PVPC NorthamptonRt9SafetyLivabilityStudy_Final-5-21-2017Route 9 Safety and Livability Study
Northampton, MA
May 2017
Prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department
of Transportation. The views and opinions of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission expressed herein
do not reflect those of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -i- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
I.1 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................. 2
II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 3
II.1 DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................. 3
II.1.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................... 3
II.1.2 Vehicular Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 13
II.1.3 Pedestrians Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 16
II.1.4 Transit ............................................................................................................................... 17
II.2 SAFETY.................................................................................................................................... 19
II.2.1 Crash History .................................................................................................................... 19
II.2.2 Collision Patterns .............................................................................................................. 23
III. DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 31
III.1 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................. 31
III.1.1 Survey Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 31
III.1.2 Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 35
III.2 MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .................................................................... 36
III.2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 36
III.2.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 36
III.2.2 Automobile Level of Service and Travel Time Delays ..................................................... 38
IV. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 41
IV.1 SUPPORTIVE ONGOING STUDIES ...................................................................................... 41
IV.1.1 Northampton Walk / Bike Assessment Project ................................................................ 41
IV.1.2 Walk/Bike Northampton Plan .......................................................................................... 41
IV.1.3 MassDOT Transit Mobility Study ..................................................................................... 42
IV.2 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................... 43
V. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DATA SUMMARIES AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX C: POLICE CRASH REPORTS
APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -ii- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA STREET AND SIDEWALK W IDTH MEASUREMENTS .................................... 4
TABLE 2 - PARKING MANEUVERS DURING AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR ........................................................................ 12
TABLE 3 - ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAVEL ON ROUTE 9 STUDY CORRIDOR ........................................................... 13
TABLE 4 - BUS AND RAIL ROUTES WITHIN THE ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA ..................................................... 19
TABLE 5 - CRASHES 2011-2014 MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) CORRIDOR IN NORTHAMPTON ......................................... 20
TABLE 6 - NORTHAMPTON TRAVELER SURVEY QUESTIONS .................................................................................... 31
TABLE 7 - RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS ASPECT OF DOWNTOWN ................ 32
TABLE 8 - RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTION ABOUT THE UNDESIRABLE ASPECTS OF W ALKING IN DOWNTOWN .............. 33
TABLE 9 - RESULT OF SURVEY QUESTION ABOUT THE UNDESIRABLE ASPECT OF CYCLING IN DOWNTOWN .................. 33
TABLE 10 - DESIRED MODIFICATIONS TO MAIN STREET - HIGHLIGHTING PRIORITY .................................................... 35
TABLE 11 - DESIRED MODIFICATIONS TO MAIN STREET - COMPARING OPTIONS ....................................................... 35
TABLE 12: LOS+ LEVEL OF SERVICE DESIGNATIONS FOR EACH MODE .................................................................... 37
TABLE 13 - LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR 5 ROADWAY SEGMENTS OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) EASTBOUND ...................... 37
TABLE 14 - LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR 5 ROADWAY SEGMENTS OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) W ESTBOUND ..................... 37
TABLE 15 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESIGNATIONS FOR UN-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...................................... 38
TABLE 16 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESIGNATIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ........................................... 38
TABLE 17 - LEVEL OF SERVICE AT 8 INTERSECTIONS OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) IN CITY CENTER ............................ 40
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - STUDY AREA MAP ............................................................................................................................... 1
FIGURE 2 - THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 WITH ROUTE 5 IN NORTHAMPTON, MA .................................................... 2
FIGURE 3 - MAIN STREET FROM MASONIC STREET TO MARKET STREET IN NORTHAMPTON, MA .................................. 4
FIGURE 4 - MAIN STREET FROM MASONIC STREET TO OLD SOUTH STREET IN NORTHAMPTON, MA ............................. 5
FIGURE 5 - MAIN STREET FROM CENTER STREET TO KING AND PLEASANT STREETS IN NORTHAMPTON, MA ................. 6
FIGURE 6 - MAIN STREET FROM STRONG STREET TO MARKET AND HAWLEY STREETS IN NORTHAMPTON, MA .............. 7
FIGURE 7 - MAIN STREET CROSSWALK TO CITY HALL FROM CRACKER BARREL ALLEY, NORTHAMPTON, MA ................ 8
FIGURE 8 - MAIN STREET CROSSWALK TO THORNES MARKET FROM TD BANK, NORTHAMPTON, MA ........................... 9
FIGURE 9 - MAIN STREET CROSSWALK FROM CENTER STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MA ................................................. 9
FIGURE 10 - CROSSWALKS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET WITH PLEASANT/KING STREET ........................... 10
FIGURE 11 - ON STREET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) ...................................................... 10
FIGURE 12 - PARKING MANEUVERS DURING PEAK HOUR (4:45 PM - 5:45 PM) ....................................................... 11
FIGURE 13 - PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS ........................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 14 - PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ................................................................................. 15
FIGURE 15 - PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 WITH ROUTE 5 ........................... 16
FIGURE 16 - TRANSIT ROUTES SERVING NORTHAMPTON CENTER (2013) ............................................................... 17
FIGURE 17 - STREET SIGN FOR AMTRAK TRAIN STATION, NORTHAMPTON ............................................................... 18
FIGURE 18 - ACADEMY OF MUSIC BUS STOP IN FRONT OF PULASKI PARK, NORTHAMPTON ........................................ 18
FIGURE 19 - DISTRACTED PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAIN STREET FROM PLEASANT STREET .................................... 21
FIGURE 20 - NORTHAMPTON CENTER RANKED 6 IN STATEWIDE TOP BICYCLE CRASH CLUSTERS .............................. 22
FIGURE 21 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) CRASHES AT SIX INTERSECTIONS 2011-2014 ............................................... 23
FIGURE 22 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND PLEASANT/KING STREET (ROUTE 5) INTERSECTION................................. 23
FIGURE 23 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND MASONIC STREET COLLISION DIAGRAM .................................................. 24
FIGURE 24 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND OLD SOUTH STREET COLLISION DIAGRAM .............................................. 25
FIGURE 25 - HEAVY TRAFFIC FROM OLD SOUTH STREET ONTO MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9). ......................................... 25
FIGURE 26 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND CENTER STREET COLLISION DIAGRAM ................................................... 26
FIGURE 27 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND KING / PLEASANT STREET (ROUTE 5) COLLISION DIAGRAM ...................... 27
FIGURE 28 - MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9) AND STRONG STREET COLLISION DIAGRAM ................................................... 28
FIGURE 29 - BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 9) AND MARKET / HAWLEY STREET COLLISION DIAGRAM ................................. 29
FIGURE 30 – LOW CLEARANCE RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER MAIN STREET .................................................................. 30
FIGURE 31 - RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTION ABOUT MODE OF TRAVEL .................................................................. 32
FIGURE 32 - RESULTS OF SURVEY QUESTION ABOUT THEIR DRIVING EXPERIENCE ALONG MAIN STREET .................... 34
FIGURE 33 - MORNING AND EVENING TRAFFIC ALONG THE ROUTE 9 STUDY CORRIDOR ............................................ 43
FIGURE 34 - ADVANCE W ARNING SIGNS FOR BRIDGE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ROUTE 9 ....................................... 45
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -1- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
I. INTRODUCTION
The Route 9 Safety and Livability Study analyzes the Route 9 corridor from Masonic Street to Market
Street in the City of Northampton to improve safety for all modes of transportation (Figure 1). Route 9 in
Northampton, MA was identified as one of the Top 25 High Crash segments in the Pioneer Valley. This
area has a history of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. These safety concerns prompted the City to request
that the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) study the transportation safety conditions along this
corridor.
The study scope was designed to incorporate Livability and Complete Streets planning aspects for future
transportation improvements and development along this roadway. The study includes a review of
recommendations by some of the recent studies completed for the City of Northampton. Staff collected
geometric data along the corridor to identify locations of existing on-street parking, roadway width,
pedestrian crossings, sidewalk width, and bus stops. They also collected data on daily traffic volumes,
peak hour traffic volumes, vehicle travel speed data, pedestrian and bicycle traffic volume, parking and
transit service along the corridor. Data collected was used to examine existing conditions on vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic flow and analyze the multimodal level of service throughout the study area.
Staff also analyzed existing safety conditions to develop recommendations that could help reduce
crashes and improve livability in downtown Northampton.
Figure 1 - Study Area Map
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -2- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
I.1 STUDY AREA
The study area was identified by the City of Northampton as the segment of Route 9 between the
intersection of Masonic Street and Market Street. The study area includes the intersection of Main Street
(Route 9) with Pleasant and King Streets (Route 5) (Figure 2). Route 9 links Northampton with Interstate
Route I-91 at Interchange 19 one mile east of the study area. Route 5 links the city to Interstate Route I-
91 via Interchange 18 in Northampton three quarters of a mile south of the study area and via
Interchange 20 about a mile and a quarter to the north of the study area. As a result, this intersection is
critical in moving traffic in and out of the city. Route 9 links Northampton to Hadley and a high
concentration of retail development via the Coolidge Bridge to the east, while Route 5 links Northampton
to Holyoke and its shopping and industry centers. Route 5 also serves as an alternate route to I-91 during
traffic incidents and extreme weather.
Figure 2 - The Intersection of Route 9 with Route 5 in Northampton, MA
Route 9 is part of the National Highway System which has important federal standards and requirements.
The national highway designation makes it eligible for federal aid and expedient construction procedures.
Therefore, it “must comply with applicable Federal regulations. These requirements include design
standards, contract administration, State-FHWA oversight procedures, Highway Performance Monitoring
System reporting, National Bridge Inventory reporting, national performance measures data collection,
and outdoor advertisement/junkyard control." 1
A recent, "rulemaking updates regulations governing new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing
(except for maintenance resurfacing), restoration, and rehabilitation projects on the National Highway
System (NHS), including the Interstate System, by incorporating by reference the current versions of
design standards and standard specifications. While these adopted standards and specifications apply to
all projects on the NHS (including the Interstate System), FHWA encourages the use of flexibility and a
context-sensitive approach to consider a full range of project and user needs and the impacts to the
community and natural and human environment." 2
1 Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/qandas/qanhs.cfm
2 61302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Rules and Regulations. Source:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-13/pdf/2015-25931.pdf
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -3- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This section provides a technical evaluation of the transportation components of the study area. It
includes a presentation of the data collected and crash history along the Route 9 corridor. Located in the
heart of downtown, the study area is characterized by a wide range of residential, commercial, and
cultural land uses. Thornes Marketplace, City Hall, the Academy of Music, and the Smith College Art
Museum are just a few of the many attractions. This corridor has a high volume of motor vehicles as well
as bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The downtown area also has a mix of short and long term on-street and
off-street parking spaces. The corridor is well served by public transit routes operated by the regional
transit authority (PVTA) and (FRTA), as well as the intercity motor coach carrier PeterPan Bus Lines.
II.1 DATA COLLECTION
PVPC staff collected a comprehensive array of transportation related data for the Route 9 corridor study
area. This included roadway geometry, traffic volumes by transportation mode, transit routes, parking
space availability, and crashes. The following sections describe the data collected and observed trends.
II.1.1 Roadway Network
Route 9 has three different street names within the City of Northampton. It is named Elm Street west of
the study area beginning at its intersection with West Street. It is called Bridge Street east of the study
area beginning at its intersection with Hawley Street. However Route 9 is designated as Main Street
throughout the study area. It has unmarked travel lanes but operates as two lanes of vehicular travel in
each direction between King Street and New South Street. Vehicle turning lanes are properly designated
at major intersection.
PVPC staff conducted a field survey of the Route 9 corridor (Main Street) between Masonic Street and
Market Street in Northampton. Main Street and intersecting streets throughout the corridor were
measured and drawn to represent current widths of pavement surface, sidewalks, lengths of crosswalks,
and identify the location and number of parking spaces. An overall drawing of the corridor is presented in
Figure 3 followed by close-up drawings dividing the corridor into three sections that display street,
crosswalk and sidewalk measurements (Figures 4, 5, and 6).
II.1.1.1 Street and Sidewalk Widths
Main Street in Northampton has variable pavement surface widths between Masonic Street and Market
Street. The street's pavement width ranged from 50' to 100' from curb to curb. Details of total street width
as well as street width by travel direction and sidewalk width are listed in Table 1 for all streets in the
study area.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -4- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 3 - Main Street from Masonic Street to Market Street in Northampton, MA
Table 1 - Route 9 Corridor Study Area Street and Sidewalk Width Measurements
Street Name
Location
Total
Street Width
Lane Width
Eastbound /Westbound
Sidewalk Width
Eastbound /Westbound
Main Street (Route 9) East of Masonic Street 64' 32'/32' 8.5'/15'
Main Street (Route 9) West of Cracker Barrel Alley 91' 47'/44' 8.5'/12.5'
Main Street (Route 9) West of Center Street 84' 44'/40' 15.5'/16'
Main Street (Route 9) East of Center Street 100' 50'/50' 17'/12.5'
Main Street (Route 9) West of King Street (Route 5) 75' 35'/35' 12.5'/12.5'
Main Street (Route 9) East of King Street (Route 5) 82' 40'/42' 12.5'/12.5'
Main Street (Route 9) West of Strong Avenue 65' 30'/35' 15'/15'
Main Street (Route 9) West of Market Street 54' 27'/27' 15'/15'
Main Street (Route 9) East of Market Street 50' 22'/28' 10'/10'
Masonic Street North of Main Street 35' 9'/9'
Cracker Barrel Alley North of Main Street 20'
Crafts Avenue South of Main Street 40' /12.5'
Old South Street South of Main Street 32' 15'/17' 12.5'/12.5'
Center Street North of Main Street 32' 15'/17' 6'/6'
Gothic Street North of Main Street 37' 6'/6'
King Street North of Main Street 80' 45'/30' 9'/11'
Pleasant Street South of Main Street 64' 28'/36' 9'/9'
Strong Avenue South of Main Street 46' 23'/23' 12.5'/12.5'
Market Street North of Main Street 40' 20'/20' 5'/5'
Hawley Street South of Main Street 45' 25'/20' 10'/10'
Not to Scale
North
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -5- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 4 - Main Street from Masonic Street to Old South Street in Northampton, MA
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -6- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 5 - Main Street from Center Street to King and Pleasant Streets in Northampton, MA
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -7- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 6 - Main Street from Strong Street to Market and Hawley Streets in Northampton, MA
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -8- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II.1.1.2 Crosswalks and Medians
In addition to pedestrian crosswalks at major street intersections there is a major midblock crosswalk
connecting the bank on the north side of the street with Thornes Marketplace at the southern end of the
street (Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10). The variability of street widths throughout the corridor lead to a variability
of crosswalk lengths ranging from 50' to 100'. The width of each crosswalk varied from 12' to 16'. A
median of 5' width was present near its intersection with Route 5 (Figure 10). However, this median is not
designed as a pedestrian refuge area and is usually occupied with flower planters in the summer and
snow banks in the winter.
Figure 7 - Main Street Crosswalk to City Hall from Cracker Barrel Alley, Northampton, MA
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -9- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 8 - Main Street Crosswalk to Thornes Market from TD Bank, Northampton, MA
Figure 9 - Main Street Crosswalk from Center Street, Northampton, MA
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -10- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 10 - Crosswalks at the Intersection of Main Street with Pleasant/King Street
II.1.1.3 On-street Parking Inventory
Metered parking spaces flank both sides of Main Street (Figure 11). Angle parking is provided between
Crafts Avenue and King Street (Route 5), while parallel parking is provided beyond the heart of the
business district.
Figure 11 - On Street Parking on both Sides of Main Street (Route 9)
A total of 224 parking spaces were surveyed by PVPC staff along Route 9 and its immediate vicinity.
Parking maneuvers were counted during the evening peak hour from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM. A total of 555
parking maneuvers were noted (Figure 12). Numbers along Route 9 indicate parking movements along
the adjacent side of that section of the street. Numbers in parenthesis indicate parking maneuvers along
side streets. This represents an average turnover rate of 2.5 vehicles per parking space within the study
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -11- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
area. Popular parking spots near local businesses along Main Street had a higher turnover rate than the
side streets.
Figure 12 - Parking Maneuvers during Peak Hour (4:45 PM - 5:45 PM)
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -12- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Table 2 - Parking Maneuvers during Afternoon Peak Hour
No. Location Roadway Orientation
Existing
On
Street
Parking
Spaces
Parking
Maneuvers
during
Afternoon
Peak Hour
1 Between State Street and Masonic Street Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 4 11
2 Between Masonic Street and Town Hall Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 8 22
3 In the vicinity of the Town Hall Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 4 6
4 Between Masonic Street and Cracker Barrel Alley Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 10 2
5 Between Route 9 and Button Street Along Masonic Street Western side of the
roadway 5 13
6 Between Cracker Barrel Alley and the mid-block
crosswalk in the vicinity of Thornes Marketplace Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 15 38
7 Between Craft's Avenue and Old South Street Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 9 11
8 Between Route 9 and Brewster Ct. Along Old South Street Eastern side of the
roadway 10 25
9 Between mid-block crosswalk in the vicinity of
Thornes Marketplace and Center Street Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 10 45
10 Between Old South Street and Center Street Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 8 49
11 Between Route 9 and crosswalk in the vicinity of
TDBank North parking lot Along Center Street Western side of the
roadway 7 9
12 Between Center Street and Gothic Street Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 9 18
13 Between Center Street and Pleasant Street (Route 5) Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 19 107
14 Between Route 9 and Gothic Street parking lot Along Gothic Street Western side of the
roadway 11 17
15 Between Route 9 and Hotel Northampton Along Kings Street (Route 5) Western side of the
roadway 10 9
16 Between Route 9 and Merrick Lane Along Kings Street (Route 5) Eastern side of the
roadway 2 2
17 Between Route 9 and Armory Street Along Pleasant Street
(Route 5)
Western side of the
roadway 2 12
18 Between Route 9 and Armory Street Along Pleasant Street
(Route 5)
Eastern side of the
roadway 2 2
19 Between Kings Street (Route 5) and Strong Avenue Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 12 24
20 Between Pleasant Street (Route 5) and Strong
Avenue Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 10 25
21 Between Route 9 and The Tunnel Bar Along Strong Avenue Western side of the
roadway 9 24
22 Between Route 9 and The Tunnel Bar Along Strong Avenue Eastern side of the
roadway 11 25
23 Between Strong Avenue and Market Street Along Route 9 Northern side of the
roadway 7* 13
24 Between Strong Avenue and Hawley Street Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 7 12
25 Between Route 9 and Graves Avenue Along Market Street Eastern side of the
roadway 8 19
26 Between Route 9 and Phillips Pl. Along Hawley Street Eastern side of the
roadway 7 6
27 Between Hawley Street and US Postal Service
building Along Route 9 Southern side of the
roadway 6 9
* 2 spaces were blocked due to sidewalk repair work
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -13- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II.1.2 Vehicular Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data collection included daily traffic counts and turning movement counts. Traffic counts
were initially conducted during the standard expected morning and afternoon peak periods , however, the
morning peak period counts yielded much smaller traffic volumes compared to the afternoon peak period.
City staff confirmed that this was the expected traffic flow pattern for downtown Northampton. Therefore,
subsequent analysis focused on the afternoon peak hour of traffic. Turning movement counts were
conducted manually by PVPC staff at major intersections in study area for the afternoon peak hour.
Daily counts were collected over several days to obtain the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) using Automatic
Traffic Recorders (ATRs). Since traffic volumes tend to fluctuate over the course of a year, MassDOT
develops traffic volume adjustment factors to reflect monthly variations. These factors were examined to
determine how traffic conditions in the study area compared to an average month conditions in
accordance with the month a location was counted. ADT volumes were factored to represent Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) levels. The AADT on Main Street (Route 9) west of King Street was 15,162
and the Daily Hourly Volume was 1,585 (Table 3). The 2015 Daily Traffic Volumes were obtained from
the MassDOT Transportation Data Management System website:
http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod=
Table 3 - Annual Average Daily Travel on Route 9 Study Corridor
Local ID: 2096
Located On: MAIN STREET, North of King Street
Direction: 2-WAY
AADT Count: 15,162
Eastbound Count: 8,249
Westbound Count: 6,913
Daily Hourly Volume 1,585
II.1.2.1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Turning Movement Counts (TMC’s) were conducted for corridor
intersections during the peak afternoon commuter periods between the hours of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The
TMC’s were conducted to identify the peak four consecutive 15 minute periods of traffic through the
intersection. These consecutive peak 15 minute periods constitute a location's Peak Hour Volume. The
peak hour of traffic volume represents the most critical period for operations and will be the focus for
some of the analysis conducted in this study.
As traffic volumes tend to fluctuate over the course of the year, the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) develops traffic volume adjustment factors to reflect monthly variations. These
factors were examined to determine the traffic conditions at the Route 9 corridor intersections.
A total of 11,028 vehicles traveled through the corridor study area during the peak afternoon hour period
from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM. During this peak hour a substantial number of vehicles travel eastbound and
southbound from Main Street. It is expected that many of these vehicles were commuters traveling along
Route 9 to access I-91 via Bridge Street at Interchange 19 or via Pleasant Street at Interchange 18. A
display of turning movement counts at each of the study area's roadway intersections are presented
below (Figure 13 and 14).
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -14- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 13 - Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -15- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 14 - Peak Hour Pedestrian Traffic Movements
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -16- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II.1.2.2 Trucks and Heavy Vehicles
TMC data also identifies the number of heavy vehicles on a roadway. Heavy vehicles include trucks,
recreational vehicles and buses. The percentage of heavy vehicles in traffic is an important component in
calculating the serviceability of a corridor or intersection. Trucks impact traffic flow because they occupy
more roadway space than passenger cars and have poorer operating capabilities with respect to
acceleration, deceleration and maneuverability. There were a total of 170 heavy vehicles counted during
the afternoon peak hour. This represents 1.5% of all traffic during that period of time.
II.1.3 Pedestrians Traffic Volumes
Pedestrian traffic movements were counted at all crosswalks within the study area. Pedestrian volumes
during the afternoon peak hour at the various intersections and crosswalks were documented in sketches
representing three sections of Route 9 from its intersection with Masonic Street to Market Street (Figure
14). Pedestrian traffic was counted during the afternoon peak hour. Pedestrian peak hour volumes
reached 3,949 on the day of counting. Nearly a quarter of this number of pedestrians crossed Main Street
(Route 9) at various locations. At the intersection of Route 9 and Route 5 (Main Street and Pleasant/King
Street), a total of 460 pedestrians were counted. This is 10% of all intersection traffic during the two hour
afternoon peak traffic period (Figure 15).
Figure 15 - Pedestrians Crossing the Signalized Intersection of Route 9 with Route 5
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -17- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II.1.4 Transit
The local transit hub is located along Main Street (Route 9) in the center of Northampton in front of
Pulaski Park next to the Academy of Music Theater (Figure 16). This bus stop is serviced by both local
and regional buses. An Interstate Bus Terminal is located one block away south of Main Street off of
Crafts Avenue at the Roundhouse Plaza. The Amtrak train station is located at the southern edge of the
study corridor about one half mile away from the Academy of Music bus stop off of Pleasant Street (Route
5) (Figure 17). The North-South railroad tracks run along Route 5. The railroad is used for both passenger
and freight services.
Figure 16 - Transit Routes Serving Northampton Center (2013)
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -18- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 17 - Street Sign for Amtrak Train Station, Northampton
There are three main bus stop locations within the study area. The Academy of Music bus stop serves as
a transportation hub where all bus routes servicing Northampton stop. A few of the bus routes use it as a
terminal point with timed stops on the bus schedule sheets (Figure 18). Most bus users congregate
between bus transfers at this location where a large bus shelter is available as well as several benches.
The Masonic Street bus stop is located on the opposite side of Main Street to service the opposite
direction. The third major bus stop is located near the court house.
Figure 18 - Academy of Music Bus Stop in front of Pulaski Park, Northampton
Google Image Capture August 2015.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -19- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The study corridor is served by nine public transit routes operated by the regional transit authority (PVTA)
and one route operated by (FRTA) which connects Northampton with Greenfield to the north. Three
additional bus routes are operated by the intercity motor coach carrier PeterPan Bus Lines. Transit
services available are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 - Bus and Rail Routes within the Route 9 Corridor Study Area
Company Route
Name
From To Roadway Used
(within study area)
PVTA B43 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Hadley, Amherst Main Street
PVTA B48 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Holyoke Main Street, Pleasant Street
PVTA M40 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Amherst Main Street (Route 9)
PVTA NE Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Easthampton Main Street, Pleasant Street
PVTA R41 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Easthampton,
Holyoke
Main Street, Pleasant Street
PVTA R42 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Williamsburg Main Street, Pleasant Street
PVTA R44 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Florence Main Street, King Street
PVTA X98 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Across town Main Street, King Street
PVTA 39 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Amherst, South
Hadley
Main Street
FRTA 31 Academy of
Music Bus Stop
Greenfield Main Street, King Street
PeterPan
Bus Co.
PPB Roundhouse Bus
Terminal
All Points
East/North/South/
Main Street, Crafts Avenue,
Old South Street, King Street
Greyhound
Lines
GLI Roundhouse Bus
Terminal
Springfield and All
Points North/South
Main Street, Crafts Avenue,
Old South Street, King Street
Amtrak Vermonter Vermont-
Springfield
Washington, D.C. North-South Railroad Tracks
Multiple
Companies
CT River
Line
North/South South/North North-South Railroad Tracks
II.2 SAFETY
The Northampton Police Department provided crash reports for Route 9 in the study area from January
2011 to March 2014. This information was used to summarize crash patterns and develop collision
diagrams for high crash locations in study area. Crash data for six study area intersections was reviewed
and summarized by type, severity, lighting, and road surface condition. These tables are included in the
Appendix. An overview of the crashes occurring along the study corridor is summarized in the following
section.
II.2.1 Crash History
The Route 9 corridor between Masonic Street and Hawley/ Market Street ranked fourth among the top 25
high crash roadway segments in the 2013 Pioneer Valley Regional Crash Report. A total of 150 crashes
occurred during the 39 month analysis period with an average of 46 crashes per year. A third of collisions
were rear end crashes, 15% occurred during lane changes, 15% were angle collisions, and 15% were
collisions with a fixed object. A majority of crashes, 81%, caused property damage over $1000.
Pedestrians and cyclist collisions represented 11% of all crashes, and resulted in one fatality. Nearly 90%
of all pedestrian and cyclist crashes resulted in an injury (Table 5). Two thirds of crashes occurred during
daylight, while a quarter of crashes occurred during dark conditions on a lighted roadway.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -20- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Table 5 - Crashes 2011-2014 Main Street (Route 9) Corridor in Northampton
Year Collisions
2011 6 Masonic St 41 Property Damage > $1000 35 Daylight 34 Dry
9 Old South St 15 Property Damage < $1000 2 Dusk 20 Wet
6 Center St 12 Personal Injury 20 Dawn 2 Water
17 Pleasant St 1 Snow
12 Strong St
7 Hawley St/Market St
2012 4 Masonic St 30 Property Damage > $1000 25 Daylight 26 Dry
8 Old South St 7 Property Damage < $1000 8 Dawn 9 Wet
2 Center St 6 Personal Injury 4 Dusk 1 Water
11 Pleasant St 1 Fatality 1 Snow
6 Strong St
6 Hawley St/Market St
2013 6 Masonic St 41 Property Damage > $1000 37 Daylight 32 Dry
9 Old South St 5 Property Damage < $1000 1 Dark - Lighted Road 10 Wet
4 Center St 9 Personal Injury 1 Dawn 2 Water
18 Pleasant St 8 Dusk 3 Snow
7 Strong St
3 Hawley St/Market St
Jan. 2014 - Mar. 2014 1 Masonic St 8 Property Damage > $1000 5 Daylight 6 Dry
1 Old South St 1 Property Damage < $1000 4 Dawn 3 Wet
6 Pleasant St 3 Personal Injury
1 Hawley St/Market St
MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON 2011-2014
Intersection Severity Lighting Road Surface
57
37
47
9
Total Crashes Intersection Type Severity Lighting Road Surfaces
150 17 Masonic St 45 Rear End 120 Property Damage > $1000 102 Daylight 98 Dry
27 Old South St 21 Lane Change 28 Property Damage < $1000 1 Dark - Lighted Road 42 Wet
12 Center St 21 Angle 30 Personal Injury 40 Dawn 5 Water
52 Pleasant St 16 Backing 1 Fatality 7 Dusk 1 Snow
25 Strong St 21 Fixed Objects 4 Ice
17 Hawley St/Market St 8 Side Swipe
10 Cyclist
7 Pedestrian
1 Head On
MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON COLLISIONS 2011-2014 TOTAL
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -21- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Route 9 in the Northampton city center had a high rate of non-motorized crashes, ranking third statewide
in equivalent property damage only (EPDO) score during the period of 2008-2012. This corridor was also
among the top high bicycle crash locations in the Commonwealth in the past three consecutive statewide
rankings. Downtown Northampton was listed as a high crash cluster for bicycles and pedestrians in
Massachusetts. It ranked sixth statewide during the latest Top Crash Locations Report, a report utilizing
10 years of crash data from 2004 to 2013. The focal point of Northampton's bicycle crash cluster on Main
Street (Route 9) appears to between Gothic Street and King/Pleasant Street (Figure 19). It represents a
roadway segment spanning 200 feet in the vicinity of a major signalized intersection (Figure 20).
Figure 19 - Distracted Pedestrians Crossing Main Street from Pleasant Street
One fatality occurred at the intersection of Main Street (Route 9) and Pleasant Street (Route 5). The
collision occurred on the 19th of May 2012 on a dry Spring day at 7:11pm. A car travelling westbound and
turning left onto Pleasant Street from Main Street collided with a bicycle driving east on Main Street. Fatal
injuries caused the death of the cyclists a few days later. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time
of collision.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -22- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 20 - Northampton Center Ranked 6 in Statewide Top Bicycle Crash Clusters
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -23- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
II.2.2 Collision Patterns
To identify safety concerns and investigate potential solutions , the six intersections within the Route 9
study corridor were analyzed in terms of frequency and manner of collision. Intersecting streets studied
include: Masonic Street, Old South Street, Center Street, King Street/Pleasant Street, Strong Ave, and
Market Street/Hawley Street (Figure 21). An overall corridor collision diagram is included in the Appendix.
The following is an in depth discussion on collision patterns and crash trends observed in the study area.
Figure 21 - Main Street (Route 9) Crashes at Six Intersections 2011-2014
The largest number of crashes occurred at the intersection of Main Street (Route 9) and Pleasant Street
(Route 5) (Figure 22). A total of 52 crashes, representing 35% of all corridor crashes occurred at this
major signalized intersection. About 18% of crashes occurred at the intersection of Main Street with Old
South Street. Next in magnitude of crashes was the intersection of Main Street with Strong Avenue which
experienced 17% of all crashes. Two intersections experienced 11% of crashes, the intersection of Main
Street with Masonic Street and the intersection of Bridge Street with Hawley Street. The lowest number of
crashes, 7%, occurred at the intersection of Main Street and Center Street.
Figure 22 - Main Street (Route 9) and Pleasant/King Street (Route 5) Intersection
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -24- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The following collision diagrams use symbols that represent the manner of collision and location. A
number reference represents the index number of each crash and identifies each crash occurrence as
listed in the crashes database table included in the Appendix.
The intersection of Main Street (Route 9) with Masonic Street experienced a variety of crash types (Figure
23). Masonic Street has one lane in each direction. The crosswalk spanning Route 9 experiences heavy
pedestrian traffic especially since it leads to Pulaski Park and the main transit hub and bus waiting area in
Northampton. During the peak hour 99 pedestrians crossed Route 9 and 122 crossed Masonic Street.
There were two vehicular collisions with pedestrians crossing Route 9. These crashes were possibly
caused by drivers eager to pass the busy intersection or get through the green phase of the nearby
signalized intersection. Another factor could have been a distracted pedestrian rushing to catch a bus, as
a bus stop is located in the vicinity of this intersection on both sides of Route 9. There was one collision
with a cyclist at this location. Other crash types that occurred include rear end, angle, side swipe, fixed
object or parked vehicle.
Figure 23 - Main Street (Route 9) and Masonic Street Collision Diagram
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -25- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The second highest crash location in the study corridor was at the intersection of Main Street (Route 9)
with Old South Street (Figure 24). Old South Street operates as a one way street in the northbound
direction and provides one travel lane with two turning lanes that accommodate a queue of up to five
regular size vehicles at its intersection with Main Street. Drivers wishing to enter Main Street stop along a
steep grade while waiting for a gap in traffic (Figure 25). The crosswalk spanning Old South Street
experiences heavy pedestrian traffic. The peak hour pedestrian count was 254, an average of 4
pedestrians per minute. Due to the steep grade, once a vehicle begins entering the intersection it may be
difficult to stop should a pedestrian dart across the crosswalk. There were three collisions with a
pedestrian at this location, at a rate of one crash per year. Most crashes in the vicinity of this intersection
were rear end collisions where it appeared a vehicle was struck when it stopped for a pedestrian in a
crosswalk. There were also several crashes resulting from on-street parking maneuvers.
Figure 24 - Main Street (Route 9) and Old South Street Collision Diagram
Figure 25 - Heavy Traffic from Old South Street onto Main Street (Route 9).
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -26- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The intersection of Main Street (Route 9) with Center Street experienced the least number of crashes
among the six intersections reviewed (Figure 26). Center Street has one lane in each direction. The
crosswalk spanning Center Street experiences heavy pedestrian traffic since it leads to many retail
establishments. During the peak hour 205 pedestrian crossed Route 9 and 300 crossed Center Street.
There was one vehicular collision with a cyclist in a crosswalk while crossing Route 9. Three out of the 11
total crashes were rear ends and three included a vehicle that was backing up. Other crash types
included angle, lane change, side swipe, and fixed object.
Figure 26 - Main Street (Route 9) and Center Street Collision Diagram
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -27- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The intersection of Main Street (Route 9) with King and Pleasant Streets (Route 5) experienced the most
crashes in the study area (Figure 27). A quarter of crashes at this intersection involved rear end collisions
which occurred as vehicles approached the traffic signal or while in queue at the signal. Several crashes
occurred between parked vehicles backing out and vehicles in the eastbound travel lane on Main Street.
A fifth of crashes occurred during vehicular lane changes as they approached the intersection. There
were a number of side swipe collisions during turning movements at the intersection.
Figure 27 - Main Street (Route 9) and King / Pleasant Street (Route 5) Collision Diagram
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -28- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The intersection of Main Street (Route 9) with Strong Avenue experienced several crash types (Figure
28). Strong Avenue has one lane in each direction. The intersection is flanked by many restaurants and
generates heavy pedestrian traffic during the evening hours on popular outing days such as Thursday,
Friday and Saturday. During the afternoon peak hour, 134 pedestrian crossed Route 9 and 70 crossed
Strong Avenue. There were two occurrences of vehicular collisions with a cyclist in crosswalk while
crossing Strong Avenue and one pedestrian collision not at the crosswalk . More than a third of all
collisions were with a fixed object and another third were due to rear end collisions. Other crash types
included backing, lane change, side swipe, and fixed object.
Figure 28 - Main Street (Route 9) and Strong Street Collision Diagram
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -29- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The intersection of Main Street (Route 9) with Market Street and Hawley Street experienced several crash
types (Figure 29). These intersecting streets with Route 9 have one lane in each direction. The
intersection is flanked by a variety of retail establishments. It is also in close proximity to the railroad
underpass and stairway access to the passenger rail platform at the Northampton Train Station. During
the afternoon peak hour, 79 pedestrians crossed Route 9, 102 crossed Market Street, and 37 crossed
Hawley Street. A large number, 41%, of collisions occurring at this intersection were rear end collisions.
There was one collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Other crash types included
head on, left turn, lane change, side swipe, and fixed object. There were also 8 incidents involving
oversized vehicles colliding with the 11 foot high railroad bridge west of this intersection.
Figure 29 - Bridge Street (Route 9) and Market / Hawley Street Collision Diagram
The Route 9 Railroad Overpass Safety Study by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission was completed
in 2006. That study included analysis and recommendations to address the issues of oversized vehicles
not able to pass under the Northampton railroad bridge which is currently posted at 11 feet, a low-
clearance bridge. A high volume of truck traffic travels through the City of Northampton to serve both
Northampton and other neighboring cities and towns. On numerous occasions, over height vehicles have
collided with the bridge. Many damaged areas can be seen under this bridge. The Northampton Police
Department also must routinely provide assistance to clear traffic for vehicles that have not struck the
bridge but must back up to a suitable detour point. Route 9 has an over-height vehicle detection system,
Warning signs are provided along the corridor and alternate routes have been assigned to assist trucks
around the railroad bridge. Bridge Street (Route 9) has also been redesigned to provide more clearance
and can no longer be lowered.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -30- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 30 – Low Clearance Railroad Bridge Over Main Street
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -31- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
III. DATA ANALYSIS
III.1 SURVEY
PVPC staff conducted a stakeholders' survey using the online platform SurveyMonkey. A total of 867
individuals participated in the survey. The survey was composed of seventeen different questions seeking
input and opinion on current traffic and transportation safety conditions within the study area (Table 6).
The objective of the survey was to identify the main areas of concern for roadway users and incorporate
their feedback in this study. A complete copy of the survey and its results is included in the appendix.
Table 6 - Northampton Traveler Survey Questions
Question Answer Choice
1 Community Affiliation Resident. business
owner, employee,
student, other
2 How old are you? 5 categories
3 What is your race or national origin? 7 options
4 Do you identify yourself as Male, Female
5 What mode do you typically use to travel to downtown Northampton? Personal motor vehicle,
walk, bike, PVTA, ride
from family/friend, other
6 If you answered 'Personal motor vehicle', where do you typically park? 12 options
7 How often do you ride on a PVTA bus to/from Northampton? 5 options
8 What would encourage you to take a PVTA bus more frequently? 7 options
9 Which PVTA/transit route do you ride most frequently? 10 options
10 Are you aware that passenger train service is returning to Northampton? Yes, No
11 Would you use a passenger train from Northampton to Springfield,
Hartford or New York City?
Yes, No
12 Are you aware of the location of the proposed Northampton Train
Station?
Yes, No
13 Rate the importance to you of these aspects in downtown Northampton 10 options
14 What don't you like about walking in downtown Northampton? 13 options
15 What don't you like about biking in downtown Northampton? 11 options
16 If you drive, what makes driving along Main Street difficult? 8 options
17 Rank from 1 to 10 the most important aspects that you would like to see
installed/improved along Main Street
10 options
Four out of seventeen questions were basic demographic inquiries identifying groups of roadway users;
such as whether the respondent was a resident, commuter, or business owner etc. The remaining
questions were related to transportation mode choice such as: bicycle, pedestrian, transit, automobile as
well as where people park. Questions were designed to gather input from all users of the transportation
system. A few questions were also related to commuter rail service and the then proposed new train
station to assess awareness among stakeholders regarding the availability of commuter rail serving the
city and region. A summary of select survey question results are included in the following section.
III.1.1 Survey Data Analysis
A vast majority, almost 85%, of all survey responders were City of Northampton residents between the
ages of 18-64 years. A third of all respondents chose alternative travel modes to driving when travelling to
downtown Northampton. About 70% were motor vehicle users, 24% were pedestrians, 4% were
bicyclists, but only 1% were transit users (Figure 31). This is an indication of the inviting nature of the
downtown as a walkable and accessible area.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -32- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Figure 31 - Results of Survey Question about Mode of Travel
When asked what was important to them among the various aspects of downtown, almost all of the
respondents agreed upon the importance of safety and functionality for both roads and sidewalks (Table
7). Second place on the list of important aspects of downtown was its offering of retail uses and
restaurants as well as an attractive environment of landscape and streetscape. In their opinion, the least
important aspect was parking availability whether on-street or off-street. This is not a surprising answer
considering nearly 30% of respondents indicated they had ridden their bicycle or walked to downtown.
Table 7 - Results of Survey Question about the Importance of Various Aspect of Downtown
What mode do you typically use to travel to downtown Northampton?
Personal motor vehicle
Walk
Bike
PVTA
Ride from family/friend
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -33- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The respondents were asked about what they did not like about walking in downtown Northampton (Table
8). Almost half of them said they did not like that cars drove too fast. A little over a third said they did not
like that there were not enough benches to sit on. A third did not like that there was not adequate
protection from the elements: snow and rain. About a quarter of respondents did not like the shortage of
signalized crosswalks. A similar number of respondents were displeased by the poor maintenance of the
sidewalks. Other common responses included panhandlers and poor snow removal. These responses
were added by the respondents under the "other" category.
Table 8 - Results of Survey Question about the Undesirable Aspects of Walking in Downtown
What don't you like about walking in downtown Northampton?
(select all that apply)
Answer Options Response
Percent
Narrow sidewalks 15.8%
Sidewalks are poorly maintained 23.2%
Poor lighting 10.7%
No good snow and rain protection 29.4%
Not enough benches 36.7%
Not enough landscaping 22.1%
Not enough crosswalks 9.2%
Not enough signalized crosswalks 24.3%
Too much delay crossing streets 11.4%
Few/poor curb wheelchair ramps 8.8%
Cars drive too fast 44.2%
Lack of life on properties abutting the sidewalk 10.3%
Survey respondents were also asked their opinion about what they did not like about biking in downtown
Northampton (Table 9). Many of them, 61.5% of respondents, did not like the fact that there were no bike
lanes. Half of them did not like that cars drove too fast. A lack of bike racks near their destination was
another aspect that 38.5% of respondents did not like. A third of respondents did not like that street
shoulders were not maintained well, which creates a hazard for a cyclist. A fifth of respondents did not
like the potential for conflict for cyclists with on-street parking. Other common responses included driver
inattention, feeling unsafe, and that they don’t ride a bicycle.
Table 9 - Result of Survey Question about the Undesirable Aspect of Cycling in Downtown
What don't you like about biking in downtown Northampton?
(select all that apply)
Answer Options Response
Percent
No bike lanes 61.5%
Cars drive too fast 51.0%
Few bike racks near my destination(s) 38.5%
Absence of secure indoor bike parking at my
destination(s) 28.1%
Absence of a shower and changing room at work 13.8%
Bike racks on buses are difficult to use 10.5%
Few places to rent/borrow bike 17.3%
Streets/shoulders are not maintained well 31.1%
Bike racks do not support my bike well 5.9%
Conflicts with on-street parking 22.2%
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -34- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Drivers were asked their opinion about what they thought made driving along Main Street difficult (Figure
32). Over 60% of the respondents were of the opinion that the poorly defined travel lanes made driving
difficult along Main Street. Almost half of the respondents found that the amount of traffic as well as the
amount jay-walkers made driving difficult. The lack of readily available parking spaces on-street was
another factor that made driving difficult according to 44% of respondents. Other common responses to
what made driving difficult along Main Street included improper snow removal, poor drivers, and double
parking for deliveries
Figure 32 - Results of Survey Question about their Driving Experience along Main Street
The respondents gave their opinion about desired improvements to Main Street in downtown
Northampton. They were instructed to rank potential improvements from 1 as most important to 10 as
least important. To facilitate this analysis the answers were aggregated to represent the top three highest
rankings, medium rankings and lowest rankings. This grouping allowed for top, medium and low priority
improvements to emerge from the data gathered. A large number of respondents, 66%, indicated that
creating well defined lanes was among their top three priorities (Table 10). Half of respondents also
chose "less congestion" on Main Street among their top priorities. Improved lighting was chosen as a
medium priority by 58% of respondents. Half of the respondents also set as medium priority: clearly
defined on street parking, wider sidewalks, and improved sidewalk amenities.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Too much
traffic
Can't find
on-street
parking
space
Too many
jay-walkers
Conflicts
with on-
street
parking
Insufficient
signs
Confusing
signs
Poorly
defined
travel lanes
If you drive, what makes driving along Main Street difficult?
(select all that apply)
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -35- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Table 10 - Desired Modifications to Main Street - Highlighting Priority
Comparing the three categories of priority improvements, the highlighted percentage represents the
improvement option that received the highest value within that category (Table 11). Well Defined traffic
lanes received 15% of the vote within the top priority improvements category. Improved lighting received
58% of the votes within the medium priority category, and shorter crossing distances for crosswalks
received 15% of the vote within the low priority category.
Table 11 - Desired Modifications to Main Street - Comparing Options
III.1.2 Survey Results
In summary, major concerns of drivers included: poorly defined lanes, heavy traffic, lack of available
parking, and jay walking. A majority of pedestrians had concerns regarding traffic speeds, lack of benches
along sidewalks, inadequate snow removal and clearing of sidewalks during the winter season, as well as
poor sidewalk maintenance in general. When asked about biking in Northampton, more than 60% of
respondents identified lack of bicycle lanes as their main concern, followed by high traffic speeds and an
insufficient number of bike racks. Top needs identified by users included: shorter crossing distances at
crosswalks, wider sidewalks, and improved lighting at night. Half of the respondents, when they traveled
as pedestrians or cyclists, did not like the fact that cars drove too fast in downtown Northampton.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -36- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
III.2 MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
A multimodal level of service (MMLOS) analysis was conducted for the Route 9 study corridor to identify
issues experienced by all travel modes. This analysis method adhered to the level of service analysis
guidelines set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM2010) and is described in the following
section.
III.2.1 Methodology
To facilitate the data collection and survey of the current study area, it was converted to a network of
eight intersections along the roadway aligned primarily in a west to east direction. An open source hybrid
software called LOS+ was utilized to conduct the MMLOS analysis because six of the eight study area
intersections were un-signalized and the Highway Capacity Software (2010) MMLOS analysis has some
limitations in analyzing such networks.
LOS+ is a tool developed by the consulting agency Fehr & Peers to conduct MMLOS in a very efficient
and less data intensive manner. Non-motorized and transit mode components of the analyses in this tool
are consistent with HCM2010 guidelines. This tool adopted an analysis approach that minimized data
inputs required while providing results consistent with HCM2010 intersection analysis and actual field
conditions.
To analyze the network, the flow conditions along the corridor were divided along five different segments
broken down by both travel directions. Level of service by travel direction was then obtained for
pedestrian, bicycle, automobile and transit modes along each roadway segment.
The automobile level of service provided by LOS+ is consistent with guidance provided by the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3-70. NCHRP Project 3-70 offered the basis
for the Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) methodology in HCM2010, however, there were some
differences between the two methodologies for analyzing LOS for automobiles.
The performance of non-motorized modes was analyzed based on several input factors such as motor
vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, the width of the outside through travel lane, the degree of separation
between non-motorists and motor vehicle traffic, the presence of sidewalks and paths, number of transit
bus stops, percentage of bus stops with shelters and/or benches, frequency of buses, locations of bus
stops with respect to intersections, on-time performance (%), and other related factors.
LOS+ assigns scores to each mode and ranks the performances or level of service for each mode based
on the predetermined designations as shown in Table 12. These ratings take into consideration the
interaction of all four types of travel modes: Automobile, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit; and assessed
their overall impact on each mode's traffic flow conditions.
III.2.2 Results
A summary of results from the multimodal level of service analysis by roadway segment for Route 9
eastbound is included in Table 13, and for Route 9 westbound in Table 14. The five roadway segments
along the Route 9 study corridor are listed in the first left column. Both the eastbound and westbound
directions of Route 9 provided good levels of service ratings for pedestrians and transit along all roadway
segments. The bicycle mode, however, experienced delays at both ends of the corridor in the westbound
direction and also at the eastern edge of the corridor in the eastbound direction. Automobiles were
calculated to operate at LOF F between Crafts Avenue and Route 5 in the westbound direction and LOS
E in the eastbound direction. Similarly automobiles were calculated to operate at LOS F in both directions
between Strong Avenue and Market Street.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -37- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Table 12: LOS+ Level of service designations for Each Mode
Automobile
LOS: A B C D E F
weights: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Transit and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Score LOS
LOS by Average Pedestrian Space (ft2/p)
-100 A
LOS Score 60 40 24 15 8 0
0 A
-100 A B C D E F
2.00001 B
2.00001 B B C D E F
2.75001 C
2.75001 C C C D E F
3.50001 D
3.50001 D D D D E F
4.25001 E
4.25001 E E E E E F
5.00001 F
5.00001 F F F F F F
Table 13 - Level of Service for 5 Roadway Segments of Main Street (Route 9) Eastbound
Table 14 - Level of Service for 5 Roadway Segments of Main Street (Route 9) Westbound
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -38- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
III.2.2 Automobile Level of Service and Travel Time Delays
As mentioned earlier in the report, there were some differences between the two methodologies of LOS+
and HCM2010 for analyzing the LOS for the automobile mode. Therefore the automobile LOS and
congestion scores along the intersections were also separately analyzed with the help of the Synchro 9
software. This software allowed the analysis of each of the eight intersections within the study area
utilizing travel times and delays in the conventional manner consistent with HCM2010.
Each intersection was examined with regard to capacity and delay characteristics to determine the
existing Level of Service (LOS). LOS is an indicator of the operating conditions which occur on a
roadway under different volumes of traffic and is defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual by six
levels, ‘A’ through ‘F’. A number of operational factors can influence the LOS including geometry, travel
speeds, delay, and the number of pedestrians. Table 15 presents the LOS designations for un-signalized
intersections and Table 16 presents the LOS designations for signalized intersections.
Table 15 - Level of Service (LOS) Designations for Un-signalized Intersections
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, TRB.
Table 16 - Level of Service (LOS) Designations for Signalized Intersections
Category Description Delay in
seconds
LOS A
Describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and relatively
high speeds. There is little or no reduction in maneuverability due
to the presence of other vehicles and drivers can maintain their
desired speeds. Little or no delays result for side street motorists.
< 10.0
LOS B
Describes a condition of stable flow, with desired operating speeds
relatively unaffected, but with a slight deterioration of
maneuverability within the traffic stream. Side street motorists
experience short delays.
>10.0 to 20.0
LOS C
Describes a condition still representing stable flow, but speeds and
maneuverability begin to be restricted. Motorists entering from side
streets experience average delays.
>20.0 to 35.0
LOS D
Describes a high-density traffic condition approaching unstable
flow. Speeds and maneuverability become more restricted. Side
street motorists may experience longer delays.
>35.0 to 55.0
LOS E
Represents conditions at or near the capacity of the facility. Flow is
usually unstable, and freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream
becomes extremely difficult. Very long delays may result for side
street motorists.
>55.0 to 80.0
LOS F
Describes forced flow or breakdown conditions with significant
queuing along critical approaches. Operating conditions are highly
unstable as characterized by erratic vehicle movements along each
approach.
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, TRB.
LOS Expected Delay To Minor Street Average Control Delay (sec./veh.)
A Little or no delay 0.0 to 10.0
B Short traffic delays >10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays >15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays >25.0 to 35.0
E Very long delays >35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme delays >50.0
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -39- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Depending on the time of day and year, a roadway may operate at varying levels . Level of Service ‘A’
represents the best operating conditions and is an indicator of ideal travel conditions with vehicles
operating at or above posted speed limits with little or no delays. Conversely, LOS ‘F’, or failure,
generally indicates forced flow conditions illustrated by long delays and vehicle queues. Level of Service
‘C’ indicates a condition of stable flow and is generally considered satisfactory in rural areas. Under LOS
‘D’ conditions, delays are considerably longer than under LOS ‘C’, but are considered acceptable in urban
areas. At LOS ‘E’ the roadway begins to operate at unstable flow conditions as the facility is operating at
or near its capacity. Table 17 summarizes the existing level of services at the eight study area
intersections during the afternoon peak hour.
In contrast with the multimodal approach, the standard LOS conducted for the eight intersections along
the Route 9 corridor favored the automobile mode and factored in pedestrian movements at designated
crosswalks only. Therefore the LOS ratings results were different and showed an improved level of
service along the primary corridor of Route 9. This improvement was subject to overall intersection delay
times; however there are significantly more delays to some of the individual side street movements. The
only intersection calculated to operate at LOS F was the un-signalized intersection of Route 9 with Old
South Street (Table 17). This was again due to the influence of the high delay experienced by the minor
street northbound approach. It is noteworthy to mention again that overall Route 9 was calculated to
operate at a good LOS. The one exception was the left turn movement from the Route 9 westbound
approach onto Pleasant Street (Route 5). This movement was calculated to operate at LOS E with delays
greater than 75 seconds.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -40- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Table 17 - Level of Service at 8 Intersections of Main Street (Route 9) in City Center
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -41- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
IV. SUMMARY
IV.1 SUPPORTIVE ONGOING STUDIES
The City of Northampton has adopted a proactive approach to encourage the use of alternative modes of
transportation throughout the community. A number of planning studies have been completed with the
goal to advance improvement projects that increase opportunities for alternative modes of transportation
and improve safety for non-motorists in the study area. These studies are summarized in this section.
IV.1.1 Northampton Walk / Bike Assessment Project
http://www.northamptonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4987
Northampton is one of 18 communities that participated in MassDOT’s multi-disciplined program to
improve safety for non-motorist in Massachusetts. As part of this project, WalkBoston, MassBike and the
Toole Design Group performed an assessment of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Main Street
to identify existing challenges and develop a series of short and long-term recommendations.
The project report noted that pedestrian and bicycle movements along Main Street are compromised by
the varying width of the roadway, multiple undefined travel lanes, poor sight lines adjacent to parked cars,
long crosswalks, complex intersections, and head-in/angled parking spaces (for bicyclists).
The team made several general recommendations such as:
• Reroute truck traffic to bypass Main Street through downtown.
• Reconfigure the roadway width and geometry of travel lanes to provide a safer and more-
coherent environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Narrow Main Street to reduce pedestrian crossing distances by installing curb extensions and
refuge islands.
• Remove parking on-street parking spaces within 20 feet of crosswalks.
• Evaluate traffic signal timing plans and ensure they accommodate all transportation modes
through enhanced bicycle detection and pedestrian count-down signals.
• Enforce ordinances to keep sidewalks clear of obstacles for pedestrians.
• Upgrade curb ramps and install detectable warning strips to meet ADA standards.
• Install bike facilities along Main Street (with both short and longer term options), ideally separated
from motor vehicle traffic.
In addition, more detailed recommendations were developed for the following intersections:
• Main Street at Elm Street, West Street, State Street and New South Streets
• Main Street at Cracker Barrel Alley and Crafts Avenue
• Main Street from Old South Street to Gothic Street
• Main Street with King Street and Pleasant Street
IV.1.2 Walk/Bike Northampton Plan
http://www.northamptonma.gov/1647/WalkBike-Plan
The City of Northampton commissioned Alta Planning to develop the Walk/Bike Northampton Plan to
outline programs and policies directed towards developing a more walkable, bikable and accessible city.
The plan helped in creating a long list of projects to support this endeavor. Location specific
recommendations pertaining to street design and roadway infrastructure installments were made for
entire the City. In addition to several short and long term recommendations, the plan outlined 4 unique
Main Street redesign options for the City to consider.
Option 1: Proposes to provide wider sidewalks with bike lanes separated by angled parking. This option
improves mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians but may still not reduce the potential for conflict between
traffic on Main Street and parked vehicles.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -42- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Option 2: Proposes installing Transit Priority lanes between the on-street parking spaces and Main Street
traffic. These lanes could be shared by bicyclists. This option reduces the number of travel lanes along
the corridor. Bicyclists may be uncomfortable sharing a lane with buses.
Option 3: Proposes installing a wide center median on Main Street between Pleasant Street and Masonic
Street. The median would include select designated locations for on-street angled parking. Main Street
would be reduced to one travel lane and provide bicycle lanes in each direction. This option provides the
opportunity for more streetscaping in the downtown area.
Option 4: Proposes installing a protected cycle track as a center median along Main Street. This is
different configuration for bicyclists in the region and may again provide difficulty in user acceptance and
comfort, particularly in the areas where bicyclists would need to transition from existing bike lanes to the
cycle track.
IV.1.3 MassDOT Transit Mobility Study
MassDOT has developed an alternative as part of its analysis of the redesign of Route 9 in Hadley that
looks at implementing a modified Bus Rapid Transit service on PVTA’s B-43 route. While bus stops and
transit amenities on the downtown section of Northampton are unlikely to be impacted, the alternative
could result in the installation of transit signal priority equipment that would allow certain transit vehicles
the ability to pre-empt select traffic signals in the study area. This study is not yet completed and will
require approval by MassDOT.
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -43- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
IV.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are presented to improve mobility and safety in the study area. In
general, recommendations that have been proposed in previous plans and projects completed for the City
of Northampton have not been included as part of this section.
The majority of crosswalks along the corridor long crossing distances which make it difficult for
pedestrians to cross and increase the potential for conflict with vehicles. It is recommended the City
consider options for installing curb bump outs or pedestrian refuge islands along medians as
appropriate to reducing these crossing distances.
The City of Northampton is planning to construct a ramp to connect Pulaski Park with the Round
House parking lot to facilitate bicyclists. This proposed project would likely change existing bicycle
travel patterns and could increase the number of bicyclists along Route 9. As a result, the City should
continue to explore options to install bike lanes along Route 9 to improve mobility and safety.
Historic crash data shows a small crash cluster in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 9 with
Cracker Barrel Alley. It is recommended the City install a curb extensio n in this area to reduce the
length of the crossing distance and improve pedestrian visibility to reduce the potential for conflict.
Several collisions occurred at the intersection of Main Street and Old South Street: The steep grade
on Old South Street and high volume of pedestrians that cross in this area create the potential for
conflicts in this area. There are currently no advance warning signs on Old South Street to alert
drivers of the high volume crosswalk. The City should consider installing advance pedestrian crossing
warning signs on both sides of Old South Street approaching its intersection with Main Street. These
signs could be supplemented with yellow flashing warning beacons. In the long term, the City should
study the feasibility of extending the sidewalk out into Main Street to allow vehicles on Old South
Street to stop in an area closer to grade level.
Many pedestrian injuries were found to have occurred when the pedestrian was walking in a marked
crosswalk. The City of Northampton currently participates in a safety campaign to raise pedestrian
and bicycle awareness of the Massachusetts Traffic Laws. It is recommended the City continue to
pursue opportunities to provide education and outreach to pedestrians and bicyclists on current traffic
laws and to discourage unsafe practices such as jaywalking, crossing in conflict to the pedestrian
signal and riding in the wrong direction on the roadway. The City should also continue to engage in
regular maintenance activities to keep crosswalk pavement markings and signs highly visible.
Level of service was calculated to be acceptable for the corridor as whole, however choke points
were found to occur at both ends of the study area and along many of the minor street approaches to
Main Street (Figure 33). Traffic signal timings should be checked on a regular basis to determine if a
more efficient plan is necessary due to changes in travel patterns. This also includes the amount of
crossing time allocated for pedestrians.
Figure 33 - Morning and Evening Traffic Along the Route 9 Study Corridor
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -44- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
One of the criticisms that drivers had as part of the stakeholder survey was that travel lanes along the
Route 9 corridor are not clearly marked. In general, pavement markings defining lane use in the study
area are only provided at intersections. Vehicles were observed to drive Route 9 as both a one lane
and a two lane road, particularly between Pleasant Street and Masonic Street. The City of
Northampton should develop a pavement marking plan to clearly identify travel lanes in this area.
The City of Northampton should periodically conduct an assessment of the condition of all traffic signs
in the study area. Signs found to be in poor condition should be replaced to ensure they are visible
and meet current standards for reflectivity. Similarly, signs should be cleared of any vegetation that
could obscure the visibility of existing signs.
Many of the crashes in the study area involved collisions with vehicles attempting to execute parking
maneuvers. In particular, many of the crashes occurred in the vicinity of the angle parking spaces
between Pleasant Street and Old South Street. The City of Northampton should review existing on-
street parking spaces to determine of there are opportunities to reduce conflicts on Main Street as a
result of on-street parking. In the short term, marked travel lanes on Main Street could assist in
providing more clearance between the existing angle parking spaces and through traffic on Main
Street. The City should consider striping Main Street as one travel lane from Pleasant Street to
Masonic Street. This would allow for a larger separation between parked vehicles and through traffic
and improve visibility for vehicles backing out of the angle parking spaces. Many communities are
converting their angle parking spaces from a “head in” to “back in” configuration. This was
experimented with in the City of Northampton in the past but was not popular. The City should
continue to explore opportunities to reduce conflicts between on-street parking and all modes of
transportation along Main Street.
Heavy vehicle collisions with the railroad bridge not only cause costly damages, they also negatively
impact traffic flow along the entire corridor due to the time required to extract trucks from under the
bridge. Current advance warning signs with flashing warning beacons alert over-height heavy
vehicles of the upcoming height limitations (Figure 34). However, these signs may not currently be
located in the best location, at the correct height for truck drivers to easily see, or are too small to be
easily read by truck drivers.
o The designated detour for trucks on the Route 9 westbound approach directs trucks to
detour left onto Hawley Street. Hawley Street ultimately intersects with Holyoke Street in
the vicinity of another 11 foot limited height railroad underpass. Additional guide signs are
needed along Hawley Street and the other neighborhood streets to clearly direct trucks
back to Route 9 and the preferred truck detour route.
o Many of the warning signs were observed to be mounted too low for truck drivers to
clearly see. The warning signs appear to be mounted at a height that is more appropriate
for a traditional passenger vehicle. It is recommended the City consider raising the height
of all the low clearance warning signs to place them at the eye level of a truck driver.
Similarly, the size of some of the detour guide signs was observed to be very small.
Larger signs would assist in making them more prominent to truck drivers.
o The City should request MassDOT to consider installing an overhead warning sign for
trucks traveling in the westbound direction on Route 9 prior to its intersection with Damon
Road. Posting an overhead sign in this area could increase compliance with the truck
detour and would alert oversize vehicle drivers approaching the intersection from the
Coolidge Bridge to detour onto Damon Road. While there is currently a white detour sign
for Route 9 West on the Coolidge Bridge, redundancy in signage could benefit the drivers
who may miss the initial sign while navigating bridge traffic. Similarly, an additional
orange detour sign at the intersection of Route 9 and Lincoln Ave could serve as a last
reminder for drivers and point them to turn right onto Lincoln Ave. The current white
detour sign located on Route 9 West between Day Avenue and Lincoln Ave is difficult to
notice due to its low height and the close placement to other signs in the area.
o Field observations show that while the Oversize Vehicle Detection System is working, it
appears the system is falsely triggered at times by vehicles that can safely pass under
Route 9 Safety and Livability Study -45- May 2017
Northampton, MA Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
the railroad bridge. It is recommended the City consider recalibrating the system to
ensure is accurately warning over-height vehicles.
Figure 34 - Advance Warning Signs for Bridge Height Restrictions on Route 9
V. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS RESULTS
APPENDIX B: CRASH DATA
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC COUNTS
Table Of Contents
Appendix A: Level Of Service................................................................................................
Appendix B: Collision Diagrams............................................................................................
Appendix C: Survey Results....................................................................................................
Appendix D: Traffic Counts.....................................................................................................
A.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................................................................
A.1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE BY INTERSECTION.....................................................
A.1.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALONG INTERSERCTIONS ......................................
A.1.3 LEVEL OF SERVICE: ALONG INTERSERCTIONS WITHOUT PEDS.........
A.1.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE: TRANSIT .......................................................................
A.1.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE BY SEGMENT .....................................................................
B.1 COLLISION DIAGRAMS.........................................................................................................
B.1.1 COLLSSION DIAGRAMS.........................................................................................
B.1.2 COLLSSION TABLES...............................................................................................
C.1 SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................................................
C.1.1 SURVEY SUMMARY................................................................................................
C.1.2 SURVEY RESULTS...................................................................................................
D.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS..........................................................................................................
D.1.1 ATR COUNTS
D.1.1.1 2096 EB.......................................................................................................
D.1.1.2 2096 WB....................................................................................................
D.1.2 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS..........................................................................
D.1.2.1 5606 PM....................................................................................................
D.1.2.2 5607PM....................................................................................................
D.1.2.3 5608 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.4 5609 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.5 5610 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.6 5611 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.7 5612 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.8 5613 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.9 5614 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.10 5615 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.11 5616 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.12 5617 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.13 5618 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.14 5619 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.15 5620 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.16 5621 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.17 5622 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.18 5623 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.19 5614 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.20 6666 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.21 7777 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.22 8888 PM..............................................................................................
D.1.2.23 9999 PM..............................................................................................
List Of Tables
Table 1 Intersection LOS .............................................................................................................
Table 2 Transit Field Survey West Bound............................................................................
Table 3 Transit Field Survey East Bound.................................................................................
Table 4 Transit Performance Data West Bound...................................................................
Table 5 Transit Performance Data West Bound.........................................................................
Table 6 LOS+ Eastbound..............................................................................................................
Table 7 LOS+ Westbound.............................................................................................................
Table 8 Main St Collision List 2011-2014......................................................................................
Table 9 Overall Collisions Listed by Category............................................................................
Table 10 Survey Most Common Results.........................................................................................
List of Figures
Figure 1 LOS Route 9 and Masonic St...........................................................................................
Figure 2 LOS Route 9, Cracker Barrel Alley and Crafts's Ave .................................................
Figure 3 LOS Route 9 and Old South St ..........................................................................................
Figure 4 LOS Route 9 and Center St ..............................................................................................
Figure 5 LOS Route 9 And Gothic St ..............................................................................................
Figure 6 LOS Route 9, Pleasant St and Bridge St............................................................................
Figure 7 LOS Route 9 And Strong Ave............................................................................................
Figure 8 LOS Route 9, Hawley St and Market St...........................................................................
Figure 9 LOS Route 9 and Masonic St (Without Ped.)...................................................................
Figure 10 LOS Route 9, Cracker Barrel Alley and Crafts's Ave (Without Ped.) .......................
Figure 11 LOS Route 9 and Old South St (Without Ped.)..............................................................
Figure 12 LOS Route 9 and Center St (Without Ped.).....................................................................
Figure 13 LOS Route 9 And Gothic St (Without Ped.).....................................................................
Figure 14 LOS Route 9, Pleasant St and Bridge St (Without Ped.)................................................
Figure 15 LOS Route 9 And Strong Ave (Without Ped.).................................................................
Figure 16 LOS Route 9, Hawley St and Market St (Without Ped.).................................................
Figure 17 Crash Diagram At Main St and Pleasant St....................................................................
Figure 18 Crash Diagram Main St and Center St...........................................................................
Figure 19 Crash Diagram Main St and Masonic St.........................................................................
Figure 20 Crash Diagram Main St and Market St..........................................................................
Figure 21 Crash Diagram Main St and Strong Ave.........................................................................
Figure 22 Complete Corridor Collision Diagram............................................................................
Figure 23 Survey Sample Question 1 and 2......................................................................................
Figure 24 Survey Sample Question 3, 4 and 5..................................................................................
Figure 25 Survey Sample Question 6, 7 and 8..................................................................................
Figure 26 Survey Sample Question 9, 10, 11 and 12........................................................................
Figure 27 Survey Sample Question 13..............................................................................................
Figure 28 Survey Sample Question 14 and 15..................................................................................
Figure 29 Survey Sample Question 16 and 17....................................................................................
Figure 30 Survey Question 1 Result..............................................................................................
Figure 31 Survey Question 2 Result.............................................................................................
Figure 32 Survey Question 3 Result...............................................................................................
Figure 33 Survey Question 4 Result................................................................................................
Figure 34 Survey Question 5 Result.................................................................................................
Figure 35 Survey Question 6 Result..............................................................................................
Figure 36 Survey Question 7 Result..................................................................................................
Figure 37 Survey Question 8 Result...................................................................................................
Figure 38 Survey Question 9 Result..................................................................................................
Figure 39 Survey Question 10 Result.............................................................................................
Figure 40 Survey Question 11 Result..............................................................................................
Figure 42 Survey Question 13 Result...............................................................................................
Figure 43 Survey Question 14 Result.................................................................................................
Figure 44 Survey Question 15 Result..................................................................................................
Figure 45 Survey Question 16 Result..................................................................................................
Figure 46 Survey Question 17 Result..................................................................................................
Figure 47 2096 WB...............................................................................................................................
Figure 48 2096 EB.................................................................................................................................
Figure 49 5606 PM..............................................................................................................................
Figure 50 5607 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 51 5608 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 52 5609 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 53 56010 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 54 5611 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 55 5612 PM...........................................................................................................................
Figure 56 5613 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 57 5614 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 58 5615 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 59 5616 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 60 5617 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 61 5618 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 62 5619 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 63 5620 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 64 5621 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 65 5622 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 66 5623 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 67 5624 PM............................................................................................................................
Figure 68 6666 PM...........................................................................................................................
Figure 69 7777 PM..........................................................................................................................
Figure 70 8888 PM...........................................................................................................................
Figure 71 9999 PM...........................................................................................................................
Table 1 LOS BY INTERSECTION
Number Intersecting
Street/s
Signalized / Stop
Control Approach Movement
Delay in
Seconds LOS
Overall
Intersectio
n Delay
Overall
Intersectio
n LOS
Left 0.7 A
Through 1.3 A
Through 0 A
Right 0 A
Left 167 F
Right 167 F
Left 0.1 A
Through 0.3 A
Right 0.3 A
Left 10.1 B
Through 0 A
Right 0 A
Route 9
Eastbound Through 0 A
Route 9
Westbound Through 0 A
Left 234.7 F
Right 339.7 F
Left 1.1 A
Through 2 A
Through 0 A
Right 0 A
Left 199.7 F
Right 199.7 F
Left 1.2 A
Through 1.7 A
Through 0 A
Right 0 A
Left 73.5 F
Right 73.5 F
Left 36.2 D
Through 17.8 B
Right 17.8 B
Left 78.2 E
Through 34.1 C
Right 34.1 C
Left 23.6 C
Through 41.3 D
Right 7.5 A
Left 27.4 C
Through 42.2 D
Right 42.2 D
Through 0 A
Right 0 A
Left 1.5 A
Through 2.5 A
Left 92.5 F
Right 92.5 F
Left
Through
Right
Left
Through
Right
Left
Through
Right
Left
Through
Right
Route 9
Eastbound
Route 9
Westbound
Market Street
Southbound
Hawley Street
Northbound
Route 9
Westbound
King Street
(Route 5)
Southbound
Pleasant Street
(Route 5)
Northbound
Route 9
Eastbound
Route 9
Westbound
Strong Avenue
Northbound
Route 9
Westbound
Center Street
Southbound
Route 9
Eastbound
Route 9
Westbound
Gothic Street
Southbound
Route 9
Eastbound
SignalizedMarket Street and
Hawley Street6
Route 9
Eastbound
Route 9
Westbound
Masonic Street
Southbound
Route 9
Eastbound
Route 9
Westbound
Old South Street
Northbound
Route 9
Eastbound
6
King Street (Route
5) and Pleasant
Street (Route 5)
Signalized
7 Strong Avenue
3 Old South Street
Side Street Stop
Control
Side Street Stop
Control
4 Center Street Side Street Stop
Control
5 Gothic Street Side Street Stop
Control
1 Masonic Street Side Street Stop
Control
2
Crafts Avenue and
Cracker Barrell
Alley
Only Entering
Traffic in Side
Streets
17.4 C
27.2 C
35.5 D
29.9
10.5
10.4
C
B
B
17.7 C
6.6 A
32.9 C
7.2 A
1 A
67 F
Figure 1 LOS Route 9 and Masonic St
Figure 2 LOS Route 9, Cracker Barrel Alley and Craft's Ave
Figure 3 LOS Route 9 and Old South St
Figure 4 LOS Route 9 and Center St
Figure 5 LOS Route 9 and Gothic St
Figure 6 LOS Route 9, Pleasant St and Bridge St
Figure 7 LOS Route 9 and Strong Ave
Figure 8 LOS Route 9, Hawley St and Market St
Figure 9 LOS Route 9 and Masonic St (Without Ped.)
Figure 10 LOS Route 9, Cracker Barrel Alley and Craft's Ave (Without Ped.)
Figure 11 LOS Route 9 and Old South St (Without Ped.)
Figure 12 LOS Route 9 and Center St (Without Ped.)
Figure 13 LOS Route 9 and Gothic St (Without Ped.)
Figure 14 LOS Route 9, Bridge St and Pleasant St (Without Ped.)
Figure 15 LOS Route 9 and Strong Ave (Without Ped.)
Figure 16 LOS Route 9 and Market St (Without Ped.)
Table 2 Transit Field Survey West Bound
1
2
3
4
5
5.0
3.7
Are stops on near
From To (#)(% stops)(% stops)(Yes/No)Loss (min/mi)side of intersection?
Segment Bus Stop Shelters Benches CBD Running Time
Hawley / Market Street Strong Avenue 0 0%0%No 1.0 No
No
King/Pleasant Street Center Street 1 100%100%Yes
Strong Avenue King/Pleasant Street 0 0%0%No 1.0
1.0 Yes
Center Street Crafts Avenue 0 0%0%No 1.0 No
Bus is considered on-time if it arrives within minutes of scheduled time
Average Passenger Trip Length miles
Crafts Avenue Masonic Street 0 0%0%No 1.0 No
Table 3 Transit Field Survey East Bound
1
2
3
4
5
5.0
3.7
Masonic Street Crafts Avenue 1 100%100%Yes 1.0 No
Are stops on near
From To (#)(% stops)(% stops)(Yes/No)Loss (min/mi)side of intersection?
Segment Bus Stop Shelters Benches CBD Running Time
Yes
Center Street King Street and Pleasant Street 0 0%0%No
Crafts Avenue Center Street 1 0%0%Yes 1.0
1.0 No
1.0 No
King / Pleasant Street Strong Avenue 0 0%0%No 1.0 No
Bus is considered on-time if it arrives within minutes of scheduled time
Average Passenger Trip Length miles
Strong Avenue Hawley / Market Street 0 0%0%No
Table 4 Transit Performance Data West Bound
From To #'s (bus/hr)(pas/seat)(s)
Segment Route Frequency Factor Dwell Time Delay
Load On-Time
Performance
(%)
Average Reentry
(s)
1 Hawley / Market Street Strong Avenue
43 3.0 50%100%0 0
all other PVTA 4.0 33%100%0 0
2 Strong Avenue King/Pleasant Street
43 3.0 50%100%0 0
all other PVTA 4.0 33%100%0 0
3 King/Pleasant Street Center Street
43 3.0 50%
all other PVTA 4.0 33%
85%10 5
44 1.0 13%100%10 5
100%10 5
4 Center Street Crafts Avenue
43 3.0 25%
all other PVTA 4.0 13%
100%0 0
44 1.0 5%100%0 0
100%0 0
5 Crafts Avenue Masonic Street
43 3.0 25%
all other PVTA 6.0 13%
100%0 0
44 1.0 5%100%0 0
100%0 0
Table 5 Transit Performance Data East Bound
From To #'s (bus/hr)(pas/seat)(s)
Segment Route Frequency Factor Dwell Time Delay
Load On-Time
Performance
(%)
Average Reentry
(s)
1 Masonic Street Crafts Avenue
43 3.0 25%
44 1.0 25%
85%20 5
48 2.0 25%100%20 5
100%20 5
all other PVTA 8.0 13%100%20 5
2 Crafts Avenue Center Street
43 3.0 25%
44 1.0 25%
100%0 0
48 2.0 25%100%0 0
100%20 5
all other PVTA 8.0 13%100%0 0
3 Center Street King Street and Pleasant Street
43 3.0 25%
44 1.0 25%
100%0 0
48 2.0 25%100%0 0
100%0 0
all other PVTA 5.0 13%100%0 0
4 King / Pleasant Street Strong Avenue
43 3.0 25%100%0 0
all other PVTA 4.0 13%100%0 0
5 Strong Avenue Hawley / Market Street
43 3.0 25%100%0 0
all other PVTA 4.0 13%100%0 0
'
Table 6 LOS+ Eastbound
LOS+ Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets
Results Summary
Street Direction Date
Limits Scenario Analyst
V/C Ratio LOS Score LOS Ped Space1 LOS Score LOS LOS Score LOS LOS Score LOS
1 0.14 2.34 B 209.02 1.08 A 3.48 C 2.38 B
2 0.16 5.93 F 362.95 1.07 A 2.00 B 1.49 A
3 0.24 5.86 F 409.65 1.08 A 3.57 D 1.00 A
4 0.12 2.34 B 559.92 1.06 A 3.71 D 0.18 A
5 0.90 5.62 F 623.93 1.72 A 5.00 F 1.35 A
Source: NCHRP Project 3-70 Multimodal Level of Service For Urban Streets and Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Chapter 17
King / Pleasant Street Strong Avenue
Strong Avenue Hawley / Market Street
Note:
1. Pedestrian space is reported in square feet per pedestrian (ft 2/ped)
Transit Mode
Masonic Street Crafts Avenue
Crafts Avenue Center Street
Auto Mode Pedestrian Mode Bicycle Mode
Center Street King / Pleasant Street
Segment From To
Masonic Street to Hawley/ Market Street Khyati
Elm - Main - Bridge Street (Route 9) Northampton Eastbound 6/6/2015
Existing
Table 7 LOS+ Westbound
LOS+ Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets
Results Summary
Street Direction Date
Limits Scenario Analyst
V/C Ratio LOS Score LOS Ped Space1 LOS Score LOS LOS Score LOS LOS Score LOS
1 0.28 5.62 F 677.58 1.81 A 5.26 F 0.50 A
2 0.15 2.14 B 462.96 0.87 A 3.44 C 0.91 A
3 0.09 4.49 E 333.78 0.71 A 0.11 A 2.04 B
4 0.17 4.83 E 380.57 1.17 A 2.05 B 0.64 A
5 0.17 2.34 B 304.40 1.26 A 4.87 E -0.16 A
Source: NCHRP Project 3-70 Multimodal Level of Service For Urban Streets and Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Chapter 17
Center Street Crafts Avenue
Crafts Avenue Masonic Street
Note:
1. Pedestrian space is reported in square feet per pedestrian (ft 2/ped)
Transit Mode
Hawley/Market Street Strong Avenue
Strong Avenue King/Pleasant Street
Auto Mode Pedestrian Mode Bicycle Mode
King/Pleasant Street Center Street
Segment From To
Hawley/ Market Street to Masonic Street Khyati
Bridge - Main - Elm Street (Route 9) Northampton Westbound 6/6/2015
Existing
Figure 17 Crash Diagram At Main St and Pleasant St
Figure 18 Crash Diagram Main St and Center St
Figure 19 Crash Diagram Main St and Masonic St
Figure 20 Crash Diagram Main St and Market St
Figure 21 Crash Diagram Main St and Strong Ave
Figure 22 Complete Corridor Collision Diagram
Table 8 Main St Collision List 2011-2014
Table 9 Collision List Table By Year
Year Collisions
2011 6 Masonic St 41 Property Damage > $1000 35 Daylight 34 Dry
9 Old South St 15 Property Damage < $1000 2 Dusk 20 Wet
6 Center St 12 Personal Injury 20 Dawn 2 Water
17 Pleasant St 1 Snow
12 Strong St
7 Hawley St/Market St
2012 4 Masonic St 30 Property Damage > $1000 25 Daylight 26 Dry
8 Old South St 7 Property Damage < $1000 8 Dawn 9 Wet
2 Center St 6 Personal Injury 4 Dusk 1 Water
11 Pleasant St 1 Fatality 1 Snow
6 Strong St
6 Hawley St/Market St
2013 6 Masonic St 41 Property Damage > $1000 37 Daylight 32 Dry
9 Old South St 5 Property Damage < $1000 1 Dark - Lighted Road 10 Wet
4 Center St 9 Personal Injury 1 Dawn 2 Water
18 Pleasant St 8 Dusk 3 Snow
7 Strong St
3 Hawley St/Market St
Jan. 2014 - Mar. 2014 1 Masonic St 8 Property Damage > $1000 5 Daylight 6 Dry
1 Old South St 1 Property Damage < $1000 4 Dawn 3 Wet
6 Pleasant St 3 Personal Injury
1 Hawley St/Market St
MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON 2011-2014
Intersection Severity Lighting Road Surface
57
37
47
9
Table 10 Overall Collisions Listed by Category
Total Crashes Intersection Type Severity Lighting Road Surfaces
150 17 Masonic St 45 Rear End 120 Property Damage > $1000 102 Daylight 98 Dry
27 Old South St 21 Lane Change 28 Property Damage < $1000 1 Dark - Lighted Road 42 Wet
12 Center St 21 Angle 30 Personal Injury 40 Dawn 5 Water
52 Pleasant St 16 Backing 1 Fatality 7 Dusk 1 Snow
25 Strong St 21 Fixed Objects 4 Ice
17 Hawley St/Market St 8 Side Swipe
10 Cyclist
7 Pedestrian
1 Head On
MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON COLLISIONS 2011-2014 TOTAL
Figure 23 Survey Sample Question 1 and 2
Figure 24 Survey Sample Question 3, 4 and 5
Figure 25 Survey Sample Question 6, 7 and 8
Figure 26 Survey Sample Question 9, 10, 11 and 12
Figure 27 Survey Sample Question 13
Figure 28 Survey Sample Question 14 and 15
Figure 29 Survey Sample Question 16 and 17
Figure 30 Survey Question 1 Result
Figure 31 Survey Question 2 Result
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Northampton
(including
Florence, Bay
State and
Leeds) resident
Business
owner within
the study area
Business
owner outside
the study area
Employee of a
business
within the
study area
Student (full
time)
Student (part
time)
Questions 1: Please Indicate your affiliation(s)
How old are you?
Under 18
18-35
36-50
51-64
65+
Figure 32 Survey Question 3 Result
Figure 33 Survey Question 4 Result
What is your race or national origin?
Pacific Islander (Incl. Native
Hawaiian)
Black/African American
Hispanic/Mexican American
Asian
Native Indian
White
Two or more of above
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Male Female
Do you identify yourself as
Figure 34 Survey Question 5 Result
Figure 35 Survey Question 6 Result
What mode do you typically use to travel to
downtown Northampton?
Personal motor vehicle
Walk
Bike
PVTA
Ride from family/friend
If you answered 'Personal motor vehicle',
where do you typically park?
On-street (meter)
James House Lot along Gothic Street
Masonic Street Lot
Strong Avenue Lot
Union Station Lot
Armory Street Lot
Parking Garage along Old South Street
Old South Street short term parking Lot
Hampton Avenue Lot along Old South
Street
Short term parking Lot near City Hall
along Crafts Avenue
Round House Lot along Old South
Street
Figure 36 Survey Question 7 Result
Figure 37 Survey Question 8 Result
How often do you ride on a PVTA bus
to/from Northampton?
Everyday
Once a week
2-4 times a week
Less than once a week
Never
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
More frequent
service
Schedule
information
more widely
available
Later night
service
Weekend
service
Lower Fare Service to a
different
location
(Please
specify)
What would encourage you to take a PVTA
bus more frequently? (select all that apply)
Figure 38 Survey Question 9 Result
Figure 39 Survey Question 10 Result
Which PVTA/transit Route do you ride most
frequently?
Route 39
39 Express
M40
R41
R42
R44
B43
B48
NE (Easthampton Nashawannuck
Express)
Are you aware that passenger train service is
returning to Northampton?
Yes No
Figure 40 Survey Question 11 Result
Figure 41 Survey Question 12 Result
Would you use a passenger train from Northampton
to Springfield, Hartford or New York City?
Yes No
Are you aware of the location of the
proposed Northampton Train Station?
Yes No
Figure 42 Survey Question 13 Result
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 Safe and functional roads Better bicycle facilities Available on-street parking Robust retail and restaurants Available housing opportunities Rate the importance to you of these aspects in
downtown Northampton
Not Important
Important
Very Important
Figure 43 Survey Question 14 Result
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0% Narrow sidewalks Poor lighting Not enough benches Not enough crosswalks Too much delay crossing streets Cars drive too fast What don't you like about walking in
downtown Northampton? (select all that apply)
Figure 44 Survey Question 15 Result
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0% No bike lanes Few bike racks near my destination(s) Absence of a shower and changing room at work Few places to rent/borrow bike Bike racks do not support my bike well What don't you like about biking in downtown
Northampton? (select all that apply)
Figure 45 Survey Question 16 Result
Figure 46 Survey Question 17 Result
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Too much
traffic
Can't find
on-street
parking
space
Too many
jay-walkers
Conflicts
with on-
street
parking
Insufficient
signs
Confusing
signs
Poorly
defined
travel lanes
If you drive, what makes driving along Main Street
difficult?
(select all that apply)
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Clearly defined on-street parking
Less congestion
Wider sidewalks
Shorter crossing distances for crosswalks
Marked on-street bike lanes
Rank from 1 to 10 the most important aspects that you would like to see
installed/improved along Main Street (1 being the most important) Your selected
rank will be assigned to the choice and the same will be moved to the assigned
order by default.
Table 10 Survey Most Common Results
Question Answer Choice
1 Community Affiliation Resident. business owner, employee, student, other
2 How old are you?5 categories
3 What is your race or national origin?7 options
4 Do you identify yourself as Male, Female
5 What mode do you typically use to travel to downtown Northampton?Personal motor vehicle, walk, bike, PVTA, ride from family/friend,
other
6 If you answered 'Personal motor vehicle', where do you typically park? 12 options
7 How often do you ride on a PVTA bus to/from Northampton?5 options
8 What would encourage you to take a PVTA bus more frequently?7 options
9 Which PVTA/transit Route do you ride most frequently?10 options
10 Are you aware that passenger train service is returning to Northampton? Yes, No
11 Would you use a passenger train from Northampton to Springfield, Hartford
or New York City?
Yes, No
12 Are you aware of the location of the proposed Northampton Train Station? Yes, No
13 Rate the importance to you of these aspects in downtown Northampton 10 options
14 What don't you like about walking in downtown Northampton?13 options
15 What don't you like about biking in downtown Northampton?11 options
16 If you drive, what makes driving along Main Street difficult?8 options
17 Rank from 1 to 10 the most important aspects that you would like to see
installed/improved along Main Street
10 options
APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC COUNTS
D.1 TMC Counts
D.2 ATR Counts
Figure 47 2096 WB
Figure 48 2096 EB
Figure 49 5606 PM
Figure 49 5607 PM
Figure 50 5608 PM
Figure 51 5609 PM
Figure 52 5610 PM
Figure 53 5611 PM
Figure 54 5612 PM
Figure 55 5613 PM
Figure 56 5614 PM
Figure 56 5614 PM
Figure 57 5615 PM
Figure 58 5616 PM
Figure 59 5617 PM
Figure 60 5618 PM
Figure 61 5619 PM
Figure 62 5620 PM
Figure 63 5621 PM
Figure 64 5622 PM
Figure 65 5623 PM
Figure 66 5624 PM
Figure 67 6666 PM
Figure 68 7777 PM
Figure 69 8888 PM
Figure 70 9999 PM