Search

@ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

o / i ® Park Street Sey
=? a a °e
= -* ae = we,
=o oe f 2 ee.
gr &
SN g a>
: ~.
Factory Sireot Cote 6 Aye e
qs = - = ~.
7
3 & ten f
&
High Street + = tr .
t 3 90 9g
{ Schobl Stree: = - ee
C =
W, Pearl Street = = A cab he
} LU : E- 92 af
a Hosmer Ave = & a 2 =|
Cedar Suna . . } be 2 & = A) |
Pleasent Street Eldridge Street f a ee ee
4 { ( sty 3 — g Foundry Streal
3 . 5 = in o
é ye CS :
7 fhe Sees
: s FS
"6 g5 8

Figure 20: Factory St/T: em ple St and East and West Pearl Street Reverse One-way Alternative

This conversion to reverse flow along the entire length of the Factory /Temple Streets
and West/East Pearl Streets would be relatively straight forward due to the existing
cross section. No modifications to the roadway width would be required. Only the
roadway striping would need to be modified to reflect the change in flow. However,
the traffic control at all of the intersections would need to be modified to reverse
conditions. Both traffic signals on Main Street would need to be modified including
signal head placement, phasing and timing. The many unsignalized intersections
would also need modification including Water Street, Walnut Street, Elm Street,
Spring Street, Cottage Street, Quincy Street Holmes Street Mason Street, White
Avenue, and South Street. These changes would be mostly confined to modifying

signage and striping.

Table 7 - Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary

Existing 1-Way Reverse 1-Way Alternative
v/c* Delay** LOS*** v/c Delay LOS
Main St. at Factory/Temple St. AM _ 0.38 16 B 0.55 16 B
PM 0.46 26 C 0.54 19 B
Main St. at East/West PearlSt. AM 0.50 21 C 0.37 16 B
PM 0.47 22 C 0.42 22 G
* Volume to Capacity Ratio.
** Delay in seconds per vehicle.
*** Level of Service.
si alean Crasher Gon 37 Alternatives Evaluation

Circulation Studyireports\Final ReporfiFinal
ReporLdocx

@ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

B 3.1.6

Spring Street

\Wwhbipro/\Bediond\S2700 00 Nashua
Circulation StudyireportsiFinal RaportFinal
Freport docx

38

Under the Spring Street 1-way to 2-way conversion alternative, the portion of Spring
Street between East Hollis Street and East Pearl Street would be transitioned from
existing 1-way northbound to 2-way traffic flow. This alternative is illustrated in
Figure 21.

Pearl Street

a

|
; Hosmer Ave _

; 1 a 7 4G :
| «Cf e Cie
=) a Eldridge Street ©
: 3 | E - —— €
=a — i ka ZS . | ”
Ee SSL | if

“

© ; E Holts Siwet ©

Figure 21: Spring Street Two-way Conversion Alternative

This conversion to two-way flow would be relatively straightforward as the roadway
currently has two travel lanes in addition to on-street parking on the east side of the
street. However, traffic control device modifications would be necessary at Spring
Street/East Pearl Street and Spring Street/East Hollis Street with this alternative.
These traffic control device modifications include the following:

» Removal of one-way street and prohibited turn signage at Spring Street's
intersection with East Pearl Street.

Installation of “Do Not Enter” signs to the Medical Center Drive approach to
informed southbound Spring Street motorists that they are required to turn left

or right at the traffic signal.

>

Installation of traffic signal heads on the existing southwest corner mast arm pole
at Spring Street’s intersection with East Hollis Street.

Alternatives Evaluation

@

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

» Traffic signal controller cabinet modifications to provide southbound Spring
Street traffic signal phasing (proposed to be split from Medical Center Drive’s
green indications given the moderately high volume of conflicting Spring Street
left-turn to Medical Center Drive through and right-turn movements).

Traffic operational analysis shows levels of service to remain the same (LOS B) as the
No Build condition for the AM and PM peak hours at the All-Way STOP intersection
of Spring Street and East Pearl Street. This result is based upon a forecast diversion
ranging from 50-75 vehicles to southbound Spring Street during peak hours. Table 8
summarizes the traffic operational results compared to the existing condition at the
signalized intersection of Spring Street and East Hollis Street.

Table 8 - Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary

East Hollis St. at Spring St.

No Action 2-Way Spring St.
1-Way Spring St. Alternative
(Exclusive PEDs) (Exclusive PEDs)

v/c* Delay** LOS** vic Delay LOS
AM 0.42 31 C 0.53 40 D
PM 0.59 44 D 0.68 60 E

2-Way Spring St.

Alternative
(Concurrent PEDs)
vic Delay LOS
0.49 31 Cc
0.63 37 D

* Volume to Capacity Ratio.

** Delay in seconds per vehicle,

“™ Level of Service.

\whbiprohBedionS2700.00 Nashua
Choulaton Studreports\Final Report Final
Repor dcx

39

The results of the signalized operational analysis shows a drop in LOS (from D to E)
during the critical PM peak hour with the Spring Street southbound approach added
to the existing signalized intersection and retention of the exclusive pedestrian
phasing. In addition to the drop in LOS, eastbound vehicle queues along East Hollis
Street are forecast to reach Main Street. The forecast drop in LOS and increased
vehicle queuing are undesirable changes to operating conditions that may require
mitigation.

One potential modification to improve LOS and reduce vehicle queuing at the
signalized intersection is a change from exclusive pedestrian signal phasing (where
all traffic stops for any pedestrian pushbutton actuation) to concurrent pedestrian
signal phasing (where the WALK signal is displayed and pedestrians cross with
moving vehicle traffic adjacent to the crosswalk, noting turn vehicles are instructed
by way of regulatory signage as well as state statutes to YIELD to any pedestrian ina
crosswalk). Discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of exclusive versus
concurrent pedestrian phasing can be found in earlier sections of this report. As
shown in Table 8, operational level of service is forecast to remain the same as the

Alternatives Evaluation

@

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

existing condition with use of concurrent pedestrian crossings, even with the added
signal phase for the Spring Street approach that reduces existing intersection capacity
by four to seven percent during the peak hours.

@ 3.1.7 Park Street and Court Street

\Wwhb'ipraf\Bedioni52700,00 Nashua
Circulation Study\reports\Final ReportiFinal
Repart.dacx

The east/west portion of Park Street from Main Street to Court Street and the
north/south portion of Court Street from Temple Street to Park Street would be
transitioned from existing one-way westbound and northbound, respectively to two-
way traffic flow under the Park Street and Court Street 2-way conversion alternative.
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 22.

Note that the proximity of Pearson Avenue to Park Street, particularly in relation to
the two streets connections to Main Street, lead to Pearson Avenue and its connecting
street to be included into the discussion of the Park Street and Court Street
alternative.

Se ee ae a a

e ‘
o Pearson Avenue
oe |
¢ © Pr Sai'ron
¢ & =
had al :
a wer a 1
a
my =
rs a |
‘lie
= :
Factory Street Temple Street
" > = ——
&
E
aH
=
= -_
= "9
2
Oo.
Ie)
a!
=~ “a
W, Pearl Streel =i © yj 5 =

Figure 22: Park Street and Court Street Two-way Conversion Alternative

40

Converting Court Street and Park Street to two-way operation would improve
mobility in the area and also enhance land development opportunities. Converting
Court Street to two-way operation would at a minimum involve modest
modifications, to the Court Street/Temple Street intersection such as removing the
raised channelized island on Temple Street. However, a better option would be to
initiate discussions with the owner of the 30 Temple Street property regarding the
potential redevelopment opportunities for the adjacent parcels, which perhaps could
include the reconfiguration of the intersection in such a way as to connect Spring
Street directly into the intersection. Also, given the offset configuration of the Main
Street/Park Street/Water Street intersection, it may be best to maintain the one-way
westbound restriction for the short (approximately 100’) western most section of Park

Alternatives Evaluation

@ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Street. Connection to Pearson Street would be maintained through the existing
parking lot. Prior to the City advancing the conversion to two-way flow along Court
Street and Park Street it would be advantageous to work with the owner of the 30
Temple Street property to consider whether a reconfiguration of the Court
Street/Temple Street intersection could be coordinated with any development
proposal.

B 3.1.8 Pedestrian Signal Phasing

Under the existing condition, all study area signalized intersections are timed to
provide exclusive pedestrian phased signal timing. As illustrated in Figure 23, an
exclusive pedestrian phase is when vehicle and bicycle traffic is stopped on all
approaches to allow pedestrians to cross any leg of a signalized intersection.

Figure 23: Exclusive Pedestrian Crossing

Generally, exclusive pedestrian phasing is only being used in the New England
region, whereas most of the United States services pedestrian movements by way of
concurrent pedestrian signal phasing’,

Figure 24 shows concurrent pedestrian phasing that allows for pedestrians to cross in
the same direction at the same time as parallel motor vehicle and bicycle traffic
receives a green indication. Turning vehicles are instructed by way of on-street
regulatory signage backed by New Hampshire state law to YIELD to any pedestrian
in a crosswalk.

v

a Technical presentation to the New England Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2070.

\WhbipraiBadtord\S2700,00 Nashua 4]
Cireulabon StudyineporisiFinal ReporiFinal
Raporl docs,

Alternatives Evaluation

®

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

"<<< = =

Figure 24: Concurrent Pedestrian Crossing

A comparison of exclusive pedestrian phasing to concurrent pedestrian phasing is
summarized as follows:

Exclusive Pedestrian Phasing vs Concurrent Pedestrian Phasing
* Results in longer delay for motor vehicles, « Results in less delay for motor
bicycles, and pedestrians. vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.
* Provides a feeling of security for « Results in conflicts between turning
pedestrians when traffic is stopped vehicles and pedestrians.
e Used primarily in New England states * More widely used and recognized.
e Pedestrians often push button and cross « Incorporation of early release
against the pedestrian signal concurrent (leading pedestrian) interval lessens
with parallel traffic if no conflicts exist. conflicts with turning vehicles.
e May require NO RIGHT TURN ON RED « Pedestrian must exercise more
sign. caution and judgment.

\WhriprofiBedloni\§2700,00 Nashua
Circulabon StudyimporsiFingl RepartFinat
Report.doc

42

As stated in the fourth bullet of the concurrent pedestrian phasing discussion, traffic
signal phasing can be set for an early release so that pedestrians are well into the
crosswalk before vehicle traffic is given a green indication and permitted to turn.
This methodology is shown in Figure 25. Recent New England projects’ have shown
success in transitioning to a concurrent pedestrian crossing using the early release
(leading pedestrian) method for initial implementation with eventual phase out of
the leading interval as motorists become accustomed to moving with (and turning
vehicles yielding to) pedestrians.

The primary benefit to implementing concurrent pedestrian phasing is reduced delay
and improved vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle mobility. Often this results in an
improvement to traffic and pedestrian operations by one level of service. The
downside to converting from exclusive to concurrent pedestrian phasing is the
potential for increased conflicts with the potential for as much as a 15 percent (high
traffic volume compared to high pedestrian activity) to 40 percent (high traffic
volume compared to low pedestrian activity) increase in vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian related crashes’.

v

; River Street at Massachusetts Avenue, Binney Street at Second Street, Binney Street at Third Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2009-2103.

" Transportation Research Record No. 847 and 1141, Washington, D.C.

Alternatives Evaluation

@

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, lic.

Be Ed

3-4 Seconds Remainder of Time
me Sa

, a

Figure 25: Concurrent Pedestrian Crossing with Early Release

3.2 Public Outreach Process

\whb\prof\BedlonfiS2700.00 Nashua
Circulation Studyeports\Final ReportFinal
Report.darx

43

The study included an open and consensus-driven public participation process. In
addition to meetings with City staff and a public presentation to a joint meeting of
the Board of Aldermen Committee on Infrastructure and Planning & Economic
Development Committee, an important public workshop was held on April 30, 2014.

The workshop, which was attended by residents, property and business owners, as
well as the Mayor, members of the Board of Aldermen and key City staff, provided
attendees an opportunity to share their ideas on a wide range of potential solutions
directly with the study team in an informal workshop-type format.

The following is a small sampling of some of the comments provided by attendees of
the workshop. This is not a complete list of the comments and suggestions.

« Donot remove on-street parking.
¢ Maintain raised crosswalks.
« Bike racks are needed throughout the Downtown.

« Bike lanes need to be connected and routes need to be developed for both
east-west as well as north-south travel.

* Consider “walk with traffic” pedestrian traffic signals.

« Converting Water Street to a pedestrian connection with green space is a

good idea.

e Reverse the one-way flow on East Pearl Street and Temple Street to improve
circulation.

« The Post Office on Spring Street is the cause of most of the existing problems
on the street — customers cause backups during the morning peak hours.

Alternatives Evaluation

@ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

* Maintain one-way operation East Hollis Street and East Pearl Street, but
convert Spring Street to two-way.

* Consider any circulation modifications within the context of future land
development projects.

These and many other comments and suggestions were considered in the
development of the Study Findings.

\WwhbigeofiBedlordiS2700.00 Nashua 44
Chrevlalion Study\eporis\Final Report\Final
Report.dacx

Alternatives Evaluation

Utility Analysis

The utility bills were analyzed to better understand the energy use of each building. Each
building utilizes natural gas provided by Liberty Utilities for HVAC heating, domestic hot
water heating, and cooking. The electricity is provided by Eversource. The utility data was
analyzed over a three year period, 2016-2018, and shows an average Energy Use Index
(EUI) of 65 at the Nashua North High school, and 62 at the Nashua South High School. The
EUI is used to compare energy consumption per square foot of building space. According to
the U.S. Department of Energy, the average EUI fora K-12 Facility is 48.5. This means that
both schools use approximately 35% more energy than the average K- 12 facility. Given this
information, we believe there are energy saving opportunities at each school. See the table
below summarizing the annual energy consumption data.

Building Summary Information

Project Name: Nashua North & Nashua South High Schools

Annual Utility Data

Average Use

2016-2018

Nashua North

HS. Nat Gas (therms) 141,816
Elec (kWh) 3,948,662

Nashua South

HS. Nat Gas (therms) 141,589
Elec (kWh) 3,725,082

Contract Utility Rates

Natural Gas Therm Rate 51.00
Electricity Electric Rate $0.15
Nashua, NH Balance Point (65°)
HDD 6071
CDD 1050

ENE Systems, Inc. / Energy Efficient Investments, Inc.
~Confidential & Proprietary~

Economic Analysis

Making good economic decisions requires analysis of available information and
understanding the monetary value of time. A Discounted Life Cycle Cost Analysis
(DLCCA) is very useful for this type of analysis when multiple alternatives exist. This is
the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) approved method of analysis and is
used to aid in decisions that are based on the most favorable economic outcome. The
Nashua School District can see the estimated time it will take for this energy project to
payback shown on the ECM Matrix on page 3.

The key assumptions EEI used in our Economic Analysis include the baseline gas and
kWh use which are the average fiscal year totals from2016 - 2018. Building interior
lighting fixtures were assumed to run 2,000 hours per year, this is based on observation
and interviews with staff. Exterior fixtures were assumed to run 4,380 hours per year.
Additionally, the estimated energy savings calculations are dependent upon the building
HVAC controls being controlled to a defined set of temperatures. These standards of
comfort can be seen below.

EEI, Inc.

Nashua School District

Occupied Unoccupied

Building Setpoint °F Heating Tire) tai marl]

Nashua High School North

Classrooms 68 60 72 80

Media Center 68 60 72 80

Cafeteria/Kitchen 68 60 72 80

Auditorium 68 60 72 80

Offices 68 60 72 80

Gym 65 60 72 80

Library 68 60 72 80

Hallways 68 60 72 80
Nashua High School South

Classrooms 68 60 72 80

Media Center 68 60 72 80

Cafeteria/Kitchen 68 60 72 a0

Auditorium 68 60 Ta 80

Offices 68 60 ee 80

Gym 68 60 72 80

Library 68 60 72 80

Hallways 68 60 72 80

Notes:
1. All setpoints and times are suggested, Actual values to be determined after discussions with Nashua School District.
2. EE! will program a General Building Override button. This will allow the building operator to override the building schedule for non-scheduled events (such as snow days)

ENE Systems, Inc. / Energy Efficient Investments, Inc.
~Confidential & Proprietary~