Route 1A/Lynnway/Carroll Parkway Study in Lynn

 

 

 

Project Manager

Seth Asante

 

Project Principal

Mark Abbott

 

Data Analysts

Kathy Jacob

Katrina Crocker

Seth Asante

 

Graphics

Kenneth Dumas

Kim DeLauri

 

Cover Design

Jane Gillis

 

 

The preparation of this document was supported

by the Federal Highway Administration through

MHD 3C PL contracts #84053 and #33101.

 

Central Transportation Planning Staff

Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan

Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of

state and regional agencies and authorities, and

local governments.

 

 

June 2016

 

 

Study area

 

            ABSTRACT

 

Following a selection process based on safety conditions, congested conditions, multimodal significance, regional significance, regional equity, and implementation potential, the Route 1A/Lynnway/Carroll Parkway arterial segment in Lynn was approved for study by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The roadway runs through an area that has been classified as a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Growth District, an important designation for older urban cities in need of increased tax bases and commercial and residential development. The City of Lynn has made major progress toward redevelopment by completing the physical and legal changes necessary to redevelop 305 acres of underutilized waterfront land. However, the current configuration and size of the Lynnway inhibits access to the waterfront—six-to-seven lanes of traffic act as a barrier, cutting off the waterfront from Lynn’s downtown and neighborhoods.

 

MPO staff, working with the study advisory task force, has developed short- and long-term alternatives that would transform the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway into a pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly roadway as well as a transportation corridor that serves all modes of transportation and maintains regional travel capacity. This study provides the City of Lynn, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and other stakeholders with an opportunity to begin researching the needs of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway—in light of the city’s vision for the Waterfront—and to start planning design and engineering efforts.

 

This report summarizes the analyses and improvement alternatives resulting from the study. The opening sections provide background information for the study by describing the existing conditions and problems. An assessment of the safety and operational problems, and a discussion of the potential improvement alternatives, follows the background sections. The report also includes technical appendices, which cite the methods used and data applied in the study, including detailed reports about the intersection and arterial capacity analyses. If implemented, the report’s recommendations would result in an improved roadway corridor: one where it is safe to walk or bicycle to shops, recreational areas, and work; that provides safer access to businesses; and where traffic operates efficiently.

table of CONTENTS                                                                          PAGE

 

ABSTRACT

Chapter 1—Introduction

1.1      Origin of Study

Chapter 2—Background and Objectives

2.1      Selection Process

2.1.1   Study Location

2.2      Vision for the Lynn Waterfront

2.2.1      Redevelopment of the Waterfront

2.2.2      Access to Waterfront

2.3      Study Goals and Objectives

2.4      Public Participation

Chapter 3—Characteristics of the Corridor

3.1      Roadway

3.2      Major Intersections

3.2.1      Hanson Street Intersection

3.2.2      Harding Street Intersection

3.2.3      Commercial Street Intersection

3.2.4      Shepard Street/Marine Boulevard Intersection

3.2.5      Blossom Street Intersection

3.2.6      Kingman Street Intersection

3.2.7      Market Street Intersection

3.2.8      Nahant Rotary.

3.2.9      Broad Street (Route 1A) and Market Street Intersection

3.2.10 Broad Street, Washington Street, and Spring Street Intersection

Chapter 4—Existing Transportation

4.1      HIghway

4.1.1      Vehicle Traffic Volumes

4.1.2      Turning Movement Volumes

4.1.3      Pedestrian Traffic Volumes

4.1.4      Bicycle Traffic Volumes

4.1.5      Heavy-Vehicles Volumes

4.1.6      Spot Speeds

4.1.7      Signal Timing and Layout Information

4.2      Transit

4.2.1      Bus Service

4.2.2      Ferry Service.

4.2.3      Commuter Rail Service

Chapter 5—Existing Conditions Analyses

5.1      Safety Analysis

5.1.1      Segment Crash Summary

5.1.2      Intersection Crash Summary

5.1.3      Collision Diagrams

5.2      Traffic Operations Analyses

5.3      Identified Problems

5.3.1      Pedestrian and Bicyclist Issues

5.3.2      Traffic Safety and Operations Issues

5.3.3      Public Access Issues—Connections between the Waterfront Development and Lynn’s Downtown and Neighborhoods

Chapter 6—Short-Term Improvements

6.1      Alternative 1: Short-Term Improvements

6.1.1      Improvements throughout the Corridor

6.1.2      Intersection-Related Improvements

Hanson Street Intersection:

Harding Street Intersection:

Commercial Street Intersection:

Marine Boulevard/Shepard Street Intersection:

Blossom Street Intersection:

Kingman Street Intersection:

Pleasant Street/Broad Street Intersection:

Market Street Extension Intersection:

6.1.3      Level of Service

6.1.4      Advantages

6.1.5      Disadvantages

6.1.6      Cost

Chapter 7—Long-Term Improvements

7.1      Alternative 2: Road Diet and Complete Street

7.1.1      Roadway Setting

7.1.2      Operational Features

7.1.3      Level of Service

7.1.4      Advantages

7.1.5      Disadvantages

7.1.6      Cost

7.2      Alternative 3: Boulevard Style Roadway

7.2.1      Roadway Setting

7.2.2      Operational Features

7.2.3      Level of Service

7.2.4      Advantages

7.2.5      Disadvantages

7.2.6      Cost

7.3      Alternative 4: Adding Pedestrian Bridges to the Lynnway

7.3.1      Roadway Setting

Option 1: Keep Existing Travel Lanes

Option 2: Reduce Travel Lanes

7.3.2      Candidate Locations

7.3.3      Operational Features

7.3.4      Level of Service

Option 1: Keep Existing Travel Lanes

Option 2: Reduce Travel Lanes

7.3.5      Advantages

7.3.6      Disadvantages

7.3.7      Cost

7.4      Alternative 5: Altered Traffic Circulation Pattern

7.4.1      Roadway Setting

7.4.2      Operational Features

7.4.3      Level of Service

7.4.4      Advantages

7.4.5      Disadvantages

7.4.6      Cost

7.5      Alternative 6: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lanes

7.5.1      Roadway Setting

7.5.2      Operational Features

7.5.3      Level of Service

7.5.4      Advantages

7.5.5      Disadvantages

7.5.6      Cost

7.6      Alternative Analysis

7.6.1      Performance Measures

7.6.2      Selecting Preferred Alternatives

Chapter 8—Public Access and Connectivity

8.1      Overview

8.2      Connectivity Potential for mINOR Streets

8.2.1      Harding Street

8.2.2      Oakville Street

8.2.3      Commercial Street

8.2.4      Blossom Street

8.2.5      Pleasant Street

8.2.6      Market Street

8.2.7      Washington Street

Chapter 9—Conclusion and Next Steps

9.1      Conclusions

9.2      Next Steps

 

Chapter 1—Introduction

 

1.1      Origin of Study

The Boston Region MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, identified needs for all modes of transportation in the MPO region.1 This plan guides decision making about which projects to include in current and future Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs).2 Projects address the region’s current mobility needs, focusing on maintaining and modernizing roadways with high levels of congestion and safety problems; expanding the quantity and quality of walking and bicycling; and making transit service more efficient and modern. Based on previous and ongoing transportation planning work, including the Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), and other MPO planning studies, the LRTP identified 52 arterial segments in 38 communities where highways need improvements.

 

To identify strategies and solutions for addressing the problems in some of these arterial segments, an arterial segment study was included in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2015 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). An arterial segment study is a logical way to identify and address multimodal transportation needs in a corridor. Typically, these studies use a holistic approach that analyzes services and then makes associated recommendations within the roadway’s right-of-way, and takes into account the needs of all abutters and users—pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public-transportation riders.

 

During the past five years, the MPO has conducted five arterial segment studies, and municipalities have been receptive to them. The studies provide cities and towns with the opportunity to review the requirements of a specific arterial segment, starting at the conceptual level, before committing design and engineering funds to a project. If the project qualifies for federal funds, the study’s documentation also may be useful to the DCR, MassDOT, and the City of Lynn.


 

 

Chapter 2—Background and Objectives

 

2.1      Selection Process

Following a selection process based on safety conditions3, congested conditions4, multimodal significance5, regional significance6, regional equity7, and implementation potential8, the Route 1A/Lynnway/Carroll Parkway arterial segment in Lynn was approved on April 2, 2015, for study by the Boston Region MPO from a short list of 52 arterial segments. DCR, MassDOT Highway Division District 4, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and the City of Lynn supported the study, and participated by collecting the data needed for the analyses.

 

2.1.1   Study Location

Figure 1 shows a regional map with the segment of focus indicated in red (all figures are included at the end of the report). The City of Lynn is pursuing redevelopment of the Lynn Waterfront, and because of this mission it conducted a comprehensive Masterplan for the waterfront in 2007.9 Presently, the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway present a barrier to connecting the Lynn downtown area to businesses and developments along the Lynn Waterfront. Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists using the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway is a major concern that affects development of the Lynn Waterfront. Lack of accommodations for bicycles and long crosswalks (as long as 100 feet) discourage pedestrians and bicyclists from using the roadway.

 

2.2      Vision for the Lynn Waterfront

 

2.2.1   Redevelopment of the Waterfront

Over the past decade, during some of the most trying economic times, the City of Lynn made major progress by completing the physical and legal changes necessary to develop 305 acres of its waterfront land, some of the most underutilized waterfront land along the entire US Eastern Seaboard. In June 2006, the city partnered with Sasaki Associates and implemented a comprehensive waterfront Master Plan and Municipal Harbor Plan that will guide development on these waterfront parcels:10

Staff estimate that a fully implemented plan and built-out waterfront would provide almost 10,000 construction jobs, 5,000 permanent jobs, and approximately $18 million in annual property tax revenue

 

In addition, the City of Lynn implemented a comprehensive set of zoning regulations for this area that will transform the waterfront plans into easily understandable city ordinances, streamlining the permitting process by which development can occur. The city, through the Economic Development Industrial Corporation (EDIC), finished and implemented an MBTA ferry terminal and service, designed to supplement the existing MBTA commuter rail and bus service, and situated it within 100 yards of the waterfront. The area has also been classified a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Growth District, an important designation for older urban cities in need of increased tax bases and commercial and residential development. The city partnered with National Grid, General Electric, and a number of other private entities to relocate two large 115 kV power lines that had been inhibiting waterfront development for more than 40 years. Together, these actions have resulted in the sale of two major parcels of land—specifically, the so-called Beacon Chevrolet site and the General Electric (GE) Gear plant are under agreement and are now primed for development.

 

2.2.2   Access to Waterfront

The next major step is to create public access, transforming the waterfront into a vibrant destination point with direct linkage to Lynn's downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The current configuration and size of the Lynnway inhibits access to the waterfront—six-to-seven lanes of traffic act as a barrier, cutting off the waterfront from residents and tourists. Balancing the needs of vehicular commuters with the need for pedestrian and bicycle access to the waterfront is critical to making the city’s vision a reality.

 

The proposed GE commuter rail stop and waterfront access from this stop across the Lynnway are necessary developments. Much like Storrow Drive and the Charles River, the city is envisioning a boardwalk along the full length of the waterfront; therefore, access from the other side of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway is essential to its full use. In addition, the city anticipates that small retail businesses will continue to sprout up on the waterside of the Lynnway and that access will be essential to their sustainability. Thousands use the Lynn Ferry and thousands more would join them if access were more readily available via bicycle or on foot. Lastly, the need for safe havens in addition to overpasses is essential to the safety of those crossing the Lynnway. In all, access to the waterfront from neighborhoods and downtown is a vital component to the future of the City of Lynn.

 

2.3      Study Goals and Objectives

Figure 2 shows the land uses surrounding the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway, including the Lynn downtown area, neighborhoods, transportation centers and terminals, and the waterfront developments. Objectives of this study were to document existing problems, and develop multimodal improvements for them:


 

 

The objectives include considering short- and long-term improvements that address Lynn’s vision of the waterfront. Keeping in mind the problems in the arterial segment and the suggestions made by the study’s task force, the study focused on evaluating roadway cross-sectional modifications to improve safety and mobility and make the roadway more accommodating for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

 

2.4      Public Participation

An advisory task force—composed of representatives from Lynn, DCR, MAPC, MassDOT, and state legislators from Lynn—was established to participate in this study. MPO staff met with the task force twice: the first meeting discussed the work scope and existing problems, such as lack of accommodation for bicyclists, long crosswalks, lack of pedestrian refuge areas, high speeds of vehicles, and the Lynnway presenting a barrier between the Lynn Waterfront and downtown and neighborhoods. The second meeting presented the existing conditions, analyses and improvements and obtained comments. This report reflects the task force’s feedback. Appendix A includes a list of task force members and their comments.


 

 

Chapter 3—Characteristics of the Corridor

 

3.1      Roadway

The Lynnway and Carroll Parkway corridor, approximately two miles long, is a six-lane divided roadway with turn lanes and a median at designated locations. Figure 3 shows the map of the study area. The two roadways create a continuous artery, and thus are both directionally designated as north-south principal arterial roadways under the jurisdiction of the DCR. They connect several communities to the north of Lynn, including Swampscott, Salem, Marblehead, and Nahant, as well as several communities to the south of Lynn, such as Revere, Boston, Chelsea, and Everett. In addition, the roadways provide access to Lynn’s downtown area, neighborhoods, transportation centers and a ferry terminal close to the study area. The roadways are classified as “urban principal arterial” on the National Highway System (NHS) program, making them eligible for federal funds. The right-of-way varies between 100 and 110 feet wide, the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) in both directions and the land uses adjacent to the roadway are mixed—commercial, residential, and recreational. The following characterizes the current conditions in the corridor:

 

3.2      Major Intersections

Several minor arterials and collector roadways intersect the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway, resulting in seven signalized intersections and a rotary along the corridor, which are described below.

 

3.2.1   Hanson Street Intersection

Hanson Street is a city-owned local street that intersects the Lynnway to form a three-leg signalized intersection, as shown in Figure 4. Each of the Lynnway’s approaches has three through lanes. An exclusive left-turn lane has been provided on the southbound Lynnway approach for access to the businesses on Hanson Street. Hanson Street has two lanes at the approach: one for turning left and one for turning right. The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals with pushbuttons for crossing the Lynnway. The traffic signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. A bus stop is located at the intersection in each direction of the Lynnway; however, only the northbound side has a bus shelter with a bench. Walmart, Pride Hyundai and KIA, Dollar Tree, and several automobile service shops are located at the intersection.

 

3.2.2   Harding Street Intersection

Harding Street is a city-owned local street that intersects the Lynnway to form a four-leg signalized intersection (Figure 4). Each of the Lynnway’s approaches has three through lanes and an exclusive left-turn lane. Each approach on Harding Street has two travel lanes: on the westbound approach (one for left/through turns and one for right turns) and on the eastbound approach (one for left turns and one for through/right turns). The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal and the signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. There are crosswalks with curb ramps for crossing Harding Street, but there is no crosswalk across the busy Lynnway. The intersection lacks pedestrian signals. A bus stop is located in each direction of the Lynnway, but only the one on the northbound side has a shelter with a bench. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses servicing commercial and retail businesses in the area. Pride Chevrolet, Atlantic Toyota and Scion, a Mobil gas station and a KFC restaurant are located at the intersection. In the future, Harding Street could be extended and improved to provide direct connection to the proposed GE commuter rail station and to the waterfront.


 

 

3.2.3   Commercial Street Intersection

Commercial Street is a city-owned minor arterial that intersects the Lynnway to form a four-leg signalized intersection, as shown in Figure 4. The intersection is one of the critical intersections in the corridor (high traffic volumes on both streets). Near the intersection, Lynnway has four lanes on each approach: on the northbound approach (exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes) and on the southbound approach (exclusive right-turn lane and three through lanes). Commercial Street provides direct access from the Lynnway to the residential areas west of the roadway and downtown Lynn; it has three travel lanes on the eastbound approach (exclusive left-turn lane, through lane, and exclusive right-turn lane). There is no westbound approach on Commercial Street because of the one-way outbound movement. The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal and the signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. The intersection is equipped with functioning pedestrian signals and crosswalks with curb ramps at all corners. One bus stop is located in each direction of the Lynnway, but neither of them has a shelter. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses servicing commercial and retail businesses in the area. The land uses in the vicinity are commercial: among the businesses located at the intersection are Shell and Spiro gas stations, Kelly Honda, Sleepy’s, and Midas Automotive Service.

 

3.2.4   Shepard Street/Marine Boulevard Intersection

Shepard Street and Marine Boulevard are city-owned local streets that intersect the Lynnway to form a four-leg signalized intersection, as shown in Figure 4. Each Lynnway approach has four lanes (exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes). Shepard Street has one lane for all traffic movements and Marine Boulevard has two travel lanes at the approach: one for turning left and one for through/right turns. The intersection is equipped with a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals for crossing the Lynnway. The signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. There are crosswalks with curb ramps for crossing Shepard Street and Marine Boulevard but they lack pedestrian signals with pushbuttons. One bus stop is located in each direction of the Lynnway, but neither of them has a shelter. Marine Boulevard provides access to the industrial area located east of the Lynnway; the intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses. The land uses near the intersection are commercial and industrial: Honey Dew, Lynnway Mini Mall, and Harbor Place Mall are located close to the intersection on the west side of the Lynnway, and an industrial area is located at the waterfront.

 

3.2.5   Blossom Street Intersection

Blossom Street is a city-owned major collector that, because of the Lynnway’s median, intersects the Lynnway to form two unsignalized T-intersections. Each of the Lynnway’s approaches has three through lanes and each approach of Blossom Street has one lane servicing all movements. There are crosswalks with curb ramps for crossing Blossom Street, but the Lynnway has no crosswalks. One bus stop is located in each direction of the Lynnway, but only the bus stop on the northbound side has a shelter with a bench. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses servicing commercial businesses in the area. The land uses in the area are commercial and industrial services—Wendy’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Ferguson Showroom and Supplies are located at the intersection. In addition, the Lynn Ferry terminal is located on Blossom Street, about 800 feet from the intersection.

 

Because of the raised median at the intersection, only right-in right-out movements are allowed on Blossom Street. The operation results in circuitous traffic circulation for the thousands of commuters accessing or exiting the ferry terminal. A lack of crosswalks also puts pedestrians at risk when they try to cross the Lynnway to the business areas. There is a strong need to open the median on the Lynnway, add left-turn lanes and crosswalks, and signalize the intersection to provide safe and direct access to the ferry terminal. Pedestrian access to the businesses located at the intersection also would be enhanced by installing a crosswalk.

 

3.2.6   Kingman Street Intersection

Kingman Street is a city-owned local street that intersects the Lynnway to form a T-intersection with modifications to allow northbound U-turns and access to businesses located on the west side of the intersection (Figure 4). Each of the Lynnway’s approaches has four lanes (exclusive left-turn lane and three through lanes). There are two lanes for traffic exiting from Kingman Street (exclusive right-turn lane and shared through/left-turn lane). The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals with pushbuttons. The signal heads for the traffic movements are a mixture of mast-arm and post-mounts. There are crosswalks with curb ramps for crossing the Lynnway and Kingman Street. A bus stop is located in the southbound direction of the Lynnway but not in the northbound direction. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses. The land uses in the area are commercial, retail, and professional services: the Clocktower Business Center, Dunkin’ Donuts, and U-Haul are located at the intersection.

 

3.2.7   Market Street Intersection

Market Street is a city-owned minor arterial that intersects the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway to form a T-intersection, as shown in Figure 4. It is a gateway to the Lynn downtown area. Each of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway approaches has three through lanes. In addition, the Lynnway’s northbound approach has two exclusive left-turn lanes and the southbound approach of the Carroll Parkway has an exclusive right-turn lane. Market Street has two lanes on the approach; both are for turning left onto Carroll Parkway. The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals for crossing the Carroll Parkway and Market Street. The signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts on the median and on the sidewalks. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses. The land uses near the intersection are recreational and educational: the intersection provides access to the Lynn downtown area, North Shore Community College, Lynn Heritage Park, and the Lynn Waterfront.

 

3.2.8   Nahant Rotary

The Nahant Rotary is a three-leg intersection, as shown in Figure 4. It is the intersection of Carroll Parkway, Lynn Shore Drive and Nahant Road. At the rotary Carroll Parkway has three lanes (exclusive right turn lane and two left turn lanes); Lynn Shore Drive and Nahant Road has two lanes on each approach. There are crosswalks with curb ramps on each leg of the rotary; two of the crosswalks (on Carroll Parkway and Lynn Shore Drive) are controlled with pedestrian signals. The land uses near the rotary are recreational and residential—Lynn Shore and Nahant Beach are located close to the intersection.

 

3.2.9   Broad Street (Route 1A) and Market Street Intersection

Broad Street is a city-owned minor arterial that intersects Market Street to form a four-leg signalized intersection (not shown in Figure 4 because of limited space). It is located about 350 feet west of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway in the downtown area. The Market Street northbound approach has three lanes (exclusive right-turn lane, through lane, and shared through/left-turn lane) while the southbound approach has two lanes (shared through/left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane). Broad Street’s westbound approach has three lanes (exclusive right-turn lane, through lane, and shared through/left-turn lane). The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals for crossing at the intersection. The signal heads are a mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. There are crosswalks with curb ramps at all corners of the intersection. The intersection curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses. The land uses near the intersection are recreational, educational, and professional services. The North Shore Community College, Lynn Heritage Park, and the Central Square-Lynn commuter rail station and busway are located at or near the intersection.

 

3.2.10 Broad Street, Washington Street, and Spring Street Intersection

Washington Street is a city-owned minor arterial that intersects Broad Street to form a complex five-leg signalized intersection (not shown in Figure 4 because of limited space). At the intersection, each approach of Broad Street has two lanes (shared through/left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane). Washington Street northbound has two lanes on its approach (exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane), while the southbound approach is a one-way street heading to the intersection. Spring Street is a two-way, two-lane street. The intersection has a fully actuated traffic signal with functioning pedestrian signals for crossing at the intersection. The signal heads are mixture of mast-arm and post mounts. There are crosswalks with curb ramps at all corners of the intersection and the curb radii are adequate for trucks and buses. The land uses near the intersection are recreational, educational, and professional services. The North Shore Community College, Lynn commuter rail station, Harbor Loft Apartments, and the Lynn Museum and Historical Society are located at the intersection.

 

Chapter 4—Existing Transportation

 

4.1      HIghway

The MassDOT Highway Division’s Traffic Data Collection Section performed turning-movement counts (TMCs) at the study area’s signalized intersections in May 2015, while schools were in session. The counts were conducted during the weekday AM peak travel period (7:00 AM–9:00 AM), the PM peak travel period (4:00 PM–6:00 PM), and the Saturday midday travel period (12:00 AM–2:00 PM). Heavy vehicles such as school buses, transit buses, and trucks were counted separately. Pedestrian and bicycle counts were conducted simultaneously with the TMCs.

 

In addition, MassDOT Highway Division’s Traffic Data Collection Section conducted automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts at seven locations on the Lynnway, Carroll Parkway, Broad Street, Washington Street, Nahant Road and Lynn Shore Drive. The ATR counts are continuous 48-hour traffic counts used to determine the average weekday traffic (AWDT) of a roadway. MassDOT Highway Division Traffic Data Collection Section also collected spot speed data at three locations on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway. Similar to the ATR counts, the spot speed data are continuous 48-hour records. The TMC, AWDT, and spot speed data are included in Appendix B.

 

4.1.1   Vehicle Traffic Volumes

Figure 5 shows the AWDT at selected locations in the study area. The AWDT on the Lynnway ranges between 41,000 and 44,000 vehicles per day and between 30,000 and 33,000 vehicles on Carroll Parkway. Figure 6 shows the daily distribution of the hourly traffic volumes at three locations on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway. The distributions show peak-period volumes in the range of 1,800 to 2,300 vehicles per hour in the southbound direction during the AM peak period and about the same volume in the northbound direction during the PM peak period. Outside of the four-hour AM and PM peak periods, the traffic volumes in each direction of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway are less than 1,600 vehicles per hour. The theoretical capacity of a six-lane roadway is about 2,200 to 2,400 vehicles per hour per direction, and for a four-lane roadway capacity is about 1,600 to 1,800 vehicles per hour per direction. In other words, the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway have excess capacity during off-peak periods.


 

 

4.1.2   Turning Movement Volumes

Figure 7 shows the turning movement volumes at the major intersections during the weekday AM peak hour (7:00-8:00 AM), weekday PM peak-hour (4:45-5:45 PM), and Saturday PM peak (12:00-1:00 PM). Based on the peak turning movement volumes, MPO staff determined that:

 

4.1.3   Pedestrian Traffic Volumes

Figure 8 presents the number of pedestrians observed at the major intersections during the two-hour AM and two-hour PM peak periods on a weekday and the two-hour peak period on Thursday, May 28 and Saturday, May 30, 2015. These volumes may be low because of the colder weather in May and the high traffic volume during peak periods. Nonetheless, the retail, commercial, industrial, and recreational services, office buildings, and ferry and bus transit services along the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway generated significant pedestrian activity in the corridor, especially at the following intersections: Hanson Street, Harding Street, Commercial Street, Blossom Street, Kingman Street, Pleasant Street and Nahant Rotary.

 

4.1.4   Bicycle Traffic Volumes

Figure 9 presents the number of bicyclists observed at the major intersections, during the two-hour AM and two-hour PM peak periods on a weekday and the two-hour peak period on Thursday, May 28 and Saturday, May 30, 2015. These volumes may be low because of the colder weather in May, high traffic volume during peak periods, and the lack of amenities that provide safety and comfort for bicyclists, such as functioning shoulders or bicycle lanes. In addition, the roadway setting of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway is unfriendly and intimidating to bicyclists, as the six-lane roadway  encourages high vehicular speeds, making bicycling unsafe. In addition, the high number of heavy vehicles exacerbates the existing problems. Despite these adverse conditions, the counts indicate moderate bicycle volumes in the corridor, the majority of which were observed riding on the sidewalk.

 

4.1.5   Heavy-Vehicles Volumes

The percentage of heavy vehicles (light goods, buses, single-unit trucks, and articulated trucks) in the study-area intersections ranges between 8.0 and 11.0 percent on a weekday and between 6.0 and 9.0 percent on a Saturday. These rates are considered particularly high for peak-period traffic conditions. The percentages of heavy vehicles are included in the TMC (Appendix B).

 

4.1.6   Spot Speeds

Figure 10 shows the results of the spot speed data collected on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway. The average spot speeds observed in the corridor range between 33 and 36 mph, identical to the 35 mph posted speed limit. In addition, 85 percent of the drivers travel at 42 mph or slower. The spot speed data indicated that the majority of drivers—about 62 percent—travel between 30 mph and 40 mph, which is known as the 10-mph-pace speed. Analysis shows that between 10 and 15 percent of drivers travel in the 45-to-55 mph range, which is considerably higher than the posted speed limit.

 

4.1.7   Signal Timing and Layout Information

DCR provided the existing signal timings, already-built traffic signal plans, and signal phase sequences of the signalized intersections (included in Appendix C). MPO staff used Google Maps and field visits to identify recent modifications to the intersection layouts and signal plans. The information was used to analyze existing traffic operations conditions.

 

4.2      Transit

There are several public transportation services close to the Lynnway, including bus, commuter rail, ferry, and subway (Blue Line) services. These are displayed in Figure 11, a transit service map.

 

4.2.1   Bus Service

The MBTA operates six bus routes along the Lynnway:

These bus services connect Lynn and nearby communities to Central Square Station on the Newburyport Commuter Rail Line, Wonderland Station on the Blue Line, and Downtown Boston, including South Station. Routes 441, 442, 448, and 449 operate Monday through Friday every 10 minutes from 5:13 AM to 12:28 AM and Saturday through Sunday every 30 minutes from 6:06 AM to 12:39 AM. Route 439 operates only on weekdays, with five trips from Bass Point to Lynn at 6:30 AM, 7:30 AM, 2:25 PM, 6:05 PM and 6:52 PM; and five trips from Lynn to Bass Point at 6:15 AM, 7:10 AM, 2:08 PM, 5:44 PM, and 6:32 PM. The schedules of the six bus routes are included in Appendix D.

 

On the Lynnway, there are six bus stops in the northbound direction and nine in the southbound direction. Three of the bus stops in the northbound direction have shelters equipped with benches but none in the southbound direction have either. The lack of bus shelters creates inconveniences for passengers, especially during inclement weather. Table 1 below shows the bus service performance evaluation of each route in terms of service objectives: span, frequency, loading, schedule adherence, daily ridership, and average number of passengers per trip. The evaluation is based on the 2010 service delivery policy standard and spring 2011 schedule.

 

TABLE 1
Bus Service Evaluation, 2010–11

Route Number

Route Description

Span

Fre-quency

Load-
ing

Schedule Adherence

Daily Ridership

Average Number of Passengers per Trip

426

Central Square Lynn - Haymarket or Wonderland Station

Pass

Pass

Pass

55.0%

2,006

28

439

Bass Point Nahant - Central Square Lynn

Pass

Pass

Pass

63.0

88

5

441

Marblehead - Haymarket or Wonderland Station via Paradise Road

Pass

Fail

Fail

49.0

1,442

37

442

Marblehead - Haymarket or Wonderland Station via Humphrey Street

Pass

Fail

Fail

52.0

2,112

28

448

Marblehead - Downtown Crossing

Fail

Pass

Pass

49.0

162

32

449

Marblehead - Downtown Crossing

Fail

Pass

Pass

52.0

181

30

Notes: “Pass” means the bus service meets the performance standards established for that service objective. “Fail” means the bus service does not meet the performance standards established for that service objective. “Span” is based on the 2010 service delivery policy standard for the route type and spring 2011 schedule; correcting this failure would always require additional resources. “Frequency” is based on 2010 service delivery policy standard for the route type and spring 2011 schedule; correcting this failure would always require additional resources.

“Loading” is based on the 2010 service delivery policy and same ridership data used above; standard is less than 140% of seated load averaged over 30-minute period during peak periods and less than 100% of seated load averaged over 60-minute period during off-peak periods; correcting this failure would always require additional resources.

“Schedule Adherence” is based on the 2010 service delivery policy (definition of this service objective varies by frequency of service and time point crossings for start/mid/endpoints of the bus route); percentage shown is the proportion of all time point crossings during fall 2010, which were on time; goal is 75 percent on time. Correcting this failure would NOT always require additional resources.

Source: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.


 

 

Based on the performance evaluation presented in Table 1:

 

4.2.2   Ferry Service

The Lynn Ferry service is a partnership between the Economic Development Industrial Corporation of Lynn (EDIC) and Boston Harbor Cruises. The service completed a two-year pilot program that started in 2014 and ended in 2016. Ridership in the first year of operation exceeded the projected estimate of 10,000 by more than 3,000 and much better success is expected in the second year of operation. The ferry operates seasonally, starting in May and running throughout the remainder of spring and summer, with stops at Blossom Street Landing (just off the Lynnway) and Central Wharf in Boston. There is ample free parking at the Blossom Street Landing and the trip takes about 30 minutes. The ferry service operates Monday through Friday with three departure trips from Lynn at 6:30 AM, 8:00 AM, and 6:30 PM; and three return trips from Central Wharf at 7:15 AM, 5:45 PM, and 7:15 PM. Information about ferry tickets and fares is included in Appendix D.

 

Currently, a raised median on the Lynnway at the Blossom Street intersection makes access to and from the Lynn Ferry terminal on Blossom Street difficult, as it prevents drivers from turning left onto Blossom Street. The raised median forces drivers southbound on the Lynnway heading to the ferry terminal to proceed to the Shepard Street/Marine Boulevard intersection then make a U-turn at the intersection and proceed back to Blossom Street in order to access the ferry terminal. Similarly, drivers from the ferry terminal heading to Commercial Street, Shepard Street, and Blossom Street have to proceed northbound on Lynnway to Kingman Street intersection, make a U-turn at that intersection, then continue southbound on the Lynnway in order to access those streets. These maneuvers put drivers and the growing number of commuters using the ferry terminal at risk.


 

 

In addition, many pedestrians and bicyclists cross the Lynnway at the Blossom Street intersection to access businesses located at the intersection and the ferry terminal. The absence of a pedestrian signal and marked crosswalks across the Lynnway compel pedestrians and cyclists to go to the adjacent signalized intersections in order to cross the busy Lynnway safely and legally, a maneuver which increases delay for pedestrians and bicyclists because of the extra distance involved. Therefore, many pedestrians and bicyclists still choose to cross the Lynnway at Blossom Street, which puts them at risk. These challenges to drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists support the need for short-term improvements that will open the median at Blossom Street to provide safe and direct access to the ferry terminal and the businesses located at the intersection.

 

4.2.3   Commuter Rail Service

The MBTA Newburyport/Rockport Line has a station in Lynn at Central Square on Market Street. This MBTA station (just off the Lynnway) is also a transportation center connecting passengers to several bus lines. The commuter rail operates a full schedule Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 12:10 AM and an abbreviated service on Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 AM to 11:30 PM (the full train schedules are included in Appendix D). Peak-period frequency for both the inbound and outbound trains is approximately 30 minutes. The typical weekday boarding (inbound trains) at the station is about 700-to-800 passengers. There is parking at the Central Square station with 965 spaces, of which 23 are ADA accessible. The parking rate is $4.00 daily and the average weekday availability is 79 percent (very low utilization rate compared to the parking facilities at many other stations in the MBTA system).

 

There is also a plan to convert the GE commuter rail station, which currently serves only GE employees, into a full station servicing the future waterfront development. Connections from the Lynnway to the proposed GE commuter rail station and the waterfront development would be needed in order to provide direct and safe access amongst and between these locations.

 

 

Chapter 5—Existing Conditions Analyses

 

5.1      Safety Analysis

MPO staff used crash data from MassDOT’s Registry of Motor Vehicles database for January 2010 through December 2012 to evaluate safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the study area. The following sections describe the analyses and results of this safety assessment.

 

5.1.1   Segment Crash Summary

Table 2 presents a crash summary that identifies severity; manner of collision; road-surface, ambient-light, and weather conditions; number of bicyclists and pedestrians involved; and time of occurrence. The crash data is included in Appendix E.

 

TABLE 2
2010–12 Segment Crash Summary

Crash Variable

Lynnway

Carroll Parkway

Crash Severity

--

--

Fatal injury

2

0

Non-fatal injury

52

12

Property damage only

136

23

Unknown/not reported

10

6

Manner of Collision

--

--

Rear-end

78

12

Angle

56

4

Single vehicle crash

32

17

Sideswipe, same direction

23

8

Head-on

4

0

Sideswipe, opposite direction

2

0

Not reported/unknown

5

0

Road Surface Conditions

--

--

Dry

150

33

Wet

41

8

Sand, mud, dirt, oil, gravel, water, slush

2

0

Snow

4

0

Not reported

3

0

Ambient Light Conditions

--

--

Daylight

145

27

Dark with lighted roadway

39

13

Dark with roadway not lighted

3

0

Dawn

4

1

Dusk

5

0

Not reported/unknown

4

0

Weather Conditions

--

--

Clear

103

22

Cloudy

27

4

Rain

19

4

Snow/ice/freezing rain

7

1

Not reported/unknown

44

10

Bicyclists and Pedestrians Involved

--

--

Bicyclist

7

1

Pedestrian

11

1

Time Period

--

--

Peak period

39

4

Off-peak period

161

37

Total crashes

200

41

Three-year average (rounded)

67

13

Segment crash rate

3.23

2.49

Principal arterial (other)—average statewide crash rate

3.35

3.35

Note: The AM peak period is 7:00 AM-9:00 AM; PM peak period is 4:00 PM-6:00 PM.

Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

 

Between 2010 and 2012, there were241 crashes on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway, involving 453 vehicles. These crashes resulted in 84 injuries (two of them fatal), meaning that injury crashes represent approximately 30 percent of crashes overall. The predominant crash types were rear-end, angle, single-vehicle crash, and same-direction sideswipe. Together, the crashes of these types constitute more than 94 percent of the crashes in the corridor. Many of these crashes occurred because of motorists running red lights, failing to yield right-of-way, following too close, and being inattentive or distracted. The segment crash rates for the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway were 3.23 and 2.49 crashes per million vehicles-miles traveled (MVMT), respectively. The most recent 2012 statewide average crash rate for an urban principal arterial is 3.35 crashes per MVMT.12 Overall, the segment crash rate for the Lynnway is close to the statewide average crash rate, but the segment crash rate for the Carroll Parkway is below the statewide average.

 

5.1.2   Intersection Crash Summary

Figure 12 shows automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian crashes at the major intersections. Motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists are exposed to risk because of the roadway design.

 

Table 3 presents a summary of crashes at the major intersections in terms of severity; manner of collision; road-surface, ambient-light, and weather conditions; number bicycles or pedestrians involved; and time of occurrence. For MassDOT Highway Division District 4 (which includes the City of Lynn), the average crash rate for signalized intersections is 0.73 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) and 0.56 MEV for unsignalized intersections.13 The crash rate worksheets are presented in Appendix F.

 

The analyses presented in Table 3 indicate higher-than-average crash rates for the following intersections:

As noted, two of the three intersections with high-crash rates (Lynnway and Commercial Street intersection and Carroll Parkway at Nahant Rotary) are on the list of the HSIP crash clusters and are eligible for HSIP funding. Based on the HSIP crash-cluster status, they also would require a road safety audit (RSA) to discuss additional safety countermeasures. An HSIP-eligible cluster is one in which the total number of "equivalent property damage only" crashes in the cluster is within the top five percent of all clusters in that region14.

 

TABLE 3
2010–2012 Crash Summary: Study Intersections

Characteristics

Hanson Street

Harding Street

Commercial Street

Marine Blvd.

Kingman Street

Market Street

Nahant Rotary

Crash Severity

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Fatal injury

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Non-fatal injury

12

3

13

3

13

5

7

Property damage only

15

19

44

12

31

14

20

Not reported/unknown

2

4

2

1

1

0

6

Manner of Collision

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Angle

10

4

23

4

11

2

3

Rear-end

7

16

21

6

18

9

8

Sideswipe, opposite direction

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Sideswipe, same direction

2

3

3

3

6

5

8

Single vehicle collision

8

2

9

2

8

3

14

Head-on

0

1

2

1

0

0

0

Not reported/unknown

3

0

0

0

2

0

0

Road Surface Conditions

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Dry

23

20

44

10

37

14

27

Wet

5

6

13

5

6

5

6

Snow

1

0

1

1

2

0

0

Not reported/unknown

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

Ambient Light Conditions

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Daylight

24

17

45

12

35

8

22

Dark with lighted roadway

1

8

11

3

9

7

11

Dark with roadway not lighted

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

Dawn

1

0

2

0

0

1

0

Dusk

0

1

1

1

0

2

0

Not reported/unknown

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

Weather Conditions

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Clear

15

10

35

6

27

8

18

Cloudy

5

5

5

2

6

4

3

Rain

2

1

8

2

3

2

2

Snow

2

0

0

2

1

1

1

Not reported/unknown

7

10

11

4

8

4

9

Bicyclists and Pedestrians Involved

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Bicyclist

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

Pedestrian

4

1

2

0

2

1

0

Time Period

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Peak period

4

9

12

3

11

7

5

Off-peak period

27

17

47

13

34

12

28

Total Crashes (2010-2012)

31

26

59

16

45

19

33

Three-year average crash rate

10

9

20

5

15

6

11

Average crash rate

0.71

0.57

1.07

0.35

0.93

0.45

0.89

MassDOT Highway Division District 4 average crash rate

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.56

Notes: The AM peak period is 7:00 AM-9:00 AM; the PM peak period is 4:00 PM-6:00 PM.

Shading denotes an intersection with a high crash rate.

Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.

 

5.1.3   Collision Diagrams

MPO staff used police crash reports to prepare collision diagrams, which are useful for examining patterns and developing safety strategies.15 The collision diagrams, along with the crash records, are included in Appendix G. The collision diagram numbers uniquely identify each crash and may be used to cross-reference the crash records. According to the collision diagrams, rear-end and angle crashes, usually associated with signalized intersections, were the predominant crash type. Nine pedestrian crashes occurred at midblock locations on the Lynnway and two in crosswalks at intersections. Three bicycle crashes occurred in sidewalk locations with driveways. The roadway design is a major contributor to these crashes: it encourages high vehicular speeds, reduces pedestrian comfort, and does not provide a welcoming environment for pedestrians and bicyclists; and the long crosswalks and lack of pedestrian refuge areas create long pedestrian crossing times and unsafe crossing conditions.

 

5.2      Traffic Operations Analyses

Staff conducted traffic operations analyses consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies.16 HCM methodology demonstrates driving conditions at signalized and unsignalized intersections in terms of a level-of-service (LOS) rating from A to F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions (little to no delay), while LOS F represents the worst operating conditions (long delay). LOS E represents operating conditions at capacity (limit of acceptable delay). Table 4 presents the control delays associated with each LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Using the data collected, MPO staff built traffic analysis networks for the AM and PM peak hours and Saturday PM peak hour using Synchro traffic simulation software17 to assess the capacity and quality of traffic flow.

 

TABLE 4
Intersection Levels of Service Criteria, 2010

Level of Service

Signalized Intersection Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)

Unsignalized Intersection Control Delay
(seconds per vehicle)

A

0-10

0-10

B

> 10-20

> 10-15

C

> 20-35

> 15-25

D

> 35-55

> 25-35

E

> 55-80

> 35-50

F

> 80

> 50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010.


 

Figure 13 shows the existing lane configuration of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway. Figures 14 through 16 show the results of the existing conditions analyses in terms of LOS and delays for the weekday AM, weekday PM and Saturday PM peak hours, respectively. The existing conditions LOS analysis worksheets are included in Appendix H. None of the intersections in the corridor appear to be failing. Delays and queues occur only during the peak periods at the following critical intersections, where the levels of service are still acceptable:

 

5.3      Identified Problems

Based on analyzing the existing conditions, field reconnaissance, and task force discussions, the following problems were identified in the corridor.

 

5.3.1   Pedestrian and Bicyclist Issues

Figures 17 and 18, and the issues listed below, show some of the problems and challenges facing pedestrians and bicyclists and the reasons why the roadway is considered unfriendly for pedestrians and bicycles:

 

5.3.2   Traffic Safety and Operations Issues

 

5.3.3   Public Access Issues—Connections between the Waterfront Development and Lynn’s Downtown and Neighborhoods

Developing the waterfront into a vibrant destination with direct linkage to Lynn's downtown and surrounding neighborhoods would require improvements to the Lynnway, Carroll Parkway and ancillary19 local streets that accommodate all road users. Plans for the waterfront include residential development; retail stores; boardwalk, entertainment and recreation areas; and office parks. Residents and visitors to the waterfront would walk, bicycle, or drive. Hence, the following access issues need to be addressed in order to realize the city’s vision for the waterfront.

 

 

 


 

 

1 Charting Progress to 2040, the Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, approved by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization on July 30, 2015.

2 Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination, Federal Fiscal Years 2016–20, endorsed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization on July 30, 2015.

3  Safety Conditions: Location has a higher-than-average crash rate for its functional class, contains a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)-eligible crash cluster, contains a top-200 high crash location, or has a significant number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (two or more per mile).

4Congested Conditions: Travel time index is at least 1.3.

5 Multimodal Significance: Location carries bus route(s), is adjacent to a transit stop or station; supports bicycle or pedestrian activities or has an implementation project to support one or more of these activities; has need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and improve transit; or high truck traffic serving regional commerce.

6 Regional Significance: Location is in National Highway System; carries a significant portion of regional traffic (ADT >20,000); lies within 0.5 miles of EJ transportation analysis areas or zones; or is essential for the region’s economic, cultural, or recreational development.

7 Reginal Equity: That is, it was important not to select 1) more than one location in a subregion and 2) a location in same subregion as in the preceding cycle of this study.

8 Implementation Potential: Location is proposed or endorsed by its roadway administrative agency (agencies); proposed or endorsed by its subregion and is a priority for that subregion; or has strong support from other stakeholders.

9 Sasaki Associates in collaboration with ZHA and GEI, Lynn Waterfront Master Plan Report, September 2007.

10 Ibid.                            

11 The Healthy Transportation Compact is a key requirement of the landmark transportation reform legislation signed into law in June 2009, to facilitate transportation decisions that balance the needs of all transportation users, expand mobility, improve public health, support a cleaner environment and create stronger communities.

 

12 Published by MassDOT based on crash information queried on August 13, 2014.

13 Published by MassDOT based on crash information queried on January 23, 2013.

14 "Equivalent property damage only" is a method of combining the number of crashes with the severity of crashes based on a weighted scale where a fatal crash is worth 10, an injury crash is worth 5, and a property-damage-only crash is worth 1.

15Staff did not prepare diagrams for a few crash reports because they lacked police-drawn sketches showing how they occurred, and so those reports are not included in Figures 5 through 9.

16 Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, December 2010.

17 Trafficware Inc., Synchro Studio 8, Synchro plus SimTraffic, Build 801, Version 563, Sugar Land, Texas.

 

18 “Desire line” refers to a path worn into the ground by pedestrians who repeatedly take the same shortcut to get from one area to another.

19 Ancillary streets are major side streets.

 

20 “Curb extensions (also called bulb-outs) extend or widen the sidewalk into the parking lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space at key locations; they can be used at corners and at mid-block. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway.” (Source: http://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project-types/pedestrian-safety-and-traffic-calming/traffic-calming-overview/curb-extensions/)

 

21 Bike-to-the-Sea trail is a multiuse path, free of cars, from the Malden/Everett area of Massachusetts to the beaches in Revere, Lynn and Nahant. It is still in construction and the section in Lynn has not been built.

22 New York City Department of Transportation, Prospect Park West: Bicycle Path and Traffic Calming Update, Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/ 2012_ppw_trb2012 .pdf.

23 Parks J., Ryus P., Tanaka A., Monsere C., McNeil M., Dill J., Schultheiss W., District Department of Transportation Bicycle Facility Evaluation, Project No. 11404, (2012). Retrieved from http://ddot.dc.gov/node/477212.

24 Ibid.

25 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm.

26 Sasaki Associates, Inc., in collaboration with ZHA and GEI, Lynn Waterfront Master Plan Report, prepared for the City of Lynn, September 2007.

27  Washington Street Gateway District Plan, Sasaki Associates, Inc., April 2008.

 

FIGURE 1. Computer-drawn map showing the study area, major roads, and neighboring communities.

FIGURE 2. Computer-drawn map showing the existing and proposed land uses surrounding the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway, including the Lynn downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods, transportation centers and terminals, and the waterfront developments.

FIGURE 3. Computer-drawn map of the study-area roadways including the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.

FIGURE 4. Computer-drawn map with aerial photographs showing the lane configurations of the major intersections on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.

FIGURE 5. Computer-drawn map with illustrations showing the average weekday traffic volumes on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.

FIGURE 6. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the hourly traffic-volume distribution on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.

FIGURE 7. Computer-drawn map with illustrations that indicate the existing weekday AM and PM and Saturday PM peak-hour turning movement volumes at the major intersections on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.

FIGURE 8. Aerial-view map with graphics that indicate the pedestrian traffic volumes for weekday AM and PM and Saturday PM peak periods at the major intersections in the study area.

FIGURE 9. Aerial-view map with graphics that indicate the bicycle traffic volumes for weekday AM and PM and Saturday PM peak periods at the major intersections in the study area.

FIGURE 10. Computer-drawn map with illustrations showing the results of the spot speed data collected on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.
FIGURE 11. Computer-drawn map showing the regional transit services in and nearby the study area

FIGURE 12. Aerial-view map with graphics showing the automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian crashes at the major intersections on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.
FIGURE 13. Aerial-view map and computer-drawn roadway cross-section that show the existing lane configuration of the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway.
FIGURE 14. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the existing traffic operations analyses at the major intersections in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday AM peak hour.FIGURE 15. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the existing traffic operations analyses at the major intersections in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday PM peak hour.
FIGURE 16. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the existing traffic operations analyses at the major intersections in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.
FIGURE 17. Computer-drawn map with photographs showing some of the problems facing pedestrians, such as obstructions in crosswalks, pedestrians crossing at midblock locations, and pedestrian desire lines worn into the ground.

FIGURE 18. Computer-drawn map with photographs showing some of the problems facing bicyclists, such as riding on the sidewalks because of the unfriendly roadway experience.

FIGURE 19. Aerial-view map and computer-drawn roadway cross-section that portrays MPO staff “Alternative 1,” which recommends short-term improvements, such as opening the median at Blossom Street, retiming and coordinating traffic signals, removing obstructions in crosswalks, and reconfiguring curbside lanes into shared-use lanes.
FIGURE 20. Aerial-view map and computer-drawn intersection that portrays the existing Blossom Street intersection and the MPO staff-proposed Blossom Street intersection, with improvements such as a traffic signal installation, the addition of a southbound left-turn lane, and crosswalks.
FIGURE 21. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 1 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday AM peak hour.
FIGURE 22. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersection for Alternative 1 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 23. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersection for Alternative 1 in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.
FIGURE 24. Aerial-view map and computer-drawn roadway cross-section that portrays MPO staff “Alternative 2,” which recommends long-term improvements, such as removing a travel lane in each direction on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway and reconfiguring the roadway to facilitate the installation of a median; wider sidewalks; shorter crosswalks with pedestrian refuge areas; and separated bicycle lanes.

FIGURE 25. Photographs of example roadways for Alternative 2, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars Parkway in West Roxbury and the Blue Hills Parkway in Milton.
FIGURE 26. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 2 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday AM peak hour.
FIGURE 27. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 2 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 28. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 2 in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.
FIGURE 29. Aerial-view map and computer-drawn roadway cross-section that portrays MPO staff’s “Alternative 3,” which recommends long-term improvements, such as removing a travel lane in each direction on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway and reconfiguring the roadway to facilitate the installation of a wider median; wider sidewalks; shorter crosswalks with pedestrian refuge areas; and separated bicycle lanes.

FIGURE 30. Photographs of example roadways for Alternative 3, such as North and South Common Streets in Lynn and Commonwealth Avenue in Boston (Lynnway version would be smaller in scale).

FIGURE 31. Aerial-view map and computer drawn roadway cross-section that portrays MPO staff “Alternative 4,” which recommends long-term improvements, such as keeping the existing roadway cross-section and adding pedestrian bridges at selected locations for crossing the Lynnway to increase safety and mobility for pedestrians. FIGURE 32. Photographs of examples for Alternative 4, such as Soldiers Field Road in Allston and Brighton, Storrow Drive in Boston, or extending the Carroll Parkway roadway character to the Lynnway portion of the corridor.

FIGURE 33. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 4 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday AM peak hour. FIGURE 34. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 4 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday PM peak hour. FIGURE 35. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 4 in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 36. Aerial-view map that portrays MPO staff “Alternative 5,” which recommends long-term improvements such as altering the traffic circulation pattern on the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway close to the downtown area and North Shore Community College area so that northbound traffic going between the Lynnway and Lynn Shore Drive stay on the water side of North Shore Community College and southbound traffic shifts to the land side, via Washington Street and Broad Street.

FIGURE 37. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 5 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday AM peak hour.

FIGURE 38. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 5 in terms of level of service and delays for the weekday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 39. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 5 in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 39. Computer-drawn map with graphics showing the results of the traffic operations analyses at the major intersections for Alternative 5 in terms of level of service and delays for the Saturday PM peak hour.

FIGURE 41. Photographs of example roadways for Alternative 6, such bus rapid transit facilities in Cleveland, Ohio; Eugene, Oregon; and San Bernardino, California.

FIGURE 42. Aerial-view map and graphics that shows the land uses surrounding the Lynnway and Carroll Parkway and the candidate local streets that need improvements to create connectivity amongst the land uses.

FIGURE 43. Computer-drawn map with photographs showing the roadway characteristics of the local streets that are candidates for improvements to help create connectivity amongst the study area’s land uses.

Lynnway Study Appendices.pdf