.7 0.3 8.1 Total°h 0.3 10.3 30.3 0 0 0.2 5 11.1 0.5 38.8 0.1 3.4 Route 107 DePietro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast unnn.�_ From L%as_t _ _ _ From South __ Slarl Tinle jumps:n Leg i Thm j n P .a TMI n.mi UA nyrew t 1 LCR �—Ri hl A e Tmal Th W..�Ri hl _n .7al aInt Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:0010 68:45-Peek I of 1 Peak Hour for Gn ire intersection Begins at 07:30 07:30 2 68 182 252 0 0 1 1 34 76 0 110 272 0 16 288 651 07:45 4 82 190 276 0 0 4 4 28 90 0 118 257 0 31 288 686 08:00 1 87 218 306 0 0 1 1 38 80 0 118 303 0 27 330 755 08:15 3 67 182 252 0 0 0 0 36 82 0 118 258 0 27 285 655 Total Volume 10 304 772 1086 0 0 6 6 136 328 0 464 1090 0 101 1191 2747 %ADD.Total 0.9 24 71.1 0 0 100 29.3 70.7 0 91.5 0 8.5 PHF .625 .874 .885 .887 .000 .000 .375 .375 .895 .911 .000 .983 .899 .000 .815 .902 .910 Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 • 978.664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Star[Date : 10/312007 Page No :2 Route 107 v DePieko AVE Q.4- _112_ _0181 ' S 42 _ 25 0 �_ I 7721 3041 101 Thru Leo Hard t4 Left 0, a� 4 / Peak Hour Data T@— o @� N S Nor10 V3 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 tm m a R N Cera �m TBear �i • Thr. Riahl R11M I 1901 DI O1� Out In Total Rr.Oa 1M Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 to 08:45-Peak I or I Fcak Holy for Each Approach Ecains at: —.._.. ___ 07:15 07:15 07:30 07:30 +0 mins. 3 62 210 275 0 0 2 2 34 76 0 110 272 0 16 288 115 mins. 2 68 182 252 0 0 1 1 28 90 0 118 257 0 31 288 +30 mins. 4 82 190 276 0 0 4 4 38 80 0 118 303 0 27 330 +45 lairs. 1 87 218 306 0 0 1 1 36 82 0 118 258 0 27 285 Total Volume 10 299 800 1109 0 0 8 8 136 328 0 464 1090 0 101 1191 %Ann.Total 0.9 27 72,1 0 0 100 29.3 70.7 0 91.5 0 8.5 PFIF .625 .859 .917 .906 .000 .000 .500 .500 .895 .911 .000 .983 .899 .000 .815 .902 • Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Stan Date . 10/3/2007 Page No :3 Rale 107 DePletro Ave- In-Peak Hour.07:15 Elig A 1 0001 2991_191 Thru Lea Hard ggay 1 Lo U ��, a S /9 .� 1� Lj� Peak Hour Data ROM 3 Py V F o I Cara I r 3� i r as ar ,Thhru Right LFISM 1_tQ�99� O1 In-Peak Hour:07:30 Pmid 1N • N/S Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts 978-664-2565 File Nome :52120001 EM Street: OcPiclro Ava/Swaropsc0lt Rd Site Codc :52120001 City/Stato : Salem,MA Start Date : 10/3/2007 Weather : Overcast Page No : 1 Group Printed.Can-Trucks Route 107 DcPictro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From Cast From South I Start Time Hard Lea I Left l_ Thm Hard lea I Bcnrlcft I wMRiou Left Rigp1 jpma3m _ Thru,1 aa�a&In-, Right Int.Total 15:00 0 82 253 0 0 I 44 60 2 296 0 38 736 15:15 1 94 250 0 0 0 35 80 0 257 0 31 748 15:30 0 98 287 0 0 0 39 84 1 238 0 36 783 15:45 0 85 287 0 0 1 32 86 12 251 1 27 782 Total 1 359 1077 0 0 2 150 310 is 1002 1 132 3049 16:111 81 276 0 0 0 30 65 0 250 0 44 746 16:15 2 102 300 1 0 1 23 67 0 238 0 43 777 16:30 0 102 278 0 0 1 32 57 3 200 0 29 702 16:45 0 98 291 0 0 1 34 68 0 245 0 25 762 To 2 383 1145 1 0 3 119 257 3 933 0 141 2987 17:111 110 307 0 0 0 36 73 3 205 0 31 766 17:15 0 112 293 0 0 0 23 64 3 159 1 38 693 17:30 0 130 254 0 0 0 32 54 8 293 1 4G 810 17:45 Q 102 261 0 0 3 25 5.7 0 226 0 2G 700 Total 1 454 1117 0 0 3 116 248 14 873 2 141 2969 Grand Tote] 4 1196 3339 1 0 8 385 815 32 2808 3 414 9005 Approh% 0.1 26.3 73.6 11.1 0 88.9 31.2 66.2 2.6 87.1 0.1 12.8 0 13.3 37.1 0 00_I-,- 4.3 9.1 0.4 31.2 0 4.6 Cars 3 1177 3301 1 0 7 371 804 32 2781 3 400 I 8880 %Cara 75 98.4 98.9 100 0 87.5 96.4 98.7 100 99 100 96.6 98.6 Trucks 1 19 38 0 0 1 14 II 0 27 0 14 125 %Trucks 25 1.6 1.1 0 0 12.5 3.6 1.3 0 1 0 3A I 1.4 • Rome 107 DePicuo Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 II From 11 North From Northeast From Cast From South $lart'Tlme nud,l{a_J__LCQL Thru I Am,.Tm°I iekim I nea� I ,m LApn.Toni Left I Right I I Ann.TWO Thm I I Right I m,T w Inl.Tolsl I Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for Cn in Intersection Begins at 15:30 15:30 0 98 287 385 0 0 0 0 39 84 1 124 238 0 36 274 783 15:45 0 85 287 372 0 0 1 1 32 66 12 130 251 1 27 279 782 16:00 0 81 276 357 0 0 0 0 30 65 0 95 250 0 44 294 746 16:15 2 102 300 404__ _ I _ 0 1 2 23 67 0 90 238 0 43 281 777 Total Volume 2 366 1150 1518 1� 0 2 3 124 302 13 439 977 1 150 1128 3088 °/j Arrte.ToIp1 . 0.1 24.1 75.833.3 0 66.7 28.2 %E_ 386.6 0.1 13.3 PHF .250 .897 .958 .939 .250 .000 .500 .375 .795 .878 .271 .844 .973 .250 .852 .959 .986 • Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 DePlelro Ave ,�811518 2798 F— 1 l 11501 Har 31 Thry Left ell Mab qqa `eft o � � /oy z I' Peak Hour Data Rorlh 3 u a (Peaty Hour Begins et 15:90 Can 5 wno Trucks !e • I Bear ri Thtu Riaht Right® Out In Total oo-ae un Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak flour for Each Almrnaeh Begins at: 16:45 15:45 15:00 15:00 i0 mins. 0 98 291 789 0 0 1 1 44 60 2 106 256 0 38 294 115 mitts. 1 110 307 418 0 0 0 0 35 60 0 115 257 0 31 288 +30 mins. 0 112 293 405 1 0 1 2 39 84 1 124 238 0 36 274 145 mins. 0 130 256 386 0 0 1 1 32 86 12 130 251 1 27 279 Total Volume 1 450 1147 1598 1 0 3 4 150 310 15 475 1002 1 132 1135 %Aon.Total 0.1 28.2 71.8 25 0 75 31.6 65.3 3.2 88.3 0.1 IJ.6 PHF .250 .865 .934 .956 .250 .000 .750 .500 .852 .901 .313 .913 .975 .250 .868 .965 � • Accurate Counts Pile Name :52120001 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Start Date : 10/32007 Page No :3 Route 107 DePietto AW In-PeaHou:16A6 7686 i� p j14] d501 i) d TrLen Hard Ry°y �+ Len t " �e9y Lr / Peak Hour Data T..�m NOMa ^d w v CaraV Tnudke TBeer r • jma Rhht Ripht L1Q43L ll_t81J EEE In.Peek Hour:1515:00 Pnuln 1al • /S Street: Route 107 9786642565 Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 Sweet: DcPictro Ave/Swam . - Swampscott Rd Site Code :52120001 City/State : Salem,MA Stan Dale : 10/32007 Weather : Overcast Page No : I Grows Printed-Can Route 107 DePietro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From Gast From South L---Stan Time Hard LcO I Left Thm _Hard lxl L near Lea I Had RlMd Len I Riehl I H.rd Riehr Thm I I .r Right I [tight 1111.1'0121 I 1500 0 79 246 0 0 1 40 57 2 254 0 33 712 15:15 1 90 243 0 0 0 32 77 0 254 0 29 726 15:30 0 98 287 0 0 0 37 84 1 234 0 34 775 15:45 0 83 284 0 0 1 31 86 t2 247 1 26 771 , Total 1 350 1060 0 0 2 140 304 15 989 1 122 2984 16:000 19 274 0 0 0 28 64 0 241 0 43 735 16:15 1 100 295 1 0 1 23 66 0 235 0 42 764 16:30 0 102 275 0 0 0 32 56 3 199 0 29 696 16:45 0 98 286 0 0 1 33 67 0 243 0 24 752 Total 1 379 1110 1 0 2 116 253 3 924 0 138 2947 17:00 1 109 307 0 0 0 36 733 204 0 30 763 17:15 0 110 292 0 0 0 23 64 3 159 1 38 690 17:30 0 127 252 0 0 0 32 54 8 282 1 4G 802 17:45 0 102 260 0 0 3 24 56 0 223 0 26 694 Total 1 448 1111 0 0 3 115 247 14 868 2 140 2949 Grand Total I 3 1177 33011 0 7 371 804 32 2781 3 400 8880 Apprch°h 0.1 26.3 73.7 12.5 0 87.5 30.7 66.6 2.7 87.3 0.1 12.6 Total% 0 13.3 37.2 0 0 0.1 4.2 9.1 0.4 31.3 0 4.5 Route 107 1 DePielm Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From East From South _Slarl Time Imam I Left 1, Thm J m,r°mi, m,d lin 1 i,.ar�n I �,....,. nom.T.ul Le01 Riehl I ,,,�,i„ I Ao Tow 171m ,.,, Ri ht n _rma_ Iny Tmal Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak Hour for Ln ire Intersection Begins at 15:30 15:30 0 98 287 385 0 0 0 0 37 84 1 122 234 0 34 268 775 15:45 0 83 284 367 0 0 1 1 31 86 12 129 247 1 26 274 771 16:00 0 79 274 353 0 0 0 0 28 64 0 92 247 0 43 290 735 16:15 1 100 295 396 1 0 1 2 23 66 0 89 235 0 42 277 764 Total Volume 1 360 1140 1$01 1 0 2 3 119 300 13 432 963 1 145 1109 3045 °%Ana.Total 0.1 24 75.9 33.3 0 66.7 27.5 69.4 3 86.8 0.1 13.1 PHF .250 .900 .966 948 .250 .000 .500 .375 .804 .872 .271 .837 .975 .250 .843 956 .982 Accurate Counts • 978-664.2565 SiCod File e :52120001 Site Cade :52120001 Start Data : 10/32007 Page No :2 Route 107 oePletro AW In Totel 1285 1 1501 278 -01r 1 ]1401 3601 11 �. Thm Left Hard N off. ~ Left /09�^ 1 C�e'a 4" Peak Hour Data 1 _-nn r_aato eak Har Bepina et 15:30 t..A 3 N Cara � p 0 m& 1 bear r • TM RIH451 ht 1xw 11 CES9I Out In Tafel Pr ulo t0] Peak Flour Analysis From 1500 to 17.45-Peak I of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Aceins at: 16:45 15:30 15:00 15:15 i0 mins. 0 98 286 384 0 0 0 0 40 57 2 99 254 0 29 283 -115 mins. 1 109 307 417 0 0 1 1 32 77 0 109 234 0 34 268 1301nins. 0 110 292 402 0 0 0 0 37 84 1 122 247 1 26 274 145 mins. 0 127 252 379 1 0 1 2 31 86 12 129 247 0 43 290 Total Volume 1 444 1137 1582 1 0 2 3 140 304 15 459 982 1 132 1115 %Ann.Total 0.1 28.1 71.9 33.3 9 667 30.5 66.2 3.3 88.1 O.t 11.8 PHF .250 .874 926 .948 .250 .000 .500 .375 .875 .884 .313 .890 .967 .250 .767 .9611 • • Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Start Dale : 10132007 Page No :3 Raute 107 06Plaea Ave In-Pea Hour:16:45 io F Pr-1 Aei 1 11371 d}41 11 1, 9 Tnm Lea Hard I L4 Len 1 U tee°e "s I 4* Peak Hour Data T �A3 Noh 3 S. A �g • I TAfQam_ ,am ggq�_Blgt� (— lL1Ll?J�37 In-Peak Hour,15:15 o.ne In, N/S Street: Route 107 Accurate Counts File Name :52120001 . E/W Street: DePietro Ave/Swampscott Rd 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 City/State : Salem,MA Start Date : 10/32007 Weather : Overcast Page No : 1 Groups Primed-Trucks Route 107 DePielm Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 From North From Northeast From East Front _ _ $tart Time _Hard Ln0 I I.cR I Thru lb d LO Finn,Len 111°N Rin. Left I RIPI1t 1 unj Rinm Thro FR.,ninnil Rialu Int.Total 15:00 0 3 7 0 0 6 4 3 0 2 6 5 24 15:15 0 4 7 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 2 22 15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 2 8 15:45 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 II Total 0 9 17 0 0 0 10 6 0 13 0 10 65 16:00 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 II 16:15 I 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 13 16:30 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 16:43 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 10 'fatal 1 4 IS 0 0 1 3 4 0 9 0 31 40 Mo 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 17:15 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17:30 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 IT 45 0 0 t 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 6 Total 0 6 6 0 0 0 1 t 01 5 0 1 20 Grand Total 1 19 38 0 0 I 1 14 11 0 27 0 14 125 Apprch% 1.7 32.8 65.5 0 0 100 56 44 0 65.9 0 34.1 'total% 0.8 15.2 30.4 0 0 0.8 112 8.8 0 21.6 0 H. Route 107 DcPictro Ave Swampscott Rd Route 107 _ From North I ' From Northeast From East From South _ Start Time I u.e Lm I LCR 'I'hru�w: .I una Len I n—,A—Ln.°m I Am.tout LCR Main I Www« I Ann.rural Thur �_,.•.w I Ri ht n .TWt Inr.'I'oro1, Peak Hour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak 1 of I Peak How for En he Intersection Begins at 15:00 15:00 0 3 7 10 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 f,"' 7 2 0 5 7 24 15:15 0 4 7 II 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 3 0 2 5 22 15:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 6 8 15:45 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 5 It Total Volume 0 9 17 26 0 0 0 0 t0 6 0 16 13 0 10 23 65 %Ann.Total 0 34.6 65.4 0 0 0 62.5 37.5 0 56.5 0 43.5 PliF .000 .563 .607 .591 .000 .000 .000 .000 .625 .500 .000 .571 .813 .000 .500 .821 .677 • Accurate Counts File Name .52120001 978-664-2565 Site Code :52120001 Start Date : 10/3/2007 Page No :2 Rohe 107 DORWa Ave 79 28rings, 171 91 01 TAry Left Hare 11 �k Lan tyy s /\�nrov�,i tr 7aa, 4 Peak Hour Data T NMh afi e m 1P w (Peak Hour Begins at 75.00 fl w Trueks 9 res as • I Bear (F Th�ru�_RRi hl RI hl ©`I LSI =xQ1 Out In Total Pmae 1n7 Peak I lour Analysis From 15:00 to 17:45-Peak I of I Peak HouT for Each Apnronch Reeins at: 15:00 15:45 15:00 15:00 Ionlins. 0 3 7 10 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 7 2 0 5 7 415 mins. 0 4 7 11 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 3 0 2 5 130 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 6 +-45 mins. 0 2 3 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 5 Total Volume 0 9 17 26 0 0 1 1 10 6 0 16 13 0 10 23 %Ann.Total 0 34.6 65A 0 0 100 62.5 37.5 0 56.5 0 43.5 P14F .000 .563 .607 .591 .000 .000 .250 .250 625 .500 000 .571 ,813 .000 ,500 ,821 • Accurate Counts Pile Name :52120001 • 978-664-2565 SitcCodc :52120001 Start Date : 10!32007 Page No :3 Route 107 DePietro Avt' In-Peak Hour:15:00 (�26 / -1 V p04 t nI sI of Th. Lea Hard 4 Leo �Rpyay V� p la 1 I ire Q Peak Hour Data T _- North m o m� I�'� -------------� ,o g —ar jw u� r�o T gear Thru Rleht Ruhr In-Peek Hour:15.00 wee.tn� i • 10 New England Business Center Drive Transportation Engineers&Planners Suite 314 Andover, MA 01810.1066 • 8800 Calculations Office 8-688-6508 Fax 978.688-6608 Job: �5A le MA Job Number: SZ 17- Location: TftAMITR STAT OKI Date: 1) A /07 Title: —rPA.f•, < + Sheet I of Calculated by: SRr Checked by: TAME VEHI<lE MARC 1 9Z- 7:t(e 0. I rf:u[PC R Ov+ 4 7'28 Q;cH„e R 2N 's 7:45 Dvnf IR�(K L IN . � .4-7 '7 7154 1>.-r TRvcK R Oyr" I $'.O3 • 'D,-O TRvcK L =N ✓ In S:057 DUMP 1PVCKL -XF4✓ 6 af. i C.'4y iA fl $'•80 6� -r Ikota OV7v Lo.1 = 3 • t2 8•' if Q�GKoP R TNS Tw�� — D f3 g•,I U o 5 P ctc P R PT-1, 1t S ;rB, Iy ;w4sslen w�dv+(a4 R._Z'H✓ � # Ne:74y:aa,.Cva}7.,� TF�<K IS _ 8•.Is D�,.r Tn„cr R off, ✓ G wt,.,i. t,r,Y � Ib . .8'•ZZ S,TA1ie� Wn,o.v, L S'N ✓ . tj S .L3 Sw J P, =:n✓ ab if S�Z5 w ui<.I<a K On L 19 g.zt sT.+,e w,90 R. Oo+ r 20 8; 35 SUV Mr. TPV(K t .Y iG wAa=I _ r,iy Z� $ '•`I2 . P',<4„p R ova✓ , ?3 fr 43 Dv t 1rtv<K L Ov+ 6 c:iy Zy 8 •43 8 ss e ,<K�P L =N� 10 New England Business Center Drive IAI Transportation Engineers&Planners Suite 314 , Andoverer, MA 01810-1068 Calculations Office 973-474.8BOD Fax 978.688.6508 Job: 5n/eA N H Job Number: 5212 Location: -T2...,.4'e R s r Y:a Date: it ff., /o , Title: Teems c (o„— + Sheet I of Calculated by: SRF Checked by: ..7.,.M15 -4 L; 3 Q2 Pn 1,,-r L T- Y.0S - 3•.08 p6,d-iG 400- 3', to r 'TRUCK L awr- Mw- 3;..22 i. CAP L 7N 3.Z2.... L IN'', -Ovk31.2 ou-r-7 7i po 3'.3o C.R . �. ouT- 3:3b G'nR R ouT- 3'.3LI C,Ak L mm 3 : 39 C,Alk R 0.,,r.. • -4.oL .. . 'b .r. TR,..K R O t.- _...._y�_13..._ �'• (3 . I. yltvP P.. ovt E,.,Ployet 4=f 3 GA+,- L ortre • SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT DATA • SECTION I-CONTINUOUS COUNTING STATION MONTHLYAVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC STATION 595-LYNNFIELD-RTEJ-95(128)-1.6 km SOUTH OF PEABODY C.L. YR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR 02 109,012 111,532 112,622 113,850 116,564 136,240 136,406 139,834 128,737 129,882 118,631 121,415 122,894 03 106,448 116,961 111,476 104,320 120,370 140,000 139,574 138,232 125,191 124,000 114,223 113,000 121,150 04 106,241 114,723 119,757 108,031 120,473 140,000 133,614 139,665 121,018 124,000 116,000 113,000 121.377 Adjustment from October 2002 to Average Month -5.4% Adjustment from October 2003 to Average Month -2.3% Adiustment from October 2004 to Average Mnnth -2.1 Average adjustment from October to Average Month -3.3% STATION 5099-LYNN FIELD-RTEJ-95(128)-SOUTH OF WALNUT ST. YR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR O5 123,000 124,429 126,076 132,009 133,651 142,230 143,487 143,923 134,619 130,383 128,237 123,088 132,094 O6 120,114 121,263 128,965 129,608 134,368 140,019 141,022 148,631 144,809 136,084 129,832 125,931 133,387 Adjustment from October 2005 to Average Month 1.3% Ariustment from October 2006 to Average Month -2.0% Average adjustment from October to Average Month -0.3% STATION 5128-NEWBURY-RTEA -SOUTH OF HANOVER ST. YR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR 02 8,441 8,723 9,123 9,709 10,371 10,519 10,530 10,457 9,596 9,934 8,674 8,633 9,559 03 7,801 7,918 8,791 9,352 10,268 10,539 10,338 10,274 10,028 9,599 8,787 8,700 9,366 04 8,402 8,410 8,757 9,558 10,229 10,727 10,482 10,319 10,070 9,868 8,533 8,597 9,496 05 7,819 8,413 9,500 9,903 10,296 11,219 10,594 10,446 9,770 9,224 8,752 8,551 9,541 O6 8,379 8,354 9,035 9,201 9,624 9,968 9,943 9,839 9,544 9,245 8,668 8,600 9,200 Adjustment from October 2002 to Average Month -0.8% Adjustment from October 2003 to Average Month -2.4% Adjustment from October 2004 to Average Month -3.8% Adjustment from October 2005 to Average Month 3.4% Adiustment from October 2006 to Avemae Month -0.5% Average adjustment from October to Average Month -1.4% OVERALL ADJUSTMENT FROM OCTOBER TO AVERAGE MONTH -1.7% MADT SECTION I Page 1 of 1 ITALICS=ESTIMATED DATA • PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION • dT Route 424/424W Eastem Ave. & Essex St. -Haymarket Sta. or Wonderland O QRoute 450/45OWSalem Depot-Haymarket Sta. or Wonderland T (t Route 456 Salem Depot- Central Sq., Lynn ea Highterlo•Ave. 1 1 u g ziEdges Y ne. En195 128 '��-' �. ( f.AZ0Q o M1 /.'� •y` �I� tea' FALL September 1,2007-December 28,20071 9' �J -."'-"� �g •�� _ SeNm Harbor __ Salem Depot - Haymarket Sta. C9me«wneaRs. m 0 ° or Wonderland Sta. 951.955.455W 4 .988 '�_Park Serving: Central Sq.,Lynn,Salem&N.S.Children's sA1.ENow � SALEM � r_��;,� ® Hospitals,Bell Circle,Eastern Ave.&Essex SL and connections to the Green&Orange Lines too .'sr i ' Ice cy y ry�� eqW ,4y.6M O J2 Z��.#.i.i ��ry,'.•�...M1�-:': t ,..ap4 Atnrcn9 ^"% Rs 'F nwe. ' ; �eme. i,er waves aA Ole LYNN p^. � - . ^; ARBLEHEAD 129 • \ f. - .",'i' r,", c' u t F0 I I _ $3. .''-�i -•a9y �r:. e moi":' `'� :'+'r" ":- visit mblacomorcall ea to finds 129 meat lwaden where s.obtain CAarlieCards and el+t "' -•?m, .;i ,.tc„e ^.,;..;1:.;.. y' SWAMPSCOTT ®Pra e \ Ham• urehaae MBTApassesend atoredvelue. _ I. Schesules subject to change,please exit rear does. trXs ,otmm'Naym -. - V II 11�:approximate,subject to traffic lem 424/424W/450/45OW/456 WEEKDAY 45OW SATURDAY ALL BUSES ON THESE ROUTES ARE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE Route 4241424W Leave Leave Arms AOive Anive Anrve Leave LNArnve Arrive Arnie Leave Arne PaAve Leave Arnie Amv6 Eastern Ave. & Essex St.- ai Salem Eastern Genual Wiynn Wonder-Haymarket « Haymarket W.Lymn Cental Salem Salem W.Lynn Wonderland! Wonderland W.Lynn Salem & Depot &Ease: Square Garage land $abOn ¢ Station Garage Square DOPOt Depot Garage Staaon Station Garage Depot Haymarket or Wonderland Sta. 450 5:40A ..... 6:57A .... 6.15A 450 4:50A .. 6.07A 630A &55A 7.08A ..... 6:05A 6'22A Route450145OW 424W .... 6:OIA .. 6.14 626A 450 ._. 5.05 522 7.30 7:55 8:08 0:45A 7:00 723 Salem Depot- 450 610 -. 627 .... 6.57 450 .. 52D .. 5:37 8.30 8:55 9:08 ... 7:35 752 424W 6.31 .. 652 7:08 ... 450 520 5.37 930 9.65 10:08 745 8:00 623 Haymarket or Wonderland Sta. 450 640 _.. 707 7:39 450 ... 650 .... &07 10:30 10.55 11:08 .. 8:05 9n Route 456 424W ... 7:01 7:22 7:38 ... 460 .... 550 ..... &07 11:30 11.55 12:08P 645 9:00 923 424W 7.10 7:31 ]52 am 6.09 450 6:40 est. toes 11:0000 1123 Salem Depot-Central Sq., Lynn 450 7.40 ..... 8:07 895 450 640A 7:03 . . 7.26 11:45 12:0011 12:23P via Highland Avenue 424W .. 8:01 .... 822 8:36 466 ... 700 710A 735 450 810 ... 837 . .. 8.57 450 710 7:33 .... 7:56 12:SOP 12:55P 1:08P 12:45P 1:00P IPSP _ROUrE424/424W/450/45OWFARES - 450 6.40 ..... 905 .. 9.25 450 7:40 8'03 ... 826 1:30 1:55 2:06 1:46 2:00 2:23 450 9.10 ... 9.35 ... 9.55 450 8:10 833 .... 8.56 2:30 2:SS 3:08 2.45 3:00 3:23 Laal a4w Ixvwo-ww treanaxa. 456 9:40 ..... 1o. .. . . 456 .. a'3o 9:40 905 3:30 3:55 4:08 145 4:00 4:23 CharlieCard $1.25 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 4510.10 10'3535 1055 456 9:10 9.35 4:30 4:59 5:08 4:45 5:00 5:29 Che"IsRcMet Sim $3.50 55.00 Sam 4566 1040 ..... 11.05 .... .... .. 450 9.10 933 .. 858 5:30 6:66 8:08 5:45 6:00 8:25 Cash onboard 5150 S35D 55,00 6550 450 1110 .. ..... 11:35 ... 11 55 456 .. .... 10:10 10.35 6:30 6:55 7:08 6:45 7:00 I'M TPupll Rados' 5060 5140 SIAD 5140 456 11.40 .... 12:05P ..... ..._ ..... 450 1010 1033 10.56 BSD 6:47 ..... 7:45 8:00 &23 Senbd7AP taro" 50,40 51.40 SL40 SL40 456 1110 11:35 7:30 7:55 Once &45 9:00 9:23 450 11 10 11:33 .. 11.56 7:30 ]:4] 8:46 10:00 Mall 0ttorcl U 8ro oder me Dee SKn ao:ortperttd bi an xtlul 8:3D 8:55 9:08 10:45 11:00 It:23Btm p¢,Soa mefree ma URTA Sxld,4416411 and 450 12:10P ..... .._. 12:35P .._ 12:55P 456 .-.. _... 12:10P 12:35P 9:30 9:55 10:08 a 14158 Cemn lo:848#dronl 455 Unto ..... 1:06P ..... .- ..... 450 12:10P 12:33P ..... 12:56 10:30 10:55 11:08 VALID PASSES:Ire:Eased S:at5891rn1.O4erExtaza DA RliSftmA 450 1:10 ..... .._. 1:35 _._ 1:55 456 -._ ..... 1:10 1:35 11:30 11:66 12 08A Osersd2r East PES(Sim"A am Cgmut,Ras Zane ld passe[ 656 1:40 ..... 2:05 ..... .... ..... 450 1:10 1:34 ..... 2:04 12.32A 12:49A 450 2:10 ..... ..... 2:35 ..._ 2:5S 456 ..... ..... 2:10 2:55 •AV labse 10""dvs.o pal aaang modes,shook 456 2:40 ..... 105 ..... ..... ..... 450 2:10 2:34 ..... 3:04 am rag,aeDaY 450 3:10 ..... .._. 3:35 _... 3:55 456 ..._ ..... 3:10 3:35 ^Avakbk b MN ouom'das,sercoa BSa. ass 3:40 ..... 4:05 ..... ..._ ..... 430 3:10 3:34 ..... 4:041 45OW SUNDAY aro peaaa mal dsaXO64 450 4:10 ..... ..^. 4:39 ..._ 5:10 450 3:40 4:04 ..... 4:35 450 4:40 ..... .._. S:09 ..._ 6:40 424 b 4:10 4:35 ..... ..... tamloa be amb five 8p due 0 Pa8 Re loon Brow of&M alta 450 5:40 ..._ ..^. 6:07 ..... 628 450 4:25 4:54 .._. 5:241 450 6:10 ..... .._. 6:33 ..... 6:54 424 b m40 5:19 ..... .... ROU... FARES 450 6:24 ..... ..... 450 4:55 5:28 5:0 Leave W. Lyn Arrive Leave Anrve Arrive 6'� ""' Salem GamW Wo telks,d Wonderland W Lynn Salem P4nfieCa 11-2 21.2 s:$1.70 650 6:35 ..._ __. 6:57 ..... ..... 420 D 5:10 5:40 ..... Depot Gaage Salion Station Garage OaD01 Oso 6:40 ..... ..... ].oz ..... .._. 450 5:25 sass ..... s:zo CharGeCatd $125 $1.25 $1.70 450 7:00 ..... ..... 7:17 ..... ..... 424 b 5:40 6:07 ..... ..... CAadietirket Size SIM 53.50 450 7:10 ..... 7:27 ..... 450 5:55 6:19 6:44 8:30A 8.55,4 9.O9A T45A SOCA 8:23,4 Cay,On00am 91.50 53.00 S3.50 •'•^ '_' ""' 9.30 955 10:08 845 9:00 9:23 "M7:10 ..... ..... 7.27 7:44P ..... 450 6:10 6:33 ..... 6:57 10:30 10.55 1108 9.45 10:OD 10:23 T Pupil fiatlpe' 600 60C 85c 450 7:32 ..... ..... 7:49 ..... ..... 450 6:40 7:03 ..... 7:2] SenkuTAP cam" 40c 40c 60c 450 7:35 ..._ __. 7:52 ..... 450 ]:f0 7:33 ..... 7:57 11:30 1155 I2:08P 1045 1000 11:23 -'- 11:65 12:0014 12:23P 450 7:40 ..... ..... 7:ST ..... ..... 450 8:20 8:43 9:07 Cvltlren 11 am umw ma wasaTu,a[mmpP$d W a14143 450 6:00 ..... ._.. 6:17 ..... ...- 450 9:20 9:43 ..... 10:07 12:30P 12:65P 1:08P 12:45P 1:00P IMP r4 pal a B ref nd W 450 8:10 ..... ..... 8:33 8:54 450 10:20 10:43 ..... 11:07 aPw.Dann lm V6&us,lDar4 ""' 1:30 1:55 2:06 1:45 2:00 2:29 450 8:45 .._ ..... 9:02 ..._ ...., 4150 11:30 11:53 ..... 12'17,4 2:30 2:55 108 2:45 3:00 321 SeaatPasr(=eapUPasssppaw. a f:paroup5591mp 460 8.411 ..... ..... 9:03 ..... 9:26 3:90 9:55 4:06 3:45 4:00 421 Sealant Paas"162Omo.p 6AlprfiPP Pane"(52Nlmz 450 9:10 ..._ ----- 933 ----- 9154 b-To Eastem Ave.&Essex St. 4:30 4:55 5:09 4:4165:01) S:23 am express are.loved rre.'aD'6d am was paEec 450 9:40 ..... ._.. 8:57 ..._ .... 5:30 5:55 6:0 5:45 6:00 6:29 450 1 D.1010:33 10:56 'Avaszbk N alotess Usage pa mpabeg mmle sense, 450 10:45 -.• •..• 11:02 ..... 6:J0 6:55 ]:OB 8:0.5 7:00 ]413 a1B w-sovea 430 H:10 - 11:39 _.,. 11:641 After'8:00PAI oil Route 450 trim 7:30 7:55 6:00 7:4S 8:00 8:23 -Ansuble m Nroaare canim4sa.Serawa 55n ".. " ' 8'30 &55 9:0 8:45 9:00 9:23 450 12:18A 1235,4 rraveh'ia t0eCa11aha0/SumnerTunnel am xs ,.tb nnaw. 450 1:10 1:2) 930 9:55 10:08 9:45 10:00 lam � -' - ' 10:90 10:56 11:08 10:45 11:00 11:23 '10LIDAY. Route 456 indiramd by Shaded areas 11:80 12:15A Sept.%Nov.11•Nov.22,dee 25:See Sun. OCL 8:See Sat MASSHIGHWAY CRASH RATE WORKSHEETS • AIW----Mff CRASH RATE WORKSHEET CITYITOWN : Plymouth COUNT DATE : 2007 MHD USE ONLY DISTRICT: 4 UNSIGNALIZED: SIGNALIZED : � Source#= — INTERSECTION DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... MAJOR STREET: Highland Avenue ST 9 MINOR STREET(S) : Swampscott Road ST# DiPietro Avenue ST# ST# ST# • INTERSECTION North 1,518 INTERSECTION DIAGRAM JI 21L442 REF# (Label Approaches) 0 1,128 Peak Hour Volumes APPROACH : I 1 2 3 4 5 I Total Entering <1 DIRECTION : I NB SB EB WB Vehicles VOLUMES(AM/P—M) : I 1,128 1,518 0 442 3,088 K" FACTOR : 0.090 APPROACH ADT : 34,311 ADT=TOTAL VOU'K"FACT. TOTAL#OF #OF AVERAGE#OF ACCIDENTS : 20 YEARS : ACCIDENTS(A) : 6.87 .............I........................................................................................................................................ .................... ............................. CRASH RATE CALCULATION : 0.53 RATE (A-1,000,000 (ADT-305) Comments: The calculated Crash Rate for this intersection is below the MassHiahwav • District 4 average for a signalized intersection of 0.88 S:Vobs\52I2\CMSh DAta\MHD—RATEFORM.XLS �� y CRASH RATE WORKSHEET CITYfTOWN: Plymouth COUNT DATE: 2007 MHO USE ONLY DISTRICT: 4 UNSIGNALIZED : SIGNALIZED: Source# - INTERSECTION DATA .......................................................................................................................... .................-..... ...................................... MAJOR STREET: Highland Avenue ST# MINOR STREET(S) : Marlborough Road ST# Traders Way ST# ST# ST* INTERSECTION North 1,188 INTERSECTION • DIAGRAM 483 z REF# (Label Approaches) Z 882 E:* 1.304 Peak Hour Volumes APPROACH : I 1 2 3 4 5 I Total Entering DIRECTION : I NB SB EB WB Vehicles VOLUMES(AM/PM 1,304 1,188 882 483 3,857 K" FACTOR: 0.090 APPROACH ADT: 42,856 ADT=TOTAL you"IC'FACT. TOCIDENTSTAL#OF #OF AVERAGE#OF 18.67 AC : YEARS: ACCIDENTS (A): ...............".........I.................................................................... ....... ....................................I...................................................... CRASH RATE CALCULATION : 1.19 RATE (A'1,000,000) (ADT-365) Comments : The calculated Crash Rate for this intersection is above the MassH!ghway District 4 average for a signalized intersection of 0.88 SAJobs\5212\Cmsh Daia\MI.ID-RATErORM.XLS SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC-VOLUME NETWORKS i �Lu147p.I Iurt.S uuuYn«eeau.7wly WWI mniRl L4nuval`ar.7mdn..: nu�ale�..y]nlu,n d:lna�essh uo uve>-� �yYEE1 P^4Y.-'.'M'[� DgYylOf{NIGPEAKHauR, �,qR� R op, oc� 107 s '�^ 1 Ohl �q 0 �qY RS P •ti DIPIETRO 1 AVENUE m r SWAMPSCOTT ROAD V� SITE .sxaa�rgsw';,�v;a�rem.�-c�.m.Xmw,,xi,�rsRr2 arkana+i° ... ._ _... _ .___. .. .__ __....._.._._.__... ... . ....... ...... .__..__. ___ AR<g IP° °G°y 107 z Asr � ^� F 0 P DIPIETRO AVENUE J' s SWAMPSCOTT P? ROAD SITE s Not To Scale Figure Al IAaAVan`aSt. Jean's Bank ITranssportation, i naineers A P[ nners Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R\SM2\.5212M2 do 11/M/2m2 11;2 W WEST Cc ytlpt Q 2001 Ey VM. M RIO%R..rv.E. -"..-->.•qr.J77.ihnurrxuuu�::xxxrl.Ynu/„•Gumanxr47.p+nriyriYuulr.0 Asunu+aL.+...r7rrlaunUlrerrr,x Jnnr'xrnr.w.uwr'.,_ �� WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR 414 • R0q°°icy y 107 O Jr” P ^6 DIPIETRO ��ti AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT ?� ROAD SITE WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK'HOUR',. . M 107 y 0 g v x~9 1$ 6 ^�tiyr' �q0 J4' P p^ DIPIETRO f AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT ROAD SITE NotToScale Figure A2 • Vanasse,,& Associates;Inc. Osborne Hills Residential Subdivision Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\8212\52rww.4n 11/28/2007 ar:u Ar En C ppfghl B 2=by VAL M Right.Rx..r . •+A�uY17:rluout9rarvtY�'reyyr.y r7nul�'il�auuau�✓/�nualerduuUu�p!tuuutlttut7ttlau�idnoanelu:auuokawr.wn+u !.i WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR M o ROgo°icy 107 • 3 �q0 P e DIPIETRO AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT �2J ROAD G� S SITE WEEKDAY EVENING.PEAK HOUR Mq� (p RcgO��cy 107 goy z ,✓�. s1ti �J~s 9p Jt" �2 P �a DIPIETRO AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT �2J ROAD SITE NotToScale Figure A3 Vanasse & Associates, Inc: Proposed CVS Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • R:\5212\52IUt4.dn 11/27/2OD7 2:12:55 PN EST CORM©2W7 by VM. M RIAhk Rmwv . I/,u'1'7b luinnx•nmY�lxxxan LLw/xa Sxt u.eiurY/ynua l'u�.YuuLu.C1w,twoLnul7alxiw lAnaanxll u.tuu.� w.xarms caw�a:�aao..-e.-�.--. s ac-+asen�+ tiAEEIDpY"M RN a.aaPEQK§HOpR 4,qR foo • ROgO°icy 107 q0 �qY RS J� �2 P DIPIETRO AVENUE hr S/G O q� A SITE �Oqo U�Y �,-N�NGiPEAK,.�OUh, • R q0°y� 107 •" �q0 �qr Rs JA, P ^ DIPIETRO AVENUE q yqS°O�> SITE POgo FAT Not To Scale Figure A4 • vse&� ssoiaetn Witch Hill A�Transportation Engineers & Planners Residential Subdivision Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II:\S212\.1'219ML g L1/M/M7 11:2&MM rsr Cx yrlyhl m 2007 by VAL All R%hb Rxxx . 'Lui'I7a.Li e,ae•nnlL Jahiaa 1:hnd a.ii:a.ea.aaadl:u,nrle.:7w,dw.Nim u.wlr,r..17u1R��. Idnaa r�ehamu u. WEEK©p b0 ,:WS' QUR yq R<e RO90°��y 107 • fy lR q0 �qr Rs P y DIPIETRO 1 AVENUE S k, QS°0,? SITE RO90 ^tiar,+:Y'zm*fi-..y�zTsr�n^m�w:ro::g�ngrxR:.�sae :. .............. ....... .__...._ . _.. . .____... ...__, ... ..._.._........_.._...___..__.......__. ..__�_. VEll't.tt¢aiP U$ENIN�G PEAK HOURxi qR� ROgoq,°y 107 • 49, �Y'9Y RS P A DIPIETRO AVENUE dr S A0 ST sITE R°�o Not To Scale Figure A5 %AIads`e°& s`s ;es; lr Chapel Hill Transportation Er7gineers & Plannors, Residential Subdivision • Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\W2\52i2Mie.a9 11/Ee/2DD7 Inzrne,w EST c,pAht®m b,Vu M RI„U R,.,INE. 'L uiY7e.l.....rseuuni�1ee50t,t7uu/r..fi.auoaSdJh.0 ut lSr Ovulriu Au unual/ru tlu lSiue/dxa�reh a,tum 11J EKbAY M9 R0169st byn 2 Yl v (e . IPS NO, °y 107 z r% 1 "No �2 P r^ DIPIETRO AVENUE 2J 9�q acs s°015• SITE DIY�El�t9GsPEA • R qo�Qy 107 �q}r� �qY RS �2 P r, DIPIETRO AVENUE S�144 s1(10 SITE �Oq° Not To Scale Figure A6a� a�,essocia�fesna Proposed Office Building • Transportation Engineers & Planners 469 Highland Avenue Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\5212\5212et7A" 11/25/2007 11:31:55 MOT 0wrIght 0 2007 5y VAI. NI RIOU R..e unxuuerLuxxuo,ydew--Len nenxry/au:ud'x�l]urdr..�Nonwolru�eSrrlauulr/.roorrxhuaeri, .�I " WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR yqR �O�OROo°y 107 • `v esti 07�, �qo P f�s DIPIETRO AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT ROAD G2 SITE WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR b RO"o°G°y 107 • ti q0 Je" �2 P ray DIPIETRO L AVENUE SWAMPSCOTT P2 ROAD SITE Not To Scale figure A7 Vanasse'& Associates, Inc. Citizens Bank • Peak Hour Traffic Volumes R:\5212\52MM1 g 11/27/2007 3:00:40 PM EST Wp^ht 0 2007 by VN. NI Rlghle Raared GENERAL BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH SECTION III-TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY CITY?OWN - ----------- -- - - -- --- ----- - - Averege Annual STA. ICITYITOWN ROUTEISTREET LOCATION 1997 1 1995 1 1999 2000 2001 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Grovrtll 5101 SALEM BROAD ST. _ _f WEST OF SUMMER ST. 7,70DI 7,8001 f 7,300 7.200 -0.86% ! 5100 SALEM KERNWOOD ST. AT BEVERLY C.L. 7,800 i 10,7001 10,300 7.1001 -2.79 °A I 5216 SALEM IRTE. 1A WORTH OF WEBB ST 28,300 I 31,40D 3.53% 1 5102 SALEM IRTE.114 IAT MARBLEHEAD T.L. I 23.3001 1. 18.900 17,4001 <.74% Avg -1.22% Maz 3.53% Min -4.74% SECTION III Page 1 of 1 CITY/TOWN CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue Swampscott Road at the South Site Driveway Swampscott Road at the North Site Driveway I • Highland Avenue at Marlborough Road and Traders Way • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/26/2007 WTWa1'�SNIR Lane Configurations r ►( r I ?T* Vi Tt A Volume(vph) 145 103 417 92 226 59 460 771 192 66 634 124 Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Utit.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(Prot) 1820 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3400 1671 3471 1478 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1820 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3400 1671 3471 1478 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj.Flow(vph) 159 113 458 114 279 73 495 829 206 77 737 144 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 272 395 103 290 73 495 1019 0 77 737 54 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% Turn Type Split Pt+o1/ Split Free Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 22.5 57.6 15.1 15.1 129.9 30.1 42.2 30.1 42.2 42.2 Effective Green,9(s) 22.5 57.6 15.1 151 129.9 30.1 42.2 30.1 42.2 42.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.32 0.32 • Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 315 689 189 205 1583 414 1105 387 1128 480 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.25 0.06 c0.16 c0.28 c0,30 0.05 0.21 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 We Ratio 0.86 0.57 0.54 1.41 0.05 1.20 0.92 0.20 0.65 0.11 Uniform Delay,d1 52.2 27.0 54.2 57.4 0.0 49.9 42.3 40.2 37.6 30.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 20.3 0.7 1.7 212.8 0.1 109.4 12.4 1.2 1.4 0.1 Delay(s) 72.5 27.7 55.9 270.2 0.1 159.3 54.7 41.3 39.0 30.8 Level of Service E C E F A F D D D C Approach Delay(s) 44.4 180.5 88.5 37.9 Approach LOS D F F D ,x;y,, I ...c".rrvv.� ,N§>,� ' '3'S,3ifii?:! :"°N?�:v±i6ti"Y �x.,xtt't,-"^:;'''»x'F Y"'.: ✓�Z,�.,�t:'a�eAs; Ri=$:�=<...a,; S xoz *,•�y, IntefisBetia�Summar�%ha'Sm;:t>�1��k'ficrvrSs :. G-k 1 {- e,.t'.'A=ratxw'-c:efS:;:y: y..:.3w.e:�<;.-.a-t:�v°.As.4�`_'s?aki'?:-i�^.�;r•;��:o i?.'�+-'s^....,,y:;k HCM Average Control Delay 78.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 129.9 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0°/0 ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analys1s107AMEX.syn Queues 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 1112612007 04 to J. a. 1 v wn -a. pi IA 9 c m r•;'2"' .gy L"�ane�r�'"'"So`tn�'� ; ' �� S�1 "�:,�5 R�>,?1`jlNl: r��:N 7;�-'' r3i� ,F7- �-� ,� E NIAl �,>��IV1R 'a '1�1�I. ,�:.x, �.,3.,i�SWL<; Sll`V'.1'.�=�SVVR ' (:c�* �':�n�. , Lane Group Flaw(vph) 272 458 103 290 73 495 1035 77 737 144 vlc Ratio 0.86 0.61 0.54 1.41 0.05 1.20 0.92 0.20 0.65 0.25 Control Delay 78.5 24.5 67.7 255.1 0.1 152.5 55.6 43.8 41.0 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.5 24.5 67.7 255.1 0.1 152.5 55.6 43.8 41.0 7.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) 231 227 91 -367 0 -540 445 55 287 6 Queue Length 95th(ft) #368 344 141 #486 0 #760 #569 98 335 48 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Tum Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 344 768 189 205 1583 414 1170 387 1179 590 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.79 0.60 0.54 1.41 0.05 1.20 0.88 0.20 0.63 0.24 1169081 snux , rrnFfddrr0"N&11--1 n'".� �•rii:�b�'^�..��-c �ie,�i�•' e'?��,:�`��,��:"��-�"?•..��;'��.;��r�t,y.ry,�.��,r�rf�. =t:s';��i3�''-4r"'£�''<.h�y+,+,C�d�"!. a:«.':*T ""i - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wobs15212'Wnalysis107AMEX.syn Timings 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11126/2007 � LaOeSrD.uai�a °�'� .'.`S1 '•�?�xS�Rr�',mNlt"Vl}�NV1fiT''rNWf�"'� '",.iN�4""`=' 'NEl'kre?::§lN'L`;��t�5 �?:": ��^^-r:4,,�,� ��rr>;at� v, r. .2r�. 3 a•..,r �A�SA.YL�':`tn;i55'. Six:'�.'E'i:_ Lane Configurations tT (+ Volume(vph) 103 417 92 226 59 460 771 66 634 124 Tum Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 15.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split(s) 30.0 65.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 35.0 50.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split 1%) 22.2% 48.1% 14.8% 14.8% 0.0% 25.9% 37.0% 25.9% 37.0% 37.0% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None Max None None Act Effct Green(s) 22.5 57.6 15.1 15.1 129.9 30.1 42.2 30.1 42.2 42.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.32 0.32 vlc Ratio 0.86 0.61 0.54 1.41 0.05 1.20 0.92 0.20 0.65 0.25 Control Delay 78.5 24.5 67.7 255.1 0.1 152.5 55.6 43.8 41.0 7.4 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.5 24.5 67.7 255.1 0.1 152.5 55.6 43.8 41.0 7.4 LOS E C E F A F E D D A Approach Delay 44.6 173.7 86.9 36.2 Approach LOS D F F D .M•:?,ut-11x-.�.a-.e ss ,a•;� ,'ti57' �;;n•�+ -a"s ,; :'-rv-*?.a�e . �e:e :7'z., .'-�,,.. .s i.�it ::rr s� If118rSe0tIQ11�S11%mB1a�Y-'`�t"�'-�.�'.'.,,a;�"+j:°},„r`cL ;t' w, ` 'ski.t ?:nip ' 3 '�`v�y"e.,. •-w, i``'C:r`t�'=�i�>'�.".n�;�;=•k'�i��'�Y.�,a�'81a+;; y"q'" ,,�e�y>a�� Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length:129,9 Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.41 Intersection Signal Delay:76.3 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue of �Jr o2 A'k o3m4 20!'s":c�;<;vur BD a1 05 06 i • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:IJobs152121Analysis107AMEX.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 8: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 tkloltehlenER:ti��NYI!C Lane Configurations r 1 4 ►� �� TT I+ Volume(vph) 106 224 552 214 175 94 431 631 242 122 842 224 Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIM Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fn 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1851 1599 1641 1777 1599 1787 3401 1752 3539 1492 Fit Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(Perm) 1851 1599 1641 1777 1599 1787 3401 1752 3539 1492 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.Flow(vph) 112 236 581 235 192 103 468 686 263 128 886 236 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 126 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 348 560 209 218 103 468 918 0 128 886 110 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% Turn Type Split pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 25.0 60.1 15.0 15.0 129.9 30.1 39.8 30.1 39.8 39.8 Effective Green,g(s) 25.0 60.1 15.0 15.0 129.9 30.1 39.8 30.1 39.8 39.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.46 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.23 0.31 0.23 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 . Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 356 740 189 205 1599 414 1042 406 1084 457 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.35 c0.13 0.12 c0.26 c0.27 0.07 0.25 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.76 1.11 1.06 0,06 1.13 0.88 0.32 0.82 0.24 Uniform Delay,dl 52.2 28.9 57.4 57.4 0.0 49.9 42.8 41.4 41.7 33.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 41.1 3.9 96.7 80.6 0.1 84.8 8.9 2.0 4.9 0.3 Delay(s) 93.3 32.8 154.1 138.1 0.1 134.7 51.6 43.4 46.6 34.0 Level of Service F C F F A F D D D C Approach Delay(s) 55.5 117.6 79.1 43.9 Approach LOS E F E D rre a,;a - urnF.a+� .,�. ,,,,»,�� . ti s..nzW,.F.;::✓.9'kWri..°x.: ''i�V';`• •iYniu; f.' v �;.� '� a-,'�. ii r: -e,:i inter's�c�lo'nest"t°mmarV ';;��r�� . "�:''��a�~x:^u� ��,x„��-'�x�;��.� ?��s=� ��'�=;� ,: .�'�. ��?r` �; �;. �� ;��u�t� HCM Average Control Delay 68.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 129.9 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group j I Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis107PMEX.syn Queues 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 Lane Group Flow(vph) 348 581 209 218 103 468 949 128 886 236 vlc Ratio 0.97 0.76 1.10 1.06 0.06 1.13 0.89 0.32 0.82 0.40 Control Delay 94.5 35.9 147.9 134.6 0.1 130.9 51.5 45.2 46.6 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 94.5 35.9 147.9 134.6 0.1 130.9 51.5 45.2 48.6 11.0 Queue Length 50th(ft) 299 386 -215 -217 0 -469 383 92 362 33 Queue Length 95th(11) #516 571 #397 #403 0 #707 471 157 443 100 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Tum Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 357 760 190 205 1599 413 1163 405 1180 619 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.97 0.76 1.10 1.06 0.06 1.13 0.82 0.32 0.75 0.38 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wobs152121Analysis107PMEX.syn Timings 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue 11/26/2007 \ A-% 1�1 f 1 r R' :v, ,...y,,° , ':,;v.4v``.> r.A `g'X, INE ^i'W" r >+::✓,.. xs,,...., c +.p z I:ane:�srp ps*:aN�r1 .v��., `SSE'I��" SSR ;.N�IL4�;?�NIN,t'�'�T(11VR�i��.(JE��'�N€ Lane Configurations )+ ►) «i )+ 4T+ Volume(vph) 224 552 214 175 94 431 631 122 842 224 Turn Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 15.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 Total Split(s) 30.0 65.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 35.0 50.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split(%) 22.2% 48.1% 14.8% 14,8% 0.0% 25.9% 37.0% 25.9% 37.0% 37.0% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None Max None None Act Effct Green(s) 25.1 601 15.0 15.0 130.0 30.1 39.8 30.1 39.8 39.8 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.19 0.46 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.23 0.31 0.23 0.31 0.31 vlc Ratio 0.97 0.76 1.10 1.06 0.06 1.13 0.89 0.32 0.82 0.40 Control Delay 94.5 35.9 147.9 134.6 0.1 130.9 51.5 45.2 48.6 11.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 94.5 35.9 147.9 134.6 0.1 130.9 51.5 45.2 48.6 11.0 LOS F D F F A F D D D B Approach Delay 57.8 113.7 77.7 41.1 Approach LOS E F E D ,[tror,. •ni•'S.K "�^;:TL„i.(h'� ';:�e,S, V�•�c�k,j'',,.�h,.,Sl,'jn'^Y:�,'s��"<pxpi�:>:\�'},��'„H"`�,^';',�,,;�°�"-vat, ,;�n�qe.In ".:t^..'u�.,,:C�,, ,•-. , ti�3,� a' ``n�°.s't�,s�m!�rzctce Cycle Length: 135 Actuated Cycle Length:130 Natural Cycle:100 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum We Ratio: 1.13 Intersection Signal Delay:66.8 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)16 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue It 01 10' o2 o3 o4 135q rS=t 5D,s e a Z.F v I &'' RO#S I^:'>130ir wmfmh 05 /* 06 135is"��' ... . . . :,z31:'aG,• 50s �� "r ' �e'�I�'�a Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wobs15212\Analysis107PMEX.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 1112812007 MQ,emSn s 1 :S f 356R<a NVI 9Wd NWR �kw t� T3„w,u0 WE,ft-WOMMIMMA Lane Configurations r Vi FT r ►) TT If ►) TT r Volume(vph) 172 116 463 99 245 62 513 843 208 70 697 144 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane UGI.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(Prot) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(Perm) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj.Flow(vph) 189 127 509 122 302 77 552 906 224 81 810 167 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 127 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 316 457 110 314 77 552 906 100 81 810 40 Heavy Vehicles M) 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% Turn Type Split pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 17.0 50.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 28.0 44.6 44.6 6.4 23.0 23.0 Effective Green,g(s) 17.0 50,0 12.0 12.0 100.0 28.0 44.6 44.6 6.4 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.23 0.23 • Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph)v h 309 777 195 212 1583 500 1563 699 107 798 340 vls Ratio Prot c0.17 0.29 0.07 c0.18 c0.31 0.26 0.06 0.05 c0.23 0.03 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 vlc Ratio 1.02 0.59 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.58 0.14 0.76 1.02 0.12 Uniform Delay,dl 41.5 17.7 41.5 44.0 0.0 36.0 20.7 16.4 46.0 38.5 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.39 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 57.1 0.7 2.2 240.1 0.1 50.0 0.1 0.0 23.3 35.7 0.7 Delay(s) 98.6 18.4 43.8 284.1 0.1 84.2 8.2 2.7 69.4 74.2 31.2 Level of Service F B D F A F A A E E C Approach Delay(s) 49.1 187.7 32,4 67.0 Approach LOS D F C E •9mb, r.{:c.� ^�y�+ '.is.,�$d.A'p" �'J" h' Y} '� �� :^,N`T..�: .."ly:.+'l: i r�.tti i;."Y.�u`v�_��A�'v a � g (:w;� HCM Average Control Delay 63.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group i • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS SMobs152MAnalysis112AMNB.syn Queues 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 «w '�"T' Y� `"3,"5 -V ..z wnvnfi..,.r t rN.?xk:Y wl.��SEf�;?t�S�Ft'�s'w�`.NINL�,,�:?.Nle!T�`�,cNl`Nfisr-:NEir*r�,sN T�N� .�.,�.. 61!_: 1:12??: SN�Ln_._ �VT'r..,• Yl�BMS�'rr>.` Lane Group Flow(vph) 316 509 110 314 77 552 906 224 81 810 167 v1c Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.57 0.27 0.64 1.02 0.36 Control Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 74.8 7.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 74.8 7.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) -210 177 70 -292 0 -383 96 0 51 -279 1 Queue Length 95th(ft) #383 286 115 #407 0 m172 m68 m0 #106 #378 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 309 829 195 212 1583 500 1600 838 134 798 467 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.57 0.27 0.60 1.02 0.36 IrJfBrse: RLi;SIIIXIfII s '. _ . ._,�. ;��`>..y <�v� >�?�:"z��•+;w�`��#:;xa��s. ; .'� " "�t`asa�` ". , '. ;� a'�� x Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report • MAS S:Wobs15212Vanalysis112AMNB.syn Timings 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 • *X A-% � f 1 Lane Configurations 4 Volume(vph) 116 463 99 245 62 513 843 208 70 697 144 Turn Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(a) 22.0 55.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 33.0 48.0 48.0 13.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split(%) 22.0% 55.0% 17.0% 17.0% 0.0% 33.0% 48.0% 48.0% 13.0% 28.0% 28.00/0 Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost'flme Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min C-Min Act Eliot Green(s) 17.0 WO 120 IZO 100.0 28.0 45.6 45.6 7.6 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.60 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.28 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.23 0.23 v1c Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1110 0,57 0.27 0.64 1.02 0.36 Control Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 74.8 7.7 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.5 17.8 53,6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.6 68.0 74.8 7.7 LOS F B D F A F A A E E A Approach Delay 49.1 183.2 32.1 63.7 Approach LOS D F C E ro Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and 6:NET, Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:1.48 Intersection Signal Delay:62.4 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue 01 I z2 Al 03 1XI o4 IftA=8�,2T% 1,25 ro5 W o5 06 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:\Jobsk5212*aIysisk12AMNB.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 Lane Configurations I TT r I }T r Volume(vph) 156 248 632 231 201 99 525 715 259 129 949 274 Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane UtIl.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Ad).Flow(vph) 164 261 665 254 221 109 571 777 282 136 999 288 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 161 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 425 651 229 246 109 571 777 121 136 999 127 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% t% Turn Type Split pt+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14.0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47.2 9.8 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14.0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47.2 9.8 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 319 800 209 226 1599 504 1519 686 156 836 353 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.41 c0.14 0.14 c0.32 0.22 0.08 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.81 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.18 0.87 1.19 0.36 Uniform Delay,d1 45.5 23.2 48.0 48.0 0.0 39.5 23.0 19.4 49,5 42.0 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.75 0.88 3.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 169.5 6.0 90.2 85.5 0,1 62.4 0.1 0.1 36.7 99.4 2.8 Delay(s) 215.0 29.2 138.2 133.5 0.1 91.9 20.4 65.6 86.2 141.4 37.9 Level of Service F C F F A F C E F F D Approach Delay(s) 101.6 110.4 53.3 115.2 Approach LOS F F D F `^' 'YE" u xl'" ? Intersec6en�l��i�i"�'`"�,r:�J` �b ... :v� _ HCM Average Control Delay 90.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.19 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS SNobs152121Analysis112PMNB.syn Queues 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 SVJt�:Cs.�`�xaa Lane Group Flow(vph) 425 665 229 246 109 571 777 282 136 999 288 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.33 0.87 1.19 0.56 Control Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.7 8.2 94.2 137.0 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.7 8.2 94.2 137.0 15.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) -391 369 -193 -206 0 -467 234 79 96 -450 44 Queue Length 95th(ft) #586 #551 #355 #374 0 m#482 m238 m69 #208 #579 131 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 319 814 209 226 1599 504 1517 847 159 836 514 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiilback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.33 0.86 1.19 0.56 srvrcwx, •s-.ssass»+. z rv. �a e: s+,,, `� 2, •"x%;22?3*`•�i-- zF� b. �S "F"g y3}�, s°°;54'xC.'�, raker€ecHo :summatV-. '., a., .. ";s��,�...�.,_�M;=�. . .x � . . - .• � .w - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report MAS S:Wabs15212VAnalysis112PMNB.syn Timings 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 1112812007 Of RMOWN=YN40`_$05_ WY ,1 _.�� Lane Configurations 4 1 4 p I TT if I fT r Volume(vph) 248 632 231 201 99 525 715 259 129 949 274 Tum Type pl+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 24.0 60.0 19.0 19.0 0.0 36.0 52.0 52.0 15.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split(%) 21.8% 54.5% 17.3% 17.3% 0.0% 32.7% 47.3% 47.3% 13.6% 28.2% 26.2% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14.0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47.2 9.8 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.33 0.87 1.19 0.56 Control Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.7 8.2 94.2 137.0 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.7 8.2 94.2 137.0 15.3 LOS F C F F A F C A F F B Approach Delay 100.1 108.4 43.6 108.3 Approach LOS F F D F lnterea 1rse�ol��summary� Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and 6:NET,Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:1.33 Intersection Signal Delay:84.1 Intersection LOS:F Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue a It 01 IA' o2 03 l)e M 136rs�.'• ��n�a. � ile'Si,�01b's;�s'"; 5: sw;�ltii g98a� "��Ii`'.t".�24"'s". �+.,.`'2'�� a1 05 a6 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:IJobs152121Analysisll2PMNB.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 Iv1"oVa of �� s s ti :s R rTW {;t3ia154W IMEN Lane Configurations 4 if If Volume(vph) 172 116 463 99 245 62 513 844 208 70 698 144 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane U01.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said,Flow(prat) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 Said.Flow(Perm) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0,86 Adj.Flow(vph) 189 127 509 122 302 77 552 908 224 81 812 167 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 127 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 316 457 110 314 77 552 908 100 81 812 40 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% Tum Type Split pt*ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 17.0 50.0 12.0 12,0 100.0 28.0 44.6 44.6 6.4 23.0 23.0 Effective Green,g(s) 17.0 50.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 28.0 44.6 44.6 6.4 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.23 0.23 • Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 309 777 195 212 1583 500 1563 699 107 798 340 We Ratio Prot c0.17 0.29 0.07 c0.18 c0.31 0.26 0.06 0.05 c0,23 0.03 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 vlc Ratio 1.02 0.59 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.58 0,14 0.76 1.02 0.12 Uniform Delay,d1 41.5 17.7 41.5 44.0 0.0 NO 20.7 16.4 46.0 38.5 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,95 0.39 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 57.1 0.7 2.2 240.1 0.1 50.0 0.1 0.0 23.3 36.3 0.7 Delay(s) 98.6 18.4 43.8 284.1 0.1 84.3 8.2 2.7 69.4 74.8 31,2 Level of Service F B D F A F A A E E C Approach Delay(s) 49.1 187,7 32,4 67,5 Approach LOS D F C E �. ��k ^'viu �.5'�% �j}�1_l :�M �3 .Y� i::�?.:�5 �iS". .Lk� �S.Y�'i �a1:ti�%�.l i�:�j:J :iS.�•C� .l'✓l+{ HCM Average Control Delay 64.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS SMobs15212kAnalysis112AMBD.syn Queues 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue k r 1112812007 �I, If K� � � J � '�1 7j r� r" • RAN ^ s C. .i.y, � {� E. e:GfAUP. 'i��ie�r° .z�'`S?��: aE%f'��,3tS�R;",�dN.W.L''`a `Nl?11cT��'�°'N.Vi!♦3?t��;', Nil`" z`�E+f;,pt�E13:.,�t:SWl:x>�SW32uW1�''<" Lane Group Flow(vph) 316 509 110 314 77 552 908 224 81 812 167 v1c Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.57 0.27 0.64 1.02 0.36 Control Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 75.4 7.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.5 17.8 53.8 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 75.4 7.7 Queue Length 50th(ft) -210 177 70 -292 0 -383 96 0 51 -281 1 Queue Length 95th(ft) #383 286 115 #407 0 m172 m68 m0 #106 #380 47 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 309 829 195 212 1583 500 1600 838 134 798 467 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1,10 0.57 0.27 0.60 1.02 0.36 ln `isatPon - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report • MAS S:IJobs\5212\Analysis\12AMBD.syn Timings 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue y� 1112812007 • � � 1� � l � � �-a1 � Il 1c.. an'e ri rt SST: y1SEft�NNYl N1 i1 44Rf x QW-M- R,K9 1rjfi Sl^lR = Lane Configurations r ►) r ►) T4 r I Tf )+ Volume(vph) 116 463 99 245 62 513 844 208 70 698 144 Turn Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 22.0 55.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 33.0 48.0 40 13.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split(%) 22.0% 55.0% 17.0% 17.0% 0.0% 33.0% 48.0% 48.0% 13.0% 28.0% 28.0% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min C Min Act Effct Green(s) 17.0 50.0 12.0 12.0 100.0 28.0 45.6 45.6 7.6 23.0 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.28 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.23 0.23 vlc Ratio 1.02 0.61 0.56 1.48 0.05 1.10 0.57 0.27 0.64 1.02 0.36 Control Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 75.4 7.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 99.5 17.8 53.6 273.5 0.1 84.0 8.3 0.5 68.0 75.4 7.7 LOS F B D F A F A A E E A Approach Delay 49.1 183.2 32.1 64.2 Approach LOS D F C E Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length:100 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and 6:NET,Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle:140 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio:1.48 Intersection Signal Delay:62.5 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)16 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue of o2 If ` o3 l��l o4 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysi02AMBD.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 1112812007 Ma�iQme`n�`f��a �;�?�5-�Lw` `�S�T+ "��+6�I ��v�NYV�,z"ei�''N' i';r��w•".1�VR'?.;�;:3NE�'s>��TJET :NEf2� €SYi!LhcS!LST�„°;�S'�VR Lane Configurations 4 if 4 1 TT r I ff r Volume(vph) 156 248 632 231 201 99 525 716 259 129 950 274 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIM.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Flt Permitted 0.98 1,00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(Perm) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.Flow(vph) 164 261 665 254 221 109 571 778 282 136 1000 288 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 161 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 425 651 229 246 109 571 778 121 136 1000 127 Heavy Vehicles I%) 1% 1% 1% I% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% Tum Type split pt+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14.0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47.2 9.8 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14,0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47,2 9,8 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 . Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 319 800 209 226 1599 504 1519 686 156 836 353 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.41 c0.14 0.14 c0.32 0.22 0.08 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.81 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.18 0.87 1.20 0.36 Uniform Delay,dl 45.5 23.2 46.0 48.0 0.0 39.5 23.0 19.4 49.5 42.0 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.88 3.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 169.5 6.0 90.2 85.5 0.1 62.4 0.1 0.1 36.7 99.9 2.8 Delay(s) 215.0 29.2 138.2 133.5 0.1 91.9 20.3 65.5 86.2 141.9 37.9 Level of Service F C F F A F C E F F D Approach Delay(s) 101.6 110.4 53.2 115.5 Approach LOS F F D F ..«Po!se-O.,cxaµ-liwoe.T<4:�j,,�i''s�m21"::t.I-'%A;��<V;;t;;.w.h;i..^,`jj.`=��4.1'Y,.;, .-y=: ;;:• ".;t',':Aa(<`SX2t.^_f,.4;:<'.'w:n,:i. Interase(lo �Y�r�mary�•^�.4'?a`.w_�..'i:s.;.4s.i•.Y��*:R 4.v �a�1<.,�`„ 3Z,.k1�c''_.¢:t i , ;1ia::>:k HCM Average Control Delay 90.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.19 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group I Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wobs\52121Analysis112PMBD.syn Queues 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/28007 MneVbiu: '?..; ''� « RO.�1 4Eff,,§ M-14a Lane Group Flow(vph) 425 665 229 246 109 571 778 282 136 1000 288 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.33 0.87 1.20 0.56 Control Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.6 8.2 94.2 1137.6 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.6 8.2 94.2 137.5 15.3 Queue Length 50th(ft) -391 369 -193 -206 0 -467 234 79 96 -461 44 Queue Length 95th(ft) #586 #651 #355 #374 0 m#481 m238 m68 #208 #581 131 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 469 821 275 Turn Say Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Bass Capacity(vph) 319 814 209 226 1599 504 1517 847 169 836 514 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIc Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 11.13 0.51 0.33 0.86 1.20 0.56 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue Is theoretically Infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after Iwo cycles, m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:1Jobs15212kAnalysisll2PMBD.syn Timings 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 * *' N f I ;w e* *-,, Ne,.(ir."N% SEf SI Ft �idl!�L�'�N1Ni��=NWCOMMEN��N�T Lane Configurations ►) �� r � Volume(vph) 248 632 231 201 99 525 716 259 129 950 274 Tum Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 24.0 60.0 19.0 19.0 0.0 36.0 52.0 52.0 15.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split(%) 21.8% 54.5% 17.3% 17.3% 0.0% 32.7% 47.3% 47.3% 13.6% 28.2% 28.2% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 19.0 55.0 14.0 14.0 110.0 31.0 47.2 47.2 9.8 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.50 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 1.33 0.82 1.10 1.09 0.07 1.13 0.51 0.33 0.87 1.20 0.56 Control Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.6 8.2 94.2 137.5 15.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 206.5 32.1 135.6 131.1 0.1 92.4 20.6 8.2 94.2 137.5 15.3 LOS F C F F A F C A F F B Approach Delay 100.1 108.4 43.6 108.6 Approach LOS F F D F �wr'+ rmi a5 v r wt,'3rhC +' ,r• IetUbrir`.S Cycle Length:110 Actuated Cycle Length: 110 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and 6:NET,Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle:130 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.33 Intersection Signal Delay:84.2 Intersection LOS:F Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue t 01 l� 02 Alk 03 I m4 1391% li;t: r24*V,,M 05 'X 06 i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysis112PMBD.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity An2qltk;Build w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue y� r 11/2812007 �1 � � I� � l � � �I �t � lc-• Lane Configurations 4 it r I T? i+ ►( ff r Volume(vph) 172 116 463 99 245 62 513 844 208 70 698 144 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane U61.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Fit Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1819 1553 1625 1766 1583 1787 3505 1568 1671 3471 1478 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj.Flow(vph) 189 127 509 122 302 77 552 908 224 81 812 167 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 115 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 316 424 110 314 77 552 908 98 81 812 52 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 8% 4% 2% Turn Type Split pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 17.0 52.0 17.0 17.0 110.0 30.0 48.1 48.1 7.9 26.0 26.0 Effective Green,g(s) 17.0 52.0 17.0 17.0 110.0 30.0 48.1 48.1 7.9 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.47 0.15 0.15 1.00 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.24 0.24 • Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 281 734 251 273 1583 487 1533 686 120 820 349 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.27 0.07 00.18 c0.31 0.26 0.06 0.05 c0.23 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.58 0.44 1.15 0.05 1.13 0.59 0.14 0.68 0.99 0.15 Uniform Delay,dl 46.5 21.0 42.2 46.5 0.0 40.0 23.5 18.6 49.8 41.9 33.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.37 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 91.5 0.7 0.4 101.3 0.1 62.8 0.2 0.0 11.2 29.2 0.9 Delay(s) 138.0 21.7 42.6 147.8 0.1 91.6 8.8 15.9 61.0 71.0 341 Level of Service F C D F A F A B E E C Approach Delay(s) 66.3 102.0 36.9 64.4 Approach LOS E F D E JMn'iY.sNi 5, g`l➢:L`i.'JT�`ln. 4 P' Ylq' b Intere`c�ai�S.ummary��.� HCM Average Control Delay 58.0 HCM Level of Service' E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysis112AMBDM.syn Queues 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue k 11/28/2007 lane.6Gfoupa ' ANIUSED' 'I R. NWWRI'FYOMINOWNE71 NE[2�y��INI SWC SYI . Lane Group Flow(vph) 316 509 110 314 77 552 908 224 81 812 167 vie Ratio 1.12 0.62 0.44 1.15 0.05 1.13 0.58 0.27 0.59 0.99 0.36 Control Delay 134.6 18.1 48.4 143.7 0.1 92.3 9.0 2.5 65.2 71.6 9.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 134.6 18.1 48.4 143.7 0.1 92.3 9.0 2.5 65.2 71.6 9.6 Queue Length 501h(ft) -258 177 74 -275 0 -439 199 25 56 302 9 Queue Length 95th(ft) #434 292 120 #392 0 m#412 m218 m25 101 #402 57 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 281 819 251 273 1583 487 1564 824 167 820 465 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.12 0.62 0.44 1.15 0.05 1.13 0.58 0.27 0.49 0.99 0.36 rzrwswev'a ^k'+.cR'rav" vg gw,rs•;�-:r. tifs':@Y- .t tt h'....w�;:. - �..... )ntefde.CflQ $11mma4Yr'< .•, L,.�. G�€�'�;ki�� ti~�? :'��s��fi�e' ,� ; ''�'�` � �'; t;,4rs� �_��:�•�.. '��`,'��s�'a - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wobs152121Analysis112AMBDM.syn Timings 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 �. *N f 1 -x ,r k. an.vGroO . n> . ., 5 7 SER . IIUL t .+ U WRQ ' CW ETF IJNWINsTMISWRAIMM Lane Configurations 4 F ►f Q r +T r I T+ P Volume(vph) 116 463 99 245 62 513 844 208 70 698 144 Turn Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 22.0 57.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 35.0 50.0 50.0 16.0 31.0 31.0 Total Split(%) 20.0% 51.8% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 31.8% 45.5% 45.5% 14.5% 28.2% 28.2% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 17.0 52.0 17.0 17.0 110.0 30.0 49.1 49.1 9.1 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio . 0.15 0.47 0.15 0.15 1.00 0.27 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.24 0.24 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.62 0.44 1.15 0.05 1.13 0.58 0.27 0.59 0.99 0.36 Control Delay 134.6 18.1 48.4 143.7 0.1 92.3 9.0 2.5 65.2 71.6 9.6 . Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 134.6 18.1 48.4 143.7 0.1 92.3 9.0 2.5 65.2 71.6 9.6 LOS F B D F A F A A E E A Approach Delay 62.8 100.7 35.4 61.4 Approach LOS E F D E •rxrt(:.a »sy aniv tax-pw.yg: x� v ., � -� r, Cycle Length:110 Actuated Cycle Length:110 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and&NET,Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle:140 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum We Ratio:1.15 Intersection Signal Delay:55.7 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue y� t 01 10' 02 l 03 Irl 04 85;�'��-" ff � ,,,,�Rl.��:;18]�b4�i�&��v' -•a,�"a�.`I�c?t't*Q2.`s�a:"•y�,�%�.�'�E,I,s: �. 05 I iK 06 .1srsa5mli l • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis112AMBDM.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Anlgt%Build w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborough Road & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 MoGemante� � �" :�S�l� �S��.� �S�R��;�3N1NL� �P1YJ;TCYYR�"'t�EL � r.NE� ,,�C�ER�a �SYJI�.�;` �+lJJ�;; S�ift Lane Configurations Q 4 r I ft r I ?T it Volume(vph) 156 248 632 231 201 99 525 716 259 129 950 274 Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIM.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Fit Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1846 1599 1641 1778 1599 1787 3539 1599 1752 3539 1492 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj.Flow(vph) 164 261 665 254 221 109 571 778 282 136 1000 288 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 148 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 425 654 229 246 109 571 778 117 136 1000 140 Heavy Vehicles N 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2°k 1% Turn Type Split pt+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 23.0 59.0 14.0 14.0 120.0 31.0 49.8 49.8 13.2 32.0 32.0 Effective Green,g(s) 23.0 59.0 14.0 14.0 120.0 31.0 49.8 49.8 13.2 32.0 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 • Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 354 786 191 207 1599 462 1469 664 193 944 398 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.41 c0.14 0.14 c0.32 0.22 0.08 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.20 0.83 1.20 1.19 0.07 1.24 0.53 0.18 an 1.06 0.35 Uniform Delay,dl 48,5 26.2 53.0 53.0 0.0 44.5 26.3 22.2 51.5 44.0 35.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.43 1.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 114.3 7.2 129.0 122.7 0.1 113.9 0.6 0.2 9.2 46.3 2.4 Delay(s) 162.8 33.4 182.0 175.7 0.1 147.2 11.8 34.4 60.7 90.3 38.0 Level of Service F C F F A F B C E F D Approach Delay(s) 83.9 145.4 63.1 76.9 Approach LOS F F E E HCM Average Control Delay 82.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS SNobs152121Analysis112PMBDM.syn Queues 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 %* La""ii'l-M a SEI SERI WL N f 1JJilltie N t ; NE7 w?HER > SW 1N1 .SN Lane Group Flow(vph) 425 665 229 246 109 571 778 282 136 1000 288 We Ratio 1.20 0.83 1.20 1.19 0.07 1.24 0.53 0.34 0.71 1.06 0.53 Control Delay 156.4 36.4 174.2 168.3 0.1 145.3 12.2 4.9 70.6 88.8 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 156.4 36.4 174.2 168.3 0.1 145.3 12.2 4.9 70.6 88.8 15.4 Queue Length 50th(ft) -400 419 -226 -241 0 -534 206 48 103 -447 52 Queue Length 95th(ft) #602 #621 #395 9414 0 m#610 m253 m60 167 #581 140 Internal Link Dist(ft) 354 459 821 275 Turn Bay Length(ft) 70 200 200 225 200 200 200 Base Capacity(vph) 354 797 191 207 1599 462 1469 829 248 944 546 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splliback Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.20 0.83 1.20 1.19 0.07 1.24 0.53 0.34 0.55 1.06 0.53 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report MAS S:1Jobs15212kAna1ysis112PMBDM.syn Timings 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour 3: Marlborouqh Road & Highl and Avenue 1112812007 Lane configurations .� �( .� }� r ►( Tf Volume(vph) 248 632 231 201 99 525 716 259 129 950 274 Tum Type pt+ov Split Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 41 3 3 1 6 5 2 2 Permitted Phases Free 6 Detector Phase 4 41 3 3 1 6 6 5 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 28.0 64.0 19.0 19,0 0.0 36.0 51.0 51.0 22.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split(%) 23.3% 53.3% 15.8% 15.8% 0.0% 30.0% 42.5% 42.5% 16.3% 30.6% 30,8% Yellow Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green(s) 23.0 59.0 14.0 14.0 120.0 31.0 49.8 49.8 13.2 32.0 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.12 0.12 1.00 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 1.20 0.83 1.20 1.19 0.07 1.24 0.53 0.34 0.71 1.06 0.53 Control Delay 156.4 36.4 174.2 168.3 0.1 145.3 12.2 4.9 70.6 88.8 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 156.4 36.4 174.2 168.3 0.1 145.3 12.2 4.9 70.6 88.8 15.4 • LOS F D F F A F B A E F B Approach Delay 83.2 139.2 57.5 72.2 Approach LOS F F E E ina�_�a� ��r.� -a�,".ri'ns�=r:S&'!a�'> y:��Fx':rl•'�.s,�-.�..:�iv4»�-�;i£bc`.�"7�.n- .�+,.�'`�,�`.-.�ri'A..�+� �fiiXc..-8� �a4E Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length:120 Offset:0(0%),Referenced to phase 2:SWT and&NET,Start of Yellow,Master Intersection Natural Cycle:130 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.24 Intersection Signal Delay:78.0 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 3:Marlborough Road&Highland Avenue It 01 ly m2 Al m3 I m4 196(( lw . . N, Y m5 � m6 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis112PMBDM.syn Highland Avenue at Swampscott Road and DiPietro Avenue • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Hiphland Avenue 11/28/2007 .x:t:wlPR.'Y•C.v�Y. .• 4• ••� •••ro.n Moyeme t ' � .zVVRL�+r�,Vi/Bfi;., tJ.VvL;k�NIIIIR�N�il�ai�"NEi3ti.:?IJ�R2�;�rSWL$�'��,`511' -SI!J�T�ith�;:..:= ;a� :a Lane Configurations TT# r Volume(vph) 0 6 161 335 1104 0 117 10 318 793 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj.Flow(vph) 0 16 169 353 1227 0 130 11 353 881 RTOR Reduction(vph) 16 0 0 0 1 0 50 0 0 0 Lane Group flow(vph) 0 0 169 353 1239 0 67 0 364 881 Heavy Vehicles N 0% 0% 15% 2% 2% 13°% 17% 0% 5% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 6 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 1.8 25.3 25.3 30.2 30.2 23.1 59.3 Effective Green,g(s) 1.8 25.3 25.3 30.2 30.2 23.1 59.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.57 Clearance Time(s) 5,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension(s1 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 29 384 387 987 367 385 2010 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.11 c0.22 c0.37 0.05 c0.21 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 0.44 0.91 1.26 0.18 0.95 0.44 Uniform Delay,dl 49.9 33.1 38,0 36.6 27.4 39.5 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.0 0.3 24.8 123.4 0.2 31.6 0.2 Delay(s) 50.0 33.3 62.8 160.0 27.6 71.1 12.7 Level of Service D C E F C E B Approach Delay(s) 50.0 533 148.6 29.8 Approach LOS D D F3 C ai'^t$e tiDl ltS�.m:s.. a�v�1+C`w .A' a @,'�•.s •w.�.'��:�``. ''n��i^';�.1�`,'%b"�,4:'�1rJ��4'(Yds'f.i�;t}n"!i:;.T':'�4z"x" �+„u`(cmMC- !�'�,•','��s.:x rti HCM Average Control Delay 85.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle length(s) 103.4 Sum of lost time(s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report MAS S:Vobs15212VAnalysis107AMEX.syn Queues 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue r• 11/28/2007 Ac- � f 's ,* at A •7K'OO 4 O, e'. f*/ 'iRY'-e �r "ti;.9 ff+ar.�. ��= a L`ane�Gr, x s��4v. AWB.,,.vsrlVVl.�'' NWRa +v= E w�rN y.e�SV�L�=�.,aS z, y. ��.<' 4w,��.,u 4 p��.L"'u:$v e414:k. ' d. �b, 1➢4 :� IN,1�.. .','+:. Y.nY.. ... ..�..3�'i'S ,(4.•_...ro:ry ."iv-t.�i Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 169 353 1240 117 364 881 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.43 0.88 1.22 0.27 0.92 0.43 Control Delay 0.2 35.9 61.2 141.1 15.5 68.9 13.1 Queue Delay 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 35.9 61.2 141.1 15.5 68.9 13.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 0 86 205 -530 23 224 146 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 164 #401 9769 80 #450 240 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 1124 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 453 428 432 1015 426 397 2071 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.39 0.82 1.22 0.27 0.92 0.43 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theorefically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. i • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:IJobs152121Analysis107AMEX.syn Timings 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 1112812007 Ac- Ar` e-74 l� • . NER WWAM:sWNI*Tn��;��, ��r��=:; Lane Configurations 9 +p r TT Volume(vph) 0 161 335 1104 117 318 793 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 6 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 6 6 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 17.0 Minimum Split(s) 10.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0 11.0 23.0 Total Split(s) 12.0 34.0 34.0 36.0 36.0 29.0 65.0 Total Split(%) 10.8% 30.6% 30.6% 32.4% 32.4% 26.1% 58.6% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green(s) 5.0 25.3 25.3 30.2 30.2 23.1 59.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.59 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.43 0.88 1.22 0.27 0.92 0.43 Control Delay 0.2 35.9 61.2 141.1 15.5 68.9 13.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 35.9 61.2 141.1 15.5 68.9 13.1 LOS A D E F B E B Approach Delay 0.2 53.0 130.3 29.4 Approach LOS A D F C WO -e;�`nn+.wHcene ''n$, q•,' ryu.'Y;'�'..:Y$"�.'.,�:.,�. ''Yid )y+EK?!SS:.^w . 'S3a„!s: �!,1+-'vs'l'= �:::?;: }_�. .,+s,J'S'%':.3:;..'.'.Ws,."f �'rfl' �3'>'' Intera'sc'"'��n.�ummarv "��,� �> ��..��; r'�� +. :,;•<��:;b.., '.:,�,��, .w�,.�:�'��;:.�,�::' ':b;.� ��.<�ttt:. �> � �_ Cycle Length:111 Actuated Cycle Length:100.4 Natural Cycle:140 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.22 Intersection Signal Delay:76.8 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue r� I)'e' e2 l�` e3 o4 165 S�$ `='�.3'""`��^�r"•' r Sr'�i"�.` �¢;-.„°,a .��.ii�i•S`.*3.4:�s�e..�"�= .�.s:Ai�3''i` `Ii;si �f2 `s�irh 05 L,4 06 i I Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report • MAS S:Uobs15212%nalysis107AMEX.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 ic )r- Z r f n 4 Mo,em.n1t�;��: . "R<._�;:M,. BOMM@;�;�ai1N9R: s1NWlNV+rR?�tJl�R2 jai., Lane Configurations Y 9 Volume(vph) 1 0 2 124 302 13 977 1 150 2 366 1150 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(Prot) 1579 1736 1600 3414 1427 1768 3574 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1579 1736 1600 3414 1427 1768 3574 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 Ad).Flow(vph) 3 0 5 148 360 15 1018 1 156 2 389 1223 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 65 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 3 0 148 373 0 1034 0 75 0 391 1223 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 25% 2% 1% Turn Type Split Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 6 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 1.1 25.2 25.2 31.3 31.3 26.2 63.5 Effective Green,g(s) 1.1 25.2 25.2 31.3 31.3 26.2 63.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.59 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 • Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 16 410 378 1001 418 434 2125 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 0.09 c0.23 c0.30 0.05 c0.22 0.34 vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.19 0.36 0.99 1.03 0.18 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay,d1 52.4 34.1 40.6 37.8 28.2 39.0 13.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.1 0.2 42.6 37.4 0.2 21.0 0.4 Delay(s) 54.5 34.3 83.2 75.1 28.4 60.1 13.7 Level of Service D C F E C E B Approach Delay(s) 54.5 69.4 69.5 24.9 Approach LOS D E E C rc dw. r.-o .r r: .- •• p•, ...,... .,.: 4. ..5,:ut°ai•..�..rw,a.!'.. ...¢.<�... w. iu..b. w._+L'2i:.•: .. ,``R. HCM Average Control Delay 47.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 106.8 Sum of lost time(s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobsk5212%naIysM07PMEX.syn Queues 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 1112812007 '`- $-', 'g re-, ,.' .<,. .,. 'ice.. ;�r'.VYIr-Y�R'-K-NIIV;�i1��NER'1�;�%Sl�1-� 5�3`�~��>.,a�;;�x,�•c.��. ..: �.��`�`��;! 't Lane Group Flow(vph) 6 148 375 1035 140 391 1223 We Ratio 0.10 0.35 0.95 1.00 0.28 0.87 0.55 Control Delay 40.7 37.1 75.2 64.1 13.8 56.7 12.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.7 37.1 75.2 64.1 13.8 56.7 12.8 Queue Length 50th(ft) 2 78 236 361 24 237 210 Queue Length 95th(ft) 6 152 #472 #662 91 #407 348 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 749 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 103 426 394 1039 498 546 2306 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.08 0.35 0.95 1.00 0.28 0.72 0.53 i6s 'O-O tYi"m., 4 k} '� 'a h IR1efS�l00t$�fI1R1&ry� z�',�' >, 'u�'��-�,?, ._.i�...y. �§,j' if ��;z:A�:: 'fi'':�-:"ter.' e. ,� „,,.,.�...b-y,•� ,g�;�,.- ��' v`.x.n�3't"_ -.ik+`+��-". # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. • i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wobs152121Analysis107PMEX.syn Timings 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue r 1112812007 • 0- Ar-% f X 'tel rl .�+1'R+^,u. .. .'� +;, "px2' uu, ".,�k --....w,�w. ,.......a ` '�-�.� ...e:nsi�i'i '"M?'ry'.a^.t�.,,'�•'roxy..• a-;sc-�.-;�•_' _ Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 124 302 977 150 366 1150 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 6 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 6 6 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 17.0 Minimum Split(s) 10.0 11.0 11.0 18.0 18.0 11.0 23.0 Total Split(s) 12.0 31.0 31.0 37.0 37.0 40.0 77.0 Total Split(%) 10.0% 25.8% 25.8% 30.8% 30.8% 33.3% 64.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green(s) 5.3 25.2 25.2 31.2 31.2 26.2 63.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.62 vlc Ratio 0.10 0.35 0.95 1.00 0.28 0.87 0.55 Control Delay 407 37.1 75.2 64.1 13.8 56.7 12.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 40.7 37.1 75.2 64.1 13.8 56.7 12.8 LOS D D E E B E B Approach Delay 40.7 64.4 58.1 23.4 Approach LOS D E E C w�, i' rwunwm p ,t. 'vd"�t� tiL a n�@+id ' ";,1."t Lv, !,"wti'%' G .EJ frltn ✓.�, � ^z51�.5' ., ..2'8ti"t. .r�x '.r. �.i�n .�„zu^% esti ;.a` fa- �r„�4N" Ines ice, >.. �� . . � �:�.>�',. .�, .;�;;, : fs' �• Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length:102.7 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type:Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio:1.00 Intersection Signal Delay:42.2 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue I/ o2 JX_( 03 ��i' o4 1 05 m6 • Transfer Stefan Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysis107PMEX.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 �'6:; NER;,�NER2;•S°.S.t�1.2��S�k,�::.>SV+��,�?� Lane Configurations 9 tT Volume(vph) 0 6 177 354 1227 0 127 11 339 886 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flaw(prat) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Flt Permitted 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0,95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj.Flow(vph) 0 16 186 373 1363 0 141 12 377 984 RTOR Reduction(vph) 16 0 0 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 186 373 1376 0 69 0 389 984 Heavy Vehicles M) 0% 0% 15% 2% 2% 13% 17% 0% 5% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 1.6 24.0 24.0 30.6 30.6 24.8 60.4 Effective Green,g(s) 1,6 24.0 24.0 30.6 30.6 24.8 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 • Lane Grp Cap(vph) 26 377 380 1034 384 427 2117 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.12 c0.24 c0.41 0.06 c0.23 0.28 vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.01 0.49 0.98 1,33 0.18 0.91 0.46 Uniform Delay,dt 48.4 32.8 37.8 34.7 25.5 36.5 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.65 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.4 41,0 155.7 1,0 14.1 0.4 Delay(s) 48.5 33.1 78.7 190.4 26.5 39.1 7.5 Level of Service D C E F C D A Approach Delay(s) 48,5 63.6 176.5 16.5 Approach LOS D E F B Inieef,$e��F',CJ.U�L71271:YL�,...k:.:.^.,iY.,.�.^rid�sl�,fir"�.:th�x:^..,`rt.-`,'i?��rn'+RQ,a.M,yrR„n'�'1?�4�4��ii�' F."�+.3°<,�;�,hT%'�'-�,::,r'3�. ;...a"`,➢'�"'!�h�°'�4�5"r 1 ,g X'��.�i�✓��.,y"'� d.�.� HCM Average Control Delay 94.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report • MAS SAJobs15212Vanalysis112AMNB.syn Queues 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 1112812007 AC- r% f '* e-Ak L`'-'Siff'Ou OMM8m.N&VOaWR� Ill I tCE132 x, a Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 186 373 1377 127 389 984 vlc Ratio 0.04 0.49 0.98 1,23 0.27 0.91 0.45 Control Delay 0.2 38.0 81.2 144.8 11.6 46.1 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 38.0 81.2 144,8 11.6 46.1 7.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 0 103 237 -604 20 171 37 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 172 #424 #747 69 m#377 m283 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 1124 630 821 Tum Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 382 377 380 1115 470 427 2201 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.49 0.98 1.23 0.27 0.91 0.45 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue Is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysis112AMNB.syn Timings 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 Ar- Y` ` �f ,-t 1� • 'a.+0 w sP 'Z2 k Yet 15:+/. ,r S^,F•.. �4fi;it^iee...x,.. . ,nv'.i Y"w.��.. .n' Lane;Gxd�1a�� ?�'; BL-" �'t�N!1��;�tiJ��)R� iA,}}E�:.:" i�R2 ,S�VL;:�;s dFYl td ;u>.tvn W rr'k` IN .n$AYT:t d`••a 11d'eP�2Ajn��'n'.�ef't:.;5.,�u:A: Lane Configurations y `ti 9 0 P ' }t Volume(vph) 0 177 354 1227 127 339 886 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 8.0 29.0 29.0 38.0 38.0 25.0 63.0 Total Split(%) 8.0% 29.0% 29.0% 38.0% 38.0% 25.0% 63.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.0 24.0 24.0 33.0 33.0 24.8 62.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.49 0.98 1.23 0.27 0.91 0.45 Control Delay 0.2 38.0 81.2 144.8 11.6 46.1 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 38.0 61.2 144.8 11.6 46.1 7.1 • LOS A D F F B D A Approach Delay 0.2 66.8 133.6 18.1 Approach LOS A E F B li`lterse o Sum 'arY.�, „'�iYY/A`^.��`_, �' "irr9,.+,i �<Y�� '-0ec�tis<4?a -:u^r:-;`a�'e rhs��fM•'PTs.<a�'E.'�i7n:`ffir�,'�."�'tE?;a^x,3�'�Yc+.§o:rwca�,'. Cycle Length:100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset:64(64%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:150 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:76.2 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue y e4R 01 I o2 I�` e3 Ill zmm. BEa ►� 06 JE3aa; �.-:.i'' °' T,. -k2s'.u"t'>n. i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS SA,10 5212%nalysis112AMNB.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 Lane Configurations 9 to ft Volume(vph) 1 0 2 147 330 14 1143 1 170 2 397 1319 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 I'd 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(prot) 1579 1736 1600 3415 1427 1768 3574 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1579 1736 1600 3415 1427 1768 3574 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 3 0 5 175 393 17 1191 1 177 2 422 1403 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 73 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 3 0 175 408 0 1209 0 86 0 424 1403 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 25% 2% 1% Turn Type Split Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 0.8 19.0 19.0 40.6 40.6 30.6 76.2 Effective Green,g(s) 0.8 19.0 19.0 40.6 40.6 30.6 76.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.69 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 • Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 11 300 276 1260 527 492 2476 vls Ratio Prot 00.00 0.10 00.26 00.35 0.06 00.24 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.28 0.58 1.48 0.96 0.16 0.86 0.57 Uniform Delay,dl 54.3 41.9 45.5 33.9 23.3 37.7 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.69 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 1.9 234.3 17.4 0.7 1.5 0.1 Delay(s) 59.2 43.7 279.8 51.3 24.0 49.5 6.0 Level of Service E 0 F D C D A Approach Delay(s) 59.2 209.2 48.1 16.1 Approach LOS E F D B ntersestiummaGy :.s;,•��<�;.�.a:��-< -,�:��-��:�m; ;.:�,..�� 4 �a�^a.•.: >?.:�. � •>�; ;< v ��:.'� '` �. ,,,,��..� HCM Average Control Delay 57.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:41obs15210Analysis112PMNB.syn Queues 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue r 1112812007 # a` neNIXON '�N�T��,.3.NER2„�;SSI"_NCS-r,nu:;e.S.W,.-T-`:,S;:a4�.fr"-�.w<,i.,�'=4� �...•,.zx.^yh,;e;^ax�za xa Lane Group Flow(vph) 8 175 410 1210 159 424 1403 We Ratio 0.13 0.58 1.47 0.89 0.25 0.86 0.54 Control Delay 41.3 51.2 267.1 40.9 8.7 49.7 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.3 51.2 267.1 40.9 8.7 49.7 5.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 2 116 -413 429 20 275 137 Queue Length 95th(ft) 6 175 #555 #604 72 m257 m133 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 749 630 821 Tum Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 62 300 278 1360 637 501 2580 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spitlback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.58 1.47 0.89 0.25 0.85 0.54 v"raxwt.'>'a- '�k:l• :.riin`y a'�-�": 'x ! N.'f w yt,� :syn .�r. �•sv,..�" "w mxxrar:. .c - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically Infinite, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume tar 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wob02MAnalysis112PMNB.syn Timings 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue rr 11/28/2007 • r r y Ae Lane Glo. a 4. , 019,14,14000;N1NNWBS�NE,'f��KER�I:a Lane Configurations y 1 9 ft r A TT Volume(vph) 0 147 330 1143 170 397 1319 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 8.0 23.0 23.0 46.0 46.0 33.0 79.0 Total Split(%) 7.3% 20.9% 20.9% 41.8% 41.8% 30.0% 71.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.0 19.0 19.0 43.8 43.8 30.6 79.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.72 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.58 1.47 0.69 0.25 0.86 0.54 Control Delay 41.3 51.2 267.1 40.9 8.7 49.7 5.1 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.3 51.2 267.1 40.9 8.7 49.7 5.1 LOS D D F 0 A D A Approach Delay 41.3 202.5 37.2 15.5 Approach LOS D F D B MQ :w4"`-- m,�i: ..:se»r l�:ati�� '+2"t:c ."<�i_':;,:�;:�.•nt3�_Fa:�Ytcs. affi'.idTw:.::N. .,.��,t,.<��urtad;'a .St� Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:110 Offset:50(45%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:140 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:1.47 Intersection Signal Delay:52.3 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 'Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue 2 f e4! m1 mlam4 m3 � l 233s 1y;: �t15Sltu 106 759 ? za ,�? � = • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wobs152121AnalysIM12PMNB.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 f Lane Configurations 9 to Zi tt Volume(vph) 0 6 178 355 1227 0 128 11 340 886 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Ufil.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.86 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd,Flow(prot) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(Perm) 1644 1570 1583 3380 1256 1722 3505 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.3B 0.38 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj.Flow(vph) 0 16 187 374 1363 0 142 12 378 984 RTOR Reduction(vph) 16 0 0 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 187 374 1376 0 70 0 390 984 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 15% 2% 2% 13% 17% 0% 5% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 1.6 24.0 24.0 30.6 30,6 24.8 60.4 Effective Green,g(s) 1.6 24.0 24.0 30.6 30.6 24.8 60.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 26 377 380 1034 84 427 2117 • v/s Ratio Prot 00.00 0.12 00.24 00.41 0,06 00.23 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 0.50 0.98 1.33 0.18 0.91 0.46 Uniform Delay,dl 48.4 32.8 37.8 34.7 25.5 36.6 10.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,68 0.65 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 0.4 41.6 155.7 1.0 14.3 0.4 Delay(a) 48.5 33.2 79.4 190.4 26.6 39.3 7.5 Level of Service D C E F C D A Approach Delay(s) 48.5 64.0 176.4 16.5 Approach LOS D E F B HCM Average Control Delay 94.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group it Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Uobs152121AnaIysis11 2AMBD.syn Queues 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue r 11/28/2007 Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 187 374 1377 128 390 984 vlc Ratio 0.04 0.50 0.98 1.23 0.27 0.91 0.45 Control Delay 0.2 38.1 81.8 144.8 11.6 46.3 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 38.1 81.8 144.8 11.6 46.3 7.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 0 103 238 -604 21 172 37 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 173 #426 #747 70 m#378 m283 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 1124 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 381 377 380 1115 470 427 2201 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.50 0.98 1.23 0.27 0.91 0.45 vsrx.^.+a lvy-�:cw�a �• erY+ rs=�:e ¢3 '3, i_4•L;e�-2er.}-;. w.. .?k.,.'i'�"'^; �r.� . - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. If 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysis112AMBD.syn Timings 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 1112812007 1 "- r I:ane.F�.W AMAD Lane Configurations 0 r~ TT Volume(vph) 0 178 355 1227 128 340 886 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 Total Split(s) 8,0 29.0 29.0 38.0 38.0 25,0 63.0 Total Split(%) 8.0% 29.0% 29.0% 38.0% 38.00A 25.0% 63.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 LeadlLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.0 24.0 24.0 33.0 33.0 24.8 62.8 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.63 vlc Ratio 0.04 0.50 0.98 1,23 0.27 0.91 0.45 Control Delay 0.2 38.1 81.8 144.8 11,6 46.3 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 38.1 81.8 144.8 11.6 46.3 7.1 • LOS A D F F B D - A Approach Delay 0,2 67.2 133.5 18.2 Approach LOS A E F B S;g,."e;•sr: 'moi, ..Yd'rfa'" Y+>"r-� v}"-y ,r ¢;'+", �._.<R � r 3k& Fw:u-w.`kpn.f.*_id Cycle Length:100 Actuated Cycle Length:100 Offset:64(64%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SN7r,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio:1.23 Intersection Signal Delay:76.3 Intersection LOS:E Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue 104! 01 14o2 l A 03 � 1 IQ6 �:� I�:C�}`.X38;,-�'�`��'�'��-�E „` I:,?iY•129 �.�� ':Ik'�' 8"�s ::� I� 0 t6'n' .�w�%P a�"•rs,�.< 3RD;''> .#�`�=.�'`a'.�` l'.�,`'::.' I Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wobs1521ZAnalysis112AMBD.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 Mo.�INMENMMOMMe 6i;�M.WBi: M U M � P� S� �" T `S l"[xaS V' 3' i-C 0R ' S ` _ 5��.+,s !NLS,::N111lfi�VJR2= ;��!ILJETe��x:iNEf�`��N�R2�n=;5YV.L2 =5�L�',` 11111rT Lane Configurations 9 ft r T? Volume(vph) 1 0 2 148 331 14 1143 1 171 2 398 1319 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Fri 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(Prot) 1579 1736 1600 3415 1427 1768 3574 Fit Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(perm) 1579 1736 1600 3415 1427 1768 3574 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 3 0 5 176 394 17 1191 1 178 2 423 1403 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 73 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 3 0 176 409 0 1209 0 87 0 425 1403 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 25% 2% 1% Turn Type Split Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 0.8 19.0 19.0 40.5 40.5 30.7 76.2 Effective Green,g(s) 0.8 19.0 19.0 40.5 40.5 30.7 76.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.69 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 11 300 276 1257 525 493 2476 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.10 c0.26 c0.35 0.06 c0.24 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.28 0.59 1.48 0.96 0.17 0.86 0.57 Uniform Delay,d1 54.3 41.9 45.5 34.0 23.4 37.6 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.69 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 1.9 235.9 17.8 01 1.5 0.1 Delay(s) 59.2 43.8 281.4 51.8 24.1 49.4 6.0 Level of Service E D F D C D A Approach Delay(s) 59.2 210.1 48.6 16.1 Approach LOS E F D y ry B .1}/rre T,b�'y iY 'Hl iNcf:`I \3n bn. 'i ii"[ri•:"•T fi.:' C"iSk�ia. 3.'Fu �:tlN:'• `.�'�"`.y�.' '�'�$'�+ "��i,,. ."c,+ � � p /`u'�; -b!' ,tec.%T''� a3�-;'ti'?...5/ '�''=3'E' .in i..•' Y-5 � Fe � ID L' 011 ve m a N .0 Kaa>.iaF' .>.�c.,�,.+�`�':� .'r. s$s?^,.L�.a<<�ae�s:�"''u3? .a..�.. ..a.+x*i::z•,.,._. a ,ns T- E„ jM HCM Average Control Delay 57.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis112PMBD.syn Queues 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 Jr- Lane Group Flow(vph) 8 176 411 1210 160 425 1403 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.59 1.48 0.89 0.25 0.86 0,54 Control Delay 41.3 51.4 269.0 0.1 8.7 49.7 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.3 61.4 269,0 41.1 8.7 49.7 5,1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 2 117 -414 430 20 275 137 Queue Length 95th(ft) 6 177 #557 ff604 72 m257 m132 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 749 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 62 299 277 1358 637 501 2580 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIc Ratio 0.13 0.59 1.48 0.89 0.25 0.85 0.54 Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:\JobsX5212\Analysis112PMBO.syn Timings 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour • 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue r 11128/1007 Lane Configurations V ►i 9 0 r A ?? Volume(vph) 0 148 331 1143 171 398 1319 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11,0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 8.0 23.0 23.0 46.0 46.0 33.0 79.0 Total Split(%) 7.3% 20.9% 20.9% 41.8% 41.8% 30.0% 71.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Leadllag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.0 19.0 19.0 43.7 43.7 30.7 79.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.72 vlc Ratio 0.13 0.59 1.48 0.89 0.25 0.86 0.54 Control Delay 41.3 51.4 269.0 41.1 8.7 49.7 5.1 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.3 51.4 269.0 41.1 8.7 49.7 5.1 LOS D D F D A D A Approach Delay 41.3 203.8 37.3 15.5 Approach LOS D F D B anr. pwexx r •1 tt '�ts� yfii^ 4"",�i. Bei};' t:�'i':.^^}i�',•. ;?�`�!;kK't.�;'; +i+:' >�ri ni> Cycle Length:110 Actuated Cycle Length:110 Offset:50(45%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio:1.48 Intersection Signal Delay:52.5 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue (04! m1 m2 03 Ill 06 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis112PMBD.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity An2qeMBuild w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11128/2007 R 't�VJL�N`1�.��-�c�P1�7�; :aNER��IER�'z�m;SW12SIRM WNWOM Lane Configurations Y Y 9 0 r 11 ?T Volume(vph) 0 6 178 355 1227 0 128 11 340 886 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 Fri 0.86 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said.Flow(Prot) 1644 1579 1504 3380 1256 1722 3505 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 1644 1579 1504 3380 1256 1722 3505 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj.Flow(vph) 0 16 187 374 1363 0 142 12 378 984 RTOR Reduction(vph) 16 0 0 0 1 0 52 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 292 269 1376 0 76 0 390 984 Heavy Vehicles I%) 0% 0% 15% 2% 2% 13% 17% 0% 5% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 1.6 21.5 21.5 39.0 39.0 28.9 72.9 Effective Green,g(s) 1.6 21.5 21.5 39.0 39.0 28.9 72.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.66 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 • Lane Grp Cap(vph) 24 309 294 1198 445 452 2323 v/s Ratio Prot 00.00 00.18 0.18 00.41 0.06 00.23 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 0.94 0.91 1.15 0.17 0.86 0.42 Uniform Delay,d1 53.4 43.7 43.4 35.5 24.4 38.7 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.56 Incremental Delay,d2 0.1 36.2 30.7 77.1 0.8 9.1 0.3 Delay(s) 53.5 79.9 74.0 112.6 25.2 31.2 5.2 Level of Service D E E F C C A Approach Delay(s) 53.5 77.1 105.1 12.6 Approach LOS D E F B u5 •rrn'a". � Pv � may. . .:m,�,.,ixt2,::.�.-.;btu p�,��;;-- v- c. ..._ �a.,....,:..n..,,.. HCM Average Control Delay 63.5HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 110.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobs152121Analysis112AMBDM.syn Queues 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour • 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 a n G.0 �k'�n- �� MVI NAr IU W>R�i�ly 1:8 �lp�,``-"a3 :z��s .�r .B �:N Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 292 269 1377 128 390 984 vie Ratio 0.04 0.94 0.91 1.08 0.24 0.86 0.41 Control Delay 0.2 83.6 78.7 84.2 11.1 38.0 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 0.2 83.6 78.7 84.2 11.1 38.0 4.9 Queue length 50th(ft) 0 204 196 -606 23 123 40 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 #368 #357 #751 70 m#367 m133 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 1124 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 376 316 301 1273 523 452 2399 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.92 0.89 1.08 0.24 0.86 0.41 - Volume exceeds capacity,queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report MAS S:IJobs\5212%nelysis112AMBDM.syn Timings 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Morning Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 1112812007 Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 178 355 1227 128 340 866 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 8,0 27.0 27.0 46.0 46.0 29.0 75.0 Total Split(%) 7.3% 24.5% 24.5% 41.8% 41.8% 26.4% 68.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Min C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.1 21.5 21.5 41.4 41.4 28.9 75.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.26 0.68 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.94 0.91 1.08 0.24 0.86 0.41 Control Delay 0.2 83.6 78.7 84.2 11.1 38.0 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total Delay 0.2 83.6 78.7 84.2 11.1 38.0 4.9 LOS A F E F B D A Approach Delay 0.2 81.3 78.0 14.3 Approach LOS A F E B in. rsact.oau u�`il rlaiy �:=�OR�� =��: RM-440NAISHM,�;; . 3 F s^;�,,� ,; � ; ,.... _ G._ 0-_4=00 Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cycle Length:110 Offset:66(60%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 130 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay:52.8 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue rr lo@t mi �� m2 lam` m3 l�1 29 �>":'� 6.�`�� :" " •" ;:�',�:�27S2�ms�� l-;:�'4�Si�s"sl ; m6 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobsk5212WaIysIs\1 2AMBDM.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity An24ttBuild w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour • 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11)28/2007 r W -irx„s ;' a-vzr,.,_.....EA � 7�' �a. IJ1�R 'N'_ R2.��.��T��.:NER;.��`1�RS�NI�?'�{r�`SN!� SNT Lane Configurations 9 r A ?? Volume(vph) 1 0 2 148 331 14 1143 1 171 2 398 1319 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0,91 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.92 0.94 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(Prot) 1579 1684 1520 3415 1427 1768 3574 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow(Perm) 1579 1684 1520 3415 1427 1768 3574 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj.Flow(vph) 3 0 5 176 394 17 1191 1 178 2 423 1403 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 69 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 3 0 302 283 0 1209 0 91 0 425 1403 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 13% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 25% 2% 1% Turn Type Split Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green,G(s) 0.8 23.2 23.2 42.9 42.9 34.1 82A Effective Green,g(s) 0.8 23.2 23.2 42.9 42.9 34.1 82.0 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.68 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 • Vehicle Extension(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 11 326 294 1221 510 502 2442 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 0.18 c0.19 c0.35 0.06 c0.24 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.28 0.93 0.96 0.99 0.18 0.85 0.57 Uniform Delay,dl 59.3 47.6 48.0 38.3 26.5 40.5 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.67 Incremental Delay,d2 4.9 30.8 42.2 23.6 0.8 3.0 0.2 Delay(s) 64.2 78.4 90.2 61.9 27.2 30.9 6.9 Level of Service E E F E C C A Approach Delay(s) 64.2 84.1 57.9 12.5 Approach LOS E F E 8 �,re(W( c TeN*axzt'�, s' 'a<. 4 ✓,s .`N -s,#: -K •;._ :o^-�t ,:✓z '",�.y 3111. , C 4 oterse_euon�Slimmar+��=;! :�� _�_=�'�� ;�� =�>°3��.� ;ti°� ':> ��' :'z�'�.�' HCM Average Control Delay 40.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 120.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wobs152121Anal sis112PMBDM.s n Y Y Queues 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/2812007 Ar- rare r- Ir` Jf �1 ►� • re' �r Lane Group Flow(vph) 8 302 285 1210 160 425 1403 We Ratio 0.14 0.93 0.96 0.92 0.26 0.85 0.55 Control Delay 45.0 82.5 92.1 47.9 10.6 33.8 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.0 82.5 92.1 47.9 10.6 33.8 6.1 Queue Length 50th(ft) 2 233 231 493 28 205 96 Queue Length 95th(ft) 6 #362 #374 #647 83 m#309 m377 Internal Link Dist(ft) 489 749 630 821 Turn Bay Length(ft) 150 150 200 225 Base Capacity(vph) 59 326 296 1313 614 502 2537 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.14 0.93 0.96 0.92 0.26 0.85 0.55 �wrranTY.9^�n,,'<roux 0tef.SQCUQnrSllmmafVsN�3�.. •&� �a� �".'t�."U".s��.�s�1''w,uc'f.'� �` t , .o..+�.�.#�� :t•.......�:.x'r�•� s. >�� ✓s:;y,^ If 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity,queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. • i Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Wobs15212*alysis112PMBDM.syn Timings 2012 Build w/Mitigation Weekday Evening Peak Hour • 6: DiPietro Avenue & Highland Avenue 11/28/2007 Ar- An, Lane Configurations V y 9 Ttj� r TT Volume(vph) 0 148 331 1143 171 398 1319 Tum Type Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 3 3 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial(s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split(s) 8.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Total Split(s) 8.0 28.0 28.0 50,0 50.0 34.0 84.0 Total Split(%) 6.7% 23.3% 23.3% 41.7% 41.7% 28.3% 70.0% Yellow Time(s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 LeadfLag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Made None None None C-Min C-Min None C-Min Act Effct Green(s) 4.1 23.2 23.2 46.1 46.1 34.1 85.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.71 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.93 0.96 0.92 0.26 0.85 0.55 Control Delay 45.0 82.5 92.1 47.9 10.6 33.8 6.1 • Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.0 82.5 92.1 47.9 10.6 33.8 6.1 LOS D F F D B C A Approach Delay 45.0 87.2 43.6 12.5 Approach LOS D F D B Cycle Length:120 Actuated Cycle Length:120 Offset:71 (59%),Referenced to phase 2:NET and 6:SWT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:90 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:0.96 Intersection Signal Delay:35.4 Intersection LOS:D Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min)15 Splits and Phases: 6:DiPietro Avenue&Highland Avenue 104 0, I A oz �+ a3 � 1 1/ e6 t • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Wob02121Analysis112PMBDM.syn Swampscott Road at the South Site Driveway • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & Site Driveway 11/2712007 O.Verrle ._... .. - ... .. .. �"' Li �.Y° ''�ar�..•�...R '.,�;..'c•,'¢� yc. .`�,`f�„w{��'Ts^' Lane Configurations 4 M Volume(vehm) 443 4 5 451 3 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0°A 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 482 4 5 490 3 9 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 1204 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 486 985 484 vC1,stage 1 cont vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 486 985 484 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 • cM capacity(vehlh) 1077 274 583 o-i•\ x exa aTi,.�+ RHO r a � 59� t°$W„ g'. yv'„4({•,..,1" `p` �'. ' s.•". ' '.. Dlreciioll�L'ane.# ,i'' f��l�!�9 �aN�l9�z., �;�:a ` ':;� �k``��,, � �,�' ��,�r�:;�_;�°§k �;"� �"�MM� Volume Total 486 496 12 Volume Left 0 5 3 Volume Right 4 0 9 cSH 1700 1077 446 Volume to capacity 0.29 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 13.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 13.3 Approach LOS B Via, y ,.»'�: ':driYF- ,�t+-,�'2F.�. >`Slv"3i«te.i`,'?,'l;'i^�'F;(.^e n,'�-� ;:'�t�i.'`«u•.: li:?. =i''kTa'�"O:%}�;.'.'�"'Z'.siti:rt.;;t.�K::r65�..-v a:�..^,',.'H� '::,'�W :ova Intrsection.Summaru�'u2....s��_,,.' .>�„-,.*:�,:.:.., ��T,:<„•�=,�.�:,:.;�=xs>,,� ,7�.�.,>:.�,.v.;'�«:€.>.��,-.�;,��s� . r-•;va.>•.•ew:�"'i,.=u 12.•2&:., Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uob02121Analys1s107AMEX.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2007 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & Site Driveway 11/2712007 MRV.CD1211(f11 l'�` �,�a%".-i'.+,��'.,�E: s� Si} 5'' Y� 1 m� .*%^•' 0`.:4'"r.,"'<.;xc"�:sY�i:t��y . &s�», �"' �':�: ! c�SE�';s �ER� NINE.PN4!ilT�.;":NELti`'�,�H;JJE12= ;:, 4��.tx��aa,.;:�a,�•�a"�_ ,�; �� .�.:�.., Lane Configurations 4 M Volume(veh@) 612 2 5 377 2 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 665 2 5 410 2 5 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 829 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 667 1087 666 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 667 1087 666 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(vehlh) 922 238 459 • ....nyY:a�..�.�iroran';:..�ia"I *„.1:,,sem Z. .-.y;9, .P ;d2<-:i'1�,tity,?L� D.ir,0.cUon,3Lane#,. ;�,��r.LF<<�:r.:i5�1<1;��rNWhc11`�;NE:1�.:�c.;:� ��;�'�`°�;� '�r.�.��_u�"xc= �':;�'N� '�'��'. �s= ;;�sS�^• `'/��t Volume Total 667 415 8 Volume Left 0 5 2 Volume Right 2 0 5 cSH 1700 922 363 Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th(fl) 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 15.1 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 15.1 Approach LOS C )nle,vn;x�raar-� r'mv mx ��:°,`. p�.,—. T`�":;l!;{'�' :+3g , z� ';k'�i: A'i.ixi:.��.l�t::.Nx,,. �.:�.ti5.•�,g,A,'.4'1'.v�:.xzit a,'x rtF'<x',i'2a...;'�'.5w.-':;`vy.'y,,'3 r 10 m „'Kt;';�' n.rt',. FrSu,•`'-tw,' `''". ��*"i "'T'�§� ��"=.�+"''.' a, � .W h 7t";':Y` ri s`u. F`. S.r .sect��um a .��,' :�, �_:�ut..a. . ...,� , � ��:.�:...:k,.�.Nx�,�..,�,�� , •..�:<��.��',� „,.,,n��....:` �-.r. Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report • , MAS S:Uobs\5212Umalysis\07PMEX.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & Site Driveway 11/28/2007 INo3lement4, �.k,'`�,a',�:�� sWE='I�' =EF3fIJYVL,: ��;� MNW�,-�, NBL�` .,NSR Lane Configurations '* 4 ►rt Volume(vehlh) 475 4 5 484 3 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 516 4 5 526 3 9 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(f ts) Percent Blockage Right tum flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 1204 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 521 1055 518 vC1,stage 1 cont vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 521 1055 518 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 IC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 99 98 • cM capacity(vehm) 1046 248 557 'A1/", WINDOW.�gy�:MORONS • Y�1f-E:"NA' :IMARI 4,, Volume Total 521 532 12 Volume Left 0 5 3 Volume Right 4 0 9 cSH 1700 1046 416 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.1 13.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.1 13.9 Approach LOS B 'fjL :..�' •f, a ..�.: s�, a .., ,a, ..y,Y�.j...lC'f'.,A[aN�^L 5„�. Y 8 sSn ,s.";::n-';r :F✓:'x;�`: 3' , �...s'.�:' i,::�.: '.a��*�S'. n�r.?,;?�.+.:stiSNt f..�,..�,','s,��: ;C;.- J.:�.'�.�awi:`�,`Y'-.'iEi�"+.`�' Fs Y��<°nC-"l:�a�....�=5+''s nt rsechon_.mmarvr..,:a:^�..�..:Yx� Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7• Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analysi02AMNB.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 No Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & Site Driveway 1112812007 lw Y. L S-A#�� 5 a*..' ,!.,Sl y.�h °. l:" Nlbve7nerl � � ��,' �� NN�� ;.., l!�:b�;�f��'��ER .u°::.z.�,7:_i,•r y4, ��i��':;..,.�,'��>a Lane Configurations Volume(vehlh) 667 2 5 426 2 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 725 2 5 463 2 5 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(fl/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 829 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 727 1200 726 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 727 1200 726 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(veh1h) 876 203 424 • r y,' rat^'Sif—WION r. x."�se ;.,r m. i SE�1�� .V�.�'`'„NE�.�u :`;�i. �' 4, �;°;,��rr�# ;��yy �: : FA;', �NY t' .w��'...:3%'.d... r�': �. ,� ::::n�v am`#” �� .�.k3�;.c,:,.�;.s ' Volume Total 727 468 8 Volume Left 0 5 2 Volume Right 2 0 5 cSH 1700 876 324 Volume to Capacity 0.43 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 16.4 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 16.4 Approach LOS C .v 'c a ,m'h�..;'f`., r�Yn,. '.�4 �.�,.'Y�:`�S':�i''ky':x ` %,`,w,,'45f7 y4.+Q�.:•::;��+,•i3fs,k••y .i3;isi� a,,sT,:"�-'':L�:�`„w' '',a�',: .Y�.ti,�>'.r:ai.. Interse't;ticnsSum ar .3._��''��1;*�.i3��,d.,.' "�x.:'i,<�>.a,�,:+t aa,..:;.t3�"`F; aa3¢�`d+:%•:.•a:'u...Yds'.._ .:r�€k..:.Sz<> ,t�,�^kK�fv..+�^.d��'n�s�di- Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:Uobs15212Vanalysis112PMNB.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour • 11: Swampscott Road & South Site Drive 121412007 Lane Configurations r1 M Volume(vehlh) 670 4 6 426 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 00/0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 728 4 7 463 2 3 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 733 1207 730 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 733 1207 730 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 • p0 queue free% 99 99 99 cM capacity(vehlh) 872 201 422 d 'wX:'�K.` \"rr+•.y a+y. ,t'Y- 's" 'r•M'. � Y +e'�` 1r'� i � { �N'a'v.+ J�a�'yl+ +lf;� ��4�'�m a m Jf Girsc6o�is�:anect[ �'� ,1, iNW�1� �N�%M� %.�t �`4 � ' �..' '�. "�:._.�.,-:;>` ',-�_,-:,�� a;•��.`" � , . Volume Total 733 470 5 Volume Left 0 7 2 Volume Right 4 0 3 cSH 1700 872 293 Volume to Capacity 0.43 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 1 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 17.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 17.5 Approach LOS C etrr5 'rY:•$s- •rs!..acx., ,,,, a.,. +F(^'.�i'?!"l �Y:"'' i P• "�;' c, "t".'4",t., 3"Fe,;'s xt z•'w;"."', Inversec�ton�S7Uum�ar.� ��'�fi �` ��` '�%�a��5i�;-�� .�.-��:�� a; t� ?<,��. r,�' ;� ��..�� Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 • Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uo1bs152121Analysis112PMBD.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 11: Swampscott Road & South Site Drive 121412007 WOMEN= f i ,k. >/ r�r,...., U mM135"�• .°,ern .h ement�•- Lane Configurations ►� Volume(veh/h) 479 6 6 484 2 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop E Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 521 7 7 526 2 5 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn Flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 527 1063 524 vC1,stage 1 oonf vol vC2,stage 2 oonf vol vCu,unblocked vol 527 1063 524 j IC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 99 99 99 yc�M capacity(vvyeehm) t 1040 246 553 • 191re,C.a011C�`�dniti#M��'•«'�'.J�'.`.3 R' cllfWl�j pp`� ��$n�s ,b .a*r,,,'�&,�<<� Y'";'r i.,*��,-,xc� x Y �: ?:.r . t •� 1: �F•?N ''A.^'�.•y�a.�.w::'.�.�c ^ � 5",.�,^•'n,�SY.�.4:"'�:��' {"E�'�,..`,�'�5::'F�t^ �'.��:b � Volume Total 527 533 8 Volume Left 0 7 2 Volume Right 7 0 5 cSH 1700 1040 407 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 14.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 14.0 Approach LOS B NOR nsS.mmarv. � �W._0r>�� ,�.,..s=�,xs <�v� �! ^ix�w��:-:a<�:,".:��`�c� � �,,._,<� .'.�r�n's'.�'.�iv "BYt.`.4Ye ds..-�arx�. YS]i't��%W.ef2} .Fs�h Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilizat on 40.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobs15212VAnalysis112AMBD.syn • Swampscott Road at the North Site Driveway i • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & North Site Drive 1214/2007 h kh3yamenli>. ''�^. NBL��7�8 �'�SBT�`�RS < p �� r• ��;�,� �' �� . z�:o Lane Configurations Volume(vehlh) 0 428 671 0 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0°% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 465 729 0 2 3 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(Pos) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) 847 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 729 1195 729 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 cont vol vCu,unblocked vol 729 1195 729 IC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 lC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 100 99 99 cM capacity(vehlh) 875 206 423 . Volume Total 465 729 5 Volume Left 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 3 cSH 1700 1700 298 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.43 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 17.3 Lane LOS C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 17.3 Approach LOS C nle[ssCQiJU `"y; •A^. .��,��-rS�;y�''`: ,�e:.`5s� "�ir ;�>}��a�'.<;'�`';`3Ei:'�'c. ��r,:�yig3:;iJ' `�„�`ati� �"�`'�;'�:' 3 • y,. . "�i'"r^^y.....i Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report • MAS S:1Jobs152121Analys1s112PMBD.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2012 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour 9: Swampscott Road & North Site Drive 12/412007 Movement H s�w •;SC^�1 ��.Ef� 1�VVt '" WT��,NE�l��f3r' �'::�� ''� '"' �` t,• ^ "'. � 1 Lane Configurations +� ►� Volume(vehlh) 481 0 0 486 3 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 523 _ 0 0 528 3 4 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(fl) 1204 pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 523 1051 523 vCi,stage 1 cont vol vC2,stage 2 oonf vol vCu,unblocked vol 523 1051 523 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 100 99 99 •_ cM capacity(veh/h) 1044 251 554 Volume Total 523 528 8 Volume Left 0 0 3 Volume Right 0 0 4 cSH 1700 1700 365 Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.31 0.02 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 2 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 15.1 Lane LOS C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 15.1 Approach LOS C IS"'. ritarA'AY'^Gv'T.}h2K.M n.�W.. .�. Ise•em '1•') ID' ., '•.Y':.".• Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Transfer Station Expansion Synchro 7- Report MAS S:Uobs152121Analys1s112AMBD.syn