|
Town of Minutes of Meeting Members
Present: Barbara
Annis, Paul Violette, David Hartman, Hank Duhamel, Ed Mical, Dan Watts, Members
Excused: None Members
Absent:
None Members Late:
None Alternates Present:
Robert Ricard, Harold French Alternates Excused:
None Alternates Absent:
None Alternates Late:
None Presiding:
Barbara Annis Recording:
Jean Lightfoot Also Present:
Richard Cook, David Karrick, Laura Buono, Jim McLaughlin, Harold
Whittemore and Bill Chandler Open Meeting at Roll Call Ms. Annis opened the meeting at 1.
REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF REVIEW OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 103 AND Ms. Annis recognized Todd Clark of Hoyle,
Tanner & Associates, Inc. and Mr. Clark introduced his associate
Steven Haas. He said they
were asked by the Town to advance a previous access management study for
the Route 103 and Market Basket Plaza intersection.
He said that this is not final and is a work in process.
He said it will be part of a request to go to NHDOT to solicit
funding assistance. He said
that they intend to walk through the draft study and plans that were
distributed about a week ago. He
said that the plans that were prepared are the existing conditions.
He explained the color coding used on the plans that he was
reviewing: blue is water,
darker green is forested area, gray is the existing pavement and red are
existing structures and north is generally up on the plans. The green
color would be a raised median. The
light orange is the existing driveway and the darker orange is the
proposed new driveway. The
brown is the proposed shoulders. Mr. Clark said that the plan is to go over the
introduction and purpose, the existing conditions, the proposed
improvements with alternatives 1A, 1B and 2, and then construction cost
estimates, using today’s dollar values.
He spent some time reviewing the plans showing the I-89 and Route
103 area, indicating various features such as the floodplain of the Mr. Clark explained that as a driver proceeds
through this section, there are many decisions to make.
There are multiple access and egress points from the Citgo
station and the Park and Ride facility.
He said there is a lack of queuing storage for the left turns out
of the driveways. He said
they are poorly striped and needlessly wide, which tends to confuse the
driver with all that pavement. He
added that the Citgo station has a fairly tight facility for their
required large truck movements internally.
There are minimal pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in the
area. He said there is a
large speed differential between the southbound on-ramp of I-89, where
the driver traveling southbound has a much longer, straighter, and
uninterrupted acceleration condition as compared to the drive coming
from the eastern portion and taking a hard left. Mr. Clark introduced Mr. Haas to show some
traffic configurations at the Market Basket Plaza-Route 103
intersection. He showed
numerous iterations, using software which projected animations of the
various estimates of how the traffic would flow – including how it
flows currently (which was counted at 8000 vehicles per day in 2007),
with a heavy volume turning left from the eastbound lane into the Plaza
and a heavy southbound right turn coming out of the Plaza.
He said from the NHDOT Bureau of Planning, they found that there
are approximately 8 accidents per year within the study area, but it is
not known where they take place. He
said that the missed accident rate is approximately 137% of the
statewide average. Mr. Mical
asked what time of year the traffic count was done.
Mr. Haas said he did not know, but added that the study conducted
was adjusted to reflect peak conditions.
Ms. Annis asked if the 137% is extremely high or extremely low.
Mr. Haas responded that this area is approximately 2/3 of a mile,
resulting in 5 – 5-1/2 crashes per vehicle mile, so it is high.
Mr. Violette commented that around lunchtime there will be 6-12
cars lined up from the southbound ramp of I-89 trying to turn left into
the Mr. Haas continued by talking about the I-89
on and off ramps. He said
that the Mr. Haas went on to describe a Signal Warrants
Analysis for determining if a traffic signal should be installed.
They consider various criteria.
He said that for this project, they considered the 8-hour,
4-hour, peak hour and crash data. He
said that they thought the Market Basket Plaza intersection would meet
the Four-Hour warrant, which means that does the traffic for four hours
of an average day meet a certain threshold.
He said there are two conditions for that warrant:
one is for a small community under 10,000 people or a corridor
that has a speed limit that is over 40 miles per hour.
Warner meets the warrant since it has fewer than 10,000 people.
He said that though there is a high accident rate, it is not
determined as to whether the crash warrant is met.
To meet the warrant, there must have been 5 accidents in the area
that could have been corrected with a traffic signal, and then only if
other measures have been tried to correct those accidents.
Mr. Mical said that the Access Management Study in 2005 indicated
that it was met for three of the warrants.
Mr. Haas said that NHDOT has looked more at the right turn
traffic at an intersection than they did in 2005, where the right-turn
traffic from the Market Basket Plaza could be better directed, thus
alleviating some of the queuing. Mr.
Cook asked if the 4 hours is within a 24-hour period.
Mr. Haas said yes. Mr. Clark said with the existing conditions,
they tried to set some goals on how to shape a project in the future.
He said the goals identified were:
He said in any condition possible, the access
points will be opposing one another and are not off-set, thus reducing
the length of exposure when crossing the road.
He said they have three alternatives for the
east side of I-89 and one on the west side of I-89.
The proposed improvements are: ·
Continue to provide 2 – 12 foot lanes and 4 foot minimum
shoulders ·
Provide left turn pockets at all median breaks ·
Construct 6 foot wide raised concrete median, to limit the
cross-movement conflict points through the corridor ·
Minor realignment of the Market Basket and Citgo drives ·
Align Park and Ride drive with proposed shopping plaza
drive ·
Close secondary Park and Ride drive ·
Restrict secondary Citgo drive to right in and out Mr. Clark said that Alternative 1A is Stop
Control at Mr. Clark reviewed the following estimated
results from Alternative 1A:
Future Traffic Operations (2010/2020) ·
Continued Level of Service F at Plaza southbound, long
delay and queuing ·
I-89 Ramp approaches nearing capacity by 2020 ·
PROS: ·
Reduces conflict points ·
Provides left turn pockets ·
Easily upgraded to traffic signal, if warrants are met ·
Cheaper than traffic signal ·
Minimal impact to NH 103 operations CONS: ·
No improvement to Plaza delay and queuing ·
No improvement to left turning safety to/from Plaza Mr. Cook asked if pedestrian and bicycle
traffic were considered. Mr.
Clark said no, that this was an abbreviated study, observing the site
for a day or two and then trying to pull everything together to
conceptualize a project. He
said that a project would have to entail review of the Master Plan and
other items that the town would want to promote. Mr. Haas reviewed the animation which shows
the estimated traffic flows of 2020 with Alternative 1A which shows a
considerable increase in traffic based on future development and
background growth. He said
that the queues on 103 do not seem much larger, but he Mr. Haas presented Alternative 1B which is a
traffic signal. There would
be the same raised median and the same traffic approaches with the only
difference being that there would be a signal where they all have to
stop in different phases, allowing the traffic to enter from the Market
Basket Plaza and turn left. He
said without the right turn west bound lane out of the Market Basket,
the queue would begin again back into the Plaza.
He said with the traffic light, the intersection becomes a level
of service C up to 2020. In
2020, a larger eastbound queue trying to turn left into the Plaza would
develop. He listed pros and cons of Alternative 1B as
follows: PROS: ·
Reduces southbound queue ·
Improves left turning safety to/from Plaza ·
Consistent with commercial traffic control measures ·
Can be coordinated with additional future signals
CONS: ·
Adds delay to eastbound and westbound through movements ·
Most costly alternative Ms. Buono said that NHDOT said that
because Mr. Cook asked if, since the private
drive is contributing so much to the problem, there is any way to have
them contribute because it is a problem that they are creating.
Mr. Clark said it is tough because the Planning Board had its
look at it 12 years ago and it was approved and now to go back and fix
it is difficult. Mr.
Violette said there was a chance to make it a public highway and it was
turned down. Mr. Cook said
that it is going to benefit them because a lot of people come to Warner
from Hopkinton or towns closer to Mr. Haas showed an animation for 2020
using the traffic signal, resulting in a Level of Service C for the
intersection. Mr. Hartman
said that he thinks that Level of Service C indicates that it is not as
good as it could be. He said
that when he looks at the queues he sees an A, not a C.
Mr. Haas said it is all based on the seconds of delay average
over the intersection. Mr.
Hartman replied that he sees no substantial delay.
Mr. Haas slowed the simulation down to actual time and said that
it is an average based on traffic volume, as well.
Mr. Hartman said that it is the southbound traffic out of the
Market Basket is always what appears to be the problem.
Mr. Haas said that if those cars are experiencing, say, 15
seconds delay and some of the others are experiencing 5 seconds, the
higher wait is going to skew the average higher.
Mr. Haas presented Alternative 2 which
is the roundabout at Mr. Haas continued with the cons for
Alternative 2: Inconsistent
with corridor traffic control measures; approach speeds on NH 103;
difficult to increase capacity in future; complicated geometry with
close driveways. Mr. Duhamel
commented that it seems that the signage and the markings will let the
drivers see that it’s coming up, so they will not just come up on to
it. Mr. Haas said that there
is good visibility in this location so they can see it from a long way
off in both directions. He
said that one major difficulty with a roundabout is that it’s
difficult to increase capacity. He
said there is the possibility of adding a lane to the roundabout, but
that would be at great cost. However,
he said, looking out to 2020, it still would be operating at a good
level of service. He said
there is some complicated geometry with this option, for example, a
right turn lane is still a little close to the roundabout.
Ms. Annis asked how the 115’ diameter
roundabout works with tractor trailer trucks, fire trucks, etc.
Mr. Haas said that being in the middle of the road, it should
work all right. Mr. Violette
commented that most of the ones he has seen have a rock inlaid center
for tractor trailers to run over. Mr.
Haas agreed, saying that there are really two surfaces, with the main
pavement for cars to run on and then the inlaid rocks for the larger
vehicles, rather than pavement, in an attempt to slow them down through
the roundabout. He said that
there is one in Meredith and now one in Mr. Clark continued with a description
of the proposed improvements on the west side of I-89.
He said with the speed differential there, in order to improve
the safety, and considering the Mr. Clark discussed other design
considerations. He said that
there would be no new sidewalk construction in these designs, and if
there is a need, pedestrian requirement would need to be considered.
He said if a traffic signal were selected, there would be minor
utility impacts. He said
that there is very little impact to the state right-of-way, however,
there would be construction easements required for some of the driveway
work. He added that the
potential for widening between the bridge and the Citgo drive may impact
the 100-year flood plain. Finally,
he said the stormwater requirements are continually changing as far as
the need to treat stormwater coming off paved surfaces.
Mr. Clark summarized the construction
cost estimates, with the following assumptions: ·
Step box widening matching existing materials ·
20% drainage line item ·
Cold plane/overlay of existing pavement surfaces, if not
required could remove up to $130,000 Alternative 1A – Stop control -
$1,220,000 Alternative 1B – Traffic signal -
$1,370,000 Alternative 2 – Roundabout -
$1,130,000 Southbound on-ramp reconfiguration -
$320,000 He said that these estimates are based
on standard DOT construction dollars, which have been rising for the
last couple of years. He
said these are in today’s dollars and it was computed based on the
I-93 corridor average costs. Mr.
Davies asked how much design cost would be added to the above estimates.
Mr. Clark said the general rule is about 10%, but it depends on
the project intricacy. He
said for planning purposes, they use 10% but a lot of times it can come
in under that. He said that
the design would not have to be supplemented with some things because
there are no historic buildings and there would not have to be any
archeological digs. Mr.
Ricard asked which would be the safest in preventing accidents.
Mr. Clark said, initially, he thinks the roundabout because there
are the fewest number of stopped vehicles.
Mr. Violette asked if the roundabout is the highest
traffic-calming approach, considering that people can run traffic
lights, but it’s hard to run a roundabout.
Mr. Clark replied that it could be.
Mr. Haas said that a roundabout limits the severity of accidents,
because the angles that they can collide are different from a traffic
light – a 45-degree angle vs. a right angle t-bone crash with a
traffic signal or a stop controlled intersection.
Mr. Violette said that he has heard from a number of people that
senior citizens seem to have the most problem with roundabouts, at least
initially. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Chandler what most
of the accidents are there now. Mr.
Chandler said that from January 1 to August of this year, there were 11
accidents. He said that
covers from the southbound I-89 ramp to Mr. Davies asked if one could work
outward, by putting in the signals or roundabout and then put in the
calming lanes and turning lanes as the development increases, trying to
keep the costs down initially. Mr.
Clark said that based on the existing conditions, he would not recommend
installing a traffic signal without the medians to control it.
Mr. Davies said that on the DOT website there are some pictures
of a Ms. Annis said that she knows that Mr.
Clark is going to see Nancy Mayville at DOT on another project and asked
if he were going to submit the draft proposal to her.
There was some discussion on this and Mr. Clark said he would
deliver it to her when he sees her in the next couple of days.
Ms. Annis asked what the next step would if DOT agrees with the
proposal. Mr. Violette said
that it’s possible that DOT will think these approaches are good, but
will say they have no money, so the town is on its own.
Ms. Annis said she was wondering about the 8-hour vs. the 4-hour
vs. the 12-hour traffic study which was mentioned as the next step that
was to be done. Mr. Haas
said it is something that is recommended.
Ms. Annis asked if DOT would require that it be done if they were
going to give some money toward the project.
Mr. Clark said that they would require it to get the right
information. He said that it
would not be required if the decision was to go with the roundabout; it
would be required for a traffic signal.
Ms. Annis asked if there was any other
discussion. There was a
discussion and then a consensus that the Board would like to have DOT
look at the draft proposals and comment before any action would be taken
on their part. Mr. Violette
said that if it were decided to add a bicycle lane, for example, that
would require more consideration. He
said it needs to be discussed further.
Mr. Davies asked if any of the proposals are better for
pedestrians and bicyclists than others.
Mr. Clark said that he thinks the roundabout would be better for
the pedestrians because it would reduce their exposure time to the
traffic. Ms. Annis said that
in the community survey that was conducted for the Master Plan, there
was a question in regard to this area.
She said the one receiving the highest number of responses was
that people wanted to see a median strip there; the second highest was
traffic signal; and the last was the roundabout. Mr. Hartman asked what the
“warrants” represent. Mr.
Haas replied that they are based on a publication that gives guidelines
for traffic signals. The
warrants represent certain traffic conditions that are recommended that
you meet in order to consider a traffic signal.
Mr. Hartman questioned why, if only one warrant is met, why a
traffic signal is recommended. Mr.
Haas replied that only one of the warrants (or conditions) needs to be
met, in order to recommend a traffic signal and added that no
intersection meets all 4 warrants. Mr. Mical asked if there is some
conflict with the 2005 study because intersection capacity in that study
said that the capacity of that intersection meets or exceeds the minimum
threshold for the peak hour, 4-hour and 8-hour signal warrants.
He said that what is stated in this study is that it only meets
one warrant. Mr. Haas said
that they have changed the warrant analysis requirements since then in
how the right turns are considered.
There were no further questions.
Ms. Annis thanked Mr. Clark and Mr. Haas and they departed.
2. MINUTES Mr. Hartman MOVED to approve the Mr. Mical MOVED to approve the Mr. Davies MOVED to approve the Zoning
Ordinance-Building Code Committee minutes of Mr. Violette MOVED to approve the
Master Plan Committee Minutes of 3. REPORT FROM
SUBCOMMITTEES Mr. Mical said that the CIP has been
completed and sent to the Town Clerk for her signature.
He asked that all members of the Planning Board get a copy of the
completed version. Ms.
Lightfoot said she would send them.
Mr. Mical said he called the Budget Committee and has not yet
heard when they will schedule the CIP.
He said he will let the Planning Board members know when it is so
that they can attend in order to present the CIP.
Mr. Hartman said he thinks the next Budget Committee meetings are
on the 13th and 20th of November.
Mr. Violette said that the Master Plan
Committee has a Visioning Session scheduled for Monday, December 8th.
He said they would like to have as much participation as
possible. It will be
publicized and will follow up on the survey.
Mr. Hartman said the Selectmen are
inviting representatives from the Concord Regional Solid Waste Co-op to
come to Warner on the 18th of November at Mr. Davies said that he has some
preliminary ideas on building definition for the next meeting of the
Building Code Committee. He
said he will send out a draft of the thoughts since there are a number
of different ways to attack it and how the definition affects the
Ordinance itself. He asked
if anyone else has done some work on it to please share it before the
meeting. Ms. Annis said that
has to be completed in two weeks if there is to be a hearing in December
to place it on the warrant. She
said there is an article in the Farm Bureau magazine this month that
there is a problem between the State Building Code and agricultural
buildings. She said the
requirement on certain size buildings or buildings in which the public
will be, and you have an agricultural building with a stable that houses
horses, then a sprinkler system has to be installed.
She said she will try to get a copy out to the group.
4. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Mical said that the 2008 Hazard
Mitigation Plan has been forward to FEMA for review and said that the
Master Plan Committee would probably want to get into greater detail on
it. Mr. Violette agreed and
said it will be incorporated. Mr.
Mical said he has asked them to expedite the review because future
grants are tied into having an approved plan.
Mr. Duhamel said there was a good job done on it.
Mr. Davies said he had written to the
MainStreet Bookends as requested at the last meeting to be sure they did
not start breaking ground without a site plan review.
He said he called them and they assured him that it was a
preliminary plan and they knew they had to go through the approval
process before proceeding. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn.
Mr. Violette seconded. The
motion was PASSED unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at
|