Updated: TSO Votes To Support Roundabout At Pomeroy Village Intersection

The Town Services and Organization Committee (TSO), voted at their meeting on Thursday (4/22)  to approve the following motion.: “The TSO recommends to the Town Council that we proceed with the Pomeroy intersection as a single-lane roundabout designed with consideration of the reports of the Transportation Advisory Committee and Disability Access Advisory Committee.”

The motion passed with 4-0-1 with Evan Ross (District 4), George Ryan (District 3), Alisa Brewer (at large), and Andy Steinberg (at large) in favor and Darcy DuMont (District 5) abstaining. DuMont decided to abstain because some information requested regarding the project is still pending. TSO’s report and recommendation will now go to the Town Council for approval and will likely be considered at its May 4 meeting.

Outreach
TSO’s vote took place following extensive discussion of the intersection project and the two options (a roundabout and an enhanced signalized intersection) at TSO’s April 22 and April 8 meetings, and various outreach activities by the Town and TSO. These outreach activities have included: two public forums, the Engage Amherst web site and survey on the intersection project, the recent pop-up event onsite last weekend, a letter sent to business and property owners near the intersection by Assistant Town Manager David Ziomek and Planning Director Christine Brestrup, outreach to the Amherst Area Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID), and outreach to relevant Town committees. TSO has received considerable feedback through these outreach efforts. The details, including the comments received at the forums and pop-up event, the results of the Engage Amherst survey, and written comments from the Chamber, the BID, and Town committees are included in the online packet for the TSO’s April 22nd meeting.

Feedback On The Intersection Project and Options
As of April 20, 40 people have completed the Engage Amherst survey on the intersection. Fifty-three percent of them indicated that safety is the most important issue to address with the project. When asked about which features are the most important for the redesigned intersection, 80 percent of survey respondents said safe crosswalks for pedestrians. The other top responses were sidewalks on both sides of the road (55 percent), pedestrian activated crossing signals (43 percent), traffic calming measures (43 percent), and bike lanes (40 percent). Following TSO’s April 8 meeting, George Ryan reached out to the Chamber and BID regarding the project to see if either had any views regarding the economic impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of one intersection design over the other. The Chamber’s reply was that the consensus among their members is support for the option and improvements that will provide the most safety, and that roundabouts have characteristics that support slower traffic speeds and greater safety, including for pedestrians. The BID also supported a roundabout in their response.

TSO also received written comments from the Disability Access Advisory Committee (DAAC), the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), the Conservation Commission, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Board. Of the input from these committees, only the DAAC and TAC memos provided detailed information and specific recommendations for the project. At the meeting, TSO members indicated that they found these specifics helpful in deciding which option to support for the intersection.

TAC wrote in their memo to TSO that either design option would be a significant improvement over the current intersection, and that “although the project budget is insufficient to extend the new sidewalks and multi-use path much beyond the intersection, [TAC] believes that the improvements in the Pomeroy Village area will aid in supporting the Town’s overall pedestrian and bicycling network.” TAC’s memo made specific comments and recommendations for both an enhanced signalized intersection and a roundabout. Many of the comments focused on safety and on crash/accident data that show that roundabouts, especially single lane roundabouts, reduce fatal and serious crashes for pedestrians, for bicyclists, and for drivers, including older drivers who have higher crash risks at intersections. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), converting a signalized intersection to a roundabout reduces severe crashes on average by 78 percent. From a safety perspective, one advantage of roundabouts, as described in the TAC memo, is that many of the most severe types are not possible with roundabouts, including T-bone crashes, left turn crashes, head-on collisions, and running red light crashes.” A study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that 28 percent of fatalities from vehicle crashes at signalized intersections are a result of a driver running a red-light. At roundabouts, the most common types of crashes are rear-end crashes and single vehicle crashes, such as when a vehicle hits a curb or a traffic sign. Such crashes are usually at low speeds and result in few major injuries or fatalities. A FHWA study that compared data on fatal crashes at intersections generally and at roundabouts found that of fatalities in intersection crashes generally, pedestrians account for 16 percent of the fatalities, and bicyclists for 4 peccent of fatalities. In comparison there were almost no fatalities (less than 5, over a 10-year period) reported for pedestrians or bicyclists in roundabout crashes. (It is worth noting here as a caveat that there are many fewer roundabouts in this country – less than 10,000 in total, many built in the last 10 years) than intersections generally.

TAC member Tracy Zafian attended the TSO meeting and commented on the TAC’s memo and recommendations. In terms of the roundabout safety, she discussed that one-lane roundabouts are much safer than larger roundabouts, especially for pedestrians and bikes. One-lane roundabouts are smaller and less complicated than larger roundabouts. One-lane roundabouts have lower vehicle speeds and less potential for conflicts between vehicles and between vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians. Zafian also talked about the TAC’s recommendations, indicating that the TAC has decided to make such specific recommendations regarding the intersection design because the details of the design can matter in terms of how safe an intersection is. For example, with left-turn lanes, a permissive left-turn lane, where vehicles are turning left while oncoming vehicles are can drive straight, has more potential for crashes than a protected left-turn lane, which has no oncoming traffic while vehicles are turning.

The same is true regarding crosswalk placement, pedestrian signals, and bike facilities; some designs have better safety and accessibility than others. In terms of accessibility and safety for blind and visually impaired pedestrians, the TAC memo references guidelines developed by the US Access Board and through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and recommends that the Town consult such guidelines during the design of the intersection. If a roundabout is selected by the Town Council as the preferred design, the TAC recommendations that a crossing signal/light such as a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), be installed for the intersection. RRFBs have currently been installed in Amherst on the UMass campus and on Pine Street, and studies have found that RRFBs can significantly increase drivers yielding to pedestrians and reduce vehicle-pedestrian crashes.

At their meeting on April 15, TAC voted 5-0, with one member absent, to support the Pomeroy Village intersection being redesigned as a roundabout with pedestrian activated accessible crosswalk signals/lights and with crosswalks set back from the intersection to minimize potential vehicle-pedestrian conflictI. In DAAC’s memo to TSO, DAAC commented that “the DAAC made formal suggestions regarding the Triangle Street roundabout that were not implemented in the design. The DAAC was not informed that their recommendations would not be included in the final design. This scenario cannot be repeated for the Pomeroy Village intersection.” DAAC requested: (1) “that the Town hire a qualified O&M [Orientation & Mobility] consultant to be sure that the intersection is built for optimal safety for visually impaired and blind people as well as those who ambulate slowly”; (2) that the intersection designers “contact the US Access Board so they can plan for implementing the specifics of the roundabout regulations likely to be promulgated” for pedestrian access and safety; and (3) that the intersection designers “communicate with the consultant and the DAAC throughout the design phase.” |

At its April 13 meeting, DAAC did not take a position on which type of intersection should be built, but unanimously approve a motion on minimum parameters for an ADA accessible design, including pedestrian-activated audible crossing signals, and visual and textual demarcation of crosswalks with appropriate curb cuts. The motion also called for the Town to return to the DAAC for review of the project design before completion of the design.

At its April 8 meeting, TSO developed a list of questions that it sought answers to before taking a vote on a preferred design. At the April 22 TSO meeting, Town staff provided information related to this question. This information is also summarized in a memo to the TSO from the Town Manager Paul Bockelman.

Accident Data For the Triangle-East Pleasant St Intersection
Three accidents/crashes were reported in the year before construction, 2016, with no injuries. During the construction period there were two crashes, with no injuries. Since construction was completed in 2017, there have been 17 reported crashes, with no injuries.

Line item costs for each of the two options. The DPW has estimated that the overall costs of both options will be similar. The Town Engineer is creating a more detailed estimate. At the TSO meeting, DuMont expressed concern that one option might be more expensive than the other. Brestrup said that the DPW will stay within the $1.5 million budgeted for the project, and that that non-crucial elements of the project, such as landscaping or extending the sidewalks further from the intersection, may be scaled up or down depending on the costs of the essential elements. If there are any funds left over, any extension of the sidewalks would likely be only a few hundred feet at most. Ziomek mentioned that in terms of maintenance costs, over time the maintenance for signalized intersections can be quite expensive, including signal repair and replacement costs. DuMont asked what traffic signals would be included if a roundabout is constructed and the related maintenance costs. She also asked if the crossing signal selected – right now the Town is leaning towards using RRFBs — would be positioned at each crosswalk and what that might look like. (See photo below for an example).

Such a signal would be installed at each crosswalk and Ziomek predicted that that the maintenance costs would be still be lower than at a standard signalized intersection.

Geographic Limits Of The Construction/Upgrading Of The Intersection
According to the Town Manager’s memo: “We are unable to determine the exact limits of construction/upgrading at this time; we will know more once the engineers get into the design work, which should happen this summer. It is likely that the geographic limits will be confined to the intersection itself, given the amount of money that we have available to us.”

How Will Parking Be Affected On Each Of The Four Corners With Each Option?
The Town Manager’s memo indicates that if a roundabout is selected, up to four parking spaces could be lost for the South Towne Common on the northwest corner of the intersection. Steinberg commented that land takings, such as required for the intersection redesign, can get expensive, and that a signalized intersection could involve greater land takings if left turns lanes are required on each approach.

Impact Of Each Option In Terms Of Future Economic Development
Town Planner Ben Breger presented his findings from looking into economic impacts of the redesign. He found little data on economic development before and after roundabout installation. One study that surveyed business owners in Kansas and in Carmel, Indiana where intersections had been converted to roundabouts found that the overall feeling of the business owners was more positive than negative towards the roundabouts near their businesses. Studies also found that with the roundabouts, the incidence of crashes and injuries, and of traffic congestion and delays along the business corridors declined. A report from Wisconsin found that roundabouts can increase the visibility and impact of business signage, since roundabouts reduce visual clutter in the intersection from traffic signals, signal posts, and signs, and since with roundabouts, vehicles traveling through the intersection at lower speeds.

At the Planning Board meeting discussing the intersection, Chris Brestrup, along with Planning Board member Janet McGowan, both expressed their views that a signalized intersection would provide more opportunities to develop the nearby property. At the TSO meeting, Brestrup expanded on her concerns, including that with a roundabout: it would be more difficult to develop close to the lot line on the street side since buildings are usually rectilinear and roundabout would cut into those properties; that driveways to businesses would be more impacted; and that the approach and departure lanes would be extended farther than with a signalized intersection. DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring did not attend this TSO meeting, but at the previous TSO meeting, when Brestrup raised these concerns, Mooring expressed his view that business development would not necessarily be negatively impacted with a roundabout since buildings don’t have to be built up to the property line and since having open space in front of buildings leaves more space for sidewalks, benches, and other amenities. Ziomek mentioned too, that all four corners at the intersection are already developed. He indicated that it’s important to consider how each option could impact future development and redevelopment, and the highest and best land uses at and near the intersection currently might not necessarily be the highest and best land uses for the intersection in the future.

Greenhouse Gas Impacts
At signalized intersections, when vehicles are waiting at a red light, they are idling and producing greenhouse gas emissions; this can be offset somewhat with electric vehicles. At roundabouts there is a constant traffic flow and no idling. Also with roundabouts slower travel speeds can reduce vehicle emissions. In terms of the greenhouse impacts of construction, the Town Manager’s memo states that “Asphalt and concrete both use petroleum products and/or emit greenhouse gases in their manufacture; the amount of each material in either design has yet to be determined, but both designs use both materials.” Since the road width would be narrower with a roundabout, Breger said he thought less asphalt might be needed with a roundabout design. Also, and this wasn’t mentioned in the meeting or in the Town Manager’s memo, one road construction practice to reduce environmental impact is the use of paving mixture which includes Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) specifications currently allow for up to 15 peccent RAP by dry weight of mixture, though research suggests that the appropriate percentage can vary based on the source material in order to have the best surface durability.

DuMont indicated that she would like to see additional information on the greenhouse gas impacts of the intersection options, and to not vote until that info was presented to the TSO.

Although the questions about greenhouse gas impacts were not fully answered prior to the meeting, the majority of TSO members indicated that they were still comfortable voting on a preferred alternative and sending their recommendation and report to the Council. Before the final motion was voted, a few alternative versions were considered, including one that incorporated recommendations from the DAAC and TAC directly into the motion. It was decided however that those specifics could go into the TSO’s report. Brestrup proposed an alternative version where instead of making a recommendation, the TSO could suggest a strong preference for one option. A suggestion instead of a recommendation, Brestrup said, would leave room open for changing the intersection design if the engineering work shows that doing so is necessary. TSO decided however, that as the keepers of the public way, the Council should make a recommendation, and not a mere suggestion. If a change to the overall design is necessary, they reasoned. Town staff and the consultants can come back to the Council at that time with the updated information and ask that the Council reconsider its recommendation

Brewer suggested too that TSO might consider proposing and approving additional motions related to the intersection design, for Council consideration, if TSO wanted to convey to the Council, the importance of a particular recommendation(s) from the DAAC or TAC memos. No such motions were proposed at the April 22 meeting, but one could be at the TSO’s next meeting.