Transportation Impact Assessment

Proposed Mixed-Use Development 87 and 124 Elm Street Cohasset, Massachusetts

Prepared for: CHI Elm Street Realty, LLC Cohasset, Massachusetts

April 2020

Prepared by:

35 New England Business Center Drive Suite 140 Andover, MA 01810

Dear Reviewer:

This letter shall certify that this Transportation Impact Assessment has been prepared under my direct supervision and responsible charge. I am a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts P.E. No. 38871, Civil) and hold Certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) from the Transportation Professional Certification Board, Inc. (TPCB), an independent affiliate of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (PTOE Certificate No. 993). I am also a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (FITE).

Sincerely,

VANASSE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Jeffrey S. Dirk, P.E., PTOE, FITE Partner

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

Recommendations ...... 2

INTRODUCTION ...... 5

Project Description ...... 5 Study Methodology ...... 6

EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 7

Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 10 Public Transportation ...... 10 Spot Speed Measurements ...... 11 Motor Vehicle Crash Data ...... 11

FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 14

Future Traffic Growth ...... 14 Project-Generated Traffic ...... 15 Trip Distribution and Assignment ...... 18 Future Traffic Volumes - Build Condition ...... 18

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ...... 20

Methodology ...... 20 Analysis Results ...... 22

PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT ...... 28

SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION ...... 30

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32

Conclusions ...... 32 Recommendations ...... 33

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx

FIGURES

No. Title

1 Site Location Map

2 Existing Intersection Lane Use, Travel Lane Width and Pedestrian Facilities

3 2019 Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

4 2019 Existing Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

5 2019 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

6 2027 No-Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

7 2027 No-Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

8 2027 No-Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

9 Trip-Distribution Map

10 Project-Generated Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

11 Project-Generated Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

12 Project-Generated Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

13 2027 Build Weekday Morning Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

14 2027 Build Weekday Evening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

15 2027 Build Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx

TABLES

No. Title

1 Study Area Intersection Description

2 2019 Existing Traffic Volumes

3 Vehicle Travel Speed Measurements

4 Motor Vehicle Crash Data Summary

5 Trip-Generation Summary

6 Traffic Volume Comparison

7 Peak-Hour Traffic-Volume Increases

8 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

9 Unsignalized Intersection Level-of-Service and Vehicle Queue Summary

10 ITE Peak Parking Demand Ratios

11 Peak Parking Demands

12 Sight Distance Measurements

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) in order to determine the potential impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the proposed construction of a mixed-use development that will be situated on separate parcels of land located at 87 and 124 Elm Street in Cohasset, Massachusetts (hereafter collectively referred to as the Project). This assessment was prepared in consultation with the Town of Cohasset and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and was performed in accordance with MassDOT’s Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines and the standards of the Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning professions for the preparation of such reports.

Based on this assessment, we have concluded the following with respect to the Project:

1. Using trip-generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),1 the Project (total of both sites) is expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle trips on an average weekday and 306 vehicle trips on a Saturday (both two-way, 24-hour volumes), with approximately 14 vehicle trips expected during the weekday morning peak- hour, 27 vehicle trips expected during the weekday evening peak-hour and 28 vehicle trips expected during the Saturday midday peak-hour;

2. After accounting for trips generated by the existing use that occupies 124 Elm Street and that will be removed to accommodate the development, the Project is expected to generate approximately 170 fewer vehicle trips on an average weekday and 144 fewer trips on a Saturday, with 8 fewer vehicle trips expected during the weekday morning peak-hour, 12 additional vehicle trips expected during the weekday evening peak-hour, and 12 fewer vehicle trips expected during the Saturday midday peak-hour;

3. No apparent safety deficiencies were noted with respect to the motor vehicle crash history at the study area intersections, with all of the intersections found to have motor vehicle crash rates that were below the MassDOT average crash rates for similar intersections;

4. All movements at the study area intersections are predicted to continue to operate at a level- of-service (LOS) B or better during the peak-hours with limited vehicle queuing, where an LOS of “D” or better is considered acceptable traffic operations;

1Trip Generation, 10th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, DC; 2017.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 1

5. The parking supply that will be provided at both properties is sufficient to accommodate the predicted peak parking demands for the uses that will be located within the sites; and

6. Lines of sight at the Project site driveway intersections with Border Street were found to exceed or could be made to exceed the recommended minimum distance for safe operation based on the appropriate approach speed with implementation of the sight distance improvements recommended herein.

In consideration of the above, we have concluded that the Project can be accommodated within the confines of the existing transportation infrastructure in a safe and efficient manner with implementation of the recommendations that follow.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A detailed transportation improvement program has been developed that is designed to provide safe and efficient access to the Project site and address any deficiencies identified at off-site locations evaluated in conjunction with this study. The following improvements have been recommended as a part of this evaluation and, where applicable, will be completed in conjunction with the Project subject to receipt of all necessary rights, permits, and approvals.

Project Access

Access to the Project will be provided as follows: 87 Elm Street – access will continue to be provided by way of the existing driveway that intersects the west side of Border Street approximately 185 feet north of Summer Street; 124 Elm Street - access will be provided by the existing driveway that also serves the Veteran’s Park parking area and intersects the east side of Border Street opposite Summer Street. The remaining driveways currently serve 124 Elm Street will be closed in conjunction with the Project, thereby reducing the number of driveways and potential conflict points along Border Street and Margin Street. The following recommendations are offered with respect to the design and operation of the Project site access and internal circulation:

 The Project site driveways and internal circulating roadways should be a minimum of 22-feet in width and designed to accommodate the turning and maneuvering requirements of the largest anticipated responding emergency vehicle as defined by the Cohasset Fire Department.

 Vehicles exiting the Project site (both driveways) should be placed under STOP-sign control with a marked STOP-line provided.

 All signs and pavement markings to be installed within the Project site should conform to the applicable standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).2

 Sidewalks should be provided within the Project site that connect to the existing sidewalks along Border Street.

2Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); Federal Highway Administration; Washington, D.C.; 2009.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 2

 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant wheelchair ramps should be provided at all pedestrian crossings internal to the Project site and for crossing the Project site driveways, or the driveways should be designed such that the sidewalks along Border Street are flush with (i.e., cross) the respective driveways.

 Signs and landscaping to be installed as a part of the Project within the intersection sight triangle areas of the Project site driveways should be designed and maintained so as not to restrict lines of sight.

 Snow windrows within sight triangle areas of the Project site driveways should be promptly removed where such accumulations would impede sight lines.

 The existing on-street parking to the south of the driveway to 87 Elm Street should be reconfigured from angled parking to perpendicular parking and parking should be prohibited within 20-feet of the Project site driveway (both sides) in order to afford the requisite sight lines to and from the driveway.

 Curb extensions or “bump-outs” should be provided at both ends of the crosswalk across Border Street at its intersection with Summer Street. The bump-outs will serve to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance and to increase the protected area for a vehicle exiting the shared driveway that serves both 124 Elm Street and the Veteran’s Park to improve sight lines to and from the south along Boarder Street.

 Best efforts should be made to provide accommodations for the charging of electric vehicles by residents of the Project.

Transportation Demand Management

Regularly scheduled public transportation services are not currently provided in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. To the south and west of the Project site, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) provides commuter rail service to South Station in Boston on the Greenbush Line by way of North Scituate Station, which is located at 777 Country Way in Scituate (an approximate 4 minute driving distance from the Project site), and Cohasset Station, which is located at 110 Chief Justice Cushing Highway (an approximate 6-minute driving distance from the Project site), respectively.

In addition, the MBTA provides The RIDE paratransit services to eligible persons who cannot use fixed-route transit (bus, subway, trolley) due to a physical, cognitive or mental disability in compliance with ADA requirements, and the Cohasset Department of Elder Affairs provides on- demand rides, weekly shopping trips and day trips to cultural events to eligible residents.

In an effort to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to single-occupant vehicles, the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures should be considered for implementation as a part of the Project:

 A transportation coordinator (point of contact) should be designated for the Project to coordinate the elements of the TDM program;

 Information regarding public transportation services, maps, schedules and fare information should be posted in a central location and/or otherwise made available to employees and residents;

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 3

 A “welcome packet” should be provided to residents and employees detailing available public transportation services, bicycle and walking alternatives, and commuting options;

 Pedestrian accommodations have been incorporated into the Project and consist of sidewalks and ADA compliant wheelchair ramps at all pedestrian crossings internal to the Project site that link building entrances to the sidewalk infrastructure along Border Street;

 Mail and package delivery will be accommodated in each building; and

 Secure bicycle parking will be provided within the Project site consisting of both exterior and interior (covered) bicycle parking.

With implementation of the above recommendations, safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided to the Project sites and the Project can be accommodated within the confines of the existing transportation system.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 4

INTRODUCTION

Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) in order to determine the potential impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the proposed construction of a mixed-use development that will be situated on separate parcels of land located at 87 and 124 Elm Street in Cohasset, Massachusetts (hereafter referred to as the Project). This study evaluates the following specific areas as they relate to the Project: i) access requirements; ii) potential off-site improvements; iii) safety considerations; and iv) parking demands; and identifies and analyzes existing traffic conditions and future traffic conditions, both with and without the Project, along Elm Street and Border Street, and at major intersections along these roadways through which Project-related traffic will travel.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project will entail the construction of a mixed-use development that will be located at 87 Elm Street and 124 Elm Street, respectively, in Cohasset, Massachusetts. As proposed, the 87 Elm Street parcel will include the construction of a 10-unit multifamily residential building and 1,081± square feet (sf) of retail space3 to be situated on approximately 0.54± acres of land that is generally bounded by Border Street and commercial properties to the north and east; commercial properties and James Brook to the south; and residential properties to the west. The 124 Elm Street parcel will include the construction of a 19-unit multifamily residential building and 2,427± sf of retail space to be situated on approximately 1.22± acres of land that is generally bounded by Elm Street and Margin Street to the north; Cohasset Harbor to the east; Veteran’s Park to the south; and Border Street, Cove Street and Margin Street to the west. Figure 1 depicts the Project site locations in relation to the existing roadway network.

The 87 Elm Street parcel currently contains two (2) vacant commercial buildings and overflow parking for the Cohasset Harbor Inn. The 124 Elm Street parcel currently contains the Cohasset Harbor Inn, an approximate 17,900± sf building that includes 55 rooms, with associated parking. The structures and associated appurtenances on both parcels will be removed to accommodate the Project.

3The retail floor areas that are referenced herein are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) defined gross leasable area (GLA), which may differ from the definition used in the Zoning By-Law.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 5 N 0 Source: Google Earth.

Associates inc Vanasse & ELM 150

COHASSET Scale in Feet

ELM Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development Cohasset, Massachusetts 87 ELM STREET

COURT STREET

COVE STREET SUMMER

STREET BORDER MARGIN COURT 124 ELM STREET

MARGIN

STREET

STOCKBRIDGE Figure 1

Site Location Map STREET

STREET

On-site parking will be provided as follows: 87 Elm Street – 29 parking spaces including six (6) tandem spaces; 124 Elm Street – 51 parking spaces including five (5) tandem parking spaces.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

This study was prepared in consultation with the Town of Cohasset and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT); was performed in accordance with MassDOT’s Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines and the standards of the Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning professions for the preparation of such reports; and was conducted in three distinct stages.

The first stage involved an assessment of existing conditions in the study area and included an inventory of roadway geometrics; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; public transportation services; observations of traffic flow; and collection of daily and peak-period traffic counts.

In the second stage of the study, future traffic conditions were projected and analyzed. Specific travel demand forecasts for the Project were assessed along with future traffic demands due to expected traffic growth independent of the Project. A seven-year time horizon from the date of publication of this assessment was selected for analyses consistent with MassDOT’s Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines. The traffic analysis conducted in stage two identifies existing or projected future roadway capacity, traffic safety, and site access issues.

The third stage of the study presents and evaluates measures to address traffic and safety issues, if any, identified in stage two of the study.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 6

EXISTING CONDITIONS

A comprehensive field inventory of existing conditions within the study area was conducted in December 2019 and January 2020. The field investigation consisted of an inventory of existing roadway geometrics; pedestrian and bicycle facilities; public transportation services; traffic volumes; and operating characteristics; as well as posted speed limits and land use information within the study area. The study area that was assessed for the Project consisted of Elm Street, Border Street and the following specific intersections: Border Street at Summer Street and the Veteran’s Park Driveway; Border Street at the driveway to 124 Elm Street; Border Street at Cove Road and the driveway to 87 Elm Street; Elm Street at Border Street; Elm Street at Margin Street, Cove Road and Margin Court; Margin Street at the west driveway to 124 Elm Street; and Margin Street at the east driveway to 124 Elm Street.

The following describes the study area roadways and intersections.

Roadways

Elm Street

 Two-lane urban collector roadway under Town jurisdiction  Traverses study area in a general east-west direction between South Main Street and Cove Road, where Elm Street becomes Margin Street  Provides two 17 to 24-foot wide travel lanes that are separated by a single-yellow centerline with no marked shoulders provided and on-street parking permitted along one or both sides except where posted otherwise  A posted speed limit is not provided and, as such, the statutory or “prima facie” speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph)4  A sidewalk is provided along both sides of the roadway to the west of the study area and along the north side to the east  Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles  Land use within the study area consists of the Project site and residential and commercial properties

4The statutory or “prima facie” speed is defined in M.G.L. c. 90 § 17, as the speed which would be deemed reasonable and proper to operate a motor vehicle.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 7

Border Street

 Two-lane urban collector roadway under Town jurisdiction  Traverses study area in a general northwest-southeast direction between Elm Street and Gannett Road in Scituate  Provides two 14 to 26-foot wide travel lanes that are separated by a single-yellow centerline with no marked shoulders provided and on-street parking provided along one or both sides except where posted otherwise  A posted speed limit is not provided and, as such, the statutory speed limit is 30 mph  Sidewalks are provided along the west side of the roadway north of Cove Road, along both sides between Cove Road and Summer Street, and along the north side south of Summer Street  Illumination is provided by way of street lights mounted on wood poles  Land use within the study area consists of the Project site, residential and commercial properties, the George H Mealy American Legion Post and Cohasset Harbor

Intersections

Table 1 and Figure 2 summarize lane use, traffic control, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations at the study area intersections as observed in January 2020.

Table 1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION

Traffic Shoulder Bicycle Control No. of Travel Lanes Provided? Pedestrian Accommodations? Accommodations? Intersection Typea Provided (Yes/No/Width) (Yes/No/Description) (Yes/No/Description) Yes; sidewalks along both sides of Border St. north of the Border St./ intersection, along the north side Summer St./ 1 general-purpose travel of Border St. southwest of the Yes; Shared S No Veteran’s Park lane on all approaches intersection and along the north traveled-wayb Driveway side of Summer St.; crosswalk provided across the Border St. north leg 1 general-purpose travel Border St./ lane on all approaches; Yes; sidewalks along both sides Yes; Shared 124 Elm St. S angled on-street parking No of Border St. traveled-way Driveway along the south side of Border St. Yes; sidewalks along both sides 1 general-purpose travel Border St./ of Border St. south of the lane on all approaches; Cove St./ intersection, along the west side Yes; Shared S angled on-street parking No 87 Elm St. of Border St. north of the traveled-way along the south side of Driveway intersection, and along the east Border St. side of Cove Rd. Yes; sidewalks along both sides of Elm St. west of the Elm St./ 1 general-purpose travel intersection, along the north side Yes; Shared S No Border St. lane on all approaches of Elm St. east of the traveled-way intersection, and along the west side of Border St. See notes at the end of table.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 8

Table 1 (Continued) STUDY AREA INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

In order to determine existing traffic-volume demands and flow patterns within the study area, automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts, manual turning movement counts (TMCs) and vehicle classification counts were completed in December 2019. The ATR counts were conducted on December 5th through December 7th, 2019 (Thursday through Saturday, inclusive) on Elm Street in the vicinity of the Project site in order to record weekday and Saturday traffic conditions over an extended period, with the TMCs conducted during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods on Thursday, December 5th, and during the Saturday midday (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) peak period on Saturday, December 7th. These time periods were selected for analysis purposes as they are representative of the peak-traffic-volume hours for both the Project and the adjacent roadway network.

Traffic-Volume Adjustments

In order to evaluate the potential for seasonal fluctuation of traffic volumes within the study area, traffic volume data from MassDOT Continuous Count Station No. 7318 located on Route 3 in Hingham were reviewed.5 Based on a review of this data, it was determined that traffic volumes for the month of December are approximately 1.1 percent below average-month conditions and, therefore, the raw traffic count data was adjusted upward by 1.1 percent to reflect average-month conditions in accordance with MassDOT standards.6

The 2019 Existing traffic volumes are summarized in Table 2, with the weekday morning, weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour traffic volumes graphically depicted on Figures 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Note that the peak-hour traffic volumes presented in Table 2 were obtained from the TMCs and are reflected on the aforementioned figures.

5MassDOT Traffic Volumes for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; 2019. 6MassDOT’s Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines require that raw traffic counts be seasonally adjusted to average-month conditions using appropriate methodologies.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 9 Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

U U U U

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET Legend: U Unsignalized Intersection Sidewalk U Crosswalk Lane Use and Travel Lane Width

Not To Scale Figure 2 Existing Intersection Lane Use Vanasse & Travel Lane Width and Associates inc Pedestrian Facilities

Table 2 2019 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Directional Location/Peak Hour AWTa Saturdayb VPHc K Factord Distributione

Elm Street in the vicinity of Project Site: 665 850 ------Weekday Morning (8:00 – 9:00 AM) -- -- 44 6.6 52.3% WB Weekday Evening (4:00 – 5:00 PM) -- -- 63 9.5 50.8% WB Saturday Midday (11:30 AM – 12:30 PM) -- -- 80 9.4 62.5% WB aAverage weekday traffic in vehicles per day. bAverage Saturday traffic in vehicles. cVehicles per hour. dPercent of daily traffic occurring during the peak hour. ePercent traveling in peak direction. WB = westbound.

As can be seen in Table 2, under average-month conditions, Elm Street in the vicinity of the Project site was found to accommodate approximately 665 vehicles on an average weekday and 850 vehicles on a Saturday (two-way, 24-hour volumes), with approximately 44 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday morning peak-hour, 63 vph during the weekday evening peak-hour and 80 vph during the Saturday midday peak-hour.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

A comprehensive field inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the study area was undertaken in January 2020. The field inventory consisted of a review of the location of sidewalks and pedestrian crossing locations along the study roadways and at the study intersections, as well as the location of existing and planned future bicycle facilities. As detailed on Figure 2, sidewalks are generally provided along one or both sides of the study area roadways. A marked crosswalk is provided for crossing Border Street at Summer Street that provides a pedestrian connection to Veteran’s Park.

Formal bicycle facilities are not provided within the study area; however, the study area roadways generally provide sufficient width (combined travel lane and shoulder) to support bicycle travel in a shared traveled-way configuration.7

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

7A minimum combined travel lane and paved shoulder width of 14-feet is required to support bicycle travel in a shared traveled-way condition.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 10 Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 3 2019 Existing Vanasse & Weekday Morning Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 4 2019 Existing Vanasse & Weekday Evening Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 5 2019 Existing Vanasse & Saturday Midday Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

The public transportation schedules and fare information are provided in the Appendix.

SPOT SPEED MEASUREMENTS

Vehicle travel speed measurements were performed on Elm Street in the vicinity of the Project site in conjunction with the ATR counts. Table 3 summarizes the vehicle travel speed measurements.

Table 3 VEHICLE TRAVEL SPEED MEASUREMENTS

Elm Street Eastbound Westbound

Mean Travel Speed (mph) 26 23

85th Percentile Speed (mph) 30 29

Statutory Speed Limit (mph) 30 30

mph = miles per hour.

As can be seen in Table 3, the mean vehicle travel speed along Elm Street in the vicinity of the Project site was found to be 26 mph eastbound and 23 mph westbound. The measured 85th percentile vehicle travel speed, or the speed at which 85 percent of the observed vehicles traveled at or below, was found to be 30 mph in the eastbound direction and 29 mph westbound, which is generally consistent with the statutory travel speed pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90 § 17 (30 mph). The 85th percentile speed is used as the basis of engineering design and in the evaluation of sight distances, and is often used in establishing posted speed limits.

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 five- year period available (2013 through 2017, inclusive) in order to examine motor vehicle crash trends occurring within the study area. The data is summarized by intersection, type, severity, roadway and weather conditions, and day of occurrence, and presented in Table 4.

As can be seen in Table 4, no (0) motor vehicle crashes were reported to have occurred at the driveways serving 124 Elm Street or 87 Elm Street over the five-year review period, with one (1) crash each reported to have occurred at the Border Street/Summer Street/Veteran’s Park Driveway and Elm Street/Margin Street/Cove Street/Margin Court intersections. All of the study intersections were found to have a motor vehicle crash rate below the MassDOT statewide and District average crash rates for an unsignalized intersection for the MassDOT Highway Division

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 11

District in which the intersections are located (District 5). A review of the MassDOT statewide High Crash Location List indicated that there were no locations within the study area that were included on MassDOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) listing as a high crash location. In addition, no fatal motor vehicle crashes were reported to have occurred at the study area intersections over the five-year review period.

The detailed MassDOT Crash Rate Worksheets and High Crash Location mapping are provided in the Appendix.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 12

Table 4 MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH DATA SUMMARYa

Elm St./ Border St./ Border St./ Margin St./ Summer St./ Border St./ Cove Rd./ Elm St./ Cove St./ Margin St./ Margin St./ Veteran’s Park Dwy 124 Elm St. Dwy 87 Elm St. Dwy Border St. Margin Ct. 124 Elm St. West Dwy 124 Elm St. East Dwy

Traffic Control Type:b U U U U U U U

Year: 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Average 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Ratec 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 MassDOT Crash Rate:d 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 0.57/0.57 Significant?e No No No No No No No

Type: Angle 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rear-End 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Head-On 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sideswipe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed Object 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrian/Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Conditions: Clear 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cloudy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rain 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow/Ice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Lighting: Daylight 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dawn/Dusk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dark (Road Lit) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dark (Road Unlit) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Day of Week: Monday through Friday 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Severity: Property Damage Only 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Personal Injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

aSource: MassDOT Safety Management/Traffic Operations Unit records, 2013 through 2017. bTraffic Control Type: U = unsignalized; TS = traffic signal. cCrash rate per million vehicles entering the intersection. dStatewide/District crash rate. eThe intersection crash rate is significant if it is found to exceed the MassDOT statewide and/or District crash rate for the MassDOT Highway Division District in which the Project is located (District 5).

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 13

FUTURE CONDITIONS

Traffic volumes in the study area were projected to the year 2027, which reflects a seven-year planning horizon from the date of publication of this assessment consistent with MassDOT’s Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) Guidelines. Independent of the Project, traffic volumes on the roadway network in the year 2027 under No-Build conditions include all existing traffic and new traffic resulting from background traffic growth. Anticipated Project-generated traffic volumes superimposed upon the 2027 No-Build traffic volumes reflect 2027 Build traffic volume conditions with 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, potential population growth and development external to the study area would not be accounted for in the resulting 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 Town of Cohasset Planning Board Office was consulted 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 this consultation, no developments were identified at this time that are expected to result in an increase in traffic within the study area beyond the general background traffic growth rate.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 14

General Background Traffic Growth

Traffic-volume data compiled by MassDOT from permanent count stations located in the area were reviewed in order to determine general traffic growth trends in the area. This data indicates that traffic volumes have fluctuated between decreases of 1.4 percent and increases of 4.5 percent, with the average growth rate found to be approximately 1.3 percent. In order to provide a prudent planning condition for the Project, a slightly higher 1.5 percent per year compounded annual background traffic growth rate was used in order to account for future traffic growth and presently unforeseen development within the study area.

Roadway Improvement Projects

The Town of Cohasset and MassDOT were contacted in order to determine if there were any planned future roadway improvement projects expected to be complete by 2027 within the study area. Based on these discussions, no roadway improvement projects aside from routine maintenance activities were identified to be planned within the study area at this time.

No-Build Traffic Volumes

The 2027 No-Build condition peak-hour traffic-volumes were developed by applying the 1.5 percent per year compounded annual background traffic growth rate to the 2019 Existing peak-hour traffic volumes. The resulting 2027 No-Build weekday morning, weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour traffic volumes are shown on Figures 6, 7 and 8, respectively.

PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC

Design year (2027 Build) traffic volumes for the study area roadways were determined by estimating Project-generated traffic volumes and assigning those volumes on the study roadways. The following sections describe the methodology used to develop the anticipated traffic characteristics of the Project.

As described previously, the Project will entail the construction of a mixed-use development that will be situated on two (2) separate properties. The development program that is to be constructed at 87 Elm Street will include a 10-unit multifamily residential building and 1,081± sf of retail space, with the development program that is to be constructed at 124 Elm Street consisting of a 19-unit multifamily residential building and 2,427± sf of retail space. Given that these properties are not physically connected and are served by independent driveways and parking areas, the trip- generation calculations were performed separately for each development site.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, trip-generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)8 for similar land uses as those proposed were used. ITE Land Use Codes (LUCs) 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise); and 820, Shopping Center; were used to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, the results of which are summarized in Table 5.

8Ibid 1.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 15 Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 6 2027 No-Build Vanasse & Weekday Morning Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 7 2027 No-Build Vanasse & Weekday Evening Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 8 2027 No-Build Vanasse & Saturday Midday Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Table 5 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Vehicle Trips 87 Elm Street 124 Elm Street (A) (B) (D) (E) Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Residential Retail Residential Retail Community Space (C=A+B) Community Space (F=D+E) (G=C+F) Time Period/Direction (10 Units)a (1,081 sf)b Subtotal (19 Units)a (2,427 sf)b Subtotal Total

Average Weekday Daily: Entering 27 21 48 51 46 97 145 Exiting 27 21 48 51 46 97 145 Total 54 42 96 102 92 194 290

Weekday Morning Peak Hour: Entering 1 1 2 2 1 3 5 Exiting 3 0 3 5 1 6 9 Total 4 1 5 7 2 9 14

Weekday Evening Peak Hour: Entering 3 2 5 5 4 9 14 Exiting 2 2 4 4 5 9 13 Total 5 4 9 9 9 18 27

Saturday Daily: Entering 25 25 50 47 56 103 153 Exiting 25 25 50 47 56 103 153 Total 50 50 100 94 112 206 306

Saturday Midday Peak Hour: Entering 2 3 5 4 6 10 15 Exiting 2 2 4 4 5 9 13 Total 4 5 9 8 11 19 28

aBased on ITE LUC 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise). bBased on ITE LUC 820, Shopping Center, and using the average trip rate given the small size of the demised area.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 16

Project-Generated Traffic Volume Summary

As can be seen in Table 5, the Project (total of both sites) is expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle trips on an average weekday and 306 vehicle trips on a Saturday (both two-way, 24-hour volumes), with approximately 14 vehicle trips (5 vehicles entering and 9 exiting) expected during the weekday morning peak-hour, 27 vehicle trips (14 vehicles entering and 13 exiting) expected during the weekday evening peak-hour and 28 vehicle trips (15 vehicles entering and 13 exiting) expected during the Saturday midday peak-hour.

Table 6 compares the traffic volumes associated with the Project to those of the existing hotel that occupies the Project site. Note that trip-generation data for ITE LUC 310, Hotel, was used to develop the traffic volumes attributable to the Cohasset Harbor Inn to reflect occupancy under average-month conditions; no credit was taken for the existing uses that occupy 87 Elm Street.

Table 6 TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON

Vehicle Trips (A) Proposed (B) Mixed-Use Existing (C=A-B) Time Period/Direction Developmenta Usesb Difference

Average Weekday Daily: 290 460 -170

Weekday Morning Peak Hour: 14 22 -8

Weekday Evening Peak Hour: 27 15 +12

Saturday Daily: 306 450 -144

Saturday Midday Peak-Hour 28 40 -12

aBased on ITE LUCs 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), and 820, Shopping Center. bBased on ITE LUC 310, Hotel, and 55 rooms.

Traffic Volume Comparison

As can be seen in Table 6, in comparison to the existing use that occupies 124 Elm Street and that will be removed to accommodate the Project, the Project is expected to generate approximately 170 fewer vehicle trips on an average weekday and 144 fewer trips on a Saturday, with 8 fewer vehicle trips expected during the weekday morning peak-hour, 12 additional vehicle trips expected during the weekday evening peak-hour, and 12 fewer vehicle trips expected during the Saturday midday peak-hour.

Note that the traffic volumes that are attributed to the Cohasset Harbor Inn do not reflect weddings or special events that are held at the Inn, particularly during the spring and summer.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 17

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

The directional distribution of generated trips to and from the Project sites was determined based on a review of Journey-to-Work data obtained from the U.S. Census for persons residing in the Town of Cohasset and then refined based on existing traffic patterns within the study area. The general trip distribution for the Project is graphically depicted on Figure 9. The additional traffic expected to be generated by the Project was assigned on the study area roadway network as shown on Figures 10, 11 and 12 for the weekday morning, weekday evening and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively.

FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES - BUILD CONDITION

The 2027 Build condition traffic volumes consist of the 2027 No-Build traffic volumes with: i) the removal of the traffic associated with the Cohasset Harbor Inn that occupies 124 Elm Street; and ii) the addition of the traffic expected to be generated by the Project. The 2027 Build weekday morning, weekday evening, and Saturday midday peak-hour traffic-volumes are graphically depicted on Figures 13, 14, and 15, respectively.

A summary of peak-hour projected traffic-volume changes outside of the study area that is the subject of this assessment is shown in Table 7. These changes are a result of the construction of the Project.

Table 7 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC-VOLUME INCREASES

Traffic Volume Percent Increase Increase 2019 2027 2027 Over Over Location/Peak Hour Existing No-Build Build No-Build No-Build Elm Street, west of Border Street: Weekday Morning 191 215 220 5 2.3 Weekday Evening 217 245 258 13 5.3 Saturday Midday 249 281 289 8 2.8

Margin Street, east of the East Site Driveway: Weekday Morning 99 113 112 -1 -0.9 Weekday Evening 139 157 159 2 1.3 Saturday Midday 182 208 205 -3 -1.4

Summer Street, west of Border Street: Weekday Morning 110 124 126 2 1.6 Weekday Evening 151 171 174 3 1.8 Saturday Midday 176 198 198 0 0.0

Border Street, southeast of Summer Street: Weekday Morning 172 194 193 -1 -0.5 Weekday Evening 200 226 221 -5 -2.2 Saturday Midday 250 282 278 -4 -1.4

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 18 Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

65% 5%

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

20% 10%

Not To Scale Figure 9 Vanasse & Trip Distribution Map Associates inc Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Legend: XX Entering Trips (XX) Exiting Trips

Not To Scale Figure 10 Project Generated Vanasse & Weekday Morning Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Legend: XX Entering Trips (XX) Exiting Trips

Not To Scale Figure 11 Project Generated Vanasse & Weekday Evening Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Legend: XX Entering Trips (XX) Exiting Trips

Not To Scale Figure 12 Project Generated Vanasse & Saturday Midday Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 13 2027 Build Vanasse & Weekday Morning Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 14 2027 Build Vanasse & Weekday Evening Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Transportation Impact Assessment - Proposed Mixed-Use Development - Cohasset, Massachusetts

124 ELM STREET

87 ELM STREET

Not To Scale Figure 15 2027 Build Vanasse & Saturday Midday Associates inc Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

As shown in Table 7, Project-related traffic-volume increases outside of the study area relative to 2027 No-Build conditions are anticipated to range from a reduction of 2.2 percent, or five (5) vehicles, to an increase of 5.3 percent, or 13 vehicles, during the peak periods. The noted reductions in traffic are a result of: i) the removal of trips associated with the Cohasset Harbor Inn; and ii) the differing trip pattern of the proposed uses vs. the existing Inn. When distributed over the peak- hour, the predicted traffic volume increases would not result in a material impact (increase) on motorist delays or vehicle queuing outside of the immediate study area that is the subject of this assessment.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 19

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To assess quality of flow, roadway capacity and vehicle queue 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, with vehicle queue analyses providing a secondary measure of the operational characteristics of an intersection or section of roadway under study.

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.9 The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing 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.

9The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 20

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 C represents a condition with average control delays to minor street traffic.

• LOS D represents a condition with long control delays to minor street traffic.

• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long control delays to minor street traffic.

• LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity of an approach lane, with extreme control delays resulting.

The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by application of a procedure described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.10 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 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 effects 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 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 8 summarizes the relationship between level of service and average control delay for two-way stop controlled and all-way stop controlled intersections.

Table 8 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa

Level-Of-Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Average Control Delay v/c ≤ 1.0 v/c > 1.0 (Seconds Per Vehicle)

A F ≤10.0 B F 10.1 to 15.0 C F 15.1 to 25.0 D F 25.1 to 35.0 E F 35.1 to 50.0 F F >50.0 aSource: Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010; page 19-2.

10Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC; 2010.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 21

Vehicle Queue Analysis

Vehicle queue analyses are a direct measurement of an intersection’s ability to process vehicles under various traffic control and volume scenarios and lane use arrangements. The vehicle queue analysis was performed using the Synchro® intersection capacity analysis software which is based upon the methodology and procedures presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro® vehicle queue analysis methodology is a simulation based model which reports the number of vehicles that experience a delay of six seconds or more at an intersection. For signalized intersections, Synchro® reports both the average (50th percentile) the 95th percentile vehicle queue. For unsignalized intersections, Synchro® reports the 95th percentile vehicle queue. Vehicle queue lengths are a function of the capacity of the movement under study and the volume of traffic being processed by the intersection during the analysis period. The 95th percentile vehicle queue is the vehicle queue length that will be exceeded only 5 percent of the time, or approximately three minutes out of sixty minutes during the peak one hour of the day (during the remaining fifty-seven minutes, the vehicle queue length will be less than the 95th percentile queue length).

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Level-of-service and vehicle queue analyses were conducted for 2019 Existing, 2027 No-Build and 2027 Build conditions for the intersections within the study area. The results of the intersection capacity and vehicle queue analyses are summarized on Table 9, with the detailed analysis results presented in the Appendix.

The following is a summary of the level-of-service and vehicle queue analyses for the intersections within the study area. For context, we note that an LOS of “D” or better is generally defined as “acceptable” operating conditions.

As can be seen in Table 9, the study area intersections were shown to continue to operate under acceptable conditions (LOS “D” or better) with the addition of Project-related traffic. Project- related impacts at the study area intersections were identified as follows:

Border Street at Summer Street and the Veteran’s Park Driveway – All movements are predicted to continue to operate at LOS B or better (no change over No-Build conditions), with Project- related impacts defined as an increase in average motorist delay of less than 1.0 seconds with no material increase in vehicle queueing.11

Border Street at Cove Road and the 87 Elm Street Driveway – All movements are predicted to continue to operate at LOS B or better (no change over No-Build conditions), with Project-related impacts defined as an increase in average motorist delay of 1.1 seconds or less with no material increase in vehicle queueing.

Elm Street at Border Street – No-change in LOS or vehicle queuing is predicted to occur for any movement over No-Build conditions, with Project-related impacts defined as an increase in average motorist delay of less than 1.0 seconds with no material increase in vehicle queueing.

11There was an increase in delay noted for the Veteran’s Park driveway during the Saturday midday peak-hour of 10.0 seconds; however, no (0) vehicles were observed exiting the driveway under existing conditions.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 22

Elm Street at Margin Street, Cove Road and Margin Court – No-change in LOS or vehicle queuing is predicted to occur for any movement over No-Build conditions, with Project-related impacts defined as an increase in average motorist delay of less than 1.0 seconds with no material increase in vehicle queueing.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 23

Table 9 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY

2019 Existing 2027 No-Build 2027 Build

Unsignalized Intersection/ Queued Queue Queue Peak Hour/Movement Demanda Delayb LOSc 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th

Border Street at Summer Street and the Veteran’s Park Driveway Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: Summer Street EB LT/TH/RT 47 10.4 B 1 53 10.8 B 1 53 10.9 B 1 Veteran’s Park Driveway WB LT/TH/RT 3 9.5 A 0 3 9.7 A 0 9 9.8 A 0 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 108 1.5 A 0 122 1.6 A 0 121 1.6 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 93 0.2 A 0 104 0.1 A 0 106 0.3 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: Summer Street EB LT/TH/RT 78 10.6 B 1 88 11.0 B 1 91 11.2 B 1 Veteran’s Park Driveway WB LT/TH/RT 4 10.2 B 0 4 10.5 B 0 13 9.9 A 0 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 74 2.0 A 0 84 2.1 A 0 84 2.1 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 147 0.0 A 0 166 0.0 A 0 164 0.3 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: Summer Street EB LT/TH/RT 85 10.8 B 1 96 11.3 B 1 98 11.8 B 1 Veteran’s Park Driveway WB LT/TH/RT 0 0.0 A 0 0 0.0 A 0 11 10.0 B 0 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 123 1.5 A 0 138 1.6 A 0 139 1.5 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 163 0.0 A 0 184 0.0 A 0 181 0.3 A 0

Border Street at the 124 Elm Street Driveway Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: 124 Elm Street Driveway WB LT/RT 1 10.2 B 0 1 10.4 B 0 Border Street NB TH/RT 121 0.0 A 0 136 0.0 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH 92 0.0 A 0 103 0.0 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: This Driveway to 124 Elm Street will 124 Elm Street Driveway WB LT/RT 5 10.5 B 0 5 10.8 B 0 be Closed Border Street NB TH/RT 102 0.0 A 0 115 0.0 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH 143 0.1 A 0 162 0.0 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: 124 Elm Street Driveway WB LT/RT 6 9.7 A 0 6 9.9 A 0 Border Street NB TH/RT 147 0.0 A 0 166 0.0 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH 161 0.0 A 0 182 0.0 A 0

See notes at the end of table.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 24

Table 9 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY

2019 Existing 2027 No-Build 2027 Build

Unsignalized Intersection/ Queued Queue Queue Peak Hour/Movement Demanda Delayb LOSc 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th

Border Street at Cove Road and the 87 Elm Street Driveway Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: 87 Elm Street Driveway EB LT/TH/RT 2 9.8 A 0 2 10.0 B 0 3 9.6 A 0 Cove Road WB LT/TH/RT 35 10.3 B 0 39 10.5 B 0 39 10.6 B 0 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 120 0.0 A 0 135 0.0 A 0 138 0.1 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 60 0.2 A 0 67 0.2 A 0 69 0.2 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: 87 Elm Street Driveway EB LT/TH/RT 2 8.9 A 0 2 8.9 A 0 4 9.9 A 0 Cove Road WB LT/TH/RT 52 10.3 B 1 59 10.6 B 1 58 10.7 B 1 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 102 0.1 A 0 115 0.1 A 0 121 0.1 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 94 0.2 A 0 106 0.2 A 0 112 0.2 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: 87 Elm Street Driveway EB LT/TH/RT 2 8.8 A 0 2 8.8 A 0 4 9.7 A 0 Cove Road WB LT/TH/RT 74 10.9 B 1 83 11.3 B 1 76 11.4 B 1 Border Street NB LT/TH/RT 151 0.0 A 0 170 0.0 A 0 172 0.1 A 0 Border Street SB LT/TH/RT 91 0.2 A 0 103 0.2 A 0 111 0.2 A 0

Elm Street at Border Street Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB TH/RT 80 0.0 A 0 90 0.0 A 0 91 0.0 A 0 Elm Street WB LT/TH 23 0.4 A 0 26 0.3 A 0 26 0.3 A 0 Border Street NB LT/RT 89 9.5 A 1 100 9.6 A 1 104 9.7 A 1 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB TH/RT 124 0.0 A 0 140 0.0 A 0 146 0.0 A 0 Elm Street WB LT/TH 32 0.2 A 0 36 0.2 A 0 35 0.2 A 0 Border Street NB LT/RT 62 9.6 A 1 70 9.8 A 1 78 9.8 A 1 Saturday Midday Evening Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB TH/RT 114 0.0 A 0 129 0.0 A 0 136 0.0 A 0 Elm Street WB LT/TH 50 0.7 A 0 57 0.8 A 0 53 0.9 A 0 Border Street NB LT/RT 92 9.9 A 1 103 10.2 B 1 108 10.2 B 1

See notes at the end of table.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 25

Table 9 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY

2019 Existing 2027 No-Build 2027 Build

Unsignalized Intersection/ Queued Queue Queue Peak Hour/Movement Demanda Delayb LOSc 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th

Elm Street at Margin Street, Cove Road and Margin Court Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB LT/TH/RT 21 0.0 A 0 24 0.0 A 0 23 0.0 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH/RT 50 4.6 A 0 57 4.6 A 0 57 4.6 A 0 Cove Road NB LT/TH/RT 35 8.7 A 0 39 8.8 A 0 37 8.8 A 0 Margin Court SB LT/TH/RT 4 9.6 A 0 4 9.7 A 0 4 9.7 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB LT/TH/RT 31 0.2 A 0 35 0.2 A 0 35 0.2 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH/RT 75 4.8 A 0 85 4.9 A 0 83 4.9 A 0 Cove Road NB LT/TH/RT 43 8.9 A 0 48 9.0 A 0 48 9.0 A 0 Margin Court SB LT/TH/RT 5 9.6 A 0 5 9.8 A 0 5 9.7 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: Elm Street EB LT/TH/RT 30 0.2 A 0 34 0.2 A 0 33 0.2 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH/RT 113 4.7 A 0 128 4.7 A 0 117 4.7 A 0 Cove Road NB LT/TH/RT 63 9.4 A 1 71 9.5 A 1 69 9.4 A 1 Margin Court SB LT/TH/RT 3 10.5 B 0 3 10.8 B 0 3 10.6 B 0

Margin Street at the 124 Elm Street West Driveway Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: Margin Street EB TH/RT 51 0.0 A 0 58 0.0 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH 51 0.1 A 0 58 0.1 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 0 0.0 A 0 0 0.0 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: This Driveway to 124 Elm Street will Margin Street EB TH/RT 68 0.0 A 0 76 0.0 A 0 be Closed Margin Street WB LT/TH 73 0.0 A 0 83 0.0 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 2 9.5 A 0 2 9.6 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: Margin Street EB TH/RT 80 0.0 A 0 91 0.0 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH 104 0.1 A 0 119 0.1 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 11 9.9 A 0 11 10.2 B 1

See notes at the end of table.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 26

Table 9 (Continued) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY

2019 Existing 2027 No-Build 2027 Build

Unsignalized Intersection/ Queued Queue Queue Peak Hour/Movement Demanda Delayb LOSc 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th Demand Delay LOS 95th

Margin Street at the 124 Elm Street East Driveway Weekday Morning Peak-Hour: Margin Street EB TH/RT 48 0.0 A 0 55 0.0 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH 51 0.0 A 0 58 0.0 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 0 0.0 A 0 0 0.0 A 0 Weekday Evening Peak-Hour: This Driveway to 124 Elm Street will Margin Street EB TH/RT 67 0.0 A 0 75 0.0 A 0 be Closed Margin Street WB LT/TH 72 0.0 A 0 82 0.0 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 1 9.4 A 0 1 9.6 A 0 Saturday Midday Peak-Hour: Margin Street EB TH/RT 79 0.0 A 0 90 0.0 A 0 Margin Street WB LT/TH 102 0.0 A 0 117 0.0 A 0 124 Elm Street Driveway NB LT/RT 3 9.5 A 0 3 9.7 A 0 aDemand in vehicles per hour. bAverage control delay per vehicle (in seconds). cLevel-of-Service. dQueue length in vehicles. NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; LT = left-turning movements; TH = through movements; RT = right-turning movements.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 27

PARKING DEMAND ASSESSMENT

In order to determine the parking demands for the Project, parking demand data obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)12 for similar land uses as those proposed (multifamily residential and retail space) were reviewed. Table 10 summarizes the ITE parking demand ratios for a multifamily (mid-rise) residential development and for general retail space.

Table 10 ITE PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATIOS

Peak Parking Demand Ratio Land Use Average 85th Percentilea Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise):b Weekday 1.31 1.47 Saturday 1.22 1.33 Retail:c Weekday (Non-December) 1.95 3.68 Saturday (Non-December) 2.91 3.74 aThe 85th percentile peak parking demand is the parking demand at which 85 percent of the observed values fall below and 15 percent of the values are above. bBased on ITE LUC 221, Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise); spaces per dwelling unit. cBased on ITE LUC 820, Shopping Center; spaces per 1,000 sf.

Table 11 summarizes the parking demands for the Project using the ITE data for both a weekday and a Saturday.

12Parking Generation, 5th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, D.C.; January 2019.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 28

Table 11 PEAK PARKING DEMANDS

Peak Parking Demand Ratio Location Average 85th Percentilea 87 Elm Street:a Weekday 15 19 Saturday 15 17 124 Elm Street:b Weekday 30 37 Saturday 30 34 aBased on 10 multifamily residential units and 1,081 sf of retail space (ITE GLA). bBased on 19 multifamily residential units and 2,427 sf of retail space (ITE GLA).

As can be seen in Table 11, the average peak parking demand for 87 Elm Street is expected to be 15 parking spaces on both a weekday and on Saturday, with the 85th percentile peak parking demand (typical design value) expected to be 19 parking spaces on a weekday and 17 parking spaces on a Saturday. As such, the proposed on-site parking supply of 29 parking spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the predicted parking demands for the uses that will be located at 87 Elm Street.

The average peak parking demand for 124 Elm Street is expected to be 30 parking spaces on both a weekday and on Saturday, with the 85th percentile peak parking demand expected to be 37 parking spaces on a weekday and 34 parking spaces on a Saturday. As such, the proposed on-site parking supply of 51 parking spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the predicted parking demands for the uses that will be located at 124 Elm Street.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 29

SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION

Sight distance measurements were performed at the Project site driveway intersections with Border Street in accordance with MassDOT and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)13 requirements. Both stopping sight distance (SSD) and intersection sight distance (ISD) measurements were performed. In brief, SSD is the distance required by a vehicle traveling at the design speed of a roadway, on wet pavement, to stop prior to striking an object in its travel path. ISD or corner sight distance (CSD) is the sight distance required by a driver entering or crossing an intersecting roadway to perceive an on-coming vehicle and safely complete a turning or crossing maneuver with on-coming traffic. In accordance with AASHTO standards, if the measured ISD is at least equal to the required SSD value for the appropriate design speed, the intersection can operate in a safe manner. Table 12 presents the measured SSD and ISD at the subject intersections.

13A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 7th Edition; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Washington D.C.; 2018.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 30

Table 12 SIGHT DISTANCE MEASUREMENTSa

Feet Required Minimum Desirable Intersection/Sight Distance Measurement (SSD) (ISD)b Measured Border Street at Summer Street and the Veteran’s Park Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Border Street approaching from the north 200 -- 426 Border Street approaching from the south 200 -- 185/200+c

Intersection Sight Distance: Looking to the north from the Veteran’s Park Driveway 200 335 437 Looking to the south from the Veteran’s Park Driveway 200 290 141/200+c

Border Street at Cove Road and the 87 Elm Street Driveway Stopping Sight Distance: Border Street approaching from the north 200 -- 284 Border Street approaching from the south 200 -- 335

Intersection Sight Distance: Looking to the north from the 87 Elm Street Driveway 200 290 223 Looking to the south from the 87 Elm Street Driveway 200 335 86/365d aRecommended minimum values obtained from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 2018; and based on a 30 mph approach speed on Border Street. bValues shown are the intersection sight distance for a vehicle turning right or left exiting a roadway under STOP control such that motorists approaching the intersection on the major street should not need to adjust their travel speed to less than 70 percent of their initial approach speed. cAvailable sight distance with the addition of a curb extension or “bump-out” at the crosswalk to the south of the driveway. dAvailable sight distance with the removal of on-street parking adjacent to the driveway and reconfiguration of the angled parking to parallel parking.

As can be seen in Table 12, the available lines of sight at the Project site driveway intersections with Border Street will meet or exceed the recommended minimum sight distances to function in a safe manner (SSD) based on a 30 mph approach speed, which is consistent with both the statutory speed limit (30 mph) and the measured 85th percentile vehicle travel speed (29/30 mph). This conclusion is predicated upon the following improvements: i) conversion of the angled parking along the west side of Border Street and south of the driveway to 87 Elm Street to parallel parking; ii) prohibiting parking within 20-feet of the both driveways; and iii) installation of a curb extension or “bump-out” at the crosswalk to the south of the shared driveway to 124 Elm Street and the Veteran’s Park.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 31

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

VAI has completed a detailed assessment of the potential impacts on the transportation infrastructure associated with the proposed construction of a mixed-use development that will be situated on separate parcels of land located at 87 and 124 Elm Street in Cohasset, Massachusetts. The following specific areas have been evaluated as they relate to the Project: i) access requirements; ii) potential off-site improvements; iii) safety considerations; and iv) parking demands; under existing and future conditions, both with and without the Project. Based on this assessment, we have concluded the following with respect to the Project:

1. Using trip-generation statistics published by the ITE,14 the Project (total of both sites) is expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle trips on an average weekday and 306 vehicle trips on a Saturday (both two-way, 24-hour volumes), with approximately 14 vehicle trips expected during the weekday morning peak-hour, 27 vehicle trips expected during the weekday evening peak-hour and 28 vehicle trips expected during the Saturday midday peak-hour;

4. All movements at the study area intersections are predicted to continue to operate at LOS B or better during the peak-hours with limited vehicle queuing, where an LOS of “D” or better is considered acceptable traffic operations;

14Ibid 1.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 32

5. The parking supply that will be provided at both properties is sufficient to accommodate the predicted peak parking demands for the uses that will be located within the sites; and

RECOMMENDATIONS

Project Access

 Vehicles exiting the Project site (both driveways) should be placed under STOP-sign control with a marked STOP-line provided.

 All signs and pavement markings to be installed within the Project site should conform to the applicable standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).15

 Sidewalks should be provided within the Project site that connect to the existing sidewalks along Border Street.

15Ibid 2.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 33

 Snow windrows within sight triangle areas of the Project site driveways should be promptly removed where such accumulations would impede sight lines.

 Best efforts should be made to provide accommodations for the charging of electric vehicles by residents of the Project.

Transportation Demand Management

Regularly scheduled public transportation services are not currently provided in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. To the south and west of the Project site, the MBTA provides commuter rail service to South Station in Boston on the Greenbush Line by way of North Scituate Station, which is located at 777 Country Way in Scituate (an approximate 4 minute driving distance from the Project site), and Cohasset Station, which is located at 110 Chief Justice Cushing Highway (an approximate 6-minute driving distance from the Project site), respectively.

 A transportation coordinator (point of contact) should be designated for the Project to coordinate the elements of the TDM program;

 Information regarding public transportation services, maps, schedules and fare information should be posted in a central location and/or otherwise made available to employees and residents;

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 34

 A “welcome packet” should be provided to residents and employees detailing available public transportation services, bicycle and walking alternatives, and commuting options;

 Mail and package delivery will be accommodated in each building; and

 Secure bicycle parking will be provided within the Project site consisting of both exterior and interior (covered) bicycle parking.

G:\8472 Cohassett, MA\Report\Cohasset Harbor Inn TIA 04_20.docx 35

Cohasset Harbor Illustrative Site Plan Planning Board Packet April 2020 ELM ST MARGIN ST

TRASH

UTILITY

EL +1'-10"

0" ' - 24 COHASSET 45' - 6" HARBOR

TRASH

RELOCATED SPACES EL +8.00

7.5% TRASH NEW 1 NEW 0 ' -0 SPACE " SPACE UP

" E UP 6 L 25 M 1/ 2 22 6 ' S - - T UP 2' 0" 3 % W E 2 3 0" E C 1 8 - N A ' ' P -1 22 S 0 W 3 E E /4 N AC " 12% P S % 6

7.5%

1 0 ' - 0 EL + " 8.00 EL +5.00 W REMOVE E E N AC UTILITY EXISTING P S SPACES W E E C N A P S

7 SPACES REMOVED AND RELOCATED COVERED PARKING EXISTING CURB CUT 17 TOTAL MEMORIAL PARKING SPACES

EL +8.00

RELOCATE VETERAN'S PARK CURB CUT

UNCOVERED PARKING SU MM ER ST

Parking - Industry standard - 'L' Shaped 1 1/16" = 1'-0"

Cohasset Harbor Parking Plan Planning Board Packet April 2020