mohegan sun palmer traffic assessment

7/28/2019 Mohegan Sun Palmer Traffic Assessment

1/79

G:\6438 Palmer, MA\Memos\J. Thomas 060713.docx 1

`MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. John Thomas

Beals and Thomas, Inc.

Reservoir Corporate Center144 Turnpike Road (Route 9)

Southborough, MA 01772-2104

FROM: Scott W. Thornton, P.E

Vanasse & Associates, Inc.

10 New England Business Center DriveSuite 314

Andover, MA 01810(978) 474-8800

DATE: June 7, 2013 RE: 6438

SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Assessment Mohegan Sun at MassachusettsPalmer, Massachusetts

INTRODUCTION

Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has prepared this technical memorandum to determine traffic impacts

associated with the development of the Proposed Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts casino facility in

Palmer, Massachusetts. This memorandum is intended as a technical document containing reviews in the

subjects of Study Area; Traffic Volumes; Future Conditions with and without the Project; Trip

Generation; Trip Distribution; resulting Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis for intersections; and the

proposed roadway improvements intended to mitigate the Projects impact at critical locations.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts facility is proposed to be a destination type resort casino proposed forthe western part of Massachusetts. The development is proposed to contain approximately 3,450 gaming

positions, a 300-room hotel, attached meeting space and restaurants within a casino facility. In addition, a

1,800-seat Cineplex, an indoor/outdoor water park with accompanying 300-room hotel, and

approximately 250,000 square feet (sf) of general retail space are also part of the proposal. The Project

will be located on the east side of Route 32 (Thorndike Street) near the intersection of the Massachusetts

Turnpike Exit 8 interchange Toll Road with Route 32. The development is proposed to be completed in a

single phase.

Two potential alternatives have been identified to provide access to the Project: an At-Grade Alternative

and a Grade-Separated Flyover. The At-Grade Alternative would involve the construction of a

Site Access Road that would be built opposite the existing Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway at the signalized

intersection of Route 32. The ramp roadway would be widened to provide five lanes from the

Massachusetts Turnpike and Route 32 would be widened to provide four lanes southbound and five lanes

northbound. The Grade-Separated Flyover alternative requires a bridge structure from the existing Exit 8

I-90 ramp roadway over Route 32 which transitions into a loop ramp/interchange design that intersects

Route 32 at a signalized intersection approximately 500 feet north of the existing Exit 8 I-90 ramp

roadway intersection with Route 32. Access to the Project would be provided via a Site Access Road that

would be built opposite Shearer Street at its intersection with Route 32. In addition, there are other

improvements identified at local intersections within the Town of Palmer that are proposed to remedy

existing shortfalls in capacity or improve safety over present conditions.


2/79


STUDY AREA

The study area for this traffic analysis was selected to include the critical locations expected to receive the

majority of the traffic flow from the project. These include intersections along Route 32, Route 20, and

Route 181 as these form major gateway corridors into and out of the area. A full inventory of these

locations including traffic control, geometric conditions, and traffic volumes was conducted to developbaseline conditions for the traffic analysis. The following identifies the traffic volume count procedures

followed for the Project.

Route 32 Traffic Volumes

Traffic counts were conducted over a two week period on Route 32 in early May 2012. Traffic volumes

were measured through use of pneumatic Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) count devices used tomeasure hourly and daily traffic volumes. Counts collected volumes over the period Tuesday May 8

through Monday May 21, 2012. Follow-up counts were conducted in April 2013 to determine growth

over the previous year, with a weighted average rate of increase between the four observed time periods

(Friday, Friday evening peak hour, Saturday, Saturday evening peak hour) of 0.73 percent. Therefore, the

2012 Existing volumes were adjusted upwards by 1.0 percent to reflect 2013 conditions.

Intersection Volume Counts

Intersection Turning Movement and vehicle Classification Counts (TMC) were conducted at

15 intersections in the town of Palmer on Friday May 18 and Saturday May 19, 2012. These locations are

identified below:

1. Route 181 at Thorndike Street2. Route 181/Main Street at Mt. Dumplin Road3. Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street4. Route 181/Main Street at Route 20/Wilbraham Street5. Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street6. Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street7. Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street8. Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street9. Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike Street10.Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street11.Route 32/Thorndike Street at Turnpike Ramps12.Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street/Site Drive13.Route 32/Thorndike Street at Big Y Drive14.Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road15.Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street

The intersections are graphically depicted on Figure 1.

For this analysis, the same intersections were also counted during the Saturday midday time period on

Saturday April 6, 2013, due to the inclusion of a significant retail component to the project.


3/79


Insert figure 1


4/79


Traffic counts were conducted during the time periods expected to receive the majority of activity from

the proposed casino. These time periods were previously identified by both Mohegan Sun and by VAIs

review of Mohegan Sun traffic count data as Friday Afternoon-evening and Saturday Afternoon-evening

time periods. The Friday Afternoon -evening time period also overlaps the exiting employee peak with

the arriving casino patron peak. The Friday time periods were selected to be 3:00 to 6:00 PM and the

Saturday time period was selected to be 4:00 to 7:00 PM. These time periods were collected to observe

traffic conditions when public schools were in session and vacations were at a minimal level. In general,traffic volumes on Friday were observed to peak between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM while the volumes on

Saturday were observed to peak between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. The Saturday midday time periodgenerally occurred between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM.

Figure 2 provides the traffic volumes for the 2013 Friday Evening Peak Hour conditions, while Figure 3

provides the traffic volume for the 2013 Saturday Midday Peak Hour conditions. Figure 4 provides the

traffic volume for the 2013 Saturday Evening Peak Hour conditions. A brief review of the intersectionconditions is provided in Table 1.


5/79


Insert figure 2


6/79


Insert Figure 3


7/79


Insert Figure 4


8/79


Table 1GENERAL INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS

LocationNo. Location Control Conditions

1 Route 181/ at Thorndike Street Unsignalized Good, no clear issu

2 Route 181/Sykes Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Unsignalized Fair, potential sight distance restrictio

3 Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street Unsignalized Good, close proximity to Loc. 4 crea

conflict for exiting vehic

4 Route 181/North Main Street at Route 20/Wilbraham

Street

Signalized Good, near-roundabout geomet

potential queuing impacts on North MStreet northbou

5 Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike Street Signalized Good, some pedestrian activ

6 Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street Unsignalized Fair, pavement conditions and number

curb cuts and driveways closeintersection, truck volu

7 Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street Unsignalized Good to Fair, flashing beacon, truck vol

8 Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street Unsignalized Good to Fair, awkward geometry, tru

volu

9 Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike Street Signalized Good, some pedestrian activ

10 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street Unsignalized Good, close proximity to Loc. 10 c

create conflict for exiting vehic

11 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Turnpike Ramps Signalized Good, heavy volume from ramps, exist

need for dual left-turn lan12 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street/Site Drive Unsignalized Good, potential sight distance issu

13 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Big Y Drive Signalized Good, short lanes for queue stora

14 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road Unsignalized Good, no clear issu

15 Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street Signalized Good, no clear issu

aVolume Classification: Low = Intersection Volume < 1,500 vehicles per hour (vph), Medium = < 2,200 vph, High = > 2,200 vph.


9/79


bRelation to Site Traffic in context of study purposes for local (


10/79


Summary of Intersection Conditions

Table 1 indicates that in general, most intersections are in Fair to Good condition, with several locations

presenting no clear issues requiring improvements. A volume classification was developed to group the

locations in terms of their existing traffic demands. As shown, higher volume locations generally require

traffic signal control. Most of the locally originating traffic (expected to originate from locations within

15 miles of the Project) is expected to travel on main routes such as Routes 20, 32, and 181; intersectionsalong these routes are the main intersections providing access to the project. Some of the locations

further from the site are classified as Regional as these are expected to be routes that traffic outside ofPalmer will use. Other locations have been classified as Local locations that could be seen as potential

cut-through routes to avoid downtown congestion or delay at specific intersections.

Exit 8 Toll Plaza

Entering and exiting movements from the Massachusetts Turnpike at Exit 8 are controlled by a 5-lane toll

plaza with typical configurations presenting two lanes entering and exiting, with a center reversible lane.

There are dedicated EZ Pass automated toll collection lanes on the outer lanes of the plaza, with manned

lanes on the inner exiting lanes and an automatic ticket dispenser or spitter machine on the innerentering lane. A graphic depicting the toll plaza and proximity to Route 32 is shown as Figure 5.

Counts conducted in September 2012 indicate a high processing rate for each lane at the plaza. The

following volumes were observed:

Movement Lane Function Actual Volume

Entrance Lane 5 E-ZPass 444 vph or 7.4 vpm

Entrance Lane 4 Attendant/Spitter 293 vph or 4.88 vpm

Exit Lane 3 Attendant 203 vph or 3.38 vpm

Exit Lane 2 Attendant 253 vph or 4.21 vpm

Exit Lane 1 E-ZPass 665 vph or 11.08 vpm

The total Interchange was observed to process the following volumes:

On Booths (2) 737 vph

Off Booth (3) 1,121 vph

Total 1,858 vph

Observed values for lane processing capacity are assumed to date to be:

Movement Lane Function Actual Volume

Entrance Ramp Lane 5 E-ZPass 720 vph or 12 vpm MaxEntrance Ramp Lane 4 Attendant/Spitter 540 vph or 9 vpm Max

Exit Ramp Lane 3 Attendant 300 vph or 5.0 vpm

Exit Ramp Lane 2 Attendant 300 vph or 5.0 vpm

Exit Ramp Lane 1 E-ZPass 900 vph or 15 vpm Max


11/79


Insert figure 5


12/79


Consequently, for the Toll Booth alone, the excess capacities calculated to date are:

Max Booth

Capacity* Usage Reserve Total

Entrance 5 E-ZPass

Entrance 4 Attendant/

Spitter

Exit 3 Ramp Attendant

Exit 2 Ramp- Attendant

Exit 1 Ramp E-ZPass

720 vph

540 vph

300 vph

300 vph

900 vph

444 vph

293 vph

203 vph

253 vph

665 vph

276 vph

247 vph

97 vph

97 vph

235 vph

On Reserve

523 vph

Off Reserve

429 vph

with existing configuration

* Attendant processing time was measured and then adjusted downward to produce a conservative estimate.

As shown in Figure 5, the toll plaza is located approximately 375 feet from the stop bar at the Route 32intersection. This short road segment becomes a limiting factor, as vehicle queues occasionally back upfrom the Route 32 intersection to the plaza. Any increases in volume through the toll plaza would ideally

be accompanied by increases in capacity at the approach to the Route 32 intersection and/or increases in

capacity at the toll plaza. This is discussed in a later section.

MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA

Motor vehicle crash information for the study area intersections was provided by the MassDOT Highway

Division Safety Management/Traffic Operations Unit for the most recent three-year period available

(2008 through 2010) in order to examine motor vehicle crash trends occurring within the study area. The

data is summarized by intersection, type, severity, and day of occurrence, and presented in Table 2.

The study area intersections were found to have averaged less than four (4) reported motor vehicle

crashes per year over the three-year review period, with the exception of the Route 181/Shearer Street

intersection, the Route 20/Route 32 intersection, and the Route 32/High Street intersection, which each

averaged 5 to 7 crashes per year. Four of the fifteen study area intersections experienced a crash rate

higher than the MassDOT average for a signalized or unsignalized intersection, as appropriate, for

the MassDOT Highway Division District in which the project is located (District 2): Route 181/

Thorndike Street, Route 181/Shearer Street, Route 20/Route 32/Breckenridge Street, and Route 32/

High Street. No fatal motor vehicle crashes were reported at the study area intersections over the three-

year review period.


13/79


14/79


2023 NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2023, which reflects a ten-year planning

horizon. While State traffic study guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments typically require a five-year

planning time frame, recent comments from MassDOT suggest the use of a ten-year horizon is more

appropriate for the casino projects currently undergoing review in Massachusetts. Independent of the

project, traffic volumes on the roadway network in the year 2023 under No-Build conditions include allexisting traffic and new traffic resulting from background traffic growth. Anticipated project-generated

traffic volumes superimposed upon this 2023 No-Build traffic network reflect the 2023 Build conditionswith the project.

Future Traffic Growth

Future traffic growth is a function of the expected land development in the immediate area and the

surrounding region. Several methods can be used to estimate this growth. A procedure frequently

employed estimates an annual percentage increase in traffic growth and applies that percentage to all

traffic volumes under study. The drawback to such a procedure is that some turning volumes may

actually grow at either a higher or a lower rate at particular intersections.

An alternative procedure identifies the location and type of planned development, estimates the traffic to

be generated, and assigns it to the area roadway network. This procedure produces a more realistic

estimate of growth for local traffic. However, the drawback of this procedure is that the potential growth

in population and development external to the study area would not be accounted for in the traffic

projections.

To provide a conservative analysis framework, both procedures were used, the salient components of

which are described below.

Specific Development by Others

The Planning Department of the Town of Palmer was contacted in order to determine if there were any

projects planned within the study area that would have an impact on future traffic volumes at the study

intersections. Based on these discussions, the following projects were identified:

Residential Development - This proposed project consists of the construction of a 36-unitresidential condominium development across from Cemetery Hill further south of the site on

Route 32 which is currently in construction. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by this

project were generated using trip-generation statistics published by Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE)1 for a similar use and were assigned onto the study area roadway network based

on the observed traffic patterns.

No other developments were identified that are expected to result in an increase in traffic within the studyarea beyond the background traffic growth rate. The Town of Palmer had prepared a Chapter 43D Traffic

Impact Study for five Priority Development Sites (PDS) in the town where development is encouraged.

Discussions with the town indicate that of the five sites, four have had no significant development activity

and the fifth site, known as Thorndike Realty, is the site of the proposed casino.

1Trip Generation, Ninth Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 2012.


15/79


There has been discussion of a potential development on property controlled by Northeast Realty in the

vicinity of the project site. This development would be located in the triangle of property formed by the

Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway, Route 32, and Shearer Street. Nothing formal has been proposed and no plans

or application has been submitted to the Planning Board. If in the future, a known program becomes

public and files with the town prior to the Project local application submittal, that program will be

included in traffic projections and a review of mitigation for the area.

General Background Traffic Growth

Traffic-volume data compiled by MassDOT from permanent count stations and historic traffic counts in

the area were reviewed in order to determine general background traffic growth trends. Data collected

from locations in and surrounding the town of Palmer indicate that traffic volumes in the area have

decreased or stayed consistent since 2000, based on counts conducted by MassDOT. A summary of thesedata is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3

TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON

Town

Number of

Count Locationsa

Average Annual

Growth Rate, Percentb

Palmer 3 -2.5

Ludlow 1 1.1

Monson 3 0.8

Ware 4 1.4

Belchertown 2 5.2

Wilbraham 3 0.3

Warren 1 0.0

Average Change, Percent 0.9aNumber of count locations in each town.bBased on counts compiled by MassDOT over the period 2000-2009.

In addition, a review of daily data for Friday and Saturday as well as peak hour counts for the relevant

Friday evening and Saturday evening periods indicated an overall growth rate of 0.7 percent between May

2012 and April 2013 on Route 32 adjacent to the site.

Based on a review of this data, and given the 10-year horizon period, it was determined that an annual

growth rate of 0.9 percent per year was used in order to account for future traffic growth and presently

unforeseen development within the study area.


16/79


Roadway Improvement Projects

MassDOT and the Town of Palmer were contacted in order to determine if there were any planned

roadway improvement projects expected to be completed within the study area. There are no proposed

changes or roadway improvements expected that will change traffic flow conditions in the study area over

the horizon year time frame.

No-Build Traffic Volumes

The 2023 No-Build peak-hour traffic-volume networks were developed by applying the 0.9 percent per

year compounded annual background traffic growth rate to the 2013 Existing peak-hour traffic volumes

and then superimposing the peak-hour traffic volumes expected to be generated by the identified specific

development project by others. The resulting 2023 No-Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, andSaturday Evening peak-hour traffic volume networks are shown on Figures 6 through 8.


17/79


insert figure 6


18/79


insert figure 7


19/79


insert figure 8


20/79


PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Casino Facility

Data was provided from Mohegan Sun related to the projected development program for Mohegan Sun at

Massachusetts, as well as demographics of patrons in terms of originating location, temporal distribution

on hourly, daily, and monthly time periods, mode splits, average vehicle occupancies, along with similardata for employees. The current Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts program was summarized as follows:

Table 4MOHEGAN SUN AT MASSACHUSETTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Component Metric

Casino Facility

Patron Visits 3,800,000 annually

Gaming Positions 3,450Hotel, rooms 300

Meeting Space, sf 25,000Other Components

Water Park, sf (includes 300 room hotel) 75,000

Cineplex, seats 1,800

Shopping Center, sf 250,000

Driveway Counts

Data was provided in the form of hourly traffic volumes for the roadways leading into Mohegan Sun at

Uncasville, Connecticut. The volumes were categorized by hour of day, day of week, and were providedon a monthly basis for the period between January and July 2009. Peak time periods were observed to

occur on Friday and Saturday between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM, and on Sunday between 3:00 PM and

4:00 PM. These times roughly correspond to peak entering and peak exiting time periods. Patron vehicle

occupancy was estimated by Mohegan Sun Transportation at between 1.8 and 2.2 persons per vehicle.

Bus patronage was also provided which represents approximately 12 percent of the total arrival mode at

the Uncasville site.

Trip Generation Model

To predict the trip generation of Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts, a trip generation model was developed.

Data was compiled from observed volume counts and visitation at the Mohegan Sun site in Uncasville,

Connecticut to determine trips for the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site. Gaming patrons, mode splits,vehicle occupancy rates, employee Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), observed rates of hourly and daily

traffic flow were combined to result in the daily and peak hour trip projections for the Project.

Correlation with any major events or arena shows was not specifically accounted for in the model, but

was neither discounted, so that any increases due specifically to shows are included in the projections.

The volumes and hourly adjustment factors were combined to develop an empirical model that was first

used to predict the trip generation of the Mohegan Sun facility for peak conditions. Based on a visitation

of approximately 13,000,000 visitors and 7,800 FTEs, an average of Saturday daily trips were predicted


21/79


within 2.3 percent of observed values. The model volumes were then adjusted based on the number of

gaming positions at the Uncasville site. Peak hourly totals were then adjusted and calibrated to represent

portions of daily trip totals between one and four percent of daily trips. The resulting Peak Hour trip

totals average between one and two percent higher than observed values.

Hotel trips are implicit in the counts provided by Mohegan Sun for the casino trip generation, as the

Connecticut site contains a hotel with 1,175 rooms. Records indicate the hotel historically operates at a94 percent occupancy rate.

In addition to the above factors, the potential existence of competing casinos was also accounted for in

this analysis. The Legislature of Massachusetts has indicated casinos could be constructed in the western

region, the eastern region, and the southeastern region of the Commonwealth. Since a portion of the

effective population of the areas in the east and southeast would be closer to casinos in these areas than

the Palmer site, assumptions were made to eliminate approximately 50 percent of the population base. Inaddition, the population in Plymouth County was neglected entirely, as existing casinos in Rhode Island

and the sites in Connecticut are closer to these residents than Palmer. These changes resulted in a

correction factor of approximately 20 percent in the predicted trip generation model for the project.

Other Components

In addition to the Casino Facility anticipated for the Interim Build phase, an Indoor/Outdoor Water Park,

Cineplex, and general retail developments are all proposed for the Project. For these components, the ITE

publication Trip Generation was used to predict trips for the various time periods under consideration.

ITE Land Use Codes (LUCs) 414 (Water Slide Park), 445 (Multiplex Movie Theater), and 820 (Shopping

Center) were used with the currently projected development sizes for each component.

Trip Type Adjustments

The casino facility is currently anticipated to be a destination-type facility. However, the other

components of the Project have the potential for the drawing of vehicle traffic from the existing adjacent

traffic stream as well as from the casino itself and vice versa, representing internal trip-making or internaltrip capture. In this regard, not all of the trips expected with the Project represent new trips on the area

road network.

Internal Capture. The existing Mohegan Sun site in Uncasville provides nearly 900,000 sf of totaldevelopment, including hotel rooms, restaurants, and retail shops. The retail component of the site totals

approximately 80,000 sf. It is reasonable to assume that few of the trips to the retail components are

single purpose and only to the retail components. However, the Uncasville site does not contain the size

of non-casino uses or the variation of non-casino uses proposed for the Palmer site, and therefore is not

strictly comparable. A review of available literature on multi-use developments2 indicates that in general,

retail to retail internal capture rates on developments can range between 20 and 31 percent depending on

time periods. There are several points to be considered in calculating internal capture rates:

Competing Markets In general, internal capture rates between on-site uses increase withincreasing distance to similar developments. The closest water parks to Palmer are approximately

25 miles from the site in Agawam, south of Springfield. The same case is true for cineplexes and

large retail facilities, as the closest movie theaters and large shopping centers are in Springfield.

The closest casino development is Mohegan Sun in Uncasville. There is no one site that contains

2Trip Generation Manual, Volume 1, 9th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, D.C.; 2012.


22/79


all these uses within walking distance. Therefore a high internal capture among the projected

uses is expected with the Project.

Proximity and Density of On-Site Land Uses As the density and proximity to land uses increase,the internal capture rates increase. The casino building contains a hotel, but the retail and

Cineplex are all attached, leading to easy connections between uses. The water park is

approximately 1,200 feet from the main casino building, but a sidewalk is provided to allow

patrons to move between the uses easily. With three of the four uses interconnected and thefourth use accessible via a five-minute walk, a high internal capture rate is expected due to this

factor.

Based on these factors, the overall internal capture rate is estimated at 25 percent. This equates to the

overall capture between the retail (shopping center) trips, and the remainder of the component trips,

specifically the casino, water park, and Cineplex trips. This average is across the four peak hours that

were reviewed (Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, Saturday Evening, Sunday Evening: 25 percent

average for all) and the three daily periods (Friday, Saturday, Sunday: 24 percent average for all).

Pass-By Trips. State guidelines for the preparation of Traffic Assessments allow a 25 percent pass-byrate for retail developments. Due to the relative scarcity of retail development in the area and the

projected volume on Route 32 exclusive of the Project, the 25 percent rate was determined to beapplicable for this Project. Consistent with standard industry practice, the pass-by trips were calculatedusing the shopping center trips less half of the internal trips (assuming half of the internal trips were due

to the shopping center).

A summary of the expected trip generation for the critical time periods is shown in Table 5.


23/79


Table 5TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Time Period/

Directional Distribution Casino Totala Water Parkb Cineplexc Shopping Centerd TOTALe

Friday Evening Peak Hour

Enter 534 76 308 531 1,449

Exit 423 68 214 576 1,280 Total 956 144 522 1,107 2,729

Saturday Midday Peak Hour

Enter 417 151 117 825 1,510

Exit 302 118 45 761 1,226

Total 719 269 162 1,586 2,736

Saturday Evening Peak Hour

Enter 367 104 208 406 1,216

Exit 426 122 208 374 1,529

Total 793 226 416 780 2,745

Sunday Evening Peak Hour

Enter 367 104 208 406 1,084

Exit 426 122 208 374 1,131

Total 793 226 416 780 2,215

Weekday Daily 13,566 1,556 2,314 12,320 29,756

Saturday Daily 15,446 2,004 2,452 16,458 36,360

Sunday Daily 11,460 1,560 1,886 6,310 21,216

a Based on 3,450 gaming positions and 300 room hotel.b Based on ITE LUC 414 Water Slide Park and 75,000 sf.

c Based on ITE LUC 445 Multiplex Movie Theater and 1,800 seats.d Based on ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center and 250,000 sf. Friday evening data assumed as Weekday evening ITE data; Saturday evening data assumed as 71% of Saturday M

e Sum of unadjusted trip generation totals.f Computed as 25 percent of lower trip generation totals of Shopping Center and non-Shopping Center uses.g Computed as 25 percent of Shopping Center trips reduced by half of Internal Trips.

h Total trips (-) internal trips. Total trips at Site Access Road.i Total External trips (-) pass-by trips. Total trips new to site road network beyond Site Access Road.


24/79


TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Several components of trip distribution were developed for the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site. The

first component was related to the proportion of existing Mohegan Sun at Uncasville patrons likely to

divert to the Palmer location due to its closer location and reduced travel time. The second component

was a more conventional type of latent demand model, using populations from the 2000 US Census and

assigning approximate weights to populations based on location and travel time. These were combinedto provide an equalized distribution of trip origins between existing patron and existing population data.

In addition, the population based distribution was used exclusively in the assignment for the non-casinotrips.

CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Mohegan Sun Patron Data

Patron Data was provided by Mohegan Sun which provided a measure of the geographic distribution of

the existing patron base traveling to the Uncasville site. Travel times were compared between the patron

home towns and the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site and the Mohegan Sun at Uncasville site in orderto determine the extent of existing trips likely to be captured by the Mohegan Sun at Massachusetts site.

Trips from towns and cities in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, and

Vermont were routed using generalized travel times and regional roadways (I-90, I-91, I-84, etc.).

This data was then adjusted to account for the competing casino location in eastern Massachusetts. It was

assumed that patrons in Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex Counties were two times more likely to travel to

an eastern casino in the Greater Boston area than to travel an hour or more to Palmer. Patrons in Suffolk

County were assumed to be three times more likely to travel the short distance to an eastern casino than to

travel to Palmer. The patron trip base from these counties was adjusted accordingly, which generally

resulted in an approximately 15 percent reduction in the patron base. Using these assumptions, the

distribution of the patron data shown in Table 6 was calculated.


25/79


26/79


Table 7SORTED LOCAL PATRON TRIP DATA

Town County Patron Trips

Palmer Hampden 369Three Rivers Hampden 107

Monson Hampden 444Brimfield Hampden 80Wilbraham Hampden 478Ludlow Hampden 876Wales Hampden 50

Hampden Hampden 216Springfield Hampden 295Indian Orchard Hampden 212Springfield Hampden 330

Springfield Hampden 201East Longmeadow Hampden 877

Springfield Hampden 531Holland Hampden 90

Springfield Hampden 639Westover AFB Hampden 121

Chicopee Hampden 1497Springfield Hampden 714Springfield Hampden 926Springfield Hampden 143

Springfield Hampden 64Chicopee Hampden 918Ware Hampshire 393Belchertown Hampshire 462

Granby Hampshire 263South Hadley Hampshire 562Stafford Springs Tolland (CT) 955Somers Tolland (CT) 596

Warren Worcester 108

West Warren Worcester 34West Brookfield Worcester 135Fiskdale Worcester 108

Brookfield Worcester 131Sturbridge Worcester 217Gilbertville Worcester 20

East Brookfield Worcester 58New Braintree Worcester 23North Brookfield Worcester 79

TOTAL 14,322

Trips from the local distribution were assigned to the localized routes in the cardinal directions. Based ontravel times, some trips from areas in Springfield and Chicopee were determined to be more likely to use

I-90 to arrive at the Project than local roads, as travel times would be twice as long using secondary

roadways. In general, most travel times for the areas in the local distribution were determined to be less

than 30 minutes to the Project.


27/79


Population Based Trips

Populations for the New England and New York areas were obtained from 2000 US Census data and then

categorized into the counties consistent with the Patron data. The populations were then adjusted using

travel time from the population centroids of the counties or states as applicable to derive weighted

populations. As with the patron data, the population data from the four counties expected to frequent an

eastern casino in varying likelihoods as described previously were also adjusted to account forcompetition.

These adjustments resulted in an original population of slightly over 8,000,000 persons across the target

area reduced to a population just over 93,000 using travel time as a factor. This also indicates that target

areas of Middlesex and Worcester County in Massachusetts and a portion of Hartford County in

Connecticut combined result in nearly half of the weighted population.

As with the Patron data, the population data was also adjusted for the local distribution of areas within

15 miles of the Project. It was determined that due to the limited population of Tolland County within

this area accuracy would not be significantly affected by using the regional distribution for the entire

county.

Aggregation of Trip Distribution

A method of combining the two trip components (Patrons and Populations) was determined using the

existing data and some additional assumptions. This would determine the relative proportion of trips

which would originate within and outside of the 15 mile local zone. The method used quantifies the local

and regional proportions using the Patron Data and Populations totals, adjusted for anticipated visitation

and the travel time factors discussed above. Local visitation is assumed at 10 percent, meaning one of

every 10 persons within the 15 mile zone is likely to travel to the Project, and this is compared against the

travel time factored regional population. Table 8 presents a summary of the data points and the resulting

values.

Table 8CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Component Local Trips Regional Trips Total

Patrons

Populations

Average

Average (Percent)

14,322

33,521

47,843

20

94,599

93,361

187,960

80

108,921

126,882

235,803

100

As shown in Table 8, the relative proportions of 20 percent for the local basis and 80 percent for the

regional basis were calculated, and applied to the trip generation estimates discussed earlier. As applied

to the Saturday Evening peak time period for instance, the expectation is that of the total 1,686 hourly

vehicle trips, approximately 338 would originate within the 15 mile local zone and the remaining

1,348 trips would originate outside that zone.


28/79


NON-CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Population Based Trips

The population-based gravity model was used for the distribution for the Cineplex, Water Park, andShopping Center visitors. There was assumed to be some relationship between the casino target area and

the non-casino target area, in that the existence of one or more component may be a draw for visitors thatplanned to visit the casino only. In this regard, the distribution is shaped by the same regional attraction

as the casino, likely larger than would be the case for any one component alone. Relying on solely the

population-based distribution resulted in a trip assignment for the non-casino trips of approximately

74 percent regional trips and 26 percent local trips. This is shown below in Table 9.

Table 9NON-CASINO TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Component Local Trips Regional Trips Total

Populations

Average (Percent)

33,521

26

93,361

74

126,882

100

Pass-by trips were determined to be based on an equal north/south distribution from Route 32, based on

traffic volumes for the respective peak hour time periods of analysis.

The resulting general local and regional trip distributions for the entire Project are shown graphically inFigures 9 and 10.


29/79


insert figure 9


30/79


insert figure 10


31/79


32/79


Insert figure 11


33/79


Insert figure 12


34/79


Insert figure 13


35/79


36/79


Insert figure 15


37/79


Insert figure 16


38/79


Site Access Full Build

There are two current alternatives for site access required for the Full Build scenario under review. The

first is an At-Grade alternative which creates the fourth leg of an intersection with the Exit 8 I-90 ramp

roadway and Route 32 intersection. The intersection would be signalized and each approach would be

substantially widened from the current configuration. Volumes for this condition are shown in Figure 17

for the respective 2023 Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak-hourconditions.

The second alternative is a flyover design. The I-90 ramp roadway would overpass Route 32 and connect

north of the existing ramp/Route 32 intersection through a partial cloverleaf/trumpet-type interchange

with ramps intersecting Route 32 at a signalized intersection. Volumes for this condition are shown in

Figure 18 for the respective 2023 Build Friday Evening, Saturday Midday, and Saturday Evening peak-

hour conditions.


39/79


Insert figure 17


40/79


Insert figure 18


41/79


TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To assess

quality of flow, roadway capacity analyses were conducted under Existing, No-Build and Build traffic-

volume conditions. Capacity analyses provide an indication of how well the roadway facilities serve the

traffic demands placed upon them.

Methodology

Levels of Service

A primary result of capacity analyses is the assignment of level of service to traffic facilities under

various traffic-flow conditions.3 The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measuredescribing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or

passengers. A level-of-service definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such

factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety.

Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from A to F,with level-of-service (LOS) A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing

congested or constrained operating conditions.

Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facility

may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of week, or period of

year.

Unsignalized Intersections

The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:

LOS A represents a condition with little or no control delay to minor street traffic. LOS B represents a condition with short control delays to minor street traffic. LOS Crepresents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic. LOS D represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic. LOS Erepresents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long control delays to

minor street traffic.

LOS Frepresents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity of an approachlane, with extreme control delays resulting.

The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a procedure described

in the 2010Highway Capacity Manual.4 Level of service is measured in terms of average control delay.

Mathematically, control delay is a function of the capacity and degree of saturation of the lane group

3The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual

(HCM 2010); Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.4Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.


42/79


and/or approach under study and is a quantification of motorist delay associated with traffic control

devices such as traffic signals and STOP signs. Control delay includes the affects of initial deceleration

delay approaching a STOP sign, stopped delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration delay from a

stopped condition. Definitions for level of service at unsignalized intersections are also given in the

2000Highway Capacity Manual. Table 10 summarizes the relationship between level of service and

average control delay.

Table 10LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FORUNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa

Average Control Delay

(Seconds Per Vehicle)

Level of Service

v/c 1.0

Level of Service

v/c >1.0

< 10.0

10.1 to 15.0

15.1 to 25.025.1 to 35.0

35.1 to 50.0

>50.0

A

B

CD

E

F

F

F

FF

F

F

aSource: Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board;

Washington, DC; 2010; Volume 3, Exhibit 19-2.

Signalized Intersections

The six levels of service for signalized intersections may be described as follows:

LOS A describes operations with very low control delay; most vehicles do not stop at all. LOS B describes operations with relatively low control delay. However, more vehicles stop thanLOS A. LOS Cdescribes operations with higher control delays. Individual cycle failures may begin to

appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass

through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with control delay in the range where the influence of congestionbecomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

LOS Edescribes operations with high control delay values. Individual cycle failures are frequentoccurrences.

LOS Fdescribes operations with high control delay values that often occur with over-saturation.Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay

levels.

Levels of service for signalized intersections are calculated using the operational analysis methodology of

the HCM 2010. This method assesses the effects of signal type, timing, phasing, and progression; vehicle

mix; and geometrics on delay. Level-of-service designations are based on the criterion of control or

signal delay per vehicle. Control or signal delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and fuel


43/79


consumption, and includes initial deceleration delay approaching the traffic signal, queue move-up time,

stopped delay and final acceleration delay. Table 11 summarizes the relationship between level of service

and control delay. The tabulated control delay criterion may be applied in assigning level-of-service

designations to individual lane groups, to individual intersection approaches, or to entire intersections.

Table 11LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIAFOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa

Control (Signal)

Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds)

Level of Service

v/c 1.0

Level of Service

v/c >1.0

80.0

A

B

CD

E

F

F

F

FF

F

F

aSource: Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010;

Volume 3, Exhibit 18-6.

Currently there are a number of technical issues surrounding the implementation of the HCM 2010 for

signalized intersections, chiefly that there are unresolved inconsistencies related to signal phasing

between the HCM methodology and actual signal design practice. MassDOT has issued a directive

allowing the use of the Synchro software LOS calculation for signalized intersections as the HCM

methodology will not calculate level-of-service for all signal phasing designs. Therefore, the signalized

analyses and LOS results are based on Synchro LOS calculations and the unsignalized analyses and LOS

results are based on HCM 2010 methodology.

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Level-of-service analyses were conducted for 2013 Existing, 2023 No-Build and 2023 Build conditions

for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection capacity analyses are

summarized in Table 12 for the signalized intersections and Table 13 for the unsignalized intersections.

The results are presented by individual movement as well as overall intersection level of service (LOS)

for signalized intersections and by critical movement for unsignalized intersections.


44/79


Table 12

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY

2013 Existing 2023 No-Build

Location

No. Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement V/Ca Delayb LOSc

Queued

Ave/95th V/C Delay LOS

Q

Av

4 Route 181/North Main Street at Route

20/Wilbraham Street

Friday Evening:

Wilbraham Street EB LT

Wilbraham Street EB TH/RTNorth Main Street WB LT/TH

North Main Street WB RT

Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT

OverallSaturday Midday:


Wilbraham Street EB TH/RTNorth Main Street WB LT/TH


Private Drive NB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT

OverallSaturday Evening:


Wilbraham Street EB TH/RT

North Main Street WB LT/TH

North Main Street WB RTPrivate Drive NB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT

Overall

0.63

0.610.73

0.52

0.11

0.74

0.27--

0.45

0.450.71

0.41

0.07

0.60

0.21--

0.31

0.44

0.55

0.380.02

0.55

0.23

--

19.0

13.127.3

5.2

16.0

29.0

2.2

16.4

11.2

10.025.5

4.7

17.7

23.2

2.2

14.1

9.0

9.8

20.1

5.10.0

21.1

2.1

11.7

B

BC

A

B

C

A

B

B

AC

A

B

C

A

B

A

A

C

AA

C

A

B

2/54/11

4/11

0/3

0/1

4/11

0/1--

1/3

3/84/11

0/2

0/1

3/7

0/1--

1/3

2/7

3/6

0/20/0

3/6

0/1

--

0.79

0.700.82

0.56

0.12

0.82

0.30--

0.54

0.500.76

0.43

0.08

0.64

0.23

--

0.36

0.48

0.59

0.390.02

0.59

0.25

--

32.5

17.335.0

5.5

16.7

36.4

2.3

21.7

15.0

10.828.4

4.7

17.2

24.7

2.2

15.6

9.7

10.5

20.9

5.00.0

22.1

2.2

12.3

C

BD

A

B

D

A

C

B

BC

A

B

C

A

B

A

B

C

AA

C

A

B

See notes at end of table.


45/79


Table 12 (Continued)



Location


Queued


Q

Av

5 Route 20/Main Street at Route 32/Thorndike

Street

Friday Evening:

North Main Street EB LT

North Main Street EB THSouth Main Street WB TH

South Main Street WB RT

Thorndike Street SB LT

Thorndike Street SB RT


North Main Street EB LT

North Main Street EB TH

South Main Street WB THSouth Main Street WB RT

Thorndike Street SB LTThorndike Street SB RT


North Main Street EB LTNorth Main Street EB TH

South Main Street WB TH

South Main Street WB RT

Thorndike Street SB LTThorndike Street SB RT

Overall

0.67

0.530.54

0.270.69

0.43

--

0.69

0.38

0.570.23

0.390.46

--

0.450.32

0.32

0.21

0.400.34

--

13.1

9.118.0

3.332.6

4.3

13.0

13.9

7.3

18.63.3

23.65.4

11.6

7.96.7

14.6

3.4

23.72.8

9.0

B

AB

AC

A

B

B

A

BA

CA

B

AA

B

A

CA

A

3/4

5/75/8

0/2

4/8

1/3

--

3/4

3/5

5/70/1

2/41/3

--

2/42/4

3/4

0/1

2/40/2

--

0.78

0.580.59

0.290.76

0.49

--

0.81

0.42

0.620.25

0.440.52

--

0.510.35

0.34

0.22

0.440.36

--

19.9

9.919.0

3.337.1

6.3

15.5

22.3

7.7

19.93.3

24.57.6

14.4

8.77.0

15.0

3.3

24.52.9

9.4

B

AB

AD

A

B

C

A

BA

CA

B

AA

B

A

CA

A



46/79





LocationNo. Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement V/Ca Delayb LOSc

QueuedAve/95th V/C Delay LOS

QA

9 Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Thorndike

Street

Friday Evening:

Park Street WB LT

Park Street WB RTThorndike Street NB TH/RT

Thorndike Street SB LTThorndike Street SB TH


Park Street WB LT

Park Street WB RT

Thorndike Street NB TH/RT

Thorndike Street SB LTThorndike Street SB TH


Park Street WB LTPark Street WB RT


Thorndike Street SB LT

Thorndike Street SB TH

Overall

0.51

0.420.72

0.870.34

--

0.62

0.33

0.69

0.640.32

--

0.470.32

0.62

0.47

0.24--

23.9

4.219.5

36.9

6.4

18.0

25.0

2.6

19.7

15.87.1

14.3

21.62.8

16.7

8.4

5.6

11.3

C

AB

D

A

B

C

A

B

BA

B

CA

B

A

A

B

3/5

1/26/11

3/11

2/5

--

3/6

0/2

5/9

2/52/4

--

2/50/2

4/9

1/3

2/3--

0.58

0.450.81

1.090.42

--

0.67

0.36

0.75

0.720.36

--

0.500.35

0.67

0.55

0.27--

26.3

5.824.9

>80.0

7.6

31.4

27.5

2.7

21.9

22.37.6

16.6

22.52.8

18.3

11.9

6.0

12.6

C

AC

F

A

C

C

A

C

CA

B

CA

B

B

A

B



47/79





Location


Queued


Q

Av

11 Thorndike Street at the I-90 RampsFriday Evening:

I-90 Ramp EB LT

I-90 Ramp EB RT

Thorndike Street NB LTThorndike Street NB TH




I-90 Ramp EB LTI-90 Ramp EB RT

Thorndike Street NB LT

Thorndike Street NB THThorndike Street SB TH



I-90 Ramp EB LT

I-90 Ramp EB RTThorndike Street NB LT

Thorndike Street NB TH



Overall

0.89

0.49

0.610.51

0.70

0.32

--

0.630.28

0.44

0.380.66

0.31--

0.66

0.280.39

0.35

0.62

0.24--

42.6

3.6

16.815.7

40.02.3

19.8

29.51.8

8.8

8.728.9

1.4

12.6

28.5

1.69.0

9.2

28.6

1.3

13.2

D

A

BB

DA

B

CA

A

AC

A

B

C

AA

A

C

A

B

12/23

1/4

4/66/9

5/9

1/2

--

4/90/2

2/4

3/64/10

0/1--

4/10

0/12/4

3/6

4/9

0/1--

1.01

0.55

0.670.54

0.730.35

--

0.660.31

0.51

0.420.71

0.34--

0.70

0.300.45

0.38

0.67

0.26--

66.1

5.4

18.715.9

41.23.5

26.2

32.22.9

10.5

9.932.4

2.5

14.4

30.9

1.810.3

10.1

31.2

1.3

14.4

E

A

BB

DA

C

CA

B

AC

A

B

C

AB

B

C

A

B

1



48/79


49/79





LocationNo. Signalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement V/Ca Delayb LOSc

QueuedAve/95th V/Ca Delayb LOSc

QAv

15 Route 32/Thorndike Street at High Street

Friday Evening:

High Street EB LT/THHigh Street EB RT

High Street WB LT/TH/RTThorndike Street NB LT

Thorndike Street NB TH/RTThorndike Street SB LT/TH



High Street EB LT/TH

High Street EB RT

High Street WB LT/TH/RTThorndike Street NB LT


Thorndike Street SB LT/TH



High Street EB LT/TH

High Street EB RTHigh Street WB LT/TH/RT

Thorndike Street NB LTThorndike Street NB TH/RT

Thorndike Street SB LT/TH


Overall

0.420.54

0.050.67

0.640.78

0.15--

0.26

0.60

0.040.46

0.33

0.72

0.08--

0.32

0.470.01

0.420.44

0.66

0.15

--

23.56.3

16.214.3

9.7

27.5

3.4

14.5

20.8

7.1

16.07.1

5.4

22.8

0.8

11.7

21.9

6.815.0

6.36.0

19.8

3.0

10.5

CA

BB

A

C

A

B

C

A

BA

A

C

A

B

C

AB

AA

B

A

B

2/30/2

0/12/6

5/115/12

0/1--

1/2

0/2

0/11/3

2/5

5/11

0/0--

1/2

0/20/0

1/23/6

4/8

0/1

--

0.440.56

0.050.79

0.70

0.85

0.16--

0.27

0.62

0.040.55

0.37

0.79

0.09--

0.34

0.500.01

0.480.48

0.72

0.16

--

24.06.3

16.024.8

11.5

32.9

3.9

18.1

20.9

7.0

15.79.6

6.0

27.1

1.1

13.4

22.5

6.8

15.0

7.36.5

22.7

3.5

11.7

C

A

BC

B

C

A

B

C

A

BA

A

C

A

B

C

AB

AA

C

A

B

aVolume-to-capacity.bControl (signal) delay per vehicle in seconds.cLevel-of-Service.dQueue length in vehicles.EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.


50/79


Table 13

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY


Location

No. Unsignalized Intersection/Peak Hour/Movement Demanda Delayb LOSc

Queued

95th Demand Delay LOS

Que

95

1 Route 181/ at Thorndike Street

Friday Evening:

Thorndike Street WB LT/RT

Route 181 NB TH/RTPalmer Street SB LT/TH

Saturday Midday:


Route 181 NB TH/RT

Palmer Street SB LT/TH

Saturday Evening:


Route 181 NB TH/RT

Palmer Street SB LT/TH

170

253513

142

251

340

146

212

294

11.7

0.08.2

11.1

0.0

8.1

11.3

0.0

8.1

B

AA

B

A

A

B

A

A

1

01

1

0

1

1

0

1

187

276564

159

274

375

160

232

322

12.3

0.08.3

11.6

0.0

8.3

11.8

0.0

8.2

B

AA

B

A

A

B

A

A

2 Route 181/Sykes Street at Mt. Dumplin Road

Friday Evening:

Mt. Dumplin Road WB LT/RT

Route 181 NB TH/RT

Skyes Street SB LT/TH

Saturday Midday:


Route 181 NB TH/RT


Saturday Evening:


Route 181 NB TH/RT


15

538

458

19

375

324

13

299

322

16.8

0.0

8.9

12.9

0.0

8.2

12.5

0.0

7.9

C

A

A

B

A

A

B

A

A

1

00

1

0

0

0

0

0

17

588501

21

410

354

15

327

352

18.8

0.09.1

13.7

0.0

8.3

13.2

0.0

8.0

C

AA

B

A

A

B

A

A



51/79





Location


Queued


Que

95

3 Route 181/Main Street at Shearer Street

Friday Evening:

Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RT

Shearer Street WB LT/TH/RTRoute 181 NB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 SB LT/TH/RT

Saturday Midday:

Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RTShearer Street WB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT


Saturday Evening:

Shearer Street Extension EB LT/TH/RTShearer Street WB LT/TH/RT

Route 181 NB LT/TH/RT


1

251592

495

10187

429

344

5197

343

641

11.5

>50.08.4

8.9

16.829.2

7.9

8.4

12.132.1

8.0

8.1

B

FA

A

CD

A

A

BD

A

A

0

160

1

04

0

0

05

0

0

1

274647

541

10205

469

376

5176

375

373

11.9

>50.08.6

9.2

18.442.3

7.9

8.5

12.749.5

8.0

8.3

B

FA

A

CE

A

A

BE

A

A

2

6 Route 20/Route 32/Park Street at Breckenridge Street

Friday Evening:

Park Street EB LT/TH

Park Street WB TH/RT

Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT

Saturday Midday:


Park Street WB TH/RT

Breckenridge Street SB LT/RT

Saturday Evening:


Park Street WB TH/RTBreckenridge Street SB LT/RT

638420

192

431

445

148

399

429152

8.50.0

>50.0

1.0

0.0

27.1

8.4

0.025.2

AA

F

A

A

D

A

AD

10

12

0

0

3

0

03

700462

210

476

493

162

438

471166

8.70.0

>50.0

8.7

0.0

37.7

8.6

0.033.2

A

A

F

A

A

E

A

AD

1



52/79





Location


Queued


Q

7 Route 20 Route 32/Park Street at Stone Street

Friday Evening:

Park Street EB TH/RT

Park Street WB LT/TH

Stone Street NB LT/RT

Saturday Midday:

Park Street EB TH/RT

Park Street WB LT/TH


Saturday Evening:

Park Street EB TH/RTPark Street WB LT/TH


693

410

256

494

400

165

466399

171

0.0

9.6

>50.0

0.08.6

27.3

0.08.7

31.6

A

A

F

AA

D

AA

D

0

1

13

00

3

02

4

760

449

282

546440

183

512437

188

0.0

10.0

>50.0

0.08.9

39.5

0.08.9

48.3

A

A

F

AA

E

AA

E

8 Route 32/Main Street/Stone Street at South Main Street

Friday Evening:

South Main Street EB LT/TH

Route 32 WB TH/RT

Stone Street SB LT/RT

Saturday Midday:


Route 32 WB TH/RT

Stone Street SB LT/RT

Saturday Evening:


Route 32 WB TH/RTStone Street SB LT/RT

436

459

228

271

417

149

263

318181

8.7

0.0

>50.0

8.4

0.0

20.1

8.2

0.020.5

A

A

F

A

A

C

A

A

C

1

0

8

1

0

2

1

0

3

477

504

251

297

459

166

287

348

199

8.9

0.0

>50.0

8.6

0.0

24.9

8.3

0.025.2

A

A

F

A

A

C

A

AD



53/79





Location


Queued


10 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Lawrence Street

Friday Evening:

Lawrence Street EB LT/TH/RT

Driveway WB LT/TH/RT

Thorndike Street NB LT/TH/RTThorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT

Saturday Midday:


Driveway WB LT/TH/RT

Thorndike Street NB LT/TH/RT

Thorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT

Saturday Evening:


Driveway WB LT/TH/RTThorndike Street NB LT/TH/RT

Thorndike Street SB LT/TH/RT

110

1

661916

77

0

570

571

62

0503

538

>50.0

>50.0

10.39.1

37.4

0.0

8.7

8.7

31.4

0.08.8

8.5

F

F

BA

E

A

A

A

D

AA

A

10

1

00

3

0

0

0

2

00

0

121

1

7281,013

84

0

636

641

68

0554

604

>50.0

>50.0

10.99.3

>50.0

0.0

8.9

8.9

42.8

0.09.0

8.6

F

F

BA

F

A

A

A

E

AA

A

12 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Shearer Street

Friday Evening:

Shearer Street EB LTShearer Street EB RT

Thorndike Street NB LT/TH

Thorndike Street SB TH/RT

Saturday Midday:

Shearer Street EB LT

Shearer Street EB RT



Saturday Evening:

Shearer Street EB LTShearer Street EB RT



13871

977

842

152

41603

827

11727

581

761

>50.016.5

10.0

0.0

>50.0

15.99.9

0.0

>50.013.8

9.4

0.0

FC

B

A

F

CA

A

FB

A

A

131

0

0

11

10

0

51

0

0

15178

1,071

926

166

45666

913

12830

638

835

>50.018.4

10.5

0.0

>50.0

17.610.4

0.0

>50.014.8

9.7

0.0

FC

B

A

F

C

B

A

FB

A

A



54/79


Table 13 (Continued)UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY


Location


Queued


14 Route 32/Thorndike Street at Mt. Dumplin Road

Friday Evening:

Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RT



Saturday Midday:

Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RTThorndike Street NB LT/TH


Saturday Evening:

Mt. Dumplin Road EB LT/RT



49

1,069

732

38640

766

19

727

587

>50.0

9.6

0.0

20.6

9.60.0

21.3

8.8

0.0

F

A

A

C

AA

C

A

A

3

1

0

1

00

1

0

0

54

1,171

806

42

707846

21

798

645

>50.0

10.10.0

24.9

9.90.0

25.6

9.1

0.0

F

BA

C

AA

D

A

A

aDemand in vehicles per hour.bAverage control delay per vehicle in seconds.cLevel-of-Service.dQueue length in vehicles.EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.


55/79


SUMMARY OF RESULTS

As shown in Table 12 and Table 13, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on local

roadways, due to the regional attraction of the Project. However, there are a number of locations where

improvements were identified to address deficiencies, either based on existing conditions (safety-related

or operationally-related) or due to impacts caused by the Project. These locations are listed below:

MITIGATION LOCAL INTERSECTIONS

Locations 3/4 North Main Street at Shearer Street and Wilbraham Street

The unsignalized intersection of North Main Street with Shearer Street has a crash rate above the

District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as angle or rear-end collisions. The intersection has

awkward geometry and is in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Main Street with WilbrahamStreet, but operates under STOP-sign control. Sight distance to the north is also limited for the

westbound Shearer Street approach.

It is recommended that the intersection be placed under signalized control and coordinated with the

adjacent Wilbraham Street intersection. Pavement markings and signage are also recommended. AConceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 19.

Locations 6/7 Park Street at Breckenridge Street and Stone Street

The unsignalized intersection of Park Street with Breckenridge Street has a crash rate above the District 2

average. Most of the crashes are listed as angle or rear-end collisions. A high degree of delay is

associated with the Breckenridge Street unsignalized approach, where left- and right-turns are contained

in one lane. Due to the high traffic volumes on Park Street but comparatively low volumes on

Breckenridge Street, there are no improvements that can effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles

exiting Breckenridge Street.

However, to reduce the delay for right-turning vehicles, it is suggested that a minor strip widening of theapproach to Park Street be implemented. This will allow the right-turns to execute their movements

without waiting for left-turning vehicles to first execute their turn. The existing worn pavement markings

should also be updated at this intersection and also at the adjacent unsignalized intersection of Park Street

and Stone Street. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 20.

Location 8 Stone Street at South Main Street

The unsignalized intersection of Stone Street with South Main Street operates with a high degree of delay.

The crash rate is not significant (crash rate below the District 2 average). Due to the high traffic volumes

on South Main Street but comparatively low volumes on Stone Street, there are no improvements that can

effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles exiting Stone Street.

It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual

Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 21.


56/79


Insert figure 19


57/79


Insert figure 20


58/79


Insert figure 21


59/79


Location 9 Thorndike Street at Park Street

The signalized intersection of Thorndike Street with Park Street operates with a high degree of delay.

The crash rate is not significant (crash rate below the District 2 average). Due to the limited property

available for roadway widening, there are no improvements that can be made to effectively eliminate the

high delay for vehicles at the intersection.

To improve operations for the Park Street approach, it is suggested that pavement markings be installed to

formalize the use of separate right-turn and left-turn lanes at this intersection. High-visibility diagonalcrosswalk markings should also be applied at the intersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this

intersection is shown in Figure 22.

Location 14 Thorndike Street at Mount Dumplin Road

The unsignalized Mount Dumplin Road approach to Thorndike Street operates with a high degree of

delay. No crashes have been recorded at the intersection. Due to the high traffic volumes on

Thorndike Street but comparatively low volumes on Mount Dumplin Road, there are no improvements

that can effectively eliminate the high delay for vehicles exiting Mount Dumplin Road.

It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. A Conceptual

Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 23.

Location 1 Thorndike Road at Sykes Street/Palmer Street (Route 181)

The unsignalized intersection of Thorndike Road with Route 181 does not operate with a high degree of

delay, but the crash rate is above the District 2 average. Most of the crashes are listed as rear-end

collisions, but there have also been two head-on collisions. Half of the collisions resulted in personal

injuries.

It is suggested that the existing worn pavement markings be updated at this intersection. In addition,

signage to identify southbound Route 181 motorists that they are approaching an intersection with skewedgeometry is recommended, as is removal of vegetation within the right-of-way to improve visibility. A

Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 24.

Location 15 Thorndike Street at High Street

The signalized intersection of Thorndike Street with Park Street has a crash rate above the District 2

average. Most of the crashes are listed as rear-end or angle collisions. In addition, a large number (8 of

21 or 38 percent) resulted in personal injuries. A number of crashes were the result of collisions between

northbound left-turning vehicles and southbound through vehicles. The northbound left-turn movement

operates with a protected-plus-permissive operation, requiring turning vehicles to yield to opposing

through vehicles during the permissive operation.

To improve safety at the intersection, it is suggested that the permissive operation be eliminated and the

left-turn movement operate through a protected-only operation. This will require a new timing plan for

the intersection. In addition, the existing worn pavement markings should be updated at this intersection.

A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 25.


60/79


Location 5 Thorndike Road at North Main Street (Route 20)

The signalized intersection of Thorndike Road with North Main Street (Route 20) operates with a high

degree of delay on the North Main Street eastbound approach. The crash rate is not significant (crash rate

below the District 2 average).

To improve operations for the North Main Street approach, it is suggested that the eastbound left-turn andthrough movements be allocated more green time. This will require a modification of the existing timing

plan for the intersection. In addition, the existing worn pavement markings should be updated at thisintersection. A Conceptual Improvement Plan of this intersection is shown in Figure 26.


61/79


Insert figure 22


62/79


Insert figure 23


63/79


Insert figure 24


64/79


Insert figure 25


65/79


Insert Figure 26


66/79


MITIGATION SITE ACCESS INTERSECTIONS

Significant impacts are expected at the intersections of the Exit 8 I-90 ramp roadway and Shearer Street

with Route 32. As identified previously, two concepts are currently being reviewed for access:

1. At-Grade Alternative In this concept, a Site Access Roadway is constructed opposite the Exit 8I-90 ramp roadway and continues around the north of the site. The I-90 ramp roadway andRoute 32 are significantly widened and expanded, and a new traffic signal is installed. A

boulevard-type Access Road consisting of two lanes per direction and a raised median will serveas the access to the Project.

2. Flyover Alternative Separate flyover ramps are proposed for the traffic exiting and entering theTurnpike that will bypass the Route 32 intersection with the I-90 ramp roadway. Local traffic

will be able to access the Project via the Site Access Road intersection with Route 32 andShearer Street. The ramps will connect to Route 32 at a new signalized intersection, with a slip

ramp for traffic destined to the Project from I-90. The Access Road would consist of two lanes

per direction and a raised median.

These conceptual alternatives are shown on Figures 27 and 28, respectively.

Tables 14 and 15 present the LOS results of the intersections for 2023 No Build, 2023 Build unmitigated,

and 2023 Build with proposed mitigation in place for both Local Intersections and the Site Access

Intersections.


67/79


Insert figure 27


68/79


Insert figure 28


69/79


Table 14MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY LOCAL INTERS

2023 No-Build 2023 Build

Location


Queued


Qu

Ave

4 Route 181/North Main Street at Route20/Wilbraham Streete

Friday Evening:





Route 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT






Route 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT


Wilbraham Street EB LTWilbraham Street EB TH/RT



Private Drive NB LT/TH/RTRoute 181 SB LT/TH

Route 181 SB RT

Overall

0.79

0.70

0.82

0.560.12

0.82

0.30

--

0.54

0.50

0.76

0.430.08

0.64

0.23

--

0.360.48

0.59

0.39

0.020.59

0.25

--

32.5

17.3

35.0

5.516.7

36.4

2.3

21.7

15.0

10.8

28.4

4.717.2

24.7

2.2

15.6

9.710.5

20.9

5.0

0.022.1

2.2

12.3

C

B

D

AB

D

A

C

B

B

C

AB

C

A

B

AB

C

A

AC

A

B

2/7

5/14

5/13

0/30/1

5/12

0/1

--

1/4

3/9

5/13

0/20/1

3/8

0/1

--

1/33/8

3/7

0/2

0/03/7

0/1

--

0.80

0.77

0.90

0.570.12

0.85

0.30

--

0.57

0.58

0.83

0.270.09

0.66

0.23

--

0.420.53

0.70

0.23

0.020.62

0.26

--

33.9

20.2

44.3

5.516.8

39.9

2.3

25.1

16.7

12.2

33.0

1.417.3

25.5

2.2

17.0

10.811.4

25.0

1.4

0.023.4

2.2

13.5

C

C

D

AB

D

A

C

B

mohegan sun palmer traffic assessment

Documents