Intersection LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ Hawthorne Drive N B 16.1 B 17.5

Transcription

1 Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ Hawthorne Drive N B 16.1 B 17.5 Ü Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ Hawthorne Drive S C 32.6 D 43.0 Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ Technology Drive N B 16.0 B 17.4 Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ Technology Drive S C 25.6 C 25.6 MAAR Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ MAAR WB Ramps C 23.9 C 24.9 MAAR Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec.) US 3/ MAAR EB Ramps C 29.8 C 30.3 Figure 9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation- Land Use Study

2 US 3 S. of Hawthorne Dr. N. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No- Volumes 2025 Volumes 2025 No- V/C 2,483 2, V/C Ü US 3 S. of Technology Dr. N. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No- Volumes 2025 Volumes 2025 No- V/C 2,209 2, V/C US 3 S. of Technology Dr. S. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No- Volumes 2025 Volumes 2025 No- V/C 2025 V/C 2,787 2, MAAR US 3 S. of West Bound Ramp Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No- Volumes 2025 Volumes 2025 No- V/C 2025 V/C 3,329 3, MAAR FIGURE 10 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation- Land Use Study

3 C. iv) b) Manchester Table 2 Intersection Analysis Results Bedford Corridor- "Existing Condition" Intersection No- LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) US 3/ Hawthorne Drive S** F * F * US 3/ Technology Drive N E 65.3 E 74.1 US 3/ Technology Drive S** F * F * *Unsignalized results refer to critical movement from minor intersection legdelays in excess of 120 seconds. **Unsignalized Intersection The results of the intersection and arterial segment analyses for the Manchester corridor are shown in Figures 11 and 12. The results of the intersection analysis, shown in Figure 12, indicates that, with the Pettengill Road project, two of the study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. LOS at the Brown Avenue/Goffs Falls Road intersection will increase from LOS C with 28.7 seconds of delay during the 2025 Weekday PM peak hour No- scenario to LOS D with 42.1 seconds of delay during the scenario. At the Brown Avenue/Perimeter Road intersection, operations will increase from LOS C with 30.7 seconds of delay during the 2025 Weekday PM peak hour No- scenario to LOS C with 31.9 seconds of delay during the scenario. Two other study area intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS during both the 2025 Weekday PM peak hour No- and scenarios. Movements from the critical westbound minor leg approach of the unsignalized Brown Avenue/Winston Street will increase from LOS F with 75.5 seconds of delay during the No- scenario to LOS F with greater than 120 seconds of delay. Operations at the signalized Brown Avenue/Raymond Street intersection will increase from LOS F with 98.4 seconds of delay during the 2025 Weekday PM peak hour No- scenario to LOS F with greater than 120 seconds of delay during the scenario. The results of the arterial segment analysis for the Manchester corridor are shown in Figure 12. Figure 12 indicates that the four study area arterial segments experienced increases in V/C ratio of about seven percent. The largest V/C ratio was experienced on Brown Avenue north of Winston Street, where the trips generated by Pettengill Road resulted in an increase from 0.54 to The lowest V/C ratio was experienced on Brown Avenue north of Goffs Falls Road, where the trips generated by Pettengill Road resulted in an increase from 0.45 to C. iv) c) Londonderry The results of the intersection and arterial segment analyses for the Londonderry corridor are shown in Figures 13 and 14. As noted in an earlier section of this report, analyses for the Pettengill Road/Harvey Road/Page Road Londonderry corridor consisted of a comparison of operating conditions for the Weekday PM peak hour 2025 scenario and the 2022 Weekday PM peak hour scenario from the Supplemental Traffic Study for Pettengill Road completed by the Town in The evaluation was 11

4 Intersection Brown Avenue/ Winston Street Intersection Brown Avnue/ Raymond Street B 3A/ NH Intersection Brown Avenue/ Goffs Falls Road No- LOS Delay (Sec) F * LOS F No- LOS Delay (Sec) F 98.4 LOS Delay (Sec.) F * No- LOS Delay (Sec) C 28.7 Delay (Sec.) * Ü LOS Delay (Sec.) D 42.1 row ve na Intersection Brown Avenue/ Perimeter Road No- LOS Delay (Sec) C 30.7 LOS C Delay (Sec.) 31.9 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Figure 11 *- delays in excess of 120 seconds Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation- Land Use Study

5 Ü Brown Ave. N. of Winston St. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No No 2025 Volumes Volumes V/C V/C 3,861 4, Brown Ave. N. of Raymond St. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No No 2025 V/C V/C Volumes Volumes 3,834 4, B 3A/ NH Brown Ave. N. of Goffs Falls Rd. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No No 2025 Volumes Volumes V/C V/C 3,232 3, row ve na Brown Ave. N. of Perimeter Rd. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 No No 2025 Volumes Volumes V/C V/C 3,290 3, ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Figure 12 Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation- Land Use Study

6 Ü Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Airport Access Road/ S. Perimeter Road B 10.8 B 11.8 MAAR Grenier Field Rd Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Airport Access Road/ Pettengill Road D 54.9 E 58.2 Page Rd Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Pettengill Road/ South Loop Road F * F * Pettengill Rd Harvey Rd Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Rockingham Road/ Page Road F F * Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Grenier Field Road/ Webster Road F 81.1 F * MAAR Harvey Rd Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Pettengill Road/ Harvey Road F * F * Intersection 2022 PM Peak 2025 PM Peak LOS Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec) Pettengill Road/ Industrial Drive C 28.9 D 50.1 MAAR Pettengill Road Figure 13 *- delay in excess of 120 seconds INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation- Land Use Study

7 Ü MAAR Grenier Field Rd Page Rd Harvey Rd Page Rd. W. of Rockingham Rd. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 Volumes 2025 V/C 1, Pettengill Rd Pettengill Rd MAAR Pettengill Rd. W. of Industrial Dr. Two- Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 Volumes 2025 V/C 3, Pettengill Rd. W. of Harvey Rd. Two-Way PM Peak Hour Traffic 2025 Volumes 2025 V/C 3, Harvey Rd MAAR Pettengill Road Figure 14 ARTERIAL SEGMENT ANALYSIS Pettengill Road/ Airport Access Road Transportation-Land Use Study

8 designed to provide the Town of Londonderry with additional information on the traffic impacts of Pettengill Road through the evaluation of a scenario representing a 2025 Weekday PM peak hour -Out in the vicinity of the corridor. The analysis, based on information in the Supplemental Traffic Study for Pettengill Road, assumes that the following intersections are signalized as part of State and local roadway improvement projects (shown in paretheses): 1) Rockingham Road/Page Road (Rockingham Road/Page Road Intersection Improvements Project); 2) MAAR/South Perimeter Road (MAAR Project); 3) Pettengill Road/Harvey Road (Pettengill Road Project); 4) Pettengill Road/Industrial Drive (Pettengill Road Project); 5) MAAR/Pettengill Road (MAAR Project). The results of the intersection analysis, shown in Figure 13, indicates that, with the additional development of lands in the vicinity of the Pettengill Road project, two of the study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. Operations at the Pettengill Road/Industrial Drive intersection will increase from LOS C with 28.9 seconds of delay during the 2022 Weekday PM peak hour No- scenario to LOS D with 50.1 seconds of delay during the 2025 scenario. At the MAAR/South Perimeter Road intersection, operations will increase from LOS B with 10.8 seconds of delay during the 2025 Weekday PM peak hour 2022 scenario to LOS B with 11.8 seconds of delay during the 2025 scenario. Four Londonderry study area intersections will operate at unacceptable LOS during both the 2022 and 2025 Weekday PM peak hour scenarios. The Pettengill Road/South Loop Road, Pettengill Road/Harvey Road, Grenier Field Road/Webster Road and Rockingham Road/Page Road intersections will operate at LOS F with delays in excess of 120 seconds during both scenarios. It should be noted that the LOS F operating conditions at the Pettengill Road/South Loop Road intersection refers to critical turning movements from the minor side street at this location. The results of the arterial segment analysis for the Londonderry corridor are shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 indicates that the V/C ratios for the three study area arterial segments evaluated will vary from 0.35 on Page Road west of Rockingham Road to 0.96 on Pettengill Road west of Harvey Road. Operations at the study areas intersection and the need for mitigation at selected intersection locations on the Londonderry corridor were discussed in detail in the Supplemental Traffic Study for Pettengill Road. The analyses completed for this study generally reinforce these findings. The following list of proposed mitigation recommendations is discussed in the Supplemental Traffic Study for Pettengill Road: Rockingham Road/Page Road geometric improvements are recommended by 2022 Pettengill Road/Harvey Road additional geometric improvements are recommended by 2022 Pettengill Road/South Loop Road - intersection is recommended for signalization by 2022 MAAR/Pettengill Road additional geometric improvements recommended by 2022 Grenier Field Road/Webster Road geometric improvements recommended by

9 C. iv) d) Litchfield The result of the intersection analysis for the NH 3A/Corning Avenue intersection is shown in Table 3. The NH 3A/Corning Road intersection is currently unsignalized and stop controlled only at the Corning approach. The Weekday PM peak hour turns equal a level of service C under base year conditions and a level of service C in both the 2025 No- and scenarios. Delay at this intersection improves from 24.9 seconds during the Base Year to 19.2 seconds during the 2025 No- scenario and 16.2 seconds during the 2025 scenario. Because Corning Road currently acts as a cut-through route between Litchfield, Southern Manchester and Londonderry, reductions in delay are likely the result primarily of the presence of the MAAR and Pettengill Road that provides an alternative route between these locations. Table 3 Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Changes NH 3A/Corning Road Current Count Model Base Model 2025 NB Percent Change 2025 Projected Pettingill Change 2025 NH3A Southbound Thru % NH3A Northbound Thru % NH3A Southbound to Corning % NH3A Northbound to Corning % Corning to NH3A Southbound % Corning to NH3A Northbound % NOTES: Current count = PM peak hour (4:30-5:30) turning movement count conducted June 2010 Model Base and 2025 NB = 24-hour model outputs 2025 Projected = Current Count * Percent Change The result of the intersection analysis for the NH 3A/Albuquerque Avenue intersection is shown in Table 4. This intersection is currently unsignalized and stop controlled only at the Albuquerque approach. Estimated Weekday PM peak hour turning movements were used to quantify the impact at this intersection. These peak hour turns, outlined in Table 4, equal LOS B conditions under Base Year conditions and LOS C during both the 2025 No- and scenarios. Delay increases from 14.2 seconds during the Base Year scenario to 20.6 seconds in the 2025 No- scenario and 23.1 seconds during the 2025 scenario. Unlike Corning Road, Albuquerque Avenue does not act as a cutthrough route to the east, and as a result, traffic relief from the presence of the MAAR and Pettengill Road is minimal here. Table 4 Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Changes NH 3A/Albuquerque Avenue Current Count Model Base Model 2025 NB Percent Change 2025 Projected Estimated Change 2025 NH3A Southbound Thru % NH3A Northbound Thru % NH3A Southbound to Albuquerque % NH3A Northbound to Albuquerque % Albuquerque to NH3A Southbound %

10 Albuquerque to NH3A Northbound % NOTES: Current count = PM peak hour (400-5:00) turning movement count conducted June 2010 Model Base and 2025 NB = 24-hour model outputs 2025 Projected = Current Count * Percent Change Estimated Change = Estimated PM Peak Hour Volume Changes, extrapolated from Traffic Study 2025 = Final Peak Hour Forecast C. iv) e) Merrimack Estimating procedures as described in a previous section of this report were used to quantify the impact of Pettengill Road at the Merrimack intersections. NRPC relied on the forecasted volumes to the north of this location, along the US 3 in Bedford. For new traffic coming from the Bedford Road location, NRPC examined the northbound traffic at the closest study area location at South River Road/MAAR Eastbound Ramps. Here, Weekday PM Peak Hour northbound through traffic does not change from the 2025 No- to the 2025 scenario and right turns onto the MAAR increase from 75 to 95. Therefore, the net increase in northbound trips at this location is 20. NRPC assumed a split of these trips, assigning ten to the through movement and ten to the right turn from Bedford Road. For traffic heading to the Bedford Road intersection, southbound traffic at the MAAR intersection was considered. Here, southbound through traffic increases from 1432 to 1478 and right turns from the eastbound off-ramp onto US 3 remain at 410 during both scenarios. Therefore, the net increase in southbound trips is 46. Even assuming that each one of those vehicles ends up at the Bedford Road intersection which is unlikely given the number of smaller intersections in between the two sites, there is a very small impact on overall peak hour operations. A split of these trips was assumed and 23 trips each were assigned to the through movement and left turn movement on Bedford Road. The estimated peak hour changes in traffic at the US 3/Bedford Road intersection are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Changes US 3/Bedford Road Current Count Model Base Model 2025 NB Percent Change 2025 Projected Estimated Change 2025 US3 Southbound Thru % US3 Northbound Thru % US3 Southbound to Bedford Rd % US3 Northbound to Bedford Rd % Bedford Rd to US3 Southbound % Bedford Rd to US3 Northbound % It should be noted that the commercial driveway serving as the westbound intersection approach is not include in the NRPC model and thus could not be included in the analysis. The driveway currently accounts for roughly 45 trips in and 50 trips out during the peak hour. NRPC does not currently perform level of service analysis for actuated signalized intersections. However a 2009 study ( Merrimack Roadway Infrastructure Master Plan ) by Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike lists this intersection as operating at LOS C during the base year and at LOS F during the 14

11 2025 No- scenario. As the estimated traffic changes from the Pettengill Road project are minimal, NRPC does not project a huge different in delay. No exact delay calculations were available at this time. Finally, NRPC estimated traffic at the intersection of the proposed Bedford Road/F.E. Everett Turnpike Exit 12 On/Off Ramps intersection. Any trips along this path would most likely be northbound left turns (to Pettengill Road) or southbound right turns (from Pettengill Road) at the intersection in question. Utilizing trip generation calculations completed by SNHPC, 110 vehicles traveling northbound on the F. E. Everett Turnpike to Pettengill Road and 183 vehicles traveling southbound from Pettengill Road were estimated. As no estimate in the SNHPC data was included, it was assumed that 50 percent of the traffic (92 trips) traveled south on the Turnpike. It was also assumed that, given the larger population centers that exist further south along the turnpike, a small percentage of these trips would leave the Turnpike at Exit 12. It was assumed that twenty-five percent of all Turnpike traffic would travel through Exit 12 and the Bedford Road intersection. Table 6 below presents the estimated Weekday PM peak hour changes in traffic at this intersection. Table 6 Estimated Peak Hour Traffic Changes Bedford Road/ F.E. Everett Turnpike Exit 12 On/Off Ramps Current Count Model Base Model 2025 NB Percent Change 2025 Projected Estimated Change 2025 Bedford Rd Westbound Thru % Bedford Rd Eastbound Thru % Bedford Rd Westbound to Exit 12 NB On n/a n/a 5710 n/a Bedford Rd Eastbound to Exit 12 NB On n/a n/a 1446 n/a Exit 12 NB Off to Bedford Rd West % Exit 12 NB Off to Bedford Rd East % Because this is an anticipated future intersection, no comparison of current and 2025 conditions can be accurately made without additional assumptions. For this project, it was assumed that the peak hour volumes and turns at the future northbound on-ramp were consistent in terms of direction distribution on the existing legs of the intersection. Because 13.3% of the modeled 24-hour traffic is projected as peak hour traffic, that percent was applied to the 2025 projected volume on the new ramp to arrive at Weekday PM peak hour estimates. Once again, because this is a signalized intersection under current and future conditions, no exact level of service estimates are available. However, assuming the intersection is unsignalized with stop control at Bedford Road results in LOS F operations during the 2025 No- and scenarios. D. Observations/Conclusions The Pettengill Road/Airport Access Road Transportation/Land Use Plan has identified transportation and land-use related impacts of increased access to the study area resulting from the Pettengill Road project. It has also provided information related to the need for additional roadway improvements in the study area resulting from this increased access. The following specific observations/conclusions regarding the study area corridors can be made from the results of the Pettengill Road/Airport Access Road Transportation/Land Use Plan: 15

12 1. An upgraded US 3 corridor in Bedford (assuming the completion of the MAAR and US 3/Hawthrone Drive North intersections and infrastr ucture improvements included in the Town s Route 3 Corridor Study), including improvements at the study area intersections and arterial segments appears to be capable of accommodating the trips generated by Pettengill Road. Portions of the existing study area corridor (not including the US 3 intersections with the MAAR and the US 3/Hawthrone Drive North intersection) will experience unacceptable (LOS E F) operations in the future both with and without the trips generated by Pettengill Road. 2. Portions of the Brown Avenue corridor in Manchester will experience unacceptable traffic operations in the future both with and without the trips generated by Pettengill Road. These unacceptable operations will occur in the vicinity of the Brown Avenue intersections with Winston Street and Raymond Street. 3. Selected intersection locations on the Londonderry study area corridor (including Pettengill Road, Harvey Road and Page Road) will experience unacceptable traffic operations in the future. As described in the Supplemental Traffic Study for Pettengill Road, the following intersections will require improvements to mitigate the impacts of this traffic: 1) Rockingham Road/Page Road 2) Pettengill Road/Harvey Road 3) Pettengill Road/South Loop Road 4) MAAR/Pettengill Road 5) Grenier Field Road/Webster Road. 4. Trips generated by Pettengill Road do not appear to have a significant impact on operations at the NH 3A (Henry Bancroft Highway)/Corning Road and NH 3A/Albuquerque Avenue intersections in Litchfield. 5. Assuming that it operates as unsignalized, the Bedford Road/ F.E. Everett Turnpike Exit 12 On/Off Ramps intersection will operate at LOS F during the 2025 No- and scenarios. 6. Based on the results of prior work completed for this location, LOS F conditions are projected for the US 3 (Daniel Webster Highway)/Bedford Road intersection during the 2025 No- scenario. 7. Principals of access management should be incorporated into the design of roadway improvements resulting from the observations and conclusions of this study. 8. New facilities resulting from the development of land adjacent to the Pettengill Road project should be designed so as to pursue opportunities for transit-oriented development and other practices to encourage transit use. 16

13 APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY AREA TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS/TRIP DISTRIBUTION METHDOLOGY

14 2025 -J;lrb\vl2fl.v!Olwith fjettengill Rd Trips "2025 BN......" Winston SI BN Raymond St BN Goffs Falls Rd ~.j. I '-l> 13 ~ j.. t t J I ~." ~ -'- t BN t Perimeter Rd j. ~ ' I t ", A f t I" r 'L _ ~ I I-?" , , A '--- I 1-0" ,.- -' ~ I t r,, _...--"

15 1 20?S.~roWn Ave No-Eluild, 2025N8". Winston St J t L, 0 -~ 0 1 /" N8 ~ Raymond St ,.-J t..l., ~-~ N8 ~ Goffs Falls Rd. ~ n97 ) ~ P c N8 i- Perimeter Rd ~ t L t ~ ~ 22 <I-- 1 t 1 +-; r-r I t ~ "'-"e... \-l.,,\ ~---~-- L-... R."-'l~ 109 ~ <I r--p I I b '" L-... e <I-- 18 'f 237 t 'I 1~7~ 3 J L- 207 <I-- 80 v I I I &~'" A,Hi. N t: GcKs ~e,\.ij «). n ~~..r< fr;,..ue Nt, ft?~,\ ila-e-.l-; RJ-A.,..

16 l{\ rj r'" Hawthorn Dr. North 0 ' t I J l+ 3q -, '" - ~\{?~ l(\ t 5 ~?:,q ~ I 2o'i...'5 (3\)\tJ Vt'\ rv\l L- \10 $".ch'),, h., '0",.~ r.. k.:: _0 43 i r- - f"'i ~ G _--'..~-~- 1'b 00 pefh{ \'" ::c I ~)OD)( A,::: T.I.OO j, \: f"i Ii. "".s '"\l V- +ca.q.;;= 2(02.'0 Lf\...;- a 31 N! L- <\b a.~. /' J Hawthorn Dr. so~."~~' -""'#../ f I :],0 i a ~ ~ 11 0;;> "'" iv' V\ ~ N '" J "" o- L t I i r 0 N, I I +-.~ J l+ \ \"" t I i t;, 3\<.:\ o West Bound Ramp L- (~t r' 2.10 J L - 1\0 I '1 i I.r\ - -.~~ :J1 <P --.,.-~'::)- _._._-_._,..._.._ _---_._.-- -,---~ \,,L, L, ) 11 (:» '" +-. ~ l~ \02.. East Bound Ramp Q? If\ 0..0 '<J ~ I.i'l r- 0 'II (\j rj JJ ~~ 41St J L ~ t 4-ID " CO i r ~ -~-e <:1 tr'i t t(~}-'" "'"' '"

17 2o:LS N,,, 6\,l\lA 04[15([ D <, Dr, North l(i rj J,- 'j - I..,{) l" QJ Q\ L- lib t L 0 +--' 43...J'\ t '1 t PMpt2-~, :3.. N,]C\ "l I""- 1"'1 t r" -"" 1.1\ 1./\ Hawthorn Dr. South - -.,jfj' - - l J N l.-. ~O t 0 II> "12 t L- It{, 0 - \ol.. '1 t CO t!"' CO N t"'l - tv' I.l'I rj \.0 r '-.!1 0 N 0 Technology Dr, N )-:.3 J l L~ -- 5 S'2. letl t '1 t 5 ~ ~ C\O 1"\ 0'. G 0 "" 00 0 :\ Technology Dr. S \ II.a _...1 '1 t r 5 ~ '/, \ If\ """'!.I'i LI\ r- t + 1"\1 <0 West Bound Ramp -* East Bound Ram p *. 0 ljl J J l L \ \"2..i<u,. )f\ 0.CO If\ l L ~5 t I ~ 40 t '* f\j '-0 "" 'Ii- 1"' l *' L t< L- lloq I b+* '1 t Q. U\ "" +\0 " CO *r 0 l1\ en " i!j) V l.ri ~"~--"': ~ ~-~~->'--- :'.:>.. \"7' l; I, -* tkjk'''j \l \ ~J q-e"e.it~~j-~ Bu,t) b~ov-t 0+ \,c;:, \'-' -- e: r"""'p lvk&e...~l"'~

18 P" r~"d:{ c : ~ :> -,~ t '" ~ ----.J / ()'-. "-~! "1-1 'P \ I 1)-, /' (,

19 ()) ()) uj 0 0 ~( <ttr o 9 PETTENGill ROAD EXTENSiON 0-" 0->- a: 0 w < f-f-o Ultra: WO MANCHESTm - BOSTON Ul s; ::CLU) REGiONAL ;u Oa: W AiRPORT < rn Z~' «0 -< 2: < ;u L , " ~ ~ s; WEBSTER ROAD Z o NOIHH Oc rn ;Uen -< CUL-DE SAC --l <)0 ;u ROAD rn_ ; 0-.. ~ bls «;f-- Jr c.:- 126 PFTTENGILl ) ~ l..., ;- '~7 "'. h 7 -" ~S PETTENGilL :.c '3, en ;u0 HESTER OC AIRPORT l>-l..::--'7' OI ACCESS ~5 ROAD '0 SOUTH PEcRIMETER " ~1-7..t? -u,..' t ;. /~. 2.1 PETTENGill" M i i -ft';...,?" ::; ~ \ I I W ()l 543~ en ;uo OC»-l OI.r roo '0 " f:. ; o.. ~ ~ o '" "..J ~ ;u -n _0 mgl r;u Orn ;tl~ ;;: \ I om I»;U ZO IA ;UZ OGi c I ;u -ll> 0 0 rn:i:: l> N;U 0 ",0» o it c c.., -~ HARVEY ROAD.., '" c,.~ '" GRENIER FIELD ROAD ~l... \..' i--laii ROAD ;U$:I ZG'l EiijiI J!( ~ru~...; 0 0J J!C L114 L30 " {) '-910,,"28,r-18 PAGE it( it( PAGE 36-" Cil ROAD 1\05-+ """;W--'" ROAD W(.l1r:.; 942" "'""" ~'" " 5 ;;: () l> 15 ;;: ;UZ!'!: ogi c -4 -<l> I I rrf~ ;U N;U ~o ~ o 6 LITCHFIELD ROAD L1TCHFI ELD ROAD '::t' "'-' f.(j, ~. Ii3 ~ "$: Pettengill Road Supplemental Traffic Study Figure Location: Londonderry, NH Stantec Scale; Not to Scale 17

20 \-:Ltt\:i1,J'\~ f<,d, ~\r; > (r-(ikfl:,-h;!r') S'I--\-e G~rl<~«\'\--t<'~ -,(\", PM!ll\. 0(1(0'3(D (!

21 APPENDIX B SYNCHRO INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS BEDFORD

22 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type pm+pt Prot pm+pt Prot Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 2025

23 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS C B B A C C D B Approach Delay Approach LOS C A C B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt

24 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type pm+pt Prot pm+pt Prot Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 0.0% 2025 No-

25 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS C B B A C B D B Approach Delay Approach LOS C A B B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 1: Hawthorne Dr. N & US Rt No-

26 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 *1770 * *1770 *1583 *1770 * *1770 * Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 *1.00 Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type pm+pt Prot pm+pt Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 12.5% 27.5% 27.5% 12.5% 27.5% 27.5% 12.5% 47.5% 0.0% 12.5% 47.5% 0.0% 2025

27 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS B A C A D E D C Approach Delay Approach LOS B B E C Intersection Summary Area Type: CBD Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay: 43.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Intersection LOS: D ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt

28 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1289 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 8 5 Control Delay (s) Err Err Lane LOS F F C A Approach Delay (s) Err Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) (US 3 Existing) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

29 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type pm+pt Prot pm+pt Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 12.5% 27.5% 27.5% 12.5% 27.5% 27.5% 12.5% 47.5% 0.0% 12.5% 47.5% 0.0% 2025 No-

30 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS B A C A D D D C Approach Delay Approach LOS B B D C Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 32.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt No-

31 2: Hawthorne Dr. S & US Rt.3 Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1289 px, platoon unblocked vc, conflicting volume vc1, stage 1 conf vol vc2, stage 2 conf vol vcu, unblocked vol tc, single (s) tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) p0 queue free % cm capacity (veh/h) Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right csh Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 7 4 Control Delay (s) Err Err Lane LOS F F B A Approach Delay (s) Err Err Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) No- (US 3 Existing) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis

32 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type pm+pt Prot pm+pt Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 8 Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 15.4% 30.8% 30.8% 15.4% 30.8% 30.8% 15.4% 38.5% 0.0% 15.4% 38.5% 0.0% 2025

33 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS C A B A C C D B Approach Delay Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 51.3 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt

34 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 1 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Taper Length (ft) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 8.7% 63.5% 63.5% 10.4% 65.2% 65.2% 2025 (US 3 Existing)

35 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt.3 Page 2 Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/c Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS F B F B E E A F C A Approach Delay Approach LOS F E E D Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 115 Actuated Cycle Length: 115 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 74.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: E ICU Level of Service E Splits and Phases: 5: Technology Dr. N & US Rt (US 3 Existing)