• I • 1 •.■ I • r 1 11
1 • ■ I III I
■ I 1
I I V
1 f
i. I- i'.<
I I i I i I i^ I »
I 1 I r I 1 11 11 i I
III 11. I . I I • I I II I
I I i I I I* I i i I I I I I II
I I i I I I i i -
I I I I I I II I 11
\ II I I l< I I i I i ■ 9 1 I I I I 1 I I
I Bill |1| I II ^
V ■ V I B V'V'-^B ■'
BOSTON
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
\J\J V L/V^V^
1/
Draft Project Impact Report
f-'^TJ^ I I'^Al-Jir^ — n~'^"^ '
TUDOR WHARF Charlestown, MA
Ajpp^>^ci'ic{es ^ o^ppj^i^e'^l
BOSTON
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
(
SUBMITTED TO:
Boston Redevelopment Authority
SUBMITTED By: j Myerson/ Allen and Company, Inc
I PREPARED BY: Fort Point Associates 300 Congress Street Boston, MA 022.10 (617)357-7044';
■ ',v
October, 1989 \
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
APPENDIX A BLACK CROWNED NIGHT HERON REPORT
-247-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Lelito Environmental Consultants (LEC) was retained by Fort Point Associates to conduct an evaluation to determine the significance of Tudor Wharf to the existing heron population in Charlestown, Massachusetts (Figure 1) . The Charlestown Bridge is located to the west of the site; the Charles River to the south; Constitutional Marina to the east; and. Water Street to the north. A portion of the existing building extends over the Charles River and is supported by timber pilings. These pilings currently serve as roosting and loafing sites for a locally common species of heron: the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) . In order to accurately assess potential impacts to this resource, a detailed investigation into the natural history, seasonal distribution, and habitat use of the black- crowned night heron in Boston Harbor, with particular emphasis on the importance of Tudor Wharf, was conducted by LEC. The following report outlines LEC's findings.
Introduction
The ecology and natural history of the black- crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) have not been researched as extensively as other species of wildlife. Current knowledge is largely limited to the original studies conducted by Gross (1923), Nobel (1938), and Noble and Wurm (1942) . More contemporary investigators have been concerned with the effects of organochlorides on nest success (Custer 1983), distribution (Wolford and Erwin 1971, Custer 1982) , and nest site selection (McCrimmon 1978, Davis 1986). This report will review the current knowledge of the breeding biology and resource needs of the black-crowned night heron and discuss the local distribution and habitat use of these birds in the Boston Harbor area. Special appreciation is given here to Dr. Jeremy Hatch of the Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, for his assistance and unselfish disclosure of information.
-248-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Natural History
In order to provide a complete picture of the black-crowned night heron, a short narrative describing important aspects of the heron's natural history has been included. This information was extracted from published scientific literature and other pertinent resources.
Description
The black crowned night heron is a medium sized heron, growing to about 26 inches in length. The crown, back and shoulders of adults are black, with the remainder of the wings and tail ashy-grey. The undersides are whitish, legs are yellow and the irises are a conspicuous bright red.
Immature birds lack the black crown entirely. Their plumage is grayish-white with streaks of brown on the head and undersides, streaks and spots of rusty-brown and white on the back and dusky-brown primary feathers. Irises are brown, and legs, a pale greenish yellow.
Feeding Habits
Black crowned night herons most commonly feed in tidal creeks, the edges of ponds and swamps with standing water. They usually feed singly, often in areas several miles from the nest. They feed on a wide variety of aquatic organisms, including fish, amphibians and invertebrates .
-249-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Territoriality
Although described as being communal and having a complex social system, black-crowned night herons are highly territorial within their loosely communal aggregates. Young birds that have left the nest are reported to successfully defend their territory from intruding adults (Nobel et al. 1938). Indeed, young herons still only three weeks old, would defend their nest against adults that were not their parents (Noble and Wurm 1942). Lorenz (1938) describes the relationship between young herons and adults rather colorfully: "Such impudent youngsters are not only absolutely immune from attack, but the old birds actually seem afraid of them and will retreat whenever they see one coming." Soon after leaving the nest young herons will aggressively establish and defend territories within their natal tree. It appears that dominant birds defend perches higher in the nesting trees than submissive individuals (Nobel et al. 1938). Alliances among birds, usually siblings, to defend common areas were also noted by Nobel and his colleagues (1938) . Adult birds defend vigorously the immediate location of their nest.
Nest Construction and Habitat Selection
Black-crowned night herons are colonial nesters where male and female share in nest construction activities. The male appears to be the one to collect nesting material. Although he initially participates in the actual construction of the nest, he may distribute nesting material to the female who stays in the nest and conducts most of the construction.
According to Gross (1923), nests he studied on Sandy Neck, Barnstable, Massachusetts, were typically found in trees and constructed of "cedar, oak, and especially of pitch pine." The average height of the ten nests he reported was approximately 17 . 5 feet above
-250-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
the ground. In a more recent study of black- crowned night herons nesting in Plymouth, Massachusetts, Davis (1986) reported that nest site selection "...by black-crowned night herons and snowy egrets was a complex phenomenon that may have been influenced by (1) the time of nesting, (2) the presence of old nests, and (3) the presence of other nesting pairs."
The determinants of nest site selection and habitat quality in the inner Boston Harbor area has not been determined. Preferred nesting sites are not found in the inner Boston Harbor. The black-crowned night herons prefer to nest in areas more isolated from man's activities such as the Boston Harbor islands.
Egg Laying and Incubation
In New England, egg laying usually begins towards the middle of April and ends, typically, early June. This activity varies somewhat according to weather, food availability, habitat quality, sociality, and other variables (Custer et al. 1983, Davis 1986) .
Clutch size in black-crowned night herons varies from 1-6, with 4-5 being the average (Gross 1923, Custer et al . 1983). Northern herons, predictably, have a slightly larger clutch size than southern populations (Custer et al. 1983) .
Black-crowned night herons commence incubation immediately upon the laying of the first egg. This is typical of other herons as well as raptors and other groups of birds. This behavior results in the asynchronous hatching of the eggs. Therefore, the first egg to be laid is usually the first egg to hatch. Consequently, this stacks the deck in favor of the first chick with respect to growth rate and dominance over its siblings. The duration of incubation lasts approximately 22-
-251-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
26 days from laying date (Gross 1923, Noble et al. 1938) .
Longevity
No studies of the average or maximum longevity of black crowned night herons have been found in the literature. Eric Strauss of Tufts University suggested that average life expectancies are probably in the range of 4-8 years though some individuals probably live considerably longer.
Relationships Between Young and Adults
Once they have escaped the security of the egg (which, according to Gross (1923) is "a somewhat prolonged process"), the young are able to hold themselves upright in the nest within one day. Soon after hatching the chick commences begging for food. Black- crowned night herons feed their young regurgitated food, primarily fish. To solicit adults to regurgitate food young herons have been reported to "...seize the parent's bill nearly at right angles and [we] assume this is the typical method of receiving regurgitated food from the parent (Noble and Wurm 1942)." Hatchlings typically fledge within 4 to 6 weeks after hatching.
Breeding in First Year Birds
Breeding has been reported for first year birds by several investigators (Gross 1923, Noble et al. 1938, Custer and Davis 1982). This is interesting in that black-crowned night herons do not attain their adult plumage until after their third summer (Gross 1923) . Custer and Davis (1982) collected detailed observations of a breeding pair of one year old herons, and a mixed-age breeding pair of a one and a two year old. Their findings documented the first occurrence of a pair of breeding one year old black-crowned night herons in the wild. Both nesting attempts occurred late in the season with smaller than average clutch sizes (3 eggs in
-252-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
the mixed-aged pair) . These findings are consistent with observations of late nesting cohorts of other species (Massey and Atwood 1981, Coulson and White 1958).
Habitat Use in Boston Harbor
Information regarding the use of Boston Harbor by black-crovmed night herons is scarce (Hatch, LEC communication) . What information is known is anecdotal in nature. The following information is documented by scientific publications or reports of reputable scientists.
Outer Islands
Large breeding colonies of black-crowned night herons occur on the islands of Boston Harbor; specifically. Middle Brewster, Outer Brewster, Calf Island and Spectacle Island (Hatch 1982) . The herons have been known to utilize the inner harbor for feeding and roosting sites, principally during the non- breeding season; typically, late August through early April. The largest black- crowned night heron rookery, which has exceeded 3 00 breeding pairs, occurred on Spectacle Island. Other islands reporting breeding pairs of herons are Middle Brewster Island (20-154 pair) and Calf Island (several pair) and more recently on Outer Brewster Island (several pair) (Appendix A) .
Herons begin to assemble at their breeding areas during the beginning part of April and remain there until young birds fledge in early June. The largest portion of the Boston Harbor population of black-crowned night herons migrate south beginning in August and September. A small portion of the population remain in the Boston Harbor area during the winter months. The population appeared (LEC observation) to consist principally of younger birds in their first or second winter plumage.
-253-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Inner Harbor
Specific roosting and loafing areas appear to be located within Boston Harbor, particularly in the inner harbor, during the non-breeding season: typically, late August through early April. The physical characteristics of these areas consisted, principally, of timber wharves which were abundant throughout the harbor. The herons appeared to select specific wharves for roosting sites as the birds were somewhat randomly distributed throughout the harbor. However, as yet, no information exists to maintain this observation as being characteristic of the heron.
Characteristics of Tudor Wharf
During LEC's site visit to Tudor Wharf, approximately 13 black-crowned night herons were observed roosting beneath the existing Tudor Wharf (warehouse) building. The timbers supporting this building were densely spaced, and not uniformly distributed, suggesting the construction of more than one support structure during the history of this wharf. Many of the pilings were free- standing and not performing a support function. These pilings appeared to serve as the principle roosting sites for the herons. Cross-beams, which allowed adequate space for the herons to stand, were also occupied by the birds.
At Tudor Wharf spacing between pilings was broad enough to accommodate the wing span of the herons. The absence of herons from other, more closely spaced pilings suggested that spacing may be important in the selection of this site. The Tudor Wharf site also allowed relatively unobstructed viewing in three directions; north, east, and south. This was a characteristic present on several wharves within the inner Boston Harbor.
The third characteristic of the Tudor Wharf site was the elevation of the deck in relation to the mean high water line noted on
-254-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
the pilings. The distance between mean high water and the deck of the existing structure allows the herons to utilize the area throughout the entire day and not be forced to relocate according to the tide schedule.
Other Overwintering Roosting Sites
LEG conducted a visual inspection of the Inner Harbor area by boat on February 26, 1988. The purpose of this site evaluation was to determine if other areas were utilized as roosting sites within the Inner Harbor. Herons sightings were made at other locations near the confluence of the Charles and Mystic Rivers, across the river from Tudor Wharf and under the Charles River Bridge on the day of the LEC site visit.
Seasonal Distribution
Breeding Areas
Black-crowned night herons are widely distributed throughout Massachusetts during the breeding season. The majority of the herons, in the Boston Harbor area, breed on the outer islands; Middle Brewster, Outer Brewster, Calf Island and Spectacle Island (Hatch 1982, see Appendix A). These areas provide suitable nesting habitat and minimal disturbance from human activities. Although this heron is highly adapted to areas of human activity they prefer more secluded surroundings during the breeding season; early April through August. Some birds occasionally utilize the Boston Harbor area for feeding areas during the breeding season.
Roosting Areas
Black-crowned night herons are distributed throughout the Boston Harbor area during the non-breeding season. Habitats provide loafing and roosting sites for these birds primarily during periods of inactivity and during the non-breeding season (Jeremy Hatch,
-255-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
LEG communication) . Loafing and roosting are habits of a variety of species. The heron typically engages in these activities during resting periods, after feeding or after long periods of strenuous activity. These birds perch on trees in the natural environment, though they also utilize other structures (pilings, rock outcroppings, etc.) when available. Local ornithologists have not located the heron population within the inner portions of Boston Harbor. However, during the LEG site visit roosting areas within the harbor were observed.
Conclusion
The information contributed from this detailed investigation into the natural history, seasonal distribution, and habitat use of the black-crowned night heron, will hopefully provide sufficient guidance to the developers of Tudor Wharf. It is important to note that this wharf is not a breeding area for these herons; that, at best, it is utilized as a roosting site during the non- breeding season (late August through early April) ; and, that the majority of the Boston Harbor black-crowned night heron population (80%) overwinters in parts unknown outside of Boston Harbor. The unique physical characteristics of Tudor Wharf should be quantified in more detail so that the design of the alteration of these pilings might be accomplished with a minimal impact to this resource area.
-256-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Appendix B: Literature Cited
1. Gross, Alfred O. 1923. The black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax naevius) of Sandy Neck. The Auk. 40:1- 30;191-214.
2. Noble, G.K., M. Wurm, and A. Schmidt. 1938. Social behavior of the black-crowned night heron. The Auk. 55:7-40.
3. Noble, G.K. and M. Wurm. 1942. Further analysis of the social behavior of the black-crowned night heron. The Auk. 59:205-224
4. Custer, T.W. , Gary L. Hensler, and T. Earl Kaiser. 1983. Clutch size, reproductive success, and organochlorine contaminants in Atlantic coast Black-crowned night herons. The Auk. 100:699-710
5. Wolford, James W. and David A. Boag. 1971. Distribution and biology of black-crowned night herons in Alberta. The Canadian Field Naturalist. 85:13-19.
6. Custer, Thomas W. and William E. Davis, Jr. 1982. Nesting by one-year-old black-crowned night herons on Hope Island, Rhode Island. The Auk 99:784-786
7. McCrimmon, D.A. , Jr. 1986. Nest site characteristics among five species of herons on the North Carolina coast. The Auk. 95:267-280.
8. Davis, William E., Jr. 1986. Effects of old nests on nest- site selection in black-crowned night herons and snowy egrets. The Wilson Bulletin. 98 (2) : 300-303.
9. Lorenz, K.Z. 1938. A contribution to the comparative sociology of colonial nesting birds. Proceedings of the Vlllth International Ornithological Congress, Oxford, July 1934. Oxford University Press, London.
10. Massey, Barbara W. and Jonathan L. Atwood. 1981. Second- wave nesting of the California least tern: age composition and reproductive success. The Auk. 98:596-605.
11. Coulson, J.C, and E. White. 1958. The effect of age on the breeding biology of the Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) . Ibis. 100:40-51.
-257-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
APPENDIX B CIRCULATION LIST
-258-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Draft EIR Circulation List
MEPA Unit
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02201
Executive Office of Communities and Development State Clearinghouse 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202
Metropolitan Area Planning Council 110 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108
Anthony Sandonato
District Highway Engineer
District 8 Office
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
4 00 D Street Boston, MA 02210
Department of Public Works State Transportation Building 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116
Ms. Anne Meyers Massachusetts Port Authority State Transportation Building 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116
Mr. Adel Foz
Massachusetts Port Authority
State Transportation Building
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Environmental Review Section
D.E.Q.E.
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Regional Environmental Engineer D.E.Q.E.
5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801
-259-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Water Pollution Control Division
D.E.Q.E.
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801
Division of Waterways Regulation One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108
Division of Hazardous Waste
D.E.Q.E.
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801
Coastal Zone Management 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202
Mr. David Queeley MEPA Planning Coordinator Metropolitan District Commission 20 Somerset Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02108
Paul Reavis, Assistant Director Boston Redevelopment Authority City Hall Boston, MA 02201
Lorraine Downey, Chair Harborpark Advisory Committee Department of the Environment City Hall Boston, MA 02201
Lorraine Downey, Director The Environment Department City Hall Boston, MA 02201
Conservation Commission
c/o Department of the Environment
City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
-260-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
Richard Dimino, Commissioner Boston Transportation Department City Hall Boston, MA 022 01
Libby Blank
Director of Planning
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
425 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210
Regulatory Branch Corps of Engineers 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02254
John Burchill, Superintendant National Park Service Charlestown Navy Yard Charlestown, MA 02129
Dan Curll, President
The Boston Harbor Associates
51 Sleeper Street
Boston, MA 02210
Ms. Carolyn Kiley President, MAPVO Bay State Cruises 20 Long Wharf Boston, MA 02110
Constitution Marina 28 Constitution Road Charlestown, MA 02129
Richard Johnston
Charlestown North Area Task Force
8 Prospect Street
Charlestown, MA 02129
Mr. Dennis McLaughlin, Chairman Charlestown Neighborhood Council 2 6 Mt. Vernon Street Charlestown, MA 02129
Mr. Kennth Stone
Charlestown/North Area Task Force 81 Warren Street Charlestown, MA 02129
-261-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 67 44
Ms. Kay Whelan
Charlestown Historical Society
c/o Bunker Hill Museum
Monument Square
Charlestown, MA 02129
Mr. Richard Wheeler Constitution Museum Charlestown Navy Yard Charlestown, MA 02129
Commander David Cashman USS Constitution Charlestown Navy Yard Charlestown, MA 02129
-262-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 67 4 4
APPENDIX C PP^VIOUSLY ISSUED CHAPTER 91 LICENSES
-263-
55t^
ff'ScuJ'.
. \ . I ,\ (. •>. 1'.* i U V I I
I t. •/ \ ' ' ■'
yy,\. C^UL \»> cvf pa oc J ,\\.«'
^l •>.l-.v, 1,il/j'.Vi;.1.c" / ;>. l.v<./u OL TW
t/u
A.
I
I ;l C.
r
c\. :v- L V"
■5*
■.J.r>
' ' ;' '
//.
1.1.I/. Co /;/^
f..
;('■., ti /.£v(i> ^'■.ii(' afixvi. y(" ' 'l'>-
I . I /' ■ '
".'i,i(: ^.'-^.l• ivUl.- /itiA/ Cki. Ja"-I1 ./i-li.'.- f.i^^oJL .'k"
'■ { . u ■11. .■'...1 f .'■.. ^■ I' .1 '• <ii- "-
c,. I ,..■ ^l,,.a Ci^
oi.',.. .... ...^ V "' •■• r .•>..\(i '<-vC<-
.,.,:, ' ,,.t^.'....^/^ O '. f.!it .^o.vv-a^ Aoy'. oo i.lru ..■• • i' iioct AiV-B.
.tc l.:^ CI ^'^l.'. a.Sf,ro.-./v\.U'<i-I-:> ' C'L/ f' Vi ■/ (■,'.».%' (>.<i<'(\.<l (:>•
it. . T I I i/ "i'liv uf ^.' .\ ^yv \ ■.> -H'*AtO.-.v_ ^SO-ti,<.
I
I 1
/a. ..c ^..r
V I (• t.tT.-<.
. ^ I
i/l.
•ii. Ti
'.HI ' (. ,i,.:4Wok'^"u'.lJu(i.-ivo'iL
,w:
t' <^ r. ..(■.! . ii:)...i'd' u.i-va otciif "^
iAO-./-.vCt ij/ >...1:in^ "''.till.- ^t)Ar .' t^'Mi.i.,, vin oi ( ?< I./ ' '
; ■-■. / Sti-; ''.'x>. '
(LS«
J
»t- t-
■■> L.wi ' ill- n.- > 'il/' /'• (-C ^■..^ 1'''
■ I ■l.^c-l^P t' 1'. 0 i> ■ >o/.v rdi- ii^iioricac
■.u/^'mj'ri( '■>■■/ <.iwi' ii'- .-•' '.J' ■/■'• t-C ^'.-^ '"' •> ^•^o.^^i,^(«£Il■.C'•t^"■l
i ' ■ /
■■ 'i'l' (."AJl f 1 1/ . /l. I Xl, 7 n ^ ' liA-r^T. I) tl'i '• ;v n .'U .'■< vff l-vl. ...v'.viU.liA "-
/ll\ 'Jiff' <•.■. • '-f 'J . iCrtT-O^-i-V*^ a.vr(/.,Cr'; /> ■.V'-'';' '^V / ■>'
-^yo VXt
M'^CVWr^-w OWj^-J^CLtU. f^ O', '.(?(. U5..^i.v.Oiu,l.«AlLo
;-5 i»
tiLiia' /Ka.^ <^x.L(^^vcftta.. ''/v.i'juio i^^' H^e- Aa,MLL, ,i viirf 'iviitMa^ ctu-t
rvaO-tTlLt. frL J>IXl.cL OlAJJ^'^^' O-ii-aw ^ CX/> > llC <> I l:l\.t L^nnnt. 0^w.d.' MI<^**'
»•'■•-■■■" ''
I
I,. -.A (.IOC ■...■■ C.v ( '■'.
/■'..
•-(.■-
: \v ly, '^'i i'.-
.1 l;i :a>.i--'"
^,,„ir>..i--^(>^"<'y«'-^M'^'"'''
rin.rJ tj
r
' , ■ ..It., , .r > I '1 I ) *■ I ' >■■' i. . !\« •7>.> •■
' ' ' ,'-.■■
j,.aoc....-^--^' ■■••■■■ '--} '■:-'^ '!''^"'-' r^':^
^:-7
CU-l.UlA'
,'^',-„,.n 1.-C. . t-L- ..->vov^A^ .K«LAai-y a^xiio.^ca .0.^ -vx... ■
U C
to ivi.".. ■ .;.! ■ . ^■J' ' •■ ■
tO^'-.H-U.O.t
[\.(ct.'iu 'V * -' ^^
1. ^ n i.> "i
• ■';
il ^/^^U ' !v» '"i'' -v-
.^4tA
7 '^^■
( '..
24 2 U J 615
^^^CJ^^l-'^flS^Tr
Wt^^S^^M^---''''-'^-''^^^
I..
."V
ii>}^;^-'^.'i
'!>'
.'.'■ ir **:''■»»'!
610
Jo
•/' ■•
i. (1/ f K
.1.1 a .■
"' " ' '' .//
; - 1 ....... » . I. t-w ^. .1 II . . ■ ^ 11 ■ .X .1 .V , ,,i , . * ».u V-^i I »\A\\»M it»i:ai La^
•I-,' LfU ,<l(.i ' !i-4*^ ii<.<-vv>.- !.•;. (:!"(.<.>; I'L'v cicr^rv-.u/ il'cA. ?Cjn.'>\oC'U(oi ■ O-iut. I'l''--. .v.^l/ d i.x'CiVi.0 O.iiJL >^^.1(^• ''.Cv./-^ ^.y^yo. v-jl <;-:"iv.-i. Ua ii,w-<ni/'vt .ii't''<-V-i/^^i-vvi'.». .</!(, ttut, .<b(cit.i^n.'f o.M.c(. <bui.<.vi.c* t' /ii li:'ji.<.tii iwva''
<.Mu (c<.(tc £lui.o.lirL. '■Hi.-f (n .1,? <iu t/Lo o!n<.c<'vui»; ^^(vl.vl'^//c <»(7 cow.
^1 \.i- /v.covr>.Uvi/,.n.if imi one • i/cai/ Y'"-''*''^ .//».■ Jii/.- .1u-\^p,', < iv f A< Uba >..-r:.i (//. yiil-CjL!) ^CH ftlC A'^.Ti .^L-i ,■. ilf«^^<>t'«c ■ ■\'ni /U . / % .i •-■. . .("JxACej .VVJ Of I' 111' ^"t ('VL'JaA.t'-pi unu( ■ doiVwd .VO ji-i., v\-.<.- ,^i.u.u;i.i .f->'>-i.-c Aiu
' ii, .i/CiiL' ii.i( /lixjLiv. </vl•^.'^^a-^lLDi. (XA'loLww.'W.c' V istv-<'n."''<'<.'''''ii-""0-^-'l-'
. . ii.NOi. ^n^>•■u^ C)pinMv.riv,>-v; ixii iu l"^''J )i tUS.Aa C (uo-, ( (> ^,^l>.^/c■n y'»«(.
t -A ;-A I '
> ^.-vvvjA* II /jto 0^'''A ■ \^^;1^JlvA•^fl—
-ii.cn'V u 1
'; He
^
Uo
■'.ItCtM^ i
V, <C'.-ivv>--i-">J "■''•'- tLCf, '"'vC i-.iri' bcXiU'C A-iVAA\«o ia'^'iV/t !<i taj^>^
I il/oCVi)JL i(< VCW
/•..■^'.-(.(C'. u/vw.''"' '^CWio 'Iv.lI (.''c'l oc-j^i !3>avi«
■ ' -J • /■ ' ' - '^ » ' rf
(i-iL'(. il'tiO-o. \!i V c-k S.l\<a /laoc-VOfc- ivv Oi.'i.u-.<.cicv^ic.jv>. c-/ U^aaj? doilaJ.
\'
J
aaii'-
. ■ ■ ' \ r • ' , ' . • -
' . ;■. :i-.<c\ ('. I'll' .-l/ TiYX <".\ti.' <^Lr iSivit^. ''<(-, M-i(j <il. (AD<r/nw/.-i t('>J *a-i ■' • ,^ • ■ ^ • • ^■
|i,,-.vi' 'u.i.'a<i ■, .' f'-.vMi (•,, i.Vi.'i:(i " J . 't'o ''t£'i>.i'-r l\/^^J,o'lr• ^\iC'<'ii' /fa AcvwJ.
f " I
III riii-V' u.->''
""i
■r nulti in.^.^..^ irM-^'..i O r-r /ii . ,;;V vT\,^ f i ii l/r.-iA- ^'t t
ll(i- 'V.H ,u if i.L
leic/o •■)."/
MM/
> U Pl»Cl i/cviU t* ■^^•v/^,^^'t'H."^'-'
/ ■ - /
§/''■/ r ■ ... V , •
oL/fi-a L/ic /(VLeqov. Ml t.vi.s/'iiiivvovi t /r !-<■ .Scv ^«ji' ilcf \ U-Cttt.-
'All Aa"! cn/vOL
I " « CXK. ■ rt'lVt
r.
0"^^. ^.
'c^/t^r?^(>rvu
i^^a€^t/i c^ %/f€a<kiuc^<^Se^CCS^
RUSSELL SYLVA Commissioner
(f^M^ :i^/i',i/fi' ^Yi^-e/, c^r.j^w O^ iC'S
January 5, 1988
Thorn Mead
Fort Point Associates 300 Congress Street Boston, MA 02210
Dear Thorn,
In response to your request for information on Harbor and Land Commissioners Waterways License Numbers 1983 and 1986, the situation is as follows. License Number 1986 was written as a substitute for License Number 1983 which was then abandoned and not recorded and thus, voided. Both licenses were issued to the Tudor Company and the wording of both licenses was identical with the exception of the amount of fees assessed. No plan is on file in this office for License Number 1983 since 1986 became the valid license.
In response to your second question regarding the licensing of the Charles River Dam. I have not located any information indicating that a Waterways License was issued for dam construction. However, I do still need to check some additional sources. It has been suggested that you check with the Metropolitan District Commission legal staff in order to answer this question.
Please contact us if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Lise Marx
Waterays Regulation Program
LM/sff
r.
-ru^ XAtcC ^ -52^. .^528i
-J-. ■■
1^
■•■•-••■-•■
j5»
"«^*
'« IT-.-
'.■ ■■'-''■■.■ '■■'■■ s> ■ ■ '
-5*^'
;'^Sr«^4»^j5rc^^zo;^^ •■^;;v^?V^
LIBER
3039
<•:>.,
.br,i;. ..V'll;
rt
«^
•f ■! I r/i ii-.-i,i ,,.1. I , ,. A u 1, |.(,,,| I, . '"
'..•.-•.■■''...' I In '^ I- .f '. ''» -1, 1.1 1 1 > ■ :■■. fi (><■ '•! '1 1/
111-', 1 ■ ■ ' ■ 1 ■ _ ' I 111 'v r 1 If : ■/• -I 1.1 1 1 I ■ M'l r\ <><■ 1-1 ■ 1 1 u 'y I .
.'i ' : ■ ' •' A 1 1' ■ I 1 ■ -I •'^ IT ii\/ 111 i. 1 i(. I'lMi r[ iiii,,i, I I.
j*>7''>i •' .''I. ' : ■ ' "All' 1 ■ -I •'• in i'\f (111. 1 ic Ufli r , fi,,, Jci.f..- I 1 ■'< "L '"• . '• 1 • ..Ml 'Jdi ■ ,.-,(.!, t.^-
^
, (• ." •■ "/>■ ' I' I I.I, !'■ I If, II, I'l-
•i^ l-f . (i'm i>V (.%ff, .,•', (.
..I ...J ri K ., , . , ,1 . ij J ,.,• t . . ,.
f 1' 't ,1 I II 1- I > 1 I , I I I .J •■ , . ■! I . ' ^1
i IIL'I ■ '' ' . ■:;.■•• I ■ 1 1 ■ .,'■,!, n I ( '■ .1.1 ll |'(. . I [ )l 1: I 1 , 1 If !■( .
hiai-i'', '1 ^ ' I (. .- 1 ..j , 1 !■ 1 • ;. "• 11 0 . i' I" • ■* I i! 1 '• I, 1 '.I ; ' Z' (ill r . '
\JI-il ■'"' t"''"" V' '''"' '■•';>''•.'» '"! . ' NimI^ . (i, W'ow ir.f ,l.|•.^l- .. ,' .r • : ~l r 1 .1 , . iM f|. t . I ;'.ir(.„ (j.
:^
3039 2
^.,.
h],,i ;.•;.
ftfi^:^
. r >.,, ..,,.,i' ,::,.. ,. til. .it: .
,•,. I', ,1 , '■,.■( I. f . ••• W .N f 0'
■1 \
iu 1 .^ I"! ■ till' .11. ffii I'l 5i( I ■ <*[.
1 I • I ■ ■ •'■,■ 'i. -I ■ ' ' ^' >'''''>'<<<''' -'L < mU« 1 i-.-^il '■ <^ . '"■•A"- unltll' A'llJr
i ,, :
..If.-.,, , 1 ' 1 n>f. F--/ ^,1 - I t,,.. i.i,'-'! .■■',. .1 . |v '■n'..i, ■.,'; -'1. ...-1 • ui ii^aThi-'I (7ii>>(mj,
'.111/ '
'V I i .■ '.■'O'l', ht M -i . ■ •! .■ .>'- ■
f- ■ .1/;. .- ; 1 . ,, I 1 ■v^^ i\ I ; ' ■ . ', r,.,! . , I . i' ' '
,,,,,,:.!,, t,> ,\\ l-l . 'I M h, .. ('f- 1 I .1,-1-
. . r, •-■ .. in,,
IL
. !^ ■'
I u ■ I ■■ ■ , •' ^t i^ t- '■'''•! ' .C*'""l K inr. I . '"( ■ ' .•■.,. 11 1 '' '••. /I (in I'nl I
■ • '•• ri • Vli-i >^ 1 'i 0 1 ' ij." 1 -t ■ 1^' ' ■" ' .•'..''' '■••' • '1 I v^f 5 ^n !■• ' . r '' . ■ 1 1. 1 I V ri' , , J V ■ f r I . ; r ) t ; ^. , , . 1 '- ■ C ' "• I 1 .' I > I ' I . I . i.1 A ("t
I I ( ,; . '\«1 n t ."jo^ '■.^ /'[ ,, wi I '.. c'-J,!" ' . . ' 1 1 ;> -v^i '• I i>' ' '
. I ., . . ■ ■•• . r-vl ■ ,1 v/f LM ' ! !. ^Oyj/v^ii u - .■ ' I': . /i ' 'n . .. jo/i , i, ; .
'■:,l.-.-J u"( -('d-'iu'.. ■•fi'.,,.! -lit Ml..' \- ' . 'rf.i.ilnn., r . , . ■ - ■ f'-t : .1 'I- , I ' X ., • ' ; V ■ '■• . ' .-..•I ■'■>| 'l ni.i-
;
I
(>-if Mt l^-- ■• n .. I . K /c I'.l . ... M,'.-.,. !-.•,, i,..l,
1 , ■ 1 J ' ■ • .; '• ; /I -. .1 -I M 1 ' I' V ". (*;:•«, ! i n i nl 3 i
<i •- ■ ■ ■
i-i , :■ ' .■•■ . ii. I, ■;' C" ■ ■ '■ 1 I" ■ ■ " . .V ■ I. T/ . , •■• ■• 1 . , . r. .r .iji.i- .
,', .,■ 'i- , . t ■ .'. I li I 11 t, I . ., , 1. I ...r- 1 1 I "'..;: I "l,," 1 1 ■■"/../•>"; •-
.' r 1, i , 1 '' I 1 I ' 't'l Vi ..■,.--■. I . I .v'.i • 1. 1 .'t ■ , I 0 i (ii.. i" S ^
■^;-,.; :V, I T ■" ,S (I V '■....('.•..,■•; ,,,,-. I ! t'.i i> f ..nt.ufii
'rv „>,,..,•,.,
• /
\
.,• .1,
..'7■.^', l':)ii '■' j.-ir diA /-i^i'li •!• ' . .^1 '^
«r^ . , ■ O 1 1 1 1 ,,•!/ l'J,(i-vvT/ - ,
,1
. ur I l< ^/<
, ^ 1. ■. , , .1.1, '^
111". '1 L ''^" ( '1' . K), I o'l ' wMl .IK
'•■ 1.1'. kflo/,.yJ';.U .>,<!/-',- '1 •.'■'-I' ■" ■ ■ ^ "•-• .'."•Ui.,1
\^ / '■ , I
,lnlr,i. .., i.|_,»/'K(;i, , cixf: I. i.i ...1..', V I t ,i i.l .' '.}■'. 'If'i Ib o i-.-l .,
■,,..-- Ii.l. .,..(-t- ,', ,^|.ri ',. .^'I .■■!), 1. i-<i .'.'■/'li'^c ''-•' tu,i,.l,. ..•!- ^-, iri.'f'-- 'l^^ .\ f"L^ ■', ! imX^'. . 't. ■" I . I'm- .vin'..!t. «■«•"<■ IC*". (vi(<'V-:
■ ( />^ llii. I 1 111"' N|'iMi'"i i .1 '.avvitcC < V'>
<'i 1 •_«■.- 1 •.!><; I -L. • l.lji(i(r ii '
y^ '; ...i I . >''■■ I 1- 1 l'i( d' - U f i.f ■ • '''.'•^Cl' I V I'll -l ' t'l r'7.uv«l (0 , I. '.'I li,\C ii'.i' '.yi' -1 tM..(. 1' irir<i.<i ■ ■ a i- 1 ' ,1 lln'f J Ovid ()>xiX' - I c'm.i.iA I, iilV ii-Pmin JfifM 1 'i ■■■•;. U Pn i.'Lu.L'x^. «/i\.t<rU/l,
?T-^'
^jfpisrTSrf'irTir^^
-. l-<l-'
•'- ■■■■■■ -.-■.••?•; • _•••'■.•■■- rir;, ■,-:<.■
■:.«•/{,
T
^•<.;.
' ■^;-i-»-'^v-
.V-
_ :^p!.^^--y '--'::'■■■■■':
■">■••. • -?.-'<•■•• ? •.. ■" . •.
0 -o' ■»...-9.';« • "
»:-••.' o..-.«:'.'-'d:'o 'o .:0.j»'^«. o
-■»:■• 9 o . 0 «
■fr^. -■■■■■:
^■V^•■«r■■^V■
■>■.-. ••■.-?,7V- • ' ■L. -Vo'.*. ,
•• :l,■-•■J'^■l'^'.v■ ■:''■:.•■ ■.•-■"■^\ -><;■•■»
r:- -
o ' o';o',o '"p -p '»] o; «
■■■- ii
(i^.; •■-^:^^^»-.*.«r..iil? -.; .•
:X;^;.:; _■-■',:.
■^.* ■••-::*rv-f.',
•:V:;j^»:;^ ...:
■ ■. •■•■•-• .. V.O-:--- .-•r-.v.-.-.,;:..- -^r-' ■■-•., r-"-;..-- •, .. -
•• • -J
•■>S!i':<iv:-
•■■'^■•.i>-.- ».i'-«'
-0
..•* . .. ■, ... • •- »..- -■ ........
tv
I !■■■:
I -J
i 1— T".
V...
_... H-::v|^^.-^
..•--•;.■■■ .V--..-. • '■■' ■•■ --^ «■■
'^
I,
5^
■miy^.-', -m. ■•••>'■■■♦■■.-■»
. ■ ";i--.'t.':- . ■'.■•■ iif-'VVi,.'-
.:.';l.M,f,-."
^•%v^-
f- ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ' . ' V V>. **- n . ' -..V J ■-,
-■:■■...■•'■■■.- -.Tft" ,V ■ .■.V-*'. ^ . ;■ '.■-.'. .-■•.. -... . ..;■...- ■.•'.-
1^
■..:r.l^ ... .■'/'■: .^-f :■■::■ •"■
■.Si;.
.. ^1-.,-. . - .j^.^y-^- ^■-: ,,- -..i* — ^-V *. •-•
.s,
- .;■•••. -.tl: -J
. -j^f ■..;.• .v.- ;
v-r :;J- .'-•
Tl-E COJft-ONWBiLTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHbSETTS-COAT-OF-ARJJS COJrJ'CTIWEALTH
OF HO. 2667 WHKaEAS, tli« Tudor Company, of Boston, In the County of Suf- USSAOiUSETTS
folk, .nd CoEBOOTeaUh aforesaid has applied to the Departnent of Public to works for license to repair Us timber pier In Charles River at Its T.DCR CO. property at Charleston In the elty of Boston, and has submitted plans of the sa>a; and whereas due notice of said application, and of the tlas and place fixed for a heartn« thereon, has been given, a* required ! by la», to the Hayor and City Council of the City of Boston; MOB, said j Mpartaant, bavin* beard all parties desiring to be heard, and having | fuUy eoojldered said application, hereby authorizes and licenses the i said The ludor Company, subject to the provisions of the ninety-first ■ chapter of the General Uws, and of all laws which are or nay be in fore J applicable thereto, to repair Its tlaber pier In Charles River at its : property at Charlestown In the £_lty of Boston, in eonforaity with the ac- eoBpanylng plan Wo. 2667. Thirteen piles Bay be driven and the neces- I sary capping Installed within the Usitts of an existing pier to provide ] for additional track support, In the location shown on aald plan and in , aeeordaoea with the details of conatructlon there indicated. The plan j of (aid work, Bimbered 2667, Is oo file in the office of said Departnant mnA Auplleate of said plan accospanies this License and it to be re- ttrrmi to as a part hereof. Nothing in this License shiUl be so con- striMd as to i>palr the legal rights of any person. This License shall be void unless the saite and the accoopanylng plan are recorded within one year froB the date hereof,' in the Registry of Deeds for the County of Suffolk. m WITirSSS IfHBREOF, said Dapartnent of Public Vorks have hereunto set their hands this fifth day of July, in the year nineteen hundred and forty four. H. A. Uacdonald, George V. Schryver, R. L. Whipple, Departaent of Public Works. Approved, Richard K. Hale, Di- rector Division of Waterways. July 14, 1944. At eleven
o'clock and thirty minutes A.li. Received, Entered and Examined. -
■^
-.^Property Uanageaent No. Mass A 8a85 HOME OHVSRS' LQAK-Cft^- | PORATIOH, a corporate Instruneqtallty of the United State's of Aaerica, I organized and existing under ai^d by virtue of an Act of the Congress I
of the United States of A«erlc«, known as the Home Owners' Loan Act of
, I933i •» amended, having its principal office in the City of Washington \ District of Columbia, for eons^deratlpn paid, grants to Joseph F. Hlgglns and Mary A. Hlgglns, husband an^ wife, as'tenants by the entirety^^ of
' Cambrloge, ilassachusetts with (^HTCUDJ COVENANTS A -pertain parcel of land with aU buildings and stBuctures now or hereafter atailillof or
HOME aOCERS' LOAN CORP'N
to
H ICG INS
• t MX
U.S.Ravaoue Stamps of the amount of $6.60 were af- fixed to this instrument and were canceled.
^37^fi
^-"^^^ KEVMAI- V
^. 'U.S.CVO.S-Cti.t4-g
^-^^
5 MEET- I
P LArsI OP- REPAIRS ON TlMB£ft SCAL£ or Fr£T
PIER
5*
9ATUM M-L.W.
Or
J>OC.K.
-"W
IR^CK
0 8 g
:S=i*
-o-»
NEW PILES TO BC OWIVtN FOP AOOITIOMAL TRACK SUPPORT
;
I?
0
P ROF I LE
-:;„ ~ \ I i
scalc of teet
=3 f«l-K.vv.
H ^^^^«^'
SECT I OM> A-A.
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
iirx~izii-izir~i
ij-x/^-
IZ*/-*^
I' I
-rr • if ^«
! 1^
■III
fii-j5— >!*-
SOALt or FEElT
1 I I i I I I I-
r-o-
J
3
Plan accomb^ny.ng petitjoim of
THE rVDOR COMPANTY TO REPAIR TIM eSR PiEF^ BOSTON HAJ^SOR BOSTON
APPEOVtP BY DCPARTntKIT OF PU5UC WORKS JULY 6. 15*4.
IcoMnisji PUM-VC »
OMER or
WORKS
AS^OCIATB con M I } 3 > OKIW&
[oiRecTe«-i>ivi*ioM
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
APPENDIX D DREDGE SPOILS ANALYSIS
-275-
Hdley & Aldtich, Inc.
Consulting
Gcotcchnical Engineers, Gcoli)gists and Hytlrogeologisis
( .imlirKliic-. MA Hi I -4 I
22 June 1988 File No. 06158-10
Myerson/Allen & Company
306 Dartmouth Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Attention: Mr. David Keller
Subject: Marine Sediment Sampling and Analysis
Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts
Gentlemen:
In accordance with our proposal dated 25 May 1988 and your telephone request of 19 May, we have completed a program of marine sediment sampling and subsequent bulk sediment analysis
(BSA) at the proposed dredge area of the Tudor Wharf Site. This work was conducted for purposes of evaluating environmental considerations associated with the construction of a 50-ft. wide by 160-ft. long boat slip dredged to El. 80.0
(NACA-Datum) immediately west of the existing Tudor Wharf Pier Building, as shown in the sketch provided by Mr. James Fay of Fort Point Associates (FPA) . The approximate limits of the dredge area are shown in Figure 1.
Marine sediment sampling work included the procurement of three samples, designated BSA-1 through BSA-3 , which were taken on 27 May 1988 by Guild Drilling Co., Inc., of E. Providence, Rhode Island, at the locations shown on Figure 1. Observation of sampling and determination of sample locations was observed and documented by H&A. The sampling operations consisted of advancing a decontaminated 5-ft. long by 3-in. di'ameter steel sampling tube to depths ranging from approximately 8 to 13 ft. (El. 78 to El. 83 NACA Datum). Two of the samples, BSA-2 and BSA-3, were taken in the intertidal zone of the mudline, while BSA-1 was obtained below mean low water level (MLW) . Logs of the samples are included in Appendix A.
lirancli Of litis
CiLisiKiihiirv. I oiiiHi.iii.in I'lMll.inil M.uiH rKillcivJ. \i IV I liiiip^liiu
Ailili.iii
IK\ \ .,1 \,U "l.Mk
K.hIh-.m. N.u >nik
Myerson/Allen & Company 22 June 1988 Page 2
Following the procurement of samples, the tubes were sealed and packed in ice for immediate transport to Clean Harbors, Inc., of Braintree, Massachusetts, a DEQE-approved analytical, laboratory for analysis. Samples BSA-1 and BSA-3 were then each composited from tubes for bulk sediment and chemical analysis. The results of these analyses are contained in Appendix B.
Based on the levels of lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) detected from the chemical analysis, the sediment sampled at the site appears to be classified as a Category 2 dredge fill material, according to the criteria established by the DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control. It should also be noted that Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) were measured in the samples at or near detectable levels.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Chris M. Erikson Staff Engineer
James Wheeler Senior Engineer
CE: JW:aw/0315W
Enclosures
Figure 1 - Marine Sediment Sample Location Plan Appendix A - Logs of Environmental Samples Taken by Guild
Drilling Co., Inc., on 27 May 1988 Appendix B - Results of Bulk Sediment and Chemical Analysis
Conducted by Clean Harbors, Inc.
c: Fort Point Associates; Attn: Mr. James Fay
/C9A
APPENDIX A
Logs of Environmental Samples taken by Guild Drilling Co. , Inc. on 27 May 1988
\ GUIL.a DRILLIMQ CO., IMC.
' 100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE. R I
u.T.y /:. Aldrich. Inc. lADORESS Cawbrid^e, Mass,
^,, ,;,„, T^^IZi^^mpIea Location Charleatown, Mass.
RTSENTTO_ ■L£S SENT TO.
above
Taken at: Site
PROJ.NO. — OUR JOB NO.
88-767
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS ofler Hours
ofrer Hours
Type
Sizel D. Hcmmer Wt
Hcmmer Foil
CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR
3" Tuba.
BIT
BSA.1
CHCCT L nr _i
0^^ 27 May 198B
MOLE NO
UNC a STA.
OFFSCT
SURf. ELEV.
See Plan
Dot« Tlm«
START 5/27/99
COMPLETE 5/27/88
TOTAL HRS. _—
BORING FOREMAN Wi DunPhY
INSPECTOR
SOILS ENGR
CATION CFBORINQ,.
On Water
Casing
Blows per
foot
Sample
Depths
From - To
Type
of Sompte
Blows per 6 on Sompier
Frorn To
0-6
5-12
12-18
Moisture
Density
or Consist
Slroto Chonge
Elev.
SOIL IDENTIFICATION Remorks include color, qrodotion, Type of soil etc. Rock-color, typt, condition, hord- nesj, Drilling time, seoms ond lie
One 5 Foot 3" Environmental Sample
0' to 8' - Rec. 3 '6"
SAMPLE
Bottom of Boring 8'
GROUND SURFACE TO
ornpleType
Dry C^Cored W=Aasn»d
'"-UnOislurDed PiSlon
P:TeMPit A-&jger ViVoneTest
USED
Proportions Used iroce OtoiO% iiMie iOio20%
some 201035%
^5 tc ^r-i"/
"CASING; THEN
I40ib Wt.x 30'"(oll on 2"0 D. Sompler
Cohesionles* 0«ns<ty O-iO Loose
10-30 Med. Dense 50-50 Dense
Coliesive Consisftncy
0-4 Soft 30 -t- Hard 4-8 M/Siiff 8-15 Stiff
SUMMARY-^ Fnrth Rrrify; fa Rock Coring
Sompiei 1 Tube
HOLE NO BSAl J
h GUILO DRILLIMQ CO., INC.
^ 100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R I.
u.^.y ^Aldrich. Inc. iaoorESS Cambridge, Masa
±^;^;:rZ^E^il^l^ Location .Charlestown^iUs^
ORTSENT T0_ IPLES SENT TO.
above
Taken at Site
PROJ. NO — OUR JOB NO.
88-767
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS ofler .Hours
ofter Hours
Type Size I D^ Hcmmer Wt Hommer Foil
CASING SAMPt^R CORE BAR V Tube
BIT
SHEET J- O^ _J
DATt 27 May 1988
HOLE NO.
BSA2
UNE a STA. See Plan
Of FSCT
SURf. ELEV.
Dof Tlm>
START ,5/^7/99
COMPLETE 5/27/88
TOTAL HRS. _ —
BORING FOREMAN Wt DUtlPhY
INSPECTOR
1 SOILS ENGR.
am
. p f^
am
"irATION OF BORING
On Water
Casing
Blows
per
fool
Sample
Deo'fis
From- To
Type Of
Sompie
Blows per 6 on Sompler
From To
0-6
( 6-12
12-18
Moisture
Density
or Consist.
GROUND SURFACE TO Sample Type
USED
i:Dry C^Cored W^Aoshed JP--UndislurDed Piston rP:Te^tPii A^Auqcr V^VoneTest JT:Unc)ijlurC<d Thinx«oll
Proportions Used iroce OtoiO% little lOio20% some 20to35% vind 35 to 50"/
SIrato Chonge
Elev
SOIL IDENTIFICATION RemorKs include color, grodotion, Type ot soil etc. Roci<-color,typ«,conditiof\,hord- ness, Drilling time, seoms ond etc.
One 5 Foot 3" Environmental Sample
0' to 12' - Rec. 2'6"
SAMPLE
No
Pen
12'
Rec
Bottom of Boring 12'
."CASING; THEN I40ib Wt.x 30"»oll on 2"0 0. Sompler
Cohcsionlest Density O-iO Loose
10-30 Med Dense 50-50 Dense 50 + Very r»-^5a
Cohesive Consistency
0-4 Soft 30 + Hord 4-8 M/Stiff 8-15 Stiff 15-30 V-Sliff
SUMMARY- .
Eortfl Boring Rock Coring Sompiei .1. Tube
HOLE N0BSA2
C3UlL.a ORILLINQ CO., INC.
100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R I.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
?ject name - :drtsentto.
Dredge Samples
above
ADDRESS CambrldRe. Mass. LOCATION Charleatown, Mass,
JPLES SENT TO Taken at Site
PROJ. NO
OUR JOB NO.
88-767
I GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
H
[ aller Hours
ofter.
. Hours
Type S.jel D. Hcmmer Wt Horrmer Foil
CASING SAMPl^R
CORE BAR
BIT
SHEET. DATE _
HOLE NO
UN£ a STA.
Of FSCT
SURf. ELEV.
Of.
27 May 1988
BSA3 See Plan
Dof«
5/27/88 5/27/88
Timt
START
COMPLETE
TOTAL HRS. __^
BORING FOREMAN W. Dunohv
IKBPECTOR
SOILS ENGR
am p rr^ o.m
OCATION OF BCRING
On Water
Cosing
Blows per
foot
Sample
Depths
From - To
T,pe
of 5cm pie
Blows per 6 on Sompier
F-on' To
0-6
6-12
12-18
Moislure
Density
or Consist
Sirolo Change Elev
SOIL IDENTIFICATION Remorks include color, gradation, Type of soil etc Rock-color, type, condition, hord- ness. Drilling time, seams ond etc.
SAMPLE
No Pen Rec
One 5 Foot 3" Environmental Sample
0' to 13" - Rec. 3'
13'
Bottom of Boring 13'
GROUND SURFACE TO
)rrple Type
Dry C^Cored W:,VQshed
'"- UnOisiurDed Pision
»:TeM Pi? ATAuger ViVoneTest
r^Und stu-Ced Th.nwcll
USED
Proportions Used troce 010 10% little 101020% some 2010 35% 35 to 50%
."CASING: THEN 1401b Wf. I 30" toll on 2"0 0. Sompier
Cohesionless Density O-iO Loose
10-30 Med. Dense 30-50 Denji 50 -t- Very 0«ns«
Cohesive Consistency
0-4 Soft 30-l-Hord 4-8 M/Siitf 8-13 Stiff 15-30 V-Stiff
SUMMARY- , Eortt< Borinqi 13
Rock Coring Sompies 1 'i'ubt
I HOLE N0BSA3
APPENDIX B
Results of Bulk Sediment and Chemical Analysis Conducted by Clean Harbors Inc.
leanHarbor
ANALYTICAL SERVICES
325 WOOD ROAD, BRAINTREE, MA 02184 (617) 849-6070
Haley &. Aldrich, Inc. 238 Main Street Cambridge, MA 02142
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
RECEIVED JUN 1 4 1988
HALEY & ALDRICH, INO.
Project: Tudor Wharf - Jim Wheeler P.O. #: 00615810
Date Received: 05/27/88 CHAS Lab #: 8805304
Attn: Mr. Kleo Taliadouros
Enclosed are the results for the sample (s) delivered to our laboratory on the date indicated above .
Should you have any questions concerning this work, please do not hesitate to contact m§.
This laboratory follows quality assurance/quality control procedures outlined in EPA Publication EPA 600/4-79-019, "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories", March 1979, and specific QA/QC require- ments of the procedures used.
The information contained in this report is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and, complete .
Per/Date :
, accurate ana, complete .
Alex W. Schultheis Laboratory Director
N. MA 6111
NATICK, MA 1617)655-8863
SOUTH BOSTON. MA (617)269-5830
SOUTH PORTLAND. ME (207)799-8111
ALBANY, NY (518)434-0149
PROVIDENCE. Rl (401)461-1300
HOOKSETT, NH (603) 644-3633
FARMINGTON, CT (203)674^J361
inHarbor
It: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Le I.D. : BSA-1 Le Type; Soi'l
meter
nic - Total um - Total iujn - Total mium - Total
- Total ury - Total nium - Total er - Total
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-OlM Date Received: 05/27/88
|
Analysis |
Method Nvimber |
||||
|
MI |
)L |
Result |
Units |
Date |
and Reference |
|
0 |
094 |
9.43 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/7060(c) |
|
7 |
60 |
rag/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(c) |
|
|
0 |
70 |
4.2 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(0) |
|
1 |
4 |
41 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(0) |
|
7 |
190 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(0) |
|
|
0 |
0781 |
0.7236 |
mg/kg |
06/07/88 |
7471(c) |
|
0 |
141 |
ND |
mg/kg |
05/08/88 |
3050/7740(c) |
|
0 |
82 |
1.2 |
mg/kg |
06/10/88 |
3050/7760(c) |
s: ND - Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Results based on sample dry weight.
inHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. le I.D. : BSA-3 le Type: Soil
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-02M Date Received: 05/27/8 J
meter
;nic - Total .um - Total aium - Total )miuni - Total i - Total :ury - Total ;niuin - Total .'er - Total
|
Analysis |
Method Niimber |
|||
|
MDL |
Result |
Units |
Date |
and Reference |
|
0.127 |
9.83 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/7060(0) |
|
10 |
90 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(c) |
|
0.97 |
3.9 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(c) |
|
1.9 |
39 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(c) |
|
10 |
250 |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/6010(c) |
|
0.1083 |
1.176 |
mg/kg |
06/07/88 |
7471(c) |
|
0.190 |
ND |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/7740(c) |
|
1.5 |
ND |
mg/kg |
06/08/88 |
3050/7760(c) |
;s: ND = Below minimum detectable level (KDL) Results based on sample dry weight.
inHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. le I.D. : BSA-1 lie Type: Soil
meter
111 '11 & Grease il Solids
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-OlM Date Received: 05/27/8E
MDL
0.072
Result
0.201 66.8
Units
% %
Analysis Date
06/07/88 06/02/88
Method Number and Reference
503D(b) 209F(b)
>s: ND - Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Results based on sample dry weight.
mHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. le I.D. : BSA-3 le Type: Soil
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-02M Date Received: 05/27/8E
|
Analysis |
Method Number |
||||
|
imeter |
MDL |
Result |
Units |
Date |
and Reference |
|
il Oil & Grease |
0.088 |
0.138 |
% |
06/08/88 |
503D(b) |
|
il Solids |
-- |
50.7 |
% |
06/02/88 |
209F(b) |
is: ND = Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Results based on sample dry weight.
inHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, le I.D. : BSA-1 le Type: Soil
Inc .
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-OlM Date Received: 05/27/88
|
-. |
SIEVE ANALYSIS |
||
|
SIEVE NUMBER |
OPENING SIZE |
WEIGHT % |
|
|
in MM |
|||
|
9.5 |
8.1 |
||
|
4 |
4.75 |
10.7 |
|
|
10 |
2.0 |
15.3 |
|
|
20 |
0.850 |
17.8 |
|
|
40 |
0.425 |
10.5 |
|
|
60 |
0.250 |
18.3 |
|
|
100 |
0.150 |
6.8 |
|
|
200 |
0.075 |
4.9 |
|
|
Bottom |
Tray |
<0.075 |
6.8 |
inHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc , le I.D. : BSA-3 le Type: Soil
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-02M Date Received: 05/27/88
SIEVE NUMBER
4
10
20
40
60
100
200
Bottom Tray
|
SIEVE ANALYSIS |
|
|
OPENING SIZE |
WEIGHT % |
|
in MM |
|
|
9.5 |
7.3 |
|
4.75 |
11.6 |
|
2.00 |
15.1 |
|
0.850 |
19.7 |
|
0.425 |
4.6 |
|
0.250 |
8.8 |
|
0.150 |
7.6 |
|
0.075 |
8.8 |
|
<0.075 |
16.5 |
inHarbor
nt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. le I.D. : BSA-1 le Type: Soil
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-OlM Date Received: 05/27/8f
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) by EPA Kethod 3540/8080
Extraction Date: 06/03/88 Analysis Date: 06/10/88
|
Para |
meter |
MDL |
Concentration |
Units |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1016 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1221 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1232 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1242 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1248 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1254 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor 1260 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
Notes: ND - Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Soil/solid sample results based on sample dry weight
snHarbor
'mt: Haley & Aldrich, )le I.D. : BSA-3 3le Type: Soil
Inc .
CHAS Lab #: 8805304-02M Date Received: 05/27/88
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) by EPA Method 3540/8080
Extraction Date: 06/03/88 Analysis Date: 06/10/88
|
Parameter |
MDL |
Concentration |
Units |
|
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1016 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1221 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1232 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1242 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1248 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1254 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
mg/kg |
|
PCB - Aroclor |
1260 |
0.1 |
ND |
mg/kg |
Notes: ND -= Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Soil/solid sample results based on sample dry weight
inHarbor
Method References
t)
i)
, ,, ^ u..f.. - Puhllcatlon EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S. Environment*! -f u.r.r «nH Ua«te««ter " 16th ed., Anerlcan Public Health
Cincinnati, 1981.
-EPA-CLP organic Xnalr.e. of Low and Medio- Hazardous Ua.ce S.-ple (Water and Soil) Procedure. Revi.iou.-
U.S. Environneotal Protection Agency. July 1985.
-Te.t Procedure, for Analy.e. of Organic Pollutant.,- Code of Federal Regulation.. A_ppendlx A. Pare 136.
July 1, 1985.
f P„r„«ble OrRanlc Cocpound. In Drinking Water by Ca. Chro»atogr.phy/Ma.. Spectrometry . ' '' Me":^"": °U.S In:ir:a»:at"' Pr^te^tion Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support laboratory. ClDCinnati.
I960.
U -Cleao Harbor. Radiological Environ.enc.1 Analytical Procedure.." Clean Harbor. Analytical S.rvlc...
Braiotree, MA. October 1985. J) -Method, for Chlorinated Phenoxy Acid Herbicide, in Indu.trl.1 Erfluenc..- KDQAi^. Cincinnati. November 23.
1973.
., -Annual Boo. of Standard..' Section 11= Water •n'"^/"-—--/ ^"^"»^»*^' '"'' ' H-°^-^^-°'- ^ " Society for Te.ting and Materials. Philadelphia. 1983, 1984. 1985.
1) -Method, for Benzidine. Chlorinated Organic Co-pound.. Pent.chlorophenol and Pe.ticide. in Water .nd Wastewater.- U.S. Environmental Protection A«ency. September 1978. -Method, for Org.nochlorine Pe.ticide. in Indu.trial Effluent..- MDQAKL. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati. November 28, 1973.
h) -Method, for Determination of Inorganic Sub.t.nce. in Water "^/^-^'^^^'-i-"" • ^^'^^eV/r^^^^^^^^^ Re.ource. Inve.tlgation of the U.S. Geological Survey. Book 5. Chapter A-1 . U.S. Dep.
Interior. 1979.
(0) -Measurement of Trlhalo-e thane, in Drinking Water by Ca. Chro-atography/Mas. SP-c"o-etry and S«1««J^»° Monitoring.- Method 501.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and support Laboratory, Cincinnati.
(p-) -The Analy.l. of Trihalo-eth.ne. in Finished Waters by the Purge and Trap Method. ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati.
(,) -The An.lysi. of Trlhalo-ethanes in Drinking Water by Liquld/LlQuid Extraction.- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati.
(r) -Official Method, of Analysi..- A.sociation of Official Analytical Chemist.. l*th ed., 1984.
(.) -Hach Handbook of Water Analysi..- Hach Chemical Company. Loveland, CO. 1979.
(t) H.H. Prlchard and T.P. C«..ll. "lUpid Mea.ure-ent of ^-222 Concentration, in Water vlth a Co-erci.l Uquid Scintillation Counter.* H.alth Physic.. Vol. 33. 1977, pp. 577-581.
(u) -Petroleum Product, and Lubricants (1): D56-D1660,- Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 5.01. A-erlc.n Society for Testing and Materi*la. Philadelphia. 1985.
(V) -Petrol.um Product, and Lubricnts (III): D2981-L.te.t: Catalyst. - Annual Book of AST« Standard.. Volu« 5.03, American Society for Testing and MaterlAls. Philadelphia. 19B5.
inHarbor
^^
I C^'
\
^^^
V
#^'
\^>
^%
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT OF ANALYSIS
^^
1-
This data is submitted in conjunction with Haley & Aldrich, Inc. sample set 00615810, Tudor Wharf Soil Samples - CHAS Lab #: 8805304
inHarbor
|
lOT: . |
Halev & Aldri |
:h, |
Inc |
— |
|
LABORATORY |
BLANK |
- TRACE METALS |
||
|
ISTION DATE: |
06/07/88 |
|||
|
•LE BATCH NO. |
: 8805304 ELEMENT Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver |
CONCENTRATION 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 |
inHarbor
kt: Haley & Aldrich, Inc. le Station: PCB Blank Le Type: Soil
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) by EPA Method 3540/8080
|
Extraction Date |
06/03/88 |
||||
|
Analys |
Ls Date: |
05/09/88 |
|||
|
Para |
[meter |
MDL* |
Concentration |
Units |
|
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1016 |
1.0 |
ND |
mgAg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1221 |
1.0 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1232 |
1.0 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1242 -- |
- 1.0 -- |
--- 0.9 |
mg/kg* |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1248 |
1.0 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1254 |
1.0 |
ND |
mg/kg |
|
PCB |
- Aroclor |
1250 |
1.0 |
ND |
mg/kg |
ND - Below minimum detectable level (MDL) Soil/solid sample results based on sample dry weight * - PCB Aroclor 1242 not detected in sample
■L.
a: \
■r
:^\
■IV,
^
O UJ
tl. u
UJ «t
t-
r
UJ
3 5 O U
in 3
SaaNIYlNOD do 'ON
^^
•V
q^^.
o
\n I—
C3 o
.4
■-^b
^
w
1;
^q
.~ o °
"^ Cu '-'
-<: -• -c
-g - = 0-3:
'»^ 0 I O
ifeA
^-7^/^
ai -lad
QDd/Jt?^tti
3 STViai-j
NOV
VOA
-J UJ
Q.I a.
1 r:
A.
■X
V;
\f^
^
K^
X'X
><>:
z _)
Q. <
a o
<
q: o
en
^
^'
J
^^
^N-^
O
z
Ul
_J
Q.
<
\
r
^^
\
K
V
^
^
i
re tl
I- — O ti
i1
— ^
\
^
^sM^ <^
IUkS^
-3
a I n D I T
a I n o s
u
I- It
.0. >
E ;
o
c • ■5 E
O 0
u >
a
E, = ? I "^ X _ "
>-
a
o
z
I- V
s >
0. >
tl
C V
n e
§1
u>
o
a ^?.
<!E S
u »-
^ 1 •^
I 2 U
o <"
UJ 0.03 0
'N^
5 |.4r ^
.^
8 - ^
irt a:
c c p •
n
U 't
« c
C o •• O c
S "I
XJ
U < U f-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA # 6744
APPENDIX E TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
-297-
RUTHERFORD flvENUE AT RDUTE 1 RfillFS
1991 FK PEAi.; HaUR WITH TUDOR KKAh- *'/ ^Ai^'l^^^^. "P^-c.tC
oate:05-£5-198E tue: 10:12:25
LAST DATA SET NAKES LOADED OR SAVED
VOLUME^
GEO«ETRICS=
L0:ATED in CBD:Y VOLUME I SEOMETRICS
VOLUMES DIR LT TH RT EB C 6h7 580 HE t35 716 0 NB 150 0 809 SB 0 0 0
I OF LANES LT TH RT
0 3 2
1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
SIBNAL=
LANE WIDTH
LT TH RT
CO 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 0.0
lE.O 0.0 12.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
CROSS WALK
0
0
0
0
TRAFFIC i ROADWAY CONDITIONS
DIR BRADE SHV EB -2. OX 5. OX WE 2. OX 5. OX NB -2. OX 5. OX
AD] PARK
Y/N MOVES BUSES
N 0 0
N 0 0
N 0 0
SB O.OX O.OX N
PEDESTRIANS l-'S,
PHF CROSS BUT KIN TIME TV'E
.900 0 7.0 S
,900 0 7.0 3
,900 0 7.0 3
.900 0
7.0 C
PHASINSS
EASTBOUMD WESTBOUND NOPTHBOUIJD SOUTHBOUND GREEN >tR PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp
1 ♦ ♦ » 9.3 5 A
2 » ♦ * 2h.l 5 A
3 ♦ . ♦ ♦ 6.2 5 A
CYCLE= 65.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET FART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
|
DIR |
LTV |
THV |
RTV |
PHF |
LTFR THFR RTFR |
|
EE |
0 |
6^7 |
580 |
.900 |
0 719 64;* |
|
U6 |
635 |
716 |
0 |
.900 |
706 796 0 |
|
NB |
150 |
0 |
809 |
.900 |
167 0 899 |
|
SB |
0 |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 0 0 |
PART 2 (LANE SRQUF ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Fit Prt
EB TH
EB RT
WB LT
WB TH
NB LT
NB RT
719 3 1.10 644 2 1.05 706 1 1.00
796 3 167 1
1.10 1.00
899 2 1.05
791 0.00 0.00
677 COO 1.00
706 1.00 0.00
875 0.00 COO
167 1.00 0.00
944 0,00 1,00
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN OPPOSING APPROACH
BEING OPPOSED VOLUMES X OPPOSING LEFT TURN
LT TH RT LT TH RT WESTBOUND 0 719 644 0 0 0 NDRTHEOUKD 0 0 0 0 0 0
|
♦ .ANES |
OPPOSING |
|
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
0 3 2 |
0 |
|
i 0 0 |
0 |
page c
RUTHERFORD fiVENUE AT ROUTE 1 RAMPS
1991 WfrPUILD AH PCftK HOUR- ^\?i:.:^yy -^j ^^^^u.'^P..^ruJL
[iite:C5-£5-1938 tiae!l0:05:20 ^.
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTKENT WORKSHEET
DIR LK GROUP IDEAL N Ft(id Fhv Fgr Fparl Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
EB TH 1800 It 1.000 0.976 1.010 l.OCC 1. 000 0.900 1.000 1.000 63E5
EB RT 1600 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.B50 I. 000 1357
UB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 C.990 l.OOC 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 l^tBi
Ue TH IBOO 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 Wi
NB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 I. 000 0.950 1516
NB RT 1800 E 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.750 1.000 E39ii
CftFACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v 5 v7e g/C c v/c CRITICAL
EB TH 2108 63B5 0.33 0.3^ El^tO 0.99 »
EB RT 189 1357 O.l't 0.75 lOlE 0.19
UB LT SEE im 0.15 0.15 EEB 0.96
UB TH 5ii0 ;69't O.IE O.SA S5S9 O.El
NB LT 533 1516 0.35 0.36 5it6 0.98
m RT 1330 E39i( ci.56 0.56 1350 0.99 «
CYCLE= 99.0 L0ST=10.0 SUH V/S CRIT= 0.89 TOTAL V/C= 0.99
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v/c g/C C dl c dE PF Delay LOS Avg Q 95X 6
EB TH 0.99 0.34 99.0 34.83 EIW IE. 13 0.85 31. 41 D 35.0
EB RT 0.19 0.75 99.0 E.8E lOlS 0.01 0.85 E.41 A 1.3
UB LT 0.98 0.15 99.0 31. 7E EE8 39.49 1.00 71, El F 7.0
UB TH O.El 0.54 99.0 9.04 E5E9 C.Ol 0.B5 7.69 B 6.E
NB LT 0.98 0.36 99.0 E3.75 546 E4.E7 1.00 48.02 E 11,8
NB RT 0.99 0.56 99,0 16,10 1350 15,82 0,85 E7,13 D 17.1
DIR Delay LOS
EB S9.03 E
UB E6.E1 D
NB 33.11 D
INTERSECTION DELAY = 30.14 INTERSECTION LCE=D
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TC lEO SECONDS WHICH KINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IB 99.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 147.6 SECONDS THE EXIsTINS TIMING IS CPTIflAL
RUTHERFORD ftVENUE ftT ROUTE 1 RAHFS
1991 NC'-eun.t iffi FtAK'-mUR V^»Vv^ T<r-c.^'^ ^'Z M^t
[!atE:C5-E5-19Be ti«e:10:05:15
"Pa^cxJ- am
LAST DATA SET NAfiEE LOADED OR SAVED
|
VuLUHE- |
GEOHETRICS= |
SIGNAL^ |
||||
|
LOCATED IN CBD:Y |
||||||
|
VOLUME I 6E0METRICS |
||||||
|
VOLURES |
t 0' LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|||
|
DIR LT TH |
RT |
LT TH RT |
LT |
TH RT |
WALK |
|
|
EB 0 17E5 1 |
70 |
0 4 |
1 |
0.0 |
lE.O lE.O |
0 |
|
HB 200 '(hE |
0 |
1 3 |
0 |
lE.O |
lE.O CO |
0 |
|
NB i*80 0 llitO |
1 0 |
E |
lE.O |
CO lE.O |
0 |
|
|
SB 0 0 |
0 |
0 0 |
0 |
CO |
0.0 CO |
0 |
|
TRAFFIC I ROADWAY CONDITION |
S |
|||||
|
ADJ |
PARK |
PEDESTRIANS |
ARR |
|||
|
DIR GRADE XHV |
Y/N |
NOVES BUSES |
PHF CROSS BUT HIN TINE TYPE |
|||
|
EB -E.OX 5.0: |
N |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
U6 E.OK 5.0! |
N |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
NB -E.OX 5.0; |
N |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
SB OM COX |
N |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 0 |
|
PHASINES |
||||||
|
EASTBOUND |
WESTBOUND |
NORTHBQUNI |
SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+ |
|||
|
1 t r p |
1 t |
r P |
1 t |
r f |
1 t r |
P |
|
1 ♦ ♦ |
{ |
33.2 5 |
||||
|
2 |
{ t |
i |
15.2 5 |
|||
|
3 ♦ |
i |
* |
35.7 5 |
|||
|
CYCLE= 99.0 |
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (NOVERENT ADJUSTHENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
|
EB |
0 1725 170 |
.900 |
C 1917 189 |
|
U6 |
200 W 0 |
.900 |
222 491 0 |
|
NB |
m 0 1140 |
.900 |
533 0 1267 |
|
SB |
0 0 0 |
.900 |
0 0 0 |
FART 2 (LANE GROUP ADJUSTHENTS)
DIR LN 5RDUF FLOl.' N LU v Pit Fxt
EB TH 1917 4 1.10 2108 COO 0.00
EB RT 189 1 1.00 189 0.00 1.00
«B LT 222 1 1.00 222 1.00 0.00
WB TH 491 3 1.10 540 COO COO
NB LT 533 1 1,00 533 1.00 COO
NB RT 12s7 2 1.05 1330 0.00 1.00
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN OPPOSING APPROACH
BEINS OPPOSED VOLUMES I OPPOSING LEFT TURN
LT TH RT LT TH RT WESTBOUND 0 1917 189 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0
|
1 LANES |
OPPOSING |
|
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
0 4 1 |
0 |
|
0 0 0 |
0 |
",LiThERFDRL AvENUE ST kQUTE 1 RAMFo
!=91 Fn PEAK HGJR lilTH TUDDR WH^RF - WITHOUT ^rVM PARCEL
;ate:06-?O-19S3 tuE:i::E0:09
BATURATICN FLO« fiCJUETHENT WORGHEET
DI?. LN GROUP IDEAL N ►md Fhv Fgr Fparl: Fs.j5 Farea Frt Fit 5
EB TH IBOO 3 1.0)0 0.976 1.010 l.OCC l.COO C.900 1.000 1.000 ^.789
E? RT IBOC E 1.000 0.976 l.O'O 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.750 1.000 E39'.
„^B LT 1800 1 1.000 C.976 0.990 I. COO 1.000 C.900 1.000 0.950 14S6
Wi TH 1800 3 l.OOt 0.976 0.990 1.000 1,000 0.900 1.000 1.000 4694
NB LT IBOO 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 C.900 1.000 0.950 1516
NB RT 1800 2 1.000 0.97t I.CIO 1.000 l.GOC 0.900 0.750 1.000 £394
"APAlITV hNALYEIS yCRKS-EET
:IR LK GFDUF v 5 vi g/Z c v/c CRI'IZAL
EB TH 766 47S9 0.16 0.14 6E5 1.15
EB RT 677 E394 O.EE 0.3E 755 0.90 »
ui LT 698 1486 0.47 0.53 739 0.88 ♦
wB TH 871 4694 0.19 0.75 35E4 0.55
KB LT 167 1516 O.Ll 0.10 145 1.15
NB RT 940 £394 0.39 0.70 16E3 0.56
CYCLE= 65.0 LCSTMO.O SUfl V/S CRIT= 0.75 TOTAL V/C= 0.39
lEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
|
DIR LN BRCyp |
v/c g/C |
L |
dl |
c |
dE |
F' |
Delay LD |
3 Avg 8 |
95X i |
|
|
EB TH |
1.15 C.:4 |
65.0 |
£1.71 |
6E5 |
0.E5 |
91.09 |
F S3. 7 |
cc JJ |
||
|
E3 RT |
0.90 0.35 |
65.0 |
16.14 |
/ JJ |
9.5- |
'.' : 0 J |
51.95 |
C 8.0 |
13 |
|
|
U6 LT |
0.58 0.53 |
■55.0 |
1C.E5 |
739 |
3.3? |
l.CO |
18.55 |
C 6.6 |
15 |
|
|
*Ir TH |
0.E5 0.75 |
65.0 |
1.3S |
3554 |
0.01 |
0.85 |
1.61 |
A 3.6 |
4 |
|
|
NB LT |
1.15 0.10 |
65,0 |
52.71 |
145 |
1E4.10 |
1. 00 |
146.8! |
F 8.5 |
51 |
|
|
*;5 RT |
C.56 0.70 |
65.0 |
3.59 |
1683 |
O.EE |
C.B5 |
3.35 |
A 4.8 |
5 |
|
|
DIR Delas |
LOS |
|||||||||
|
EB 59.09 |
E |
|||||||||
|
«B 9.14 |
6 |
|||||||||
|
'J3 54.95 |
C |
|||||||||
|
INTERSECT] |
M |
DELAY = 31 |
.03 laEREECTION l |
OS=D |
"^E L'CLE LEN3TH iJITHIN THE BOUNDS GF 60 TO lEO SECuNDS «HICh KifJIR:ZEB CRI'ICAL fjvEhENT DELAY 13 6:.: EECDNDS
-OR A V/: RATIO OF .95 THE CVC:.E SHOULD BE 'B,; EECGNCS
"■" chciser cycls ler.cth 65.0
r.JOES-.ed tisin: c-js; i ^ 7,i 55^5 greer, 5.0 :ec= velloN + red cUar
i^isttec tisinq ohise E :5 34.3 sees arsen, ;.0 sees vellon + "-ed clear
.■jcoiste: tiiing ohase 3 :i 6.3 ;e:5 green, 5.0 eecs yelloti + red clear
jHERrjRC i'vENUE AT ROL'TE i rf^f^fS
391 Pf! FEhI nCUR WITH TUDDR Hh'iRF - WITHOUT MARINA FASCEL :;tt:Oi-E0-I'=3B ti»e:I7:B!j;05
.985 HCK - CHAPTER 9: SIGNALIZED - CFEPATIONAL ANALYSIS V9r=::T, 1-7-E7
.AST DATA 3ET KANE3 LOADED OR SAVED
.':iUKE=14E«3PRB GECriET?ICS=16a-*3AI1 EIBNAL=lA:-f3AK
.OlATED in CE.D:y
/OLUHE L GEOfiETRICE
VOLUMES * OF LANES LANE WIDTH CROSS
.IR STREET LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT WALK -IB RL^KERFO^D AVE 0 6A5 530 0 3 2 CO lE.C IS.O 0 ^B RUTn'ERFORD AVE 6E8 713 0 13 0 lE.O IE.- CO 0
■;b ftou"E ; RArPS iso o soi i o e ie.o oa ie.o o SB ' c 0 0 c 0 0 0.0 c: o.o c
*RAFFIC I ROADWAY CO'riDITIOKS
AD J PARK PEDESTRIANS ARR
D:R GRADE XHV Y/(. fiaVES BUSES ►HF CRCSS BUT KIN TINE TYPE
EB -E.OS 5.0'* \i 0 0 .900 0 7.0 3
I^B H.Ci; 5. OX N 0 0 .900 0 7.0 3
N5 -E.OX 5.05 N 0 0 .900 0 7.0 3
SB COX COX H 0 0 .900 0 7.0 0
-HASINSS
EASTBOUMD WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND SREEN \*R FRE/ACT i t r p 1 t r p 1 t r p ! t r p It** ■ 9.3 5 A
E * * » s;.s 5 A
3 » ♦ t ■ i.E 5 A
•:ycle= 65.0 ■
|
VOLUME ADJUSTHENT WORKSHEET |
||
|
PkRT 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS) |
||
|
DIR LTV THV RTV FHF LTFR |
THFP |
RTFR |
|
EB 0 6^*5 580 .900 0 |
717 |
i^4 |
|
WB 626 713 0 .900 69S |
798 |
0 |
|
NB 150 0 906 .900 167 |
0 |
B9t |
|
SB 0 0 0 .900 0 |
0 |
0 |
PART E (LANE 5RCUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN SROUP FLOW N LU v Fit Prt
Es TH 717 3 1. 10 7SE COO 0.00
EE RT ;^4 E 1,05 i77 0.00 1,00
■^■E LT 693 1 1.00 i9S 1.00 COO
-5 TH •:9E 3 1.10 571 COO 0.00
'«B LT 167 1 1. 00 167 l.OC 0.00
''it> RT S94 E 1.05 94C 0.00 1.00
-AFT S (OPFJSINS VOLU'lE ADJUSTMENTS)
-E"T TLiN OPPOSING A-ROACH
SEIV5 0F-Q3ED vDLL'^tES ? jFFuSING LEF' TUPN
LT TH RT LT TH RT WESTBOUND C 717 6'ti( 0 0 0 rDRTHBOUND 0 f 0 0 0 0
|
II |
.i>-ES |
CFFCSING |
|
,T |
•H f: |
VO.UME |
|
0 |
3 E |
0 |
|
0 |
C 0 |
-.uTnEK'uRI AVENjE A' RjUTE 1 RMFS
:=?! AR PEAK HDU5 ^'ITH TUDOR HHfiR? - ►ITHub'T MfiRINA ^AF.IE-
:ste!06-Ev-l?oS tifte:17;=3:5j
ifiTJRATIDN FLQ^i ACJUETKENT WORKSHEET
DiR LN SRDuF IDEAL N Fwid Frrv Fgr Faark Ftius Fa^sj Frt Fit 5
EB TH 1500 k l.COO 0.976 1.010 l.CCO l.COO O,^';! l.OOC l.OOC ciBj
EB RT 130C 1 1.000 0.11k 1.010 l.COO l.OCS O."?:: C.350 1.000 1337
we LT leOC 1 1.000 C.?76 0.990 1.000 1,000 C.90: l.OOC C.950 1436
wB TH 1500 3 1.000 0.976 0.'90 l.COO 1.000 0.9C: l.OCO 1.000 '.69it
NE LT lEOC 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 l.OCO l.COO C.90C l.COO C.95C 1516
•^B RT 18-0 E 1,000 0. "76 I.OIC 1.000 l.OCO C.9C: 0.750 1.000 239^1
LAP:
ylR
EB EB
;^B
KB H
HL j TV
TH RT LT TH LT B RT
ANALVSId
EET
V 5 »'''5 C'C C v/C
E103 c3Sj C.33 O.ik £139 0.^3
189 1357 O.K 0.75 lOlE 0.19
=£0 1^.86 0.15 0.15 £E3 0.96
5i(0 iih% O.IE 0.5't c5£9 O.El
533 1516 0.35 0.36 546 0.93
13£1 £394 0.55 0.56 1351 0,98
VCLE= 99.1 LD3T=10.0 SUM V/S CRIT= 0.03 TOTAL V/C= C,:5
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
|
DIR LN GROUP |
v/c q/C |
C |
dl c |
d£ |
FF |
Deliv LOS A |
vg Q |
95X 1 |
||
|
E3 TH |
C.9B 0.3h |
99.1 |
£4. 84 213? |
11.92 0.S5 |
31.25 D |
35.0 |
51 |
|||
|
EB RT |
0.19 0.75 |
99.1 |
£.83 IC12 |
C.Cl |
0.85 |
£.41 A |
1.3 |
1 |
||
|
iiB LT |
0.96 0.15 |
99.1 |
31,68 2EE |
36.65 |
1.00 |
:E.33 F |
6.7 |
13 |
||
|
bE TH |
0.21 0.54 |
99.1 |
9.i3 E5E5 |
0.01 |
0,85 |
-.70 E |
6.E |
6 |
||
|
NB LT |
O.i^S 0.36 |
99.1 |
E3.77 546 |
E4.24 |
1.50 |
-E.C£ E |
11.8 |
22 |
||
|
m RT |
0.98 0.56 |
99, 1 |
15.96 1351 |
•4.50 |
0.35 |
15.89 D |
16.6 |
28 |
||
|
DIR Del |
ay |
LOi |
||||||||
|
EB £8. |
S7 |
D |
||||||||
|
WE £5. |
E^t |
D |
||||||||
|
nE 3E. |
26 |
D |
||||||||
|
iKTERSE |
ITION lELAY = £9 |
.59 IKTERSECTIDK LOS=D |
'HE CYCLE LENcTH WITHIN THE 5DUNES OF 60 TC 180 SECO^;:: l^HICi KUIIRIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 9-.0 EECCNDE
-OR A V/C RfTIG 0" .'5 THE CYCLE SHCULD EE 138,0 EECME "C" "r.C:rn Ct'cle lETigth 9/.C
iuJG;=t?d :i!iing ohaje 1 is 32,3 jecs greeri, 5.0 ijc; =ugv55tej tising p-a59 2 is 14.6 secs crjen, 5.0 sezE £a;5S5ted tisinc phase 3 is 34,0 sees g!"een, 5.C sjie
-ellD* + red cl5=r •ellow + red clear • i'i'ibm T red clear
-.TnERFuSr hVEIv-I A" ROii'E 1 RSFS
:=?1 fi!< FEAf HOUR .JITH TUDGR HHARF - WITHOUT KfiRIMfi FARIEL
:it»:0i-E0-!953 tiRe:r!E3:!3
:7S5 HCK
.fiST DATA SET NAMES LOADED OR SAVED
|
;0Lo«E=liE^3PKB |
GEOMETRIC |
S=loE-l3A« |
SI3KAL=16:-)I3AR |
||
|
.GOATED IN :BB:\ |
|||||
|
.■OLj«E I SEO'-ETF |
IC3 |
||||
|
VClUMES |
» OF LANES LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|||
|
:.IR STREET |
1 T L 1 |
TH RT |
LT TK RT LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
|
EB RU'THERFQRl |
AVE |
0 |
17EE 170 |
0 it 1 0.) lE.C lE.O. |
0 |
|
iJE F jTHERFCRt |
AVE |
198 |
44E 0 |
1 S 0 lE.C lE.O CO |
0 |
|
.'is ROUTE 1 RAUrS |
490 |
0 USE |
1 0 S lE.O CO 12.0 |
0 |
|
|
SB |
,'i |
C 0 |
0 0 0 CO CO CO |
0 |
|
|
TRAFFIC i ROADWA |
^ CONDITIOHS |
||||
|
ADJ |
PARK |
FEDESTFIANS ARR |
|||
|
DIR 3RADE XHV |
Y/N HDVES BUSES PHF Z |
ROSS BUT f-Ui TIME TVFE |
|||
|
EE -2. OS 5. OX |
N |
0 |
0 .900 |
0 7.0 3 |
|
|
no C.OX j.Ca |
N |
0 |
0 .900 |
0 7.0 3 |
|
|
■iB -E.Ol 5. OX |
N |
C |
0 .900 |
0 7.0 3 |
|
|
SB COX COX |
N |
y |
0 .900 |
0 7.0 0 |
|
|
^■HASIfiaS |
|||||
|
EASTBCUND |
WESTBCUHD |
NDRTHBGJNC |
SuUTHBDUN'D 6REEN Y+R PRE/ACT |
||
|
1 t r D |
I t |
r p |
1 t r p |
1 t r p |
|
|
1 » * |
i |
33. S '■ A |
|||
|
a |
* * |
i |
15. E 5 A |
||
|
3 ♦ |
♦ * |
35.7 5 A |
|||
|
CYCLE= 99.1 |
■ |
VCLUHE ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 'ART 1 (HCVEMEKT ADJUSTKEKTS)
|
DIR |
LTV |
THV RTV |
PHF |
LTFR THFR RTFR |
|
E3 |
0 |
;7EE 170 |
.900 |
0 1913 169 |
|
t« |
198 |
itiE C |
.900 |
EEO 491 0 |
|
NB |
'.SO |
0 USE |
,900 |
533 0 IE58 |
|
SB |
0 |
0 0 |
.900 |
0 0 0 |
E (lAKE cROLF ASJ'JSTKEN'TS)
LK 5R0UF FLOW N LL / Fit Prt
1913 4 1.10 2:05 COO 0.00
139 1 1.00 139 COC l.OO
EEC 1 l.CO £20 1.00 0.00
i?l 3 1.10 540 5.00 COO
533 1 1.00 533 1.00 0.00
:E5E E 1.05 13E1 0.00 1.00
DFPCSIW3 A-FRCACH
;ED VCLUflES X QPP3SIN5 LEFT TL'Rf.
LT TH RT LT TH RT
0 1913 189 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
|
EE |
TH |
|
Ep |
RT |
|
■•iE |
■J |
|
..E |
TH |
|
•JE |
T .1 |
|
-;e |
RT |
|
^AR |
T 3 (OF |
|
-EF |
T TURN |
|
- ^ « |
No o?p: |
|
wES |
TB0l:ND |
|
'<'jR |
THBCUND |
|
t LANES |
DPFOSiK'B |
|
LT TH RT |
VO.UME |
|
0 4 1 |
0 |
|
0 0 0 |
0 |
pane E
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT ROUTE 1 RftlPS 1991 NC BUILD PH PEAK HOUR date:05-E5-1938 tii?:10:09;'t6
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
DIR LK GROUP IDEAL N Fmd Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
EB TH 1800 3 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 i(7B9
EB RT 1800 E 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.750 1.000 E39i.
UB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 l't86
UB TH 1800 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 i^m
NB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 1516
NB RT 1800 S 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.750 1.000 239;.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v s v/s g/C c v/c CRITICAL
EB TH 7BE 't7B9 0.16 C.K 67«( 1.16
EB RT 677 E39'. 0.E8 0.3E 763 0.89 »
HB LT 673 1486 0A6 0.51 765 0.89 ♦
WB TH 856 469^ 0.18 0.7^1 3467 0,S5
NB LT 167 1516 0.11 0.09 m 1.16
NB RT 9EB 22% 0.33 0.69 1658 0.56
CYCLE= 60.0 LCSTMO.O SUK V/S CRIT= d.Ti TOTAL V/C= 0.89
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
|
DIR LN GROUP |
v/c g/C |
c |
dl c |
dE FF |
Delay LO |
5 Avg C |
|
|
EB TH |
1.16 0.14 |
60.0 |
SO. IE 674 |
90.99 0.B5 |
94.44 |
F S3. 7 |
|
|
EB RT |
0.89 0.3E |
60.0 |
14.75 763 |
8.67 0.85 |
19.90 |
C 7.3 |
|
|
WB LT |
0.89 0.51 |
60.0 |
9.86 765 |
8.66 1.00 |
18.54 |
C 6.E |
|
|
UB TH |
0.E5 0.74 |
60.0 |
1.91 3467 |
0.01 0.85 |
1.63 |
A 3.4 |
|
|
NB LT |
1.16 0.09 |
60.0 |
EC. 99 144 |
1EB.9S 1.00 |
149. 9E |
F 8.E |
|
|
NB RT |
0.56 0.69 |
60.0 |
3.50 1658 |
0.3E 0.85 |
3.S5 |
A 4.5 |
|
|
DIR Delay |
LOS |
! |
|||||
|
EB 59.87 |
E |
||||||
|
UB 9.10 |
B |
||||||
|
NB S5.71 |
D |
||||||
|
INTERSECTION DELAY = 31 |
.68 INTERSECTION LOS=D |
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TO 180 SECONDS WHICH MINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 60.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 44.9 SECONDS THE EXISTING TIMING IS OPTIMAL
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT ROUTE 1991 NO BUILD Pr, PEAK HOUR date:05-£5-1963
RAMPS
tiiE:10:C=!H4
LAST DATA SET NAMES LOADED OR SAVED
|
VOLUME^ |
GEOMETRIC |
S= |
SI£ |
NAl= |
||
|
LOCATED IN CBD |
:Y |
|||||
|
VOLUME I GEOMETRIlS |
||||||
|
VOLUMES 1 OF LANES |
' |
'HI WIDTH |
CROSS |
|||
|
DIR LT TH |
RT LT TH RT |
L- |
TH |
RT |
WALK |
|
|
EB 0 b^O |
iBO 0 3 |
c |
O.v |
12.0 |
lE.O |
0 |
|
HB 610 700 |
0 1 3 |
0 |
lE.C |
lE.O |
0.0 |
0 |
|
NB 150 0 |
790 1 0 |
2 |
IE.': |
0.0 |
lE.O |
0 |
|
SB 0 0 |
0 0 0 |
0 |
0.( |
0.0 |
CO |
0 |
|
TRAFFIC I ROADHAY CONDITIONS |
||||||
|
ADJ PARK |
PEDESTRIANS |
ARR |
||||
|
DIR GRADE XHV |
Y/N MOVES BUSES |
PHF |
:ro3s |
BUT MIN TIME TYPE |
||
|
EE -E.O); 5. OX |
N 0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
|
UB E.OX 5. OX |
N 0 |
0 |
.90C |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
|
NB -E.OX 5. OX |
N 0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 3 |
|
|
SB COX O.OX |
N 0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
7.0 0 |
|
|
PHASINGS |
||||||
|
EASTBOUND |
WESTBOUND |
NORTHBOU!^ |
: SOUTHBOUND 6REEN Y+ |
|||
|
1 t r p |
1 t r p |
1 |
r |
: 1 |
t r |
P |
|
1 » * |
i |
B.h 5 |
||||
|
£ |
i i |
i |
30.9 5 |
|||
|
3 » |
t |
i |
5.7 5 |
|||
|
CYCLE= 60.0 |
||||||
|
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET |
||||||
|
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS) |
||||||
|
DIR LTV THV |
RTV FHF LTFR THFR ? |
*-R |
||||
|
EB 0 6'tO |
580 .900 |
0 |
711 |
zi^h |
||
|
«B 610 700 |
0 .900 |
678 |
77E |
0 |
||
|
NB 150 0 |
790 .900 |
167 |
C |
■J2 |
||
|
SB 0 0 |
0 .900 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
PART E (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS) DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Pl.t -rt
.00 .00
E3 TH
EB RT
WB LT
UB TH
NB LT
NB RT
711 3 1.10 m E 1.05 67B 1 1.00 778 3 1.10 167 1 1.00 878 E 1.05
78S O.OC
677 O.OC
678 1.00 :.oo 856 0.00 ;.oo 167 i.oc ;.oo 92E O.OC :.oo
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS'
LEFT TURN OPPOSING A^-.GACH
BEING OPPOSED VOLUMES X G"03INE LEFT TURN
LT TH RT .T TH RT WESTBOUND 0 711 6't't C 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0
t LANES OPPOSING
LT TH RT VOLUME 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0
|
DIR LN GROUP |
|
|
EB |
TH |
|
EB |
RT |
|
UB |
LT |
|
UB |
TH |
|
N6 |
LT |
page 2
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT ROUTE 1 RAMPS 1991 NC BUILD AM PEAK HOUR date:C5-E5-1988 tise!l0!02:37
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT HORI-(SHEET
IDEAL N Fwid Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit 5
130C 4 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 6385
IBOO 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.850 1.000 1357
1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 l't86
1800 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 i(69'i
leOO 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 l.OOC 0.9OC 1.000 0.950 1516
NB RT 1800 2 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 0.750 1.000 239'(
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
V 5 v/s q/C c v/c CRITICAL
2090 6385 0.33 0.34 2152 0.97 «
189 1357 0.14 0.74 1009 0.19
217 14S6 0.15 0.15 216 1.00
538 4694 C.ll 0.54 2525 0.21
533 1516 0.35 0.35 532 1.00
1283 2394 0.54 0.55 1321 0.97 ♦
CYCLE= 90.0 LOST=10.0 SUM V/S CRIT= 0.86 TOTAL V/C= 0.97
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
95X B
|
DIR LN GROUP |
|
|
EB |
TH |
|
EB |
RT |
|
UB |
LT |
|
UB |
TH |
|
NB |
LT |
|
NB |
RT |
|
DIR LN GROUP v/c a/C C |
dl c |
d2 |
PF |
Delay LOS Avg Q |
|
|
EB TH |
0.97 0.34 90.0 |
22.35 2152 |
9.94 |
0.85 |
27.44 D 31.5 |
|
EB RT |
0.19 0.74 90.0 |
2.61 1G09 |
0.01 |
C.S5 |
2.23 A 1.2 |
|
UB LT |
1.00 0.15 90.0 |
29.24 216 |
47.74 |
1.00 |
76.98 F 6.9 |
|
UB TH |
0.21 0.54 90.0 |
8.24 £525 |
0.01 |
0.85 |
7.01 B 5.6 |
|
NB LT |
1.00 0.35 90.0 |
22.23 532 |
30.58 |
1.00 |
52.81 E 12.2 |
|
NB RT |
0.97 0.55 90.0 |
14. SO 1321 |
13.61 |
0.85 |
24.15 C 15.0 |
|
DIR Delay |
LOS |
||||
|
EB 25.35 |
D |
||||
|
UB 27.11 |
D |
||||
|
NB 32.56 |
D |
||||
|
INTERSECTION DELAY = EB.33 INTERSECTION LD |
S=D |
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TO 12(r SECONDS UHICH MINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 90.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 109.6 SECONDS THE EHSTING TIMING IS OPTIMAL
RUTHERFOR[ AVENUE AT ROUTE 1 RARFS
1991 NC EL'ILD AM PEAK HOUR
date: 05-25-1988 tiie:10:0E:3i
LAST CATA SET KAKES LOADED OR SAVED
VOLU«E= LOCATED IK CED:Y VOLUME i 6E3HETRIC3 VOLllfiES TK RT 170 M 0
c HOC
0 0
SE0f1ETRICS=
LT
DIR
EB 0 1710 UB 195 NB m SB 0
(t OF LANES LT TH RT
0 h 1
1 3 0 1 0 E 0 0 0
SIGNAL^
LANE WIDTH
LT TH RT
0.0 lE.C lE.O
lE.O lE.O 0.0
0.0 lE.O
CO 0.0
lE.O 0.0
CROSS
UALK 0 0 0 0
C>MC c-FtU^ (.EiT^r TUOfs} LAIC'S- *♦
pS70ii?s/EX> fn2^r^^ cA*-^'
TRAFFIC i ROP.DHAY CONDITIONS
DIR GRADE XHV EB -S.Oii 5. OX HB E.OX 5. OX NB -S.OX 5. OX
AD] PAR>; Y/N nOVES BUSES N 0 0
N 0 0
N 0 0
SB O.CX O.OX H
PEDESTRIANS ARR
PHF CROSS BUT MIN TINE TYPE
.900 0 7.0 3 .900 0 7.0 3
.900 0 7.0 3
0 .900 0
7.0 0
PHASINGS
EASTBGUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp
1 * » ♦ 30.3 5 A
2 t « * 13.1 5 fi
3 ♦ * i 31.6 5 A
CVCLE= 90.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
|
PART |
1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS) |
||||||
|
DIR |
LTV |
THV |
RTV |
PHF |
LTFR |
THFR RTFR |
|
|
EB |
0 |
1710 |
170 |
.900 |
0 |
1900 |
189 |
|
UB |
195 |
m |
0 |
.900 |
217 |
489 |
0 |
|
NB |
«80 |
0 |
1100 |
.900 |
533 |
0 |
IEEE |
|
SB |
0 |
0 |
0 |
.900 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
PART £ (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN G=OUF FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
|
EB TH |
1900 it 1.10 E090 0.00 0.00 |
||
|
EB RT |
1S9 1 1.00 189 0.00 I. 00 |
||
|
HB LT |
E17 1 1.00 217 1.00 0.00 |
||
|
WB TH |
489 3 1.10 538 0.00 0.00 |
||
|
NB LT |
533 1 1.00 533 1.00 0.00 |
||
|
NB RT |
1E22 2 1.05 1283 0.00 1.00 |
||
|
PART 3 (DP'CSI |
:NG VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS) |
||
|
LEFT TURN |
OPPOSINS APPROACH |
||
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES X OPPOSINS LEFT TURN |
t LANES |
OPPOSING |
|
LT TH RT LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
WESTBOUND |
0 1900 139 0 0 0 |
0 4 1 |
0 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
0 0 0 0 0 0 |
0 0 0 |
0 |
tcje d
RUTHERTjF.C AVENUE AT CHELSEA STREET -
19?1 P« peas; hour with TUDOR KHARF ^'/HbJu^rv
tidte:C5-S7-19aB tiB»:15:47:ES
SfiTLiRhTIDN FLOk ACJUSTfiENT WORKSHEET
DIR LK SROUP IDEAL N Fnk) Fhv Fgr FDarl: Fbus Fares Frt Fit 5
EE LT 1300 E 1.000 0.976 I.OIC 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.92C E937
EE TH-RT 1800 i. 1.000 0.974 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 C. 990 1.000 i3El
\ii LT 1800 2 1.000 0.97o 0.990 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 1. 000 0.9E0 E879
UB TH 1300 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 ^69^*
NB LT 1800 I 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 Mi,
NB TH 1800 E 1.033 0.976 0,990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 SES^t
SB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 1516
SB TH 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 1596
SB RT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 l.OOC l.OOC C.90G 0.E5C 1.000 1357
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN SRC'JP V 5 v/5 g/C c v/c CRITICAL
EB LT h<t1 E737 0.15 0.17 509 0.88
EB TH-RT 1E16 6321 0.19 0.17 1096 1.11 »
WB LT 785 £879 0.27 0.31 897 0.88
WE TH 1621 't69<t 0.35 0.31 1^62 1.11 i
NB LT 53 1486 O-O^t 0.12 181 0.29
NB TH 1^23 323<t O.K O.IE 395 1.11 ♦
SB LT 512 1516 0.34 0.30 461 1.11 »
SB TH 525 1596 0.33 0.30 486 1.08
SB RT 525 1357 0.39 0.48 64S 0.81
CYCLE=1BO.O LCST=16.0 SUK V/3 CRIT= 1.01 TOTAL V/C= 1.11
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
DIR LN SROUP v/c g/C C dl c d2 PF Delay LOS Avg Q 95S Q
EE LT 0.E8 o!n 180.0 55.16 509 11.47 1.00 66.63 F 17.7
EE TH-RT 1.11 0.17 180.0 57.86 1096 58.31 0.85 99.17 F 53.3
WE LT 0.88 0.31 180.0 44.58 897 6.87 1.00 51.45 E 25.7
WB TH 1.11 0.31 180.0 49.54 1462 56.14 0.85 89,82 F 62.1
NB LT 0.29 0.12 180.0 54.66 181 0.26 1.00 54.92 E 2.3
NB TH 1.11 0.12 180.0 60.97 395 73.69 0.85 114.64 F 22.4
BE LT 1.11 0.30 180.0 49.97 461 70.91 1.00 120.88 F 26.1
SB TH 1.08 0.30 180.0 49.35 486 58.17 0.80 86.32 F 21.7
SB RT 0.81 0.48 180.0 30.45 648 5.34 0.71 25.58 D 13.7
DIR Delay LOS
EB 90. to F
WB 77.31 F
NB 10S.E3 F
SB 77.22 F
INTERSECTION DELAY = 83.32 INTERSECTION LOS=F
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 100 TO EOO SECONDS WHICH MINIfllZEB CRITICAL KOVEHENT DELAY IS 180.0 SECONDS
THE V/C RATIO CAN'T BE .95 FOR THE 6IVEN CONDIHONS THE EXISTING TIMING IS OPTIMAL
RUTHERFDRC AVEKJE AT CHELSEA STREET -
1991 PH FEAI HDUR WITH TUDCR WHARF -^ j (^\^-^<=^ p^
date:05-E7-195B tiM:15:'i7:20
'Cl^ — -
LAST DATA SET NAKES LOADED OR SAVED
VOLUflE= LOCATED VOLUME
DIR LT EB 406 KB 710 NB 50 SB '.SS
GED«ETRICS=
IN CBD:V I SEjUETRICS VOLUMES TH RT
980
lAOO
396
499
70
I OF LANES LT TH RT E 4 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 : 1 1
SIGNAL=
LANE WIDTH LT TH RT lE.C lE.O 0.0 12.0 lE.O 0.0 12.0 13.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
CROSS
WALK
60
60
E6
36
L>Nfc
-iJ
•Jclj^ '-^^r u_e~t-<.<:/v;r-^
TRAFFIC L ROADWAY COWDITIONS
CIR GRADE XHl'
EB -2. OX 5.0);
WB c.Oi 5. OX
NB 2. OX 5. OX
SB -2. OX 5. OX
AD] FARK
Y/N PlO'v'ES BUSES t« 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0
PEDE3TRIAKS ARR
FHF CROSS BUT WIN TIME TYPE .950 0 22.0 3 .950 0 22.0 3 .950 0 16.0 3 .950 0 16.0 4
•PHA3INSS
EASTBOUND 1 t r 0 1 ♦ » t E 3 4 »
WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrp
» 31. £ 4 A
t ♦ ♦ 56.1 4 A
♦ ♦ * 54.8 4 A
♦ ♦ 2B.0 4 A
CYCLE= 180.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET FART I (MOVEHEN' ADJUSTMENTS)
|
DIR LTV |
THV |
RTV |
PKF |
LTFR THFR RTFR |
|||||
|
EB 406 |
960 |
70 |
.950 |
427 1032 |
74 |
||||
|
WB 710 |
1400 |
0 |
.950 |
747 1474 |
0 |
||||
|
NB 50 |
396 |
0 |
.950 |
53 417 |
0 |
||||
|
SB 486 |
495 |
499 |
.950 |
512 525 |
525 |
||||
|
PART 2 (Li |
iNE GRDUF |
ADJUSTMENTS) |
|||||||
|
DIF LN SRI |
3UF |
FLOW |
N LU |
V Fit |
Prt |
||||
|
EB LT |
427 |
2 1.05 |
449 l.OC |
0.00 |
|||||
|
EB TH-RT |
1105 |
4 1.10 |
1216 0.00 0.07 |
||||||
|
WB LT |
747 |
2 1.05 |
735 1.00 0.00 |
||||||
|
WB TH |
147i |
3 I.IC |
1621 0.00 O.CO |
||||||
|
NF LT |
53 |
1 1.00 |
53 1.00 |
0.00 |
|||||
|
NB TH |
417 |
£ 1.05 |
438 0.00 |
0.00 |
|||||
|
SB LT |
512 |
1 1.00 |
512 1.00 |
0.00 |
|||||
|
35 TH |
r-tc |
1 1.00 |
525 COO |
0.00 |
|||||
|
SB RT |
525 |
1 1.00 |
525 COO |
1.00 |
|||||
|
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS) |
|||||||||
|
LEFT TURN |
OPPOSING APPROACH |
||||||||
|
BE INS OPPOSED |
VOLUMES X OPPOSING L |
.EFT TURN |
* |
LANES |
OPPOSING |
||||
|
EASTBOUND WESTBCiJND K'ORT-^BuUNI ni'Tjtnijur |
/ |
LT 747 427 r * *y JIC |
TH 1474 1032 525 |
RT 0 74 525 |
LT TH C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
RT 0 0 0 0 |
LT 2 2 1 1 |
TH RT 3 0 4 0 1 1 2 0 |
VOLUME 0 0 0 0 |
page 2
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT CHELSEA STREET -
1991 AM FEfti; HOUR - WITH TUBCR WHARF TRAFFIC ^^Mj
dite:05-E5-198B tne:09:08:ES
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTHENT WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP IDEAL N F«id Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit
EB L
EB TH-RT 1800 A 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.993 1.000 6338
UB L
UB TH 1800 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 '(69'(
NB L
KB TH 1800 2 1.033 0.976 0.990 l.OOC 1.000 0.900 l.OOC 1.000 SESA
SB L
1800 E 1.000 0.976 1.010 l.OOO 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.9E0 2937
1800 2 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 1.000 0.920 EB79
1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 l'tB6
1800 2 l.OOC 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.920 2937
SB TH-RT 1800 2 1 .000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0, 9*0 1.000 3002
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v s v/s q'Z c v/c CRITICAL
EB LT 997 2937 0.3A 0.37 1091 0.91
EB TH-RT 2'(57 6338 0.39 0.37 2354 l.C »
U6 LT 268 2E79 0.09 0.13 388 0.69
KB TH 660 4694 0.14 0.13
NB LT 78 1486 0.05 0.21
N6 TH 705 3234 0.22 0.21
SB LT 553 2937 0.19 0.18
SB TH-RT 525 3002 0.17 0.18
CYCLE=153.0 LCST=16.0 SUM V/S CRIT= 0.93 TOTAL V/C= 1.04
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
95X Q
|
632 1.04 |
» |
|
310 0.25 |
|
|
675 1.04 |
t |
|
530 1.04 |
} |
|
542 0.97 |
|
DIR LN GROUP |
v/c g/C C |
dl |
c |
d2 PF |
Delay LOS Avg Q |
||
|
EB LT |
0.91 0.37 153.0 |
34.78 |
1091 |
8.44 1.00 |
43.22 |
E 25.4 |
|
|
EB TH-RT |
1.04 0.37 153.0 |
37.51 |
£354 |
26.07 0.85 |
54.04 |
E 63.4 |
|
|
MB LT |
0.69 0.13 153.0 |
48.00 |
388 |
3.58 1.00 |
51.58 |
E 9.4 |
|
|
UB TH |
1.04 0.13 153.0 |
50.65 |
632 |
39.90 0.85 |
76.97 |
F 23. 9 |
|
|
NB LT |
0.25 0.21 153.0 |
38.40 |
310 |
0.05 1.00 |
38.50 |
D 2.6 |
|
|
NB TH |
1.04 0.21 153.0 |
46.53 |
675 |
3B.95 0.85 |
72.66 |
F 24.8 |
|
|
SB LT |
1.04 0.18 153.0 |
48.11 |
530 |
42.64 1.00 |
90.75 |
F 22.4 |
|
|
SB TH-RT |
0.97 0.18 153.0 |
47.33 |
542 |
22.96 0.77 |
54.13 |
E 17.4 |
|
|
DIR Delay |
LOS |
||||||
|
EB 50.92 |
E |
||||||
|
WB 69.63 |
F |
||||||
|
NB 69.26 |
F |
||||||
|
SB 72.92 |
F |
INTERSECTION DELAY = 59.80 INTERSECTION LOS=E
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 100 TO 200 SECONDS WHICH MINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 150.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 976.4 SECONDS
for chosen cycle length 150.0
suggested tiling phase 1 is 55.6 sees green, 4.0 sees yello« + red dear
suggested ti«ing phase 2 is 20.2 sees green, 4.0 sees yellon + red clear
suggested tieing phase 3 is 27.0 sees green, 4.0 sees yellon + red clear
suggested timng phase 4 is 31.2 sees green, 4.0 sees yelloM * red clear
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT CHELSEA STREET -
1991 Aff PEAK HOUR - WITH TUDOR WHARF TRAFFIC
date!0S-E5-19e8 ti»e:09:08:E3
/ M2>^i.'->'s Pa-cCxJ— '
LAST DATA SET NAMES LOADED OR SAVED
|
VOLUHE= GEONETRICS^ |
SI6NAL= |
||
|
LOCATED IN CBDiY |
|||
|
VOLURE I BEOHETRICS |
|||
|
VOLUMES |
1 OF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|
DIR LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
EB 855 1910 100 |
E 't 0 |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
60 |
|
UB £30 S'tO 0 |
E 3 0 |
lE.O 12.0 0.0 |
60 |
|
NB 70 60't 0 |
1 E 0 |
12.0 13.0 0.0 |
£6 |
|
SB W E71 179 |
£ £ 0 |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
36 |
|
TRAFFIC t ROADHAV CONDITIONS |
|||
|
ADJ |
PARK |
PEDESTRIANS MR |
|
|
DIR 6RADE XHV Y/N MOVES BUSES |
FHF CROSS BUT MIN TIME Ti?E |
||
|
EB -E.OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
££.0 S |
|
UB 2. OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
££.0 3 |
|
NB E.OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
16.0 3 |
|
SB -E.OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
16.0 4 |
PHASINSS
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp
t i
* <
i 4
|
56.8 |
4 |
A |
|
£0.6 |
4 |
A |
|
£7.6 |
4 |
A |
|
31.9 |
4- |
A |
CYCLE= 153.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
|
EB |
855 |
1910 |
100 .900 950 £1£2 111 |
|
WB |
£30 |
540 |
0 .900 £56 600 0 |
|
NB |
70 |
604 |
0 .900 78 671 0 |
|
SB |
474 |
£71 |
179 .900 5£7 301 199 |
|
FAR |
T £ (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS) |
||
|
DIR LN GROUP |
FLOW N LU V Pit Prt |
||
|
EB |
LT |
950 £ 1.05 997 1.00 0.00 |
|
|
EB |
TH-RT |
££33 4 1.10 £457 0.00 0.05 |
|
|
UB |
LT |
£56 £ 1.05 £68 1.00 0.00 |
|
|
UB |
TH |
600 3 1.10 660 0.00 0.00 |
|
|
NB |
LT |
78 1 1.00 78 1.00 0.00 |
|
|
NB |
TH |
671 £ 1.05 705 0.00 0.00 |
|
|
SB |
LT |
5£7 £ 1.05 553 1.00 0.00 |
|
|
SB |
TH-RT |
500 £ 1.05 5£5 0.00 0.40 |
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN
OPPOSING APPROACH
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
X OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
♦ |
LANES |
OPP03INI |
|||
|
LT TH RT |
LT |
TH |
RT |
L" |
TH |
RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
£56 600 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
; |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
WESTBOUND |
950 212£ 111 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
: |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
5£7 301 19? |
0 |
C |
0 |
: |
n C |
0 |
0 |
|
cni;Tt.'pO!_i(;5 |
in (.-". fi |
(• |
n |
n |
P |
f. |
n |
'L"nEF-3Fa' fiVENUE AT 'HE'-SE- S'f.EET -
:99l PK FEAt - KITH
:i-e:0:-E.;'-li3B usesldin'iSO
5ATUR;TI3t; FLOW firj'JETMENT WDRt 5HEET
;IF> LN GfiOUr IDEAL N Fnid "hv Fgr Fsark FbuE Fares Frt Fit 5
EB LT ISOC E 1. 000 0.976 1.010 1,000 l.OCO O.rOC l.Of-O 0.9EC E"37
EE TH-RT '300 ii 1,000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.99C 1 .000 6321
flB LT -.BOO E 1.000 0.976 0,990 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 1.000 O.^^O 2E'79
wB TK IBOO 3 l.i'Oe 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 it694
NB LT IBOO 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1,000 0,950 U56
•ii TH ISOO E 1.033 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1,000 1.000 Ic'i'i
3B LT IBOO I 1.000 C.976 1.010 1.000 l.OOC C,90C 1,000 0,950 1516
EB TH 18(0 1 1,000 C,9"6 1.010 1.000 1,000 0,900 l.OCO l.COO 1596
35 RT lEOO 1 l.OJO C.':76 1,010 1,000 1,000 0,900 0.850 1.000 1357
Cfi'^fiCITY flNA.YSIS WORKSHEET
:IR LN ERQL'P v s v/5 a/C c v7c ZRIT'.CftL
EB LT i(<.3 H937 C.15 O.IB 5EA 0.S5
EB TH-RT 1=16 63E1 0.19 O.IB 11E7 l.OS »
wB LT 7E5 EB79 0,E7 0,3E 9EE 0.B5
wB TH ItEl '.69't 0,35 0,3£ 1503 l.OS *
NB LT 53 l^tSe O.OA 0,11 160 0,33
NB TH 376 3£3^ O.IE C.ll 346 1.03 «
EB LT 491 ISlt, O.iE 0,30 455 1.09 »
EB TH 491 1556 0,31 C.30 479 l.OE
SB RT 491 1357 0.3= 0.48 649 0.76
:YCLE=170,0 L0ET=16,0 sum V/E CRIT= 0.:3 TOTAL V/C= 1.08
LEVEL OF SERVICE MOR' 5HEET
DIF LK BROUF v/c g/C C dl c dE PF SelcT LC3 Avg S 95i; £
51.37 5B4 S.53 1.00 59.90 E 16.4 EE
5t.01 1IE7 45.44 0.55 84.53 F 47.4 79
41.05 9EE 5.45 l.CO 46,50 E E4.0 30
45. 6E 1503 4E.69 0.S5 75.06 F 54.4 93
53.3? 160 0.45 1.00 53.77 £ E.E 3
55. EO 34S 63.45 0.E5 103.40 F 17.8 3E
46,81 455 58, EE 1.00 105.03 F ES.4 -4
45. 7E 479 38.^3 C.79 66. E5 F 17,1 Ec
E7.56 649 3,53 0.69 El. 55 C lE.l IH
|
EB LT |
0.S5 CIE |
170.0 |
|
|
EB TH-RT |
1,0S CIB |
170. 0 |
|
|
,B LT |
0.85 C.EE |
170,0 |
|
|
yB TH |
l.CB 0.3E |
170.0 |
|
|
'.'B LT |
0.33 0.11 |
170,0 |
|
|
m TH |
l.CB O.ll |
ro.o |
|
|
3F LT |
l.OS C,3C |
170. 0 |
|
|
SB TH |
l,OE 0.30 |
170,0 |
|
|
55 RT |
0.'6 0,''8 |
170.0 |
|
|
:iR telsv |
LOS |
||
|
£5 77.15 |
F |
||
|
.E 65.-4 |
r |
||
|
^B 97.50 |
F |
||
|
3f 64, ES |
F |
||
|
I'-'TEFSEC'i |
;ot; |
DELAY = 71 |
,0-f i' |
THE CY:LE LENSTI- within T-i.E BLUNDS OF 100 'G lEO SECONDS ■JHICK niNIMIZES CRriCiL ri:,'E«ENT DELAY 15 170.0 SECONDS
'HE V/C RATIC CAN'T BE .95 =CR THE GIVEN CCNCITIONS 'HE SnSTINB TININ3 IS CFTIf^iL
-J-nEF-jRD AVENUE iT :rEL5EP ?"EET -
.=91 Fr FEAt - hlTH TUDGr, WHAn^ - iJ'C MARINA PARCEL
:;te;0i-£0-I9e£. tis=:it:i?:lB
.=35 ^'Cfl - CHAPTER 9: SIGNALIZEC - OPERATIONAL iNALVSIS Versioo 1-7-87
J.i' DATA EEf l-iA^E? LOADED OR SAVED
.■'[^L'''<E=liE«r'Mf 5E0KETPICS=16EillF«S SIENAL^liEMPHB
.CCATED IN CB[:Y
|
.^DLUFiE L SEC.'^ETR:CS |
||||||
|
VOLJKEE |
* CF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|||
|
"IF. STREET |
LT TP |
RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH |
RT |
WALK |
|
E3 Rj'THERFDRD AVE |
itOl 930 |
7J |
2 A 0 |
12.0 12.0 |
CO |
60 |
|
,JB RUTHERFORD AVE |
7IC l^-OO |
0 |
2 3 0 |
lE.C 12.0 |
0.0 |
60 |
|
■;B I-9S FASP |
5C 3« |
*") |
1 2 0 |
lE.C 13. C |
CO |
2i |
|
:B CHELSEA STREET |
Ho6 4q6 |
n6; |
1 I 1 |
lE.O lE.C |
lE.O |
36 |
|
'RAFFIC i ROAD^iAY CONDITIOKS |
||||||
|
ADJ |
PARK |
FEDESTRIAHS |
ARR |
|||
|
;IR SRADE tHV Y/N f |
^DVEE BUSES |
FHF |
CROSS BUT KIN ' |
TI>IE TYPE |
||
|
EB -E.OX 5. OS K |
0 0 |
.950 |
0 Ec, |
.0 3 |
||
|
,'S 2. OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.950 |
0 £2 |
.0 3 |
||
|
■^B E.OX 5.0*; N |
0 0 |
.950 |
0 li, |
.0 3 |
||
|
SB -IM 5. OX N |
0 0 |
.950 |
0 16 |
.0 k |
-HASIKSS
EASTEOUND WESTBOUND KOR'HEOUND 30UTHBDUKD SREEN Y+s PRE/ACT
Itrpltrpltrpltrp 1 ♦ ♦ » ♦ 30,3 4 A
S ♦ » * 5i..4 li A
♦ » » 51.0 it A
:vCLE= 17C0
■'Qluhe adjuetrent worksheet
:AR' 1 (n.OVEriEMT ADJL'STKENTS;
]IR LTV THV RTV FHF LTFR THFR RTFP
|
EB |
itCl 930 |
70 |
.950 |
4E2 1032 |
74 |
|
■^S |
710 IWO |
0 |
.-■50 |
*'*'' U7(( |
0 |
|
-B |
5C 3it0 |
0 |
.950 |
53 35S |
0 |
|
:e |
46s '.66 |
46= |
.950 |
491 491 |
491 |
:ART E (LANE tSCb'P ADJUSTMENTS)
IR Lh EROLiR FLjo' N LU \ Pit Prt
IB .T -E2 E 1.05 4-5 LOO 0.00
IE TH-RT 1105 4 1,10 1216 CCO 0.07
'i LT 747 2 1,05 7S5 1.00 CCO
'S TH .474 3 I.IC 1621 0.00 0.00
•B L" 53 1 1.00 53 1.00 COO
■3 TH 353 2 1.05 376 O.CO 0.00
:B LT 49! 1 1.00 491 l.OC COO
■E TH 491 I.l.CO 491 0.00 0.00
'^i RT :91 : l.CO 491 ^,00 1.00
■►RT 3 (QP'3EI!JS VOLUrE ADJLiSTMENTS)
-EH TURN uFFJSINE AF'r'ROACH
illNS G='FOEED VC.U^ES ", CFPGEiNS uEFT TIRN « LANE: D^^FCEINS
LT TH RT LT TH FT LT TH RT VCLIJME
:^STBOUNL 7;? i^h 0 COC 230 :.■
ESTETUND 4Ec 10:E I'f 0 0 0 E 4 0 0
•CRTnECU'^D "-1 491 .:; COO ill 0
r.jTHE-FDF'E" AvilJUE *-' CHELsE- S'-.:ET -
!991 i« PEA!' K3li?, - U; TlDC"^ H;^- - U.'U rAKlH^ PARCEL
dj:e:Oi-E0-ii
: j3 : jc
Cr
DUE
SATUPiTION FLDiJ ADJuETflEM ^iOPKEHEET
DIP LU SRQjt IDEAL N FNid Fhv F" Fiarl
EE LT 1800 E l.OOC 0.97S l.OIO l.OCO l.OCO
:B00 i> l.CCO 0.97c h.'.lO 1..0CO l.OOC
15)0 E l.OOC 0.97-, 0.'90 1.000 1.000
IBOO 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000
1S(0 I l.OOC C.9-fe C.r9G l.OOC 1,000
1500 E 1.033 C.9"s 0.?90 1.000 l.OOC
lEOO E l.OOC 0.97t I. 010 l.OCO l.OCO
ISOC E l.OCO 0.976 1.010 l.OOC l.COO
|
EB |
TH-R- |
|
'^i |
lJ |
|
U£ |
TH |
|
HI |
LT |
|
Nt |
TH |
|
5t- |
LT |
|
SB |
TH-R' |
|
Fi |
j-ea |
Frt |
Fit |
£ |
||
|
C |
.900 |
I |
.000 |
y |
.'EC |
E937 |
|
J |
.900 |
0 |
,993 |
1, |
,000 |
c33s |
|
C |
.900 |
1 |
.000 |
0 |
.950 SS79 |
|
|
C |
.900 |
1 |
.000 |
1, |
.000 |
'i694 |
|
(/ |
.9X1 |
1 |
.000 |
0 |
,950 |
liBi |
|
0 |
.900 |
1 |
.000 |
l', |
,000 |
zm |
|
0 |
.900 |
1 |
.000 |
0, |
.9S0 |
E937 |
|
c |
.900 |
0, |
.9'.0 |
i 1 |
,000 |
300E |
Cf^PACITY AN^cYBIB WDRKSKEET
DIP L-"' SRjUF V s V'D g'2 c v/c CRITI 935 E9Z7 0.34 0^37 10=6 0.90 E4S7 633S 0.35 C.37 E3i5 1.04 ♦ 262 ES79 0.09 0.14 390 0.69 660 4694 C.I4 0.14 635 1.04 t
78 1456 C.05 CEO 304 0.E6 656 3E3i C.El O.EO 660 1.0- * 553 E937 0.19 0.13 53E 1.04 ♦ 519 300E 0.17 0,18 544 C.95
tt Ll
EE Tr-RT
WE LT
WB TH
NB LT
m TH
SB LT
3B TH-RT
CYCLE=151.0 LC3T=16.0 SUfI V/E CRIT= 0.93 TOTAL V/C= 1.04
|
LtV |
tL Ur ;tnV |
|
DIP |
LN 6R3UP |
|
EB |
Ll |
|
E£ |
T4-RT |
|
hB |
LT |
|
h5 |
TH |
|
NB |
1 T Ll ' |
|
NB |
TH |
|
SB |
LT |
|
SB |
T-RT 1 |
|
DIP |
Dslay LC5 |
|
EE |
43.94 E |
|
«B |
67.97 F |
|
NE |
67.91 f |
|
EE |
7C.E7 F |
ERVICE WDPKSHEET
v/: g/C C dl :
0.90 0.37 151.0 33.91 1096
i.V* V.d/ iJ».V JC.OZ C3ZJ
C.69 C.I4 151.0 47.31 390
1.04 0.14 151,0 49.9a 635
0.E6 O.EO 151,0 35.34 304
1.04 O.EO 151.0 4i.lS' 660
1.04 C.15 151. e 47,39 53E
0.95 CIS 151.0 46.51 5^4
|
dE |
Fr |
DeUv LOS ft |
vg 5 |
95X S |
|
|
7.18 |
I. CO |
41.10 |
E |
E4.7 |
33 |
|
S4.46 |
0.85 |
5E.09 |
c |
61.7 |
9S |
|
3.43 |
l.OC |
50.79 |
E |
9.3 |
IE |
|
38. E7 |
0.85 |
74.96 |
F |
E3.4 |
33 |
|
C.iO |
l.CC |
38.44 |
D |
E.6 |
3 |
|
37.71 |
C.E5 |
/I .ij |
F |
E3.S |
40 |
|
40 , 99 |
1.00 |
SB ,35 |
F |
EE.O |
40 |
|
EO.IE |
C.-7 |
50.98 |
F |
17.0 |
EE |
INTEP5EC"0K CELAV = 5^.:
HON
'KE CVCLE LE!.'5TH »,'ITKI'< Tr!; BOUNDS OF 70 TO 130 E
,;hi:h fiiNinizES critical ^ove^'Ent cElAv i= isi.c se:
-D^ t V/: RATIO OF .95 THE CVC.E EHOULD EE 71E.3 5ECDND3 :hE E^ISTIo 'imi IE C-TiriAL
=U"KE^FORr i^ENJE AT ry£^SEA ETREET -
';>-". flf Fc"< HOUR - N/ TL-LjF il^A*? - «,'C f^"^iN- ►ARZEl
ditesOs-EO-l-SS tiF5ils:5c!5C
;?55 HCR - CHAPTER ?: EI3NALI2ED - G-ER-TIDMAL iUftl^SIS version 1-7-S"^
.fST DATA SET NAflES LCfllED GR SAVED
|
;OLUKE=lcEriAFIE 5E0^ |
;ETR!C5= |
SI5NAL= |
|||
|
.OCATED IN C3C;Y |
|||||
|
VOLLSE t SEulETRICE |
|||||
|
VCLUfiES |
s D- LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
||
|
DIR STREET |
LT TH |
RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
Et RLIThERFCRD AVE |
Bi4 1910 |
ICO |
E <( C |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
iC |
|
^B RU'KERFCRD AVE |
=30 5i0 |
0 |
E 3 0 |
lE.O iE.O CO |
6C |
|
NE 1-93 RAf.P |
70 5BS |
0 |
1 E 0 |
1 E . C 13,0 J . 0 |
E6 |
|
SE CHELSEA STREET |
;7n 26S |
i / 1 |
E E 0 |
3a |
TRAFFIC l RDADiiAY CONDITIGNS
ALJ PAR* FEDES'RIANS ARR
DIP BRi'-E '^H; Y.'N f^OVES BLSES PHF CRDEE BUT ^I^ TI^E TYRE
EB -E.Oi 5.0; H 0 (I .900 0 SE.O 3
i^t E.o;; 5.CS N 0 o .900 c ee.g 3
"D —'^ ■'If - A**
N
0 0 .500 0 0 C ,900 0
1 6 . '.• C
16.0 k
PriASINcS
EASTBDiJKD ilESTBOUKT ^iORTiSOUND EOUTHBC'JKD GREEN v+R 'RE/ACT
1 t r 0 I t r p 1 t r p I t r p
1 * ♦ ♦ » 5o.A I* A
S * ♦ ♦ EO.'t 'i A
3 y i i r.u h i,
4 ♦ ♦* 3C.ShA
:YCLE= 151.0
v'O-Uf^E AEJLiSTMEKT yQRKEHEET
=ART 1 (ROVEffEHT ADJuETKErS)
DIP LTV THV RTV f'HF LTFR THFS R'FR
|
EB |
£4t |
1910 |
100 |
,900 |
9E5 SIEE |
ill |
|
I^E |
E3C |
540 |
0 |
.900 |
E5t 600 |
0 |
|
N3 |
70 |
53B |
0 |
.900 |
7E 633 |
|
|
SB |
47^ |
EiS |
177 |
.900 |
527 E93 |
197 |
rc
.-.?
il- LT T-i
I T . I
TH LT
(LASE EROUP ADJUSTHENTS
SfDUP FLOW N LU v
9:5 E 1 .•' J RE:
■f ■ zdz: i 1,.0 E-j7
E56 E 1 .05 Eas
600 3 1.10 66C
78 1 1.00
653 E 1.C5
5E7 E 1.05
0.00
. VJ
.0)
|
66C C, |
.00 |
0 |
.GO |
|
7£ 1. |
,00 |
;* |
.00 |
|
5E6 0, |
,00 |
V |
.00 |
|
553 1, |
,00 |
{' |
.00 |
0.00
■AR* 3 (DPFjSIhS vDLUtlE AjJUoTME'vS)
-EFT TUR!. 0F?03IN3 AFFROAC^
:EI^'3 O'^'FOEED VQLL'fES 1. "■?G3!ME LE!^T TURN
LT TH 'T .T TH RT lAETBGuM £56 600 0 0 0 0 -ES'tCUNC 'zi ElEE li: 0 0 0 . .-r. i-:-^ .I- .-c 170 1- 0 V 0 :'.THEC^'u 7f 653 C ':'-,'•.
t LiNES 0?FC3IN3 lT TF FT VO.L'-E E 3 0 0
pace c
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT CHELSEA STREET - 1991 NC BUILD PK PEAK HOUR date:05-£7-19B8 tiie:13!'t7:E0
SATURATION FLOW ADJ DIR LK GROUP IDEAL EB LT
EB UB UB NB NE SB SB SB
TH-RT
LT
TH
LT
TK
LT
TH
RT
IBOO 1800 1800 1800 IBCO 1800 1800 1800 1800
USTMENT WORKSHEET
N Fmd Fhv Fgr Fpark
2 1.000 0.97£ 1.010 1.000
'i 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000
2 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000
3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000
1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000
2 1.033 0.976 0.990 1.000 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1 1,000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000
Fbus 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 l.OCO 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Farea 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
Frt 1.000 0.990 1.000 1. 000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.850
Fit C.920 1.000 C.920 1.000 C.950 1.000 0.950 1.000 1. 000
s
2937 6321 2379 't69it 1436 323't 1516 1596 1357
c v/c 530 0.79
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v s v/s g/C
EB LT 'tEO E937 CI** 0.18
EB TH-RT 1216 6321 0.19 0.18 1140 1.07
UB LT 785 2879 0.27 0.32 932 O.B'i
HB TH 1621 4694 0.35 0.32 1519 1.07
NB LT 53 1486 0.04 0.10 148 0.36
NB TH 343 3234 0.11 0.10
SB LT 480 1516 0.32 0,30
SB TH 480 1596 0.30 0.30
SB RT 389 1357 0.29 0.48
CRITICAL
|
321 1.07 |
t |
|
450 1.07 |
i |
|
4"4 1,01 |
|
|
647 0.60 |
CYCLEMfcO.O L0ST=16.0 SUN V/S CRIT= 0.96 TOTAL V/C= 1.07
|
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET |
|||||||
|
DIR LN GROUP |
v/c g/C C |
dl c |
d2 PF |
Delay LOS A |
vg Q 95X |
||
|
EB LT |
0.79 0.18 160.0 |
47,67 530 |
5.61 1.00 |
53.23 |
E |
14.6 |
|
|
EB TK-RT |
1.07 0.18 160.0 |
50,58 1140 |
40.62 0.85 |
77.52 |
F |
43.9 |
|
|
WB LT |
0.84 0.32 160.0 |
38,23 932 |
4.97 1.00 |
43.20 |
E |
=2.5 |
|
|
HB TH |
1.07 0.32 160.0 |
42.48 1519 |
37.83 0.85 |
65.26 |
F |
50,1 |
|
|
NB LT |
0.36 0.10 160.0 |
51.13 143 |
0,65 1.00 |
51.78 |
E |
2.1 |
|
|
NB TH |
1.07 0.10 160.0 |
55.17 321 |
60.42 0.85 |
98.25 |
F |
15.4 |
|
|
SB LT |
1.07 0.30 160.0 |
44.00 450 |
53.71 1.00 |
97.71 |
r |
£0.5 |
|
|
SB TH |
1.01 C.30 160.0 |
43.01 474 |
35,37 0.78 |
61.40 |
F |
15.7 |
|
|
SB RT |
0.60 0.48 160.0 |
23.23 647 |
1.14 0.62 |
15.19 |
r |
9.1 |
|
|
DIR Delay |
LOS |
||||||
|
EB 71.30 |
r |
||||||
|
WB 60.09 |
F |
||||||
|
NB 92. C6 |
F |
||||||
|
SB 60.98 |
F |
||||||
|
IKTERSECTION DELAY = 65.65 INTERSECTION LOS=F |
THE CY:LE length within the BOUNDS OF 100 TO 200 SECONDS WHICH «INIRIZES CRITICAL HOVEKENT DELAY IS 160.0 SECONDS
THE V/C RATIO CAN'T BE .95 FOR. THE GIVEN CONDITIONS THE EXISTING TIMNG IS OPTIMAL
RUTHERFORD AVENUE fil CHELSEA STREET - 1991 NO BUILD FN PEAK HOUR d£te:C5-E7-198S tiBe::2:'i7:16
LAST DATA SET NAMES LOADED OR SAVED
|
VCLUKE= 3! |
:0I1ETRICS= |
SI6NAL= |
|
|
LOCATED IN CBD:Y |
|||
|
VOLUME t BECMETRIC5 |
|||
|
VOLUMES |
» OF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|
DIR LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
k'ALK |
|
li 380 980 70 |
2 li 0 |
12.0 lE.O 0.0 |
60 |
|
1,'B 710 IhOO 0 |
2 3 0 |
lE.O 12.0 0.0 |
60 |
|
MB 50 310 0 |
1 E 0 |
12.0 13.0 0.0 |
26 |
|
3B liZb >>% 370 |
1 1 1 |
lE.O 12.0 12.0 |
36 |
TRAFFIC i ROADWAY CONDITIONS
DIR GRADE XHV EB -2.0'-; 5. OX WB 2. OX 5. OX NB 2. OX 5. OX SB -2. OX 5. OX
ADJ PARK Y/N MOVES N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0
BUSES 0 0 0 0
PEDESTRIANS ARR
PHF CROSS BUT MIN TIME TYPE .950 0 22.0 3
.950 0 22.0 3
.950 0 16.0 3
.950 0 16.0 <(
FHASINB3 EfiSTBOUND 1 t r p lit*
2 3
>* * .
WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R FRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrp
» t
|
28.8 |
k |
A |
|
51.8 |
k |
A |
|
47.5 |
k |
A |
|
15.9 |
k |
A h |
;ycle= 160.0
/□luke adjustment worksheet
-art 1 (movement adjustments)
:ir ltv thv rtv phf ltfr thfr rtfr
EB 380 980 70 .950 400 1032 74
JB 710 1400 0 .950 747 1474 0
NB 50 310 0 .950 53 326 0
EB 456 456 370 .950 480 480 389
-ART 2 (LANE BROUF ADJUSTMENTS)
:IR LN SROUP FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
|
'5 |
LT |
400 2 1.05 |
420 1.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
TK-RT |
lies 4 1.10 |
1216 0.00 0.07 |
|
3 |
LT |
747 2 1.05 |
785 l.CO 0.00 |
|
0 |
TH |
1474 3 1.10 |
1621 0.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
LT |
53 1 1.00 |
53 1.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
TH |
326 2 1.05 |
343 0.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
LT |
480 1 1.00 |
480 1.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
TH |
480 1 1.00 |
480 0.00 0.00 |
|
3 |
RT |
389 1 1.00 |
389 0.00 1.00 |
hRT 3 (CPFOSINS VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
EFT TURN
OPPOSING APPROACH
|
;INS OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
|
|
LT |
TH RT |
|
|
STSOL'ND |
747 |
1474 0 |
|
3TB0UND |
400 |
1032 74 |
|
STHcOL'ND |
450 |
480 3c9 |
|
UTHBOUND |
53 |
326 0 |
X OPPOSING LEFT TURN » LAI.ES
LT TH RT
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
OPPOSING
LT TH RT VOLUME 2 3 0 0 2 4 0 0 111 0 12 0 0
page E
RUTHERFORD AVENUE ftT CHELSEft ETREET - 1991 NO BUILD AM FEAI^ HOUR date:05-25-1986 ti6e:09:0'.:15
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WOR<SHEET
DIR LN GROUP IDEAL N Fnid Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
EB LT 1800 2 1.000 C.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.9E0 2937
EB TH-RT 1800 'i 1. 000 C.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.993 1.000 6338
UB LT 1800 E 1.000 C.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.9E0 S879
UB TH 1800 3 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 't69'i
KB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 1*186
NB TH 1800 S 1.033 0.976 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 3E3'i
SB LT 1800 E 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.920 E937
SB TH-RT 1800 E 1.000 C.976 1.010 1,000 1.000 0.900 0.9^11 1.000 3003
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN BROUF v s v/s g/C c v/c CRITICAL
EB LT 933 2937 0.32 0.38 UK 0.8*
EB TH-RT 2A57 6338 0.39 0.38 2*03 l.OE ♦
UB LT 268 2879 0.09 0.14 396 0.68
UB TH 660 4694 0.14 0.14
NB LT 78 1486 0.05 0.19
NB TH 618 3234/0.19 0.19
SB LT 548 2937 0.19 0.18
SB TH-RT 502 3003 0.17 0.18
CYCLE=141.0 L0ST=16.0 SUA V7S CRIT: 0.91 TOTAL V/C= 1.02
95X Q
|
646 1.02 |
< |
|
E7B 0.E8 |
|
|
605 l.OE |
t |
|
536 l.OE |
* |
|
549 0.91 |
|
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET |
||||||
|
DIR LN GROUP v/c g/C C |
dl c |
d2 PF |
Delay LD5 A |
^g Q |
||
|
EB LT |
0.84 0.38 141.0 |
30.26 1114 |
4.08 1.00 |
34.35 |
D |
El. 6 |
|
EB TH-RT |
l.OE 0.38 141.0 |
33.72 2403 |
19.44 0.85 |
45.18 |
E |
55.2 |
|
WB LT |
0.68 0.14 141.0 |
43.95 396 |
3.17 1.00 |
47.12 |
E |
8.6 |
|
UB TH |
1.02 0.14 141.0 |
46.37 646 |
33.04 0.85 |
67.50 |
F |
21.4 |
|
NB LT |
O.EB 0.19 141.0 |
37.36 278 |
0.15 I. 00 |
37.51 |
D |
E.5 |
|
NB TH |
l.OE 0.19 141.0 |
43.78 605 |
33.99 0.85 |
66.10 |
F |
20.2 |
|
SB LT |
l.OE 0.18 141.0 |
44.01 536 |
35.81 1.00 |
79.82 |
F |
19.9 |
|
SB TH-RT |
0.91 0.18 141.0 |
42.97 549 |
14.31 0.75 |
43.09 |
E |
15.3 |
|
DIR Delay |
LOS |
|||||
|
EB 42.20 |
E |
|||||
|
UE 61.61 |
F |
|||||
|
NB 62.91 |
F |
|||||
|
SB 62.27 |
F |
|||||
|
INTERSECTION DELAY = 51.02 IK |
TERSECTIDN LOS=E |
THE CYCLE LENGTH UITHIN THE FOUNDS OF 100 TO 200 SECONDS WHICH HINIHI2ES CRITICAL KOVEOT DELAY IS 141.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CVCLE SHOULD BE 346.6 SECONDS THE EHSTINE TIMING IS OPTIMAL
ROTKERFORD ftVENlJE AT CHELSEA STREET -
1991 KO BUILD AK PEAK HOUR
date: 05-25- I9SB tiae:09:0'(:I3
LAST DATA SET NA«ES LOADED OR SAVED
V0LUI1E=
EEO«ETRICS=
LOCATED IN CBD:Y VOLUME 1. BEOKETRICS
VOLURES DIR LT TH RT EB 800 1910 100 UE 230 ^hO 0 NB 70 530 0 SB m 260 170
« OF LANES LT TH RT E k 0 2 3 0
1 2 0
2 2 0
SIBNAL^
LANE WIDTH LT TH RT lE.O 12.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 13.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 0.0
CROSS
UALK
60
60
26
36
TRAFFIC i ROADUAY CONDITIONS
DIR GRADE XHV EB -2. OX 5. OX UB 2.05 5. OX NB 2. OX 5. OX SB -2. OX 5. OX
ADJ PARK Y/N MOVES BUSES N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0
PEDESTRIANS ARR PHF CROSS BUT MIN TIME TYPE
.900 .900 .900 .900
|
22.0 |
3 |
|
22.0 |
3 |
|
16.0 |
3 |
|
16.0 |
It |
PHASINGB
EASTBOUND 1 t r D
{ i
WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrp
t t
» t ♦
|
53.5 |
A |
A |
|
19.'* |
<» |
A |
|
25.8 |
i( |
A |
|
26. it |
It |
A |
CYCLE= I'll.O
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
|
EB |
800 1910 |
100 |
.900 |
889 2122 |
111 |
|
WB |
230 S^tO |
0 |
.900 |
256 600 |
0 |
|
NB |
70 530 |
0 |
.900 |
78 589 |
0 |
|
SB |
m 260 |
170 |
.900 |
522 289 |
189 |
PART 2 (LAKE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
EB LT 889 2 1.05 933 1.00 0.00
EB TH-RT 2233 4 1.10 2'(57 0.00 0.05
WB LT 256 2 1.05 268 1.00 0.00
WB TH 600 3 1.10 660 0.00 0.00
NB LT 78 1 1.00 78 1.00 0.00
NB TH 589 2 1.05 618 0.00 0.00
SB LT 522 2 1.05 S^iS 1.00 0.00
SB TH-RT A7B 2 1.05 502 0.00 OM
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN
OPPOSING APPROACH
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
X OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
« LANES |
OPPOSINI |
||
|
LT TH RT |
LT |
TH |
RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
256 600 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 3 0 |
0 |
|
WESTBOUND |
039 2122 HI |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 it 0 |
0 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
522 289 189 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 2 0 |
0 |
|
cr!"Tytini|kiti |
■?D res (•: |
n |
ci |
n |
1 ? ^ |
n |
page P
CHELSEA STREET AT WARREN STREET
1991 PH PEAK HOUR WITH TUDOR WHARF (H/ HARINA PARCEL)
dite:05-E5-198S tiiie:09:32:2E
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP IDEAL N Ft*id Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
EB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.005 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 1509
EB TH-RT IBOO £ 1 .000 0.976 1.005 1.000 l.OOO 0.900 0.98i( 1.000 31S7
WB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.353 556
UB TH-RT IBOO 3 1.000 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.973 1.000 11591
NB LT-TH-RT 1300 1 1.000 0.995 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.890 0.836 1189
SB LT-TH-RT 1800 1 1.000 0.995 0.930 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.871 0.B31 U^iS
SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FLT
INPUT VARIABLES
DIR C G N Va V« Vlt Pit No Vo Flto
WB 85 41 1 IS 1399 IE 1.00 2 754 0.00
NB 85 E6 1 360 83 S77 0.77 1 78 0.75
SB 85 E6 1 311 73 233 0.75 1 83 0,77
CALCULATIONS
DIR Sop Yo Gu Fs PI Gq Pt Gf El Fi Fit
WB 3600 O.EIO SB. 811 O.m 1.000 11.773 0.000 0.000 S.787 0.353 0.353
NB 1411 0.055 EE.455 0.BS6 0.769 3.447 0.E31 0.554 1.361 0.836 0.836
SB 1409 C. 059 EE. 186 0.BS3 0.750 3.716 0.S50 0.616 1.367 0.8310.831
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v s v/s g/C c v/c CRITICAL
EB LT S33 1509 0.11 0.11 S44 0.96 ♦
EB TH-RT 978 3IE7 0.31 0.59 1843 0.53
«B LT IE 556 O.OE 0.48 E65 0.05
WB TH-RT 2114 4591 0.46 0.4B E19S 0.96 »
NB LT-TH-RT 360 1189 0.30 0.30 362 0.99 «
SB LT-TH-RT 311 1143 0.27 0.30 348 0.89
CYCLE= 85.0 LOST= 9.0 SUM V/S CRIT= 0.87 TOTAL V/C= 0.97 FOR THE EASTBOUND PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANE THE CAPACITY, V/S AND V/C RATIOS HAVE ALL BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT A CAPACITY FOR 75 LEFT TURNS ON THE CHANGE INTERVAL AND 0 ON THE PERMISSIVE PHASE
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
|
DIR LN GROUP |
v/c g/C |
C |
dl |
c |
d2 PF |
Delay LOS Avg G |
95X 1 |
|
EB LT |
0.96 0.59 |
85.0 |
IE. 48 |
S44 |
33.36 1.00 |
45.84 E 5.4 |
10 |
|
EB TH-RT |
0.53 0.59 |
85.0 |
7.9S |
1843 |
0.24 0.E3 |
6.94 B 9.0 |
9 |
|
WB LT |
0.05 0.48 |
85.0 |
9.02 |
265 |
0.00 1.00 |
9.02 B 0.2 |
1 |
|
HB TH-RT |
0.56 0.4B |
35.0 |
16.35 |
2192 |
8.97 0.85 |
SI. 52 C S3. 7 |
35 |
|
NB LT-TH-RT 0.99 0.30 |
85.0 |
SE.40 |
362 |
34.30 0.85 |
43. 6E E 7.8 |
16 |
|
|
SB LT-TH-RT 0.89 0.30 |
85.0 |
El. 45 |
348 |
16.89 0.85 |
3E.59 D 5.4 |
9 |
DIR Delay LOS
E6 14.43 B
WB El. 45 C
NB 48. 6E E
SB 3E.59 D
INTERSECTION DELAY = SE.63 INTERSECTION LOS=C
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TO ISO SECONDS WHICH MINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 67.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 107.6 SECONDS for chosen cycle length 87.0
eucce^tet! titiPC rhe?? l ;; c.; core procn, fi.fi lorc vellnn * r?^ clear
CHELSEfi STREET AT l^'ASREN STREET
I99I Pn FEfif: HOUF ^:TH TUDO^ UHflRF (W/ HhRINA PARCEL)
date:05-E5-1988 tiie:09:32:20
LAST DATA SET NAf!E£ LOADED OR SAVED
|
VOLUHE= 5E |
OHETRICS= |
SIGNAL^ |
||
|
LOCATED IN CBD:Y |
||||
|
VOLUME I SEOHETRIlS |
||||
|
VOLUMES |
1 OF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|
|
DIP LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
|
EB ElO 750 88 |
1 E 0 |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
Eit |
|
|
UB 11 KEO 310 |
1 3 0 |
lE.O lE.O CO |
E^* |
|
|
NB E't9 5E E3 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 lE.O 0.0 |
AG |
|
|
SB £10 10 60 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 IS.O 0.0 |
48 |
|
|
TRAFFIC i ROADWAY CONDITIONS |
||||
|
ad: |
PARK |
PEDESTRIANS |
Al |
|
|
DIR GRADE XHV Y/K MOVES BUSES |
PHF CROSS BUT MIN TIME |
TYI |
||
|
EB -l.OS 5. OX N |
C 0 |
.900 0 |
13.0 |
3 |
|
UB l.OX 5. OX K |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
13.0 |
3 |
|
NB E.OX l.OX K |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
19.0 |
3 |
|
SB k.OX l.OX N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
19.0 |
3 |
PHASINSS
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp 1 ♦ t * E t * ♦ 3 »»♦»*♦
i i
|
9.5 |
0 |
A |
|
'tO.6 |
5 |
ft |
|
£5.9 |
A |
A |
CYCLE= 85.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
EB ElO 750 88 .900 £33 833 98
UB 11 UEO 310 .900 IE 1578 3^
NB 249 5E £3 .900 £77 58 £6
SB ElO 10 60 .900 £33 11 67
PART E (LANE BROU? ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
|
EB |
LT |
S33 1 1.00 £33 1.00 0.00 |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
931 £ 1.05 978 0.00 0.11 |
|
UB |
LT |
IE 1 1.00 IE 1.00 0.00 |
|
UB |
TH-RT |
19EE 3 1.10 Znk 0.00 0.18 |
|
NB |
LT-TH-RT |
360 1 1.00 360 0.77 0.07 |
|
SB |
LT-TH-RT |
311 1 1.00 311 0.75 O.El |
PART 3 (OPPOSING VS.UKE ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN
OPPOSING APPROACH
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
X OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
1 LANES |
OPPOSIN |
|
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
IE 1578 S'l't |
100 100 100 |
1 3 0 |
1399 |
|
WESTBOUND |
£33 833 98 |
0 Gl 81 |
1 £ 0 |
75'. |
|
NORTHBQUf.'D |
£33 11 67 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
78 |
|
SQUTKEOUHD |
£77 58 £6 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
83 |
page i
CHELSEA STREET AT WARREN STREET
19?1 a« PEAK HOUR WITH TUDOR WHARF TRAFFIC
[iate:05-25-I9B8 tiie:09:E5;51
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
DIR LK' GROUP IDEAL N Ftiid Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
EB EB UB UB NB SB
LT
TH-RT
LT
TH-RT
LT-TH-RT
LT-TH-RT
1800 IBOO 1800 1800 IBOO IBOO
1.000 0.976 1.005 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950 I5C9
1.000 C.976 1.005 l.OOC 1.000 0.900 0.976 1.000 3099
1.000 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 I. 000 0.12^ Ell
1.000 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.9BE 1.000 't633
1.000 0.995 0.990 1. 000 1.000 0.900 0.898 0.9a'( 1323
1.000 0.995 0.980 1.000 1.000 0.900 O.m 1.000 IMS
C
SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FLT INPUT VARIABLES
S N Va Vi Vlt Pit
37 1 37 S33 37 1.00
16 1 63 l^t '(9 0.77
16 1 E67 56 Ell 0.79
DIR UB 78 NB 78
SB 7B
No 2 1 1
Vo Plto
1282 0.00
56 0.79
1^ 0.77
CALCULATIONS DIR Sop Yo MB 3600 0.356 NB l'i55 0.033
6u
13.719 0.074 13.446 0.840
Fs PI Gq Pt
SB 1427 0.010 15.E75 0.866
1.000 22.BS5 0.000 0.772 2.464 0.228 0.792 0.635 0.20S
Gf El F« Fit
0.000 15.210 0.134 0.134
0.495 1.339 0.924 0.924
0.206 1.299 1.000 1.000
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
|
DIR |
LN GROUP |
|
EB |
LT |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
|
WB |
LT |
|
UB |
TH-RT |
|
NB |
LT-TH-RT |
|
SB |
LT-TH-RT |
V 5 v/5 g/C c v/c
256 1509 0.09 0.21 5E7 0.44
1952 3099 0.63 0.6B 2109 0.93
37 211 0.17 C.47 99 0.37
917 4633 0.20 0.47 2174 0.42
63 1323 0.05 0.20 270 0.23
E67 1413 0.19 0.20 888 0.93
CRITICAL
CYCLE= 78. 0 LOST= 9.0 SUK V/S CRIT= 0.82 TOTAL V/C= 0.93 FOR THE EASTBOUND PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANE THE CAPACITY, V/S AND V/C RATIOS HAVE ALL BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT A CAPACITY FOR 81 LEFT TURNS ON THE CHANGE INTERVAL AND 186 ON THE PERMISSIVE PHASE
LEVEL GF SERVICE WORKSHEET
|
DIR LN GROUP v/c g/C |
C |
dl c |
d2 PF |
Delay LOS Avg Q |
95*. |
||
|
EB LT 0.44 0.68 |
76.0 |
4.30 537 |
0.34 l.OC |
4.64 |
A |
4.4 |
4 |
|
EE TH-RT 0.93 0.68 |
78.0 |
8.17 2109 |
5.56 0.85 |
11.67 |
B |
12.9 |
< n |
|
WB LT 0.37 0.47 |
78.0 |
10.11 99 |
1.10 l.OC |
11.21 |
B |
0.4 |
i |
|
WB TH-RT 0.42 0.47 |
78.0 |
10.41 2174 |
0.08 0.85 |
8.92 |
B |
9.6 |
10 |
|
NB LT-TH-RT 0.23 0.20 |
78.0 |
19.73 270 |
0.09 0.85 |
16.84 |
C |
1.1 |
2 |
|
SB LT-TH-RT 0.93 0.20 |
78.0 |
23.15 288 |
24.29 0.85 |
40.33 |
E |
5.3 |
10 |
|
DIR Delay LOS |
|||||||
|
EB 10.86 B |
|||||||
|
UB 9.00 B |
|||||||
|
NB 16.84 C |
|||||||
|
SB 40.33 E |
|||||||
|
INTERSECTION DELAY = 12.71 INTERSECTION LOS=B |
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TO 120 SECONDS WHICH niNiniZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 78.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO 0^ .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 65.1 SECONDS
for chosen cvcle length 78.0
€uao==ted tismo d-s?? 1 i; 16.9 sec; Dre?n, 0.0 sees veMoK + red cirir
CHELsEfi ETREET AT WftRREN STREET
1991 AN PEAK HOUR WITH TUDOR WHARF TRAFFIC
date:05-25-1988 tiee:09:E5:'(9
/ hA-wi,+-^c\^ "VoufuX.
LAST DATA SET NAKES LOADED OR SAVED
VQLiJME=
EEOKETRICS=
LOCATED IK CBD:Y VOLUME t BEOKETRICS
VOLUMES DIR LT TH RT EB 230 1400 B73 U6 33 660 90 NB i^k, IE 1 SB 190 40 10
« OF LAKES LT TH RT 1 E 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
SIBNAL=
LANE WIDTH
LT TH RT
lE.O 12.0
lE.O lE.O
0.0 lE.O
0.0 12.0
0.0
0.0 0.0 CO
CROSS
WALK
24
24
46
48
TRAFFIC & ROADWAY CONDITIONS
DIR GRADE XHV EB -l.OX 5. OX WB l.OX 5. OX NB 2. OX l.OX SB 4. OX l.OX
ADJ PARK
Y/N MOVES BUSES N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0
PEDESTRIANS
ARR
PHF CROSS
.900 0
.900 0
.900 0
.900 0
BUT MIN TIME TYPE
13.0 13.0 19.0 19.0
PHASINGS
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp
1 » » ♦ 16.5 0 A
2 ♦ * » * ♦ » 36.6 5 A
3 »»»»♦» 15.9 4 A
CYCLE= 78. 0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
EB 230 1400 273 .900 256 1556 303
UB 33 660 90 .900 37 733 100
NB 44 IE 1 .900 49 13 1
SB 190 40 10 .900 211 44 11
PART E (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LH GROUP FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
|
EB |
LT |
E56 1 |
1.00 |
256 1.00 0.00 |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
1859 2 |
1.05 |
1952 0.00 0.16 |
|
UB |
LT |
37 1 |
1.00 |
37 1.00 0.00 |
|
UB |
TH-RT |
833 3 |
1.10 |
917 0.00 0.12 |
|
NB |
LT-TH-RT |
63 1 |
1.00 |
63 0.77 O.OE |
|
SB |
LT-TH-RT |
267 1 |
1.00 |
£67 0.79 0.04 |
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
LEFT TURN
OPPOSING APPROACH
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
X OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
1 LANES |
OPPOSIN |
|
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
37 733 100 |
100 100 100 |
1 3 0 |
833 |
|
WESTBOUND |
E56 1556 303 |
0 69 69 |
1 E 0 |
IEB2 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
Ell 44 11 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
56 |
|
SOUTHBOUND |
49 13 1 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
14 |
??! Pf: ?EAi' HuL'R ;:TH TUrDR «i-flF:F - '.THCUi «AfiM PARCEL
;wTLiRATIO;. FLC* ACJUSTItfiT ;;DF';SHEET
::R LN BRuL"^' ideal N Fwld Fnv Fgr FiSfk Fbus Fa-e» Frt Fit 5
-A LT 1500 1 l.COC C.97i 1.0C5 1.000 1.000 C.900 l.COC 0.950 1509
:B TH-RT 1300 E 1.000 C.9"6 1.005 1.00c l.OCO c.900 0.9Ei l.GCC 2:3E
^S LT lEOO 1 1.000 0,976 0.995 l.COO 1.000 0,900 1.000 0.E3E oOO
^B TH-RT ISOO 3 1.000 0.976 0.995 I.OOC l.OOC C.900 0.973 1.000 kl^\
<B LT-Ti-RT ISOO 1 1.000 0.595 0.990 l.OOi^ 1.0)0 0.900 0.S''0 0.B6^ 1EE6
rB LT-TF-RT lEJO ! 1,000 0.9?5 0.930 1.000 1.000 C.90C O.B'l 0.863 1166
£jPFLEfENTAL WOR'-SHEET FOR LEFT-'UFN ALJUETKEKT FACTOR RT "NruT vARIhpLES
|
jIR C 5 'i |
Va Vb Vit Pit |
Nc Vo Flto |
|
,'B 76 37 1 |
IE 1399 IE 1,00 |
3 7E3 0.00 |
|
•;3 76 V. ! |
319 73 ShI 0.76 |
i i»7 ft ic |
|
;B 76 EC 1 |
310 77 E33 0.75 |
1 7e 0.76 |
|
lALCULATIDNS |
||
|
JIR 5oD Yc |
Gu F5 Fl |
5a Ft |
;f El F* Fit
,-B 3600 C.EOE 36.^69 O.i.20 1. 000 9.909 0,000 0.000 E.677 0.3SE 0.333
IB 1U5 G.CSi 17,S3£ 0.SE7 0.756 3. IB; 0.34; 0.577 1.360 0.364 0.864
IB 1415 0.055 17.13? 0.E36 C.753 3. £33 O.Ei-7 0.5S8 1.361 0.363 0.363
rAPftd'Y ANALYSIS ;inRK3HEET
:IR LN 5R0UP > 5 v.'s g/C c . c CRITICAL
IB LT 333 1509 0.11 C/;3 376 O.Si- ♦
IB TH-RT 565 3133 0.31 0.61 1530 C.5C
;B LT 13 600 O.OE 0.49 391 0.04
.B TH-RT 3114 4591 0.46 0.49 EE33 0.95 «
^3 Ll-m-iM 3lV IICO O.CO V.cV 3C7 V.T/
IB LT-TK-RT 310 1IS6 0.36 0.37 319 0.97 *
:YCLE= 74.0 LC3T= 9.0 3UH V/S CR:T= C.E5 TC"fiL V/C= C .94 -GR THE EAs'BOUND PR^JTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TJR^ LANE THE CAPACITY, V/3 AND v/C -ATIDS HiVE AL. BEEN ADJUSTET T] REFLECT A CAPACITY FOR 34 LEFT TURNS ON THE CHANSE IN'TERVAl AND 0 3K THE FERKI3SIVE PHASE
-EvEL [F HERVKE liORKEHEET
::RLNcRDUP v/c g/C C dl : il FF Deliv LJS Avg £ ?5;; t
It LT 0.54 0.61 76.0 3.97 E"6 ;4.11 1,00 EE.OE C 4,3 I
IB T^-RT C.5C 0.61 76.0 6.35 1930 0.15 0,35 5.47 B 7,5 E
B L" C.04 0,49 76.0 ".il E=l 0.00 1.00 7,5i t 0.1 1
.= TH-RT 0.95 i.45 76.0 14,19 E33E 7.19 0.35 15.17 C E0.9 30
■i L--TH-RT 0.97 0.37 7i.O 30,37 3E9 30.31 0,S5 43.50 E 6,3 13
-c Li-ir-R <.'.-i 'j.ti 7o.J i.,.7. 31i 3. .94 Ctj 4H.id t 6.3 13
.'• L'tie. L\j;
iB B.50 5 5 1 3 . i 1 C
'-\ 44. '3 E ■<TE=EECTIOt; DILAv = 19.47 K.TEREECTIDfi LDS-C
-I CYCLE LENITH «ITH:N TI-E tOu^DE CF 50 TC lEO EECGSDS r,.i,r r.;.u utiD (.'■.Ii.lAL 'iu<i''iN LiLAi^ ,S 't.v Dii-u-Mis
T' A V: RATIO TF .95 'Yl Ci'CLE EHDjL: BE 71.0 3E:0f,DE :.r :rc£sri :-:1e iencth 76..*
:"9! -' -£S- HGUh ^ITK TUOuK «hiRF - WITHOUT MA^l^A : ite ;"■;-;( -iiSS tise: l/iOE iHo
.AaT DATs SET Nh?1E3 LOADED OR EflVEC /Z'.UREMtEIEfKB SEDt1ETRICE=
- " fi T r " T L" " c r. • V
r t^fiii -
|
V0JJME5 |
« |
CF |
LAKES |
LAN |
|||
|
JIR |
ETFEET |
LT TH |
RT |
LT |
TH RT |
LT |
|
|
It |
■HELEEA STREET |
EIC 750 |
nn 1 / |
E 0 |
lE.C |
||
|
n'B |
"nE.SEA STREET |
11 IhEO |
310 |
1 r 0 V |
lE.C |
||
|
NB |
•rRREK STREiT |
£17 ^B |
EE |
1 0 |
c . c |
||
|
5E |
WARREN S'REE" |
ElO 9 |
60 |
1 0 |
c.c |
|
.■::th |
CROSS |
|
^H RT |
WALK |
|
IE. 5 O.C |
i^ |
|
lE.O 0.0 |
E^t |
|
.E.C CO |
^e |
|
:£.c 0.0 |
■•B |
'F.AFFLZ t RDADHfiY C'NDITIGNS Auw FARt
jir onnut «ni
-r. . '.»• c f^*!
^B 1.0» 3. OS
^:B E.o; i.oi;
SB it. OS i.cs
Y/K K0VE5 BUSES
N 0 0
N 0 0
h 0 0
N C 0
FEDESTRIANS
^" f
FHF :RQ3S but KIN TIIE T-c
.900 0 13.0 I
.900 0 19.0 2
.900 0 19.0 3
-KASINB5
EASTEOUND WESTBuuNt NORTHBOUND 3:0TK30UN:' SFEEN =tP PRE/ACT
1 t r p 1 t ' p 1 t r p 1 t r p
1 » ♦ * =.7 0 A
t t i i i * i 36.' J A
3 ♦♦»■>*♦ EC, H i( A
:-v:le= 76.0
VOLUl^E ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET -ART : (MO^EfiENT ADJUSTRENTSl
rp
LTV th;
2i0 750
1! litEO
E17 48
£10 9
RTV
77
310
£E
60
FHF .900 .900 .900 .900
lTFR th^r rtfr
E33 S33 86
IE 157S 34i
£41 53 £4
£33 10 67
-A'T £ ;LANE ERGUP ADJliSTSEKTE/
:i= LtJ ;SCj? -LO^ N LJ V Fit Prt
li LT £33 1 :.00 £33 1.00 O.OC
I'd TI-RT 919 E 1.05 9t5 COO :..09
^B LT :E i 1.00 IE 1.00 0.00
'C iri-r\' ■.lir j 1,,,. £,1h y.OO 0,16
■r *_'! ^.^ n.n • I A r ^ . n A 1/ A ^"
■B LI .r-ni dn i i.u'j i.i y./o U.Oc
■' I ■"_*ij_'iT n-A . 4 AA n.A A nr a "n
-ART : IGPFOBIKS VDLUHE ACJL'STr.ErS) .E-T -ijFN :E!Nc jr-G:E
:-ste2u:;d
-^ESTBCvND .jFTHEJ'jNL -J-.' iHBujN.'
|
Or?:=: |
n:- affroach |
||||||
|
'vOLJ:' |
£S |
* u'PjSIIo lEFT t |
LiRN |
i Lif.'E |
s |
t'F"SI'''i6 |
|
|
LT |
TH |
RT |
LT TH FT |
.T TH |
RT |
VCLUKE |
|
|
'.£ |
■.57S |
3h4 |
100 100 100 |
■3 |
c |
1399 |
|
|
£33 |
333 |
56 |
0 79 71: |
0 |
7£5 |
||
|
E33 |
10 |
67 |
iOw 100 100 |
1 |
0 |
77 |
|
|
E^i |
53 |
£4 |
100 100 100 |
A |
•B |
|
HEL5Er z"-l" ff' |
litP-E:; |
"REE |
|
'91 ;r Fl^' HCJR |
- t.'ITi- |
|
|
b 1 |
Wh^RP - ;ITHGUT SIfiRIN'fi PARCEL
ESTUFATIGN "LDii kEJU3T!1ENT «0;?rE-EET
DIF LK SRu.- IDEAL N i^nid "hv Fqr Fpirk Fbas Firgj
SB
L
'H-FT
LT
Ti^-RT
LT-TH-F'
LT-Th-F-
Frt Fit 5
1 l.OCO 0.976 1.003 l.OCO l.COO C.9C0 l.)00 0.950 1509
1800 E 1.000 0.?7i 1.005 l.OOC l.OCO C.900 0.97B 1.000 31vi
leOO 1 l.OOC 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 '..000 (}.]hd E3E
lEOO 3 1.000 0."76 0.995 1.000 1,000 0.900 C.93E 1.000 !.63o
lEOO 1 l.OOC 0.995 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.897 0.956 13:9
1500 1 1.000 0=995 0.930 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 0.69^ 1.000 1-13
3y-FLEKEN1
liiruT VhR]
Dis : :
«r li 0-
.It i:, 1.
3t IZ 1.
CA-CliLfi'i;
LIR 305
1!" n/Aft f Kb SOV<' U.
Nf 1^51 0. :E 1^39 0,
:. WORKSHEET FOR LErT-TURN ADJUSTKENT ffiCTCF FLT -r-ES
Vlt Pit No vo Plto
36 1.00 E lc59 COO
;3 C.75 1 51 O.Sl
Ell O.Sl 1 1^ 0.75
1
36
58
13C
S33
'•0 5ij Fs F". S^ Pt of
;50 IE. 915 0.0E5 l.f^OO 51.005 0.000 0.000
:3: IE. 674 C.8n3 0.750 E.1E5 0.250 C.514
::0 li..E09 Coos O.e05 C.590 0.195 0.185
El Fj Fit
•E.737 0.1^(3 C.K3
:.33't 0.954 C956
1.E99 1.000 l.OCO
'.APfiCITY tki'.YEIS WGFKsHEET
|
DIR |
LN GRC; |
|
£B |
LT |
|
E6 |
TH-RT |
|
,B |
LT |
|
4B |
TH-RT |
|
a |
LT-TH- |
|
3B |
LT-TH-: |
S5fc 1509 0.09 CEl 566 0,4;
1917 3106 0.6E 0.67 £C9'i C.9E
36 E3E 0.15 0.46 108 0.33
917 4633 O.EC 0.46 E153 0.43
JO 1001 y.V"* \I,1<J CIO U.Cl
■T E6E 1413 0.19 O.EC E86 0.93
bRITICAL
:VCLE= 73.0 LG3T= 9.0 SLir; V/3 CRIT= O.Si T3TAL V/:= G.^E -jR THE EiE'EOUKD PROTECTED/fERHISSIVE LEFT TURN LANE THE CAPACITY. V/S AND V/C ■ATIQ5 HAVE kd. BEEN ABJUETEj TG REFLEGT A CAFfillTY FOR 87 LEFT '^:^'3 OK THE CHAf,SE INTERVAL AND iSi ON THE PERKIE3IVE PHAEE
.EVEL OF SERVICE ^iDRKSHEET
:IR LN 3RC:;= v/c g/C
I'i LT 0.44 0.67
i: T^-RT 0.9E 0.67
'ih I'' 0.33 O.ni
™E TH-RT 0.43 0.46
■;= LT-TH-" O.El O.EO
:B LT-Th-F' 0.9E CEO
|
dl |
c |
i'd |
PF |
[" |
rlay LC |
iS r, |
i-q S |
95X i |
|
|
73.0 |
',.17 |
556 |
0.34 |
1.00 |
i r? |
A |
n . i |
4 |
|
|
7.70 |
£094 |
4.99 |
0.35 |
10.79 |
i |
lE.l |
1 n i ■ |
||
|
73." |
9.33 |
lOi |
0.s6 |
no |
10.05 |
£' |
1 |
||
|
73.0 |
9.91 |
£153 |
0,09 |
0.85 |
£.50 |
B |
9 |
||
|
73.0 |
13.41 |
£73 |
0.04 |
0,c5 |
15.70 |
r L |
0,9 |
1 |
|
|
73,0 |
E i . c j |
£34 |
EE.77 |
0,65 |
37,-5 |
U |
4,9 |
9 |
. ir l-cibV ..0 II 10.05 :
-B 3.55 1 <3 15.70 : Ih 37.75 Z ■(.TEREECTi;'. DELAY = 11.34 I'iTERSELTICt. LG3=B
■-E CYCLE .Ei5TK y-THIN THE BOLiNZE Gr 60 TO lEO 3ECCNE5
■ Hic- ^;ik;-^;:e3 cri'ical mGvE?iei<: dE-^v is 73. ( secgnls
'7' A V,: :-TiO jF .95 THE CYCLE EKCU:.: BE
p
I'nEE' AT -.■^'fREN
:97l flf, FE;- HCuF - WII^ TL'DOF WHAR? - «ITH0U' MSINi fascel :5t?:'i6-E0-l?85 tis€:!":OESl
::E3 HCfl - :HC!"E? 9: SIS^ALIZEB - 0?ERflTI3NftL ftNALYsIB '-'ersun 1-7-37
lA3t data set makes loaded g? saved
vO.UME=16E-«eAf1 BED!';ETRI:E=:a5-«EA|1 siSMAL=lt=-«£fil1 LOCATED IN 3E!}:''' VDLUfiE L GED^ETRICS
|
v'DLL'fiES |
« CF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CRlSS |
||
|
lIR |
5TFEET |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
EB |
CHELSEA STREET |
E30 1^00 EiS |
1 E 0 |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
£^ |
|
t.B |
CHELSEA STREET |
3E tAO 90 |
1 3 0 |
lE.O IS.O 0.0 |
IK |
|
NS |
WARREN STREET |
39 :e 1 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 lE.O 0.0 |
kl |
|
EB |
WARREN STREET |
190 3£ n |
r « A |
0.0 It.O CO |
4S |
TRAFFIC I F.DADWAY CJWBITiaNE
|
ADJ fARf |
PEDESTRIANS |
ARR |
||
|
BIR ERADE SHV |
Y/N KDi.'ES B |
USES PHF Cf |
503S BUT KIN TIME ■ |
^YFE |
|
EE -1.0* j.C» |
N 0 |
C .900 |
0 13.0 |
3 |
|
Al l.OX IM |
N 0 |
0 .900 |
0 13.0 |
n J |
|
NB s.c); l.OX |
N 0 |
0 ,900 |
0 1=5.0 |
3 |
|
SB A. OX l.OX |
N 0 |
0 .900 |
0 19.0 |
3 |
|
-HASINSS |
||||
|
EASTBGOND |
WESTBDUND |
NORTHBQLIND |
SGOTKBCUND GREEN |
Y+R PRE/ACT |
|
1 t r a |
1 t r D |
1 t r p |
; t r p |
|
|
1 » ♦ » |
15.3 |
0 A |
||
|
E ♦ ♦ t |
{ « 4 |
33.9 |
5 A |
|
|
3 |
♦ * ♦ |
♦ ♦ ♦ 1^.8 |
4 A |
|
|
CYCLE= 73.0 |
VOLU«E ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET FART 1 (KOVEflEST ADJUSTMENTS)
|
DIR |
LTV |
THV |
RTV |
PHF |
LTF= |
THFR |
RTFR |
|
EB |
E30 |
IhOC |
Ei.3 |
.900 |
E5fc |
1S56 |
E70 |
|
WB |
m |
90 |
.900 |
3i |
73E |
100 |
|
|
NB |
39 |
IE |
1 |
.900 |
hS |
12 |
1 |
|
SB |
190 |
3o |
10 |
.=00 |
Ell |
^0 |
1! |
FART 2 (LANE SRQUF ADJUSTf<EKT
|
DP |
LN GRCUF |
FLGW N |
LU |
» ?lt P-t |
|
|
Z.Z |
LT |
£56 1 |
i |
.vO |
E56 1,00 COO |
|
z.t |
Tr-RT |
lEES E |
1 |
■ !. J |
1=;7 (,0( 0.15 |
|
wS |
LT |
36 1 |
1 |
.00 |
36 100 0.00 |
|
«E |
T-I-RT |
B33 3 |
1 |
.10 |
=17 0.00 O.IE |
|
'•B |
LT-TH-RT |
53 1 |
< 1 |
.00 |
5£ 0.75 C.OE |
|
SB |
LT-TH-RT |
E:E 1 |
1 |
£i£ c.e: CO^t |
?'ART 3 (QFFDEINB VOLJflE fiDJi:3T^iE^TS)
|
" — T Tp-I.l |
No A=F ROACH |
||||||
|
:EIi.3 OPPOSED |
vjLL''^!E5 |
; O^FCSINS LEFT TURK |
% |
LAK': |
\l |
0FF3SINS |
|
|
LT |
TH R' |
LT -H RT |
LT |
TH |
RT |
VOL'jnE |
|
|
EAS-BOUND |
36 |
733 100 |
100 ICO ICO |
1 |
? |
0 |
E33 |
|
".estegun: |
E5-. |
1556 E70 |
0 69 69 |
1 |
E |
0 |
1E59 |
|
ND^THBC'JND |
Ell |
iiO 'li |
100 100 100 |
0 |
1 |
A |
51 |
|
SOUTHB'jLhiD |
^3 |
13 1 |
100 1;0 100 |
0 |
1 |
(: |
14 |
page E
CHELSEA STREET AT WARREN STREET 1991 NO BUILD PH PEAK HOUR date:05-S5-193B tiis:09:EB:E7
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP IDEAL N Fwid Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbu5 Farea Frt Fit s
EB LT 1800 1 1.000 0.976 1.005 1.000 l.OOC 0.900 1.000 0.950 1509
EB TH-RT 1800 2 1.000 0.976 1.005 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.996 1.000 316'i
WB LT IBOO 1 1.000 0.976 0.995 l.OOC 1.000 0.900 1.000 O.'il'i 65E
UB TH-RT 1800 3 1.000 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.973 1.000 ^1591
NB LT-TH-RT 1800 1 l.OOC 0.995 0.990 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.881 0.913 mh
SB LT-RT 1800 1 1.000 0.995 0.980 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.870 0.868 1193
SUFPLERENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FLT
INPUT VARIABLES
DIR C 0 N Va Vt Vlt Pit No Vo Plto
nB 75 37 1 11 1399 11 1.00 E 675 0.00
NB 75 EO 1 156 56 100 0.6't 1 67 0.78
SB 75 EO 1 300 67 S33 0.78 1 56 0.6^1
CALCULATIONS
DIR Sop Yo Bu Fs PI Gq Pt Gf El Fi Fit
WB 3600 0.188 E7. 730 0.«3 1.000 8.865 0.000 0.000 E.^BS O.AK O.'il't
NB 1425 0.047 16.906 0.633 0.6't3 E.719 0.357 0.837 1.350 0.913 0.913
SB \W 0.038 17. W O.BM 1.000 E.176 0.000 0.000 1.339 0.868 0.868
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
V s v/5 g/C c v/c CRITICAL
E33 1509 0.11 0.13 EEE 0.83 »
898 3164 O.SB 0.6E 1957 0.46
11 65S O.OS 0.49 318 0.03
E114 4591 0.46 0.49 ES40 0.94 »
156 1S84 O.IE 0.E6 336 0.46
300 1193 0.E5 0.E6 31S 0.96 »
CYCLE= 75.0 LOST= 9.0 SUH V/S CRIT= 0.8S TOTAL V/C= 0.93 FGR THE EASTBOUND PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANE THE CAPACITY, V/S AND V/C RATIOS HAVE ALL BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT fi CAPACITY FOR 85 LEFT TURNS ON THE CHANGE INTERVAL AND 0 ON THE PERMISSIVE PHASE
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v/c g/C C dl c ■ dE PF Delay LOS Avg Q 95); Q
EB LT 0.83 0.6S 75.0 8.51 E8E IE. 44 1.00 E0.94 C 4.E 5
EB TH-RT 0.46 0.6S 75.0 5.80 1957 0.13 0.85 5.03 B 6.8 7
U6 LT 0.C3 0.49 75.0 7.60 318 0.00 1.00 7.60 B 0.1 1
WB TH-RT 0.94 0.49 75.0 13.85 EE40 6,68 0.85 17.46 C E0.5 E9
NB LT-TH-RT 0.46 0.E6 75.0 17.68 336 0.75 0.85 15.66 C E.4 3
SB LT-RT 0.96 0.E6 75.0 SO. 76 31E E9. 81 1.00 50.57 E 6.5 14
DIR Delay LOS
EB 8.31 6
WB 17.40 C
NB 15.66 C
SB 50.57 E
INTERSECTION DELAY = 17.84 INTERSECTION LOS=C
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 60 TO lEO SECONDS WHICH MINIMIZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 7E.C SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 65. E SECONDS
for chosen cycle lenoth 7E.0
?uoc?5tef; tinnc phase I i5 G.? 5?c; oroPTi, 0,0 sec; vello* + red clear
|
DIR LN GROUP |
|
|
EB |
LT |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
|
UB |
LT |
|
WB |
TH-RT |
|
NB |
LT-TH-RT |
|
SB |
LT-RT |
CHELSEA STREET AT HflRREN STREET 1991 NC BUILD F« PEAK HOUR date!05-E5-19SB tne:09:28!£5
LAST DATA SET HAflES LOADED OR SAVED
|
VQLUME= GEOMETRICS= |
SIGNAL= |
||
|
LOCATED IN CBDiY |
|||
|
VOLUHE i SEONETRICS |
|||
|
VOLUMES |
» OF LANES |
LANE WIDTH |
CROSS |
|
DIR LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
EB £10 750 £0 |
1 £ 0 |
1£.0 1£.0 0.0 |
£i| |
|
HB 10 l^EO 310 |
1 3 0 |
12.0 1£.0 0.0 |
iii |
|
HB 90 30 £0 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 1£.0 0.0 |
48 |
|
SB 210 0 60 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 lE.O 0.0 |
'.S |
|
TRAFFIC i ROADWAY CONDITIONS |
|||
|
ADJ |
?m |
PEDESTRIANS ARR |
|
|
DIR GRADE XHV Y/N MOVES BUSES |
PHF CROSS BUT MIN TIME TYPE |
||
|
EB -l.OX 5. OX N |
0 0 |
,900 0 |
13.0 3 |
|
MB \M Z.0% H |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
13.0 3 |
|
N6 E.OX LOU N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
19.0 3 |
|
SB liM l.OJi N |
0 0 |
.900 0 |
19.0 3 |
PHASINGS
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT Itrpltrpltrpltrp
9.8 0 A
♦ * * 36.6 5 A
♦ » ♦ » » » 19.6 ii A
|
1 * |
i i |
|
E » |
1 i |
|
3 |
|
|
CYCLE= |
75.0 |
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
|
EB |
£10 750 |
£0 |
.900 |
£33 |
833 |
£2 |
|
WB |
10 l^iEO |
310 |
.900 |
11 |
157B |
S^ii |
|
NB |
90 30 |
£0 |
.900 |
100 |
33 |
£2 |
|
56 |
£10 0 |
60 |
.900 |
£33 |
0 |
67 |
FART 2 (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Fit Prt
|
EB LT |
233 1 1.00 £33 1, |
.00 0.00 |
||
|
EB TH-RT |
856 £ 1.05 898 0.00 0.03 |
|||
|
WB LT |
11 1 I. 00 11 1 |
.00 0.00 |
||
|
WB TH-RT |
19E2 3 1.10 Znii 0.00 0.18 |
|||
|
NB LT-TH-RT |
156 1 1. 00 156 0.6'» O.H |
|||
|
SB LT-RT |
300 1 I. 00 300 C, |
,7G O.EE |
||
|
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUflE ADJUSTMENTS) |
||||
|
LEFT TURN |
OFPOSINE |
; APPROACH |
||
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
% OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
1 LANES |
OPPOSIN |
|
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
11 1578 34<t |
100 100 100 |
1 3 0 |
1399 |
|
WESTBOUND |
£33 833 ££ |
0 79 79 |
1 £ 0 |
675 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
£33 0 67 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
67 |
|
SOUTHBOUND |
100 33 E£ |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
56 |
page 2
CHELSEA STREET AT UARFEN STREET 1991 ND BUILD fid FEftK HOUR ddte:Cj-25-I?8S tii8e:09!SE:H6
SftTURftTIDN FLOW fiDJUsTMENT WORKSHEET
N Fnic) Fhv Fgr Fpark Fbus Farea Frt Fit 5
1 1.000 0.976 1.003 1.000 1.000 0.900 l.OOC 0.950 1509
E 1.000 0.976 1.005 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.987 1.000 3136
1 l.OOC 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 O.EOE 318
3 l.OOC 0.976 0.995 1.000 1.000 0.900 0.98E 1.000 4633
1 1.000 0.995 0.990 1.000 1.000 C.900 1.000 1.000 1596
SB LT-TH-RT 1800 1 1.000 0.995 0.980 l.OOC 1.000 0.900 0.894 l.OOO 141E
SUPPLEHENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT-TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FLT INPUT VARIABLES
|
DIR LN GROUP |
IDEAI |
|
EB LT |
1800 |
|
EB TH-RT |
IBOO |
|
UB LT |
1800 |
|
U6 TH-RT |
1800 |
|
NB LT-TH |
1800 |
|
DIR C G N Va V» Vlt Fit No Vo Flto |
|||
|
UB 60 £7 1 33 833 33 1.00 2 1165 COO |
|||
|
KB 60 IE 1 33 11 ES 0.67 1 33 0.86 |
|||
|
SB 60 IE 1 ikk 33 Ell 0.66 1 11 0.67 |
|||
|
CALCULATIONS |
|||
|
DIR Sop Yo Gu Fs Fl Gq Ft Gf |
El |
Fl |
Fit |
|
UB 3600 0.324 10.913 0.147 1.000 15.884 0.000 0.000 |
7.658 ( |
).E02 |
0.202 |
|
NB 1434 0.OE3 10.749 0.854 0.667 1.145 0.333 0.467 |
1.317 1 |
1.000 |
1.000 |
|
SB 1486 0.007 11.53E 0.868 0.864 0.36S 0.136 0.096 |
1.296 1 |
1.000 |
1.000 |
|
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET |
|||
|
DIR LN GROUP v s v/s q/C c v7c CRITICAL |
|||
|
EB LT 256 1509 0,09 0. El 5BS 0.43 |
|||
|
EB TH-RT 1785 3136 0.57 0.65 20t4 0.87 » |
|||
|
UB LT 33 318 0.10 0.45 142 0.23 |
|||
|
UB TH-RT 917 4633 0.20 0.45 2069 0.44 |
|||
|
NB LT-TH 33 1596 0.02 0.20 316 C.U |
SB LT-TH-RT 244 1412 0.17 0.20 280 0.87 ♦
CYCLE= 60.0 LGST= 9.0 SUH V/S CRIT= 0.74 TOTAL V/C= 0.87 FOR THE EASTBOUNC PROTECTED/PERHISSIVE LEFT TURN LANE THE CAPACITY, V/S AND V/C RATIOS HAVE ALL BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT A CAPACITY FDR 106 LEFT TURNS ON THE CHANGE INTERVAL AND 173 ON THE PERMISSIVE PHASE
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
13
|
DIR |
LN GROUP |
v/c g/C |
C |
dl c |
d2 PF |
Delay LOS Avg Q' |
|
EB |
LT |
0.43 0'.65 |
60.0 |
3.86 588 |
0.34 1.00 |
4.20 A "3,4 |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
0.87 0.65 |
iO.O |
6.42 2044 |
3.24 0.E5 |
B.21 B 9.? |
|
UB |
LT |
0.23 0.45 |
60.0 |
7.80 14E |
0.16 1.00 |
7.96 B 0.3 |
|
WE |
TH-RT |
0.44 0.45 |
60.0 |
B.70 2069 |
0.10 0.85 |
7.49 B 7.7 |
|
NB |
LT-TH |
0.11 0.20 |
60.0 |
14.97 316 |
0.01 0.B5 |
12.73 B 0.4 |
SB LT-TH-RT 0.B7 0.20 60.0 17.72 280 17.16 0.B5 29.66 D 3.6
DIR Delay LOS EB 7.71 B
UB 7.50 B NB 12.73 B SB 29.66 D INTERSECTION DELAY = 9.34 INTERSECTION LOS=B
THE CYCLE LEN5TH WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 50 TO 120 SECONDS WHICH SINiniZES CRITICAL MOVEMENT DELAY IS 60.0 SECONDS
FOR A V/C RATIO. OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 41.2 SECONDS for chosen cycle length 60.0
CHELSEA STREET ftT HARREK STREET 1991 NO BUILD AH PEAK HOUR (Jate:05-E5-198B tiiie:C9:22:'t'i
LAST DATA SET NAHES LOADED OR SAVED
|
VOLUKE= SE0I1ETRIC£= |
Si6NAL= |
||
|
LOCATED IN CBD:Y |
|||
|
VOLUME i GEOMETRICS |
|||
|
VOLUMES |
It OF LANES |
LANE yiDTH |
CROSS |
|
DIR LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
WALK |
|
EB S30 \m 130 |
1 E 0 |
12.0 IS.O 0.0 |
Sit |
|
U6 30 660 90 |
1 3 0 |
lE.O lE.O 0.0 |
Eh |
|
Hi 20 10 0 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 lE.O 0.0 |
AS |
|
SB 190 HO 10 |
0 1 0 |
0.0 lE.O 0.0 |
hS |
TRAFFIC J. ROADWAY CONDITIONS
|
DIR GRADE |
5iHV |
|
|
EB |
-1.051 |
5.o; |
|
UB |
l.OX |
s.oii |
|
NB |
E.o; |
l.OX |
|
SB |
4. OS |
l.OX |
|
FHASINBS |
||
|
EASTBOUND |
||
|
1 t |
r P |
|
|
1 |
i i |
t |
|
E |
i i |
* |
|
3 |
||
|
CYCLE= 60.0 |
m PARK PEDESTRIANS ARR
Y/N MOVES BUSES PHF CROSS BUT KIN TIME TYPE
N 0 0 .900 0 13.0 3
N 0 0 .900 0 13.0 3
N 0 0 .900 0 19.0 3
N 0 0 .900 0 19.0 3
WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GREEN Y+R PRE/ACT 1 t r p 1 t r p I t r p
IE. 3 0 A
i i i £6.8 3 A
* * i * ♦ ♦ 11.9 ^1 A
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
PART 1 (MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LTV THV RTV PHF LTFR THFR RTFR
EB 230 \m 130 .900 E56 1556 Ihk
UB 30 660 90 .900 33 733 100
NB £0 10 0 .900 £2 11 0
SB 190 £0 10 .900 £11 £2 11
PART £ (LANE GROUP ADJUSTMENTS)
DIR LN GROUP FLOW N LU v Pit Prt
|
EB |
LT |
E56 1 1.00 |
£56 1.00 0.00 |
|
EB |
TH-RT |
1700 £ 1.05 |
17B5 0.00 O.OB |
|
UB |
LT |
33 1 1.00 |
33 1.00 0.00 |
|
UB |
TH-RT |
S33 3 1.10 |
917 0.00 O.IE |
|
NB |
LT-TH |
33 1 1.00 |
33 0.67 0.00 |
SB LT-TH-RT 2kk 1 1.00 244 0.B6 0.05
PART 3 (OPPOSING VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS)
|
LEFT TURN |
OPPOSING |
APPROACH |
||
|
BEING OPPOSED |
VOLUMES |
; OPPOSING LEFT TURN |
t LANES |
OPPOSING |
|
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
LT TH RT |
VOLUME |
|
|
EASTBOUND |
33 733 100 |
100 100 100 |
1 3 0 |
833 |
|
UESTBOUND |
£56 1556 144 |
0 69 69 |
1 2 0 |
1165 |
|
NORTHBOUND |
£11 22 11 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
33 |
|
SOUTHBOUND |
E£ 11 0 |
100 100 100 |
0 1 0 |
11 |
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
•^
^
vN
HA^N NJAkil^'niz.iP 6;EJJl:t^A"^o^^ - "PuudPc-^-c^^ V-s . 6:n=c
T^P<:6>a> (^^/ee^ ^-T-ps ( ^Iqc^ )
"(7TAt_ =^
r
r
crric^ 1^0^'^, 000 ^.f -L-^2-'i'2- ,00 0 s '^
Navy Yard Developroent
AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
Hour "ln3" Hour "outa" Hour "ins" Hour "outs"
Apartments/Townhousea 84 \\\ 338 IHi 338 MM Z 169 "Z- 2-/
Elderly Housing '^ 5 15 ( "^ 15 icj 7 lO
Retail 27 | -, 12 6 327 zoU> 309 |^e'
Office 1,517 \^o^Q, 286 2c= 220 2o2. 1,110 (2o/
Marina 30 0 _20 30
Subtotal 1,662 15:2.'^ 651 152- 920 SO'^ 1,625 XUZI
TCDOR WHARF: FfiRKINS DEMAND ACCUMULATION (mth tarina parcel)
Office Cottercial/Retail Restaurant ACCUMULATION
Hour of Day Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday
|
6:00 a.i. |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
|
7:00 a.t. |
50 |
17 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
53 |
21 |
|
8:00 a.B. |
157 |
50 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
164 |
59 |
|
9:00 a.t. |
£3E |
66 |
10 |
14 |
7 |
8 |
248 |
89 |
|
10:00 a.t. |
W |
66 |
15 |
22 |
13 |
11 |
278 |
99 |
|
11:00 a.t. |
E^9 |
63 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
13 |
289 |
131 |
|
12:00 Noon |
m |
83 |
22 |
'tl |
33 |
40 |
279 |
163 |
|
1:00 p.t. |
Ziii |
66 |
23 |
46 |
46 |
60 |
293 |
172 |
|
£:00 p.t. |
ZK |
50 |
22 |
48 |
40 |
60 |
303 |
157 |
|
3:00 p.fi. |
832 |
33 |
22 |
48 |
40 |
60 |
293 |
141 |
|
't:00 p.fi. |
192 |
33 |
20 |
43 |
33 |
60 |
245 |
136 |
|
5:00 p.t. |
117 |
17 |
18 |
36 |
46 |
79 |
181 |
132 |
|
6:00 p.t. |
57 |
17 |
19 |
31 |
60 |
119 |
136 |
167 |
|
7:00 p.fi. |
.17 |
17 |
20 |
29 |
66 |
126 |
104 |
171 |
|
B:00 p.t. |
17 |
17 |
20 |
26 |
66 |
13S |
103 |
175 |
|
9:00 p.t. |
7 |
0 |
l^i |
19 |
66 |
132 |
88 |
152 |
|
10:00 p.fi. |
7 |
0 |
7 |
18 |
60 |
126 |
74 |
144 |
|
11:G0 p.fi. |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
46 |
113 |
49 |
119 |
|
1E:00 Midnight |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
93 |
33 |
93 |
|
Peak Parking Ratio |
3.00 |
0.50 |
3.80 |
4.00 |
20.00 |
20.00 |
||
|
Percent Auto Usage |
m |
m |
255; |
50ii |
SOX |
lOo; |
||
|
Vehicle Occupancy |
1.20 |
I. so |
1.80 |
1.80 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
||
|
Monthly Ratio |
lOOX |
lOo; |
lOOX |
lOOX |
lOOX |
lOOX |
TUDOR WHARF: PARKING DEMAND ACCUKULATION (without iarina parcel)
Office Co«iercial/Retail Restaurant ACCUMULATION Hour of Day Weekday Saturday Keekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday
|
6:00 a.ii. |
b |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
7:00 a.B. |
37 |
IS |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
40 |
16 |
|
8:00 a.i. |
117 |
37 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
123 |
44 |
|
9:00 a.*. |
173 |
50 |
7 |
10 |
7 |
8 |
186 |
67 |
|
10:00 a.B. |
186 |
50 |
11 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
210 |
75 |
|
11:00 a.i. |
186 |
62 |
U |
24 |
20 |
13 |
219 |
99 |
|
1E:00 Noon |
167 |
62 |
15 |
28 |
33 |
40 |
215 |
129 |
|
1:00 p.t. |
167 |
50 |
16 |
31 |
46 |
60 |
ES9 |
140 |
|
2:00 p.B. |
180 |
37 |
15 |
33 |
40 |
60 |
235 |
129 |
|
3:00 p.t. |
173 |
25 |
15 |
33 |
40 |
60 |
227 |
117 |
|
4:00 p.t. |
IW ■ |
25 |
\h |
29 |
33 |
60 |
190 |
114 |
|
5:00 p.t. |
87 |
12 |
12 |
25 |
46 |
79 |
146 |
116 |
|
6:00 p.t. |
<t3 |
12 |
13 |
21 |
60 |
119 |
115 |
153 |
|
7:00 p.t. |
.13 |
12 |
H |
20 |
66 |
126 |
93 |
1S8 |
|
8:00 p.t. |
13 |
12 |
!<* |
18 |
66 |
132 |
93 |
163 |
|
9:00 p.t. |
6 |
0 |
9 |
13 |
66 |
132 |
81 |
145 |
|
10:00 p.t. |
6 |
0 |
5 |
12 |
60 |
126 |
70 |
138 |
|
11:00 p.t. |
0 |
0 |
E |
4 |
46 |
113 |
4B |
117 |
|
1E:00 Midnight |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
93 |
33 |
93 |
|
Peal Parking Ratio |
3.00 |
C.50 |
3.80 |
it. 00 |
20.00 |
20. CO |
||
|
Percent Auto Usage |
m |
BOX |
25;; |
50J |
SOX |
lOOX |
||
|
Vehicle Occupancy |
l.EO |
1.20 |
1.80 |
I. BO |
E.OO |
2.00 |
||
|
Honthly Ratio |
loo; |
lOOX |
lOOX |
toon |
lOOX |
lOOX |
I
TUDOR WHARF: PERCENT PARKING DEHAUD ACCUMULATION - DEFAULT VALUES
|
Hour of Day |
Ueekday |
Saturday |
Ueekday |
Saturday |
Ueekday |
Saturday |
|
6:00 a.i. |
35i |
OX |
OS |
OS |
OX |
OS |
|
7:00 d.i. |
EOlt |
SOX |
8S |
3S |
ES |
2S |
|
8:00 a. a. |
63X |
60X |
IBS |
lOS |
5X |
3S |
|
9:00 a.i. |
93X |
BOX |
'tSS |
30S |
lOS |
6S |
|
10:00 a.i. |
lOOX |
BOX |
6es |
«S |
EOS |
ss |
|
11:00 a.i. |
lOOX |
lOOX |
S7S |
73S |
30S |
lOS |
|
IE: 00 Noon |
90X |
lOOX |
97S |
85S |
50S |
BOS |
|
1:00 p.i. |
90S |
SOX |
lOOS |
95S |
70S |
till |
|
S:00 p.E. |
m |
60X |
97S |
lOOS |
60S |
ISX |
|
3:00 p.i. |
93X |
m |
95X |
lOOS |
60S |
ii5S |
|
't:00 p.i. |
77X |
m |
87S |
90S |
SOS |
«x |
|
5:00 p.i. |
«X |
SOX |
79S |
75S |
70S |
60X |
|
6:00 p.i. |
esx |
20X |
e?s |
65S |
90S |
90X |
|
7:00 p.i. |
.7X |
SOX |
E9S |
60S |
lOOS |
95X |
|
6:00 p.i. |
7X |
SOX |
B7S |
55S |
lOOS |
lOOS |
|
9:00 p.i. |
3X |
GX |
61S |
m |
lOOS |
lOOS |
|
10:00 p.e. |
3X |
OX |
32X |
38S |
90S |
95S |
|
11:00 p.i. |
OX |
OS |
13S |
13S |
8SS |
|
|
1S:00 Midnight |
OX |
ox |
OS |
OS |
50S |
70S |
|
DEFAULT VALUES: |
||||||
|
Peak Pariting Ratio |
3.00 |
0.50 |
3.30 |
ii.OO |
EO.OO |
EO.OO |
|
Percent Auu Usage |
lOOX |
lOOX |
lOOS |
lOOS |
lOOS |
lOOS |
|
Vehicle Occupancy |
l.EO |
1,S0 |
1.80 |
l.BO |
2.00 |
E.OO |
|
Monthly Ratio |
lOCX |
lOOS |
lOOS |
lOOS |
lOOS |
lOOS |
TUDOR WHARF: DEVELOPMENT COHFONENTS - ^rz^>?^ L^A^Ms.LC yVi^t/. ("5 -^^ )
|
CoRBercial/ |
|||
|
Office |
Retail |
Restaurant |
|
|
Pier Building |
60.99'( |
5,670 |
6,618 |
|
Landside Building |
93,869 |
10,666 |
0 |
|
(h/o larina parcel) |
|||
|
Landside Building |
M,b2\ |
18,286 |
0 |
|
(Mith tarina parcel) |
TOTAL ISA. 863 16,336 6,618 |-n,2>i7
(m/o larina parcel)
TOTAL 207,625 23,956 6,618 z^S/'^'^
(Kith tarina parcel)
TUDOR WHARF: TRIP SENERfiTION (n/o larina parcel)
1
|
Off |
ice |
CoHercial |
Fijtaurant |
Total |
|||
|
(1000 sfl |
(1000 |
sf) |
(1000 |
sf) |
|||
|
Average Daily |
|||||||
|
enter |
440 |
286 |
15B |
88') |
|||
|
e;:it |
W |
E3& |
158 |
88it |
|||
|
total |
B79 |
57E |
316 |
1768 |
|||
|
Horning Peak |
|||||||
|
enter |
ISO |
10 |
3 |
133 |
|||
|
exit |
18 |
4 |
0 |
23 |
|||
|
total |
138 |
15 |
3 |
155 |
|||
|
Evening Peak |
|||||||
|
enter |
SI |
30 |
17 |
68 |
|||
|
exit |
111 |
31 |
7 |
ISO |
|||
|
total |
133 |
61 |
S4 |
817 |
TUDOR HHARF: TRIP GENERATION (tilth larina parcel)
|
Office |
Coaaercial |
Rritaurant |
Total |
|||
|
(1000 sf) |
(1000 |
sf) |
(1000 |
sf) |
||
|
Average Daily |
||||||
|
enter |
545 |
367 |
158 |
1070 |
||
|
exit |
545 |
367 |
158 |
1070 |
||
|
total |
1089 |
73't |
316 |
2140 |
||
|
Korning Peak |
||||||
|
enter |
153 |
13 |
3 |
169 |
||
|
exit |
S3 |
6 |
0 |
S9 |
||
|
total |
176 |
19 |
3 |
198 |
||
|
Evening Peak |
||||||
|
enter |
E7 |
36 |
17 |
80 |
||
|
exit |
141 |
38 |
7 |
166 |
||
|
total |
168 |
74 |
S4 |
266 |
TUDOR WHARF: TRIP BENERfiTION RfiTE ftSSUMFTICNS
ITE CKARLESTOHN KftVY YARD
Ecployient Percent Vehicle Eeployient Percent Vehicle ACJUSTHENT
Density Auto Trips Occupancy Density Auto Trips Occupancy FACTOR
Office 't.'tO 100.00 1.2C i^M
CoDiercial na 100.00 na na
Restuarant na 100.00 na na
TUDOR WHARF: ADJUSTED TRIP GENERATION RATES (n/o «arina parcel)
Office Coisercial Restaurant
(1000 sf) (1000 sf) (1000 sfl
|
'.O.OO |
1.20 |
dM |
|
£5.00 |
na |
0.25 |
|
50.00 |
na |
0.50 |
|
Average Daily |
|||
|
enter |
2.3^1 |
17.51 |
23.91 |
|
exit |
E.S^i |
17.51 |
23.91 |
|
total |
'..69 |
35.02 |
1(7.81 |
|
horning Peak |
|||
|
enter |
0.611 |
0.63 |
0.111 |
|
exit |
0.10 |
0.27 |
0.05 |
|
total |
0.73 |
0.90 |
0.1(5 |
|
Evening Peak |
|||
|
enter |
0.11 |
1.82 |
2.50 |
|
exit |
0.59 |
1.90 |
1.12 |
|
total |
0.71 |
3.72 |
3.63 |
TUDOR WHARF: ADJUSTED TRIP 6ENERATI0N RATES (with larina parcel)
Office Coiiercial Restaurant (1000 sf) (1000 sf) (1000 sf)
|
Average Daily |
|||
|
enter |
2. IB |
15.32 |
23.91 |
|
exit |
2. IB |
15.32 |
23.91 |
|
total |
A. 37 |
30.63 |
1(7. Bl |
|
Horning Peak |
|||
|
enter |
0.61 |
0.5'( |
0.1(1 |
|
exit |
0.09 |
0.23 |
0.05 |
|
total |
0.71 |
0.77 |
0.1(5 |
|
Evening Peak |
^ |
||
|
enter |
0.11 |
1.52 |
2.50 |
|
exit |
0.57 |
1.55 |
1.12 |
|
total |
0.67 |
3.09 |
3.63 |
TUDQR WHARF: ITE STANDARD TRIP BENERftTION RATES (t*/o earins parcel)
Office CoMercul Restaurant (1000 sf) (1000 sf) (1000 sf)
|
Average Daily |
|||
|
enter |
5.86 |
70.05 |
47.81 |
|
exit |
5.86 |
70.05 |
47.31 |
|
total |
11.72 |
l'tO.09 |
95.62 |
|
Horning Peak |
|||
|
enter |
1.60 |
2.52 |
0.82 |
|
exit |
0.2Jt |
l.OB |
0.09 |
|
total |
1.84 |
3.61 |
0.91 |
|
Evening Peak |
|||
|
enter |
C.2S |
7.29 |
5.00 |
|
exit |
l.it? |
7.58 |
2.25 |
|
total |
1.77 |
14.87 |
7.25 |
TUDOR WHARF: ITE STANDARD TRIP GENERATION RATES iNith earina parcel)
|
Office |
CDaeercial |
Restaurant |
|
|
(1000 sf) |
(1000 sf) |
(1000 sf) |
|
|
Average Daily- |
|||
|
enter |
5.46 |
61.26 |
47.81 |
|
exit |
5.46 |
61.26 |
47.81 |
|
total |
10.91 |
122.53 |
95.62 |
|
Norning Peak |
|||
|
enter |
1.53 |
2.17 |
0.82 |
|
exit |
0.23 |
0.93 |
0.09 |
|
total |
1.76 |
3.09 |
0.91 |
|
Evening Peak |
|||
|
enter |
0.27 |
6.06 |
5.00 |
|
exit |
1.42 |
6.31 |
2.25 |
|
total |
1.68 |
12.37 |
7.25 |
')
)
TUDOR WKARF: DEVELOPKENT COMPONENTS
Office Cofisercul Restaurant Total
Pier Building 71,760 5,670 6,613 B't.O'tS
LandEide Building 115. 6B0 10,666 0 lE6,3't6 (m/o iarina parcel)
Landside Building 177,750 1B.2S6 0 196,036 (xith tarina parcel)
TOTAL 187, W 16,336 6,61B E10,39't (h/ci earina parcel)
TOTAL £'(9,510 23,956 6,61B EBO.OS'i (Kith ■anna parcel)
3a:e :
RUTHERFORD AVENUE AT RCLiTE 1 RAMPs
1991 ?H PEAK HOUR WITH TUDOR UHARF d4te!05-25-l988 tne:10:12:S7
SATURATION PLOW ADJUSTHENT WORKSHEET
IDEAL N F«id Fhy Fgr Fo»rk Fbus Farea Frt Fit s
1800 3 1.000 0.976 1.010 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 <.739
IBOO H 1.000 0.976 1.010 t.OOO l.COO 0.900 C.750 l.OCO S394
1800 1 1.000 0.976 0.990 l.COO 1.000 0.900 1.000 0.9S0 U86
1800 3 1.000 0.976 0,990 1.000 1.000 0.900 1.000 1.000 <t69't
1800 1 1.000 0.976 1,010 1.000 l.COO 0.900 1.000 0.950 1516
1800 3 l.OCO 0.976 1.010 l.OCO 1.000 0.900 0.750 1. 000 c39't
:SL
|
3IR LN 8R0UP |
|
|
EB |
TH |
|
EB |
RT |
|
UB |
LT |
|
WB |
TH |
|
NB |
LT |
|
NB |
RT |
|
:;f |
hCITy ana |
|
SIR |
LN 5S0UP |
|
£B |
TH |
|
EB |
RT |
|
nE |
LT |
|
WB |
TH |
|
MB |
LT |
|
NB |
RT |
|
V a » / 5 y /' I, |
: ./c L |
KIT |
|
791 <t789 0.17 0.1i» |
637 1.15 |
|
|
677 E39i. 0.2B 0.32 |
756 C.39 |
t |
|
706 1436 0.<t7 0.53 |
733 0.89 |
t |
|
S75 *6'; 0.19 C.75 |
3524 0.25 |
|
|
167 1516 0.11 0.10 |
U5 1.15 |
|
|
94A 239<t 0.39 0,70 |
16S3 0.56 |
CV:LE= 65.0 L0ST=10.0 SLH V/S CRIT= 0.76 TSTAL V/C= 0.99
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
DIR LN GROUP v/c g/C C i\ : d2 PF DeUy LOS A*g Q 95S Q
|
EB TH |
1.15 0.14 |
65.0 |
21.71 o57 |
85,92 0.85 |
51,48 |
23.8 |
||
|
EB RT |
0.89 0.32 |
65.0 |
16.12 756 |
9.43 0.35 |
21.72 |
8.0 |
||
|
WE LT |
0.S9 0.53 |
65.0 |
10.37 7S3 |
9.12 1.00 |
19.49 |
6.S |
||
|
WB TH |
0.25 0.75 |
65.0 |
1.39 3524 |
O.Cl 0.85 |
1.61 |
3.6 |
||
|
NB LT |
1.15 0.10 |
65.0 |
22.71 U5 |
123.65 1.00 |
146.36 |
B.l |
||
|
NB RT |
0.56 0.70 |
65.0 |
3.60 1653 |
0.33 0.35 |
3.34 |
4.3 |
||
|
SIR Delay |
LOS |
|||||||
|
EB 59.31 |
E |
|||||||
|
WB 9.59 |
6 |
|||||||
|
NB 24.81 |
C |
|||||||
|
INTERSECT I |
ON DELAY : 31 |
.20 IN |
TER3ECTI0N L |
DS=D |
THE CYCLE LENGTH WITHIN THE ECUND3 OF 0 TO 0 SECONDS WHICH niNIHIZES CRITICAL rCVEHENT DELAY IS 65. C SECONDS
-OR ; V/C RATIO OF .95 THE CYCLE SHOULD BE 49.3 SECONSS THE EXISTINS TiriNE IS OFTIML
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA #6744
INDEX
Air Quality 244, 245
Alternative Site Plan 54-70
Alternative , No Build 2 6
Austin's Wharf 41, 93
Boston Globe 42-43
Boston National Historic Park 34, 36
Boston Pilot Schooner 102
Boston Redevelopment Authority 33, 133, 173
Boston Water and Sewer Commission 20, 223, 225, 227, 230
Bridge Vaults 5, 15, 22-23, 26, 61, 79, 83-84, 104
Building Heights 3, 54-55, 60
Bunker Hill Monument 36
Central Artery/North Area Project. .. 17, 29 33, 36-40, 73-74, 83
Chapter 91 18, 89-106, 118-120
Charles River Avenue 5, 30, 42, 46, 77
Charles River Dam 25-26, 35, 104, 109-115, 126
Charlestown History 29-3 3
Charlestown Bridge 1, 5, 32, 37, 42, 79-80, 109, 126
City Square 33-36, 46
Coastal Zone Management 120-132
Commonwealth Tidelands 90-96
Constitution Marina 25, 107-108
Construction Impacts 20, 72-73, 233-246
Dredging 20, 122, 155-159
-344-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA #6744
Excursion/Dinner Boat 2, 103, 104
Federal Emergency Management Agency 110-111, 116-117
Flooding 25, 116-117
Freedom Trail. . .36, 45-46, 79-80, 85-88, 125-126, 128, 131, 200
Harbor and Land Commissioners 89,90,93
Harborwalk 45-46, 131-133, 200
Historic Tidelands 89-96
Historic Ship Exhibit 2, 20, 98, 102, 155
Hoosac Pier 35
Housing 16, 22-25
Linkage Funds 45, 84-85
Marina 23, 25, 107-108
Massachusetts Port Authority 2, 17, 35, 62, 2 00
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 20, 124, 223, 225, 227, 230
Navigation Issues 107-108
Night Herons 19, 161-170
No-Build Alternative 26-27
Objectives and Benefits 4 5-46
Office Space 1, 3, 16, 22-23, 45, 60
Open Space 75-76, 79
Parking 1, 17, 22, 26, 45, 55, 61, 63
Paul Revere Landing and Park 5, 35, 77, 84, 126, 200
Permits , Federal , State and Local 21
Private Tidelands 90-96
•
-345-
Tudor Wharf Draft Environmental Impact Report EOEA #6744
Public Access 1-5, 19, 23, 45-46, 76-84
Pxoblic Transportation 17, 18, 202-211
Rapids Furniture 1, 22, 41, 43, 47
Restaurant 2-4, 45, 60, 77, 81-83
Retail/Commercial Space ,..3-4, 45, 55, 60, 77
Sewerage 20, 124-125, 223-229
Site Drainage 230-231
Shadow Impacts 151-154
Subsurface Conditions 48-50
Tall Ships 104-106
Timetable 71-73
Traffic 17, 171-197, 239-242
Tudor, Frederick 41
Tudor Wharf Company 42, 89-90
U.S.S. Constitution 34, 85, 126, 136
Visual Impacts 19, 135-150
Water Dependent Use 1-2, 4, 16, 18, 20, 23, 41, 97-106
Water Quality 231, 244-245
Water Supply 230
Water Taxi Dock 4, 23, 81, 98-101, 212-214
Wave and Wake Analysis 109-116
-346-
/
r/^^
Tudor Wharf
Draft Project Impact Report
October 1989
PROPERTY OF THE BRA LIBRARY
Supplement
PROPEH THE BRA LIB-
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 1989
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1 Application Information
An. tT PROPERTY Or
A. Development Team • • « v^.
. K . THE BRA LIBRARY
1 . Names - see attachment
2. Addresses and telephone numbers - see attachment
3. Designated contacts - see attachment
4 The development team has no current or formerly-ovned developments in Boston
6. Legal Information
1 . There are no legal judgments or actions pending concerning the
Proposed Project. Hovever, there will be a challenge to MDPW's pro tanto award for their taking of approximately 1500 SF.
2 The development team owns no property in Boston.
3. Site Control
a Rapids Realty Company warehouse parcel (approximately 58,389 SF of filled and unfilled private tidelands, L.C.C.*23347, together with license rights in about 28,786 SF of adjacent Commonwealth flowed tidelands) is under control by the development team by virtue of a purchase option.
b Charles River Avenue, a public way (approximately 12,6% SF). The project proponents plan to file for a discontinuance of that public way, and acquire control through subsequent purchase.
c A Massachusetts Port Authority ground lease parcel (approximately 29,800 SF) for which the proponents have responded with this proposed project to a development RFP by Massport Massport review of the proposal is underway
2 Financial Information - Submitted under separate cover to the BRA
A Names and addresses of all financially involved participants and bank references
B. Development Pro Forma
C. Fifteen Year Operating Pro Forma
3 Project Area
A. Metes and Bounds - Seesurvey plan, Exhibit 5, page 51
Page
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 1989
4. Public Benefits
A. Public benefits to be provided:
1. Public access - Over an acre of open space, including a plaza and Harborpark waltvays, vill be open to public use 24 hours/day The ground floor uses in the buildings will be facilities that encourage public assess At the intersection of the Freedom Trail, Harborpark, and the Charles River Basin, Tudor Wharf will rebuild the intersection of Boston's premier pedestrian walkways.
2 Pedestrian amenities - with few services available on Boston's pedestrian
paths, and particularly few amenities from the downtown to the Navy Yard, Tudor Wharf can provide some basic needed services to visitors and residents:
a restroom facilities
b food and drink refreshment
c tourist orientation to Charlestown, waterfront, and Boston
d. waterfront connection under Bridge to Paul Revere Landing Park
e pleasant route alternative to shorten exposure to Bridge traffic
3 Water Taxi dock - as part of the expanding Boston Harbor transportation
system, Tudor Wharf can provide an additional water transit link for an on-call water taxi system.
4. Dinner/Excursion boat dock - Theendof Tudor Wharf provides an ideal berth a large excursion vessel Highly visible from both the roads and walkways, and only 1/3 of a mile from North Station, this site can function as a primary or layover dock.
3. Historic ship exhibit - designated for the water area between the Wharf and the North Washington Street Bridge, the proponents propose to provide a permanent berth and support space for a suitable historic vessel Open to the public, such vessel can be a link to the vital history of Boston s port.
6 Public boat landing and Tall Ship wharfage - for temporary layover and special event berthing on the eastern side of the Wharf.
7. Housing and Jobs Linkage contributions - Housing Linkage community
contributions will range from $618,000 to $989,000 Jobs Linkage community contributions will range from $123,000 to $198,000
8. Additional property tax revenue - Current property tax revenue is about
$25,000 Upon completion, Tudor Wharf can be expected to generate over $800,000.
9 Additional permanent and construction jobs - see below
10. Additional evening, weekend, and holiday parking for area residents,
visitors, and boaters - With a large parking garage only fully utilized during the weekdays by the Tudor Wharf office tenants, the garage can significantly help in meeting an evening and weekend demand for parking by neighborhood residents, recreational boaters, and tourists.
Page 2
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 19S9
5 Employment
A. Anticipated employment levels 1 Estimated construction jobs - 200 2. Estimated permanent jobs - 900
6 Regulatory Controls and Permits
A. Zoning
1. Existing zoning requirements - The site is within a W-2 zone and the
Harborpark Interim Planning Overlay District, Subdistrict D Comprehensive rezoning is underway and draft permanent zoning has been circulated for public review and comment on June 28, 1989.
|
Zoning computations: |
Alt?rnaUv?*l |
Alternative »2 |
|
Land Area |
84,563 |
112,609 |
|
Watersheet |
15,%0 |
15.%0 |
|
Site area |
100,523 |
128,569 |
|
Building SF |
||
|
Iandside(74) |
135.600 |
209,820 |
|
Pier(62) |
88,060 |
88,060 |
|
Total Development |
223,660 |
297,880 |
|
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) |
2,6 |
2 6 |
|
Open Space |
53% |
48% |
|
Ground Plane Public Access |
94% |
91% |
|
Parking Spaces |
252 |
303 |
|
Linkage Payments |
$742,000 |
$1,187,300 |
3 Anticipated requests for zoning relief - Under existing zoning, proponent would require zoning relief for uses, FAR, parapet setback, and loading docks. Proponent anticipates being granted a PDA designation, for which zoning relief of the above items would be granted under Article 6A Additionally, an IPOD permit would be required under Article 27C. It is not yet clear what relief, if any, would be required under new proposed zoning.
B DEP Chapter 91 License - Please refer to Section 4 0, Tide lands Licensing, pg 89
C. Other anticipated local, state, and federal permits required with a
proposed application schedule - Please refer to Section 1 5. Permit Status List, page 21
Page 3
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 1989
7. Community Groups
A Community groups, abutters, owners, and displacees vhich may be substantially interested in or affected by the Proposed Project.
1. Community Groups
a. Charlestovn Neighborhood Council
b. Harborpark Commission
c. Boston Harbor Associates
d. North Area Task Force
e. Charlestown Preservation Society
f . Boston Harbor Transportation Task Force
2. Abutters and Owners
a Massachusetts Port Authority - owner/lessor of Hoosac Pier property
b. Bosport Docking Co. - lessee/operator of Constitution Marina
c. Constitution Plaza Associates - owner/manager of Constitution Plaza
d. A&S Electric Display Co. - owner of Marwell Box building
e Metropolitan District Commission - owner of Paul Revere Landing Park f . National Park Service - Charlestown Navy Yard National Historic Park g Freedom Trail Commission - Freedom Trail h. United States Navy - U.S.S. Constitution
i. Raytheon Historic Foundation - owner/operator of Whites of their Eyes" j Constitution Museum - museum in the National Park j MassachusettsDepartmentof Public Works - CAN A administrator K Perini/Kiewit/ Atkinson - CANA contractor 3 Displacees - NONE
B List of meetings proposed and held with interested parties including the Charlestown Neighborhood Council
1. Community Groups
a. Charlestown Neighborhood Council
1. Housing it Development Committee - 6/28/88, preview MassportRFP
2. Housing U Development Committee - 8/23/88, review plans 3 Housing & Development Committee - 12/29/88, review plans
b. Harborpark Commission
1. lO/H/87 - presented ENF plans 2 11/16/88 - presented DEIR plans
c. Boston Harbor Associates
1. 10/1/88 - presented plans during Harbor cruise reviewing development
d. North Area Task Force
1. 4/22/87 - preplanning review of City Square urban design parameters
2. attendance at multiple meetings in 88/89 regarding proposed City
Square park
e. Charlestown Preservation Society
1 12/4/88 - presentation ofTW DEIR plans
2. 4/5/89 - Design review committee review of DEIR plans
f . Boston Harbor Transportation Task Force
1. 12/6/88 - presentation of TW plans
Page 4
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 1989
2. Abutters and Owners
a Massachusetts Port Authority
1 multiple meetings in 87/88 regarding TV plans and potential inclusion
of MPA parcel into the development
2 2/24/89 - submission of propo»l to MPA for inclusion of adjacent
parking lot into the Tudor Wharf project
b Bosport Docking Co.
1 multiple meetings during 87/88/89 concerning TW plans, maximizing water activity at Tudor Wharf, coordinating TW development, mitigating impact on marina of TW development
c Constitution Plaza Associates
1 . multiple meetings during 87/88/89 concerning development of the Massport-owned/CPA-leased overflow parking lot proposed by proponents for inclusion into TW site.
d. A&S Electric Display Co
1 . multiple meetings in 1989 concerning blighting impact of Maxwell Box building on City Square environs.
e Metropolitan District Commission
1. 12/16/87 - presentation of TW ENF plans auid discussion of issues concerning pedestrian circulation along that portion of the waterfront
f. National Park Service
1. 11/14/88 - presentation of TWDEIR plans
g Freedom Trail Commission
1. 11/23/88 - presentation ofTWDEIR plans
h United States Navy
1. 11/14/88 - presentaUon of TWDEIR plans
i Raytheon Historic Foundation
1. 9/15/87 - presentation ofTWENF plans
j. Constitution Museum
1. 11/14/88 - presentation ofTWDEIR plans
k Massachusetts Department of Public Works
1. multiple meetings during 86/87 concerning MDPW taking for CANA,
impact of CANA proposed plans on development of Rapids Furniture Warehouse site
2. 11/3/87 - meeting regarding proposed DPW routing of pedestrian
traffic during CANA, future routing, and estimated CANA schedule
1. Perini/Kiewit/ Atkinson
1. multiple meetings regarding construction coordination and cooperation between P/K/A, as CANA contractor and TW proposed construction
Page 5
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 1989
II. TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT
1 . Please refer to Section 8.0, Traffic, Section 9 0, Parking Impacts, and Section 1 1 0,
Construction Impacts
2. The scope for these sections was developed by MEPA in coordination vith the Boston
Transportation Department. The Plan utilizes the post-CANA roadway configurations
3 Under either Article 31 or the draftof proposed new zoning, a Transportation Access Plan is not required However, in the spirit of cooperation, the proponent submits this Plan for review, and will work with the City, it's agencies, the State, and other developers to coordinate their transportation planning for the City Square section of Charlestown.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMPONENT
1 Shadow - Please refer to Section 5 3, pages 151-154
2 Daylight - Please refer to Section 5 (Visual Impacts), page 135
3 Air Quality - Please refer to Section 114, page 244
4 Solid and Hazardous Wastes -
A Please refer to Section 1 1 54, page 245 for discussion of solid wastes B Please refer to attached 2 IE Site Investigation Report for discussion of hazardous material
5 Noise - Due to roadway proximity, ambient noise levels on the site will not be
materially affected Additional evaluation ongoing
6 Geotechnical Impact - Please refer to attached "Preliminary Geotechnical Study ",
dated 24 May 1988
7 Construction Impacts - Please refer to Section 11, beginning pa^e 233. for a
discussion of the construction impacts
Page 6
Tudor Wharf DPIR October 19S9
IV. URBAN DESIGN COMPONENT
1 . A vritteo description of the program elements and space allocation for each element
can be found in Sections 2.6 and 2.7, beginning on page 47
2. Area plans and sections can be found throughout the report: see list of exhibits
immediately following table of contents
3 Photographs of the site and neighborhood may be found on pages 13, 39, 40, 52, ic 53 4. Perspective drawings may be found in Section 5. beginning on page 135 5 Aerial views of the area may be found on pages 13. 39, & 40
6. Site section may be found on page 69.
7. Site plans may be found on pages 56 & 58.
8 The proposed schedule for the development of the project may be found in Section 2.8,
page 71, and in Section 11 2, beginning on page 234.
9 Massing and study models are underway and will be provided under separate cover.
V. HISTORIC RESOURCES COMPONENT
1 See Sections 2.1, 2,4, 3 5, 4.6,2, and 5 for discussion of impacts on historical resources.
2. The Boston city archaeologist has assessed the archaeological resources of the entire City Square area as part of the CAN A project. His review of the Tudor Wharf site reinforced the fact that the site was alternately filled and reconstructed over the years, destroying (or rearranging) any time-layered resources that may have been available
VI. INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS COMPONENT
1. Please refer to Section 10, Infrastructure, beginning on page 223
Page 7
TUDOR VHARF DEVELOPMENT TEAM 44 Charles River Avenue Boston
Developer
Architect/ Urban Designer/ Planner
Environmental Planner
Attorney
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists and Hydrogeologists
Structural Engineer
Mechanical Engineer Electrical Engineer Civil Engineer
Surveyor
Construction Consultant
Transportation Engineer
Myerson/Allen & Company 247-1400
306 Dartmouth Street
Boston Ma 02116
(John Allen David Keller)
Childs, Bertman. Tseckares & Casendino 262-4334
306 Dartmouth Street
Boston Ma 02116
(Richard Bertman Peter Smith)
Fori Point Associates 357-7044
300 Congress Street Boston Ma 02210 (Jamie Fay, Thorn Mead)
DiCara. Selig. Savyer & Holt 323-1800
Three Center Plaza
Boston Ma 02108
(Lawrence S DiCara Matthew Kiefer Sam Mygati)
Haley & Aldrich 494-1606
238 Main Street
Cambridge Ma 02142
(David Thompson Jim Wheeler)
Yeidlinger Associates 876-9666
44 Brattle Street Cambridge Ma 02138 (Steven Varga)
Shooshanian Engineering Assoc. Inc. 426-0110
330 Congress St Boston Ma 02210 (HankEggert)
Harry R. Feldman, Inc. 357-9740
112 Shawmut Avenue
Boston Ma 02118
(Joseph L Calabro JeffRobbins)
Daniel O'Connell's Sons. Inc 423-9569
17<) South Street Boston Ma 02111 (Patrick D Kelleher)
Bruce Campbell & Associates 342-1199
30 Chauncy Street, Suite 701 Boston, Ma, 021 11 (Georgy Bezkorovainy)
^yJl-71
H a ley
A«A
A I d r i c h , Inc.
(. OIlMlldllg
Cii.-<)ti.i.hnK,il ljis;inci.Ts, Gi.(>loj;iMs .inJ HyJroycologibtb
•is ( li.iili, Stml
( .inibikl-r. \1 \ '>:NI
(.r I'l I li.n(,
18 May 1988
File No, 06158-50
Myerson/Allen & Company 3 06 Dartmouth Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Attention; Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. John Allen
Oil and Hazardous Material Site Evaluation
Tudor Wharf
Charlestown, Massachusetts
We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled "Report on Oil and Hazardous Material Site Evaluation, Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts," prepared in accordance with our proposal dated 1 March 1988.
This report presents the results of an investigation made to evaluate the possible presence and nature of oil and hazardous materials that may exist on or beneath the ground surface at the site. The report supplements the information available from previous studies and makes recommendations concerning remedial measures that may be required prior to the proposed development.
It has been a pleasure working with you during this phase of the project, and we look forward to our continued association with you on this project.
Sincerely yours, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Su^nne E. Robert Staff Scientist
SER:DHG:ddc/1693h
c: J. Wheeler D. Thompson
Deborah H. Gevalt Vice President
I'i.mkIi ( )lli>i\
( .1 r.i'iMl'iii 1. ( i'lHi, , n, III
I'.. Ill 111,1 M IIIK
l',.Jl..i.l, \iu M,M"|-I'">
Allili.ili
I I \ \ ,.l \,u l.'ik
'^■" ^-"^-0 0 4 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF APPENDICES ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1-01. General 1
1-02. Purpose and Scope 1
1-03. Elevation Datum 2
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3
2-01. Site Location 3
2-02. Site History and Usage 3
III. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7
3-01. Site Conditions 7
3-02. Subsurface Explorations 9
3-03. Groundwater Observation Wells 9
3-04. Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions 10
IV. CHEMICAL TESTING 12
4-01. Laboratory Screening 12
4-02. Groundwater Sampling 12
4-03. Chemical Analysis 13
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18
5-01. Conclusions 18
5-02. Recommendations 19
5-03. Limitations 21
-1-
A«A
OS
LIST OF TABLES
Table I
Summary of HNU Readings
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Figure 2
Project Locus
Subsurface Exploration Location Plan
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Recent Test Boring Logs
Groundwater Observation Well Installation and Monitoring Reports
Chemical Analysis Data and Chain-of-Custody Records
AQK
■11-
00 45
INTRODUCTION
1-01, GENERAL
This report presents the results of an oil and hazardous material site evaluation of the Tudor Wharf site located in Charlestown, Massachusetts. Since current plans for the proposed development include a three to four level below-grade parking garage and construction of a five-story pile supported building over the open water of Boston Harbor, the focus of this study was an evaluation of the fill and groundwater quality within the filled land portion. The portion of the Tudor Wharf development parcel outside the Tudor Wharf site limits was not included in this evaluation. The limits of the property included in this study are indicated in Figure 2.
The study summarized herein was completed concurrently with a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the site which is summarized in our "Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts", dated 18 May 1988. Refer to this report for further information.
1-02. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study has been to make an initial evaluation of the possible presence and nature of oil and hazardous materials which may be present on or beneath the ground surface at the site. The report supplements the information available from previous studies, and makes recommendations as to the type of remedial action that may be required for future site development. Earth excavation and dewatering will be required for below-grade construction, therefore, information on soil and groundwater quality was an important aspect of the site evaluation.
This evaluation is based upon the review of: (1) readily- available information on historical site usage and development;
(2) a review of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) files for Charlestown, Massachusetts;
(3) visual observations of existing site conditions; and
(4) information from subsurface explorations and chemical testing designed to obtain data on soil and groundwater quality. This work was undertaken in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our proposal dated 1 March 1988.
AQA
00 46
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-01. SITE LOCATION
The site is located at 44 Charles River Avenue, south of the now discontinued Waldo Street and immediately east of the Charlestown Bridge, as shown on Figures 1 and 2 (1).* The project area is currently occupied by the Rapids Furniture warehouse and adjacent parking areas. The site is located at 44 Charles River Avenue along the east side of a cul-de-sac known as Charles River Avenue. Historically, the addresses associated with the site property have also included 36-44 Charles River Avenue (2) . The limits of the property considered for this study are outlined on Figure 2 by a wide boundary line which is labeled "property line". This report does not address that portion of the proposed development parcel that lies outside the property limits.
The property is currently zoned W-2 for waterfront industries (3) . Surrounding land use includes the Fulton Box Company, a box and pallet company located under the Charlestown Bridge. The Constitution Marina has been constructed to the east, along the Charles River. A paved parking lot, owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Works, is located at the intersection of Charles River Avenue and Water Street (4) . A three-story brick building, used by the Boston and Maine Railroad for storage, occupies the lot east of the DPW yard (2) .
2-02. SITE HISTORY AND USAGE
Information on previous site usage and historical development was obtained from a previous Haley & Aldrich, Inc. study entitled "Report on Site Conditions and History, Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts," dated 10 April 1987.
Site History
The village of Charlestown, known to the Native Indians as Mishawum, was officially founded in 1629 by the Spraque
* Refer to listing of Sources of Information attached to this letter.
-3-
A9X
CO .'i7
Brothers (5) . In 1631, the Charles River was first breached between Boston and Charlestown by a bridge extending out of a small peninsula on the Charlestown side (5) . By 1786, a bridge had been constructed at the present location of Charles River Avenue. By 1795, a wharf, then owned by the Austin family of Charlestown, had been built along the east side of the Charles River Bridge, on the Charlestown side (6,7).
By 1802, the Navy Yard had been established east of the site (5). By 1806, Frederic Tudor had established his natural ice business in the wharves adjacent to the Charles River Bridge in Charlestown (6) . Between 1836 and 1850, the Boston ice trade was active in every large port in South America and the Far East (8) . The Fitchburg Railroad had established a track to the Naval Shipyard along Water Street, providing rail access to the neighboring wharves by 1855 (9) .
In 1874, Charlestown was annexed by the City of Boston (5). By this time, Frederic Tudor had purchased the present site property and the abutting wharf and located his office there. A railroad spur had been constructed on-site along the east dock of the warehouse (10,11). At this time, the structures on-site consisted of two buildings: a 5-story brick grist mill addressed 3 8 Charles River Avenue was located on the north end of the site, and a two-story brick warehouse extending over the Charles River addressed 44 Charles River Avenue (11) . In 1874 Frederic Tudor operated a linseed oil mill at 22 Charles River Avenue. Ships returning from ice deliveries brought cargoes of hides, jute, dyestuffs linseed and shellac to Charlestown (12) .
The 1880 's saw the decline of the natural ice industry and this section of the Charlestown waterfront turned to the export of grains and provisions to the West. This conversion was concurrent with the consolidation of the adjacent wharves and the construction of the Hoosac Tunnel Docks and Elevator Co. (13).
By 1892, City drinking water had been provided to the site (14) . At this time, the New England Preserving Company, part of the Tudor Company, had located at 22 Charles River Avenue in the brick building at the corner of the Water Street (14) . In 1897, Frederic Tudor sold the company to Addison, Gage & Co., an ice industry rival (6,10).
In 1901, the Tudor Wharf Company (so called after the wharf, not the former owner) purchased the site for general mercantile storage (6). In 1902, the Potter-Wrightington, Inc. cereal
A9A
00 48
department and offices had located in the former grist mill located on-site at 38 Charles River Avenue (6,15). By 1912, the Charlestown Bridge was relocated to its present location. Charles River Avenue was terminated at the River's edge. By this time, sanitary sewer connections had been provided to the structures (15). By 1915, the Boston and Maine Railroad had assumed possession of the track along Water Street (16) .
Potter-Wrightington remained in business at 38 Charles River Avenue until 1937. The Boston Globe leased warehouse space from them for paper storage between 19 3 0 and 19 37 (6) . In 1937, the two brick structures on-site were demolished and a wood- frame warehouse structure was constructed over the existing piles in the Charles River (6,17).
Between 1932 and 1941, Jason O'Connor operated a livery boat out of the east dock side of the wharf (6). In 1944, repairs were made to the warehouse, including the addition of new piles (2,18). In 1947, the Boston Globe resumed leasing space for paper storage until 1962 (6,20).
In 1952, a one-story concrete block structure was built north of the wood-frame warehouse (19). In 1962, the wood-frame warehouse was re-sided with asbestos clad shingles and a shed was attached to the west side of the building over the River along Charles River Avenue (21) . Also at this time, an oil burning furnace was installed in the concrete block building with an above ground 5,000 gallon capacity No. 2 fuel oil storage tank located between the two structures on the edge of the sea wall (22) .
In 1962, the property was purchased from the Tudor Wharf Company by the Rapid Furniture Co. (6,21). At this time the Boston Globe had vacated the warehouse and the Usen Canning Warehouse leased part of the premises from the Tudor Wharf Company until 1976 (6). The I.R.S. rented the warehouse in 1979 for the storage of tax forms (23). In 1986, six natural gas-fired hot air blowers were installed in the wood-frame building (2,24) .
The Rapid Furniture Company retains ownership of the property at present. During its ownership, in addition to leasing of warehouse space to other companies, the furniture company has used part of the frame structure for offices, furniture storage and retail preparation (6,24).
AQK
CO 4 9
Local inquiries indicate no records exist of underground storage tanks in the site vicinity (2,22). Only minor petroleum releases have been reported in the site vicinity, caused by vehicle related accidents, usually resulting in a direct discharge into the Charles River or Harbor waters (25,26). The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Engineering records indicate that no confirmed sites or sites to be investigated for releases of oil and hazardous materials exist in the site vicinity (27) .
A9A
00 50
III. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3-01. SITE CONDITIONS
The site was revisited on 5 May 1988 by a Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Staff Scientist, who observed the current site conditions. The site has undergone virtually no changes since the previous site visit on 19 March 1987. Two buildings are present on-site.
The older of the two buildings, a wooden frame warehouse, occupies the wharf area which extends out over the Charles River. Although the furniture warehouse is not currently in operation, small offices still exist inside the building. Heat is provided to the building by electric space heaters and six natural gas-fired hot air blowers.
Along the east dock side of this building, an abandoned railroad spur enters the building and terminates at a truck bay. The surface under the tracks within the building is constructed of an asphalt material. The floor of the truck bay is badly stained, presumably as a result of leakage from a hydraulic dumpster previously located there (28) . Staining was also observed, on both occasions, along the length of the railroad spur within the building. Four paint cabinets, which were observed during our previous site visit, have been emptied of paint materials. No other evidence of spillage or storage of oil or hazardous materials was noted within this building at this time.
The second structure consists of a one-story concrete block structure. This structure was not accessible at the time of the most recent site visit. An addendum to this letter will be issued concerning the observed contents of this structure, subsequent to gaining access at a later date. Reportedly, the warehouse is being used by Warner Brothers for storage of props for a television program, and contains no oil or hazardous materials (28) .
An oil burning furnace is located along the south wall of the concrete block building. An above ground fuel oil storage tank exists between the two structures on the edge of the sea wall, enclosed by concrete block walls and underlain by soil. Since the site visit of 19 March 1987, the top of the tank has been covered by corrugated metal sheets. No odors or staining were observed associated with the soil visible underneath the tank. A drainage trough exists at the base of the concrete block
-7-
00 51
enclosure along the sea wall. No oil residue was observed in this trough. The filler pipe associated with this tank is located along Charles River Avenue. No evidence of a recent release of fuel oil on the materials in the vicinity of the filler pipe was noted at the time of this site visit.
The remaining filled portions of the site are covered with asphalt material. Two storm sewer catch basins exist within the property line along the west side of the concrete block building. At the time of the site visit on 5 May 1988, both catch basins were observed as being coated by motor oil residue. Additional evidence of disposal of spent motor oil was noted by an obvious oil odor emanating from both catch basins, and discarded oil filters and one qpaart motor oil containers located nearby. On 5 May 1988, two Fulton Box Company trucks were observed parked in close proximity to these catch basins.
At the end of Charles River Avenue along the seawall, construction debris has been discarded, along with additional one quart motor oil containers, and auto parts. A large pile of road salt has been piled on the site at the end of Charles River Avenue. Under the wharf, scrap wood and bricks were noted, presumably remnants of demolished structures.
The Fulton Box Company remains in operation adjacent to the site under the Charlestown Bridge. At the time of the site visit, the off-site area adjacent to the Charlestown Bridge was strewn with construction and demolition debris consisting of PVC pipe, railroad ties, metal rails, scrap metal and wood. Four 55-gallon drums were being used for refuse disposal, one of which was identified as previously containing Concord grape concentrate.
A brick wall defines the eastern site boundary. An auto gas tank has been discarded against this wall. At the southeast corner of the property, twenty-three empty 55-gallon drums are being stored. These drums are reportedly props for a television program (28) . Wooden debris consisting of railroad ties and pallets have also been discarded in this area of the site. A large oil stain, emanating a strong waste motor oil smell, was observed adjacent to the drums. Discarded motor oil containers were also noted in the area. The oil has been largely absorbed by sediment overlying the asphalt paved surface.
-8-
AQK
00 52
3-02. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
A preliminary subsurface exploration program was recently completed at the site during the period 28 to 31 March 1988 to obtain subsurface information for geotechnical design purposes, and to provide information on soil and groundwater quality. The program consisted of three test borings drilled from land using a truck-mounted rotary drill rig. A fourth boring was made from within the wooden frame warehouse pier structure with a portable skid rig over the Charles River. The borings were monitored in the field by H&A personnel. As-drilled locations of the borings were determined by H&A by measuring from existing site features shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations were determined by H&A using optical survey methods.
All four borings were advanced using 3-in. diameter casing to the specified depths. Potable water was introduced into the boring to facilitate drilling. Split-spoon samples were taken from all borings at depth intervals, typically not exceeding five feet, and at changes in soil type. For the purpose of this report, continuous samples were generally taken at two foot intervals through the surficial fill deposits. All borings were terminated in the glacial till stratum. Boring logs prepared by the boring contractor are included in Appendix A.
3-03. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION WELLS
Groundwater observation wells were installed in completed boreholes B102, B103, and B104 . The well tips were installed at depths of approximately 15 ft to 2 0 ft. below ground surface. The observation wells consist of 2.0 in. I.D. machine slotted PVC well screen, installed from the well point to the ground surface, to allow the observation of tidal influences on the site. The top of each observation well was sealed with cement and bentonite, and encased in a protective roadway box. Groundwater Observation Well Reports are included in Appendix B of this report. Groundwater levels measured during periodic monitoring of the observation wells for the period 29 March to 5 May 1988 are also included in Appendix B. The corresponding tide level recorded at the time of the groundwater measurements is also noted on the monitoring reports. From the groundwater data obtained at the site, it is noted that groundwater levels observed at observation wells B102 (OW) and B103 (OW) vary appreciably with tidal fluctuations, while the water levels observed at B104 (OW) do not.
-9-
A9K
00 53
3-04. SUBSURFACE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS
The subsurface explorations indicate the following general soil and rock sequence in order of increasing depth from ground surface:
o Miscellaneous Fill
o Organic Silt and Peat
o Marine Sands
o Glacial Till
o Bedrock (assumed)
Due to the complex environments responsible for the creation of these deposits, all strata may not be present at specific site locations. These strata are discussed below in order of deposition.
Bedrock
Bedrock was not encountered in any of the test borings. However, available geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by Cambridge Argillite (29) .
Glacial Till
During the Pleistocene glacial period, a very dense non-stratified, unsorted material known as glacial till was deposited over the bedrock surface in the project area. The glacial till encountered at the site is typically a very dense, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT, with trace to some gravel, containing occasional cobbles and boulders. Glacial till soils were encountered at depths of 15 to 30 ft. below ground surface. Thickness of this strata was not determined since none of the test borings penetrated this layer completely.
Marine Sand
As a result of the fluctuating harbor levels, a layer of silty medium to fine SAND was found to overlie the glacial till deposits. Where encountered, this stratum ranged in thickness to up to 9.0 ft.
-10-
AQK
00 54
Organic Soils
A stratum of organic soils consisting primarily of sandy organic SILT and PEAT was found to overlie the glacial till and marine sands. The organic sandy silt generally contains shells. The salt marsh peat encountered on-site accumulated along the shore line during a slowly rising sea level. The organic silt and peat typically ranged up to 15 ft. in thickness, where encountered.
Miscellaneous Fill
The man-made layer of fill placed across the site to the present grade primarily consists of an unsorted mixture of coarse to fine sand, silt, clay, and fine gravel with varying amounts of wood, cinders, brick, slag and concrete. The thickness of this stratum varied from 5.0 to 15.0 ft., based on the most recent subsurface explorations.
Evidence of petroleum contamination was noted in the first two samples obtained from BlOl, which was drilled over water. The materials encountered in this boring are indicative of typical harbor bottom sediments and are not believed to be representative of the overall quality of on-site fill material.
Refer to our "Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts" for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions including subsurface profiles drawn in both North/South and East/West orientations across the site.
■ i I
• -11-
AQK
00 55
IV. CHEMICAL TESTING
4-01. LABORATORY SCREENING
In the Haley & Aldrich, Inc. laboratory, fill and soil samples were screened for the presence of detectable volatile organic compounds. This screening consisted of using an HNU Systems, Inc. PIlOl photoionization analyzer to determine the presence of detectable volatile organic compounds in the headspace of the sample jars.
Using ultraviolet light, the instrument ionizes trace gases such that the positive ions created are attracted to an electrode having an applied negative potential. The current measured at this electrode is proportional to the trace gas concentration. The instrument readout provides a general indication of the presence of detectable volatile organic and inorganic compounds in parts per million (ppm) . The results of these screening tests are provided in Table I of this report.
The majority of the soil samples screened did not exhibit elevated HNU readings. However, samples taken from the first 5 feet of fill from B102 (SI, S2, S3) exhibited elevated readings of 8.2, 6.4 and 18.4 parts per million (ppm) above the laboratory background level. One fill sample from B103(S5) exhibited an elevated reading of 7.5 ppm above background.
4-02. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
A groundwater sampling program was undertaken on-site to evaluate the quality of the groundwater for environmental purposes. Samples were obtained on 13 April 1988 from each of the three monitoring wells shown on Figure 2 (B102-OW, B103-OW and B104-OW) .
Before obtaining the samples from the wells, approximately ten well volumes of standing water were removed from B102-OW. Due to poor recharge rates, B103-OW and B104-OW were bailed dry five times before groundwater samples were obtained. After removal of standing water with a stainless steel bailer, a sample was obtained from the well with the bailer and immediately poured into laboratory prepared containers. Prior to bailing each well, the bailer was washed with mild detergent, then rinsed successively with tap water, distilled water, methanol and distilled water. The samples obtained were
-12-
A9A
00 56
stored in an insulated container packed with ice or in a refrigerator until delivery to the analytical laboratory. The groundwater sample submitted for priority pollutant metals analysis was filtered in the field after collection.
4-03. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Groundwater and selected soil samples were submitted to Alpha Analytical Laboratories for chemical analysis. The chemical analyses data and chain-of-custody records are included in Appendix C.
A. Groundwater Analyses
Groundwater samples from all three monitoring wells were submitted for testing for volatile organic compounds and total petroleum hydrocarbons by the IR method. Groundwater samples taken from B102-OW and B103-OW were also submitted for analysis for pesticides, PCBs and a petroleum scan. Additionally, groundwater samples from B103-OW were tested for acid/base neutral extractable compounds and dissolved priority pollutant metals, to obtain information on baseline groundwater quality at the site.
In general, the chemical analyses performed on the groundwater samples indicated the following:
o No volatile organic compounds were detected above the method detection limits in the groundwater samples taken on-site.
o No pesticides or PCBs were detected above the method detection limits in the groundwater samples obtained from B102-OW and B103-OW.
o A total hydrocarbon concentration of 1.3 mg/l (parts per million [ppm]) was detected in the groundwater sample taken from B104-OW. Concentrations above the method detection limit were not detected in the groundwater samples taken from B102-OW and B103-OW. No groundwater standard currently exists for total petroleum hydrocarbons, however, the current Massachusetts guidelines for oil and grease in surface waters is 15 mg/l.
AQA
-13-
00 57
o No acid/base or neutral extractable compounds were detected above the method detection limits in the groundwater sample taken from B103-OW.
0 Four of the thirteen dissolved priority pollutants were detected in the groundwater sample taken from B103-OW at the following concentrations:
Copper 0.02 mg/1 (parts per million [ppm])
Lead 0.07
Selenium 0.024
Zinc 0.06
U.S. EPA Drinking Water Standards and Massachusetts Class
1 and II Groundwater Standards for copper (1.0 ppm) and zinc (5.0 ppm) were not exceeded by the sample from B103-OW. However, the U.S. EPA Drinking Water Standards and Massachusetts Class I and Class II Groundwater Standards for selenium (0.01 ppm) and lead (0.05 ppm) were not met by the sample from B103-OW.
B. Soil Sample Analyses
Twelve soil samples obtained during the test boring program were submitted for chemical analysis to assess the quality of the fill and soil materials which underlie the site. Details pertaining to the analysis of these fill and soil samples follow.
Two substrata have been tentatively identified within the fill materials. Soils which are believed to be the most recent fill material is generally described as loose, brown to black coarse to fine sand, with cinders, brick and fine gravel, and was encountered at depths ranging from one to six feet below the ground surface at all three land borings. Underlying this top fill layer, a second fill deposit was encountered. This material is generally described as medium dense, brown medium to fine sand with silt, brick, cinders and fine gravel, and was found to range in thickness from approximately four to eight feet.
Six soil samples were selected from the top most layer of fill for chemical analysis. Sample B102(S1), which had
-14-
AQK
00 58
exhibited an elevated HNU reading of 9.8 ppm was submitted for testing for volatile organic compounds. Due to insufficient sample recovery amounts, samples S2 and S3, from B102, which also exhibited elevated HNU readings, were composited and submitted for PCB, total petroleum hydrocarbons and petroleum scan analyses. The sample taken from ground surface at B103(S1) was submitted for PCB analysis. Sample B103(S2) was submitted for acid/base neutral extractable compounds analysis. Sample B103(S3) was submitted for priority pollutant metals analysis.
Another six soil samples were selected from the lower fill material for chemical analyses. Samples S4 and S5 from B102, were composited due to insufficient sample quantity and submitted for priority pollutant metals and acid/base neutral extractable compound analyses. Sample S5 from B103 was selected based on elevated HNU reading of 7.5 ppm above the background laboratory level. Due to insufficient sample quantity, sample S5 was composited with sample S4 from B103, and submitted for volatile organic compound, total petroleum hydrocarbon and petroleum scan analyses. Soil samples S2 and S3 from B104 were observed as being darkly stained, and were selected on this basis for chemical analysis. B104(S2) was submitted for total petroleum hydrocarbon analysis. B104(S3) was submitted for volatile organic compound analysis.
Sample B103(S6A) taken from the underlying natural soil was submitted for volatile organic compound analysis. Two samples B103(S8) and B102(S11) taken from the underlying natural soil were submitted for total chloride analysis.
In general the chemical analyses of the soil samples indicated the following:
o Volatile organic compounds were not detected at
concentrations above the method detection limits in any of the soil samples submitted for this test.
o Neither pesticides or PCBs were detected above the
laboratory method detection limits in the soil samples submitted for these analyses.
o Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the soil samples at the following concentrations:
B102(S2 & S3) 530 mg/kg (parts per million or ppm)
-15-
00 5!
B103(S4 & S5) B104(S2)
60 mg/kg 56 mg/kg
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Engineering has established an interim policy which allows on-site disposal of soils with total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations of up to 300 ppm. This policy applies to soils which have been affected by spills of virgin petroleum products. This interim policy may not be strictly applicable to the fill materials which will be excavated during proposed construction activities. However, the observed petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations are low relative to the current 300 ppm DEQE guideline for on-site soil disposal.
The petroleum scan performed on B102 (S2 & S3) identified No. 6 Fuel Oil as the type petroleum product present at a concentration of 2,716 mg/kg (ppm). The petroleum scan performed on B103 (S4 & S5) did not identify a specific petroleum constituent.
All thirteen of the priority pollutant metals were detected at various concentrations in the soil samples taken on-site, at the following concentrations:
|
B102 |
B102 |
B103 |
|
|
(S2 & S3) |
(S4 & S5) |
(S3) |
|
|
Antimony (mg/kg or ppm) |
11.0 |
17.2 |
11.4 |
|
Arsenic |
4.8 |
11.9 |
9.4 |
|
Beryllium |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
|
Cadmium |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
|
Chromium |
10.5 |
13.7 |
7.5 |
|
Copper |
28.4 |
13.7 |
45.3 |
|
Lead |
88.7 |
31.8 |
150 |
|
Mercury |
ND |
0.19 |
0.29 |
|
Nickel |
8.7 |
9.2 |
9.2 |
|
Selenium |
ND |
ND |
0.3 |
|
Silver |
0.06 |
0.11 |
0.6 |
|
Thalliiim |
ND |
11.2 |
ND |
|
Zinc |
140 |
49.7 |
59.1 |
AQX
-16-
00 6(
The concentrations of the majority of these metals do not exceed the common range of trace chemical elements in natural soils. However, the detected concentrations of antimony and cadmium do exceed the common range for these metals (30). The common range of these elements in natural soils are as follows:
Antimony 2-10 ppm
Cadmium 0.01 - 0.7 ppm
No on-site disposal guidelines have been developed for these detected metals. It is anticipated that mixed fill materials such as those encountered in the borings would contain metals at or above the indicated concentrations.
Base/neutral extractable compounds were not detected in B102 (S4 & S5) above the method detection limits. Thirteen base/neutral extractable compounds were detected at various concentrations above the laboratory detection limits in the soil sample taken from B103. The combined total concentration of these compounds is 182,300 ppb or 182.3 ppm. These concentrations of base/neutral compounds are indicative of a incomplete combustion process, which is also suggested by the presence of cinders in the fill material (31) . According to 310 CMR 19, cinders and ash are considered solid waste at this time, and may be disposed of in a licensed sanitairy landfill along with construction rubble and other solid waste.
Two soil samples [B102(S11) and B103(S8)] were submitted for total chloride analysis. The detected concentrations for chloride were 784 mg/kg (or ppm) and 3,859 mg/kg, respectively. DEQE policy requires that soils with total chloride concentrations in excess of 250 mg/kg be disposed of at areas which drain directly into a marine environment.
• i t
•-17-
/CQX
00 SI
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5-01. CONCLUSIONS
An oil and hazardous material site evaluation has been performed for the Tudor Wharf site in Charlestown, Massachusetts. The study included a limited number of borings, sample screening and chemical testing of soil and groundwater samples. The test borings were completed primarily for preliminary geotechnical design purposes, but were also utilized for the evaluation for the possible presence of oil and hazardous materials beneath the site. Information regarding the site conditions on 19 March 1987 was supplemented by the observations made during a 5 May 1988 site visit, a recent DEQE file review, and conduct of recent test borings and chemical testing. The scope of the recent exploration program was limited to three borings in an area of filled land totalling approximately 28,800 square feet.
A review of site history indicates the wharf was utilized for ice storage until 1897. Between 1901 and 1962, the site buildings were used for general warehousing. In 1962, the Rapid Furniture Company purchased the site and utilized part of the existing wooden frame structure for furniture preparation until 1987. The remaining warehouse space has been leased to other companies for storage, and is currently leased to Warner Brothers for prop storage. Once entry to this building is permitted, a supplementary letter concerning present site conditions will he provided.
The site is serviced by water, natural gas and municipal sewers. An above ground No. 2 fuel oil storage tank is located on-site and provides fuel to an oil burning furnace. Evidence of illegal disposal of waste motor oil was observed in two storm sewer catch basins located inside the property boundaries along Charles River Avenue. Oil staining was also observed in the eastern parking area, where an auto gas tank has also been abandoned, as well as inside the wood framed warehouse.
The fill quality on-site was observed during the conduct of the test boring program and has also been evaluated through chemical analysis. Volatile organic compounds, PCBs and pesticides were not detected in the soil samples submitted for testing. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the fill materials from all three land borings, with the highest concentration of 53 0 ppm detected in B102. No. 6 fuel oil was
-18-
00 62
identified as being present in this sample. The location of this boring was in the vicinity of the abandoned railroad spur. Low concentrations of the thirteen priority pollutant metals and base/neutral extractable compounds were also detected in the fill materials. In general, both the visual and chemical characteristics of the fill materials are believed to be indicative of urban land fill. The presence of low petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, a variety of metals and certain base/neutral compounds is not unusual for this type of fill material. However, as outlined below, disposal options for excavated fill material may be limited.
No volatile organic compounds, pesticides, PCBs or acid/base neutral extractable compounds were detected in the groundwater samples taken from the site. A low concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons was detected in the groundwater sample taken from B104(OW), below the 15 ppm oil and grease standard for surface waters in Massachusetts. Two of the thirteen priority pollutant metals were detected in the groundwater sample taken from B103 (OW) , in excess of the Massachusetts Class I and Class II groundwater standards for selenium and lead.
In general, the groundwater data is not indicative of a significant groundwater contamination problem. The heterogenous nature of the fill material makes an overall assessment of the fill quality difficult. However, based on the available data, it appears that localized areas of the fill are contaminated by petroleum products, and contain elevated concentrations of some metals, as would be anticipated in this type of fill material.
5-02. RECOMMENDATIONS
The oil and hazardous material evaluation conducted for the Tudor Wharf site is preliminary in nature and did not include the entire development parcel. Conclusions concerning the fill and groundwater quality have been based on testing of a limited number of samples from a few test borings. It is recommended that observations of the fill and soil characteristics be carried out during the final design studies for the development including studies for the remaining portion of the development parcel. Additional testing of both soil and groundwater would be appropriate to expand the presently available database. If dredging of the harbor bottom sediments is required,
-19-
00 63
characterization of the dredged spoil material will also be necessary.
Based on the observations made during the recent site visit, it is our opinion that the storm drains along Charles River Avenue should be cleaned out and examined for possible leakage of oil into the surrounding soils through cracks. Visual evidence of the oil stained soils at ground surface and the detected concentrations of fuel oil in some samples are indicative of localized areas of surface spillage and/or oil contamination in the fill materials. During initial phases of site development and particularly during site excavation, segregation of oil stained material and contaminated fill would be advisable.
During demolition of the on-site buildings, it will be necessary to dismantle the above ground fuel oil storage tank. It will be necessary to dispose of the empty storage tank at a state approved storage tank disposal facility. Any oil contaminated soils that may be uncovered during the tank removal will also need to be segregated for disposal. Disposal options for oily soils and excavated fill materials will vary depending on DEQE policy at the time the material is excavated. At present, we believe the fill material which contains minor amounts of cinders, ash, wood, etc. and which is not overtly contaminated by oil to be urban fill. Material which exhibits overt evidence of the oil contamination would require special handling and disposal at a landfill which will accept such materials. Zones in the fill which contain construction debris, large quantities of wood, cinders, ash, etc. would likely be classified as solid waste, and would require disposal in a DEQE approved sanitary landfill.
Due to the chloride concentrations detected in the natural soil, the excavated natural soils will need to be disposed of at a DEQE approved coastal disposal site. The chloride content of the saturated fill material may be similar to the natural soil and also require disposal at a coastal disposal site.
Because dewatering is anticipated during site excavation and foundation installation, chemical testing of groundwater was conducted to evaluate baseline groundwater quality. It is anticipated that a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for discharge of
-20-
AQK
00 64
groundwater into Boston Harbor during dewatering activities. The EPA permit application process typically requires a minimum of six months time.
5-03. LIMITATIONS
This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of Myerson/Allen & Company, in connection with the proposed development of Tudor Wharf.
The conclusions provided by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. are based solely on the scope of work conducted and the sources and information referenced in this report. Any additional information that becomes available concerning this site should be provided to Haley & Aldrich, Inc. so that our conclusions may be reviewed and modified if necessary.
The work performed by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. is subject to the terms and conditions stated in our proposal dated 1 March 1988. This work was undertaken in accordance with generally accepted consulting engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The contents of this report may not be copied, provided, or otherwise communicated to any party not involved in the design, construction or financing of the subject property, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
1693h
-21-
GO 65
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
1. Topographic Map of Boston South Quadrangle, Massachusetts, USGS, 1970, to a scale of 1:24,000.
2. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., file review at Boston Inspectional Services, on 26 March 1987.
3. "Zoning Districts, City of Boston, Map 2, Charlestown, " Boston Zoning Commission, 1962, to a scale of 1" = 400'.
4. Water Protection Supply Atlas, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, 1982, to a scale of 1:24,000.
5. Richard Frotingham Jr., The History of Charlestown. Massachusetts , P. Emmons, Boston, 1845.
6. Timothy T. Sawyer Old Charlestown. James H. West, Boston 1902.
7. "Plan of Boston Proper Showing Changes in Street and Wharf lines, 1795 to 1895," by Charles C. Perkins, 1895, to a scale of 1" = 200' .
8. Mass Historical Society Proceedings, 1932-1936, Vol 65.
9. "Colton's Map of Boston and Adjacent Cities, by J.H. Colton, 1855, to a scale of 1" = 880'.
10. Boston Directories: 1874, 1875, 1877, 1879, 1889, 1896-1903, 1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, 1925, 1930-1933, 1935-1937, 1940-1943, 1945-1947, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1966.
11. "Atlas of the County of Suffolk, Mass., Vol. 6," by G.W. Hopkins, 1875, to a scale of 1" = 100'.
12. W.H. Bunting Portrait of a Port. Boston 1852-1914. the Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1971.
13. "Plan Showing Encroachment upon the Inner Basin of Boston Harbor," by the East Haven Co. 1881, to a scale of 1" = 200' .
14. "Atlas of the City of Boston," by G.W. Bromley 1892, to a scale of 1" = 50' .
15. "Atlas of the City of Boston, Charlestown and East BoJSton," by G.W. Bromley 1912, to a scale of 1" = 200'.
16. "Plan for the Development of Boston Harbor," Commonwealth of Mass Directors of the Port of Boston, 1915, to a scale of 1" = 1000' .
00 36
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (Continued)
17. "Roof Framing Plan-Wharf, Tudor Co. Charlestown, Massachusetts, by Salsberg & LeBlanc Architects 1937, to a scale of 1/8" = 1' .
18. "Repairs at Tudor Wharf, 44 Charles River Avenue, by- Edward Dawson, 1994, to a scale of 1/8" = 1'.
19. "Paper Store House Pile Plan" by Cleverdon, Varney & Pike, Inc., 1951, to a scale of 1" = 40'.
20. "Insurance Maps of Boston Mass, Vol. 5," by the Sanborn Map Co. 1927-1958, to a scale of 1" =80'.
21. "Addition to the New Warehouse of Rapid Furniture Warehouse, Charlestown, Massachusetts," by Salsberg & LeBlanc, Architects, 1962, to a scale of 1/8" = 1'.
22. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., file review at Boston Fire Prevention Bureau on 26 March 1987.
23. "Insurance Maps of Boston, Mass., Vol. 5 - West," by the Sanborn Map Co. 1979, to a scale of 1" = 160'.
24. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., personal interview with Francis McKennedy, Rapids Furniture Co. on 19 March 1987.
25. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., file reviewed at Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, on 24 March 1987 and 5 April 1988.
26. Haley & Aldrich, Inc. telephone interview with John Shays, Boston Health and Hospitals on 18 March 1987.
27. Mass. DEQE, Hazardous Waste Division, List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and Locations to be Investigated, 15 April 1988.
28. Haley & Aldrich, Inc., personal interview with Francis McKennedy, Rapids Furniture Warehouse, on 5 May 1988.
29. "Bedrock geology of Massachusetts" by E-an Zen, 1983, to a scale of 1:250,000.
30. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Hazardous Waste Land Treatment", SW-874 (April 1983), Page 273, Table 6.46.
31. Gas Research Institute, "Management of Manufactured Gas Plant Sites - Vol. I, Wastes and Chemicals of Interest", October 1987.
AQK
00 37
|
Haley & i |
\ 1 d r |
i c h , Inc. |
AQK
Ciinsulnni; Cii.'ut(.i.hnic.il Kiigmccrs,
Cil-llluglMs .lllj
HyJrogcologibts
vS I li Ilk- ^luil
t .uhImkIui.-. M \ ii:i4l
(.r 4'M-Uiil(.
24 May 1988
File No. 06158-10
Myerson/Allen & Company 3 06 Dartmouth Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Attention: Mr. John Allen
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Study Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, MA
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit herewith six copies of our report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations, Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts".
This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated 2 March 1988, and your subsequent authorization. The scope of this study has been limited to a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the site and construction as proposed by Childs, Bertman Tseckares & Casendino on drawings provided to us in March. Additional field explorations and engineering studies are required for design of foundations, site development and shoreline reconstruction. Please refer to Section VI for a summary of our preliminary conclusions.
It should be noted that the scope of work undertaken for this report does not include a site assessment for the presence of hazardous materials or oil as defined by the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Materials Release Prevention and Response Act (Chapter 21E) . However, a Chapter 21E report is being prepared concurrently by H&A, under another contract with Myerson/Allen & Company.
Thank you for engaging us to perform this work. We look forward to working with you and other members of the design team during subsequent design and construction phases.
lir.ifKh Otiiccs
( il.lMiilllniM. ^ nlliu\tn.llt
I'lirtLiiul V I.tiiu
IVjli'lil. \i \\ I l.illl)".llM\-
Mlili.Ki
I U\ \ ,.i \,u >..iL
K.K lusu 1. \v\v Vm k
00 s^
Myerson/Allen & Company 24 May 1988 Page 2
If there are any questions regarding the content of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC,
J^es R. Wheeler Senior Engineer
CME:JRW:DET:hjs/0298W
AQK
Chris M. Erikson David E. Thompson
Staff Engineer Executive Vice President
00 59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF APPENDICES ii
INTRODUCTION 1
1-01. General 1
1-02. Purpose and Scope 1
1-03. Elevation Datum 2
1-04. Limitations 2
II. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3
2-01. Previous Test Borings 3
2-02. Recent Test Borings 3
2-03. Groundwater Observation Wells 5
2-04. In-Situ Permeability Tests 5
2-05. Laboratory Testing 6
III. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7
3-01. Existing Site Conditions 7
3-02. Subsurface Soil and Rock Conditions 8
3-03. Observed Groundwater Levels 9
3-04. Tide Levels 10
IV. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 12
4-01. General 12
4-02. Proposed Buildings 12 4-03. Geotechnical Design and Construction
Considerations 13
4-04. Proposed Site Development 16
V. FUTURE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 19
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21
-1-
AQK
00 70
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
I Summary of Subsurface Exploration Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
1 Project Locus
2 Subsurface Exploration Plan
3 Subsurface Profile A-A
4 Subsurface Profile B-B
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Previous Test Borings Logs
Appendix B - Recent Test Borings made by Carr-Dee Corp.
during the period 28 to 31 March 1988
Appendix C - Groundwater Observation Well Installation
and Monitoring Reports
Appendix D - Field Permeability Test Reports
Appendix E - Laboratory Test Results
-11-
A9A
00 71
I. INTRODUCTION
1-01. GENERAL
This report presents a summary of preliminary subsurface explorations and foundation design recommendations for the proposed Tudor Wharf project to be constructed in Charlestown, Massachusetts. The site is located at 44 Charles River Avenue, south of the now discontinued Waldo Street and immediately east of the Charlestown Bridge, as shown on Figure 1, Project Locus. The site is currently occupied by a concrete block warehouse on shore, a one story wood frame warehouse constructed on a pier out into Boston Harbor and adjacent paved parking areas. A brick wall divides the parking area delineating the eastern property line of the Tudor Wharf parcel,
Current development plans, as presented on four drawings by Childs Bertman Tseckares & Casendino, Inc. (CBT) in March 1988, propose the construction of an on-shore six-story office structure containing three levels of underground parking. It is our understanding that four levels of below grade parking are also being considered. In addition, the development will include a five-story commercial and office building to be built over the pier into Boston Harbor, replacing the existing wood frame warehouse structure. An approximate plan of the proposed site development, superimposed over existing site features, is included as Figure 2.
1-02. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The objective of this study was to complete initial explorations to investigate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed Tudor Wharf site and to develop preliminary recommendations regarding foundation support and construction of proposed structures. Recommendations on other geotechnical aspects of the project, as well as issues addressing waterfront development, are also included.
To achieve these objectives, the scope of our work included:
o A program of three test borings completed on land and one test boring completed over water to define subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.
o Field monitoring of the borings and installation of three groundwater observation wells.
o Preparation of a subsurface exploration location plan and two subsurface profiles.
A9X
00 72
Laboratory and in-situ testing to verify field classification of soils and to determine engineering properties to aid in developing foundation design criteria.
Completion of preliminary analysis related to geotechnical engineering aspects of foundation design and site development.
1-03. ELEVATION DATUM
To be consistent with other members of the design team, the elevations presented herein are referenced to North Area Central Artery (NACA) Project Datum , wherein El. 0.00 (NACA) is 100.00 ft. below National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) , formerly USC&GS Mean Sea Level Datum of 1929.
Tide tables and bottom soundings on many site or navigation plans are referenced to Mean Low Water (MLW) Datum wherein MLW datum is 9 5.42 ft. above NACA Project Datum (El. 0.00 MLW = El. 95.42 NACA) .
1-04. LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for specific applications to the proposed Tudor Wharf development in Charlestown, Massachusetts, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The recommendations presented herein are based, in part, on information from limited subsurface explorations and on proposed development plans that are available to Haley & Aldrich, Inc. at this time. The nature and extent of variations in the subsurface conditions between explorations will not become evident until further explorations are completed and construction is undertaken. If variations appear, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. If changes to the design or locations of the proposed structures are made, these recommendations should be considered invalid unless confirmed in wri-ting by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Access to that portion of the project east of the brick wall which forms the east property line of the Tudor Wharf paved area was unavailable during this study. Therefore, no explorations were possible in this area, and our conclusion with respect to subsurface conditions and feasible foundation construction should be considered in light of the lack of information in this area.
00 73
II. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
2-01, PREVIOUS TEST BORINGS
A total of fifteen test borings were previously drilled within the area of the proposed development site. Logs of these borings were obtained from the following sources:
o Drawing S-1, "Pile Plan," prepared for construction of the concrete frame Paper Storage Warehouse on-shore at Tudor Wharf by Cleverdon, Varney and Pike, Revised 14 September 1951.
o "Geotechnical Data Report, Central Artery - North Area, Vol. II of II," prepared by Goldberg-Zoino Associates, Inc., dated May 1986.
Ten of the previously drilled fifteen borings were completed for construction of the existing warehouse and were relatively shallow, ranging in depth from 25 to 30 ft. The remaining five borings, which were compiled for the North Area Central Artery Project, were completed to greater depths ranging from 4 0 to 72 ft. The approximate as-drilled locations of each of these sets of borings are shown on Figure 2 ; copies of the individual boring logs are included in Appendix A.
2-02. RECENT TEST BORINGS
A preliminary subsurface exploration program was undertaken at the portion of the site which was accessible during the period 28 to 31 March 1988 to obtain additional subsurface information for initial project design purposes. Test Borings were completed by Carr-Dee, Corp. of Medford, Massachusetts. The program consisted of three test borings drilled from land using truck mounted rotary drilling equipment to depths approximately 56 ft. below ground surface. An additional boring was made from within the existing warehouse pier structure, over water, with a portable skid rig. This boring was conducted by opening an existing hatch in the warehouse floor and inserting drill casing down to the mudline 30 ft. below. The total depth of this boring was approximately 49 ft. below the warehouse floor. The hatch was replaced after completion of the test boring.
All borings were completed to the west of the brick wall which divides the proposed development site in the north/south direction. The land east of the brick wall was included in the development plans but was not accessible for explorations at the time of this study.
A9K
00 74
The recent borings were monitored in the field by H&A personnel. As-drilled locations of the borings were determined by H&A by taping from the existing site features shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations of the borings were determined by H&A using optical survey methods. All boring elevations are referenced to a standard Massachusetts Geodetic Survey Disk denoted "ARTERY 5," located in the northerly concrete sidewalk on the, approach road to the Charlestown Bridge, approximately 169 ft. southeast of the centerline of Chamber Street. Boring logs prepared by the Carr-Dee Corp. are included as Appendix B and are shown graphically with the previously drilled borings on Figure 3, Subsurface Profile A-A, and Figure 4, Subsurface Profile B-B. In addition, a summary of the subsurface strata encountered and the corresponding top elevation of each strata are summarized in Table I - Summary of Subsurface Information.
Boring locations and ground surface elevations are shown on Figure 2. The locations and elevations of each boring should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used.
All four borings were advanced using a 3-in. diameter casing. Split-spoon samples were recovered from all borings at depth intervals typically not exceeding five feet and at changes in soil type. In addition, continuous samples were taken in the surficial fill deposits for Chapter 21E site assessment purposes. All borings were terminated in the glacial till stratum. It should be noted that in boring BlOl a boulder was cored in the glacial till with a BX core barrel between a depth of 42.0 and 44.5 ft.
The Standard Penetration Resistance, "N," was determined at each sample level by counting the number of blows required to drive a standard split-spoon sampler (1-3/8-in. I.D., 2-in. O.D.) a distance of 18 or 24 in. into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb. hammer free-falling 30 in. The number of blows required to advance the sampler each six inches was recorded. The "N" value is taken as the number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 in. of an 18-in. sampling range (or the middle 12 in. of a 24-in. sampling range) .
An H&A geologist was present at the site during field explorations to:
o Observe and document the subsurface conditions encountered.
o Vary the depth of subsurface explorations as well as sampling location, to meet the subsurface conditions encountered.
AQX
00 75
o Document the installation of groundwater observation wells,
o Conduct and monitor in-situ falling head permeability tests.
As previously discussed, the project area east of the existing brick wall, which divides the site in a north-south direction, was inaccessible at the time of the exploration program and no borings could be conducted within the area. During explorations for final design, additional borings must be conducted in this area to characterize the subsurface conditions .
2-03. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION WELLS
Groundwater observation wells were installed in completed boreholes B102, B103 and B104. *The bottoms of the of the well tips were installed to depths of approximately 15 to 20 ft. below ground surface. The relationship of the well screen to the major soil strata is shown in the groundwater installation reports included as part of Appendix C.
The observation wells consist of 2.0 in. I.D. machine slotted PVC wellpoints installed from the bottom of the well to approximately ground surface. The top of each observation well was provided with a concrete/bentonite seal and was encased in a protective roadway box. Groundwater levels measured during periodic monitoring of the observation wells, between the period 29 March to 4 May 1988, are included in Appendix C. The corresponding tide level recorded at the time of the groundwater measurements is also contained in the monitoring reports.
2-04. IN-SITU PERMEABILITY TESTS
A preliminary field permeability testing program was undertaken to better evaluate the effects of a permanent underslab drainage system on the groundwater levels in the area and to assess the feasibility and type of seepage cut-off needed to construct the proposed below grade parking area. The testing program consisted of performing two falling head permeability tests in the glacial till soil in borehole B103. The location of the tests with respect to the soil stratigraphy is shown on the Subsurface Profile A-A included as Figure 3 and the field test data are included as Appendix D.
Field permeability tests were typically conducted according to the following procedure;
AQK
OC 76
1. A cased borehole was advanced to the stratum to be tested and carefully cleaned out to assure that no loose soil particles were left in the hole.
2. A 2-in. O.D. split-spoon sampler was driven below the bottom of the casing to obtain a sample of the soil to verify the stratum in which the test would be performed.
3. Then, either the casing was advanced to the bottom of the zone to be tested and again completely cleaned out, or the hole was advanced to the bottom of the test zone, below the bottom of the casing, and carefully cleaned out using a 2-7/8 in. O.D. roller bit.
4. After sounding the bottom of the hole to verify that the soil was either flush with the bottom of the casing or at the desired distance below the bottom of the casing, enough Ottawa sand was poured down the casing to fill the designated test area.
5. Where the casing was flush with the bottom of the hole, the casing was extracted upward to yield the desired test zone.
6. The boreholes were then filled to the top of the casing with clear, fresh water and the distance of water level drop with time was measured and recorded.
2-05. LABORATORY TESTING
A laboratory testing program was undertaken as part of this investigation to aid in classifying the soil recovered in the borings. The tests performed included Atterberg limit determinations and grain size distribution analyses (sieve and hydrometer analyses) .
All laboratory tests were performed in the H&A laboratory in general confoirmance with current ASTM procedures. Atterberg limit determinations and results of the grain size analyses are included as Appendix E.
• 1 I
A9X
oe 77
III. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3-01. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Tudor Wharf site is located at 44 Charles River Avenue and is bounded on the north by the Hoosac Spur rail line along Waldo Street, on the east by a brickwall and the adjacent Hoosac Pier, on the west by Charles River Avenue and the Charlestown Bridge and extends south into Boston Harbor. The surrounding ground surface is typically flat ranging in elevation from about El. 108 to El. 110 (NACA) .
The Tudor Wharf site is currently occupied by a Rapids Furniture Co. warehouse constructed partially on land and extending south on a pier over the Harbor. Portions of the site to the south and west of the warehouse structure consist of a level, asphalt paved truck loading area. This pavement is bounded to the south by a granite block seawall which runs east-west completely beneath the warehouse structure. To the east of the warehouse, an existing brick wall separates the site in a north-south direction from Waldo Street to the granite block seawall. Beyond the brick wall to the east, a relatively level asphalt paved parking area for the Constitution Marina exists.
The existing warehouse consists of a two-story high structure constructed both on land and over water. The portion of the structure built over water is of wood frame construction supported on timber piles. Plans previously obtained from Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) indicate that repairs to the pile foundations, consisting of the posting and occasional replacement of damaged piles, were completed in 1944 and 1962. The condition of the pile foundation was observed and found to be in fair to poor condition. Many piles were observed to be necked down at the mudline, several were missing and some were found to be rotted at the butt. In addition, apparent fire damage was observed as many of the floor joists and piles were observed to be charred.
The land portion of the warehouse was constructed in 1952 and consists of a two-story high concrete block structure. According to foundation plans previously obtained from SOM, the structure is supported on timber (oak) piles driven to end bearing below the fill and organic soils at approximately El. 90.5 to El. 86.0 (NACA). These 15 ton capacity oak piles support both the building columns and a concrete structural floor slab.
00 73
3-02. SUBSURFACE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS
The subsurface explorations indicate the following general soil and rock sequence in order of increasing depth from ground surface:
o Miscellaneous Fill
o Organic Silt and Peat
o Marine Sands
o Glacial Till
o Bedrock (Assumed)
Due to the complex geologic environments responsible for deposition of the materials, all the units may not be present at specific site locations. The units are discussed below in order of deposition and are indicated graphically on Subsurface Profiles A-A and B-B, Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
o Bedrock
Bedrock was not encountered in any of the test borings. However, according to available geologic maps and our previous experience, bedrock in the project area is believed to consist of Cambridge Argillite, a grey slate-like mudstone of extremely variable quality.
o Glacial Till
During an advance of the glacial ice sheet over the Boston area during the Pleistocene time period, a very dense, nonstratif ied, unsorted material known as glacial till was deposited over the bedrock surface in the project area. The glacial till encountered at the site typically consists of a very dense, silty fine sand to sandy silt with trace to some gravel and contains occasional cobbles and boulders.
The top of this strata was encountered between El. 102.1 and El. 86.3 (NACA) . The thickness of the glacial till strata was not determined since none of the test borings conducted were advanced into the underlying bedrock.
The results of the two in-situ falling head peirmeability tests conducted in the glacial till indicate that the strata has an average permeability ranging between 4.7 x.10'5 and 9.2 x 10' "^ cm/sec. Soil permeability
-8-
A©X
00 79
within this range is typical for silty glacial tills and is generally considered very low.
o Marine Sand
As the glacial ice sheet retreated from the area, silt and sand ladened waters melting from the ice flowed into the ocean settling out to form a layer of silty medium to fine sand overlying the glacial till deposits. Where encountered, this stratum ranged in thickness of up to 9.0 ft., with the top of stratum varying from approximately El. 109.1 to El. 93.9 (NACA) .
o Organic Soils
A stratum of organic soils consisting primarily of sandy organic silt and peat was found to overlie the glacial till or marine sands. This stratum is the original harbor bottom sediments which accumulated prior to site filling. The organic silt and peat are typically soft to hard, with low strength and high compressibility. The strata ranges up to 14.5 ft. in thickness where encountered with the top of strata noted from El. 110.1 to El. 100.1 (NACA).
o Miscellaneous Fill
With the development of the harbor area during and following the 17th century, many waterfront structures were built out into Boston Harbor. At this time, a man-made layer of fill was placed across the site to the present grade and primarily consists of an unsorted mixture of coarse to fine sand, silt, clay and fine gravel with varying amounts of wood, cinders, brick, slag and concrete. The thickness of the strata varies from 4.5 to 18.5 ft.
Refer to our report entitled "Report on Oil and Hazardous Materials Site Evaluation - Tudor Wharf, Charlestown, Massachusetts," issued concurrently with this report for further information pertaining to site history and usage.
3-03. OBSERVED WATER LEVELS
Water levels measured in boreholes upon completion of a boring may not necessarily represent the true, stabilized groundwater levels. Therefore, to monitor local subsurface water levels over an extended period of time, three observation wells were installed within the upper 15 to 20 ft. of completed borings B102, 3103 .and B104. Observation well installation logs and
oe 80
groundwater level monitoring data are included herein as Appendix C.
It is important to note that water level readings recorded in the observation wells were made at times and under conditions stated on the groundwater monitoring reports. It is emphasized that the actual groundwater levels may differ from the observed levels and that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in tide level, season, rainfall, temperature, and other factors. Also, groundwater levels at the time of construction could differ significantly from water levels observed during this study particularly if leaking sewers are found near the site.
Water levels throughout this particular site were observed to respond to tidal fluctuations. The tidal response at a specific location depends on the permeability of the soils between the well location and the source of free water. As may be seen in the groundwater observation well data contained in Appendix C, the response to tidal action varies considerably across the site due to the complex nature of the near surface fill soils. Groundwater level data indicate that water levels at observation wells B102 and B103 vary appreciably with tidal fluctuations while water levels at B104 do not. In general however, groundwater levels at the site should be expected to reflect tide levels in Boston Harbor typically ranging from El. 96.5 (Mean Low Water - MLW) to El. 105.9 (Mean High Water - MHW) .
3-04. TIDE LEVELS
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has developed data on observed tide levels in Boston Harbor and the predicted tide level frequency of occurrence. The following tide level frequency data are estimated by the Corps for data through August 1979:
Frequency High Tide Elevation
In Years (NACA Project Datum)
1 108.97
5 109.77
10 110.17
20 110.57
25 110.97
50 111.07
100 111.37
200 111.77
Note ; El. 0.0 NACA Project Datum is 100.00 ft. below
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (USC and GS Mean Sea Level Datum of 1929) .
-10-
00 81
The above data are for wave free water levels. Wind-driven water and waves will add to the water levels during storm conditions.
Lowest site grades are normally set at or above El. 110.5 (NACA) in the Boston area and the lowest recommended design floor level to avoid tidal flooding is normally taken at El, 111.5 although El. 112.5 is preferred.
00 82
IV. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4-01. GENERAL
This preliminary geotechnical study assumes the project layout as shown in the Tudor Wharf plans provided by CBT and received by H&A on 22 March 1988. As further information is developed by the design team concerning building layout, structural building and column loads, bay spacing, site grading and other details, the preliminary recommendations presented herein will have to be reviewed and revised as required.
4-02. PROPOSED BUILDINGS
As indicated on Figure 2 and in the plans provided by CBT, the Tudor Wharf development will include three predominant structures: 1) an office structure with below grade parking, 2) a pier structure extending over Boston Harbor, and 3) a walkway connecting the office and pier structures. These structures are described in further detail as follows:
1. Office Structure and Below Grade Parking:
o A three to four level below grade parking area with a footprint approximately 185 x 285 feet to be constructed approximately 30 to 40 ft. below ground surface.
o An "L"-shaped six-story office building located above a majority of the underground parking area.
2. Pier Structure:
o A five-story building with a footprint approximately 80 x 240 feet.
o No below grade space is envisioned for the pier structure.
3. Walkway:
o A one-level corridor at approximately El. 100.0 (NACA) which connects the first level of the below grade parking area to the pier structure.
o The corridor portion of the walkway is approximately 12 X 100 feet long. At the end of the walkway a lobby and elevator shafts are proposed; this area is approximately 24 x 24 feet in plan.
-12-
AQK
OG 33
4-03. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the report will concentrate on possible foundation support systems, construction impacts and foundation costs for each of the proposed major building elements of the planned development. These issues are generally determined by considering the various effects of: building geometry, typical column/wall loads and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. For purposes of this report, building loads were estimated by H&A assuming loads in the typical range of steel or concrete construction. Each of the proposed structures, as defined previously, will be discussed separately. Our specific comments follow.
1. Office Structure and Below Grade Parking Area
Based on subsurface soil conditions presented in Figures 3 and 4, anticipated building loads and the 30 to 40 ft. excavation required for construction of the planned three of four level below grade parking garage, it is anticipated that individual spread footings bearing on the glacial till soils may be used for support of the office structure. This foundation type is recommended since the required excavation for garage construction will remove the miscellaneous fill and organic soils which are generally unsuitable as foundation bearing materials. Typical allowable bearing pressures for glacial till soils in the Boston area range between 5 and 20 tsf (tons per sq. ft.). Recommendation of an allowable bearing pressure for the glacial till will require additional analysis and subsurface explorations in combination with an evaluation of the active column loads anticipated by the structural consultant.
Excavation of the three to four level garage area will require construction of a cofferdam to retain the earth and provide a groundwater cutoff. Groundwater control is of primary concern, particularly in those areas adjacent to the harbor, where existing groundwater levels are up to 2 5 to 3 5 ft. above the lowest garage level.
Based on an evaluation of subsurface conditions and the results of in-situ permeability testing, the use of either interlocking steel sheet piling or a concrete diaphragm wall (slurry wall) constructed with adequate penetration into the glacial till soils were evaluated for use as temporary excavation support for the garage. Both of these options would theoretically provide adequate control af groundwater seepage into the excavation, however, due
-13-
00 34
to the density of the glacial till and the existence of boulders in the glacial till soils, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to drive sheeting to the required depths without damaging the sheets and adversely impacting the integrity of the wall and therefore its effectiveness as a groundwater cut-off.
Due to the depth of excavation for the proposed garage, the excavation support wall will have to be temporarily braced during construction. Temporary, high capacity tiebacks anchored into the glacial till soils are considered both economical and feasible for use on the north and west perimeter garage walls which are not adjacent to portions of Boston Harbor. The use of corner bracing, rakers and possibly cross lot bracing may have to be considered for use in providing temporary support to portions of the south and east perimeter walls where use of tiebacks is not feasible. Past experience indicates that excavation between individual members of an internally braced system (corner and cross lot bracing) is somewhat slower than excavation in an open, externally braced excavation (tiebacks) .
The southernmost wall (closest to the waterfront) of the proposed underground parking area poses significant constructibility problems. In the vicinity of boring B102, the alignment of the proposed southern perimeter wall of the garage appears to pass through sections of the existing granite block seawall and within or directly adjacent to the open water of Boston Harbor. Installation of the recommended cast-in-place concrete diaphragm wall (slurry wall) would be impossible at the current proposed location without filling of this portion of the site. Filling within the tidewaters at Boston Harbor raises significant environmental and permit problems which may best be avoided.
Therefore, it is recommended that the alignment of the southern wall of the proposed garage be shifted to the north to avoid excavation of the granite block seawall and to remain beyond the tidal zone. In areas where the proposed garage is adjacent to existing seawalls, along the southern and eastern perimeter walls, a setback of approximately 15 ft. is suggested to minimize construction difficulties. This setback distance should be verified by test pit excavations which would permit direct observations of the seawall structures.
The weight of the proposed building is insufficient to resist the hydrostatic pressure that would develop below a
-14-
GO 85
waterproofed pressure mat if constructed at the lowest grade level. Therefore, a slab-on-grade with a permanent underdrainage system beneath is required for hydrostatic pressure relief. A typical underdrainage system consists of a system of perforated PVC pipe placed within a layer of crushed stone. The PVC pipes are interconnected to transport the inflow of groundwater into collection pits where sump pumps are utilized to remove accumulated groundwater. Underdrain design, groundwater infiltration rates and pumpage will be determined by a number of factors including diaphram wall penetration below the lowest slab level and proximity to the harbor.
2. Pier Structure
Unlike the Office Structure, no below grade levels are anticipated for the pier structure which extends out into the harbor. Since the fill and underlying organic soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed structure, building loads must be transferred to the natural, inorganic soils below; therefore the pier building will require a deep foundation system.
Based on waterfront construction constraints, a pile foundation system was considered as the only technically feasible foundation system. From our analysis of the subsurface information, high capacity piles driven to end bearing in the glacial till at a depth of approximately 35 to 50 ft. below the top of the existing warehouse floor (El. 114.0+) appear to be the most appropriate. These pile lengths assume piles are driven 10 ft. into the glacial till soils. However, additional borings should be conducted within the area of the proposed pier structure to more completely define the bearing strata and to allow for a better estimate of pile lengths.
Currently in the Boston area, precast-prestressed concrete piles are generally the most economical foundation element for use as end bearing piles. Maximum design loads for this pile type are 134 tons/pile (14-in. square) and 175 tons/pile (16-in. square) according to the current Massachusetts State Building Code. Precast-prestressed concrete piles are also resistance to corrosion in the salt water environment, a significant consideration for this structure.
Note that the Massachusetts State Building Code requires the completion of a pile load test for all piles with a design capacity in excess of 50 tons. Completion of such a- test must be included in this project. Pile spacing and
-15-
00 36
design will be significantly impacted by requirements to transfer horizontal seismic and wind loads at the foundation level and to provide overall stability of each point of foundation support. These considerations should be studied by the structural consultant early in the design.
Walkway
Based on the plans provided by CBT, the proposed walkway from the office structure to the pier structure will exist one level below grade with the bottom at approximately El. 100.0. This level is within the intertidal zone range in Boston Harbor, and is about 11 ft. below the 100 year storm tide level. Therefore the walkway must be designed with consideration for waterproofing, uplift loading due to bouyant forces, hydrostatic and wave loading. The walkway will also be subject to constructibility difficulties similar to those outlined for the southern foundation wall of the proposed underground garage.
Therefore, unless the present walkway location is essential to project development, it is suggested that the walkway be relocated above grade and designed to bear on pile foundations, similar to the pier structure.
4-04. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
During definitive planning for the various structures and site development, existing site and subsurface conditions must be considered. The site is generally comprised of filled, reclaimed land, with compressible organic soils underlying. Granite block seawalls provide shore protection at the water's edge. Within the site area structures exist which will require demolition, timber piles and previously existing utilities will be encountered during excavation. In consideration of these site characteristics, the following preliminary criteria are recommended:
A. Site Utilities and Pavements. The site, being underlain by a deposit of miscellaneous fill and organic soils, is potentially susceptible to significant ground movements and large differential surface settlements if additional surface loading occurs by raising grades or adding structural loads. If extensive filling is proposed within the area of the site, settlement may be anticipated and soil support of utilities may require surcharging or over excavation of organic soils. Further evaluation of design details for utilities and pavements in fill areas will be required.
-16-
Aex
OC 37
The near surface fill and organic soils will tend to compress and settle with time. Therefore, it is recommended that pavements and final surface treatments be designed to accommodate future ground movements. Settlement estimates can be provided as more data becomes available.
B. Site Excavation and Filling. As currently proposed,
extensive excavation for the proposed below grade garage is envisioned. Excavated soils will be comprised primarily of the miscellaneous fill, organic soil, marine sand and varying amounts of glacial till depending on the number of below grade levels. Buried structures including the existing warehouse foundations (oak piles and reinforced concrete pile caps) , portions of the existing granite block seawall, and boulders in the glacial till soils will also be encountered during excavation. Shifting the location of the proposed south perimeter garage wall may significantly reduce excavation of sections of granite seawalls.
The majority of excavated materials are not considered suitable for use as on-site fill except as common fill under landscaped areas or other non-structural applications. Therefore, for current planning it should be assumed that excavated material will be disposed of off-site. However, reuse of excavated granite blocks for reconstruction of shore protection may be advantageous. Refer to our report on "Oil and Hazardous Materials Site Evaluation" for specific comments pertaining to off-site disposal of excavated soils.
As indicated in the previous section, the subsurface fill and organic soils will consolidate and settle if the soils are subjected to additional surface loads. Therefore, to the extent possible (considering flooding associated with storm tides) , existing site grades should be maintained. If site filling greater than 1 to 2 ft. is proposed, further evaluation of anticipated movements will be required. In addition, recommendations relative to design of pavements and utility support, as well as building foundations and seawalls in these areas will require evaluation in greater detail.
C. Seawalls and Shore Protection. Preliminary visual
inspection of the existing granite block seawall indicates that the wall is in relatively good condition except the area just west of the pier and near boring B102. Previous experience in the Boston Harbor area with similar seawalls indicates that these walls have a marginal factor of
-17-
00 38
safety. The potential exists for only a small change in loading to cause a wall failure. It is therefore recommended that once plans are developed for the configuration of the shore protection associated with the development that they be studied to determine the wall stability.
-18-
oe 39
V. FUTURE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES
The preceding discussions in this report have provided general geotechnical considerations and preliminary recommendations relative to the Tudor Wharf Development, Future studies will be required to collect additional subsurface information, and to develop definitive design criteria, construction techniques and final recommendations concurrent with the structural and architectural design.
Future subsurface explorations will be required at building locations or other structure locations to provide the necessary data for design studies. Additional subsurface information is particularly needed in the eastern portion of the site in the area currently occupied by the Constitution Marina parking lot which was inaccessible during the preliminary explorations. In addition, data is required to provide information to prospective contractors for their interpretation and evaluation as they prepare cost estimates. Future explorations should include test borings, test pits, and completion of in-situ and laboratory testing. Test pits will be required to determine the current location, geometry, and bearing level of the existing granite block seawalls and other shore protection elements. Such information regarding the seawall will aid in determining seawall stability and reconstruction.
The geotechnical design studies to be conducted in the future are necessary to assess the following major geotechnical issues:
o Foundation pile lengths;
o Design criteria for foundations and excavation support systems for the below grade garage;
o Design of permanent hydrostatic pressure relief systems for below grade garage;
o Stability of existing and proposed shore protection elements ;
o Construction considerations related to the site work and foundation construction;
o Long and short term settlement of the miscellaneous fill and organic soil, utility support requirements;
o Temporary and permanent design soil and water loads; and
-19-
00 90
o Effects of the below grade garage construction on the adjacent Charlestown Bridge and Maxwell Box Company Building.
These studies should be conducted in coordination with design studies by other members of the project team so that the various design issues can be adequately assessed and the necessary geotechnical input provided to the project team.
-20-
^^^^ 00 91
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical studies for the proposed Tudor Wharf development. The studies were based on the plans for the project prepared by CBT. The recommendations presented herein are subject to modification or revision as additional field data become available and as the design evolves. The following is a summary of preliminary conclusions and recommendations developed during our studies to date.
A. Building Foundations
o The office structure should be supported on individual spread footings bearing on the glacial till soils at bearing pressures between 5 and 20 TSF.
o The excavation for the three- to four-level
below-grade garage area should be supported by a concrete diaphragm (slurry) wall.
o A combination of internal and external bracing will be required to support the slurry wall depending on its final location relative to the harbor.
o A permanent underdrain system is required beneath the lowest level basement slab to relieve the hydrostatic uplift pressures.
o The alignment of the south perimeter wall of the proposed garage should be shifted north to avoid difficulties with the existing granite block wall and the tidal zone.
o The pier structure should be supported on deep,
end-bearing pile foundations. Currently, precast, prestressed concrete piles are believed to be the most economical pile type for the project.
o It is recommended that the walkway connecting the office and pier structures should be relocated at grade to avoid design and construction difficulties and high costs associated with its present location.
B. Site Development
o Placement of additional fill within the site area will result in settlement of the organic soils and may effect existing or proposed utilities. Grade raises should be kept to a minimum (less than 1-2 feet) .
AQX
-21-
00 32
o A significant excavation is planned for the
below-grade garage area; existing foundations, portions of the granite block seawall and boulders in the glacial till will be encountered.
o With the exception of buried granite blocks which may be excavated and reused for construction of shore protection structures, excavated soils will probably be unsuitable for reuse except in landscaped areas and other non-structural application.
o Past experience with similar granite block seawalls in the Boston Harbor area indicate that these structures have been found to have a marginal factor of safety. Further analysis of the seawalls and shore protection structures should be completed from both a structural and geotechnical background.
0298W
AQX
-22-
1 1
93
T . Library
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06550 925 7
^11 f I i •'
til I 1 1 It • • t »
I i i 1'^ ■• r 1- i I I
J I 1 i ! II I
II I I^
I' i^ r .1 I I I ^
l-i, : i II ft 11 i i I
r I i II. I. „ „. •.•.■^i_r I iv iv ,
■ ■.■ • • • • i i u.
■■-■.■.I I • i I ^
■t'.'.' " P ^ * « ^ > ^P.'.* ■ ^'^ 1 I r I
«.■ "."-t I • M i ^
I i I \ ^ I • I i it'
t ^i •• •••^l'; I I 1 1 1 • 1 ■
II til I f f i ill S I t t t I t t I • t I I I i t
.it
f I I 11 t t i II
f i 1 If t f ■I 1^ I II I I
i if I i I I i i ft III t
I I -I ■ ■ i 1^
1 t .1:1 f f i i i II
III It I I t: >
\