Archives: Publications

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.

Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………… ……………………………i LIST OF TABULATIONS……………………………………………………………… …………………………v LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… …………………………………vi Executive Summary……………………………………………………………… ………………………………ES-I 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..1-1 1.1 Study Background……………………………………………………………… ……………………….1-1 1.2 Study Team……………………………………………………………… ………………………………..1-1 1.3 Study Area……………………………………………………………… …………………………………1-2 1.4 Study Goals and Objectives……………………………………………………………… …………..1-3 1.5 Public Involvement……………………………………………………………… ………………………1-3 1.6 Previous Reports……………………………………………………………… …………………………1-4 2 Existing and Future Conditions……………………………………………………………… ………….2-1 2.1 Existing Transportation……………………………………………………………… ………………..2-1 2.1.1 Work Travel Modes……………………………………………………………… ………………2-2 2.1.2 Bus Transportation……………………………………………………………… ………………..2-2 2.1.3 Rail Service……………………………………………………………… …………………………2-5 2.1.4 Park and Ride……………………………………………………………… ………………………2-6 2.2 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Needs……………………………………………………………… ………2-7 2.3 Traffic Operations……………………………………………………………… ……………………….2-8 2.3.1 Level of Service……………………………………………………………… ……………………2-8 2.3.2 Mainline Capacity Analysis……………………………………………………………… ……2-9 2.3.3 Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis……………………………………………………………..2-10 2.3.4 Intersection Capacity Analysis………………………………………………………………2-15 2.4 Geometric Conditions……………………………………………………………… …………………2-16 2.4.1 Ramp Curve Radii……………………………………………………………… ………………2-16 2.4.2 Ramp Grades……………………………………………………………… ……………………..2-17 2.4.3 Mainline Grades……………………………………………………………… …………………2-17 2.4.4 Superelevation Rates…………………………………………………………….. …………….2-17 2.4.5 Acceleration and Deceleration Lengths…………………………………………………..2-17 2.4.6 Interchange Spacing……………………………………………………………… …………….2-18 2.4.7 Lane Continuity and Configuration………………………………………………………..2-18 2.4.8 Shoulder Widths……………………………………………………………… …………………2-18 2.5 Structural Deficiencies…………………………………………………………….. …………………2-22 2.6 Roadway Safety……………………………………………………………… …………………………2-27 2.7 Cultural Resources……………………………………………………………… …………………….2-28 2.7.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources…………………………………………………………….2-28 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ii 2.7.2 Historic Resources……………………………………………………………… ………………2-30 2.7.3 Archeological Resources…………………………………………………………….. ……….2-33 2.7.4 Public 4(f) and 6(f) Lands……………………………………………………………… …….2-33 2.7.5 Other Community and Institutional Resources…………………………………………2-33 2.8 Environmental Constraints……………………………………………………………… …………..2-36 2.8.1 Surface Water and Groundwater……………………………………………………………2-36 2.8.2 Floodplains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines………………………………2-40 2.8.3 Public Water Supplies……………………………………………………………… ………….2-42 2.8.4 Wetlands……………………………………………………………… ……………………………2-42 2.8.5 Endangered Species……………………………………………………………… …………….2-42 2.8.6 Hazardous Materials Risk Sites……………………………………………………………..2-42 2.8.7 Prime Farmland Soils……………………………………………………………… …………..2-46 2.8.8 Air Quality……………………………………………………………… …………………………2-46 2.8.9 Noise……………………………………………………………… ………………………………..2-49 3 Preliminary Alternatives……………………………………………………………… ……………………3-1 3.1 Description of Preliminary Alternatives…………………………………………………………..3-1 3.2 Screening of Preliminary Alternatives…………………………………………………………….3-2 3.3 Ranking Criteria……………………………………………………………… ………………………….3-2 3.3.1 Construction Cost……………………………………………………………… …………………3-3 3.3.2 Life Cycle Cost……………………………………………………………… …………………….3-3 3.3.3 Constructability……………………………………………………………… ……………………3-3 3.3.4 Environmental Impact……………………………………………………………… ……………3-3 3.3.5 Safety/Meets Design Standards……………………………………………………………… .3-3 3.3.6 Connectivity……………………………………………………………… ………………………..3-4 3.3.7 Economic Development……………………………………………………………… …………3-4 3.3.8 Intermodal Connections……………………………………………………………… …………3-4 3.3.9 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation……………………………………………3-4 3.4 Analysis of Preliminary Alternatives……………………………………………………………… 3-4 3.5 Weighting Factors for Criteria……………………………………………………………… ……….3-5 4 Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………………………………… …………………….4-1 4.1 Conceptual Alternative 6……………………………………………………………… ………………4-1 4.2 Conceptual Alternative 7……………………………………………………………… ………………4-1 4.3 Conceptual Alternative 8……………………………………………………………… ………………4-2 4.4 Ranking of Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………………………………… .4-2 4.4.1 Ranking and Weighting Criteria……………………………………………………………… 4-2 4.4.2 Construction Cost of Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………………4-4 4.4.3 Life Cycle Cost of Conceptual Alternatives………………………………………………4-4 4.4.4 Constructability of Conceptual Alternatives………………………………………………4-5 4.4.5 Environmental Impact of Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………..4-5 4.4.6 Safety/Meets Design Standards of Conceptual Alternatives………………………….4-6 4.4.7 Connectivity of Conceptual Alternatives…………………………………………………..4-6 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 iii 4.4.8 Economic Development of Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………4-7 4.4.9 Intermodal Connections of Conceptual Alternatives……………………………………4-7 4.4.10 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation of Conceptual Alternatives………4-7 4.5 Preliminary Recommendation for Preferred Alternative……………………………………..4-8 4.6 Department of Economic and Community Development Study……………………………4-8 4.6.1 DECD Study Findings……………………………………………………………… …………4-11 4.7 Selection of Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………… …4-11 5 Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………… ………………………..5-1 5.1 Description of Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………… .5-1 5.1.1 Preferred Alternative 6 (Near Term Improvement)……………………………………..5-1 5.1.2 Preferred Alternative 8 (Long Term Improvement)…………………………………….5-2 5.2 Visualization of Alternative 8……………………………………………………………… ………5-11 6 Traffic and Safety Improvements……………………………………………………………… ……….6-1 6.1 Capacity Improvements……………………………………………………………… ………………..6-1 6.1.1 Freeway Capacity Analysis……………………………………………………………… …….6-1 6.1.2 Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis……………………………………………………………… .6-2 6.2 Geometric Improvements……………………………………………………………… ……………..6-5 7 Environmental Analysis of Preferred Alternative………………………………………………..7-1 7.1 Multi-Use Trail Component of the Preferred Alternative……………………………………7-1 7.2 Land Use and Neighborhood Impacts……………………………………………………………..7-2 7.3 Impacts to Major Employers……………………………………………………………… ………….7-3 7.4 Visual/Aesthetic Impacts……………………………………………………………… ………………7-3 7.5 Historic, Archeological and Section 4(f) Resource Impacts…………………………………7-4 7.6 Community Facilities and Resource Impacts……………………………………………………7-4 7.7 Environmental Justice……………………………………………………………… …………………..7-4 7.8 Impacts to Surface and Groundwater……………………………………………………………… 7-5 7.9 Impacts to Floodplains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines………………………..7-5 7.10 Impact to Wetlands……………………………………………………………… ………………………7-5 7.11 Endangered Species……………………………………………………………… ……………………..7-6 7.12 Impacts to Hazardous Materials Risk Sites………………………………………………………7-6 7.13 Impacts to Prime Farmlands……………………………………………………………… ………….7-6 7.14 Impacts to Air Quality……………………………………………………………… ………………….7-6 7.15 Impacts to Noise Sensitive Receptors……………………………………………………………..7-7 8 Cost Estimates of Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………..8-1 8.1 Civil Highway Cost Estimates……………………………………………………………… ……….8-1 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 iv 8.1.1 Costing Assumptions and Justification……………………………………………………..8-1 8.2 Structural Cost Estimates……………………………………………………………… ………………8-2 8.2.1 Costing Assumptions and Justification……………………………………………………..8-2 8.2.2 Discussion of Structural Improvements…………………………………………………….8-4 8.3 Lump Sum Items……………………………………………………………… …………………………8-5 9 Constructability Review……………………………………………………………… …………………….9-1 9.1 Conceptual Construction Sequencing of Preferred Alternative 8………………………….9-1 9.2 Impacts of Preferred Alternative 8……………………………………………………………… ….9-4 9.2.1 Temporary Elevated Structures and At-Grade Roadway………………………………9-4 9.2.2 Temporary and Permanent Utility Relocation…………………………………………….9-5 9.2.3 Maintenance of Existing and Temporary Structures……………………………………9-5 9.2.4 Modification of Existing Traffic Intersections……………………………………………9-5 9.2.5 Premium Cost for Night Work……………………………………………………………… ..9-5 9.2.6 Traffic Management……………………………………………………………… ……………..9-5 9.2.7 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)…………………………………………………..9-5 9.2.8 Land Acquisitions and Mitigation……………………………………………………………9-6 9.2.9 Environmental Impacts……………………………………………………………… ………….9-6 9.2.10 Construction Sequence Design Process…………………………………………………….9-6 9.2.11 Abatement of Hazardous Material……………………………………………………………9-6 9.3 Recommendations for Potential Cost Savings…………………………………………………9-13 9.3.1 Project Labor Agreement……………………………………………………………… ……..9-13 9.3.2 Owner Controlled Insurance Program…………………………………………………….9-13 9.3.3 Safety Incentive Programs……………………………………………………………… ……9-13 9.3.4 Project Delivery Methods……………………………………………………………… …….9-13 9.4 Work Zone Safety Plan……………………………………………………………… ……………….9-14 10 Financial Plan……………………………………………………………… ……………………………..10-1 10.1 Federal Funding……………………………………………………………… …………………………10-1 10.1.1 National Highway System Program (NHS)……………………………………………..10-1 10.1.2 Interstate Maintenance Program (IM)……………………………………………………..10-1 10.1.3 Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)………………………..10-2 10.1.4 Surface Transportation Program (STP)…………………………………………………..10-2 10.1.5 Highway Bridge Program……………………………………………………………… …….10-2 10.1.6 Transportation Enhancement Program……………………………………………………10-2 10.2 State Funding……………………………………………………………… ……………………………10-2 10.3 Innovative Financing……………………………………………………………… ………………….10-3 10.3.1 Public Private Partnerships (PPP)…………………………………………………………..10-3 10.3.2 Tax Increment Financing……………………………………………………………… ……..10-3 10.3.3 Transportation Impact Fees……………………………………………………………… …..10-3 10.3.4 Tolls……………………………………………………………… …………………………………10-4 10.4 Implementation……………………………………………………………… …………………………10-4 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 v LIST OF TABULATIONS Table 2-1: Summary of Waterbury Fixed Route Bus Service and Ridership……………………………………2-5 Table 2-2: Park and Ride Lots……………………………………………………………… …………………………………2-6 Table 2-3: Mainline Capacity Analysis……………………………………………………………… ………………….2-10 Table 2-4: Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis……………………………………………………………… ……..2-12 Table 2-5: Intersection Capacity Analysis……………………………………………………………… ………………2-15 Table 2-6: Roadway Design Deficiencies……………………………………………………………… ……………….2-19 Table 2-7: Bridge Structure Ratings……………………………………………………………… ………………………2-22 Table 2-8: 2003 Bridge Condition Assessment and 2030 Needs…………………………………………………2-23 Table 2-9: Accidents by Severity……………………………………………………………… ………………………….2-27 Table 2-10: Accidents by Type……………………………………………………………… …………………………….2-27 Table 2-11: Category of Contributing Factors……………………………………………………………… …………2-28 Table 2-12: Historic Resources……………………………………………………………… …………………………….2-30 Table 2-13: CTDEP Surface Water Quality……………………………………………………………… …………….2-37 Table 2-14: CTDEP Groundwater Quality Classifications………………………………………………………….2-38 Table 3-1: Criteria Weight Factors……………………………………………………………… …………………………..3-5 Table 3-2: Decision Matrix for I-84/Route 8 Interchange Preliminary Alternatives…………………………..3-6 Table 4-1: Decision Matrix for I-84/Route 8 Interchange Conceptual Alternatives…………………………..4-3 Table 4-2: Fiscal Impact of Alt. 6-7 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050………….4-9 Table 4-3: Fiscal Impact of Alt. 6-8 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050………….4-9 Table 4-4: Economic Impact of Alt. 6-7 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050…..4-10 Table 4-5: Economic Impact of Alt. 6-8 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050…..4-10 Table 6-1: Future (2030) Freeway Capacity Analysis Summary-I-84……………………………………………..6-1 Table 6-2: Future (2030) Freeway Capacity Analysis Summary-Route 8………………………………………..6-2 Table 6-3: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound……………………………………………6-2 Table 6-4: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound…………………………………………..6-3 Table 6-5: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – Route 8 Northbound……………………………………..6-4 Table 6-6: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – Route 8 Southbound……………………………………..6-4 Table 6-7: Future (2030) Level of Service Summary……………………………………………………………… …..6-5 Table 6-8: Summary of Geometric Deficiencies……………………………………………………………… …………6-6 Table 8-1: Summary of Preferred Alternative Costs……………………………………………………………… ……8-6 Table 10-1: Funding and Implementation Plan……………………………………………………………… …………10-6 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Study Area……………………………………………………………… ………………………………1-2 Figure 2-1: Work Travel Modes……………………………………………………………… …………………..2-2 Figure 2-2: Waterbury Local Fixed Route Bus Service……………………………………………………2-3 Figure 2-3: Historic Resources……………………………………………………………… ………………….2-32 Figure 2-4: Potential Section 4(f) & 6(f) Properties………………………………………………………2-35 Figure 2-5: Ground and Surface Water Classification……………………………………………………2-39 Figure 2-6: Floodplains……………………………………………………………… ……………………………2-41 Figure 2-7: Wetlands……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….2-44 Figure 2-8: Hazardous Materials Risk Sites……………………………………………………………… …2-45 Figure 2-9: Farmland Soils……………………………………………………………… ……………………….2-47 Figure 2-10: Noise Sensitive Land Uses……………………………………………………………… ……..2-51 Figure 5-1: Preferred Alternative 6……………………………………………………………… ………………5-4 Figure 5-2: Preferred Alternative 8……………………………………………………………… ………………5-5 Figure 5-3: Section A-A of Preferred Alternative…………………………………………………………..5-6 Figure 5-4: Section B-B of Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………5-7 Figure 5-5: Section C-C of Preferred Alternative……………………………………………………………5-8 Figure 5-6: Section D-D of Preferred Alternative…………………………………………………………..5-9 Figure 5-7: Section E-E of Preferred Alternative………………………………………………………….5-10 Figure 5-8: Existing Interchange……………………………………………………………… ……………….5-11 Figure 5-9: Looking North on Preferred Alternative 8…………………………………………………..5-12 Figure 5-10: Looking West on Preferred Alternative 8………………………………………………….5-13 Figure 9-1: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 1…………………………………………..9-7 Figure 9-2: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 2…………………………………………..9-8 Figure 9-3: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 3…………………………………………..9-9 Figure 9-4: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 4…………………………………………9-10 Figure 9-5: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 5…………………………………………9-11 Figure 9-6: Constructability of Preferred Alternative-Phase 6…………………………………………9-12 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-I Executive Summary The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) and Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) contracted the Wilbur Smith Associates consultant team to evaluate transportation deficiencies and define 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. They key goals of the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Study (I-84/Route 8 WINS) were to: · Increase safety · Address operational deficiencies · Address structural deficiencies · Provide for future growth · Consider financially feasible alternatives An Advisory Committee (AC) consisting of representatives from the COGCNV, City of Waterbury, several state and federal agencies, and key area stakeholders was formed to provide input and guidance for the study. Public informational meetings were held at key milestones of the study to provide a forum for the general public to inquire and provide their input into the study process. Local outreach meetings were also conducted with local officials, COGCNV, local businesses, neighborhood associations and other key stakeholders. Existing and Future Conditions Existing (2005) and future (2030) conditions within the study area were assessed by evaluating transportation, traffic operations, geometric and structural conditions, environmental constraints, pedestrian and bicyclists’ needs and safety. Transportation Within the study area, the automobile is the preferred mode of travel. Transit service within Waterbury works reasonably well but is limited beyond the downtown area. Bicycle routes for shorter distance trips do not exist although planning efforts are underway to address this. Downtown Waterbury has an extensive sidewalk system to encourage pedestrian activity however, beyond the downtown area, sidewalks are limited and for the most part in poor condition. The planning and development of a multi-use trail along the eastern side of the Naugatuck River, including an assessment of its potential community benefits and environmental impacts is currently being undertaken as part of the Naugatuck Greenway project. Traffic Operations Traffic on the I-84/Route 8 interchange has tripled since its construction in the 1960’s. Currently, the interchange carries over 100,000 vehicles a day. The increase in traffic volume over the years has lead to traffic congestion on the highway and local intersections at ramp termini. An Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-II assessment of existing and future traffic conditions indicated that traffic operations with the study area will deteriorate significantly over the next 25 years. Level of Service (LOS) analyses conducted in this study indicated the following: · The number of highway mainline segment LOS deficiencies within the study area will increase from 11 in year 2005 to 27 in year 2030 during peak hours. · The number of peak hour ramp LOS deficiencies will increase from 20 to 52 over the 25 year planning period. · The number of intersection LOS deficiencies will increase from 13 in year 2005 to 21 in year 2030 during peak hour conditions. Geometric Conditions Geometric conditions play a significant role in traffic operations and safety particularly on such a high speed facility as the I-84/Route 8 interchange. A total of 61 geometric deficiencies were identified within the study area. These deficiencies include: · Substandard ramp grades – 3 total · Substandard curve radius – 1 total · Substandard ramp superelevation – 2 total · Substandard ramp acceleration and deceleration lengths – 9 total · Substandard interchange spacing – 22 total · Mainline lane discontinuity – 8 total · Left hand ramps – 8 total · Substandard shoulder widths – 8 total Structural Conditions Increased traffic on the interchange over the past 50 years has placed undue burden on the existing structure, resulting in considerable wear and tear. A review of the existing structure indicated that 71 percent of existing decks, 55 percent of existing superstructures, and 45 percent of existing bridge substructures within the study area currently require major maintenance. Over the 25 year planning period, most of these structures would require major rehabilitation. Safety Safety is a concern within the study area. Accident data reviewed for this study indicate that 1,500 accidents were recorded within the study area from 2001-2003. Approximately 22 percent of these accidents involved injury while 78 percent involved property damage. Three (3) fatalities; two on Route 8 and one on I-84 occurred during the three year period. Preliminary Alternatives Five preliminary improvement alternatives were initially developed to address the deficiencies identified in the study area. These alternatives included: Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-III 6 7 8 Conceptual Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 · Preliminary Alternative 1 (TSM/TDM/Transit) which involved transit service, traffic signal timings, and signage improvements within the study area. This alternative did not involve the construction of any new structures. · Preliminary Alternative 2 (Safety and Operational Improvements) which involved traffic operations, safety improvements on the local roadway system, and new connector routes to enhance connectivity and traffic circulation within the downtown area. · Preliminary Alternative 3 (Partial Build – New I-84 Eastbound Mainline) which involved the replacement of the I-84 eastbound mainline with a new mainline running parallel to the existing I-84 westbound mainline as well as a series of Collector-Distributor (C/D) roads running parallel to the I-84 mainlines. · Preliminary Alternative 3 (Partial Build – New I-84 Westbound Mainline) which involved a new I-84 westbound mainline running parallel to the existing eastbound mainline as well as a new eastbound C/D road running parallel to the I-84 eastbound mainline. · Preliminary Alternative 5 (Full Build) which involved the construction of new I-84 eastbound and westbound mainlines running parallel to each other. Other aspects of this alternative involved two new C/D roads running parallel to the new I-84 mainlines. Screening and Ranking Criteria The preliminary alternatives were assessed and ranked based on nine (9) different criteria. These criteria included construction cost, life cycle cost, constructability, environmental impact, safety/meets design standards, connectivity, economic development, intermodal connections, and traffic operations/capacity accommodation. It was determined during the study that some criteria were more important than others therefore, weights ranging from a scale of 1 to 5 were assigned to each criterion. Based on the ranking exercise, Preliminary Alternatives 3 and 4 were dropped. Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2 were advanced as potential near term improvements with Preliminary Alternative 5 as a potential long term improvement. Conceptual Alternatives The three preliminary alternatives that were advanced were further refined into three conceptual alternatives. These conceptual alternatives are presented below and discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 of this report. · Conceptual Alternative 6 which was developed as a hybrid of Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2. Key aspects of this alternative involved: Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-IV o Improvements to transit service, signage and traffic signal systems. o New local road connections to improve downtown circulation. o Pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. · Conceptual Alternative 7 which was developed as a derivative of Preliminary Alternative 5. Key aspects of this alternative involved: o New I-84 mainlines running parallel to each other, south of the current I-84 footprint. o New Route 8 mainlines within the existing Route 8 footprint. o Frontage roads to collect and distribute local traffic. · Conceptual Alternative 8 which was also developed as a derivative of Preliminary Alternative 5. Key aspects of this alternative involved: o New I-84 mainlines running parallel to each other, south of the current I-84 footprint. o New Route 8 mainlines east of the Naugatuck River. o Frontage roads to collect and distribute local traffic. o Two new interchanges at Freight and West Main Streets to improve downtown access. The three conceptual alternatives were further screened based on the ranking criteria used in screening the five preliminary alternatives. As part of the screening process, the CTDOT in collaboration with the City of Waterbury requested the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to undertake a study to assess the fiscal and economic impacts of the conceptual alternatives to the city. Based on the screening analyses, findings from the DECD Study and consensus from stakeholders, Conceptual Alternative 8 was selected as the Preferred Long-Term Improvement Alternative with elements of Conceptual Alternative 6 serving as near- term improvements. These two alternatives were combined together as one alternative referred to as Preferred Alternative 6-8. Preferred Alternative 6-8 Preferred Alternative 6-8 was selected as the final recommendation of the I-84/Route 8 WINS. While this final recommendation is not a silver bullet for all the issues within the study area, it addresses the stated study goals and provides significant benefits in terms of traffic operations, roadway geometry, transit, and safety over a no- build condition. These benefits are summarized below and discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of this report. Transportation This alternative will provide improved access to transit, management of existing traffic systems, improved pedestrian and bicycle amenities particularly in areas beyond the downtown area. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-V Traffic operations It is anticipated that there will be no mainline or ramp LOS deficiencies under future (2030) conditions with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, compared to 79 mainline and ramp LOS deficiencies if no improvements are implemented in the study area. In addition, the new east-west, north south local road connections will improve traffic circulation within the study area. Geometric operations Safety on a roadway is quite often tied to roadway geometry. In the course of this study, 61 geometric deficiencies were identified within the study area. These deficiencies include left hand ramps, substandard road grades and curvature, substandard acceleration and deceleration lanes and substandard interchange spacing. Under the Preferred Alternative, all but six (6) of the deficiencies will be eliminated. Environmental Impacts The following is a summary of environmental impacts associated with Preferred Alternative 6-8. These impacts are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. · Neighborhood – direct and indirect adverse impacts are anticipated within some neighborhoods. · Major Employers – both positive and adverse impacts are anticipated. · Visual and Aesthetic Impacts – some adverse impacts are anticipated. · Historic, Archeological and Section 4(f) Resource Impacts – some adverse impacts are anticipated. · Community Facilities and Resource Impacts – positive impacts are anticipated. · Environmental Justice – both positive and adverse impacts are anticipated. · Surface and Groundwater Impacts – some adverse impacts are anticipated. · Flood Plains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines – some adverse impacts are anticipated. · Wetland Impacts – no adverse impacts to wetlands are anticipated. · Endangered Species – there is no record of endangered species within study area. · Hazardous Materials Sites – there is potential for adverse impacts. · Farmlands – negligible impacts are anticipated. · Air Quality – no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated. · Noise Receptors – minor impacts to noise receptors are anticipated. Construction Costs A summary of 2009 and 2030 construction costs for Preferred Alternative 6-8 are presented below. Year 2030 costs were developed based on a 6 percent inflation rate provided by CTDOT. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 ES-VI Year 2009 $ Preferred Alternative 6 (Near term improvement)……………………………………$410 million Preferred Alternative 8 (Long term improvement)……………………………………$1.89 billion Year 2030 $ Preferred Alternative 6 (near term improvement)……………………………………$581 million Preferred Alternative 8 (Long term improvement)……………………………………$6.44 billion Details of the construction costs are presented in Chapter 8 of this report. Funding Given that the construction of Preferred Alternative 6-8 would be capital intensive, it is recommended that funding for such a project be obtained from several sources. Potential sources of funding may include but not limited to the following: Federal Funding Sources of federal funding could include the following: · National Highway System Program (NHS) · Interstate Maintenance Program (IM) · Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) · Surface Transportation Program (STP) · Highway Bridge Program · Transportation Enhancement Program State Funding Sources of State funding could include the following: · Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax · Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Innovative Financing Innovative financing could include the following: · Public Private Partnerships (PPP) · Tax Increment Financing · Transportation Impact Fees · Tolls These sources of funding are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10 of this report. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 1-1 1 Introduction 1.1 Study Background The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) and Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) identified the need to evaluate transportation deficiencies and define 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 included CTDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) consultant team, the COGCNV, and a Study Advisory Committee. This study, the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs and Deficiencies Study (I-84/Route 8 WINS), was one part of an overall effort by CTDOT 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 Waterbury (WOW) Needs and Deficiencies Study and the I-84 Deficiencies and Needs Study, have been completed. These studies identified a series of improvements to the interstate, ramps and parallel arterial system. A highway widening and interchange improvement project was completed on I-84 from Interchange 23 in Waterbury east to Southington (State Project # 151- 274 and 151-294). To the west, Interchange 17 & 18 improvements are entering into design phases, and an Environmental Impact Statement (State Project # 174-316) is being prepared for the section of I-84, from Interchange 18 to the New York State Line. To the south, a deficiencies and needs study was initiated in October 2008 for Route 8 from Interchange 30 in Waterbury southerly to Interchange 22 in Seymour. The study will incorporate the findings of I-84/Route 8 WINS for Interchange 30. Improvements currently being studied or in design were recognized in this study to provide overall consistency and operational effectiveness of the highway. 1.2 Study Team CTDOT retained WSA to undertake this needs and deficiencies study. WSA is a multi disciplinary transportation engineering and planning firm with extensive experience in multi-modal transportation studies. Additionally, WSA subcontracted three other firms to assist in this study. These firms are: · Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. (FHI) – performing land use planning and environmental analysis · URS Corporation AES –performing structural analysis and cost estimation · Keville Enterprises, Inc. – performing constructability review and construction cost estimation Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 1-2 1.3 Study Area The study area was defined as I-84 from Interchange 18 to Interchange 23 from west to east, respectively. Along Route 8, the limits are defined from Interchange 30 to Interchange 35 from south to north, respectively. Included in the study area were several 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. Figure 1-1: Study Area Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 1-3 1.4 Study Goals and Objectives Goals were defined in consultation with the Advisory Committee to guide the overall direction of the study. Some of the key goals with respect to the I-84/Route 8 WINS were: Increase safety: Examine historical accident data on the freeways and ramps, identify locations where safety was of particular concern and address any issues. Address operational deficiencies: Review and address highway capacity issues that affect the interchange such as number of lanes, interchange spacing, weave conditions, lane drops, and arterial operations. Address structural deficiencies: Review the structural integrity of the interchange and develop improvement alternatives that would address structural deficiencies and also accommodate anticipated future traffic demands. Provide for future growth: Develop improvements that support options for future development and accommodate growth in traffic flows, both regionally and locally. Consider financially feasible alternatives: Address the feasibility of improvement alternatives based on their ability to be financed. 1.5 Public Involvement An Advisory Committee (AC) consisting of representatives from the City of Waterbury, the COGCNV, several state and federal agencies, and key area stakeholders was formed. The group assisted in the collection of data and documents, review analysis and documentation prepared by the study team and provided input and guidance on study recommendations. The committee consisted 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 Environmental Protection (CTDEP) · Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (CTOPM) · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) · Federal Transit Administration (FTA) · Rideworks · Greater Waterbury Transit District (GWTD) · Northeast Transportation Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 1-4 · Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) · Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce · Neighborhood Housing Services of Waterbury · Country Club Neighborhood Association · Bunker Hill Neighborhood Association · Brooklyn Community Club · Crownbrook Neighborhood Association · Town Plot Neighborhood Association · Council of Governments of Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) · Waterbury Economic Resource Center (WERC) · Waterbury Development Corporation (WDC) · Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation (NVDC) · Connecticut Department of Public Safety (CTDPS) A number of Advisory Committee meetings were held during this study. These meetings provided the opportunity for members to participate in the review of documentation and discuss specific concerns. Public informational meetings were held at key milestones throughout the study process to provide a forum for the general public to inquire about the study and to provide their input into the study process. Local outreach meetings were also conducted with local officials, COGCNV, local businesses, neighborhood associations and other key stakeholders. The purpose of these meetings was to gain full understanding of study area issues and impact of potential transportation modification on the stakeholders. 1.6 Previous Reports Prior to this final report, three reports were developed at key milestones during the study. Technical Memorandum #1 (Existing and Future Conditions Report) – In this report, existing and future conditions within the study area were assessed by evaluating traffic operations, safety, geometric design and structural integrity of bridges. Needs and deficiencies within the study area were identified and summarized to serve as a guide in developing future improvements. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 1-5 Technical Memorandum #2 (Development of Alternatives Report) – In this report, five preliminary improvement alternatives were developed for the study area. These preliminary alternatives were screened and ranked based on criteria developed by CTDOT, FHWA, COGCNV, City of Waterbury and consultant staff to develop three conceptual alternatives. Technical White Paper (Refinement of Alternatives) – In this white paper, the three conceptual alternatives were ranked based on criteria developed in Technical Memorandum #2 and further refined into a preferred improvement alternative. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-1 2 Existing and Future Conditions The I-84/Route 8 interchange, which was constructed in the 1960’s, was designed to handle considerably less traffic than it handles today. I-84 for instance was initially designed to handle 35,000 vehicles per day. The emergence of the automobile industry in the U.S over the past 40 years has seen traffic volumes on the I-84/Route 8 interchange grow drastically to exceed its design volume. I-84 currently handles over 100,000 vehicles per day. This number is expected to increase to about 127,000 vehicles per day by 2030. The increase in traffic volume over the years has lead to traffic congestion in the study area and placed undue burden on the existing interchange resulting in considerable wear and tear. In addition, there are safety concerns within the study area due to the substandard geometric conditions on some portions of the highway. As part of the I-84/Route 8 WINS, existing and future conditions within the study area were assessed by evaluating existing transportation, traffic operations, geometric and structural conditions, environmental constraints, pedestrian and bicyclists’ needs and safety. Based on the assessment, needs and deficiencies within the I-84/Route 8 study area were identified and summarized in an Existing and Future Conditions Report (Technical Memorandum # 1) to serve as a guide in developing future improvements. This chapter presents a summary of the analyses and findings in Technical Memorandum # 1. 2.1 Existing Transportation The automobile is the predominant mode of travel within the study area. 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. An evaluation of both the Waterbury Branch rail corridor and bus transit serving Waterbury is currently ongoing as part of the Waterbury and New Canaan Branch Lines Needs and Feasibility Study. Bicycle routes for shorter distance trips do not exist although planning efforts are underway to address this. Pedestrian movement and sidewalk development is extensive in the core of Downtown Waterbury, but connections outside of that area are poor. Making Waterbury more accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians can help mitigate the need for making short trips using automobiles. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-2 3% 2% 2% 93% 2% 6% 4% 88% 1%3% 5% 91% Source: http://en.wikipedia.org 2.1.1 Work Travel Modes Work travel modes within the study area and the region in general are skewed towards driving as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The majority of study area workers do not use public transportation for their work commute, which may be a reflection of the lack of convenient and accessible transit options. Waterbury has a much higher percentage of commuters that walk (2.8 percent) and use public transit (5.1 percent) than the other 12 towns in the region. 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. Figure 2-1: Work Travel Modes Source: US Census Bureau, Block Group data; COGCNV, Transportation Trends and Characteristics of the CNVR: 2000. 2.1.2 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 State of Connecticut under its CTTransit brand name. The service is contracted out to the Northeast Transportation (NET) Company. NET also provides Americans with 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 service bound for New York City. The final departure for the day is at 12:05 A.M. with service bound for Hartford. Service operates seven days a week. Local fixed-route and ADA paratransit for Waterbury is provided by Northeast Transportation Company doing business as CTTransit. The local service consists of 21 fixed routes and 9 tripper routes serving greater Waterbury. There are 36 buses and 26 paratransit vans providing these services. These routes are presented in Figure 2-2. Buses on these routes typically run hourly COGCNV Region Study Area Waterbury % Work at Home % Walk to Work % Public Trans. % Other means (Drive) Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-3 § ¨ ¦ 84 § ¨ ¦ 84 S T 8 S T8 S T 73 S T69³ ±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 Watertownwith the exception of Routes 11, 12, 18 and 33 which have 30 minute headways. The regular adult cash fare for local fixed-route service is $1.25, with the child fare at $1.00. The fare for senior and disabled citizens is $0.60. There are a variety of discounts available for purchasing multiple ride tickets. For example, a 10-ride full-fare pass is $11.25 and a 31-day pass is $45. Figure 2-2: Waterbury Local Fixed Route Bus Service Source: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-4 In addition to the fixed routes, CTTransit-Waterbury, through its contractor NET, provides transportation to qualified 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 the 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 to, 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 fixed 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, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown and Wolcott. Service operates Monday-Saturday from 6:00 A.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 several 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 potential ridership. In addition, several 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 detailed daily ridership on the fixed bus routes in the Waterbury area. The ridership on these routes is shown in Table 2-1. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-5 Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org Table 2-1: 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 CTDOT 2001. 2.1.3 Rail Service Waterbury is also served by the Waterbury branch of the New Haven Line commuter rail system. CTDOT operates the New Haven 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 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-6 Source: www.trainweb.org are three branch lines serving New Canaan, Danbury, and Waterbury. The Waterbury branch connects to the main line at Bridgeport and serves Derby-Shelton, Ansonia, Seymour, Beacon Falls, Naugatuck and 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 seven arrivals (three during peak hours) and eight departures (two during peak hours) to and from Waterbury at frequencies varying between 2 to 4 hours. On weekends and holidays, there are five arrivals and departures to and from Waterbury. Fares from Waterbury to New York 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 10:00 A.M. or depart from GCT on weekdays from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Off-peak fares are in effect at all other times including weekends and holidays. 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. Passengers must buy tickets ahead of time or on the train. 2.1.4 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 in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Park and Ride Lots 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: CTDOT (P=Paved, L=Lighted, T=Public Telephone, 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 these facilities were underutilized. In that study and a subsequent more recent review, a signage inventory indicated that the railroad station was not adequately signed as a park and ride facility. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-7 Source: www-nlpir.nist.gov 2.2 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Needs Within the past decade in the United States, transportation officials and stakeholders have emphasized the importance of incorporating pedestrian facilities into the general transportation system. A national survey on pedestrians 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 for 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, the need to expand and improve facilities and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian accommodations necessary to encourage walking include sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and street lighting. Currently, there are no state designated bicycle routes within the City of Waterbury. However, the designation of two on-street bicycle routes within Waterbury is 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 length within Waterbury. In the COGCNV Regional Bike Plan, bike lanes were recommended for both of these routes. Additionally, the COGCNV is pursuing the development of a linear bicycle path along the east side of Naugatuck River 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 Waterbury are centered in the downtown area where a majority of the local shopping and commercial facilities are located. 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. Beyond the downtown area however, the number of sidewalks is reduced. The sidewalks in these areas are generally in worse condition than those in the downtown area. Source: Suffolk County, NY website Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-8 2.3 Traffic Operations To evaluate operational performance of a roadway system, a number of different approaches can be used. These approaches have evolved due to the advances in personal computer technology, which has provided the traffic engineer with more powerful tools to help understand the complexities of today’s high-volume roadways. Traditional analytic methodologies advanced 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 Capacity 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 number of intersections or roadway segments quickly, and uses Level of Service (LOS) to convey the operational performance to the engineer or layperson. For this study, the HCS was utilized to test the effects of existing and future traffic on existing highways and local roadways. This Chapter presents a summary of existing and future traffic operations analysis performed during this study. A more detailed analysis can be found in Technical Memorandum # 1- Existing and Future Conditions Report. 2.3.1 Level of Service A study of capacity is important 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 degree of traffic congestion. These factors include speed and travel time, traffic interruption, 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 somewhat by traffic conditions. · Level of Service C , which is normally utilized for design purposes, describes a stable condition of traffic operation. It entails moderately restricted movements due to higher traffic volumes, but traffic conditions are not objectionable to motorists . Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-9 · Level of Service D reflects a condition of more restrictive movements for motorists and influence of congestion becomes 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 described as force flow and is characterized by volumes greater than the 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. 2.3.2 Mainline Capacity Analysis As earlier stated in this Chapter, capacity analyses on I-84 and Route 8 were conducted using the HCS program. Based on the analysis, mainline segments that recorded LOS E or F were flagged as deficient. Table 2-3 presents a summary of mainline capacity analysis from the HCS program. Based on the analysis, it is anticipated that the number of mainline segment LOS deficiencies within the study area will increase from 11 in 2005 to 27 in 2030. I-84 eastbound is anticipated to record slightly more deficiencies than the westbound direction. The constrained capacity of the two lane eastbound segment 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 acceptable LOS in the year 2005 analysis, and degrade to poor LOS in many areas in the year 2030 projection. The most significant problems are noted in the southern and northern extents of the Route 8 corridor. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-10 Table 2-3: Mainline Capacity Analysis 2005 2030 I-84 Segment EB WB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 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 East of Int. 23 X X X X X X I-84 Mainline Deficiencies 1 2 4 4 5 6 4 4 2005 2030 Route 8 Segment NB SB NB SB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 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 Between Int. 34 and Int. 35 X X Route 8 Mainline Deficiencies 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 Note: X- denotes deficiency 2.3.3 Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis Table 2-4 lists the interchange ramp merge and diverge analysis for I-84 and Route 8. Ramp capacity analysis is used to understand the effects of traffic interaction at the merge and diverge points. Interchange ramps are often 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 deficiencies increased from 8 to 24 over the 25 year planning period. Virtually every interchange is anticipated to experience congestions at the ramp merge and diverge points in year 2030. For I-84 westbound, the number of ramp LOS Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-11 deficiencies increased from 9 to 21 over the 25 year planning period. As in the eastbound condition, virtually every interchange in the westbound direction is expected to experience congestion in year 2030. For Route 8 northbound, the ramp LOS deficiencies identified were for the P.M. peak hour condition only. During this period, the number of LOS deficiencies was found to increase from 2 to 3 – mainly at the interchanges north of Interchange 32. For Route 8 southbound, the number of ramp LOS deficiencies was found to increase from 1 to 4. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-12 Table 2-4: Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis Deficient Ramps Number of Deficiencies I-84 Eastbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 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. 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 12 12 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-13 Table 2-4: Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis (Continued) Deficient Ramps Number of Deficiencies I-84 Westbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 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 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 11 10 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-14 Table 2-4: Interchange Ramp Capacity Analysis (Continued) Deficient Ramps Number of Deficiencies Route 8 Northbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 2005 Interchange 33: · On ramp from Riverside Street Interchange 34: · On ramp from West Main Street 0 2 2030 Interchange 33: · On ramp from Riverside Street · On ramp from I-84 WB Interchange 34: · On ramp from West Main Street 0 3 Route 8 Southbound A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 2005 Interchange 32: · Off ramp to Riverside Street 1 0 2030 Interchange 31: · Off ramp to I-84 EB Interchange 32: · Off ramp to Riverside Street Interchange 33: · Off ramp to I-84 WB Interchange 32: · Off ramp to Riverside Street 3 1 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-15 2.3.4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection operations can create congestion on local roads which may impact vehicles leaving the highway system as well vehicles entering the system. For this analysis, intersections within the study area that recorded LOS E or F were flagged as deficient. Table 2-5 lists the results of existing and future intersection capacity analysis for the study area. Based on the analyses, it was determined that the number of intersection deficiencies would increase from 6 to 9 between 2005 and 2030 during the A.M. peak hour condition. During the P.M. peak hour, the number of deficiencies increased from 7 to 12 between 2005 and 2030. The increase in intersection LOS deficiencies could mainly be attributed to traffic growth over the 25 year period. Table 2-5: 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 Table continued on next page Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-16 Table 2-5: Intersection Capacity Analysis (Continued) 2005 2030 INTERSECTION A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 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 Intersection LOS Deficiencies: 6 7 9 12 Note: X-denotes deficiency 2.4 Geometric Conditions Geometric conditions play a major role in traffic operations and safety on a roadway. As a result, design standards are constantly evolving to provide for a safer and more traffic efficient environment for road users. For this study, geometric conditions on the mainlines and ramps were reviewed based on standards from “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – 2001 Edition and CTDOT’s Highway Design Manual-2003 Edition. The review included assessment of ramp and mainline geometry, ramp acceleration and deceleration lengths, interchange spacing, lane continuity and configuration, lane and shoulder widths, superelevation rates, left hand ramps, sight distance and roadside safety features and clear zones. 2.4.1 Ramp Curve Radius An assessment of ramp curve radius was conducted in the study area based on a ramp design speed of 25 mph which represents the minimum corresponding ramp design speed for a 50 mph mainline speed. Exhibit 3-14 of AASHTO (2001) stipulates a minimum ramp curve radius of 185 feet for a 25 mph design speed and a superelevation (e) rate of 6%. Therefore, any ramp radius that did not meet the minimum standard of 185 feet was identified as deficient. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-17 2.4.2 Ramp Grades Ramp grades were evaluated based on methodology from AASHTO (2001). A recommended range of ramp grade was obtained based on curve design speed. AASHTO standards stipulate that ramps with design speeds of 15-25 mph should be limited to grades of 6-8%, while ramps with design speeds of 25-30 mph should be limited to 5-7%. Based on the ramp design speed of 25 mph for this project, a maximum grade range of 5-7% was used for all ramps in the study area. Any ramp within the study area with a grade greater than the recommended AASHTO range of 5-7% was identified as deficient. 2.4.3 Mainline Grades Similarly, grades on the highway mainline were evaluated. AASHTO standards recommend that a maximum grade of 5% be used for a highway design speed of 50 mph in an area with rolling terrain. Mainline grades steeper than the maximum allowable grade of 5% were identified as deficient. 2.4.4 Superelevation Rates Superelevation rates on ramps and highway mainlines were also assessed based on the AASHTO recommended maximum standard of 6%. Superelevation rates greater than 6% were identified as deficient. 2.4.5 Acceleration and Deceleration Lengths Differential speeds on highways, which is usually caused by vehicles entering and exiting a highway, disrupts traffic flow and sometimes presents traffic safety issues. Acceleration and deceleration lanes are used to minimize such differential speeds on highways. Acceleration lanes enable drivers to build up enough speed to safely enter mainline traffic flow without disruptions to traffic flow. Likewise, deceleration lanes enable drivers to substantially reduce their speeds to negotiate a curve in the exit ramp or stop safely at the end of a ramp. As part of the geometric condition evaluation 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 distances were satisfied. AASHTO guidelines stipulate a minimum acceleration length of 550 feet and minimum deceleration length of 355 feet for a ramp design speed of 25 mph and a highway design speed of 50 mph. Acceleration or deceleration lengths that did not meet the minimum AASHTO standard were identified as deficient. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-18 2.4.6 Interchange Spacing An analysis was conducted to ascertain whether the minimum ramp spacing between successive ramp terminals (entrance or exit), as specified by current design standards were satisfied. A reasonable distance between successive ramps is important to provide enough room for maneuvering and signage placement. AASHTO standards recognize four 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 ramp 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- entrance ramp combination; an exit ramp is directly followed by an entrance ramp. Minimum interchange spacing was obtained for the four different designated ramp combinations, using methodology from AASHTO (2001). AASHTO standards recommend a minimum interchange spacing of 500 feet for an exit ramp-entrance ramp combination, 1,000 feet for exit ramp-exit ramp or entrance ramp-entrance ramp combination and 2,000 feet for an entrance ramp-exit ramp combination. Any interchange spacing that did not meet the AASHTO standard was identified as deficient. 2.4.7 Lane Continuity and Configuration Lane continuity and configuration are important geometric parameters that affect traffic flow. Lane continuity refers to the provision of a path throughout the length of a roadway. Sudden lane discontinuities generate unnecessary weaving and maneuvering by drivers, which ultimately disrupts traffic flow and in some cases lead to accidents. Lane configuration on the other hand refers to the location, direction and dimension of roadway lanes, sidewalks, and other design 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 and take an exit ramp. For this study, discontinuous mainline segments as well as left-hand ramps were identified as deficient. 2.4.8 Shoulder Widths An examination of shoulder width was performed to gauge the existence of minimum shoulder requirements on the highway mainline and ramps. Aerial photographs and digital design plans were consulted to aid in identifying locations that violated the minimum shoulder width standards as specified by AASHTO. AASHTO standards indicate that a minimum right shoulder Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-19 width on highway mainlines should be 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. Shoulder widths that did not meet the AASHTO standards were considered as deficient. The results of the geometric conditions review for the I-84 and Route 8 mainlines were summarized in a table. Based on the review, there were no deficient mainline grades. Table 2-6 lists all of the locations that did not meet current AASHTO design standards. Table 2-6: Roadway Design Deficiencies Substandard Condition Location Ramp Grades (> 7%) · Interchange 21 westbound exit ramp (I-84) – 8% · Interchange 19 eastbound entrance ramp (I-84) – 8% · Interchange 31 southbound entrance ramp (Route 8) – 8% Ramp Curve Radius ( 6%) · Interchange 31 exit ramp which connects Route 8 northbound to I-84 – 8% · Interchange 20 off ramp which connects I-84 westbound to Route 8 – 8% Entrance Ramp Acceleration Length (< 550 feet) I-84 · Interchange 20 Eastbound Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) – 480 feet · Interchange 21 Westbound Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – 280 feet · Interchange 21 Westbound Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) – 410 feet · Interchange 22 Eastbound Entrance Ramp – 450 feet · Interchange 22 Westbound Entrance Ramp – 350 feet Route 8 · Interchange 31 southbound entrance ramp from Riverside Street – 300 feet Exit Ramp Deceleration Length (< 355 feet) I-84 · Interchange 20 Westbound Exit ramp – 325 feet · Interchange 21 Eastbound Exit ramp (to South Main Street) – 320 feet · Interchange 22 Westbound Exit ramp – 250 feet Table continued on next page Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-20 Table 2-6: Roadway Design Deficiencies (Continued) Substandard Condition Location Interchange Ramp Spacing Exit-Entrance (< 500 feet) Entrance-Entrance (< 1,000 feet) Exit-Exit (< 1,000 feet) Entrance-Exit (< 2,000 feet) I-84 Eastbound · Interchange 18 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (Right Ramp) – 940 feet · Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (on Right) to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) – 380 feet · Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – 792 feet · Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) to Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) – 606 feet · Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (Route 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St) – 487 feet · Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (Meadow St) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (South Main St) – 797 feet · Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp – 1,120 feet I-84 Westbound · Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Right) to Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (Left Ramp) – 158 feet · Interchange 21 Entrance Ramp (from Left) to Interchange 20 Exit Ramp – 898 feet · Interchange 20 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp –793 feet · Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (from Left) to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp (Right Ramp) – 625 feet Route 8 Northbound · Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – 1,392 feet · Interchange 31 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp – 475 feet · Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 33 Exit Ramp (Left Ramp) – 253 feet · Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 WB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) – 354 feet · Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (84 EB) to Interchange 33 Entrance Ramp (Riverside St) – 507 feet · Interchange 34 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 35 Exit Ramp – 1,600 feet Route 8 Southbound · Interchange 35 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 34 Exit Ramp –1,560 feet · Interchange 33 Exit Ramp to Interchange 32 Exit Ramp – 377 feet · Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – 311 feet · Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I-84 EB) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Riverside St) – 106 feet · Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from Riverside St) to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp (from I-84 WB) – 615 feet Table continued on next page Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-21 Table 2-6: Roadway Design Deficiencies (Continued) Substandard Condition Location Mainline Lane Continuity (Lane drops on mainline) 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 Route 8 Northbound · Interchange 33 exit ramp · Interchange 33 entrance ramps from I-84 eastbound and I-84 westbound Route 8 Southbound · Interchange 31 exit ramp · Interchange 32 exit ramp Shoulder Width (Mainline shoulder width < 12 feet) I-84 Eastbound · Interchange 19 Exit Ramp to Interchange 19 Entrance Ramp – 3 to 5 feet · Interchange 20 Entrance Ramp (from Route 8 NB) to Interchange 21 Exit Ramp (to Meadow St) – 3 feet · Interchange 22 Exit Ramp to Interchange 23 Exit Ramp – 3 to 5 feet I-84 Westbound · Interchange 22 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 19 Exit Ramp – 6 to 8 feet · Interchange 18 Exit Ramp to 18 Entrance Ramp – 3 feet Route 8 Northbound · Interchange 30 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 31 Exit Ramp – 3 feet · Interchange 32 Exit Ramp to Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp – 3 feet Route 8 Southbound · Interchange 31 Entrance Ramp to Interchange 30 Exit Ramp – 3 to 5 feet Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-22 2.5 Structural Deficiencies There are forty two (42) bridges within the study area with a span greater than twenty feet. These bridges have concrete decks with steel superstructures supported on concrete substructure units. Almost all of the bridges have a bituminous concrete overlay with membrane. All but one of the bridges was constructed between 1965 and 1967. Thirty one (31) of the bridges have undergone rehabilitation. Twenty nine (29) have been painted since 1990. Seven (7) of the longest bridges have been seismically retrofitted. All but two of the bridges have inventory load ratings greater than the interstate load limit of 36 tons. The CTDOT inspects each of the bridges every two years. 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 maintenance or rehabilitation concerns 8 Very Good Condition – No maintenance or rehabilitation concerns 7 Good Condition – Potential exists for minor maintenance 6 Satisfactory Condition – Potential 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 Table 2-7 shown below summarizes the ratings by number of bridges, while Table 2-8 summarizes the condition ratings and lists the percent deck deterioration for each bridge. Based on the ratings, it is clear that a significant number of bridges currently require major maintenance or minor rehabilitation. Over the next 25 years, it is envisaged that most of these bridges would require major rehabilitation. Table 2-7: Bridge Structure Ratings Rating Deck Superstructure Substructure Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. 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% Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-23 Table 2-8: 2003 Bridge Condition Assessment and 2030 Needs 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 3188 RTE 8 NB BANK ST & SO. LEONARD ST 14% 6 6 7 X X X Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-24 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 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 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-25 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 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 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 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-26 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 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 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-27 2.6 Roadway Safety Accident data within the study area from 2001- 2003 was obtained from CTDOT and analyzed. Over this three year period, roughly 1,500 accidents occurred on I-84 and Route 8 within the study area which translates to an average rate of 1.4 accidents per day. The severity of accidents within the study area was also assessed and is summarized in Table 2-9. Table 2-9: Accidents by Severity Property Damage Only Injury Fatality Segment Total No. No. % No. % No. % I-84 EB 593 475 80% 118 20% 0 0% I-84 WB 644 494 77% 149 23% 1 < 1% I-84 Sub-Total 1237 969 78% 267 22% 1 < 1% Route 8 NB 134 98 73% 35 26% 1 1% Route 8 SB 120 97 81% 22 18% 1 1% Route 8 Sub-Total 254 195 77% 57 22% 2 1% Total 1491 1164 78% 324 22% 3 < 1% As illustrated in Table 2-9, 22% of accidents in the study area involved injury while 78% involved property damage. Three fatalities; two on Route 8 and one on I-84 occurred during the three year period. The first fatality was caused by a motorcyclist who was driving under the influence; the second fatality was caused by a motorist driving too fast for conditions, while the third fatality occurred when the driver lost control of his vehicle in snowy weather. Table 2-10 presents a summary of the number of accidents by type. Table 2-10: Accidents by Type Total Fixed Object Rear End Side-swipe Moving Object Other Segment No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % I-84 EB 593 168 28% 232 39% 156 26% 14 2% 23 4% I-84 WB 644 201 31% 203 32% 178 28% 26 4% 36 6% I-84 Subtotal 1237 369 30% 435 35% 334 27% 40 3% 59 5% Route 8 NB 134 71 53% 26 19% 26 19% 9 7% 2 1% Route 8 SB 120 41 34% 20 17% 44 37% 12 10% 3 3% Route 8 Subtotal 254 112 44% 46 18% 70 28% 21 8% 5 2% Total 1491 481 32% 481 32% 404 27% 61 4% 64 4% Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-28 The most common types of accident were fixed object (32%), rear-end (32%) and side- swipe (27%). Route 8 had a higher rate of fixed, moving object and side-swipe collisions than I-84, while the opposite was true for rear-end collisions. The vast majority of collisions (92%) were attributed to driver error as illustrated in Table 2-11. Table 2-11: 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 for the I- 84/Route 8 interchange. The interchange was designed for roughly one-third of the vehicles that it currently carries and much of it is substandard by today’s design standards. 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%). Lighting conditions did not appear to produce a bias in the number of accidents. However, a higher-than-expected proportion 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. Weather may be a potential factor in the cause of accidents within the study area, as the number of accidents was slightly higher than would be expected during both wet and snowy or icy conditions. 2.7 Cultural Resources 2.7.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Visual and aesthetic resources in the study area include ridgelines, parks, historic sites and/or neighborhoods, and streetscapes. In particular, the Waterbury-Republican American newspaper company is housed in historic 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 “Holy Land,” characterized by a large cross positioned on a ridgeline, visible from several miles. The Naugatuck River, winding its way from north to south through Waterbury, bisecting the city, is an aesthetic natural resource in the region. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-29 Waterbury Green. View from West Main Street. Holy Land Cross on ridgeline in the distance. View looking east from South Elm Street 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. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-30 2.7.2 Historic Resources Section 106 of the National Historic 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 evaluating 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 size of the APE was selected because it was determined that any proposed interchange improvement plan would not incur potential impacts, including visual impacts, beyond 500 feet on ether side of the existing roadways and interchanges. This proposed APE has not been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). During further analysis of cultural resources that would take place during the NEPA phase (Environmental 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 and archaeological resources within the APE were identified through consultation with the SHPO, review of available maps provided by local planning departments and historical societies, and searches of the State Register of Historic Places, the Historic American Engineering Record, and of the National Register Information System Database. In addition to this research, a visit to portions of the study area was conducted on November 11, 2004 by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI). The area located within the 500 foot buffer was reviewed during the reconnaissance. The research and field reconnaissance revealed that five (5) previously listed National Register resources fall within the 500 foot APE. These historic resources are listed in the table below. Table 2-12: 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. Hillside Historic District Bounded by Woodlawn Terrace, W. Main Street, and Willow Street 395 building of various styles dating from 1825 -1925 Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Overlook Historic District Bounded by Hecla Street., Farmington Boulevard, Columbia Boulevard, Cables Avenue, Clowes Terrace, Lincoln Street and Fiske Street 495 buildings of Late Victorian, Late 19th And Early 20th Century American Movements, Late 19th And 20th Century Revivals Listed on the National Register of Historic Places Bank Street Historic District 207-231 Bank Street Three acres, four buildings, late victorian, colonial and revival buildings Listed on the National Register Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-31 Name Location Description 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 several neighborhoods have a notable number of properties that appear to be eligible for the National Register. 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 Church, 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 Fifth Streets east of Bank Street · St. Patrick’s Church and Rectory, 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 family 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 and architectural resources listed 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 resources along the corridor. A determination of effect on historic and archaeological issues would be issued, and mitigative measures would be necessary if an adverse effect would be expected. A summary of registered and potentially eligible historic locations is shown in Figure 2-3. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-32 Figure 2-3: Historic Resources Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-33 2.7.3 Archeological Resources Areas of archeological sensitivity were found along the Naugatuck River and throughout the study area. As the project progresses, these areas will be identified and closely reviewed by the State Archaeologist to determine any impacts to potential resources. 2.7.4 Public 4(f) and 6(f) Lands Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protects historic resources eligible for listing or listed on the National Register of Historic Places, public parks and recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl preserves from adverse impacts. Historic 4(f) resources were listed in Table 2-12. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Funding Act of 1965 (LWCFA) states that any lands purchased with federal LWCFA funding may not be “converted” to another use 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 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) lands are shown in Figure 2-4. Consultation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) and review of maps and local documentation provided by study area towns revealed that the following public parklands are located within approximately 250 feet of the study area: · Bunker Hill Playground · Hayden Park · The Waterbury Green · Library Park · Edmund Rowland Park · Chase Park · West Dover Street Playground · Rolling Mill Playground · Hamilton Park · Washington Park 2.7.5 Other Community and Institutional Resources There are a wide variety of other 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 2-4 depicts the locations of schools, churches, fire stations, police stations, hospitals, post offices, libraries and other miscellaneous community resources within the study area. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-34 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, walking 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 · 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 · Washington School · Maloney School · State Street School Future review of nearby community facilities will be necessary during the NEPA process. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-35 Figure 2-4: Potential Section 4(f) & 6(f) Properties Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-36 2.8 Environmental Constraints 2.8.1 Surface Water and Groundwater Surface Water There are several watercourses within the study 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 water quality classifications developed by the CTDEP are presented in Table 2-13. Watercourses that are not classified by the CTDEP for water quality are presumed Class A, which is the default classification assigned by CTDEP to all surface waters where water quality data is unavailable. · Naugatuck River: The Naugatuck River runs north-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 Naugatuck River; West Main Street and Freight Street (north of the I-84/Route 8 interchange), and Bank Street and Washington Avenue (south of the interchange). 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 attaining 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. North of Route 69, the Mad River flows behind the Brass Mill Center 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 Street, 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 Brook lies within the study area. Steele Brook flows south, east of Route 73 (Watertown Avenue) and crosses East Aurora Street before crossing Route 8, just northeast of Route 8 Interchange 35 (Route 73). Steele Brook empties into the Naugatuck 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 partially within the study area that are associated with the Hop Brook watershed. One of these streams flows north to south along the western edge of the Naugatuck Valley Community College Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-37 campus and crosses Chase Parkway, I-84, and 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 2-13: 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 meeti ng 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 certai n 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 designat ed 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 Environmental 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. Groundwater Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-38 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 most of the study area. However, there are a few locations where the groundwater is classified as GA. These locations include an area along the western portion of the study area in the 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 Street and Route 73. Designated uses and descriptions of groundwater quality classifications are presented in Table 2-14 and Figure 2-5. Table 2-14: 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 apply; 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 Environmental 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. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-39 Figure 2-5: Ground and Surface Water Classification Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-40 2.8.2 Floodplains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps and GIS data were reviewed to identify 100-year floodplains within the project study area, depicted in Figure 2-6 with 500-year floodplains. 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. The 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 associated 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 floodplain ranges from approximately 200- feet wide, at narrowest point, south of I-84, to approximately 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 watershed’s Welton Brook lies north of I-84 on either side of Chase Parkway in the vicinity 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 between 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 affecting a floodplain, CTDOT would obtain a permit from the CTDEP. Regulated activities include, but are not limited to, structures, obstructions, or encroachments proposed within the floodplain area. Stream Channel Encroachment Lines Within the study area, there are stream channel encroachment lines (SCELs) along the Naugatuck River and Steele Brook, shown in Figure 2-6. SCELs are designated areas , along tidal or inland waterways or flood-prone areas that are considered for stream clearance, channel improvement, or any form of flood control or flood alleviation measures. Areas within the SCELs are regulated by CTDEP to ensure that floodplain development is compatible with river flood flows. In the event that areas within the SCELs would be impacted by the project, CTDOT would obtain the appropriate permits from CTDEP. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-41 Figure 2-6: Floodplains Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-42 2.8.3 Public Water Supplies The City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water, provides 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 reservoir to the Harry P. Danaher Water Treatment Plant located in Thomaston prior to being distributed 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 public water supply reservoirs or stratified drift aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. 2.8.4 Wetlands Wetlands in the study area were identified using CTDEP’s GIS Data Guide Wetland Soils. These wetlands are shown in Figure 2-7 . As shown, there are several wetlands in the Hop Brook watershed, west of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange. A large wetland is located 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 possible. In the event that wetlands would be impacted by the project, CTDOT would obtain all necessary permits per state and federal regulations. 2.8.5 Endangered Species According to the CTDEP GIS data, there are no Natural Diversity Database records within the project study area. The U.S. Fish 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 known to occur within the study area. As this project progresses, CTDOT will continue to coordinate with federal and state agencies to ensure that regulations on threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are observed. 2.8.6 Hazardous Materials Risk Sites Within the proposed project area, there is a high risk for encountering contamination during project construction due to adjacent land uses. Information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-43 was used to identify potential hazardous sites. This TRI is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. The TRI provides facility name and street address, used to show the locations of these potentially hazardous sites as shown in Figure 2-8. There are 18 TRI sites identified in the study area where toxic releases have been reported. Of these 18 sites, three are active or archived superfund sites. Two of the 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, South Main Street, and Washington Avenue. A third superfund site is located in the northern portion of the study area along the Naugatuck River, west of Thomaston Ave. Generally, the hazardous materials risk sites are located along the freight rail line, which runs north-south and parallel to Route 8. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-44 Figure 2-7: Wetlands Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-45 Figure 2-8: Hazardous Materials Risk Sites Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-46 2.8.7 Prime Farmland Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils information, obtained in GIS format, was used to identify prime and statewide important farmland soils within the study area, as shown in Figure 2-9. These soils have not been field checked to determine if they have been developed and/or otherwise altered in use since the mapping, which would disqualify them as farmland, or to determine if they are actively farmed. Soils within CTDOT rights-of-way or committed to another use would not be considered prime farmlands. As the project progresses, potential impacts to prime farmlands will be coordinated with regulatory agencies in accordance with state and federal farmland protection policies. Figure 2-9 indicates that there is prime farmland to the immediate northwest of the I-84 and Route 8 interchange in the vicinity of Chase Park, as well as to the southwest of the interchange, in close proximity to Riverside Cemetery and Barnard School. There are additional soils of statewide importance shown 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 vicinity of Country Club Road. There are also prime farmland soils and statewide 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 statewide importance south of Interstate 84 at the corner of Washington Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. 2.8.8 Air Quality This section documents the existing air quality conditions in the Interstate 84 and Route 8 interchange study area and the encompassing 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 criteria 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 states to monitor regional air quality to Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-47 Figure 2-9: Farmland Soils Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-48 determine if regions meet the NAAQS. If a region exceeds any of the NAAQS, that part of the state is classified as a non-attainment area for that pollutant, and the state must develop an air quality plan, called a State Implementation Plan (SIP), that will bring that region into compliance. Motor vehicles are sources of CO, ozone precursors, and PM emissions. Other sources include stationary sources such as power plants and boilers, area sources such as bakeries, painting activities, and non-road vehicle sources such as construction and farm equipment. The current (CTDEP, December 2006) air quality attainment designations for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region, which is included within the Greater New York City Air Quality 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 designated as non-attainment for the one-hour ozone standard. The Central Naugatuck 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 April of 2004, the EPA determined the entire state of Connecticut to be in moderate non-attainment for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. The maximum attainment date is projected to be June 2010. · PM: EPA has established NAAQS for two size ranges of PM. The entire state of Connecticut is currently in attainment of PM 10 (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less). In January of 2005, the EPA classified the Greater New York City Air Quality Region, which includes the project study area, as non- attainment for PM 2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less). · NO 2, Pb, and SO 2: The entire state of Connecticut is in attainment for these pollutants. State Implementation Plan (SIP)/Transportation 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 further violations of the NAAQS and 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. COGCNV prioritizes and places transportation projects on the region’s TIP. That TIP is incorporated into the CTDOT Statewide TIP and individual projects are moved forward each year for funding. At this time, the I-84 and Route 8 interchange project alternatives have not been formally included in a conforming TIP for the Central Naugatuck Valley region. However, the project has been identified as a potential project in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s Long Range Regional Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-49 Transportation Plan 2004–2030. 2.8.9 Noise The Federal Highway Administration’s Noise 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 and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such uses include outdoor amphitheatres, outdoor concert pavilions, and National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Land Use Activity Category B includes picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. For this feasibility study, Category A and B land uses were identified using existing land use maps and GIS data. These noise sensitive land uses are listed below and are depicted in Figure 2-10. 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 · Hendricken School · Sacred Heart High School · Saint Mary’s Hospital Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-50 · Croft School · Notre Dame Academy · Russell School · Waterbury Hospital · Teikyo Post College · Waterbury Arts Magnet School The study area also traverses several residential neighborhoods including Brooklyn, Bunker Hill, Country Club, East End, South End, Town Plot, Washington Hill, and West End. Noise sensitive resources and potential impacts to them will be assessed in greater detail during the NEPA phase of this project. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 2-51 Figure 2-10: Noise Sensitive Land Uses Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-1 3 Preliminary Alternatives The needs and deficiencies identified in Chapter 2 highlighted the substandard design and state of disrepair of the existing I-84 and Route 8 mainlines and further underscores the need for improvements at the interchange. A project workshop was held on May 5, 2005 to discuss ideas on potential improvement alternatives for the I-84/Route 8 Interchange. The workshop was attended by representatives of CTDOT, the City of Waterbury, COGCNV, and the Project Consultant team. Staff from various CTDOT bureaus were present at the meeting to provide their insight. Attendees were divided into various working groups to develop alternatives that would address key areas – local access, interchange ramp capacity, mainline capacity, and alternative modes. Following the meeting, additional discussions were conducted with the CTDOT staff which resulted in the development of five preliminary improvement alternatives for this study. The five preliminary alternatives were analyzed in addition to a No-Build scenario and undertaken through a screening process; the results of which were documented in a Report (Technical Memorandum # 2- Development of Alternatives Report). This chapter presents a summary of the analyses and findings in Technical Memorandum # 2. 3.1 Description of Preliminary Alternatives Preliminary Alternative 1 – TSM/TDM/Transit This alternative was conceived as a “minimum build” concept that would maximize the operation of the existing transportation system without any roadway construction. Key aspects of Preliminary Alternative 1 involved improving transit service, traffic signal timings, and signage within the study area. This alternative did not involve the construction of any new structures. Preliminary Alternative 2 – Safety and Operational Improvements Preliminary Alternative 2 was developed to improve traffic operations and safety, particularly on the local roadway system within the study area. Improvements included the introduction of connector routes to enhance connectivity and traffic flow within the downtown area as well as improved pedestrian facilities to enhance safety. This alternative did not involve any major structural modifications. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-2 Preliminary Alternative 3 – Partial Build – New I-84 Eastbound Mainline Preliminary Alternative 3, which was the first of two partial build alternatives, was developed to enhance and expand mainline capacity and safety. This alternative was considered as a partial build because it did not require the full replacement of either the I-84 or Route 8 mainlines. Key aspects of this alternative involved the replacement of the I-84 eastbound mainline with a new mainline running parallel to the existing I-84 westbound mainline as well a series of Collector- Distributor (C/D) roads running parallel to the I-84 mainlines geared at reducing congestion on the mainlines. Preliminary Alternative 4 – Partial Build – New I-84 WB Mainline Preliminary Alternative 4 was the second partial build alternative developed to enhance and expand mainline capacity and safety. Key aspects of this alternative involved a new I-84 westbound mainline running parallel to the existing eastbound mainline as well as a new eastbound C/D road running parallel to the I-84 eastbound mainline to separate local traffic going to downtown Waterbury from traffic going through Waterbury to points further east. Preliminary Alternative 5 – Full Build Preliminary Alternative 5 was developed as a full build alternative geared at enhancing and expanding mainline capacity and safety. Unlike the partial build alternatives, Preliminary Alternative 5 involved the construction of new I-84 eastbound and westbound mainlines running parallel to each other. Other aspects of this alternative involved two new C/D roads running parallel to the new I-84 mainlines to separate local traffic going to/ from downtown Waterbury from traffic going through Waterbury to points further east or west. 3.2 Screening of Preliminary Alternatives The five preliminary alternatives were seen as the initial step in the process of developing improvements for the I-84/Route 8 study area. These alternatives were significantly different in their design and represented a wide range of costs which made it necessary to streamline them into fewer more feasible alternatives from a cost and constructability standpoint. Consequently, the five preliminary alternatives went through a screening process based on ranking criteria developed during the study. The section below discusses the ranking criteria in more detail. 3.3 Ranking Criteria CTDOT, FHWA, COGCNV, City of Waterbury, and consultant staff met on September 8, 2005 to develop criteria for ranking the preliminary alternatives. The process was a collaborative effort that resulted in a list of nine (9) ranking criteria. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-3 3.3.1 Construction Cost Construction cost is defined as the cost of all the construction phases of a project. It is generally based upon the sum of the construction contracts (both materials and labor) along with other direct construction costs. It also includes the cost of right-of-way acquisition and the cost of design/permitting defined as a percentage of total construction cost. 3.3.2 Life Cycle Cost Life cycle cost is defined as the amortized annual cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a transportation facility over its useful life. This figure considers long-term costs of each alternative after construction has been completed, since year-to-year expenditures could vary greatly. Infrastructure that is many years old will have greater life cycle costs from maintenance than would new infrastructure. 3.3.3 Constructability Constructability considers the construction process and the need to balance design and environmental constraints while constructing something that can reasonably and feasibly be built. Constructability includes the process of planning and executing a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) program that manages traffic operations during construction activities. The MPT plan considers which lanes accommodate traffic while construction is safely ongoing in the corridor. 3.3.4 Environmental Impact Environmental Impact considers the net change (positive or negative) in the condition of human health and the physical, natural, and social environment associated with the project. Environmental impacts of the project would be evaluated in greater detail after this planning phase ends with documentation as required under the NEPA and the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) processes. 3.3.5 Safety/Meets Design Standards This criterion is a measure of a roadway system’s ability to safely and efficiently accommodate traffic. Safety refers to those conditions that can cause death or injury to people, and damage to or loss of equipment or property. “Meets Design Standards” quantifies the degree to which a transportation alternative meets current CTDOT and AASHTO design standards. The Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-4 alternatives address safety and design standards to a varying degree, depending on how much construction is proposed. 3.3.6 Connectivity Connectivity refers to the ease of travel between two points, e.g., the degree to which streets or areas are interconnected and easily accessible to one another. 3.3.7 Economic Development This criterion is a measure of a project’s ability to strengthen an area's economy and employment base. Employers, manufacturers, and developers consider an area’s accessibility to the national and world transportation network and local job market when determining where to invest in new facilities. Alternatives that improve local arterial roadways and the national highway system would likely have a positive influence in increasing economic development potential for an area. 3.3.8 Intermodal Connections Intermodal connections refers to the use of multiple types of transportation to reach one destination. It includes combining the use of trains and buses, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrian transport on a given trip. 3.3.9 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation This criterion refers to a transportation alternative’s ability to manage demand and increase capacity to serve that transportation demand, whether through additional lanes or services, or through efficiency improvements. 3.4 Analysis of Preliminary Alternatives All five preliminary alternatives were screened based on the ranking criteria described in the previous section. During this process, the following detailed analyses were conducted for each alternative: · Capacity analysis · Preliminary Cost Estimates · Geometric Conditions Review Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-5 · Environmental Analysis Each preliminary alternative was then assigned a score of 1 to 5 for each ranking criterion based on how best the alternative satisfied that criterion. A score of 1 implied that a goal was poorly satisfied while a score of 5 meant that a goal was fully satisfied. 3.5 Weighting Factors for Criteria During the September 8, 2005 meeting, it was determined that some ranking criteria were more important than others. Therefore, weights for each criterion were defined on a scale from 1 to 5. The highest weighting score of 5 was assigned to Safety/Meets Design Standards, while the lowest weighting of 3 was assigned to Construction cost and Intermodal connections. Table 3-1 shows the relative weights for each criterion. Table 3-1: Criteria Weight Factors Criteria Weight Safety/Meets Design Standards 5 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation 4.5 Life Cycle Cost 4 Constructability 4 Connectivity 4 Environmental Impact 3.5 Economic Development 3.5 Construction Cost 3 Intermodal Connections 3 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates The weighting factors were then applied to the scores for each criterion and totaled. The preliminary alternative with the highest score received the highest rank. The results of the screening process are summarized in Table 3-2. A detailed description of the scoring and ranking of the preliminary alternatives can be found in Technical Memorandum # 2- Development of Alternatives Report, developed prior to this report. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-6 Table 3-2: Decision Matrix for I-84/Route 8 Interchange Preliminary Alternatives No Build Preliminary Alternative 1: TDM/TSM/ Transit Preliminary Alternative 2: Circulation/ Operations/ Safety Preliminary Alternative 3: Partial Build 1 New Westbound Preliminary Alternative 4: Partial Build 2 New Eastbound Preliminary Alternative 5: Full Build Grading Criteria Criteria Relative Weighting (1-5) Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Rating (1-5) Weighted Rating Construction Cost 3 5 15 5 15 4 12 2 6 2 6 1 3 Life Cycle Cost 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 3 12 2 8 5 20 Constructability 4 5 20 5 20 5 20 1 4 1 4 3 12 Environmental Impact 3.5 4 14 5 17.5 4 14 3 10.5 2 7 3 10.5 Safety/Meets Design Standards 5 1 5 1 5 2 10 3 15 3 15 5 25 Connectivity 4 1 4 1 4 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 Economic Development 3.5 1 3.5 2 7 5 17.5 3 10.5 3 10.5 4 14 Intermodal Connections 3 1 3 5 15 3 9 2 6 2 6 2 6 Traffic Operations / Capacity Accommodation 4.5 1 4.5 2 9 2 9 3 13.5 4 18 5 22.5 Total Scores 73 96.5 115.5 93.5 90.5 129 Ranking of Alternatives 6 3 2 4 5 1 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 3-7 6 7 8 Conceptual Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 As illustrated in Table 3-2, the alternatives ranked from highest to lowest as follows: · Preliminary Alternative 5 – Full Build · Preliminary Alternative 2 – Safety and Operational Improvements · Preliminary Alternative 1 – TSM/TDM/Transit · Preliminary Alternative 3 – Partial Build (New I-84 Eastbound Mainline) · Preliminary Alternative 4 – Partial Build (New I-84 Westbound Mainline) · No-build – Includes Maintenance of Existing Interchange Structure Only Based on the results of the screening analysis, the structural and constructability issues and the comparatively high cost associated with the partial build alternatives, Preliminary Alternatives 3 and 4 were dropped. Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2 were advanced as potential near term improvements with Preliminary Alternative 5 as a potential long term improvement. These three alternatives were refined into three conceptual alternatives (Conceptual Alternatives 6, 7 and 8) as depicted in the illustration. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-1 4 Conceptual Alternatives As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, the screening analysis conducted in the Development of Alternatives Report (Technical Memorandum #2) identified three transportation improvement alternatives from the five preliminary alternatives to be advanced to the next phase of the study. To maintain a consistent numbering convention, the three alternatives were referred to as Conceptual Alternative 6, 7, and 8. The goal during this phase of the study was to ultimately develop a preferred transportation alternative from the three conceptual alternatives. Therefore, the conceptual alternatives were also analyzed and undertaken through a screening process; the results of which were documented in a third report (Technical White Paper-Refinement of Alternatives). This chapter presents a description of the three conceptual alternatives and a summary of the analyses and findings presented in the Technical White Paper. 4.1 Conceptual Alternative 6 Conceptual Alternative 6 was developed as a combination of Transportation System Management (TSM), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transit and Safety improvements. This alternative looked at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing transportation system by improving transit service, modifying traffic signal timing, and improving signage within the study area. The safety and operational enhancements undertaken under this alternative would improve traffic operations as well as driver and pedestrian safety particularly on the local roadway system. Conceptual Alternative 6 would not involve major structural modifications on the highway system. 4.2 Conceptual Alternative 7 Conceptual Alternative 7 was one of two Full Build alternatives derived from Preliminary Alternative 5 which was developed in the previous phase of this study. Conceptual Alternative 7 would expand mainline capacity and enhance roadway safety by reducing turbulent traffic flows resulting from the mix of local and high-speed through traffic. Under this alternative, frontage roads would be used to collect and distribute local traffic while the interstate mainline and associated high speed ramps would be dedicated to longer distance through trips. Under this alternative, new I-84 and Route 8 mainlines would be constructed. The new I-84 eastbound and westbound mainlines would run parallel to each other and would be located south Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-2 of the current I-84 footprint. The new Route 8 mainline would for the most part, remain within the existing footprint of Route 8. 4.3 Conceptual Alternative 8 Conceptual Alternative 8 was the other Full-Build alternative that was considered. This alternative would expand mainline capacity and enhance safety by removing left-hand exit and entrance ramps and increasing spacing between ramps. In addition, this alternative would minimize construction staging, shorten the duration of construction, and maximize local access through the use of at-grade frontage roads. Under this alternative, new I-84 and Route 8 mainlines would be constructed. The new I-84 eastbound and westbound mainlines would run parallel to each other and would be located south of the current I-84 footprint. The new Route 8 northbound and southbound mainlines would run parallel to each other and would be located east of the Naugatuck River. In addition, two new interchanges would be constructed at Freight and West Main Streets to improve access to the downtown area. 4.4 Ranking of Conceptual Alternatives As indicated earlier in this report, the goal during this phase of the study was to ultimately screen the three conceptual alternatives into a Preferred Alternative. To accomplish this task, the project team held a series of meetings with CTDOT, the City of Waterbury, COGCNV and the WDC to assess each conceptual alternative on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses. Key issues arising from the discussions related to how each conceptual alternative would fit into the City of Waterbury Long Range Economic Development plan, the constructability of the alternatives, various property impacts, and improvements to the local roadway system. The comments and feedback obtained from the deliberations proved to be a valuable guide in developing strategies to further refine the conceptual alternatives. 4.4.1 Ranking and Weighting Criteria Early on in the study process, ranking criteria and weighting factors were developed and utilized in the screening of the preliminary alternatives. The ranking criteria included the following: · Construction costs · Life cycle costs · Constructability · Environmental impact · Safety/meets design standards · Connectivity Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-3 · Economic development · Intermodal connections · Traffic operations/capacity accommodation. The ranking criteria and weighting factors are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. These same criteria and factors were utilized in screening and ranking the three conceptual alternatives. Similar to the screening of the preliminary alternatives, each conceptual alternative was given a score of 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score) based on its ability to satisfy each ranking criterion. The scores were given based on detailed analysis presented in the Refinement of Alternatives Technical White Paper developed prior to this Report. In addition, weighting factors ranging from 1 to 5 were applied to the score for each ranking criterion. The results of the ranking exercise are summarized in Table 4-1 and discussed below. Table 4-1: Decision Matrix for I-84/Route 8 Interchange Conceptual Alternatives No Build Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8 Grading Criteria Criteria Relative Weighting (1 – 5) Rating (1 – 5) Weighted Rating Rating (1 – 5) Weighted Rating Rating (1 – 5) Weighted Rating Rating (1 – 5) Weighted Rating Construction Cost 3 5 15 4 12 1 3 2 6 Life Cycle Cost 4 1 4 1 4 5 20 5 20 Constructability 4 5 20 5 20 2 8 4 16 Environmental Impact 3.5 5 17.5 4 14 2 7 1 3.5 Safety/Meets Design Standards 5 1 5 2 10 5 25 4 20 Connectivity 4 1 4 4 16 4 16 5 20 Economic Development 3.5 1 3.5 2 7 4 14 5 17.5 Intermodal Connections 3 1 3 5 15 3 9 3 9 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation 4.5 1 4.5 2 9 5 22.5 4 18 Total Scores 76.5 107 124.5 130 Ranking of Alternatives 4 3 2 1 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-4 4.4.2 Construction Cost of Conceptual Alternatives For this ranking criterion, a high construction cost translated to a low score. The No-Build – or do nothing – scenario had the lowest overall construction cost and was therefore given a score of 5. Costs for the various Conceptual Alternatives were most affected by the significant structural costs associated with each alternative. For Conceptual Alternative 6, the structural costs would primarily involve maintaining the aging bridges that exist today and would remain in the future. The cost of maintaining the structures was found to be significant. Conceptual Alternative 6 was therefore given a score of 3. Conceptual Alternative 7 was found to be the most expensive alternative. This can be attributed to the complete reconstruction of the I-84/Rte 8 interchange and the extensive number of temporary structures that would be required to maintain traffic during construction. Conceptual Alternative 7 was given a score of 1. Conceptual Alternative 8 was found to be slightly less expensive than Conceptual Alternative 7, with its high cost also attributed to the complete reconstruction of the I-84/Rte 8 interchange. Conceptual Alternative 8 would still require temporary structures to maintain traffic during construction, but would have far fewer since most of the new alignment would be constructed off-line. Conceptual Alternative 8 was also given a score of 1. 4.4.3 Life Cycle Cost of Conceptual Alternatives For the life cycle cost criterion, a high cost translated to a low score. It was estimated that the life cycle score for the No Build scenario was a 1. This was primarily based on the fact that the existing stacked viaducts, which are non-redundant structures, would need to be continuously repaired to prevent a major failure or collapse of the structure. In addition, these particular structures would be difficult and expensive to repair, maintain, and improve, because of the difficulty involved in order to stage the work. This score also took into account the fact that multiple cycles of repair were anticipated on all structures during the lifetime of potential replacement structures. Conceptual Alternative 6 includes transit improvements, modifying traffic signal timings, improving signage and minor structural improvements. This alternative was therefore given a score of 1 for life cycle cost. Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 are both full-build alternatives, which would involve demolishing all existing viaducts and constructing new I-84 and Route 8 viaducts, new collector- distributor (C/D) viaducts, and new ramp structures. Due to the fact that the new structures constructed in each of these alternatives would have very long life spans and would not require frequent repair and maintenance, the life cycle ranking for both was estimated to be a 5. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-5 4.4.4 Constructability of Conceptual Alternatives For the constructability criterion, the more difficult the construction translated to a lower score. The No Build scenario would not require any new structural modifications to the highway and local roadway network and was therefore given the highest ranking of 5. It should be noted that repair of existing structure is often difficult due to the existing configuration of the structure. Conceptual Alternative 6 was found to maximize the operation of the existing transportation system with minimal structural modifications to the highway and local roadway network. This alternative would involve transit service, traffic signal timing, signage improvements, new local roads, and a couple of new bridges. Since Conceptual Alternative 6 would not require any structural modifications to I-84 and Route 8 mainline viaducts, this alternative was given a ranking of 5. Conceptual Alternative 7 represents a Full Build alternative which would involve the replacement of both I-84 and Route 8 mainlines. Conceptual Alternative 7 was found to pose the greatest construction challenge, since this alternative involves rebuilding the new Route 8 structures within the existing structural footprint. Special construction techniques would be needed for cranes and other machinery to operate in such a constricted work environment. In addition, this alternative would require the highest level of effort in managing traffic operations while construction is ongoing. This alternative was therefore given the lowest ranking of 1. Conceptual Alternative 8, while still challenging in terms of constructability, was found to be significantly simplified due to the fact that much of Route 8 would be constructed on new alignment away from the existing bridge footprint. The construction of this alternative lent itself to more traditional construction techniques and was therefore given a rating of 4. 4.4.5 Environmental Impact of Conceptual Alternatives For the environmental impact criterion, a low environmental impact translated to a high score. The No Build would have little or no effect (score of 5) on just about all socioeconomic and environmental resources; however, under the No Build condition the existing traffic congestion and circulation problems that currently plague Waterbury and the surrounding transportation system would continue to exist and would only become exacerbated over time, thereby further clogging infrastructure and adding to increased safety problems and delays. Since virtually the entire study area is comprised of an environmental justice (EJ) population, it is very likely that this EJ population would be increasingly affected in an adverse manner by the increased traffic and circulation problems if no improvements are made. Additionally, increased traffic congestion over time would only exacerbate air quality issues due to increased vehicle residence time in the study. Conceptual Alternative 6 was found to be similar to the No Build scenario, but would include some new local roads and a multi-use trail. Impacts were expected to be minimal so it was given Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-6 a ranking of 4. Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 both had significant impacts on existing property and the Naugatuck River, although both attempted to minimize these impacts to the extent possible. Conceptual Alternative 8 included greater impact to existing properties, primarily because Route 8 is on a new alignment, but it could also be argued that these properties (many of them contaminated by hazardous materials) would be cleaned up to support new development. Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 were given scores of 2 and 1 respectively. 4.4.6 Safety/Meets Design Standards of Conceptual Alternatives For the safety/meets design standards criterion, a high safety standard translated to a high score. The safety of a roadway has much to do with the standards by which it has been designed. When I-84 was designed almost 50 years ago, design standards were different than they are today. The volume of traffic that the highway was expected to carry was far less than is realized today. In addition, the standards for ramp spacing and other geometric conditions were less stringent. The No Build scenario would not make any geometric improvements to the interchange and therefore, would not directly address deficiencies on the interstate itself. A score of 1 was therefore given. Conceptual Alternative 6 would consolidate the closely spaced exit ramps of Interchanges 21 and 22 on I-84 eastbound, thereby making a minimal improvement to the overall safety of the system. A score of 2 was given. Conceptual Alternative 7 would address the greatest number of geometric deficiencies within the study area and was given a score of 5. Conceptual Alternative 8 was found to have one more ramp spacing deficiency than Conceptual Alternative 7 and as such was given a slightly reduced score of 4. Both Full Build alternatives dramatically reduce the number of substandard conditions that exist in the No Build scenario. 4.4.7 Connectivity of Conceptual Alternatives For the connectivity goal, better connectivity to destinations within Waterbury translated to a higher score. The No Build scenario would not improve local road circulation nor provide improved connectivity to emerging development areas downtown. For this reason it was given the lowest score of 1. Conceptual Alternative 6 was found to improve local connections within Waterbury and consists of new roadways and intersections in the downtown along with two new connector roads. Conceptual Alternative 6 was found to improve transit connectivity and traffic signal timing in the downtown area and provides new local road connections to facilitate various transportation modes. For this reason, Alterative 6 was given a score of 4. Conceptual Alternative 7 would provide a high level of connectivity through the use of collector-distributor (C/D) roads along I- 84 and new local roads to improve circulation. Conceptual Alternative 7 was also given a score of 4. Conceptual Alternative 8 was given a score of 5 because it would improve access to Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-7 portions of the city that are poorly served today, such as the industrial land surrounding Freight Street. Conceptual Alternative 8 would also provide more direct connectivity to Waterbury Hospital and other downtown destinations. 4.4.8 Economic Development of Conceptual Alternatives For the economic development goal, the higher the score given translates into the alternative’s ability to accommodate and stimulate economic growth. The No Build scenario was given a score of 1 because the existing transportation system was found to be an impediment to economic growth. The traffic congestion projected to occur in 2030 would limit development opportunities as well. The Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation has economic development initiatives near the Jackson Street and Freight Street corridors. While all three Conceptual Alternatives would accommodate access to this area, Conceptual Alternative 8 would provide the most direct access from Route 8 and I-84. Also, reclaiming the land on the west side of the Naugatuck River where the existing interchange ramps to and from Route 8 reside would make prime river front land available for new development. Therefore, Conceptual Alternative 8 was given a score of 5. Conceptual Alternatives 6 and 7 would provide enhanced local road connectivity to downtown Waterbury and emerging development parcels, but Conceptual Alternative 6 would do little to improve the congestion that is projected to occur in 25 years. Therefore, Conceptual Alternatives 6 and 7 were given scores of 2 and 4 respectively. 4.4.9 Intermodal Connections of Conceptual Alternatives A high score for this criterion translated into the alternative’s interconnection with multiple transportation modes (i.e. bike, pedestrian, auto, truck, transit, freight, etc.). The No Build scenario would not improve or facilitate the efficient interconnection between transportation modes. For this reason it was given the lowest score of 1. This goal was addressed most thoroughly by Conceptual Alternative 6, mainly due to the improved bicycle, pedestrian, local road, and transit connections, and was given a score of 5. Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 would both consist of improved local road connections and improved substandard ramp conditions that are currently challenging to trucks. For these reasons, Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 were both given a score of 3. 4.4.10 Traffic Operations/Capacity Accommodation of Conceptual Alternatives For the traffic operations/capacity accommodation goal, the higher the score given translated into the alternative’s ability to handle future travel demand. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-8 For each Conceptual Alternative, freeway segments, weave areas and ramp junctions with LOS E and LOS F were identified as deficiencies. The number of operational/capacity deficiencies for each alternative was calculated and used as a basis of ranking the alternatives. Since the No- Build scenario would not improve any of the stated deficiencies, it was given a score of 1. Conceptual Alternative 6 would improve the weaving issue on I-84 eastbound in the vicinity of Interchange 21. For this reason, Conceptual Alternative 6 was given a score of 2. Both Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 would operate at LOS D or better. However, Conceptual Alternative 7 was found to perform slightly better as it recorded more mainline and ramp locations with LOS C or better. For this reason, Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 were given scores of 5 and 4 respectively. A detailed level of service comparison of the three conceptual alternatives can be found in Technical Memorandum # 2- Development of Alternatives Report. 4.5 Preliminary Recommendation for Preferred Alternative The results of the screening analyses conducted for each of the conceptual alternatives, led the study team to conclude that Conceptual Alternative 8 would best satisfy the stated study goals due to the following reasons: · Conceptual Alternative 8 performed well with regard to improving traffic operations and reducing the number of substandard geometric conditions currently present at the existing interchange; · Conceptual Alternative 8 would provide the best connections with local Waterbury destinations and is expected to support local economic development efforts in the city; · Conceptual Alternative 8 could be built with minimal disruption in traffic flow making it inherently easier to construct relative to the other alternatives; and · Conceptual Alternative 8 could also be built using conventional construction techniques because a majority of the structure would be built on new alignment. An initial recommendation was therefore made by the study team, based on the screening analysis to advance Conceptual Alternative 8 as the long-term improvement alternative with elements of Conceptual Alternative 6 serving as near-term improvements. 4.6 Department of Economic and Community Development Study A key consideration during the screening of alternatives was how well the Preferred Alternative for the I-84/Route 8 WINS would fit into the City of Waterbury Long Range Economic Development Plan as well as its impacts to the city from a fiscal and economic standpoint. For this reason, CTDOT in collaboration with the City of Waterbury requested the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to conduct an independent study to assess the economic and fiscal impacts of each conceptual alternative on the city and surrounding towns. The goal of this study was to provide Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-9 additional information to assist CTDOT, the City of Waterbury, and project team in selecting a final Preferred Alternative for the I-84/Route 8 WINS. The DECD study was conducted for two alternatives; Alternative 6-7, which is a combination of Alternatives 6 and 7 and Alternative 6-8, which is a combination of Alternatives 6 and 8. Each alternative was analyzed using the economic analysis model (REMI) under two hypothetical build out scenarios with or without the planned Greater Waterbury Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) in place. The complete DECD study report is presented in the Appendix of this report. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 present a summary of the fiscal impacts associated with Alternatives 6-7 and 6-8 respectively based on the DECD study. Table 4-2: Fiscal Impact of Alt. 6-7 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015- 2050 Source: DECD W/D- Warehouse/Distribution Table 4-3: Fiscal Impact of Alt. 6-8 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015- 2050 Source: DECD Average Annual Change, 2015 – 2050 City of Waterbury Connecticut Variable without ITC with ITC without ITC with ITC Alternative 6-7 Scenario 1 (No land buildout) Total Revenue (Millions 2006$) $3.67 $5.19 $17.62 $18.21 Total Expenditures (Millions 2006$) $3.39 $4.78 $10.54 $14.30 Net Revenue (Millions 2006$) $0.29 $0.41 $7.08 $3.91 Alternative 6-7 Scenario 2 (Mixed use + W/D) Total Revenue (Millions 2006$) $24.89 $26.08 $74.51 $74.70 Total Expenditures (Millions 2006$) $17.89 $18.98 $51.74 $54.69 Net Revenue (Millions 2006$) $7.00 $7.09 $22.77 $20.01 Average Annual Change, 2015 -2050 City of Waterbury Connecticut Variable without ITC with ITC without ITC with ITC Alternative 6-8 Scenario 1 (Residential) Total Revenue (Millions 2006$) $30.93 $32.92 $83.38 $86.36 Total Expenditures (Millions 2006$) $21.28 $23.11 $61.08 $66.22 Net Revenue (Millions 2006$) $9.65 $9.81 $22.30 $20.14 Alternative 6-8 Scenario 2 (Warehouse/Distribution) Total Revenue (Millions 2006$) $33.14 $35.20 $92.96 $97.29 Total Expenditures (Millions 2006$) $23.34 $25.24 $67.15 $72.62 Net Revenue (Millions 2006$) $9.80 $9.96 $25.82 $24.68 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-10 As illustrated in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, Alternative 6-8 was found to generate more net revenue than Alternative 6-7 for both the City of Waterbury and State of Connecticut. For instance, Alternative 6-8 under the warehouse/distribution development (Scenario 2) would generate net revenue of over $9.5 million (2006 dollars) for the city while Alternative 6-7 would generate approximately $7 million (2006 dollars). Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 present a summary of the economic impacts associated with Alternatives 6-7 and 6-8. Table 4-4: Economic Impact of Alt. 6-7 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050 Source: DECD Table 4-5: Economic Impact of Alt. 6-8 Build-Out Scenarios Average Annual Change, 2015-2050 Source: DECD Average Annual Change, 2015 -2050 New Haven County Connecticut Variable without ITC with ITC without ITC with ITC Alternative 6-8 Scenario 1 (Residential) Total Employment 8,210 8,455 8,448 8,652 Total GRP (Millions 2006$) $997.6 $1,215.8 $1,037.7 $1,259.4 Personal Income (Millions 2006$) $525.3 $541.9 $657.9 $672.6 Population 8,219 8,926 9,241 10,024 Alternative 6-8 Scenario 2 (Warehouse/Distribution) Total Employment 9,068 9,426 9,346 9,679 Total GRP (Millions 2006$) $1,124.4 $1,354.7 $1,172.5 $1,408.8 Personal Income (Millions 2006$) $584.0 $607.7 $732.7 $758.2 Population 9,015 9,746 10,159 10,991 New Haven County Connecticut Variable without ITC with ITC without ITC with ITC Alternative 6-7 Scenario 1 (No Buildout) Total Employment 1,589 1,632 1,688 1,666 Total GRP (Millions 2006$) $212.7 $1,215.8 $232.9 $1,259.4 Personal Income (Millions 2006$) $106.2 $541.9 $138.4 $672.6 Population 1,308 1,847 1,596 2,165 Alternative 6-7 Scenario 2 (Mixed use + W/D) Total Employment 7,382 7,385 7,612 7,546 Total GRP (Millions 2006$) $891.8 $1,071.0 $930.8 $1,107.0 Personal Income (Millions 2006$) $467.1 $467.5 $587.8 $581.0 Population 6,910 7,332 7,828 8,278 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 4-11 As illustrated in Tables 4-4 and 4-5, Alternative 6-8 would provide more economic benefits than Alternative 6-7. For instance, Alternative 6-8 under the warehouse/distribution development (Scenario 2) would generate between 9,000 to 9,700 new jobs while Alternative 6-7 would generate between 7,300 to 7,600 jobs. In addition, the total Gross Regional Product (GRP) for Alternative 6-8 would range from $1,120 – $1,410 million (2006 dollars) compared to $890 – $1,110 million (2006 dollars) for Alternative 6-7 under the mixed use and warehouse/distribution development scenario (Scenario 2). 4.6.1 DECD Study Findings The DECD Study found that the fiscal and economic benefits were greater under Alternative 6-8 than Alternative 6-7. Furthermore, the study concluded that the greatest economic benefits for the City of Waterbury and State of Connecticut would be derived under Alternative 6-8 where the land west of the Naugatuck River was used for warehouse/distribution development. Therefore, these findings from a fiscal and economic standpoint supported the initial recommendations for a Preferred Alternative made during the Refinement of Alternatives phase of the study. 4.7 Selection of Preferred Alternative Based on preliminary recommendations from the screening analyses of the conceptual alternatives and the findings from the DECD Study, Conceptual Alternative 8 was selected by the study team as the long- term Preferred Improvement Alternative with elements of Conceptual Alternative 6 serving as near-term improvements. These two Conceptual Alternatives have complimentary features and would serve to improve the transportation system both prior to and during the construction of the interchange. This Final Alternative was referred to as Preferred Alternative 6-8, and with the concurrence of study stakeholders, advanced as the final recommendation of the I-84/Route 8 WINS. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-1 6 7 8 Conceptual Alternatives Preliminary Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 – 8 Preferred Alternative 5 Preferred Alternative A Preferred Transportation Alternative was selected for the I-84/Route 8 WINS after in- depth analyses, two screening iterations, public input and an independent economic impact study. The illustration highlights the steps involved in arriving at the Preferred Alternative. To recap, five preliminary alternatives were initially identified as potential improvements for the study area. These preliminary alternatives were undertaken through a screening exercise based on different ranking criteria. Two alternatives (Preliminary Alternative 3 and 4) were dropped while Preliminary Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 were advanced to the next phase of the study. Three conceptual alternatives (Conceptual Alternatives 6, 7 and 8) were developed from the three preliminary alternatives that were advanced. Conceptual Alternative 6 was developed as a hybrid of Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2 while Conceptual Alternatives 7 and 8 were developed through the distillation of Preliminary Alternative 5. The three conceptual alternatives were also taken through a screening process to finally arrive at a Preferred Alternative. Conceptual Alternative 8 was selected as the Preferred Long-Term Improvement Alternative with elements of Conceptual Alternative 6 serving as near- term improvements. 5.1 Description of Preferred Alternative 5.1.1 Preferred Alternative 6 (Near Term Improvement) Preferred Alternative 6 represents the final near term improvement recommendation for the I- 84/Route 8 WINS. This alternative is a combination of Transportation System Management (TSM), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transit and Safety improvements. Preferred Alternative 6 looks at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing transportation system by improving transit service, modifying traffic signal timing and improving signage within the study area. The safety and operational enhancements undertaken under this alternative would improve traffic operations as well as driver and pedestrian safety particularly on the local roadway system. Preferred Alternative 6 would not involve major structural modifications on the highway system. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-2 Key features of Preferred Alternative 6 are highlighted below and illustrated in Figure 5-1. · New local connections from: o Sunnyside Avenue to Field Street o West Main Street to Bank Street o Bank Street to South Main Street · A new bus circulator route to run between Brass Mill Mall and Waterbury Hospital to compliment the existing bus system. · The modification of existing transit service to improve intermodal connections between bus and rail transit in the downtown area. This includes providing efficient connections from the proposed intermodal transit center (site of existing train station) to existing pulse points at the City Green. The ongoing study of the proposed intermodal transit center is being closely monitored and the recommendations from that study will be coordinated with the planning recommendations presented in this study. · Pedestrian and bicyclist facility improvements, particularly in the vicinity of the existing rail station, to enhance access to both rail and bus transit systems. · I-84 and Route 8 signage/way-finding improvements at the following locations to improve access to the highway system from downtown Waterbury: o City Green o Intersection of Highland Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue o Intersection of Mill Street and Baldwin Street o Intersection of Bank Street and Meadow Street · Traffic signal timing and coordination improvements at the Hamilton Avenue/Washington Street/Silver Lane intersection, Union Street/I-84 Entrance Ramp intersection, and Union Street/I-84 Exit Ramp/Brass Mill Mall Drive intersection to reduce congestion and delays on the Union Street corridor. · Signal timing improvements on West Main Street/Thomaston Avenue intersection, West Main Street/Willow Street intersection, and Freight Street/Willow Street intersection. · The consolidation of the I-84 eastbound exit ramps at Meadow and South Main Streets. 5.1.2 Preferred Alternative 8 (Long Term Improvement) Preferred Alternative 8 is the long term improvement alternative recommended for the I- 84/Route 8 WINS. This alternative is a full-build alternative which expands mainline capacity and enhances safety by removing left-hand exit and entrance ramps and increasing spacing between ramps. In addition, this alternative would minimize construction staging, shorten the duration of construction, and maximize local access through the use of at-grade frontage roads. Under this alternative, new I-84 and Route 8 mainlines would be constructed. The new I-84 eastbound and westbound mainlines would run parallel to each other and would be located south of the current I-84 footprint. The new Route 8 northbound and southbound mainlines would run parallel to each other and would be located east of the Naugatuck River. Key features of Preferred Alternative 8 are highlighted below and illustrated in Figure 5-2. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-3 · New I-84 and Route 8 Mainlines. · Two new interchanges at Freight and West Main Streets. · The introduction of a frontage road off the I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 22 to reduce congestion on the I-84 mainline, west of Interchange 22. · The consolidation and relocation of the existing I-84 westbound ramps at Interchange 18 to the area west of Country Club Road. · The consolidation of the existing I-84 eastbound ramps at Interchange 18 in the vicinity of the existing entrance ramp on Chase Parkway. · The introduction of a new entrance ramp from Field Street to I-84 westbound · The relocation of Interchange 30 on Route 8 from the Washington Street area to Fifth Street. · The relocation of the Route 8 northbound exit ramp to I-84 eastbound at Interchange 30 further south to eliminate weaving on the Route 8 northbound mainline. · New local connections from: o Sunnyside Avenue to South Main Street; o West Main Street to Meadow Street area; o West Main Street to Washington Avenue; and, o Bank Street to Baldwin Street. · The conversion of South Leonard Street to a two-way street, south of Washington Avenue. Conceptual critical cross-sections of Preferred Alternative 8 are illustrated in Figure 5-3 through Figure 5-7. I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Cross-Sections -Alt 8.ppt PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS -SECTION A-A FIGURE 5-3 Route 8 SB Entrance Ramp From Freight St. (Existing Elevation +270’) 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder Route 8 NB Exit RampTo Freight St. (Existing Elevation +270’) 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder I-84 Entrance Ramps To Route 8 NB 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder Route 8 SB 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder Route 8 NB 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shoulder 16’16’12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder Route 8 SB Exit Ramp To I-84 EB And WB 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 6.4’ 8’ 7’ Conceptual, Not To Scale I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Cross-Sections -Alt 8.ppt PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS -SECTION B-B FIGURE 5-4 I-84 EB Exit Ramp to Route 8 NB Route 8 NBRoute 8 SB Exit Ramp to Freight St. Route 8 SB Route 8 SB Entrance Ramp from Freight St. Route 8 SB Exit Ramp to I-84 EB I-84 WB Exit Ramp(Exit 21) 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shoulder 8’ Shoulder 3’ 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder 16’ 16’4.8’ 6.4’ 4.8’ 250’ 250’ (Existing Elevation +270’) Conceptual, Not To Scale I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Cross-Sections -Alt 8.ppt PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS -SECTION C-C FIGURE 5-5 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder Jackson St. Connector (2 Way) (Existing Elevation +260’) 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 EB 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder 4’ Shoulder I-84 EB Exit Ramp To Bank St. I-84 WB Exit Ramp To Route 8 SB 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 WB 12’ Shoulder 16’ 42’8’ 8’8’ 16’ Conceptual, Not To Scale I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Cross-Sections -Alt 8.ppt PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS -SECTION D-D FIGURE 5-612’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 WB 12’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 EB 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder I-84 WB Exit Ramp To Route 8 NB And SB 12’ Travel Lane 4’ Shoulder Riverside St. (2 Way) (Existing Elevation +300’) I-84 WB I-84 EB I-84 EB Exit Ramp To Route 8 NB 8’ 16’16’5.4’ 170’ Conceptual, Not To Scale I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Cross-Sections -Alt 8.ppt 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder I-84 EB Entrance Ramp From Route 8 12’ Travel Lane 4’ Shoulder PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS -SECTION E-E FIGURE 5-7 Bank St. (2-Way) (Existing Elevation +280’) 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 WB 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Shoulder 10’ Shoulder 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane I-84 EB 12’ Travel Lane 8’ Shoulder I-84 WB Exit Ramp To Route 8 12’ Travel Lane 4’ Shoulder 16’ 4.8’ 16’ 3.9’ 16’ 3.9’ Conceptual, Not To Scale Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-11 5.2 Visualization of Alternative 8 To better understand the visual impact of the Preferred Alternative, photosimulations looking north and west were developed on an aerial photograph of the I-84/Route 8 Interchange. Figure 5-8 shows the existing configuration of the interchange. Figure 5-8: Existing Interchange The Preferred Alternative’s alignment would bisect the industrial properties on the east side of the Naugatuck River and reclaim the land currently occupied by the existing Route 8 ramps. This alternative would have some visual impact because it is considerably different from the current interchange layout. Numerous opportunities exist to redevelop adjacent industrial land, as well as accommodate new waterfront uses, with this alternative. Overall, it is anticipated that the Preferred Alternative will result in more developable land than the other alternatives and will open up more riverfront property for new uses. The vertical profile will be significantly lower than the existing structure and the intent is to construct visually appealing and safe pedestrian access to the west side of the structure. Every attempt will be made to minimize the physical barrier created by the realignment. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-12 Figure 5-9 shows a rendering of the Preferred Alternative at the I-84/Route 8 Interchange looking north on Route 8. Figure 5-9: Looking North on Preferred Alternative 8 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 5-13 Figure 5-10 shows a rendering of the Preferred Alternative at the I-84/Route 8 Interchange looking west on I-84. Figure 5-10: Looking West on Preferred Alternative 8 It should be noted that the example land uses depicted in these photo-simulations are not intended to be viewed as recommendations for future development and have not yet been reviewed by the City of Waterbury. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-1 6 Traffic and Safety Improvements 6.1 Capacity Improvements During the course of this study, capacity and safety analyses were conducted for the Preferred Alternative. This section presents a summary of the traffic operation and safety improvements that can be realized under the Preferred Alternative. 6.1.1 Freeway Capacity Analysis Freeway segments on both the I-84 and Route 8 mainline were analyzed under the future (2030) No-build and Build condition with the Preferred Alternative in place. The results of the analysis on I-84 and Route 8 are presented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 respectively. Table 6-1: Future (2030) Freeway Capacity Analysis Summary-I-84 No-Build Preferred Alternative SECTION ALONG I-84 EB WB EB WB Between Int. 17 and Int. 18 F(F) F(F) C(D) C(C) Between Int. 18 and Int. 19 D(E) D(D) C(C) D(D) Between Int. 19 and Int. 20 F(F) D(D) D(D) D(D) Between Int. 20 and Int. 21 E(E) D(D) D(D) D(D) Between Int. 21 and Int. 22 E(E) F(F) D(D) D(D) Between Int. 22 and Int. 23 F(F) F(E) C(C) D(D) East of Int. 23 D(D) F(F) D(D) D(D) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. As illustrated in Table 6-1, most segments on the I-84 mainline would operate at LOS E or F during future (2030) No-Build peak hour conditions. Under the Preferred Alternative, it is anticipated that all segments would operate at LOS D or better under future (2030) peak hour conditions. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-2 Table 6-2: Future (2030) Freeway Capacity Analysis Summary-Route 8 No-Build Preferred Alternative SECTION ALONG RTE 8 NB SB NB SB Between Int. 29 and Int. 30 D(E) C(C) B(C) D(D) Between Int. 30 and Int. 31 D(F) E(E) C(D) C(C) Between Int. 31 and Int. 32 C(D) B(B) C(D) C(C) Between Int. 32 and Int. 33 B(C) C(C) – B(B) Between Int. 33 and Int. 34 C(E) E(C) B(D) C(B) Between Int. 34 and Int. 35 C(F) E(D) D(C) D(C) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. As illustrated in Table 6-2, most segments on the Route 8 mainline would operate at LOS E or F during future (2030) No-Build peak hour conditions. Under the Preferred Alternative, it is anticipated that all Route 8 segments would operate at LOS D or better. 6.1.2 Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis Table 6-3 and Table 6-4 present the ramp merge/diverge analysis for the I-84 eastbound and westbound directions respectively while Table 6-5 and Table 6-6 represent the ramp analysis for the Route 8 northbound and southbound directions. Table 6-3: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Eastbound No-Build Preferred Alternative Interchange 18 Exit ramp to Chase Parkway F(F) C(C) Entrance ramp from Chase Parkway F(F) C(B) Interchange 19 Entrance ramp from Chase Parkway – B(C) Exit ramp to Route 8 SB F(F) A(A) Exit ramp to Route 8 NB F(F) A(A) Entrance ramp from Highland Ave. F(F) – Exit Ramp to Bank Street Connector – C(C) Interchange 20-21 Entrance ramp from Route 8 SB F(F) C(C) Entrance ramp from Route 8 NB F(F) C(C) Exit ramp to Meadow Street F(F) – Entrance ramp from Meadow Street F(F) – Interchange 22 Exit ramp to South Main Street F(F) – Entrance Ramp from Baldwin Street – C(C) Table continued on next page Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-3 No-Build Preferred Alternative Interchange 23 Exit ramp to Frontage Road F(F) C(D) Entrance ramp from Hamilton Ave. F(F) C(D) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. Table 6-4: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – I-84 Westbound No-Build Preferred Alternative Interchange 18 Exit ramp to West Main St./Highland Ave. F(F) – Entrance ramp from Chase Pkwy. F(F) B(B) Interchange 19 Entrance ramp from Route 8 SB F(F) D(D) Entrance ramp from Route 8 NB F(D) D(D) Exit ramp to West Main St./Highland Ave – A(A) Interchange 20 Exit ramp to Route 8 SB F(F) C(C) Exit ramp to Route 8 NB D(F) C(C) Entrance Ramp from Field St. – D(D) Interchange 21 Exit ramp to Meadow St. F(F) – Entrance ramp from Bank St. (Left) F(F) – Entrance ramp from Bank St. (Right) F(F) – Interchange 22 Exit ramp to Union St. F(D) C(C) Entrance ramp from Union St. F(F) B(B) Interchange 23 Exit ramp to Hamilton Ave. F(F) C(C) Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. All I-84 ramp merges and diverges within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS F during either the future (2030) A.M. or P.M. peak hour No-Build condition. Under the Preferred Alternative, all ramps are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-4 Table 6-5: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – Route 8 Northbound No-Build Preferred Alternative Interchange 30 Exit ramp to South Leonard Street B(C) B(C) Entrance ramp from South Leonard Street C(D) C(D) Interchange 31 Exit ramp to I-84 EB C(D) C(D) Interchange 32 Exit ramp to Riverside St. B(C) – Interchange 33 Exit ramp to I-84 WB B(C) B(C) Entrance ramp from I-84 EB B(D) – Entrance ramp from Riverside St. D(F) – Entrance ramp from I-84 WB C(F) A(A) Interchange 34 Entrance ramp from W. Main Street D(F) A(A) Interchange 35 Exit ramp to Route 73* N/A N/A Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. * Auxiliary lane Table 6-6: Future (2030) Ramp Analysis Summary – Route 8 Southbound No-Build Preferred Alternative Interchange 30 Exit ramp to Charles Street D(D) D(D) Entrance ramp from Charles Street D(D) D(D) Interchange 31 Entrance ramp from I-84 WB D(D) D(D) Entrance ramp from I-84 EB C(B) D(D) Entrance ramp from Riverside B(B) – Exit ramp to I-84 EB F(C) – Interchange 32 Exit ramp to Riverside St. F(E) – Interchange 33 Entrance ramp from West Main Street – B(B) Exit ramp to I-84 WB E(C) – Exit ramp to Freight Street – B(B) Entrance ramp from Freight Street – C(D) Interchange 34 Exit ramp to W. Main Street C(C) C(B) Interchange 35 Entrance ramp from Route 73 N/A N/A Note: X(X) Represents LOS for AM peak hour. PM peak hour levels of service shown in parenthesis. * Auxiliary lane Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-5 For Route 8, seven (7) ramp merges/diverges are anticipated to operate at either LOS E or F during either the future (2030) AM or PM peak hour No-Build condition. Under the Preferred Alternative, all ramps are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during peak periods. A comparison of the LOS for ramps and mainline segments under the No-Build and Preferred Alternative is presented in Table 6-7. Table 6-7: Future (2030) Level of Service Summary No Build Condition Preferred Alternative Freeway Analysis – I-84 LOS A-C 0 7 LOS D 9 21 LOS E-F 19 0 Freeway Analysis – Route 8 LOS A-C 12 15 LOS D 4 7 LOS E-F 8 0 Ramp Analysis – I-84 LOS A-C 0 34 LOS D 3 6 LOS E-F 45 0 Ramp Analysis – Route 8 LOS A-C 16 15 LOS D 11 11 LOS E-F 7 0 TOTALS LOS A-C 28 71 LOS D 27 45 LOS E-F 79 0 6.2 Geometric Improvements Geometric conditions under the Preferred Alternative and the No-Build condition were assessed during this study based on guidelines from AASHTO-2001 Edition and the CTDOT’s Highway Design Manual-2003 Edition. The following deficiencies were assessed as part of the exercise. · Left hand ramps; · Substandard grades; · Substandard acceleration and deceleration lengths; Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-6 · Substandard ramp spacing; · Substandard curve radius; and · Substandard ramp superelevation · Lane discontinuity · Substandard shoulder widths A summary of geometric under the Preferred Alternative and the No-Build condition is presented in Table 6-8 and discussed below. Table 6-8: Summary of Geometric Deficiencies Geometric Deficiency Number of Deficiencies No Build Condition Preferred Alternative Left-hand Ramps 8 1 Substandard Grade 3 0 Substandard Acceleration Length 6 0 Substandard Deceleration Length 3 0 Substandard Ramp Spacing 22 5 Substandard Curve Radius 1 0 Substandard Superelevation 2 0 Mainline lane discontinuity 8 0 Substandard shoulder widths 8 0 Total 61 6 Left hand ramps There are currently eight (8) left hand ramps within the study area. Under the Preferred Alternative, seven (7) of these left hand ramps would be eliminated. Substandard Grades There are three (3) ramps with substandard grades were identified under the existing highway configuration. Under the Preferred Alternative all sub-standard ramps would be improved. Substandard Acceleration and Deceleration Lengths There are currently six (6) substandard ramp acceleration lengths and three (3) substandard deceleration lengths on the highway system. Under the Preferred Alternative, all substandard acceleration and deceleration lengths would be improved. Substandard Ramp Spacing Under the existing interchange configuration, there are twenty-two (22) segments with ramp spacing deficiencies within the study area. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be five (5) segments with substandard ramp spacing. These segments are: · The I-84 eastbound segment from the Route 8 northbound entrance ramp to the Interchange 23 exit ramp (1395 feet); · The Route 8 northbound segment from the Interchange 30 entrance ramp to the exit ramp to I-84 eastbound (1350 feet); Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 6-7 · The Route 8 northbound segment from the I-84 eastbound exit ramp to the I-84 westbound exit ramp (855 feet); · The Route 8 southbound segment from the West Main Street entrance ramp to the I- 84 westbound exit ramp (520 feet); and · The Route 8 southbound segment from the I-84 entrance ramp to the Interchange 30 exit ramp (1310 feet). It is expected that more detailed engineering design will identify solutions to address the remaining substandard spacing issues. Substandard Curve Radius Under the existing highway configuration, the I-84 westbound exit ramp at Interchange 18 is the only ramp with a substandard curve radius. Under the Preferred Alternative there would be no curves with substandard radius. Substandard Ramp Superelevation Under the No-Build condition, there are two ramps with substandard superelevation rates. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no ramps with substandard superelevation rates. Mainline Lane Discontinuity Under the No-Build condition, there are eight locations were mainline lanes are discontinued. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no locations with mainline lane discontinuity. Substandard Shoulder Widths Under the No-Build condition, there are eight locations with substandard shoulder widths. Under the Preferred Alternative, all shoulder widths will be to standard. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-1 7 Environmental Analysis of Preferred Alternative This Chapter details the screening level assessment of the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative concept for improvements to this interchange area on natural, cultural, and community resources in the study area. The analysis process for this environmental screening involved the overlay of the preferred alternative on mapped resources. This task was completed primarily for the purposes of identifying potential fatal flaws of the Preferred Alternative concept (significant unavoidable environmental impacts) and to gain a planning-level view of potential issues and concerns associated with the Preferred Alternative configuration. A detailed impact analysis is neither prudent nor possible at this stage of project development. An in-depth analysis will be conducted for compliance with NEPA and CEPA requirements as the Preferred Alternative is advanced into preliminary design. Further refinements to the Preferred Alternative will be developed with the intent to minimize potential impacts identified within this study. The environmental screening for potential natural resource impacts included an assessment of 100-year and 500-year floodplains, stream channel encroachment lines, wetlands, endangered and/or threatened species and critical habitats, surface and groundwater resources, and active farmlands and farmland soils. With respect to the built environment, the screening considered potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources, public parks and recreational facilities, existing land use and neighborhoods, major employers, and community facilities and institutions such as schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Also considered were potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on concentrated areas of low income and minority (environmental justice) populations, the existing visual and aesthetic characteristics of the study area, known hazardous materials/risk sites, as well as effects on ambient air quality and known noise sensitive land uses. 7.1 Multi-Use Trail Component of the Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative concept for the I-84/Route 8 Interchange Project includes a multi-use trail that runs through the heart of the study area along the eastern side of the Naugatuck River. The planning and development of this multi-use trail, including an assessment of its potential community benefits and environmental impacts is currently being undertaken through two projects separate from this effort. The two projects focusing on the overall Naugatuck Greenway are: one by the Waterbury Development Corporation focusing on Waterbury and the second effort, by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), focusing on portions of the Greenway north and south of Waterbury. For this reason, potential impacts associated with the multi-use trail are not addressed herein. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-2 7.2 Land Use and Neighborhood Impacts Potential land use impacts were assessed by overlaying the conceptual design of the Preferred Alternative onto existing land use mapping in order to identify locations where impacts to land use patterns or alterations to land access may occur. Neighborhood cohesion impacts were considered to occur in those instances where the preferred alternative creates a new physical barrier to travel either within an established neighborhood or between a designated neighborhood and a known community facility or key resource. The new local roads included as part of the Preferred Alternative will enhance access in the vicinity of Waterbury’s Downtown and to industrial areas east of the I-84/Route 8 interchange. Access to mixed use commercial and residential areas located east of Route 8 and south of I-84 will also be enhanced. Industrial land acquisitions associated with the new local roadway configuration, however, may disrupt the existing pattern of land use in the area east of and immediately adjacent to the I-84/Route 8 interchange and new access may encourage changes in use. Additionally, a separate economic development analysis of the preferred alternative was completed by the DECD. Enhanced access to the Country Club, West End, and South End neighborhoods may also be achieved under the Preferred Alternative. However, a drawback is that there may be some residential property takes in each of these neighborhoods as well as some neighborhood business impacts in the South End neighborhood. The creation of a cul-de-sac will also make access more circuitous for those homes and businesses that now have direct access to East Clay Street. Neighborhood impacts would also involve direct and/or indirect effects on the following schools. Direct effects are those that require acquisition of some or all of a property whereas indirect effects are those occurring at some distance from the property or later in time following project completion. Those effects may include: · St. Anne’s Church/School – South End neighborhood; there may be some indirect effects to the school grounds to accommodate a new local road. This new local road may also enhance access to the school and church over current conditions. · Maloney Elementary School – South End neighborhood; the reconfigured local road may have a direct impact on the school grounds. It may also direct more traffic past the school altering ease of access to the school during some times of the day. · Industrial Management and Training Institute – South End neighborhood; the new local road providing access to Exit 22 may have a direct impact on the grounds of this school property. · Chase Collegiate School – West End neighborhood; potential indirect effect on access to the school and potential direct effect on school grounds/parking area. · West Side Middle School – West End neighborhood; potential indirect effect on access to the school and potential direct effect on school grounds/parking area. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-3 · Naugatuck Valley Community College – Country Club neighborhood; potential indirect effect on access to the school and potential direct effect on school grounds/athletic fields area. In addition, the Preferred Alternative could indirectly impact the historic and aesthetic Saint Anne’s church in the South End neighborhood, which may be considered a substantive adverse impact to neighborhood cohesion. While there will be no direct impacts to the church cathedral or school building, the change in visual setting and addition of through traffic in the area may alter residents experience of their neighborhood, walkability and neighborhood character. 7.3 Impacts to Major Employers Impacts to major employers are expected to be mixed. Several major employers may be fully displaced as a result of implementation of the Preferred Alternative. This may occur in the area of warehousing activity along and near Jackson Street. In particular, direct acquisition of all or part of the site for school bus storage/maintenance along Jackson Street is expected to be an adverse effect on the school transportation operations and the numerous employees associated with that. Conversely, there will be a beneficial effect on a variety of both large and small employers with enhanced access to Waterbury’s downtown and adjacent commercial areas. The addition of bus service as part of the Preferred Alternative is expected to make job access easier at major employers such as the Brass Mill Mall and Waterbury Hospital. 7.4 Visual/Aesthetic Impacts I-84 and Route 8 already comprise a substantive component of the study area visual backdrop. The Preferred Alternative will include some additional new local roads as well as substantial reconfiguration of the mainline highways and associated ingress and egress ramps. There will be a number of new bridge and/or ramp structures associated with the relocation of Route 8 to the east of the Naugatuck River. Much of the newly reconfigured I-84 / Route 8 interchange will be elevated above existing ground on piers. The new highway elements can be expected to intensify their predominance in the visual setting of the area; however the overall heights of the I-84 mainline bridge spans will be lower in elevation than the existing stacked viaduct structure. In addition, the Preferred Alternative could impact the historic and aesthetic Saint Anne’s church in the South End neighborhood. While a direct taking or impact to the church cathedral or school building is not planned, the change in visual setting and addition of through traffic in the area may alter residents’ experience of their neighborhood, walkability, and neighborhood character. A positive visual benefit resulting from this alternative is the reclaiming of riverfront property on the west side of the Naugatuck River. The relocation of Route 8 will open up some Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-4 prime land and may allow for some attractive waterfront development. As discussed above, these economic development opportunities were addressed directly in the DECD report. 7.5 Historic, Archeological and Section 4(f) Resource Impacts The Preferred Alternative would have a direct impact on Riverside Cemetery, a historic and Section 4(f) resource due to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Another potential historic resource that would be indirectly impacted is Saint Anne’s church located on South Elm Street. This church may be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Some of the local roads to be improved under the Preferred Alternative concept appear to abut the edges of the Downtown Waterbury National Register Historic District. These improvements will primarily be enhancements to existing streets at the district’s edge and consequently the impact to this historic district is expected to be minor. With respect to public parkland that is protected under Section 4(f), there are two such parks that potentially would be directly impacted by the Preferred Alternative · Chase Park (both parcels – located north and south of I-84 and west of Route 8). The northern parcel would be bisected by the proposed reconfiguration of local roadways and the southern parcel would be partially bridged by the new highway infrastructure. · Library Park situated north of I-84 and just east of Route 8 may be affected by improvements to local roads there. 7.6 Community Facilities and Resource Impacts The Preferred Alternative may benefit some community facilities indirectly by improved access on local roads in the northeast quadrant of the study area. This includes the downtown with a concentration of community resources such as the library. This Preferred Alternative is also expected to result in enhanced access to the Central Naugatuck Valley Community College off of Chase Parkway on the north side of I-84 near Interchange 19. 7.7 Environmental Justice The Preferred Alternative is expected to improve access to community resources and employment opportunities for EJ populations. This is an important beneficial effect of the alternative considering the entire study area constitutes an EJ region within the City of Waterbury. However, a closer look at the Census Block groups within the study area relative to the percentage of minority populations indicates that the Preferred Alternative may also have some adverse impacts to the most highly concentrated EJ populations within the study area. In particular, potential residential property acquisitions and impacts to the South End neighborhood may create a direct negative impact to EJ neighborhood cohesion more so than would be experienced by the general population of the study area as a whole or the City of Waterbury. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-5 Similarly, loss of subsidized housing in this area will have an adverse effect on housing opportunities for environmental justice populations and can be disruptive to social interaction and economic stability for displaced families. 7.8 Impacts to Surface and Groundwater The Preferred Alternative may have some impact to rivers and streams where new support structures (piers) would be constructed adjacent to them or where reconstruction of existing bridges across these water bodies is required. The Preferred Alternative would include a modified river crossing on Sunnyside Avenue and new support structure for the interchange itself over the Naugatuck River. It may also include potential impacts to an unnamed stream in the vicinity of Interchange 19. Additionally, while the Mad River flows underground through the core of the study area, the widening and reconstruction of Interchanges 30 and 33 on Route 8 as well as Interchange 23 on I-84 may have an impact on this resource, especially if substantial excavation is required. The Preferred Alternative also includes modified crossings of the Naugatuck River on Freight and West Main Street which may impact the Naugatuck River in those locales. 7.9 Impacts to Floodplains and Stream Channel Encroachment Lines Most of the new or improved local roads proposed as part of the Preferred Alternative occur within the Naugatuck River 500-year floodplain. A proposed new roadway located south of I-84 that extends from Bank Street east towards Baldwin Street may be partially located in a 100-year floodplain. Consequently, there may be some adverse effects to floodplain resources. The Naugatuck River 100-year floodplain and stream channel encroachment line (SCEL) may also be impacted by new support structures for the new interchange configuration. In addition, the proposed West Main Street and Freight Street crossings of the Naugatuck River may further impact 100-year floodplain and SCEL. 7.10 Impact to Wetlands Overlaying the Preferred Alternative onto a CTDEP GIS coverage depicting state and federal wetlands reveals that the Preferred Alternative does not appear to have any impacts to known, mapped wetlands. Site reconnaissance will be necessary during future planning and engineering studies to verify the presence and/or absence of wetlands in the project study area and any potential impacts should they exist. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-6 7.11 Endangered Species According to the DEP Natural Diversity Database there are no records of any threatened or endangered species or species of special concern within the project study area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in correspondence dated November 8, 2004, noted that there are no federally-listed or proposed, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitat known to occur within the study area. Therefore, no impacts to this resource are anticipated from the Preferred Alternative. However, the USFWS requires that consultations relative to threatened and/or endangered species and critical habitats be updated annually if the project is to move forward. 7.12 Impacts to Hazardous Materials Risk Sites The Preferred Alternative has the potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction of local roads in the vicinity of the Freight Street industrial area and in any location where the project may interface with the rail line. This would include the new connector roads proposed between West Main Street and Bank Street. Construction of the new local road located south of I-84 that extends from Bank Street east towards Baldwin Street may also encounter hazardous materials given the mixed land use in this area. In addition, the alternative may have the potential to disturb hazardous risk sites in the vicinity of the proposed reconfiguration and/or reconstruction of several exits including Interchanges 22 and 23 on I-84 and Interchange 30 on Route 8. 7.13 Impacts to Prime Farmlands Due to the developed nature of the study area, no significant impacts to prime or statewide important farmland soils are anticipated from the Preferred Alternative. Areas where these soils occur and may be affected by the Preferred Alternative are in use for purposes other than farming and the potential for future agricultural use is negligible. 7.14 Impacts to Air Quality The primary source of potential air quality impacts with this project would be motor vehicles. The Preferred Alternative is intended to enhance the existing roadway infrastructure to improve safety and reduce congestion. As proposed it will not increase traffic volumes on the highway mainlines, but will be configured to respond to growth in travel demand that will occur in the area over time. Nonetheless, there may be some localized change to air quality as new ramps and intersections alter traffic flows and potentially add traffic to some new spot locations in the study area. In summary, no significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated and some beneficial effect may occur if congestion and related idling of vehicles is reduced. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 7-7 7.15 Impacts to Noise Sensitive Receptors The noise sensitive receptors in the project study area occur in an urban environment where a heightened level of background noise is common. I-84 and Route 8 are existing highway structures that contribute to that background noise under existing conditions. The Preferred Alternative will move these highway elements as well as local roads closer to some noise sensitive resources, particularly residences. Consequently, there may be some limited adverse noise impacts but these impacts are not expected to elevate area noise levels significantly. Areas of particular concern include Waterbury Hospital and the residential neighborhoods close to Interchanges 18 on I-84 and 30 on Route 8. There may be some particular yet minor adverse noise effects from the Preferred Alternative in these locations. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-1 8 Cost Estimates of Preferred Alternative 8.1 Civil Highway Cost Estimates For the preferred alternative, construction costs were developed for the following civil highway construction items as applicable: · Earthwork and Embankment Items · Drainage and Hydraulics Items · Pavement and Subgrade Items · Traffic Signals and Traffic Safety Related Items · Roadside Safety Items 8.1.1 Costing Assumptions and Justification Unit costs for each of the various civil highway items were based on the Connecticut Department of Transportation Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines dated January 2009, CTDOT Weighted Unit Pricing documents, past experience, and professional judgment. Quantities for earthwork and embankment items were developed from the measurement of overall lengths of roadway on embankment, the width of various roadway types based on standard cross sectional dimensions (a.k.a. 12 foot travel lanes, inside and outside shoulders up to 10 feet wide and inside and outside berms up to 4 feet), and assumed heights of embankment. The preferred alternatives depict various roadways crossing over or under other roadways within the corridor. It was assumed that there is a 22-foot difference in elevation between roadways that cross one another. Additionally, it was assumed that along the length of various roadways there is a transition in height from one crossing level to another and a varied height above the existing ground elevation to various roadway crossing elevations. The length, width, and height determinations were combined to arrive at cubic volumes of earthwork for each roadway segment. The segments were totaled and assumption was made that 60 % of the total volume of earthwork was on filled embankment and 40% of the total volume of earthwork was existing ground to be excavated. Of the excavated earthwork volume 15% was assumed to be rock excavation. The excavation and redistribution of on-site (waste) earthwork materials is generally considered to be less expensive by volume than the location, hauling and placement of off-site (borrow) earthwork materials. Proper handling, treatment and disposal of contaminated and hazardous earth materials can be very expensive, especially in a historically active manufacturing city such as Waterbury. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-2 At this stage of alternative development, details concerning the existence of rock, contaminated and hazardous soils, unsuitable materials (muck), and borrow quantities versus waste quantities, are not available. In order to provide a conservative buffer of potential project costs, volumes of these expensive items were assumed to be present and required. Drainage and hydraulic items were calculated based on the assumption that new roadways would require new drainage infrastructure while widened or resurfaced existing roadways would require expansion or renovation of the existing drainage system. Pavement and sub-grade items include bituminous pavement, formation of sub-grade (fine grading and accurate surveying of top of embankment), sub-base (processed aggregate material between the top of earth embankment and bottom of bituminous pavement) and concrete pavement. Quantities for the various pavement and sub-grade items were developed similar to the earthwork items described above. Traffic signals and traffic safety features such as pavement markings and signage were quantified based on specific intersection requirements for the Preferred Alternative. Roadside safety items including concrete median barrier, curbing and guiderail were calculated using the overall lengths of various roadways and professional judgment as to the extent of usage. Median barrier was assumed to be required on 15% of the overall length of mainline roadways. Curbing was assumed to be required the length of all turning roadways, ramps and local streets. Guiderail was assumed to be required on 20% of the overall length of all roadway segments. 8.2 Structural Cost Estimates For each of the near and long term components of the Preferred Alternative, costs were developed for proposed bridges, retaining walls, miscellaneous and temporary structures, demolition, and repair. The results are discussed further in the following narrative. 8.2.1 Costing Assumptions and Justification Proposed Bridges A raw structure cost of $375 per square foot of deck area was used for the majority of the proposed bridges. Bridges that were deemed difficult to construct due to limited access, as well as the flyover ramp structures, were assessed a higher cost per square foot of deck area. These costs were based on several sources, namely, the Connecticut Department of Transportation Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines dated January 2009, bid tabulations for the recently awarded New Haven Harbor Crossing Improvements Contracts C2, B1, & B, past experience, and professional judgment. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-3 The 2009 CDOT Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines state that new bridges should be estimated at $375 per square foot. However, it should be noted that this number has changed significantly from the 2005 Guidelines. Actual individual items may have had a higher inflationary cost (chiefly fuel, Portland cement, and structural steel). Bid tabulations for Contract C2 resulted in structure costs between approximately $250 and $475 per SF. The ramp structures varied between $280 and $475 per square foot, while the mainline single span structure was $250 per square foot. Retaining Walls Based on current projects that are in the design phase, as well as past experience and judgment, a raw unit cost of $140 per square foot of exposed face of wall was used for the proposed retaining walls. Miscellaneous & Temporary Structures These structures include primarily temporary bridge structures that may be required to maintain traffic during reconstruction of the interchange. Since the scope of this study did not allow for evaluating the maintenance and protection of traffic and construction staging in detail, a lump sum cost for each alternative was assumed based on professional judgment and past experience. Demolition Demolition cost was estimated as $85 per square foot of deck area. The 2009 CDOT Preliminary Cost Estimating Guidelines state that Removal of Superstructure should be estimated at approximately $75 per square foot for removal over water or rail, which constitutes the majority of the structures to be removed. An additional $10 per square foot was estimated for substructure demolition. Repair A prior phase of this study investigated a condition assessment for all existing structures associated with the general area of this interchange, and assigned required repairs to each structure. In this phase, costs were assigned to each repair type based on broad assumptions. Repair types were classified as Routine Maintenance, Deck Patching, Deck Replacement, Substructure Patching, Complete Painting, Spot Painting, Bearing Replacement, Repair Impact Damage to Beams, Safety Walk Retrofit, and Seismic Retrofit. Estimates of costs for significant repair types such as Deck Patching, Deck Replacement, Complete Painting, Spot Painting, and Safety Walk Retrofit were developed, while nominal costs per square foot were assigned for the other types of repairs based on past experience and professional judgment. · Deck Patching – the 2009 CDOT Guidelines suggest using $3,000 per cubic yard for full depth patching. Assuming an 8” thick deck, this translates into approximately $75 per square foot of deck area. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-4 · Deck Replacement – the 2009 CDOT Guidelines suggest using $100 – $150 per square foot of deck area. $125 per square foot was used for this study. · Complete Painting – based on experience, the 2009 cost for this item was estimated to be approximately $30 per square foot of painted area. This cost includes containment required for lead-based paints. A typical 5’ deep steel plate girder with 18” wide flanges represents approximately 14.5 square foot of painted area; adding 20% to account for details results in 17.4 square foot of painted area; using a typical 8.5’ spacing yields roughly two square feet of painted area per square foot of deck area. Therefore a cost of $60 per square foot of deck area was used. · Spot Painting – this was estimated to be 5% of the area of complete painting, resulting in a cost of $3 per square foot of deck area. · Safety Walk Retrofit – based on recent weighted unit bid prices, this retrofit item is approximately $170 per linear foot. For a typical 50’ wide bridge with two parapets, this translates to a 2009 unit cost of approximately $7.50 per square foot of deck area. 8.2.2 Discussion of Structural Improvements Preferred Alternative 6 This alternative involves only minor structural improvements. Four new bridges and ten new retaining walls are proposed, with no requirements for miscellaneous & temporary structures anticipated. Three bridges would be demolished under this alternative. Repairs would be made to all existing structures within the project limits, except for the three bridges being demolished. While this is the least costly alternative in terms of initial cost, it is likely to be at least as expensive as the full-build alternatives in terms of life cycle cost, due to the tendency for construction costs to outpace inflation over time. Preferred Alternative 8 This alternative is the full-build alternative, and involves shifting the alignment of I-84 over the Naugatuck River to the south, shifting a portion of Route 8 northbound and southbound to the east of the river, and reconstructing the I-84/Route 8 interchange to the east of the river. In addition, several bridges along the I-84 and Route 8 corridors in the vicinity of the interchange would be constructed or replaced. A total of 52 new bridges and 34 new retaining walls are proposed for this alternative. For a few of the bridges within the interchange itself, pier placement will be very limited and will depend on the maintenance and protection of traffic and construction staging sequencing. However, we would expect that cranes would generally be able to access the site, resulting in conventional construction for all of the proposed bridges. It is expected that this alternative will require some temporary structures and other works in order to be able to maintain traffic during construction. Therefore, we have provided a budget of $10,000,000 for miscellaneous and temporary structures for this alternative. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-5 A total of 40 existing structures would be demolished and a total of two existing structures would be retained and repaired for this alternative. 8.3 Lump Sum Items Costs were developed for Lump Sum Items and included the following: · Clearing And Grubbing (2% ) · Maintenance & Protection of Traffic (4%) · Mobilization (7.5%) · Construction Staking (1%) The lump sum item percentages were applied to the sum of Civil Highway and Structural Costs. Also, costs were developed for Additional Items and included the following: · Incidentals (21% ) · Contingencies (10%) · Utility Cost (3%) · Right-Of-Way (Estimated) The additional item percentages were applied to the sum of Civil Highway Costs, Structural Costs and Lump Sum Items. A summary of Cost Estimates for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Table 8-1. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 8-6 Table 8-1: Summary of Preferred Alternative Costs Item Preferred Alternative 6 Preferred Alternative 8 Civil Highway Items $23,080,848 $158,718,979 Structural Bridge Items $180,161,804 $800,187,094 Subtotal A (Major Items) $203,242,652 $958,906,073 Minor Items (25%) $50,810,663 $239,726,518 Subtotal B $254,053,315 $1,198,632,591 Lump Sum Items $36,837,731 $173,801,726 Subtotal C $290,891,046 $1,372,434,317 Additional Items $118,902,956 $516,627,668 Total Cost $409,794,001 $1,889,061,984 2009 Total Cost (Rounded) $409,800,000 $1,889,100,000 Total Cost based on an assumed 2015 and 2030 year of construction for Alternative 6 and 8 respectively 1 $581,300,000 $6,422,100,000 Note: 1 based on a 6% inflation rate provided by CTDOT Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-1 9 Constructability Review 9.1 Conceptual Construction Sequencing of Preferred Alternative 8 Preferred Alternative 8 is a “Full-Build” Alternative expanding mainline capacity and enhancing safety by removing left-hand exit and entrance ramps and increasing spacing between ramps. The following is a construction phase sequence for Preferred Alternative 8 and a list of construction impacts that will potentially affect the cost and duration of the project. The phasing sequence is also illustrated in Figures 9-1 to 9-6. Phase 1 – Construct New Alignment Not Impacting Existing (Figure 9-1) · Construct Route 8 mainline new alignment and associated ramps to limits not impacting existing traffic flow east of the Naugatuck River. Approximately from West Main Street at the northern end to Jackson Street at the southern end. · Construct I-84 mainline new alignment and associated ramps to limits not impacting existing traffic flow. Approximately from the east side of the Naugatuck River to South Elm Street. · Consider shifting ramp for proposed I-84 westbound to Route 8 NB/SB split – Moving the split 50’-100’ south of its current alignment would allow for construction of this interchange without impacting traffic flow on existing I-84. This would also eliminate the need for additional temporary roads and bridges to maintain traffic flow during construction. Phase 1A – Route 8 – Northern and Southern Most Alignment (Figure 9-1) · At the northern end of existing Route 8, north of West Main Street – Widen existing Route 8 SB to accommodate traffic switches and temporary realignments of existing Route 8 NB/SB during the construction of proposed Route 8 mainline. This widening will also serve as a means to keep the existing Route 8 SB to I-84 westbound ramp active when proposed Route 8 alignment is open. · At the southern end of existing Route 8, south of Bank Street – Widen existing Route 8 SB to accommodate traffic switches and temporary realignments of existing Route 8 NB/SB during the construction of new ramps, bridges and proposed Route 8 mainline. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-2 Phase 1B – Route 8 – Local Road Improvements (Figure 9-1) · At the northern end of Route 8 – Upgrade existing local road alignments and build proposed roads and ramps to aid in rerouting traffic during non-peak hours for construction purposes. · At the southern end of Route 8 – Upgrade existing local road alignments and build proposed roads and ramps to aid in rerouting traffic during non-peak hours for construction purposes. Phase 2 – Transition Existing Route 8 to Proposed Alignment (Figure 9-2) · Proposed Route 8 – Transition existing mainline to new alignment. · At the northern end of Route 8 o Maintain existing Route 8 southbound ramp to I-84 westbound on existing alignment until proposed I-84 is complete. o Transition Route 8 southbound to I-84 eastbound onto new alignment. Meet and match existing I-84 at grade between South Elm Street and Baldwin Street. · At the southern end of Route 8 o Transition Route 8 northbound to I-84 eastbound onto new alignment. Meet and match existing I-84 at grade between South Elm Street and Baldwin Street. o Temporary roadwork and bridgework will be required in order to transition Route 8 northbound to I-84 westbound. Access to the existing Route 8 and I-84 interchange must be available to transition to proposed alignment. Phase 3 – Construct I-84 Collector Distributor Roads (Figure 9-3) · On the west side of Interstate 84. o Construct eastbound and westbound collector-distributor roads, bridges and associated on and off ramps to accommodate traffic switches for the construction of proposed I-84 mainline alignment. The intent is to shift existing NB/SB traffic to the outside on the new collector-distributor and construct the new proposed mainline alignment. o Transition ramp traffic on new alignment west of Highland Avenue. o Highland Avenue Bridge – Possible need for a temporary bridge to maintain traffic flow and avoid congestion of secondary roads north and south of I-84. · On the east side of Interstate 84. o Construct an oversized (width) proposed I-84 Exit 22 off-ramp to be used as temporary I-84 eastbound. This new ramp will also be utilized for staging traffic switches and temporary realignments during the construction of proposed I-84 mainline alignment. The intent is to shift existing eastbound traffic onto the new Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-3 oversized ramp and shift westbound traffic onto the existing eastbound highway. This will allow proposed I-84 westbound to be constructed. Westbound traffic will then be shifted east onto the new westbound alignment in order to construct the new proposed I-84 eastbound alignment. o Construct bridges and associated on and off ramps. o Transition ramp traffic on new alignment east of Baldwin Street. o Baldwin Street Bridge – Possible need for a temporary bridge to maintain traffic flow and avoid congestion of secondary roads north and south of I-84. Phase 4 – Demolish Elevated Portions of Existing Route 8 (Figure 9-4) · Demolish elevated portions of existing Route 8 while maintaining Route 8 NB ramp traffic to existing I-84 westbound. o Demolish elevated portions of existing Route 8 where proposed I-84 is to be constructed. Lower levels of existing Route 8 may be utilized for construction staging purposes and traffic switches while remaining proposed I-84 bridges, fly- over’s and ramps are constructed. Phase 5 – Construct Remaining Proposed I-84 Interchange (Figure 9-5) · Construct remaining portions of proposed I-84, surface roads and bridges. · Consider shifting the proposed I-84 alignment on the west side of the Naugatuck River to the south in an effort not to impact existing I-84 traffic while constructing the four new bridges crossing the Naugatuck River. More specifically, move proposed Route 8 NB/SB to I-84 WB ramp/bridge, proposed I-84 NB/SB bridges and proposed Exit 19 ramp/bridge. By shifting this alignment south and moving the bridges closer together, the impact on existing I-84 traffic will be greatly reduced during construction. o Based on the new alignment mentioned above, construct remaining proposed I-84 bridges, ramps, and flyovers crossing the Naugatuck River. o Construct remaining portions of I-84 mainline and collector-distributor ramps on the west side of the Naugatuck River to Highland Avenue. o Construct remaining portions of proposed Route 8 NB/SB to I-84 westbound ramps. o Construct remaining bridges and roadwork associated with Sunnyside Avenue crossing the Naugatuck River. o Construct remaining bridges and roadwork associated with Freight Street crossing the Naugatuck River. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-4 Phase 6 – Transition Existing I-84 to Proposed Alignment (Figure 9-6) · Proposed I-84 – Transition existing mainline to new alignment. · On the east side of Naugatuck River. o Transition existing I-84 westbound to new alignment. o Transition Exit 20 Entrance ramp traffic to new alignment. · On the west side of Naugatuck River. o Transition existing I-84 eastbound to new alignment. o Transition Exit 19 Entrance ramp traffic to new alignment. o Transition Exit 20 Exit ramp traffic to new alignment. Phase 7 – Remaining Demolition and Punch List Items · Remaining demolition. o Demolish existing I-84 mainline and ramps. o Demolish remaining portions of existing Route 8 west of the Naugatuck River. o Demolish temporary roads and bridges project wide. · Remaining punch list items. o Installation of permanent signage and striping. o Complete mitigation site-work. o Landscaping. 9.2 Impacts of Preferred Alternative 8 9.2.1 Temporary Elevated Structures and At-Grade Roadway Transitioning from the existing alignment to the proposed will require temporary elevated structures, bridges and roadways. It has been the study team’s experience on similar highway construction projects of this magnitude that this transition is the primary cause for a substantial increase in project cost and time. Based on the complexity of the existing stacked viaducts and ramps; multiple temporary structures, ramps, and roadways will need to be constructed to allow for the new build and subsequent connection to the new alignment. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-5 9.2.2 Temporary and Permanent Utility Relocation Based upon the conceptual alignment, the relocation of utilities may include, but are not limited to: storm water drainage, sanitary sewer, domestic water, gas, electric, fiber-optic and communications, steam, etc. Therefore, coordination with utility companies would be essential during construction. On I-84, Route 8, local roads and ramps, temporary storm drainage will have to be installed and maintained. At a conceptual level of design, the extent of utility relocations is undetermined and could potentially become costly both in time and money. 9.2.3 Maintenance of Existing and Temporary Structures Maintain existing and temporary utilities, signage, bridges and roadways. 9.2.4 Modification of Existing Traffic Intersections Due to an anticipated increase in volume on local roads; existing, temporary and new signalized intersections will need to be constructed, modified and reconfigured to support the construction of temporary roads, ramps and detours. 9.2.5 Premium Cost for Night Work The magnitude of the project in conjunction with the complexity of working over live vehicle traffic and a railroad right-of-way will require a substantial amount of night work. Constructing elevated structures while traffic is detoured will require multiple crews, specialty equipment, traffic management and police details. Many variables associated with night work and road closures will result in inefficient production. 9.2.6 Traffic Management Maintaining continuous flow of traffic with minimal inconvenience to the public will command extensive traffic studies on the existing highway and local roads. Temporary signage, variable message boards and well delineated traffic routes must established, constructed and maintained throughout the project. Historically on complex projects, 24 hour police details, and road service contracts have had significant cost impacts. 9.2.7 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Smart highways may be required based on funding. These systems are costly and could potentially extend a project schedule due to system configuration, testing and acceptance. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-6 9.2.8 Land Acquisitions and Mitigation Phasing of construction may be impacted due to the process of acquiring land subsequently extending the life of the project. Other factors that result from the acquisition of land are betterments for private and commercial property. These betterments may include: noise walls, retaining walls, updated local roads and sidewalks to meet current standards, landscaping and plantings. 9.2.9 Environmental Impacts Constructing along and over the Naugatuck River exposes a contractor to additional risk maintaining environmental controls. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed and monitored daily for compliance. An environmental sub-consultant will need to be present for daily construction activities. 9.2.10 Construction Sequence Design Process A project of this complexity will require a great deal of time spent on designing, developing and phasing the construction sequence. In comparison to the time spent designing all of the alternates considered for this project, the staging and construction sequence must have the same attention. Time and money spent during the construction sequence design process will minimize the cost and schedule impacts during construction. 9.2.11 Abatement of Hazardous Material At a conceptual level of design, it should be anticipated that some level of abatement will have to be performed (i.e. lead paint, asbestos, contaminated soil excavation). I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 1, 1A, 1B FIGURE 9-1LEGEND Phase 1 Phase 1A and 1B I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 2 FIGURE 9-2Phase 2 Route 8 to I-84 (New Alignment to I-84 EB) Maintain I-84 Ramps to Route 8 (Existing Alignment to I-84 WB) LEGEND I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 3 FIGURE 9-3Phase 3LEGEND I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 4 FIGURE 9-4Phase 4LEGEND I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 5 FIGURE 9-5Phase 5LEGEND I-84 / Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study CT 519530 / 6-1-09 / Construction Sequence -Alt 8.ppt CONSTRUCTABILITY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE -PHASE 6 FIGURE 9-6Phase 6LEGEND Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-13 9.3 Recommendations for Potential Cost Savings 9.3.1 Project Labor Agreement For a project of this scale and exposure, it is beneficial for an owner to enter into a Project Labor Agreement with the local trade labor unions. With this agreement an owner can avoid construction delays due to union verses nonunion conflicts resulting in an inability to work. As single labor contract for the duration of the project, the Project Labor Agreement can be negotiated such that the trade unions agree not to strike and quickly resolve any inter-union disputes without impacting the cost or schedule. 9.3.2 Owner Controlled Insurance Program The intention of implementing an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) is to provide the owner with a cost savings through the ability to obtain insurance at a discounted price, lower than the contractors cost. This would allow the owner to avoid paying each contractors individual insurance and markup. Also, having a single insurance carrier can be more efficient and less expensive during the claim resolution process. Along with a cost savings incentive there is some risk. The owner becomes responsible for insuring the project and administering loss prevention programs. The owner also becomes exposed to the risk of increased premiums for unexpected losses; although it is possible that the owner will benefit from premium rebates if claims are less than anticipated. In exchange for this risk, the owner should anticipate a cost savings. 9.3.3 Safety Incentive Programs Implement Safety Incentive Programs that monetarily reward the construction workers for exceptional performance in achieving the lowest incident rate for a predetermined period of time. This incentive will aid in the reduction of job site accidents and ultimately lower the owner’s workers’ compensation insurance cost. This type of program is excellent for the safety and moral of a project. 9.3.4 Project Delivery Methods Implement different Project Delivery Methods: · A+B Bidding – A cost-plus-time bidding procedure that selects the low bidder based on a monetary combination of the contract bid items (A) and the time (B) needed to complete the project or a critical portion of a project. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 9-14 · Alliancing – Instead of a fixed lump sum contract price, the general arrangement is that the project owner pays the non-owner (i.e. the contractor) on a 100% open book compensation model. The owner pays the direct project costs, overheads, a fee to cover corporate overheads and a normal profit. · Design Build – Construction delivery system that combines the responsibility for the delivery of design services and construction services within a single contract. This system is used to minimize the project risk for an owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project. 9.4 Work Zone Safety Plan Nationally, improving the safety of both motorists and construction workers has led departments of transportation to implement a work zone safety plan in an effort to minimize the occurrences of accidents and fatalities during periods of construction work on interstates. Changes in traveling conditions typically associated with construction work zones increase the likelihood of accidents. It is therefore important to inform the traveling public well in advance of a construction work zone and the changing conditions that lie ahead. Anticipated impacts of roadway improvement projects need to be assessed and managed through a Work Zone Safety Plan and the Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Strategies to mitigate anticipated safety and mobility impacts may include the following: – Comprehensive Public Awareness Program – Real time variable message signs – Radar speed monitoring display units used as a speed deterrent – Temporary traffic barrier to provide physical separation of work zone from vehicle traffic – Crash-cushions / impact attenuators – Visual screen mounted on temporary barrier to reduce distraction of vehicle traffic – Temporary rumble strips to alert motorists of a change in roadway conditions – Intrusion alarm to detect vehicles entering an area between motorists and construction workers – Construction Safety Inspectors – Safety awards and incentives to reduce safety impacts associated with the work zone – Project team meetings on a regular basis to discuss TMP strategies, implementation, and monitoring, particularly related to safety concerns. Implementing programs such as a Work Zone Safety Plan and a Transportation Management Plan make for a safe, efficient, and cost effective construction project, which is the ultimate goal. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-1 10 Financial Plan The process of advancing a project from its conceptual phase through construction is not guaranteed. The reality is that many projects of which the I-84/Route 8 WINS is no exception; require substantial capital in order to be constructed. With fiscal constraints and increasing inflation of materials brought about by the downturn of the U.S. economy, projects have to constantly compete for the limited funds available for construction. It has therefore become imperative to identify sources of funding well in advance of a project and lobby rigorously for the limited funds available. There are a number of sources that could be utilized in funding the improvements recommended in I-84/Route 8 WINS. This financial plan identifies some of these potential sources that can be utilized in funding the project. 10.1 Federal Funding Federal Grants remain the major source of funding for highway projects in the country. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) law which was enacted by congress in 1995 guarantees funding for highway, highway safety and public transportation projects through a number of programs. Some of the programs under the SAFETEA-LU that could serve as funding sources for the I- 84/Route 8 WINS are described below. 10.1.1 National Highway System Program (NHS) The NHS program offers funding for improvements to roads and highways that are part of the National Highway System. Connecticut’s apportionment under this program for year 2009 is approximately $46.8 Million 1 . 10.1.2 Interstate Maintenance Program (IM) The Interstate Maintenance Program offers funding for resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects on Interstate highways. Connecticut’s apportionment under the IM program for year 2009 is approximately $50.8 Million 2 . 1 Source: USDOT 2 Source: USDOT Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-2 10.1.3 Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) This program offers funding for projects that are geared towards attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. The CMAQ program recognizes two categories for funding: Diesel retrofitting projects and transportation system management/operations projects which reduce congestion and emissions and improve overall air quality. Clearly, the goals of the I-84/Route 8 study are consistent with the latter category and could therefore be a candidate for funding under this program. Year 2009 funds available to Connecticut under the CMAQ program is approximately $32.9 Million 3 . 10.1.4 Surface Transportation Program (STP) This program provides funding to be used for any federal-aid highway projects. Funds allotted to Connecticut under this program for year 2009 is approximately $59.8 Million. 10.1.5 Highway Bridge Program This program offers funding to States for bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance projects. Connecticut’s share of this fund for 2009 is approximately $127.7 Million 4 . 10.1.6 Transportation Enhancement Program The TEP provides funding for projects of cultural, aesthetic, historic, and environmental significance. Funding for this program comes out of each State’s Surface Transportation and usually constitutes 10 percent of the STP. 10.2 State Funding Within the State of Connecticut, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax are the two major sources of funding for highway projects. Reliance on the revenue from these two sources is becoming unrealistic as more people shift to using fuel efficient cars and transit. 3 Source: USDOT 4 Source: USDOT Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-3 10.3 Innovative Financing It has become increasingly clear in recent years that it would be naive for one to rely on equity from federal, state, and local governments alone to fund projects. Funding from these levels of government has not kept up with inflation; as a result, it has become necessary to explore alternative sources of funding to bridge the funding gap. The use of innovative financing methods has gained popularity in recent years and could be a potential funding source for the improvements recommended under I-84/Route 8 WINS. Some of these funding methods are described below. 10.3.1 Public Private Partnerships (PPP) The FHWA defines Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) as contractual agreements formed between a public agency and private sector entity that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery of transportation projects. Public Private Partnerships have been used with great success to fund projects in many parts of the world. In the U.S, the use of Private Public Partnerships in the delivery of public services has grown steadily since the 1980’s primarily because in many ways the PPP model is seen as win- win relationships between both sectors. On one hand the public sector is able to undertake highway infrastructure projects and deliver services that are so badly needed while transferring the costs and associated financial risks to the private sector. In return, the private sector assumes management and maintenance of such projects and is placed in a position to recoup and make profit on their investment. The Chicago Skyline Bridge in Illinois and the Dulles Greenway are widely cited success stories of PPP projects in the country. 10.3.2 Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been used for redevelopment and community improvements for over half a century in the United States. TIF is a public financing method which utilizes future gains in taxes to finance current improvements projects that would realize those gains. TIF typically entails local governments borrowing money to fund projects that would invariably raise property values in the area of the project. The increase in the tax revenues as a result of the higher property values is then used to service the loan. 10.3.3 Transportation Impact Fees Transportation Impact Fees are a funding mechanism in which charges are imposed by local governments on new developments based on the traffic that development is anticipated to Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-4 generate. The revenue collected is used to improve facilities that would be impacted by the new traffic. 10.3.4 Tolls With the need for innovative financing for highway infrastructure projects apparent, the discussion on tolls in Connecticut has begun to gain traction. Legislators and stakeholders are beginning to rethink the possibility of re-introducing tolls in the State as an alternate source of funding for highway projects. In this light, the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board contracted Cambridge Systematics, Inc. to undertake an electronic tolling and congestion pricing study which was to assess various tolling options for the State and serve as framework for informed decision making. Some of the tolling options included: · New Toll Express Lanes · Border Tolling · Truck Only Tolling · HOV to HOT Lane conversions · HOT Lane Conversions of Existing Shoulders on Limited Access Facilities · Tolling Individual Highways Needing New Capacity · Statewide Tolling · Congestion Pricing Corridor Electronic tolling could be a potential funding source for the I-84/Route 8 Interchange project in the event that tolls were reintroduced in the State. SAFETEA-LU allows States the flexibility to utilize funds from tolls to finance infrastructure improvement projects through the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot and Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Construction Toll Pilot Programs. 10.4 Implementation A phased approach is recommended in implementing the final improvement alternatives for the I-84/Route 8 WINS. The near term improvements (Alternative 6) can be potentially broken up into smaller individual projects. The following near projects; arranged in no particular order are recommended: Project 1: Traffic Signals and Signage Project 2: Sunnyside Avenue-Field Street Connector Project 3: Bank Street -West Main Street Connector Project 4: Bank Street-South Main Street Connector Project 5: I-84 Eastbound Ramps at Interchange 21 Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-5 These near term projects should be pursued over the next 5 to 10 years. These improvements are less capital intensive and would have very minimal impact on the existing interchange. In addition, the near term improvement projects could serve as a launching pad for the long term improvement recommended for the study area. Due to the capital intensive nature of Alternative 8, its complexity of construction and anticipated environmental permitting process, a realistic time frame for this alternative to begin would be in the next 15 to 20 years. Table 10-1 presents a summary of the funding and implementation plan for the I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study. Deficiencies and Needs Final Report I-84/Route 8 Waterbury Interchange Needs Study ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ June 2010 10-6 Table 10-1: Funding and Implementation Plan Improvements Capital Cost (2009 $) 1 Time Frame Potential Funding Sources Alternative 6 $409,800,000 2015-2020 Federal/State/Local/Private Project 1: Traffic Signals and Signage $1,400,000 2015-2020 State/Local/Private Project 2: Sunnyside Avenue-Field Street Connector $47,400,000 2015-2020 State/Local/Private Project 3: Bank Street -West Main Street Connector $19,900,000 2015-2020 State/Local/Private Project 4: Bank Street-South Main Street Connector $13,100,000 2015-2020 State/Local/Private Project 5: I-84 Eastbound Ramps at Interchange 21 $14,300,000 2015-2020 Federal/State/Local Alternative 8 $ 1,889,100,000 2025-2030 Federal/State/Private Note: 1 Cost for each individual project under Alternative 6 does not include bridge maintenance and repair costs of existing I-84/Route Interchange

Central Naugatuck Valley Region Congestion Management System Report: 2008 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley September 2008 Approved by the Council of Governments: November 14, 2008 TITLE: CONGESTIO N MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REPORT: 2008 AUTHOR: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley SUBJECT: Identification and evaluation of congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s transportation system DATE: September 2008 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Va lley SOURCE OF COPIES: Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 60 North Main Street, 3 rd Floor Waterbury, CT 06702 SERIES NO.: N/A NUMBER 34 OF PAGES: ABSTRACT: The report identifies and evaluates congestion within the Central Nauga tuck Valley Region by estimating travel speeds for selected major corridors with high V/C ratios. A GPS receiver was used to collect travel speeds along the study corridors during peak periods. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………… 1 Defining the Congestion Management System Network……………………………………………….. 1 Identifying Congested Segments within the CM S Network……………………………………………. 3 Incidents ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. 4 Poor Signal Timing ……………………………………………………………… ……………………… 4 Insufficient Capacity ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 4 Monitoring System Performance ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 5 Evaluating System Performance ……………………………………………………………… ……………….. 7 Route 8……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………. 7 I-691……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………….. 10 I-84……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………. 13 Route 10……………………………………………………………… …………………………………… 17 Route 70……………………………………………………………… …………………………………… 18 Route 73……………………………………………………………… …………………………………… 19 Route 69……………………………………………………………… …………………………………… 22 Route 63……………………………………………………………… …………………………………… 25 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………………. 28 Appendix ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………. 30 A: Additional Routes ……………………………………………………………… ………………….. 30 B: Data Collection and Processing ……………………………………………………………… … 34 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Routes with Principal Arterial Segments in the Central Nauga tuck Valley Region ……………………………………………………………… 2 Table 2: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 8 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………… 7 Table 3: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 8 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………… 7 Table 4: AM Peak Period Speed Data for I- 691 Eastbound and Westbound Segments ……………………………………………………….. 10 Table 5: PM Peak Period Speed Data for I-691 Eastbound and Westbound Segments ………………………………………………………. 10 Table 6: AM Peak Period Speed Data for I- 84 Eastbound and Westbound ……………………………………………………………… ……… 14 Table 7: PM Peak Period Speed Data for I-84 Eastbound and Westbound ……………………………………………………………… ……… 14 Tabl e 8: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 10 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………. 17 Table 9: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 10 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………. 17 Table 10: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 70 Eastbound and Westbound Segments……………………………………………………….. 18 Table 11: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 70 Eastbound and Westbound Segments……………………………………………………….. 18 Table 12: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 73 Eastbound and Westbound Segments……………………………………………………….. 19 Table 13: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 73 Eastbound and Westbound Segments……………………………………………………….. 19 Table 14: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 69 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………. 22 Tabl e 15: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 69 Northbound and Southbound Segments……………………………………………………. 22 Table 16: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 63 Northbound and Sou thbound……………………………………………………………… ….. 25 Table 17: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 63 Northbound and Southbound ……………………………………………………………… ….. 25 Table 18: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Huntingdon, Homer, Chase, and Lakewood Road Eastbound and Westbound ……………………………………………………………… ……… 31 Table 19: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Huntingdon, Homer, Chase, and Lakewood Road Eastbound and Westbound ……………………………………………………………… ……… 31 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Principal Arterial Road Segments in the CNVR ……………………………………………2 Figure 2: Causes of Congestion ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 3 Figure 3: Most Congested Road Segments in the CNVR: 2006 by V/C Ratio ……………………………………………………………… …………………………. 6 Figure 4: Average Speeds in CNVR on Route 8 Morning Peak: 200 7-2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 8 Figure 5: Average Speeds in CNVR on Route 8 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………… 9 Figure 6: Average Speeds on Route 10, Route 70 and I-691 Morning Peak: 2007 -2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 11 Figure 7: Average Speeds on Route 10, Route 70 and I-691 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 12 Figure 8: Average Speeds on I- 84 Morning Peak: 2007 -2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 15 Figure 9: Average Speeds on I- 84 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 16 Figure 10: Average Speeds on Route 73 Morning Peak: 200 7-2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 20 Figure 11 : Average Speeds on Route 73 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 21 Figure 1 2: Average Speeds on Route 69 Morning Peak: 200 7-2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 23 Figure 1 3: Average Speeds on Route 69 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 24 Figure 1 4: Average Speeds on Route 63 Morning Peak: 200 7-2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 26 Figure 1 5: Average Speeds on Route 63 Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 27 Figure 1 6: Average Speeds on Huntingdon, Homer, Chase, and Lakewood Road Morning Peak: 200 7-2008 ……………………………………………………………… ……… 32 Figure 1 7: Average Speeds on Huntingdon, Homer, Chase, and Lakewood Road Evening Peak: 2007 -2008……………………………………………………………… ………. 33 1 Introduction The 2008 Congestion Management System Report (CMS) summarizes the results of COGCNV’s traffic congestion monitoring for 2007-2008. It serves as a tool to identify deficiencies within the system and, in turn, to develop priorities for the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. The regional CMS analysis began with the 2006 Congestion Management System Report in order to establish a framework for evaluating the region’s highway system. The CMS evaluates congestion problems within the Central Naugatuck Valley Region and supplements statewide traffic data developed by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT). ConnDOT provides an annual update of its Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report , which contains statistics and forecasts of congestion levels on state-maintained highways . Defining the Congestion Management System Network The 2008 CMS Report includes only highway travel. Other modes, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel , may be addressed through future studies. Figure 1 shows the highway network studied in the CMS along with the arterial highways that assist in regional mobility . O nly roads with a functional classification of principal arterial are analyzed in the report. Highway functional classification is a system of categorizing road types using guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Principal arterials are the highest classified road type and carry the majority of traffic entering and leaving urban areas and the majority of traffic desiring to bypass urban centers. In the CNVR , the network of principal arterials consists of three limited- access highways (Route 8, Interstate 84, and Interst ate 691) and segments of major state routes that facilitate travel between major destinations and through urban areas. The network of principal arterials extend s for 110 miles within the region, including 47 miles of limited-access highways . Table 1 lists the principal arterials within the CNVR and their respective mileage. For the purpose of the CMS, only those segments of the state routes that are classified as principal arterials are included in the measurements. Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbu ry Wolcott Waterbury Watert own Bethle hem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thom aston Beacon Falls § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 ( /6 ” )222 ” )262 ” )322 ” )254 ” )73 ” )317 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 ” )132 ” )132 ( /6 ” )188 Z Figu re 1: Prin cipal A rte ria l Ro ad Seg m ents in th e CN V R ³ Source: Co nnDOT functional classificati on 200 5 0 0.9 1.8 0.45 Miles CNVR Highway Network Town Boundaries Other Major Highways Principal Arterial Segments 2 3 Table 1. Routes with Principal Arterial Segments in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region Source: ConnDOT Functional Classification 2005 Identifying Congested Segments within the CMS Network FHWA defines congestion as “the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference.” FHWA reports that forty percent of all delay is caused by insufficient capacity or physical “bottlenecks.”1 Incidents such as crashes and disabled vehicles account for 25% of all delay. Inclement weather, poor signal timing, work zon es, fluctuations in normal traffic, and special (non-recurring) events are also causes of delay. Figure 2 represents the distribution of each of these causes, excluding fluctuations in normal traffic. 1 Conge stion Mitigation , FHWA, Office of Operations, Publication number FHWA -OP- 04-047 Route Towns Miles 6 Thomaston, Watertown 4.16 8 Beacon Falls, Naugatuck, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown 22.23 10 Cheshire 7.45 34 Oxford 2.04 63 Middlebury, Naugatuck, Waterbury, Wate rtown 15.17 64 Middlebury, Waterbury 3.35 68 Cheshire 1.31 69 Prospect, Waterbury, Wolcott 14.91 70 Cheshire 7.49 73 Waterbury, Watertown 3.46 I-84 Cheshire, Middlebury, Southbury, Waterbury 21.89 I-691 Cheshire 2.47 810 Thomaston 0.43 846 Waterbury 0.15 847 Naugatuck, Waterbury 3.89 Figure 2: Causes of Congestion Work Zones 10% Special Events 5% Poor Signal Timing 5% Insufficient Capacity 40% Traffic Incidents 25% Weather 15% 4 Of the s even major causes of congestion, COGCNV focuses its recommendations on reducing delay caused by traffic incidents, poor signal timing, and insufficient capacity. COGCNV is least able to develop recommendations that will reduce delay c aused by work zones, weather, fluctuations in normal traffic , and special events. Incidents According to FHWA, incidents such as crashes, disabled vehicles, and even roadside distractions account for 25% of all travel delays. COGCNV staff, using data from ConnDOT, monitors accidents on the highway system to identif y high frequency accident locations that may be recommended for improvements. The level of incident response to disabled vehicles or collisions may alleviate or aggravate the problem . COGCNV staff has worked with state and regional groups to improve incid ent response. Staff has participated in the Statewide Incident Management Task Force (SIMTF), which developed the Unified Response Manual as a guide for reducing response and clearance times on limited -access highways throughout the state. Within the regio n, the CNV Emergency Planning Commi ttee acts as our incident management team . The committee is responsible for organizing regional exercises and disseminating best management practices to local emergency responders . Poor Signal Timing According to FHWA, 5% of all delay results from poor signal timing. Signal schemes and phasing are often outdated and do not account for increased volumes or changes in traffic patterns. The COGCNV report, Central Naugatuck Valley Region Intersection Analysis: 2004, identifie s poor performing intersections and recommends improvements. Sta ff will continue to monitor th e intersections included in the study and identify other intersections that are causing significant delay in the highway network. Insufficient Capacity The regio n’s Long Range Transportation Plan: 2007-2035 identifies highway segments on state roads with insufficient capacity, based on volume -to-capacity (V/C) ratios provided by ConnDOT . Insufficient capacity is the primary method of identifying highway corridors that warrant further monitoring. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio V/C ratio is defined as the peak hour traffic volume divided by a road segm ent’s hourly vehicle capacity. Road segments with V/C ratios of 1.0 or higher have traffic volumes t hat meet or exceed the road’s hourly capacity during peak periods. Roadways begin to reach capacity at V/C ratios of 0.9. System failure and unstable conditi ons occur as V/C ratios approach 1.0, leading to longer delay s and “stop and go” conditions. When no traffic is present , the V/C ratio is zero, and traffic flows unimpeded at the free flow speed (FFS ). The free flow speed is the average speed that a vehicle travels under low -volume conditions. On urban streets, delay at signalized intersections i s exc luded. The free flow speed varies based on road type, design, condition, land use, and location. 5 Monitoring System Performance Data C ollection & P rocessing In 2007 and 2008, COGCNV staff collected travel time and speed data for the region’s three expressways and principal arterial routes that have segments with V/C ratios above 1.0, as determined by ConnDOT’s Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report.2 These segments were identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan 2007-2035 and expanded to create study corridors for the report . Figure 3 shows state road segments that are approaching or exceeding capacity. Although not included among these corridors, speed data was also collect ed along Huntingdon Avenue, Homer Street and Chase Avenue. This route contains the highest priority non -interstate highway projects in the regional Transportation Improvement Program. Lakewood Road was added to this route to complete the connectio n between Route 8 and the commercial corridor on Route 69. A review of the trav el speed data can be found in Appendix A. Speed data and travel times were recorded with a GPS receiver as staff drove along each corridor during morning and evening peak hours. Peak hours for each road were identified using traffic data from ConnDOT’s Traffic Count Locator program. Each route was traveled at least three times in each direction in the morning and evening. Technical information on the data collection and processing is included as Appendi x B. The data was sorted and analyzed using GIS (geog raphic information system) software that computed the average travel speeds for each route , broken down into segments . In the previous CMS report, average travel speeds were calculated and mapped for each corridor. A new method was developed for this report in which average travel speed calculations are compared with free flow speeds (FFS). For each segment, an estimated FFS was determined using guidelines from the Highway Capacity Manual. The corresponding map for each route shows the percent difference between free flow speeds and average travel speeds. All estimates of average daily traffic (ADT) and volume-to-capacity ratios are from ConnDOT’s Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report : 2007. ADT estimates for Huntingdon, Homer, Chase, and Lakewood Road were collected by ConnDOT in 2005. 2 Short segments at Route 6 east of Route 8 i n Thomaston, Route 64 east of Route 63 in Waterbury, and SR 847 (West M ain St) near Sperry St in Waterbury did not warrant travel time and speed a nalysis. I -691 was included as it is part of the region’s expressway network, although it has no segments with V/C ratios > 1.0. Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterb ury Watertow n Bethlehem Middlebu ry Prospect Naugatuck Thomast on Beacon Falls “¥ ” ¥ ” § ” Â ” Í ” Î ” Ò ” Ñ “Ó ” Å “Ì ” × “ð ” ½ ” × ” Ý ” Ü £t ” ì ” ¬ ” e ” Í ” Í “½ ” Ð ” Ð ” Â ” Â ” ¥ ” Ì £ t £t ” Ó ” e ” Ò ” ð ” Ò ” Î ” Ñ ” ½ § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” Í ” Ñ ” Ð Fig ure 3: Mos t Co nges te d Ro ad Seg m ents in the CNV R C M P Ne tw or k: 2 006 Source: ConnDOT 2 006 Con gesti on S creening and Monitoring Repo rt 0 2 4 1 Miles ² Ve hicle Ca pa city Ra tio Le gend Town Boundaries Major Highways > or = 1.30 > or = 1.0 6 7 Evaluating System Performance Route 8 Route 8 has the characteristics of an urban fr eeway throughout most of the region , with segments in Thomaston and Watertown that a re considered rural. Traffic volumes in the region range from 20,000 vehicles per day in Thomaston to 79,400 at the I-84 interchange. T he free flow speed fluctuates between 62 mph in the urban core and 70 mph in rural areas , but remains at 64 mph along mos t of the route . The limited number of lanes, reduced shoulder widths, and interchange frequency leads to lower free flow speeds. The speed data for Route 8 in the CNVR is highlighted below: · Most segments of Route 8 in the region operate at or above free f low speed with average travel speeds around 6 5 to 66 mph during both peak periods. · Average speeds in either direction are slower at the Route 73 junction and in the vicinity of I-84 than on the entire length of Route 8 in the CNVR. · Minor delays also occur in Naugatuck and Beacon Falls. Speed data for both Northbound and Southbound Route 8 traffic is presented in Table s 2 and 3. The data is shown on maps of Route 8 in Figures 4 and 5. Table 2: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 8 Northbound and Southbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 3: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 8 Northbound and Southbound Segments Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rte. 8 in CNVR 22.2 40-65 60-70 66.5 66.4 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rte. 8 in CNVR 22.2 40-65 60-70 64.6 64.8 Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 ” )69 ” )42 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )188 ” )64 ” )63 ” )73 £ ¤6 ” )262 ” )69 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )109 ” )254 ” )222 ” )69 ” )42 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )188 ” )64 ” )63 ” )73 £ ¤6 ” )262 ” )69 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 ” )109 ” )254 ” )222 Figure 4: Route 8 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Northbound m Southbound m ² 024 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 8 " )69 " )42 " )42 " )63 " )69 " )68 " )188 " )64 " )63 " )73 £ ¤6 " )262 " )69 " )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 " )109 " )254 " )222 " )69 " )42 " )42 " )63 " )68 " )188 " )64 " )63 " )73 £ ¤6 " )262 " )69 " )69 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 " )109 " )254 " )222 Northbound m Southbound m ² 02 4 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Figure 5: Route 8 Evening Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 9 10 I-691 I-691 i s included i n the study as one of the three expressways in the region. According to ConnDOT’s V/C estimates, the highway has not yet reached capacity in this area. Traffic volumes on I -691 in Cheshire range from 14,300 to 55,100 vehicles per day . In Cheshire, I-691 is considered urban, but has the characteristics of a rural freeway. The estimated free flow speed for I-691 is 66 mph. The speed data for I -691 in Cheshire is highlighted below: · During the morning peak, traffic flows at or above free flow speed. During the evening peak, traffic was slightly below the free flow speed with westbound traffic experiencing more of a delay. · The slowest average speed was 56 mph. It occurred during the evening pea k near the I-84 East onramp to I -691. Speed data for both eastbound and westbound traffic is presented in Tables 4 and 5. The data is shown on map s of I-691, Route 10, and Route 70 in Figures 6 and 7. Table 4 : AM Peak Period Speed Data for I -691 Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 5: PM Peak Period Speed Data for I -691 Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 The data indicates that congestion is focused in the area of the interchange with I -84. COGCNV staff observed that congestion on the ramps to and from I -84 is a common occurrence during the evening peak. Average speeds in that area were still within a narrow range and less than 10 mph slower t han the free flow speed. Otherwise, travel along I-691 is typically free flow, even during peak periods. Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound I-691 in CNVR 2.47 65 66 67.2 68.1 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound I-691 in CNVR 2.47 65 66 62.6 60.0 Rte 10 Northbound m Rte 10 Southbound m 0 0.5 1Miles I-691 Westbound m ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )68 " )70 " )68 " )70 " )42 " )42 " )68 " )68 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Wolcott Cheshire Prospect I-691 Eastbound m Rte 70 Westboundm Rte 70 Eastbound m Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Figure 6: Route 10, 70, and I-691 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed 89: ¨ 89: ¨ 11 0 0.5 1Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )68 " )70 " )68 " )70 " )42 " )42 " )68 " )68 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Rte 10 Northbound m Rte 10 Southbound m I-691 Westbound m Rte 70 Eastbound m Rte 70 Westbound m I-691 Eastbound m Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Figure 7: Routes 10, 70, and I-691 Evening Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed 89: ¨ 89: ¨ 12 13 I-84 Traffic volumes along I -84 vary greatly across the region, from a 2006 ADT estimate of 55,100 in Southbury to 125,700 in Waterbury. Free flow speeds along I -84 in the CNVR range from 60 to 68 mph. Estimates of free flow speed are reduced in some areas because of the limited number of lanes, reduced shoulder widths, and interchange densities. The construction project between Cheshire and W aterbury is scheduled to be completed in November 2008. The upgrade will continue through the east side of Waterbury from Pierpont Road to Route 69. The upgrade projects in Waterbury and Cheshire are expected to improve the level of service on this section of I-84. The speed data for I -84 in the CNVR is highlighted below: · Eastbound traffic encounters more of a delay than westbound traffic, par ticularly during the evening peak period. · During the morning peak period, average eastbound travel speeds are below 25 mph from the Washington Street/Route 69 overpass to the exit for Austin Road, and from the Waterbury -Cheshire town line to the exit for Route 70. · During the evening peak period, eastbound delays are most severe in Waterbury between the South Main Stre et overpass and the exit for Harper’s Ferry Road, where the highway transitions from three lanes to two . · Westbound delays are more common from the Route 70 interchange the Waterbury -Cheshire town line. Speed data for eastbound and westbound I-84 traffic is presented in Tables 6 and 7. The data is also shown on map s of I-84 in Figures 8 and 9. Construction Impact Construction between the Austin Road interchange and the Cheshire -Southington town line contributed to some of the observed delay. While const ruction activities only accounted for part of the delay during data collection, lane closures, temporary work zones, and other limitations restricted the flow of traffic during peak hours. Table 6: AM Peak Period Speed Data for I -84 Eastbound and Westbound: Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound I-84 in CNVR 21.89 50-65 60-68 53.6 59.8 14 Table 7: PM Peak Period Speed Data for I-84 Eastbound and Westbound Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Truck Traffic According to ConnDOT’s Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report , heavy trucks account for 13.6 % of all vehicles on I-84 in the CNVR, add ing an estimated 232 hours of delay annually. This figure is comparable to other major freight corridors in the state, where trucks typically make up between 13.5% and 14.8% of traffic. Present Conditions The most severe congestion is located on the east side of Waterbury betw een the Washington Street/Route 69 overpass and Austin Road. This section has not been upgraded, and has only two lanes in either direction east of Hamilton Avenue. Travel speed data confirms the severity of congestion in this area, which resul ts in eastbound speeds that average 2 7 mph below the free flow rate; or between 3 3 to 38 mph. Westbound speeds, however, average only 7 mph below the free flow rate; or 53 to 59 mph. Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound I-84 in CNVR 21.89 50-65 60-68 55.2 57.6 § ¨ ¦691 " )63 " )67 " )188 " )172 " )188 " )64 £ ¤6 " )64 " )8 " )69 " )70 " )63 " )69 " )67 § ¨ ¦691 " )63 " )67 " )188 " )172 " )188 " )64 £ ¤6 " )64 " )8 " )69 " )69 " )70 " )69 " )63 " )67 Figure 8: I-84 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Westbound m Eastboundm 0 2.5 5Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Southbury Middlebury Waterbury Cheshire Oxford Naugatuck Prospect Woodbury Southbury Middlebury Waterbury Cheshire Oxford Naugatuck Prospect Woodbury Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 89: ¨ 89: ¨ 15 § ¨ ¦691 " )63 " )67 " )69 " )67 " )188 " )172 " )188 " )64 £ ¤6 " )64 " )8 " )69 " )69 " )70 Figure 9: I-84 Evening Peak 2007-2008 0 2.5 5Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY § ¨ ¦691 " )63 " )67 " )69 " )67 " )188 " )172 " )188 " )64 £ ¤6 £ ¤6 " )64 " )8 " )69 " )70 Westbound m Southbury Middlebury Waterbury Cheshire Oxford Naugatuck Prospect Woodbury Eastboundm Southbury Middlebury Waterbury Cheshire Oxford Naugatuck Prospect Woodbury Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 89: ¨ 89: ¨ 16 17 Route 10 Route 10 is a major north -south highway that runs through Cheshire and connects the region with other urban and commercial centers . According to ConnDOT’s estimates, some of the most congested road segments in the region are located along Route 10, where V/C ratios are well over 1.0, and traffic volumes reach 30,700 vehicles per day. F ree flow speed s on Route 10 range from 30 mph through the center of Cheshire to 50 mph in less developed areas . Insufficient capacity , high signal density, and dense development are the greatest factors contributing to delay along this route. The peak hour speed data for Route 10 segments is highlighted below: · The entire length of Route 10 in Cheshire experiences speed reductions over 25% in at least one direction. · During the morning peak, the most significant delays occur near the I -691 interchange, at East Johnson Avenue, and at the junction with Route 68/70. · During the evening peak, the most significant delay s occurr at the I-691 interchange, the junction s with Route 68/70 , and the Route 42 intersection . · During the peak periods in both directions , the average travel speed is 30 mph. Speed data for northbound and southbound traffic is represented on maps of Route 10, Route 70, and I-691 in Figures 6 and 7. The data is also presented in Table s 14 and 15. Table 8: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 10 Northbound and Southbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 9: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 10 Northbound and Southbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rte. 10 in Cheshire 7.5 25-45 30-50 30.0 30.2 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rte. 10 in Cheshire 7.5 25-45 30-50 29.6 30.1 18 Route 70 Route 70 is a major east -west arterial through Cheshire that connects I -84 with Route 10. According to ConnDOT’s estimates, some of the most congested road seg ments in the region are located along Route 70, where V/C ratios are well over 1.0, and traffic volumes reach 20,200 vehicles per day. Since all of these segments are located between I- 84 and Route 10, data collection was limited to this 4.5 mile section. F ree flow speeds on Route 70 range from 3 5 to 50 mph. The peak hour traffic speed data for Route 70 segments is highlighted below: · Delay occurs most frequently at the I -84 interchange and the junction with Route 10. During the morning peak, westbound traffic also experiences significant delay at the west junction with Route 68 (Prospect Road). · During the morning peak period, t he average speed is 32 mph for both northbound and southbound traffic , with a minimum average speed around 15 mph . · During the evening peak period , the average speed i s 35 mph for both northbound and southbound tr affic, with a minimum average speed around 12 mph . Speed data for the studied portion of Route 70 is presented in Tables 1 0 and 11. The data is shown on maps of Route 10, Route 70, and I-691 in Figures 6 and 7 . Table 10: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 70 Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data co llection: 2007-2008 Table 1 1: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 70 East bound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Construction Impact Construction in the area of the I -84 interchange at Exit 26 contributed to some of the observed delay. With recent improvements made to the interchang e, the intersections at the bottom of the ramps should experience better traffic flow. Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rou te 70 from I-84 to Rte. 10 4.5 30-40 35-50 31.8 31.6 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Rou te 70 from I-84 to Rte. 10 4.5 30-40 35-50 35.4 33.6 19 Route 73 Route 73 runs 3.5 mile s from Route 8 in Waterbury to Route 63 in Watertown. For 41% of the route , the V/C ratio is 1.0 or greater, indicating “bottleneck” co nditions. Free flow speeds on Route 7 3 rang e from 3 5 to 40 mph based on the highway design and development along each segment . ConnDOT estimates 2006 ADT volumes between 9,000 and 27,200 vehicles. To the s outh of Eastern Avenue in Waterbury, ADT figures were above 18,000 vehicles. The peak hour traffic speed data for Route 73 segments is highlighted below: · Average travel speeds on Route 73 range from 31 to 33 mph during peak periods. Minor delays occur in both directions, typically within 10 mph of the fr ee flow speed. · The area between Buckingham Street and Davis Street in Oakville experiences the most congestion . An average speed of 12 mph was recorded at the segment near Hillside Avenue. · Construction caused additional delay between Irvington Avenue and E. Aurora Street during the study period. It is difficult to determine the degree of congestion along this segment under normal conditions. The redesign of the Tompkins Street and Watertown Avenue (SR 846) intersections is expected to increase capacity in the corridor and improve safety and mobility. Speed data for eastbound and westbound Route 73 traffic is presented in Table s 12 and 13. This data is also shown in Figures 10 and 11. Table 12: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 73 Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 13: PM Peak Perio d Speed Data for Route 73 Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed dat a collection: 2007-2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound Length of Rte. 73 3.46 25-40 35-40 31.2 31.2 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound Length of Rte. 73 3.46 25-40 35-40 31.1 29.6 0 0.5 1Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )63 " )262 " )8 " )262 " )8 " )63 Rte 73 Eastbound m Rte 73 Westbound m Waterbury Waterbury Watertown Watertown Figure 10: Route 73 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed 89: ¨ 89: ¨ Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 20 0 0.5 1Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )63 " )262 " )8 " )262 " )8 " )63 Rte 73 Eastbound m Rte 73 Westbound m Waterbury Waterbury Watertown Watertown Figure 11: Route 73 Evening Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed 89: ¨ 89: ¨ Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 21 22 Route 69 Route 6 9 runs through the region for 1 5 miles from the Bethany-Prospect town line to the Wolcott-Bris tol town line. It is classified as an urban principal arterial road throughout the region . Travel speed data was collected for the 9.4 mile segment of Route 69 between the junction with Route 68 in Prospect and the junction with Route 322 in Wolcott. This stretch of roadway contains all of the route’s most congested segments in the region, including those with V/C ratios approaching 1.0 (see Figure 3). The V/C ratio over 24% of the studied corridor is 1.0 or greater, indicating “bottleneck” conditions. Along the study corridor , ADT ranged from 7,100 to 2 7,000 in 2006. Free flow speeds range from 30 mph in the urban core to 50 mph in less developed areas with few access points. Speeds are limited by the presence of on -street parking, signal density, and number of access points (driveways and intersections). The peak hour traffic speed data for Route 69 is summarized below: · Average travel speeds are around 34 mph during the morning peak period in both directions , and around 31 mph during the evening peak period in both directions. · In Waterbury, most sections between Harper’s Ferry Road/Pearl Lake Road and Sharon Road experie nce serious delays in at least one direction. · The slowest average speed (5 mph) was recorded during the morning peak at the E. Main Street intersection in Waterbury. · Delays in Prospect are most common during the evening in the southbound direction, particu larly near the Route 68 intersection . Delays in Wolcott are minimal and focused near the Route 322 intersection. Speed data for northbound and southbound traffic is presented in Tables 14 and 15. This data is also shown in Figures 12 and 13. Table 14: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 69 Northbound and Southbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 15: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 69 Northbound and Southbound Segment s Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Length of Rte. 69 9.41 25-40 30-50 33.9 34.4 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Length of Rte. 69 9.41 25-40 30-50 31.0 31.9 0 0.5 1Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 Wolcott Prospect Wolcott Prospect Rte 69 Northbound m Rte 69 Southbound m Waterbury Waterbury " )322 " )322 " )68 " )68 Figure 12: Route 69 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 23 0 0.5 1Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 Wolcott Prospect Wolcott Prospect Rte 69 Northbound m Rte 69 Southbound m Waterbury Waterbury " )68 " )68 " )322 " )322 Figure 13: Route 69 Evening Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 24 25 Route 63 Route 63 runs through the region for 18 miles from the Bethany-Naugatuck town line to the Watertown -Morris town line. It is classified as an urban principal arterial road until it reaches Plungis Road in Watertown, where it becomes a rural minor arterial. Travel speed data was collected for the 13 m ile segment between the Bethany-Naugatuck town line and the junction with U.S. Route 6 in Watertown. This stretc h of roadway contains a number of segments with estimated V/C ratios a bove 1.0 (see Figure 3). The V/C ratio over 27% of the studied corridor is 1.0 or greater, indicating “bottleneck ” conditions. Free flow speeds on Route 63 range from 30 mph in the urba n centers to 50 mph in less developed areas with fewer access points (driveways and intersections) . Speeds are limited in areas with more access points, on -street parking, and pedestrian crossings. ConnDOT estimates 2006 ADT volumes between 8,300 to 22,500 vehicles. Traffic volumes are greatest around Cross Street in Naugatuck and Route 73 in Watertown. The peak hour traffic speed data for Route 63 segments is highlighted below: · Average travel speed is around 34 to 35 mph during both peak periods · The slow est average speed ( 6 mph) was recorded during the evening peak at S. Main Street (SR 709)/Route 8 in Naugatuck near the Route 8 interchange (exit 26). · The most severe delays occur at Route 64 in Middlebury , Bunker Hill Road in Watertown , and S. Main Street (SR 709) in Naugatuck. · Moderate delays are also found between Route 73 and Route 6 in Watertown, between Park Road and Route 64 in Middlebury, in downtown Naugatuck, and between Cross Street and Candee Road in Naugatuck. Speed data for Northbound and Sou thbound traffic is presented in Tables 16 and 17. This data is also shown in Figures 14 and 15. Table 16: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 63 Northbound and Southbound Segment s Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbo und Average Speed Southbound Length of Rte. 63 13.0 25-50 30-50 34.9 35.2 Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Table 17: PM Peak Period Speed Data for Route 63 Northbound and Southbound Segments. Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Northbound Average Speed Southbound Length of Rte. 63 13.0 25-50 30-50 34.2 34.2 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY § ¨ ¦84 Waterbury § ¨ ¦84 Waterbury Rte 63 Southbound m Rte 63 Northbound m " )8 " )8 Middlebury Middlebury Naugatuck Naugatuck Watertown Watertown " )73 " )73 £ ¤6 £ ¤6 " )64 " )64 " )188 " )188 " )68 " )68 012 Miles ² Figure 14: Route 63 Morning Peak 2007-2008 Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 26 Figure 15: Route 63 Evening Peak 2007-2008 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY § ¨ ¦84 Waterbury § ¨ ¦84 Waterbury Rte 63 Southbound m Rte 63 Northbound m " )8 " )8 Middlebury Middlebury Naugatuck Naugatuck Watertown Watertown " )73 " )73 £ ¤6 £ ¤6 " )64 " )64 " )188 " )188 " )68 " )68 012 Miles ² Percent Reduction in Speed Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 27 28 Conclusions Most of t he highway corridors analyzed in this rep ort were found to have travel speeds below the free flow speed during peak hours . The corridors were selected becau se they were identified in the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan as highways with congested segments, having V/C ratios above 1.0 .3 To sum marize the findings of the CMS analysis, this section identifies bottlenecks — the locations and segments with the slowest speeds — within the study corridors: Route 8 · There are no serious bottlenecks along Route 8. Similar results were found in the previous CMS report. I-691 · There are no serious bottlenecks along I -691, although slowdowns are common at the interchange with I-84. I-84 · The most severe bottlenecks occur between the Washington Street overpass in Waterbury and Route 70 in Cheshire . During the evening peak period, eastbound traffic can be backed up as far as the South Main Street overpass Route 10 · Moderate delays are common along the entire route through Cheshire. · The most severe bottlenecks occur near the I-691 interchange, the junction s with Route s 68/70, and the junction with Route 42. Route 70 · The most severe delays occur at the I -84 interchange, the west junction with Route 68 (Prospect Road) , and the junction with Route 10. Route 73 · The most severe bottlenecks occur in Oakville between Buckingham Street and Davis Street and near the junction with Route 63 . · Delays can also occur near the Steele Brook Shopping Center and Falls Avenue. Route 69 · The most severe bottlenecks occur between Harper’s Ferry Road and E. M ain Street and betw een Manor Avenue and Sharon Road in Waterbury . Serious delays can also occur at the junction of Route 68 in Prospect. 3 See note on page 5. 29 Route 63 · The most severe bottlenecks occurred at the Route 64 intersection in Middlebury , at Bunker Hill Road in Watertown, and at S. Main Street (SR 709)/Route 8 in Naugatuck. · Moderate delays can also occur near the intersection with Cross Street i n Naugatuck. The road sections that were identified as seriously congested should be considered for future traffic studies and improvements . 30 Appendix A Additional Routes Huntingdon, Homer, Chase and Lakewood Road The route along Huntingdon Avenue, Homer Street, Chase Avenue and Lakewood Road is classified as a minor arterial, serving as a major east-west connection between Routes 8 and 69. The study area, which includes only a portion of Huntingdon Avenue, runs for 2.8 miles with a brief overlap of North Main Street a t its intersection with Chase Avenue . In 2005, ADT along the corridor ranged from 18,700 on Lakewood Road to 30,200 vehicles on Huntingdon. This corridor is primarily commercial/retail development with some resid ential properties. Several factors lead to delay along this route, including limited capaci ty, numerous driveways , and lack of turning lanes at signalize d intersections. While the posted speed limit along the entire route is 25 mph, a free flow speed of 35 mph was used in the analysis . The peak hour traffic speed data is highlighted below: · Average travel speeds over Huntingdon, Homer, and Chase range from 22 to 25 mph during peak periods. · The most severe delay occurs alon g Huntingdon Avenue and Homer Street and on Chase Avenue between Hill Street and the junction with North Main Street . · Average travel speed s on Lakewood Road range from 29 to 32 mph durin g peak periods , with the most severe delay occurring between Sherman Ave nue and Route 69. Speed data for eastbound and westbound traffic is presented in Tables 18 and 19. This data is also shown in Figures 16 and 17. Table 18: AM Peak Period Speed Data for Huntingdon Avenue, Homer Street, Chase Avenue, and Lakewood Road Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007 -2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound Huntingdon Avenue 0.31 25 35 19.5 15.0 Hom er Street 0.35 25 35 26.1 27.4 Chase Avenue 0.93 25 35 25.4 28.5 Huntingdon, Homer, Chase 1.6 25 35 25.0 24.0 Lakewood Rd 1.2 25 35 29.6 28.7 31 Table 19: PM Peak Period Speed Data fo r Huntingdon Avenue, Homer Street, Chase Avenue, and Lakewood Road Eastbound and Westbound Segments Source: COGCNV travel time and speed data collection: 2007- 2008 Segment Description Length Speed Limit Free Flow Speed Average Speed Eastbound Average Speed Westbound Huntingdon Avenue 0.31 25 35 24.0 10.4 Homer Street 0.35 25 35 18.0 18.2 Chase Avenue 0.93 25 35 23.2 26.1 Huntingdon, Homer, Chase 1.6 25 35 21.7 21.9 Lakewood Rd 1.2 25 35 32.3 29.8 Westbound m Eastboundm 0 0.25 0.5Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )8 " )8 " )73 " )73 " )69 " )69 Percent Reduction in Speed Figure 16: Huntingdon, Homer, Chase and Lakewood Road Morning Peak 2007-2008 Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 32 Westbound m Eastboundm 0 0.25 0.5Miles ² COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY " )8 " )8 " )73 " )73 " )69 " )69 Percent Reduction in Speed Figure 17: Huntingdon, Homer, Chase and Lakewood Road Evening Peak 2007-2008 Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction Legend Percent Reduction > 50% 25% to 50% < 25% No reduction 33 34 Appendix B Data Collection and Processing Equipment Trimble Juno ST GPS Receiver Data Collection ESRI’s ArcPAD software was installed directly onto the GPS receiver s o that incoming positional information was collected by the GPS receiver and stored dire ctly on the handheld as a point shapefile using ArcPAD’s tracklog feature. The tracklog wa s set to record a point every second. ArcPAD automatically calculated the speed over ground (SOG) for each point, the date and time of collection, and a measure of the point’s positio nal accuracy (PDOP). Each highway segment was driven a minimum of three times in each directi on during both the morning and the afternoon peak periods, a nd a separate tracklog was created during each trip. Data was downloaded from the GPS receiver to a desktop computer us ing ActiveSync software. Data Processing Each tracklog was opened in ArcMap, clipped to remove extraneous points, and saved as a geodat abase feature class using the Connecticut State Plane NAD83 coordinate system. Once all data collection was completed, each point file for a given highway, direction, and time were spatially joined to a road line shapefile. The resulting line file contained average speeds over ConnDOT milepoint segments . The spatial join operation automatically performed a summary of the selected numeric attributes of points that were closest to each line segment. The attributes were summarized to record the average, maximum, and minimum values for the speed over ground (SOG) field . Finally, the joined line files were aggregated based on direction and time for each highway , generating overall average speeds for individual segments as well as the full road lengths .