13-073 Traffic impact statement Rockridge 25 Coles Meadow rd.TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS
ROCKRIDGE AT LAUREL PARK
25 COLES MEADOW ROAD
NORTHAMPTON, MA
March 6, 2003
Submitted To:
Northampton Planning Board
Northampton City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01040
Submitted By:
New England Deaconess Association
80 Deaconess Road
Concord, MA 01742
Prepared By:
Coler & Colantonio, Inc.
1 Sugarloaf Street
South Deerfield, MA 01373
Rockridge at Laurel Park
Traffic Impact Statement for Proposed Improvements
This report is prepared for the proposed expansion of the Rockridge assisted living
facility at the intersection of Coles Meadow Road and North King Street. The facility,
which is owned and operated by New England Deaconess Association of Concord,
Massachusetts, currently comprises 44 congregate assisted living single -bed units and 17
Alzheimer's single -bed units. The proposed expansion will add 19 congregate assisted -
living single -bed units, 12 one- bedroom, attached elderly housing cottages, and reduce
the Alzheimer's units by 4, for a total of 63 congregate assisted living units, 12 cottages,
and 13 Alzheimer's units. As an assisted - living facility, all residents participate in on -site
meals, daily activities and medical care. A small -scale site plan is attached for reference.
The site has three existing curb cuts on Coles Meadow Road. Two serve a single- family
residence and garage at the southeast corner of the site, and the third is the existing main
entrance to the Rockridge facility, which is approximately opposite the entrance to
Marian Street. There is one existing curb cut on North King Street that serves as access
for service and a limited amount of staff parking for the facility. Currently, for a vehicle
parked at the end of the Rockridge main entrance driveway, preparing to enter Coles
Meadow Road, the sight distance to the right is impeded by the presence of a sign and by
a number of trees along the side of the road. It is proposed that the sign be relocated, and
that trees be selectively removed to increase the sight distance to an acceptable level.
Coles Meadow Road presently retains its rural, lightly populated character, and there is
rarely any queuing of vehicles waiting at the intersection to enter traffic on North King
Street. The sight distance along North King Street from the end of Coles Meadow Road is
in excess of 700' in both directions, even with visibility blocked somewhat by the
presence of snowbanks along the sides of the road. Based on the 45 mph posted speed
limit at this location, these distances are in compliance with 2001 AASHTO intersection
sight distance criteria for stop- controlled intersections (please see attachment).
Both of the entrances to the facility will continue to be used in their current capacity. An
extension with a turnaround will be added to the main driveway to access the front door
of the new three -story building. A newly created driveway will serve the 12 cottages
proposed on the western side of the site. In the planning stages, an option was considered
to provide a separate curb cut for this driveway onto Coles Meadow Road; however, the
Northampton City Planner discouraged this approach and an internal connection was
made off of the reconstructed existing driveway instead. The cottage driveway will
terminate in a dead end with a hammerhead -type turnaround for emergency vehicles just
past the last cottage. An existing gravel driveway to the Laurel Park community that
crosses the Rock Ridge site will be re- routed through the new cottage driveway. The
service drive will retain its basic existing configuration, with the exception that the staff
parking will be relocated from the back of the service area to the side of the entry
driveway. Also, an existing garage /storage building will be relocated from the south side
of the main building to the side of the service drive. There is no internal connection
between the two driveway systems in the existing or proposed conditions.
Currently, there is not a developed pedestrian circulation system at the facility. The
residents have access to an outdoor terrace adjoining the dining room and a wooden
gazebo in a lawn area nearby. Residents also walk along the existing gravel driveway to
Laurel Park. In the proposed condition, the open area on the north side of the facility will
be developed as a large wooded park adjoining a formal garden area. These areas will be
interconnected with the existing and proposed buildings by a network of lighted
footpaths, along which are placed a number of benches. In addition, there is a path and
wooden boardwalk system proposed to connect across the wetland to the upland area on
the north side, which has been developed over a period of years by the residents of Laurel
Park as a community garden. According to New England Deaconess, the gardens have
not been tended for the past couple of years, but present an ideal activity for the
Rockridge residents.
Vehicle trip generation from this type of facility is very low compared to most other uses,
due to a number of factors. The majority of the residents no longer drive, and those who
do make less frequent trips than other classes of drivers. Traffic is generated primarily by
employees, visitors, and service vehicles. Also, other than administrative staff, employees
at the facility arrive in staggered shifts that often do not coincide with normal a. m. and p.
M. peak traffic flows on the adjoining roads. The facility owns and operates two vans that
are utilized in the transport of residents to doctor appointments and other offsite
activities. The facility employs a total of 50 staff, including nursing, dietary, physical
therapy and administrative staff. The Rockridge executive director estimates that an
additional 10 employees will be added in the proposed condition. The staff operates in
three shifts. Kitchen and dietary employees usually arrive before the weekday morning
peak traffic period to prepare and serve breakfast, and stay through the weekday evening
peak period to prepare and serve dinner. Alzheimer's Unit residents do not own their own
vehicles, and the site administrator reports that currently only one assisted - living resident
has a personal vehicle. Therefore, the traffic figures below are generated primarily by
visitors and from the staff, including nursing, dietary and physical therapy staff required
to care for the residents. The following tabulations of existing and proposed traffic
generation from the site are derived from Trip Generation, 6` Edition, Institute of
Transportation Engineers. Copies of the referenced ITE Land Use Tables are attached.
Existina traffic conditions
Alzheimer's Unit (17 beds) - ITE Land Use Table 620
weekday avg. trips: 17 x 2.61 =44.37
weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 17 x 0.20 =3.40
weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 17 x 0.27 =4.59
Congregate Assisted Living (44 beds) - ITE Land Use Table 252
weekday avg. trips: 44 x 2.15 =94.60
weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 44 x 0.15 =6.60
weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 44 x 0.21 =9.24
Therefore, in the existing condition, we can expect the following:
total weekday avg. trips: 138.97
total weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 10.00
total weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 13.83
Proposed traffic conditions
Alzheimer's Unit (13 beds) - ITE Land Use Table 620
weekday avg. trips: 13 x 2.61 =33.93
- weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 13 x 0.20 =2.60
weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 13 x 0.27 =3.51
Congregate Assisted Living (63 units) - ITE Land Use Table 252
weekday avg. trips: 63 x 2.15= 135.45
weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 63 x 0.15 =9.45
weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 63 x 0.21 =13.23
Attached Elderly Housing (12 units) - ITE Land Use Table 253
weekday avg. trips: 12 x 3.48 =41.76
weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 12 x 0.06 =0.72
weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 12 x 0.11 =1.32
Therefore, in the proposed condition, we can expect the following:
total weekday avg. trips: 211.14, an increase of 72.17, or 52%
total weekday a. m. peak hour trips: 12.77, an increase of 2.77, or 28%
total weekday p. m. peak hour trips: 18.06, an increase of 4.23, or 31%
Existing daily traffic data for North King Street are available for a number of different
time periods from the Massachusetts Highway Department, Planning and Engineering
Division, Statewide Traffic and Data Collection. There is a permanent traffic recording
station ( #0011) on North King Street 0.8 mile south of the Hatfield town line, which has
recorded daily traffic volumes ranging from 9,360 in 1986 to 11,083 in 1998. There was
also a recording made on North King Street north of Interstate 91 interchange 20 (sta.
#8517) in 1997 that yielded an adt value of 11,003. The reading at sta. 0011 in 1997 was
11,643, yielding an average of these two recording stations of 11,323. When compared to
these values, the existing traffic flows from Rockridge constitute 1.2% and the proposed
traffic constitutes 1.9% of the average daily traffic on North King Street.
Q)
0
~ II M
Z
d
4i
J
Li,I LI)
T
U rn O
3 Lo
O
d d 4
aC) O
W N
O
�O
�ct
ZQ Q W
O Z
N �d 2
Lug O� Q 3 O
vi U
Q O O O O .�-�
Q. IQ
� O
Q U
X Z V
� O
W4 c0 Q
c, U �_O ON
a °a W¢ WWI NON
LI)U a QQ ZE ON
Q Ln '��Zo WZ�
a WW W<3 o0c
CL � OW�Q ZW�
cb V Z LAJ
Z O 3
00 Y Z
�
cr-
Q (D >-( z
a zxz
�Oa
(72k (!1~J
LLI co
O W m
O O
a
A0Obv> n
N O
I% g
DJ ONI �2 rn u
F � u
CONS MEADOW ROAD R ^ :Ei
Z Z 0
Q
O 2
O
w� 0�Z b
WC�
Q JJ '°
4 00
UU Mx
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Beds
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 11
Average Number of Occupied Beds: 193
Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.20 0.10 - 0.42 0.46
Data Plot and Equation
U)
70
C
w
U
L
N
N
rn
R
N
Q
a
-•-----•-------------------------- - - - - -- ...X------------- .._...I
------------ ...... :-------------------- ----------------------------------------
X X
................. ..
-- X . .. - - -
I - - � ......... --- ------------------------------------------------
X'
------- I .. -------------- ------------- ---- ------------------
..........
X----- ................ .......................
100
90
80
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0 100 200
X = Number of Occupied Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.846 Ln(X) - 0.831
300 400
- ----- Average Rate
R = 0.72
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1016 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Beds
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 11
Average Number of Occupied Beds: 193
Directional Distrib ution: 38% entering, 62% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.27 0.11 - 0.42 0.53
Data Plot and Equation
0
v
c
w
a
H
a�
U
t
N
N
R
N
Q
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
0 100 200
X = Number of Occupied Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.380 Ln(X) - 3.412
300 400
- ----- Average Rate
R = 0.88
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1017 Institute of Transportation Engineers
.............
. --
........
-- •- -•- -: ......•.....
X
-- --
---- ------ ---- ...........
X
X
•• .
.........................
.... ....
.............
X
.................
...............
..X.......
--
---
--...-
- • --- ---X.
.......I..
......
................
.... ..........
X
.....
...........
...
. ...........
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
0 100 200
X = Number of Occupied Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.380 Ln(X) - 3.412
300 400
- ----- Average Rate
R = 0.88
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1017 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 20
Average Number of Beds: 110
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
2.61 1.88 - 3.97 1.68
Data Plot and Equation
600
v,
v
C
w
C1
F-
M
Soo
400
300
200
100
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
X = Number of Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - ---- Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.844 Ln(X) + 1.681 R = 0.72
Trip Generation, 61h Edition 1022 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Congregate Care Facility
(252)
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 2
Avg. Num. of Occupied Dwelling Units: 183
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
2.15 2.12 - 2.15
Data Plot and Equation
Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size
700
600
V)
500
400
Rf
II 300
200
100
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
100
200
300
------ Average Rate
R 2 = ....
X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units
.......................... - ------------------------
..................... ...................
.................................................
X
--------------------
......... ................
.............................
.............................. ........
.......... --------- ----- -- .. ..
X
............... .............
..... ..... .. .... .... ..
Congregate Care Facility
(252)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
On a:
Number of Studies:
Avg. Num. of Occupied Dwelling Units:
Directional Distribution:
Occupied Dwelling Units
Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour of Generator
2
183
50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.15 0.13 - 0.16
Data Plot and Equation
Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size
50
40
X
y
U
c
W
n
F-
m
U
L
m
m
rn
co
m
Q
30
20
10
0 100 200
X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
- - - - -- Average Rate
R2 = * * **
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 460 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Congregate Care Facility
(252)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 2
Avg. Num. of Occupied Dwelling Units: 183
Directional Distribution: 60% entering, 40% exiting
T rip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.21 0.21 - 0.21 '
Land Use: 253
Elderly Housing Attached
Independent Variables with One Observation
The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This
information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data.
Users are cautioned to use these data with care because of the small sample size.
Trip Size of Number
Generation Independent of
Day/Time Period Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution
Occupied Dwelling Units
Weekday
3.48
67
1
50% entering, 50% exitin
Saturday
2.51
67
1
50% entering, 50% exitin
Saturday Peak Hour of
Generator
0.30
67
1
Not Available
Sunday
2.70
67
1
50% entering, 50% exitin
Sunday Peak Hour of
Generator
0.55
67
1
Not Available
Elderly Housing - Attached
(253)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
A.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 4
Avg. Num. of Occupied Dwelling Units: 177
D irectional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.06 0.02 - 0.37 0.27
uata Fiot and hauation
30
20
X
y
'd
c
W
d
F—
m
U
L
m
N
0)
fa
N
Q
F-
10
0
Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size
---- -- ------- -- -- -- - - - -•.
......---
-- ..
.......•............
X•
X
0
100
200
300
------ Average Rate
R 2 = —*
X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 466 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Elderly Housing - Attached
(253)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 4
Avg. Num. of Occupied Dwelling Units: 177
Directional Distribution: 53% entering, 47% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.11 0.03 - 0.25 0.33
uata viot anti tz
40
30
V)
'13
C
W
.2 L
0) 20
rn
a)
F-
10
Caution - Use Carefully - Small Sample Size
..................................................... ..................... ......
. ....................... .......................
X
...................... ----------- .................... ......... ...........
X
0
0 100 200 300
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given
X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units
-
-- - - - Average Rate
R 2 = ....
Discussion Paper No. 8.13
INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
2001 NEW INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA (Continued)
Cases B1 and
132: Sight
Distance
form Left and
Right Turns
from Stop
(Continued)
Table 8. Stop Controlled Intersection Sight Distance for Left and Right
Turns — Unadjusted for Approach Grade or Number of Lanes
Design Speed
Km/h (mph)
Intersection Sight Distance*
m (ft.)
Passenger Cars
Single Unit
Trucks
Combination
Trucks
30 (19)
63 (207)
79 (259)
96 (315)
40 (25)
83 (272)
106 (348)
128 (420)
50 (31)
104 (341)
132 (433)
160 (525)
60 (38)
125 (410)
158 (518)
192 (630)
70 (44)
146 (479)
185 (607)
224 (735)
80 (50)
167 (548)
211 (692)
256 (840)
90 (56)
188 (617)
238 (781)
288 (945)
100 (63)
209 (686)
264 (866)
320 (1050)
110 (69)
229 (751)
291 (954)
352 (1155)
120 (75)
250 (820)
317 (1040)
384 (1260)
*See Table 7 for adjustments
40
USGS QUADRANGLE
Courtesy of Earthvisions, Inc.
Easthampton Mass.
Contour Interval = 10 ft.
I )j
1
� � J
r
a
Approx. location perm.
traffic recording Station
#0011
i I
r
Rockridge at Laurel Park
14