Route 20 corridor planning study : long-range element

374 Pages·1991·18.4 MB·English

by  Pagitsas, Efi

UMASS/AMHERST 0
llilllllllljlll
Route 20 Corridor Planning Study
Long-Range Element
Oemitory
Copy
A report produced by
the Central Transportation Planning Staff
for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works
5
//
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2014
in
https://archive.org/details/route20corridorp00pagi
Route 20 Corridor Planning Study
Long-Range Element
Authors
Efi Pagitsas - Project Manager
Michael J. Costa
Alicia Powell Wilson
Contributing Analysts
Russell Bond
Cecilia Ho
Linda Olson Pehike
Graphics
Carol Gautreau Wilson
Jane M. Gillis
Barbara L. Clark
Word Processing
Olga Doherty
Patricia Keary
The preparationofthisdocumentwas supported bythe
Massachusetts Departmentof PublicWorks and Federal
HighwayAdministration through contracts 23892, 87183,
88007, 88671 89001 89098, and 89203, and through
, ,
Interdepartmental ServiceAgreements5617and 5787.
Central Transportation Planning Staff
Directed by the Boston Metropolitan PlanningOrganization,
which comprises:
ExecutiveOfficeofTransportation and Construction,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority
Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority
Advisory Board
Massachusetts Departmentof Public Works
Massachusetts Port Authority
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
August 1991
-ii-
Copies may be obtained from the State Transportation Library, Ten Park Plaza, 2nd floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116
-Ill-
Abstract
This report documents the second part of a two-part corridor planning study
A
of Route 20 in the towns of Weston, Wayland, Sudbury and Marlborough.
companion report. Route 20 Corridor Planning Study: Short-Range Element, was
published in 1988. In the long-range element of this study, the impacts of 2010
population and employment on traffic in the corridor have been assessed. The
highway alternatives analyzed, which are town-specific, were developed in
cooperation with the MDPW, MetroWest and the tov^s' traffic committees. The
alternatives, including no-build, were assessed through intersection level of service
analysis and diversion analysis. Conclusions and recommendations based on the
analysis results are included in this report.
-iv-
Acknowledgments
The Route 20 corridor planning study took a number of years to complete, as
work was frequently interrupted during both the short- and long-range elements to
fulfill other client priorities. To mention only two examples, the Route 20 project
team was called on to work on the Marlborough East and West studies, which used
much information gathered for the Route 20 project.
Despite the lengthiness of the study, numerous individuals persevered in
devoting an active interest to it, and helped keep it going. In particular, I wish to
thank the following for contributing as advisors, analysts or authors, or in other
ways: Mike Burke, Laurinda Bedingfield, Peter Donahue, Bob Shea, Matt Currie,
Chuck Sterling, Al Laing, Don Molin, Bob MacDonald, Bob Patneaude and John
Amato of the MDPW; Bob Sloane of EOTC; Doug Carnahan, Joan Blaustein and
Patty Johnson of MAPC; Roz Delori of the MetroWest Transportation Task Force;
the Weston, Wayland, Sudbury and Marlborough traffic committees; and my
colleagues in the Traffic Analysis and Design group—Russ Bond, Barbara Clark, Mike
Costa, Florence Ngai (now in the Transportation Systems Analysis Group), Linda
Pehlke, Bill Steffens, Alicia Wilson and (no longer at CTPS) Ed Bromage, Cecilia Ho
and Adam Ryssdal.
In addition, my sincere thanks for their dedicated efforts go to those involved
in production: to Olga Doherty and Patricia Keary for meticulous word processing,
to Carol Wilson, Jane Gillis and Ken Dumas for graphics, and to Lee Morrison for
overseeing production.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the cooperative nature of the work of the
MDPW's Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development, the town traffic
committees, the MetroWest Transportation Task Force and the CTPS project team
made the study process a truly integrated one, and that this was crucial to its being, I
believe, a successful one.
Efi Pagitsas
Project Manager
Table of Contents
LIST OF HGURES AND TABLES vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
xi
INTRODUCTION
1 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Study Description 2
1.3 Study Area Definition 2
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
2.1 Highway Network 5
2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics 5
2.3 Existing Public Transportation Services 8
2.4 Traffic Volumes 11
2.4.1 Traffic Volume Patterns 11
2.4.2 Adjustments and Balancing 12
2.5 Intersection Level-of-Service 17
2.5.1 Focus of Analysis 17
2.5.2 Definition of Level-of-Service 17
2.5.3 Analysis Results 20
FUTURE CONDITIONS
3 25
3.1 1995 Socioeconomic Characteristics 25
3.2 2010 Socioeconomic Characteristics 27
3.3 Travel Demand Forecasts 31
3.3.1 The Modeling Process 31
3.3.2 The Route 20 Traffic Forecasting Model 32
-vi-
3.4 Alternatives 33
3.4.1 Development of Alternatives 33
3.4.2 Alternatives Analysis 35
3.4.3 Selection of Alternatives 46
3.5 Analysis of Selected Alternatives 49
3.5.1 Assignment Results - Selected Alternative 1 49
3.5.2 Assignment Results - Selected Alternative 2 49
3.5.3 Transit Service Options 49
3.5.4 Identification of Preferred Alternatives 57
3.5.5 Additional Weston Options 63
3.6 Intersection Level-of-Service 68
3.6.1 Analysis Results 68
3.6.2 Additional Analysis In Marlborough 94
CONCLUSIONS
4.0 97
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 101
APPENDICES
A Addendum to Route 20 Corridor Planning Study: Short-Range Element
B Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts by Town
MDPW
C Route 20 Right-of-Way and Roadway Inventory File
D Historical Information on Bus and Commuter Rail Service
MDPW
E Chapter 30, Section 61, Findings for Developments Along Route 20
F • 1995 and 2010 Commercial and Residential Developments in the Study
Area Towns
• 1987, 1995 and 2010 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Traffic Zones in
Study Area Towns
G 2010 No-Build Assumptions
H
• Presentation Announcements and Agendas
• Newspaper Clippings
I Comments on Draft Report and Responses
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
1-1 Route 20 Corridor Planning Study Area 4
2-1 Highway System in Study Area 6
AM
2-2 Peak Period Traffic Volumes 15
2-3 PM Peak Period Traffic Volumes 16
2-4 1987 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 18
3-1 Alternative 1, No-Build 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 37
PM
3-2 Alternative 2, 4-Lane Route 20 2010 Peak Hour,
Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 39
3-3 Alternative 3, 4-Lane Route 20 (Marlborough)
2-Lane Route 20 (Sudbury through Weston)
2010 PM Peak Hour, Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 40
3-4 Alternative 4A Segmented Option 1
2010 PM Peak Hour, Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 42
3-5 Alternative 4B Segmented Option 2
2010 PM Peak Hour, Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 44
3-6 Alternative 4C Segmented Option 3
2010 PM Peak Hour, Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 45
3-7 Metrowest Transportation Task Force,
Response to Long Range Alternatives 47
PM
3-8 Selected Alternative 1, 2010 Peak Hour,
Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 50
PM
3-9 Selected Alternative 2, 2010 Peak Hour,
Traffic Volume Changes from No-Build 51
3-10 Metrowest Transportation Task Force,
Response to November 20, 1990 CTPS Presentation 58
-vii-
-viii-
3-11 One-Way System in Weston 64
3-12 One-Way System Option in Weston PM Peak Hour Volumes 65
3-13 Restricted Left-Tum Option in Weston PM Peak Hour Volumes 66
3-14 2010 No-Build PM Peak Hour Volumes and Volume Changes
with Restricted Left Turns in Weston 67
3-15 Weston Isolated Improvements Option 73
3-16 Weston Turning Movement Restrictions Option 74
3-17 Weston One-Way System Option 75
3-18 Wayland Route 20 at Old Connecticut Path Road
Proposed Signal Operation 78
3-19 Wayland Route 20 at Routes 27/126 Proposed Signal Operation 81
3-20 Sudbury Route 20 at Concord Road Proposed Signal Operation 86
3-21 Sudbury Route 20 at Nobscot Road Extension
Proposed Signal Operation 87
3-22 Sudbury Nobscot Road Extension Proposed Geometry 88
3-23 Sudbury Full By-Pass Proposed Geometry 89
Tables
2-1 1987 Socioeconomic Characteristics 7
AM PM
2-2 1987 Traffic Volumes and Peak Periods
by Hour and Direction 13
AM PM
2-3 Distribution of 1987 Traffic Volumes, and Peak Periods 14
2-4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 19
2-5 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 20
2-6 Weston 1987 Levels-of-Service 21
2-7 Wayland 1987 Levels-of-Service 22
2-8 Sudbury 1987 Levels-of-Service 23
2-9 Marlborough 1987 Levels-of-Service 24