Technical Memorandum #1 Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. URS Corporation AES Keville Enterprises, Inc. In association with: State Project 151-301 Technical Memorandum #1 Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. URS Corporation AES Keville Enterprises, Inc. In association with: Prepared for: Prepared by: April 2005 Connecticut Department of Transportation State Project 151-301 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ i Table of Contents 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 1-1 1.1 Study Background……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 1-1 1.2 Project Team ……………………………………………………………… ………………………. 1-1 1.3 Study Area Definition ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 1-2 1.4 Literature Review………………………………………………………… ……………………… 1-4 1.5 Summary of Data Collection ……………………………………………………………… … 1-5 1.6 Public Involvement ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 1-6 1.7 Study Goals and Objectives ……………………………………………………………… ….. 1-7 1.8 Purpose and Need ……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 1-8 2 Transportation Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 2-1 2.1 Modal Share ……………………………………………………………… ……………………….. 2-1 2.2 Bus Transportation……………………………………………………………… ………………. 2-1 2.3 Rail Service ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-7 2.4 Park and Ride ……………………………………………………………… ……………………… 2-8 2.5 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Needs ……………………………………………………………… 2-9 3 Land Use and Socioeconomic Analysis…………………………………………………………. 3-1 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Boundaries ………………………………….. 3-1 3.2 Business Activity and Major Employers ………………………………………………… 3-3 3.3 Population and Employment Trends………………………………………………………. 3-6 3.3.1 Population ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 3-6 3.3.2 Minority Population Distribution……………………………………………………. 3-7 3.3.3 Housing Characteristics ……………………………………………………………… … 3-8 3.3.4 Employment a nd Income ……………………………………………………………… . 3-8 3.3.5 Environmental Justice ……………………………………………………………… …. 3-10 4 Existing and Future Traffic ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 4-1 4.1 Traffic Counts and Classification ………………………………………………………….. 4-1 4.2 Speed Analysis ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 4-6 4.2.1 Travel Speeds on I-84 ……………………………………………………………… …… 4-6 4.2.2 Travel Speeds on Route 8 ……………………………………………………………… 4-7 4.3 Future Growth Assumptions ……………………………………………………………… …. 4-8 4.4 Future Traffic Volumes……………………………………………………………… ………… 4-9 4.5 Planned Improvements……………………………………………………………… ……….. 4-14 5 Analysis of Operations and Safety……………………………………………………………… … 5-1 5.1 Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Analysis ………………………………………….. 5-2 5.1.1 Mainline Capacity Analysis …………………………………………………………… 5-4 5.1.2 Weaving Analysis ……………………………………………………………… ………. 5-14 5.1.3 Freeway Ramp analysis ……………………………………………………………… . 5-20 5.1.4 Intersection Analysis……………………………………………………………… …… 5-27 5.2 VISSIM Analysis ……………………………………………………………… ………………. 5-43 5.2.1 VISSIM Performance Measures …………………………………………………… 5-44 5.2.2 Caveats and Assumptions ……………………………………………………………. 5-46 5.2.3 A.M. Peak Hour Analysis Results ………………………………………………… 5-47 5.2.4 P.M. Peak Hour Analysis Results …………………………………………………. 5-49 5.2.5 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths …………………………………………………………… 5-59 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ ii 5.3 Accident and Safety Analysis ……………………………………………………………… 5-63 5.3.1 Lighting Condition……………………………………………………………… ……… 5-63 5.3.2 Pavement Conditions ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-65 5.3.3 Accident Severity ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 5-66 5.3.4 Accident Type ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 5-68 5.3.5 Trucks ……………………………………………………………… ………………………. 5-71 5.3.6 Contributing Factors ……………………………………………………………… …… 5-72 5.3.7 Summary ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 5-72 6 Conditions, Resources and Constraints…………………………….. …………………………… 6-1 6.1 Roadway Conditions ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 6-1 6.1.1 Ramp and Mainline Geometry ……………………………………………………….. 6-1 6.1.2 Acceleration and Deceleration Lengths …………………………………………. 6-10 6.1.3 Interchange Spacing ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-15 6.1.4 Lane Continuity and Configuration ………………………………………………. 6-22 6.1.5 Shoulder Widths………………………………………………………….. …………….. 6-52 6.1.6 Signage Deficiencies……………………………………………………………… …… 6-53 6.2 Structural Conditions Review ……………………………………………………………… 6-57 6.2.1 General Description of Bridges ……………………………………………………. 6-57 6.2.2 Existing Condition of Bridges ……………………………………………………… 6-62 6.2.3 Condition Assessment to 2030……………………………………………………. .. 6-66 6.3 Cultural Resources ……………………………………………………………… …………….. 6-69 6.3.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ……………………………………………………. 6-69 6.3.2 Historic Resources ……………………………………………………………… ……… 6-70 6.3.3 Archeological Resources …………………………………………………………….. 6-74 6.3.4 Public 4(f) and 6(f) Lands ……………………………………………………………. 6-74 6.3.5 Other Community and Institutional Resources ……………………………….. 6-75 6.4 Environmental Constraints……………………………………………………. ……………. 6-77 6.4.1 Surface Water and Groundwater…………………………………………………… 6-77 6.4.2 Floodplains……………………………………………………………… ………………… 6-81 6.4.3 Public Water Supplies ……………………………………………………………… …. 6-83 6.4.4 Wetlands ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 6-83 6.4.5 Endangered Species ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-83 6.4.6 Hazardous Materials Risk Sites ……………………………………………………. 6-83 6.4.7 Prime Farmland Soils……………………………………………………………… ….. 6-87 6.4.8 Air Quality ……………………………………………………………… ………………… 6-87 6.4.9 Noise ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 6-90 7 Needs and Deficiencies ……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 7-1 7.1 Traffic Operations ……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 7-1 7.1.1 Highway Capacity Software Analysis …………………………………………….. 7-1 7.1.2 VISSIM Analysis ……………………………………………………………… …………. 7-8 7.2 Roadway Safety ……………………………………………………………… ………………… 7-12 7.3 Roadway Design Deficiencies …………………………………………………………….. 7-12 7.4 Structural Deficiencies ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 7-17 7.5 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………… ………………………. 7-17 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ iii Table of Illustrations Figure 1-1: Study Area…………………………………………. …………………………………………… 1-3 Figure 2-1: Waterbury Local Fixed Route Bus Service………………………………………….. 2-5 Figure 2-2: Pedestri an Needs and Sidewalk Deficiencies …………………………………….. 2-10 Figure 3-1: Land Use ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 3-2 Figure 3-2: Major Employers……………………………………………………….. ……………………. 3-4 Figure 3-3: Census Block Groups ……………………………………………………………… ……… 3-12 Figure 3-4: Environmental Justice Target Areas …………………………………………………. 3-13 Figure 4-1: Existing (2005) Traffic Count Data ……………………………………………………. 4-2 Figure 4-2: Average A.M. and P.M. P eak Hour Travel Speeds – I-84……………………… 4-7 Figure 4-3: Average A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Travel Speeds – Route 8 ………………… 4-8 Figure 4-4: Future ( 2030) Traffic Data ……………………………………………………………… . 4-10 Figure 5-1: Peak Hour Vo lumes and Level of Service Results – I-84 Eastbound………. 5-8 Figure 5-2: Peak Hour Vo lumes and Level of Service Results – I-84 Westbound …….. 5-9 Figure 5-3: Peak Hour Vo lumes and Level of Service Results – Route 8 Northbound 5-12 Figure 5-4: Peak Hour Vo lumes and Level of Service Results – Route 8 Southbound 5-13 Figure 5-5: Weave Anal ysis – I-84 Eastbound ……………………………………………………. 5-17 Figure 5-6: Weave Anal ysis – I-84 Westbound…………………………………………………… 5-18 Figure 5-7: Weave Analysis – Route 8 Northbound & Southbound ………………………. 5-19 Figure 5-8: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (1 of 4) ………………………………. 5-39 Figure 5-9: VISSI M Network ……………………………………………………………… …………… 5-43 Figure 5-10: Visualization ……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 5-45 Figure 5-11: VISSIM 3D Capabilities ……………………………………………………………… .. 5-46 Figure 5-12: VISSIM Analysis – I-8 4 Eastbound A.M. Peak Hour ……………………….. 5-51 Figure 5-13: VISSIM Analysis – I-84 Westbound A.M. Peak Hour ………………………. 5-52 Figure 5-14: VISSIM Analysis – Rout e 8 Northbound A.M. Peak Hour ………………… 5-53 Figure 5-15: VISSIM Analysis – Rout e 8 Southbound A.M. Peak Hour ………………… 5-54 Figure 5-16: VISSIM Analysis – I-8 4 Eastbound P.M. Peak Hour ………………………… 5-55 Figure 5-17: VISSIM Analysis – I-84 Westbound P.M. Peak Hour ………………………. 5-56 Figure 5-18: VISSIM Analysis – Rout e 8 Northbound P.M. Peak Hour ………………… 5-57 Figure 5-19: VISSIM Analysis – Rout e 8 Southbound P.M. Peak Hour ………………… 5-58 Figure 5-20: Accident and Safe ty Analysis – I-84 Eastbound……………………………….. 5-74 Figure 5-21: Accident and Safe ty Analysis – I-84 Westbound ……………………………… 5-75 Figure 5-22: Accident and Safety Analysis – Route 8 Northbound ……………………….. 5-76 Figure 5-23: Accident and Safety Analysis – Route 8 southbound ………………………… 5-77 Figure 6-1: Interstate 84 Cross Section Overview ……………………………………………….. 6-26 Figure 6-2: Route 8 Cro ss Section Overview ……………………………………………………… 6-27 Figure 6-3: Typical Two Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………… 6-28 Figure 6-4: Typical Three Lane Cro ss Section (With Auxiliary Lane) …………………… 6-29 Figure 6-5: Typical Three Lane Cro ss Section (With Auxiliary Lane) …………………… 6-30 Figure 6-6: Typical Three Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………. 6-31 Figure 6-7: Typical Three Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………. 6-32 Figure 6-8: Typical Two Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………… 6-33 Figure 6-9: Typical Three Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………. 6-34 Figure 6-10: Typical Three Lane Cross Section ………………………………………………….. 6-35 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ iv Figure 6-11: Typical Two Lane Cross Section ……………………………………………………. 6-36 Figure 6-12: Ramp and Mainline Geometry Deficiencies – I-84 Eastbound …………… 6-37 Figure 6-13: Ramp and Mainline Geom etry Deficiencies – I-84 Westbound ………….. 6-38 Figure 6-14: Ramp and Mainline De ficiencies – Route 8 Northbound …………………… 6-39 Figure 6-15: Ramp and Mainline De ficiencies – Route 8 Southbound …………………… 6-40 Figure 6-16: Acceleration and Deceleration Length Deficiencies – I-84 Eastbound … 6-41 Figure 6-17: Acceleration and Deceleration Length Deficiencies – I-84 Westbound .. 6-42 Figure 6-18: Acceleration and Decelerati on Length Deficiencies – Route 8 Southbound ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ……… 6-43 Figure 6-19: Interchange Spacing De ficiencies – I-84 Eastbound …………………………. 6-44 Figure 6-20: Interchange Spacing Deficiencies – I-84 Westbound ………………………… 6-45 Figure 6-21: Interchange Spacing De ficiencies – Route 8 Northbound ………………….. 6-46 Figure 6-22: Interchange Spacing De ficiencies – Route 8 Southbound ………………….. 6-47 Figure 6-23: Lane Continuity Deficiencies – I-84 Eastbound ……………………………….. 6-48 Figure 6-24: Lane Continuity Deficiencies – I-84 Westbound………………………………. 6-49 Figure 6-25: Lane Continuity Defi ciencies – Route 8 Northbound………………………… 6-50 Figure 6-26: Lane Continuity Defi ciencies – Route 8 Southbound………………………… 6-51 Figure 6-27: Signage Deficiencies ……………………………………………………………… …….. 6-56 Figure 6-28: Locations of Structures ……………………………………………………………… …. 6-61 Figure 6-29: Historic Resources ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 6-73 Figure 6-30: Potential Section 4(f) & 6(f) Properties …………………………………………… 6-76 Figure 6-31: Ground and Surface Water Classification………………………………………… 6-80 Figure 6-32: Floodplains ……………………………………………………………… ………………….. 6-82 Figure 6-33: Wetlands………………………………………………………… …………………………… 6-85 Figure 6-34: Hazardous Mate rials Risk Sites ……………………………………………………… 6-86 Figure 6-35: Farmland Soils ……………………………………………………………… …………….. 6-88 Figure 6-36: Noise Sensitive Land Uses…………………………………………………………….. 6-92 Figure 7-1: Summ ary of Study Area De ficiencies……………………………………………….. 7-16 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ v Table of Tabulations Table 1-1: Summary of Obtained Data ……………………………………………………………… … 1-5 Table 2-1: Work Travel Modes……………………………………. …………………………………….. 2-1 Table 2-2: Summary of Wa terbury Fixed Route Bus Se rvice and Ridership ……………… 2-7 Table 3-1: Major Employe rs within the Study ……………………………………………………… 3-5 Table 3-2: Popul ation Trends…………………………………………………… ………………………… 3-7 Table 3-3 Age and Sex Distribution ……………………………………………………………… …….. 3-7 Table 3-4 Minorit y Population…………………………………………………… ………………………. 3-7 Table 3-5 Housing Charact eristics and Trends ……………………………………………………… 3-8 Table 3-6 Labor Force ……………………………………………………………… ………………………. 3-9 Table 3-7 Income and Poverty Levels ……………………………………………………………… …. 3-9 Table 3-8 Employment — Ex isting and Projected ………………………………………………… 3-9 Table 3-9 Study Area Environmental Justice Populations ……………………………………. 3-11 Table 4-1: Existing (2005) Average Daily Traffic ………………………………………………… 4-1 Table 4-2: Average Travel Speeds I-84 and Route 8……………………………………………… 4-6 Table 4-3: Future (203 0) Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………… 4-9 Table 5-1: LOS Criteria for Freeway Sections ……………………………………………………… 5-3 Table 5-2: LOS Criteria fo r Freeway-Ramp Junctions …………………………………………… 5-3 Table 5-3: LOS Criteri a for Weaving Areas …………………………………………………………. 5-3 Table 5-4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections …………………………………………….. 5-4 Table 5-5: LOS Criteria for Un -signalized Intersections………………………………………… 5-4 Table 5-6: Freeway Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound ……………………………………… 5-5 Table 5-7: Freeway Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound …………………………………….. 5-5 Table 5-8: Freeway Analysis Summary – Route 8 Northbound …………………………….. 5-10 Table 5-9: Freeway Analysis Summary – Route 8 Southbound …………………………….. 5-10 Table 5-10: Weaving Analysis Summary – I-84 and Route 8 ……………………………….. 5-15 Table 5-11: Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound Direction ………….. 5-21 Table 5-12: Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound Direction …………. 5-22 Table 5-13: Freeway Ramp Analysis Su mmary – Route 8 Northbound Direction …… 5-25 Table 5-14: Freeway Ramp Analysis Su mmary – Route 8 Southbound Direction …… 5-26 Table 5-15: Capacity Analysis Summary – Signalized Intersections along I-84 ………. 5-28 Table 5-16: Capacity Analysis Summary – Signalized Intersections along Route 8 …. 5-34 Table 5-17: Capacity Analysis Summary – Un-signalized Intersections along I-84 …. 5-36 Table 5-18: Capacity Analysis Summary – Un-signalized Intersections along I-84 …. 5-37 Table 5-19: LOS Criteria for Freeway Sections ………………………………………………….. 5-47 Table 5-20: Existing Exit Ramp Terminus Queue Lengths …………………………………… 5-61 Table 5-21: Future Exit Ramp Terminus Queue Lengths……………………………………… 5-62 Table 5-22: Accident totals by High way Direction and Light Condition………………… 5-63 Table 5-23: Highway Segments – Lighting Condition Observations………………………. 5-64 Table 5-24: Accident Totals by Highwa y Direction and Pavement Condition ………… 5-65 Table 5-25: Highway Segments – Pa vement Condition Observations…………………….. 5-66 Table 5-26: Accident Totals by Hi ghway Direction and Severity………………………….. 5-67 Table 5-27: Highway Segments – Injury Rate Observations…………………………………. 5-67 Table 5-28: Accident Totals by Highway Direction and Type ………………………………. 5-69 Table 5-29: Highway Segments – Accident Type Observations ……………………………. 5-70 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ vi Table 5-30: Percentage of Accidents involving Trucks………………………………………… 5-71 Table 5-31: Category of Contributing Factors …………………………………………………….. 5-72 Table 6-1: I-84 Exit Ramp Geometry Assessment ………………………………………………… 6-3 Table 6-2: Route 8 Exit Ramp Geometry Assessment …………………………………………… 6-4 Table 6-3: I-84 Entrance Ra mp Geometry Assessment………………………………………….. 6-5 Table 6-4: Route 8 Entrance Ramp Geometry Assessment …………………………………….. 6-6 Table 6-5: I-84 Mainline Geometry Assessment …………………………………………………… 6-8 Table 6-6: Route 8 Mainlin e Geometry Assessment ……………………………………………… 6-9 Table 6-7: I-84 Entrance Ra mp Acceleration Lengths …………………………………………. 6-12 Table 6-8: I-84 Exit Ramp Deceleration Lengths ………………………………………………… 6-13 Table 6-9: Route 8 Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths ……………………………………. 6-14 Table 6-10: Route 8 Exit Ra mp Deceleration Lengths …………………………………………. 6-15 Table 6-11: I-84 Inte rchange Spacing……………………………………………………………… … 6-18 Table 6-12: Route 8 Interchange Spacing…………………………………………………………… 6-21 Table 6-13: I-84 Lane Confi guration and Continuity …………………………………………… 6-23 Table 6-14: Route 8 Lane Conf iguration and Continuity ……………………………………… 6-24 Table 6-15: Bridge Data………………………………………… ………………………………………… 6-58 Table 6-16: Bridge Conditi on Assessment to 2030 ……………………………………………… 6-63 Table 6-17: Histor ic Resources……………………………………………………………… …………. 6-71 Table 6-18 DEP Surface Water Quality Classifications ……………………………………….. 6-78 Table 6-19 DEP Groundwater Quality Classifications …………………………………………. 6-79 Table 7-1: Freeway Mainlin e Capacity Analysis…………………………………………………… 7-2 Table 7-2: Interchange Ra mp Capacity Analysis ………………………………………………….. 7-3 Table 7-3: Weave Analysis ……………………………………………………………… ………………… 7-6 Table 7-4: Intersection Capacity Analysis ……………………………………………………………. 7-7 Table 7-5: VISSIM Analysis ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 7-9 Table 7-6: Category of Contributing Factors ………………………………………………………. 7-12 Table 7-7: Roadway De sign Deficiencies………………………………………………. ………….. 7-13 Table 7-8: Bridge Structure Ratings ……………………………………………………………… ….. 7-17 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-1 1 Introduction 1.1 Study Background The Connecticut Department of Transporta tion (ConnDOT) and Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) have identified the need to evaluate the transportation deficiencies and define the long-term transportation improvements needed along the I-84 corridor between Interchanges 18 and 23 and the Route 8 corridor between Interchanges 30 and 35 in Waterbury. Study participants include ConnDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Wilbur Sm ith Associates (WSA) consultant team, the COGCNV, and a Study Advisory Committee. This study, the I-84/Route 8 Wa terbury Interchange Needs and Deficiencies Study (I- 84WINS), is one part of an overall effort by ConnDOT to look at the future needs of I-84 from the New York to Massachusetts state lines. Previous studies analyzing I-84, including the West of Wate rbury (WOW) Needs and Defici encies Study and the I-84 Deficiencies and Needs Study, have been comple ted. These studies identified a series of improvements to the interstate, ramps and pa rallel arterial system. A highway widening and interchange improvement project is curre ntly underway on I-84 from Interchange 23 in Waterbury east to Southington. To the west, Interchange 17 & 18 improvements are entering into design phases, and an Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the section of I-84, from Interchange 18 to the New York State Line. Improvements currently being studied or in design will be recognized in this study to provide overall consistency and operational e ffectiveness of the highway. 1.2 Project Team ConnDOT retained Wilbur Smith Associat es (WSA) to undertake this needs and deficiencies study. WSA is a multi disciplina ry transportation engineering and planning firm with extensive experience in multi-m odal transportation studies. Additionally, WSA has subcontracted three other firms to a ssist in this study. These firms are: • Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. (FHI) – performing land use planning and environmental analysis • URS Corporation AES –performing structural anal ysis and cost estimation • Keville Enterprises, Inc. – performing constructabili ty review and construction cost estimation Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-2 1.3 Study Area Definition The study area includes I-84 from Interchange 18 to Interchange 23 as its western and eastern limits, respectively. Along Route 8, the limits are defined from Interchange 30 to Interchange 35 from south to north, respectivel y. Included in the study area are all major arterials that feed the highway system as well as a significant portion of Downtown Waterbury (as it relates to the state highway system operations). The study area is shown in Figure 1-1. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-3 Figure 1-1: Study Area Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-4 1.4 Literature Review As part of this study, WSA obtained several re ports and studies that report transportation and land use issues in the study area. These reports include: 1. I-84 West of Waterbury (WOW) Needs and Deficiencies Study, 2001 assessed needs and deficiencies of Intersta te 84 from Waterbury to Sout hbury and associated ramps and arterials. Several short-term and long-term improvements were recommended for the interstate mainline as well as entrance and exit ramps between interchanges 13 and 18. 2. Needs and Deficiencies Analysis in th e I-84 Corridor Waterbury to Southington , prepared for ConnDOT in May 1995. This study identified needs and deficiencies in the Waterbury (Interchange 23) to Southingt on (Interchange 30) corridor of I-84. Highway widening and interchange improve ments are currently underway in the eastern part of this corridor. 3. Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development, 1998 developed by the region to address issues affecting transportation and land use region-wide. The plan also identified priority transportation projects including improvements to I-84. 4. Transportation Trends and Characteristics of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2000, presents transportation-related statisti cs for Waterbury and the region. Data includes modal share, journey to work times , and work origin and destination trips. 5. Route 69 Traffic Operations Study , 2002 addressed capacity and safety issues on Route 69 in the Towns of Prospect and Wo lcott, and the City of Waterbury. The study also outlined several congestion management strategies and improvements to increase safety and capacity along th is corridor. No improvements were recommended within the lim its of this study area. 6. Central Naugatuck Valley Region Bus Route Study, 2004 presented the findings of ridership surveys conducted on fixed route bus services within the region. It also recommended several routing and schedul ing changes based on these surveys and discussions with operators, munici pal officials, and local groups. 7. Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is a comprehensive document designed to aid agen cies in the development of bicycle and pedestrian systems as well as establish standards for planning and design of such systems. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-5 1.5 Summary of Data Collection At the commencement of this study, data was collected from the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), and the City of Waterbury. The data collected was used for analysis and modeling of existing and future conditions within the study area. Additional data was collected by the study team during field r econnaissance visits to the study area. A summary of the data obtained and collected for use is shown below in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Summary of Obtained Data Vehicle classification counts; Future (2030) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) No-build traffic volumes; Previous reports related to the study area or other applicable reports or plans in adjacent areas; ADT and peak hour volumes on I-84 and Route 8 within the study area; Signal plans, pavement marking, and signage plans for the study area; Turning movement counts for intersections within the study area; Other ConnDOT projects planned or underway within or adjacent to the study area. Average speed data during A.M. and P.M. peak periods on I-84 and Route 8; Recent aerial photography of the study area. Video reconnaissance of conditions on I-84 and Route 8 during A.M. and P.M. peak periods; Geographic Information Systems (GIS) digital files for base mapping and environmental and socio-economic analysis; Reconnaissance of roadway geometry and condition on I-84, Route 8, and adjacent intersections; Growth assumptions for travel demand forecasts in the study area; Signage and sidewalk reconnaissance of study area; Bus, rail and other transit information including route maps and schedules; Original construction plans of I-84/Route 8 viaduct structure Base mapping and topographic information for the study area; Geotechnical boring data and reports; Applicable Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) data including incident management, strategic/early deployment, and others; Plans showing rehabili tation of I-84/Route 8 viaduct structure; Accident data for the most recent three year period; Seismic retrofit plans of I-84/Route 8 viaduct structure; Existing (2002) and future (2030) travel demand model output; Biennial bridge inspection reports. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-6 1.6 Public Involvement An Advisory Committee (AC) consisting of repr esentatives of the City of Waterbury, the COGCNV, several state and federal agencies, and key area stakeholders was formed. The group will assist in the collection of data and documents, review analysis and documentation prepared by the study team and provide input and guidance on study recommendations. The committee consists of representatives from the following agencies: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) • City of Waterbury (3 members) • Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (CTDECD) • Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection (CTDEP) • Connecticut Office of Polic y and Management (CTOPM) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Rideworks • Greater Waterbury Transit District • Northeast Transportation • Housatonic Valley Association • Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce • Neighborhood Housing Serv ices of Waterbury • Country Club Neighborhood Association • Bunker Hill Neighborhood Association • Brooklyn Community Club • Crownbrook Neighborhood Association • Town Plot Neighborhood Association • Council of Governments of Cent ral Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) • Waterbury Economic Resource Center • Waterbury Development Corporation • Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation • Connecticut Department of Public Safety Meetings (6) with the Advisory Committee dur ing this study will provide the opportunity for members to participate in the review of documentation and discuss specific concerns. Public informational meetings at key mile stones throughout the study process provide a forum for the general public to inquire about the study and to provide their input into the study process. A total of four (4) informational meetings (assumed to be evening sessions) are planned at approxima tely the following milestones: Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-7 • Study Initiation/Scoping • Alternatives Screening • Alternatives Refinement • Final Report/Recommendations Local outreach meetings will also be conduc ted with local officials, COGCNV, local businesses, and other key stakeholders. The purpose of these meetings is to gain full understanding of study area issues and impact of potential transportation modification on the stakeholders. 1.7 Study Goals and Objectives Goals are defined to guide the overall direction of the study. Four goals for this study have been developed in consulta tion with the Advisory Committee. Some of the key issues with respect to this study are: Increase safety of the I-84/Route 8 Interchange. This study will examine historical accident data on the freeways and ramps and identify locations where safety is of particular concern. Improvements such as full shoulders, appropriate acceleration and decelerations lengths at ramps, and e liminating dangerous weave conditions and unexpected left-hand entrance and exit ramps, will be considered as a means of reducing accidents. Address operational deficiencies. The study will review highway capacity issues that affect the interchange such as interchange spacing, weav e conditions, lane drops, and arterial operations. Structural Deficiencies. The study will also address the structural integrity of the interchange. Improvement alternatives must address these deficiencies and anticipate the operational impacts of future demand. Provide for future growth. The I-84/Route 8 system is im portant in providing access to existing and developing land uses. Future improvements should support options for development and should accommodate growth in traffic flows, both regionally and locally. It is also important to come to an agreement that proposed corridor improvements address the long-term needs of the City of Waterbury and the region. Consider alternatives that are financially feasible. The study must address the feasibility of any alternatives based on their ability to be financed. Construction cost estimates will be performed on refined and pref erred alternatives. Further analysis will weigh the costs of construction against the bene fits of an enhanced transportation system through the region. Comparisons will also be examined for continued maintenance costs of the existing interchange against the co sts of constructing and maintaining any improvement alternatives. The study will also identify and evaluate all potential sources of funding to ensure the most effec tive use of resources is achieved. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1-8 1.8 Purpose and Need The I-84 West of Waterbury Needs & Deficien cies Study identified several deficiencies in the vicinity of the I-84/Route 8 intercha nge. Operationally, I-84 was found to operate at unacceptable Levels of Se rvice by 2025 throughout this st udy area. The accident rate on I-84 in the vicinity of the Route 8 intercha nge was found to be higher than average. Other identified deficiencies that impact safety included insufficient shoulder widths, acceleration and deceleration lane s, and short spacing of entrance and exit ramps causing dangerous weave conditions. A dditionally, two major sections of the I-84 eastbound and westbound structure were found to be rated in poor condition. While a previous study addre ssed the I-84 corridor from Wa terbury to Southbury, this study will identify the needs and deficiencies of the I-84/Route 8 Interchange and its immediate environs. In this study, the future year (2030) will be used as the benchmark condition, against which improvement alternat ives will be compared for evaluation to transportation. Each alternative will be sc reened and evaluated based on its ability to satisfy the goals and alternatives set. Altern atives that pass the screening process will be refined and analyzed in greater detail to de velop a set of recommendations that will meet the needs of the City of Waterbury, the region, and the I-84 corridor as a whole. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-1 2 Transportation Assessment 2.1 Modal Share The information presented in Table 2-1 is includ ed as an indicator of the number of study area residents who use public transit to travel to and from work. While the majority of study area workers do not use public transpor tation for their work commute, this may reflect a lack of convenient, accessible transit or persona l preference. Waterbury has a much higher percentage of comm uters that walk (2.8 percent) and use public transit (5.1 percent) than the other 12 towns in the regi on. The percentage of individuals in the study area who walk to work (at 5.9) is higher than that reported for Waterbury or the region as a whole. Table 2-1: Work Travel Modes 2000 Town Workers % Work at Home % Walk to Work % Public Trans. % Other means (Drive) Study Area 10,119 1.5 5.9 3.6 87.5 Waterbury 44,256 1.4 2.8 5.1 92.2 COGCNV Region 126,330 2.4 1.8 1.7 83.7 Source: Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; COGCNV, Transportation Trends and Characteristics of the CNVR: 2000 . 2.2 Bus Transportation The Waterbury area is served by local and intercity bus service. The Bonanza Bus Company provides intercity bus service to Hartford, Danbury and points beyond. Local fixed route service is provided by the Stat e of Connecticut under its CTTransit brand name. The service is contracted out to the Northeast Transportation (NET) Company. NET also provides Americans wi th Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit as well as dial-a- ride services throughout the Waterbury area under contract to the State. The Bonanza Bus Company has 30 departures per day from its Bank Street terminal. Major destinations include Hartford, New York, Danbury, Boston and Providence. The first departure is at 5:45 A.M. with se rvice bound for New York City. The final departure for the day is at 12 :05 A.M. with service bound fo r Hartford. Service operates seven days a week. Net local service consists of 21 fixed rout es and 9 tripper routes serving greater Waterbury. There are 36 buses and 26 pa ratransit vans providing these services. The regular adult cash fare for local fixed-ro ute service is $1.25, with the child fare at $1.00. The fare for senior and disabled citizen s is $0.60. There are a variety of discounts Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-2 available for purchasing multiple ride tickets. For example, a 10-ride full-fare pass is $11.25 and a 31-day pass is $45. The local fixed route services operating in Waterbury are shown in Figure 2-1 and detailed below: Route #11 – Overlook/Willow: serves Exchange Place, Carlton Towers, Willow Street, Farmington, and Overlook. Weekday service ru ns approximately every 30 minutes from 6:00 A.M. to 6:22 P.M. Saturday service also runs during the same time period, but hourly. Route #12 – Hill Street: serves Exchange Place, Grove Street, Hill Street, Moran Street, and Cooke Street. Service runs approximate ly every 30 minutes from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. This service runs on weekdays only. Route #13 – Oakville/Fairmont: serves Exchange Place, UConn Waterbury, Lewis Fulton Park, Nottingham Towers Apartments, Sunnyside Avenue and Oakville. Weekday service runs hourly from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday service runs hourly from 9:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Route #15 – Bucks Hill/Farmcrest: serves Exchange Place, North Main Street, Waterbury Plaza, and Farmcrest Drive. Se rvice operates Monday-Saturday hourly from 6:00 A.M. to 6:25 P.M. Route #16 – Bucks Hill/Montoe: serves Exchange Place, North Main Street, Waterbury Plaza, and Montoe Road. Service operates Monday-Saturday hourly from 5:45 A.M. to 5:58 P.M. Route #18 – Long Hill/Berkeley: serves Exchange Place, NOW, Inc. East Farm Street, Berkeley Heights and Long Hill. Service ope rates every 30 minutes from 5:55 A.M. to 6:20 P.M. from Monday to Saturday. Route #20 – Walnut Street: serves Exchange Place, UConn Waterbury, Walnut Street, the WOW Center, and Oak Street. Service operates hourly Monday-Saturday from 6:00 A.M. to 6:23 P.M. Route #22 – Wolcott Street/Brass Mill Center: serves Exchange Place, Wolcott Street, Brass Mill Center Mall, Naugatuck Valley Shopping Center, and Sharon Road. Monday- Friday, service operates hourly from 6:05 A.M. to 6:25 P.M. On Saturdays, service operates hourly from 9:30 A.M. to 6:25 P.M. Route #25 – Hitchcock Lake: serves Exchange Place, East Main Street, Meriden Road, Sunset Gardens, and Deerfield Apartments. Service operates Monday-Friday from 6:00 A.M. to 6:10 P.M. on an hourly basis. On Saturdays, service operates hourly from 9:30 A.M. to 6:10 P.M. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-3 Route #26 – Fairlawn/East Main: serves Exchange Place, East Main Street, Hamilton Park, and East Gate Apartments. Service operates Monday-Friday hourly from 6:00 A.M. to 6:23 P.M. There is no Saturday service. Route #27 – Reidville/East Main: serves Exchange Place, East Main Street, Hamilton Park, and Reidville. Service operates hourly Monday-Saturday from 5:45 A.M. to 5:58 P.M. Route #31 – East Mountain : serves Exchange Place, Hamilton Avenue and East Mountain. Service operates hou rly Monday-Friday from 6:15 A.M to 6:00 P.M. There is no Saturday service. Route #32 – Hopeville/Sylvan: serves Exchange Place, St. Mary’s Hospital, Baldwin Street, Sylvan Avenue, and Hopeville. Service operates hourly Monday-Friday from 6:15 A.M. to 6:15 P.M. There is no Saturday service. Route #33 – Hopeville/Baldwin: serves Exchange Place, St. Mary’s Hospital, Baldwin Street, and Hopeville. Monday-Friday, servi ce operates at 30 minute intervals from 5:45 A.M. to 6:23 P.M. On Saturdays, service operates hourly from 5:45 A.M. to 6:23 P.M. Route #35 – Town Plot/New Haven Avenue: serves Exchange Place, Bank Street, Congress Avenue, Town Plot, and New Have n Avenue. Service operates Monday- Saturday hourly from 5:45 A.M. to 5:58 P.M. Route #36 – Town Plot/Bradley: serves Exchange Place, Bank Street, Congress Avenue, Town Plot, Bradley Avenue, and Ho ly Cross High School. Service operates Monday-Saturday every hour from 6:00 A.M. to 6:12 P.M. Route #40 – Town Plot/Highland: serves Exchange Place, Waterbury Railroad Station, Freight Street, Highland Avenue, Kennedy Hi gh School, Chase Park, and Town Plot. Service operates hourly Monday-Saturd ay from 5:45 A.M. to 5:57 P.M. Route #42 – Chase Parkway: serves Exchange Place, West Main Street, Waterbury Hospital, Chase Parkway, and Naugatuck Valley Community College. Service operates Monday-Friday hourly from 6:30 A.M. to 5:59 P.M. Route #44 – Bunker Hill: serves Exchange Place, West Main Street, Grandview Avenue, Bunker Hill Park, Bunker Hill Aven ue, Whitewood Avenue, and the Health Center of Greater Waterbury. Service opera tes hourly Monday-Friday from 6:10 A.M. to 5:58 P.M. On Saturdays, service operat es hourly from 6:30 A.M. to 5:58 P.M. Route #45 – Watertown: serves Exchange Place, West Ma in Street, Waterbury Hospital, Watertown Avenue, Municipal Stadium, Oa kville, and Watertown. Service operates hourly, Monday-Saturday, from 5:30 A.M. to 6:22 P.M. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-4 Route #J/J4/J5 – Waterbury/Kimberly Avenue: serves Exchange Place, Waterbury Railroad Station, East Main St reet, Cheshire, Hamden, and Ne w Haven. Service operates hourly Monday-Friday from 6:15 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. On Saturdays, service operates every two hours from 8:15 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. This route is a variation of the J Route operated by CTTransit New Haven Division. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-5 Figure 2-1: Waterbury Local Fixed Route Bus Service § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 S T8 S T8 S T73 S T69 ³ ‚ 33 ³ ‚ 32 ³ ‚ 42 ³ ‚ 44 ³ ‚ 16 ³ ‚ 15 ³ ‚ 13 ³ ‚ 12 ³ ‚ 45 ³ ‚ 40 ³ ‚ 25 ³ ‚ 26 ³ ‚ 27 ³ ‚ 18 ³ ‚ 22 ³ ‚ 36 ³ ‚ 31 ³ ‚ 11 ³ ‚ 35 ³ ‚ 20 Legend Bus Routes 11 Overlook/Willow 12 Hill Street 13 Oakville/Fairmont 15 Bucks Hill/Farmcrest 16 Bucks Hill/Montoe 18 Long Hill Berkeley 20 Walnut Street 22 Wolcott/Brass Mill 25 Hitchcock Lake 26 Fairlawn/East Main 27 Reidville/East Main 31 East Mountain 32 Hopeville/Sylvan 33 Hopeville/Baldwin 35 Town Plot/New Haven Ave. 36 Town Plot/Bradley 40 Town Plot/Highland 42 Chase Pkwy. 44 Bunker Hill 45 Watertown Source: Council of Governments of the Naugatuck Valley Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-6 In addition to the fixed routes, CTTransit-Waterbury, through its contractor NET, provides transportation to qualifie d individuals with or without disabilities in the Greater Waterbury Area to job sites and to Adult Education through the JobLinks program. Transportation is provided to some of th e top industrial and commercial areas in Waterbury, Danbury and Torrington and is scheduled around shift start and end times. Riders currently pay $1 for most fares, or $1.50 for customized neighborhood or evening service. Individuals transitioning off welfare and other eligible low-income individuals can receive up to six weeks of transportation free, after which they pay the regular monthly fares. The 9 tripper routes operated as part of the regular services, or as part of the JobLinks service are as follows: • Scott Road • Waterville/Thomaston • Watertown/Straits Turnpike • Cheshire Industrial Park • Easter Seal/Avenue of Industry • Naugatuck Industrial Park • Waterville/North Main • Naugatuck Shuttle • Watertown Industrial Park Paratransit service is provided throughout Waterbury by CTTransit-Waterbury, through its contractor Northeast Transportation. As mandated by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, any individual whose trip ends are within ¾ mile of a fixed route bus route, and who due to a disability is unable to get t o, board or exit or understand how to use the bus, qualifies for ADA service. Trips cannot be denied as long as the rules are followed. All of Waterbury is within ¾ mile of a fixe d route bus route. In addition, paratransit services are reserved for non-ADA individuals, including elderly persons or persons with a disability whose pick-up or drop-off point is greater than ¾ of a mile from a fixed route bus service. Trips for non-ADA users can be denied because of lack of capacity. The service area includes Cheshire, Middl ebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown and Wolcott. Service operates Monday-Saturday from 6:00A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Requests for this service should be made at least one day in advance. Fares are $2.50 per one-way trip. In 2004, COGCNV released a bus route study ( Central Naugatuck Valley Region Bus Route Study, June 2004) that presented the findings of ridership surveys of bus routes within the region. It also recommended se veral routing and scheduling changes based on these surveys and discussions with operators, municipal officials, and local groups. No routes were recommended for elimination, but some modifications were suggested to better serve areas of pot ential ridership. In addition, seve ral new stops and shelters were recommended to provide better service along existing routes. Additionally, clear, consistent signage at stops and shelters was recommended to eliminate driver and passenger confusion as well as to create a sense of permanence. Informational kiosks were also recommended at major bus stops to illustrate the bus service in the area. The COGCNV report also detail ed daily ridership on the fixed bus routes in the Waterbury area. The ridership on these routes is shown below in Table 2-2. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-7 Table 2-2: Summary of Waterbury Fixed Route Bus Service and Ridership Route Frequency Weekend Service Daily Ridership 1 #11 – Overlook/Willow 30 minutes Saturday (hourly) 338 #12 – Hill Street 30 minutes None 235 #13 – Oakville/Fairmont hourly Saturday (from 9:00 A.M.) 447 #15 – Bucks Hill/Farmcrest hourly Saturday 391 #16 – Bucks Hill/Montoe hourly Saturday 279 #18 – Long Hill/Berkeley 30 minutes Saturday 407 #20 – Walnut Street hourly Saturday 219 #22 – Wolcott Street/Brass Mill Center hourly Saturday (from 9:30 A.M.) 510 #25 – Hitchcock Lake hourly Saturday (from 9:30 A.M.) 301 #26 – Fairlawn/East Main hourly None 127 #27 – Reidville/East Main hourly Saturday 242 #31 – East Mountain hourly None 28 #32 – Hopeville/Sylvan hourly None 84 #33 – Hopeville/Baldwin 30 min Saturday 421 #35 – Town Plot/New Haven Ave hourly Saturday 222 #36 – Town Plot/Bradley hourly Saturday 245 #40 – Town Plot/Highland hourly Saturday 143 #42 – Chase Parkway hourly None 173 #44 – Bunker Hill hourly Saturday 226 #45 – Watertown hourly Saturday 232 #J/J4/J5 – Waterbury/Kimberly Ave 2 hourly until 7:30 P.M. Saturday every two hours 8:15 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. 1,370 1. Ridership from Central Naugatuck Valley Region Bus Route Study (COCCNV 2004). 2. Variation of J Route, CTTransit-New Haven Division. Ridership is daily boardings for all variations of this route between New Haven and Waterbury. Source ConnDOT 2001. 2.3 Rail Service Waterbury is also served by the Waterbury branch of the New Haven Line commuter rail system. ConnDOT operates the New Ha ven Line through a contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Metro-North Railroad subsidiary. The New Haven line serves Waterbury and the rest of Southern Connecticut. This line runs from Grand Central Terminal (GCT), New York City, through Stamford, Norwalk, and Bridgeport to New Haven. In addition, there are three branch lines serving New Canaan, Danbury, and Waterbury. The Waterbur y branch connects to the main line at Bridgeport and serves Derby-Shelton, Ans onia, Seymour, Beacon Falls, Naugatuck and Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-8 Waterbury. Passengers on the Waterbury line wishing to go to Stamford or New York City must change trains at Bridgeport and continue along the New Haven main line. Monday-Friday, there are six trains depar ting from Waterbury beginning at 6:49 A.M. and ending at 9:29 P.M. Fre quencies vary between 2 to 4 hours. The first arrival at Waterbury is at 8:53 A.M. and the last ar rival at 11:29 P.M. There are six weekday arrivals and frequency again va ries from 2 to 4 hours. On weekends and holidays, there are four arrivals and depart ures to and from Waterbury. The first weekend departure from Waterbury is at 7:21 A.M. and the last is at 7:19 P.M. The first arrival is at 10:27 A.M. and the last arrival is at 11:25 P.M. Fares from Waterbury to New Yo rk are available at peak and off-peak rates as well as 10- trip, weekly, and monthly passes. Peak fares are defined as trips that arrive at GCT on weekdays from 5:00 A.M. to 10 P.M. or depa rt from GCT on weekdays from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Off-peak fare s are in effect at all other times including weekends and holidays. New fares are going into effect on January 1, 2005. The one-way peak fare is $16.50, and the one-way off-peak fare is $12.50. Senior citizens and disabled persons receive a 50% discount off the one-way peak fare for all trips. 10-trip fares from Waterbury to New York are $106.25 and $165.00 for off-peak and peak trip s, respectively. Weekly passes are $114.00 and monthly passes are $355.00. The Waterbury train station is located at 333 Meadow Street on the western edge of the downtown area. Bus connections, taxi service, and parking are available. The station does not have a staffed ticket office. Passe ngers must buy tickets ahead of time or on the train. 2.4 Park and Ride There are three park and ride lots in close proximity to the I-84/Route 8 interchange, two are adjacent to I-84, and one is in downtown Waterbury. These lots are detailed below: Lot Capacity Features Chase Parkway (I-84 Interchange 17-18) 123 P, L, T, B Route 69 (I-84 Interchange 23) 178 P, L, T, B Meadow Street (Railroad Station) 7 P, L, T, S, R, B Source: ConnDOT (P=Paved, L=Lighted, T=Public Te lephone, S=Shelter, R-Rail Service, B=Local Bus Service) The I-84 West of Waterbury Needs and Deficiencies study (2001, Wilbur Smith Associates) identified that th ese facilities were within capacity. In that study and a subsequent more recent review , a signage inventory indicated that the railroad station was not adequately signed as a pa rk and ride facility. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-9 2.5 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Needs In the past decade in the United States, tran sportation officials and stakeholders have emphasized the importance of incorporating pedestrian facilities into the general transportation system. A national survey on pe destrians and bicyclists conducted in 2002 revealed that about 80% of adult Americans take at least one walk lasting five minutes or longer during the summer months. The need fo r a well integrated transportation system eventually led to the formulation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21), which seeks in addition to other goals, to expand and improve facilities and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pede strian accommodations necessary to encourage walking include sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and street lighting. Currently, there are no state designated bicy cle routes within the City of Waterbury. However, the designation of two on-street bi cycle routes within Waterbury are being pursued by the COGCNV. The first is Route 73, Watertown Ave, West Main and Thomaston Ave running from Watertown, through Waterbury into Thomaston. The second includes Route 69 for its entire le ngth within Waterbury. In the COGCNV Regional Bike Plan, bike lanes were r ecommended for both of these routes. Additionally, the COGCNV is pursuing the de velopment of a linear bicycle path along the east side of Naugatuck Rive r in Waterbury. This project is in the preliminary stages, with property acquisition being pursued through private donation. It is envisaged that the Naugatuck Greenway will pass through the study area and any proposed transportation improvements will ensure connectivity to this system. Most of the pedestrian activities in Water bury are centered in the downtown area where a majority of the local shoppi ng and commercial facilities ar e located. Figure 2-2 shows the locations with heavy pedestrian activity. Most of the streets in these areas have sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The sidewalks are well connected, generally in good condition and serve a large number of pedestrians and bicyclists. In the remainder of the study area along I-84 and Route 8 however, the number of sidewalks is reduced. The sidewalks in these areas are generally in worse condition than the sidewalks in the downtown area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-10 Figure 2-2: Pedestrian Need s and Sidewalk Deficiencies No sidewalks Si dewalk from Bridg e disconti nued Sidewalk blocked by weeds and shrubs Sidewalk on Riverside SB in poor condtion and also discontinued Sidewalk in poor condtion and overgrown with weeds Sidewalk from under bridge discontinued Si dewalk si lted a nd overgrown with weeds Sidewalks blocked by weeds Sidewalk discontinued Sidewalk in poor con dit on wi th c r ac ks Sidewalks ove rgro wn with weeds Sidewalk blocked by lane arrangements sign and electric pole Sidewalk blocked by electric pole Sidewalk discountinued Sidewalk in poor condition with cracks § ¨ ¦84 ” )8 No sidewalks 8 4 M a in H il l B an k C oo k e W al n u t E l m P in e S y lv a n O ak W a t e rt o w n Bu n k e r H il l H i g h l a n d U n io n O r onok e Wa l l W at e r v i lle J a m es H D ar c e y M e m ori a l Th om a s ton M i l l A u r o r a W i ls o n L eon ard C ou n try C lu b T u d o r C ong re ss C h i p m a n P l a tt R iv e r Lake w o od B ra d le y A ld e r H op e Jo y O r a nge R udy W i l l o w L i n c o ln F i s k e S i lv e r F ai r f ie ld d s ley L i b e r ty H il l s i d e B ir c h Mor a n B e r k e l e y Co l u m bi a A vo n W oo d B is h o p P e a r l W a sh in gt o n 5t h E dg ew o od R ob bi n s E uc li d G r a n d G ra n d vi e w M er id en W es le y F re ig ht F arm P ort e r E a s to n P ar k l a w n So u th C ha rl e s F o x R a ir o a d H il l D ra he r C her ry G a yl o r d B en e fit B ee c h F ern A l le n G ard e n Vai l G ed d es O a kv il le C i t i z e n s H i g h S te el D iv i s i o n N ort o n B u r r R o se W arn er La va l R i d g e B e n n ett C h est n u t Iv e s C om o P ea rl L a k e G re en w oo d C l o v e r L ou n sb ury P l a z a G ri g gs W e stw oo d K end a ll H a u s e r E l k B eac on H un tin gdon W i l k e nd a W o od la w n R obin w oo d C ent r a l C li n t o n G ra n by R e ve re R i v e rs i d e G ree n Ro se la n d D e la w a re E dw i n H ad dad Ja c kso n S u n n ys i d e S a b a l C a rv e r F ar m i n gt o n P ro c to r L u ke In m a n H e w e y E d in V in e G os s Id yl w oo d R u m f o rd S co vi l l H er sc he l C l u b B a ld w i n I r io n D ix i e C he r y l G i le s W ard V i l l a S h e ll e y A nd e rs o n B uc k in g ha m F l e m in g E as tf ie ld R a y S um a c S t a t e R e id J u n ip er R id g e N e w t o n T r a ns it M ed ia E a r l K ar e n K ee fe S t ile s W in dso r L aw le r A l b er ta B e n e dic t Me dw ay I r v in gto n T ra ve rs e 1 s t P il g rim C r o w n M a ple Y or k F a i r m o u nt H am il t o n P a r A rn ol d Y o un g R os s H i l l v ie w R y e N ew H av e n C a ble s M i d w oo d R a n do lp h J o h n so n G e ar F le et W es tm ont E a g l e C on is to n Lo cu st M i d dl e B i d w el l N at h a n P hy l l i s L au re l H aw t h o rn e ton e M i l le r 4t h J u d d Ac ra T o ro s W e st r i d g e C h ur c h C ol l i n s B yr n e s id e B r o w n C o e Tr a c y B u rto n B ri g ha m B e ve r l y N iagr a Ly d i a E a str i d ge V i st a M e ad o w R ob in so n W ay l a nd G r e e nm o unt G le n A ro n G il m a n C h am be r s S ou th g a te C on co r d A s h S h o r t A s h l e y La m o n t D ra k e N oer a H u tc h i n so n P ie rp ont G a rd e n H i l l D o r a n f i eld H a m den P u rd y M ou n t V er n o n C lo w es R uel S ou t h v ie w B l a ke C r e sc e nt C a rri a g e O a k le a f D e vo n W o o d B ri a r c l i ff W o o dsi d e L i n d e n B ra nc h A et n a C ath e r in e A da m s T o w e r H a rr i s M id d l e W a y E as t C i r c u i t V er n o n I d y l e w d T e m p l e D i k e m an E l m w oo d A r d m o re H e w l e t t L e xin gt o n C lif f B ue l l Y a te s K e n i l w o rt h L e e X avi e r S w i ft M er ril l B elle vu e M ad is o n G ro veS pe rr y C ro s s Myr tl e P o lk W el t o n B ro o k S ta r v i e w K el l o g g N i c o la W ac o n B u tl e r H ol m es M a yb ro ok G ra n t R o ck l a n d H o b a rt S m it h R o se w o o d Fo ot e W ym anL udlo w M yr n a B o n d C o r o na E r n es t Ch ap m a n P i e dm on t R o s e m o n t W hi t e B i r c h F e r n da le L a n n e n W e bb G eo r g e’ s T re e H i ll R id gew o o d Farrington M u rr a y K i n gsb u ry C olle y A de l a i d e H B a r b a r a P a rk l a n d C l if t o n M ar lb or o C a lu m e t R oy a l O ak Ro c k w e ll B rig hto n H o w a r d oo d E sthe r F air v i e w K a to n ne G er tr u de le y P a u l V io le t M ar i o n Br o ns o n W arre n M oh a w k De l f o rd R aw l e y H ul l M a n h an C a m p O l d C olo n y Sum m i t J e w el r y W i n c h e s t e r C a s se t t H al e W o odha ve n N o rt hw o o d Bel la L ow e ll E a st A nna T o m p k in s D r a cu W e l l e s A lth e a S im sb ur y B en ha m C o nn ec tic u t d A c o rn O h io H o u st o n S ou th ri d ge E liz a b e th R p fi e l d A r c h P os t S t o n e W a te r C l if f o r d A ut u m n H en ry A rb o r Fox R un F l o y d C as sidy Ro o se v e l t M o rn i n gsi d e V er m o n t E v e rg re en S a n t o r o W i ll a r d C ot tage G r ov e A nth o ny Sa v i n g s M o or la nd D em o re s t L in dsl e y W ild w oo d E v a ns Ca l W o od r uf f Tr u m p et B r o o k F a rr a gu t M c Do n a ld T h om as D o nah ue V is co n ti W o od c re st G or d o n G a l i v a n Sl o c u m W e l l i n g to n H ic k o r y H ar ri e t H a z e l O r c h a r d H o pe v ill e N o y e s Hickory Hill S a i n t P e te r C o oli d g e M o un t a in V i l l a g F arn ha m M a r l e y M a t s o n na C a ro li n e M c M ah a n C u sh m an H o t c h ki s s L e nox P e n t a H ec l a Co m m e ric a l G le nrid g e B lo s s o m G af f n e y W in f ie l d G r e e nhi l l S te r lin g E l e a n o r Ta ft M a tt h e w s Ci t y M i l ls S h ir i n g H o l o h an W e s t W a l k e r S ud bu ry J u n io r G l obe C ro sb y J e f fe r s o n S o u th er l y H i ll t o p W o od st o c k B ro w n Sil v e r W a sh i n g t o n W a te rto w n P ie d m o n t F arr in g to n R iv e rs id e W ar re n H op e W a sh i n g to n M ai n M ay b ro o k F arm i n g to n P ro sp ec t H am il t o n Fa r m H i g h la n d W i l s o n M e a d ow C a rr ia g e P ark P a r k Legend Heavy Pedestrian Activity Defecient sidewalks Minor Roads Major Highway Downtown Lakes Streams and Rivers Study Area 0 920 1,840 2,760 3,680 460 Feet ® Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-11 As part of this study field reconnaissance was undertaken to identify the availability of sidewalks around I-84 and Route 8 within th e study area. The task involved field verification, photo documentation and sidewalk classification that were based on the following categories: • Absence of sidewalks • Discontinuity of sidewalks • Structural condition of sidewalks Figure 2-2 shows the locations within the study area with sidewalk deficiencies. At certain locations within the study area, sidewalks were non existent while at other locations the sidewalks were discontinuous throughout the length of roadway. Some sidewalks were heavily silted and overgrown wi th weeds and shrubs, as a result of which, some of these sidewalks were rendered impassa ble. There were other sidewalks that were blocked by roadside infrastructure such as electric poles, traffic signal poles and lane arrangement signs. The findings on the sidewalk inventory are as follows: Union Street has a sidewalk along its entire length on the south side but no sidewalks on the north side. There are pedestrian crosswal ks on Union Street at the intersections of Brass Mill Mall, Brass Mill Drive, Mill St reet and South Elm Street and South Main Street. At the Union Street/Brass Mill Mall and Union Street/Brass Mill Drive intersections however, there ar e no pedestrian-signals even though the crosswalks at these locations are wide. Also on the north side of Union Street just before South Elm Street intersection, the sidewalk is blocked by an electric pole. Market Square has sidewalks on both sides. Ho wever, on the south side of Market square, just west of South Main Stre et, the sidewalk is blocked by a lane arrangements sign and electric pole. West Main Street has sidewalks along both sides; however these sidewalks are discontinuous at certain secti ons particularly from the I-84 Interchange 18 exit ramp to the Chase Parkway Bridge. Chase Parkway has a sidewalk along its whole lengt h on the south side but no sidewalks on the north side. Sunnyside Avenue has sidewalks on both sides, howev er the sidewalk on the west side between Vernon Street and Cynthia Street is rendered impassable by weeds and shrubs. Riverside Street NB has a sidewalk along its east si de. This sidewalk is however discontinuous from Sunnyside Avenue to Bank Street. The sidewalk is also in poor condition, overgrown with weeds and heavily silted. There are no sidewalks on Riverside Street NB along its west side. Riverside Street SB has no sidewalks along its entire length. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-12 Leonard Street has a sidewalk on the west side which is overgrown with weeds and rendered impassable. South Leonard Street has a tiny stretch of sidewalk fr om the Route 8 NB exit ramp to Fifth Street along its east side. This sidewalk however is cracked and is in poor condition. There is no sidewalk on the west si de of the South Leonard Street. Charles Street has sidewalks along its west side from Bank Street to Fifth Street. There is a sidewalk along the east side of Charles Street, however this sidewalk is discontinued midway between Potter Street towards Washington Avenue. Fifth Street has sidewalks on both sides. The sidewa lk on the south side is discontinued just under the Route 8 overpass, while the side walk on the north side is cracked and in poor condition, east of the overpass. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-1 3 Land Use and Socioeconomic Analysis 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Neighborhood Boundaries The City of Waterbury is in the process of updating its Plan of Conservation and Development, which is expected to be co mpleted in 2005. Therefore, regional land use maps and the region’s Plan of Conservation and Development, as reported herein, were obtained from the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV). Limited visual inspections were also conducted in the field. Land use in study area neighborhood s is a reflection of the historic growth and settlement patterns of Waterbury that we re driven by the industrial development of the Naugatuck River Valley in the early nine teenth century. During this period of industrialization, people settled in Waterbury, which is the Na ugatuck River Valley’s central city. Since World War II, the region’s economy has divers ified and its residents have become more widely dispersed throughout nearby suburbs. Like many cities in the northeastern Unite d States, Waterbury has experienced population decline as its suburbs have grown. From 1990 to 2000, the population of the region as a whole increased, while that of Waterbury decl ined by 1.6 percent. As the city developed farther from its core, residential developm ent became less dense as single-family and small multi-family uses became the dominant land use pattern. According to Figure 3-1, the predominant land uses in the study area today are residential, industrial, and co mmercial. Residential land uses in the immediate vicinity of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange are located southwest and northwest of the interchange in the Town Plot neighborhood. Industrial land uses in the immediate vicinity of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange are lo cated to northeast and southeas t of the interchange, in the Freight Street area and Sout h Main Street corridor. Comm ercial land uses, farther from the interchange, are, generally, to the north east and southeast of the interchange, along the West Main Street and East Main Street corridors. Recreational and institutional land uses, as well as undeveloped land, are also found sporadically throughout the study area. Riverside Cemetery and Chase Park, in partic ular, are to the immediate southwest of the interchange. Hamilton Park is located on the eastern edge of the study area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-2 Figure 3-1: Land Use Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-3 The study area is characterized by residential neighborhoods, industrial sites, office space, retail, and mixed uses. Downtown Wa terbury, according to “City of Waterbury Strategic Economic Development Plan,” (Mar ch 2001), has 900,000 square feet of office space (predominately Class B and C 1) and an information technology zone. The industrial sites in the study area, includi ng suspected brownfields, comp ete with the industrial parks located outside the downtown area, and downt own retail competes with nearby Brass Mill Center and Commons. Waterbury Partnership 2000, in the “City of Waterbury Strategic Economic Development Plan,” identifies the Intersta te 84 and Route 8 interchange as “the city’s key regional asset for all manner of economic development.” This plan recommends the following for the city’s land use and zoning: • Update the City of Waterbury’s land us e, zoning, and development policies and regulations, • Designate the Freight Stre et area a Planned Development District (PDD) to promote private re-development and infrastructure improvements, • Further develop and enhance the informa tion technology zone (ITZ) in downtown Waterbury, • Extend the Central Business District (CBD ) to include more area north of the Green and both sides of West Main Street, • Pursue a Special Service District (SSD ), encompassing downtown and the Brass Mill Center and Commons, • Pursue a traffic calming strategy, improve traffic flow, and create more parking around the Green, • Create stronger historic dist rict guidelines for downtown, • Coordinate zoning policy with a plan to re-use vacant industrial buildings, • Curtail the use of “spot zoning,” and • Create disincentives for pre- existing, non-conforming uses. 3.2 Business Activity and Major Employers As depicted in Figure 3-2, th ere is a high concentration of employers with 25 or more employees in downtown Waterbury. The figure also depicts the important relationship that exists between the transportation infrastructure and these employment centers. Table 3-1 lists the largest comp anies within the study area. 1 (According to the Building Owners and Managers Asso ciation, or BOMA, Class B office space is located in buildings “competing for a wide range of users with rents in the average rent range for the area. Building finishes are fair to good for the area and the systems are adequate, but the building does not compete with Class A at the same price.” Class C office space, as de fined by BOMA, is located in buildings “competing for tenants requiring functional space at rents below th e average for the area.” In contrast, BOMA defines Class A office space as “the most prestigious” and “c ompeting for premier office users with above average rental rates for the area along with high-quality sta ndard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility, and a definite market presence.” Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-4 Figure 3-2: Major Employers Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-5 Table 3-1: Major Employers within the Study Brass Mill Center and Commons City of Waterbury Connecticut Light & Power MacDermid, Inc. St. Mary’s Hospital Waterbury Hospital Webster Bank The City of Waterbury, the Naugatuck Vall ey Development Corporation (NVDC), and the Greater Waterbury Chambe r of Commerce (GWCOC) each play a role in planning for economic development in Waterbury. Th e “City of Waterbury Strategic Economic Development Plan,” (March 2001) prepar ed for Waterbury Partnership 2000 (a community and economic development, priv ate and public partnership) identified economic development and future land us e plans for downtown Waterbury and the Freight Street/West Main Street/Thomaston Avenue area. According to the “City of Waterbury Strategic Ec onomic Development Plan,” (the Plan) the land adjacent to the Interstate 84 and Route 8 interchange is among the most valuable in Waterbury, providing flat developable site s in close proximity to highway and freight rail. Challenges include the off-highway road networ k and suspected brownfield sites. For the Freight Street/West Main Street/Thom aston Avenue area, the Plan, recommends: • Extending Thomaston Avenue to Jackson St reet, creating a north-south connector and linking the South End with the Thomaston Avenue corridor, • Pursuing funding for brownfields assessments and remediation, • Featuring the Naugatuck River as a r ecreational and scenic resource, and • Locating large footprint tourist attractions (i.e., baseball stadium, rail museum) in the Thomaston Avenue/Freight Street area. For downtown Waterbury, the Plan, recommends: • Targeting West Main Street for new office development and commercial re- development, • Creating attractive ga teways to downtown, • Creating small, attractive public spaces in the down town and focus on “place- making,” and • Developing a transit center at the east end of the Green. One proposal being considered for revitalizing both the downtown and Freight Street area is to locate a Transportation Center at the existing Metro-North station and provide parking on the west side of the railroad tracks with a pedestrian crossing to the historic Union Station building. As Waterbury Partnership 2000 notes in the Plan, the goals and objectives for economic and community development in Waterbury focu s, not only on creating jobs, but also on improving the image of the ci ty. Recently completed projects designed to improve Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-6 Waterbury’s image are the Palace Theater, the Arts Magnet School, and re-location of the University of Connecticut satellite cam pus to downtown. Recommendations for a Transportation Center, a baseball stadium, a nd a rail museum add to these attractions. National economic trends in the globalization of manufacturing have resulted in a shift in the Central Naugatuck Valley economy. While the industrial base remains strong in Waterbury, diversification is ongoing, with contribution from retail, information technology, and financial and gov ernment services. Waterbury, as the central city of the region is still its economic anchor; how ever, the U.S. Census 2000 indicates a decentralization of employment centers. 3.3 Population and Employment Trends Population and housing information for this study was obtained primarily from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census and COGCNV. Table 3- 2 through Table 3-4 depict the population, employment, and housing characteristics and trends in the study area compared to the COGCNV region as a whole. Some of the following tables also include COGCNV’s projections of demographic data. 3.3.1 Population The population data shows a decline in populatio n in the central urban core of Waterbury between 1990 and 2000 and a corresponding growth in population in the outlying suburbs, particularly in Southbury (17.4 per cent), Oxford (13.1 percent), and Woodbury (13.1 percent), according to COGCNV. The population of the region as a whole is projected to 298,030 by 2030, an increase of 9.4% from the year 2000]. The study area is projected to remain relatively stable in population through 2030. The 2000 study area population of 27,792 compri ses approximately 10 percent of the region’s overall population. Waterbury, as a whol e, comprises close to 40 percent of the region’s 2000 population (Table 3-2). Close to 60 percent of the population in the study area is workforce age (18-64). The study area has a comparable elderly population (age 65 or older) to Waterbury as a whole (14 per cent and 15 percent, respectively). The study area has a slightly lower percentage (at 56.9 percent) of children (age 0–17) than Waterbury as a whole (at 58.5 percent). Elderly populations within the study area are discussed in greater detail in Se ction 3.3.5, Environmental Justice. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-7 Table 3-2: Population Trends 1990 2000 2030 Geographic Area Population % of COGCNV Region Population % of COGCNV Region Population % of COGCNV Region Study Area 30,528 11.7 21,831 8.0 21,826 7.3 Waterbury 108,961 41.7 107,271 39.3 107,350 36.0 COGCNV Region 261,081 100 272,594 100 298,030 100 Sources: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; ConnDOT’s Series 27B Land Use Projection, 2003; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003 .. Table 3-3 Age and Sex Distribution 2000 Geographic Area Population % Male % Female % School Age (0-17) % Workforce Age (18-64) % 65 or Older Study Area 21,831 47.5 52.5 29.1 56.9 14.0 Waterbury 107,271 47.1 52.9 26.5 58.5 15.0 COGCNV Region 272,594 48.5 51.5 25.8 59.8 14.4 Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; ConnDOT’s Series 27B Land Use Projection, 2003; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003 .. 3.3.2 Minority Population Distribution As reported in Table 3-4, the study area as a whole has a substantial minority population at 37 percent, compared with 32.7 percent fo r Waterbury and 16.2 percent for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Minority communiti es within the study area that could potentially be impacted by the project are di scussed in greater detail in Section 3.3.5, Environmental Justice. Table 3-4 Minority Population 1990 Geographic Area Population White Minority % Minority Study Area 30,528 22,880 7,648 25.1 Waterbury 108,961 86,681 22,280 20.4 COGCNV Region 261,081 NA NA NA 2000 Geographic Area Population White Minority % Minority Study Area 27,792 16,307 10,271 37.0 Waterbury 107,271 72,151 35,120 32.7 COGCNV Region 272,594 228,534 44,060 16.2 Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; ConnDOT’s Series 27B Land Use Projection, 2003; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003 . NA = data not available. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-8 According to the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data, the minority population has increased from approximately 25 percent of the study area population in 1990 to 37 percent of the study area population in 2000. This trend is also confirmed in Waterbury as a whole, with minorities comprising approximately 20 percen t of the Waterbury population in 1990 and approximately 33 percent in 2000. 3.3.3 Housing Characteristics Table 3-5 summarizes housing characteristics in the study area, Waterbury, and the COGCNV region as a whole. The average ho usehold size in the study area (at 2.6 individuals) is comparable with Water bury as a whole (at 2.5 individuals). The percentage of renter occupied households in the study area is very high (at 68.4 percent), compared with Waterbury (at 52.4) or the region as a whole (32.7 percent). Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households, persons per household, and vacant and renter-occupied households within the study area and Waterbury as a whole remained essentially constant. Table 3-5 Housing Characteristics and Trends 1990 Geographic Area Total Households Persons Per Household Vacant (% Total) Renter Occupied (% Total) Study Area 12,188 2.5 11.6 67.0 Waterbury 43,164 2.5 9.4 51.0 COGCNV Region 97,407 NA NA NA 2000 Town Total Households Persons Per Household Vacant (% Total) Renter Occupied (% Total) Study Area 12,459 2.6 12.8 68.4 Waterbury 46,827 2.5 9.0 52.4 COGCNV Region 103,155 NA 6.0 32.7 Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; ConnDOT’s Series 27B Land Use Projection, 2003; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003 . NA = data not available. 3.3.4 Employment and Income According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 98,606 individuals working in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Tabl e 3-6 through Table 3-8 provide characteristics of the labor force and income in the study area a nd within the COGCNV region as a whole. As Table 3-6 shows, the unemployment rate in Waterbury is higher than in the Central Naugatuck Valley as a whole. The 2000 per capita income in Waterbury is $17,701 (Table 3-7) which is approximately 20 percen t higher than the per capita income for the study area (14,250) as a whole. The percentage of the population below the poverty level is 16 percent for Waterbury and approx imately 24 percent for the study area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-9 Table 3-8 shows that jobs in the retail business account for a significant percentage of the employment in the study area and within Wate rbury. Retail is the third highest sector, after education, health and social servic es, and manufacturing in employment in Waterbury. In the study area, manufacturing is the leading employment sector, with the education, health, and soci al services second highest, and retail third. The income and poverty level within the st udy area is higher (at 23.9 percent) than Waterbury as a whole (at 16 percent). Low-in come populations within the study area that could potentially be impacted by the project ar e discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3.5, Environmental Justice. Table 3-6 Labor Force 2002 Geographic Area Population Labor Force Unemployed % Unemployment Study Area 27,792 Waterbury 107,271 52,993 4,076 7.7 COGCNV Region 272,594 139,156 7,729 5.6 Sources: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003. Table 3-7 Income and Poverty Levels 2000 Geographic Area Population Below Poverty Level Per Capita Income % of Population Below Poverty Level Study Area 21,831 $14,250 23.9 Waterbury 105,016 $17,701 16.0 COGCNV Region NA NA 9.0 Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; ConnDOT’s Series 27B Land Use Projection, 2003; COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003 . NA = data not available. Table 3-8 Employment — Existing and Projected 2000 Geographic Area Retail Non-Retail Total Study Area 4,169 16,570 20,739 Waterbury 5,481 40,003 45,484 COGCNV Region 17,870 85,880 103,750 2025 Geographic Area Retail Non-Retail Total Study Area 4,404 17,706 22,111 Waterbury 8,720 37,170 45,890 COGCNV Region 21,130 100,870 122,000 Source: Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-10 3.3.5 Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requi res that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, colo r, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VI bars intentional discrimination as well as any disparate impact discrimination (i.e. a neut ral policy or practice that has the effect of a disparate impact on protected groups). In 1994, President Clinton i ssued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Executive Order further amplifies Title VI by providing that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high a nd adverse human health or environmental affects of its programs, polic ies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations”. Consequently, this section of the feasibility study responds to this mandate by identifying the presence of low income and minority populations within the study area using 2000 U.S. Census data. The purpose is to determin e where target environmental justice groups occur relative to the proposed project. There are no legislated standards for defining the number of low income and minor ity individuals that constitute an environmental justice target area. According to COGCNV’s L ong Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2004– 2030, a target group of environmen tal justice populations is considered to exist where the percentage of the population that is minority is 50 percent or greater and where the percentage of the population that is lo w income is 20 percent or greater. As indicated in Figure 3-3 and 3-4, whic h show census block groups and potential EJ populations or “target area,” th e largest EJ populations reside north of I-84 and east of Route 8. There are also EJ popul ations on the south side of I-84, west of Route 8 in the Brooklyn section of Waterbury an d on the south side of I-84, east of Route 8, largely on the east side of South Main Street. Approximately 54.4 percent of the study area ’s population, according to the 2000 U.S. Census is minority and 37.4 percent is below the 150 percent poverty level. In Waterbury as a whole, the percent minority is 41.8% a nd the percent below the 150% poverty level is 26.6 percent. The disparity is greates t between the minority population (at 54.4 percent) and low-income population (37.4 percen t) in the study area and the region as a whole (20.6 percent and 14.8 per cent, respectively) (Table 3-9). These minority and low- income populations should be included in th e project planning process, and the proposed project should be evaluated in terms of how these EJ populations may be impacted. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-11 Table 3-9 Study Area Environmental Justice Populations 2000 Study Area Portion of Town Population Minority % Minority Below 150% Poverty Level % Below 150% Poverty Level Study Area 27,792 15,034 54.5% 10,151 37.4% Waterbury 107,271 44,865 41.8% 27,975 26.6% COGCNV Region 272,594 54,519 20.6% NC 14.8% Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; COGCNV, COGCNV, Profile of the Region: 2003. NC=Not calculated. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-12 Figure 3-3: Census Block Groups Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-13 Figure 3-4: Environmental Justice Target Areas Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-1 4 Existing and Future Traffic 4.1 Traffic Counts and Classification Traffic counts within the study area were performed and provided by ConnDOT. The volumes provided were for the A.M. Peak Hour, P.M. Peak Hour and Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Volumes were obtained for existing year (2005) conditions. Traffic counts were taken at mainline sections and ra mps for I-84 and Route 8 within the limits of the study area and for adjacent at-grade intersections. Existing ADT is presented in Table 4-1 for I-84 and Route 8 at each end of the study area. Table 4-1: Existing (2005) Average Daily Traffic Location Existing Average Daily Traffic I-84 West of Interchange 18 82,800 I-84 East of Interchange 23 101,500 Route 8 South of Interchange 30 49,800 Route 8 North of Interchange 35 48,900 Source: ConnDOT Traffic classification is determined by perm anent recorder stations maintained by ConnDOT along the interstate mainline throughout the state. Based on this data, a percentage of truck traffic through the study area was determined. This heavy vehicle percentage is a component of the capacity analysis performed on the freeway segments, ramps and intersections. For highway capac ity analysis purposes heavy vehicle is considered to be vehicles with more than four tires. For the freeway segments and ramps, the rate of truck traffic was assumed to be 6%. For at-grade intersections 2% of total traffic was considered to be trucks. An illustration of the traffic volumes obtai ned by ConnDOT is shown in Figure 4-1. Traffic signal plans were also obtained from the City of Waterbury to utilize the timing and phasing of the signals at intersections for the capacity analysis under existing and future year conditions. FIGURE 4-1 (1 OF 4) N EXISTING 2005 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA I-84 / ROUTE 8 INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-1 (2 OF 4) N EXISTING 2005 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA I-84 EAST OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-1 (3 OF 4) N EXISTING 2005 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ROUTE 8 SOUTH OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-1 (4 OF 4) N EXISTING 2005 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ROUTE 8 NORTH OF INTERCHANGEI-84 WEST OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-6 4.2 Speed Analysis Average speed can be an indicator of road way congestion. Therefore, the study team conducted a series of speed a nd delay tests on I-84 and Route 8 within the study area. These speed runs were conducted between 7-9 am and 4-6 pm on October 6, 2004 and October 13, 2004. In all, there were six sp eed tests for each direction along I-84 and Route 8. The average speeds on I-84 and Route 8 are summarized in Table 4-2, Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3. Table 4-2: Average Trave l Speeds I-84 and Route 8 Average Travel Speed (mph) Segment Direction Posted Speed (mph) A.M. P.M. I-84 EB 50 72 54 I-84 Int. 18 to Int. 19 WB 50 56 50 EB 50 65 49 I-84 Int. 19 to Int. 20 WB 50 56 52 EB 50 65 58 I-84 Int. 20 to Int. 21 WB 50 69 59 EB 55 31 36 I-84 Int. 21 to Int. 22 WB 55 56 38 EB 55 61 56 I-84 Int. 22 to Int. 23 WB 55 – – Route 8 NB 45 58 60 Route 8 Int. 30 to Int. 31 SB 45 54 57 NB 55 45 49 Route 8 Int. 31 to Int. 32 SB 55 30 30 NB 55 54 68 Route 8 Int. 32 to Int. 33 SB 55 60 54 NB 55 51 47 Route 8 Int. 33 to Int. 34 SB 55 58 68 NB 55 67 68 Route 8 Int. 34 to Int. 35 SB 55 72 70 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Travel Time Runs, October 2004. 4.2.1 Travel Speeds on I-84 Average Travel speeds on I-84 were genera lly above the posted speed limits of 50 mph and 55 mph suggesting that congestion is not yet a problem along the I-84 corridor within the study area. Average travel speeds on I-84 during the A.M. peak hour were generally above 55 mph with the exception of the se gment between interchanges 21-22 in the eastbound direction, where recorded average sp eeds were 31 mph as shown in Figure 4-2. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-7 The low speed on the segment between Interchange 21 and Interchange 22 of the I-84 mainline is mainly due to difficulties in merging and weaves at this segment. The highest average speed in the A.M. peak hour was 72 mph and was recorded between Interchanges 18-19 in the eastbound direction. Figure 4-2: Average A.M. and P. M. Peak Hour Travel Speeds – I-84 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Exit 18-19 Exit 19-20 Exit 20-21 Exit 21-22 Exit 22-23 mph A.M Peak Eas tbound P.M. Peak Eas tbound A.M. Peak Wes tbound P.M. Peak Wes tbound 4.2.2 Travel Speeds on Route 8 Travel speeds on Route 8 were usually a bove the posted speed limits of 45mph and 55 mph as shown Figure 4-3. The highest speed s were recorded on the segment between interchanges 34-35 where speeds were as high as 72 mph. The segment between Interchange 31 and Interchange 32 in the southbound direction consistently recorded speeds of less than 45 mph. This segment had reduced speeds due to difficult merges and weaves in the area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-8 Figure 4-3: Average A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Travel Speeds – Route 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Exit 30-31 Exit 31-32 Exit 32-33 Exit 33-34 Exit 34-35 mph A.M Peak Northbound P.M. Peak Northbound A.M. Peak Southbound P.M. Peak Southbound 4.3 Future Growth Assumptions Future land use and population and employment growth projections dictate the extent of traffic growth throughout a regi on. These projections are based on a municipality’s land use and development plans and examining hist orical population and employment trends. The City of Waterbury, for example, sa w a decline in population from 1990-2000 (see Section 3.3.1), while the population in the surrounding communities grew. However, with the decline of Waterbury’s popu lation and industrial base, there is a shift in land use patterns. Former industrial sites are being re-developed, and special development districts and “t echnology zones” are being pr omoted (See Section 3.1). Travel forecasting efforts such as ConnDOT ’s Statewide Travel Demand Model reflect population and employment projections and future land use development. These projections are used to predict traffic growth and to s how how the transportation network will be impacted by this growth. While ConnDOT’s model addresses the statewide transportation network, the modeling efforts in this study will focus on the immedi ate I-84/Route 8 Interchange and study area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-9 This process will use existing and future volumes provided by ConnDOT to simulate existing and future base conditions fro m a capacity and operational standpoint. 4.4 Future Traffic Volumes Based on the analysis of historical traffic da ta and the projected regional growth, future (year 2030) traffic volume forecasts were pr ovided by ConnDOT. These volumes reflect the A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well as the average daily traffic (ADT). To reflect the traffic growth in the study area, ADT is pres ented in Table 4-3 for I-84 and Route 8 at each end of the study area. Table 4-3: Future (2030) Traffic Volumes Location Average Daily Traffic Percent Growth Existing (2005) Future (2030) I-84 West of Interchange 18 82,800 115,100 28% I-84 East of Interchange 23 101,500 127,100 20% Route 8 South of Interchange 30 49,800 64,400 23% Route 8 North of Interchange 35 48,900 63,500 23% Source: ConnDOT FIGURE 4-4 (1 OF 4) N FUTURE 2030 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA I-84 / ROUTE 8 INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-4 (2 OF 4) N FUTURE 2030 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA I-84 EAST OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-4 (3 OF 4) N FUTURE 2030 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ROUTE 8 SOUTH OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT FIGURE 4-4 (4 OF 4) N FUTURE 2030 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ROUTE 8 NORTH OF INTERCHANGEI-84 WEST OF INTERCHANGE SOURCE: CONNDOT Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-14 4.5 Planned Improvements To ensure that planned improvements within the region are well coordinated with this study, reports were gathered and reviewed to help understand the recommendations from other planning efforts. Two noteworthy improvement proj ects are planned on I-84 adjacent to the study area. To the west, improvements are planned to Inte rchange 18. Specifically, the westbound exit ramp at this interchange is currently under design for impr oving safety and operations by addressing the deceleration length and curve radius. As part of the Waterbury-Southington wi dening project already underway, I-84 to the east of Interchange 23 is to be widened to thre e lanes. While the section from Cheshire to Southington is already under co nstruction, the Waterbury widening section is still in the design process. When this particular project is complete, I-84 will provide at least three through lanes in each direction from Wate rbury to the Massachusetts state line. Earlier needs and deficiencies studies have identified the need for widening I-84 west of the Waterbury area to the New York state line. Major widening improvements in this corridor are still in the pla nning process, with and Envi ronmental Impact Statement underway. Any major design or construction in this corridor is several years away. No improvements are currently planned al ong Route 8 adjacent to this study area. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-1 5 Analysis of Operations and Safety To evaluate operational performance of a roadway system, a number of different approaches can be used. These approaches have evolved due to the advanc es in personal computer technology, which has provided the tr affic engineer with more powerful tools to help understand the complexities of today’s high-volume roadways. Traditional analytic methodologies adva nced by TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) have been in use for many years, and have been validated by years of research and field testing. Highway Cap acity Software (HCS) allows for the quick application of HCM methodologies to user defined traffic conditions and roadway parameters. The HCS makes it possible to analyze a large num ber of intersections or roadway segments quickly, and uses Level of Service (LOS) to convey the operational performance to the engineer or layperson. While the HCS is a valu able analysis tool for measuring the delay that traffic experiences under given roadwa y conditions, it is a static methodology that does not consider the influe nces of other roadway condi tions upstream and downstream of the location being analyzed. To better understand the dynamic nature of tr affic flow within and through and roadway system, micro-simulation software applications were developed that take advantage of the power of modern personal computer system s. VISSIM is a micro-simulation tool that is used to understand the dyna mic evolution of traffic as it is introduced to a roadway system under real-time conditions. With this software, it is possible for the traffic engineer to see how upstream bottlenecks or downstream queues affect the operation of a particular intersection or roadwa y segment. VISSIM is highly data intensive and requires considerable time to set up and calibrate. For this study, both analysis tools are used to test the effects of existing and future traffic on study area roads and intersections. The HC S will give results based on unconstrained roadway conditions. That is, upstream and downstream constraints will not have an impact on the results of the analysis. VI SSIM however, will give results that reflect conditions that are present in the entire ro adway system. For example, the HCS may demonstrate that two adjacent freeway exit ramps are at a LOS F due to unconstrained traffic volumes supplied by the ConnDOT. VISSIM may report that the upstream exit ramp is a LOS F and the downstream ramp a LOS D if the upstream constraint is metering traffic such that the downstream segm ent cannot achieve the flow represented in the ConnDOT volume estimate. It is useful to understand the result of both analyses because the HCS method suggests that both ra mps are deficient based on the volume of traffic that desires to use the highway, while the VISSIM analysis identifies actual bottlenecks and demonstrates that the desired traffic may not be able to be accommodated due to real constraints in the roadway system. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-2 5.1 Highway Capacity Softw are (HCS) Analysis A study of capacity is importa nt in determining the ability of a specific roadway, intersection, or freeway to accommodate traffic under various levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing driver satisfaction with a number of factors that influence the degr ee of traffic congestion. These factors include speed and travel time, traffic interrup tion, freedom of maneuverability , safety, driving comfort and convenience, and delay. In general there are six levels of service describing flow conditions: • Level of Service A , the highest LOS, describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. • Level of Service B represents a stable traffic flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted so mewhat by traffic conditions. • Level of Service C , which is normally utilized fo r design purposes, describes a stable condition of traffic operation. It entails moderately restricted movements due to higher traffic volumes, but tra ffic conditions are not objectionable to motorists . • Level of Service D reflects a condition of more restrictive movements for motorists and influence of congestion beco mes more noticeable. It is generally considered the lower end of acceptable service. • Level of Service E is representative of the actual capacity of the roadway or intersection and involves delay to all motorists due to congestion. • Level of Service F , the lowest LOS, is descri bed as force flow and is characterized by volumes greater than th e theoretical roadway capacity. Complete congestion occurs, and in extreme cases, the volume passing a given point drops to zero. This is considered as an unacceptable traffic operating condition. For this study, level of service analysis was performed for mainline freeway segments, freeway ramp junctions, freeway weaving co nditions, and signalized and un-signalized intersections. The analysis was performed for the existing roadway configurations for current and future (2030) traffic volumes. Tr affic analyses for this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 2and conducted using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). Table 5-1 highlights the LOS criteria for freew ay sections. The level of service criteria for freeway sections is based on maximum dens ity defined in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/lane). 2 Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-3 Table 5-1: LOS Criter ia for Freeway Sections Level of Service Maximum Density (pc/mi/lane) A 11 B 18 C 26 D 35 E 45 F Greater than 45 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Table 5-2 highlights the LOS criteria for fr eeway-ramp junctions. The level of service criteria for freeway-ramp junctions is base d on maximum density defined in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. Table 5-2: LOS Criteria for Freeway-Ramp Junctions Level of Service Maximum Density (pc/mi/lane) A 10 B 20 C 28 D 35 E Greater than 35 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Table 5-3 highlights the LOS cr iteria for freeway weaving sections. The level of service criteria for freeway weaving sections is ba sed on maximum density defined in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. Table 5-3: LOS Criteria for Weaving Areas Level of Service Maximum Density (pc/mi/lane) A 10 B 20 C 28 D 35 E Less than or equal to 43 F Greater than 43 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-4 Table 5-4 highlights the level of service criteria for signalized intersections. The level of service criteria for signalized and un-signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle measured in seconds. Table 5-4: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) A ≤10 B >10 and ≤20 C >20 and ≤35 D >35 and ≤55 E >55 and ≤80 F > 80 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Table 5-5 highlights the level of service criteria for un-signa lized intersections. The level of service criteria for signalized and un-signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle measured in seconds. Table 5-5: LOS Criteria for Un-signalized Intersections Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A ≤10 B >10 and ≤15 C >15 and ≤25 D >25 and ≤35 E >35 and ≤50 F > 50 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 5.1.1 Mainline Capacity Analysis In order to assess the capac ity along I-84 and Route 8, a freeway analysis was performed during the existing (2005) and future (2030) years for the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. The input to the freeway analysis was the freeway geometry, free- flow speed, number of lanes, and volumes during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. I-84 Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 present the results of the analysis along I-84 in the eastbound and westbound directions respectively. These results ar e also shown in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-5 Table 5-6: Freeway Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound 2005 2030 SECTION ALONG I-84 Volume LOS Volume LOS Between Int. 17 and Int. 18 3130(3700) D(E) 4340(5140) F(F) Between Int. 18 and Int. 19 3370(3830) C(D) 4680(5320) D(E) Between Int. 19 and Int. 20 2940(3100) D(D) 4080(4310) F(F) Between Int. 20 and Int. 21 5190(5170) D(D) 7010(7010) E(E) Between Int. 21 and Int. 22 4140(4320) D(D) 5550(5830) E(E) Between Int. 22 and Int. 23 4410(4840) D(D) 5930(6550) F(F) East of Int. 23* 3410(3390) C(C)/ E(E) 4530(4530) D(D) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. * East of Int. 23, freeway transitions from 3 to 2 lanes. LOS in bold represents 2-lane segment. Table 5-7: Freeway Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound 2005 2030 SECTION ALONG I-84 Volume LOS Volume LOS Between Int. 17 and Int. 18 3640(3380) E(E) 5060(4690) F(F) Between Int. 18 and Int. 19 4760(4370) C(C) 6620(6070) D(D) Between Int. 19 and Int. 20 2920(3210) C(C) 4230(4560) D(D) Between Int. 20 and Int. 21 4920(5890) C(C) 6830(8050) D(D) Between Int. 21 and Int. 22 5150(5390) E(E) 7150(7350) F(F) Between Int. 22 and Int. 23* 4290(4180) D(D)/ F(F) 5950(5670) F(E) East of Int. 23* 4420(4350) F(F) 6130(5910) F(F) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. * Between Int. 22 & 23, freeway transitions from 3 to 2 lanes. LOS in bold represents 2-lane segment. • Between Interchanges 17 and 18 – I-84 between Interchange 17 and Interchange 18 consists of two lanes in each of the eastbound and westbound directions. This segment is 0.6 miles long in the east bound direction and 0.5 miles long in the westbound direction. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the wee kday morning and evening peak hour condition due to an increa se in traffic volumes. • Between Interchanges 18 and 19 – I-84 between Interchange 18 and Interchange 19 consists of three lanes in the east bound direction that is approximately 0.2 miles long. In the future, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS D and LOS E during the weekday morning and ev ening peak hour periods respectively. In the westbound direction, this segment has four lanes approaching Interchange 18 and is 0.3 miles long. Immediately we st of Interchange 18, the roadway cross section drops to two lanes with a climbing lane 0.6 m iles long that begins at Highland Avenue exit ramp and ends just east of the entrance ramp from Chase Parkway. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-6 at LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak periods in the westbound direction. • Between Interchanges 19 and 20 – I-84 between Interchange 19 and Interchange 20 is a short distance between the on a nd exit ramps from Route 8. In the eastbound direction, this segment consists of two lanes and is 0.3 miles long, while in the westbound direction it has th ree lanes and is 0.3 miles in length. Under the future year condition, the segment is anticipated to operate at LOS F in the eastbound direction due to increase in traffic volumes. • Between Interchanges 20 and 21 – I-84 between Interchange 20 and Interchange 21 consists of four lanes in the eas tbound and five lanes in the westbound direction. The five lanes consist of thr ee lanes on I-84 and two auxiliary lanes to Route 8 northbound and southbound ra mps. The eastbound and westbound sections are 0.2 miles in leng th. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the eastbound direction due to an increase in traffic volume. • Between Interchanges 21 and 22 – I-84 between Interchange 21 and Interchange 22 consists of three lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions. The eastbound segment is 0.2 miles in length while the westbound segment is 0.5 miles in length. Under the future year c ondition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS E or worse in the west bound direction with an increase in the traffic volume. • Between Interchanges 22 and 23 – I-84 between Interchange 22 and Interchange 23 consists of three lane s in the eastbound direction. In the westbound direction, I-84 changes from two to th ree travel lanes just west of Interchange 23. The eastbound segment is 1.2 miles long while the westbound segment is 0.7 miles in length. Under the existing conditions, this segment operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour pe riods at the two-lane section along I- 84. • Under the future year condition, this se gment of I-84 will primarily consist of three lanes in each direction due to the proposed widening project currently in design. In addition, the Interchange 24 ex it ramp in the eastbound direction will be relocated west of the Interchange 23 entrance ramp. This segment is anticipated to operate at LOS E or worse in the future with three travel lanes in each direction of the mainline. • East of Interchange 23 – I-84 east of Interchange 23 in the eastbound direction has a lane drop, from three to two travel lanes. In the westbound direction, this segment consists of two travel lanes. Under existing conditions, the two lane section in the eastbound dire ction operates at LOS E during the weekday morning and evening peak hour periods. In the westbound direction, this segment shows a LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour periods. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-7 In the future, with three tr avel lanes in each direction due to the proposed widening projects, the westbound direc tion, between Interchange 23 and Interchange 24 is anticipated to operate at LOS F during th e weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. FIGURE 5-1 Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,390 4,250 5,970 5,810 800 920 1,040 1,200 (F) (E) (F) (F) INT. 20 ENT. RAMP (Rte. 8 NB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,410 3,390 4,020 3,840 400 640 500 740 (E) (F) (C) (D) INT. 23 ENT. RAMP N LEGEND 0,000 – Mainline Volume 0,000 -Ramp Volume (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,140 4,320 5,550 5,830 270 520 380 720 (D) (F) (F) (F) INT. 21 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 5,190 5,170 7,010 7,010 450 300 630 420 (F) (F) (F) (F) INT. 21 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,040 3,490 4,220 4,850 500 850 700 1180 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 20 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,940 3,100 4,080 4,310 1,450 1,150 1,890 1,500 (F) (F) (F) (F) INT. 20 ENT. RAMP (Rte. 8 SB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,130 3,700 4,340 5,140 220 330 300 460 (D) (E) (F) (F) INT. 18 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,410 4,840 5,930 6,550 1,000 1,450 1,400 2,020 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 23 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,740 4,870 6,380 6,590 600 550 830 760 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 22 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,540 2,640 3,520 3,670 400 460 560 640 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 19 ENT. RAMP (Highland Ave.) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,910 3,370 4,040 4,680 460 460 640 640 (D) (E) (F) (F) INT. 18 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,370 3,830 4,680 5,320 330 340 460 470 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 19 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,370 (C) 3,830 (D) 4,680 (D) 5,320 (E) 2,940 (D) 3,100 (D) 4,080 (F) 4,310 (F) 5,190 (D) 5,170 (D) 7,010 (E) 7,010 (E) 4,140 (D) 4,320 (D) 5,550 (E) 5,830 (E) 4,410 (D) 4,840 (D) 5,930 (F) 6,550 (F) 3,410 (C) 3,390 (C) 4,530 (D) 4,530 (D) 3,130 (D) 3,700 (E)4,340 (F) 5,140 (F) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS I-84 EASTBOUND Between Int. 17 & 18 Between Int. 18 & 19 Between Int. 19 & 20 Between Int. 20 & 21 Between Int. 22 & 23 East of Int. 23 Between Int. 21 & 22 WEAVE SECTION (See Fig. 5-5 ) FIGURE 5- 2 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS I-84 WESTBOUND N Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,020 4,860 5,660 6,710 1,100 1,650 1,430 2,150 (C) (D) (D) (F) INT. 20 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 5,150 5,390 7,150 7,350 600 330 840 460 (F) (F) (F) (F) INT. 21 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,920 4,180 5,950 5,670 340 270 470 380 (C) (C) (F) (D) INT. 22 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,420 4,350 6,130 5,910 130 170 180 240 (F) (F) (F) (F) INT. 23 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,950 3,910 5,480 5,290 1,200 1,480 1,670 2,060 (D) (E) (F) (F) INT. 22 ON RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,550 5,060 6,310 6,890 270 600 140 320 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 21 ENT. RAMP (Right) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,760 4,370 6,620 6,070 1,360 1,150 1,890 1,600 (F) (F) (F) (F) INT. 18 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,400 3,220 4,730 4,470 240 160 330 220 (D) (D) (F) (F) INT. 18 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,550 5,060 6,310 6,890 100 230 380 840 (F) (D) (F) (F) INT. 21 ENT. RAMP (Left) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,920 5,890 6,830 8,050 900 1,030 1,170 1,340 (D) (F) (F) (F) INT. 20 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,920 3,210 4,230 4,560 540 350 700 460 (C) (C) (F) (D) INT. 19 ENT. RAMP (Rte. 8 NB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,460 3,560 4,930 5,020 1,300 810 1,690 1,050 (F) (D) (F) (F) INT. 19 ENT. RAMP (Rte. 8 SB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,920 (C) 5,890 (C) 6,830 (D) 8,050 (D) 5,150 (E) 5,390 (E) 7,150 (F) 7,350 (F) 4,290 (D) 4,180 (D) 5,950 (F) 5,670 (E) 4,420 (F) 4,350 (F) 6,130 (F) 5,910 (F) 3,640 (E) 3,380 (E) 5,060 (F) 4,690 (F) 4,760 (C) 4,370 (C) 6,620 (D) 6,070 (D)2,920 (C) 3,210 (C) 4,230 (D) 4,560 (D) LEGEND 0,000 – Mainline Volume 0,000 -Ramp Volume (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) Between Int. 18 & 17 Between Int. 19 & 18Between Int. 20 & 19 Between Int. 21 & 20 Between Int. 22 & 21 Between Int. 23 & 22 East of Int. 23 WEAVE SECTION (See Fig. 5-6 ) WEAVE SECTION (See Fig. 5-6 ) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-10 Route 8 Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 pres ent the results of the analysis along Route 8 in the northbound and southbound directio ns respectively. These results are also shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. Table 5-8: Freeway Analysis Summary – Route 8 Northbound 2005 2030 SECTION ALONG I-84 Volume LOS Volume LOS Between Int. 29 and Int. 30 2000(2900) C(D) 2560(3700) D(E) Between Int. 30 and Int. 31 2350(3170) C(D) 3010(4050) D(F) Between Int. 31 and Int. 32 1550(2250) B(C) 1970(2850) C(D) Between Int. 32 and Int. 33 1250(2000) B(C) 1580(2520) B(C) Between Int. 33 and Int. 34 2310(4150) B(D) 3010(5390) C(E) Between Int. 34 and Int. 35 2570(4670) B(D) 3350(6070) C(F) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. Table 5-9: Freeway Analysis Summary – Route 8 Southbound 2005 2030 SECTION ALONG I-84 Volume LOS Volume LOS Between Int. 29 and Int. 30 2390(2530) B(B) 3130(3320) C(C) Between Int. 30 and Int. 31 2690(2680) D(D) 3520(3510) E(E) Between Int. 31 and Int. 32 1310(990) B(A) 1700(1290) B(B) Between Int. 32 and Int. 33 2760(2140) C(B) 3590(2790) C(C) Between Int. 33 and Int. 34 4160(2920) D(C) 5410(3800) E(C) Between Int. 34 and Int. 35 4490(3220) D(C) 5840(4190) E(D) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. • Between Interchanges 29 and 30 – Route 8 between Interchange 29 and Interchange 30 consists of two lanes in the northbound di rection and three lanes in the southbound direction. This segmen t is 1.5 miles long in the northbound direction and 1.7 miles long in the sout hbound direction. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour condition in the nort hbound direction due to an increase in traffic volumes. • Between Interchanges 30 and 31 – Route 8 between Interchange 30 and Interchange 31 consists of two lanes, 0.3 miles long, in both the northbound and southbound directions. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS F a nd LOS E in the northbound and southbound directions respectively during the w eekday evening peak hour condition. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-11 • Between Interchanges 31 and 32 – The segment along Route 8 between Interchange 31 and Interchange 32 consis ts of two lanes in the northbound and southbound directions. This segment is 0.1 miles long in the northbound and 0.2 miles long in the southbound direction. U nder the future year condition, this segment anticipated to ope rate at LOS D or better in the northbound and southbound directions. • Between Interchanges 32 and 33 – Route 8 between Interchange 32 and Interchange 33 consists of two lanes, 0.1 miles long, in both the northbound and southbound directions. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in the northbound and southbound directions. • Between Interchanges 33 and 34 – Route 8 between Interchange 33 and Interchange 34 consists of three lanes in the northbound and southbound directions. This segment is 0.8 miles long in the northbound direction and 0.5 miles long in the southbound direction. U nder the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LO S E during the weekday evening peak hour in the northbound direc tion and during the weekday mo rning peak hour in the southbound direction. • Between Interchanges 34 and 35 – Route 8 between Interchange 34 and Interchange 35 consists of three lanes, 0.3 miles long, in both the northbound and southbound directions. Under the future year condition, this segment is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday evening peak hour in the northbound direction and at LO S E during the weekday morning peak hour in the southbound direction. FIGURE 5- 3 N Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,570 (B) 4,670 (D) 3,350 (C) 6,070 (F) 2,310 (B) 4,150 (D) 3,010 (C) 5,390 (E) 1,250 (B) 2,000 (C) 1,580 (B) 2,520 (C) 2,000 (C) 2,900 (D) 2,560 (D) 3,700 (E) 1,550 (B) 2,250 (C) 1,970 (C) 2,850 (D) 2,350 (C) 3,170 (D) 3,010 (D) 4,050 (F) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,570 4,670 3,350 6,070 950 1,500 1,240 1,950 (A) (C) (B) (F) INT. 35 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,410 4,350 3,140 5,650 160 320 210 420 (B) (F) (D) (F) INT. 34 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,310 4,150 3,010 5,390 100 200 130 260 (C) (F) (D) (F) INT. 33 ENT. RAMP (Riverside St.) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 710 1,650 880 2,060 1,100 1,650 1,430 2,150 (B) (D) (C) (F) INT. 33 ENT. RAMP (I-84 WB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 710 1,650 880 2,060 500 850 700 1,180 (B) (C) (B) (D) INT. 33 ENT. RAMP (I-84 EB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,250 2,000 1,580 2,520 540 350 700 460 (B) (B) (B) (C) INT. 33 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,350 3,170 3,010 4,050 800 920 1040 1200 (C) (C) (C) (D) INT. 31 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,880 2,730 2,400 3,480 470 440 610 570 (B) (C) (C) (D) INT. 30 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,000 2,900 2,560 3,700 120 170 160 220 (B) (B) (B) (C) INT. 30 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,550 2,250 1,970 2,850 300 250 390 330 (B) (C) (B) (C) INT. 32 EX. RAMP LEGEND 0,000 – Mainline Volume 0,000 -Ramp Volume (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND Between Int. 34 & 35 Between Int. 33 & 34 Between Int. 32 & 33 Between Int. 29 & 30 Between Int. 31 & 32 Between Int. 30 & 31 WEAVE SECTION (See Fig. 5-7 ) NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. FIGURE 5-4 4,490 (D) 3,220 (C)5,840 (E) 4,190 (D) 4,160 (D) 2,920 (C) 5,410 (E) 3,800 (C) 2,760 (C) 2,140 (B) 3,590 (C) 2,790 (C) 1,310 (B) 990 (A) 1,700 (B) 1,290 (B) 2,690 (D) 2,680 (D) 3,520 (E) 3,510 (E) 2,390 (B) 2,530 (B) 3,130 (C) 3,320 (C) N Existing Future AM PM AM PM LEGEND 0,000 – Mainline Volume 0,000 -Ramp Volume (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 3,200 2,170 4,160 2,820 1,290 1,050 1,680 1,370 (F) (C) (F) (F) INT. 35 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,490 3,220 5,840 4,190 330 300 430 390 (C) (B) (C) (B) INT. 34 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,160 2,920 5,410 3,800 1,100 630 1,430 820 (D) (C) (F) (C) INT. 33 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,310 990 1,700 1,290 280 290 390 400 (B) (B) (C) (B) INT. 31 ENT. RAMP (I-84 EB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,690 2,680 3,520 3,510 450 350 590 450 (C) (C) (D) (D) INT. 30 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,240 2,330 2,930 3,060 150 200 200 260 (C) (C) (D) (D) INT. 30 ENT. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,790 1,650 2,350 2,170 900 1,030 1,170 1,340 (C) (C) (D) (D) INT. 31 ENT. RAMP ((I-84 WB) Existing Future AM PM AM PM 2,760 2,140 3,590 2,790 1,450 1,150 1,890 1,500 (C) (B) (F) (C) INT. 31 EX. RAMP Between Int. 34 & 35 Between Int. 33 & 34 Between Int. 31 & 32 Between Int. 29 & 30 Between Int. 30 & 31 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND Between Int. 32 & 33 Existing Future AM PM AM PM 4,160 2,920 5,410 3,800 300 150 390 190 (F) (D) (F) (E) INT. 32 EX. RAMP Existing Future AM PM AM PM 1,310 990 1,700 1,290 200 370 260 480 (B) (B) (B) (B) INT 31 ENT. RAMP (Riverside St.) WEAVE SECTION (See Fig. 5-7 ) NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-14 5.1.2 Weaving Analysis In order to evaluate traffic operations along the freeway, a weaving analysis is necessary where the freeway consists of entrance ramps followed by exit ramps at close proximity to each other. In this study area, weaving an alysis was performed in the Waterbury area where a number of such operations take place along I-84 in the eastbound and westbound directions and along Route 8 in the northbound and southbound directions. In order to evaluate weaving operations along I-84 and Route 8, freeway and ramp geometry, freeway and ramp speeds, and lengt h of weaving section (distance between on and exit ramps) were used as inputs for the analysis. The following weaves were identified for evaluation along I-84: • Route 8 NB Entrance Ramp to Meadow Street Exit Ramp (Eastbound Direction) (upper level); • Meadow Street Entrance Ramp to R oute 8 NB (Westbound Direction) (lower level); • Meadow Street Entrance Ramp to Ro ute 8 SB (Westbound Direction); and, • Route 8 Southbound to Highland Avenue Interchange 18 Exit Ramp (Westbound Direction). The following weaves were identif ied for evaluation along Route 8: • West Main Street Entrance Ramp to Watertown Avenue Exit ramp (Northbound Direction); • Watertown Avenue Entrance Ramp to We st Main Street Exit Ramp (Southbound Direction); The results of the weaving analyses are su mmarized in Table 5-10and shown in Figure 5-5 through Figure 5-7. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-15 Table 5-10: Weaving Analysis Summary – I-84 and Route 8 2005 2030 SECTION ALONG I-84 AM PM AM PM I-84 Eastbound Direction Route 8 NB to Meadow Street E D F F Westbound Direction Bank Street to Route 8 NB C E E F Bank Street to Route 8 SB D D F F Route 8 Southbound to Highland Avenue E D F F Route 8 Northbound Direction West Main Street to Watertown Ave. C E D F Southbound Direction Watertown Avenue to West Main Street E C F E • I-84 between Route 8 NB Entrance Ramp and Meadow Street Exit Ramp – This weaving section is 950 feet long a nd has three mainline lanes along I-84 in the eastbound direction. As s hown in the table, this weaving section operates at LOS E during the weekday morning peak hour under existing conditions due to heavy traffic volumes along I-84 and the Route 8 entrance ramp. Under the future year condition, this section is anticipate d to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • I-84 between Meadow Street Entrance Ramp and Route 8 NB Exit Ramp – This weaving section is 1800 feet long and I-84 has th ree mainline lanes along I- 84 in the westbound direction. Under the fu ture year condition, this section is anticipated to operate at LOS E and LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. • I-84 between Meadow Street Entrance Ramp and Route 8 SB Exit Ramp – The weaving section between Meadow Street and Route 8 SB is 900 feet long and has three mainline lanes along I-84 in the westbound direction. Under th e future year condition, this weaving section is an ticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • I-84 between Route 8 SB Entrance Ramp and Highland Avenue – This weaving section between Route 8 SB a nd Highland Avenue is 1430 feet long and has three mainline lanes along I-84 in the westbound direction. Under th e future Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-16 year condition, this section is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • Route 8 between West Main Street and Watertown Avenue – This weaving section between West Main Street and Watertown Avenue is 1490 feet long and has three mainline lanes along Route 8 in the northbound direction. The exit ramp to Watertown Avenue is a left hand exit ramp and therefore, this weaving movement requires a minimum of one la ne change. Under the future year condition, this section is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday evening peak hours. • Route 8 between Watertown Ave nue and West Main Street – This weaving section between Watertown Avenue and We st Main Street is 1490 feet long and has three mainline lanes along Route 8 in the southbound direction. Under the future year condition, this section is an ticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS E during the evening peak hours. FIGURE 5-5 WEAVE ANALYSIS I-84 EASTBOUND N LEGEND AM (PM)-Peak Hour Volumes (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) F F D E PM AM PM AM Future Existing Route 8 NB to Int. Exit 21 4390 (4250) 5970 (5810) I-84 EB I-84 EB Rte. 8 NB Exit 21 4000 (4040) 5450 (5510) 4740 (4870) 6380 (6590) 800 (920) 1040 (1200) 60 (90) 110 (120) 450 (300) 630 (420) 3 90 ( 2 10 ) 5 20 ( 3 00 ) 74 0 ( 8 30) 9 3 0 ( 1 080 ) FIGURE 5-6 WEAVE ANALYSIS I-84 WESTBOUND N F E E C PM AM PM AM Future Existing Bank St. Ent. To Rte 8 NB Exit 1100 (1650) 1430 (2150) Rte. 8 NB Bank St. I-84 WB I-84 WB 0 (0) 0 (0) 270 (600) 380 (840) 2920 (3210) 4230 (4560) 2650 (2610) 3850 (3720) 3750 (4260) 5280 (5870) 1 100 ( 1 6 50) 1 430 ( 2 1 50) 27 0 ( 6 00) 3 8 0 ( 8 40) F F D E PM AM PM AM Future Existing Rte 8 SB Ent. to Int. 18 Exit 1150 (1150) 1890 (1600) Exit 18 Rte. 8 SB I-84 WB I-84 WB 130 (80) 170 (110) 1300 (810) 1690 (1050) 3070 (2870) 4730 (4470) 1900 (2140) 3210 (3530) 2920 (3210) 4930 (5020) 1 020 ( 1 0 70) 1 720 ( 1 4 90) 11 70 ( 7 30 ) 1 5 20 ( 9 40 ) F F D D PM AM PM AM Future Existing Bank St. Ent. To Rte. 8 SB Exit 3750 (4260) 5660 (6710) I-84 WB I-84 WB Rte. 8 SB Bank St. 3750 (4260) 5660 (6710) 4550 (5060) 6690 (7730) 900 (1030) 1170 (1340) 100 (230) 140 (320) 100 (230) 140 (320) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 80 0 ( 8 00) 1 0 30 ( 1 02 0 ) LEGEND AM (PM)- Peak Hour Volumes (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) FIGURE 5-7 WEAVE ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 N NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. F D E C PM AM PM AM Future Existing Int. 34 Ent. to Int. 35 Exit 1620 (3180) 2110 (4120) Rte. 8 NB Rte. 8 NB Exit 35 Ent. 34 1480 (2890) 1920 (3740) 2410 (4360) 3140 (5650) 950 (1500) 1240 (1950) 20 (30) 20 (40) 160 (320) 210 (420) 1 40 ( 2 90 ) 1 90 ( 3 80 ) 93 0 ( 1 470 ) 1 2 20 ( 1 91 0 ) E F C E PM AM PM AM Future Existing Int. 35 Ent. To Int. 34 Exit 3200 (2170) 4160 (2820) Rte. 8 SB Rte. 8 SB Ent. 35 Exit 34 3000 (1970) 3900 (2570) 4160 (2920) 5410 (3800) 1290 (1050) 1680 (1370) 130 (100) 170 (140) 1360 (300) 430 (390) 2 00 ( 2 00 ) 2 60 ( 2 50 ) 11 60 ( 9 50 ) 1 5 10 ( 1 23 0 ) LEGEND AM (PM)- Peak Hour Volumes (A) – Level of Service – Existing Condition (2005) – Future Condition (2030) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-20 5.1.3 Freeway Ramp analysis A freeway-ramp junction analysis is performed along I-84 and Route 8 in both directions during the weekday morning and evening p eak hour conditions to evaluate traffic operations. The inputs to the analysis are fr eeway and ramp geometry, speed, and traffic volumes. I-84 The results of the freeway-ramp analyses along I-84 are presented in Table 5-11 and Table 5-12 in the eastbound and westbound direct ions respectively. These results are also shown in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-21 Table 5-11: Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound Direction 2005 2030 INTERCHANGE on I-84 Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Interchange 18 Exit ramp to Chase Parkway 3130(3700) 220(330) D(E) 4340(5140) 300(460) F(F) Entrance ramp from Chase Parkway 2910(3370) 460(460) D(E) 4040(4680) 640(640) F(F) Interchange 19 Exit ramp to Sunnyside Ave./Route 8 SB 3370(3830) 330(340) D(D) 4680(5320) 460(470) F(F) Exit ramp to Route 8 NB 3040(3490) 500(850) D(D) 4220(4850) 700(1180) F(F) Entrance ramp from Highland Ave. 2540(2640) 400(460) D(D) 3520(3670) 560(640) F(F) Interchange 20 Entrance ramp from Route 8 SB 2940( 3100) 1450(1150) F(F) 4080(4310) 1890(1500) F(F) Entrance ramp from Route 8 NB 4390(4250) 800(920) F(E) 5970(5810) 1040(1200) F(F) Interchange 21 Exit ramp to Meadow St. 5190(5170) 450(300) F(F) 7010(7010) 630(420) F(F) Entrance ramp from Meadow St. 4140(4320) 270(520) D(F) 5550(5830) 380(720) F(F) Interchange 22 Exit ramp to South Main Street 4740( 4870) 600(550) D(D) 6380(6590) 830(760) F(F) Interchange 23 Exit ramp to Frontage Road 4410(4840) 1000(1450) D(F) 5930(6550) 1400(2020) F(F) Entrance ramp from Hamilton Ave. 3410( 3390) 400(640) E(F) 4020(3840) 500(740) C(D) Interchange 24 Exit ramp to Harpers Ferry Road – – – 4530(4530) 510(690) D(D) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-22 Table 5-12: Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound Direction 2005 2030 INTERCHANGE on I-84 Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Interchange 18 Exit ramp to West Main St./Highland Av e. 4760(4370) 1360(1150) F(F) 6620(6070) 1890(1600) F(F) Entrance ramp from Chase Pkwy. 3400( 3220) 240(160) D(D) 4730(4470) 330(220) F(F) Interchange 19 Entrance ramp from Route 8 SB 3460( 3560) 1300(810) F(D) 4930(5020) 1690(1050) F(F) Entrance ramp from Route 8 NB 2920(3210) 540(350) C(C) 4230(4560) 700(460) F(D) Interchange 20 Exit ramp to Route 8 SB 4920(5890) 900(1030) D(F) 6830(8050) 1170(1340) F(F) Exit ramp to Route 8 NB 4020(4860) 1100(1650) C(D) 5660(6710) 1430(2150) D(F) Interchange 21 Exit ramp to Meadow St. 5150(5390) 600(330) F(F) 7150(7350) 840(460) F(F) Entrance ramp from Bank St. (Left) 4550(5060) 100(230) F(D) 6310(6890) 380(840) F(F) Entrance ramp from Bank St. (Right) 4550(5060) 270(600) D(D) 6310(6890) 140(320) F(F) Interchange 22 Exit ramp to Union St. 4290(4180) 340(270) C(C) 5950(5670) 470(380) F(D) Entrance ramp from Union St. 3950(3910) 1200(1480) D(E) 5480(5290) 1670(2060) F(F) Interchange 23 Exit ramp to Hamilton Ave. 4420(4350) 130(170) F(F) 6130(5910) 180(240) F(F) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak levels of service shown in parenthesis. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-23 • Interchange 18 – This interchange primarily has two mainline lanes and single lane entrance and exit ramps along I-84 in the eastbound and westbound directions. However, in the westbound di rection I-84 has three mainline lanes at the Highland Avenue exit ramp junction. Under the future year condition, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours in the eastbound direction. In the westb ound direction, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours and the entrance ramp from Chase Parkway is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. • Interchange 19 – This interchange in the eas tbound direction has two mainline lanes and a left hand exit ramp along I-84 to Route 8 northbound. In the westbound direction, there are three mainline lanes along I-84 and single lane entrance and exit ramps. Under the fu ture year condition, in the eastbound direction, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening p eak hour conditions. In the westbound direction, the entrance ramp from Route 8 southbound is an ticipated to operate at LOS F in the future year and the en trance ramp from Route 8 northbound is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour condition. • Interchange 20 – This interchange in the eas tbound direction has two mainline lanes just west of the entrance ramp from Route 8 southbound. There is a lane addition along I-84 eastbound just east of the Route 8 southbound merge. In the westbound direction, I-84 has three mainline lanes and two auxiliary lanes to the Route 8 ramps. In the eastbound direction, the entrance ramp from Route 8 southbound and I-84 junction operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour under existing conditions. This is a left hand merge with I-84 and therefore traffic operations at this j unction are affected. The junction of I-84 and the entrance ramp from Route 8 nor thbound operates at LOS E or worse under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate LO S F in the eastbound direction. Under the future year condition, in the westbound dire ction, the junction of the exit ramp to Route 8 northbound with I-84 operates at LOS D during the weekday morning peak hour condition. All other freeway-ra mp junctions operate at LOS F in the future year condition. • Interchange 21 – In the vicinity of this interchange, I-84 has three mainline lanes in the eastbound direction and an auxiliary lane that serves the Meadow Street exit ramp. In the westbound direction, I-8 4 has three mainline lanes serving this interchange. All ramps to and from I-84 are single lane ramps. The exit ramp to Meadow Street and I-84 eastbound junc tion operates at LOS F under existing conditions and is anticipated to operate at LOS F under future year conditions. The entrance ramp from Meadow Street is anticipated to operate at LOS F in the future year condition. In the westbound di rection, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS F in the future. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-24 • Interchange 22 – In the eastbound and westbound directions, this interchange has three mainline lanes along I-84. All ramps to and from I-84 are single lane ramps. The entrance ramp from Union Street and I-84 westbound junction operates at LOS E during the weekday evening peak hour under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, all freeway-ramp junctions operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours ex cept the junction of the exit ramp to Union Street with I-84 westbound, which operates at LOS D during the weekday evening peak hour condition. • Interchange 23 – In the eastbound dire ction, a lane drop from three to two travel lane occurs past the exit ramp to the frontage road. In the westbound direction, a lane addition occurs pa st the exit ramp to Hamilton Avenue. Under existing conditions, the Hamilton Avenue exit ramp junction with I-84 westbound operates at LOS F due to the availability of two travel lanes in the westbound direction. • Under the future year cond ition, three travel lanes will be provided along I-84 in both directions as a result of a previous ly proposed widening project. Given the increase in traffic volumes, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS F in the future year condition in both directions. • Interchange 24 – A future ConnDOT propos al brings the I-84 eastbound Interchange 24 exit ramp prior to the Ha milton Avenue entrance ramp to reduce the amount of traffic on I-84 and to pr eserve capacity. Under the future year condition, the Interchange 24 exit ramp is anticipated to operate at LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. Route 8 The results of the freeway-ramp analyses along Route 8 are presented in Table 5-13 Table 5-14 in the northbound and southbound dir ections respectively. These results are also shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. • Interchange 30 – This interchange primarily has two mainline lanes and single lane entrance and exit ramps along R oute 8 in the northbound and southbound directions. Under the future year condi tion, all freeway ramp junctions are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • Interchange 31 – This interchange primarily has two mainline lanes and single lane entrance and exit ramps along R oute 8 in the northbound and southbound directions. Under the futu re year condition, the left hand I-84 eastbound exit ramp junction with Route 8 southbound is antici pated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour condition. This is due to the heavy traffic volumes exiting at the exit ramp to I- 84 eastbound in the future year. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-25 Table 5-13: Freeway Ramp Analysis Summary – Route 8 Northbound Direction 2005 2030 INTERCHANGE on Route 8 Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Interchange 30 Exit ramp to Leonard Street 2000(2900) 120(170) B(B) 2560(3700) 160(220) B(C) Entrance ramp from Leonard Street 1880(2730) 470(440) B(C) 2400(3480) 610(570) C(D) Interchange 31 Exit ramp to I-84 EB 2350(3170) 800(920) C(C) 3010(4050) 1040(1200) C(D) Interchange 32 Exit ramp to Riverside St. 1550( 2250) 300(250) B(C) 1970(2850) 390(330) B(C) Interchange 33 Exit ramp to I-84 WB 1250(2000) 540(350) B(B) 1580(2520) 700(460) B(C) Entrance ramp from I-84 EB 710(1650) 500(850) B(C) 880(2060) 700(1180) B(D) Entrance ramp from Riverside St. 2310(4150) 100(200) C(F) 3010(5390) 130(260) D(F) Entrance ramp from I-84 WB 710(1650) 1100(1650) B(D) 880(2060) 1430(2150) C(F) Interchange 34 Entrance ramp from W. Main Street 2410(4350) 160(320) B(F) 3140(5650) 210(420) D(F) Interchange 35 Exit ramp to Route 73 2570(4670) 950(1500) A(C) 3350(6070) 1240(1950) B(F) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-26 Table 5-14: Freeway Ramp Analysis Su mmary – Route 8 Southbound Direction 2005 2030 INTERCHANGE on I-84 Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Mainline Volume Ramp Volume LOS Interchange 30 Exit ramp to Charles Street 2690(2680) 450(350) C(C) 3520(3510) 590(450) D(D) Entrance ramp from Charles Street 2240(2330) 150(200) C(C) 2930(3060) 200(260) D(D) Interchange 31 Entrance ramp from I-84 WB 1790(1650) 900(1030) C(C) 2350(2170) 1170(1340) D(D) Entrance ramp from I-84 EB 1310(990) 280(290) B(B) 1700(1290) 390(400) C(B) Entrance ramp from Riverside Street 1310(990) 200(370) B(B) 1700(1290) 260(480) B(B) Exit ramp to I-84 EB 2760(2140) 1450(1150) C(B) 3590(2790) 1890(1500) F(C) Interchange 32 Exit ramp to Riverside St. 4160( 2920) 300(150) F(D) 5410(3800) 390(190) F(E) Interchange 33 Exit ramp to I-84 WB 4160(2920) 1100(630) D(C) 5410(3800) 1430(820) F(C) Interchange 34 Exit ramp to W. Main Street 4490( 3220) 330(300) C(B) 5840(4190) 430(390) C(B) Interchange 35 Entrance ramp from Route 73 3200(2170) 1290(1050) F(C) 4160(2820) 1680(1370) F(F) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-27 • Interchange 32 – This interchange primarily ha s two mainline lanes along Route 8 in the northbound direction and has th ree mainline lanes in the southbound direction. Under the future year condition, the left hand Riverside Street exit ramp junction with Route 8 southbound is anticip ated to operate at LOS F and LOS E during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions respectively. • Interchange 33 – This interchange primarily has two mainline lanes in the northbound direction and three lanes in the southbound direction. In the northbound direction, there are three travel lanes on Route 8 after the merge with the I-84 eastbound entrance ramp. The entran ce ramp junctions with Riverside Street and I-84 westbound are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday evening peak hour condition. In the s outhbound direction, the I-84 westbound exit ramp junction with Route 8 is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour condition in the future year. • Interchange 34 – This interchange primarily has three mainline lanes in the northbound and southbound directions. In the northbound direction, the West Main Street entrance ramp junction w ith Route 8 Northbound operates at LOS F under existing conditions. • Interchange 35 – This interchange primarily has two mainline lanes and two auxiliary lanes serving the Route 73 exit ramp in the northbound direction and the Route 73 entrance ramp in the south bound direction. In the northbound direction, the Route 73 exit ramp junction with Rout e 8 is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday evening peak hour condition. In the southbound direction, the Route 73 entrance ramp junction with Rout e 8 is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour condition. 5.1.4 Intersection Analysis The level of service (LOS) analysis was pe rformed at study area intersections for the existing configurations along the I-84 and R oute 8 corridors during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under current and future year traffic volumes. Signalized Intersection Analysis The signal plans used for traffic analyses were provided by ConnDOT and the City of Waterbury. The results of the LOS analysis for signalized intersections along I-84 under existing and future volumes are s hown in Table 5-15 and Figure 5-8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-28 Table 5-15: Capacity Analysis Summary – Signalized Intersections along I-84 A.M. P.M. INTERSECTION 2005 2030 2005 2030 Interchange 18 I-84 WB Exit ramp and W. Main St. E F F F Interchange 19-20 Sunnyside St./Riverside St. B C B B Freight St./Riverside St. NB C C C C Freight St./Riverside St. SB C C C C W. Main St./Highland Avenue C F C F W. Main St./Riverside St. NB C D E F W. Main St./Riverside St. SB E F F F Interchange 21 I-84 EB Entrance ramp/Meadow St. C C B B I-84 EB Exit ramp/Meadow St. B C B B Field St./Meadow St. B C C C I-84 EB Exit ramp/South Main St. C C C D Grand Street/Meadow Street B/E^ D/F^ C/C^ C/D^ Meadow Street/Bank Street C C C C Grand Street/Bank Street C C C E Union Street/S. Main St. C E F F Union Street/S. Elm St. D/E^ E/F^ D/F^ F/F^ Willow Street/Freight Street D/D^ E/F^ C/D^ D/F^ Willow Street/Main Street E/F^ F/F^ F/F^ F/F^ Interchange 22 Baldwin St./McMahon Street/I-84 B B B B Baldwin St./Scoville St. B B B C I-84 WB Exit ramp/Union St. C D C D Union/Brass Mill Entrance (West) A A B B Union/Brass Mill Entrance (East) A A A A Union Street/Mill Street B C B C Interchange 23 I-84 WB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Ave. B D C E I-84 WB Exit ramp and Hamilton Ave. B B B B I-84 EB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Ave. C C D F Washington Street and Silver/Hamilton F F F F ^ With pedestrian phase Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-29 • I-84 WB Exit ramp and West Main Street – The eastbound and westbound directions along West Main Street at th is intersection consist of one general purpose lanes, while in the northbound direction from the I-84 westbound exit ramp there is left turn lane and a shared through and right lane. This intersection operates at poor levels of service LOS E or worse during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • Sunnyside Avenue and Riverside Street – In the northbound direction along Riverside Street, there are two through lanes while in the southbound direction there is a single through lane and an excl usive right turn lane. In the eastbound direction along Sunnyside Avenue there is a single lane used for left and right turning movements. Under the future year condition, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS C and LOS B during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. • Freight Street and Riverside Street NB – In the eastbound and westbound directions, Freight Street has two lanes for all movements. Riverside Street in the northbound direction has a left turn lane, a through lane, and an exclusive right turn lane at this intersection. Under the future year condition, this in tersection is anticipated to operate at acceptable leve ls of service LOS C during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. • Freight Street and Riverside Street SB – In the westbound direction along Freight Street, there are two left turn lanes entering Riverside Street. In the southbound direction, Riverside Street has an ex clusive left turn lane, a shared left and through lane, and a through lane. Th is intersection operates at LOS C during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersecti on is anticipated to operate at LOS C during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • West Main Street and Highland Street – This intersection has single lane approaches on West Main Street. Highland Avenue has separate turn lanes at the intersection. Under the futu re year condition, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. • West Main Street and Riverside Street NB – This intersection has an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes in the eastbound direction on West Main Street. In the westbound dire ction, there is a through lane and an exclusive right turn lane on West Main Street. The nort hbound Riverside Street approach consists of two left turn lanes, a through lane, a nd an exclusive right turn lane at the intersection. Under existi ng conditions, the intersecti on operates at LOS C and E during the weekday morning and eveni ng peak hour. Under the future year Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-30 condition, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS D and LOS F during the weekday morning and even ing peak hours respectively. • West Main Street and Riverside Street SB – In the eastbound direction along West Main Street there is a through and a shared through and right lane. In the westbound direction along West Ma in Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. In the no rthbound and southbound directions along Riverside Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through and right lane. This intersection operates at LOS E and LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively under existing conditions. Riverside Street in the northbound direction ope rates at LOS F during both peak hour periods. Under the future year conditi on, this intersection operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. Riverside Street operates at or over capacity during both peak hour periods. • I-84 EB Entrance ramp and Meadow Street – The eastbound approach along Meadow Street has two left turn la nes onto I-84 eastbound while the westbound direction along Meadow Street has two th rough lanes. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • I-84 EB Exit ramp and Meadow Street – The eastbound and westbound approaches along Meadow Street have two through lanes while the exit ramp from I-84 eastbound has exclusive left and right turn lanes. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under ex isting and future year conditions. • Meadow Street and Field Street – In the northbound direction, Meadow Street has two approach lanes while in the s outhbound direction it has four approach lanes at this intersection. In the we stbound direction along Field Street, there are two left turn lanes and a channelized right turn lane to Meadow Street. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Market Square Ave./I-84 EB Exit ramp and Main Street – The I-84 eastbound exit ramp has a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through and right turn lane. In the northbound direction along Main Street, there is a single approach lane while in th e southbound direction there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through and right turn lane. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Meadow Street and Grand Street – In the eastbound direction along Grand Street, this inters ection has a single approach lane while in the westbound direction along Grand Street there is a shared left and through lane and two Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-31 exclusive right turn lanes. In the northbound and southbound directions along Meadow Street, there are two approach lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at LOS B and LO S C during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS D and LOS C during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectivel y. If the pedestrian phase is used, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday morning peak hour under the future year condition. • Meadow Street and Bank Street – In the eastbound direction along Meadow Street, there are two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane, while in the westbound direction there is an exclusive le ft turn lane and a shared through and right lane. In the northbound direction along Bank Street there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared th rough and right turn lane. In the southbound direction, there are exclusive left and ri ght turn lanes along with a single through lane at this intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Grand Street and Bank Street – In the eastbound direction, along Grand Street there are two approach lanes while in the westbound direction there is an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. In the southbound direction along Bank Street, there are two a pproach lanes at this intersection. Under the future year condition, this intersection oper ates at LOS C and LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. With inclusion of the pedestrian phase, the intersection op erates at LOS D and LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour c onditions respectively. The left turn movement from Grand Street in the west bound direction operates at LOS F with the inclusion of the pedestrian phase during the evening peak hour condition. • Union Street and South Main Street – In the eastbound direction, along Union Street there is an exclusive left turn la ne, a through lane, and a shared through and right turn lane. In the westbound direc tion along Union Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane, a through lane, a nd an exclusive right turn lane. In the northbound direction on South Ma in Street there are two approach lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at LOS C and LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectiv ely under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E and LOS F during the weekday morning a nd evening peak hours respectively. • Union Street and South Elm Street – In the eastbound direction along Union Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through and right lane. In the westbound direction along Union Street th ere are two approach lanes. In the northbound direction along Sout h Elm Street, there is a single approach lane while in the southbound direc tion there is a shared left and through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. This intersection operates at LOS D during the weekday Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-32 morning and evening peak hours under existing conditions. With inclusion of the pedestrian phase, the level of service deteriorates to LOS E and LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions respectively. Under the future year condition, this intersecti on operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours with or without the pedestrian phase. • Willow Street and Freight Street – In the eastbound direction along Freight Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane and dual right turn lanes. In the northbound and the southbound directions al ong Willow Street, there are two approach lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at LOS D and LOS C during the weekday morning and ev ening peak hours respectively under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS E and LOS D during the weekda y morning and evening peak hours respectively. With the use of pedestrian phase, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekda y morning and evening peak hours respectively. • Willow Street and West Main Street – In the eastbound direction, Main Street has a through and a through and right shared lane. In the westbound dir ection, Main Street has an exclusiv e left turn, a through and a shared through and right turn lane. In the northbound and s outhbound directions along Willow Street, there is a shared through and left lane and an exclusive right turn lane. This intersection operates at LOS E and LO S F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively under ex isting conditions. Willow Street operates at LOS F during the evening peak hour condition. With inclusion of the pedestrian phase, the level of service deteriorates to LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. The pedestrian phase forces Willow Street to operate at LOS F during the morning and evening peak hour conditions. Under the future year condition, this in tersection operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour c onditions. Willow Street operates at LOS F during the morning and evening peak hours. With inclusion of the pedestrian phase, the intersection operates at LOS F with higher amounts of delay on Willow Street and Main Street. • I-84 EB Entrance ramp and Baldwin Street – In the northbound and southbound directions, Baldwin Street ha s two approach lanes while in the westbound direction the exit ramp from I-84 eastbound has an exclusive left turn lane and dual right turn lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Mill Street and Baldwin Street – In the northbound direction, Baldwin Street has a shared left and through lane, a through lane and an exclusive righ t turn lane. In the southbound direction, there are two a pproach lanes on Baldwin Street at the intersection. On Mill Street, there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through right tune lane. The Scoville Street approach has a single lane approach at Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-33 the intersection. The intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning a nd evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • I-84 WB Exit ramp and Hamilton Ave./Union Street – In the eastbound and westbound directions along Hamilton Avenue and Union Street, there are two approach lanes while the exit ramp fr om I-84 westbound has exclusive left and right turn lanes at this intersection. Th is intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or bette r) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing conditions. Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. • Union Street and Brass Mill Mall Entrance (West) – In the eastbound and westbound directions along Union Street, th ere are two approach lanes while in the southbound direction from the Brass M ill Mall, there are exclusive left and right turn lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or bette r) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Union Street and Brass Mill Mall Entrance (West) – In the eastbound and westbound directions along Union Street, th ere are two approach lanes while in the southbound direction from the Brass Mill Mall, there are two left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane at this intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Union Street and Mill Street – In the eastbound and westbound directions, Union Street has exclusive turn lanes and a single through lane while from Mill Street there is a shared left and right la ne. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • I-84 WB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Avenue – In the eastbound and westbound directions along Hamilton Avenue there two through lanes while the westbound approach has dual left turn la nes, the eastbound approach has two exclusive right turn lane at this inters ection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing conditions . Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS D a nd LOS E during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. • I-84 WB Exit ramp and Hamilton Avenue – In the eastbound and westbound directions along Hamilton Avenue, there are two approach lanes while the exit ramp from I-84 westbound has exclusive le ft and right turn lanes at this intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-34 better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • I-84 EB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Avenue – In the northbound direction along Hamilton Avenue, there are two approach lanes while in the southbound direction there is an exclus ive left turn lane and a through lane. The frontage road from the west has a shared left and th rough, a through and an exclusive right turn lane at this intersection. Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS C and LOS F during the wee kday morning and evening peak hours respectively. During the evening peak hour, eastbound right turn movement operates at LOS F. • Washington Street and Silver St./Hamilton Ave. – In the eastbound and westbound directions on Washi ngton Street and Silver Avenue there are exclusive turn lanes for left and right turn movements and a single through lane along both approaches. The westbound approach has a channelized right turn movement to Silver Street. In the northbound a nd southbound directions along Hamilton Avenue, there are exclusive left turn la nes on both approaches. In the northbound direction, a through and a sh ared through and right lane is provided while in the southbound direction a shared through a nd right lane is provided at this intersection. This intersection operates at LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing conditi ons. The intersection operates at poor levels of service due to heavy volumes along Washington Street and Hamilton Avenue. Under the future year condition, th e level of service at this intersection deteriorates to LOS F during the weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. Table 5-16 presents the results of the LOS analysis for signalized intersections along Route 8. These results are al so presented in Figure 5-8. Table 5-16: Capacity Analysis Summary – Signalized Intersections along Route 8 A.M. P.M. INTERSECTION 2005 2030 2005 2030 Leonard Street and Washington Ave. B B B B Charles St./Rte 8 Int. 30 Exit ramp/Washington Ave. C D C C Bank Street and West Liberty Street B B B B Leonard Street and Bank Street A A A A Riverside St. SB/Charles St. and Bank Street B B B B Bank Street and Congress Ave. A A A A W. Main Street/Thomaston Ave. and Century Plaza D F F F • Leonard Street and Washington Avenue – The Washington Avenue eastbound approach has two exclusive left turn la nes and a through lane. The Leonard Street northbound approach has two general purpose lanes. This intersection operates at Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-35 acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Charles Street/Route 8 Int. 30 Exit ramp/Congress Avenue – The Congress Avenue eastbound approach has three genera l purpose lanes. The Charles Street approach has an exclusive le ft turn lane and two through lanes. The Int. 30 Exit ramp has an exclusive left turn lane a nd a through lane. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing year co nditions. In the future year, this intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS C and LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. • Bank Street and West Liberty Street – The Bank Street approach has one general purpose lane in each direction th e intersection. The West Liberty Street approach has a one lane approach at the intersection. The intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Bank Street and Leonard Street – The Bank Street approach has two general purpose lanes in the westbound direction. The Leonard Street approach has a left turn, a through, and a right turn lane in the northbound di rection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under ex isting and future year conditions. • Bank Street and Riverside St. SB/Charles Street – The Bank Street approach has a right turn lane in the eastbound di rection. In the westbound direction, Bank Street has two left turn lanes and two through lanes at the intersection. In the southbound direction, Riverside Street has an exclusive right turn lane and two through lanes. This intersecti on operates at acceptable leve ls of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Bank Street and Congress Avenue – The Bank Street approach has a shared left and through lane and an ex clusive right turn lane in the southbound direction. In the northbound direction, Bank Street has a general purpose lane for all movements. In the eastbound direction, Congress Avenue has a single lane approach at the intersection. This inters ection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • West Main Street/Thomaston Avenue/Century Plaza – The West Main Street approach in the eastbound direction has two general purpose lanes while in the westbound direction there is an exclusive left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through and right turn lane. In the northbound and southbound directions, the lane arrangements are similar. There is a shared left and through lane and an exclusive right turn lane on both approaches. Under existing conditions, the Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-36 intersection operates at LOS D and LOS F respectively during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectivel y. Under the future year condition, this intersection operates at LOS F duri ng the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Unsignalized Intersections Un-signalized intersection analys is was performed at stop sign controlled intersections in the study area. Roadway geometry and tra ffic volumes were used as input for the analysis. Table 5-17 summarizes the result s of the LOS analyses for un-signalized intersections along I-84. These results are also presented in Figure 5-8. Table 5-17: Capacity Analysis Summary – Un-signalized Intersections along I-84 AM PM 2005 2030 2005 2030 Interchange 19-20 I-84 EB Entrance ramp/Highland Ave. Movement Southbound LOS A B B B Interchange 21 I-84 WB Exit ramp/Field St. Approach Westbound LOS F F C D • I-EB Entrance ramp and Highland Avenue – This intersection has single approach lanes on Highland Avenue. Th ere is no STOP sign control at the intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • I-84 WB Exit ramp and Field Street – This intersection has single approach lanes on Field Street and the exit ramp from I-84 westbound. This intersection operates at LOS F and LOS C during th e weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively under existing conditions. The I-84 WB Exit ramp operates at LOS F due to heavy traffic volumes during the morning peak hour condition. Under the future year condition, this in tersection operates at LOS F and LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively. Table 5-18summarizes the results of the LOS analyses for un-signalized intersections along Route 8. these results are also presented in Figure 5-8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-37 Table 5-18: Capacity Analysis Summary – Un-signalized Intersections along I-84 AM PM INTERSECTION 2005 2030 2005 2030 Interchange 30 Fifth St./Charles St Approach Eastbound LOS B C B C Fifth St./Leonard St. Approach Eastbound LOS B C B B Approach Westbound LOS B B B B Porter St./Charles St. Approach Eastbound LOS B B B C Approach Westbound LOS B B B C Porter St./Leonard St. Approach Eastbound LOS B B B B Approach Westbound LOS B C B C Sunnyside Ave./Draher Ave, A B A B Sunnyside Ave. /I-84 EB Exit Approach Southbound LOS B B B B • Fifth Street and Charles Street – This intersection has single approach lanes on Fifth Street and Charles Stre et. The Fifth Street approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This inte rsection operates at acceptabl e levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morni ng and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Fifth Street and Leonard Street – This intersection has single approach lanes on Fifth Street and Leonard Stre et. The Fifth Street approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This inte rsection operates at acceptabl e levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morni ng and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Porter Street and Charles Street – This intersection has single approach lanes on Porter Street and Charles Street. The Porter Street approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This inte rsection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-38 • Porter Street and Leonard Street – This intersection has single approach lanes on Porter Street and Leonard Street. The Porter Street approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This inte rsection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Sunnyside Avenue and Draher Avenue – This intersection has single approach lanes on Sunnyside Avenue and Draher Avenue. The Draher Avenue approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. • Sunnyside Avenue and Draher Avenue – This intersection has single approach lanes on Sunnyside Avenue and the I-84 EB Exit ramp. The I-84 EB Exit ramp approach is STOP sign controlled at the intersection. This intersection operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the weekday morning and evening peak hours under existing and future year conditions. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-39 Figure 5-8: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (1 of 4) 2005 A.M. Peak Hour ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I – 8 4 M ain H ill B ald w i n C o o k e B an k O r o n ok e W al n u t W at e rto w n El m P i n e S ylv a n O a k W at e rv il le P ar k Ja m es H D a r c e y M em or ia l T h o m ast o n S te e l U n io n A u ro ra L e on ar d W a l l Mi ll P e a r l L a k e Wi l s o n T ud o r B ra d l e y B u n k e r H il l C ha s e C o n g re ss C h ip m an P l a t t R i v e r A l d e r H o p e Tr a cy Jo y O r a n g e R ud y E d in W il l o w H am il t o n L in co ln F i s k e F a ir f ie ld A r d sl e y L i b e rt y H i lls i d e B i r c h S il v e r Je r s e y M o ra n W o lc o t t Co u n tr y C l u b A vo n W o od B is h o p P ea r l W as h in g to n H un t in g d o n 5t h E dg ew oo d R o b b i n s E u cl i d G r a n d G r a n d vie w M u ni c ip a l W e s le y F re ig ht F a rm P o r t e r F ar mw oo d E a st o n P a r k la w n So u th F o x R a i r o a d H i l l H e w ey D w i g h t H i g h la n d D r a h er C he rr y G ay lo r d G ai l O ak vil l e B en e fi t H a n s B ee ch F e r n A ll e n C la y Va i l G ed de s C it iz e n s H i g h R ay m on d K ay n o r D iv is io n N o rto n B ro o ksi d e B u r r N i c h o l s P ro sp e ct R u ss e ll N e w H av e n R os e L a va l R id g e B e n ne t t C he stn u t I v e s C o m o K a re n G re e n w oo d C l in t o n C l o v e r L o u n sb ury P l a z a G ri g g s W e st w oo d K en da ll H au se r E lk B e a c o n E as t s i d e S p ri n g L ake W o od la w n F an n in g R o b in w o o d K el s e y C e n tr a l G r a n by R eve re R iv e r s id e La k e w o od D e e rfie ld Gr ee n E ll e n R o se la n d D e la w a re E dw i n H a d d a d Ja ck so n D o ve r S u n n y si d e S ab a l F ar m i n g t o n P ro c to r Lu k e C o le L o ng H ill V in e H e r s ch e l G os s S c o vi l l C lu b C ol l in s D i x ie G il e s W ard C ol u m bi a S he l l e y B uc k i n g h am F le m in g E ast f i e l d R a y E sth e r Le dg e s id e S u m a c S ta te R e i d D r a c u t K ee fe S ti l e s W in d s o r L a w le r A lb e r ta 1 st P ilg r im Y o r k A rn ol d Te rr ill O a k h il l M i d w ood M i lt o n Jo h n s o n F i e l d F le e t E ag l e 3 rd A ye rs D el lw oo d N ath a n P hyl l i s L a ur e l E s s e x A d d i s o n Ju d d A c ra M e l b o u rn e Br o w n Ni a gr a M ea d ow F or d W yo m in g W a yl a n d C r o n in G r e e n m o u n t G le n S te ph a n a S o u th ga te L a m on t Lu ci ll e C lo w es R ue l C ar r ia g e K e n fi e ld D ev o n W o o d B r i a r c l i ff R uth L e on e A et n a A d a m s Mi dd le W a y E a s t C i r c u i t R os a ri o V e rn o n D i k e m a n A rd m o re C l i f f B ue ll Y at e s X av ie r S w i f t M e rr i l l B el le v u e M adi s o n W elt o n B r o o k B i r c h w oo d S m i t h R os ew o o d B o n d E rn e s t G r e e n vie w P ie d m o nt R o se m o n t K ay J o d i e L a nn e n La ke M ade l i n e I- 8 4 C ol le y T a ft P oin te P ark l a n d C l i f to n C a l u m et W il li a m 7 t h H u ll H a le J o y c ro ft E a st To m pkin s A l t h e a C on n e c ti c u t J a m es M er ri t t A lb ert G e o r g e E v a ns J a nw oo d W o o d r u f f B arr i n gt o n S lo cu m W e ll in g to n A r m an d H arr ie t N o ye s S u sa n G il y a rd C a rm e n G ra n i t e G a ll o N in a D o ri a n B ar r y P ar k R i v e r s i d e R i v e r s id e C h as e Ma i n W a sh i n gto n C h a se S il v e r M ea d o w ® 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 650 Fe et Level of Service ! A-C ! D ! E ! F Minor Roads Major Highway Study Area Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-40 Figure 5-8: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (2 of 4) 2030 A.M. Peak Hour ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I – 8 4 M ai n H ill Ba l d w in C oo ke B a n k O ro n o ke W a ln u t W at e rt o w n El m P i n e S y lv a n O a k W a te r v i l l e P a rk J a m e s H D ar c e y M e m o r ia l T ho m a s to n S te el U n io n A u ro ra L e o n a rd Wa l l Mi ll P ea r l L a k e W il s o n T ud or B r a d l e y B u n k e r Hi ll C ha se C o n g re ss C hip m a n P l a t t R i v e r A l d e r H op e Tr a cy Jo y O ra n g e R u d y E din W il l o w H a m i l t o n L i n co l n F i s ke F a ir f ie ld A r d s l e y L i b er t y H i lls id e B ir c h S i l v e r Je rs e y M o ra n W o l c o tt Co u n tr y C l u b A v o n W o od Bi sh o p P e a r l W a sh in gt o n H u n ti n g do n 5 t h E d g ew o o d R o b b in s E u cl id G r a n d G ra n dvi e w M u n i c ip al W e sle y Fr e ig ht F a rm P o r t e r Fa rm w oo d E a sto n P a rk la w n S o u t h F ox R a i r o a d H i l l H ew e y D w ig ht H i g hl a n d D ra h e r C he r r y G a ylo rd G ai l Oa k vil l e B e n e fit H an s Be e ch F ern A l l e n C la y Va il G ed d e s C i t iz e ns H ig h R ay m o n d K a yn or D iv is io n N o rt o n B r o ok si d e B u r r N i c h o l s P r o sp e ct R u s se ll N e w H a v e n R os e L a va l R i d g e B en ne t t C h e stn u t Iv e s C o m o Ka re n G r e e n w oo d C l i n t o n C l o v e r Lo u n sb ur y P la za G ri g gs W es t w oo d K en d a ll H a u se r E lk B e a co n E as ts i d e S p ri n g L ake Wo od la w n F an ni n g R ob i n w o o d K el s e y C e n t r a l G ra n by R e v e re R i v e r s i d e La k e wo od D ee rfi e ld G re e n E l l e n R o se l a n d D e la w ar e E dw in H a d d a d J a c k s o n D ove r S u n ny s i d e S ab a l F ar m in g to n P r o c to r Lu k e C o le L o ng H i ll V in e H e r s c h e l G oss S c o vi l l C lu b C o l l in s D i xi e G il e s W a rd C ol u m bia S he ll e y B uc ki n g h a m F l e m i n g E as tf i e l d R a y E st h e r Led ge si d e S um ac S ta te R ei d D ra cu t K ee f e S ti l e s W in d so r La w le r A l b e r ta 1 s t P i l g r im Y o r k A rn ol d T e r ri l l O a kh il l M i d w oo d M ilt o n J o hn so n F i e ld F l e et E ag le 3 rd A ye rs D el lw ood N at h a n P hy ll is L a ur e l E s s e x A dd i s o n Ju d d A cra M e l b o u r n e B ro w n N ia gr a M ea d ow F o r d Wy o m in g W ay la n d C r o n in G r e e n m o u n t G l e n S te ph an a S ou th g a te L a m o nt L u ci ll e C lo w es R ue l C arri a g e K en fi e ld D ev o n W o od B r ia rc li ff R u th L e o n e A e tn a A d a m s Mi dd l e W ay E a s t C ir c u i t R o sa ri o V er n o n Di k e m a n A rd m or e C li f f B ue l l Y a te s X a vi e r S w i f t M e rril l B ell e vu e M ad is o n W elt o n B ro o k B ir c h w oo d S m i t h R o se w o o d B o n d E r n e s t G r e e n vi e w P i e d m o nt R os e m o nt K a y J o d ie L a n n en L a k e M ad e l i n e I – 8 4 C o l le y T a f t P o in te P a r k la n d C l if t o n C a lu m et W il li a m 7t h H ul l H ale J o yc r o f t E a st To m p ki n s A lt h ea C o n n e ct ic u t Ja m es M er r it t A lb e rt G eo r g e E va ns Ja n w o od W oo dru ff B a r r i n g t o n S lo cu m W el l i n g t o n A r m a n d H ar r i e t N o ye s S us a n G i ly a rd C ar m e n G ra n it e G all o N i n a D o ri a n B ar r y C ha s e P ar k C ha s e S i l v e r W a sh i n gt o n R iv e rs id e M e ad ow Le on ar d M ai n ® 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 650 Feet Level of Service ! A-C ! D ! E ! F Minor Roads Major Highway Study Area Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-41 Figure 5-8: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (3 of 4) 2005 P.M. Peak Hour ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I – 8 4 M a in H il l B ald w in Co o ke B an k O ro n oke W al nu t W at e r to w n E lm P i n e S yl v a n O ak W a te rv il l e P a rk J a m es H D a rc e y M em or ia l T ho m a sto n St e el U nio n A u ro ra L e o n a r d Wal l M ill P ea rl L a ke W i l s o n T ud or B ra d l e y B un k e r H i l l C ha s e C on g re s s C h i p m a n P l at t R iv e r A ld e r H o p e T r a c y Jo y O ra n ge R u d y E din W i l l o w H am i l t o n Li n co ln F is k e F a ir f ie ld A rd s l e y Li b er t y H i l l s id e Bi r c h S il v e r J er s e y M or a n W o lc o tt C ou n t r y C lu b A vo n W o o d B i s h o p P ea rl W a sh in gto n H u n t in g d o n 5 t h E d g ew o o d R ob bi n s E uc l i d G ra n d G ra n d vi e w M uni c ip a l W es le y Fr e i g h t F arm P or t e r F a r m w ood E a sto n P ark la w n S ou t h F ox R ai ro ad H i l l H e w ey D w i g h t H ig hl a n d D ra h e r C h e rr y G a yl o rd G ai l O a kv i ll e B en ef i t H an s Be e ch F er n A l l e n C la y V a il G e d d e s C it iz e ns H i g h R a ym o nd K ayn or D i v i s io n N o rt o n B ro ok s id e B u r r N i c h o l s P ro sp e c t R us s e l l N ew H a ve n R o se L a va l R id g e B en n e t t C h e st n u t Iv e s C o m o Ka re n G re e nw oo d C li n t o n C l o v e r L o un s b ury P la za G r ig g s W es tw oo d K e n da ll H au s e r E lk B ea co n E a s ts id e S pr ing L ak e W oo d la w n Fa n n i n g R o b i n w o o d K e l s e y C e n tr a l G ra n b y R ev e re R iv e rs i d e L a ke w oo d D ee rf ie ld G re e n E ll e n R os e la n d D el a w ar e E dw i n H a d da d Ja c k so n D ov e r S u n ny s id e S a b al F ar m i n g to n P ro ct o r Lu k e C o l e L on g Hi ll V in e H e r s c h e l G o ss S co vi l l C l ub C o lli n s D ixi e G i l e s Wa rd C ol u m bia S h e ll e y B u c ki n gh a m F l e m in g E a stf i e ld R a y E s t h e r L e dge side S u m a c S ta te R e id D ra cu t K ee f e S ti l e s W in dso r La w l e r A l b e rta 1 s t P il g rim Y or k A r n o l d T e r ril l O ak h i ll M i d w o od M il t o n Jo h n s o n F i e ld F l e et E a g le 3 rd A ye r s D el lw o od N at h an P h yll is L a u r e l E s s e x A d d is o n J u d d A cr a M elb ou r n e B ro w n Ni a g ra M ead ow F or d W yo m in g W ay la n d C r o n in G re e n m ou n t G l e n S t e p h an a S o u th g a te L a m o n t L u c ill e C lo w e s R u e l C ar r i a g e K e nf ie l d D ev o n W oo d B ri a rc li ff R u t h L e o n e A e tn a A d a m s Mi d d le W ay E a st C i r c u i t R o sa ri o V er n o n D i k e m an A r d m or e Cl i f f B u e ll Y a t e s X av ie r S w i f t M er r il l B ell e v u e M ad is on W elt o n B r o o k B ir c h w oo d S m i t h R o se w oo d B o n d E rn e st G re e n vie w Pi e d m o nt R ose m o nt K a y Jo die L a n n en L a k e M a de li n e I- 8 4 C o l le y T a f t P oi n te P a r k la n d C l if to n C alu m e t W il li a m 7th H ul l H a le J o yc ro ft E as t T o m p kin s A l t h ea C o n n e c t ic u t J a m es M e rri t t A lb e rt G e or g e E va n s Ja nw o od W o odr u f f B a rri ng to n S lo cu m W e ll in g to n A r m a n d H a r r i e t N oy e s S usa n Gily a rd C a rme n Gr a n i t e G all o N in a D or ia n B a rr y Le on a r d C h a se P ar k R iv e r s i d e M ai n S il v e r C ha se W a sh i n gt o n M e ad ow ® 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 650 Fe et Level of Service !A-C ! D ! E ! F Minor Roads Major Highway Study Area Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-42 Figure 5-8: Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary (4 of 4) 2030 P.M. Peak Hour ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I – 8 4 M a in H ill Ba l d w in C oo ke B an k O ro n o ke W a ln u t W a te r to w n Elm P in e S yl v a n O a k W at e rv i l l e P ark J a m es H D a rc e y M e m or ia l T h o m a sto n S te el U n io n A uro ra L e on a rd W a ll Mi ll P e a rl L a k e W il s o n T u d or B ra d l e y B u n ke r Hi ll C ha se C on gr e ss C hip ma n P la tt R i v e r A l d er H o p e T ra c y Jo y O r a n ge R ud y E din W il l o w H a m i l t o n Lin c o l n F is ke F ai r fi e l d A r d s l e y L i b e rt y H i ll s i d e B ir c h S il v e r Je r s e y M o ra n W o lc o t t C ou ntr y C l u b A vo n W o o d B is h o p P e a rl W a sh i n g to n H un ti n gdo n 5 t h E d g ew o o d R o b b in s E uc li d G r a n d G r a n dv i e w M uni c ip a l W es le y F re i g h t F arm P o r t e r F ar m wood E as to n P a rk la w n So u t h F ox R a i r o a d H il l H e w ey D w i g h t H ig h l a n d D ra h er C he r ry G ay lo rd G a il O ak vil l e B e n ef i t H a n s B e e c h F ern A ll e n C l a y Va il G ed d e s C i t iz e ns H ig h R ay m on d K a yn o r D iv i s i o n N o rt o n B r o o ks id e B u r r N ic h o ls P r o sp ect R u ss e ll N ew H a ve n R o se L a v a l R i d ge B e n n e t t C he st n u t Iv e s C o m o Ka re n G re en w o od C l in t o n C lo v e r L o un sb ur y P la za G r ig g s W es tw o od K e n da ll H au se r E lk B e a c o n E as t s i d e S p ri n g L ake W o od la w n Fa n ni n g R ob in w o o d K e ls e y C e n tr a l G r a n b y R e ve r e R iv e rs i d e L a k e wo od D ee r fie ld G re e n E ll e n R os e l a n d D el a w ar e E dw i n H a d da d Ja ck s o n D ov e r S un ny si d e S a b a l F a rm i n g t o n P ro ct o r L u ke C ol e L o n g H i ll V in e H ers ch e l G o s s S c o vi l l C lu b C o l l in s D i x i e G i le s W a r d C ol u m b i a S he l l e y B u c kin g h am F le m in g E a s tf i e l d R ay E st h e r Le d g es id e S u m a c S ta te R e id D r a cu t K ee f e S t il e s W in d s o r La w l e r A lb e rta 1 s t P i lg rim Y o r k A rn o l d T e r r i ll O a k h il l M i d w o o d M ilt o n Jo hn so n F i e l d F le et E a g l e 3 rd A ye rs D el lw oo d N a th an P hyl l i s L a u re l E ss e x A d d i s o n J u d d A c r a M el b ou r n e Br o w n Nia g ra M ea d o w F ord Wy om in g W ay la n d C ro n i n G r e e nmo u n t G l e n S te ph a n a S ou th g a te L a m ont Lu c il l e C lo w es R u e l C arri a g e K e n f ie ld D ev o n W o od B r ia r c l i f f R ut h L e on e A e tn a A da m s Mi dd l e W ay E a s t C i r c u i t R osa r i o V e rn o n Di ke m a n A rd m or e C li f f B u e l l Y a t e s X a vi e r S w i f t M er ri l l B ell e vu e M ad is on W e lt o n B r o o k B ir c h w o o d S m it h R os e w o o d B o n d E rn e st G r e e nv ie w Pi e d m o nt R os e m o n t K ay J o d ie L a n n en L a ke M ad e l i n e I- 8 4 C ol le y T a f t P oi n te P a r k la n d C l if t o n C alu m et W i l li a m 7 t h H u ll H a l e J o yc ro ft E a st To m pki n s A l t h e a C o n ne c ti c u t Ja m es M er ri t t A lb e rt G e org e E v a n s Ja nw ood Wo o dru ff B a rr in g t o n S lo c u m W el l i n g to n A rm a n d H a rri e t N o ye s S usa n G il y a rd C a rm e n G ra n i t e G a ll o N i n a D or i a n B ar r y M e ad o w R i v e rs i d e C ha se L e on ard Ma i n S il v e r W ash i n gt o n C h a s e P a rk ® 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 650 Fe et Level of Service ! A-C ! D ! E ! F Minor Roads Major Highway Study Area Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-43 5.2 VISSIM Analysis A roadway network was developed that in cluded all highway segments, interchange ramps, and major arterial roadways in the study area. The network was superimposed on scaled aerial mapping so that th e precise link geometry could be reflected in the model. Figure 5-9 shows the VISSIM network develope d for this study. Data inputs to the network file include: • Lane geometry and configuration; • Grade and elevation; • Traffic control information such as signal timing; • Road functional classification; • ConnDOT traffic count data; and • Turn movement distributions from ConnDOT. Figure 5-9: VISSIM Network Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-44 5.2.1 VISSIM Performance Measures Measuring operational performance of a roadwa y system is often difficult to achieve in the field, but can be relatively easy with VISSIM provided care is taken when inputting data. Once the model is calibrated to curre nt year 2005 traffic conditions, a variety of performance measures can be exported or de rived from the VISSIM output files. The primary performance measures that are generated by VISSIM are as follows: • Flow – defined as the number of vehicles that pass a given point during a length of time; • Travel Time – defined as the average lengt h of time for a vehicle to pass between two given points; • Speed – defined as the average vehi cle speed in miles per hour (mph); • Density – defined as the number of ve hicles per mile per lane for a given segment; • Delay – defined as the additional travel time required to pass between two points when speed is below free flow speed; and • Queue Length – is the length of vehicl e queue that is experienced when congestion occurs at a given location or when traffic is stopped at a traffic control device. For this study, performance measures are going to be collected for the highway mainlines and associated interchange systems only. The arterial roadway system is included in the model so that vehicles entering and leaving the highway system can be visually tracked and monitored for local intersection congestion. This will be especially important if improvement alternatives are later defined that relocate ramp termini to new locations. At this stage of the study performance m easurement is of primary importance, but VISSIM also has a visualization element that ai ds in the calibration process and help the user to understand the location, extent and dur ation of congestion in the network. Figure 5-10demonstrates how VISSIM can be used to visualize the movement of vehicles through the network. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-45 Figure 5-10: Visualization VISSIM also has 3-dimensional capabilities that allow the user to view the simulation from a variety of angles and perspectives. This feature will be more fully developed as the study progresses and advanced visualizat ion of the interchange and improvement alternatives are required. Figure 5-11show s the 3-D model in its early stages of development. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-46 Figure 5-11: VISSIM 3D Capabilities 5.2.2 Caveats and Assumptions As stated previously, some of the LOS re sults from VISSIM may not replicate results found in the HCS analysis for reasons already stated. In addition, vehicle flow may not equate to the traffic volume numbers posted in the HCS analysis, particularly for the future year condition. The difference in these numbers is due the concept of unconstrained versus constrained demand. For the HCS analysis, traffic volumes represent to total amount of traffic that desires to use the roadwa y over a period of one hour. This volume does not take into consideration the fact that the roadway’s actual capacity may prevent all of those vehicles from moving through a particular section over that period of time. In the VISSIM analysis, traffic flow is meas ured instead of unconstrained volume. Flow is the actual number of vehicl es that can pass through a give n section of roadway with a period of time – in this case one hour. In most cases, the future year flow will be less than the unconstrained volume used in the HC S analysis. This is because as volumes exceed capacity, traffic flow is reduced to very low levels – as is speed. Density, in turn, is calculated as the flow di vided by the average speed divi ded by the number of lanes on the segment. This is a major distincti on from the HCS analysis because as flow decreases, so does speed. By calculating segment density this way (as opposed to Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-47 volume/distance/# of lanes), a future year density can be much greater than the existing year density even though the flow is less. Similarly, the year 2005 speeds calculated are based on traffic volume data collected by the DOT and may not reflect the same conditions experienced in the field and as reported in Table 4.1 in Chapter 4. It is also importa nt to note that VISSIM utilizes a probability distribution of input vehicle speeds that ce nters around a mean of 55 MPH. This input speed distribution was chosen because the posted speeds on the highways in the study area range from 50 to 55 MPH in most locations . As real world conditions dictate, it is possible to travel at higher rates of speed when congestion is not present. Speeds in excess of highway design speeds present safety issues. For this analysis, we assumed that free flow speed is close to posted speed and therefore did not try to replicate the actual conditions experienced in the field during th e days in which the speed analysis was performed. 5.2.3 A.M. Peak Hour Analysis Results I-84 Eastbound: Figure 5-12 illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for I-84 eastbound. Average speeds for the existing year analys is range from 27 to 41 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segment between the entrance ramp from Route 8 NB to the exit ramp at Meadow Street. This is due to the short weave segment at this location. In the future year analysis, speeds drop signi ficantly – ranging from 9 mph on the western end of the corridor to 35 mph on the eastern end. From Interchange 18 to the Meadow Street exit ramp at Interchange 21 speed s are consistently below 20mph, suggesting significant congestion along that segment. LOS is determined by relating the VISSIM density calculations to the table provided in the Highway Capacity Manual, similar to wh at was done in the HCS analysis. The HCM LOS definitions are provided in Table 5-19 below. Table 5-19: LOS Criteria for Freeway Sections Level of Service Maximum Density (pc/mi/lane) A 11 B 18 C 26 D 35 E 45 F Greater than 45 Source : 2000 Highway Capacity Manual In the existing year analysis, the segmen t LOS ranges from D to F for the entire eastbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs at the Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-48 segment between the entrance ramp from Route 8 NB at Interchange 20 and the South Main Street exit ramp at Interchange 21.Thi s entire segment is at a LOS F due to high volumes, high frequency of interchange ramps, and substandard lane and ramp geometry. In the future year, the entire corridor degrad es to poor or failing levels of service. It should be noted that the segment east of Interchange 23 actually improves from a LOS F in year 2005 to LOS E in year 2030 due to the additional travel lane that is currently being constructed along that segment. I-84 Westbound: Figure 5-13 illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for I-84 westbound. Average speeds for the existing year analys is range from 34 to 47 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segment between th e entrance ramp from Route 8 NB to the exit ramp at Interchange 18. This is due to the turbulence in flow created by the left hand entrance ramp to I-84 and the closely spaced downstream exit ramp at Interchange 18. In the future year analysis, speeds range from 12 to 46 mph. Overall, speeds are not drastically impacted by the addition future ye ar volume and that is mainly due to the adequate capacity on the highway in the we stbound direction. Speeds are significantly impacted west of entrance ramp from R oute 8 NB however, due to the same issue previously stated. In the existing year analysis, the segment LOS ranges from C to F for the entire westbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs from the entrance ramp from Route 8 NB to the exit ramp at Interchange 18. This entire segment is at a LOS F due to high volume and substa ndard ramp geometry. A LOS F is also recorded between the entrance ramp from Union Street at Interchange 22 to the exit ramp at Meadow Street at Interchange 21 due to the choke point created by the high volume of traffic entering the highway at Interchange 21. In the future year analysis, most of the corridor operates at poor or fa iling levels of service. Route 8 Northbound: Figure 5-14 illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for Route 8 northbound. Average speeds for the existing year analysis range from 38 to 52 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segm ent between the entrance ramp from West Main/Riverside to the exit ramp to Route 73(Auro ra Street). This is due to the turbulence in flow created by the right-hand entrance ra mp to I-84 and the left-hand downstream exit ramp to route 73. In the future year anal ysis, speeds are not drastically impacted by the addition future year volume a nd that is mainly due to relatively low traffic volume on Route 8 northbound. In the existing year analysis, the segmen t LOS ranges from A to C for the entire northbound corridor. The northbound corridor operates at acceptable levels of service during the A.M. peak hour. For the future year analysis, the corridor LOS degrades slightly between the exit ramp at Interchange 30 and the exit ramp to I-84 eastbound. For this segment, the LOS reduces from LO S B to LOS C over the 25-year forecasting period. Route 8 Southbound: Figure 5-15 illustrates the VI SSIM analysis results for Route 8 southbound. Average speeds for the existing year analysis range from 35 to 46 mph Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-49 throughout the corridor, with the slowest segment between the right-hand entrance ramp from I-84 eastbound to the left-hand entrance ramp from I-84 westbound. In the future year analysis, speeds significantly decrease be tween the northern terminus of the Route 8 corridor and the exit ramp to I-84 westbound. Speeds along this segment are below 15 mph and are due to the heavy volume of traffic entering the freeway from Route 73, causing a choke point the backs traffic up to th e north and creates forced flow conditions for approximately one half mile south of the merge. In the existing year analysis, the segmen t LOS ranges from B to E for the entire southbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs on the segment between the entrance ramp from R oute 73 to the exit ramp to I-84 westbound. This entire segment is at a LOS E due to re latively high volumes along this segment. The remainder of the corridor operates at acceptabl e levels of service. For the future year analysis, much of the corridor LOS remains th e same with the exception of the segment previously identifies. This segment drops to LOS F due to the increase in traffic and the high volume merge with Route 73. 5.2.4 P.M. Peak Hour Analysis Results I-84 Eastbound: Figure 5-16 illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for I-84 eastbound. Average speeds for the existing year analys is range from 30 to 41 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segment between th e frontage road exit ramp to the entrance ramp at Interchange 23. In the future year analysis, speeds drop significantly – ranging from 7 mph on the western end of the corridor to 33 mph on the eastern end. From Interchange 18 to the South Main Street exit ramp at Interchange 21 speeds are consistently below 20mph, suggesting si gnificant congestion along that segment. In the existing year analysis, the segmen t LOS ranges from D to F for the entire eastbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs from the Route 8 SB exit ramp to the Route NB exit ramp at Intercha nge 19. This segment is at a LOS F due to high volumes, high frequency of interchange ramps, and substandard lane and ramp geometry. In the future year, the entire corridor degrades to poor or failing levels of service. It should be noted that the segment east of Interchange 23 actually improves from a LOS F in year 2005 to LOS E in year 2030 due to the additional travel lane that is currently being constructed along that segment. I-84 Westbound: Figure 5-17 illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for I-84 westbound. Average speeds for the existing year analys is range from 34 to 48 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segment between the entrance ramp from Route 8 NB to the entrance ramp from Route 8 SB at Interchange 19. This is due to the turbulence in flow created by the left hand entrance ramp to I-84 and the closely spaced downstream exit ramp at Interchange 18. In the future year analysis, speeds drop significantly – ranging from 5 to 40 mph. The lowest speeds occur at the segment east of Interchange 23 and the segment between the exit ramp at Intercha nge 20 and the exit ramp at Interchange 19. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-50 In the existing year analysis, the segment LOS ranges from C to F for the entire westbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs at the segment between the entrance ramp at Inte rchange 22 and the exit ramp at Interchange 21. This segment is at a LOS F due to high volume and substandard ramp geometry. In the future year analysis, most of the corridor operates at poor or failing levels of service. Route 8 Northbound: Figure 5-18illustrates the VISSIM analysis results for Route 8 northbound. Average speeds for the existing year analysis range from 29 to 51 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest segm ent between the entrance ramp from West Main/Riverside to the exit ramp to Route 73(Auro ra Street). This is due to the turbulence in flow created by the right-hand entrance ra mp to I-84 and the left-hand downstream exit ramp to route 73. In the future year anal ysis, speeds are not drastically impacted by the addition future year volume a nd that is mainly due to relatively low traffic volume on Route 8 northbound. In the existing year analysis, the segmen t LOS ranges from C to E for the entire northbound corridor. For th e future year analysis, the corr idor LOS degrades drastically south of the exit ramp at Interchange 33 fr om LOS C to LOS F at some segments. Route 8 Southbound: Figure 5-19 illustrates the VI SSIM analysis results for Route 8 southbound. Average speeds for the existing year analysis range from 37 to 50 mph throughout the corridor, with the slowest se gment south of the entrance ramp at Interchange 30. In the future year analysis , speeds do not reduce significantly along the entire southbound corridor. In the existing year analysis, the segment LOS ranges from A to D for the entire southbound corridor. The greatest density of traffic (and lowest LOS) occurs on the south of the exit ramp to I-84 WB at Interc hange 31. This entire segment is at a LOS D due to relatively high volumes along this segment. The remainder of the corridor operates at acceptable levels of service. Fo r the future year analysis, the LOS along the corridor does not change s ubstantially with the LOS ranging from B to E. FIGURE 5-12 VISSIM ANALYSIS I-84 EASTBOUND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00-8:00) N Year 2005 Year 2030 2860 24 (45) 21 (C) 3560 126 (8) 143 (F) 3300 17 (35) 48 (F) 4200 48 (12) 178 (F) 3010 11 (34) 44 (E)3870 19 (19) 100 (F) 2570 12 (36) 35 (D) 3350 27 (15) 108 (F) 3030 11 (33) 31 (D) 3900 21 (18) 72 (F) 4470 13 (34) 33 (D) 4940 25 (18) 68 (F) 5260 15 (24) 73 (F) 5950 21 (16) 122 (F) 4800 16 (34) 48 (F)5410 17 (33) 55 (F) 4460 32 (33) 46 (F)4980 34 (31) 54 (F) 3460 120 (33) 52 (D)3430 114 (35) 33 (D) 4210 6 (36) 30 (D) 4650 6 (35) 33 (D) 1530 ft 834 ft 526 ft 605 ft 547 ft 661 ft 509 ft 800 ft 329 ft 5824 ft 1884 ft 1519 ft LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) 3820 35 (37) 35 (C) 3850 38 (34) 38 (E) VISSIM Segment Distance FIGURE 5-13 VISSIM ANALYSIS I-84 WESTBOUND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00-8:00) N LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) Year 2005 Year 2030 3340 62 (38) 22 (C) 3500 62 (38) 23 (C) 4710 27 (35) 34 (D) 4890 88 (11) 116 (F) 3410 9 (40) 28 (D) 3950 32 (11) 116 (F) 2840 15 (42) 17 (B) 3330 30 (21) 40 (E) 3900 16 (37) 21 (C) 4490 27 (22) 41 (E) 4360 19 (42) 35 (D) 5080 21 (37) 45 (E) 4980 32 (40) 42 (E) 5870 39 (33) 59 (F) 3810 20 (59) 21 (C) 4750 50 (24) 66 (F) 4180 66 (36) 38 (E) 5220 112 (21) 82 (F) 4310 43 (24) 89 (F)5390 44 (24) 75 (F) 3464 ft 1354 ft 528 ft 916 ft 866 ft 932 ft 1140 ft 1870 ft 1735 ft 3521 ft 1517 ft 4740 17 (38) 31 (D) 5460 25 (26) 53 (F) VISSIM Segment Distance FIGURE 5-14 N VISSIM ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00-8:00) Year 2005 Year 2030 1560 28 (39) 13 (B)1740 29 (38) 15 (B) 2500 29 (38) 22 (C) 2860 29 (38) 19 (C) 2330 17 (42) 19 (C) 2690 17 (42) 16 (B) 2220 10 (43) 17 (B)2560 10 (43) 15 (B) 2510 29 (48) 17 (B)2920 29 (48) 20 (C) 1900 38 (62) 15 (B)2400 38 (62) 20 (C) 2,010 31 (62) 16 (B) 2550 31 (62) 21 (C) 1280 4 (49) 13 (B) 1610 4 (46) 17 (B) 1600 10 (51) 16 (B)1980 10 (50) 20 (C) 2400 12 (48) 17 (B)2990 13 (46) 22 (C) 1601 ft 1599 ft 1047 ft 611 ft 2099 ft 874 ft 2796 ft 283 ft 714 ft 3464 ftLEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) VISSIM Segment Distance NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. FIGURE 5-15 N VISSIM ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00-8:00) Year 2005 Year 2030 4220 24 (41) 34 (D) 3040 126 (8) 128 (F) 2780 14 (39) 24 (C) 1980 14 (40) 17 (B) 1810 9 (34) 27 (D) 1490 10 (34) 22 (C) 2220 41 (41) 27 (D) 2030 40 (43) 24 (C) 2380 54 (40) 30 (D) 2230 54 (40) 28 (D) 2660 34 (40) 33 (D) 2460 33 (42) 29 (D) 1672 ft 2093 ft 1460 ft 810 ft 1343 ft 467 ft 2501 ft 3190 ft 2016 ft 1330 20 (45) 15 (B) 960 20 (46) 10 (A) 3220 19 (60) 27 (D) 2660 99 (11) 116 (F) 4510 33 (43) 35 (D) 3410 160 (9) 127 (F) LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) VISSIM Segment Distance NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. FIGURE 5-16 VISSIM ANALYSIS I-84 EASTBOUND P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00) N Year 2005 Year 2030 3110 11 (34) 31 (D) 3150 26 (14) 74 (F) 4270 13 (36) 30 (D) 4650 31 (14) 81 (F) 5220 12 (30) 59 (F)5850 23 (15) 129 (F) 4870 16 (33) 49 (F)5470 21 (26) 70 (F) 4780 35 (30) 53 (F)5390 53 (19) 93 (F) 3320 120 (33) 50 (F)3260 114 (35) 31 (D) 4280 6 (35) 31 (D) 4840 12 (18) 67 (F) VISSIM Segment Distance 3350 23 (45) 25 (C) 2800 159(7) 142 (F) 3790 19 (29) 65 (F)3430 58 (10) 175 (F) 3470 11 (33) 53 (F)3170 23 (15) 103 (F) 2630 11 (37) 35 (D) 2550 39 (11) 121 (F) 1,660 ft 940 ft 380 ft 1069 ft 792 ft 606 ft 487 ft 797 ft 898 ft 5,826 ft 1,884 ft 1120 ft LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) 3930 37 (35) 37 (E) 3660 38 (34) 36 (E) FIGURE 5-17 N Year 2005 Year 2030 3260 64 (37) 22 (C) 3690 64 (37) 25 (C) 4440 26 (36) 31 (D)5030 36 (26) 49 (E) 3590 9 (39) 31 (D) 4020 10 (37) 36 (E) 3210 16 (39) 21 (C)3570 17 (37) 24 (C) 4880 19 (32) 30 (D)5160 45 (13) 78 (F) 5870 19 (32) 45 (E) 6110 54 (12) 129 (F) 5100 20 (39) 44 (E) 4910 40 (20) 84 (F) 5400 33 (39) 47 (F)5200 57 (22) 77 (F) 3890 20 (60) 22 (C) 4070 73 (16) 84 (F) 4190 50 (48) 29 (D) 4420 145 (17) 89 (F) 4380 18 (57) 38 (E)4600 56 (19) 83 (F) VISSIM ANALYSIS I-84 WESTBOUND P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00) LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) 3464 ft 1354 ft 528 ft 916 ft 866 ft 932 ft 1140 ft 1870 ft 1735 ft 3521 ft 1517 ft VISSIM Segment Distance FIGURE 5-18 N Year 2005 Year 2030 3080 32 (34) 30 (D)3340 33 (33) 34 (D) 4580 36 (30) 38 (E) 4940 43 (26) 48 (F) 4310 20 (37) 29 (D) 4500 19 (37) 30 (D) 4090 11 (39) 26 (C) 4240 11 (39) 27 (D) 4860 30 (44) 37 (E) 5640 34 (39) 49 (F) 2790 38 (62) 22 (C)3480 42 (56) 31 (D) 2910 31 (62) 23 (C)3700 31 (61) 30 (D) 1970 4 (50) 20 (C) 2460 5 (42) 30 (C) 2270 9 (53) 21 (C) 2770 11 (44) 32 (D) 3150 12 (51) 21 (C) 3980 37 (16) 83 (F) VISSIM ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00) LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) 1601 ft 1599 ft 1047 ft 611 ft 2099 ft 874 ft 2796 ft 283 ft 714 ft 3464 ft VISSIM Segment Distance NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. FIGURE 5-19 N Year 2005 Year 2030 2200 19 (61) 18 (B)2850 19 (61) 24 (C) 3250 32 (45) 24 (C) 4220 34 (43) 33 (D) 2960 23 (44) 22 (C) 3830 25 (41) 31 (D) 2160 13 (43) 17 (B) 2820 15 (38) 25 (C) 1690 8 (41) 20 (C) 2060 10 (33) 32 (B) 2690 36 (38) 35 (D) 3010 38 (37) 41 (F) 1010 20 (45) 11 (A)1330 22 (42) 16 (B) 2520 60 (37) 34 (D) 2850 60 (36) 40 (E) 2320 44 (39) 30 (D) 2620 46 (37) 35 (D) VISSIM ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00) LEGEND Hourly Flow (Vehicles / Hour) Travel Time in Seconds (Average Speed in M.P.H.) Density in Passenger Cars / Miles / Lanes (LOS) 1672 ft 2093 ft 1460 ft 810 ft 1343 ft 467 ft 2501 ft 3190 ft 2016 ft VISSIM Segment Distance NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-59 5.2.5 Exit Ramp Queue Lengths Vehicle queue lengths on exit ramps were obt ained from VISSIM to identify deficiencies related to deceleration and stoppi ng sight distance. There were 3 types of deficiencies that were identified. These deficiencies are: ƒ Queue backup into mainline- This refers to the situation where the queue length on the exit ramp backs up into the highway ma inline line thereby interfering with the traffic operation and safety of the mainline. ƒ Queue backup into deceleration lane- This presents a situation where there is insufficient deceleration length for a vehi cle to adequately reduce its speed to negotiate a curve in the exit ramp as a re sult of queue backup into the deceleration lane. Queues do not backup into the mainline in this case. ƒ Inadequate stopping sight di stance – In this case, queues do not back up into the deceleration lane, however, there is inadequa te distance for a vehicle at the end of the deceleration lane to safely come to a stop without colliding with the last vehicle in the queue on the exit ramp. There were 2 exit ramps with queue length deficiencies in the existing y ear 2005 as shown in Table 5-20. These exit ramps are: I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 23 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 100 feet while the total ramp le ngth is 915 feet. Even though maximum queues on this exit ramp do not back into the dece leration lane, there is insufficient stopping sight distance from the end of the deceleration lane to the last vehicle in the queue during the P.M. peak hour. The availa ble stopping distance from the end of the deceleration lane to the last vehicle in queue for this exit ramp is 15 feet during the P.M. peak hour. AASHTO recommends a minimum stopping sight distance of 155 feet for a 25mph design speed. Route 8 southbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 345 feet, while the total ramp length is 450 feet. Maximum queues on this exit ramp backup into the deceleration lane during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. There is therefore insufficient deceleration lane leng th for a vehicle to safely slow down to the design speed of the exit ramp. There were 6 exit ramps with queue length deficiencies in the future year 2030 as illustrated in Table 5-21. These ramps are: I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 18 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 1,699 feet, while the total ramp length is 1,240 feet . The maximum queue on this exit ramp backs into the highway main line during the future A.M. peak hour. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-60 I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 22- The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 1,699 feet, while the total ramp length is 1,500 feet. The maximum queue on this exit ramp backs up into the highway mainlin e during both future A.M. and P.M. peak hours. I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 23 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 569 feet, while the total ramp le ngth is 915 feet. Maximum queues on this exit ramp backup into the deceleration lane during both future A.M. and P.M. peak hours. There is therefore insufficient deceleration length for a vehicl e to safely slow down to the design speed of the exit ramp. Route 8 northbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 269 feet, while the total ramp length is 575 feet. Maximum queues on this exit ramp backup into the deceleration lane during the future P.M. peak hour. There is insufficient deceleration length for a vehicle to safely reduce its speed to the design speed of the exit ramp during the future P.M. peak hour. Route 8 southbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 267 feet, while the total ramp length is 450 feet. Maximum queues on this exit ramp backup into the deceleration lane during peak hours. There is therefore insufficient deceleration length for a vehicle to safely slow down to the design speed of the exit ramp during both future A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Route 8 northbound exit ramp at Interchange 31 – The maximum queue length on this exit ramp is 1,656 feet, while the total ramp length is 1,080 feet. The maximum queue on this exit ramp backs up into the highway ma inline during the both future A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-61 Table 5-20: Existing Exit Ramp Terminus Queue Lengths Location Direction Ramp Deceleration 2005 A.M. Peak 2005 P.M. Peak Deficiency* Length Length Average Maximum Average Maximum A.M. / P.M. (feet) (feet) Queue Queue Queue Queue I-84 Interchange 18 WB 1240 390 0 0 0 0 – / – Interchange 20 WB 860 325 0 0 0 0 – / – Interchange 21 EB (to Meadow St) 1400 600 36 330 23 206 – / – EB (to S. Main St) 1000 320 0 35 0 21 – / – WB 1060 415 8 198 2 80 – / – Interchange 22 WB 1500 250 182 486 46 234 – / – Interchange 23 WB 915 800 5 78 9 100 3 / 3 Route 8 Interchange 30 NB 575 350 0 0 0 0 – / – SB 450 630 28 345 25 155 2 / 2 Interchange 31 NB 1080 420 0 26 0 0 – / – Interchange 32 NB 960 475 0 0 0 0 – / – SB 600 460 0 0 0 0 – / – Interchange 34 SB 1350 660 47 190 48 212 – / – *Note: 1. Denotes queue backup onto mainline. 2. Denotes queue backup onto deceleration lane. 3. Denotes inadequate stopping sight distance to back of queue. -. Denotes no queue length deficiency. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 5-62 Table 5-21: Future Exit Ramp Terminus Queue Lengths Location Direction Ramp Decel eration 2030 A.M. Peak 2030 P.M. Peak Deficiency Length Length Average Maxi mum Average Maximum A.M. / P.M. (feet) (feet) Queue Queue Queue Queue I-84 Interchange 18 WB 1240 390 1093 1669 0 0 1 / – Interchange 20 WB 860 325 0 0 0 53 – / – Interchange 21 EB (to Meadow St) 1400 600 40 329 19 127 – / – EB (to S. Main St) 1000 320 138 534 0 47 – / – WB 1060 415 13 299 2 43 – / – Interchange 22 WB 1500 250 902 1669 281 1668 1 / 1 Interchange 23 WB 915 800 14 195 157 569 2 / 2 Route 8 Interchange 30 NB 575 350 0 0 9 269 – / 2 SB 450 630 29 267 32 219 2 / 2 Interchange 31 NB 1080 420 4 590 1436 1656 1 / 1 Interchange 32 NB 960 475 2 84 0 0 – / – SB 600 460 0 0 0 0 – / – Interchange 34 SB 1350 660 47 293 72 286 – / – *Note: 1. Denotes queue backup onto mainline. 2. Denotes queue backup onto deceleration lane. 3. Denotes inadequate stopping sight distance to back of queue. -. Denotes no queue length deficiency. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-63 5.3 Accident and Safety Analysis Accident records for I-84 from the most recent three-year period, 2001-2003, were collected from ConnDOT and analyzed. Acci dent records are listed by date and include information about the location, accident t ype, light, pavement and weather conditions, vehicles involved, direction of travel, severity of injuries and reason for each collision. In order to better understand causal patterns, traffic incidents were compiled by light conditions, pavement conditions, accident sever ity, and accident type. Observations from these analyses are reported in this section. A summary of the findings by segment are shown in Figure 5-20 through Figure 5-23. 5.3.1 Lighting Condition The light conditions under which accidents oc curred (daylight, dark, dusk or dawn) is shown by highway direction in Table 5-22, belo w. A full account of these accidents by interchange segment is shown in appendix material and in Figure 5-20 through Figure 5-23. Table 5-22: Accident totals by Highway Direction and Light Condition Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Segment Total No. No. % No. % No. % No. % EB I-84 593 410 69% 157 26% 26 4% 0 0% WB I-84 644 414 64% 199 31% 27 4% 4 1% NB Route 8 134 75 56% 49 37% 9 7% 1 1% SB Route 8 120 95 79% 21 18% 4 3% 0 0% GRAND TOTAL 1491 994 67% 426 29% 66 4% 5 0% Based on Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on I-84, about 70% of this traffic drives during daylight hours. It would be expected that accidents would be distributed proportionally to driving time, unless lighting conditions ar e a major factor. The number of accidents occurring during daylight hours for the study area, as well as for I-84 and Route 8 when considered individually was 67%, sli ghtly below the expected 70%. While eastbound and westbound porti ons of I-84 showed slight variation (69% vs. 64%), the two directions of Route 8 show a strong correlation be tween direction and lighting condition. Only 56% of northboun d accidents occurred during the daylight, compared to 79% of southbound accidents, suggesting the ligh ting situations on the two parts of the highway may be a factor. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-64 Many of the segments deviated within ±10% of the 70%, whic h is statistically insignificant. Exceptions which may bear furt her investigation are listed in Table 5-23, below. Table 5-23: Highway Segments – Li ghting Condition Observations Over 80% during daylight Over 40% during non-daylight I-84 EB • Int. 20 (to Rte. 8 NB) Exit Ramp • Int. 19 (Rte. 8 SB) Exit Ramp • Int. 18 • Between Int. 21 and Int.22 Exit Ramps • Between Int. 22 Exit Ramp and Meadow St. entrance ramp I-84 WB • WB Access for SB Rte 8 • Between SB 8 and NB 8 Exits • West of Highland Ave • WB Exit to NB Rte 8 • WB Access from Bank St • All 4 segments between Meadow St. Exit and Union St. Access • Between Rte 69 and Union St Rte 8 NB • Int. 30 exit ramp • Int. 35 exit ramp • Between Int. 30 exit and entrance ramps • Between interchange 30 entrance- and interchange 31 exit ramp • Int. 31 exit ramp • Between interchange 31 and 32 exit ramps • Between interchange 32 and 34 entrance ramps • Between interchange 34 entrance- and interchange 35 exit ramps Rte 8 SB • Between interchange 30 exit and entrance ramps • Between interchange 33 entrance- and interchange 30 exit ramps • Between interchange 34 and 33 exit ramps • Three segments north of interchange 34 entrance ramp • Int. 30 exit ramp • Exit 33/W. Main exit ramp Again the imbalance between directions on Route 8 is evident, with non-daylight accidents being more of an issue in the nor thbound direction and daylight accidents more of an issue in the southbound direction. On Route 8, segments with daylight accident rates falling between 60% and 80% are the exce ption rather than the rule. However, it must be noted that considerably fewer accidents occurred on Route 8 than on I-84. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-65 5.3.2 Pavement Conditions The pavement conditions upon which accidents occurred (dry, wet, snowy or icy) are shown in Table 5-24 below. A full account of al l segments is in appendix material and in Figure 5-20 through Figure 5-23. Table 5-24: Accident Totals by Hi ghway Direction and Pavement Condition Dry Wet Snow/Ice/Sand Unknown Segment Total No. No. % No. % No. % No. % I-84 EB 593 354 60% 203 34% 35 6% 1 0% I-84 WB 644 379 59% 232 36% 29 5% 4 1% Route 8 NB 134 75 56% 49 37% 9 7% 1 1% Route 8 SB 120 85 71% 27 23% 8 7% 0 0% GRAND TOTAL 1491 901 60% 503 34% 82 5% 5 0% According to the National Weather Service, th ree percent of the days in Connecticut are snowy or icy and 30 percent are rainy. By dr awing a correlation to weather conditions, preventative measures can be taken to help reduce accidents in slippery conditions. Throughout the study area, the proportion of accidents occurring in wet conditions or icy/snowy conditions were slightly higher than this would predict; 34% for wet conditions and 5% for snowy or icy. Thus, w eather appears to be a potential factor in the accident rate within the study area. Again, the two directions of I-84 are relative ly balanced, while the two directions of Route 8 show substantial imbalance, especia lly in terms of wet vs. dry conditions. A substantially small proportion of accidents on Route 8 SB occurred during wet conditions. Table 5-25 below shows specific interchange segments where accident rates during wet or snowy/icy conditions were higher than expected. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-66 Table 5-25: Highway Segments – P avement Condition Observations Over 40% during wet conditions Over 10% during snowy or icy conditions I-84 EB • Int. 18 (SR 845) Entrance Ramp • Between Int. 18 entrance- and Int. 19 exit ramp • Int. 19 (Rte. 8 SB) Exit Ramp • Int. 20 (Rte. 8 NB) Exit Ramp • Entrance Ramp from Rte. 8 NB • Int. 21 (Meadow St.) Exit Ramp • Int. 18 (SR 845) Entrance Ramp • Int. 19 (Rte. 8 SB) Exit Ramp • Int. 20 (Rte. 8 NB) Exit Ramp • Entrance Ramp from Rte. 8 SB • Between Int. 22 exit and Meadow St. entrance ramp I-84 WB • WB Exit to SB Rte 8 • Between Meadow & Bank St Access • WB Access for SB Rte 8 • Between Union Exit and Access • Between Rte 69 and Union St Rte 8 NB • Int. 31 exit ramp • Between interchange 31 and 32 exit ramps • Between interchange 30 entrance- and interchange 31 exit ramps • Between interchange 31 and 32 exit ramps • Between interchange 33 entrance- and exit ramps Rte 8 SB • Exit 33/I-84 exit ramp • North of Exit 35 entrance ramp • Between interchange 33 entrance- and interchange 30 exit ramps As indicated in Table 4, along I-84 eastbound, there were a number of locations where more than 40% of the accidents occurred due to wet or snow/icy conditions. In the westbound direction, 5.3.3 Accident Severity While accident conditions can show problem areas in terms of lighting or pavement, accident severity is important in designati ng dangerous locations along a corridor. Table 5-26 shows accident totals by direction re lative to severity along I-84 and Route 8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-67 Table 5-26: Accident Totals by Highway Direction and Severity Property Damage Only Injury Fatality Segment Total No. No. % No. % No. % I-84 EB 594 475 80% 119 20% 0 0% I-84 WB 644 494 77% 149 23% 1 0% I-84 TOTAL 1237 969 78% 267 22% 1 0% Route 8 NB 134 98 73% 35 26% 1 1% Route 8 SB 120 97 81% 22 18% 1 1% ROUTE 8 TOTAL 254 195 77% 57 22% 2 1% GRAND TOTAL 1491 1164 78% 324 22% 3 0% The percentage of injury accidents for the corr idor as a whole was 22%. Again, there is a greater imbalance between Route 8 Northbound and Southbound than between I-84 Eastbound and Westbound. Segments with injury rates of over 30% are listed in Table 5-27 below. A full account of injury rates by segment is shown in appendix material and in Figure 5-20 through Figure 5-23. Table 5-27: Highway Segments – Injury Rate Observations Segment Injury rate I-84 EB • Between Int. 20 exit and Highland Ave. entrance ramps 50 % (3 of 6) I-84 WB • Between Highland Ave and SB Rte 8 Access • WB Exit to NB Rte 8 • Between Meadow & Bank St Access • Exit to Union St. 30% (10 of 33) 31% (8 of 26) 32% (9 of 28) 40% (8 of 20) Rte 8 NB • Between interchange 31 and 32 exit ramps • Four segments between interchange 31 and 34 entrance ramps 57% (4 of 7) 54% (7 of 13) Rte 8 SB • Int. 32 exit ramp 50% (3 of 6) Three fatal accidents occurred within the study area. Interestingly, none of the three fatality accidents occurred in the high-injury segments listed in the table above. The fatality accidents are desc ribed in detail below: • The first fatality occurred on May 1 st, 2002, when a motorcycle southbound on Route 8 struck a highway sign in the gor e area. The motorcyclist, who was under the influence, was killed. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-68 • A fatality occurred on May 17 th, 2003, when a passenger car, which was going too fast for conditions, struck a beam rail, then ran off the road to the right and struck a bridge rail. One person was k illed and one significantly injured. • A third fatality occurred on January 4 th, 2003, when the driver of a tandem rig was unable to cope with dark and snowy condi tions, lost control of the vehicle, and struck a second truck that was stopped on the side of the road with mechanical difficulties. A person entering the stoppe d vehicle—presumably the driver—was killed in the side-swipe collision. 5.3.4 Accident Type The best method for determining improveme nts to a high accident location is by analyzing the occurrence of various accident types. Table 7 shows the percentage of accidents by accident type for I-84. Table 5-28 shows accident type for all segments. The category “Other” includes pedestrian, he ad-on, backing, jack-knife, angle, turning and overturn accidents that individually make up less than 1% of the accidents along a segment. Fixed object collisions are cars that hit the guide-rails, jersey barriers or other objects on the side of the road. A moving object collision is an accident involving a moving object that is not an automobile, truck, pedestrian or bicycle. It often refers to collisions with animals. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-69 Table 5-28: Accident Totals by Highway Direction and Type Total Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side- swipe Other Segment No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % I-84 EB 593 168 28% 14 2% 232 39% 156 26% 23 4% I-84 WB 644 201 31% 26 4% 203 32% 178 28% 36 6% I-84 TOTAL 1237 369 30% 40 3% 435 35% 334 27% 59 5% Route 8 NB 134 71 53% 9 7% 26 19% 26 19% 2 1% Route 8 SB 120 41 34% 12 10% 20 17% 44 37% 3 3% ROUTE 8 TOTAL 254 112 44% 21 8% 46 18% 70 28% 5 2% GRAND TOTAL 1491 481 32% 61 4% 481 32% 404 27% 64 4% The types of collisions occurring most often along the corridor as a whole include fixed object (32%), rear end (32%) and sideswip e (27%). Particular differences among highway directions are noted: ƒ Route 8 Northbound had a very high rate of fixed object collisions, 53%, compared to 34% southbound and 30% on I-84. ƒ Both directions of Route 8 show a higher ra te of moving object collisions than on I- 84. ƒ The rear-end accident rates on I-84 are considerably higher than on Route 8. Both road’s rear-ending rates are ba lanced between directions. ƒ Side-swipe collision rates were nearly id entical for both roads overall. However, Route 8 Southbound had a high (37%) rate, co unterbalanced by a low rate (19%) in the northbound direction. Several segments had a high percentage of a particular type of accident. Table 5-29, below, shows all segments with accident ra tes in one category more than 10 percentage points above the study-area average. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-70 Table 5-29: Highway Segments – Accident Type Observations SEGMENT Pct in category FIXED OBJECT I-84 EB • Int. 20 (Rte. 8 NB) Exit Ramp • Entrance Ramp from Rte. 8 NB 48% (11 of 23) 74% (26 of 35) I-84 WB • WB Exit to SB Rte 8 68% (71 of 105) Rte 8 NB • Between interchange 30 exit and entrance ramps • Between interchange 30 entrance- and interchange 31 exit ramps • Int. 31 exit ramp • Between interchange 33 entrance- and exit ramps, incl. entrance ramp • Between interchange 34 entrance- and interchange 35 exit ramps 62% (13 of 21) 60% (12 of 20) 76% (13 of 17) 50% (4 of 8) 47% (8 of 17) Rte 8 SB • Int. 30 exit ramp • Four segments from Int. 31 exit ramp to Int. 33/I-84 exit ramp 55% (6 of 11) 73% (11 of 15) REAR END I-84 EB • Between Int. 18 Exit and Entrance Ramps • Bet. Rt.8 NB entrance- and interchange 21 exit ramps, incl. exit ramp • Int. 22 (Baldwin St.) Exit Ramp • Bet Meadow St. entran ce- & interchange 23 exit ramp, incl. exit ramp 44% (15 of 34) 56% (29 of 52) 72% (13 of 18) 51% (68 of 133) I-84 WB • Exit to Highland Ave • Between SB 8 and NB 8 Exits • Access for Union St. • Exit to Rte 69 46% (30 of 65) 59% (22 of 37) 47% (24 of 51) 43% (10 of 23) Rte 8 NB • Int. 30 exit ramp • Between interchange 31 and 32 exit ramps • Between interchange 32 and 34 entrance ramps, incl. interchange 34 ramp 67% (6 of 9) 57% (4 of 7) 67% (5 of 8) Rte 8 SB • none — Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-71 Table 5-29 (continued) SIDE-SWIPE I-84 EB • Int. 19 (Rte. 8 SB) Exit Ramp • Bet. interchange 20 exit & Highland. Ave. entrance ramp, incl. entrance ramp • Between Int. 22 exit and Meadow St. entrance ramps • Entrance Ramp from Int. 23 (Rte. 69) 55% (6 of 11) 50% (10 of 20) 50% (8 of 16) 40% (48 of 121) I-84 WB • Three segments from Highland Ave exit ramp to SB Rte 8 entrance ramp • Between Bank St & Rte 8 SB • Between Rte 69 and Union St 58% (41 of 71) 52% (14 of 27) 41% (14 of 34) Rte 8 NB • none — Rte 8 SB • Between interchange 30 exit and entrance ramps • Bet. interchange 33 entrance- and interchange 30 exit ramps, incl. entrance ramp • Entrance Ramps for Interchanges 31 & 32 • Bet. interchange 35 entrance- and interchange 34 exit ramps, incl. entrance ramp 36% (4 of 11) 67% (16 of 24) 56% (5 of 9) 56% (10 of 18) 5.3.5 Trucks Truck Related Accidents – In addition to these measures of accident analysis, the percentage of accidents involving trucks was of particular concern on this corridor. Table 5-30gives the percentage of acc idents involving trucks on I-84 by highway direction. Figure 5-20 through Figure 5-23 show the truc k accident rates for all segments of the study area. Table 5-30: Percentage of Accidents involving Trucks Truck(s) Involved Segment Total No. No. % I-84 EB 593 202 34% I-84 WB 644 197 31% I-84 TOTAL 1237 399 32% Route 8 NB 134 34 25% Route 8 SB 120 26 22% ROUTE 8 TOTAL 254 60 24% GRAND TOTAL 1491 459 31% Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-72 The percentage of accidents involving trucks on I-84 is 31% for the study area as a whole. This is significantly higher than the percentage of all vehicles that are trucks (approximately 8%). The truck involvement rate is substantially higher on I-84 (32%) than on Route 8 (24%). Each road is balanced in te rms of the truck involvement ra te in opposing directions. The truck involvement rate by segment is given in Table 15. Most segments are within a few percentage points of their respective road av erage. The segment with the highest truck involvement rate is I-84 westbound, between th e northbound exit ramp to Route 8 and the entrance ramp from Route 8 southbound, where 17 of 27 accidents (63%) involved trucks. 5.3.6 Contributing Factors The top five typical contributing factor s or causes for the accidents included: 1. Driving too fast fo r conditions (27%) 2. Driver following too close (25%) 3. Driver changed lane s improperly (22%) 4. Driver unable to cope with c onditions and lost control (8%) 5. Foreign object in the road (5%) The remaining 13% of the accidents were attribut ed to other factors such as driver falling asleep, slippery conditions, driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs, vehicle mechanical failure, and improper passing maneuver. A full account of contributing factors, by highway segment, is shown in appendix material. Separating contributing factor s into “Driver Error” and “Roadway Conditions” shows that the vast majority of accide nts are attributed to driver error, as shown below in Table 5-31. Therefore, efforts to address safety in this study area will need to address the way drivers react to the ro adway, not just address the roadway itself. Table 5-31: Category of Contributing Factors Factor Category Number Pct. Driver Error 1377 92% Road Condition 88 6% Other 26 2% Total 1491 100% 5.3.7 Summary Several comments about the interchange of I-84 and Route 8 in Waterbury can be made after a review of the accident data from 2001 to 2003: Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-73 ƒ Overall, lighting conditions do not appear to produce a bias in accident rates. However, a higher-than-expected pr oportion of accidents on Route 8 northbound occurred during non-daylight hours, while a lower-than-expected proportion occurred during non-daylight hours on Route 8 southbound. ƒ Weather may be a potential factor in the a ccident rate within the study area, as accident rates are slightly higher than w ould be expected during both wet and snowy or icy conditions. Route 8 southbound is an exception, as the accident rate is lower than expected during such conditions. ƒ The percentage of accidents involving injuri es was 22% for the study area as a whole. There was a greater imbalance between opposing directions of Route 8 (26% northbound, 18% southbound) than between I-84 eastbound and westbound. Three fatalities occurred during the period ob served, two on Route 8 and one on I-84. ƒ The most common types of accident were Fi xed Object (32%), Rear-end (32%) Side- swipe (27%) and Moving Object (4%). R oute 8 had a higher rate of Fixed and Moving Object collisions th an I-84, while the opposite was true for Rear-end and Side-swipe collisions. ƒ The rate of truck involvement in accide nts (31% overall, 32% on I-84 and 24% on Route 8) was very high relativ e to the percentage of vehicles that are trucks (about 8%). ƒ The leading contributing factors of accidents were drivers driving too fast for conditions (27%), following too close (25 %), changing lanes improperly (22%), or being unable to cope with conditions and losi ng control (8%). The vast majority of collisions — 92% — were attributed to one form or another of driver error. FIGURE 5-20 N Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 23 (68%) 10 (29%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 22 (65%) 1 (3%) 30 (88%) 11 (32%) 0 (0%) 4 (12%) 0 (0%) 12 (35%) 0 (0%) 15 (44%) 5 (15%) 2 (6%) 11 (32%) 34 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 17 (61%) 10 (36%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 14 (50%) 0 (0%) 14 (50%) 14 (50%) 0 (0%) 14 (50%) 0 (0%) 10 (36%) 1 (4%) 10 (36%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%) 8 (29%) 28 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (88%) 0 (0%) 6 (75%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (63%) 8 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 3 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 6 18 (72%) 7 (28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 21 (84%) 0 (0%) 19 (76%) 4 (16%) 0 (0%) 6 (24%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 17 (68%) 8 (32%) 0 (0%) 10 (40%) 25 7 (58%) 4 (33%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 10 (83%) 0 (0%) 10 (83%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 12 9 (56%) 4 (25%) 3 (19%) 0 (0%) 12 (75%) 2 (13%) 13 (80%) 2 (13%) 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 6 (38%) 8 (50%) 0 (0%) 7 (44%) 16 40 (69%) 14 (24%) 4 (7%) 0 (0%) 40 (69%) 0 (0%) 46 (79%) 18 (31%) 0 (0%) 12 (21%) 0 (0%) 14 (24%) 1 (2%) 27 (47%) 15 (26%) 1 (2%) 18 (31%) 58 68 (70%) 23 (22%) 5 (8%) 0 (0%) 66 (67%) 10 (10%) 83 (86%) 20 (23%) 0 (0%) 13 (14%) 0 (0%) 22 (23%) 5 (5%) 29 (30%) 36 (38%) 4 (4%) 48 (50%) 96 Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 10 (56%) 7 (39%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 10 (56%) 2 (11%) 13 (72%) 6 (33%) 0 (0%) 5 (28%) 0 (0%) 5 (28%) 1 (6%) 3 (17%) 5 (28%) 4 (22%) 5 (28%) 18 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 18 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 25 (74%) 8 (24%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 14 (41%) 4 (12%) 26 (76%) 16 (47%) 0 (0%) 8 (24%) 0 (0%) 15 (44%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 8 (24%) 1 (3%) 12 (35%) 34 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 18 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 10 (43%) 12 (52%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 5 (22%) 3 (13%) 19 (83%) 15 (65%) 0 (0%) 4 (17%) 0 (0%) 11 (48%) 0 (0%) 9 (39%) 3 (13%) 0 (0%) 2 (9%) 23 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 20 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 9 (82%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 00 (%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%) 9 (82%) 5 (45%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 6 (55%) 0 (0%) 6 (55%) 11 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 19 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 9 (60%) 6 (40%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (60%) 3 (20%) 14 (93%) 3 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 8 (53%) 0 (0%) 5 (33%) 2 (13%) 0 (0%) 4 (27%) 15 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 8 SB ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 27 (77%) 8 (23%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (31%) 0 (0%) 30 (86%) 24 (69%) 0 (0%) 5 (14%) 0 (0%) 26 (74%) 0 (0%) 5 (14%) 4 (11%) 0 (0%) 7 (20%) 35 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 8 NB ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 20 (74%) 7 (26%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14 (52%) 1 (4%) 21 (78%) 12 (44%) 0 (0%) 6 (22%) 0 (0%) 11 (41%) 0 (0%) 12 (44%) 3 (11%) 1 (4%) 7 (26%) 27 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 21 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 14 (78%) 4 (22%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 15 (83%) 0 (0%) 15 (83%) 3 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 13 (72%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 3 (17%) 18 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 22 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 7 (64%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%) 8 (73%) 0 (0%) 10 (91%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%) 4 (36%) 0 (0%) 4 (36%) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%) 11 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 21 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 57 (76%) 17 (23%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 41 (55%) 3 (4%) 53 (70%) 30 (40%) 1 (1%) 23 (30%) 0 (0%) 15 (20%) 1 (1%) 41 (55%) 12 (16%) 6 (8%) 19 (25%) 75 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 23 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (83%) 1 (8%) 10 (83%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 12 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 19 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 17 (68%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 0 (0%) 15 (60%) 2 (8%) 18 (72%) 8 (32%) 0 (0%) 7 (28%) 0 (0%) 4 (16%) 2 (8%) 6 (24%) 12 (48%) 1 (4%) 8 (32%) 25 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 23 ENT. RAMP Between Int. 18 Ramps Between 18 Ent. & 19 Ex. Between Int. 19 & 20 Between Rte 8. NB Ent. & Int. 21 Ex. Between Int. 21 Ent. & Int. 23 Ex. Between Int. 21 Ex. & Int. 22 Ex. Between Int. 20 Ex. & Int. 19 Ent. Bet. 19 Ent. & Rt. 8 SB Ent. Bet. Rt. 8 SB Ent. & Rt. 8 NB Ent. Bet. Int. 22 Ex. & Meadow St. Ent. ACCIDENT AND SAFETY ANALYSIS I-84 EASTBOUND LEGEND Number of Recorded Accidents Percentage of Accidents within Category 00 (00%) Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E Between Int. 23 Ex & Int. 23 Ent. FIGURE 5-21 N Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 11 (55%) 8 (40%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 14 (70%) 1 (5%) 16 (80%) 5 (25%) 00 (%) 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 00 (%) 00 (%) 00 (%) 00 (%) 00 (%) 7 (35%) 20 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 25 (76%) 4 (12%) 4 (12%) 0 (0%) 21 (64%) 2 (6%) 23 (70%) 10 (30%) 0 (0%) 10 (30%) 0 (0%) 3 (9%) 2 (6%) 11 (33%) 17 (52%) 0 (0%) 16 (48%) 33 21 (78%) 5 (19%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 22 (81%) 0 (0%) 24 (89%) 5 (19%) 0 (0%) 3 (11%) 0 (0%) 3 (11%) 2 (7%) 4 (15%) 18 (67%) 0 (0%) 17 (63%) 27 30 (81%) 5 (14%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 26 (70%) 0 (0%) 27 (73%) 11 (30%) 0 (0%) 10 (27%) 0 (0%) 4 (11%) 1 (3%) 22 (59%) 9 (24%) 1 (3%) 11 (30%) 37 17 (63%) 6 (22%) 3 (11%) 1 (4%) 21 (78%) 0 (0%) 23 (85%) 6 (22%) 0 (0%) 4 (15%) 0 (0%) 5 (19%) 1 (4%) 7 (26%) 14 (52%) 0 (0%) 8 (30%) 27 17 (61%) 9 (32%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 15 (54%) 1 (4%) 19 (68%) 12 (43%) 0 (0%) 9 (32%) 0 (0%) 11 (39%) 1 (4%) 7 (25%) 9 (32%) 0 (0%) 8 (29%) 28 43 (57%) 28 (37%) 4 (5%) 1 (1%) 48 (63%) 2 (3%) 57 (75%) 25 (33%) 1 (1%) 19 (25%) 0 (0%) 21 (28%) 5 (7%) 23 (30%) 25 (33%) 2 (3%) 27 (36%) 76 11 (55%) 9 (45%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (55%) 4 (20%) 15 (75%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 5 (25%) 1 (5%) 6 (30%) 8 (40%) 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 20 17 (50%) 15 (44%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 27 (79%) 3 (9%) 25 (74%) 4 (12%) 0 (0%) 8 (24%) 1 (3%) 6 (18%) 5 (15%) 8 (24%) 14 (41%) 1 (3%) 17 (50%) 34 Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 49 (75%) 15 (23%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 38 (58%) 4 (6%) 51 (78%) 23 (35%) 0 (0%) 14 (22%) 0 (0%) 24 (37%) 0 (0%) 30 (46%) 3 (5%) 8 (12%) 10 (15%) 65 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 18 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (55%) 2 (18%) 9 (82%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%) 6 (55%) 1 (9%) 5 (45%) 11 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E RT. 8 SB ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 12 (46%) 12 (46%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 17 (65%) 2 (8%) 18 (69%) 7 (27%) 0 (0%) 8 (31%) 0 (0%) 10 (38%) 2 (8%) 9 (35%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 7 (27%) 26 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 20 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 8 (57%) 6 (43%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (71%) 0 (0%) 11 (79%) 4 (29%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 9 (64%) 2 (14%) 1 (7%) 6 (43%) 14 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 21 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 15 (56%) 12 (44%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 17 (63%) 1 (4%) 20 (74%) 9 (33%) 0 (0%) 7 (26%) 0 (0%) 8 (30%) 1 (4%) 7 (26%) 7 (26%) 4 (15%) 8 (30%) 27 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 21 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 17 (74%) 5 (22%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 16 (70%) 1 (4%) 18 (78%) 6 (26%) 0 (0%) 5 (22%) 0 (0%) 6 (26%) 1 (4%) 10 (43%) 3 (13%) 3 (13%) 6 (26%) 23 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 23 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 70 (67%) 32 (30%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 23 (22%) 2 (2%) 89 (85%) 79 (25%) 1 (1%) 16 (15%) 0 (0%) 71 (68%) 1 (1%) 20 (19%) 13 (12%) 0 (0%) 14 (13%) 105 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 19 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 19 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 30 (59%) 18 (35%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) 33 (65%) 3 (6%) 37 (73%) 14 (27%) 1 (2%) 14 (27%) 0 (0%) 5 (10%) 0 (0%) 24 (49%) 14 (27%) 8 (16%) 5 (10%) 51 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 21 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 12 (60%) 8 (40%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14 (70%) 1 (5%) 12 (60%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 8 (40%) 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%) 5 (25%) 6 (30%) 5 (25%) 9 (45%) 20 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 22 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 30 (59%) 18 (35%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) 33 (65%) 3 (6%) 37 (73%) 14 (27%) 1 (2%) 14 (27%) 0 (0%) 5 (10%) 0 (0%) 24 (47%) 14 (27%) 8 (16%) 14 (27%) 51 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 22 ENT. RAMP Between Int. 18 Ramps Between Rte. 8 SB Ent. & Int. 18 Ex. Bet. Rt. 8 SB Ent. & Rt. 8 NB Ent. Bet. Int. 19 Ex. & Int. 20 Ex. Bet. Bank St. Ent. & Int. 19 Ex. Between Int. 21 Ex. & Int. 21 Ent. Between Int. 22 Ent. & Int. 21 Ex. Between Int. 22 Ex. & Int. 22 Ent.Between Int. 22 Ex. & Int. 23 Ex. ACCIDENT AND SAFETY ANALYSIS I-84 WESTBOUND LEGEND Number of Recorded Accidents Percentage of Accidents within Category 00 (00%) Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E FIGURE 5-22 N ACCIDENT AND SAFETY ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND Between Int. 34 Ent. & Int. 35 Ex. Between Int. 32 Ent. & Int. 34 Ent. Between Int. 33 Ex. & Int. 33 Ent.Between Int. 31 Ex. & Int. 32 Ex. Between Int. 30 Ent. &Int. 31 Ex. Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 6 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 35 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 34 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 5 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 32 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 33 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 10 (59%) 7 (41%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (59%) 0 (0%) 13 (76%) 7 (41%) 0 (0%) 4 (24%) 0 (0%) 13 (76%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 4 (24%) 17 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 31 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (71%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 5 (71%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 7 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 30 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 8 (89%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (89%) 0 (0%) 7 (78%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 0 (0%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 9 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 30 EX. RAMP Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 8 (47%) 6 (35%) 3 (18%) 0 (0%) 8 (47%) 3 (18%) 14 (82%) 6 (35%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 0 (0%) 8 (47%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 17 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 6 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 5 (71%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 5 (71%) 1 (14%) 5 (71%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 7 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 1 7 (35%) 11 (55%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%) 16 (80%) 11 (55%) 0 (0%) 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 12 (60%) 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 5 (25%) 0 (0%) 6 (30%) 20 8 (38%) 10 (48%) 3 (14%) 0 (0%) 8 (38%) 3 (14%) 15 (71%) 10 (48%) 0 (0%) 6 (29%) 0 (0%) 13 (62%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 21 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 7 Between Int. 30 Ex. & Int. 30 Ent. Bet. Int. 32 Ex. & Int. 33 Ex. Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 33 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 31 ENT. RAMP Between Int. 31 Ent . & Int. 32 Ent. Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 3 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 32 ENT. RAMP NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. Daylight Prop. Dam. Only A Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E LEGEND Number of Recorded Accidents Percentage of Accidents within Category 00 (00%) FIGURE 5-23 N Between Int. 34 Ex. & Int. 35 Ent.Between Int. 33 Ex. & Int.34 Ex. Between Int. 31 Ex. & Int. 31 Ent. South of Int. 30 Ent. Between Int. 33 Ent. & Int. 30 Ex. ACCIDENT AND SAFETY ANALYSIS ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND Between Int. 33 Ex. & Int. 32 Ex. Daylight Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Prop. Dam. Only Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 13 (93%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (57%) 0 (0%) 11 (79%) 6 (43%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 8 (57%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 14 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E 10 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 1 (10%) 10 (100%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 10 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%)0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 4 12 (92%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 11 (85%) 0 (0%) 12 (92%) 2 (15%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 2 (15%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 9 (69%) 0 (0%) 7 (54%) 13 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 10 (91%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%) 4 (36%) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 4 (36%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (24%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 35 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 32 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 4 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 31 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 00 (%) 00 (%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 33 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 5 (50%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 10 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 34 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 8 (73%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (82%) 0 (0%) 8 (73%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 7 (64%) 0 (0%) 4 (36%) 11 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 33 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 100(%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 4 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 30 ENT. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 6 (55%) 5 (45%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (55%) 1 (9%) 8 (73%) 4 (36%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 6 (55%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 11 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 30 EX. RAMP Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 5 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 32 ENT. RAMP Between Int. 30 off & Int. 30 Ent. Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type Trucks Involved Total 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 4 A B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E INT. 31 ENT. RAMP Bet. Int. 32 Ent. & Int. 33 Ent. North of Int. 35 Ent. NOTE FIGURE ROTATED 90 DEG. Dark Dusk/Dawn Unknown Dry Snow/Ice/Sand Wet Unknown Injury Fatality Fixed Object Moving Object Rear End Side-Swipe Other Light Condition Pavement Condition Severity Accident Type B C D A C A B D B C A B C D E LEGEND Number of Recorded Accidents Percentage of Accidents within Category 00 (00%) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-1 6 Conditions, Resources and Constraints 6.1 Roadway Conditions The Interstate 84 (I-84)and Route 8 interc hange, which was constructed in the mid- sixties, is the only double deck ed interchange in the State of Connecticut. This stacked interchange stands at approxi mately 90 feet from the ground to the top most deck. I-84 runs above Route 8 in the east-west direc tion, while Route 8 runs in the north- south direction. I-84 is double decked as it cro sses Route 8 with the eastbound deck running over the westbound deck. Route 8 is double deck ed south of I-84 with the northbound deck running over the southbound deck. I-84 typi cally has 3 travel lanes within the study area although there are some sections with 2 travel lanes. Likewise Route 8 primarily has 2 travel lanes within the study area with a few locations re gistering 3 travel lanes. Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-11 illustrate the typical se ctions along the highway mainline. Ramps within the study area are mainly located on the right side of the travel way, however there are some left hand ramps particularly in th e vicinity where I-84 and Route 8 cross each other. From the time of construction of the I-84 an d Route 8 interchange in the early to mid- sixties, the traffic volume has increased dram atically. I-84 for instance was designed to carry an Average Daily Tra ffic (ADT) of approximately 35,000 vehicles, and has since exceeded 100,000 vehicles in some locations. This increase in traffic places a burden on the existing infrastructure and contributes to safety issues. Additionally, the changes in the practice of highway design have caused several interchanges to become sub-standard by today’s criteria. The purpose of this analysis was to identify an d assess any geometric deficiencies within the study area. This included an assessmen t of ramp and mainline geometry, ramp acceleration and deceleration lengths, inte rchange spacing, lane continuity and configuration, lane and shoulder widths, supere levation rates, sight distance and roadside safety features and clear zones. The follo wing section is a report on the findings on geometric deficiencies along I-84 and Route 8 w ithin the study area. These deficiencies are illustrated in Figure 6-12 through Figure 6-26. 6.1.1 Ramp and Mainline Geometry Ramps and the highway mainline within the study area were assessed to determine whether existing geometry meets current design standards. The geometric parameters that were assessed were curve radii, roadway gr ade and superelevation rate. Table 6-1 through Table 6-4 give a summary of the geometric assessment of ramps within the study area. Curve Radii The first step in curve radii assessment was to obtain the design speed for both ramps and highway mainline in the study area. For the highway mainline, the minimum allowable Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-2 design of 50 mph for highways, as specified by AASHTO was used. A ramp design speed of 25 mph was then obtained based on the highway design speed using methodology from “A policy on Geometric De sign of Highways and Streets” by the American Association of State Highway a nd Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – 2001 Edition. The ramp design speed of 25 mph re presents the lower range corresponding minimum radius for a 50 mph mainline speed. A minimum ramp curve radius of 185 feet was then derived from Exhibit 3-14 of AASHTO (2001) based on the ramp design speed of 25 mph and a superelevation (e) rate of 6%. Any ramp with a curve radius smal ler than 185 feet was considered to be deficient. There was only one ramp that was de ficient in terms of curve radii. This ramp is the Interchange 18 westbound exit ramp on I- 84, which has a curve radius of 180 feet. Ramp Grades Ramp grades were also evaluated based on cu rrent AASHTO standards. In this analysis, a recommended range of ramp grade was obtained based on curve design speed, using methodology from AASHTO (2001) . AASHTO standards stipulate that ramps with design speeds of 15-25 mph should be limite d to grades of 6-8%, while ramps with design speeds of 25-30 mph shoul d be limited to 5-7%. A grade range of 4-6% should be used for ramps with design speed of 40 mph while a range of 3-5% should be used for ramps with design speed of 45-50 mph. Based on the ramp design speed of 25 mph used in this analysis, a maximum grade range of 5- 7% was used for all ramps in the study area. Any ramp with a grade grea ter than the recommended AA SHTO range of 5-7% was considered to be deficient. As the tables below show, there were 3 ramps that did not the meet the specified AASHTO grade standards. Two of the defici ent ramps were located on I-84, while one was located on Route 8. The deficient ramps on I-84 are: ƒ Interchange 21 westbound exit ramp wh ich has a downhill grade of 8% ƒ Interchange 19 eastbound entrance ramp which has a downhill grade of 8% The deficient ramp on Route 8 is the Inte rchange 31 southbound entrance ramp which has a downhill grade of 8%. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-3 Table 6-1: I-84 Exit Ramp Geometry Assessment Location Direction Grade Maximum Curv e Minimum Curve Ramp Comments Recommended Radius Curve Design Posted Grade 2 Radius 3 Speed 1 Speed I-84 (ft) (mph) Interchange 18 WB +3% 5-7% 180 185 25 25 Tight radius Interchange 19 EB Left -3% 5-7% 1400 185 25 35 Posted speed exceeds design speed EB Right -3% 5-7% 850 185 25 35 Posted speed exceeds design speed Interchange 20 WB -3% 5-7% 250 185 25 – Interchange 21 EB Meadow -4% 5-7% 160 185 25 25 EB S. Main -6% 5-7% 1535 185 25 25 WB -8% 5-7% 1000 185 25 – Steep grade Interchange 22 WB -3% 5-7% 840 185 25 25 Interchange 23 EB +3% 5-7% 2085 185 25 45 Posted speed exceeds design speed (1) AASHTO Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (2) AASHTO 2001, p 833 (3) Based on 25 mph Design Speed Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-4 Table 6-2: Route 8 Exit Ramp Geometry Assessment Location Direction Grade Maximum Curv e Minimum Curve Ramp Comments Recommended Radius Curve Design Posted Grade 2 Radius 3 Speed 1 Speed Route 8 (ft) (mph) Interchange 30 SB -4% 5-7% 1380 185 25 – Interchange 31 NB +4% 5-7% 250 185 25 25 SB +2% 5-7% 950 185 25 – Interchange 32 NB -4% 5-7% 1840 185 25 – SB -4% 5-7% 1100 185 25 30 Posted speed exceeds design speed Interchange 33 NB +4% 5-7% 2600 185 25 35 SB +2% 5-7% 600 185 25 – Interchange 34 SB -4% 5-7% 52750 185 25 35 Posted speed exceeds design speed Interchange 35 NB +1% 5-7% 2200 185 25 – (1) AASHTO Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (2) AASHTO 2001, p 833 (3) Based on 25 mph Design Speed (+) % Upgrade (-) % Down grade Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-5 Table 6-3: I-84 Entrance Ramp Geometry Assessment Location Direction Grade Maximum Cu rve Minimum Curve Comments Recommended Radius Curve Design Grade 2 Radius Speed 1 I-84 (ft) (ft) (mph) Interchange 18 EB -1% 5-7% 400 185 25 WB – 5-7% 900 185 25 Interchange 19 EB -8% 5-7% 2240 185 25 Steep grade WB Right +2% 5-7% 600 185 25 WB Left +4% 5-7% 2600 185 25 Interchange 20 EB Right +4% 5-7% 250 185 25 EB Left +2% 5-7% 950 185 25 Interchange 21 WB Left +5% 5-7% 350 185 25 WB Right +5% 5-7% 1180 185 25 Interchange 22 EB +2% 5-7% 550 185 25 WB +3% 5-7% 5770 185 25 (1) AASHTO Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (2) AASHTO 2001, p 833 (3) Based on 25 mph Design Speed (+) % Upgrade (-) % Down grade Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-6 Table 6-4: Route 8 Entrance Ramp Geometry Assessment Location Direction Grade Maximum Cu rve Minimum Curve Comments Recommended Radius Curve Design Grade 2 Radius Speed 1 Route 8 (ft) (ft) (mph) Interchange 30 NB +5% 5-7% 1780 185 25 Interchange 31 SB (84 EB) -8% 5-7% 850 185 25 Steep grade SB (84 WB) -4% 5-7% 250 185 25 SB (Riverside) +2% 5-7% 1900 185 25 Interchange 33 NB (84 WB) -6% 5-7% 1170 185 25 NB (84 EB) -3% 5-7% 1400 185 25 NB (Riverside) +5% 5-7% 18400 185 25 Interchange 34 NB +3% 5-7% 9829 185 25 Interchange 35 SB -2% 5-7% 14950 185 25 (1) AASHTO Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (2) AASHTO 2001, p 833 (3) Based on 25 mph Design Speed (+) % Upgrade (-) % Down grade Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-7 Mainline Grades Similarly, grades on the highway mainline were evaluated. Table 6-5 and Table 6-6 highlight results of the mainline eval uation. AASHTO standards recommend that a maximum grade of 5% should be used for a hi ghway design speed of 50 mph in an area with rolling terrain. Mainline grades were m easured to determine whether grades met the 5% maximum grade standard. There were no obs erved geometric deficiencies in terms of grades along both the I-84 a nd Route 8 corridor as shown by Table 6-5 and Table 6-6. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-8 Table 6-5: I-84 Mainline Geometry Assessment Segment Grade Maximum Curve Mainline From To Length Recommended Design Posted Grade 1 Speed Speed (ft) (mph) (mph) Eastbound Interchange 18 Exit Ramp Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp 1660 +3% 5% 50 50 Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (R) 940 +3% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (R) Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (L) 380 -2% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (L) Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp 1069 -3% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (L) 792 -2% 5% 50 50 Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (L) Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp 606 -2% 5% 50 50 Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) 487 -1% 5% 50 50 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) In terchange 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) 797 -2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp 898 -3% 5% 50 55 Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp Interchange 23 Exit Ramp 1120 +3% 5% 50 55 Westbound Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp Interchange 21 Exit Ramp 2660 -4% 5% 50 55 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (R) 1240 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (R) Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (L) 158 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (L) Interchange 20 Exit Ramp 898 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 20 Exit Ramp Interchange 19 Exit Ramp 793 +1% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (L) 1300 +4% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (L) Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (R ) 625 +4% 5% 50 50 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (R ) Interchange 18 Exit Ramp 1540 -2% 5% 50 50 Interchange 18 Exit Ramp Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp 3204 +1% 5% 50 50 (1) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 8-1, p 510 (+) % Upgrade (-) % Down grade Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-9 Table 6-6: Route 8 Main line Geometry Assessment Segment Grade Maximum Curve Mainline From To Length Recommended Design Posted Grade 1 Speed Speed (ft) (mph) (mph) Northbound Interchange 30 Entrance ramp Interchange 31 Exit ramp 1392 +3% 5% 50 45 Interchange 31 Exit ramp Interchange 32 Exit ramp 475 +2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 32 Exit ramp Interchange 33 Exit ramp ( L) 253 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 33 Exit ramp ( L) Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 WB) 1500 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 WB) Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 EB) 354 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 EB) Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (Riverside) 507 +1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (Riverside) Interchange 34 Entrance ramp 1192 -2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 34 Entrance ramp Interchange 35 Exit ramp 1600 -2% 5% 50 55 Southbound Interchange 35 Entrance ramp Interchange 34 Exit ramp 1560 +2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 34 Exit ramp Interchange 33 Exit ramp 1627 +2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 33 Exit ramp Interchange 32 Exit ramp 377 +2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 32 Exit ramp Interchange 31 Exit ramp 311 +2% 5% 50 55 Interchange 31 Exit ramp Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 EB ) 1953 -3% 5% 50 55 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 EB ) Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (Riverside ) 106 -3% 5% 50 55 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (Riverside ) Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 WB ) 615 -1% 5% 50 55 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 WB ) Interchange 30 Exit ramp 1656 +1% 5% 50 55 (1) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 8-1, p 510 (+) % Upgrade (-) % Down grade Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-10 Superelevation Rates Superelevation rates entrance ramps and the highway mainline was also assessed based on the AASHTO recommended maximum standard of 6%. There were two ramps with a superelevation rate of 8%. These ramps ar e Interchange 31 exit ramp which connects Route 8 northbound to I-84 and Interchange 20 exit ramp which connects I-84 westbound to Route 8. There were no observed supereleva tion rate deficiencies along the highway mainline. 6.1.2 Acceleration and Deceleration Lengths Differential speeds on highways, which is us ually caused by vehicles entering and exiting a highway, disrupts traffic flow and sometimes presents traffic safety issues. Acceleration and deceleration lanes are used to minimi ze such differential speeds on highways. Acceleration lanes enable drivers’ to build up enough speed to safely enter mainline traffic flow without disruptions to traffi c flow. Likewise, deceleration lanes enable drivers to substantially reduce their speeds to negotiate a curv e in the exit ramp or stop safely at the end of a ramp. As part of the geometric condition evaluati on of the ramps and mainlines in the study area, acceleration and deceleration lanes were evaluated to verify that the recommended minimum acceleration and deceleration lane distan ces were satisfied. The first step in this task was to obtain the minimum AASHTO recommended acceleration and deceleration lengths based entrance ramp and corre sponding mainline design speeds. AASHTO guidelines stipulate a minimu m acceleration length of 550 fe et and minimum deceleration length of 335 feet for a ramp design speed of 25 mph and a highway design speed of 50 mph. Any ramp with accelera tion or deceleration lengths less than the minimum AASHTO standards was considered to be de ficient. Table 6-7and Table 6-8 give a summary of the findings on acceleration a nd deceleration lengths on I-84, while Table 6-9 and Table 6-10 give a summary of acceler ation and deceleration lengths on Route 8. Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths on I-84 There were 4 entrance ramps along the I- 84 corridor with acceleration length deficiencies. These ramps are: ƒ Interchange 20 Eastbound Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) – This entrance ramp is a right hand ramp which connects Route 8 northbound to I-84 eastbound. The minimum acceleration length on this ramp as specified by AASHTO is 550 feet; however the measured accelerat ion length is only 480 feet. ƒ Interchange 21 Westbound Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – This entrance ramp is a left hand ramp. The measured accelerati on length on this ramp is 280 feet. The minimum acceleration length as re commended by AASHTO is 550 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-11 ƒ Interchange 21 Westbound Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) –The measured acceleration length on this ramp is 410 feet. The minimum acceleration length as recommended by AASHTO is 550 feet. ƒ Interchange 22 Eastbound Entrance Ramp – The measured acceleration length on this ramp is 450 feet. The minimum acceleration length as recommended by AASHTO is 550 feet. ƒ Interchange 22 Westbound Entrance Ramp – The measured acceleration length on this ramp is 350 feet. The minimum acceleration length as recommended by AASHTO is 550 feet. Exit Ramp Deceleration Lengths on I-84 There were 3 exit ramps along the I-84 corridor with deceleration length deficiencies as listed in Table 1.7. These exit ramps are: ƒ Interchange 20 Westbound Exit ramp – The minimum deceleration length for this ramp as specified by AASHTO is 335 feet . The measured deceleration length is 325 feet. ƒ Interchange 21 Eastbound Exit ramp (to South Main Street) – This exit ramp connects to South Main Street. The minimu m deceleration length for this ramp as specified by AASHTO is 335 feet. The meas ured deceleration length is 320 feet. ƒ Interchange 22 Westbound Exit ramp – The minimum deceleration length for this ramp as specified by AASHTO is 335 feet . The measured deceleration length is 250 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-12 Table 6-7: I-84 Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths Location Direction Curve Mainline A cceleration AASHTO Min. Comments Design Design Length Acceleration Speed 2 Speed Length 1,3 (mph) (mph) (ft) (ft) I-84 Interchange 18 EB 25 50 840 550 WB 25 50 ` 550 Interchange 19 EB 25 50 450 550 WB (Right) 25 50 1200 550 WB (Left) 25 50 850 550 Interchange 20 EB (Right) 25 50 480 550 inadequate acceleration length EB (Left) 25 50 N/A 550 Interchange 21 WB (Left) 25 50 280 550 inadequate acceleration length WB (Right) 25 50 410 550 inadequate acceleration length Interchange 22 EB 25 50 450 550 inadequate acceleration length WB 25 50 350 550 inadequate acceleration length (1) Design speed of 50 mph for mainline and 25 mph for ramps (2) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (3) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-70, p 851 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-13 Table 6-8: I-84 Exit Ramp Deceleration Lengths Location Direction Curve Mainline Decel eration AASHTO Min. Comments Design Design Length Deceleration Speed 2 Speed Length 1, 3 (mph) (mph) (ft) (ft) I-84 Interchange 18 EB 25 50 380 335 WB 25 50 390 335 Interchange 19 EB (Left) 25 50 380 335 EB (Right) 25 50 720 335 Interchange 20 WB 25 50 325 335 inadequate deceleration length Interchange 21 EB (Meadow) 25 50 600 335 EB (S. Main) 25 50 320 335 inadequate deceleration length WB 25 50 415 335 Interchange 22 WB 25 50 250 335 inadequate deceleration length Interchange 23 EB 25 50 800 335 (1) Design speed of 50 mph for mainline and 25 mph for ramps (2) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (3) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-73, p 855 Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths on Route 8 There was one entrance ramp along the Route 8 corridor within the study area with an acceleration length deficiency as shown in Table 1.8. The deficient ramp is the Interchange 31 southbound entrance ramp fr om Riverside Street which has an acceleration length of 300 feet. Exit Ramp Deceleration Lengths on Route 8 There were no observed deficiencies with re gard to deceleration lengths on Route 8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-14 Table 6-9: Route 8 Entrance Ramp Acceleration Lengths Location Direction Curve Curve Mainlin e Acceleration AASHTO Min. Comments Radius Design Design Length Acceleration Speed 2 Speed Length 1,3 Route 8 (ft) (mph) (mph) (ft) (ft) Interchange 30 NB 1780 25 50 600 550 Interchange 31 SB (84 EB) 850 25 50 900 550 SB (84 WB) 250 25 50 N/A 550 SB (Riverside) 1900 25 50 300 550 inadequate acceleration length Interchange 33 NB (84 WB) 1170 25 50 N/A 550 NB (84 EB) 1400 25 50 700 550 NB (Riverside) 18400 25 50 800 550 Interchange 34 NB 9829 25 50 850 550 Interchange 35 SB 14950 25 50 N/A 550 (1) Design speed of 50 mph for mainline and 25 mph for ramps (2) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (3) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-70, p 851 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-15 Table 6-10: Route 8 Exit Ramp Deceleration Lengths Location Direction Curve Curve Ma inline Deceleration AASHTO Min. Radius Design Design Length Deceleration Speed 2 Speed Length 1,3 Route 8 (ft) (mph) (mph) (ft) (ft) Interchange 30 SB 1380 25 50 630 335 Interchange 31 NB 250 25 50 420 335 SB 950 25 50 460 335 Interchange 32 NB 1840 25 50 475 335 SB 11000 25 50 460 335 Interchange 33 NB 2600 25 50 420 335 SB 600 25 50 1000 335 Interchange 34 SB 52750 25 50 660 335 Interchange 35 NB 2200 25 50 670 335 (1) Design speed of 50 mph for mainline and 25 mph for ramps (2) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-56, p 830 (3) AASHTO 2001, Exhibit 10-73, p 855 6.1.3 Interchange Spacing In addition to evaluating the geometry of th e ramps in the study area, an analysis was conducted to ascertain whether the minimu m ramp spacing between successive ramp terminals, as specified by current design standards are satisfied. Successive ramp terminals are defined as the presence of two or more ramps (entrance or exit) in close succession either upstream or downstream an urban freeway. A reasonable distance between successive ramps is important to provide enough room for maneuvering and signage placement. AASHTO standards recognize f our different designated ramp combinations, namely entrance ramp-entrance ramp, entrance ramp-exit ramp, exit ramp-entrance ramp and exit ramp-exit ramp. An entrance ramp-entrance ra mp combination is a ramp combination in which an entrance ramp is followed by an entrance ramp. Likewise, an exit ramp- exit ramp combination is a combination in which an exit ramp is followed by another exit ramp. In an entrance ramp- exit ramp combination, an entrance ramp is directly followed by an exit ramp, while in an exit ramp en trance ramp combination; an exit ramp is directly followed by an entrance ramp. Minimum interchange spacings we re obtained for the four different designated ramp combinations, using methodology from AASHTO (2004). AASHTO standards Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-16 recommend a minimum interchange spacing of 500 feet for an exit ramp-entrance ramp combination, 1000 feet for exit ramp-exit ramp or entrance ramp- entrance ramp combination and 2000 feet for an entrance ramp-exit ramp combination. The existing interchange spacings were then compared to the AASTHTO standards to ascertain whether the set standards were met. Table 6-11 and Table 6-12 summarize the findings of the interchange spacing analysis. Along the I-84 mainline in the eastbound di rection, there were 7 segments with interchange spacing deficiencies as list ed in Table 6-11. These segments are: ƒ Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp to Interch ange 19 Exit Ramp (Right Ramp) – The interchange spacing for this segm ent is 940 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. ƒ Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (on Right) to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (on Left) – The interchange spacing for this segm ent is 380 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp to Int erchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – The interchange spacing for this segm ent is 792 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ra mp) to Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 606 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 487 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. ƒ Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (South Main St) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 797 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 1120 feet. Th e minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. In the westbound direction along I-84, there we re 4 different successive ramps sections with spacing deficiencies as listed in Table 6-12. These segments are: ƒ Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Ri ght) to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 158 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-17 ƒ Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Left) to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 898 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. ƒ Interchange 20 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 793 feet. The mi nimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (from Le ft) to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 625 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-18 Table 6-11: I-84 Interchange Spacing Location Downstream Downstream AASHTO AASHTO Min. Comments Distance to Ramp Designated Recommended Next Ramp Ramp Distance I-84 (ft) Combination (ft) Eastbound Interchange 17 Entrance Ramp 3300 Interchange 18 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 Interchange 18 Exit Ramp 1660 Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp Ex-En 500 Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp 940 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (R) En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (R) 380 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (L) Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (L) 1069 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp Ex-En 500 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp 792 Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (L) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (L) 606 Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Rte 8 NB) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Rte 8 NB) 487 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) 797 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) 898 Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp Ex-En 500 Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp 1120 Interchange 23 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Westbound Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp 2660 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 Interchange 21 Exit Ramp 1240 Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (R) Ex-En 500 Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (R) 158 Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (L) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (L) 898 Interchange 20 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 20 Exit Ramp 793 Interchange 19 Exit Ramp Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 19 Exit Ramp 1300 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (L) Ex-En 500 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (L) 625 Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (R ) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (R ) 1540 Interchange 18 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 Interchange 18 Exit Ramp 3204 Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp Ex-En 500 Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp 2900 Interchange 17 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 (R) Denotes Right Hand Interchange Ramp (L) Denotes Left Hand Interchange Ramp Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-19 Along the Route 8 mainline, there were 6 different successive ramps sections with spacing deficiencies in the northbound directi on as listed in Table 6-12. These ramps are: ƒ Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 1392 feet. Th e minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. ƒ Interchange 31 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 475 feet. The mi nimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Int erchange 33 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 253 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 WB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 353 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (Riverside St) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 507 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 34 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 35 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 1600 feet. Th e minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. In the southbound direction, ther e were 5 different successive ramps with spacing. These segments are: ƒ Interchange 35 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 34 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 1560 feet. Th e minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 2000 feet. ƒ Interchange 33 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 377 feet. The mi nimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – The interchange spacing for this segment is 311 feet. The mi nimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. ƒ Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I- 84 EB) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Riverside St) – The interchange spacing fo r this segment is 106 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-20 ƒ Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Rivers ide St) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I-84 WB ) – The interchange spacing for this segment is 615 feet. The minimum AASHTO standard for this ramp combination is 1000 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-21 Table 6-12: Route 8 Interchange Spacing Location Downstream Downstream AASHTO AASHTO Min. Comments Distance to Ramp Designated Recommended Next Ramp Ramp Distance Route 8 (ft) Combination (ft) Northbound Interchange 30 Exit Ramp 3450 Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp Ex-En 500 Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp 1392 Interchange 31 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 31 Exit Ramp 475 Interchange 32 Exit Ramp Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 32 Exit Ramp 253 Interchange 33 Exit Ramp ( L) Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 33 Exit Ramp ( L) 1500 Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 WB) Ex-En 500 Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 WB) 354 Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) 507 Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (Riverside) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (Riverside) 1192 Interchange 34 Entrance Ramp En-En 1000 Interchange 34 Entrance Ramp 1600 Interchange 35 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Southbound Interchange 35 Entrance Ramp 1560 Interchange 34 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 34 Exit Ramp 1627 Interchange 33 Exit Ramp Ex-Ex 1000 Interchange 33 Exit Ramp 377 Interchange 32 Exit Ramp Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 32 Exit Ramp 311 Interchange 31 Exit Ramp Ex-Ex 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 31 Exit Ramp 1953 Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (84 EB ) Ex-En 500 Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (84 EB ) 106 Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (Riverside ) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (Riverside ) 615 Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (84 WB ) En-En 1000 insufficient ramp spacing Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (84 WB ) 1656 Interchange 30 Exit Ramp En-Ex 2000 (L) Denotes Left Hand Interchange Ramp Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-22 6.1.4 Lane Continuity and Configuration Lane continuity and configura tion are important geometric para meters that affect traffic flow. Lane continuity refers to the provi sion of a path throughout the length of a roadway. Sudden lane discontinuities gene rate unnecessary weaving and maneuvering by drivers, which ultimately disrupts traffic fl ow and in some cases lead to accidents. Lane configuration on the othe r hand refers to the location, direction and dimension of roadway lanes, sidewalks and other desi gn features. The location of ramps along a highway is an important configuration issue. Exit ramps located on the left side of a highway generate weaving and maneuvering problems particularly in instances where there is insufficient advance warning for drivers to maneuver to the left lane to take an exit ramp. In this study, sections along the I-84 and Rout e 8 mainline within the study area with lane configuration and continuity problems were identified. Tabl e 6-13 and Table 6-14 give a summary of the findings on lane continuity and configuration for I-84 and Route 8 respectively. Lane Discontinuity along I-84 In the eastbound direction along I-84, there are two sections with lane discontinuities. ƒ Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (to Route 8 SB) – This exit ramp is located on the right side of the travel way. Upstream this ra mp, there are 3 lanes comprising 2 travel lanes and one auxiliary lane. The auxiliary lane is dropped at this interchange leaving 2 travel lanes downstream the exit ramp. ƒ Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (to Meadow St.) – Upstream this exit ramp, there are 4 lanes comprising 3 travel lanes and one righ t auxiliary lane. The auxiliary lane is dropped at this ramp leaving 3 travel lanes downstream the ramp. In the westbound direction, there are thre e sections along I-84 where lanes are discontinued. These sections are: ƒ Interchange 20 Exit Ramp -Upstream this exit ramp, there are 5 lanes comprising 3 travel lanes and 2 auxi liary lanes located on each side of the roadway. At this exit ramp, the left auxiliary lane is dropped leaving 3 travel lanes and the right auxiliary lane downstream the ramp. ƒ Interchange 19 Exit Ramp -Upstream this exit ramp, there are 4 lanes comprising 3 travel lanes and a right auxiliary lane. At this exit ramp, the auxiliary lane is dropped leaving 3 travel lanes downstream the ramp. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-23 ƒ Interchange 18 Exit Ramp -Upstream this exit ramp, there are 4 lanes comprising 3 travel lanes and a right auxiliary lane. At this exit ramp, the auxiliary lane is dropped leaving 3 travel lanes downstream the ramp. Table 6-13: I-84 Lane Conf iguration and Continuity Location Number of Number of Comments Lanes Lanes (Upstream) (Downstream) I-84 Eastbound Interchange 18 Entrance ramp 2 3 Interchange 19 Exit ramp (R) 3 2 Lane discontinued Interchange 19 Exit ramp (L) 2 2 Interchange 19 Entrance ramp 2 2 Interchange 20 Entrance ramp (L) 2 3 Interchange 20 Entrance ramp (Rte 8 NB) 3 4 Interchange 21 Exit ramp (Meadow St.) 4 3 Lane discontinued Interchange 21 Exit ramp (S. Main St.) 3 3 Interchange 22 Entrance ramp 3 4 Westbound Interchange 22 Entrance ramp 3 3 Interchange 21 Exit ramp 3 3 Interchange 21 Entrance ramp (R) 3 4 Interchange 21 Entrance ramp (L) 4 5 Interchange 20 Exit ramp 5 4 Lane discontinued Interchange 19 Exit ramp 4 3 Lane discontinued Interchange 19 Entrance ramp (L) 3 4 Interchange 19 Entrance ramp (R ) 4 4 Interchange 18 Exit ramp 4 3 Lane discontinued Interchange 18 Entrance ramp 3 – (R) Denotes Right Hand Interchange Ramp (L) Denotes Left Hand Interchange Ramp Lane Discontinuity along Route 8 In the northbound direction along Route 8, there is one location with a lane discontinuity. This location is: Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – Upstream this exit ramp, there are 3 lanes comprising, 2 travel lanes and an auxiliary la ne. The auxiliary lane is dropped at this ramp leaving the 2 travel lanes downstream. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-24 In the southbound direction along Route 8, there are also two sections with lane discontinuities. These sections are: ƒ Interchange 34 Exit Ramp – Upstream this ramp, there are 4 lanes comprising 3 travel lanes and an auxiliary lane. The auxiliary lane is dropped at this ramp leaving 3 travel lanes downstream the ramp. ƒ Interchange 32 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) – The number of travel lanes drop from 3 to 2 lanes at this exit ramp. Table 6-14: Route 8 Lane Co nfiguration and Continuity Location Number of Number of Comments Lanes Lanes (Upstream) (Downstream) Route 8 Northbound Interchange 30 Exit ramp 2 2 Interchange 30 Entrance ramp 2 3 Interchange 31 Exit ramp 3 2 Lane discontinued Interchange 32 Exit ramp 2 2 Interchange 33 Exit ramp ( L) 2 2 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 WB) 2 3 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (84 EB) 3 4 Interchange 33 Entrance ramp (Riverside) 3 4 Interchange 34 Entrance ramp 3 4 Southbound Interchange 35 Entrance ramp 2 3 Interchange 34 Exit ramp 4 3 Lane discontinued Interchange 33 Exit ramp 3 3 Interchange 32 Exit ramp (L) 3 2 Lane discontinued Interchange 31 Exit ramp (L) 2 2 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 EB ) 2 2 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (Riverside ) 2 2 Interchange 31 Entrance ramp (84 WB ) 2 2 Interchange 30 Exit ramp 2 2 (L) Denotes Left Hand Interchange Ramp Left Hand Ramps In the eastbound direction along th e I-84 mainline, there are two ramps located on the left side of the mainline. These ramps are the Interchange 19 exit ramp and Interchange 20 entrance ramp. The nearest upstream entrance ra mp to the Interchange 19 exit ramp is the Interchange 18 entrance ramp which is 1220 feet away (AASHTO minimum = 2000’). In Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-25 the westbound direction along I-84, there are also two left ramps. These ramps are Interchange 19 and Interchange 21 entrance ramps. Along the Route 8 mainline in the northbound dir ection, there are three left ramps. These are the Interchange 33 exit ramp and the Interchange 33 entrance ramps from I-84 eastbound and I-84 westbound. In the southbound di rection along Route 8, there two left ramps namely, the Intercha nge 31 and 32 exit ramps. FIGURE 6-1 INTERSTATE 84 CROSS SECTION OVERVIEW N A A G G B B B B C C D D E E F F LEGEND Cross Sections (See Cross Section Figures)- – FIGURE 6-2 N AA H H H H F F I I D D F F F F ROUTE 8 CROSS SECTION OVERVIEW LEGEND Cross Sections (See Cross Section Figures)- – FIGURE 6-3 TYPICAL TWO LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION A-A 234 J R INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 17 & 19 2’ Shld’r 8’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 35 & 36 234J R FIGURE 6-4 INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 20 & 21 10’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 20 & 21 TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SEC TION (WITH AUXILIARY LANE) SECTION B-B INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 18 & 19 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shld’r 12’ Auxiliary Lane 12’ TravelLane 12’ TravelLane FIGURE 6-5 6’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Auxiliary Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 20 & 21 TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SEC TION (WITH AUXILIARY LANE) SECTION C-C 2 34 J R 6’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Auxiliary Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 20 & 21 12’ Auxiliary Lane 234 J R FIGURE 6-6 INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 21 & 22 INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 21 & 22 TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION D-D 3’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 3’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane FIGURE 6-7 INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND WEST OF HAMILTON AVENUE INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND WEST OF HAMILTON AVENUE TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION E-E 12’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 16’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane 12’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 16’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane 234J R FIGURE 6-8 INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 23 & 24 INTERSTATE 84 EASTBOUND BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 23 & 24 TYPICAL TWO LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION F-F 10’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane 10’ Shld’r 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane 234J R ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 32 & 33 ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 29 & 30 ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 29 & 30 FIGURE 6-9 6’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane INTERSTATE 84 WESTBOUND AT INTERCHANGE 18 TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION G-G FIGURE 6-10 3’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 34 & 35 TYPICAL THREE LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION H-H 2 34J R 3’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ TravelLane ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 33 & 34 FIGURE 6-11 TYPICAL TWO LANE CROSS SECTION SECTION I-I 4’ Shld’r 10’ Shld’r 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND BETW EEN INTERCHANGES 31 & 33 FIGURE 6-12 RAMP AND MAINLINE GEOMETRY DEFICIENCIES I-84 EASTBOUND N Interchange 20 EB Entrance Ramp AASHTO Maximum 8% Super Elevation Rate 6% LEGEND Grade Deficiency Super Elevation Deficiency Interchange 19 EB Entrance Ramp AASHTO Minimum 8% Ramp Grade 5-7% FIGURE 6-13 RAMP AND MAINLINE GEOMETRY DEFICIENCIES I-84 WESTBOUND Interchange 20 WB Exit Ramp AASHTO Maximum 8% Super Elevation Rate 6% Interchange 18 WB Exit Ramp AASHTOMinimum 180 Feet Curve Radii 185 Feet Interchange 21 WB Exit Ramp AASHTO Maximum 8% Ramp Grade 5-7% LEGEND Curve Radii Deficiency Grade Deficiency Super Elevation Deficiency N FIGURE 6-14 RAMP AND MAINLINE GEOMETRY DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND LEGEND Super Elevation Deficiency N Interchange 31 Exit Ramp AASHTO Maximum 8% Super Elevation Rate 6% FIGURE 6-15 RAMP AND MAINLINE GEOMETRY DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND N Interchange 31 SB Entrance Ramp From I-84 EB AASHTO Maximum 8% Ramp Grade 5-7% LEGEND Grade Deficiency FIGURE 6-16 ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION LENGTH DEFICIENCIES I-84 EASTBOUND N LEGEND Acceleration / Deceleration Length Deficiency Interchange 22 EB Entrance Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 450 550 Acceleration Length (Feet) Interchange 21 EB Exit Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 320 335 Deceleration Length (Feet) Interchange 20 EB Exit Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 480 550 Acceleration Length (Feet) FIGURE 6-17 ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION LENGTH DEFICIENCIES I-84 WESTBOUND LEGEND Acceleration / Deceleration Length Deficiency N Interchange 20 WB Exit Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 325 Deceleration Length (Feet) 335 Interchange 21 WB Entrance Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 280 Acceleration Length (Feet) 550 Interchange 22 WB Entrance Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 350 550 Acceleration Length (Feet) Interchange 22 WB Exit Ramp AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 250 335 Deceleration Length (Feet) FIGURE 6-18 ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION LENGTH DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Riverside St) AASHTO Minimum 300 Feet Acceleration Length 550 Feet N LEGEND Acceleration/Deceleration Length Deficiency FIGURE 6-19 N INTERCHANGE SPACING DEFICIENCIES I-84 EASTBOUND Interchange Spacing (Feet)AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 940 2000 792 1000 606 1000 797 1000 380 1000 487 2000 LEGEND Interchange Spacing Deficiency 1120 2000 FIGURE 6-20 INTERCHANGE SPACING DEFICIENCIES I-84 WESTBOUND N Interchange Spacing (Feet)AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 625 1000 793 1000 898 2000 158 1000 LEGEND Interchange Spacing Deficiency FIGURE 6-21 INTERCHANGE SPACING DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND N Interchange Spacing (Feet)AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 507 1000 LEGEND Interchange Spacing Deficiency 1600 2000 253 1000 475 1000 1392 2000 FIGURE 6-22 INTERCHANGE SPACING DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND N Interchange Spacing (Feet)AASHTO Minimum (Feet) 377 1000 LEGEND Interchange Spacing Deficiency 1560 2000 615 1000 311 1000 FIGURE 6-23 LANE CONTINUITY DEFICIENCIES I-84 EASTBOUND N LEGEND Lane Discontinuity Interchange 21 EB Exit Ramp Downstream 4 Upstream 3 Lanes Dropped 1 Interchange 19 EB Exit Ramp Downstream 3 Upstream 2 Lanes Dropped 1 FIGURE 6-24 LANE CONTINUITY DEFICIENCIES I-84 WESTBOUND N Interchange 20 WB Exit Ramp Downstream 5 Upstream 4 Lanes Dropped 1 Interchange 19 WB Exit Ramp Downstream 4 Upstream 3 Lanes Dropped 1 Interchange 20 WB Exit Ramp Downstream 4 Upstream 3 Lanes Dropped 1 LEGEND Lane Discontinuity FIGURE 6-25 LANE CONTINUITY DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 NORTHBOUND N Interchange 31NB Exit Ramp Downstream 3 Upstream 2 Lanes Dropped 1 LEGEND Lane Discontinuity FIGURE 6-26 LANE CONTINUITY DEFICIENCIES ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND N Interchange 34SB Exit Ramp Downstream 4 Upstream 3 Lanes Dropped 1 Interchange 32SB Exit Ramp Downstream 3 Upstream 2 Lanes Dropped 1 LEGEND Lane Discontinuity Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-52 6.1.5 Shoulder Widths An examination of shoulder width was perf ormed to gauge the existence of minimum shoulder requirements on the highway mainli ne and ramps. Aerial photographs and digital design plans were consulted to aid in identifying locations that violated the minimum shoulder width standard s as specified by AASHTO. AASHTO standards indicate that a minimum right shoulder width on highway mainlines should be at least 12 feet. For a one way ramp, a shoulder width of 2 to 4 feet is desirable for left shoulders, while a width of 8 to 10 feet is recommended for right shoulders. The findings in this task reveal th at there were no deficiencies with regard to ramp shoulder widths in the study ar ea. There were some mainline locat ions however, that had shoulder width violations. The section that follows highlights these locations. Shoulder Widths on I-84 In the eastbound direction along I-84 there are 3 locations where shoulder widths violate specified AASHTO standards. These locations are: ƒ Interchange 19 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp – The shoulder width at this section of highway is about 3-5 feet. ƒ Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (from Ro ute 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (to Meadow St ) – The shoulder width at this section of highway mainline is about 3 feet. ƒ Interchange 22 Exit Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp – The shoulder width at this section of highway ra nges from about 3-5 feet. In the westbound direction along I-84, there are 2 locations with shoulder width violations. These locations are: ƒ Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp – The shoulder width at this location ranges from 6-8 feet. ƒ Interchange 18 Exit Ramp to 18 Entrance Ramp – The shoulder width at this section is about 3 feet. Shoulder Widths on Route 8 In the northbound direction along Route 8 there are 2 sections where shoulder widths violate specified AASHTO standa rds. These locations are: ƒ Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – The shoulder width at this section of mainline is about 3 feet. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-53 ƒ Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp – A shoulder width of about 3 feet runs from the interchange 32 exit ramp for about 720 feet downstream and increases to 12 feet before the interchange 31 entrance ramp. In the southbound directions there is 1 sec tion where shoulder widths do not meet the specified standards. This section is: Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 30 Exit Ramp – The shoulder width at this section is about 3-5 feet. 6.1.6 Signage Deficiencies Roadway signs form an integral part of the geometric design of roads. These signs enhance the overall traffic operation and safe ty on highways because they inform, warn and control driver behavior. There are three general types of road si gns recognized by AASHTO. These signs are regulatory signs, warning signs an d guide signs. Regulatory signs are used to indicate the rules for traffic movement; warning signs are us ed to inform drivers of potential risk or danger on the roadway, while guide signs are used to direct drivers along a roadway. A field reconnaissance was undertaken to ex amine the current state of signage on and around I-84 and Route 8 within the study area. Th e task involved field verification, photo documentation and sign classification that was based on the following categories: ¾ Absence of signs ¾ Location of signs ¾ Legibility/Condition of signs and ¾ Clarity of signs Figure 6-27 shows the locations within the study area with signage deficiencies. The major signage deficiency within the study area is the absence of directional signs to guide motorists to both I-84 and Route 8. Loca tions with such deficiencies are: City Green – There is inadequate signage direc ting drivers from the City Green to Interstate 84. St Mary’s Hospital –There is no clear signage guide mo torists from the hospital to I-84. Baldwin Street/Mill Street – There are no signs at the Baldwin Street/Mill Street intersection to direct traffic trave ling south on Baldwin Street to I-84. Grand Street/Bank Street – There are no signs on the Grand Street approach eastbound to direct traffic to both I-84 and Route 8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-54 Hamilton Street/ Silver Lane – This intersection needs an I-84 westbound directional sign on the Hamilton Street approach northbo und. Also, there are no signs to direct drivers traveling we st on Washington Street to I-84. Riverside Street/West Main Street – An I-84 westbound directional sign is needed at the northbound approach on Riverside Street. West Main Street/ Chase Parkway – This intersection needs I-84 directional signs on the eastbound approach from West Main Street. Chase Parkway/Country Club Road – This intersection needs I-84 directional signs Sunnyside Avenue/ Highland Avenue – An I-84 westbound directional sign is needed on all approaches to this intersection. Sunnyside Avenue/Riverside Street – There is no sign directing motorists to Route 8 There are other signage deficiencies that re quire minor maintenance with a few requiring full replacement. Some signs require painting as these signs have either faded or peeled off due to exposure. These signs include: ¾ I-84 directional sign located at the intersection of Bank Street/Congress Street, ¾ I-84 directional sign lo cated at the intersection of I-84 EB entrance ramp/ Baldwin Street ¾ I-84 and Route 8 directional signs lo cated at the intersection of Grand Street/Leavenworth Street. Some signs are also obscured by vegetation or roadway infrastructure and are thus not clearly visible to motorists. These are I-84 directional signs located the following intersections: ¾ Chase Parkway/West Main Street ¾ Highland Street/I-84 EB entrance ramp ¾ West Main Street/Riverside Street NB. Three highway directional signs have either missing or sub-standard route shields and should be replaced. Of the three signs, two have missing route shields while one has a sub-standard route shield. The two signs with missing shields include: The I-84 westbound sign located at the inte rsection of Highland Avenue/Sunnyside Avenue Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-55 The Route 8 sign located at the intersection of Riverside Street /Congress Avenue. The sub-standard directional sign is an I-84 sign located at the intersection of Meadow Street/ Grand Street. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 6-56 Figure 6-27: Signage Deficiencies I-84 EB Portal sign obscurred I-84 directional signs needed I-84 directional signs needed Missing I-84 WB shield I-84 directional sign obscurred by fence I-84 WB di rectional sign needed Directional sign obs cure d Route 8 directional signs needed Missing Route 8 Sheild Route 8 directional signs needed I-8 4 Si gn i n poor condition A “Do Not Enter” sign ne ed ed I-84 di rec ti on al signs faded I-8 4 WB di rectio na l sign needed I-84 directional signs needed I-84 directional signs needed I-84 directional signs needed fro m St M ary’ s Hospital I-84 and Route 8 directional signs needed I-84 and Route 8 directional signs faded I-84 and Route 8 directional signs faded I-84 WB and Route 8 SB dire ctio na l signs ne ed ed Sub-standard I-84 route shield I-84 directional sign ne ed ed Sign for W.Main/ Highland split has insufficient advance warning I-84 directional signs needed from city green City gr een I-84 directional sign ne ed ed fro m St Mary’s Hospital § ¨ ¦84 ” )8 St Mary’s Hos pital I – 8 4 M ai n H il l B an k W olc o t t W a ln ut W il l o w C o o k e E l m P in e P a rk O a k S yl v a n H i g h la n d U n io n W a te r to w n W all H a m il t o n M i l l W ils o n B un k e r H i l l J a m es H D arc e y M em o ria l W ate rv il l e T ho m a st o n P l a nk O r o no k e T u d o r A u r o r a C o n g r e s s C h ip m a n P la t t R iv e r M e ri d e n L o n g H ill L eo n a rd A l d e r H o p e C o u nt r y C l u b Jo y O r a n g e R ud y A t w o o d S til l s o n L in c o l n S ilv er F a ir fi e l d A r d sl e y F i s k e L i b e r t y H i l l s id e L a k ew o o d B i r c h B er k e le y C o l u m b ia A v o n W oo d B is h op P ea r l W as h in g to n 5t h R o b bin s E uc li d G r a nd G r a n d v i e w E dg e w o o d F arm W es le y M on ro e E a sto n P ar k l a w n So u th C ha r le s F ox R a ir o a d H i ll C h a se D r a h e r C he rr y G ayl o r d B e n e fit B e e c h B r ad le y G a rd e n Vai l C it iz e n s H ig h D iv is io n P r o s p ect B u r r S o u t h m ay d R u sse l l R o se W ar n er M a n sf i e l d L a va l M aca ul e y B ee ch e r B e n n e tt H a r p e rs F err y C h e s tn u t Iv e s C om o B ou le y G re e n w o o d E l li o t Lo u ns b u ry G ed d e s S to r e P la z a G r ig g s W e stw oo d K e nd al l Ha u s e r E l k M an or B e a co n W il k e nd a W o o d la w n E ds o n R ob i n w oo d C e n tr a l R e v er e F ra nci s R i v e r s i d e R o s ela n d D el a w a re E dw in H ad da d M ark D ove r S un ny s i d e S a b a l S t o dd ar d F ar m in gt o n P r o c to r Lu k e C o le I n m a n V in e G os s I d yl w oo d R u m fo rd F ar re ll A lm a S ie r ra L a ke si d e C l u b B a ld w i n F e rn I r i o n K n o ll D ix i e C h e ry l G il e s W ard I n du st r y V i ll a S h e l le y A n d e rs o n B uck in g h a m F l e m in g E as tfi e ld Ra y Oak vi l l e L ed ge s id e S um ac S ta te R e id Ju n i p e r R i d g e N e w t o n Tr a n s it M e d i a E ar l C l ov e r S ey m o ur K e e f e G ra n b y W i n d so r A m e r ic a N ort o n A l b e rt a B en ed ic t M e d w ay Ir v in g to n Tr a ve r s e 1 s t P ilg r im C ro w n Y o r k F ai r m o u n t H am i l t o n P ar k Y o u n g R o ss G a te s H il lv i e w T e rr ill R ye C ab le s M i d w oo d R a n do lp h J o h ns o n R eid v il l e F l e e t W es t m on t E a g l e 3 r d P ea rl La k e C o n is to n L o c ust B id w ell N ath a n Ph yl li s L a u re l M i d dle A d d is o n M il l e r 4t h N o rm a n To r o s W e st r i d g e Law n W oo dti c k L o c kh a rt C hu rc h B yr n e sid e B ro w n B ur t o n N i a gr a L yd ia V is t a M ea d o w N el s o n R o b i n s o n W a yl a nd M a rt o n e G re e n m ou nt P r i t c h a r d G le n A ro n G il m a n D a ll a s R ad cl i ff e A s h S h o r t A s h le y La m on t D ra ke N o e r a A l b io n G ar d e n H i ll D or a n K e n fi e ld H am d e n Ji ll s o n M ou nt V er n o n C li n to n C lo w e s R u e l D al t o n S ou th v ie w C r e s ce n t C a r ri a g e O ak l e a f D ev on W oo d W oo d si d e Li n d e n R ic h ar d H e rs ch e l S o u th ga t e S ou th w i n d B r a n c h A e tn a A rd e n M ah er E ve re tt C a th er in e G e ar A da m s T o w e r H in s d a le H ar ri s M i d dl e W ay E a st C ir c uit S t J e a n I d yl ew o od Al l e n B r o o kd a le C e st a r o L a k ev ie w D i k e m an M a yb ury E l m w o o d S he rm an H e w l e t t L e x in g to n C li ff B r o n x R e n a B ue ll Y at e s K e n i lw o r t h L ee H i g h la w n Xa vie r M e rr il l B el le vu e M ad i s o n C ros s M yr tl e C ir c ula r P ol k B ro o k K el lo g g N ic o la A c a d e m y W a co n a B u t le r F or e st R i d g e M a yb ro o k G ra nt T w in i n g H ob a rt E ast w oo d R osew o o d F oo te W y m anL u d lo w B on d E rn e s t C h a p m an P i e dm o n t B ev e rl y R osem on t W h i t e B i r c h P al m e r L an n e n W eb b G e or g e ‘s T r e e H i l l R id g e w oo d Fa rrin g t o n M u r r a y W o o de d g e I- 8 4 A d e l a id e H a rp e r P a r k la n d C l i f t o n W il d e m e re M ar lb o r o C alu m e t R oy al O a k B r ig hto n Ho war d D ee p w o o d F ai r v i e w K at o n n e G ro ve la n d W i ll ia m W is ta ria V io le t G le n v ie w M a r i o n Br o n s o n W arr e n M oh a w k B r e w s te r De lf o r d R aw l e y 7t h H u l l M an h a n S h ir l e y W oo d w a rd C am p Fern d ale O ld C ol o ny S u m m i t C ha rlo tt e W in ch e s te r H al e e w H a v en P on ha m W oo dh av e n N o rt h w oo d B el l a L o w el l J o yc ro f t E ast T o m p ki n s S un c r e st W e lle s M yr n a S i m s b ur y B e n h a m C o n n e cti c u t Lyn d a l e O h i o S o u th ri d ge W oo s t e r S k y H i l l C arv S ou th w e R am on a S ou t h w i c k E l iz a b et h A r c h S to n e A s h m u n C l i f f o r d C o n c o rd Fo x Ru n W hi t e O a k F l o y d the a C as s i d y M o rn in gs id e V er m ont E v e r g re e n S an to r o Wi ll a rd T a y lo r A nt h o ny M oo r la nd D e m or e st W i l d w oo d E v a n s Ja n w o o d C a l a b r o L e w i s W o o d ru ff T r u m p et B ro o k Fa rr a g u t M c D on al d D u n ba r D on a h u e V is co n t i C r a f t w o od W o o d cr e s t G or d o n G ali v a n D o n al d W el li n g to n N ew b u ry H i c k o ry F o r tu n a H a z e l O rc h a rd N oye s S a in t P e te r C o o l i d g e M o u nt a i n V il l a g e F a r n h am W e sc o H u n g e rf o r d M ar le y M a ts o n K a ti n a C aro li n e T re m on t G ra ni t e C u shm a n B r e w er y H o tc h k is s L e n ox P en t a H e c la S te u b e n W in f ie ld W ale s G r e e n h i l l A n d re w S t e r li n g S h e l d o n T hr u sh w ood E le a no r T a f t M a lo n e M a t t h e w s S em in o le G ay l o rd G l e n n C i t y M il l s S hi r i n g H o l o h a n W e s t J u n io r H o m e ste a d G l o b e S o u t h e r l y H i l l t o p W oo d sto ck A r l i n g t o n M a yb ro o k P r o s p e c t P ar k H ig hla n d M ain H op e C arr ia g e F e rn C h a se M e r r i l l F a rm W ils o n W a sh in g t o n S il v er R iv e rs id e P i e d mo n W ar r e n R i v e rs id e F a rri n g to n A c a d e m y Gl e n Legend Signage Deficiencies Downtown St Mary’s Hospital City Green Minor Roads Major Highway Lakes Stream and Rivers Study Area 0 810 1,620 2,430 3,240 405 Feet ® Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-57 6.2 Structural Conditions Review 6.2.1 General Description of Bridges There are 42 bridges within the study area with a span greater than twenty feet . These bridges have concrete decks with steel supe rstructures supported on concrete substructure units. Almost all of the bridges have a bitu minous concrete overlay with membrane. All but one of the bridges was constructed in 1965 to 1967. Thirty one of the bridges have undergone rehabilitation. 29 have been pain ted since 1990. 7 of the longest bridges have been seismically retrofitted. All but tw o of the bridges have inventory load ratings greater than the interstate lo ad limit of 36 tons (HS20 Load). Bridge 01715 is rated for 35 tons and Bridge 04318 is rated for 26 tons. Table 6-15 lists general information about each bridge. Figure 6-28 shows the locations of the various bridges. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________ 6-58 Table 6-15: Bridge Data DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION / REHAB DATES GEOMETRY RATING BR. NO. CARRIES OVER STRUCTURE TYPE BUILT REHAB REHAB DESCRIPTION PAINTED SEISMIC SPANS OVERALL LENGTH (FT) CURB TO CURB (FT) LANES ON BRIDGE DECK AREA (SF) UNDER CLEARANCE INVENTORY RATING (TONS) 1714 RTE 8 RAMP 079 SR 846 NB ROLLED BEAM 1965 1996 DECK PATCH — — 1 94 28 1 2,914 14′-3″ 52 1715 RTE 8 SR 846 SB ROLLED BEAM 1965 1996 DECK PATCH — — 1 96 110 6 11,759 14′-7″ 35 1716 RTE 8 SB ROUTE 73 WB ROLLED BEAM 1965 1990 NEW DECK 1990 — 3 261 40 2 11,405 16′-0″ 61 3183A RTE 8 NB FIFTH STREET GIRDER 1965 1995 DECK PATCH 1995 — 1 94 38 2 4,089 17′-9″ 58 3183B RTE 8 SB FIFTH STREET GIRDER 1965 1995 DECK PATCH 1995 — 1 94 38 2 4,089 14′-8″ 58 3184A RTE 8 NB PORTER STREET ROLLED BEAM 1965 1995 DECK PATCH 1995 — 1 95 38 2 4,132 17′-5″ 56 3184B RTE 8 SB PORTER STREET ROLLED BEAM 1965 1995 DECK PATCH 1995 — 1 95 38 2 4,132 14′-6″ 65 3185 RTE 8 NB WASHINGTON AVENUE ROLLED BEAM 1965 1990 NEW DECK 1991 — 1 73 40 2 3,183 14′-1″ 42 3186 RTE 8 SB WASHINGTON AVENUE ROLLED BEAM 1965 1990 NEW DECK 1991 — 1 77 40 2 3,357 14′-9″ 60 3187 RTE 8 SB BANK ST & SO. LEONARD ST ROLLED BEAM 1965 1995 DECK PATCH 1996 — 3 199 55 3 15,393 14′-4″ 45 3188 RTE 8 NB BANK ST & SO. LEONARD ST GIRDER 1966 1994 DECK PATCH 1995 — 2 165 38 2 7,210 16′-8″ 55 3189 RTE 8 RAMP 077 BANK STREET ROLLED BEAM 1965 1993 NEW DECK 1993 — 1 106 24 1 2,915 14′-0″ 60 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________ 6-59 3190A RTE 8 NB RTE 8 SB, RIVERSIDE STREET GI RDER/FLBM 1966 — — — 1996 36 2,634 30 2 130,165 15′-3″ ?? 3190B RTE 8 SB RIVERSIDE ST & SUNNYSIDE AVE GIRDER/FLBM 1966 1991 DECK PATCH 1991 1996 21 1,589 30 2 75,312 14′-4″ 35 3190C I-84 TR 811 I-84 TR 812 & NAUGATUCK RIVER GIRDER 1966 1991 ??? 1996 1996 9 877 22 1 24,118 17′-2″ 51 3190D I-84 TR 812 RIVERSIDE ST, NAUGATUCK RIVER GIRDER 1966 1991 ??? 1996 1996 9 778 22 1 21,395 14′-2″ 53 3190E RTE 8 RAMP 128 RIVERSIDE STREET SOUTHBOUND ROLLED BEAMS 1966 1990 NEW DECK 1990 — 7 495 23 1 13,613 15′-6″ 60 3190F I-84 TR 808 ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND & RAMP 129 ROLLED BEAMS 1966 1991 ??? 1991 — 10 652 22 ? 17,930 16′-9″ 47 3191A I-84 EB I-84 WB, RTE 8, NAUGATUCK RIVER GIRDER/FLBM 1967 — — — 1994 46 3,766 30 2 221,699 16′-10″ 34 3191B I-84 WB RTE 8, NAUGATUCK RIVER GIRDER/FLBM 1967 1991 ??? — 1994 30 2,461 42 ? ??? 17′-0″ 37 3191C I-84 RAMP 169 I-84 TR 805 & 808 GIRDER 1966 — — — — 4 408 22 1 11,220 17′-5″ 58 3191D I-84 TR 809 RTE 8 NB, RIVERSIDE STREET ROLLED BEAM 1966 — — — 1994 10 781 30 1 27,726 18′-8″ 54 3191E I-84 TR 810 ROUTE 8 NB & RAMP 128 ROLLED BEAM 1967 1990 NEW DECK 1990 — 8 630 30 1 22,365 18′-7″ 51 3191F I-84 RAMP 197 RAMP 202 MEADOW STREET ROLLED BEAM 1967 1990 ??? — — 11 672 22 1 14,778 15′-6″ 63 3191G I-84 RAMP 199 MEADOW STREET ROLLED BEAM 1965 ??? ??? 1991 — 3 228 22 1 6,316 35′-0″ 59 3191H I-84 RAMP 198 NO NOTABLE FEATURE ROLLED BEAM 1967 ??? ??? 1992 — 1 70 21 1 1,890 N/A 54 3191I I-84 RAMP 200 I-84 RAMPS 199 & 202 GIRDER 1966 ??? ??? — — 3 296 30 1 10,508 16′-2″ 69 3192 I-84 RAMP 202 BANK STREET GIRDER 1965 ??? ??? 1991 — 1 81 29 1 2,729 14′-4″ 66 3193 I-84 WB BANK STREET & RAMP 198 ROLLED BEAM 1965 1990 ??? 1991 — 2 133 42 3 6,344 14′-4″ 54 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________ 6-60 3194 I-84 RAMP 201 I-84 RAMP 198 GIRDER 1965 — — 1991 — 3 195 22 1 5,401 14′-3″ 49 3196 I-84 SR 847 SOUTH MAIN STREET ROLLE D BEAM 1965 — — 1997 — 1 64 122 8 8,480 14′-7″ 43 3197 SOUTH ELM STREET I-84 & MCMAHON STREET ROLLED BEAM 1965 — — 1997 — 3 201 28 2 8,543 17′-0″ 62 3198 RTE 8 NB FREIGHT STREET ROLLED BEAM 1966 1996 PATCH DECK 1991 — 3 138 38 2 6,030 14′-2′ 44 3200 I-84 TR 806 I-84 TR 808, 809, RIVERSIDE ST GIRDER 1965 1989 NEW DECK 1996 — 6 703 24 1 19,332 14′-6″ 51 3201 PEDESTRIAN WALK ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND TWO GIRDER 1965 — — 2002 — 4 362 —- —- 4,101 16′-0″ N/A 3203A RTE 8 NB SR 849 WEST MAIN ST NO 1 GIRDER 1965 1996 PATCH DECK — — 1 134 64 3 9,058 18′-1″ 89 3203B RTE 8 SB SR 849 WEST MAIN ST NO 1 ROLLE D BEAM 1965 1996 PATCH DECK — — 1 134 61 4 8,589 14′-7″ 82 3203C RTE 8 RAMP 131 WEST MAIN STREET NO 1 GIRDER 1965 1996 PATCH DECK — — 1 134 28 1 4,234 19′-7″ 93 3205 RTE 8 SOUTHBOUND RIVERSIDE STREET THRU GIRDER 1965 1996 PATCH DECK 1991 — 1 117 78 4 9,063 14′-3″ 37 3207 HIGHLAND AVENUE I-84 GIRDER 1966 — — 1996 — 3 288 38 2 15,120 40′-0″ 59 3209 I-84 TR 806 I-84 WB THRU GIRDER 1965 — — 1997 — 1 141 26 1 5,781 16′-1″ 42 4318 BALDWIN STREET NO 1 I-84 SR 830 & I-84 RAMPS STEEL BOX 1978 — — — — 3 545 52 4 37,333 16’-5″ 26 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________ 6-61 Figure 6-28: Locations of Structures Routine Maintenance Minor Rehabilitation Deck Patching Major Rehabilitation Deck Re placement Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-62 6.2.2 Existing Condition of Bridges The Connecticut Department of Transportati on inspects each of the bridges every two years. The bridge inspection reports for the bridges within the study were reviewed and the results are summarized in Appendix A. As part of the inspection, condition assessments are made to each of the major components for the bridge using the scale shown below: 9 Excellent Condition – No maintena nce or rehabilitation concerns 8 Very Good Condition – No maintena nce or rehabilitation concerns 7 Good Condition – Potential exists for minor maintenance 6 Satisfactory Condition – Potentia l exists for major maintenance 5 Fair Condition – Potential exists for minor rehabilitation 4 Poor Condition – Potential exists for major rehabilitation 3 Serious Condition – Rehabilitation or repair required immediately 2 Critical Condition – Need for immediate repairs or rehabilitation is urgent 1 “Immanent” Failure Condition – Bridge is closed to traffic 0 Out of Service – Beyond corrective action During the course of the inspection a visual su rvey is made of the underside of the deck noting any defects. From this visual survey, a percent deterioration for the deck is then determined, by dividing the area with defects by the total deck area. This percentage in conjunction with the numerical condition rating a nd repair history of the deck can then be used to make an initial determination as to the required deck repairs and/or replacement. Table 6-16 summarizes the condition ratings and lists the percent deck deterioration for each bridge. As noted in the following table the majority of the bridges are in satisfactory condition indicating a current potential for major mainte nance. Over time additional deterioration is expected and prior to 2030 it is expected that the majority of the bridges will be potential candidates for rehabilitation. The table shown below summarizes th e ratings by number of bridges. Deck Superstructure Substructure Rating No. % No. % No. % 4 Poor 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 5 Fair 8 19% 3 7% 6 14% 6 Satisfactory 30 71% 23 55% 19 45% 7 Good 3 7% 12 29% 16 38% 8 Very Good 1 2% 3 7% 0 0% Totals 42 100% 42 100% 42 100% Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ 6-63 Table 6-16: Bridge Co ndition Assessment to 2030 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION EXISTING CONDITION (2002-2003) POTENTIAL REPAIRS TO YEAR 2030 BR. NO. CARRIES OVER % DECK DETERIORATION DECK SUPERSTRUCTURE SUBSTRUCTURE COMMENTS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DECK PATCHING DECK REPLACEMENT SUBSTRUCTURE PATCHING COMPLETE PAINTING SPOT PAINTING BEARING REPLACEMENT REPAIR IMPACT DAMAGE TO BEAMS SAFETYWALK RETROFIT SEISMIC RETROFIT 1714 RTE 8 RAMP 079 SR 846 NB 18% 5 7 7 LARGE SPALLS WITH REBAR UNDERSIDE OF DECK, SOME WITH EPOXY PAINT X X X 1715 RTE 8 SR 846 SB 5% 6 5 7 X X X X 1716 RTE 8 SB ROUTE 73 WB 1% 7 6 6 X X 3183A RTE 8 NB FIFTH STREET 4% 6 8 7 X X X 3183B RTE 8 SB FIFTH STREET 19% 6 8 7 X X X 3184A RTE 8 NB PORTER STREET 14% 6 7 7 X X X 3184B RTE 8 SB PORTER STREET 11% 6 8 7 X X X 3185 RTE 8 NB WASHINGTON AVENUE 8% 6 7 6 X X 3186 RTE 8 SB WASHINGTON AVENUE 10% 6 7 6 X X 3187 RTE 8 SB BANK ST & SO. LEONARD ST 5% 6 6 6 X X X Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ 6-64 3188 RTE 8 NB BANK ST & SO. LEONARD ST 14% 6 6 7 X X X 3189 RTE 8 RAMP 077 BANK STREET 0% 8 6 7 SECTION LOSS TO BEAMS PRIOR TO PAINTING X X 3190A RTE 8 NB RTE 8 SB, RIVERSIDE STREET 17% 5 6 6 FAILED MEMBRANE CAUSING RUST ON FASCIA GIRDERS. STEEL CRACKS IN SUPERSTRUCTURE. X X 3190B RTE 8 SB RIVERSIDE ST & SUNNYSIDE AVE 14% 6 6 6 FAILED MEMBRANE CAUSING RUST ON FASCIA GIRDERS. STEEL CRACKS IN SUPERSTRUCTURE. X X X 3190C I-84 TR 811 I-84 TR 812 & NAUGATUCK RIVER 18% 5 6 6 FAILED MEMBRANE CAUSING RUST ON FASCIA GIRDERS. X X X 3190D I-84 TR 812 RIVERSIDE ST, NAUGATUCK RIVER 7% 6 6 5 FAILED MEMBRANE CAUSING RUST ON FASCIA GIRDER. X X X 3190E RTE 8 RAMP 128 RIVERSIDE STREET SOUTHBOUND 9% 7 6 6 X X X X 3190F I-84 TR 808 ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND & RAMP 129 8% 6 6 5 LARGE SPALLS WITH REBAR ON SUBSTRUCTURE. X X X X 3191A I-84 EB I-84 WB, RTE 8, NAUGATUCK RIVER 7% 7 4 4 NUMEROUS CRACKS IN STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE. LARGE SPALLS W/ REBAR ON PIERS. X X X X 3191B I-84 WB RTE 8, NAUGATUCK RIVER 9% 6 7 5 NUMEROUS CRACKS IN STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE. LARGE SPALLS W/ REBAR ON PIERS. X X X X 3191C I-84 RAMP 169 I-84 TR 805 & 808 19% 6 7 5 X X X X X 3191D I-84 TR 809 RTE 8 NB, RIVERSIDE STREET 9% 5 6 6 X X X X 3191E I-84 TR 810 ROUTE 8 NB & RAMP 128 9% 6 6 6 X X X X X 3191F I-84 RAMP 197 RAMP 202 MEADOW STREET 7% 6 6 5 X X X X X 3191G I-84 RAMP 199 MEADOW STREET 1% 5 6 6 40% OF SPAN 3 DECK HAS FULL DEPTH PATCHES X X X X 3191H I-84 RAMP 198 NO NOTABLE FEATURE 1% 6 6 7 X X X X 3191I I-84 RAMP 200 I-84 RAMPS 199 & 202 8% 5 6 6 X X X X Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ 6-65 3192 I-84 RAMP 202 BANK STREET 2% 6 7 7 X X X X 3193 I-84 WB BANK STREET & RAMP 198 8% 6 6 6 X X X X 3194 I-84 RAMP 201 I-84 RAMP 198 14% 6 6 7 X X X X 3196 I-84 SR 847 SOUTH MAIN STREET 2% 6 5 6 X X X X 3197 SOUTH ELM STREET I-84 & MCMAHON STREET 16% 6 7 6 X X X 3198 RTE 8 NB FREIGHT STREET 17% 5 6 6 X X X 3200 I-84 TR 806 I-84 TR 808, 809, RIVERSIDE ST 1% 6 5 5 X X X 3201 PEDESTRIAN WALK ROUTE 8 SOUTHBOUND 2% 6 7 7 X X X X 3203A RTE 8 NB SR 849 WEST MAIN ST NO 1 5% 6 6 6 X X X 3203B RTE 8 SB SR 849 WEST MAIN ST NO 1 1% 6 6 7 X X X 3203C RTE 8 RAMP 131 WEST MAIN STREET NO 1 5% 6 6 7 X X X 3205 RTE 8 SOUTHBOUND RIVERSIDE STREET 34% 6 7 6 X X X 3207 HIGHLAND AVENUE I-84 3% 6 7 7 X X X 3209 I-84 TR 806 I-84 WB 10% 6 7 6 X X X 4318 BALDWIN STREET NO 1 I-84 SR 830 & I-84 RAMPS 22% 5 6 7 X X X Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-66 6.2.3 Condition Assessment to 2030 Based on the 2002-2003 bridge inspection reports and previous rehabilitation projects, an estimate was made of the required work to ma intain the existing bridges until the year 2030. This work assumes the bridges will maintain their existing geometry and improvements will not be made to improve th e functionality (traffic capacity) of the bridge. Table 2 lists these pot entially required repairs. These potential repairs ca n be grouped into three primary categories. Category # of Bridges % of Bridges Routine Maintenance 8 19% Minor Rehablitation – Deck Patching 16 38% Major Rehablitation – Deck Replacement 18 43% Totals 42 100% Figure 6-28 shows a graphical distri bution of these three categories. Below is a short explanation of each of the repair items. REPAIR TYPE DISCUSSION Routine Maintenance Criteria Bridges in this category are expected to remain serviceable until the year 2030 without rehabilitation. Maintenance required under this option is typically done by ConnDOT personnel or contracted out under District supervision. Description This work includes such items as: Joint repairs in kind. Substructure patching of specific areas Overlay replacement and new membrane Deck Patching Minor Rehabilitation Criteria Bridges in this category have deck deterioration to the extent that a rehabilitation project will likely be required prior to the year 2030. Description Work includes: Remove existing overlay Patch deck as required Install new membrane and overlay Repair/replacement of joints Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-67 Deck Replacement Major Rehabilitation Criteria Bridges in this category will likely re quire the deck to be replaced prior to the year 2030. Description Remove existing deck and replace with new cast-in-place concrete deck, membrane and overlay. Deck will be made composite with superstructure. Adding reinforcing plat es to the steel superstructure to repair localized deterioration is incl uded in this item. All bridge and approach railings will be upgraded to the current design standards. Rehabilitation work on the approaches will be done only to the extent required to transition to the bridge. Substructure Patching Criteria Almost all of the bridges in the study have areas of substructure deterioration to one degree or the othe r that will need to be addressed as part of routine maintenance or during a rehabilitation project. For structures not expected to require rehabilitation, it is assumed that smaller areas of substructure repair will be part of normal maintenance, and therefore substructure repair is not specifically called out for the bridge. Substructure units requiri ng more significant amounts of repair are called out for patching. Substructure repairs will likely be a part of any rehabilitation project (Deck Patching or Replacement), and are therefore indicated as a separate repair item. Description Remove deteriorated concrete, repair reinforcing bars as required and patch area with concrete. Complete Painting Criteria This item is indicated as a repair if overall painting is required to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge. For purposes of this study it is assumed that bridges wh ich have not been painted since 1990 will require painting. Description Erect enclosure, blast clean and pain t existing steel. This item includes any minor steel repairs require d to reinforce local areas. Spot Painting Criteria This item is indicated as a repair if localized painting is required to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge. Spot painting would typically be done where drainage from (or through) the deck has caused localized rusting; for example at deck joints. For purposes of this study it is assumed that all bridges which are not receiving a complete painting will require at least spot painting. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-68 Description Clean existing steel in locali zed areas and spot paint. Bearing Replacement Criteria This item is indicated as a repa ir if the existing bearings are deteriorated to the extent that they no longer allow the structure to move freely with changes in temperat ure. It is also indicated as a repair item if the existing bearings are significantly misaligned. Description Jack existing superstructure and replace bearings. Repair Impact Damage to Beams Criteria This item is indicated as a repair if significant impact damage has occurred resulting in misalignm ent and bending of members. Description Heat straighten main beams and replace secondary members as required. Spot paint as required. Safetywalk Retrofit Criteria Various bridges still have safetywalks at the base of the parapets. This item is indicated as a repair item if safetywalks are present and deck replacement is not anticipated. Description Remove or retrofit safetywalks us ing one CDOT standard methods. Seismic Retrofit Criteria For purposes of this study it is assu med that all bridges with greater than three spans, which have not been seismically retrofitted will require retrofitting. Description Secure structure in such a way th at it will not loose bearing support during a seismic event. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-69 6.3 Cultural Resources 6.3.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Visual and aesthetic resources in the study area include ridgelines, parks, historic sites and/or neighborhoods, and street scapes. In particular, the Waterbury-Republican American newspaper company is housed in hist oric Union Station, a building whose landmark tower is visible from I-84, Route 8, and much of Waterbury. The Waterbury Green, on West Main Street, inclusive of its monuments and sculptures, is also a visual and aesthetic resource, as is Saint Anne’s Church on East Clay Street in Waterbury. Another feature unique to Waterbury is “H oly Land,” characterized by a large cross positioned on a ridgeline, visible from severa l miles. The Naugatuck River, winding its way from north to south through Waterbury, bi secting the city, is an aesthetic natural resource in the region. Waterbury Green. View fr om West Main Street. . Holy Land Cross on ridgelin e in the distance. View looking east from South Elm Street Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-70 Saint Anne’s Church. View from East Clay Street, looking south. Historic Union Station. View looking north on Meadow Street Naugatuck River. View looking south. 6.3.2 Historic Resources Section 106 of the National Hist oric Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f) states that any Federally funded project must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” The first step in eval uating potential impacts to historic resources is to establish an Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project. For this Feasibility Study, an APE of 500 feet been defined. The si ze of the APE was selected because it was Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-71 determined that any proposed interchange improvement plan would not incur potential impacts, including visual impacts, beyond 500 f eet on ether side of the existing roadways and interchanges. This proposed APE has no t been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). During the further analysis of cultural resources that would take place during the NEPA phase (Environmenta l Impact Statement) for this project, the size of the APE would be formally approved by the SHPO at that time. With the APE defined, potential historic a nd archaeological resources within the APE were identified through consultation with the SHPO, review of available maps provided by local planning departments and historical soci eties, and searches of the State Register of Historic Places, the Historic American Engineering Record, and of the National Register Information System Database. In additi on to this research, a visit to portions of the study area in Connecticut was conducte d on November 11, 2004 by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI). The area located within the 500 foot buffer was reviewed during the reconnaissance. The document research and reconnaissance revealed that a number of historic resources fall within and/or abut the proposed APE. These historic resources are listed in Table 6-17. Six previously listed National Register res ources fall within the 500 foot APE and are listed in the table below. Table 6-17: Historic Resources Name Location Description National Register Downtown Waterbury Historic District Bounded by Main , Meadow and Elm Streets 106 buildings of various styles dating from 1850- 1950 Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Hamilton Park Bounded by Silver and East Main Streets, Idylwood Avenue, Plank Road, the Mad River and I-84 Historic Park designed by George Dunkelburger in the Colonial Revival Design Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Riverside Cemetery 496 Riverside Street Cemetery with Gothic-style, stone gatehouse and iron fence surrounding the grounds. Listed on the National Register and as a National Historic Site. Bank Street Historic District 207-231 Bank Street Four Victorian and Colonial Revival-style buildings dating from 1875-1924 Listed on the National Register Waterbury Municipal Center Complex (Cass Gilbert Historic District) 195, 235, 236 Grand Street and 7, 35, 43 Field Street Six Classical Revival-style buildings dating from 1900- 1925 designed by Cass Gilbert. Listed on the National Register Field reconnaissance revealed that seve ral neighborhoods have a notable number of properties that appear to be eligible for the National Register. Further research will be conducted to determine their eligibility once the project progresses to the next development stage. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-72 The following list indicates resources that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places: • Waterbury Rolling Mills, 240 East Aurora Street • St. Anne’s Roman Catholic C hurch, 515 South Main Street • Our Lady of Lourdes Church, 309 South Main Street • Railroad Trestle crossing Bank Street south of Downtown • St. Mary’s School, 43 Cole Street • A cluster of houses located on the eastern end of Robin Street, east of Colley Street • A grouping of various one-to-two-story brick industrial properties at 155-271 South Leonard Street • A potential district of three family houses dating from c. 1910 along Charles Street; and Third, Fourth and Fi fth Streets east of Bank Street • St. Patrick’s Church and R ectory, 50 Charles Street • St. Joseph’s Church, 46 Congress Avenue • Brooklyn Elementary School (Formerly St . Joseph’s School), 29 John Street • The neighborhood of one, two and three fam ily houses located on the western side of Route 73 and Route 8. This includes properties along the eastern ends of Newton Terrace (at the northern end of this neighborhood), south to Waterbury Hospital. The SHPO is aware that a number of historic an d architectural resources listed or eligible for the National Register exist in the study area. If a selected project advances, the SHPO would require additional project information, including preliminary design plans, in order for their professional staff to provide further technical assistance and guidance to ensure the protection of significant cultural resour ces along the corridor. A determination of effect on historic and archaeological issues would be issued, and mitigative measures would be necessary if an adve rse effect would be expected. A summary of registered and potentially eligible historic locations is shown in Figure 6-29. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-73 Figure 6-29: Historic Resources Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-74 6.3.3 Archeological Resources Areas of archeological sensitivity are f ound along the Naugatuck River and throughout the study area. As the project progresses to th e next phase, these areas will be identified and closely reviewed by the State Archaeol ogist to determine any impacts to potential resources. 6.3.4 Public 4(f) and 6(f) Lands Section 4(f) of the Department of Transporta tion Act of 1966 protects historic resources eligible for listing or listed on the National Re gister of Historic Places, public parks and recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl preser ves from adverse impacts. Historic 4(f) resources were listed in Tabl e 6-17. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Funding Act of 1965 (LWCFA) states that an y lands purchased with federal LWCFA funding may not be “converted” to another us e without being replaced in kind by land of like size and value. For this study, a 250-foot buffer was used for determining parkland and Section 6(f) impacts. These potential Sectio n 4(f) and Section 6(f) lands are shown in Figure 6-30. Consultation with the Connecticut Departme nt of Environmental Protection (DEP) and review of maps and local documentation pr ovided by study area towns revealed that the following public parklands are lo cated within approximately 250 feet of the study area: • University of Connecticut, Waterbury Branch • Naugatuck Valley Community College • Kennedy High School • West Side School and West End Middle School Complex • Barnard School • Kingsbury School • Bunker Hill School and Bunker Hill Playground • Washington School • Maloney School • State Street School • Hayden Park • The Waterbury Green • Library Park • Edmund Rowland Park • Chase Park • West Dover Street Playground • Rolling Mill Playground • Hamilton Park • Washington Park Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-75 6.3.5 Other Community and Institutional Resources There are a wide variety of ot her community and institutional facilities within the project corridor that could potentially benefit from the increased public access provided by the proposed project. These cultural and community facilities enhance the quality of life and provide services to the people who live and do business in the area. Figure 6-30 depicts the locations of schools, churches, fire sta tions, police stations, hospitals, post offices, libraries and other miscellaneous comm unity resources within the study area. Cultural and Community Facilities Proximate to the Study Area There are a number of cultural and community resources within walking distance of the study area. For this study, walk ing distance is considered to be within 2,000 feet of the corridor. These resources are: • Municipal Stadium • Country Club of Waterbury • Lewis Fulton Memorial Park • Scoville Rowhouse Historic District • Huntington Avenue Playground • Hopeville Playground Future review of nearby community facilitie s will be necessary after alternatives are proposed for the project. This review w ill take place during the NEPA process. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-76 Figure 6-30: Potential Section 4(f) & 6(f) Properties Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-77 6.4 Environmental Constraints 6.4.1 Surface Water and Groundwater Surface Water There are several watercourses within the st udy area. These watercourses are listed below and are briefly described as they relate to the existing I-84 and Route 8 interchange. Designated uses and descriptions of surface wa ter quality classifications developed by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) are presented in Table 6-18. Watercourses that are not classified by the CTDEP for water quality are presumed Class A, which is the default classificati on assigned by CTDEP to all surface waters where water quality data is unavailable. • Naugatuck River: The Naugatuck River runs no rth-south through the study area, generally paralleling Route 8, which is located west of the river. Within the study area there are several crossings of the Na ugatuck River; West Main Street and Freight Street (north of the I-84/Rout e 8 interchange), and Bank Street and Washington Avenue (south of the interc hange). The freight and commuter rail tracks cross the Naugatuck River three times within the study area, all south of the I-84/Route 8 interchange, in the vicinity of Bank Street and near the Naugatuck River’s confluence with the Mad River. The Naugatuck River runs under the I- 84/Route 8 interchange along the east side of Route 8. The surface water quality classification of the Naugatuck River is C/B, indicating an existing classification of C, with the goal of atta ining a classification of B. • Mad River: The Mad River flows into the study area from the east. The Mad River’s course north of I-84, generally, parallels I-84. From Hamilton Park, located at the southwest intersection of Route 69 (Silver Street) and East Main Street, the Mad River crosses Route 69. No rth of Route 69, the Mad River flows behind the Brass Mill Cent er and Commons. It then submerges, passes under I-84 and re-emerges north of Liberty Street. The Mad River continues its course south of I-84, between Mill Street and River St reet, crossing South Main Street and Washington Avenue (northeast of this intersection). South of Washington Avenue, the Mad River empties into the Naugatuck River. The surface water quality classification of the Mad River is B. • Steele Brook: Only a small portion of Steele Br ook lies within the study area. Steele Brook flows south, east of Route 73 (Watertown Avenue) and crosses East Aurora Street before crossing Route 8, ju st northeast of Route 8 Interchange 35 (Route 73). Steele Brook empties into the Na ugatuck River just east of Route 8 at this location. The surface water quality classification of the Steele Brook is B. • Tributaries to Hop Brook: West of the I-84/Route 8 interchange, there are two smaller unnamed streams located part ially within the study area that are Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-78 associated with the Hop Brook watershed. One of these streams flows north to south along the western edge of th e Naugatuck Valley Community College campus and crosses Chase Parkway, I-84, a nd Country Club Road, before exiting the study area. The second unnamed stream flows north to south from the vicinity of Chase Parkway through the Teikyo Post campus and then exits the study area. The surface water quality classification of both of these watercourses is A. Table 6-18 CTDEP Surface Water Quality Classification Class Designated Uses Type Description A Known or presumed to meet water quality criteria which support designated uses. A Potential drinking water supply; fish and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, industrial supply; other legitimate uses including navigation. A/AA May not be meeting water quality criteria for one or more designated uses. The goal is Class A. B Known or presumed to meet water quality criteria which support designated uses. B Fish and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural and industrial supply; other legitimate uses including navigation. B/A or B/AA Presently does not meet the water quality criteria for one or more designated uses. The goal is Class B. C Certain fish and wildlife habitat; certain recreational activities; industrial supply; other legitimate uses, including navigation; swimming may be precluded; one or more Class B criteria or designated uses may be impaired; goal is Class B unless a CTDEP And EPA approved use attainability analysis determines certain uses are non-attainable. C/A or C/B Presently not meeting water quality criteria for one or more designated uses due to pollution. The goal for such waters may be Class A or Class B depending upon the specific uses designated for a watercourse. In those cases where an approved use attainability analysis has been conducted, certain designated uses may not be sought D Present conditions severely inhibit or preclude one or more designated uses for extended time periods or totally preclude attainment of one or more designated uses. May be suitable for certain fish and wildlife habitat; bathing or other recreational purposes; industrial supply; other legitimate uses, including navigation, may have good aesthetic value. D/A or D/B Presently not meeting water quality criteria for one or more designated uses due to severe pollution. The goal for such waters may be Class A or Class B depending upon the specific uses designated for a watercourse. In those cases where an approved attainability analysis has been conducted, certain designated uses may not be sought. Source: Connecticut Department of Environmen tal Protection, Water Quality Standards, 1997. Drinking water is supplied by the City of Waterbury throughout the majority of the study area. In westernmost parts of the study area, drinking water is supplied by residential wells. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-79 Groundwater According to the CTDEP’s online “GIS Data Guide Aquifer Protection Areas” data layers, there are no potential well fields, sole source aquifers, aquifer protection zones, well-head zones, or stratified drift aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Groundwater is classified as GB throughout mo st of the study area. However, there are a few locations where the groundwater is classifi ed as GA. These locations include an area along the western portion of the study area in th e vicinity of West Main Street and Chase Parkway, an area to the southwest of the I-84/ Route 8 interchange near Porter Street and the Metro-North Waterbury Branch, and an area northwest of the I-84/Route 8 interchange between Aurora St reet and Route 73. Designated uses and descriptions of groundwater quality classifications are pr esented in Table 6-19 and Figure 6-31. Table 6-19 CTDEP Groundwater Quality Classifications Class Designated Uses Discharge Restricted to: GAA Existing or public water supply or water suitable for drinking without treatment; baseflow for hydraulically connected surface water bodies Treated domestic sewage, certain agricultural wastes, certain water treatment discharges GA Existing private and potential public or private supplies of water suitable for drinking without treatment; baseflow for hydraulically connected surface water bodies. Same as for GAA; discharge from septage treatment facilities subject to stringent treatment and discharge requirements; and other wastes of natural origin that easily biodegrade and present no threat to groundwater. GB Industrial process water and cooling waters; baseflow for hydraulically connected surface water bodies; presumed not suitable for human consumption without treatment. Same as for GA. Note: same stringent treatment standards ap ply; certain other biodegradable wastewaters subject to soil attenuation. GC Assimilation of discharge authorized by the Commissioner pursuant to Section 22a-430 of the General Statutes. As an example, a lined landfill for disposal of ash residue from a resource recovery facility. The GC hydrogeology and setting provides the safest back up in case of technological failure. Potential discharges from certain waste facilities subject to extraordinary permitting requirements. Source: Connecticut Department of Environmen tal Protection, Water Quality Standards, 1997. There is no significant use of groundwater wells for public drinking water in the study area. The exception is in the westernmost edge of the study area, where there are private, individual wells serving local residences. Most public drinking water is provided by the City of Waterbury’s water service. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-80 Figure 6-31: Ground and Surface Water Classification Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-81 6.4.2 Floodplains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines Federal Emergency Management Agency (F EMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps and GIS data were reviewed to id entify 100-year floodplains with in the project study area, depicted in Figure 6-32 with 500-year fl oodplains. The 100-year flood is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance. Th e 100-year floodplains located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to the existing I-84/Route 8 interchange right-of-way are described below . • Naugatuck River : The 100-year floodplain associat ed with the Naugatuck River parallels Route 8 through the study area, ranging from approximately 300 to 2,000 feet wide throughout the study area. • Mad River : The 100-year floodplain associated with the Mad River is continuous through the study area. The 100-year fl oodplain ranges from approximately 200- feet wide, at narrowest point, south of I-84, to a pproximately 1,100-feet wide north and east of Silver Street. • Hop Brook: At the western edge of the study area, the 100-year floodplain associated with the Hop Brook watershe d’s Welton Brook lies north of I-84 on either side of Chase Parkway in the vi cinity of the Naugatuck Valley Community College campus. At its widest point in the study area, the floodplain is approximately 500 feet. • Steele Brook: The 100-year floodplain associated with Steele Brook at the northern edge of the study area, lies be tween Route 8 and Route 73 (Watertown Avenue). This floodplain, at its widest point in the study area is 850 feet. These 100-year floodplains are regulated areas. In the event that the project would require an activity within or aff ecting a floodplain, ConnDOT wo uld obtain a permit from the CTDEP. Regulated activities include, but ar e not limited to, structures, obstructions, or encroachments proposed within the floodplain area. Stream Channel Encroachment Lines There are stream channel encroachment lin es (SCELs) along the Naugatuck River and Steele Brook within the study area, also show n Areas within the SCELs are regulated by CTDEP to ensure that floodplain in Figure 6- 32 development is compatible with river flood flows. In the event that areas within the SCELs would be impacted by the project, ConnDOT would obtain the approp riate permits from CTDEP. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-82 Figure 6-32: Floodplains Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-83 6.4.3 Public Water Supplies The City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water, pr ovides drinking water to residents in the study area. The water is supplied primarily from surface reservoirs located in Litchfield County. The water is piped from the reservoi r to the Harry P. Danaher Water Treatment Plant located in Thomaston prior to being dist ributed to City of Waterbury customers. A few small patches in the western portion of the study area are not served by the City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water. There are no pu blic water supply reservoirs or stratified drift aquifers in the immediate vi cinity of the proposed project. 6.4.4 Wetlands Wetlands in the study area were identified using DEP’s GIS Data Guide Wetland Soils. These wetlands are shown in Figure 6-33. As shown, there are several wetlands in th e Hop Brook watershed, west of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange. A large wetland is locat ed south of I-84, southeast of the Chase Parkway and Country Club Road intersection, and is characterized by Carlisle muck soils. Another wetland area, also characterized by Carlisle muck, is located between I-84 and the Chase Parkway and West Main Street intersection. It should be noted that the GIS wetland data is not necessarily comprehensive, and there are likely to be additional wetlands within the study area. As this project progresses, the area will be field-checked for wetlands so that impacts to wetlands from the project could be avoided or minimized to the extent possibl e. In the event that wetlands would be impacted by the project, ConnDOT would obt ain all necessary permits per state and federal regulations. 6.4.5 Endangered Species According to the CTDEP GIS data, there ar e no Natural Diversity Database records within the project study area. The U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service, in correspondence dated November 8, 2004, noted that there are no federally-listed or proposed, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitat know n to occur within the study area. As this project progresses, ConnDOT will continue to coordinate with federal and state agencies to ensure that regulations on threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are observed. 6.4.6 Hazardous Materials Risk Sites Within the proposed project area, there is a high risk for encountering contamination during project construction due to adjacent la nd uses. Information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Invent ory (TRI) was used to identify potential hazardous sites. This TRI is a publicly availa ble EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as fe deral facilities. The TRI provides facility Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-84 name and street address, used to show the locations of these potentially hazardous sites as shown in Figure 6-34. There are 18 TRI sites identifie d in the study area where toxic releases have been reported. Of these 18 sites, two are active or archived superfund sites. These two sites are located southeast of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange, within a cluster of the hazardous materials risk sites bounded by South Leonard Street, S outh Main Street, and Washington Avenue. Generally, the hazardous materials risk sites ar e located along the freight rail line, which runs north-south and parallel to Route 8. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-85 Figure 6-33: Wetlands Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-86 Figure 6-34: Hazardous Materials Risk Sites Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-87 6.4.7 Prime Farmland Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture (US DA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils information, obtained in GIS format, was used to identify prime and statewide important farmland soils within th e study area, as shown in Figure 6-35. These soils have not been field checked to determ ine if they have been developed and/or otherwise altered in use sin ce the mapping, which would disqualify them as farmland, or to determine if they are actively farmed. Soils within ConnDOT rights-of-way or committed to another use would not be considered prime farmlands. As the project progresses, potential impacts to prime farm lands will be coordinated with regulatory agencies in accordance with state and federal farmland protection policies. Figure 6-35 indicates that ther e is prime farmland to the immediate northwest of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange in the vicinity of Ch ase Park, as well as to the southwest of the interchange, in close proximity to Rivers ide Cemetery and Barnard School. There are additional soils of statewide importance s hown along the western edge of Route 8, both north and south of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange. The prime farmland soils are described as Agawam Fine Sandy Loam with 8 to 15 percent slopes and Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam with 3 to 8 percent slopes, and the additional farmland soils are Paxton and Montauk with 8 to 15 percent slopes. Farther from the I-84 and Route 8 interchange, at the western edge of the study area, there are large patches of prime farmland soils, as well as additional soils of statewide importance, south of Interstate 84 in the vi cinity of Country Club Road There are also prime farmland soils and statewid e important farmland soils north of I-84 in the vicinity of Park Road, West Main Street , and Rowland Park, as well as Grandview Avenue. East of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange, there are small and scattered prime farmland soils and additional soils of statewide importance at the eastern edge of the study area in the vicinity of Route 69 (Silver Street) and East Main Street. There is also a small area of prime farmland soils and additional soils of statewid e importance south of Interstate 84 at the corner of Washington Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. 6.4.8 Air Quality This section documents the existing air quality conditions in the Interstate 84 and Route 8 interchange study area and the encompa ssing Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Air Quality Attainment Status The Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequent amendments established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six cr iteria pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), lead (Pb), ozone, and particulate matter (PM). The Clean Air Act required st ates to monitor regional air quality to Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-88 Figure 6-35: Farmland Soils Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-89 determine if regions meet the NAAQS. If a region exceeds any of the NAAQS, that part of the state is classified as a non-attainmen t area for that pollutant, and the state must develop an air quality plan, ca lled a State Implementation Plan (SIP), that will bring that region into compliance. Motor vehicles are sources of CO, ozone pr ecursors, and PM emissions. Other sources include stationary sources such as power plants and boilers, area sources such as bakeries painting activities, and non-ro ad vehicle sources such as construction and farm equipment. The current air quality attainment designations for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region are presented below for the six criteria pollutants. • Carbon Monoxide : The entire state of Connecticut is now designated as being in attainment for CO. • Ozone : The entire state of Connecticut is de signated as non-attainment for the one-hour ozone standard. The Central Nauga tuck Valley region is classified as a “serious non-attainment area” for the one-hour standard. The region must meet the ozone standard by 2007. In July of 1997, EPA promulgated a revi sed ozone standard based on an eight- hour averaging period rather than a one-hour period. EPA has not yet implemented the new standard or devel oped regulations for its implementation. • PM : EPA has established NAAQS for tw o size ranges of PM. The Central Naugatuck Valley Region is currently in attainment of PM 10 (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less). In July of 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for PM 2.5 (particulate matter with a diam eter of 2.5 microns or less). EPA is currently establishing a na tionwide monitoring network for PM 2.5 . NO 2, Pb, and SO 2: The entire state of Connecticut is in attainment for these pollutants. State Implementation Plan (SIP)/Transporta tion Improvement Program (TIP) Conformity Conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act stipulate that implementation of projects in Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and Long Range Plans (LRPs) must not cause or contribute to furthe r violations of the NAAQS a nd must conform to the SIP’s purpose of meeting air quality attainment. This demonstration requires an extensive modeling effort to estimate vehicle miles of travel on a regional transportation system and the resulting motor vehicle emissions. C OGCNV, which serves as the metropolitan planning organization for the grea ter Waterbury area, prioritizes and places transportation projects on the region’s TIP. Th at TIP is incorporated into the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (ConnDOT’s) Statewide TIP a nd individual projects are moved forward each year for funding. At this time, the I-84 a nd Route 8 interchange project alternatives have not yet been fully deve loped and the project has not been formally included in a Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-90 conforming TIP for the Central Naugatuck Valley region. However, the project has been identified as a potential proj ect in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s Long Range Regional Transportation Plan 2004–2030. 6.4.9 Noise The Federal Highway Administration’s Nois e Abatement Criteria (NAC) documented in 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise is based on Land Use Activity Categories. Land uses considered most sensitive to highway noise are designated as either Land Use Activity Category A or B. Land Use Activity Category A includes lands on which serenity an d quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and wher e the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serv e its intended purpose. Such uses include outdoor amphitheatres, outdoor concert pavilions, and National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Land Use Activity Ca tegory B includes picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, park s, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. For this feasibility study, Category A and B la nd uses were identified using existing land use maps and GIS data. These noise sensitive land uses are listed below and are depicted in Figure 6-36. Noise Sensitive Land Uses within the Study Area Land Use Activity Category A There are no Category A land uses within the study area Land Use Activity Category B • Bunker Hill School • Blessed Sacrament School • Naugatuck Valley Community College • Saint Margaret’s School • John F. Kennedy High School • Barnard School • Saint Josephs School • Duggan School • Washington School • Xavier School • Saint Francis School • Merriman’s School • Saint Anne School Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-91 • Hendricken School • Sacred Heart High School • Saint Mary’s Hospital • Croft School • Notre Dame Academy • Russell School • Waterbury Hospital • Teikyo Post College • Waterbury Arts Magnet School The study area also traverse s several residential neighborhoods including Brooklyn, Bunker Hill, Country Club, East End, South End, Town Plot, Washington Hill, and West End. As potential alternatives become more developed and the study progresses, noise sensitive resources and potential impacts to them will be assessed in greater detail. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6-92 Figure 6-36: Noise Sensitive Land Uses Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-1 7 Needs and Deficiencies This Existing and Future Conditions Technical Memorandum has analyzed the I- 84/Route 8 Interchange study area from seve ral safety and operational standpoints. Through this analysis, needs and deficiencies from each standard have been identified and are summarized in this section. 7.1 Traffic Operations Traffic operations relates to ability of a roadway system to accommodate vehicles in terms of demand and distribution. In ot her words, the volume of traffic and the directional movements they make directly impact the capacity and geometric configuration of a road. In this regard, operations can be quantified through a number of analytic techniques. The first technique utilizes the methodology developed in the Highway Capacity Manual. The second techni que involves the use of a micro-simulation model to evaluate the dynamic effect of vehicle evoluti on into a roadway system during a finite period of time. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses, but both are useful in identifying roadway deficiencies and will ul timately be necessary in order to test the effectiveness of improvement strategies. 7.1.1 Highway Capacity Software Analysis The HCS utilizes methodologies developed in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). It is a static analysis, that is, it is based on a snapshot of traffic conditions at one specific location for the highest 15-minute volume in a p eak hour. For this analysis, current year (2005) and future (2030) traffic volume was pr ovided by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT). The future proj ected volume is unconstrained, and therefore represents the amount of traffic that desires to use the roadway in 25 years. The growth in traffic is based on projections of populat ion and employment growth in the region. Table 7-1 lists the results of the mainline cap acity analysis. Based on the HCS, I-84 will increase from 11 deficient mainline locations in 2005 to 19 deficient mainline locations in 2030. Most of the defici encies are expected to occur along I-84 eastbound. The constrained capacity of the two lane segm ent between Interchanges 19 and 20 will result in significant congestion in both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Along Route 8, mainline conditions go from accep table levels in the year 2005 analysis, and degrade in many areas in the year 2030 pr ojection. The two segments that show the most significant problems are th e southern and northern extents of the Route 8 corridor. In these locations, difficult merge and dive rge conditions contribute to turbulence in traffic flow under 2030 projected volume conditions. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-2 Table 7-1: Freeway Mainline Capacity Analysis 2005 2030 Segment EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB Between Int. 17 and Int. 18 -/X X/X X/X X/X Between Int. 18 and Int. 19 -/- -/- -/X -/- Between Int. 19 and Int. 20 -/- -/- X/X -/- Between Int. 20 and Int. 21 -/- -/- X/X -/- Between Int. 21 and Int. 22 -/- X/X X/X X/X Between Int. 22 and Int. 23 -/- X/X X/X X/X I-84 Mainline East of Int. 23 X/X X/X -/- X/X Between Int. 29 and Int. 30 -/- -/- -/X -/- Between Int. 30 and Int. 31 -/- -/- -/X X /X Between Int. 31 and Int. 32 -/- -/- -/- -/- Between Int. 32 and Int. 33 -/- -/- -/- -/- Between Int. 33 and Int. 34 -/- -/- -/X X/- Route 8 Mainline Between Int. 34 and Int. 35 -/- -/- -/X X/- Total Mainline LOS Deficiencies: 1/2 4/4 0/0 0/0 5/6 4/4 0/4 3/1 Legend: ‘-’ denotes no deficiency iden tified, ‘X’ denotes a deficiency. Analysis results are displayed (A.M./P.M.) Table 7-2 lists the interchange ramp merge and diverge analysis for I-84 and Route 8. Ramp capacity analysis is used to understand th e effects of traffic interaction at the merge and diverge points at interchange ramps. In terchange ramps are often times choke points in a highway system as vehicles are entering and leaving the system at different speeds and are making lane changing decisions. For I-84 eastbound, the number of ramp deficien cies increases from 8 to 24 over the 25 year planning period. Virtually every in terchange is anticipated to experience congestions at the ramp merge and diverge points in year 2030. For I-84 westbound, the number of deficient locations increases from 9 to 21 over the 25 year planning period. As in the eastbound condition, every intercha nge is expected to be impacted by the increase in traffic in year 2030. For Route 8 northbound, all of the deficiencies identified were for the P.M. peak hour condition. During this period, the number of deficiencies increases from 2 to 4 – mainly at the interchanges north of Interchange 32. For Route 8 southbound, the number of deficiencies for the A.M. peak hour increases from 2 to 3 and 0 to 2 for the P.M. peak hour.. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-3 Table 7-2: Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis I-84 Eastbound Merge/Diverge A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Total Interchange Ramp Deficiencies 2005 Interchange 20 • Off ramp from Rt.8 SB • Off ramp from Rt.8 NB Interchange 21 • Off ramp to Meadow St. Interchange 18: • Off Ramp to Chase Parkway • On Ramp from Chase Parkway Interchange 20: • Off ramp from Rt.8 SB • Off ramp from Rt.8 NB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow St. (A.M./P.M.) (3/5) 2030 Interchange 18: • Off Ramp to Chase Parkway • On Ramp from Chase Parkway Interchange 19: • Off ramp to Sunnyside/Rt. 8 SB • Off ramp to Rt. 8 NB • On ramp from Highland Avenue Interchange 20: • On ramp from Rt. 8 SB • On ramp from Rt. 8 NB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow St. • On ramp from Meadow St. Interchange 22: • Off ramp to South Main Street Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Frontage road • On ramp from Hamilton Avenue Interchange 18: • Off Ramp to Chase Parkway • On Ramp from Chase Parkway Interchange 19: • Off ramp to Sunnyside/Rt. 8 SB • Off ramp to Rt. 8 NB • On ramp from Highland Avenue Interchange 20: • On ramp from Rt. 8 SB • On ramp from Rt. 8 NB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow St. • On ramp from Meadow St. Interchange 22: • Off ramp to South Main Street Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Frontage road • On ramp from Hamilton Avenue (A.M./P.M.) (12/12) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-4 Table 7-2 (continued): Interchan ge Ramp Capacity Analysis I-84 Westbound Merge/Diverge A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Total Interchange Ramp Deficiencies 2005 Interchange 18: • Off ramp to West Main St./Highland Avenue Interchange 19: • On ramp from Rt. 8 SB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow St. Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Hamilton Avenue Interchange 18: • Off ramp to West Main St./Highland Avenue Interchange 20: • Off ramp to Rt. 8 SB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow St. Interchange 22: • On ramp from Union Street Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Hamilton Avenue (A.M./P.M.) (4/5) 2030 Interchange 18: • Off ramp to West Main St./Highland Avenue • On ramp from Chase Pkwy. Interchange 19: • On ramp from Rt. 8 SB • On ramp from Rt. 8 NB Interchange 20: • Off ramp to Rt. 8 SB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow Street • On ramp from Bank Street-left • On ramp from Bank Street-right Interchange 22: • Off ramp to Union Street • On ramp from Union Street Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Hamilton Avenue Interchange 18: • Off ramp to West Main St./Highland Avenue • On ramp from Chase Pkwy. Interchange 19: • On ramp from Rt. 8 SB Interchange 20: • Off ramp to Rt. 8 SB • Off ramp to Rt. 8 NB Interchange 21: • Off ramp to Meadow Street • On ramp from Bank Street-left • On ramp from Bank Street-right Interchange 22: • On ramp from Union Street Interchange 23: • Off ramp to Hamilton Avenue (A.M./P.M.) (11/10) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-5 Table 7-2 (continued): Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis Table 7-2 (continued): Interchan ge Ramp Capacity Analysis Route 8 NB Merge/Diverge A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Total Interchange Ramp Deficiencies 2005 Interchange 33: • On ramp from Riverside Street Interchange 34: • On ramp from West Main Street (A.M./P.M.) (0/2) 2030 Interchange 33: • On ramp from Riverside Street • On ramp from I-84 WB Interchange 34: • On ramp from West Main Street Interchange 35: • Off ramp to Rt. 73 (A.M./P.M.) (0/4) Route 8 SB Merge/Diverge A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Total Interchange Ramp Deficiencies 2005 Interchange 32: • Off ramp to Riverside Street Interchange 35: • On ramp from Rt. 73 (A.M./P.M.) (2/0) 2030 Interchange 32: • Off ramp to Riverside Street Interchange 33: • Off ramp to I-84 WB Interchange 35: • On ramp from Rt. 73 Interchange 32: • Off ramp to Riverside Street Interchange 35: • On ramp from Rt. 73 (A.M./P.M.) (3/2) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-6 Table 7-3 lists the results of the weavi ng analysis along I-84 and Route 8. Weaves typically occur along segments of highway with closely spaces exit and entrance ramps. For example, and upstream entrance ramp and a downstream exit ramp creates a condition in which traffic must weave to make their necessary movements. Based on the HCS, I-84 will increase from 3 deficient mainline weave locations in 2005 to 8 deficient mainline weave locations in 203 0. This is mainly due to an increase in traffic volumes in the weaving movements in 2030. Along Route 8, the number of weave deficiencies increase from tw o to three from 2005 to 2030. Table 7-3: Weave Analysis 2005 2030 Weave Segment EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB Route 8 NB to Meadow Street X/- X/ X Bank Street to Route 8 Northbound -/X X/ X Bank Street to Route 8 Southbound -/- X/ X I-84 Weave Route 8 SB to Highland Ave. X/- X/ X West Main Street to Watertown Ave. -/X -/X Route 8 Weave Watertown Avenue to West Main Street X/- X/ X Total Weave LOS Deficiencies: 1/0 1/1 0/1 1/0 1/1 3/3 0/1 1/1 Legend: ‘-’ denotes no deficiency identif ied, ‘X’ denotes a deficiency. Analysis results are displayed (A.M./P.M.) Table 7-4 lists the results of the intersecti on capacity analysis. Intersection operations can create localized congestion that may imp act vehicles leaving the highway system as well vehicles entering the system. The number of intersection deficiencies increase from 6 to 9 between 2005 and 2030 during the A.M. peak hour condition. Duri ng the P.M. peak hour, the number of deficiencies increased from 7 to 12 between 2005 and 2030. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-7 Table 7-4: Intersection Capacity Analysis 2005 2030 INTERSECTION A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Interchange 18 I-84 WB Exit ramp and W. Main St. X X X X Interchange 19-20 Sunnyside St./Riverside St. Freight St./Riverside St. NB Freight St./Riverside St. SB W. Main St./Highland Avenue X X W. Main St./Riverside St. NB X X W. Main St./Riverside St. SB X X X X Interchange 21 I-84 EB Entrance ramp/Meadow St. I-84 EB Exit ramp/Meadow St. Field St./Meadow St. I-84 EB Exit ramp/South Main St. Grand Street/Meadow Street X X Meadow Street/Bank Street Grand Street/Bank Street X Union Street/S. Main St. X X X Union Street/S. Elm St. X X X X Willow Street/Freight Street X X Willow Street/Main Street X X X X Interchange 22 Baldwin St./McMahon Street/I-84 Baldwin St./Scoville St. I-84 WB Exit ramp/Union St. Union/Brass Mill Entrance (West) Union/Brass Mill Entrance (East) Union Street/Mill Street Interchange 23 I-84 WB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Ave. X I-84 WB Exit ramp and Hamilton Ave. I-84 EB Entrance ramp and Hamilton Ave. X Washington Street and Silver/Hamilton X X X X Total Mainline LOS Deficiencies: 6 7 9 12 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-8 7.1.2 VISSIM Analysis In addition to HCS, the VISSIM microsimulatio n model was used to analyze the systemic effect of traffic congestion under real-time conditions. This analysis is based on the desired traffic volumes provi ded by ConnDOT, but can be constrained by the actual capacity of the highway system. The resu lts offered by VISSIM paint a more accurate picture of roadway operations a nd can be used to evaluate things such as the progressive build-up of vehicle queues at ramp termini or at highway choke points. VISSIM can also be used to determine the delay that would be caused by the closure of a lane due to a traffic accident. Table 7-5 lists the segments of the highway system that experienced congested flow conditions as determined by VISSIM. Fo r I-84 Eastbound, 12 locations show congestion during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the existing year 2005 scenario. In future year 2030, that number increases to 22. For I-84 Westbound, 7 locations show congestio n during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the existing year 2005 scenario. In futu re year 2030, that number increases to 16. For Route 8 Northbound, 1 loca tion shows congestion during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the existing year 2005 scenario. In futu re year 2030, that number increases to 5. For Route 8 Southbound, 2 locations show conge stion during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the existing year 2005 scenario. In futu re year 2030, that number increases to 4. Vehicle queues obtained from VISSIM helped identify queue length deficiencies on a number of exit ramps for both existing year 2005 and future year 2030. Exit ramps with queue length deficiencies fo r the existing year 2005 are: ƒ I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 23 ƒ Route 8 southbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 Exit ramps with queue length deficien cies for the future year 2030 are: ƒ I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 18 ƒ I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 22 ƒ I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 23 ƒ Route 8 northbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 ƒ Route 8 southbound exit ramp at Interchange 30 ƒ Route 8 northbound exit ramp at Interchange 31 Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-9 Table 7-5: VISSIM Analysis Legend: Analysis results are displayed in (A.M./P.M.) I-84 Eastbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Deficiencies 2005 • Int. 19 Exit Ramp(Right) to Int. 19 Exit Ramp (Left) • Int. 19 Entrance Ramp to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp(Left) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Left) to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) to Int. 22 Entrance Ramp • Int. 18 Exit Ramp to Int. 18 Entrance Ramp • Int. 19 Exit Ramp to Int.19 Exit Ramp • Int. 19 Exit Ramp to Int. 19 Entrance Ramp • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) to Int. 22 Entrance Ramp • Int. 22 Entrance Ramp to Int. 23 Exit Ramp (6/6) 2030 • Int. 18 Exit to Int. 18 Entrance Ramp • Int. 18 Entrance Ramp to Int. 19 Exit Ramp • Int. 19 Exit Ramp(Right) to Int. 19 Exit Ramp (Left) • Int. 19 Entrance Ramp to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp(Left) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Left) to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) to Int. 22 Entrance Ramp • Int. 22 Entrance to Int. 23 Exit Ramp • Int. 23 Exit to Int. 23 Entrance Ramp • Int. 18 Exit to Int. 18 Entrance Ramp • Int. 18 Entrance Ramp to Int. 19 Exit Ramp • Int. 19 Exit Ramp(Right) to Int. 19 Exit Ramp (Left) • Int. 19 Entrance Ramp to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp(Left) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Left) to Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) • Int. 20 Entrance Ramp (Right) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St.) to Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) • Int. 21 Exit Ramp (S. Main St.) to Int. 22 Entrance Ramp • Int. 22 Entrance to Int. 23 Exit Ramp • Int. 23 Exit to Int. 23 Entrance Ramp (11/11) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-10 Table 7-5 (continued): VISSIM Analysis Legend: Analysis results are displayed in (A.M./P.M.) I-84 Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Deficiencies 2005 • Interchange 23 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 22 Exit Ramp • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp • Interchange 23 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 22 Exit Ramp • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp • Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp (3/4) 2030 • Interchange 23 Exit Ramp to Interchange 22 Exit Ramp • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp • Interchange 21Entrance Ramp (Right) to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (Left) • Interchange 21Entrance Ramp (Left) to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Left) • Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Left) to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right) • Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right) to Interchange 18 Exit Ramp • Interchange 23 Exit Ramp to Interchange 22 Exit Ramp • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp • Interchange 21Entrance Ramp (Right) to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (Left) • Interchange 21Entrance Ramp (Left) to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp • Interchange 20 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Left) • Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right) to Interchange 18 Exit Ramp (8/8) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ 7-11 Table 7-5 (continued): VISSIM Analysis Table 7-5 (continued): VISSIM Analysis Legend: Analysis results are displayed in (A.M./P.M.) Route 8 Northbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Deficiencies 2005 • Int. 34 Entrance Ramp to Int. 35 Exit Ramp (0/1) 2030 • Int. 30 Exit to Int. 30 Entrance Ramp • Int. 30 Entrance Ramp to Int. 31 Exit Ramp • Int. 31 Exit Ramp to Int. 32 Exit Ramp • Int. 32 Exit Ramp to Int. 33 Exit Ramp • Int. 34 Entrance Ramp to Int. 35 Exit Ramp (0/5) Route 8 Southbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Deficiencies 2005 • Int. 35 Entrance Ramp to Int. 34 Exit Ramp • Int. 34 Exit Ramp to Int. 35 Exit Ramp (2/0) 2030 • Int. 35 Entrance Ramp to Int. 34 Exit Ramp • Int. 34 Exit Ramp to Int. 35 Exit Ramp • Int. 35 Entrance Ramp to Int. 34 Exit Ramp • Int. 31 Exit Ramp to Int. 30 Exit Ramp (2/2) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-12 7.2 Roadway Safety Over a three year period, roughly 1,500 accidents occurred on I-84 and Route 8 within the study area. Using a 365 day year, the averag e rate of accidents is 1.4 per day. Much of the congestion experienced on these roadways can be attributed to the high frequency of accidents. The contributing factors or cause s for the accidents are listed in Table 7-6. Table 7-6: Category of Contributing Factors Factor Category Number Pct. Driver Error 1377 92% Road Condition 88 6% Other 26 2% Total 1491 100% It is not surprising to find driver error the overwhelming contributing factor. The interchange was designed for r oughly 1/3 of the vehicles that it currently carries and much of it is substandard by today’s design st andards. Additionally, trucks are involved in 31% of traffic accidents. This proportion is significantly higher than the percentage of all vehicles that are trucks (approximately 8%). 7.3 Roadway Design Deficiencies The frequency of traffic incidents within the study area can be attributed to the physical geometry of the roadway system. Design st andards have continuously evolved from the time the interchange was designed, and reflect th e state of the art in terms of safety and operational efficiency. Much of the intercha nge system does not meet today’s standards. Table 7-7 lists all of the locations that do not meet current AASHTO design standards. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-13 Table 7-7: Roadway Design Deficiencies Substandard Condition Location Ramp Grades • Interchange 21 westbound exit ramp (I-84) • Interchange 19 eastbound entrance ramp (I-84) • Interchange 31 southbound en trance ramp (Route 8) Ramp Superelevation • Interchange 31 exit ramp which connects Route 8 northbound to I-84 • Interchange 20 off ramp wh ich connects I-84 westbound to Route 8 Entrance Ramp Acceleration Length I-84 • Interchange 20 Eastbound Entr ance Ramp (Right Ramp) • Interchange 21 Westbound Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) • Interchange 21 Westbound Entr ance Ramp (Right Ramp) • Interchange 22 Eastbound Entrance Ramp • Interchange 22 Westbound Entrance Ramp Route 8 • Interchange 31 southbound entr ance ramp from Riverside Street Exit Ramp Deceleration Length I-84 • Interchange 20 Westbound Exit ramp • Interchange 21 Eastbound Exit ramp (to South Main Street) • Interchange 22 Westbound Exit ramp Interchange Ramp Spacing I-84 Eastbound • Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (Right Ramp) • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (on Right) to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) • Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) • Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) to Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) • Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St) • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Mea dow St) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (South Main St) • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp I-84 Westbound • Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Right) to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-14 • Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Left) to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp • Interchange 20 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp • Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (from Left) to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) Route 8 Northbound • Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp • Interchange 31 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp • Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 33 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) • Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 WB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) • Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (Riverside St) • Interchange 34 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 35 Exit Ramp Route 8 Southbound • Interchange 35 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 34 Exit Ramp • Interchange 33 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp • Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp • Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I-84 EB) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ra mp (from Riverside St) • Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Riverside St) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I-84 WB) Mainline Lane Continuity I-84 Eastbound • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (to Route 8 SB) • Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (to Meadow St.) I-84 Westbound • Interchange 20 Exit Ramp • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp • Interchange 18 Exit Ramp Route 8 Northbound • Interchange 31 Exit Ramp Route 8 Southbound • Interchange 34 Exit Ramp • Interchange 32 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) Left-Hand Ramps I-84 Eastbound • Interchange 19 exit ramp • Interchange 20 entrance ramp I-84 Westbound • Interchange 19 entrance ramp • Interchange 21 entrance ramp Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-15 Route 8 Northbound • Interchange 33 exit ramp • Interchange 33 entrance ramp s from I-84 eastbound and I- 84 westbound Route 8 Southbound • Interchange 31 exit ramp • Interchange 32 exit ramp Shoulder Width I-84 Eastbound • Interchange 19 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp • Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (from Route 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (to Meadow St) • Interchange 22 Exit Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp I-84 Westbound • Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp • Interchange 18 Exit Ramp to 18 Entrance Ramp Route 8 Northbound • Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp • Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp Route 8 Southbound • Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 30 Exit Ramp A summary of the above defici encies along with noted sidewa lk and signage deficiencies is illustrated in Table 7-1. Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-16 Figure 7-1: Summary of Study Area Deficiencies $ # # [ [ G G G G G X X! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Interchange 18 I-84 EB § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )8 ” )8 Interchange 19 I-84 EB & WB Interchange 20 I-84 EB & WB Interchange 21 I-84 EB Interchange 22 I-84 EB Interchange 23 I-84 EB Interchange 22 I-84 WB Interchange 21 I-84 WB Interchange 33 Route 8 NB & SB Interchange 18 I-84 WB Interchange 30 Route 8 NB & SB Interchange 31 Route 8 NB & SB Interchange 32 Route 8 NB Interchange 34 Route 8 NB & SB Interchange 35 Route 8 NB & SB Interchange 32 Route 8 SB M a in B a n k H am il t o n S i lv e r W a sh i n g t o n F r e i g h t C oun tr y C lu b M e a d ow S i l v e r W as h i n g to n W ash in g to n Main ® 0 1,200 2,400 60 0 Feet Legend ! LOS Deficiency X Left Ramp G Decceleration Lengt h Deficiency G Acceleration Length Deficiency ^ Interchange Spacing Deficiency [ Superelevation Deficiency # Grade Deficiency $ Curve Radius Deficiency Signage DeficiencyDefecient sidewalks [[G G X ! ! ! ! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-17 7.4 Structural Deficiencies General Description of Bridges There are 42 bridges within the study area with a span greater than twenty feet. These bridges have concrete decks with steel supe rstructures supported on concrete substructure units. Almost all of the bridges have a bitu minous concrete overlay with membrane. All but one of the bridges was constructed in 1965 to 1967. Thirty one of the bridges have undergone rehabilitation. Twenty nine have been painted since 1990. Seven of the longest bridges have been seismically retr ofitted. All but two of the bridges have inventory load ratings greater than th e interstate load limit of 36 tons. Table 7-8 shown below summarizes th e ratings by number of bridges. Table 7-8: Bridge Structure Ratings Deck Superstructure Substructure Rating No. % No. % No. % 4 Poor 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 5 Fair 8 19% 3 7% 6 14% 6 Satisfactory 30 71% 23 55% 19 45% 7 Good 3 7% 12 29% 16 38% 8 Very Good 1 2% 3 7% 0 0% Totals 42 100% 42 100% 42 100% 7.5 Conclusions In terms of deficiencies identified in this report, a majority of them occur on the I-84 mainline and associated interchange ramp sy stem. To a lesser degree, Route 8 and its interchanges experience deficien cies, but lower overall traffic volumes on this highway are reported in both ye ar 2005 and 2030 condition. Field review of existing operating conditions did not result in the documentation of significant traffic congestion in the study area. Exceptions to this were along the eastern most segment of I-84 eastbound where a traffic in cident east of the study area resulted in a vehicle queue that extended west of Interchange 23. The other areas o f notable congestion were along the primary arteri al roadways in Downtown Waterbury, particularly in the P.M. peak hour condition. Anecdotal evidence indicates that recurrent c ongestion is prevalent within the study area. Based on the 3-year accident data that was collected, approximately 1,500 vehicle accidents were reported. This averages to more than one accident per day in the study Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing & Future Conditions I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-18 area. The configuration of the interchange ramp system, sub-standard roadway and structural conditions, and heavy mix of complex vehicle distributions all contribute to an operational condition that allows little room for driver error. Traffic accidents, inclement weather conditions, and periodic construction and inspection operations all contribute to congested conditions that are not pres ent under ‘normal’ operating conditions. Unfortunately, normal conditions are not fre quently encountered within the study area. Future projections of traffic in year 2030 will place an intense burden on the roadway’s ability to safely and efficiently move traffi c. Traffic congestion will become a daily event and the likelihood of a greater numbe r of accidents will increase. The I-84 and Route 8 Interchange area will become the majo r bottleneck in the region, and will impact travel times for both local and inter-regional trips. In addition to safety and opera tions, the condition of many of the bridge structures is average at best and the two main spans ca rrying I-84 are rated in poor condition. A program of continuous maintenance is necessary to keep these structures compliant with federal safety requirements. The future lifesp an of the structures and cost of continued maintenance is a major consideration when it comes to planning for the future of the highway system. Finally, alternative travel options in the area are limited. Transit serving Waterbury works reasonably well but transit options beyond Downtown Waterbury are limited. The Metro North commuter rail service is not highly utilized and demand for increased service options is relatively small. Bicycle routes for shorter distance trips do not exist although planning efforts are und erway to address this. Pedestrian movement and sidewalk development is extensive in the co re of Downtown Waterbury, but connections outside of that area are poor. Making Wa terbury more accessible to bicyclist and pedestrians can help mitigate the need for short trip making using the automobile. The complexity of traffic operations and the sub-standard geometry of the existing highway system is extensive. The deficiencies identified in this report, as well as others that might be suggested by the public or the Study Advisory Committee, will help define the types of improvements that will be studie d in subsequent phases of this study. The improvements will focus on making the interc hange area a safer and more efficient system, while providing better access to Downtown Waterbury and emerging redevelopment areas. The improvements s hould also be environmentally sensitive and not disproportionately impact economically or racially disadvantaged population groups.