2009 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, TRAFFIC STUDY PEER REVIEW, REVIEW OF AIR AND NOISE MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond
Salem Transfer Station Traffic Assessment
To: City of Salem Board of Health
THROUGH: David A Murphy P.E., Peer Reviewer
FROM: Paul M. Furgal, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Joseph C. Balskus, PTOE, Director of Traffic and Parking
DATE: November 24, 2009
This memorandum will serve as Tighe & Bond's (T&B) assessment of the 'Proposed
Transfer Station Expansion, Salem Massachusetts", traffic study prepared by the
proponent's engineer, Vanasse & Associates, Inc (VAI) dated, December 2007 and
supplemental statement dated November 9, 2009. The following constitutes T&B's
independent review and analysis of the submitted materials in support of the application.
Study Area
The project study area consisting of a total three intersections, which are in the vicinity of
the existing site, is an acceptable study area for the project.
Traffic Analysis
The proponent's traffic analysis of the proposed transfer station was prepared using a
typical industry standard traffic study format that reviews the existing site conditions and
assesses the future traffic impacts associated with the transfer station.
The traffic operational analysis of the stud area intersections includes level of service LOS
P Y Y (LOS)
methodologies using Synchro software, which is Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division acceptable software for traffic analysis.
The existing facility generates an average of 140 vehicle trips today, for a peak 53 tonnage
operations during the day. This includes 20 vehicle trips during the peak hours of operation.
The 2007 traffic study assessed the traffic impacts associated with a proposed 400 ton per
day facility which is expected have a total vehicle trip generation of 26 (12 entering and 14
exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning hour and a total of 20 vehicle trips (10
entering and 10 exiting vehicles) during the weekday afternoon evening peak hour. The
400 ton per day facility is estimated to generate an additional 54 vehicle trips per day (over
existing trips) as a result of the packer and dump trailer traffic. The 400 ton per day facility
will generate a total daily volume of 194 vehicle trips (97 entering and 97 exiting)
The supplemental study assessed the impacts associated with a 500 ton per day facility
which is expected have a total trip generation of 26 vehicle trips (12 entering and 14 exiting
vehicles) during the weekday morning hour and a total of 20 vehicle trips (10 entering and
10 exiting vehicles) during the weekday afternoon evening peak hour. The 500 ton per day
facility is estimated to generate an additional 90 trips per day (over existing trips) as a
result of the packer and dump trailer traffic. The 500 ton per day facility will generate a
total daily volume of 230 trips (115 entering and 115 exiting).
MEMO Tighe&Bond
The traffic generation estimates are reasonable and acceptable. As proposed, the additional
vehicle trips are conservatively estimated by excluding the additional trip generation
allowed up to the 100 tonnage limit for the existing operation. The net increase in 90 trips
would actually be less than 90 trips if the full 100 tonnage that is allowed for existing
operations is considered.
Intersections Analysis:
The intersection analysis methodology was done in accordance with the typical traffic
engineering industry practice and methodology.
In the existing conditions, both of the study signalized intersections are operating near their
respective capacities and are expected to operate similarly in the future "Build" conditions.
Assuming the future trip generation rates are realized, the facility related traffic is expected
to produce a negligible increase in intersection vehicle delays at the study area
intersections.
Off-Site Mitigation
The proponent is proposing off-site mitigation improvements that include traffic signal
retiming and lane use restriping at the study area locations. The proponent identified the
retiming of the study area signalized intersections as an improvement measure to optimize
traffic signal operations. Pavement marking modifications are proposed at the intersection
of Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue such that Swampscott Road northbound roadway
movement to be converted from one exclusive left turn-lane and one right-turn lane to one
shared left-turn/right-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane.
The proposed mitigation is expected to improve the level of service at the two signalized
intersections based upon the submitted analyses and traffic projections.
Recommendations
The proponent is proposing off-site mitigation improvements that include traffic signal. In
order to ensure the mitigation proposed is appropriate, it is suggested that the BOH require
the proponent provide an independent assessment of the traffic generation within six
months of the facility being fully operational. The independent monitoring program shall
count the site generated traffic for at least three days to be compared to the projections. If
the operation traffic volumes are higher than the approved projected traffic volumes, then a
traffic impact assessment shall be prepared to identify mitigation of the traffic impacts.
Conclusion
Overall, the traffic study provided by the proponent documents the potential traffic impact
by the proposed Facility on the study area roadways and intersections.
• The study area for the traffic study and supplement is appropriate.
• The analysis methods utilized are in compliance with industry standards and
methodologies.
i
-2-
MEMO Tighe&Bond
• As a result of the proposed expansion to a 500 ton per day transfer facility, a total of
90 additional trips will be added to the area roadway network over the existing traffic
generated by the facility.
• Based upon the future trip generation rates provided, the facility related traffic is
expected to produce a negligible increase in intersection vehicle delays at the
adjacent study area intersections.
• Off-site mitigation improvements at the study area intersections include traffic signal
retiming and lane use restriping and are reasonable given the traffic generated.
• At the discretion of the BOH, an independent traffic monitoring program should be
considered to evaluate traffic generation within six months of the facility being fully
operational.
3:\W\W3946 City of Salem Peer Review\Traffic\Salem Peer Review-Traffic 112409.doc
-3- '
MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond
Traffic Study Peer Review
To: Salem Board of Health
THROUGH: Mr. David A Murphy P.E., Peer Reviewer
FROM: Mr. Joseph C. Balskus, Director of Traffic and Parking
DATE: November 3, 2009
This memorandum will serve as Tighe & Bond's (T&B) assessment of the "Proposed Transfer
Station Expansion, Salem Massachusetts", traffic study prepared by the proponent's
engineer, Vanasse & Associates, Inc (VAI) dated, December 2007. The following constitutes
T&B's independent review and analysis of the submitted materials in support of the
application.
Study Area
The project study area consisting of a total three intersections, which are in the vicinity of
the existing site, is an acceptable scope of work for the project.
Traffic Analysis
The proponent's traffic analysis of the proposed transfer station was prepared using a
typical industry standard traffic study format that reviews the existing site conditions and
assesses the future traffic impacts associated with the transfer station.
The traffic operational analyses of the study area intersections includes level of service
(LOS) methodologies using Synchro software, which is a MHD acceptable software for
traffic analysis.
Proponent Trip Generation and Distribution
The existing 100 tons per day facility trip generation had a total of 20 vehicle trips (9
entering and 11 exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning hour and a total of 14 vehicle
trips (7 entering and 7 exiting vehicles) during the weekday afternoon evening peak hour.
The respective trip generation rates are 0.2 trips per ton and 0.14 trips per ton during the
morning and afternoon peak hour periods.
The proposed 400 ton per day facility will have a total trip generation of 26 (12 entering and
14 exiting vehicles) during the weekday morning hour and a total of 20 vehicle trips (10
entering and 10 exiting vehicles) during the weekday afternoon evening peak hour. The
proposed 400 ton per day facility respective trip generation rate based are at 0.065 trips
per ton and 0.05 trips per ton during the morning and afternoon peak hour periods.
The proposed 400 ton per day facility has a lower trip generation rate than the existing 100
ton per day trip generation. The proponent should clarify the trip generation rate
discrepancy,between the existing facility and the the proposed facility.
It should be noted, for comparison purposes, a proposed 750 ton capacity per day solid
waste transfer facility in another Massachusetts community, the peak hour site generated
traffic impact was estimated to be 28 trips (14 entering and 14 exiting) for each of the
MEMO - Tighe&Bond
morning and afternoon peak hours. This other facility's 750 ton per day respective trip
generation rates based are at 0.03 trips per for each of the morning and afternoon peak
hour periods.
The proposed site traffic distribution is based on the existing routes. The distribution
appears to be appropriate for the expected truck movements.
Intersections Analysis:
The intersection analysis methodology was done in accordance with the typical traffic
engineering industry practice and methodology.
In the existing conditions, both of the study signalized intersections are operating near their
respective capacity and are expected to operate similarly in future "No Build" and "Build"
conditions. Assuming the future trip generation rates are correct, the facility related traffic
is expected to produce a negligible increase in intersection vehicle delay.
Off-Site Mitigation
Off-site mitigation improvements include traffic signal retiming and lane use restriping. The
proponent identified the retiming of the study area signalized intersections as an
improvement measure to optimize traffic signal operations. Pavement marking
modifications are proposed at the intersection of Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue.
The Swampscott Road northbound roadway movement is proposed to be converted from
one exclusive left turn-lane and one right-turn lane to one shared left-turn/right-turn lane
and one exclusive right-turn lane.
The proposed mitigation is expected to improve the level of service at the two signalized
intersections.
Conclusion
Overall, the traffic study provided by the proponent documented the potential traffic impact
by the proposed Facility on the study area roadways and intersections. However, a more
detailed explanation of the proposed vehicle trip generation rates is suggested given that
the proposed rates are considerably different compared to the existing rates.
In addition, the proponent is considering a surge or peak delivery condition of 500 ton per
day that should warrant a traffic impact study addressing these peak increases in trips. A
detailed explanation and impact assessment of the trip generation should be identified given
that cars, light trucks, and trash hauling vehicles are all expected to utilize the site.
2
MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond
Salem Transfer Station - Review of Air and Noise
To: Salem Board of Health
THROUGH: Dave A. Murphy, P.E., Peer Reviewer Tighe & Bond
FROM: Jeff Bibeau, REM, Tighe & Bond
DATE: November 5, 2009
This memo includes a peer review of the following reports that were prepared in.anticipation
of the expansion of the Salem Transfer Station and any potential environmental impacts
(air, noise, public health) associated with the expansion:
1. Air Quality Modeling Report (PM2.5 and PM10) by Epsilon Associates, Inc. dated June
2008,
2. Focused Risk Characterization by Wilcox & Barton dated June 3, 2008.
3. Noise Impact Assessment Study by Epsilon Associates, Inc. dated March 21, 2008,
Air Quality Modeling Report Review--(Epsilon Air Quality Modeling
Report dated June 2008)
Tighe and Bond, Inc. has reviewed a report entitled "Air Quality Report" prepared by Epsilon
Associates, Inc. dated June 2008 for Northside Carting, Inc. located in Salem, MA.
According to the report, 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. The report focused on particulate emissions associated with the
additional truck trips including existing traffic volumes and were compared to ambient air
quality standards.
Report Review
1. The mobile source (truck) emissions were modeled using an EPA-approved
dispersion model (CAL3QHCR). The model was used with CALINE-3 line source
dispersion model. The models used can model particulate emissions from mobile
sources during idling and driving conditions. Emission factors used in the model
were obtained from an EPA-approved emission software program (MOBILE6.2).
While the models and software programs used by Epsilon can be used to estimate
emissions from mobile sources, did Epsilon consider a more updated EPA-approved
model since the CAL3QHCR was issued in 1995?
2. The report listed the assumptions that were incorporated into the air quality model.
These assumptions appear to be appropriate for the modeling of particulate
emissions from mobile sources. Emission factors were used from EPA's MOBILE6.2
MEMO Tighe&Bond
program. The MADEP idling time limit (5-minutes) described in 310 CMR 7.11(1)(b)
was incorporated into the model.
It should be noted that in order to establish background pollutant levels, Epsilon
used particulate monitoring station data from Kenmore Square in Boston for PM-10.
This station is approximately 18-20 miles from the subject site. While it is
understood that particulate monitoring stations are limited throughout the state, the
applicant should verify that this was the closest and most representative.
If the vehicle trip increases beyond the proposed 54 trips per day that was used in
the model then the applicant should re-evaluate the air quality model for potential
impacts.
3. The air quality report focused on modeling mobile sources for existing and proposed
vehicle volumes. It is my understanding that this proposal expansion also includes
the construction of a new transfer station building with associated dust controls
including water spray, air filtration, and ventilation with an exhaust. It's assumed
that the dust/particulate generated will be controlled then vented to a stack and
discharged to the atmosphere
In accordance with MADEP's air quality regulations (310 CMR 7.02), an air permit
approval is required from stationary sources that have the potential (before controls)
to emit greater than one ton of criteria pollutants (particulate). An evaluation should
be conducted to determine whether or not an air permit for the transfer station
building is required. In addition, how does the contribution of the particulate from
the stationary source (proposed building) combined with the particulate from the
mobile sources affect the Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
BOH should work with the applicant to control the emissions at the doorways and
exhaust points of the building to ensure best management controls are implemented.
It appears that the Applicant missed the residence located at One Dipeitro Avenue,
lease explain the impacts of the proposed Transfer
P P P Station on this residence.
P P
4. Miscellaneous--Has the facility determined if a storm water discharge permit is
required and the applicability of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan? If water
spray suppression is used for dust control in the proposed transfer station building
how will it be collected and discharged (sewer vs tight tank)? Oil water separator
needed? Discharge permit requirement with local authority evaluated? What
happens with winter operations?
Focused Risk Characterization Report Review prepared by Wilcox &
Barton, Inc. dated June 3, 2008
Tighe & Bond completed a review of a report entitled "Focused Risk Characterization"
prepared by Wilcox & Barton, Inc. dated June 3, 2008. The report evaluated the potential
risk of harm to human health associated with the transfer station truck emissions under
current transfer station operations and those potentially emitted under the proposed
expansion of the transfer station. The report was prepared in general accordance with risk
2
A
MEMO Tighe&Bond
characterization guidance developed by MADEP. The risk characterization was based on the
air quality modeling conducted by Epsilon (report dated February 2008).
Report Review
1. The risk characterization report referenced the Epsilon February 2008 report but not
the June 2008 report. Explain why the June 2008 air modeling results were not
incorporated into the final risk characterization report?
2. The risk characterization report states that five volatile organic compounds were
modeled in the Epsilon air quality modeling report, yet the June 2008 Epsilon report
only modeled particulate and never mentioned any previous VOC modeling. Why?
3. The. risk characterization .report focused on mobile emission sources but did not
consider any affect from the emissions generated from the proposed transfer facility
building. The applicant should include the emission associated with the building.
Why did the applicant not address these emissions and what type of post
construction air quality monitoring will be implemented to demonstrate that less than
1 ton per year will be emitted.
Finally, the report concluded that emissions from the increased truck traffic do not
result in significant risk of harm to human health. However, if the allowed tonnage
increases to 400 tons or more then the risk characterization should to re-evaluate to
assess the increased impact to human health. In addition, it appears that the
Applicant missed the residence located at One Dipeitro Avenue, please explain? The
closest residence is closer than the 650 feet as identified by the Applicant.
4. T&B needs additional information noted in 1-3 above to completely evaluate these
findings.
Noise Impact Assessment Study Report prepared by Epsilon
Associates Inc. dated March 21, 2008
We have reviewed a report entitled "Noise Impact Assessment study" prepared by Epsilon
dated March 21, 2008. The report includes an analysis of potential community noise
impacts from the proposed transfer station expansion and within the facility. Noise
measurements were collected at potentially sensitive locations around the facility.
The report compared results to the MADEP noise regulation described under 310 CMR 7.10.
In addition, the report referenced a City of Salem noise standard, but stated that no limit
existed for commercial operations.
Epsilon used a Precision Sound Level Analyzer with a pre-amplifier and a four-inch foam
windscreen to collect short-term broadband and octave band ambient sound pressure level
data. The instrumentation meets the ANSI requirements for acoustical measuring devices.
The instruments were field calibrated before and after the data were collected. The
calibrator and analyzer were certified to standards by the US National Institute of Standards
and Technology by an independent laboratory within the past 12-months of the field
3
MEMO Tighe&Bond
sampling. In addition, the continuous monitoring sound meter also meets ANSI standard
and was calibrated before and after measurement collection.
Predictive modeling was conducted with the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) in order to determine
impact due to increased truck traffic.
Report Review
1. The noise survey evaluated noise impacts at the nearest off-site property boundaries
in accordance with MADEP regulations. Although sound levels at the closest
residential locations are predicted to be above (3-4 dBA) existing ambient
background sound levels, they are within the MADEP requirement of 10 dBA. Are the
results provided indicative of the closest residential property at One Dipeitro Avenue,
if not then the Applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the MADEP noise
requirements.
2. The report states that the truck back-up alarms may temporarily (<30 seconds)
create a "pure-tone" condition to the north and west. It was also noted that actual
alarm sound levels will probably be much lower than what was assumed in the
modeling. However, the MADEP regulation (310 CMR 7.10) states that "...the facility
shall not produce a pure-tone condition at the property line There is no defined
allowed time period for a pure tone condition. In addition, we question the
.frequency of the pure tone conditions and would this condition exist for each of the
194 truck trips. Based on the Applicants response to previous questions, there may
be design measures that the Applicant needs to consider to abate these pure-tone
conditions.
3:\W\W3946 City of Salem Peer Review\MEMO\Peer Review Air-Noise-Risk Characterization.doc
-4-